We Don't Need A Great Playmaker [Archive]

MacBeth

02-06-2004, 11:36 PM

The issue with our point position, and meshing it with a center oriented team is not the lack of playmaking wizardry. People in here seem to be making a flawed argument: Steve doesn;t work in this offense...Steve's weakness is his playmaking...hence what we need is a playmaker.

A playmaker would be fine, so long as he can hit the outside J, but it's not necessary. All we need out of the point, if Yao is going top be the focus of our offense, is an efficient ballhandler who can hit the J, and is willing to defer. Think about center oriented offenses...think Olajuwon...think Shaq...The halfcourt consists of making sure the entry pass gets in, and then spacing and hitting off the double. Jason Kidd would be a luxury, but on this tea, with a slow down, center oriented offense, he'd be wasted. And his greatest weakness, the J, is what we least need from our PG, aside from a willigness to give up the ball at the right time.

We need more of a Mo Cheeks than Jason Kidd. We need a solid guy, a tough guy who won't back down, an unselfish guy who knows when to deliver the simple pass, and has the ability to do so, and to hit the J. That's it.

The good news is that Steve isn;t as far away as we'd think...He'll never be Jason Kidd, but that's fine, we don't need that. More good news is that Francis seems to be making an effort as far as the willingness to give it up. The bad news is that I don't know if he'll ever be a dependable handler, his J is regressing and was never great, and he still has to learn the simple art of the entry pass.

It can come...and Steve's other gifts can be worked into the offense once he accepts that they come second...but if we are going to be trading him, it's important to realize what we need, and do not need, from his replacement. I'll say it agin: Hinrich is perfect, but there are others. People suggesting guys like Ford are looking in the wrong direction.

LongTimeFan

02-06-2004, 11:46 PM

MacBeth, where I understand what point you're trying to make, I think there is one flaw.

What happens when Yao is doubled?

He's been pretty much ineffective when he's doubled this year. Once again, out-of-towner here, but the games I have been able to see, Yao was useless when doubled.

Olajuwon was able to get a good vision of the court and skip the ball to the weak side. The only pass I've ever seen Yao make was to the guy on the same side, then he swings it to the top and around the horn. This isn't going to work.

MacBeth

02-06-2004, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by LongTimeFan
MacBeth, where I understand what point you're trying to make, I think there is one flaw.

What happens when Yao is doubled?

He's been pretty much ineffective when he's doubled this year. Once again, out-of-towner here, but the games I have been able to see, Yao was useless when doubled.

Olajuwon was able to get a good vision of the court and skip the ball to the weak side. The only pass I've ever seen Yao make was to the guy on the same side, then he swings it to the top and around the horn. This isn't going to work.

That's why we need the pg to be able to hit the J. Basketball, especially inside-out, is really very simple. Go in, single or soft doulbe, C takes the shot, 3 and 4 ( or in JVG's system, 4 only) head for the boards. If the double is hard, kick out to open shooter, or kick to available reciever and rotate to open shooter. Have to have guys who can hit the J 1-4, with 1-3 having to be able to his mid to long.

This offense makes teams pay for doubling...and then if they adjust, Yao makes them pay for adjusting. Simple but virtually unstoppable when excecuted right with the right personel.

CB4ever

02-07-2004, 12:11 AM

MacBeth,

I think you may get a significant argument saying Kidd would be a luxury but wasted. If you mean that his playmaking abilities have little outlet in this offense, I couldn't disagree more.

1) The biggest difference with a true playmaker ala Kidd would be a consistent, well-run break. The number of easy baskets this team should be getting with its interior defense and athletic wings... our PPG would jump significantly.

2) Even in the halfcourt, a penetrator/playmaker like Kidd has a huge impact on the game. Pick and Roll, suddenly you have the big man to defend much more tightly, but you can't let Kidd turn the corner... what to do? Two man game, Three man game - just putting him on the side entering the ball to Yao along with JJ, I'll bet the fronting defense will suddenly cease to exist. The "playmaker" has plenty of opportunity in the post-driven offense. We'd just have to make sure Toni Braxton stays away from our games.

haven

02-07-2004, 12:16 AM

Bah.

1. Even if you convince Francis to "play right," for whatever reason, he misses his shots when he doesn't set them up off the dribble. For somebody with a decent stroke, Steve has to be the worst spot-up shooter in history.

2. Francis' ball-handling skills are overrated. I don't care if we have a playmaker at the 1. But we do need someone who can protect the ball. Francis doesn't.

sup123

02-07-2004, 12:16 AM

whatever we need, i just want to get rid of francis ASAP. :)

MacBeth

02-07-2004, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by CB4ever
MacBeth,

I think you may get a significant argument saying Kidd would be a luxury but wasted. If you mean that his playmaking abilities have little outlet in this offense, I couldn't disagree more.

1) The biggest difference with a true playmaker ala Kidd would be a consistent, well-run break. The number of easy baskets this team should be getting with its interior defense and athletic wings... our PPG would jump significantly.

2) Even in the halfcourt, a penetrator/playmaker like Kidd has a huge impact on the game. Pick and Roll, suddenly you have the big man to defend much more tightly, but you can't let Kidd turn the corner... what to do? Two man game, Three man game - just putting him on the side entering the ball to Yao along with JJ, I'll bet the fronting defense will suddenly cease to exist. The "playmaker" has plenty of opportunity in the post-driven offense. We'd just have to make sure Toni Braxton stays away from our games.

I'm not saying he wouldn't make some things better, but his value would be lessened. As we have limited value with which to acquire value in kind, we need to spend in wisely, on talent that will be make efficient use of it's strengths here.

Yes, Kidd would be effiicent...but his gift lies in movement,not just on the break, but in the halfcourt. We can run a certain amount of movement in the 1/2, but given Yaos' stature, lateral quicks ( weak) and especially endurance, we're going to be fairly static in the middle quite a bit, like the hub of a revolving wheel. The key passes will still be into the post and out of the post, and Kidd's skills wouldn;t be needed there. better to get less pure passing talent, but a better shooter, and defer the star talent to another position like the 2, 3, or especially 4.

London'sBurning

02-07-2004, 12:23 AM

So nice to finally be able to comment about the game and the players after actually watching a full game tonight in over a week.

I agree about the Rockets needing a PG who can hit the midrange and open jumper to stop all the sagging in the paint on Yao. Most teams are willing to gamble on the Rockets perimeter jumpers more then being willing to let Yao do his thing in the low post. Some teams do share the philosophy though of just single coveraging Yao with 3 or 4 centers and just busting a forearm into his lower back all night. The most effective approach though is when they sag on defense and front him. Usually it means a small guard is shadowing in the paint anticipating a lob pass over the guy fronting Yao, leaving one of our guards open for a baseline J. Or it means they're fronting Yao by leaving our PF open to hit the midrange jumper around the top of the key with consistency. Back to the original topic of the post though, having another guy who can hit the open J around the perimeter would be very nice for the Rockets. It'd make the other teams have to honor our perimeter game and it'd open up the paint.

Another quality the Rockets need from their PG is someone who can lead the fastbreak. Although it's not just the PGs fault for our constant breakdowns on 3 on 2 or 4 on 3 opportunities down the floor. Our spacing is terrible, and it just seems as though no one on the team knows the meaning of a trailer or running at the wings at the same speed of the PG. That's one thing JKidd would do. He'd give us atleast 8 points a night on fastbreak opportunities oppose to the constant Brake Check donation that Bill & Calvin bring up where it's normal to see the team average a whopping 2 points for the whole game. The Rockets might actually be a 90 PPG team if they could ever figure out how to run the fastbreak with consistency. It's just the slow it down offense in JVG's system that causes a lack of fastbreak opportunities. They simply don't run it well.

London'sBurning

02-07-2004, 12:26 AM

Meant to close the post off with saying it's not just the slow it down offense in JVG's system that causes the lack of fastbreak opportunities. They simply don't run it well. :D

CB4ever

02-07-2004, 12:29 AM

I've always really liked Francis (and Mobley for that matter), but while he's sacrificed shots for this team... they are all the shots he used to make!!! sigh....

Now, I hear what you are saying, but
The key passes will still be into the post and out of the post, and Kidd's skills wouldn;t be needed there.
:eek: :eek: :eek: You can't be serious about that. Mark Jackson, even on crutches, was like a sip of water in the middle of the Sahara.

I just think he'd find his place quite easily. I actually think Yao would be even more effective in a motion offense. His highest percentage play last year was the pick and dive into the lane (where'd that go??). Did you see the play they put in today where Ball is up top, swings to JJ on the wing while Yao comes off a pick from the High post. JJ hit him for a dunk one time. The other time (second to last possession) the play was there again but Hinrich snuck in and stole the ball (great play but preventable with a 7'6" pass.

hangxy

02-07-2004, 12:29 AM

MacBeth

02-07-2004, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by CB4ever
I've always really liked Francis (and Mobley for that matter), but while he's sacrificed shots for this team... they are all the shots he used to make!!! sigh....

Now, I hear what you are saying, but

:eek: :eek: :eek: You can't be serious about that. Mark Jackson, even on crutches, was like a sip of water in the middle of the Sahara.

I just think he'd find his place quite easily. I actually think Yao would be even more effective in a motion offense. His highest percentage play last year was the pick and dive into the lane (where'd that go??). Did you see the play they put in today where Ball is up top, swings to JJ on the wing while Yao comes off a pick from the High post. JJ hit him for a dunk one time. The other time (second to last possession) the play was there again but Hinrich snuck in and stole the ball (great play but preventable with a 7'6" pass.

Lol. Allow me to clarify. Kidd's passing ability above and beyond a solid passing point would be an inefficient use of his ability, and an inefficient expendature of talent value for the team.

I agree that some more motions would be wise ( see my post in the lakers Sets thread) but it will never be our staple. I think JVH, as most coaches would with Yao, envisions a fairly traditional inside-out offense. Mo Cheeks will do just fine. Terry Porter, Derek Harper, Chauncey Billups, Kurt Hinrich, etc. These are the types we need...Kidd would be better, but not enough to justify expenfing what it would take to get him, and his lack of consistent J would even lessen the margin.

MacBeth

02-07-2004, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by hangxy
You gotta remember there was no double defense in Dream's times.

What? Yes there were...just no zone doubles. The entire premise of the offense back then was to hit the open shooter off of the double on Dream. Now they can run a double as a prevent, but then there's an open shooter. We need shooters at all positions.

real_egal

02-07-2004, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by MacBeth
That's why we need the pg to be able to hit the J. Basketball, especially inside-out, is really very simple. Go in, single or soft doulbe, C takes the shot, 3 and 4 ( or in JVG's system, 4 only) head for the boards. If the double is hard, kick out to open shooter, or kick to available reciever and rotate to open shooter. Have to have guys who can hit the J 1-4, with 1-3 having to be able to his mid to long.

This offense makes teams pay for doubling...and then if they adjust, Yao makes them pay for adjusting. Simple but virtually unstoppable when excecuted right with the right personel.

Totally agree. I have been saying that all the time in different threads: Lakers can make outside jumper, that makes Shaq more dominant. Rockets can't, so Yao's life is even more difficult. In and out and in again, or in and out, and swing. As simple as that. Rockets was flourished wit Hakeem. I guess people should be clear about simple big man game.:)

CB4ever

02-07-2004, 12:45 AM

Oh, I agree with all of those players. I even think a Super Matt Maloney would be a better fit than the current version of Francis. I also completely agree that a consistent midrange jumper from you PG is vital.

I'm just saying the penetrator/superior playmaker = consistent set 3 pt shooter. They'll just get the job done differently.

Think Tony Parker as a rookie PG playing with Tim Duncan. Parker's long range J stinks. It still does. But he was an impact player on that championship team, and he doesn't have 1/2 the passing skills of Kidd. In the specific situation off the post double, a penetrator on the level of Paker and Kidd going 4 on 3 is a walk in the park. Now they do need a finish if the rotation/recovery is exceptional. That's where the stop-and-pop J and in Parker's case his teardrop in the lane will hurt the D.

CB4ever

02-07-2004, 12:48 AM

Typing this stuff makes me realize (even more) that Steve has none of these things. Sigh, it's depressing.

Steve!!!!! Set 3 pt shot!!!!! Midrange finish!!!!! Before I get old, please!!!!

MacBeth

02-07-2004, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by CB4ever
I'm just saying the penetrator/superior playmaker = consistent set 3 pt shooter. They'll just get the job done differently.

Think Tony Parker as a rookie PG playing with Tim Duncan. Parker's long range J stinks. It still does. But he was an impact player on that championship team, and he doesn't have 1/2 the passing skills of Kidd. In the specific situation off the post double, a penetrator on the level of Paker and Kidd going 4 on 3 is a walk in the park. Now they do need a finish if the rotation/recovery is exceptional. That's where the stop-and-pop J and in Parker's case his teardrop in the lane will hurt the D.

I have to disagree here, based on space, As Yao takes up the middle, and we want to expoint him in singles, to have a penatrator enter after the kick out means he's penetrating in off of the double, ( ie lack of space) or he's making the double switch easier. Same trouble Indy's having right now with Tinsley and O'Neal.

It can be effective at times, but it's easier to defend, causes more trouble, and restructures the spacing in a less effective manner.

SmeggySmeg

02-07-2004, 12:55 AM

macjag,

pretty much agree with you on the type of PG we could survive with, although i would prabably like a little more dribble penetration/create for others than you listed, however i don't agree on the Kidd being a luxury here....

the nets had 41 assists tonight and think they lead the league in percentage of baskets scored on assists, something way over 60%

we would have a transition game with Kidd (and alot of other lessr PGs) that would give us alot more easy basket, and i don't subscribe that a better transition game and fastbreak doens't help Yao... he would adjust. although Kidd is the exception in PG ranks... he would be amazing here...... he has made passing and finding the open man team wide at the Nets... they are all so much better passers with matching better vision aswell

i also agree Steve could fill this role, although not sure he will want to or the dribbling, vision, shooting will ever be good enough.......

rvpals

02-07-2004, 12:59 AM

Right on.
JKidd is good for any team to have, period.

Watching the nets getting all those effortless baskets, and then watch the Rockets with Francis or cat dribbling down the clock and decides to drive inside and collide with 4 defenders is pain.

I can venture to say if JKidd is on our team, we'll be in the finals.

Originally posted by CB4ever
MacBeth,

I think you may get a significant argument saying Kidd would be a luxury but wasted. If you mean that his playmaking abilities have little outlet in this offense, I couldn't disagree more.

1) The biggest difference with a true playmaker ala Kidd would be a consistent, well-run break. The number of easy baskets this team should be getting with its interior defense and athletic wings... our PPG would jump significantly.

2) Even in the halfcourt, a penetrator/playmaker like Kidd has a huge impact on the game. Pick and Roll, suddenly you have the big man to defend much more tightly, but you can't let Kidd turn the corner... what to do? Two man game, Three man game - just putting him on the side entering the ball to Yao along with JJ, I'll bet the fronting defense will suddenly cease to exist. The "playmaker" has plenty of opportunity in the post-driven offense. We'd just have to make sure Toni Braxton stays away from our games.

CB4ever

02-07-2004, 01:04 AM

I completely understand the concept. The reason I (and many of us) are here is just as much Kenny Smith and Sam Cassell as it is Hakeem (well, not really but I do love those guys :) ). I am still not quite over my Rudy T hangover as well. Spacing was literally offensive dogma to him.

However, I think if Rudy were still coaching this team, someone blindfolded and whacked him in the back of the head, and then traded Francis for Kidd, Rudy would protest and then rub his hands together with glee.

You might even argue that - in fact, I will argue that ;) - a playmaker will be even more effective today than a solid set 3 pt shooter with zone defense and zone principles a modern free for all. Think our Achilles heel all the Dream + Great set shooter PG years.... the Seattle Supersonics. We might not be here if we had to go through them. Now put Kidd or a creator/playmaker on that team. And we're back to ClutchCity(fans) again. :)

CB4ever

02-07-2004, 01:15 AM

Now give me a great set shooter and great playmaker. Every thread here would start "I've got sunshine..... on a cloudy day......" And that would be completely fine with me. :)

But alas, we aren't discussing recombinant DNA and cloning today. ;)

Pole

02-07-2004, 01:36 AM

MacBeth

02-07-2004, 01:48 AM

Obviously Ineed to restate:

I am not saying that We Need Not To Have A Great Playmaker...I am Saying That We Donlt Need To Have A Pure Playmaker to succeed.

Talent you donlt plan to use is a commodity. You spend that commodity as wisely as possible, and the wisdom in question is most importantly applied to find talents which meet our needs. As such, to devote a lot of our commodidites looking for someone like Kidd, whose value ( and cost) are most predicated on his excepional playmaking would be a misallocation of funds. Kidd would be just great, but not as great as his value, and we could have been almost as successfull at that position for most of our sets while at the same time being able to pick up a potential star at another. As such, I would much rather translate Francis, Mobley, and Taylor into Billups/Hinrich, Kwame/Darko/Chandler and a high pick than Kidd and change.

There is a reason you rarely see a dominant point and a dominant center on the same team: They each tend to define their teams. Kidd defines his teams as running, motion, slashing to the hoop teams, and that is the best use of his skills. Shaq and Hakeem tend to define their teams as inside-out, somewhat conservative teams. Meshing them is difficult. Magic adjusted to KAJ for a while, and the KAJ adjusted to Magic. And KAJ was always an extremely mobile, less post centered player than your average dominant center.

CB4ever

02-07-2004, 01:56 AM

Agreed!! :)

CB4ever

02-07-2004, 01:58 AM

Now a young Kidd that can shoot...

"I've got sunshine.... on a cloudy day.... "

aceman

02-07-2004, 02:02 AM

I too think Steve could be a servicable point guard for the Rockets with some time. My issue.....and nobody wants to discuss this.....is that we effectively have a limited budget to spend on players. Right now, Steve makes more than anyone on the team. With what Steve brings to the table....or even with what we think he might be able to bring to the table in the future......is he really worth tying up that much of our cap space? To me.....that's the real issue.

You are thinking what I am thinking: Steve is over paid for what his current role on this team. With the addition of Yao, Steve became overpaid in his current role as PG. Plain and simple. I ultimately think Steve can fit as a 2 guard where we trade Mobley and Taylor for serviceable starting PG and PF; however, trading Steve is another option.

jmwilliamson

02-07-2004, 02:22 AM

MacBeth- please make a bad post so I can remove my nose from your arse. I'm seriously feeling like a brown noser here but every single time you make a thread I feel like there are two things I can count on:

1. I'm going to agree with at least 90% of everything you say (even if it hadn't previously occurred to me)
2. I'm going to learn something about basketball. (I never played sports but somehow fell in love with basketball anyway and as such, I lack alot of basic basketball knowledge that all of you player/coach types possess)

As to your list of players that would suit our needs- I agree but I'd like to add anybody whose last name is Barry to that list. Aren't both Brent and Jon free agents this offseason? Let's get them both! :D

StupidMoniker

02-07-2004, 04:19 AM

I agree with the concept. That is why I wish the Rockets had gotten Charlie Ward. Here is a player that plays solid defense, can shoot the three with consistency, has no problem passinjg it into the post on every possession and costs a miniscule amount compared to Francis. If we had gotten Ward, we could trade Steve for a PF and start winning titles. I am sure there are other Ward like players out there, we need to get one of them and move Steve on down the road.

DavidS

02-07-2004, 04:43 AM

I agree with most of what you said, MB...

1) We don't need a playmaker, or a pure point guard, or a ball-wizzard, or shooter pg...We just need a PG that is, like you said, efficient. If we mange to get the aforementioned "titles" then that's just a bonus.

But there's a 2nd part....
2) We'd need a player(s) that is of the same level of compensation....

The key is to not let other teams (ha) know that the "hype" of Francis actually makes his game look better than it really is. Thus, maybe we can trick some GM on another team that he's just as good as THREE of their players. Shhhhh.... Heh...Lets hope that other teams are easily distracted by shiny objects. And we're not talking about rings.

shiny objects = the cross-over dribble, dribble, dribble, the ISO, and the dunk

Example, and 1 for 1 trade of Francis for T-Mac....Orlando would get screwed in that deal!

DavidS

02-07-2004, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by MacBeth
Jason Kidd would be a luxury, but on this team, with a slow down, center oriented offense, he'd be wasted. And his greatest weakness, the J, is what we least need from our PG, aside from a willigness to give up the ball at the right time.

I agree that Kidd's J is weak. But I disagree that Kidd on this team with Yao would be wasted. Kidd DOES know how to run the half-court. He's smart like that. :) As far as the fast break...well, that's a bonus, and usually started by the center passing out of the rebound. That's perfect for a 3 on 1 or 2 on 1 fast break. That's just what Kidd loves. He doesn't NEED Yao running the court every time down the court. If Yao choses to do so, the BIG man will get rewarded.

I think the reason that you believe that Yao would be wasted with a Kidd is because it's been sooooo long that we've had a PG that could actually run the fast break. You must feel that it's difficult. Uh...no. Francis MAKES it difficult. Thus, he doesn't do it much.

Originally posted by MacBeth
Hinrich is perfect

Yep! But lets hope we'd get more than just a 1 for 1 trade. We'd need more compensation.

MacBeth

02-07-2004, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by London'sBurning
So nice to finally be able to comment about the game and the players after actually watching a full game tonight in over a week.

I agree about the Rockets needing a PG who can hit the midrange and open jumper to stop all the sagging in the paint on Yao. Most teams are willing to gamble on the Rockets perimeter jumpers more then being willing to let Yao do his thing in the low post. Some teams do share the philosophy though of just single coveraging Yao with 3 or 4 centers and just busting a forearm into his lower back all night. The most effective approach though is when they sag on defense and front him. Usually it means a small guard is shadowing in the paint anticipating a lob pass over the guy fronting Yao, leaving one of our guards open for a baseline J. Or it means they're fronting Yao by leaving our PF open to hit the midrange jumper around the top of the key with consistency. Back to the original topic of the post though, having another guy who can hit the open J around the perimeter would be very nice for the Rockets. It'd make the other teams have to honor our perimeter game and it'd open up the paint.

Another quality the Rockets need from their PG is someone who can lead the fastbreak. Although it's not just the PGs fault for our constant breakdowns on 3 on 2 or 4 on 3 opportunities down the floor. Our spacing is terrible, and it just seems as though no one on the team knows the meaning of a trailer or running at the wings at the same speed of the PG. That's one thing JKidd would do. He'd give us atleast 8 points a night on fastbreak opportunities oppose to the constant Brake Check donation that Bill & Calvin bring up where it's normal to see the team average a whopping 2 points for the whole game. The Rockets might actually be a 90 PPG team if they could ever figure out how to run the fastbreak with consistency. It's just the slow it down offense in JVG's system that causes a lack of fastbreak opportunities. They simply don't run it well.

1) yeah, all big men are suceeptible to the big/little double, but Yao particularly so, as he is still prone to bringing the ball down.

2) Agreed. There are two types of lead guards, though, as far as the break. There's the get it ahead guard, and the bring it up and dish guard. Obviously all guards to both, but there are clear tendencies ( Steve, for ex. is strongly in favor of the latter style, though he isn;t all that adept at it. I have long thought that he could really improve our team break if he looked to get it ahead rather than push it himself)...Someone like Hinrich or Kidd, who spend a lot of time breaking will favor the push but really recognize the opportunity for the pass ahead. So when you say you want a pg that can lead the break, don't forget that there are pg's that are effective if not spectacular break points without being exceptional playmakers. Nate McMillan was an example.

Also, we shouldn;t underestimate the secondary breaks ( I love Roy Williams!) To me the Rockets lose as many scoring opportunities by not even atempting secondary breaks as they do with inefficient first breaks.

MacBeth

02-07-2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by SmeggySmeg
macjag,

pretty much agree with you on the type of PG we could survive with, although i would prabably like a little more dribble penetration/create for others than you listed, however i don't agree on the Kidd being a luxury here....

the nets had 41 assists tonight and think they lead the league in percentage of baskets scored on assists, something way over 60%

we would have a transition game with Kidd (and alot of other lessr PGs) that would give us alot more easy basket, and i don't subscribe that a better transition game and fastbreak doens't help Yao... he would adjust. although Kidd is the exception in PG ranks... he would be amazing here...... he has made passing and finding the open man team wide at the Nets... they are all so much better passers with matching better vision aswell

i also agree Steve could fill this role, although not sure he will want to or the dribbling, vision, shooting will ever be good enough.......

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on Kidd. I am not saying he wouldn;t be an improvement, just that the weight of his trade value/price is based on attributes more conducive to a running/athletic team rather than what we're going for, and I'd rather spend less on a point who can be almost as effective given our system, and use the excess on a 'star' 2, 3, or 4.

MacBeth

02-07-2004, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by jmwilliamson
MacBeth- please make a bad post so I can remove my nose from your arse. I'm seriously feeling like a brown noser here but every single time you make a thread I feel like there are two things I can count on:

1. I'm going to agree with at least 90% of everything you say (even if it hadn't previously occurred to me)
2. I'm going to learn something about basketball. (I never played sports but somehow fell in love with basketball anyway and as such, I lack alot of basic basketball knowledge that all of you player/coach types possess)

As to your list of players that would suit our needs- I agree but I'd like to add anybody whose last name is Barry to that list. Aren't both Brent and Jon free agents this offseason? Let's get them both! :D

In a way Barry is perfect...but I am less certain about his ability to protect the ball against top flight defensive points. I see what you;re saying, and I almost included him, but I have also seen teams give him trouble, not so much in terms of forcing TOs, but in terms of making him take a lot of time off the shot clock merely to get into position to set up the offense. Not a glaring problem, but I'd prefer others.

MacBeth

02-07-2004, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by DavidS
I agree with most of what you said, MB...

1) We don't need a playmaker, or a pure point guard, or a ball-wizzard, or shooter pg...We just need a PG that is, like you said, efficient. If we mange to get the aforementioned "titles" then that's just a bonus.

But there's a 2nd part....
2) We'd need a player(s) that is of the same level of compensation....

The key is to not let other teams (ha) know that the "hype" of Francis actually makes his game look better than it really is. Thus, maybe we can trick some GM on another team that he's just as good as THREE of their players. Shhhhh.... Heh...Lets hope that other teams are easily distracted by shiny objects. And we're not talking about rings.

shiny objects = the cross-over dribble, dribble, dribble, the ISO, and the dunk

Example, and 1 for 1 trade of Francis for T-Mac....Orlando would get screwed in that deal!

My point is to get a lesser 'value' pojnt, but turn the excess into a star or top pick at another position. LOl...love to get T_Mac, but would also like to bring Wilt back to life for the Rockets...

DavidS

02-07-2004, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by MacBeth
My point is to get a lesser 'value' pojnt, but turn the excess into a star or top pick at another position. LOl...love to get T_Mac, but would also like to bring Wilt back to life for the Rockets...

Hmmmm, GATOR....you there?

I'd figure the possibility of getting T-Mac in the summer was easier -- very possible -- compared to getting Wilt back from the dead...am I right?

:)

MacBeth

02-07-2004, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by DavidS
Hmmmm, GATOR....you there?

I'd figure the possibility of getting T-Mac in the summer was easier -- very possible -- compared to getting Wilt back from the dead...am I right?

:)

Slight edge, but it's close...;)

DavidS

02-07-2004, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by MacBeth
Slight edge, but it's close...;)

Damn! Oh, well...there goes the franchise!

What about Elvis at PG? ;)

AroundTheWorld

02-07-2004, 01:39 PM

If you compare Yao Ming in a year or two, if his development goes well and he becomes, let's say, a 21/12/3 guy (pts/rebs/blks), and Francis gets his game back to normal, let's say 20/6/6, then compare that to the Spurs.

Is Parker much more of a playmaker than Francis?

Not necessarily...at least his assist numbers don't really indicate that.

If Francis gets his turnovers down and Ming keeps developing, we could have the same model as San Antonio, with more added talent than they have (Mobley/Taylor/Jim Jackson).

It surely worked for them.

However, I am a little confused, MacBeth, when you say we don't need a great playmaker and then you want to trade Francis for Hinrich/Chandler...wouldn't the point of this mainly be to get a better playmaker?

MacBeth

02-07-2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Sir Jackie Chiles

However, I am a little confused, MacBeth, when you say we don't need a great playmaker and then you want to trade Francis for Hinrich/Chandler...wouldn't the point of this mainly be to get a better playmaker?

Hinrich is a better playmaker, true, but that would be gravy. What's more important is he is a better shooter, defender, and especially this: He knows when to pass, and wants to.

He doesn't have the individual break your man down ability that Francis has, although he's no slouch, and he is nowhere near the rebounder/dunker...but he's smarter, a better team player, and the Bulls players have already unanimously shosen him as their team leader, which speaks volumes about his character.

DavidS

02-07-2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Sir Jackie Chiles

If Francis gets his turnovers down and Ming keeps developing, we could have the same model as San Antonio, with more added talent than they have (Mobley/Taylor/Jim Jackson).

I've been waiting for that to happen for 5 years.

SmeggySmeg

02-07-2004, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by MacBeth
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on Kidd. I am not saying he wouldn;t be an improvement, just that the weight of his trade value/price is based on attributes more conducive to a running/athletic team rather than what we're going for, and I'd rather spend less on a point who can be almost as effective given our system, and use the excess on a 'star' 2, 3, or 4.

yeah i think so, just love what he does on the floor and how that effects the players around him...

that being said for the rockets i would probably rather load up with another stud at the 4 spot and then go with your type of PG at the 1, but obviously then for financial reasons it could not be steve

thanwu

02-07-2004, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by LongTimeFan
MacBeth, where I understand what point you're trying to make, I think there is one flaw.

What happens when Yao is doubled?

He's been pretty much ineffective when he's doubled this year. Once again, out-of-towner here, but the games I have been able to see, Yao was useless when doubled.

Olajuwon was able to get a good vision of the court and skip the ball to the weak side. The only pass I've ever seen Yao make was to the guy on the same side, then he swings it to the top and around the horn. This isn't going to work.

There is no question that Yao need to improve himself when he was double teamed. But i think it is different rule now compared to Dream's time. They can doulbe team you before you get the ball. That's why is harder to pass the ball to Centers than before. That's why you need to pass the ball at the right time!!!