Is Steve Francis a Franchise Player?

While it may or may not be possible to build a franchise around a <b>point guard</b>, I think the Michael Jordan era proved that it <u>is</u> possible to build one around a <b>guard</b>.

 

An insightful analysis. I think you are likely right that for the rockets to advance in the playoffs or, maybe, even make the playoffs, the frontline will have to improve or be improved through trades. Willis and K.T. have prevented utter embarassment thus far. Rice shows signs of coming around, and I like Cato's improved attitude. However, I don't think Cato is the long term ANSWER. Griffin has enormous potential. Rockets fans are yet to see what I have seen him do in the past, on other teams. I believe he is possibly a future all star, but coaching and conditioning will likely be the keys to his future. With Taylor back next year, and a trade or two, the rockets could become a serious contender. At present, we are not quite ready for prime time.

 

My knowledge of NBA history is very poor, but how would Isaiah Thomas fit into this? Considering I've seen a lot of people compare the two, I think that could be important. And why can't a team essentially have two or three "franchise players?" In other words, why does a team have to consist of one uber (franchise) player and 11 or so role players? I doubt you'll find many NBA championship teams that were like that. I think if Eddie Griffin develops as many think he can, then we'll have a powerful trio of Francis, Mobley, and Griffin for the future. In the end, Steve may be the best player of the three, but does it really matter that he needed the other two along the way? The whole franchise player seems to be merely a marketing thing anyway. The Rockets should just build the best team they can and compete for the championship in the future.

Tree

 

Didn't SmeggySmeg say this first almost 6 months ago.

<a href="http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11998&highlight=Griffin">Griffin will be the Heart and Leader of the Team</a>

And, of course, only noone took the Aussie seriously.

Also, thacabbage, what is up with the bbs's a priori predilection to not predicate the position of Cuttino in our pontificating punditries of post season importance????

damn! I think I just confused myself!! my head hurts.

 

This goes back to what I was saying months ago. In order for this team to be successful you can't just say "Francis is the leader and leave it at that", for this team to be a title contender Francis AND Mobley have to be the leaders of this team. It's rare to build a championship team around a PG. The only PG I can remember in my life time that a team built a successful championship around was Isiah Thomas, and he had Dumars to help him, and Dumars won a Finals MVP. This team can't just be "Francis team", this team has to be "Our backcourt's team" if the Rockets are to build a championship. I never bought into the theory of building a team around one player. The key for this team to be successful is to build the frontcourt, which it is doing now. That's how I would build a franchise. In fact the Lakers weren't built around Magic, Magic was thrown onto a pretty good Lakers team and the team just gravitated to him so I'm to sure I put stock in necessarily needing the franchise player to put the pressure on.

 

Magic Johnson was a point guard too.

DaDakota

 

the bad boy pistons did it in 89 and 90

 

Iverson is almost a point guard. We have a cheap mans Iverson in Cuttino and a much better pg then Snow in Francis. With improved interior defense I think we will be contending in just a few short years.

 

I kind of agree with your point. I think its fair and credible and the point is understood. Francis should and can be a leader as opposed to the franchise player. You can never asses what Magic did and say someone, anyone can do what he did from the point position. I mean Magic is the only player who could have did what he did as a rookie in the finals, period. Not MJ,Bird, anyone , i don't think. Francis is a real good small player, but in this day and age, that may not be enough because of the way you can defend smaller players. Isiah was a very good player that led that team and got them to believe in what Daly was trying to do , which is what Francis someday could do. Its just an easier game to coach when you have a big man, plain and simple. MJ was the exception because he was so good down low, that he could get just as good of a shot as any big man and if you do like Phoe did in the finals and play a small man on him,like KJ, then he would drop 40+ on you.

I think that was Rudy and CD decision not to go after Webber and draft Griffin. I just hope as the season develops that Rudy somehow decides to get eddie in the post. We have shown that guards are good, but to have a big guy that can consistently get you shots 7,8,9 ft away without dribbling is a much more valuable asset. Maybe it will work its way out. I still think we will be in the Duncan Sweepstakes in a couple of yrs.

 

It is necessary for Griffin to reach a Wallace-like level of play for this team to be able to go to the top. He must become one of the top 5 or so PFs in the game, which I think he is capable of...Should he hit a nice little 2 inch growth spurt, and fill out to be a center, it's a whole new ball game.

Rudy is taking him along slowly. Rudy does not have a history of supplanting proven players for rookies, especially not 19 year old ones. Griffin played mainly the post in college, and the reason Rudy isn't putting him there a lot is two-fold.

#1.) It's not an effective wrinkle to our current schemes.
Griffin has posted a couple of times, but only when the 2nd unit (ie minus Steve) was out there, and in preseason. Rudy seems to respect the vets, and the leaders right now, and has no reason to be screwing around with a 19 year old posting up when he has two of the quickest guards in the game. On a team contending for the playoffs, he shouldn't get serious time at this point, as he hasn't outplayed anyone, nor has anyone played poorly enough to lose his role. Still he has gotten more minutes than Curry and Chandler, 2 similar aged kids, yet playing on a team that has nothing to lose. We'll see him integrated slowly

#2.) Griffin is trying to prove his outside shot to the league
His jump shot is a way to save him from getting to physical too soon. He needs to put on some weight, and knocking down his shot will be crucial in keeping Steve and Cuttino free. He is light years ahead of Garnett in that regard, and showed plenty of his post game in college. At this stage, Griffin is a better shooter and has a better go to move (turnaround, showed in preseason and college) than KG did at the same point. Griff doesn't have the same handles, or passing skills/court vision, but he has some serious KG like tendencies.

 

Yeah Cab,

please use Quotation marks next time you want to steal all my ideas

Smeg

 

I think it's more difficult to build a team AROUND a point guard. However, I don't think they're any less valuable. I know that's a paradoxal position, but I think it makes sense.

When the Rockets had Hakeem, they had a lot of players that aren't what you'd call "elite." But they did share a common trait. Almost everybody on that team could drill the 3. Having Hakeem meant you got a lot of guys open on the perimeter.

That's just not true with a PG. You can't get a lot of one-dimensional players and say "aha! these players perfectly compliment our franchise PG!"

I think the closest you come to that is the case of Iverson. Yeah, he wasn't playing the 1. But there's no reason that a PG couldn't do something similar to Iverson. But that team failed to win a championship... and seemed to fit together perfectly. I tend to think a team generally needs more offense to win.

As the distinction between the 1 and the 2's blurs, I think it will become increasingly easy for players to dominate hte game from the guard position. Scoring PG's are on the rise. After all, until very recently, Stockton was the prototypical PG. Maybe he still is. A player like that had trouble "taking over a game" almost by definition, since he was fundamentally reliant on another player.

But what if a pg looks to score first? I think the very threat of Francis' penetration, etc, can be a franchise type weapon. Let him attack the basket EVERY play almost... if they defend him well, dish it to the open man. Force the double team. Make them pick their poison with Francis creating either by scoring or breaking down the defense CONSTANTLY.

I think we're going to see this. I hope so .

 

You can't merely discount Magic's accomplisments, just because he was tall. I mean, if you're gonna say Magic wasn't a PG, then I'm gonna say Bird was.

Then again, Magic had a few decent players himself when the Lakers won those championships.

I have found myself questioning whether the Rockets will ever be contenders with Francis, Mobley, and fillers. But, if Griffin can pan out, those three with some decent role players could stir up some trouble in the playoffs easy, in a few years.

Rocket fans have been longing for a good PG since, well since forever. Now, we have one, and we have a talented SG to go along with Francis. What we need to do is find a talented big man to go with him. Cato is not him. Mo Taylor is not him. KT is not him. Griffin may or may not be him. But, without "him", the team isn't going to realistically contend for a championship.

 

I don't care if he can't hit a 20fter,or even 15fter, but if he could score in the post without dribble penetration from the guards would be ideal. Thats one of our problems having Francis and the rest of our guards having the ball too much. Let them play off and away from the ball and try to get others involved. They are the best players on the team, but the key is makng the other players better.

 

If a point guard leading a team to a title hasn't been done before, why can't the Rockets be the first team to do it? Why can't the Rockets make history?

 

ZRB, are you ZRB?

 

I have no problem with the concept, but looking at the west, that seems unlikely. The Rockets have some talent, but there are teams more talented easily. I look at the Clippers, and thats a team that has crazy talent. They're winning without Odom and once he gets back, its on. The team we're playing thurs is very good and has 2 studs. It just doesn't seem realistic that if we don't get help from someone inside, this team will not be on a championship level. I hope Eddie is a Garnett type player. If he does develop into that type, then I feel a whole lot better about this team competing for a ring in 3 or 4 yrs.

 

We got heavy into this topic before the season with all the same arguments in a study in pork...we don't need any more muslims! gimme some hog, DAMNIT!

Halfway down on page 2, we went into the positional discussion you are having here. I don't think much has changed thus far into the season.

Mike

 

What we would have given for a good point guard in the '97 playoffs. We had Maloney.

We have a great-possibly elite back court, with a developing 4 or possibly athletic 5 in Eddie Griffin. Rudy and CD will continue to add talent around this nucleus that I hope will include a big man - 5 to rebound and block shots. The key elements we have now in place will be filled out into a team with complementary players. My point is that an elite team can be built from what we have now, with a premier point guard as the nucleus.