Ruzious wrote:bill curley II wrote:And how is that? DD isn't strong enough to handle 3's. Budinger isn't quick enough laterally to play the 2. There's not a huge difference between 2's and 3's in the NBA but Budinger's body and game, moving away from the ball and having a solid midrange and in game is a lot more suited to play SF than DeRozan.
Listen to your logic - You're saying he's a 2 - not because of his 2 skills, but because he can't play the 3.
I'm saying Budinger, while he may be better off at the 3 - is still a better 2 than DeRozan. Budinger can be a 2 in the same mold as a Rip Hamilton. People didn't think Hamilton was athletic, either, when he was at UConn.
Derozan's a freshman. He can develop either way but the tools he has now, i.e. his size, strength, athleticism is more suited to play the 2. He doesn't have the skills to play anything in the NBA right now so no one can say he's a 2 or 3 b/c of his skills. He's a nothing in the NBA right now unless he stays in USC or develops in the NBA.
Yeah of course Budinger is a better 2 at this point than DeRozan. He's a better player overall now because he's more polished and experienced. That's like saying Kobe is a better PG than Aaron Miles, so Kobe should play PG. That doesn't mean he should play a position that's not the most ideal one for him.
And Hamilton plays the 2 b/c hes 6 6 and like 180 lbs coming out of UConn. He doesn't have Budinger's size, he's quicker though than Budinger, and not sure why you think Hamilton wasn't athletic enough out of college but his biggest concern coming into the league was his strength, not his quickness. So his physical tools were suited more for the SG position, which is the same argument I'm making with DeRozan. And much like DeRozan needs to do, Rip developed a 3 ball and his ball handling skills in the NBA.