Burks at PG?

[Stoked]

Burks at pg...bwahahahahha. Really?

Nice rebuttal.

Care to point out the weaknesses in a Hayward-Hood-Burks 3-2-1 lineup? Especially if it is situational as has been discussed? You know with Hayward taking the majority of the ball handling burden and Burks guarding the opposing PG? Especially slower ones.

 

[LogGrad98]

Nice rebuttal.

Care to point out the weaknesses in a Hayward-Hood-Burks 3-2-1 lineup? Especially if it is situational as has been discussed? You know with Hayward taking the majority of the ball handling burden and Burks guarding the opposing PG? Especially slower ones.

We would have seen this situationally anyway this season. For this to be much of a thing it would be more than situational. Otherwise no rebuttal needed, since it is just situational and once in a while then that is fine and would have been fine anyway.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I honestly don't see why not. I see him as a super-sub anyway, and if his ideal role is to score in the second unit (which I think it is), might as well put the ball in his hands in the process.

 

[fishonjazz]

Burks would simply never play an Exum role. A) that would hurt his productivity, B) I'm sure he wouldnt enjoy it at all

This is true

 

[karl malone]

Offensively, I could see a lineup of Burks/Hood/Hayward/Favors/Gobert working as Burks, Hood, & Hayward can all facilitate enough to get away with not having a true PG running the offense. Defensively is where I see that lineup potentially being a problem as I'm not sure there is anyone in that group capable of consistently guarding quicker PG's. I do believe that the lineup can & will work in the right matchups/situations, as well as that (at least offensively) this is our best possible starting 5. However, I also believe that not having 1 of Burks/Hood in the second unit would severely weaken our bench & could potentially outweigh the benefit of going with that starting lineup. Whatever the right answer may be, I trust that Snyder will eventually figure out how to maximize the talents/skill-sets that he has to work with.

 

[homeytennis]

Offensively, I could see a lineup of Burks/Hood/Hayward/Favors/Gobert working as Burks, Hood, & Hayward can all facilitate enough to get away with not having a true PG running the offense. Defensively is where I see that lineup potentially being a problem as I'm not sure there is anyone in that group capable of consistently guarding quicker PG's. I do believe that the lineup can & will work in the right matchups/situations, as well as that (at least offensively) this is our best possible starting 5. However, I also believe that not having 1 of Burks/Hood in the second unit would severely weaken our bench & could potentially outweigh the benefit of going with that starting lineup. Whatever the right answer may be, I trust that Snyder will eventually figure out how to maximize the talents/skill-sets that he has to work with.

If they are looking for some point guards off the scap heap how about either Diante Garrett, Nate Wolters or Elliot Williams? All have had their moments in the league.

 

[karl malone]

If they are looking for some point guards off the scap heap how about either Diante Garrett, Nate Wolters or Elliot Williams? All have had their moments in the league.

It's possible that they go with that approach, but I don't find it likely as I'm not sure that any of those options are any better than what we already have in Burke, Neto, & Cotton. If the team does add a PG, I think it's more likely to be an established starting caliber one via trade rather than one via FA. To be honest tho, I don't really know enough about the options that you listed or the other FA PG's available to say one way or the other.