Steve At Shooting Guard: Not The Answer.

When I was a kid I used to spend a lot of time with my grandparents, and my grandmother was one of those Norman Rockwell grandmas...had once been a professional cook, and my mother claimed the reason she married my father was Grandma's cooking/baking. My mother herself was no great shakes in the kitchen, and coming home from my grandparents was often a real let-down, gastronomically speaking. So once, at about the age of 6, I decided to put all my time watching my Grandma at work to good use; I arrived home from the weekend with the Old Folks and announced to my mother that I was going to cook dinner that evening. She was pretty patient, my mother, and she approved of the plan. I went to work...a few tomatoes here, some eggs there...yeah, what we need now are some spices; any spices. Oh, almost forgot the peas...and on it went. It had all seemed so easy, from a distance. My Grandma got some ingredients, a little wrist-power, some time in the oven, and voila!

Needless to say my dinner turned out to be something the Humane Society would frown on being served in kennels, and a rather bemused Mom told me it was ok, as she dialed for pizza. I often think back to that experience in those ( sadly not so rare) moments where I decide how to resolve the plights of my favorite sports teams..I do think that we can have qualified opinions, and can even make solid proposals...but more often than not I feel we are suggesting the ingredients to another Cassarole Surprise destined for the dump.

It seems all to easy to suggest that we move Steve to the 2-guard, but in my opinion the downside is much, much greater than the potential benefit. Ok, the problem is that Steve isn't a pure playmaker...and I'll grant you that. And I will go one step further to suggest that an offense run through a shoot-first point guard is unlikely to succeed in the long run. But the seemingly simple response of moving Steve to the shooting guard spot opens up a yawning chasm of other problems when there are much easier solutions on hand, in my opinion.

A) Don't 'run' the offense through the point guard in the halfcourt...Involve a motion offense, a high post passing offense, whatever. Run it through Yao...there are many strategic adjustments which serve better.

B) Get a 2-guard, or even a 3 who can compensate, and use him as a co-playmaker to complement Steve.

C) If need be, trade Steve.

Now 3 seems like an extreme response, and I really, really don't want to do it, but I would rather do that than move Steve to the 2 spot unless we are able to acquire just the right kind of complimentary point guard; a big one who can effectively play the 1 on offense and the 2 on defense.

It has been noted by many that Steve would be a travesty on defense against 2's...and I agree. It would be something else to see him giving up 3 or 4 inches and 30 pounds against the likes of McGrady, Bryant, Carter et al on a farily regular basis. And this is part of why the simple position flip is dangerous, in my opinion.

But a greater reason I'm against it is this; Steve is a unique talent at the 1...and a very good but limited player at the 2. Think of his strengths; ability to break his man down, rebounding, mid range shooting, athleticism/strength, etc. At the 2 he has...ability to break his man down. Period. And he has a whole new significant weakness in terms of physical limitations. Allen Iverson is the example most often cited when suggesting the flip, but with respect, Iverson only offered the breakdown ability at the 1 spot to begin with. He was hardly a physically dominant player against shooting guards, and Steve is. Moving Iverson to the 2 spot really didin't sacrifice anything, but in Steve's case it would. Add to that the fact that the strength is emphasised in Iverson's case is also a greater one than Steve has, and you might see my point.

Another thing is that when you predicate your offense around a ball handling penetration shooting guard who needs to shake free from bigger players to score, you by definition have to focus the offense around that man's ability to do so; plays designed to get a man open are wasted if his ability to beat a man is his key asset, and so you need to have the offense revolve around that guy's penetration/scoring in order to make use of him, as it does with The Answer. Otherwise all you've got is a guy who could be beating his man if he had the ball watching other players do their thing while contributing little else, and being a liability on the defensive end.

there are some guys who could be the missing piece, like an Alvin Williams, but I suggest they are going to be much harder to come by than people think...and changing the offense, getting a playmaking 2, or trading Steve are all easier.

I know...back to the trading Steve thing again. I honestly don't want to do that...But I would if worse came to worse. As is he is an amazing talent with significant value; move him, expose his weaknesses while limiting his strengths, and he has less value.

Of course, we might just end up calling for Pizza, because I still don't know any more than most everyone about how to run a pro basketball team, but that's what I think.

 

Lol! Is that a comment on the Rockets situation at the guard spots, your latest swipe at my posting methods, or both?