How do you figure 2 would be playing out of position? There are 96 guard minutes? Why wouldn't at least two be playing their primary position the majority of the time?
Also, do we know that Scoot and Shaedon are going to be bad defenders? I don't think they profile that way, they're just green.
We've never seen Ant play with a real PG. He could look great with better catch and shoot opportunities than he's had with Dame.
While it's understandable to express strong resistance by saying "under NO CIRCUMSTANCES," it's pretty dramatic. I think it's important to remember that there are always circumstances in which a particular decision can be justified. This allows for a more comprehensive evaluation of a situation and the potential consequences of different choices.
In your example, if a circumstance existed where 100 children would perish in a bus crash off a cliff, it becomes evident that pursuing a different circumstance would be the morally correct choice. This demonstrates how circumstances can drastically influence the outcome of decisions.
Adopting a more open-minded approach enables us to adapt, learn, and make more informed choices. It fosters empathy, understanding, and the ability to see beyond our initial beliefs. Embracing the idea that circumstances matter encourages personal growth, enhances problem-solving skills, and promotes a more harmonious and compassionate society.
The only way to play all 3 is to play 2 of them out of position.
Scoot and Simons are both 1s; although you could argue Simons is a "2" in a "1s" body, the counter is that a vast majority of his "high-level" play has been when he played the 1 albeit with a horrific AST:TO.
Sharpe is a 2.
Scoot / Ant / Sharpe / ?? / ?? = 2 of them are playing out of position. Obviously, you could bring Simons or Scoot off the bench, as I've been advocating for
a while, but as many people have noted, "that's not going to happen". Also, note I said "LONG TERM". Which means in 3 years do you think one of Scoot / Ant is going to be coming off the bench? Don't think so.
Everything up to this point indicates that they are bad defenders. Could that change? Sure, but if we are operating in reality, we aren't playing the "they could be this or that" game. They are what they are until they prove otherwise.
This brings me back to my original point. Under no circumstances do I want to continue playing 2 players out of position and 3 really bad defenders
long-term. And it's a forum, of course, it's meant to be dramatic. If 2 of them grew and 2 of them became elite defenders, sure, that would change the scenario, but the circumstance is the same ... because that's not
3 no-defense guards and 2 out of position. So correct, there is
nothing that could happen in the entire world in which I would want to continue playing 2 players out of position and 3 really bad defenders
long term.
And your whole perish off a bus is a load of bullshit. Really? Do you think someone is going to threaten to drive a bus off a cliff if the Blazers don't change their
basketball lineup? That's not a
realistic circumstance. I'm going to blow up the entire world unless you give me $10,000,000 dollars by next week. What's your decision? I bet it's pretty easy because that's not realistic.
