thats because watson couldnt create his own shot, and even when he had an open look he rarely made the shots he took. watson is a great bench lleader. he is good at helping the young guys grow, but thats about it. i love the guys energy but he isnt the guy for the job.
thats because watson couldnt create his own shot, and even when he had an open look he rarely made the shots he took. watson is a great bench lleader. he is good at helping the young guys grow, but thats about it. i love the guys energy but he isnt the guy for the job.
well i agree that both guys have their strengths... i was responding to a post where somebody questioned me for saying that earl is a better facilitator than tinsley. from a making-it-easier-for-other-guys-to-score standpoint only, earl has to have the advantage.
I'm not sure how many people are undervaluing the PG or how many are simply recognizing that we don't have a good batch of them, and then proceeding to think through the alternatives available to us via the players under contract. This is the land of John Stockton (and DWill), I don't think many need a lesson about how integral the PG is to an efficient offense.
You've contributed to many discussions by reminding us of how important the PG is... and there have been times that threads have spiraled way off into discussions where offenses are being imagined without one. But there is a reason the conversations went there. I, for one, would genuinely love to hear your solution to the PG problem that we have -- whether you conjure a trade or structure some kind of provisional distribution of minutes to the players on the squad.
Earl shoots 34% from the field, and scored nearly a point less with 7 more minutes on average. Earl having a higher assist-percentage is very-much swayed by the fact that the dude has trouble scoring.
I know this has been said before, but if we could somehow mould Jamaal and Earl into one basketball player, we would have one of the best backups in the NBA.
In general, I don't think we have a 'point guard problem.' By that I mean: we have a capable starter and capable backups, but we don't want to see those backups start. Which means we're like most teams in the league. It would be nice if we were one of the small handful of teams with backups that had starter potential, but there are very few of those, and in the grand scheme you don't make big moves to get a backup PG like that. Little moves to upgrade, sure.
Personally, I'm a little miffed we don't have a Scott Machado type developmental rookie for the 3rd guy (not that I really know much about him, only his reputation.) But since we're only trying to get through one season before we make bigger choices on the whole PG position, I'm basically OK with the Mo/Earl/Tinsley + committee. It's not ideal, but for this year I'll live with it.
I have the same concerns about our starting PG, but I was mostly talking about the backup PG positions. I have to assume Mo will be capable, but my biggest concern is his inability to drive. We have no drivers. I can't remember an NBA team that had no drivers in the starting unit.
That said, if Mo can't be a capable starter, then nobody we have will be able to fill that job, and we're basically screwed. But that's the bed we made and we're going to lie in it.
