Re: Do not draft a PG

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

At 14:40 26/06/01 -0400, Douglas342@aol.com wrote:
>j.hironaka@unesco.org writes:
>>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,
>
>Not another undersized 2 guard who you want to turn into a point!  Please!
>Dee Brown couldn't do it, Chauncy Billups couldn't do it.  And Gilbert Arenas
>won't do it.

I understand that sentiment, but there is a context. For instance, what if 
a team built around two perimeter slasher/scorer/ballhandlers chose to rely 
on a PG in the mold of BJ Armstrong, John Paxson or Ron Harper? Why, they 
would be the Chicago Bulls.

The thing to notice is that each successive guy proved to be a lousier 
dribbler/playmaker but a stronger spot-up shooter. That's the formula that 
won six championships for them. The Bulls even got production out of Sam 
Vincent the moment he converted into a spot-up shooter alongside Jordan, 
and in old friend Vincent we are talking about a very, very poor man's Dee 
Brown.

In case it isn't self-evident, I'm not saying Pierce/Walker is MJ/Pippen. 
But Boston's roster, at least last year, doesn't seem to mesh with a young, 
overdribbling point guard who can't shoot.  If all the playmaking strengths 
are going to go under-utilized, then it is moot to draft a player on the 
basis of those skills. Last year's offense would have benefited a lot had 
Randy Brown or Stith or Herren nailed open jump shots, like Kenny can do 
but doesn't like to do. If (a huge "if") Joe Forte is there at #21, I 
wouldn't be shocked to see him get more rookie minutes with the first team 
than anyone we draft at #10 or #11. Red Auerbach would be happy too.

----