PDA

View Full Version : In the long run, can Paul George succeed as a starting SG?



Hicks
06-26-2010, 01:07 AM
Well?

tsm612
06-26-2010, 01:17 AM
All I hear about George is work ethic. He has already said that he wants to be the first to practice and the last to leave. His favorite player is Kobe because he works the hardest. George is also pretty adamant that he will be a SG. If his commitment and determination are legit, I'm inclined to believe him.

ilive4sports
06-26-2010, 01:20 AM
I think he has the ability to be a great player for us. And I think that he can play SG. Only thing that would make me think otherwise is JOB playing him at the 3, Danny at the 4, and Murphy at the 5. Then he will be a very good SF. Like said, he has a great work ethic. He has a connection with Granger. He wants to be here.

Kamiyohk
06-26-2010, 01:23 AM
He is better ball handler than Danny, and he Has better footwork too. Why not?

Trophy
06-26-2010, 01:32 AM
He said on the Dan Dakich Show that he can play SG as well or something along the lines of that.

At first I think he'll backup Danny just to learn some more and Mike will start at SG.

tadscout
06-26-2010, 01:35 AM
Supposed to have top notch athleticism... from what I've read and heard that extra 1-2 inches won't be issue (b/c of the level of athleticism, just needs to work on flexibility (T-Bird)/ things that can be worked on)... but could help more in causing mismatches...

IndyPacer
06-26-2010, 01:36 AM
He could succeed long-term at SG. I don't know that he's ready for that yet, but he is pretty athletic and quick for his size. He needs to improve his ballhandling first, though. Turnovers would be an issue currently.

PacerPride33
06-26-2010, 01:48 AM
yes he is going to be a stud

Psyren
06-26-2010, 03:03 AM
I absolutely believe the kid can play. Work ethic goes a long way in this league. He wants to be here. He's excited. He's determined. At this moment, I have no reason to believe he won't be successful.

Los Angeles
06-26-2010, 03:45 AM
Yes?

Day-V
06-26-2010, 03:49 AM
Sure, why not?

AesopRockOn
06-26-2010, 04:21 AM
Has anyone at that height ever started at the 2? Does T-Mac count?

I'm confused about people's responses.

Hillman's 'Fro'
06-26-2010, 05:11 AM
I haven't seen him play (video snippets don't count !) so I don't
have a clue.

Day-V
06-26-2010, 05:44 AM
Has anyone at that height ever started at the 2? Does T-Mac count?

I'm confused about people's responses.

I believe once Jalen left here he primarily played SG, and he was 6'8.

But then again, it's 5:45 AM. I ain't thinking straight.

deekay85
06-26-2010, 06:27 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H51_RekGcb4

all-star slam dunk contest, here we gooooo :-)

Day-V
06-26-2010, 06:41 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H51_RekGcb4

all-star slam dunk contest, here we gooooo :-)

My favorite one is probably his reverse 360 towards the end. Just looks so effortless.

Magic P
06-26-2010, 06:55 AM
Offensively if he reaches his potential he will abuse 2's day in and day out. I think most teams would put a 3 on PG24. I see a Tracy McGrady type of player in George, a guy who can rise above you and shoot the ball accurately and play somewhat good defense when he puts his mind to it. Hopefully if he reaches that level he can get us out the 1st round unlike teams McGrady played for. :D

On the defensive end i believe he would be abused by the Ray Allen type players who run through a million screens and the Kobe's of the world. But i think he can handle the average SG in the NBA on the defensive end if he puts in the hard work.

mildlysane
06-26-2010, 07:04 AM
On the defensive end i believe he would be abused by the Ray Allen type players who run through a million screens and the Kobe's of the world. But i think he can handle the average SG in the NBA on the defensive end if he puts in the hard work.

If we had a good defensive-minded coach, we could plan for that....:devil:

Anthem
06-26-2010, 07:39 AM
Love the poll choice, Hicks.

Magic P
06-26-2010, 07:42 AM
If we had a good defensive-minded coach, we could plan for that....:devil:

I would have loved to get Avery Johnson this offseason. I have a good feeling this is JOB's last season as coach though.

Putnam
06-26-2010, 08:05 AM
Don't get hung up on the definition of positions. The distinction between 2 and 3 doesn't matter. Consider George a "wing man," with the same role to play as the other "wing man."

He can do it.

odeez
06-26-2010, 08:36 AM
Don't get hung up on the definition of positions. The distinction between 2 and 3 doesn't matter. Consider George a "wing man," with the same role to play as the other "wing man."

He can do it.

Indeed, what he said!

SoupIsGood
06-26-2010, 08:44 AM
If he's athletic enough and has decent lateral quickness, it shouldn't be a problem. The problem w/ big SGs (like Mike) is usually that they're too slow laterally to guard 2's. If he can do that—and handle the ball marginally well—then he's golden.

Major Cold
06-26-2010, 08:52 AM
Can he guard the Wades, Roys, Mayos? Because those are the elites he will need to guard when he starts. They are quicker and better ball handlers than most 2s today.

Justin Tyme
06-26-2010, 08:57 AM
Has anyone at that height ever started at the 2? Does T-Mac count?

I'm confused about people's responses.


MIKE DUNLEAVY at 6'9" in 07-08 season.

Justin Tyme
06-26-2010, 09:01 AM
I was under the impression that George was drafted to be the future SG. IOW, Rush's replacement. I can't see any reason he can't.

Anthem
06-26-2010, 09:39 AM
Consider George a "wing man," with the same role to play as the other "wing man."
Distracting the target's female friends? Coming to the rescue if the date goes terribly?

IndyPacer
06-26-2010, 01:34 PM
Has anyone at that height ever started at the 2? Does T-Mac count?

I'm confused about people's responses.

We've had Stephen Jackson at 6'8" and Mike Dunleavy, Jr. at 6'9" have played both wing positions on this team within the past few years. What's so confusing about it?

There have also been tall guys playing guard spots like McGrady, Steve Smith, and Magic Johnson who have been All-Stars. Being tall doesn't prevent you from being a good guard. It's just that taller players tend to be slower on average and are generally placed in positions where they can rebound and block shots. If a tall player develops the necessary skillset to play SG and is athletic and quick enough, being tall isn't a problem at a guard spot. I don't see Paul George struggling too much regarding athleticism. He just needs to improve his ball handling to be able to play on the perimeter effectively and not turn the ball over.

BlueNGold
06-26-2010, 04:11 PM
He appears to be the size of SJax. I am hoping for SJax with a better, more consistent shooting stroke. If that comes true, he will be a fantastic SG.

idioteque
06-26-2010, 04:23 PM
If he fails, it won't be for lack of effort.

I'm unwilling to commit on anything without ever seeing him play even in the NBA Summer League, but coming out of the draft, we're in the best position we could realistically be in with regard to our new young talent.

woowoo
06-26-2010, 04:24 PM
I believe once Jalen left here he primarily played SG, and he was 6'8.

But then again, it's 5:45 AM. I ain't thinking straight.

Yep, Jalen played 1-3 all through this career... and Paul G is 10x the athlete Jalen was.

AesopRockOn
06-27-2010, 12:20 AM
We've had Stephen Jackson at 6'8" and Mike Dunleavy, Jr. at 6'9" have played both wing positions on this team within the past few years. What's so confusing about it?

There have also been tall guys playing guard spots like McGrady, Steve Smith, and Magic Johnson who have been All-Stars. Being tall doesn't prevent you from being a good guard. It's just that taller players tend to be slower on average and are generally placed in positions where they can rebound and block shots. If a tall player develops the necessary skillset to play SG and is athletic and quick enough, being tall isn't a problem at a guard spot. I don't see Paul George struggling too much regarding athleticism. He just needs to improve his ball handling to be able to play on the perimeter effectively and not turn the ball over.

Firstly, the confusing part is why so many people believe that he will "succeed as a starting SG." Hardly anyone has mentioned a thing about why they believe this to be so (or how they are so sure). I like (though do not agree with) your response. Perhaps everyone's just a little high off of drafting the kid and willing to let some realism slide in favor of enthusiasm. Maybe I'm being too much of a downer.

The way George is listed (6'9" and 215 lbs), he's taller than Danny. Danny is obviously a three with some '2' skills and some '4' skills. As far as I know, George only knows the '3' spot; what else can he know? He's 6'9" playing high school and college ball. The reason I brought up height is because, for the most part, history is a pretty good indicator of what will eventually happen. (More often than not, having a knucklehead on your roster will lead to bad chemistry; of course, there are anomalies like Zach Randolph's All Star season this past year. Despite this incongruity, this principle generally holds: see the Pacers' last decade, counting the upcoming couple/few years of desperate sadness.)

Having briefly checked rosters around the league, it seems that the tallest starting SG is good old Stephen Jackson. Whether Captain J is a starter on a contender (He was solid for the Spurs in 2003, a borderline starter.) is debatable. I do not consider Dunleavy to be a starting SG in this league, maybe a starting '3' with two or three better players in the starting lineup. T-Mac and Magic are unfair comparisons; they are two of the most physically gifted basketball players ever. Magic was luckier and did a little more with his talent. The Steve Smith comparison is strong; I don't have much argument there.

Maybe George becomes a huge anomaly, defying our expectations of the normally 6'5" (Ray Allen?) or 6'6" (Kobe Bryant?) starting SG. Maybe in an era that many believe is an era of the ball-dominant point guard and the importance of the sharp shooting stretch fours (though the Finals kind of ****ted on that premise), George is the revolutionary '2' that is actually taller than his fellow starting '3' on the wing. Maybe, despite the fact that his size (6'9" and 215) and skill set (range, athleticism, rebounds, steals and blocks; not a passer or ballhandler) scream small forward, he's a two. (One thing I would like to get a better sense of would be his ability to utilize screens to get himself open for catch-and-shoot opportunities; we had a player like that once.)

I'm mostly talking about offense. Here is what JW and TD said on 8pts9secs (http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/2010/06/truehoop-network-mockdraft-the-pacers-select/):
He could potentially take Rush’s job at the 2. Or, if Murphy is traded away, he could even end up playing some “stretch” 4 in the system. Overall, he looks like a very strong defender for the 3, a good defender at 4 and a passable-to-solid defender at the 2. Also, here's T-Bird (http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?p=1019469#post1019469) on George. Though he gives the same defensive qualities that TD gives, there is a strong emphasis that George is most likely a three in this league, especially on offense. These guys (and maybe I too) might argue that he could be a closing two.

Sorry for the uber-long response but, from what little tape I've seen and what all the scouts have mentioned, the guy is a near-exact replica of Danny. If he makes it in this league, he makes it as a three. That's just me.

P.S. I am not arguing that this was a poor pick or that I don't like the kid or that I want him to fail. I like the pick and will cheer my *** off for him and the rest of the team. Hell, I hated the Hansborough pick but still cheered for his clumsy, lumbering ***. All of this is simply in response to the poll.

I agree that I am getting
hung up on the definition of positions... [the] distinction between 2 and 3 . [in my best Craig Ferguson voice] It's the **%$^#@ question that Hicks is asking.

PacersPride
06-27-2010, 12:28 AM
Reggie was 6'7 if memory serves correctly. i understand your point. offensively i think he can play the off-guard, its defensively that would concern me. if he has the athleticsm and work ethic i see no reason why not. but this is also some of the reason im not ready for the P's to trade Rush, we have no idea yet what we are getting in this player, if we deal rush it may just open up another hole at sg.

he is a tweener plain and simple who fits more into the SG postion than SF.


Firstly, the confusing part is why so many people believe that he will "succeed as a starting SG." Hardly anyone has mentioned a thing about why they believe this to be so (or how they are so sure). I like (though do not agree with) your response. Perhaps everyone's just a little high off of drafting the kid and willing to let some realism slide in favor of enthusiasm. Maybe I'm being too much of a downer.

The way George is listed (6'9" and 215 lbs), he's taller than Danny. Danny is obviously a three with some '2' skills and some '4' skills. As far as I know, George only knows the '3' spot; what else can he know? He's 6'9" playing high school and college ball. The reason I brought up height is because, for the most part, history is a pretty good indicator of what will eventually happen. (More often than not, having a knucklehead on your roster will lead to bad chemistry; of course, there are anomalies like Zach Randolph's All Star season this past year. Despite this incongruity, this principle generally holds: see the Pacers' last decade, counting the upcoming couple/few years of desperate sadness.)

Having briefly checked rosters around the league, it seems that the tallest starting SG is good old Stephen Jackson. Whether Captain J is a starter on a contender (He was solid for the Spurs in 2003, a borderline starter.) is debatable. I do not consider Dunleavy to be a starting SG in this league, maybe a starting '3' with two or three better players in the starting lineup. T-Mac and Magic are unfair comparisons; they are two of the most physically gifted basketball players ever. Magic was luckier and did a little more with his talent. The Steve Smith comparison is strong; I don't have much argument there.

Maybe George becomes a huge anomaly, defying our expectations of the normally 6'5" (Ray Allen?) or 6'6" (Kobe Bryant?) starting SG. Maybe in an era that many believe is an era of the ball-dominant point guard and the importance of the sharp shooting stretch fours (though the Finals kind of ****ted on that premise), George is the revolutionary '2' that is actually taller than his fellow starting '3' on the wing. Maybe, despite the fact that his size (6'9" and 215) and skill set (range, athleticism, rebounds, steals and blocks; not a passer or ballhandler) scream small forward, he's a two. (One thing I would like to get a better sense of would be his ability to utilize screens to get himself open for catch-and-shoot opportunities; we had a player like that once.)

I'm mostly talking about offense. Here is what JW and TD said on 8pts9secs (http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/2010/06/truehoop-network-mockdraft-the-pacers-select/): Also, here's T-Bird (http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?p=1019469#post1019469) on George. Though he gives the same defensive qualities that TD has, there is a strong emphasis that George is most likely a three in this league, especially on offense. These guys (and maybe I too) might argue that he could be a closing two.

Sorry for the uber-long response but, from what little tape I've seen and what all the scouts have mentioned, the guy is a near-exact replica of Danny. If he makes it in this league, he makes it as a three. That's just me.

P.S. I am not arguing that this was a poor pick or that I don't like the kid or that I want him to fail. I like the pick and will cheer my *** off for him and the rest of the team. Hell, I hated the Hansborough pick but still cheered for his clumsy, lumbering ***. All of this is simply in response to the poll.

I agree that I am getting . [in my best Craig Ferguson voice] It's the **%$^#@ question that Hicks is asking.

IndyPacer
06-27-2010, 02:57 AM
Firstly, the confusing part is why so many people believe that he will "succeed as a starting SG." Hardly anyone has mentioned a thing about why they believe this to be so (or how they are so sure). I like (though do not agree with) your response. Perhaps everyone's just a little high off of drafting the kid and willing to let some realism slide in favor of enthusiasm. Maybe I'm being too much of a downer.

The way George is listed (6'9" and 215 lbs), he's taller than Danny. Danny is obviously a three with some '2' skills and some '4' skills. As far as I know, George only knows the '3' spot; what else can he know? He's 6'9" playing high school and college ball. The reason I brought up height is because, for the most part, history is a pretty good indicator of what will eventually happen. (More often than not, having a knucklehead on your roster will lead to bad chemistry; of course, there are anomalies like Zach Randolph's All Star season this past year. Despite this incongruity, this principle generally holds: see the Pacers' last decade, counting the upcoming couple/few years of desperate sadness.)

Having briefly checked rosters around the league, it seems that the tallest starting SG is good old Stephen Jackson. Whether Captain J is a starter on a contender (He was solid for the Spurs in 2003, a borderline starter.) is debatable. I do not consider Dunleavy to be a starting SG in this league, maybe a starting '3' with two or three better players in the starting lineup. T-Mac and Magic are unfair comparisons; they are two of the most physically gifted basketball players ever. Magic was luckier and did a little more with his talent. The Steve Smith comparison is strong; I don't have much argument there.

Maybe George becomes a huge anomaly, defying our expectations of the normally 6'5" (Ray Allen?) or 6'6" (Kobe Bryant?) starting SG. Maybe in an era that many believe is an era of the ball-dominant point guard and the importance of the sharp shooting stretch fours (though the Finals kind of ****ted on that premise), George is the revolutionary '2' that is actually taller than his fellow starting '3' on the wing. Maybe, despite the fact that his size (6'9" and 215) and skill set (range, athleticism, rebounds, steals and blocks; not a passer or ballhandler) scream small forward, he's a two. (One thing I would like to get a better sense of would be his ability to utilize screens to get himself open for catch-and-shoot opportunities; we had a player like that once.)

I'm mostly talking about offense. Here is what JW and TD said on 8pts9secs (http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/2010/06/truehoop-network-mockdraft-the-pacers-select/): Also, here's T-Bird (http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?p=1019469#post1019469) on George. Though he gives the same defensive qualities that TD gives, there is a strong emphasis that George is most likely a three in this league, especially on offense. These guys (and maybe I too) might argue that he could be a closing two.

Sorry for the uber-long response but, from what little tape I've seen and what all the scouts have mentioned, the guy is a near-exact replica of Danny. If he makes it in this league, he makes it as a three. That's just me.

P.S. I am not arguing that this was a poor pick or that I don't like the kid or that I want him to fail. I like the pick and will cheer my *** off for him and the rest of the team. Hell, I hated the Hansborough pick but still cheered for his clumsy, lumbering ***. All of this is simply in response to the poll.

I agree that I am getting . [in my best Craig Ferguson voice] It's the **%$^#@ question that Hicks is asking.

I would agree that his best position is indeed 3 right now. It's probably his most natural position just as it was T-mac's. He shares a lot of strengths with Granger, but George also happens to be a better athlete than Granger has ever been. George is quick enough that he has the physical tools to guard 2, 3, and 4 (if he adds strength). He also has the tools to do a lot of things he would need to do to play 2 on the other end of the floor with the exception of ballhandling, which I have listed as a concern in multiple posts. Paul George's ballhandling isn't where it needs to be yet, but the question posed in this poll was clearly qualified as "long term." Long term I think he is capable of improving his ballhandling and passing enough to play at the 2. I think he may back up both the 2 and 3 early in his career. Rush isn't exactly a wizard at ballhandling either and played more minutes than anyone else on our team while starting at 2. I'm not sure T-mac is that unfair of a comparison, and I used T-mac and Magic as examples of the the highest level of success of tall guards, not as typical examples. George may not be a freak of nature athlete, but he's not that far off. He's easily the best athlete we've had on this team in awhile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H51_RekGcb4&feature=related

pacers_heath
06-27-2010, 03:19 AM
One of the things I'm really liking about this guy is his personality. He's very positive and well-spoken. He seems like he would make a good leader. He sounds like he really wants to be here too with DG. I'm excited to see what he can do.

pwee31
06-27-2010, 04:00 AM
I believe he has the ability to not only succeed but be a star. I actually think the Pacers drafted 2 players who have the POTENTIAL to be stars.

How things play out may be different, but it's nice to know we have talented guys, who hopefully put their talents to good use, and continue to work hard to get better

SoupIsGood
06-27-2010, 06:15 AM
George is .25 inches taller than Danny granger.

Why are we getting so caught up with the difference of one inch? Take one inch away and George is 6' 7.75" in shoes, and no one cares. It makes more sense to look holistically at George's overall skill-and athleticism- level, which as far as I know seems to suggest that the main obstacle to him succeeding as a 2 is the need to polish his ball-handling. (Which, if we have a skilled PG, isn't as much of a concern.)

SJax is easily a starter on a contender, so long as he keeps his temper under control. And he's routinely taller than the SF next to him.

BRushWithDeath
06-27-2010, 01:53 PM
Considering he was on a team who couldn't even crack .500 in the WAC, I've never seen one game of Paul George. Just as I imagine most of you have. It's impossible to tell by a Youtube highlight video of a guy making some plays against some terrible competition whether or not he can do it.

Merz
06-27-2010, 02:13 PM
Joe Johnson is another 6'8 sg

Hicks
06-27-2010, 02:20 PM
Considering he was on a team who couldn't even crack .500 in the WAC, I've never seen one game of Paul George. Just as I imagine most of you have. It's impossible to tell by a Youtube highlight video of a guy making some plays against some terrible competition whether or not he can do it.

So then what are you assuming at this point, and why?

ilive4sports
06-27-2010, 02:31 PM
Considering he was on a team who couldn't even crack .500 in the WAC, I've never seen one game of Paul George. Just as I imagine most of you have. It's impossible to tell by a Youtube highlight video of a guy making some plays against some terrible competition whether or not he can do it.

What about the fact that he made plays against the best players in this draft in his workouts? Thats what caused him to rise on the draft boards.

MLB007
06-27-2010, 03:20 PM
Well?

How many here have actually seen him play?
At all?
Not counting highlight clips.

So how can any one have anything other than a complete and total guess? :hmm:

Blink
06-27-2010, 03:43 PM
I'll take T-Bird's (http://www.pacersdigest.net/2010/06/16/tbird-2010-draft-analysis-7-paul-george/) word on this one.

cdash
06-27-2010, 04:16 PM
Joe Johnson is another 6'8 sg

Yes, but his skill set is closer to being a point guard than a small forward. His ballhandling is far superior to George's.

I think this guy is a prototypical 3. I think that most people on here probably know that, but they want him to be a 2. No, it's not a huge difference, as they are both wing positions, but I think with a young guy like this, you try to put him in the position that gives him the best possible chance to succeed, which I think is at the 3. I'm not saying the guy can't play the 2, but I think in the long run, he will end up as a 3.

IndyPacer
06-27-2010, 04:23 PM
Yes, but his skill set is closer to being a point guard than a small forward. His ballhandling is far superior to George's.

I think this guy is a prototypical 3. I think that most people on here probably know that, but they want him to be a 2. No, it's not a huge difference, as they are both wing positions, but I think with a young guy like this, you try to put him in the position that gives him the best possible chance to succeed, which I think is at the 3. I'm not saying the guy can't play the 2, but I think in the long run, he will end up as a 3.

Can't he backup 3 while learning to play the 2? He should eventually become skilled enough to play both positions. I don't think backing up Rush and Granger at 2 and 3 would destroy his potential, especially if he's playing a lot of the time in the second unit. Where I think people are making a big mistake is assuming that we should just trade Rush right now because George is on his way to becoming an All-Star at SG. That's unlikely to happen.

BRushWithDeath
06-27-2010, 04:53 PM
So then what are you assuming at this point, and why?

I don't have a clue. He's a complete wildcard. I have no idea what to expect and couldn't even throw out a guess.

Though, I will admit the fact that he was on such a miserable team has me nervous. It's hard for me to see any college team with a legit top-10 NBA draft pick not having a winning record against WAC competition. It's even harder for me when the people who watch that conference the most, couldn't even say he was one of the 5 best players in that league. Perhaps, I am a natural skeptic but those two things have me worried.

jeffg-body
06-28-2010, 01:30 AM
I think he would fare much better than Dun. He might not have the most explosive first step on D, but he can make up for his guy passing him with his size and block the shot from behind. This kid is a baller. We would have to find ways to get this kid in the game. If possible we could put Danny in the 4 spot for short bursts teamed up with Hibbert at the 5 with George manning the 3 spot and Rush (or Stephenson if he gets traded) in the 2 spot. We would now just need to get the PG we can afford like a Felton or Flynn.

cdash
06-28-2010, 01:52 AM
Can't he backup 3 while learning to play the 2? He should eventually become skilled enough to play both positions. I don't think backing up Rush and Granger at 2 and 3 would destroy his potential, especially if he's playing a lot of the time in the second unit. Where I think people are making a big mistake is assuming that we should just trade Rush right now because George is on his way to becoming an All-Star at SG. That's unlikely to happen.

Yeah, and I assume that is how we will use him. Some people are already plugging him in as a starter, which I don't think he's ready for yet.

I don't have a problem trading Rush, and to be honest I didn't before we got George and Stephenson. I think something will give before the start of the season. I'd be pretty surprised if we started the season with Granger, George, Rush, Dunleavy, Stephenson, and Jones all on the wing. Obviously, I think we would like to trade Dunleavy and his expiring contract, but I think the most movable out of them (besides Granger and George) would be Rush, which is why I'm not sure he isn't going to be the odd man out.

Wage
06-28-2010, 02:32 AM
Seems like folks are getting way too caught up in position names to me. The guy is a wing. Teams commonly use 2 or even 3 wings on the court simultaneously.

What is it that makes a guy a 2 guard? Many answers here seem to revolve around the fact that you have to be great ball handler to be a 2. If that is the case, someone needs to call Reggie Miller and let him know he was actually a SF his entire career.

PacersPride
06-28-2010, 02:42 AM
the guy is 20 years old, 6'8 and 215. my guess is he is still growing as well. so when he is 25 im guessing he may be 6'9 225.

thats a small forwards common size. but George has stated he feels like an off guard.

i would say he is a tweener. much like a combo gaurd, this guy is a combo forward/guard.

offensively i dont think it matters much, my question is can he guard shooting gaurds.

some guys may give him problems like Wade, Curry so i guess time will tell. i still think trading Rush is a bad idea when we have expirings that can accompish the same thing.

a trio of Granger, Rush, George seems like a good one to have.

IndyPacer
06-28-2010, 03:27 AM
the guy is 20 years old, 6'8 and 215. my guess is he is still growing as well. so when he is 25 im guessing he may be 6'9 225.

thats a small forwards common size. but George has stated he feels like an off guard.

i would say he is a tweener. much like a combo gaurd, this guy is a combo forward/guard.

offensively i dont think it matters much, my question is can he guard shooting gaurds.

some guys may give him problems like Wade, Curry so i guess time will tell. i still think trading Rush is a bad idea when we have expirings that can accompish the same thing.

a trio of Granger, Rush, George seems like a good one to have.


The term "tweener" implies that he isn't suited for either position. I think he's going to fit in just fine at 3 and should be able to guard some 2s and 4s. Offensively, I think he'll do well at 3 and should be able to learn 2. I also like the combo of Granger, Rush, and George. I want to keep all three of those guys.

AesopRockOn
06-28-2010, 05:23 AM
Seems like folks are getting way too caught up in position names to me.

Sorry if I'm coming off as obnoxious but,


In the long run, can Paul George succeed as a starting SG?

If anyone is getting too caught up in positions, it's Hicks. Blame him. :D


What is it that makes a guy a 2 guard? Many answers here seem to revolve around the fact that you have to be great ball handler to be a 2. If that is the case, someone needs to call Reggie Miller and let him know he was actually a SF his entire career.

A '2' guard is aka a shooting guard. SHOOTING (Ray, Rip?). To me, that's pretty important. For that asset alone, I don't think anyone would dare even jokingly insinuate that Reggie would be played at any position other than SG (Fill in your JOB joke.). Reggie also didn't rebound much, adding to the 'George probably isn't a '2'' argument. If one is not at least very competent at knocking down open jumpers from 20+ feet, he (Tony Allen?) is probably not a shooting guard.

The ballhandling thing, I think, is a more recent phenomenon with teams relying on '2' guards (Kobe, Wade, BRoy?) to hold primary ball handling duties, especially in key stretches of high pressure. A shooting guard must be able to put the ball on the floor if the defender overplays, but much of this is solid footwork and good mental recognition.

The SG has to score. HAS TO. Unless he has a world class skill, probably one-on-one defense (Bowen, Augmon?), that keeps him off the bench, he needs at least to be the second highest scorer on the team with some exceptions (Nuggets, Thunder, Bucks?); though it is likely that, if a SG is not doing a lot of scoring, he is holding his team back. (Obviously there is some variation here. This discussion could go on for many paragraphs.)

I don't think that anyone has argued that the '2' and the '3' are not interchangeable in several respects (shooting vs. driving, defensive switches?). When I first posted, all I wanted to do was get some discussion started because there was unanimous consent and yet underdeveloped reasoning for the poll being so skewed towards 'Yes.' I'm done with this thread. It was nice.

P.S. I'm actually a lot more interested in the free agent market currently. Initially, I was kind of tickled by the idea of a Bron-Bosh pairing in Chicago, but, as time has gone on and it seems more and more likely (almost impending), I'm freaking the **** out and thinking that that single move (more than anything Larry could do) affects this team more than anything right now. Not just as Eastern conference or even division rivals (using this term lightly), but as two teams who desperately want to return to 90's glory days. This sets us (and all the other up-and-coming and rebuilding teams) back about eight years if it happens and comes close to working from a chemistry standpoint. I'm terrified.

Putnam
06-28-2010, 07:29 AM
I don't think that anyone has argued that the '2' and the '3' are not interchangeable in several respects


Go a step further. Some of us have asked if those two players aren't altogether interchangeable.

1984
06-28-2010, 08:23 PM
Has anyone at that height ever started at the 2? Does T-Mac count?

I'm confused about people's responses.

Of course, Stephen Jackson is 6'8" and Mike Dunleavy is 6'9''. I'm quite sure that there are many more. Magic Johnson, who played point guard, was 6'9" while Charles Barkley, a power forward, was 6'7". Size is a factor, but it is not the determining factor of a position.

1984
06-28-2010, 08:24 PM
Sorry if I'm coming off as obnoxious but,



If anyone is getting too caught up in positions, it's Hicks. Blame him. :D



A '2' guard is aka a shooting guard. SHOOTING (Ray, Rip?). To me, that's pretty important. For that asset alone, I don't think anyone would dare even jokingly insinuate that Reggie would be played at any position other than SG

When Reggie came in the league he was a small forward. It was very brief, but that is accurate.

MillerTime
06-28-2010, 08:42 PM
Hes reminds me of a cross between T-Mac/Granger/Ariza

I havent seen much of him, but from what Ive seen on youtube he can play SG. He has decent ball handles (which is good enough for a SG) and he has a great release from the 3 point line

Ozwalt72
06-28-2010, 09:00 PM
Other than point guard, I look at positions as "What position can you defend?" /sarcasm Troy Murphy and Mike Dunleavy have no position, does that void their contract?! /sarcasm off

Can he defend most SGs? We'll see.

Anthem
06-28-2010, 09:10 PM
Other than point guard, I look at positions as "What position can you defend?"

Can he defend most SGs? We'll see.
Great point. That's exactly how I view it as well, but I've never said it so succinctly.


Troy Murphy and Mike Dunleavy have no position, does that void their contract?!
And that's exactly what's bothered me about both players the entire time I've been here.

Anthem
06-28-2010, 09:14 PM
Can't he backup 3 while learning to play the 2?
My ideal rotation going into the season would be Danny/Rush backed up by George/D.Jones with Dunleavy and Stephenson on the third string (hopefully not playing).

Frontline is Hibbert/Foster backed up by McRoberts/Tyler with Troy/Magnum/Solo on the third string (hopefully not playing).

Point guard is X backed up by Price with TJ on the bench (hopefully not playing).

List of guys I'd trade for a future first-round pick just to get them out of the rotation:
- Murph
- Dunleavy
- TJ Ford