There are discussions which, once having occured, seem to be from that moment onward dismissed as pointless. In the sphere of our very own Rockets, the question as to whether Steve Francis would be able to perform better as a shooting guard is just such a debate. It has been hashed and rehashed so much on the distant past that contemporary discussions on the matter are quickly reduced to one side trying to out the other, with neither side really offering salient arguments beyond soundbytes. I, for one, was long and strongly against the suggestion of moving Steve, but to be fair much of my argument was based upon an expectation of development which has yet to pass, and I think it is worth revisiting. What I am asking for, however, is not a battle of entrenched positions firing potshots at each other, but a cogent discussion on the actual merits of either argument. I don't consider the matter to be a black and white matter, and as such it would add to any argument from either side to consider the merits of the other with more than the usual contempt shown in the brief forays we have witnessed on this issue of late. Please...and appeal...intelligent argument on the grounds that we all want the same thing, not an attempt to prove why you were always right and someone else was always wrong. Not a venue for Steve bashing...this is premised on the position that Francis remains an integral part of our future, and is merely an examination of the role he can best serve us in that future. If all you want to do is say he's selfish, stupid, etc., there are other threads... So, the debate is: Would Steve benefit from being shifted to the 2 guard, and would it make us a better team? Obviously this is a long term question, so the response of : and who would play the 1, while relevent, is not in and of itself enough grounds to dismiss the point.
I just try to picture Francis chasing Manu Ginobili arond for most of last night, and I have to answer the question with a "no."
Agreed, but I would assume that the premised shoft would need a point who can guard 2s, like Iverson has, etc. Not to dismiss your point it's among the most compelling reasons to pause before maving SF, but there are solutions to it. IF, and it's a bug if, we can find a bigger 1, then the entire shift would be reduced to a question of offensive roles.
1) Why not? 2) What? You mean he only shoots off the dribble? How does this make him more or less effective at the 2 than the 1? Not all 2s are catch and shoot guys. 3) Who said he was? I was saying that their defensive deficiencies would be similar, and thus similarly accounted for.
all I know is that I'm going to be pissed if we get rid of him without ever legitimately trying the Steve-at-2 option. no one denies his unbelievable athleticism. I think the notion that Steve's game and the Rockets' game could benefit by giving him the shoot-first, don't-worry-about-setting-the-table-for-the-team greenlight is a very valid one. it's well-established that Steve has limitations as a point guard. he's still pretty damn good even with those limitations, but he's not as good as we all want him to be. please please please PLEASE Dear Rockets, do not trade him without first finding out if he can succeed as a 2. the toughest part about all of this is that it does require the big 1. and those aren't just falling out of the sky. I've thought before that LeBron James is actually the perfect player for the Rockets. but I think our chances at getting him may not be good. this thread is seeking intelligent arguments and propositions. I don't know that I have any. my best guess is that a Steve Francis who can freelance more, who can play the game without the burdens of worrying about starting the offense, who is not in position to turn the ball over as much, who can at times rightfully just take over the offense when it's struggling. . . my best guess is that that Steve Francis at the 2 could very much be more effective than the Steve Francis we've got at the 1. we've got to have a new 1. chucking Steve for some new, unknown 1 [with the still enigmatic Cuttino Mobley at the 2] does not appeal to me nearly as much as getting a new 1 with the unquestionably gifted Steve Francis at 2. another ancillary issue here is that, by moving Steve to the 2, he wouldn't have the assumed leadership responsibilities that come with the 1. among all the other things Steve isn't, I don't think he's a good leader. but the Rockets will probably end up trading him without ever really finding out whether they'd be better off with him at the 2. that would be a big mistake, in my opinion. another question that has to be considered, if you're going to think about it, is what would lead to all this? if the Rockets were going to get their new 1 via the draft, it could easily mean having to miss the playoffs to get a good one. but if the Rockets miss the playoffs, I think they'll be more likely to blow it up by trading Steve than to try a minor tweak. if the Rockets were going to get their new 1 via a trade, I don't know. maybe the best and most possible scenario would be for the Rockets to make the playoffs and do decently enough that management does not see the need to make a HUGE change [ie. trading Steve]. but they are able to sign a bigger point guard via free agency, and they do poorly enough [maybe just eeking into the playoffs] that management sees that something needs to be changed. unfortunately, this part of the year is not the time for experimenting. I wish JV Gundy had tried this move straight off the bat on his arrival. I can see why he didn't, but that would have been the easiest time to try it I think.
This is the topic that peeves me the most. No offense should be taken from the thread starter, but Steve makes a below average two. In the thousands of games I have watched and scouted the one thing that stands out to me as to why he is subpar is that he does not move without the ball. He does not know how to get open. Iverson, Bryant and even Ginobili are all tremendous creators and excel in moving without the ball. Hinrich, though an exceptional point guard, would make twice the shooting guard that Steve is at this very moment for this very reason. I can run off various other attributes that would futher my sentiments, but this to me is a major factor that separates Francis from Iverson. Everyone has their own philosophies and I'm sure there will be a handful of teams this summer that would like to have Steve in this role.
In the second Period an interesting line up was in there M Jackson, Francis and Mobley It worked a bit I'm not for a Steve to the 2 .. . but the lineup has some merit and should be experimented with more Rocket River
Francis is a conundrum; he is not a point guard (for reasons discussed ad infinitum on this board) and he is really not tall enough and not a good enough "outside" shooter to be a two. He is actually an undersized small-forward. He is a great rebounder, phenomenal leaper and is very crafty around the hoop. If Ming weren't here I wouldn't suggest this, but it is time for Francis to find a better fit for his skills and the Rockets to find a better fit for Ming. The experiment is really over.
Mobley is a better 2 than Francis. Francis is more valuable to us as a trading commodity. Mobley's game continues to improve and he has proven he can coexist with Yao. Will add more later.
I think Steve is best coming off the bench and be our sixth man. Even with his ocassionally boneheaded plays, Mobley is still a much better option at the 2 than Steve. Mobley is an adequate defender, good enough 3 pt shooter, and has a nasty first step. Mobley also has much better finishing skill around the basket than Steve. Steve has the altheleticism, but he does not have the skill. So, there is really no reason to move Steve to the two, because we already have a good two guard. I hope we can find a good pg, but what we need the most is a player who can direct traffic on the court and be a floor leader. NOt much changes can be done right now, so let's just hope francis can pull himself together. Otherwise, he is probably gone this summer anyway, and this can be a question posted on other team's bbs. Last night game was so pathetic, the offense was so predictable. Players were either in passing mode or shooting mode. The rox rarely passed more than twice after the half-court line. I don't know is that offensive efficiently or just lack of ball movement, but judging from the offensive output, it's probably lack of players and ball movement.
Steve got a few buckets last night in transition. This is his game. He's a guy who can take advantage of an opposing team's defense BEFORE it is set in the half-court. There's no way that Steve gets an easy bucket in the half-court. Greg Anthony on NBA Fastbreak was talking about the Nets' style of play not being half-court but an uptempo, transition game. That's Steve. Steve is not effective alongside Yao in a half-court game due to his jumpshot. Jason Kidd's jumpshot sucks too, so you don't see him trying to run the Nets' offense in the half-court that much. He gets the ball and immediately runs. If anyone thinks Van Gundy wants the Rockets to be a predominantly full-court running team, you better put down the whiskey.
What other former Maryland Terapin does this remind you of? Juan Dixon undoubtedly is the worst offender, although he has been left out of the tooth-pulling session involving Brown and Arenas. Dixon dribbles the ball in a stationary position, as if he is trying to beat a dusty rug. He has not put a hole in the floor yet, but the possibility exists. He dribbles in one spot, then fakes one way and another before hoisting up a 20-footer. This is his idea of offense, funny as the notion is with this bunch. http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20040225-121800-1519r.htm
yeah, steve's as sh!tty a 2-guard as he is a PG. bout ready to ship him out after this season. he doesn't need anymore time, just another team.
But isn't that an important talent to have in our offense? Why would we want a 2 that can't catch and shoot well when he's going to be wide open most of the time on the perimeter because of the double(triple sometimes) team Yao causes? What is he going to do? Dribble closer and let the defender have time to get back to steve? He's sure not going to dribble drive when the lane is clogged up with the 2-3 defenders + Yao. BTW, everyone talks about getting a 1 that can guard the 2 to help Steve...can you name me someone besides Eric Snow(who can't shoot the 3 to save his life) that can do this? I really don't know who could fill this role well.
No, SF is most definitely not a two guard at all. Gunn is correct when he points out that SF does not move well without the ball and is a scattershot jumpshooter. I think that Solid got it right: SF is an undersized 3 which means that he's not playing in the correct system where all players have clearly defined roles based upon their position. In many respects, he poses the same problem for the Rockets as does Iverson for the 76ers. It's now a virtual certainty that he'll be traded in the off-season.
how effective is steve at the 2? http://82games.com/03HOU4C.HTM doesnt add much but interesting nonetheless
Well, his field goal % increases dramatically when he's at the two. That's pretty much the only difference. But he doesn't log enough minutes at the two, really, for these numbers to give an accurate asessment of how he would perform as a starting 2.
Francis might be too small to defend the 2 guards such as kobe and ray allen and he is not a good perimeter shooter, playing at the 2 is not the answer.
