http://bkref.com/tiny/a61n0 Look who Damian is just above. And look at how close those stats are. If it turns out we got the next "that guy", I'm fine with him doing whatever the hell he wants except drilling holes in his knees.
The "S" in "SG" stands for shooting. But obviously Seattle played Payton and McMillan at the same time a lot - who do you want to call the SG?
No He gets crap because he has the best scorer in the league on his team and he takes more shots than him. If he had his own team like Derrick Rose does it'd be different. Derrick Rose won a MVP taking more shots per game than Westbrook ever has.
This place is a damn joke sometimes. So, we get our future PG, and follow it up by drafting another PG in the lottery, despite having glaring holes at SG, C? Why don't we try to address our starting 5 first? That would be nice.
It's one person! Granted, you add up everybody's individual tin-foil conspiracies and eventually the entire place looks insane, but this thread, this "movement", this train of thought? It's one guy.
Given how insane I apparently am, it's amazing how none of you who disagree are actually coming up with reasons why what I'm saying is wrong. (I'm not talking about Carter-Williams, I'm talking about Lillard.) For example: "We get our future PG" is what's called "begging the question". After his rookie year everybody thought Tyreke Evans was the "future PG" of Sacramento. And he had a more remarkable rookie campaign than Lillard, at a younger age. Turned out that he wasn't a real PG. This was actually pretty obvious if you watched. Lillard is not that bad, but he's not an intuitive PG. Let's hope he gets better, but let's not assume he will because floor vision is not something you learn. And let's stop comparing him to Derrick Rose, because he's not that guy: he's a better shooter but he's not the all-world athlete and scorer that Rose always obviously was. 1. If you actually READ what was written, I'm talking about someone to START NEXT TO LILLARD. So he would be IN THE STARTING FIVE. 2. Whoever we get at 10 is unlikely to be a starter for a couple of years anyway. Look at Leonard. If we're "addressing our starting five" then it will be by trade/FA/trading up in the draft.
1) So you think MCW is better than Wes Matthews? Despite his horrible FG%? Mediocre (gambles a lot - at best) defense? You think MCW is a "dynamic" SG - one whose only attribute is essentially having a high BBIQ and strong passing ability? That doesn't seem very dynamic to me. If you actually KNEW what you were talking about, you would know how ridiculous this idea is. 2) Depends who we get at 10. I can see a handful of guys being NBA ready, right now. Leonard was VERY, VERY raw for a lotto pick - everyone knew that. I'd say that Alex Len would probably be a starter from day one, dependent on who we signed as a FA. I do believe we should trade for a C/starting quality SG and look in FA for either pieces. MCW is a more useless pick than if we were to draft Olynyk, IMO. Tyreke Evans also plays in Sacramento. You know who else was lauded as PGOTF after their rookie years? Kyrie Irving, John Wall, Seth Curry, Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Deron Williams, Brandon Jennings, etc. I would say that is pretty welcome company. And Tyreke is what? 6'5-6? 225 and has a PER of around 20. I would say he isn't half bad...
As you would gather if you read what I wrote (why is that so hard) - I don't know jack about MCW. That's why I'm asking. If he's not any good, then we shouldn't draft him. I'm willing to bet he's got better PG skills than Matthews, but if the negatives outweigh the positives, stay away. I'm actually pretty doubtful he would be able to play PG in the NBA, because tall PGs are so rare. Actually, he was about average for big men taken around pick #10. Look it up. And I'd say "only if we're tanking from day one." Seriously - go through the past few drafts and find big men chosen at or around #10. They average about 10 mpg. Yikes. That's pretty damning. If that's true, I'd definitely say stay away then. Nearly all of them averaged more assists/48 than Lillard. Except for Seth Curry (but to be fair, he's still at Duke) and Deron Williams, who shared PG duties in college anyway. Do you think you're disagreeing with me? Do you think I think Lillard is bad? Go back and read what I'm saying.
Every time you say Damian is really an SG, I vomit and think of Damon Statamire. This is why you're getting the reaction you're geting, I think.
Look: think of Damian as a 1 1/2. Dwayne Wade was played a lot at 1 in his rookie year, wasn't he? Or, if it makes it better, think of Damian as a PG, but think of the trend in the NBA to have TWO starting-quality PGs that you can play together. Like NY did with Felton and Kidd/Prigioni. Like Denver does with Lawson and Dre. Like the Clippers do with Paul and Billups. Like GS does with Jack and Curry. Or like we did a lot with Maynor and Lillard. Only that combination is sub-optimal defensively. Suppose we could've drafted that Smart kid from OK State - would you have objected because he's called a PG? Or would you have thought "great - another good guard to play alongside Lillard"? (And hey: we did okay with Stoudamire - largely because Pippen was really the PG...)
You don't play your best players out of position. That's just silly. But the general idea makes sense, and it's why I want Tyreke to be Dame's backcourt mate. But Dame needs to be the primary ball handler. His P&R game is so crucial for our offense. Similarly, LA doesn't play C even if he has the height and skills to play it.
This happens quite often actually with really talented players. Lebron could play PG full time if he wanted and did early in his career. Wade was similar. Melo could play PF if he wanted full time. BRoy coulda played PG. But it just doesn't work for the long term.
That sounds like common sense but it can be interpreted two ways: a) You don't try to make your players do things that that they're not good at, and you don't stop them doing things that they're good at. (Obviously true, except when they're young and you want to make them more well-rounded.) b) There are five archetypes of player, every player fits into one of the archetypes, and you don't play them in any other position. (False.) This whole idea of "PG/SG/SF/PF/C" is both relatively new and already out-of-date. Some coaches don't even use that terminology - they just say "guard" "wing" "big". And then there's geeks who have come up with about 20 different "types" of player. Let's go back to (a): what are Lillard's strengths? Answer: scoring. Is he a great defender? No. Is he a great passer? No - he himself has conceded he's learning off Maynor, who isn't even the greatest PG himself. Now, I'm all in favor of Lillard playing non-stop PG in the offseason. I would have him try to win games without taking a shot. But when it comes to the actual games, he's Brandon Roy. He's a ball-dominator. He's a 1 1/2. He's not Chris Paul (the rare player who can be both) and he's not Ray Allen (a 2G who needs to be set up by his PG and isn't that great at creating for himself.) So, just like with Roy, we have a puzzle of whom to play next to him. For the sake of the other 3 players on the court, I'd hope it could be someone who can throw lobs like Andre Miller or pick apart a defense with a pass like Jason Kidd, and defend like Tony Allen. Is that too much to ask?
Actually, yes it is too much to ask for after one data point of analysis. Calling him a combo guard suddenly means he's undersized and not really likely to get us anywhere. If you were able to convince me that what you're saying is absolute fact, I'd say just fucking trade Lillard because no team with an undersized, volume-shooting SG as their featured player has ever really done anything worthwhile. Plus this all feels very "Lillard isn't going to get any better, so let's buy a player to handle his deficiencies which will never get better." I'm all for bringing in a better, older backup PG than Maynor to play Obi-Wan. I'm also in favor of bringing in a better ball-handling shooting guard. But what I'm most in favor of is a better-designed offense that doesn't strand Lillard at the top of the key with a double team because nobody respects the guy setting the pick. I want a defensive scheme that isn't developed by the fucking janitor. Or maybe the actual janitor's defensive scheme is better than Kaleb's and we should try it. I want Lillard to learn from the Glove this summer (this is actually happening) and come back with a focus on integrating his game's aspects a little more smoothly. I'd like four supporting players who don't sit around watching Lillard flail because the best defensive scheme against portland it to quintuple team Lillard at half court like jr. high basketball. Your "actual point guard for our midget shooting guard" take just makes us another rube team with a failed PGOTF experiment. Thanks for the sour persimmons, bub.
FWIW... As a Bulls fan, I'd consider moving Rose to SG for the right PG next to him. Of course you want the ball in Rose's hands on offense, but someone else can easily dribble the ball up court and pass it to Rose. Saw plenty of Pippen making that first pass to MJ over the years. LeBron plays PF yet has the ball in his hands as much as anyone. The PG label isn't that important. If the team is better with a 2nd ballhandler and playmaker, where's the beef?
Not only is that a defensive liability, but it also requires the right combination of PG/SG based on skillsets. Felton/Kidd - Both can shoot decently. (also has Melo) Lawson/Dre - Lawson can shoot, Dre can penetrate, post up, solid mid range game. Paul and Billups - Both can shoot. Jack and Curry - Both can shoot. MCW - can't shoot, can't post up, not much of a shot at all...but excellent court vision.) Smarts natural position was actually SG, as he was moved to PG at Oklahoma State, if I recall correctly. He also is a much, much better defender while being more offensively gifted than MCW. I actually don't think MCW would be a horrible player, just not the right skillset for THIS team. Smart is more like Tyreke Evans, harden, etc. MCW is like a tall suckier version of Nash without a shot.
I'm starting to fall in love with this guy (i.e. M C-W)'s game. Granted he can't shoot, but then neither could Andre. And, like Andre, this kid is a gifted passer, especially of lobs. I don't think he's necessarily a full-time PG (which means that his lack of shooting is more troubling, because a SG who can't shoot is no use) but he just seems to be somebody who can play. He defends well, he rebounds well, and he dragged Syracuse further than expected. Of course, the last PG who did that for Syracuse was Johnny Flynn, which is a huge red (orange) flag, so maybe it'll be just as well if we don't take him. But I see him as a third guard candidate who can have some of the elements of Steve Smith, Andre Miller and Shaun Livingston. (At best: at worst he's a slightly taller Kendall Marshall, the last big-PG-who-can't-shoot that I fell in love with.)
