What the FO can do is get a point guard that can lob him the ball on a regular basis. Look at Deandre Jordan in the playoffs, he may not be an amazing offensive player, but i LOVE watching him play. A monster on D and if you toss that ball up, he's big and athletic enough to go get it. He doesn't have to have his own offensive game, if the players around him can compensate for his weaknesses
Can WCSs D make up for his lack of O?
- Thread starter 9x1x6
- Start date
- Status
The beauty of Kaminsky is that he can play inside or outside. While I agree with 206Fan that they ran the offense through Kaminsky at times, he was never a ball stopper. When he got it he either shot it, or moved it. I'm not advocating we draft Kaminsky, but I could see him playing along side Cousins and fitting in. He's not a one note somba.
Unfortunately I agree. It would take a big trade of some sort to get one. One scenario, and even if the situation developed, I doubt it would happen, but if we moved up into the 2nd or 3rd spot, and the Lakers were to have another team jump ahead of them as well, that would move them into the 6th spot, which would mean their pick would go to Philly. At that point, if Philly wasn't the other team that jumped ahead, they would hold the 5th and 6th picks in the draft. Then it would come down to, how bad do they want Russell? Would they give up both picks for the 2nd or 3rd pick to get him? I doubt it, but it's a faint possibility. Another possible scenario, would have a team in the 11th, 12th, 13th, or 14th position jumping into the top three along with us. Then two things happen. Not only does Philly end up with the laker pick, they also end up with the Heat pick (the 10th), which they might be more willing to trade along with either the 5th or 6th pick.
I wouldn't hold my breath on either of those happening, but it's fun to think about.
I wouldn't hold my breath on either of those happening, but it's fun to think about.
That's an interesting way of viewing the Warriors. And by interesting I mean wrong.
The Warriors were a lot more "positionless" when they were running Curry and Ellis at the guards and Thompson/Dorrell Wright at the SF and David Lee at PF.
Trading Ellis for Bogut established a much more "traditional" lineup with a true center while also moving Curry and Thompson to the guard spots where instead of being undersized they were now had a slight size advantage against other backcourts. Other than Draymond Green I don't see how anyone can say the Warriors are "positionless". Sure Iguodala can swing between SG and SF and Harrison Barnes occasionally gets some run at PF but by and large they are a very traditional basketball team. Very skilled for sure but the Warriors are no more "positionless" than the Kings of the early 2000's.
The Warriors were a lot more "positionless" when they were running Curry and Ellis at the guards and Thompson/Dorrell Wright at the SF and David Lee at PF.
Trading Ellis for Bogut established a much more "traditional" lineup with a true center while also moving Curry and Thompson to the guard spots where instead of being undersized they were now had a slight size advantage against other backcourts. Other than Draymond Green I don't see how anyone can say the Warriors are "positionless". Sure Iguodala can swing between SG and SF and Harrison Barnes occasionally gets some run at PF but by and large they are a very traditional basketball team. Very skilled for sure but the Warriors are no more "positionless" than the Kings of the early 2000's.
Positionless basketball has always been around. The Kings were just the first to ever give it a defined name. It's ironic how fans laugh at the Kings for their "POSITION-LESS BASKETBALL" idea, when the best of the best teams use it. Houston doesn't even have a starting PG. They have Josh Smith, Terrance Jones, and Dwight Howard all in the same lineup. Which one plays PF?
On the Warriors, their only defined starting lineup is PG, SG, and C. Barnes and Green and all switch around a lot depending on matchups. Their bench is also another Q mark. They have periods of times where they have a lineup of Curry-Livingston-Iggy-Thompson-PF/C
In that lineup, Iggy usually handles the ball.
Positionless basketball has always been around in the NBA. The Kings are just the first to trademark that name. This is the "small" ball lineups and the "big" ball lineups.
We're at the point where combo guards dominate the NBA. I think it's pretty safe to say that the NBA is changing into "positionless" positions. Is Cousins a PF or is he a C?
In that lineup, Iggy usually handles the ball.
Positionless basketball has always been around in the NBA. The Kings are just the first to trademark that name. This is the "small" ball lineups and the "big" ball lineups.
We're at the point where combo guards dominate the NBA. I think it's pretty safe to say that the NBA is changing into "positionless" positions. Is Cousins a PF or is he a C?
Barnes very rarely guards PFs. If anything Green and Bogut trade defensive assignments as was often the case in the Memphis series.
And Iguodala has always been a ball handler/facilitator throughout his career. The Warriors definitely do have a couple players that are swiss army knives in Iguodala and Green but I still wouldn't say they are a positionless team. Again, Doug Christie, Webber and Vlade all handled the ball, initiated the offense etc and Bibby was much more of a shooter/scorer than a traditional PG but I didn't view that team as "positionless" either.
The Rockets on the other hand can make more of a claim on that, especially when they start Josh Smith.
I seem to recall that The Big O, Mr. Logo, Clyde & Pearl, the original IT and many more guys who dominated the NBA in their time too. And I'm just barely old enough to remember people talking about how Magic Johnson was going to revolutionize the NBA and soon there'd just be teams of 6'8" guys who could do it all. But it hasn't happened.
As for DeMarcus Cousins, he's a big. To me there's a lot less demarcation (no pun intended) between PF/C as there is between PG/SG and even those lines get blurred all the time. Boogie is a guy who can play in the block or step outside. He's skilled enough to play either role, or change between them. Whether you call him a C or PF (to me) is much more about who the other guy is playing with him and how that player approaches the game.
And Iguodala has always been a ball handler/facilitator throughout his career. The Warriors definitely do have a couple players that are swiss army knives in Iguodala and Green but I still wouldn't say they are a positionless team. Again, Doug Christie, Webber and Vlade all handled the ball, initiated the offense etc and Bibby was much more of a shooter/scorer than a traditional PG but I didn't view that team as "positionless" either.
The Rockets on the other hand can make more of a claim on that, especially when they start Josh Smith.
I seem to recall that The Big O, Mr. Logo, Clyde & Pearl, the original IT and many more guys who dominated the NBA in their time too. And I'm just barely old enough to remember people talking about how Magic Johnson was going to revolutionize the NBA and soon there'd just be teams of 6'8" guys who could do it all. But it hasn't happened.
As for DeMarcus Cousins, he's a big. To me there's a lot less demarcation (no pun intended) between PF/C as there is between PG/SG and even those lines get blurred all the time. Boogie is a guy who can play in the block or step outside. He's skilled enough to play either role, or change between them. Whether you call him a C or PF (to me) is much more about who the other guy is playing with him and how that player approaches the game.
PG-SG-SF-PF-C are not useful descriptors of players for a long time: players have roles on offense, based on their skillset, while their roles defensively are determined by their physical ability.
Was Bill Lambeer C or PF? Mahorn and Edwards were playing closer to the basket on offense, while Lambeer was a jumpshooter.
David Robinson was a faceup PF.
Robert Horry was basically SF on offense.
Rodman played like a center on offense for Bulls, and could guard multiple positions.
What year was it, when Magic Johnson was defending Darryl Dawkins?
The fact that Andrew Bogut was able to guard Tony Allen is not a testament of Bogut's "multi-positionness", but rather of Allen's offensive ineptitude. Spurs and OKC did the same in previous years.
Was Bill Lambeer C or PF? Mahorn and Edwards were playing closer to the basket on offense, while Lambeer was a jumpshooter.
David Robinson was a faceup PF.
Robert Horry was basically SF on offense.
Rodman played like a center on offense for Bulls, and could guard multiple positions.
What year was it, when Magic Johnson was defending Darryl Dawkins?
The fact that Andrew Bogut was able to guard Tony Allen is not a testament of Bogut's "multi-positionness", but rather of Allen's offensive ineptitude. Spurs and OKC did the same in previous years.
Last edited:
I'm showing my age here, but I go back a long way. I feel blessed to have seen Oscar Robertson, Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell etc, play. I was fortunate enough to know Bob Pettit. Robertson wasn't called a PG back then. Each team just had two guards and two forwards. Usually one of the two guards did the bulk of the ball handling and distributing. There were exceptions like Frazier and Monroe, either of which could have played the primary guard position. If memory serves, the title of PG became popular around the time of Bob Cousy, who was a wizard with the ball. He and Bill Sharman shared the backcourt for the Celtics. Titles are just that, and giving you one or the other doesn't make you a better player. It just serves to define you.
- Status