The thing is Dame and CJ know what they are doing. They can create their own shot, change their shot in the lane once it's contested, or once they are in the air. Napier is not exactly strong in this area. He takes highly contested shots when there are wide open guys. He slows the pace of the game because he is predictable and easily guarded. That said, I see the potential for him to play at a higher level, but the Blazers play a team game, and he is not a team player. Dame and CJ take over games, take lots of shots because they are the Blazers main scorers. It's their role, not Napiers. He is supposed to run the bench, help keep them fluid, keep them from getting stagnant.
Napier's job right now is the same as Vonleh's. It's the same job Barton and Robinson had - be ready in case of a serious injury to a rotation player (or two).
I don't know.....it seems way too early to make any assessment (good or bad) on his game. We are talking two games in which he has been on the court with a variety of different players. I disagree on what his role is off the bench. Depending on who he is playing with, it may very well be his role is too score.
It was Tim Frazier time. CJ is a very good SG and an OK, at best, PG. He should be playing only SG. Napier is a scoring PG, like Dame and like CJ. We need two of them on the floor for as much as possible. Even our best lineup with just 1 (Dame, AC, ET) lives much to be desired in terms of ball handling, running the offense, quickness, creativity, etc. Our strength is playing two combo guards and we need to pursue this strength
You make some valid points. Hell I said the same thing last year at this time. I only wanted CJ to play SG. And although he is still not a great PG, it worked. He proved me wrong. As long as CJ has help getting the ball up court against pressure, the quickness and creativity of Napier becomes moot because regardless, when CJ is in the game without Dame, he is usually going to initiate the offense, because he is very effective when he has the ball in his hands. creating for himself. We don't want CJ on the court with the 2nd unit becoming a catch and shoot player. We have Crabbe for that. So the question is would Napier really be running the offense along side CJ? I am not saying he would become useless in that scenario, but I think in Terry's mind ET can basically do the same thing as Napier (helping CJ out when he gets into trouble) and at the same time giving us a lot more size.
I disagree completely. Your idea of what a 3rd PG should do is probably not what Stotts wants. Evan Turner will probably be the main distributor off the bench. Napier is supposed to look for his shot.
Napier and CJ is better than just CJ. Even if both are score-first the combination of both would give us enough quickness, ball handling, ball distribution, etc. What people don't understand is that AC and ET are SFs. Yes, they can pass, good decision makers but so was Batum and we didn't play him at the 2. If we play just one of Dame, CJ, Napier, we actually play with just one guard
They're tweeners and my opinion is that tweeners need to play their bigger position. I also think Aminu and Harkless are ideally PFs
I'm coming around to napier. I think playing him is going to help our bench improve on the fast break. With both Napier and CJ on the floor, either can initiate the offense based on the play. Isn't Charlotte playing Batum at the 2? Haven't gotten a chance to see much of him there. Is he still standing around the arc waiting to shoot 3's? From what I have heard, it doesn't sound like much is expected of him even though they paid him a shitload.
You realize it says Turner is a Small Foward first. They play at the 2, but their length and style of play makes them more fit for the 3
I think you missed the point. @Blazer4ever claimed that when we play either of them at the 2, we only have 1 guard on the floor. They're both guards. They were both guards in college. They both have the ability to play the 3, but I completely disagree with the assertion that their style of play fits better at the 3 than the 2. Turner especially, with his passing and ball-handling skills, is much more a guard than a forward.
Well you are right in saying people do not understand that ET is a SF because it has been pointed out numerous times that he played better at SG last year than SF. And he played guard in College where he was the 2010 National Player of the Year. By finishing first in scoring and second in both rebounds and assists in the conference in the 2009–10 season, he was the first men's basketball player to finish in the top two in each of these categories and the first to finish in the top five in each category in the same season. I point this out only to emphasize that he is not playing out of position when he plays guard. I don't like when that happens either, but in this case he actually played guard in college at a high level, and has also played guard in the NBA. For the record I have no problem with CJ and Napier playing together against smaller quicker 2nd units. But you still have to find minutes for ET, Crabbe, and Harkless, so I would not expect seeing Nap play in every game. (or most games)
Oh I thought he was saying that we should only play them at the 2. I guess when I replied I was thinking more about Crabbe. I see him as a Small foward more than a shooting guard. As for Turner I was pointing out that the player bio said he was a Small Foward. Anyway I think Turner will see time at the 2...I had thought maybe even at the point, but I think Napier is going to get more playing time then initially thought.
