RealGM

Yes, I know we like playing Eddie @ SG so we can create shots for him and let him focus on shooting.

At the same time though, this means that when we find minutes for him, Ray Allen is on the bench, or is forced to play SF. That has the potential to hurt our three point shooting as well as our three point shooting defense.

I am not proposing that we go back to using Eddie primarily as a back-up PG. But its not like he can't play the PG position serviceably even if he lacks PG skills...there are situations when we ideally need PP/Ray @ SF/SG and Rondo isn't playing spectacularly, why not let him play some minutes alongside the starters @ PG?

So we learned from our experiences and Eddie tends to help us more @ SG than he does @ PG. But there is no need IMO to take things to the opposite extreme and refuse to give him any minutes @ PG.

btw, we are +2 with Eddie in the game this series, dead even with him on the bench. Given his contributions that doesn't feel right.

Eddie can't driblle.

Eddie as a PG was a horrible, horrible experience that I hope to never encounter again.

3pt % wrote:Eddie as a PG was a horrible, horrible experience that I hope to never encounter again.

I know it was so horrible dominating competition and winning a championship with Eddie playing back-up PG. Of course that was with KG, but I mean, there are at least short stretches where i would imagine we probably benefit from letting Eddie play some PG.

Do you remember Eddie losing his job to Sam Cassell for part of the playoffs?

sunshinekids99 wrote:Do you remember Eddie losing his job to Sam Cassell for part of the playoffs?

Yes and I also remember him getting it back and Doc almost looking like an idiot for having played Cassell so much.

Eddie never really took back the point guard role. Paul Pierce basically did everything as the point beside play d on the other teams point guard. Eddie struggles badly if asked to play the point guard with any type of pressure. He can't set up an offense and is not a good play maker.

So while I guess you could go back to the lineup, I don't understand how it benefits the team. I'd much rather have Rondo or Marbury handling the ball and setting up teammates. House sure has it going with what he's doing now...no reason to change it.

sunshinekids99 wrote:Eddie never really took back the point guard role. Paul Pierce basically did everything as the point beside play d on the other teams point guard. Eddie struggles badly if asked to play the point guard with any type of pressure. He can't set up an offense and is not a good play maker.

I know that. Again though, its not like I am saying we should go back to using Eddie primarily as a PG. I think its clear that he is ideally used as a SG. I just find it hard to believe that there aren't situations where we could benefit by letting him play PG (even if he arguably is not playing that role).

But, regardless, that begs another interesting point - during the regular season we were 13-0 when Paul Pierce racked up more than 5 assists. 22-2 with at least five assists. We were 6-0 after KG's initial knee injury when PP had at least five assists, 3-1 when he had at least 4 assists.

Meaning: at the very least, why doubt PP's ability to be more of a point forward in stretches?

Rondo's been great for the most part but he's had his rough stretches and even when he has played well he has looked tired late in the game. There are times when a bad Rondo is on the floor and Eddie is hot, but we need PP/Ray on the floor so Eddie is wasted. There are other situations where it simply works against us to go small to accomodate Eddie's hotness.

Utilizing Eddie as a PG to the extreme of micro-managing who brings up the ball for maybe a minute or two at a time and sets up the offense goes beyond coaching and crosses into the realm of hypothetical idealism that there are actual numbers on each players back (1,2,3,4,5) dictating their role on each and every possession. The game is always a little more loose then that.

If he can't be a legit point guard (which I believe history has dictated he can't), than why bother splitting hairs? I think sunshine has a great point, being that Eddie's got his mojo workin' in his current role, and there's no reason to mess with it. What we need at the point guard spot is consistency out of both Rondo and Marbury, but for the sake of this discussion, we need consistency out of Marbury. He hasn't totally supplied that consistency but he has provided a capable ballhandler and executor of the offense (as scattered as it has been). Also, remember that you wouldn't just be changing his role but asking others, whether it be Paul, Ray or TA, to situationally change theirs as well, and only for the duration of a few games. These guys are mostly creatures of habit; they're certainly capable of adjusting but work best in a role that is comfortable and familiar with them.

In any event, it's all Doc's call. Whatever may hypothetically work, Doc is reluctant to adjust his lineups from game to game and we're going to either live or die with the guys that got us to this spot this season in the same roles they've been in. For all I know, you could be right. But it ain't gonna happen.

If you replace your PG with somebody who isn't a particular good passer or dribbler, then you want the rest of the team to be good at ball movement. Ray and Paul are not particularly good passers for their positions, and neither is Perk. (Outlet passes perhaps excepted.) So without greatness at the 4 spot -- i.e., KG -- it's not a good enough ball-movement team for most matchups.

Two word answer:

Stephon Marbury.