well, this says a lot about our Point Guard

HereWeBoogie

Hall of Famer
a lot of people on here have become very critical of our Starting PG Isaiah Thomas. this might show you why.

http://stats.nba.com/leadersGrid.ht...ld=AST&sortOrder=DES&rowsPerPage=100&pageNo=1


yes, Isaiah ranks 46th in the league is Assists per Game with 3.7. 46th, for a POINT GUARD!.

Blake Griffin, Marc Gasol, and Joakim Noah are just some of the players averaging more APG than our starting PG.

hell, even James Harden and Monta Ellis, who are both considered to be "volume shooters", average 2.1 Assists MORE per game than Thomas..
 
You don't even have to look at statistics to realise that Thomas is a way below average playmaker and really does not see the floor well at all. Thomas just doesn't have that "IT"factor when it comes to being a all-round PG who can make other people better its something you are born with and ethier have or don't and he doesn't have it.

I said it before Thomas is a perfect sparkplug off the bench for any team imo (kinda like a Earl Boykins was in Denver), he can score in bunches and push the pace but as a starter I literally can't off the top of my head think of one other PG that starts atm I would take him over (maybe Darren Collison maybe). It's not his fault hes playing way to many mins and hes playing to the best of his abilities which might not be the best for everyone.
 
isaiah thomas has sixth man of the year potential, but that's likely the extent of his ceiling. history is, quite simply, not kind to guards of his size. they either wash out amongst the trees or leverage a napolean complex into a journeyman's career. IT has the kind of drive and positive locker room presence to be something more than a nate robinson type, but overall expectation should be minimal. he's a 60th pick, after all. that said, he has very clear utility on a team like this one. of course, only the sacramento kings could take an undersized but capable sixth man-level talent and turn him into a controversy by starting him as the team's primary ballhandler...
 
While I expected IT to regress with his shooting numbers, I was hoping he would balance that with a slight improvement as a playmaker and defender. With a little more seasoning that's a starting caliber NBA PG, sized be darned.
But this year, as in college, he's shown that he really is more of a scorer first, which spells 6th man ceiling. Of course, this team already has a guy like that signed to a major deal.
 
he's shown that he really is more of a scorer first, which spells 6th man ceiling. Of course, this team already has a guy like that signed to a major deal.

good point. and even though i like IT, and have no issue with him staying on this team going into the future (just not as starting PG), i definitely would pick Thornton over him if it came down to that.

OR, maybe MT could go back to the starting lineup?
 
You bash IT constantly for taking shots away from Reke and Cousins and the answer is to replace him with one of the most shot-happy players in the league? Me no Comprende

Ideally we shop MT, JT, and perhaps our pick to fix the holes on the team. IT is a better Thornton than Thornton at a fraction of the cost. JT is in the same boat with Patterson. While I don't really want to lose JT, his role with the team becomes redundant with Patterson. Patterson fits like a glove with Reke, Cousins and IT on offense and he's a much smarter, more effective defensive player than JT. The one advantage JT had, rebounding, is hardly worth keeping over what Patterson brings to the table.
 
Last edited:
While I expected IT to regress with his shooting numbers, I was hoping he would balance that with a slight improvement as a playmaker and defender. With a little more seasoning that's a starting caliber NBA PG, sized be darned.
But this year, as in college, he's shown that he really is more of a scorer first, which spells 6th man ceiling. Of course, this team already has a guy like that signed to a major deal.

He's shooting pretty much exactly the same as he was last year. TS% and eFG% differences are negligible
 
JT is in the same boat with Patterson. While I don't really want to lose JT, his role with the team becomes redundant with Patterson. Patterson fits like a glove with Reke, Cousins and IT on offense and he's a much smarter, more effective defensive player than JT. The one advantage JT had, rebounding, is hardly worth keeping over what Patterson brings to the table.

And who is supposed to come off the bench as a third rotation big?
 
You bash IT constantly for taking shots away from Reke and Cousins and the answer is to replace him with one of the most shot-happy players in the league? Me no Comprende

how is that hard to comprehend? Marcus is a SHOOTING GUARD, he's not supposed to be a playmaker like a starting Point Guard is. putting MT in the starting lineup would move Tyreke to the PG. MT wouldnt be "running" the offense and pounding the ball like Isaiah does. thus not taking shots away from Reke and Cuz. rather he would be spacing the floor so that Reke and Cuz can find him open when they draw the defenders
 
Problem is Thornton is not a c&s player. Often after receiving a kick-out he takes a dribble. Marcus needs to get in rhythm. And for that he needs shots. So actually he is similar to IT in style. Of course you use him as a secondary guard instead of lead one, but I seriously doubt his effectiveness, when the whole team moves away from chucking and into "pass and move until you get a good shot" mode.
 
how is that hard to comprehend? Marcus is a SHOOTING GUARD, he's not supposed to be a playmaker like a starting Point Guard is. putting MT in the starting lineup would move Tyreke to the PG. MT wouldnt be "running" the offense and pounding the ball like Isaiah does. thus not taking shots away from Reke and Cuz. rather he would be spacing the floor so that Reke and Cuz can find him open when they draw the defenders

lol. I'm convinced you're just trolling 75% of the time. Thornton is the furthest thing from a guy who stands in the corner and takes the scraps from other players. I do find it extremely amusing you think IT is a bigger ball-hog than Thornton though.

Also,

Kobe
Wade
LeBron
Iggy
Harden
Monta
Manu
Durant
Melo

Are none of these guys "playmakers" for their team? You have a really archaic view of the PG position as you seem to think it's soley the PG's job to create for the team
 
Last edited:
And who is supposed to come off the bench as a third rotation big?

The ever-elusive, defensive anchor. Everyone agrees Cousins needs defensive partner to cover for his defencies and neither JT or Patterson can be that. Both useful players, yes, but neithercould dream of being of being called a "defensive anchor"

So just a hypothetical minute distribution under a new regime:

Cousins-35 minutes
New defense guy-32 minutes
Patterson-22 minutes

That leaves 6 minutes for a big. Perfect for a Cole Aldrich; not so much for a $6mil JT.

I'm not saying we deal JT without having that guy in place at all. But if we do end up with a Nerlens Noel or Tiago Splitter or (heaven help us) Dalembert, JT's value becomes far more useful on the trade market than staying with the team
 
Last edited:
a) Thornton is a flat out more explosive scorer than IT. Not even a question. More explosive scorer than just about anybody really, but so hard to contain in a system.

b) the advantage, such as is it, with Thornton is that he doesn't bring the ball up. Oh my, what a chucker when he does touch it. But he can only chuck what he touches, and so you can control it to some degree (and indeed we have enough selfish players that we often do "control" it by simply ignoring him and having other guys chuck instead). That's its own problem of course, as you have to run a 4 man passing offense for fear that everytime MT touches it a shot could go up almost instantly. At the beginning of last year, his chucking disease was a primary factor in the offense stalling.

c) the huge issue with IT is that he is the "point guard", so he brings it up, and because he has a wide selfish streak, he just won't give it up. You use him to initiate a play, and he is running the play for himself. He is NOT as selfish/chucker as MT -- few are. But because of his role and ball dominance, the impact of his selfishness is just as much, maybe even more. Being irrepressible can be a good thing or a bad one depending on circumstances.

d) raw ast/gm is a deceptive way to look at things, but infortunately in this case ast/per 48 doesn't help matters much, as he's 38th there, sandwiched in between Paul Pierce and Dwayne Wade. My own little method of tracking the problem has to been to compare shot attempts by the PG to Ast. And there its even worse. Here is a table of some major gunning PG's and their shots/per ast:

FGAs per Ast
Irving 3.23
IT 2.73
Kemba 2.70
Curry 2.63
Barea 2.60
Westbrook 2.50
Lillard 2.42
Nate 2.41
Jennings 2.34
Parker 2.03
Lawson 1.96
Holiday 1.95
Jameer 1.91
Collison 1.77


He simply shoots much much too much, and passes much too little. He guns more than Russel bleeping Westbrook. More than Kemba. More than even his big brother Nate. That's not something you want or need out of a starting guard supposedly running an offense featuring Cousins and Reke. Somebody has to tame the shot happiness or he's not going to end up being part of a winning franchise.
 
Last edited:
The ever-elusive, defensive anchor. Everyone agrees Cousins needs defensive partner to cover for his defencies and neither JT or Patterson can be that. Both useful players, yes, but neithercould dream of being of being called a "defensive anchor"

So just a hypothetical minute distribution under a new regime:

Cousins-35 minutes
New defense guy-32 minutes
Patterson-22 minutes

That leaves 6 minutes for a big. Perfect for a Cole Aldrich; not so much for a $6mil JT.

I'm not saying we deal JT without having that guy in place at all. But if we do end up with a Nerlens Noel or Tiago Splitter or (heaven help us) Dalembert, JT's value becomes far more useful on the trade market than staying with the team

Ignoring the ongoing Splitter silliness, this I actually agree with. We desperately need a rim protector next to Cousins, since he is a center that can't do that himself. But once we get that player, then there isn't time/a role for both JT and Patterson. One is a third big, the other becomes just a wasted contract. Something will have to give. Under Geoff's regime you could never be sure it would as he routinely overstacked positions with piles of roughly equal players on MLE contracts, but I'm assuming a new regime will want to establish a rotation/hierarchy and not waste money on 4th/5th bigs.

Only real way you avoid that conclusion is with Andrei Kirilenko -- and I didn't say a guy like Kirilenko, I said him directly, because he's almost the only one. But he's aging, injury prone, just turned down our old regime 2 years ago, and in Minny. So almost surely this works out as Cousins/shotblocker/3rd big. And given Patterson's mature game and stretchiness, and JT's bigger/longer contract, I could easily see Patterson getting that #3 spot because he fills a specialist role useful for Reke and Cousins.
 
Last edited:
Our problem with assistless basketball is well known and not new. The best PG on our team is IT, start him.

the question is only whether or not we need to change that, with more and more people saying that, indeed, we do. there needs to be a purge in our current guard rotation anyway, bringing in new blood does not seem that bad an idea.
 
Our problem with assistless basketball is well known and not new. The best PG on our team is IT, start him.

Our best back up PG is IT, our best starting PG purely on the way he plays (fits with our main guys) and the defense he can play while providing floor spacing is Toney Douglas
 
the question is only whether or not we need to change that, with more and more people saying that, indeed, we do. there needs to be a purge in our current guard rotation anyway, bringing in new blood does not seem that bad an idea.
I'll vote for that - not the purge part but the bring in new talent part. You don't get rid of a player until you get a better one. Profound.
 
Our best back up PG is IT, our best starting PG purely on the way he plays (fits with our main guys) and the defense he can play while providing floor spacing is Toney Douglas

IT certainly isn't the guy. His game isn't conducive to running an offense. He's a guy you toss out in the second quarter to get you some pints. As I've said before, it's easy to game plan for IT. Let him get his buckets, because he'll do so at the expense of others.
In fairness to IT, there's no real structure to the offense anyway, so it's not like he's running Smart's plan incorrectly...
 
If Toney Douglas is still around and playing like this next year, we should start him.

I like Tony Douglas but c'mon man. If he's our starting PG next year we are going back to the lottery again. He's a good role player coming off the bench.
 
Quote: If he's still around and playing like this. If he's still here, and playing like he does now with the defense, passing and all, then yes, we start him.
 
I'll vote for that - not the purge part but the bring in new talent part. You don't get rid of a player until you get a better one. Profound.

our guard rotation as of now is Reke, Douglas, Thornton, IT, Jimmer. so in IT/MT/Jimmer basically three times the same player, undersized chuckers whose playmaking ability ranges from under-average to non-existent, with the same going for their defense. the kind of player, in other words, where it's questionable that you really need one at all. at least two of our guards have to go in the offseason, preferably three, just because of roster imbalance. you'll happily get rid of a player if it's addition by subtraction. the real question is who to keep.
 
Jerry West thinks he's pretty good. The Kings have lead the NBA in scoring since Feb 8 so who cares about his assists. He plays less minutes than most starting PGs. The Kings are getting better. That is the bottom line.
 
Back
Top