- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jrue's Plan
Posted on 4/28/19 at 1:45 pm to Crewz
Posted on 4/28/19 at 1:45 pm to Crewz
Honestly, I didn't know that it was an issue or a problem. Holiday was always a very big combo guard. When he signed his contract, it was understood that he was moving to SG full time. But he is a good passer for the position and has the ability to defend 3 positions very well. So there is a degree of flexibility, but he is a SG. Players tend to age up and grow into different roles/positions. He will become a better shooter over time or just pick his shots better. But I don't see the debate of where he fits.
I don't understand why the standard terminology doesn't work. Every facet of the basketball world labels players this way. There isn't a site, team or league that totally tosses them away. There are always 5 players on the court. It is just understood that you can mix and match the groups however is most effective. I get that "position-less players" is a popular concept. But it is based on copying teams with superior talent. It's easy to adopt this when you have Durant, who is 7 feet, can play 4 positions and one of the greatest players ever, plus you have 5 other former or current all stars. It just isn't something you can mimic.
My best counter to this, is our former management. They came in with a similar belief, which manifested in us having 4-5 combo guards and 4-5 stretch bigs. It resulted in some fascinating match ups and moments of spectacular plays. But the holes were too large for us to make up and those players were set up for failure, cause we didn't play to their strengths. I would rather not go down that road again.
quote:
Give me an example or two if you don't mind where this would be the best terminology to use.
I don't understand why the standard terminology doesn't work. Every facet of the basketball world labels players this way. There isn't a site, team or league that totally tosses them away. There are always 5 players on the court. It is just understood that you can mix and match the groups however is most effective. I get that "position-less players" is a popular concept. But it is based on copying teams with superior talent. It's easy to adopt this when you have Durant, who is 7 feet, can play 4 positions and one of the greatest players ever, plus you have 5 other former or current all stars. It just isn't something you can mimic.
My best counter to this, is our former management. They came in with a similar belief, which manifested in us having 4-5 combo guards and 4-5 stretch bigs. It resulted in some fascinating match ups and moments of spectacular plays. But the holes were too large for us to make up and those players were set up for failure, cause we didn't play to their strengths. I would rather not go down that road again.
1
Posted on 4/28/19 at 1:58 pm to brmark70816
I am telling you - people who work inside basketball do not use positions. The only time I come across them is with fans. Sometimes, as a writer, we use them because the fans understand it better. Its short hand. But I promise you, teams don't say - "Well, we got our point guard, now we need a shooting guard and a power forward." Fans do that, but teams don't.
The issue with this short hand comes in the example I laid out and many others. You will see if we get Tatum and another poster says, "We should draft DeAndre Hunter" , then other posters will come back and say, "We already have Tatum as our small forward, we don't need Hunter. We should get Clarke because we need a power forward.
Compare this to actual front offices, where they would talk about what kind of players Tatum and Hunter can defend, whether they would get in each others way offensively or they would compliment each other. If either are primary or secondary ball handlers. If the spacing they provide outweighs average to below average defensive rebounding totals as an up front combo, etc etc.
Its just a better way to discuss basketball and team building/fit. Point guard in the way it is used now is stupid because if you look at the 30 guys who start at "point guard", you will find far more differences than similarities. There is no universal "point guard" but primary ball handler has a universal nature to it.
It might be asking too much at this point, but I just hope we can discuss it that way over time.
The issue with this short hand comes in the example I laid out and many others. You will see if we get Tatum and another poster says, "We should draft DeAndre Hunter" , then other posters will come back and say, "We already have Tatum as our small forward, we don't need Hunter. We should get Clarke because we need a power forward.
Compare this to actual front offices, where they would talk about what kind of players Tatum and Hunter can defend, whether they would get in each others way offensively or they would compliment each other. If either are primary or secondary ball handlers. If the spacing they provide outweighs average to below average defensive rebounding totals as an up front combo, etc etc.
Its just a better way to discuss basketball and team building/fit. Point guard in the way it is used now is stupid because if you look at the 30 guys who start at "point guard", you will find far more differences than similarities. There is no universal "point guard" but primary ball handler has a universal nature to it.
It might be asking too much at this point, but I just hope we can discuss it that way over time.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News