YogurtProducer wrote:Spates wrote:CPT wrote:The old idea that teams need solid play at PG and C to win still holds up.
A star at either position doesn’t guarantee anything, but weakness at one or both of those positions means you’ll likely be mediocre at best.
We don’t have a starting level PG on the roster. We might not have a backup level PG on the roster either, though Shead can hopefully get there.
We have one real C on the roster, and he’s either washed or “just” injured.
This is the bigger problem than a couple less than optimal draft picks, when you shouldn’t expect to bat 1.000 anyway.
Like a lot of Masai’s moves, they’re totally defensible from a value standpoint in isolation, but in combination, in context, there have been a bunch of disasters.
I firmly believe that strong PG would solve a lot of problems. Despite it being a little reductive, I look at many of the rosters we've had since 2022 and think "we be a lot better with a prime Lowry at PG.
Even this season. Swap IQ with 2017 Lowry and we have a very competitive team. The problem is much less drafting than it is too end talent.
Well yeah.. adding a HOF level player to yoru team is obviously going to make you a lot better...
Goddam genius analysis there, bud. Missing the point in favour of farming and-1's is boring.
The inability of the coaching staff and the primary ball handlers to assemble a decent half-court offense will make the vast majority of rookie scale players look underwhelming. I question the value of criticizing drafting when the contracts weighing heavy on the books disappoint. The value of all players is contextual, especially developing role players.













