I think a PG is a guy to brings the ball up the court and initiates and faciitates the offense, setting up his teammates for easy scoring opportunities. Brandon occassionally walks the ball up the court at a snails pace, when he or Nate want to take the ball out of the hands of the PG and slow the game down. He also receives the ball then looks to go one-on-everyone to score, although sometimes he'll pass off when nothing opens up. What I don't see Brandon do much is control the ball for the purpose of setting up his teammates or an offense that involves his teammates. Every player on the team has the ball in his hands at some point. Every player on the team passes the ball to another player at some point. That doesn't make them all point guards. I think Brandon is a Shooting Guard who controls the ball a lot on offense, like McGrady or Wade or Kobe. To some of us, that doesn't make them point guards in the classic sense, even though the ball may go through them more than the actual point guard at certain times during the game.
I agree with most of your post. However, before Miller came here, Roy was the best we had as far as setting up teammates or an offense to involve his teammates. He wasn't an "ideal" PG, but he was the closest we had, and thus, definitely played a lot of PG for us. The point is, Roy has played a lot of PG in this league, and for times during the upcoming season, he would be able to play PG with Matthews and Batum at the 2 and 3.
IMO, that's the question of the hour. Also, I'm wondering what kind of handle Matthews has? I have a sneaky suspicion that, during some situations, Nate might envision Roy, Matthews, Batum, Aldridge, and Oden on the floor together.
I kind of doubt it. Roy has played very poorly the few times he has played the PG position. So poorly that Nate uses Bayless (not that it's much of an upgrade). That said, the point you made last night about Nate most likely not using a rookie at back-up PG does make me wonder if Roy will actually see minutes at the PG position. And that also takes me to my #1 complaint about Nate- he needs to settle his rotations down and get players more used to one single position. I think it makes the team more cohesive.
As I also mentioned to you last night, I currently see this as the rotation to start the season: PG: Miller, Bayless SG: Roy, Matthews SF: Batum, Cunningham (with Babbitt standing close by, depending...) PF: Aldridge, Pendergraph C: Oden, Camby (we'll have to see how Przybilla progresses with his recovery) Everything else is situational...............
As I also mentioned to you last night..............Rudy will be gone by the start of the season....even if the Blazers have to "give" him away for a 2nd Rounder. What's been done (Matthews) has been done, and what is is what is.
Just my two-cents but from my perspective you're talking about two different roles. One being a the player on the floor who the "bigs pass the ball to after a rebound" and really is the guy walking the ball up the floor to initiate the offense (ala Scottie Pippen). This player may be doing this for a handful of reasons, but traditionally it is getting the ball into the hands of one of your stars to create and initiate OFFENSE. He doesn't become a PG in the sense that suddenly he is defending the opposing PG coming back the other way. That would revert to a Bayless, Blake, Miller whoever the true PG is on the floor. Then you have the other side where Roy is in there with Outlaw and Batum and LMA (or something similar). He would truly be the only PG out there on both ends of the court. Roy would get owned defensively and tire out quickly if he did that often. So it is rare, just like Pippen always had a small guard out there for the other side of the ball.
I tend more to the idea that positions are defined by who you guard. Because Pippen initiated the offense for a lot of his teams, but I wouldn't say he was playing guard. I think offensive designations aren't terribly important. You need a certain amount of passing (initiating), scoring and rebounding, but it doesn't really matter where you get it. If your center is your best play-maker for others (Bill Walton), that's fine...but it doesn't make him a "point guard." You could call him a "point center," but then you're getting into the realm of creating "positions" that may only ever be used for a handful of guys in NBA history. I prefer to think of guys by the position they defend (by and large...it's not a hard and fast, as some players can and do guard multiple positions at different times) and worry less about labels on the offensive end. Right now, Roy is the main initiator, regardless of whether you consider him a "point guard." Barring a trade for an elite passer, I think Roy will continue in that role for the length of his contract with Portland. I think Batum will develop some distributing skills with his passing and Bayless will, too (even if he can never be the primary play-maker). All told, I think the team will have sufficient passing, even if they have no one that is considered a traditional point guard on offense.
Personally, I prefer having the heart of a small child. Though it is bothersome to have to hide it when visitors come around.
How about this: Roy is the star running back who sometimes fills the quarterback role when the team runs the "wildcat" offense?
Sure, if we stipulate that the team runs the Wildcat a lot, and not as an infrequent gimmick. He's Michael Vick, except good. Vick is a runner who can throw. Roy is a scorer who can pass. Much the way McGrady and Kobe are/were (though Roy isn't as good as either player in their prime).
A more reasonable analogy would be: Roy is the star "running back" who is the best passer, reader of the defense, leader in the huddle, play caller, guy who hands off the ball, decision maker... who sometimes fills the quarterback role.
Sounds sort of like Michael Vick. Too bad that experiment never works at the professional leve - much like it never worked for us when Brandon was running the point. Does make a person appreciate Miller all the more now that we see the difference between that ugly defense with Roy out there running the point so often with inept Blake and Bayless compared to last year with Miller and having a top 3 defense in the league.
Wait, what? "Never worked for us when Brandon was running the point"? We have won 54 and 50 games in the last two seasons with a LOT of injuries. Obviously it has worked for us. I'm not saying we couldn't get somebody to run the PG better, or our offense can't improve a lot, but to say it has "never worked" is just silly.
