Curry anyone?

[bajaden]

JWill struggled mightily as the Princeton took hold -- his impact was out in the open court. As we morphed into a halfcourt Princeton team he was a fish out of water, lsot his minutes, and eventually lost his job.

Here are the types of players the Princeton works against:

-- slashers w/o jumpshots
-- rebounding/shotblocking bigs without much offense
-- one on one players
-- PGs who dominate the ball
-- physical guys without high I.Q.

Well, lets see. Slashers w/o jumpshots. Hmmm, I think their somewhat limited in any offense once the defense figures them out..

Rebounding/shotblocking bigs without much offense. Hey, your the one that used Pollard as an example of why Thabeet could fit in.

One on one players. That one I agree with, but unless they happen to be someone named Wade, Lebron, or Kobe, and not Salmons, I can live without them.

PG's that dominate the ball. I would extend that to anyone that dominates the ball. (see one on one players)

Physcial guys w/o high IQ. OK, so most of my family were truck drivers. Lets not get personal here.

 

[stevetaebo]

As would a Stephen and Kevin backcourt on defense.

In Curry's defense he did get 2.5 steals a game. So potentially he could be one of those non-positional defenders who can pick pockets. But he will definitely get pwned in his first couple of years by veterans.

Offensively, One thing he defintely has to work on is ball protection. 5.6asst/avg but with a 1.5 A/T. However, in his defense this was his 1st year as PG for Tommy Davidson U.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

In Curry's defense he did get 2.5 steals a game. So potentially he could be one of those non-positional defenders who can pick pockets. But he will definitely get pwned in his first couple of years by veterans.

Offensively, One thing he defintely has to work on is ball protection. 5.6asst/avg but with a 1.5 A/T. However, in his defense this was his 1st year as PG for Tommy Davidson U.

I think the problem Brick is alluding to is not that Curry can't be a pesky defender, but that pairing him with KMart would be a disaster. Now if we traded KMart for another player, then having Curry as essentially his replacement would make a lot more sense.

 

[stevetaebo]

I think the problem Brick is alluding to is not that Curry can't be a pesky defender, but that pairing him with KMart would be a disaster. Now if we traded KMart for another player, then having Curry as essentially his replacement would make a lot more sense.

Agreed.

 

[iowamcnabb]

Ive been thinking lately that Curry is exactly what we need. If Rubio isnt available I bet Geoff takes him. He obviously can score and can take over the role that Kevin cannot fill as floor leader. Jason, Spencer, Kmart and Curry would make a pretty nice foundation. Fill that in with 2 shooters, and 2 bangers and you are back to contending sooner rather than later.

 

[Kingster]

Curry is out of the question at #4. He can't get his own shot. He's athletically challenged. That would be an absolute disaster. I might take him with our 2nd rounder; that's it.

 

[sactownfan]

I'd think Curry will be REALLY good on the right team.... unfortunately our players cant create their own shots. Curry as the PG would be a nightmare... We dont need an avg passing/driving PG we need a great passing/driving PG to get the most out this team.

 

[midtowner]

Curry can't get his own shot?

Saw Curry play at Saint Marys in the NIT. The guy was able to get his own shot off when 3 defenders were keying on him. He reminds me of Steve Nash for his ability to get his shot off in a number of different ways (and angles). He is one of the most natural basketball players that I have ever seen and seemed to care much more about winning than his own points. I can understand why people are scared of what our defense will be like if we pair him with Martin, but I am not seeing many good alternatives if Rubio is gone. We could use a superior athlete, but I have big question about DeRozen and Evans (will they be able to develop a perimeter game in the NBA/help transform the culture of a losing team?). At least a Curry and Martin Backcourt would open things up in the paint for the rest of the team. Plus we would have an intelligent/effective offense. I would rather have the Kings look good on one end of the floor than bad on both. That said, I hope Rubio leverages his way onto the Kings.

 

[est.1999]

am I the only one who really doesn't want to see the Princeton offense anymore??

 

[iowamcnabb]

Some guys just find a way to score. He was consistent in all three of his college years, played well against the big schools and was big in the tourney. Unless we change systems, we dont utilize the point guard in the traditonal sense anyway, so I think a "combo" guard would do just fine. IMO he would flourish in Sactown.

 

[Kingster]

Saw Curry play at Saint Marys in the NIT. The guy was able to get his own shot off when 3 defenders were keying on him. He reminds me of Steve Nash for his ability to get his shot off in a number of different ways (and angles). He is one of the most natural basketball players that I have ever seen and seemed to care much more about winning than his own points. I can understand why people are scared of what our defense will be like if we pair him with Martin, but I am not seeing many good alternatives if Rubio is gone. We could use a superior athlete, but I have big question about DeRozen and Evans (will they be able to develop a perimeter game in the NBA/help transform the culture of a losing team?). At least a Curry and Martin Backcourt would open things up in the paint for the rest of the team. Plus we would have an intelligent/effective offense. I would rather have the Kings look good on one end of the floor than bad on both. That said, I hope Rubio leverages his way onto the Kings.

The NIT isn't the NCAAs, and it certainly isn't the NBA. Against athletic players and teams, Curry struggled. If he can stand in the corner and take wide-open threes he could do OK. But he's marginally quick, and he's small, and that doesn't cut it in the NBA. You have to have the potential to do a lot more than that though if you're the 4th pick in the draft. If we take Curry we're on our way to be the All-Non-Athletic team in the NBA.

 

[Kingster]

JWill struggled mightily as the Princeton took hold -- his impact was out in the open court. As we morphed into a halfcourt Princeton team he was a fish out of water, lsot his minutes, and eventually lost his job.

Here are the types of players the Princeton works against:

-- slashers w/o jumpshots
-- rebounding/shotblocking bigs without much offense
-- one on one players
-- PGs who dominate the ball
-- physical guys without high I.Q.

It had nothing to do with the Princeton offense. You must be a Harvard guy or something. The anti-Princeton offense thing is over the top. J-Will's weaknesses had to do with ANY half-court offense - the Princeton, the UCLA, the USC, or even the Duke. The guy couldn't make a lay-up for crying out loud. For somebody so quick he was the worst finisher I've ever seen. And he was timid going to the basket (probably because he couldn't finish), which was probably due to his lack of confidence about finishing at the rim. It sure makes a guy a lot easier to defend if you aren't concerned about him going to the rack.

 

[fnordius]

am I the only one who really doesn't want to see the Princeton offense anymore??

I loved the Princeton with Vlade. Unfortunately, there's really nobody in the NBA like that at present, Hawes included. Hawes will never have a 13-assist game, or average over 5 assists per game with a 2.4:1 A/TO ratio. It's just never going to happen. And JT won't match Webber's 5 APG average, either. It worked because we had two very unique bigs who could be counted on for around 9 assists per game, and that may not happen again for decades.

I have no objection to playing something kind of like the Princeton, and generally increasing ball movement, I think that's badly needed. But to think that we could get by with this roster + a combo guard seems like utter folly to me. So... no, thanks.

 

[bajaden]

Curry is out of the question at #4. He can't get his own shot. He's athletically challenged. That would be an absolute disaster. I might take him with our 2nd rounder; that's it.

Now come on Kingster. I can see your not wanting him at #4. Neither would I. But he's certainly worth the 23rd pick in the draft. Asking me to pick between Curry and Jenning, or say Flynn, is like asking me to choose between a banana split with hot fudge, and Brocolli with a cheese sauce. You know that one is going to taste better, but you also know that one is better for you.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

I loved the Princeton with Vlade. Unfortunately, there's really nobody in the NBA like that at present, Hawes included. Hawes will never have a 13-assist game, or average over 5 assists per game with a 2.4:1 A/TO ratio. It's just never going to happen.

I have no objection to playing something kind of like the Princeton, and generally increasing ball movement, I think that's badly needed. But to think that we could get by with this roster + a combo guard seems like utter folly to me. So... no, thanks.

Don't count out Hawes already. Last year he was 20 and in his first full NBA season (missed a lot of his rookie year with a leg injury) and he had a 9 assist game and his passing looked very good as the year went on. Not saying he will ever achieve Vlade's level, but don't sleep on Hawes. Offensively he looks like he can be one of the best post players and passers in the league. Defensively is a bigger question mark.

 

[fnordius]

Don't count out Hawes already. Last year he was 20 and in his first full NBA season (missed a lot of his rookie year with a leg injury) and he had a 9 assist game and his passing looked very good as the year went on. Not saying he will ever achieve Vlade's level, but don't sleep on Hawes. Offensively he looks like he can be one of the best post players and passers in the league. Defensively is a bigger question mark.

I'm not counting him out, but here is a list of all the centers in the NBA who averaged over 4 assists per game, regardless of assist/TO ratio, in 2006-2009:

Here's the same list for F/Cs:

And here's the list for PFs:
1. Kevin Garnett, 2006-7, 4.1 assists per game.

I'm not getting down on Hawes, not at all. I'm just pointing out that Vlade and Chris were freakish exceptions to the norm, and the bigs we have now cannot be expected to fill their shoes in that way. If we expect that, it will not end well.

 

[bajaden]

am I the only one who really doesn't want to see the Princeton offense anymore??

Why? Our problem isn't the style of offense were playing. Its our defense, and the style of offense were not playing. The last time the Princeton offense was played by the Kings, they were a pretty damm good team. People are making way too much out of this Princeton thing. Its just a concept. Its a type of motion offense, just as the triangle offense is a type of motion offense. If you like John Salmons dribbling the ball adnauseam. If you like AI with the ball in his hands all the time, if you like isolation and one on one, then fine, you don't like a motion offense.

But if you like to see great passing of the basketball, if you like a style that involves all the players on the team, then you would like the motion offense. I will agree that the Princeton offense was designed to help a team with lesser talent compete against one with superior talent. But if a team with superior talent uses the offense, it can be deadly

 

[bajaden]

I'm not counting him out, but here is a list of all the centers in the NBA who averaged over 4 assists per game, regardless of assist/TO ratio, in 2006-2009:

Here's the same list for F/Cs:

And here's the list for PFs:
1. Kevin Garnett, 2006-7, 4.1 assists per game.

I'm not getting down on Hawes, not at all. I'm just pointing out that Vlade and Chris were freakish exceptions to the norm, and the bigs we have now cannot be expected to fill their shoes in that way. If we expect that, it will not end well.

They were both terrific passers. But I don't think Vlade was that good when he first arrived on the scene. Neither was Webb. They both just got better as they matured as players. Its really not fair to compare a 20 year old Hawes to a 31 year old Vlade. Ditto Thompson/Webber. I'm not saying they'll ever be as good. I don't know. But I know they have a lot of time to get better, and that they both seem to be dedicated players.

I think their individual talents are suited quite well for a motion offense. They both have passing skills, and good Basketball IQ. All they need is to have a concept to play within. Where everyone is on the same page. I have no idea what type of offense they were playing last year. I have no idea what type of defense they were playing last year. The Keystone cops springs to mind.

 

[Bricklayer]

But if a team with superior talent uses the offense, it can be deadly

That is still a matter of some debate, and will be until the offense actually wins something greater than an Ivy League title. It actively discriminates against some of the most dominant traits in basketball, and like all motion offenses does not favor allowing one player to dominate the ball and create or hammering the ball to a single overwhelming star, which is typically a winning strategy. Nor are the traits it favors on offense -- smarts and shooting -- typically associated with amazing athletes and defensive stoppers (an amazing athelte/defensive stopper who is also a brainy shootist = pretty close to a superstar). That is before we get to the risk that in pursuing the relatively nichy traits to make the offense run you overlook greater overall talents who just don't happen to "play the right way".

 

[midtowner]

Who are the greater talents in this draft at 4?

Brick, agreed. Don't pass up talent for a player who fits the system. But in this case, unless Rubio drops, I do not think that there is much talent separating the next tier. I have been trying to talk myself into the athletic guys like Evans and DeRozen (especially Evans). But I am starting to think that Curry has the presence and skill set that the Kings need. And I am not so sure that he is a combo guard in the NBA. I think that he is a 1 with a great knack for the game. I think that he played the 2 in college, because that is what his team needed. If he had better players around him, his assist numbers would have increased dramatically.

 

[ParniValjak]

That is still a matter of some debate, and will be until the offense actually wins something greater than an Ivy League title. It actively discriminates against some of the most dominant traits in basketball, and like all motion offenses does not favor allowing one player to dominate the ball and create or hammering the ball to a single overwhelming star, which is typically a winning strategy. Nor are the traits it favors on offense -- smarts and shooting -- typically associated with amazing athletes and defensive stoppers (an amazing athelte/defensive stopper who is also a brainy shootist = pretty close to a superstar). That is before we get to the risk that in pursuing the relatively nichy traits to make the offense run you overlook greater overall talents who just don't happen to "play the right way".

C'mon Brick, what was wrong with the Webber/Vlade era Kings? Pretty potent team that ran a version of the Princeton and was one bad night in Dallas away from winning a title. It had a superstar, it had role player and that team had defence.

I think its is not as clear cut as you are making it out to be. Had Webber not blown out his knee and Kings went on to win the championship would your view on Princeton be any different. Just because no team has won the title playing Princeton offence doesn't mean that it is not possible. Hell we were not far off it and if we had a bit of luck (every team needs a bit of luck to win it all) we would have won the title running the princeton offence.

 

[fnordius]

They were both terrific passers. But I don't think Vlade was that good when he first arrived on the scene.

It all depends on what you mean by "arrive on the scene." Vlade's 13-assist game was more than 2 years prior to his becoming a King. But his assist average was unremarkable for his first couple of years in the NBA.

Neither was Webb.

Webb's first 3 years in the NBA, he averaged 3.6, 4.7 and 5.0 assists per game. By his second year, when he was 21, he was easily the #1 big for assists in the NBA. Jason is #37 (among PFs) for assists per game, and #53 for assists/48. Like Hawes, his assist/TO ratio is below 1. Like Hawes, he makes less than 2 assists per game. I really like JT, and I'm very glad to have him on the team, I just don't want him as a square peg in a round hole. I'd like to see his natural strengths exploited, and his weaknesses made to matter as little as possible.

They both just got better as they matured as players. Its really not fair to compare a 20 year old Hawes to a 31 year old Vlade. Ditto Thompson/Webber. I'm not saying they'll ever be as good. I don't know. But I know they have a lot of time to get better, and that they both seem to be dedicated players.

I think their individual talents are suited quite well for a motion offense. They both have passing skills, and good Basketball IQ. All they need is to have a concept to play within. Where everyone is on the same page. I have no idea what type of offense they were playing last year. I have no idea what type of defense they were playing last year. The Keystone cops springs to mind.

I won't deny the possibility that Hawes and JT could both improve in those areas, I'm sure that they can. I just don't want to figure that we can safely design the team around the idea that they'll be the next Vlade and Chris, because that's very unlikely, despite all our wishes to the contrary.

We need to have a real PG around.

 

[bajaden]

That is still a matter of some debate, and will be until the offense actually wins something greater than an Ivy League title. It actively discriminates against some of the most dominant traits in basketball, and like all motion offenses does not favor allowing one player to dominate the ball and create or hammering the ball to a single overwhelming star, which is typically a winning strategy. Nor are the traits it favors on offense -- smarts and shooting -- typically associated with amazing athletes and defensive stoppers (an amazing athelte/defensive stopper who is also a brainy shootist = pretty close to a superstar). That is before we get to the risk that in pursuing the relatively nichy traits to make the offense run you overlook greater overall talents who just don't happen to "play the right way".

If you put one or two great players in a motion offense, In my opinion it makes it that much more efficent. Thats if they buy into the offense. The Bulls ran a triangle offense which was a motion offense, and last time I checked, they won a few titles. When you have players like Jordan and Pippen on your team, you always have the option of either of them doing exactly what you just said. Going isolation and creating for themselves when needed. At the same time, the motion offense keeps everyone else involved in the offense as a potential scorer.

I'm not a big fan of selfish basketball. I don't find watching someone dribble the ball for 18 seconds of a 24 second shot clock entertaining. I don't think truely great players dominate the ball. I think they take advantage of the touches that they get, and they're always there to bail out the offense when it goes south. Perhaps its all a matter of taste. I've always been a team player guy. I still enjoy when the little bald headed guy from the end of the bench scores a basket. I still love Rudy, even though I know that a team full of Rudy's won't win me anything.

But at the same time, I know there are people out there that identify with the perceived hero. The mano Y mano. The matador against the bull. The two gladiators fighting it out to the end. LeBron against Howard. It couldn't get any better, than perhaps LeBron against Kobe. The thing is, I think LeBron won that individual battle. He was terrific. He is probably the best player in basketball. But his team lost.

 

[Bricklayer]

C'mon Brick, what was wrong with the Webber/Vlade era Kings? Pretty potent team that ran a version of the Princeton and was one bad night in Dallas away from winning a title. It had a superstar, it had role player and that team had defence.

I think its is not as clear cut as you are making it out to be. Had Webber not blown out his knee and Kings went on to win the championship would your view on Princeton be any different. Just because no team has won the title playing Princeton offence doesn't mean that it is not possible. Hell we were not far off it and if we had a bit of luck (every team needs a bit of luck to win it all) we would have won the title running the princeton offence.

The Princeton was absolutely the right offense for that group of guys we had assembled. But that group of guys we had assembled, and that superstar in particular, was damn near unique. The best passing frontcourt in history, and Webb allowed us to "cheat". To play a system perhaps not optimumly designed to win a title at the NBA level and still have a player who could create his own shot and play with the physicality it takes to win it all. At the time there was one other player in the entire league who might have been able to accomplish something similar. And that was Garnett. Today there is nobody at all so far as I can see (Garnett now being too old). I warned years ago about foolishly trying to ape our old system with a pale imitation of the personnel, and we went ahead and did it anyway and had the oh so wonderful results of the Brad Miller era.

We are, or should be, in a talent acquistion phase. ANY talent. When you are at the absolute ground floor declaring a limiting system and only acquiring players to fit into it is *** backwards anyway. But when that system a) has never won a title of any significance to the level you are playing; and b) requires specialized staff and very rare players to run at the highest levels, you are really putting yourself into a straight jacket for absolutely no reason. There are 100 offenses out there you could run, and probably a dozen of them have won titles. And none of those dozen has been the Princeton. Insisting on installing it and making your personnel decisions based in it rather than vice versa because you really had fun playing it 40 years ago in college doesn't cut it.

Present me with a clone of Chris Webber and land him on the team somehow. Then we can talk about reinstalling the Princeton -- that's building your system around your talent. Not the other way around.

 

[Smills91]

The Princeton was absolutely the right offense for that group of guys we had assembled. But that group of guys we had assembled, and that superstar in particular, was damn near unique. The best passing frontcourt in history, and Webb allowed us to "cheat". To play a system perhaps not optimumly designed to win a title at the NBA level and still have a player who could create his own shot and play with the physicality it takes to win it all. At the time there was one other player in the entire league who might have been able to accomplish something similar. And that was Garnett. Today there is nobody at all so far as I can see (Garnett now being too old). I warned years ago about foolishly trying to ape our old system with a pale imitation of the personnel, and we went ahead and did it anyway and had the oh so wonderful results of the Brad Miller era.

We are, or should be, in a talent acquistion phase. ANY talent. When you are at the absolute ground floor declaring a limiting system and only acquiring players to fit into it is *** backwards anyway. But when that system a) has never won a title of any significance to the level you are playing; and b) requires specialized staff and very rare players to run at the highest levels, you are really putting yourself into a straight jacket for absolutely no reason. There are 100 offenses out there you could run, and probably a dozen of them have won titles. And none of those dozen has been the Princeton. Insisting on installing it and making your personnel decisions based in it rather than vice versa because you really had fun playing it 40 years ago in college doesn't cut it.

Present me with a clone of Chris Webber and land him on the team somehow. Then we can talk about reinstalling the Princeton -- that's building your system around your talent. Not the other way around.

I have to disagree here. The Princeton is a motion-based offenses. Team that win, usually have a motion-based offense of some sort whether it's the Triangle, Princton, Sloan offense those team are typically the teams that win. Hell even Orlando has a very motion-oriented offense, even with a guy like Dwight to throw the ball into the post to.

 

[bperiod]

Back to the original topic...

I think Curry is going to be ALOT BETTER than people think. Everybody keeps counting him out and he continues to impress. Not to mention he has the NBA pedigree, work ethnic and a great head on his shoulders...can we at least bring him in for a work out? Geez...I can't believe we won't even look at him!

Stock up:
http://www.thehoopsreport.com/article.aspx?id=272
Stephen Curry, Davidson: As expected, Curry excelled in his two best areas of expertise: shooting and being interviewed. Curry dominated the shooting drills, showing off his incredible range and sweet touch. He's also very smart and he knows how to talk to the media. Curry is easily one of the smartest and most impressive players in this draft class.

15 GMs rank the top 13 point guards

I don’t know how he did it, but Chad Ford convinced 15 NBA GMs/executives to rank the top 13 point guards in the draft. If I were running a team and he asked me to do this, I would have told him to go jump off a cliff. (Or I’d have my secretary rank the players by how cute she thinks they are and pass that off as my list.)
Anyway, here are the rankings, along with an average ranking. Ford’s column has a lot more detail on each player.
1. Ricky Rubio (avg 1.9)
2. Stephen Curry (2.4)
3. Jonny Flynn (3.0)
4. Jrue Holiday (3.8)
5. Tyreke Evans (4.5)
6. Jeff Teague (6.5)
7. Brandon Jennings (6.8)
8. Eric Maynor (8.0)
9. Ty Lawson (9.5)
10. Patrick Mills (10.0)
11. Darren Collison (11.0)
12. Nick Calathes (12.0)
13. Toney Douglas (12.5)

I’m surprised that Stephen Curry moved up so much. Prior to the combine, there were still some who questioned whether or not he was even a first round talent. But apparently he put those concerns to rest. Besides, if you can shoot the ball like he can (and aren’t a complete stiff in other areas of the game), there’s a place for you in the NBA.

Can we at least take a look?

 

[Kingster]

Now come on Kingster. I can see your not wanting him at #4. Neither would I. But he's certainly worth the 23rd pick in the draft. Asking me to pick between Curry and Jenning, or say Flynn, is like asking me to choose between a banana split with hot fudge, and Brocolli with a cheese sauce. You know that one is going to taste better, but you also know that one is better for you.

I'm just down on guys who are great shooters, but not very athletic, and not very tall. A guy can become a better shooter by working on it, but can't get any quicker or taller. You lost me on the food analogy. At #23, it all depends on who is there. If Teague or Terrence Williams or or an athletic big is there it sure wouldn't be hard to choose them over Curry.

 

[bperiod]

I'm just down on guys who are great shooters, but not very athletic, and not very tall. A guy can become a better shooter by working on it, but can't get any quicker or taller. You lost me on the food analogy. At #23, it all depends on who is there. If Teague or Terrence Williams or or an athletic big is there it sure wouldn't be hard to choose them over Curry.

That makes no sense. LOL
Not very tall..hmmm...didn't think 6'3 was short for a PG. And just a little food for thought...here is the weaknesses of another 6'3 PG coming out a few years ago:

Weaknesses:
Doesn't have great footspeed or a very quick first step. Most NBA PG's have an extra burst of speed they can switch into to blow by their man and create their own shot, or get into the lane and create for others. HE doesn't.

He finds ways around that on the NCAA level, using a wide array of body fakes and nifty dribbling to get his defenders off balance. Will he be able to do the same in the NBA?

Defensively, he plays very well on the college level, but could have trouble finding the lateral quickness to guard players like Stephon Marbury, Dwayne Wade and others.

His three point shot isn't super consistent just yet, but I don't think that's too much of a cause for concern. His release could be a little faster, but that will likely be worked on in the pros. (NOT A PROBLEM WITH STEPH)

And lastly, how is his conditioning? He looks just a little pudgy; does he have room to get a little faster by shedding some weight? Is that just his body type? (AGAIN, NOT A PROBLEM WITH STEPH)

Guess you woulda passed on Deron Williams too?

Every workout Stephen Curry has he gets ranked higher and higher...so 15 GMs are wrong? Wow..just don't get it.

 

[bajaden]

I'm just down on guys who are great shooters, but not very athletic, and not very tall. A guy can become a better shooter by working on it, but can't get any quicker or taller. You lost me on the food analogy. At #23, it all depends on who is there. If Teague or Terrence Williams or or an athletic big is there it sure wouldn't be hard to choose them over Curry.

I wasn't saying that I would take him over another player at 23, I'm just saying that he's a first round pick, who I believe will be gone long before our pick at 23. By the way, Larry Bird was a great shooter and not very athletic. There will always be exceptions...

 

[bajaden]

It all depends on what you mean by "arrive on the scene." Vlade's 13-assist game was more than 2 years prior to his becoming a King. But his assist average was unremarkable for his first couple of years in the NBA.

Webb's first 3 years in the NBA, he averaged 3.6, 4.7 and 5.0 assists per game. By his second year, when he was 21, he was easily the #1 big for assists in the NBA. Jason is #37 (among PFs) for assists per game, and #53 for assists/48. Like Hawes, his assist/TO ratio is below 1. Like Hawes, he makes less than 2 assists per game. I really like JT, and I'm very glad to have him on the team, I just don't want him as a square peg in a round hole. I'd like to see his natural strengths exploited, and his weaknesses made to matter as little as possible.

I won't deny the possibility that Hawes and JT could both improve in those areas, I'm sure that they can. I just don't want to figure that we can safely design the team around the idea that they'll be the next Vlade and Chris, because that's very unlikely, despite all our wishes to the contrary.

We need to have a real PG around.

My reference to Vlade was when he arrived in the NBA. Also, by your own addmission you showed that Webb improved from year to year. So all I'm saying is that to judge Hawes and Thompson on the now, as being their future is shortsighted. There both going to get better. Whether they ever become as good as their predecessors, who knows? One last thing. For either of them to improve their assist numbers, they will have to have the ball in their hands. Something that didn't happen very much last year, especially with Thompson.