bleeds_purple wrote:kingjawn100 wrote:The idea of a 6'9"/6'10" guy being a tweener just doesn't work anymore when there are guys like Draymond Green (6'7") and PJ Tucker (6'6") playing a lot of center in the western conference finals.
That's why i don't get the whole height criticism of Bagley. The real question is will Bagley/Giles be able to hit perimeter shots, as there are fewer and fewer bigs who can't.
People talk about the game getting smaller but i don't really see it that way. Points Guards, Shooting Guards and Small forwards all are a lot taller and longer on average than they were 10-20 years ago that you still have a ton of length on the court, just spread out differently. If you can start a smaller center who can hit shots from the perimeter but have enough team rebounding to not get killed on the glass you're going to win a lot of games.
You're not wrong. That being said, those guys don't start at the 5 and in the case of Green is a swiss army knife player capable of protecting the rim and guarding everyone. When I call them tweeners its just because they don't see to have a natural position i.e. not true Cs and not "true PFs" (whatever that even means these days).
I don't see as much height critiques as I see about his wingspan.
I definitely agree its a misnomer that the game is getting smaller. More accurately, and as you point out, the game is homogenizing toward a midpoint of players who are triple threat from the perimeter and can defend as many positions as possible. These guys tend to around the 6'6-6'9 range although you have freaks like Durant who are closer to 7ft and fit this description. So like you say, bigger guards and smaller bigs.
It's really tough for bigs these days. They are expected to switch onto guards and defend on an island, defend in the pick and roll, and protect the rim. On offense they need to be at least good enough at shooting that they won't be ignored on the perimeter.
It will be interesting to see what position Bagley and Giles end up being. I'd guess most teams would play them the majority of their minutes at the 5. Although, with Vlade saying Bagley can play the 3 who knowsA lot of it will be match-up and strategy dependent. So its not necessarily a bad thing to have versatility. The question is how many minutes are there to actually give to non-perimeter players? For most teams that number is under 48 as in your Houston and GS examples.
Good points especially on bigs being asked to do so much more these days. They aren't asked to score as much but they are supposed to be better at almost everything else compared to years past. I still think if a team really committed itself to playing bully ball with 2 back to basket bigs down low it could still work. Only if the bigs are good enough scorers/rebounders...force the small team to go big.
I know the modern NBA is about positionless basketball but one fear i have with our roster is that there are way too many redundancies. If neither Buddy nor Bogi prove they can guard 3's they can't really be on the court together. Similarly if neither Giles nor Bagley prove they can stretch the floor or defend they can't really be on the court together either. That's the danger in drafting BPA. You run the risk of ending up with a talented but misshapen roster.
