Michael Carter-Williams and Lillard-as-SG?

First: here's what I know about Michael Carter-Williams: he's a big PG (yay!) who plays for Syracuse (hm.)
I have not watched Syracuse play this year and all I've seen of him is from YouTube. He's ranked around our pick. So: people who've seen him play - what do you think?

My thought (which I have expressed many times this season) is this: Lillard is better off the ball. Our own coach has acknowledged this as soon as we acquired Maynor. But Maynor, while 6'3", is very slight, and a Maynor-Lillard backcourt is a big defensive risk. (Teams are being successful with midget dual-PG backcourts these days - see the Knicks and the Clippers, but it's still not common.) Ideally we would match Lillard up with a tall PG who can DEFEND. But that's the rub with Carter-Williams, because (a) he's from Syracuse, and (b) he's not the greatest athlete (I gather).

So: this thread has two purposes. First, to learn what people think of Carter-Williams. Can he play PG? Can he play defense?
Second, to discuss whether or not taking Lillard off the ball (at least some of the time) is the right way to go. OKC could have gone that route with Westbrook - there was talk of them drafting Tyreke Evans to play PG, talk that Westbrook angrily denounced at the time. And while I'm no fan of Westbrook's game (as a PG), OKC have certainly made it work for them. Alternatively, Allen Iverson was viewed as a PG until Larry Brown arrived and moved him over (despite being barely 6') and Philly went to the finals.
Lillard is no Iverson, but he might be a lot more like Mike Bibby, and Sacramento had Doug Christie who had a lot of PG in him, playing alongside when they were good enough to need referees cheating them to stop them beating the Lakers.

Thoughts?

 

I don't personally agree with this idea but if you believe in it then why not just sign Livingston if you want to do this scenario? He is a free agent. Do we think MCW is going to be better than Livingston? We are most likely going to need our pick to trade it.

Lillard averages more assists as a rookie then these players did:
Rose
Westbrook
Parker
Williams

He passes the ball just fine. He will make a leap in assists per game next year too.

 

Good topic.I would like to know the answer to your first questions as well. Having a tall PG to back up Lillard, AND to play with him for 10-12 minutes gives the Blazers a lot of flexibility with their roster.

I only saw him in a few games and did not focus on his at the time. I know the Syracuse issue is a concern for a lot of us. But I would love this pick if he was any good. i just don't know the answer.

Of course he would have to have PG skills and be able to defend SG's. Not just be tall.

 

Lillard is a PG and shouldnt be moved out of position for long periods of time. MCW is SG size with PG characteristics. This wouldn't be a situation were one is the PG and the other is the SG, it would just be two guards who both could handle the ball and MCW could guard the better player at the defense end of the floor. Lillard would have the ball in his hands more often and it would only work out because of MCW passing ability, very few SGs have that kind of court vision.
Our team had a lot of problems last year and at times Lillard needed another ball handler in the game with him so the defense couldn't just double and triple team him but that doesn't make him a SG. I'd like to see Lillard play off the ball a bit next year but he is a PG and that's were the majority of his playing time should be.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

HELL NO on Carter-Williams.

 

This as well, to many many big men at our projected pick to Draft Carter-Williams and I think he is going to be a bust. Can't explain why just have a bad feeling about him.

 

Modern PGs aren't in the same mold as 80's/90's PGs. They're more shooting/driving/scoring players with assists. I look at it this way: once Lillard masters the drive-and-kickout, he'll average 8 assists a game easily. He was hit-or-miss with that move, and the offense actually wasn't prepared for a lot of those (strangely, a McClownShoes offense would have been).

Pair him with a legit outside threat at SG. One that is so good at spot up shooting (and perimeter passing, if you can get it) that you can't double Lillard off of this guy to prevent the drive. Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

How many times did we say about Lillard in the first half of games, "he's so passive! He's not doing anything!" and then see him take over in the second half? Clearly he just isn't an intuitive passer. He was TRYING to get everyone involved in the first half, and as a result was just an average player. But when he decides to be all about scoring, he's much more comfortable. Will that change? We'll see, I guess. But if he's going to improve as a PG, then why do we need Maynor? Maynor's too good to play JUST 10 mpg, which is the amount of time Lillard's off the court.

 

So - NOBODY watched Syracuse?

 

The point of having another PG is to play them with Lillard for a bit each game and of course when Lillard is resting. You can pencil a backup PG into around 20m a night. Lillard trying to get everyone involved is a lot like Roy would do, give up a lot of shots early you would usually take to try and get other people hot, its not Lillards fault when we had brick after brick after brick being shot by his teammates so many times. One of the things Lillard needs to learn is to know when to score and when to facilitate, but he is a rookie that is something that will come with time.

 

I would be very happy if we signed Livingston, as I have made amply clear. I think he has proved himself durable post-injury, and did very nicely for the Cavs. That might mean they want him back.

I'm sure that's true. But I would ask:
a) does he average more assists/40?
b) how much older is he as a rookie than they were? Parker, for example, was 19.

I'd also point out that Westbrook STILL gets criticized for being a ballhog, so averaging more assists than him is not too hard.
I'd also also point out that Lillard averaged FEWER assists than Iverson as a rookie. And as I said above, Iverson ended up as a SG.

 

One of the dumbest ideas I've seen on here in a while.

 

I don't have the per 40 stats but you are free to look them up. I would imagine they hurt Dame because he plays so many minutes and some of those other guys didn't play near as many minutes per game their rookie year. Age has no bearing though. Williams was a 3 year college player. Parker was a young pup but played pro ball for 3 years. You can do it both old and young.

Westbrook is 7th in the league in assists per game. He is a distributor. If he was on any other team then he wouldn't get the crap he gets. He only gets it now because he should defer more shots to Durant.
Iverson was the best scoring option that PHI had. PHI's team otherwise was crap. Snow was one of their 5 best players so he started.

 

Incorrect

Lillard played off the ball for a few reasons, but none of them were because he wasn't good with the ball in his hands. The main reasons were the bench was terrible and it also gave Lillard a rest in that he didn't have to dribble the ball the entire game. At no point did Lillard really look bad with the ball in his hands and making decisions. For a rookie PG he looked great with the ball in his hands.

 

He has a lot going against him. Not just the Syracuse thing, but when was the last time a "Big PG" actually translated in the pros? From Steve Smith to Tyreke Evans, if they've stuck (and don't turn into Jerryl Sasser or that kid from Temple) they've migrated to SG. I think Brian Shaw and Shaun Livingston are the only two post-Magic examples that made it, and they weren't exactly stellar.

 

You've got it backwards: the per 40 stats don't "hurt" Lillard - the fact that he played so many minutes inflates his per game stats. That's why his PER is comparatively paltry even though he looks like he's scoring a lot.

I don't really understand what you're saying here. Young players have greater room for improvement, right? So if you were 19 when you were a rookie then you're more likely to improve all of your stats than if you're 22. Right?

Perhaps he'd get less "crap" but he'd still get it because he's a ballhog.

Again, you've got it backwards. That finals team was built AROUND Iverson's game. All Iverson COULD do was score, so all the other players had to be extra good at defense and teamwork. Snow was getting no minutes in Seattle. He was INSTALLED as a starter precisely because Larry Brown realized Iverson was no PG.

The point: sheer number of assists/game doesn't tell you much. Ballhogs can get assists when they unload the ball only because they're quadruple-teamed and somebody hits an open jumper. Call those "Iverson assists". Then there are players who get assists because they have great court vision and can find players that other players wouldn't have realized even WERE open. Call those "Kidd assists". At the moment the vast % of Lillards' assists are Iverson assists.

 

^lol your so full of shit!

 

lol your 12 yrs old

 

So we finally found our PG of the future and you want to move him to SG?

 

He can still be our PG of the future.