Klomp wrote:winforlose wrote:Klomp wrote:You explained it perfectly. And the Russell point is spot on.
Basketball IQ, running an offense, being a team leader. Those are qualities of Mike Conley, but not necessarily qualities of all point guards.
So you’re saying a bad PG is less valuable than a good PG? I think that speaks for itself. But you look at NAW or DDV who turn the ball over at a rate of 2AST/1TO, whereas a good PG gets you 4 or 5 to 1. If you think lowering turnovers and increasing assists and moving the ball more is exclusive to Mike and could not come from another PG brought in, I don’t know what to tell you.
But is a bad PG more or less valuable than no PG?
Is a bad player at any position more valuable than a roster hole? If a player cannot fulfill the requirements of the role then they are not suited for that role. If a big cannot rebound are they truly a Center? If a SG cannot shoot are they are truly a SG? I am not advocating picking up a G league scrub and plugging them in for 20+ MPG. I am saying we need a legit 2nd PG. Someone who can handle ball pressure, play PNR with Rudy, drive and kick to Ant, and hit their shots at a decent clip. Your response might be that this sounds elite, but I would argue JMAC could do a lot of this last year. We were better with him, even though he isn’t that good. Obviously if we are 12-3 with a solid 25 minutes of PG play then Mike was playing well and we were doing things better with that PG play.
