SALIM or ROY?

[y2kenta]

I'm not totally anti-Brandon Roy because I've seen the guy in action and think he's going to be pretty good in the NBA. I don't see the Dwayne Wade comparison in him, but I think he's nice.

But just think for a minute. Out of all the top 5 teams, we're the only team that desperately needs a pure PG, with the exception of TOR who has the #1. But no one in the NBA world including this board would take Roy #1 overall now. WOULD YOU? That is why portalnd is the most realistic spot that Roy is to be/ probably will be taken.

Now my problems with taking him at #5 are...

#1 - Why take him when we need a pure PG? (Please don't give me that JJ can play PG sh|t because JJ should have the ball a lot but not as much a pure PG / JJ needs to have that added ability to be our clutch go-to-guy without being pressured the whole 40+mins)

#2 - Why take him when we have Salim? (We already have one of the youngest sharpshooter in the NBA, who is a lightning quick slasher that dishes to big men very well) Taking another tweener at this point would be a wasted pick especially when we had Smoove and still took Marvin over Paul in the previous draft.

#3 - Why take him when we have cap space, AL (S&T), and interest from other teams to trade picks to get exactly what we need most? (Now if we chose to either trade with TOR for #1 or with NOH for #12 + 15 to get Alridge or to get [Hilton or Shelden + Rondo or Sergio]

So our choices should be more clear than other team in the top 5....

DRAFT MARCUS WILLIAMS or trade with TOR or NOH!!!

[Final_quest]

I don't think Salim really compares to Roy. Different skill sets, size, and game. Salim is offense of the bench, Roy does everything. At 6'6" with a 6'9" wingspan Roy will be able to overmatch most PGs.

Also, the thought is the Hawks do not need a traditional PG with JJ's playmaking abilities. That being said I'm not convinced that a pure PG wouldn't be able to coexist well with JJ. My thought is that JJ could still be a playmaker even with a pure PG on the team. We would just have more total assists which is a good thing.

If I had to choose today, I would ask for Santa to deliver us Aldridge or Roy secondarily.

[KB21]

Why do we need a pure point guard when we have Joe Johnson? Why is there such an insatiable desire to decrease Joe Johnson's overall effectiveness by taking the ball out of his hands? Why does it have to be a choice between Brandon Roy and Salim Stoudamire? Why can't people realize that Salim is very capable of filling the role of a hired gunner coming off the bench?

[Final_quest]

Quote:

---

Why do we need a pure point guard when we have Joe Johnson? Why is there such an insatiable desire to decrease Joe Johnson's overall effectiveness by taking the ball out of his hands?

---

This is the perspective that I'm not convinced on. JJ is a great playmaker, but I think we COULD add to our playmaking overall with a pure PG. What we don't want is a Marbury/Francis type "PG" that truly dominates the ball. Why can't the PG put JJ in position to make a play rather than JJ having to create that opportunity himself.

Some of JJ's assists were the result of him being the only person capable of setting others up. He had to force some of his plays, and sometimes the result was either a bad shot, no shot, or a turnover. JJ does need some relief, and like I said I'm not convinced that he could not coexist with a pure PG.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Why do we need a pure point guard when we have Joe Johnson?

---

Why wouldn't we want one? I'm not saying it's necessary because I think a Ben Gordon would fit in nicely here, but...

Quote:

---

Why is there such an insatiable desire to decrease Joe Johnson's overall effectiveness by taking the ball out of his hands?

---

Because with JJ as the primary ball-handler Pheonix lost significantly. With a "pure Pg" they won remarkably. It's not a 1 to 1 comparison but it is significant. I think JJ is best suited for a role somewhere between the Pheonix without Nash and the Pheonix with Nash (if only because he wants a more prominent role. Given Nash is the purest of the pure Pgs I'd have to say a "mere" pure Pg would work nicely.

Quote:

---

Why does it have to be a choice between Brandon Roy and Salim Stoudamire? Why can't people realize that Salim is very capable of filling the role of a hired gunner coming off the bench?

---

Agree 100%.

I will say that none of the non-pure Pgs or even guards come close to the Pg class of last year. Shame on BK.

W

[KB21]

I think that, if you pair him with a so called pure point guard that will be setting the offense, you will be taking the ball out of Joe's hands in the half court setting. Joe Johnson is not a typical shooting guard. He's a lead guard, in that he can score and be a playmaker at the same time.

Joe played well with Steve Nash in Phoenix, but look at how his numbers took off when he became the guy the offense is run through. He almost doubled his assists output, and over the last month of the season, he was averaging around 24 points and 8 assists per game. I don't want to decrease that overall effectiveness.

[Johnnybravo4]

I have an even bigger point. I think Salim can start. I have the firm belief that with a season and another summerleague under his belt, Salim could be the starting point on this team with Lue coming off the bench for offense.

See I think the media has it backwards. Getting a pure point decreases JJ effectiveness. JJ is effective because he could handle the ball and plays can run through him. Getting a "pure point" relegates JJ to being a 16/6 guy like he was in Phoenix. JJ is sort of like Dwayne Wade, who needs to have the ball in his hands as a play maker. All you need the point to do is get the ball across half court.

I'd rather see us get a big man, even the 5th best big man, and run Salim at the point rather than get a pure point or even a JJ clone. Eliminating, some amazing trade like A.I. or Garnett, or O'neal, what is wrong with this lineup

Salim/Lue

JJ/Childress

Marvin/DSmith

Smith/Wilcox/Shelden Williams

Zaza/Nene

I mean we won't rock the foundations with this lineup, but we can win some games.

[Johnnybravo4]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Why do we need a pure point guard when we have Joe Johnson?

---

Why wouldn't we want one? I'm not saying it's necessary because I think a Ben Gordon would fit in nicely here, but...

Quote:

---

Why is there such an insatiable desire to decrease Joe Johnson's overall effectiveness by taking the ball out of his hands?

---

Because with JJ as the primary ball-handler Pheonix lost significantly. With a "pure Pg" they won remarkably. It's not a 1 to 1 comparison but it is significant. I think JJ is best suited for a role somewhere between the Pheonix without Nash and the Pheonix with Nash (if only because he wants a more prominent role. Given Nash is the purest of the pure Pgs I'd have to say a "mere" pure Pg would work nicely.

Quote:

---

Why does it have to be a choice between Brandon Roy and Salim Stoudamire? Why can't people realize that Salim is very capable of filling the role of a hired gunner coming off the bench?

---

Agree 100%.

I will say that none of the non-pure Pgs or even guards come close to the Pg class of last year. Shame on BK.

W

---

I disagree that Nash is a "Pure" pg. Nash looks to score, but gets a lot of assists because of the kind of offense they run. I mean when you score 110 points per game, how hard is it to get 11 assists?

[cyman3]

Quote:

---

I disagree that Nash is a "Pure" pg. Nash looks to score, but gets a lot of assists because of the kind of offense they run. I mean when you score 110 points per game, how hard is it to get 11 assists?

---

its very hard to get 11 assists per game. While the team scores 110 points, only 1 other player on that team avg more than 3 apg (boris diaw at 5).

Nash gets his 20 points in the flow of the game. For the most part, hes looking to pass the ball. that makes him a pure PG.

[Final_quest]

Quote:

---

I think that, if you pair him with a so called pure point guard that will be setting the offense, you will be taking the ball out of Joe's hands in the half court setting. Joe Johnson is not a typical shooting guard. He's a lead guard, in that he can score and be a playmaker at the same time.

---

You say this like a pure PG dribbles around until he finds the one perfect pass that results in a dunk or wide open jumpshot. JJ had the 5th most turnovers in the league. He still had a 2:1 ratio, and probably played the 5th most minutes in the league, but I still feel like he could benefit from a pure PG.

I'm just a mere fan, but I guess I would have to see JJ flop with a true PG to believe it couldn't work. Why couldn't two players have 6 assists/game?

[cyman3]

Quote:

---

you will be taking the ball out of Joe's hands in the half court setting. Joe Johnson is not a typical shooting guard. He's a lead guard, in that he can score and be a playmaker at the same time.

---

ok, i agree that Joe Johnson in a half court setting is extremely effective with the ball in his hands. Either he scores or he finds an open man.

however, it wouldnt hurt to have 2 PLAYERS who are capable of doing this- esp if 1 of them can do it in the OPEN FLOOR (fast break) better than Johnson. If anything, it will take the pressure off of Johnson.

I want another guard in our starting rotation who is extremely fast, takes great care of the ball, looks to get his teammates involved, yet hits the open jump shot + gets his points in the flow of the game to keep the defense honest.

JJ can be the point when we're in a half court setting (ala LEBRON). But for the rest of the game, lets give him a breather and allow a dependable player to bring the ball up and try to create for others.

[mrhonline]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

you will be taking the ball out of Joe's hands in the half court setting. Joe Johnson is not a typical shooting guard. He's a lead guard, in that he can score and be a playmaker at the same time.

---

I want another guard in our starting rotation who is extremely fast, takes great care of the ball, looks to get his teammates involved, yet hits the open jump shot + gets his points in the flow of the game to keep the defense honest.

---

And there's nothing wrong with that. But if that player is a defensive liability, then I have no problem with BK not drafting him (e.g., Marcus Williams).

Regardless, I still think a "more" veteran PG might be the better way to go...

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

I think that, if you pair him with a so called pure point guard that will be setting the offense, you will be taking the ball out of Joe's hands in the half court setting.

---

Any team with JJ as the primary ball-handler better expect less than stellar results. JJ is a very good ball-handler for a 2 guard but we need considerably more. Some people here believe adding a 2nd good ball-handling 2 to JJ will equate to our having a great ball-handling 1, but this is one case the math doesn't work out that way. My belief is supported by his stint as the primary ballhandler. Good individual stats and a significant number of losses despite tremendous talent. It's almost reminicent of SAR. JJ is better but should not be your first (or second IMO) option as a well as your primary ball-handler.

Quote:

---

Joe Johnson is not a typical shooting guard.

---

We agree. He's not a Pg. Finally you admit to it.

Quote:

---

He's a lead guard, in that he can score and be a playmaker at the same time.

---

"Can" and "should" are two entirely different things. WE've seen just how poorly a talented team "lead" by him is and just how good a similar team is with him as a 4th option. I happen to believe he deserves to be somewhere inbetween. Ideally a 2nd (or 3rd) option who isn't THE playmaker. Yes, he remains A playmaker, just not THE playmaker.

Quote:

---

Joe played well with Steve Nash in Phoenix, but look at how his numbers took off when he became the guy the offense is run through. He almost doubled his assists output, and over the last month of the season, he was averaging around 24 points and 8 assists per game. I don't want to decrease that overall effectiveness.

---

I don't know what "the guy the offense is run through" means. If it means "primary option", fine. THAT isn't the definition of lead guard as you described it. If it means "the guy the offense is run through and the guy who runs the offense that runs through him" then I think you're further lost in some BK love-fest where any decision made by him you lust after, actually hinging your credibility so to it that you defend it until you are caught lying and flip-flopping. Maybe that's it.

I also don't like to consider a month of statistics as any real indication (when there are years choose from). Regardless, Pheonix lost with JJ and has won with Nash as the "lead guard". That isn't an indication that JJ isn't a good player, but an indication that perhaps in his role as "lead guard" he shouldn't be asked to handle the majority of the Pg duties or else the team suffers despite JJ's stats and the team loses more than it should.

W

[mrhonline]

Quote:

---

Because with JJ as the primary ball-handler Pheonix lost significantly.

---

That same team lost considerably with Marbury at the 1 as well. Not sure what that proves.

We need to stop seeing this as a "PG/SG" issue. JJ is more than capable of being the "lead guard."

What the Hawks need to do is find the best possible "off guard" who is a nice complement to JJ's "weaknesses" (e.g., JJ doesn't get enough free throw attempts, needs help distributing, needs help guarding smaller, quicker guards). I am worried about Williams' defensive ability and the fact he has to have the ball in his hands to be effective on offense.

That's not true of Brandon Roy. A three-man guard rotation of Roy, JJ, and Lue would be very effective IMHO. You give ~1/2 of the "small guard" minutes to Lue, a few more to Salim, and then ask Roy and JJ to split the rest.

(FWIW, I'm not sure what to think about Foye just yet, but his toughness and D are intriguing).

[Guest Walter]

...I am Foye but that's another topic...

I would even like to see Roy aligned with JJ. I happen to think Roy has as much if not more Pg instincts than JJ. I'm not sure it would work but I'm certainly willing to try it. Just like I'm willing to try JJ with a pure Pg. I'm actually in the middle on this one. JJ doesn't want to be paired with a hyper-pure Pg alah Steve Nash and shouldn't be the primary ball-handler like he was in Pheonix before Nash. Thus, a "mere" pure Pg to a Pg-like Sg COULD work as long as JJ isn't asked to be the primary ball-handler AND a 1st or 2nd option.

My fear with Roy (or Foye, etc in this year's draft)? He isn't a 1st or 2nd option and JJ is continued to be asked to do too much (especially with Al gone). We need another star to even begin to hope to contend with JJ. With JJ as the primary ball-handler I believe we need a SUPERSTAR as JJ isn't best suited for both pressures.

W

[DrReality]

As I watched Phx in the finals I was struck by how they have a lot of athletes like Atl. Can run up and down the floor, jump, etc. But Phx has a real pg that can orchestrate the whole thing. I think if we got a pg it would free JJ up to get his shot rather than have to create it himself.

One thing that is for sure, he really got worn down toward the end of the season. That would not be a good way to go into the playoffs.

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

I think that, if you pair him with a so called pure point guard that will be setting the offense, you will be taking the ball out of Joe's hands in the half court setting. Joe Johnson is not a typical shooting guard. He's a lead guard, in that he can score and be a playmaker at the same time.

Joe played well with Steve Nash in Phoenix, but look at how his numbers took off when he became the guy the offense is run through. He almost doubled his assists output, and over the last month of the season, he was averaging around 24 points and 8 assists per game. I don't want to decrease that overall effectiveness.

---

Individual stats don't mean jack if the team isn't winning games. I could care less if JJ's stats decrease if it means the team wins.

Lets be careful about putting JJ on a pedastal just yet. Yes he is a very good young player who should continue to improve. The fact that his "numbers" increased dramatically from the previous season has alot more to do with the overall level of talent on the Hawks versus the Suns team he left. That was a winning team and he was the fourth best player. On the Hawks he is the number one guy, which is great, but unless the Hawks start winning in the next few season it really does not mean much.

[KB21]

Why make Joe a spot up jump shooter though? He's far better than that. I believe that is what will happen if you go out and get a so called true point guard that will dominate the basketball. You will turn Joe Johnson into nothing more than a spot up jump shooter. That's what he was last year with Phoenix.

Why make his overall game less effective by doing that? I do not want to see his incredible playmaking skills go to waste.

[KB21]

Here's the problem you will have though.

If you pair Joe Johnson up with a guy like Marcus Williams, Marcus Williams will probably be pretty good in the open floor and bringing the ball up. Once the ball is in Joe's hands in the half court set though, Marcus Williams is not the type of point guard that can play off the ball. He's the type that has to be the creator with the basketball. That puts two guys who will need the basketball to be able to create on offense, and I simply don't believe it will mesh well with Joe Johnson.

Conversely, a guy like Randy Foye is a tremendous ball handler that is very capable of running the fast break and bringing the ball up the court, and he adds the benefit of being able to play off the ball in the half court setting. Randy Foye is a much better jump shooter and finisher than Marcus Williams is. Randy Foye is a Ben Gordon type of player, and I personaly believe that a Ben Gordon type is the best fit alongside Joe Johnson.

[tmac13]

You have already been proved wrong..JJ played well next to Nash who is the ultimate point guard..JJ was also the 3rd or 4th option at Phoenix and will easily be the 1st option with the Hawks..JJ may have fewer assists but score more points next to a true point being the 1st option..What is wrong with that? I don't give a rats azz about JJ's assist totals, I only care about the win column.