Why we already have our our Franchise PG...

If it was that simple, why does Orlando need an actual PG? Why not trade for someone like Eddie House? Why have either Skip-to-my-Lou or Anthony Johnson, each of whom has a shaky 3-pointer at best on the floor at all times? And Orlando has the nearest to a not-needing-a-PG-at-all offense in the NBA.

Boston has Ray Allen and Paul Pierce. Why do they insist on playing Rajon Rondo major minutes when he can't hit a jump shot? It's not because of poor coaching. You've got to have that PG. And he can't just be a short SG.

 

Gary Payton took 4 years to really hit his stride, and some fans were imploring the team to trade him after his rookie season. Look at Rajon Rondo and the improvement he has made over his first couple of seasons. He really stunk when he came into the league, in fact he stunk so bad that Bassy challenged him for PT.

Now as for your questions about AI and Ben Gordon. Both of those guys are shooting guards, they have never been PG. In all of AI's best years he played SG next to Eric Snow. Ben Gordon has only played PG except in a pinch, as Heinrich, and now Rose handle those duties. As for Monta Ellis, I have no idea what you are talking about. He plays PG there all the time except when teamed with another point. In Don Nelsons system you are taught to get the ball up on the first shot available. If the PG has their hands on the ball when there is an opening, so be it. They are shooting.

Now as for the "ball hog" thing. All good PG are taught not to pick up their dribble unless absolutely necessary to avoid a turnover. In many ways, if they are keeping the ball moving and the posession alive, and keeping pressure on the defense by attacking the paint, they are doing their job. You may call it overdribbling. But as long as the ball is moving, most coaches don't mind it. The coaches want the ball to keep moving, and for the PG to not set themselves up for failure by picking the ball up. Jerryd already does that. What he doesn't do well right now is time the pass. That will either come with time, or it won't.

All I know is, that our PG that we have been running the show the last few years, only tend to do one thing well, and have no upside. None. Denada. Neicht. So I would rather take a chance on a guy who does, than sit back with guaranteed failure.

 

These all seem like non-sequitors, they don't seem to relate to my post.

Regarding the Boston question, they play Rondo because he's their second-best player behind (a healthy) Kevin Garnett. Having more passing isn't a bad thing...why would they sit their second-best player?

Regarding Orlando, they don't need a pure point guard. I think Bayless, or a similar combo guard, would fit just fine at point guard for them. They didn't have a legitimate starter when Nelson went down, so they attempted to trade for one. I don't think it was a deficit of distributing ability that they were reacting to, but a deficit of talent. They needed a starting-caliber guard and felt Alston was the best one they could acquire without giving up major pieces of their team.

With Bayless and Roy in the backcourt, you have enough passing ability. It's not concentrated in one player, but I'm unconvinced that it needs to be. The championship Bulls and Lakers (of earlier this decade) never used a pure point guard, because they got enough passing from a variety of sources. With Bayless, Roy and Batum on the perimeter, the team will have sufficient passing. Similarly, a team doesn't necessarily have to have to dominant rebounder to be a great rebounding team, if enough players can rebound well. A distribution of a skill over a unit seems to be as effective as concentrating it in a single player. It's the team ability that matters, not where specifically an ability comes from.

 

Dude are you fucking high? Rondo is not a pass first PG.

 

Cogently argued! I retreat to lick my wounds, convinced now that Bayless is our PG of the future.

How about a bet: if Bayless is at any time in the next two seasons the starting PG for the Portland TrailBlazers without the cause being suspension or injury to an actual starting PG, I will put "I'm a stupid Fuckwit" in my .sig. You don't need to do the same if he isn't - you've done enough already.

 

While i'm pleased w/ the response to my post, I have to say that my point in writing it wasn't really to start an argument over will he or won't he, but more a discussion regarding my observations on why I think he'll be a much improved player.

It's my personal opinion that he'll fit VERY well as our eventual starting trigger man, but regardless of WHERE he is on our depth chart, I think he'll be a much improved player.

That is all. Go Blazers!

 

I can think of one team (one coach, really) where you don't need a stereotypical PG. The coach is... Tex Winter, and the system is the triangle. If the Blazers start running the triangle, then we don't need a normal PG. Of course, it would help to have Scottie Pippen.

...and there's the example. But (as Scottie Pippen said when he was on the Blazers) Pippen was a PG. You just can't smear the passing ability around - it's not like scoring or rebounding. Even teams that have good ball movement still have a PG.

Now, this is less true with bench squads. For stretches of the game you can make do, providing the other team isn't pressing. But if Bayless was a starter, effectively you would have made Brandon Roy the PG. And that's not good - he'd be the slowest PG in the league, and, while he has above-average court vision for a wing, he is poor by PG standards. We've all seen what happens when the ball is in Brandon's hands predominantly: it's the fourth quarter of close games. And it works for a while, but it's desperate (just like the LeBron strategy was desperation for Mike Brown in the Orlando series) and not a good use of the team.

I understand why everyone wants Bayless to be our PG of the future: he's big (for a PG), strong, and can score in bunches. But let it go - it's not going to happen. For Greg Oden's sake, if nobody else's!

 

Terry Porter I'll give you. But then again, he was probably only playing forward for his team because he was the tallest guy they had in whatever tiny division Steven's Point is in. I bet he always handled the ball.

Kirk Hinrich. Couldn't you find a starting PG? Not only was he benched in favor of a rookie, the team actually contacted Jonny Flynn for a workout because they weren't even convinced that the guy who replaced Hinrich is a full-time PG! That makes Kirk Hinrich third string! I think you've proved my point.

Iverson can average assists in bunches. They put Jordan at the point once and he averaged a triple-double. Doesn't make him a good passer, just means he's a ballhog.

Bayless has tried to change, and when he does, he loses all he's good at. He's not an instinctive passer, he's an instinctive scorer. He could be a PG for a bad team, but he would be an average PG. He's a great bench scorer. That's what he is.

 

KH was the starting PG of a 49 wins team... let's not get crazy here.

He is 2nd to Rose only because Rose is a faster version of Deron Williams (at least on paper).

As for looking for another PG in the draft - Chicago has to do it - it makes no sense to pay $10m/year for their backup PG especially when you need the cap space to pay for your hired gunner (Ben Gordon) - so they need someone behind Rose.

KH has his problems - but you are selling him way too short here...

 

Good god you really have no idea what you're talking about do you?

 

The Lakers I referenced didn't. Derek Fisher wasn't a distributor or play-maker. Kobe is like Roy...an excellent passer for a shooting guard, but not a pure point guard.

 

Kobe is not an excellent passer, that would be LBJ. Passing he has improved at late in his career but never has been excellent at it.

 

Despite those who dislike trying to tag him as selfish, he's been one of the best-passing wings in the game. His Assist Rate (which measures how many of his team's points he's assisted on, and is adjusted for pace) has been great for a non-point guard since he reached his prime.

 

Who is right? Last year Rondo took 759 attempts and only 659 assits--more attempts than assists. However, certainly not every one of his passes were assists. So, it would be hard to argue that Rondo shot more than he passed. Hence pass first.

Calderon was 644 attempts and 607 assists.

Deron Williams, CP3 and Steve Nash all have much higher attempt to assist ratios than Rondo.

J Kidd had more assists than attempts last year, but at the peak of his career had a much worse ratio than Rondo.

I want to give Bayless a shot because I like his attitude and I don't want Nash (or a Nash type) as our PG.

 

I wish Bayless had it in him to be that player. But he simply is not a distributor, and, as I have pointed out many times, if a player does not show a decent assist rate their first year or two, then they almost NEVER become very good at it.

Decision-making, shooting, defense, etc. all can improve with age. Delivering the ball into the hands of the player who is about to score is almost never learned at the NBA level.

JB can be backup PG, and play some backup 2G (with Ruy and Roy sometimes playing some SF). Ramon Sessions is our PG of the future.

iWatas

 

Is that measure relative to how much he has the ball? If you're a black hole then likely you get a fair amount of assists because the only time you give it up is when the defense collapses on you and someone's open, or you give it up at the end of the clock and somebody has to shoot.

Now I actually agree that Kobe has very good passing ability for a SG. But, as with Jordan, there's no way you'd make him your PG because the rest of the team would suffer. It's a tired old example, but the only time an Iverson team had success was when Larry Brown moved him off the ball.

Look, I'm not a hater: I like Bayless and it would be SWEET if he was Chauncey Billups II. I will promise to be his biggest booster if he makes it work. But I don't see it. Apart from anything else, he's a loner. He said in interview after interview that he doesn't actually play much pickup ball - he works by himself to get better. That's great if what you have to improve is your shot. It sucks if what you have to improve is your ability to run a team.

 

Boy, the cogently reasoned responses are coming thick and fast today.

Go over to the Bulls board (or one that has actual posters) and ask if they think Hinrich is a starting-quality PG.

 

Collapsing the defense and finding open teammates for opportunities that they can convert is not being a black hole. A black hole is someone who doesn't pass when the defense collapses on him. He forces up a bad shot.

How does this relate to my post? My point was exactly that. Kobe was not a point guard and Fisher, despite manning the position, was not a play-maker or distributor, yet those Lakers did just fine.

Isn't the fact that he, on his own motivation, flew to Ohio to work with Oden contradicting that?