I just disagree because he's never done what you're describing. He's never been a motion offense guy. He has always been a ball-dominant guy creating shots on his own for shooters and dunkers. He just didn't need to do it as much here, and still he got less efficient at it, and his own catch and shoot game suffered. On the mid range shots he took, he went on a steep decline efficiency wise and he had the green light to shoot it. He just can't jump as high or change directions as fast and his defenders are taller than ever. It's a losing game for him. I guess the proof will be in how he does a year from now. For now he'll enjoy a bit of a bounce back with Miami or OKC. I'm sure there are systems suited to him that would make him look less washed up, but you don't build a system for a 34 year old Chris Paul. You build it for your best player.
Paul actually is a really good catch and shoot player, but the Rockets didn't really utilize it much. As for the iso offense being a bad fit for CP3, it's a worse fit for Westbrook. On top of all of this, the biggest issue that nobody is really focusing on is that the defense will take a huge step back.
rebounding, and scoring ...check, check. But damn, our turnovers are gonna skyrocket with Harden and Russ in the backcourt. Also worried about our defense.
People forgot Paul was shooting 37-39 percent from 3......and shooting 3s is a huge part of the game.
Part defender, he can steal the ball or post up bigs and others but he is still not a good perimeter Defender. Or on ball against quicker guards.
It's like people hear "Morey does not like players shooting long 2's..." and then just shut off both their ears and brains. Fact, Morey has said he doesn't mind players shooting 2's if they are good at it. Fact, most NBA players are bad at shooting long 2's especially role players. Fact, most NBA players that are bad at shooting long 2's are about just as bad when they take 2 steps back and shoot a 3 instead. The difference? If they happen to make a 3 (just as much chance as making a long 2), they get more points! Fact, Morey has consistently chased players that like to shoot from midrange (LMA, CP3, Melo, LBJ, etc). Fact, one of the things that Morey really liked about Lowry was his midrange shot. CP3 has always been a PnR player and a player who dribbled the air out of the ball. You really think him and the Rockets are going to be able to adjust the entire system for him on the fly? Yes, on the fly, since his athleticism fell off a cliff last season to the point where he could not beat a big. The easiest thing for him would be to transition into EGo's role where he either shoots on the catch or dribble penetrate and dish out when he can catch the D out of position AND THEN implement the next offseason better sets for a player of his declined athleticism. By the way, having declined athleticism to the point where you can't beat a big absolutely kills a lot of the game available to an undersized point guard. At that point, you have to rely on screens upon screens. The one thing I can and will agree on is that MDA and CP3 both screwed the pooch here. For CP3 to have worked last season would have required a drastically different offensive system, but the problem is the main engine for our offensive system was fine as it was and should be built around Harden. The entire point of having CP3 was a redundancy system to the offensive force that is Harden. When Harden is tired or misfiring, have CP3 run the PnR / ISO. What is the point of having CP3 if he can't run that system anymore and even worse, can't keep up on D on the other end? There is a reason why we got so much better after getting Rivers later in the season.
The Rockets have no need for someone who can breakdown whoever is guarding him and get to the basket? I would say that's EXACTLY what they need. This is why they get so stagnant when Harden isn't either on the court, or not doing that. No one else can. yes, the shooting is an issue. But it's not like this is totally a bad fit. More of fixing one problem and having to deal with a different one. Given the need, I'll take the tradeoff.
