Vinnie Johnson type off the bench is the role I see for McCollum, so backup "PG" (if you want to call him that) makes sense on this team. Honestly though, a big part of me wonders how long it will be before he's put into some kind of 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 deal; you're never going to be able to pair he and Dame together as a starting duo (too much overlap on offense and not enough defense).
My take is... CJ and Dame can share the ball handling duties when they're in at the same time. I would be shocked if we don't see a lot of 3 guard sets with Dame, CJ, and Henderson (or Crabbe) in at the same time.
As excited as I and many of my fellow zeros are about the potential of many of the young pieces throughout the roster, I agree that that has to be Olshey's eventual goal, either at the trade deadline or this coming summer. There's obviously no way that everybody pans out, so within a few months, we'll have a decent idea where the next upgrade needs to be. Unless the Dame/CJ/(Hendo or Crabbe) guard rotation develops incredible synergy, CJ as the core piece in a consolidation trade to upgrade a starting spot simply makes too much sense to ignore.
I have no doubt we'll see a lot of that this year. I guess I was thinking long-term; unless the blazers somehow score a huge talent at the 2 guard through the draft next year, my guess is CJ's time with this team is limited
I do not see the game CJ plays as PG, backup or starter. CJ plays hero ball. Maybe a new position should be named for CJ. Hero Guard, HG.
I most definitely see a 3 guard lineup at the end of games. And since we will hardly be the only team doing it I think CJ will match up defensively just fine in those scenarios. Many teams will go with a 2 PG line up, along with a SG. I am very anxious to see CJ get tested by a bigger SG. I thought Klay would in the GS game, but maybe he is waiting for the regular season to take him down low. But other than Houston I am not at all convinced that there are a lot of teams who will vary from their normal game plan to isolate their SG on ours.(other than 2-3 times a game) For most teams their SG is not their top scorer anymore. The biggest issue for most teams now is stopping the dribble penetration by the ultra quick PGs that you can't slow down with a hand check. Not the bigger SG's who back you down and shoot over you. (Hardin and a couple of others being the exception) In the west you have Lance Stephenson now with the Clips, Klay, Hardin....but most of the others hang out by the 3 pt line. And I think CJ can do just fine there.
Why isn't CJ in the picture as starting SG for the long term? It seems to me he can do that, or be extremely effective at the Ben Gordon 6th man role.
6'4" 200 lbs isn't too small for SG, is it? Klay Thompson has 3 inches and 5 lbs on him. Height difference, sure. Weight, not so much.
I think length is a bigger issue than height. You could be 6'3, but if you have a huge wingspan it can make all the difference.
I think people look at his skill set and like to project player types. He "plays" like Jamal Crawford so he should be Jamal Crawford etc. I don't know. On one hand, I kind of agree, but on the other, I don't see any reason why he can't break the mold either.
Cj's length is only an issue on defense. He can score on bigger players. IMO he is a better all around scorer than Wes, who is obviously much bigger. I guess only time will tell if that is true. So that brings us to defense. Yes length is important, but not necessarily on the perimeter. SG's are taking a lot of 3's these days, and for the most part they are NOT shooting them over people, they are shooting them when they are wide open. CJ has long arms and quick hands. He is going to be disruptive on the perimeter. So that leaves us with........defending the post. This was Wes' strength as he was very strong and physical. Although other than a couple of playoff games against Houston, the Hardins and Klay Thompson's still have given us problems even with Nic and Wes on them. But in those games maybe CJ plays less minutes or he switches to a perimeter player. Worst case scenario they take the ball out of Hardin's hands and give it to someone like Ariza. I am Ok with that. I still say the game is changing and many teams are going small with their guards and I doubt CJ's length will be an issue for the vast majority of games. He gets low and does a good job of slapping the ball away. Kind of like when smaller/quicker players would guard LMA. They gave him problems when he tried to post them up.
I guess you don't want two guards in the game at the same time who are sieves on defense. On the other hand, whoever is guarding CJ has to either shut him down or outscore him. I think we can win that match up more often than not. And in situations, you can take him out for a defensive replacement.
.. How is that not just a definition of point guard? What makes calling him the backup PG "lip service" more than what you just said? I really don't get that. "Point guard" is a phrase to describe something.. Like "apple pie" or "lawn mower".
I watched VJ from his rookie Sonic year to his Chuck Dunleavy Piston peak, and he always played with a PG on the floor. At 6-2, he was listed at PG, but was just a SG shooter. McCollum's listed as 6-4, but the eye test says 6-3. Similarly, Lillard's listed as 6-3, but is the same height as most NBA guards listed as 6-2. At playmaking skills, McCollum is a poor man's Lillard, who is a poor man's playmaker.
I think they gave CJ the Charles Barkley height adjustment..I'm pretty sure he's 6'3 in tall shoes..maybe he's grown an inch since the draft?
So every player in the NBA gets that extra inch on the list roster... which means it doesn't matter anyway.
