Analyzing the combine by draftexpress:

[Pangloss]

I just don't think you have a very good read on Teague. I guess you think Teague is as bad as House when it comes to penetration and off the dribble quickness. I guess also that you think that Teague can't shoot, just like Douby, and that he can't get his own shot, just like Douby. Both assumptions would be wrong. What separates Teague from both of those guys is he can get his shot anytime he wants because he has mega-quickness. If you want to categorize Teague, just think Jason Terry. In terms of ability, it's a reasonable comparison. The red flag on Teague has nothing to do with ability, it has to do with his character. If he drops in the draft, it's not because teams think he's the next Douby, but that he's a head case they don't want to deal with.

No, not at all. I think Teague has an appealing mix of shooting and athleticism, and would be happy if we could move up a few spots from 23 and snag him. The comparison wasn't meant say these guys are garbage and therefore Teague is too, but only to say these guys are shoot first gunners and I believe Teague is as well. I would agree he may develop into a Jason Terry type, but I just think he has some work ahead of him, and that it isn't a sure thing. I haven't looked up the stats to corroborate this yet, but I recall Terry as being much farther along as a passer in college than Teague is at present. Also, Douby was a fine shooter and all around offensive player in college, so the shots you took there are bit unfair, imo.

 

[Kingster]

No, not at all. I think Teague has an appealing mix of shooting and athleticism, and would be happy if we could move up a few spots from 23 and snag him. The comparison wasn't meant say these guys are garbage and therefore Teague is too, but only to say these guys are shoot first gunners and I believe Teague is as well. I would agree he may develop into a Jason Terry type, but I just think he has some work ahead of him, and that it isn't a sure thing. I haven't looked up the stats to corroborate this yet, but I recall Terry as being much farther along as a passer in college than Teague is at present. Also, Douby was a fine shooter and all around offensive player in college, so the shots you took there are bit unfair, imo.

It almost goes without saying that Teague has work to do and he's not a sure thing. I don't think there's a player in the draft who you couldn't say the same thing about. I wish I would have seen Douby play in college. I'd like to know how the guy some perceived as a great scorer could crumble so in the NBA.

 

[nbrans]

Semantic battle ahead. . .

Addressing the first bolded: That preference is certainly your prerogative, but I don't think defensive ability is relevant in defining whether a player is a point guard or not. It may or may not be relevant in deciding if a guy is an NBA player, but not if they are or are not point guards. For example, Kobe Bryant or John Salmons may be able to defend the point better than a Steve Nash or Mike Bibby--arguably both also have a stronger handle than Bibby who had on occasion trouble advancing the ball against quicker points--but few would label Salmons or Bryant point guards. Perhaps Magic Johnson would be a Nash level defensive player in the modern NBA due to the better athleticism of the current players, as well as the rule changes that favor the offense. Would people consequently claim Magic was no longer a point guard? I think not. The qualities that most define the word "point guard" must therefore be different.

I don't think it is accurate to make it a binary choice between "pure point guards" and "scoring point guards, where the latter category wraps up everyone from Mike Bibby to Steve Kerr; such a classification is too broad and makes the term muddled to the point of uselessness. A better system (I think something like the following has been written more than once elsewhere) for player classification is needed to paint a more accurate picture.

Say we did a 1 to five scale: 5's would be the pure points who are pass first, pass second, score only when absolutely necessary. John Stockton, Jason Kidd, etc.

4's would be those rare talents that legitimately excel in both abilities: Paul, Deron Williams, Steve Nash, etc

3's would be guys who are at least competent play makers, but may excel or be below average as scorers: Bibby, Steph Curry, Jameer Nelson, etc. This would be the final category I would classify as point guards.

2's are Combo guards-- guys who have a scorers mentality and possess some limited play making ability; though not enough ability to be legitimate point guards: Bobby Jackson, Aaron Brooks, Mo Williams.

1's Mini shooting guards--guys who shoot first, second; and pass begrudgingly when a gun is pointed at their heads: Eddie House, Quincey Douby, Jeff Teague.

I do agree with you that it isn't necessary to possess a pure point in order to field a winning team; however, I think if Jeff Teague is manning the position for us then we would need a player more resembling an Eric Snow or Doug Christie at the two rather than a Kevin Martin.

I actually think this is a pretty good breakdown, and I agree that it's more of a spectrum than some sort of binary scoring/pure categorization.

But like Kingster, I think you're wrong to put Teague in category one. He's not Eddie House. He can make plays for others, and particularly when he was playing point he did a decent job of setting people up.

I watched Wake play a lot. What happened with that team is twofold. The first is that Ishmael Smith started getting more playing time, and Gaudio started playing him at the point instead of Teague, nevermind that Smith is even less of a pure point. It then became Teague's job to score rather than to set guys up.

The second thing that happened is that teams realized that because Wake was full of dumb players like Aminu and has a dumb coach, all you needed to do to stop them was to throw a 2/3 zone at them and watch them self destruct. Seriously, it was incredibly pathetic. They just passed the ball around the perimeter, they'd get it to Johnson or Teague late in the shot clock and they'd go 1 on 5. There wasn't a lot of passing going on on that entire team.

But when you watch Teague on the break, he's really effective. He can pass the ball. Watch the video with this game recap, which shows his all-around skills: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=290390154

Now, would I put him in category 4 or 5? No way. But he's at least a 2, maybe a 3 on your scale.

 

[Gary]

I would put him in the 2 category. He's not out there to shoot first second and third THEN look for teammates. I think he is a smart enough kid to know that if he's put into the PG spot that he has to think about the others... But I still think he is not polished doing what I mentioned above and that's why I wouldn't use the 4th pick on him.

 

[ElRey]

Douby's problem was a lack of self confidence, and a genuine feel for the game. He could shoot the ball and he could defend. But he never looked comfortable on the floor. For the most part he just looked like a fish out of water to me.

I agree with BOTH of you guys...Douby couldn't shoot, couldn't score AND he had a huge lack of self confidence. The guy was supposed to be a dead eye shooter out of college but I just remember him being VERY inconsistent with his jump shot, including open ones.

 

[Pangloss]

I actually think this is a pretty good breakdown, and I agree that it's more of a spectrum than some sort of binary scoring/pure categorization.

But like Kingster, I think you're wrong to put Teague in category one. He's not Eddie House. He can make plays for others, and particularly when he was playing point he did a decent job of setting people up.

I watched Wake play a lot. What happened with that team is twofold. The first is that Ishmael Smith started getting more playing time, and Gaudio started playing him at the point instead of Teague, nevermind that Smith is even less of a pure point. It then became Teague's job to score rather than to set guys up.

The second thing that happened is that teams realized that because Wake was full of dumb players like Aminu and has a dumb coach, all you needed to do to stop them was to throw a 2/3 zone at them and watch them self destruct. Seriously, it was incredibly pathetic. They just passed the ball around the perimeter, they'd get it to Johnson or Teague late in the shot clock and they'd go 1 on 5. There wasn't a lot of passing going on on that entire team.

But when you watch Teague on the break, he's really effective. He can pass the ball. Watch the video with this game recap, which shows his all-around skills: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=290390154

Now, would I put him in category 4 or 5? No way. But he's at least a 2, maybe a 3 on your scale.

Nice response. Putting Teague in category 1 may have been slight exaggeration. I was actually pretty high on Teague earlier in the year, but his play late in the year was just so disappointing to me that I really began to sour on him. In the games I saw late in the year he had some tunnel vision going (when his team actually got him the ball), and his shot just stopped falling. My lingering memory of that team is of moody looks and a lack of camaraderie. Fairly or not, I put blame for that on their best player. The coaches may deserve the lion share of that "credit", though, as you have argued.

I can't really disagree with your analysis on why Teague's game declined, but I seem to recall Teague's assist to turnover ratio as being consistently poor whether he was on the ball or off. If you have evidence to the contrary I would of course reconsider my position.

Anyway, thanks for your perspective.

 

[nbrans]

Nice response. Putting Teague in category 1 may have been slight exaggeration. I was actually pretty high on Teague earlier in the year, but his play late in the year was just so disappointing to me that I really began to sour on him. In the games I saw late in the year he had some tunnel vision going (when his team actually got him the ball), and his shot just stopped falling. My lingering memory of that team is of moody looks and a lack of camaraderie. Fairly or not, I put blame for that on their best player. The coaches may deserve the lion share of that "credit", though, as you have argued.

I can't really disagree with your analysis on why Teague's game declined, but I seem to recall Teague's assist to turnover ratio as being consistently poor whether he was on the ball or off. If you have evidence to the contrary I would of course reconsider my position.

Anyway, thanks for your perspective.

No, I definitely agree, in the first half of the season the biggest concern was the assist to turnover ratio, and in the second it was the poisonous team. Can't argue with that. I think it remains to be seen how much of that was Teague vs. Gaudio. I personally think it was one the worst (if not the worst) coached team in college basketball, and so it's tough to judge. I mean, if a team is helpless against a 2/3 zone there's something seriously wrong. But Teague also didn't seem like the best teammate. So those are the knocks, and I think they're legitimate.

 

[Bricklayer]

I agree with BOTH of you guys...Douby couldn't shoot, couldn't score AND he had a huge lack of self confidence. The guy was supposed to be a dead eye shooter out of college but I just remember him being VERY inconsistent with his jump shot, including open ones.

Douby's problem was that he dominated the ball in college -- completely dominated it like an Allen Iverson -- and then he bounced up in level to the NBA where he was never going to be allowed to do that. Dominating the ball like that is a dangerous trait for a college player -- unless you are really really special no NBA team is going to let you play like that, and you could see the result in Douby the same way you can see an again Iverson start to struggle. Doubly was not comfortable as a spot up shooter, always wanted to put te ball on teh floor and dribble a few times, had never worried about getting his sad sack teammates involved in college and had no real knack for it in the NBA, and despite his college acheivements essentially ended up wiht very little confidence in himself in the new and unfamiliar roles he was asked to play.

 

[Kingster]

Douby's problem was that he dominated the ball in college -- completely dominated it like an Allen Iverson -- and then he bounced up in level to the NBA where he was never going to be allowed to do that. Dominating the ball like that is a dangerous trait for a college player -- unless you are really really special no NBA team is going to let you play like that, and you could see the result in Douby the same way you can see an again Iverson start to struggle. Doubly was not comfortable as a spot up shooter, always wanted to put te ball on teh floor and dribble a few times, had never worried about getting his sad sack teammates involved in college and had no real knack for it in the NBA, and despite his college acheivements essentially ended up wiht very little confidence in himself in the new and unfamiliar roles he was asked to play.

When I read this about dominating the ball I can't help think of Collison. Dribble, dribble, dribble....dribble, dribble...

 

[kennadog]

Douby was probably at a disadvantage anyway, because he started playing basketball so late compared to most guys that end up in the NBA.

 

[Dime Dropper]

When I read this about dominating the ball I can't help think of Collison. Dribble, dribble, dribble....dribble, dribble...

Collison is a horrible comparison. He can really pass the ball. Alot of the time he was forced to create for UCLA. He'll be a solid NBAer.