There's a real lack of understanding around here of why things are a certain way and how the system effects outcomes. Many are just looking at the results, the final stats, whether in grading them or commenting on them. Rarely are posters analyzing the systematic issues and the greater effect they have.
Cuz doesn't get enough easy baskets so we're only looking at IT who misses him. A real PG can get Cuz easier looks and more assisted baskets. While that's true, that's only part of the issue, and even as someone who's not high on IT I don't lay all the blame on him for missing Cuz. The greater issue is our offense. We don't have sets which create easy baskets, whether for Cuz or anyone else. I posted a video thread with clips of how to use our players more effectively, movements, screens, spacing, and I'm wondering why I even took the time to do that. It showed numerous examples of sets/spacing we could use to create opportunities for Cuz and others. Yet all that somehow was ignored and people would just rather look at IT missing Cuz on a pick & roll or a quick flash to the basket. Exactly how many cross screens did we see from our PF to get Cuz on the move, rolling ball side to the box? How many pick & rolls did we see with either IT or Reke and a side cleared? How many back screens set on Cuz's man at the high post allowing him to dive? How about just the simple, quick pass into the paint before the defense is completely set? But it's easier just to ignore our sets/systematic issues and instead look at the final result. Who cares if IT missed Cuz a couple times? That's just a symptom of a larger problem.
It's similar to how Reke is graded or commented on. Often how he is used in our offense isn't taken into consideration. He was passive, didn't score enough, didn't create, so he gets a bad grade. Sure the final result might not look good, but what goes into that? I've detailed with video exactly how we can use Reke more effectively, where to get him the ball and how the floor should be spaced. Yet, he rarely even gets a play run for him, is stuck much of the time watching IT pound the ball up top, has a shorter leash than any other starter, yet it's many times ignored.
We arguably use our top two players less efficiently than any other team in the league, just call iso's for them with poor spacing then blast them for not doing enough.
I also question those who think what we really need is a pure PG. The top teams in the league in OKC, SA and Mia don't have pure PG's. Chi doesn't either when Rose is healthy. Lakers were better without Nash. We didn't have a pure PG with Bibby. What we did have was an offense built on movement and misdirection, with bigs who can pass. Guess what, we have a big who can pass. We have a big who can run the high post offense. We have a big most agree the offense should run through. Yet instead of looking at our actual system and how to improve it, movements/screens/fades/dives and how to actually run an offense off Cuz, we have people campaigning to take the ball out of Cuz's hands and have a pure PG dominate the ball instead. As if Cuz not getting an easy basket or two from a PG is our real problem. Actually run a good system and Cuz will get easy baskets, and the system will allow that to be done without needing a Nash or Rubio type.
It's funny. The problem apparently isn't our system which relies on IT dribbling in circles with little movement or good spacing, the problem is IT missing Cuz a couple times per game. So, just get a pure PG, let him dribble in circles and as long as he hits Cuz that time or two each game, we're set. That's ridiculous. That's not a system which uses our best players effectively. A pure PG who dominates the ball is not what will make Reke/Cuz most effective. I know some think if you think that way you're just rooting for your favorite player, but the flipside of that is we apparently have fans who simply root for their favorite type of system as a pure PG gets them all hot and bothered, and they ignore the type of talents we have and how they can be best used.
Was it a pure PG creating for Peja? No, it was a high post offense based on movements/screens/mis direction. Because of that system it didn't matter who had the ball, as we knew where Peja would be, where he'd expect the ball, and Bibby, Christie, Webb or Vlade would hit him when open. Our system under Rick started basically after that first pass into the high post. Then it was movement, the best in the league. Yet listening to people around here we'd probably have been a better team if we ditched Bibby and got a pure PG and had that PG create, as you can't create easy baskets/looks without a pure PG dominating the ball, even though that line of thinking is regularly proven incorrect. If you really love pure PG's, you should probably go root for a team who's top players aren't Reke/Cuz.
