Why not Luke at PG?
Moderators: dVs33, Cowology, theBigLip, Snakebites
Why not Luke at PG?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 38,753
- And1: 22,818
- Joined: Oct 08, 2013
-
Why not Luke at PG?
Someone on the GB thread brought this up and got me thinking it makes sense now and for our future.
With Luke on the wing he has no sort of measurement advantage having a wingspan smaller than his height. He hasn't been a liability defensively though.
But if you were too put him at the PG spot he actually gains a advantage with his measurables at 6'6.
Plus it's not like he doesn't have the playmaking and vision to succeed there while also being a 40%+ 3pt shooter. Definitely makes sense with this starting lineup for spacing and the fact Griffin has the ball a lot while being a playmaker himself.
So
Kennard/Ish
Bullock/Galloway
Johnson/Ennis
Griffin/Tolliver
Drummond/Griffin
There's your 9 man rotation. Now we just need to fire SVG and bring in some one who would have the balls and sense to try it.
With Luke on the wing he has no sort of measurement advantage having a wingspan smaller than his height. He hasn't been a liability defensively though.
But if you were too put him at the PG spot he actually gains a advantage with his measurables at 6'6.
Plus it's not like he doesn't have the playmaking and vision to succeed there while also being a 40%+ 3pt shooter. Definitely makes sense with this starting lineup for spacing and the fact Griffin has the ball a lot while being a playmaker himself.
So
Kennard/Ish
Bullock/Galloway
Johnson/Ennis
Griffin/Tolliver
Drummond/Griffin
There's your 9 man rotation. Now we just need to fire SVG and bring in some one who would have the balls and sense to try it.
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 1,033
- And1: 168
- Joined: Jul 01, 2008
- Location: Detroit
- Contact:
-
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
its something that ive thought about too. something that is definitely worth a shot. it needs a serious try. im just worried hed be a little slow and his ball handling may lack a bit for that. but id definitely try it

Re: Why not Luke at PG?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 32,721
- And1: 9,552
- Joined: Jun 22, 2001
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
I've already thought Luke at PG especially with Stanley or Blake also on the floor is fine.
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,086
- And1: 1,997
- Joined: Nov 03, 2014
-
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
Anybody but Ish! Even Galloway
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
- MrBigShot
- RealGM
- Posts: 18,541
- And1: 20,094
- Joined: Dec 18, 2010
-
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
I don't think he has the combination of handle/vision/playmaking you need to play PG.
"They say you miss 100% of the shots you take" - Mike James
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
- Manocad
- RealGM
- Posts: 69,969
- And1: 10,562
- Joined: Dec 13, 2005
- Location: Middle Fingerton
- Contact:
-
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 38,753
- And1: 22,818
- Joined: Oct 08, 2013
-
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
Manocad wrote:Love the idea. Move Drummond to SG as well.
Rock on.
Yeah bro same thing for sure, rock on
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 38,753
- And1: 22,818
- Joined: Oct 08, 2013
-
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
MrBigShot wrote:I don't think he has the combination of handle/vision/playmaking you need to play PG.
I think he just plays timid because he wants to play error free so he doesn't get yanked. You let him get comfortable and he has the tools to become a PG. He carried Duke a lot with the ball in his hands. He's got vision, can shoot and is crafty without the big first step and big athleticism.
He would play off ball a lot and not be like Ish running in circles looking for assist i will admit. He doesn't have that kind of ball handling.
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
- dVs33
- Forum Mod - Pistons
- Posts: 10,186
- And1: 1,874
- Joined: Apr 20, 2010
- Location: Melbourne, Oz
-
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
I definitely think ishneeds to be back on the bench, so I'd be happy with this. Kennard needs to play more and we don't have a solution at pg
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 3,876
- And1: 766
- Joined: Jul 22, 2013
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
Kennard doesn't have the handles, if he's pressured he will turn it over a lot.
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
- Izzite
- Senior
- Posts: 555
- And1: 327
- Joined: Apr 21, 2016
- Location: Beast Lansing
-
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
Yeah I was thinking about this a while back, shortly after Reggie’s injury. It’s definitely worth a look. I personally can’t stand watching ish pound the air out of the ball. He does some things well, but disrupts flow with starters.
Kennard will give us another solid 3 pt threat with the starting unit, which is needed horribly. Watching ish spot up in the corner for a 3 makes me cringe every single time.
Kennard will give us another solid 3 pt threat with the starting unit, which is needed horribly. Watching ish spot up in the corner for a 3 makes me cringe every single time.
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,619
- And1: 1,101
- Joined: Dec 27, 2012
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
When he got drafted I said that him at pg was the only way he would be a plus player for the Pistons.
He has no advantage at SG unless he's playing against backups
He has no advantage at SG unless he's playing against backups
You need 2-way wings, 2-way shooting bigs, and you can't allow low iq players on the court. Assist/turnover ratio is crucial. Shooting point guards are icing on the cake IF they are plus defenders.
Weaver & Casey, govern yourselves accordingly!
Weaver & Casey, govern yourselves accordingly!
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,212
- And1: 3,348
- Joined: Sep 06, 2013
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
The solution to not having a pg is not to just move a non-pg into the role.
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
- whitehops
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,300
- And1: 7,003
- Joined: Dec 12, 2012
- Location: Toronto
-
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
MrBigShot wrote:I don't think he has the combination of handle/vision/playmaking you need to play PG.
Yeah I think at this point he doesn’t have the ability to get into the paint by himself/with little help consistently to break down the defense. I think his vision/passing is fine, he just can’t put enough pressure on a defense to be the lead guard.
I’d still like to see them run more plays for him though.
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
-
- Junior
- Posts: 328
- And1: 167
- Joined: Feb 17, 2016
-
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
The simple answer is because Kennard is not able to stay in front of any of the starting PG in this league.
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 38,753
- And1: 22,818
- Joined: Oct 08, 2013
-
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
I just wonder if having his shooting and playmaking is enough to have more of a impact then a non Shooter like Smith. I just can't find a logical reasoning for Ish Smith to be out there running in circles while defenses leave Blake on a island.
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
- whitehops
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,300
- And1: 7,003
- Joined: Dec 12, 2012
- Location: Toronto
-
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
MotownMadness wrote:I just wonder if having his shooting and playmaking is enough to have more of a impact then a non Shooter like Smith. I just can't find a logical reasoning for Ish Smith to be out there running in circles while defenses leave Blake on a island.
i think galloway would be better starting over ish. the offense mainly runs through blake anyways, galloway provides them with more spacing and he's better suited to guarding point guards than luke. galloway would still only play ~12-15 minutes a game but i think it gives the starting lineup more balance than ish or luke.
that way ish's minutes would stay the same but he'd be out there more with kennard, tolliver and bullock/ennis with either blake or drummond which gives him a lot more space to probe.
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 38,753
- And1: 22,818
- Joined: Oct 08, 2013
-
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
whitehops wrote:MotownMadness wrote:I just wonder if having his shooting and playmaking is enough to have more of a impact then a non Shooter like Smith. I just can't find a logical reasoning for Ish Smith to be out there running in circles while defenses leave Blake on a island.
i think galloway would be better starting over ish. the offense mainly runs through blake anyways, galloway provides them with more spacing and he's better suited to guarding point guards than luke. galloway would still only play ~12-15 minutes a game but i think it gives the starting lineup more balance than ish or luke.
Something, we need spacing in that lineup. Honestly I think Luke has better court vision then Galloway already as a rookie but just hasn't been able to really show it yet.
Defensively though yeah your probably right and Galloway is the way to go.
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
-
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,697
- And1: 1,420
- Joined: Jan 19, 2002
-
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
The general idea of having Luke help with the play making has merit. He has shown a knack for this, both with the Pistons and at Duke. Of course, he's not a PG. A guy can play SG and help facilitate. Of course, he can't be expected to consistently stay in front of the quick PGs. That said, having him mostly stand in the corner behind the 3 pt line is selling him short.
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
-
- Ballboy
- Posts: 26
- And1: 4
- Joined: Dec 25, 2005
- Contact:
Re: Why not Luke at PG?
Building on this line of thought, offensively I wonder if the Pistons can utilize Blake similar as the 76ers do Simmons. Each are a triple-double waiting to happen and should never put up a three. If possible, then the opposing PG is either guarded by Kennard or Bullock, depending on match-ups.