The Jaylen Nowell Thread

[winforlose]

He was similar the year before too, albeit even less possessions, but the dude is clearly a crafty pick/roll operator.

It seems like the best use of Nowell will be a Jamal Crawford role, who was definitely a primary ball handler but also not a "PG" in any sense or playmaker for others

But that's fine if Nowell is in a lineup with like Gobert/McDaniels/Prince, none of whom can really do much with the ball anyway.

Bingo. You can whine about how Crawford was not a PG so Nowell can't be either, but the point is that the second unit offense absolutely could run through Crawford just like it absolutely can run through Nowell.

Look back at the three times Crawford won 6MOY:
2009-10: The backup PG was a rookie Jeff Teague. Not exactly the best backup PG, but was never asked to be because Crawford handled a lot of the backcourt responsibilities for the second unit.
2013-14: Backup PG Darren Collison equaled his lowest assists per36 of his career playing next to Crawford.
2015-16: Funny enough, the backup PG was Austin Rivers. Unless you'd give those duties to 38-year old Pablo Prigioni (another connection for that signing that hasn't really been discussed this offseason).

I think Nowell can be a PG. One of the things that bugged me about him with KAT and Ant last year is he kept passing and not seeking his own shot. At times he is too differential. I believe Nowell will become a good PG one day. I even think we should run him at backup PG this year in an 8 or 9 man rotation (Naz is the other guy besides JMAC who might not have a place on our best rotation,) but I also don’t think he is 100% done with the transition. He will get better through experience and developing chemistry with his teammates. There is no substitute for minutes.

[SO_MONEY]

He was similar the year before too, albeit even less possessions, but the dude is clearly a crafty pick/roll operator.

It seems like the best use of Nowell will be a Jamal Crawford role, who was definitely a primary ball handler but also not a "PG" in any sense or playmaker for others

But that's fine if Nowell is in a lineup with like Gobert/McDaniels/Prince, none of whom can really do much with the ball anyway.

Bingo. You can whine about how Crawford was not a PG so Nowell can't be either, but the point is that the second unit offense absolutely could run through Crawford just like it absolutely can run through Nowell.

Look back at the three times Crawford won 6MOY:
2009-10: The backup PG was a rookie Jeff Teague. Not exactly the best backup PG, but was never asked to be because Crawford handled a lot of the backcourt responsibilities for the second unit.
2013-14: Backup PG Darren Collison equaled his lowest assists per36 of his career playing next to Crawford.
2015-16: Funny enough, the backup PG was Austin Rivers. Unless you'd give those duties to 38-year old Pablo Prigioni (another connection for that signing that hasn't really been discussed this offseason).

I think Nowell can be a PG. One of the things that bugged me about him with KAT and Ant last year is he kept passing and not seeking his own shot. At times he is too differential. I believe Nowell will become a good PG one day. I even think we should run him at backup PG this year in an 8 or 9 man rotation (Naz is the other guy besides JMAC who might not have a place on our best rotation,) but I also don’t think he is 100% done with the transition. He will get better through experience and developing chemistry with his teammates. There is no substitute for minutes.

Based on Finch's actions, it is not likely they see him a a PG...I think there is reason for that. ANT has a better chance at getting PG minutes the way I see it

[winforlose]

Bingo. You can whine about how Crawford was not a PG so Nowell can't be either, but the point is that the second unit offense absolutely could run through Crawford just like it absolutely can run through Nowell.

Look back at the three times Crawford won 6MOY:
2009-10: The backup PG was a rookie Jeff Teague. Not exactly the best backup PG, but was never asked to be because Crawford handled a lot of the backcourt responsibilities for the second unit.
2013-14: Backup PG Darren Collison equaled his lowest assists per36 of his career playing next to Crawford.
2015-16: Funny enough, the backup PG was Austin Rivers. Unless you'd give those duties to 38-year old Pablo Prigioni (another connection for that signing that hasn't really been discussed this offseason).

I think Nowell can be a PG. One of the things that bugged me about him with KAT and Ant last year is he kept passing and not seeking his own shot. At times he is too differential. I believe Nowell will become a good PG one day. I even think we should run him at backup PG this year in an 8 or 9 man rotation (Naz is the other guy besides JMAC who might not have a place on our best rotation,) but I also don’t think he is 100% done with the transition. He will get better through experience and developing chemistry with his teammates. There is no substitute for minutes.

Based on Finch's actions, it is not likely they see him a a PG...I think there is reason for that. ANT has a better chance at getting PG minutes the way I see it

Ant has handle problems too you know. Probably worse than Nowell. Also I think Finch is probably going to want both Ant and KAT to knock off the hero ball crap that cost us big leads in the playoffs last year. Finch’s organized chaos approach favors ball movement. I get why people want Ant to take a more ball dominant role, but his tendency to dribble for 10 seconds and then shoot is not great. Ant is no where near PG ready whereas Nowell is around 60-70% of the way there. I do agree that Finch favors JMAC, but I think JMAC will struggle early and play himself out of the rotation.

[SO_MONEY]

I think Nowell can be a PG. One of the things that bugged me about him with KAT and Ant last year is he kept passing and not seeking his own shot. At times he is too differential. I believe Nowell will become a good PG one day. I even think we should run him at backup PG this year in an 8 or 9 man rotation (Naz is the other guy besides JMAC who might not have a place on our best rotation,) but I also don’t think he is 100% done with the transition. He will get better through experience and developing chemistry with his teammates. There is no substitute for minutes.

Based on Finch's actions, it is not likely they see him a a PG...I think there is reason for that. ANT has a better chance at getting PG minutes the way I see it

Ant has handle problems too you know. Probably worse than Nowell. Also I think Finch is probably going to want both Ant and KAT to knock off the hero ball crap that cost us big leads in the playoffs last year. Finch’s organized chaos approach favors ball movement. I get why people want Ant to take a more ball dominant role, but his tendency to dribble for 10 seconds and then shoot is not great. Ant is no where near PG ready whereas Nowell is around 60-70% of the way there. I do agree that Finch favors JMAC, but I think JMAC will struggle early and play himself out of the rotation.

ANT is much further along as a playmaker. Nowell just isn't a PG AND they tried AND abandoned it. We don't need to mentally make players into things they are not when we are tipped off by coaching that they didn't like what they saw. In addition to this they brought in Rivers to take the 3rd string or some backup minutes which lends further insight. We got guys who can play PG or point forward with a secondary small guard.

[winforlose]

Based on Finch's actions, it is not likely they see him a a PG...I think there is reason for that. ANT has a better chance at getting PG minutes the way I see it

Ant has handle problems too you know. Probably worse than Nowell. Also I think Finch is probably going to want both Ant and KAT to knock off the hero ball crap that cost us big leads in the playoffs last year. Finch’s organized chaos approach favors ball movement. I get why people want Ant to take a more ball dominant role, but his tendency to dribble for 10 seconds and then shoot is not great. Ant is no where near PG ready whereas Nowell is around 60-70% of the way there. I do agree that Finch favors JMAC, but I think JMAC will struggle early and play himself out of the rotation.

ANT is much further along as a playmaker. Nowell just isn't a PG AND they tried AND abandoned it. We don't need to mentally make players into things they are not when we are tipped off by coaching that they didn't like what they saw. In addition to this they brought in Rivers to take the 3rd string or some backup minutes which lends further insight. We got guys who can play PG or point forward with a secondary small guard.

1. Rivers can play SG and Nowell PG or vice versa. Until
We see what if any rotation role Rivers has we don’t know what they are doing with him.

2. Ant lacks everything a PG needs. His handle is substandard, his passing is not elite, he isn’t great at executing an offense, and he lets the ball get sticky end of game. Trying to make Ant into a PG is like trying to make Kyrie into a C. Ant is classic score first SG, with great slashing. He might even become one of the best SGs in the league, but that doesn’t make him a PG.

3. What is your source for Finch talking about Nowell as a failed PG?

[SO_MONEY]

Ant has handle problems too you know. Probably worse than Nowell. Also I think Finch is probably going to want both Ant and KAT to knock off the hero ball crap that cost us big leads in the playoffs last year. Finch’s organized chaos approach favors ball movement. I get why people want Ant to take a more ball dominant role, but his tendency to dribble for 10 seconds and then shoot is not great. Ant is no where near PG ready whereas Nowell is around 60-70% of the way there. I do agree that Finch favors JMAC, but I think JMAC will struggle early and play himself out of the rotation.

ANT is much further along as a playmaker. Nowell just isn't a PG AND they tried AND abandoned it. We don't need to mentally make players into things they are not when we are tipped off by coaching that they didn't like what they saw. In addition to this they brought in Rivers to take the 3rd string or some backup minutes which lends further insight. We got guys who can play PG or point forward with a secondary small guard.

1. Rivers can play SG and Nowell PG or vice versa. Until
We see what if any rotation role Rivers has we don’t know what they are doing with him.

2. Ant lacks everything a PG needs. His handle is substandard, his passing is not elite, he isn’t great at executing an offense, and he lets the ball get sticky end of game. Trying to make Ant into a PG is like trying to make Kyrie into a C. Ant is classic score first SG, with great slashing. He might even become one of the best SGs in the league, but that doesn’t make him a PG.

3. What is your source for Finch talking about Nowell as a failed PG?

I completely disagree with you on ANT and I think the team wants a Harden like role for him. It is a failed experiment with regards to Nowell because they stopped trying to play him there, that is a coach's decision and those actions are the only source that matters. The roster as constructed might lend to emergency minutes at PG for Nowell, but more likely we just have a lineup with a small guard and use someone like Anderson. This is how it is set up.

[winforlose]

ANT is much further along as a playmaker. Nowell just isn't a PG AND they tried AND abandoned it. We don't need to mentally make players into things they are not when we are tipped off by coaching that they didn't like what they saw. In addition to this they brought in Rivers to take the 3rd string or some backup minutes which lends further insight. We got guys who can play PG or point forward with a secondary small guard.

1. Rivers can play SG and Nowell PG or vice versa. Until
We see what if any rotation role Rivers has we don’t know what they are doing with him.

2. Ant lacks everything a PG needs. His handle is substandard, his passing is not elite, he isn’t great at executing an offense, and he lets the ball get sticky end of game. Trying to make Ant into a PG is like trying to make Kyrie into a C. Ant is classic score first SG, with great slashing. He might even become one of the best SGs in the league, but that doesn’t make him a PG.

3. What is your source for Finch talking about Nowell as a failed PG?

I completely disagree with you on ANT and I think the team wants a Harden like role for him. It is a failed experiment with regards to Nowell because they stopped trying to play him there, that is a coach's decision and those actions are the only source that matters. The roster as constructed might lend to emergency minutes at PG for Nowell, but more likely we just have a lineup with a small guard and use someone like Anderson. This is how it is set up.

We went away from Nowell at PG because JMAC got his head out of his *** and started playing basketball again. The dude went from unplayable to on fire both in his passing and shooting. If JMAC had been injured or reverted back Nowell likely gets those minutes and the experiment resumes.

They may want Harden, but Ant may end up more like KD. Ant wants to become an elite defender who can jack a lot of 3s. Ant getting more whistles would certainly help with the Harden 2.0 comparison, but the league is course correcting away from that insane free throw model. Ant could end up looking like a lot of guys, but trying to force him to be something he isn’t won’t work as well as you think it will.

[Klomp]

The way I am going to choose to look at it, you're not "playing Nowell at PG". You're probably playing a lineup that doesn't have a PG. And that's just fine. There doesn't always need to be a PG on the floor. There doesn't always need to be a SG on the floor. There doesn't always need to be a SF on the floor. There doesn't always need to be a PF on the floor. There doesn't always need to be a C on the floor. In some ways, I think that's the point D'Angelo Russell was trying to make in his comment about athletes and basketball players. The game has shifted from the traditional way of thinking of lineup construction. That's actually why I'm excited about this team. There are so many different combinations and options to use in any situation.

[winforlose]

The way I am going to choose to look at it, you're not "playing Nowell at PG". You're probably playing a lineup that doesn't have a PG. And that's just fine. There doesn't always need to be a PG on the floor. There doesn't always need to be a SG on the floor. There doesn't always need to be a SF on the floor. There doesn't always need to be a PF on the floor. There doesn't always need to be a C on the floor. In some ways, I think that's the point D'Angelo Russell was trying to make in his comment about athletes and basketball players. The game has shifted from the traditional way of thinking of lineup construction. That's actually why I'm excited about this team. There are so many different combinations and options to use in any situation.

I agree that positionless basketball is a thing. But I also see a bit of Shakespeare in this discussion with “a rose by another name.” PG is the primary ball handler who runs the offense and sets the table. Now we might not run any offense, but I think that is a little too chaotic, even for Finch. We might refuse to move the ball or take a couple dribbles and swing it until someone is forced to take a bad shot. My point is, you can refuse the title and still function in the role. We have seen what happens when no one facilitates or when Point Wiggins or Point Lavine cannot facilitate the offense. If that is your goal then heaven help us. You can run a lineup of KAT, Naz, Knight, Paschall, and Rudy and I would argue KAT comes your PG because he has the best handle and passing. He may not be a good PG, but he is best suited for the role. If you value what JMAC brought to the table in February and March last year, you value the PG.

[Klomp]

The way I am going to choose to look at it, you're not "playing Nowell at PG". You're probably playing a lineup that doesn't have a PG. And that's just fine. There doesn't always need to be a PG on the floor. There doesn't always need to be a SG on the floor. There doesn't always need to be a SF on the floor. There doesn't always need to be a PF on the floor. There doesn't always need to be a C on the floor. In some ways, I think that's the point D'Angelo Russell was trying to make in his comment about athletes and basketball players. The game has shifted from the traditional way of thinking of lineup construction. That's actually why I'm excited about this team. There are so many different combinations and options to use in any situation.

I agree that positionless basketball is a thing. But I also see a bit of Shakespeare in this discussion with “a rose by another name.” PG is the primary ball handler who runs the offense and sets the table. Now we might not run any offense, but I think that is a little too chaotic, even for Finch. We might refuse to move the ball or take a couple dribbles and swing it until someone is forced to take a bad shot. My point is, you can refuse the title and still function in the role. We have seen what happens when no one facilitates or when Point Wiggins or Point Lavine cannot facilitate the offense. If that is your goal then heaven help us. You can run a lineup of KAT, Naz, Knight, Paschall, and Rudy and I would argue KAT comes your PG because he has the best handle and passing. He may not be a good PG, but he is best suited for the role. If you value what JMAC brought to the table in February and March last year, you value the PG.

And we have PGs for when the situation calls for it. But the team does not need a PG on the floor for 48 minutes a game 82 games a season. In those situations, having Nowell or Rivers or Edwards bring the ball up is just fine.

[winforlose]

The way I am going to choose to look at it, you're not "playing Nowell at PG". You're probably playing a lineup that doesn't have a PG. And that's just fine. There doesn't always need to be a PG on the floor. There doesn't always need to be a SG on the floor. There doesn't always need to be a SF on the floor. There doesn't always need to be a PF on the floor. There doesn't always need to be a C on the floor. In some ways, I think that's the point D'Angelo Russell was trying to make in his comment about athletes and basketball players. The game has shifted from the traditional way of thinking of lineup construction. That's actually why I'm excited about this team. There are so many different combinations and options to use in any situation.

I agree that positionless basketball is a thing. But I also see a bit of Shakespeare in this discussion with “a rose by another name.” PG is the primary ball handler who runs the offense and sets the table. Now we might not run any offense, but I think that is a little too chaotic, even for Finch. We might refuse to move the ball or take a couple dribbles and swing it until someone is forced to take a bad shot. My point is, you can refuse the title and still function in the role. We have seen what happens when no one facilitates or when Point Wiggins or Point Lavine cannot facilitate the offense. If that is your goal then heaven help us. You can run a lineup of KAT, Naz, Knight, Paschall, and Rudy and I would argue KAT comes your PG because he has the best handle and passing. He may not be a good PG, but he is best suited for the role. If you value what JMAC brought to the table in February and March last year, you value the PG.

And we have PGs for when the situation calls for it. But the team does not need a PG on the floor for 48 minutes a game 82 games a season. In those situations, having Nowell or Rivers or Edwards bring the ball up is just fine.

I feel like I am doing a poor job of communicating. It’s not that your not responding to my point, it is that I don’t think I am explaining it well. Let’s try it this way. V8 or Josh Minott can dribble the ball up the floor. They can pass, they can drive, and if they get close enough to the basket they can finish. Neither is a guy you would say “he is a PG.” On the contrary, they are both guys you would say, “he isn’t a PG, but he did great on that play.” If they turn the ball over while bringing it up you likely say “they should have passed to a guard.” My point is, anyone can bring the ball up, and outside of pressure situations you don’t really need a PG. But, while anyone can throw a pass, knowing when to throw it, where to throw it (hitting the shot pocket,) and why to throw it (defensive scheme vs imbalance created by the offense,) is much more difficult. You are saying you don’t always need a table setter. I hear you, but my point is without one, your offense is often much less efficient.

[SO_MONEY]

1. Rivers can play SG and Nowell PG or vice versa. Until
We see what if any rotation role Rivers has we don’t know what they are doing with him.

2. Ant lacks everything a PG needs. His handle is substandard, his passing is not elite, he isn’t great at executing an offense, and he lets the ball get sticky end of game. Trying to make Ant into a PG is like trying to make Kyrie into a C. Ant is classic score first SG, with great slashing. He might even become one of the best SGs in the league, but that doesn’t make him a PG.

3. What is your source for Finch talking about Nowell as a failed PG?

I completely disagree with you on ANT and I think the team wants a Harden like role for him. It is a failed experiment with regards to Nowell because they stopped trying to play him there, that is a coach's decision and those actions are the only source that matters. The roster as constructed might lend to emergency minutes at PG for Nowell, but more likely we just have a lineup with a small guard and use someone like Anderson. This is how it is set up.

We went away from Nowell at PG because JMAC got his head out of his *** and started playing basketball again. The dude went from unplayable to on fire both in his passing and shooting. If JMAC had been injured or reverted back Nowell likely gets those minutes and the experiment resumes.

They may want Harden, but Ant may end up more like KD. Ant wants to become an elite defender who can jack a lot of 3s. Ant getting more whistles would certainly help with the Harden 2.0 comparison, but the league is course correcting away from that insane free throw model. Ant could end up looking like a lot of guys, but trying to force him to be something he isn’t won’t work as well as you think it will.

This move away from PG happened long before Nowell got hurt and he lost out on minutes and place in the rotation not because of jmac but because Beasley started hitting shots and his injury. You seem to be dabbing in revisionist history jmac really wasn't a factor

ANT is doing it in his own, they aren't forcing anything, he is growing as a player and taking on additional responsibilities as the game slows down and comes to him. It is evident he has the requisite skills to do much more with his game.

[Klomp]

My point is, anyone can bring the ball up, and outside of pressure situations you don’t really need a PG. But, while anyone can throw a pass, knowing when to throw it, where to throw it (hitting the shot pocket,) and why to throw it (defensive scheme vs imbalance created by the offense,) is much more difficult. You are saying you don’t always need a table setter. I hear you, but my point is without one, your offense is often much less efficient.

It might be less efficient without a PG, but that still doesn't mean you need one in order to be successful.

The difference between the game of today compared to the 80s, 90s, and even 00s into the early 10s is the game is less dependent on 5v5 actions. Those are the areas where you really need a PG to direct and facilitate things. I'd argue most of the game today is centered around 1v1 actions, which are at times set up by 2v2s and 3vs3. You just don't need traditional PGs in the same way teams once did. It's probably less efficient like you said to run things this way, but you don't have to be as precise in your efficiency because defenses are rarely what they were 10-20 years ago.

But yes, I think we are mostly just talking around and past each other and we're likely never going to come to an agreement beyond that point.

[minimus]

One thing is worth to mention. Comboguards or point forwards can for sure run top level NBA offense. But other than talent here helps experience a lot. In other words young and inexperienced guard such as Nowell will struggle mightly as PG if MIN wants to use him in late playoffs. Just like Tatum turned the ball over 100 times in last playoffs.

Meanwhile washed, but experienced guys such as Iggy could run some plays in Finals.

[shangrila]

One thing is worth to mention. Comboguards or point forwards can for sure run top level NBA offense. But other than talent here helps experience a lot. In other words young and inexperienced guard such as Nowell will struggle mightly as PG if MIN wants to use him in late playoffs. Just like Tatum turned the ball over 100 times in last playoffs.

Meanwhile washed, but experienced guys such as Iggy could run some plays in Finals.

We've got Anderson for bench PG duties if need be.

[winforlose]

I completely disagree with you on ANT and I think the team wants a Harden like role for him. It is a failed experiment with regards to Nowell because they stopped trying to play him there, that is a coach's decision and those actions are the only source that matters. The roster as constructed might lend to emergency minutes at PG for Nowell, but more likely we just have a lineup with a small guard and use someone like Anderson. This is how it is set up.

We went away from Nowell at PG because JMAC got his head out of his *** and started playing basketball again. The dude went from unplayable to on fire both in his passing and shooting. If JMAC had been injured or reverted back Nowell likely gets those minutes and the experiment resumes.

They may want Harden, but Ant may end up more like KD. Ant wants to become an elite defender who can jack a lot of 3s. Ant getting more whistles would certainly help with the Harden 2.0 comparison, but the league is course correcting away from that insane free throw model. Ant could end up looking like a lot of guys, but trying to force him to be something he isn’t won’t work as well as you think it will.

This move away from PG happened long before Nowell got hurt and he lost out on minutes and place in the rotation not because of jmac but because Beasley started hitting shots and his injury. You seem to be dabbing in revisionist history jmac really wasn't a factor

ANT is doing it in his own, they aren't forcing anything, he is growing as a player and taking on additional responsibilities as the game slows down and comes to him. It is evident he has the requisite skills to do much more with his game.

Nowell wasn’t much of a factor until the Covid catastrophe gave him real minutes. Before that Finch was giving him spot minutes presumably because he didn’t like Nowell’s defense. When Nowell was on the rise so was JMAC. You are correct that Beasley getting his **** together also affected Nowell’s minutes, but the PG minutes were being taken by JMAC at that point. There is even a poll talking about the rotation asking if Nowell should take Beasley’s minutes or replace JMAC at backup PG and play with Beasley. I don’t think this is an unfair or inaccurate recollection.

Ant needs to improve his handle and be better at the rim. The knee issues depressed his numbers and made him look bad for a few months, but he still needs to improve in those areas. He is talented enough to turn into a bunch of different players in the next few years. Last year he looked like a better defending Donovan Mitchell. Whether or not he turns into Harden or KD or someone else entirely depends on the areas his game improves and to what degree.

[minimus]

Another example is Jordan Clarkson of 2020-21:

- NBA Sixth Man of the Year (2021)
- 16ppg, 3.5rpg,2.5apg on 42%, 32% from 3pt

The funny fact here that at the age of Nowell Clarkson was probably the most erratic player in NBA. But right now he is a 30yo, 8 season veteran. I believe that Nowell is already better as scorer that Clarkson, has higher IQ, more finesse. Even if Clarkson is much better athlete. The trick here is it is completely unknown for me HOW Nowell can benefit from Gobert presence. After watching Gobert playing with Mitchell/Clarkson I believe that Ant/Nowell can do at least at the same high level as UTA guards.

P.S. But IMO the real X-factor for MIN is MCD, as SF Jaden can shoot over any guard, can finish over any guard, can pass over any guard.

[SO_MONEY]

We went away from Nowell at PG because JMAC got his head out of his *** and started playing basketball again. The dude went from unplayable to on fire both in his passing and shooting. If JMAC had been injured or reverted back Nowell likely gets those minutes and the experiment resumes.

They may want Harden, but Ant may end up more like KD. Ant wants to become an elite defender who can jack a lot of 3s. Ant getting more whistles would certainly help with the Harden 2.0 comparison, but the league is course correcting away from that insane free throw model. Ant could end up looking like a lot of guys, but trying to force him to be something he isn’t won’t work as well as you think it will.

This move away from PG happened long before Nowell got hurt and he lost out on minutes and place in the rotation not because of jmac but because Beasley started hitting shots and his injury. You seem to be dabbing in revisionist history jmac really wasn't a factor

ANT is doing it in his own, they aren't forcing anything, he is growing as a player and taking on additional responsibilities as the game slows down and comes to him. It is evident he has the requisite skills to do much more with his game.

Nowell wasn’t much of a factor until the Covid catastrophe gave him real minutes. Before that Finch was giving him spot minutes presumably because he didn’t like Nowell’s defense. When Nowell was on the rise so was JMAC. You are correct that Beasley getting his **** together also affected Nowell’s minutes, but the PG minutes were being taken by JMAC at that point. There is even a poll talking about the rotation asking if Nowell should take Beasley’s minutes or replace JMAC at backup PG and play with Beasley. I don’t think this is an unfair or inaccurate recollection.

Ant needs to improve his handle and be better at the rim. The knee issues depressed his numbers and made him look bad for a few months, but he still needs to improve in those areas. He is talented enough to turn into a bunch of different players in the next few years. Last year he looked like a better defending Donovan Mitchell. Whether or not he turns into Harden or KD or someone else entirely depends on the areas his game improves and to what degree.

My point is Nowell is heads and shoulders better than jmac, he played more than jmac but was buried behind Beasley who started playing well. The revisionist history is in thinking jmac was outplaying Nowell...he wasn't and it wasn't close. If they saw Nowell as a PG he would have got the minutes in the playoffs...they clearly don't, which is why it was jmac who got them.

[winforlose]

This move away from PG happened long before Nowell got hurt and he lost out on minutes and place in the rotation not because of jmac but because Beasley started hitting shots and his injury. You seem to be dabbing in revisionist history jmac really wasn't a factor

ANT is doing it in his own, they aren't forcing anything, he is growing as a player and taking on additional responsibilities as the game slows down and comes to him. It is evident he has the requisite skills to do much more with his game.

Nowell wasn’t much of a factor until the Covid catastrophe gave him real minutes. Before that Finch was giving him spot minutes presumably because he didn’t like Nowell’s defense. When Nowell was on the rise so was JMAC. You are correct that Beasley getting his **** together also affected Nowell’s minutes, but the PG minutes were being taken by JMAC at that point. There is even a poll talking about the rotation asking if Nowell should take Beasley’s minutes or replace JMAC at backup PG and play with Beasley. I don’t think this is an unfair or inaccurate recollection.

Ant needs to improve his handle and be better at the rim. The knee issues depressed his numbers and made him look bad for a few months, but he still needs to improve in those areas. He is talented enough to turn into a bunch of different players in the next few years. Last year he looked like a better defending Donovan Mitchell. Whether or not he turns into Harden or KD or someone else entirely depends on the areas his game improves and to what degree.

My point is Nowell is heads and shoulders better than jmac, he played more than jmac but was buried behind Beasley who started playing well. The revisionist history is in thinking jmac was outplaying Nowell...he wasn't and it wasn't close. If they saw Nowell as a PG he would have got the minutes in the playoffs...they clearly don't, which is why it was jmac who got them.

I am going to be honest, I am having trouble with your logic. JMAC went from being almost unplayable to almost unbenchable. His shooting was lights out, his passing was spot on, I think he had something 48 assists to a single turnover in a multi game stretch. All the while playing “Little Ninja defense” where he was attacking passing lanes and stripping guys from behind (often as a help defender.) Two things can be true at the same time. The first is that JMAC was playing too well to bench. The second is that JMAC cannot play SG. If JMAC is having a major hot streak in both shooting and passing and the result is winning basketball, then of course he is going to play. In fact we saw lineups with JMAC, Nowell, and Beasley. Nowell is an excellent SG learning to play PG, but that doesn’t mean he can or should only play one or the other. I can expand further if you are not following, but I think I laid it out well enough for you to see my point.

[Nick K]

The way I am going to choose to look at it, you're not "playing Nowell at PG". You're probably playing a lineup that doesn't have a PG. And that's just fine. There doesn't always need to be a PG on the floor. There doesn't always need to be a SG on the floor. There doesn't always need to be a SF on the floor. There doesn't always need to be a PF on the floor. There doesn't always need to be a C on the floor. In some ways, I think that's the point D'Angelo Russell was trying to make in his comment about athletes and basketball players. The game has shifted from the traditional way of thinking of lineup construction. That's actually why I'm excited about this team. There are so many different combinations and options to use in any situation.

I agree that positionless basketball is a thing. But I also see a bit of Shakespeare in this discussion with “a rose by another name.” PG is the primary ball handler who runs the offense and sets the table. Now we might not run any offense, but I think that is a little too chaotic, even for Finch. We might refuse to move the ball or take a couple dribbles and swing it until someone is forced to take a bad shot. My point is, you can refuse the title and still function in the role. We have seen what happens when no one facilitates or when Point Wiggins or Point Lavine cannot facilitate the offense. If that is your goal then heaven help us. You can run a lineup of KAT, Naz, Knight, Paschall, and Rudy and I would argue KAT comes your PG because he has the best handle and passing. He may not be a good PG, but he is best suited for the role. If you value what JMAC brought to the table in February and March last year, you value the PG.

And we have PGs for when the situation calls for it. But the team does not need a PG on the floor for 48 minutes a game 82 games a season. In those situations, having Nowell or Rivers or Edwards bring the ball up is just fine.

That's right Klomp. Finch has gotten away from having a traditional "set the table" PG. Guys play off each other. J Mac does play the traditional PG role really well for us though when we need ball control late. It's a good mix. Finch does a little bit of everything based upon the talent we have.

We've never been close to equaling this coaching staff. Sorry Flip.