Do we really need a PG?

[jumpshot]

I think that Ivey has the potential to be an above average starting point guard. He seems to be developing and has a nice defensive game already. I hope we draft Williams and try to get bigs in the free agent market.

[gohawks11]

no we dont. draft either marvin or bogut.

[DominiqueWilkins]

We don't need just any point guard, because we've had that for awhile now.

We need a true point guard that can control a offense.

[tmac13]

Regardless of who we draft, Ivy probably won't even make the team next season..He cannot run an offense..He didn't even play the point in college.

[Spiral]

I'm not so sure Ivey has the skillz to be an above average point guard. I think he will develop into a solid back-up, but not a starter.

To answer the question of "Do we really need a PG?," I believe we do. I don't feel Tyronn Lue, Royal Ivey or Boris Diaw are anywhere close to consistent enough to start at point guard on a nightly basis in the NBA. All of them have shown flashes, but none of them are NBA starting material.

[gohawks11]

"We don't need just any point guard, because we've had that for awhile now.

We need a true point guard that can control a offense"

The best guy that can do that is ray felton.

[Spiral]

I like Felton, but I feel Deron Williams brings just as much leadership on the offensive end and much more tenacity on the defensive end.

[Diesel]

PG is the one position that can change a team. PG is the hardest position to master. PG is the hardest position to fill. Most championship quality teams have good PGs.

I don't think Ivey is good enough. I think Defensively he's solid but can he run the offense?

If there is a star PG, I say we have to consider him strongly.

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

PG is the one position that can change a team. PG is the hardest position to master. PG is the hardest position to fill. Most championship quality teams have good PGs.

I don't think Ivey is good enough. I think Defensively he's solid but can he run the offense?

If there is a star PG, I say we have to consider him strongly.

---

I absolutely agree. After suffering through years of poor point guard play it is amazing that anyone could question the value of a good point guard. All four teams remaining in the playoffs have excellent point guards. A point guards worth is measured not in their individual statistics but on their impact on the team as a whiole. That is why a player like Steve Nash is better then a Steve Francis even though Francis may have better "numbers." Nash makes his teammates better whereas a non-gifted distrubter does not. Think about what a good point guard could mean to Josh Smith.

[Lascar78]

Quote:

---

PG is the one position that can change a team. ... PG is the hardest position to fill.

---

wrong on both accounts. Top big men can change a team as much (if not much much more) than a top PG. And big men are as rare

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

wrong on both accounts. Top big men can change a team as much (if not much much more) than a top PG. And big men are as rare

---

Forget your agenda for a moment and let's go through basketball history...

Historically, a big man has been an important piece to a team; I would even say an essential piece. However, recently, the game has revolved back to the need for a PG.. And most changes occur with the acquisition of a good PG...

First lets look at some big men:

Outside of Shaq and Duncan... What Big men has made their teams automatic finals material?

The second point... Isn't it true that in today's game, Big men are far more likely to be bust than at any other position?

Go down the line... You can start at Koncak, work your way up to Travis Knight, go over to Mihm, Olowakhandi, Eddy Curry, Kwame, etc...

Now one more thing. Let's take a guy like Yao Ming. He's supposed to be the next Shaq. However, his game doesn't translate into Houston wins.

Now, let's look at some PGs...

Kidd. Kidd goes to NJ and turns them into a finals candidate. The difference was like Night and Day.

I won't talk about Gordon/Hinrich/Duhon or Nash or any of these other guys... Let's keep the focus on Kidd for a minute.

The reason why good PGs make the difference in todays game is because in todays game, normally, one player is not dominate enough to make the difference for his team. Emeka Okafor ROY.. How many wins did his team get? But a good PG has the capability of making everyone on the team BETTER while at the same time effecting the other team's offensive distributor. The big man can draw attention, but even guys like KG are not good enough to elevate everyone on his team by himself. Kidd does it. He makes the whole team better. Nash does it, he brings out the best in all of those guys. A GOOD PG should be able to do that. I'm not talking about shoot first guys like JT, Francis, and Baron... I'm talking about guys who can score and distribute.

[Nicholasp27]

Quote:

---

I'm talking about guys who can score and distribute.

---

oh, so u are talking about Bogut

[PhillyDC]

lue is a good back-up. i hate him so thats the most positive thing i can say about him.

ivey stinks. i mean he may be develop good back-up, he can play D, but he has no J and he cant shoot.

diaw refuses to shoot. cant have a PG who refuses to shoot. he has good handle, nice length, can play D, but he wont shoot.

[chillzatl]

Quote:

---

Outside of Shaq and Duncan... What Big men has made their teams automatic finals material?

---

That's two more than the number of PG's that have made their teams finals contenders this year.

It boils down to dominance. A dominant big man is far more valuable than a dominant PG, in todays game. If you don't have a dominant big man, you will not win. Every team that has won a championship since Jordan, has had a dominant big man. None of those teams had dominant PG's, they had solid distributors who played defense and scored enough to allow them to do the above more effeciently.

Now if you are talking non-dominant players, big man vs. pg. It's a definite edge to the PG. Because he's going to be in charge of getting everyone else involved. That's why guys like Duhon and Hinrich are more valuable than guys like Mihm and miller.

The definition of what is most valuable changes depending on the level at which your team competes. But once you get to teh upper echelon of finals contenders, a dominant big man is required.

[PhillyDC]

a dominant big man is a must. makes game easier for everyone. only exception to this recently are pistons (bad boys and ben wallace-led team) and bulls. bulls had, arguably, the best player ever, and the two pistons teams were well built. a good point guard is a plus, but you always take the big man if you think he will develop into that dominant force.

[Packfill]

I don't think anyone disagrees with the notion that a truly dominate big man is the absolute most important piece to a championship team. The problem with this draft is that the only one with any potential to be a dominate big man is Bogut (and even that is far from a guarantee). Marvin Williams is more small forward then power forward so it is hard to put him in the "big man" category.

The point Diesal is trying to make - and a point that makes a lot of sense - is that given what is available in this draft the Hawks can at least acquire a point guard with the potential to have a significant impact on the teams on court performance. In other words, since there is no dominate big man available - take the potentially great distributer (Paul or D. Williams, take your pick).

[chillzatl]

He's not dominant offensively. But he still qualifies as dominant because of what he does on the boards and what he does defensively.

[Nicholasp27]

so we can get one of the pgs and if they are above-average, they will get us back to mediocrity while we pine away with collier/drobs or an overpaid fa with big gaping holes...

if we can't get bogut, i'd rather get marvin, who has the potential, along with smoove/chill, to take us over the top...and we will still be lottery next year to maybe get the dominant big men in oden...we NEED a good big man at some point...so hopefully now (bogut)...otherwise we'll either suck or be mediocre (1st and out at best) team until we get a good big at some point

[TheDude]

if we don't get Bogut and end up getting a point or MWilliams, i'd trade a bank of draft picks to get Ogden.

[Lascar78]

Quote:

---

Outside of Shaq and Duncan... What Big men has made their teams automatic finals material?

---

After this year, they will account for 6 of the last 7 championships.

Depending on how you look at last year's pistons team, the last championship team to have a PG carry their team to a title was the 1989 pistons. I don't know about you guys, but it seems to me that the 80s was a long time ago.

Anyhow, we won't be able to get Bogut, but it is clear that if you can get a PG or a C of equal dominance, you take the big man.

Quote:

---

Kidd. Kidd goes to NJ and turns them into a finals candidate.

---

He's the best PG in the game, he got swept in the first round. Swept. And that's after a furious comeback in the standings to squeeze into the playoffs. Despite having two all stars with him. Why? Because they ran into a big man and there's no making up for it.

There is no way that happens to Shaq or TD. They won't struggle to make the playoffs. They won't lose in the first round, much less get swept. Even a hobbled Shaq. I can only imagine if they had 2 all stars with them.

You're making my point for me.

KIDD ONLY MADE IT TO THE FINALS WHEN THE EAST HAD NO BIG MEN WHATSOEVER. OTHERWISE HE WOULD NOT HAVE.