Tyreke is Lebron of PGs

[Lockehead]

Kobe's had a far superior coach than lebron for most of his career and has had a superstar teammate for most of his career. What's to make you think that it's Kobe alone transforming his teammates?

I think the point is that Kobe has proved to be a coachable player, while Lebron has yet to prove that.

 

[KingsCitizen]

Who hates Lebron here?

Not me. But maybe you save me sometime by back reading.

So your argument is "because everybody else calls him a PG then hes a PG" ?

These guys covering the sports maybe idiots but they don't get paid doing comments because they don't understand the game and don't have knowledge of players.

Ive been watching Reke for the past year and a half, and i think i have learned enough to say that it is not the best position for us to play him at PG, but rather the SG position.

Your entitled your opinion. But that does not mean we have to agree with you.

Im just going to keep asking this until someone gives me a solid answer: Why does anyone think Tyreke is good at being a PG?

Maybe the big point guard thread will help you.

Hes been playing PG for at least 2 years ( thanks to whoever corrected me in the other thread) and he plays like he hasnt the slightest idea of how to run an offense.

We might be watching different Tyreke Evans.

And youre asking me why shouldnt he play that position? My question to you is: Why isnt he playing SG and improving his skillset through there?

Ask that to PW. If I'm running this team. Reke at SG will not happen.

This may not mean anythingat all but im going to say it. Its not surprise that the position that gets the most limelight is the PG position given the state of today's basketball game. I just hope that doesnt have anything to do with Reke playing that position.

This really don't mean a thing. You should have left this off.

 

[Lockehead]

Its funny you gave zero arguments. And no i wont backread; youre the one who said there were Lebron haters im asking you who they were as ive been in this thread for at least half the pages and i heard nobody bashing Lebrons individual abilities.

 

[Tyndel]

The better the offensive sets and plays the less pure point guard you need on the floor and vis-versa. The solution to our offensive problems using current personnel is a better offensive playbook.

What does Reke do when healthy? He drives to the rim. You move him to the 2 and have someone else dominate the ball guess what when Evans gets the pass the other team knows what he is supposed to do and can have their defense ready. There is only 1 ball on the court you don't need a ton of players who all need the ball if you have a good set offense.

 

[Lockehead]

They have their defenses ready when hes playing at the 1. When hes at the 2, at least he could be isolated against one player where he has a much bigger chance at beating his man off the dribble or exploiting a developing jumpshot. At least hed be relieved of playmaking duties which are bringing the team down. Bring in a real Pg and well have better ball movement and distribution. Weve seen that with Head and Beno, even if its not the best id argue its better than Tyreke's. Even now Tyreke is playing combo guard, and ive noticed that when he plays SG, in particular at the high post, he beats his man with ease and even allows our other teammates to get involved, but whne he plays PG alluva sudden he starts to get real passive overdribbling, killing time off the shotclock, and our offense start to stagnate.

 

[KingsCitizen]

They have their defenses ready when hes playing at the 1. When hes at the 2, at least he could be isolated against one player where he has a much bigger chance at beating his man off the dribble or exploiting a developing jumpshot.

Pure elementary knowledge. Tyreke beating down a PG has a higher chance of scoring then having legit 2 or 3 guarding him. When Tyreke is the smallest guy on court, the opposing team's choice of defense is either put their PG on him or someone else. But then again the rest of our roster on the floor will be too big for their PG to hide on defense.

At least hed be relieved of playmaking duties which are bringing the team down. Bring in a real Pg and well have better ball movement and distribution.

Playmaking duties can be relieved if we add more offensive scheme. Right now, we look ineffective as we are just running 2-3 offensive schemes repeatedly. This team needs to gel and learn more plays to play better. And that does not require Reke to be SG.

Weve seen that with Head and Beno, even if its not the best id argue its better than Tyreke's. Even now Tyreke is playing combo guard, and ive noticed that when he plays SG, in particular at the high post, he beats his man with ease and even allows our other teammates to get involved, but whne he plays PG alluva sudden he starts to get real passive overdribbling, killing time off the shotclock, and our offense start to stagnate.

Put Reke in D'Antonni's system of 7-second offense and he'll surely look quicker than this. Our players are still getting acquainted on the offensive scheme. A lot of new faces, and young guys on this team can be blamed and not solely having Reke at PG.

 

[swisshh]

Pure elementary knowledge. Tyreke beating down a PG has a higher chance of scoring then having legit 2 or 3 guarding him. When Tyreke is the smallest guy on court, the opposing team's choice of defense is either put their PG on him or someone else. But then again the rest of our roster on the floor will be too big for their PG to hide on defense.

1. If Tyreke at his size can't beat the average NBA 2 then he's not going to be an all-star.
2. At the 1, Tyreke starts from the top of the key and has to beat 4-5 guys to get to the basket. At the 2 wing, that amount cuts down to maybe two defenders. It is still an easier attack.

 

[KingsCitizen]

1. If Tyreke at his size can't beat the average NBA 2 then he's not going to be an all-star.

I think he has proven this in a lot games.

2. At the 1, Tyreke starts from the top of the key and has to beat 4-5 guys to get to the basket. At the 2 wing, that amount cuts down to maybe two defenders. It is still an easier attack.

Every PG does that. But we still get a lot of high scoring PG in this league. And if you just post a small guy of shoot over him, then there's no need to beat 4-5 guys all night.

 

[Lockehead]

Im convinced that using Tyreke at the PG is a disservice to both himself and the team.

But if he is able to learn to play it with some level of competency that is beneficial to both him and his team, then ill be all for pairing him alongside a larger 2guard.

 

[gunks]

Tyreke is the Tyreke of SGs.


He doesnt control an offense like a PG. He overdribbles and lacks a PG's level of BBIQ. Doesnt mean he wont be able to average 5-6 assists per game (maybe more if we ever get talent around him) on kickouts, but a PG he is not. Dude is a combo. Combo has bad connotations (we tend to think of Douby), people think of an undersized SG. Reke is the opposite. He is a SG with some PG skills, but lacking the shooting of a SG. Shooting is easier to learn than running a team. Reke is going to be fine.

If he was a PG than the Reke/Martin backcourt wouldnt have failed. Reke likes to take more shots than a PG, and thats why it did fail, he tries to score first and pass second. I still think he can get 5-6 assists per game from the 2 on kickouts. And its those 5 assist SGs that tend to win championships (Jordan, Kobe, hypothetically Roy - if Portland wasnt the most cursed franchise in the world, et cetra).

The sooner we stop ****ing around with the Reke at PG experiment the better. He needs to learn how to be a 2 (play less ball dominant, move better without the ball, improve his shot) and we're going to have a beast. I read one comparison of Reke that said he was a taller Iverson. A taller Iverson is bad***.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I bolded the part of your post I was responding to. I don't know why you have to mix your argument of "playing within an offensive system" with "the kind of players" within the sytem just to argue about Evans being the "Lebron of PG".

1.) Your post says: " However, I think if you're going to be led by a ball dominant player, I'd rather them have a better mix of passing/scoring like Nash or Paul, rather than someone like Iverson, so the offense doesn't become as stagnant."

So clearly, you were talking about the qualities of your ideal player that you prefer our dominant player Evans to copy as he play within an offensive system. And I disagreed. Nash and Paul's style of play are not the type of ball dominant players that you should want to play for your offensive system for the simple reason that they both led their team no farther than the playoffs.

They are both failures as compared to Lebron and Iverson. Excuse me, but common sense dictates that you would rather have Evans developing into Lebron or Iverson because both have accomplished more than Nash and Paul. As to what offensive system Evans needs to play, I'll say that is another topic.

Now, what have you got for Nash and Paul as your ball dominant players?

Nada.

2.) Your post also says: "This whole thing is not about what's better for Tyreke's stats, it's about what's best for the future of this team, and that should be aimed at winning championships, not Evans having individual success.

If you really care about the future of this team and winning championship, then you would want Evans to develop in the mold of Jordan, Lebron, Bryant, or even Iverson instead of Nash and Paul. Nash and Paul however good they are as PG wasn't able to bring their team to the NBA Finals.

Also, Evans individual success will always translate to team's success.

Do you really think the Cavalier's success has nothing to do with having Lebron James?

Sorry about taking so long to respond to this, I've been meaning to.

1.) No, that was not what I was talking about at all. I'm saying, IF we were to have a ball dominant player (and what i mean by that is a player that needs the ball in their hands to be effective, not just someone who is a primary ball handler), I'd rather have a player that has a better mix of scoring and passing, EX: like Nash or Paul. It was just a throw-in comment I made, it wasn't the crux of my argument, and I even mentioned that I still wouldn't build around a player like that if I had a choice. Also, I never insinuated that I think developing Tyreke as that kind of player was even an option.

I also didn't say I would take either of those players over LeBron, that's just putting words in my mouth. While I think there are parallels to be drawn between Iverson and LeBron, they're hardly the same caliber of player.

I'm not really going to defend Paul, I had already made it clear that I'm really not a big fan of his, but I would take him over Iverson. I think if you gave Paul Larry Brown and that 01 Sixers team, then you'd have similar if not better results. Iverson made it to the finals in one year (a year with a very crappy eastern conference) and got his *** kicked by the Lakers. That's one year with the absolute ideal roster and coach for him. Is that what you want us to replicate for Evans? That maybe after years of mediocrity, we might put together a good enough defensive team (that are also good enough complimentary players offensively), a great enough coach, and have weak enough competition in the Western Conference, for one season? That's settling for mediocrity and a meaningless glorification of an individual's success. I take absolutely no solice in an individual's accolades if it's not indicative of team success. One guy pounding the ball, getting bailout assists, and stat stuffing is for And1, not the NBA. Iverson has always been fool's gold, and he's for fans who don't care about anything but stats and highlights.

As far as Nash goes, The Suns' offense was hardly the problem for them in the playoffs.

2.) If you really think LeBron and Iverson belong with Jordan and Kobe, then I question your understanding of what brought Kobe and Jordan so many championships. It wasn't them padding stats and pounding the ball, it was about their ability to be great players within the triangle offense (an offense that's predicating on sharing the ball and playing off your teammates) and function with other great offensive players. With Kobe, it was Shaq, and with Jordan, it was Pippen. Do you think it's a coincidence that the Bulls and the Lakers didn't become championship teams until Phil and the triangle came along?

Not necessarily. It depends on what you consider individual success. If you just think the better stats he puts up, no matter how he attains those stats, means that'll make them a better team, then I think you're wrong. Individual success can definitely come at the expense of team success.

I think it had a lot to do with LeBron James, but I think their absolute dependence on him to create offensively was what led to their offensive failures in the playoffs. If you build your whole team around one player dominating the ball, then you're going to be too predictable and easy to stop in the playoffs. Sure, every once in a while you may get lucky, but the consistently great playoff teams don't play that way.

I am so sick of this generation of basketball fans (and players) that only care about statistics and highlights. The great teams have always had offenses that shared the ball and had multiple scoring options that could complement each other within an offensive system, not take turns dominating the ball.

 

[DeMoN]

Sorry about taking so long to respond to this, I've been meaning to.

1.) No, that was not what I was talking about at all. I'm saying, IF we were to have a ball dominant player (and what i mean by that is a player that needs the ball in their hands to be effective, not just someone who is a primary ball handler), I'd rather have a player that has a better mix of scoring and passing, EX: like Nash or Paul. It was just a throw-in comment I made, it wasn't the crux of my argument, and I even mentioned that I still wouldn't build around a player like that if I had a choice. Also, I never insinuated that I think developing Tyreke as that kind of player was even an option.

I also didn't say I would take either of those players over LeBron, that's just putting words in my mouth. While I think there are parallels to be drawn between Iverson and LeBron, they're hardly the same caliber of player.

I'm not really going to defend Paul, I had already made it clear that I'm really not a big fan of his, but I would take him over Iverson. I think if you gave Paul Larry Brown and that 01 Sixers team, then you'd have similar if not better results. Iverson made it to the finals in one year (a year with a very crappy eastern conference) and got his *** kicked by the Lakers. That's one year with the absolute ideal roster and coach for him. Is that what you want us to replicate for Evans? That maybe after years of mediocrity, we might put together a good enough defensive team (that are also good enough complimentary players offensively), a great enough coach, and have weak enough competition in the Western Conference, for one season? That's settling for mediocrity and a meaningless glorification of an individual's success. I take absolutely no solice in an individual's accolades if it's not indicative of team success. One guy pounding the ball, getting bailout assists, and stat stuffing is for And1, not the NBA. Iverson has always been fool's gold, and he's for fans who don't care about anything but stats and highlights.

As far as Nash goes, The Suns' offense was hardly the problem for them in the playoffs.

2.) If you really think LeBron and Iverson belong with Jordan and Kobe, then I question your understanding of what brought Kobe and Jordan so many championships. It wasn't them padding stats and pounding the ball, it was about their ability to be great players within the triangle offense (an offense that's predicating on sharing the ball and playing off your teammates) and function with other great offensive players. With Kobe, it was Shaq, and with Jordan, it was Pippen. Do you think it's a coincidence that the Bulls and the Lakers didn't become championship teams until Phil and the triangle came along?

Not necessarily. It depends on what you consider individual success. If you just think the better stats he puts up, no matter how he attains those stats, means that'll make them a better team, then I think you're wrong. Individual success can definitely come at the expense of team success.

I think it had a lot to do with LeBron James, but I think their absolute dependence on him to create offensively was what led to their offensive failures in the playoffs. If you build your whole team around one player dominating the ball, then you're going to be too predictable and easy to stop in the playoffs. Sure, every once in a while you may get lucky, but the consistently great playoff teams don't play that way.

I am so sick of this generation of basketball fans (and players) that only care about statistics and highlights. The great teams have always had offenses that shared the ball and had multiple scoring options that could complement each other within an offensive system, not take turns dominating the ball.

Believe me, if Lebron had a teammate like Gasol or Shaq he would have passed more. When you are swinging the ball out to Delonte West and a washed up Antwan Jamison in the playoffs you are in trouble, no matter if you have MJ kobe or Lebron.

 

[Gary]

The sooner we stop ****ing around with the Reke at PG experiment the better. He needs to learn how to be a 2 (play less ball dominant, move better without the ball, improve his shot) and we're going to have a beast. I read one comparison of Reke that said he was a taller Iverson. A taller Iverson is bad***.

What kind of player would we have then? Evans was terrible when he didn't control the ball when he played at Memphis. And by terrible I mean TERRIBLE! =/

I don't know what we can do with him.. Rest him for a while and see how the team plays without him. If we improve then maybe we should put him at SG and find a real PG or just trade him.

 

[Lockehead]

Physically, Tyreke is 6'6 220-230, and probably still growing. To put this in perspective, Jordan was 6'6 215-220, Kobe 6'6 200-205, Brandon Roy 6'6 210-215, Ginobili 6'6 200-205. Compared to all these guys, Tyreke can beat his man off the dribble and drive, at the tender age of 20, and finish at the basket as good as any of them. But then he is also longer, and stronger than kobe and ginobili. He is the PERFECT size for a SG. He doesnt even have PG skills. The sooner we start having him develop as a SG the better.

 

[DeMoN]

Physically, Tyreke is 6'6 220-230, and probably still growing. To put this in perspective, Jordan was 6'6 215-220, Kobe 6'6 200-205, Brandon Roy 6'6 210-215, Ginobili 6'6 200-205. Compared to all these guys, Tyreke can beat his man off the dribble and drive, at the tender age of 20, and finish at the basket as good as any of them. But then he is also longer, and stronger than kobe and ginobili. He is the PERFECT size for a SG. He doesnt even have PG skills. The sooner we start having him develop as a SG the better.

I totally agree with you. You don't win it all in this league with your best player being a passer. You win with demolishing scorers, and the faster we can progress him towards that the better.

 

[Lockehead]

If developing a jumpshot was a priority, and i mean one of the things at the top of the list, instead of trying to pass, or set up his teammates, it would make him that much more unguardable. With no jumpshot, the defenders defend further away from you. If you improve your jumpshot, it forces them to play closer to you to contest your shot. But Tyreke has a devastating dribble and drive ability, he could go left or right. The sooner he gets that jumpshot falling at least at a decent percentage, its going to make his dribble-drive ability THAT much more effective, because when the defender guards you closer, its easier to use your dribbles and blow by him in a drive. Put him at the SG position and his jumpshot/playing off the ball/ cutting/ screens all of that stuff becomes a priority, INSTEAD of running the offense, making passes and plays etc.

edit: and the sooner he does this the better it is for the TEAM. Just imagine from a team perspective, our SG spot is going to be a dominant threat from Tyreke. have Beno as the Pg making the ball distributions and ball movement, Greene at the 3, cousins at the 4, Jt/Daly at the 5, and you could be looking at a lot more wins and development. But if you put tyreke as the PG, alluva sudden things get so much more complicated. Youd be talking about role players, spot up shooters, lack of ball movement, youre bringing Tyreke's faults to the Pg position - one of if not THE most important position in today's league as far as team offense and cohesiveness is concerned.

 

[Asaf]

Believe me, if Lebron had a teammate like Gasol or Shaq he would have passed more. When you are swinging the ball out to Delonte West and a washed up Antwan Jamison in the playoffs you are in trouble, no matter if you have MJ kobe or Lebron.

The problem in Cleveland wasn't LeBron's passing or non-passing. He passed plenty, that was never an issue. The problem was that he was the only initiator, the only one allowed to create anything on offense. Everyone else was either a spot up shooter or a garbage man. That makes for a very predictable offense. Lebron on his own has enough talent and physical strength to win on his own during the regular season, but come playoff time, they had to face good teams that came prepared and exploited their lack of offensive diversity. It's no coincidence that Cleveland and Lebron melted down when they faced Orlando and Boston in the playoffs, even though they seemed like the clear favorites during the regular season.

 

[Bricklayer]

I totally agree with you. You don't win it all in this league with your best player being a passer. You win with demolishing scorers, and the faster we can progress him towards that the better.

You don't win with guys who are demolishing scorers alone anymore than you win with demolishing passers alone. You win with guys who do both. Specifcally with guys so potent as scorers that they draw double teams and then rack up assists swinging it to the open guys. That's the common thread uiniting the dominant centers of the past and the dominant MJ/Kobe style players of the last 15 years, and its got nothing to do with shooting. The key dynamic is either you score yourself, or all the atention you draw means your teammates get a chance to score effectively playing 4 on 3.

 

[ZZ-TOP]

That's the common thread uiniting the dominant centers of the past and the dominant MJ/Kobe style players of the last 15 years, and its got nothing to do with shooting.

OK......you are on the right path now. Stay the course, stay the course!

 

[DeMoN]

You don't win with guys who are demolishing scorers alone anymore than you win with demolishing passers alone. You win with guys who do both. Specifcally with guys so potent as scorers that they draw double teams and then rack up assists swinging it to the open guys. That's the common thread uiniting the dominant centers of the past and the dominant MJ/Kobe style players of the last 15 years, and its got nothing to do with shooting. The key dynamic is either you score yourself, or all the atention you draw means your teammates get a chance to score effectively playing 4 on 3.

I'm aware of this, i'm just saying that i would rather put Tyreke on the road towards scoring than passing. We all know Tyreke is a pretty good passer and with experience will probably be a dynamic playmaker for a shooting guard.