Some Brandon Jennings, some Stanley Johnson, some discussion of the final minutes of the Clippers game and some playoff talk top the agenda for this week’s edition of Pistons Mailbag.
Kevin (@kro425): Is Brandon Jennings going to do a rehab stint in Grand Rapids with the Drive?
Langlois: I wrote about that in last week’s Mailbag, Kevin, with comments from Stan Van Gundy. The bottom line is that as a veteran of more than three seasons, any D-League rehab stint must be approved by the player. And it might not be necessary for him to rehab there. The Pistons will get two days of practice between the Friday game at Chicago and the Tuesday game at Miami and maybe – if Jennings is able to return by then – those will be enough to convince Van Gundy that Jennings is game ready. They’ll also get two more practice days in before the Dec. 29 game at New York. They’ve said all along that sometime around Christmas was a target date and we’re getting close. The schedule is easing up enough – after the Miami-Atlanta back to back next week, the Pistons don’t play another back to back until Jan. 20-21 – that practice time that wasn’t available to them for much of November will be there and help facilitate Jennings’ return. Van Gundy said they would have the discussion about sending Jennings to Grand Rapids for a game if he felt it would speed his return. We’ll see if it comes to that.
Vin (Roseville, Mich.): Do you think the Pistons are going to wind up trading Brandon Jennings?
Langlois: I’d stack the odds pretty heavily against it, Vin. But the direction this goes can’t begin to be plotted until Jennings returns and shows some evidence of his recovery from an injury that doesn’t have an especially encouraging track record. The Pistons have reason to be optimistic that Jennings will show out at the high end of the spectrum based on his age and his body type – not a whole lot of torque his frame will put on his lower leg. But they also acknowledge that Jennings’ quickness – his stop-and-start, change-of-direction ability – was the thing that most allowed him to get shots off in tight spaces. That will require an Achilles tendon in good working order. But let’s say he comes back and in the several weeks between then and the February trade deadline, he shows signs that he’s at least close enough to stir trade interest. Well, unless the Pistons can get back something that helps them more than Jennings, what’s the point? If I were to tick off the things the Pistons would be looking to add, backcourt depth and bench scoring would be high on the list – maybe 1-2 on the list. Jennings provides both. Realistically, it would be very unlikely he’d fetch a starter who represented an upgrade over any of their current starters. That’s just the nature of it when you’re trading a player who’ll be a free agent one-third of an NBA season following the trade deadline. The scenario where I could envision the Pistons dealing a healthy and productive Jennings would be if another team had (a) a desperate need at the position, (b) Van Gundy felt perfectly comfortable by the trade deadline with Steve Blake and Spencer Dinwiddie as the backups, which is certainly a possibility and (c) the prospective trade partner with a desperate need at point guard offered a good player with a contract that would give the Pistons control over him beyond this season and Van Gundy viewed him as a long-term fit for the core of Andre Drummond, Reggie Jackson, Stanley Johnson, Kentavious Caldwell-Pope and Marcus Morris while also providing the same level of help to this year’s team that Jennings was providing. Let’s also keep in mind that the standings and the health of the team as the trade deadline approaches will be significant factors here. But I’d guess that the odds of Brandon Jennings wearing a Pistons uniform in March are somewhere north of 90 percent.
Jason (Chicago): I remember reading an article about Stan Van Gundy hoping that Stanley Johnson would “embrace being an elite rebounder for his size and position,” or something like that. Based on what I’ve seen and his numbers, that hasn’t happened. What I have noticed is Johnson finishing really well in transition offense and trying to make more threes. I know SVG has also said that Stanley is like a “Swiss Army knife” type of player, so is expecting him to develop a playing style counterintuitive? Or is Van Gundy just hoping he develops strong rebounding fundamentals in addition to his tool set?
Langlois: I think you’re referring to a time in November when Van Gundy thought Johnson was too focused on getting shots up as soon as he got in the game. He told Johnson to come into games focused on defense and rebounding and pick his spots as the opportunities arose. That’s still a work in progress, befitting a rookie – and a 19-year-old rookie, at that. I’ve said in the past that Johnson is a fairly unique lottery pick in that he doesn’t have a single defining skill but has the potential to develop several strengths in his game. At the top of the list right now are his competitiveness, one-on-one defense and ability to run the floor. Van Gundy has compared him to a young Jimmy Butler. That’s a pretty good comp, I think. He envisions Johnson and Kentavious Caldwell-Pope giving the Pistons an elite set of wing defenders a few years down the road.
Susan (Novi, Mich.): Stanley Johnson continues to shoot the ball starting his motion with the ball near his forehead instead of from above his head. Is he working with the new shooting coach on his mechanics? The only way he will be able to shoot with an opponent in front of him is to start his motion with the ball above his head.
Langlois: Yes, he’s working on his shooting daily with shooting coach Dave Hopla, Susan. Stan Van Gundy has said consistently since the Pistons drafted Johnson that he will need to raise the release point on his shot. That will be a pretty lengthy process, I’m guessing. It’s tough to dramatically change a motion so ingrained and instinctive overnight. But on balance, I’d say there are several other areas more critical to Johnson’s progress as a player than fundamentally altering his release point. I don’t see it as a huge issue. We’re really talking about his 3-point set shots or quasi-jump shots and, let’s face it, if those are in danger of getting blocked – no matter where your release point is – it’s probably not a shot worth taking in the first place. I’m scratching me memory trying to remember if he’s had a 3-point attempt or a long two blocked this season. He’ll have a few blocked in the paint because everyone does, no matter where the release point is, and there’s nothing wrong with his release on layups or the runners he shoots in the paint. It’s a broad category, I know, but the most essential element of Johnson’s game in determining how far he goes is decision making – when to shoot, how far into the defense to take his dribble, when to pass quickly simply to get the defense moving, etc. There might not be any eureka moment – there usually isn’t – but he strikes me as a guy who’ll have a shorter learning curve than most because his intent is right and he has a high degree of self-awareness.
Jimmie (@pierce_jimmie): Why didn’t Stan Van Gundy foul Jordan at the end of regulation before Redick’s three?
Langlois: An intentional foul inside of two minutes means the Clippers would have gotten two Jordan foul shots plus the ball out of bounds. The only opportunity to foul Jordan if he didn’t have the ball would have been if he set a screen and was part of the play – or do what the Clippers did to Andre Drummond and jump on Jordan’s back while they were shooting a free throw. But the Pistons were ahead by three going on two points as Jamal Crawford shot his free throw. They weren’t behind by more than one point until Crawford’s triple with 12 seconds to play. I’m not sure when they would have employed the strategy. On the play you’re talking about, Jordan never touched the ball. He did set a screen to help free Redick, but Redick didn’t have the ball, either, at that point, so randomly grabbing Jordan would have been considered an intentional foul, not a foul as part of the play. And I’m not sure a team three points ahead at that point really wants to deliberately risk sending someone to the foul line. If you’re behind, it’s absolutely a worthwhile gamble. Even if you give up two points, you have a chance to score three and reduce your deficit by one.
Alex (Atlanta): How can J.J. Redick hop on Andre Drummond’s back and that not be considered an intentional foul?
Langlois: Good question. I have an answer for you, but it’s not a satisfactory one. When the ball left Jamal Crawford’s hand, it was considered a live ball, so a foul committed while the ball is in the air is considered a loose-ball foul. I think common sense should prevail. The clock wasn’t running. There was no rebound to pursue, as it turned out, since Crawford made the shot. That’s a dead-ball foul, for all intents and purposes, and to compound matters, everyone knew that Redick wasn’t going for the ball or even necessarily trying to prevent Drummond from grabbing a rebound if Crawford had missed. (If, in fact, Crawford had missed, Redick would have assaulted Drummond instantly to foul him while he had the ball in his hands to avoid an intentional foul call.) Stan Van Gundy acknowledged Doc Rivers was fully within the rules to employ the tactic and blamed himself for getting caught. “I blew it on that,” he said. “And it cost us a point. I’ve got to take the blame on that.” But he had an interesting point beyond that. He said that players jostle each other routinely while a free throw is in flight and he’s argued for foul calls in those situations. “Guys push each other and do stuff like that all the time on made free throws. You can never get that call until that situation. I’ve asked for the call before. ‘Hey, pushing him.’ And they’ll tell you, ‘The ball went in.’ But now when they want the call, it doesn’t matter that the ball went in.”
Stacy (St. Ignace, Mich.): With 10 teams with winning records in the East, which two do you expect to be on the outside looking in when the playoffs start in April?
Langlois: There could be more than two left out, Stacy. I wouldn’t write off teams like Washington, Milwaukee or even New York just yet. There are only two games separating second from 10th place going into tonight’s games. Not many “experts” had Washington o Milwaukee – currently in 12th and 13th positions – of the playoffs when the season started. They still have plenty of time to turn it around. The East this season is going to be like the West in recent years – unless you’re Cleveland, perhaps, an injury that knocks a starter out for any appreciable time or a cold streak is going to be fatal.
