RealGM

Stillwater wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:

Stillwater wrote:Right with Beilein at least 10 guys have to be efficient reliable cutters, passers and shooters. Getting players like that that also play lock down defense is going to be difficult when they are drafting knock down shooters that don't defend at all at 5,26 and 30.

I think the goal is to be an elite offensive unit that is so good the defensive weakness' won't matter.

Yes, but I presume it's more a matter of emphasis. Of course defense matters, but putting even one weak link on the floor can compromise an offense. The same can be said of a weak link on defense, but team defense is something that can be constantly worked on and improved pretty readily as long as the desire exists.

Or to just steal from recent history, the Cavs owned the East with a pretty simple formula. a) Have a player who demands a double-team, b) Surround him with shooters, and c) Cheat off the other team's weakest offensive player and let him try to beat you.

Now, LeBron is a pretty special player. Double teaming him was pretty much the worst thing you could do to try to slow him down. That's probably not the case with Garland, Sexton, Porter Jr, etc, but that's why we will need more than one guy who can create with the ball in his hands.

good points and I think Garland and KPJ definitely are above avg when it comes to creating for themselves. KPJ was severely slept on to fall to 30 with his elite baseline skill as an isolation player. I would not be surprised if turns out as the #1 option for CLE down the road.
Garland however is a ridiculous shooter with Curry like range which will draw defenders and if players like Cedi improve his shooting along with Sexton continuing to defy early opinions and hit over 40% from deep this roster should raise some eyebrows pretty fast.
BUT... I have zero confidence in the same players that are the best options offensively are high ceiling defenders. avg defenders at best.
Cavs will need to add some wing length to exploit high level offenses in the playoffs in a couple years and they still need an elite rim protector/rim runner

Our rebuild is just getting rolling. If the team can at least be entertaining and win some games by outshooting opponents, that'd be a nice step at this stage. Other stuff can be sorted out over time, including roster construction. More front-court length definitely seems like it will be a priority in the future, but I think it will come with shooting too (ex: Windler). And as far as our tiny backcourt goes, it can be addressed by the emergence of Windler or Porter Jr and telling either Sexton or Garland that we need them coming off the bench.

I'm optimistic because we're finally investing in player development, and should be for a change playing to the strengths of all our players (not just one). When you're team is perceived as young and talented, other team's covet your players.

JonFromVA wrote:

Stillwater wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:
Yes, but I presume it's more a matter of emphasis. Of course defense matters, but putting even one weak link on the floor can compromise an offense. The same can be said of a weak link on defense, but team defense is something that can be constantly worked on and improved pretty readily as long as the desire exists.

Or to just steal from recent history, the Cavs owned the East with a pretty simple formula. a) Have a player who demands a double-team, b) Surround him with shooters, and c) Cheat off the other team's weakest offensive player and let him try to beat you.

Now, LeBron is a pretty special player. Double teaming him was pretty much the worst thing you could do to try to slow him down. That's probably not the case with Garland, Sexton, Porter Jr, etc, but that's why we will need more than one guy who can create with the ball in his hands.

good points and I think Garland and KPJ definitely are above avg when it comes to creating for themselves. KPJ was severely slept on to fall to 30 with his elite baseline skill as an isolation player. I would not be surprised if turns out as the #1 option for CLE down the road.
Garland however is a ridiculous shooter with Curry like range which will draw defenders and if players like Cedi improve his shooting along with Sexton continuing to defy early opinions and hit over 40% from deep this roster should raise some eyebrows pretty fast.
BUT... I have zero confidence in the same players that are the best options offensively are high ceiling defenders. avg defenders at best.
Cavs will need to add some wing length to exploit high level offenses in the playoffs in a couple years and they still need an elite rim protector/rim runner

Our rebuild is just getting rolling. If the team can at least be entertaining and win some games by outshooting opponents, that'd be a nice step at this stage. Other stuff can be sorted out over time, including roster construction. More front-court length definitely seems like it will be a priority in the future, but I think it will come with shooting too (ex: Windler). And as far as our tiny backcourt goes, it can be addressed by the emergence of Windler or Porter Jr and telling either Sexton or Garland that we need them coming off the bench.

I'm optimistic because we're finally investing in player development, and should be for a change playing to the strengths of all our players (not just one). When you're team is perceived as young and talented, other team's covet your players.

Yeah the biggest issue is does Sexton or Garland get digruntled by demotions when the Cavs get frustrated with the defense in the next 2 seasons. Altman and co. definitely have to beleive right now that both are capable of staying out of foul trouble despite likely struggles against the average 6'7" wings of the league and learning how to be high level defenders mentally even though neither has 2 guard size. Sexton does have decent 2 guard length though and is faster than 90% of the league.
It would not surprise me if he is the one that gets the job on most nights except when the Cavs need to have a better defender ( maybe Osman and down the road maybe Blossomgame if he comes back) switch onto an elite 2 guard like Harden.

Stillwater wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:

Stillwater wrote:good points and I think Garland and KPJ definitely are above avg when it comes to creating for themselves. KPJ was severely slept on to fall to 30 with his elite baseline skill as an isolation player. I would not be surprised if turns out as the #1 option for CLE down the road.
Garland however is a ridiculous shooter with Curry like range which will draw defenders and if players like Cedi improve his shooting along with Sexton continuing to defy early opinions and hit over 40% from deep this roster should raise some eyebrows pretty fast.
BUT... I have zero confidence in the same players that are the best options offensively are high ceiling defenders. avg defenders at best.
Cavs will need to add some wing length to exploit high level offenses in the playoffs in a couple years and they still need an elite rim protector/rim runner

Our rebuild is just getting rolling. If the team can at least be entertaining and win some games by outshooting opponents, that'd be a nice step at this stage. Other stuff can be sorted out over time, including roster construction. More front-court length definitely seems like it will be a priority in the future, but I think it will come with shooting too (ex: Windler). And as far as our tiny backcourt goes, it can be addressed by the emergence of Windler or Porter Jr and telling either Sexton or Garland that we need them coming off the bench.

I'm optimistic because we're finally investing in player development, and should be for a change playing to the strengths of all our players (not just one). When you're team is perceived as young and talented, other team's covet your players.

Yeah the biggest issue is does Sexton or Garland get digruntled by demotions when the Cavs get frustrated with the defense in the next 2 seasons. Altman and co. definitely have to beleive right now that both are capable of staying out of foul trouble despite likely struggles against the average 6'7" wings of the league and learning how to be high level defenders mentally even though neither has 2 guard size. Sexton does have decent 2 guard length though and is faster than 90% of the league.
It would not surprise me if he is the one that gets the job on most nights except when the Cavs need to have a better defender ( maybe Osman and down the road maybe Blossomgame if he comes back) switch onto an elite 2 guard like Harden.

Or we encourage those taller wings to try to post-up our guards and trade their 2's for our 3's, but either way we're way ahead of ourselves. Let's see what we've got first before worrying what we're going to do with it. Collin turned around his season and showed some promising development, but in terms of Net Rating he didn't have a single positive month. We were worse on offense with him on the floor, and much worse on defense.

Beilein might not be able to sort everything out overnight, we might have to give these guys time and that time might not even be a matter of months, but years. Hopefully not, but sometimes that's just how it goes.

JonFromVA wrote:

Stillwater wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:
Our rebuild is just getting rolling. If the team can at least be entertaining and win some games by outshooting opponents, that'd be a nice step at this stage. Other stuff can be sorted out over time, including roster construction. More front-court length definitely seems like it will be a priority in the future, but I think it will come with shooting too (ex: Windler). And as far as our tiny backcourt goes, it can be addressed by the emergence of Windler or Porter Jr and telling either Sexton or Garland that we need them coming off the bench.

I'm optimistic because we're finally investing in player development, and should be for a change playing to the strengths of all our players (not just one). When you're team is perceived as young and talented, other team's covet your players.

Yeah the biggest issue is does Sexton or Garland get digruntled by demotions when the Cavs get frustrated with the defense in the next 2 seasons. Altman and co. definitely have to beleive right now that both are capable of staying out of foul trouble despite likely struggles against the average 6'7" wings of the league and learning how to be high level defenders mentally even though neither has 2 guard size. Sexton does have decent 2 guard length though and is faster than 90% of the league.
It would not surprise me if he is the one that gets the job on most nights except when the Cavs need to have a better defender ( maybe Osman and down the road maybe Blossomgame if he comes back) switch onto an elite 2 guard like Harden.

Or we encourage those taller wings to try to post-up our guards and trade their 2's for our 3's, but either way we're way ahead of ourselves. Let's see what we've got first before worrying what we're going to do with it. Collin turned around his season and showed some promising development, but in terms of Net Rating he didn't have a single positive month. We were worse on offense with him on the floor, and much worse on defense.

Beilein might not be able to sort everything out overnight, we might have to give these guys time and that time might not even be a matter of months, but years. Hopefully not, but sometimes that's just how it goes.

Nobody is worried about anything this soon and they did their homework trying to build an efficient shooting team... but to not make decisions like who you draft & when without factoring in all these things is foolish, so you cannot say lets see what we got first, and not already have a damn good idea of what the weakness' are.

Stillwater wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:

Stillwater wrote:Yeah the biggest issue is does Sexton or Garland get digruntled by demotions when the Cavs get frustrated with the defense in the next 2 seasons. Altman and co. definitely have to beleive right now that both are capable of staying out of foul trouble despite likely struggles against the average 6'7" wings of the league and learning how to be high level defenders mentally even though neither has 2 guard size. Sexton does have decent 2 guard length though and is faster than 90% of the league.
It would not surprise me if he is the one that gets the job on most nights except when the Cavs need to have a better defender ( maybe Osman and down the road maybe Blossomgame if he comes back) switch onto an elite 2 guard like Harden.

Or we encourage those taller wings to try to post-up our guards and trade their 2's for our 3's, but either way we're way ahead of ourselves. Let's see what we've got first before worrying what we're going to do with it. Collin turned around his season and showed some promising development, but in terms of Net Rating he didn't have a single positive month. We were worse on offense with him on the floor, and much worse on defense.

Beilein might not be able to sort everything out overnight, we might have to give these guys time and that time might not even be a matter of months, but years. Hopefully not, but sometimes that's just how it goes.

Nobody is worried about anything this soon and they did their homework trying to build an efficient shooting team... but to not make decisions like who you draft & when without factoring in all these things is foolish, so you cannot say lets see what we got first, and not already have a damn good idea of what the weakness' are.

Who says they haven't factored that all in? If they rated Culver anywhere near as highly as they rated Garland *and* were convinced Sexton could be their PG of the future they surely would have drafted him; but those are two very big buts.

Gather assets, develop players, figure out who can help you, and get the most value in trade you can for everyone else.

Pretty simple as long as there's a path for the players you draft to fit in and increase their value. Turns out that's something John Beilein has been very good at during his coaching career while working with 18-22 year olds like currently litter our roster. So, yeah, get him players he can utilize.

Then eventually it will fall to Koby to push the roster over the top with the right signings and trades. Dunno that he's up to that, but what we are doing makes a lot of sense to me.

Fact is the league just values offensive production way more than defensive ... so D'Angelo Russell just got a max contract while Robert Convington is paid $12M per year. Imagine if Russell could actually play defense? Oh, yeah, he'd still just get the max.

JonFromVA wrote:

Stillwater wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:
Or we encourage those taller wings to try to post-up our guards and trade their 2's for our 3's, but either way we're way ahead of ourselves. Let's see what we've got first before worrying what we're going to do with it. Collin turned around his season and showed some promising development, but in terms of Net Rating he didn't have a single positive month. We were worse on offense with him on the floor, and much worse on defense.

Beilein might not be able to sort everything out overnight, we might have to give these guys time and that time might not even be a matter of months, but years. Hopefully not, but sometimes that's just how it goes.

Nobody is worried about anything this soon and they did their homework trying to build an efficient shooting team... but to not make decisions like who you draft & when without factoring in all these things is foolish, so you cannot say lets see what we got first, and not already have a damn good idea of what the weakness' are.

Who says they haven't factored that all in? If they rated Culver anywhere near as highly as they rated Garland *and* were convinced Sexton could be their PG of the future they surely would have drafted him; but those are two very big buts.

Gather assets, develop players, figure out who can help you, and get the most value in trade you can for everyone else.

Pretty simple as long as there's a path for the players you draft to fit in and increase their value. Turns out that's something John Beilein has been very good at during his coaching career while working with 18-22 year olds like currently litter our roster. So, yeah, get him players he can utilize.

Then eventually it will fall to Koby to push the roster over the top with the right signings and trades. Dunno that he's up to that, but what we are doing makes a lot of sense to me.

Fact is the league just values offensive production way more than defensive ... so D'Angelo Russell just got a max contract while Robert Convington is paid $12M per year. Imagine if Russell could actually play defense? Oh, yeah, he'd still just get the max.

when you said "Let's see what we've got first before worrying what we're going to do with it."

I don't agree with that line of thinking when it prolongs the rebuild to 5 or 7 years of bad basketball.

I get you don't pick for fit but they had to be completely sold Sexton and Garland could coexist
on the court to justify 2 combo score first guards 2 yrs in a row in the top 10 with no other recent lottery picks on the roster.

So given I think that is what they believe, they already know what they got in their minds and don't need to see what the got.they do however need to make it work otherwise it was a huge mistake with players like Culver,Sekou and to some degree even Hachimura on the board.

Stillwater wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:

Stillwater wrote:Nobody is worried about anything this soon and they did their homework trying to build an efficient shooting team... but to not make decisions like who you draft & when without factoring in all these things is foolish, so you cannot say lets see what we got first, and not already have a damn good idea of what the weakness' are.

Who says they haven't factored that all in? If they rated Culver anywhere near as highly as they rated Garland *and* were convinced Sexton could be their PG of the future they surely would have drafted him; but those are two very big buts.

Gather assets, develop players, figure out who can help you, and get the most value in trade you can for everyone else.

Pretty simple as long as there's a path for the players you draft to fit in and increase their value. Turns out that's something John Beilein has been very good at during his coaching career while working with 18-22 year olds like currently litter our roster. So, yeah, get him players he can utilize.

Then eventually it will fall to Koby to push the roster over the top with the right signings and trades. Dunno that he's up to that, but what we are doing makes a lot of sense to me.

Fact is the league just values offensive production way more than defensive ... so D'Angelo Russell just got a max contract while Robert Convington is paid $12M per year. Imagine if Russell could actually play defense? Oh, yeah, he'd still just get the max.

when you said "Let's see what we've got first before worrying what we're going to do with it."

I don't agree with that line of thinking when it prolongs the rebuild to 5 or 7 years of bad basketball.

I get you don't pick for fit but they had to be completely sold Sexton and Garland could coexist
on the court to justify 2 combo score first guards 2 yrs in a row in the top 10 with no other recent lottery picks on the roster.

So given I think that is what they believe, they already know what they got in their minds and don't need to see what the got.they do however need to make it work otherwise it was a huge mistake with players like Culver,Sekou and to some degree even Hachimura on the board.

If they did the right job identifying talent that we can develop, it won't prolong anything. We'll play them or we'll trade them and we'll end up with more talent than Culver/Sekou/Hachmura/etc.

If you want to doubt their ability to identify talent? I've got no problem with that, but that's why I have a let's wait and see what we've got attitude ... because I just don't know.

I mean we can go back through draft history and pretty much make any point we'd like ... for instance, drafting Dion Waiters because we wanted a SG over Damian Lillard sure seems like a pretty big mistake. Portland drafting Sam Perkins over Michael Jordan was an even bigger one. Otoh, we've also made mistakes drafting for upside (Bennett, Waiters) and also had success doing that (Irving). One difference is I think the organization is finally figuring out how much of a role character and desire play. Drafting an Oladipo or Sexton has a decent chance of working out because their work-ethic means they will keep improving.

JonFromVA wrote:

Stillwater wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:
Who says they haven't factored that all in? If they rated Culver anywhere near as highly as they rated Garland *and* were convinced Sexton could be their PG of the future they surely would have drafted him; but those are two very big buts.

Gather assets, develop players, figure out who can help you, and get the most value in trade you can for everyone else.

Pretty simple as long as there's a path for the players you draft to fit in and increase their value. Turns out that's something John Beilein has been very good at during his coaching career while working with 18-22 year olds like currently litter our roster. So, yeah, get him players he can utilize.

Then eventually it will fall to Koby to push the roster over the top with the right signings and trades. Dunno that he's up to that, but what we are doing makes a lot of sense to me.

Fact is the league just values offensive production way more than defensive ... so D'Angelo Russell just got a max contract while Robert Convington is paid $12M per year. Imagine if Russell could actually play defense? Oh, yeah, he'd still just get the max.

when you said "Let's see what we've got first before worrying what we're going to do with it."

I don't agree with that line of thinking when it prolongs the rebuild to 5 or 7 years of bad basketball.

I get you don't pick for fit but they had to be completely sold Sexton and Garland could coexist
on the court to justify 2 combo score first guards 2 yrs in a row in the top 10 with no other recent lottery picks on the roster.

So given I think that is what they believe, they already know what they got in their minds and don't need to see what the got.they do however need to make it work otherwise it was a huge mistake with players like Culver,Sekou and to some degree even Hachimura on the board.

If they did the right job identifying talent that we can develop, it won't prolong anything. We'll play them or we'll trade them and we'll end up with more talent than Culver/Sekou/Hachmura/etc.

If you want to doubt their ability to identify talent? I've got no problem with that, but that's why I have a let's wait and see what we've got attitude ... because I just don't know.

I mean we can go back through draft history and pretty much make any point we'd like ... for instance, drafting Dion Waiters because we wanted a SG over Damian Lillard sure seems like a pretty big mistake. Portland drafting Sam Perkins over Michael Jordan was an even bigger one. Otoh, we've also made mistakes drafting for upside (Bennett, Waiters) and also had success doing that (Irving). One difference is I think the organization is finally figuring out how much of a role character and desire play. Drafting an Oladipo or Sexton has a decent chance of working out because their work-ethic means they will keep improving.

I can respect that viewpoint because there are almost always regrettable mistakes made in the draft process when teams pick "only" for fit knowingly taking a far lesser or far riskier option at a position of need with a much better prospect left on the board that played a position that was not one of need at all... BUT: did the Cavs really believe Garland was so much better going forward than other options that were there ? Well the first impression imo is yes they did. and they were willing to gamble the two could share the backcourt despite not being the optimal pick defensively because of in their opinion the drop off in talent was significant.
Basically imo if Garland is not the next Steph it will probably just go down as they just broke even got a solid player etc.

Stillwater wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:

Stillwater wrote:when you said "Let's see what we've got first before worrying what we're going to do with it."

I don't agree with that line of thinking when it prolongs the rebuild to 5 or 7 years of bad basketball.

I get you don't pick for fit but they had to be completely sold Sexton and Garland could coexist
on the court to justify 2 combo score first guards 2 yrs in a row in the top 10 with no other recent lottery picks on the roster.

So given I think that is what they believe, they already know what they got in their minds and don't need to see what the got.they do however need to make it work otherwise it was a huge mistake with players like Culver,Sekou and to some degree even Hachimura on the board.

If they did the right job identifying talent that we can develop, it won't prolong anything. We'll play them or we'll trade them and we'll end up with more talent than Culver/Sekou/Hachmura/etc.

If you want to doubt their ability to identify talent? I've got no problem with that, but that's why I have a let's wait and see what we've got attitude ... because I just don't know.

I mean we can go back through draft history and pretty much make any point we'd like ... for instance, drafting Dion Waiters because we wanted a SG over Damian Lillard sure seems like a pretty big mistake. Portland drafting Sam Perkins over Michael Jordan was an even bigger one. Otoh, we've also made mistakes drafting for upside (Bennett, Waiters) and also had success doing that (Irving). One difference is I think the organization is finally figuring out how much of a role character and desire play. Drafting an Oladipo or Sexton has a decent chance of working out because their work-ethic means they will keep improving.

I can respect that viewpoint because there are almost always regrettable mistakes made in the draft process when teams pick "only" for fit knowingly taking a far lesser or far riskier option at a position of need with a much better prospect left on the board that played a position that was not one of need at all... BUT: did the Cavs really believe Garland was so much better going forward than other options that were there ? Well the first impression imo is yes they did. and they were willing to gamble the two could share the backcourt despite not being the optimal pick defensively because of in their opinion the drop off in talent was significant.
Basically imo if Garland is not the next Steph it will probably just go down as they just broke even got a solid player etc.

My thinking just isn't that rigid and hopefully neither is the Cavs. In other words, I don't just see two options here ... I see a lot of possible outcomes and more than one of them are positive. I don't think Garland has to be the next Steph, and I don't think drafting him will harm Sexton. Collin may one day learn how to run a team, but that may be a long way away. For now, he shouldn't have primary play-making responsibilities and we needed to address that. Maybe Barrett would have addressed that, but he didn't drop to 5. Culver has some potential in that area so the two will be linked for quite some time, but it seems reasonable to me to expect Garland to be both a better playmaker and shooter than Culver. He's not going to be taller, and probably won't be a better defender against SGs; so for some it's going to be a pick your poison situation; but that was probably not the case for John Beilein.

I suspect John was more like shooting? court vision? insane handle? Sign me up.

JonFromVA wrote:

Stillwater wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:
If they did the right job identifying talent that we can develop, it won't prolong anything. We'll play them or we'll trade them and we'll end up with more talent than Culver/Sekou/Hachmura/etc.

If you want to doubt their ability to identify talent? I've got no problem with that, but that's why I have a let's wait and see what we've got attitude ... because I just don't know.

I mean we can go back through draft history and pretty much make any point we'd like ... for instance, drafting Dion Waiters because we wanted a SG over Damian Lillard sure seems like a pretty big mistake. Portland drafting Sam Perkins over Michael Jordan was an even bigger one. Otoh, we've also made mistakes drafting for upside (Bennett, Waiters) and also had success doing that (Irving). One difference is I think the organization is finally figuring out how much of a role character and desire play. Drafting an Oladipo or Sexton has a decent chance of working out because their work-ethic means they will keep improving.

I can respect that viewpoint because there are almost always regrettable mistakes made in the draft process when teams pick "only" for fit knowingly taking a far lesser or far riskier option at a position of need with a much better prospect left on the board that played a position that was not one of need at all... BUT: did the Cavs really believe Garland was so much better going forward than other options that were there ? Well the first impression imo is yes they did. and they were willing to gamble the two could share the backcourt despite not being the optimal pick defensively because of in their opinion the drop off in talent was significant.
Basically imo if Garland is not the next Steph it will probably just go down as they just broke even got a solid player etc.

My thinking just isn't that rigid and hopefully neither is the Cavs. In other words, I don't just see two options here ... I see a lot of possible outcomes and more than one of them are positive. I don't think Garland has to be the next Steph, and I don't think drafting him will harm Sexton. Collin may one day learn how to run a team, but that may be a long way away. For now, he shouldn't have primary play-making responsibilities and we needed to address that. Maybe Barrett would have addressed that, but he didn't drop to 5. Culver has some potential in that area so the two will be linked for quite some time, but it seems reasonable to me to expect Garland to be both a better playmaker and shooter than Culver. He's not going to be taller, and probably won't be a better defender against SGs; so for some it's going to be a pick your poison situation; but that was probably not the case for John Beilein.

I suspect John was more like shooting? court vision? insane handle? Sign me up.

ok, but I actually am not sold they intend to use either of these guards in a traditional floor general sense at all...where Garland would be the primary initiator as you're thinking because Sexton isn't...
I think both in their own way are right now at best differing strong suit scoring guards and neither are "good"facilitators.

Stillwater wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:

Stillwater wrote:I can respect that viewpoint because there are almost always regrettable mistakes made in the draft process when teams pick "only" for fit knowingly taking a far lesser or far riskier option at a position of need with a much better prospect left on the board that played a position that was not one of need at all... BUT: did the Cavs really believe Garland was so much better going forward than other options that were there ? Well the first impression imo is yes they did. and they were willing to gamble the two could share the backcourt despite not being the optimal pick defensively because of in their opinion the drop off in talent was significant.
Basically imo if Garland is not the next Steph it will probably just go down as they just broke even got a solid player etc.

My thinking just isn't that rigid and hopefully neither is the Cavs. In other words, I don't just see two options here ... I see a lot of possible outcomes and more than one of them are positive. I don't think Garland has to be the next Steph, and I don't think drafting him will harm Sexton. Collin may one day learn how to run a team, but that may be a long way away. For now, he shouldn't have primary play-making responsibilities and we needed to address that. Maybe Barrett would have addressed that, but he didn't drop to 5. Culver has some potential in that area so the two will be linked for quite some time, but it seems reasonable to me to expect Garland to be both a better playmaker and shooter than Culver. He's not going to be taller, and probably won't be a better defender against SGs; so for some it's going to be a pick your poison situation; but that was probably not the case for John Beilein.

I suspect John was more like shooting? court vision? insane handle? Sign me up.

ok, but I actually am not sold they intend to use either of these guards in a traditional floor general sense at all...where Garland would be the primary initiator as you're thinking because Sexton isn't...
I think both in their own way are right now at best differing strong suit scoring guards and neither are "good"facilitators.

That's certainly a possibility, especially in the short-term as both need to learn how to play in the league; but that's why playing them together could work, especially in a ball movement based offensive system where they will need to learn how to make the right reads, but won't be required to run the offense in the traditional sense.

The Warriors led the league in assists with 29.4 per game, but even Steve Nash at his best peaked at 11.6 per game. So, we don't need a single player to generate assists as much as we need a player/players! who can break down a defense and everyone to be willing to move the ball to the open man (who can hopefully shoot/score).

So, IMO, we don't need to teach these guys how to run a team like a true point so much as help them overcome their tunnel vision and find the open man. In theory, Garland should have an easier time doing that because he does what he does in a slower more controlled way; whereas Collin turns on the jets and has less time to see things.

Collin has already shown that his speed works at the NBA level, and he's shown he can shoot at the NBA level (if defenders cheat to deal with his speed). Garland similarly needs to demonstrate that his shooting is for real and that his dribbling moves work against NBA defenders. That's something we can work with.

JonFromVA wrote:

Stillwater wrote:

JonFromVA wrote:
My thinking just isn't that rigid and hopefully neither is the Cavs. In other words, I don't just see two options here ... I see a lot of possible outcomes and more than one of them are positive. I don't think Garland has to be the next Steph, and I don't think drafting him will harm Sexton. Collin may one day learn how to run a team, but that may be a long way away. For now, he shouldn't have primary play-making responsibilities and we needed to address that. Maybe Barrett would have addressed that, but he didn't drop to 5. Culver has some potential in that area so the two will be linked for quite some time, but it seems reasonable to me to expect Garland to be both a better playmaker and shooter than Culver. He's not going to be taller, and probably won't be a better defender against SGs; so for some it's going to be a pick your poison situation; but that was probably not the case for John Beilein.

I suspect John was more like shooting? court vision? insane handle? Sign me up.

ok, but I actually am not sold they intend to use either of these guards in a traditional floor general sense at all...where Garland would be the primary initiator as you're thinking because Sexton isn't...
I think both in their own way are right now at best differing strong suit scoring guards and neither are "good"facilitators.

That's certainly a possibility, especially in the short-term as both need to learn how to play in the league; but that's why playing them together could work, especially in a ball movement based offensive system where they will need to learn how to make the right reads, but won't be required to run the offense in the traditional sense.

The Warriors led the league in assists with 29.4 per game, but even Steve Nash at his best peaked at 11.6 per game. So, we don't need a single player to generate assists as much as we need a player/players! who can break down a defense and everyone to be willing to move the ball to the open man (who can hopefully shoot/score).

So, IMO, we don't need to teach these guys how to run a team like a true point so much as help them overcome their tunnel vision and find the open man. In theory, Garland should have an easier time doing that because he does what he does in a slower more controlled way; whereas Collin turns on the jets and has less time to see things.

Collin has already shown that his speed works at the NBA level, and he's shown he can shoot at the NBA level (if defenders cheat to deal with his speed). Garland similarly needs to demonstrate that his shooting is for real and that his dribbling moves work against NBA defenders. That's something we can work with.

Good post and hits on all optimism of this org at the moment.