Re: Do not draft a PG

["j.hironaka" <j.hironaka@unesco.org>]

At 15:41 26/06/01 +0800, kevin wrote:
>My feeling is that Wallace and team is NOT drafting a PG, even at #
>21, even if Tinsley is available. I read that this draft is deep in
>wing players, so my wish/guess is to go for such with our #21.

I know the grand strategy is "best player available" (which as you aptly 
conclude probably means avoid this year's crop of mediocre-seeming 
pointguards entirely). But even if we drafted a PG for "need",  a guy like 
Omar Cook looks on paper to be precisely the wrong type of point guard in 
Boston's system.

If Kenny is complaining (with reason) that his role is beeing reduced to 
walking it up and then finding an open place to spot up for a return pass, 
then Cook will have fits if he comes here (if he ever gets off the bench 
early in his career). Moreover, Cook is a crap spot-up shooter.

If Boston wants to address the long-term PG situation via this particular 
draft, they might be best off looking instead to groom over several years a 
natural sharp-shooter (Forte, Arenas types) into a solid complementary 
ballhandler, and use #10-#11 to get players at the other positions who can 
pass well (like Joe Johnson or nearly all of the guys who will be there). A 
PG spot-up shooter would likely help a lot in Boston, just as it flourished 
in Chicago around their two designated perimeter scorer/slashers. And if 
the PG gets into trouble, then just have Walker bring the ball up against a 
big man.

The only point guard that could come in and take the reins from Walker is a 
bonafide "veteran All Star". No slick rookie PG, no matter how big is ego, 
is going to be able to accomplish that. So yeah, I agree Boston should not 
address the PG need at #21 unless they know exactly what they want from the 
position and have a good candidate in mind. If that guy is a 6-0, 170 pound 
teen with a French accent, then fine I wish him "bonne chance".

----