PDA

View Full Version : Q.O.D. 6-14-07



Peck
06-14-2007, 01:26 AM
Ok we've covered the point guard.

Now we tackle the shooting guard spot.

It's going to be a little differant with this question because for the sake of argument we will all agree that we would like a player to be great on both sides of the floor (offense and defense).

However today let's just say that our shooting guard is a good defender. Not great, not bad, just good.

Now having said that the question is this.

Would you rather have a shooting guard who can create his own shot and is good around the basket at drawing fouls, however they have no long range shot so to speak. They are good till about the 20' mark let's say.

Or would you rather have a dead eye shooter who is very good at the three point shot however requires help getting his shot off and can't creat off of the dribble.

Again, for the sake of this question you have to choose, no cheating and saying or implying or any other way of having both.

It's either a shooter or a creator.

grace
06-14-2007, 01:35 AM
What's his FT%?

sig
06-14-2007, 01:53 AM
I'd probably rather have a dead eye shooter at SG. But it would really depend on what types of players are playing PG and SF. IMO, the Pacers as they are now need a shooter at SG.

naptown
06-14-2007, 02:20 AM
Now having said that the question is this.

Would you rather have a shooting guard who can create his own shot and is good around the basket at drawing fouls, however they have no long range shot so to speak. They are good till about the 20' mark let's say.

Or would you rather have a dead eye shooter who is very good at the three point shot however requires help getting his shot off and can't creat off of the dribble.

Again, for the sake of this question you have to choose, no cheating and saying or implying or any other way of having both.

It's either a shooter or a creator.

It really dont matter to me because it really depends on the players at the other positions. If you have a PG and SF that are good long range shooters then you would want a SG that can create his own shot and go to the basket well.

It really aint about the skill set of a player at one position, but about how the skill sets of all 5 guys on the floor compliment one another.

Personally I feel you need 2 shooters and a player who can penetrate/create his own shot at the 1 through 3 positions. Which positions are the shooters and which is the penetrator/shot creator is really irrelevant as long as you have that combination. And if you have a player that excels at more than one of those things that is just icing on the cake.

At the 4 and 5 you want a scoring low post presence who commands a double team and the other spot needs to be a good 10-18 foot spot up shooter. Again, it really dont matter which of those two guys does which, as long as you have one of each. And again, if any of the players does both well then that is even more icing on the cake.

You mix those 5 things together with unselfishness and you got yourself a very solid offensive group.

Will Galen
06-14-2007, 04:22 AM
Option two sounds like a Reggie Miller clone, so yeah I'd take that, what Pacer fan wouldn't? However, we need someone that can get his own shot. So I would go with option one.

Kraft
06-14-2007, 04:34 AM
Seems like an easy answer to me.

You take the guy who can both create off the dribble and hit the open mid-range jumper. 3-point shooting isn't that important when compared to open jumpers a few feet in.

As long as you stretch the defense by making open shots, you do it.

One thing, though: The mid-range jumper guy absolutely can't bomb from downtown if he can't hit it. That's the Pacers' problem.

Just look at Wade as a rookie. Not exactly deadeye from downtown, but far, far more valuable than the jackers of the league.

You win games by taking and making high-percentage shots. The person who does that best, of these two choices, is who you plug in.

Unclebuck
06-14-2007, 05:41 AM
Would you rather have a shooting guard who can create his own shot and is good around the basket at drawing fouls, however they have no long range shot so to speak. They are good till about the 20' mark let's say.

Or would you rather have a dead eye shooter who is very good at the three point shot however requires help getting his shot off and can't creat off of the dribble.

It's either a shooter or a creator.


OK, I'll play along, and I won't answer with the first thing that came into my head. Which was it depends on what type of point guard and small forward we have.

I would rather have a creator without question. Someoene who can create his own shot, someoene who can draw fouls, someone who is good around he basket. That is an easy answer for me.

My dream Pacers game: Pacers shoot about 65 free throws. I would love the Pacers to lead the NBA in getting to the free throw line. In fact I think FT attempts is probably the most important team stat there is.

indygeezer
06-14-2007, 06:54 AM
OK, I'll play along, and I won't answer with the first thing that came into my head. Which was it depends on what type of point guard and small forward we have.

I would rather have a creator without question. Someoene who can create his own shot, someoene who can draw fouls, someone who is good around he basket. That is an easy answer for me.

My dream Pacers game: Pacers shoot about 65 free throws. I would love the Pacers to lead the NBA in getting to the free throw line. In fact I think FT attempts is probably the most important team stat there is.

Agree 110%. WHY don't they stress FT more? What would Shaqs lifetime scoring average be if he improved his FT by....3....per game? How many more games would he have won?
I would say that if actually plotted out, most games are won or lost at the freethrow line.


Then add in rebounding and you have the entire season sewn up.


My problem with a creator is that he has to dominate the ball to be effective. I don't like anyone dominating the ball, I like ball movement. Besides, even tho a fan of the old ABA, I'm getting bored with the 3 ball and feel it is ruining HS and college ball.

Unclebuck
06-14-2007, 08:15 AM
Agree 110%. WHY don't they stress FT more? What would Shaqs lifetime scoring average be if he improved his FT by....3....per game? How many more games would he have won?
I would say that if actually plotted out, most games are won or lost at the freethrow line.


Then add in rebounding and you have the entire season sewn up.


My problem with a creator is that he has to dominate the ball to be effective. I don't like anyone dominating the ball, I like ball movement. Besides, even tho a fan of the old ABA, I'm getting bored with the 3 ball and feel it is ruining HS and college ball.



Larry Brown always stressed it a lot and his teams always got to the free throw line a ton.

Bball
06-14-2007, 08:33 AM
In general I want a creator on the team. If he can't hit 3's then so be it. ...Of course he needs to understand that he can't hit 3's and so take the majority of them in the off-season and after practice trying to work on that weakness (not jacking them up during games).

BUT.... this player doesn't HAVE to be the SG. As a team builder I'm looking for a creator first but I'd take him at any of the wing positions.

But if my scoring 'creator' can't hit 3's then I do want that skill at another position (but I'd be surprised that a dedicated player, with coaching, couldn't improve his 3 point range... Which is not to say I'd count on that scenario).

Ideally, my PG could hit an open 3 with some regularity which would allow me some flexibility at the 2 and 3 positions.

And I think balance is key. An over-reliance on an inside player known for bad decisions and poor FG% is NOT going to make your wing players shine or allow that aspect of their game to evolve. Not having a flow (rythm, timing, etc.) to the offense is going to hurt most wing players.

So the answer to your question... IMO... is "It depends".

-Bball

owl
06-14-2007, 08:41 AM
Would you rather have a shooting guard who can create his own shot and is good around the basket at drawing fouls, however they have no long range shot so to speak. They are good till about the 20' mark let's say.

Or would you rather have a dead eye shooter who is very good at the three point shot however requires help getting his shot off and can't creat off of the dribble.


I believe you have described the two types where by you have forced a person to take the creator. You put limitations that are much more severe on the shooter vs the creator. If you had said a shooter who is dead eye and can get his shot when he wants then you would be fair.

However with your description I choose creator. With a more fair description
I choose a shooting guard as that is what a shooting guard should be able to do....shoot....from long range.

BillS
06-14-2007, 08:55 AM
I think classically I want my 2 to be best from mid-range to outside and if screens or other help is required to increase his percentage, that's fine. In this classical system my 3 is the penetrator and shot creator from mid-range on in.

In reality I'd like to see those mixed a bit because it gives you the ability to address a specific defensive situation being thrown at you. Either way, the point would be not to win the game on jumpers (because they sometimes just go bad on you) but to constantly keep the defensive pressure off the 4 and 5 so that the lane is available for the easy shots.

RWB
06-14-2007, 10:01 AM
Give me the shooter. Since Reg retired how many times have we seen our guys wide open and can't hit a shot. That's the only reason it did hurt to see Peja not re-sign with the team.

When the ball was swung around into Reg's hands or Peja I expected that shot to go in. Watching someone like Freddie Jones, or Al, or Stephen take the shot I was hoping it would go in.

I want someone you can feel confident they will hit the shot when open. Ray Allen, Michael Redd, or Rip Hamilton aren't exactly big creators. They just know how to shoot the ball.

MagicRat
06-14-2007, 10:03 AM
I like shooting guards that can shoot.....

Evan_The_Dude
06-14-2007, 10:16 AM
I'll take option #1. If he can hit from anywhere until they get to the 20' area, it wouldn't take much more than some practice to add an extra 3' of range onto that shot. It sounds like option #1 is Marquis Daniels, #2 is Reggie Miller. Of course Reggie became better and better off the dribble as his career went on, so why couldn't Daniels get better and better at shooting from outside as his career goes on?

Even if the creator can't shoot, he can be enough of a threat to open things up for someone else that can. However, I'd rather stick a fork in the three-pointer and just try to get the 3 the old fashioned way -- from the free-throw line.

avoidingtheclowns
06-14-2007, 10:27 AM
I like shooting guards that can shoot.....

you're very needy.

Cobol Sam
06-14-2007, 10:34 AM
To start, I want to say I think Reggie Miller was a long range assassin who could also take a few dribble and hit runners or mid range jumpers and get fouled. Thats my ideal SG.

Since I have to choose between the two skills sets I would say since we currently have Jamaal playing point and able to create shots for others by getting lane penetration, Danny at the other wing showing improvement with putting the ball on the floor, and Daniels coming up for a healthy year with the ability to create shots... I want the shooter.

Cobol Sam
06-14-2007, 10:34 AM
I like shooting guards that can shoot.....

I like shooting guards that can guard things.

Robobtowncolt
06-14-2007, 10:36 AM
Still a fan of point guards that can point....

MagicRat
06-14-2007, 10:41 AM
Still a fan of point guards that can point....

Who isn't?

FlavaDave
06-14-2007, 10:46 AM
Well, since we are picking a one-dementional player, he would be a role player (unless he was great at one thing, like Reggie or Allen Iverson).

If you had a team of Andre Miller, Marquis, and Maggette, you would have some trouble because there would be no outside threat. If you had Carroll, Kapano, and Korver, you're going to have some trouble inside.


So I'll answer in the context of the Pacers, using Danny Granger, Jamaal Tinsley, JO, and Foster as the rest of my lineup. Danny is a good 3-pt shooter, and Jamaal can penetrate to a degree. So the tie breaker is JO. JO gives us enough of an inside presence that a spot shooter is more valuable.

So I would take the shooter. I want Ben Gordon in a bad way on this team.

I really like Marquis, though. If not for the injury history, I would hand him the PG spot right now.

avoidingtheclowns
06-14-2007, 10:51 AM
I really like Marquis, though. If not for the injury history, I would hand him the PG spot right now.

because its jamaal's lack of injuries that would make him your starting PG?

Evan_The_Dude
06-14-2007, 11:02 AM
I think we already have two of description #1 on our team (Daniels and in a way Dunleavy). I think we also have a mix of #2 on our team with Danny and Shawne. The only thing is those guys are SF's. They aren't dead eye, but they both can get hot from beyond the arc. They both are capable of driving and getting to the basket to draw fouls as well. A dead eye shooter isn't the easiest player to come by, but I believe if you have enough guys that can hit the outside shot well enough then you're just as good [see: the '05-'06 Miami Heat]. If we can stay healthy at the 2 & 3 positions [er, if Daniels can stay healthy], then I don't think we'll be half bad at the 2 & 3 spots.

FlavaDave
06-14-2007, 11:32 AM
because its jamaal's lack of injuries that would make him your starting PG?



No, it is the history of the Indiana Pacers using him as their starting point guard.

Shade
06-14-2007, 11:38 AM
What I want to do is hold on to JO this season, and if we continue to suck, trade up as high as we can next season (combine our draft pick with JO, for example) and draft Eric Gordon. Gordon is a creator AND a shooter, though a bit more of the former.

He's really going to be that good, folks.

ChicagoJ
06-14-2007, 11:50 AM
Larry Brown always stressed it a lot and his teams always got to the free throw line a ton.

Bo Hill stressed it a lot and his teams always got to the free throw line a ton.

Bo's coaching book says aggressive offense consists of three components (I used to have this as my signature.)

Offensive ORs
Getting to the FT line

I can't remember the third, I need to look it up at home.

Pretty much the opposite of the way Rick Carlisle coached the offense.

ChicagoJ
06-14-2007, 11:50 AM
I like shooting guards that can shoot.....

Damn... beat me to it.

ChicagoJ
06-14-2007, 11:51 AM
Still a fan of point guards that can point....

You too? Damn, I'm late to this game.

RWB
06-14-2007, 11:51 AM
What I want to do is hold on to JO this season, and if we continue to suck, trade up as high as we can next season (combine our draft pick with JO, for example)

My only concern is JO has a player out option after next season. Can't trade the guy if he is no longer here.

FlavaDave
06-14-2007, 12:16 PM
What I want to do is hold on to JO this season, and if we continue to suck, trade up as high as we can next season (combine our draft pick with JO, for example) and draft Eric Gordon. Gordon is a creator AND a shooter, though a bit more of the former.

He's really going to be that good, folks.


To get Eric Gordon, we would have to trade JO to a crappy team.

If we try to trade JO to a crappy team, he will opt out.

No deal.

mike_D
06-14-2007, 12:19 PM
It depends on what type of shooter he is. I don't think all shooters are created equal. For example Reggie Miller could dominate a game with his jumpshot, there are not many one dimensional players who can do that.He was able to hit a variety of shot many different ways.Whether it was coming off screens,shots off the dribble, leaners ect. So if I had a choice to pick that type of shooter and have a smallforward next to him who was good at getting to the basket, could post post smaller players and be a ok shooter I would take that option.

avoidingtheclowns
06-14-2007, 12:30 PM
To get Eric Gordon, we would have to trade JO to a crappy team.

If we try to trade JO to a crappy team, he will opt out.

No deal.

or you trade him to a good team for a pick and combine those two picks to trade up in the draft to a team that could use multiple picks.

LG33
06-14-2007, 12:41 PM
To get Eric Gordon, we would have to trade JO to a crappy team.

If we try to trade JO to a crappy team, he will opt out.

No deal.

Actually, for this to work, we'd just have to trade him for pennies on the dollar. Then we'd be the crappy team!

Slick Pinkham
06-14-2007, 12:50 PM
I like shooting guards that can shoot.....

I need to qualify that:

I like shooting guards that can shoot basketballs very well, but don't try to shoot guns at all, unless at a range or in hunting animals that are not in the vicinity of strip clubs.

ChicagoJ
06-14-2007, 12:55 PM
Where's UB's "I like shooting guards that can guard"?

I'm getting impatient.

Its one of PD's best traditions, and he's leaving us hanging.

FlavaDave
06-14-2007, 01:40 PM
Actually, for this to work, we'd just have to trade him for pennies on the dollar. Then we'd be the crappy team!



Woo hoo! Sign me up!

Roferr
06-14-2007, 01:51 PM
Give me a SG that can hit 50% from the field regardless of how he does it. His job is to fill the hole.

Unclebuck
06-14-2007, 02:01 PM
Where's UB's "I like shooting guards that can guard"?

I'm getting impatient.

Its one of PD's best traditions, and he's leaving us hanging.

Sorry, sorry, I'm falling down on the job. I do really like shooting guards who can guard. I would have said that to begin with, but Peck seems to onbly want to discuss the offensive skills of the shooting guard. Look what Bowen is doing for the Spurs.