Michael Carter-Williams and Lillard-as-SG?

[Rastapopoulos]

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?

 

[KeepOnRollin]

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.

 

[Pinwheel1]

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.

 

[Rhal]

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

 

[MickZagger]

HELL NO on Carter-Williams.

 

[Rhal]

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.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

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.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

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.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

So - NOBODY watched Syracuse?

 

[Rhal]

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.

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.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

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?

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.

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

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.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

HELL NO on Carter-Williams.

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

 

[KeepOnRollin]

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.

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.

 

[RoyToy]

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?

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.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I think he is going to be a bust. Can't explain why just have a bad feeling about him.

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.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[MickZagger]

^lol your so full of shit!

 

[Rastapopoulos]

^lol your so full of shit!

lol your 12 yrs old

 

[Mediocre Man]

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

 

[Rastapopoulos]

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.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

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

He'd move Gary Payton to SG if all he saw was Payton's rookie season.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

http://bkref.com/tiny/a61n0

Look who Damian is just above. And look at how close those stats are. If it turns out we got the next "that guy", I'm fine with him doing whatever the hell he wants except drilling holes in his knees.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

He'd move Gary Payton to SG if all he saw was Payton's rookie season.

The "S" in "SG" stands for shooting.

But obviously Seattle played Payton and McMillan at the same time a lot - who do you want to call the SG?

 

[RoyToy]

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

No

He gets crap because he has the best scorer in the league on his team and he takes more shots than him.

If he had his own team like Derrick Rose does it'd be different. Derrick Rose won a MVP taking more shots per game than Westbrook ever has.

 

[OregonHuskerMan]

This place is a damn joke sometimes.

So, we get our future PG, and follow it up by drafting another PG in the lottery, despite having glaring holes at SG, C?

Why don't we try to address our starting 5 first? That would be nice.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

This place is a damn joke sometimes.

It's one person! Granted, you add up everybody's individual tin-foil conspiracies and eventually the entire place looks insane, but this thread, this "movement", this train of thought? It's one guy.

 

[OregonHuskerMan]

It's one person! Granted, you add up everybody's individual tin-foil conspiracies and eventually the entire place looks insane, but this thread, this "movement", this train of thought? It's one guy.

Fez, although haven't seen them around lately, had some interesting thoughts...

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Given how insane I apparently am, it's amazing how none of you who disagree are actually coming up with reasons why what I'm saying is wrong. (I'm not talking about Carter-Williams, I'm talking about Lillard.) For example:

This place is a damn joke sometimes.
So, we get our future PG, and follow it up by drafting another PG in the lottery, despite having glaring holes at SG, C?

"We get our future PG" is what's called "begging the question". After his rookie year everybody thought Tyreke Evans was the "future PG" of Sacramento. And he had a more remarkable rookie campaign than Lillard, at a younger age. Turned out that he wasn't a real PG. This was actually pretty obvious if you watched. Lillard is not that bad, but he's not an intuitive PG. Let's hope he gets better, but let's not assume he will because floor vision is not something you learn. And let's stop comparing him to Derrick Rose, because he's not that guy: he's a better shooter but he's not the all-world athlete and scorer that Rose always obviously was.

Why don't we try to address our starting 5 first? That would be nice.

1. If you actually READ what was written, I'm talking about someone to START NEXT TO LILLARD. So he would be IN THE STARTING FIVE.
2. Whoever we get at 10 is unlikely to be a starter for a couple of years anyway. Look at Leonard. If we're "addressing our starting five" then it will be by trade/FA/trading up in the draft.

 

[OregonHuskerMan]

Given how insane I apparently am, it's amazing how none of you who disagree are actually coming up with reasons why what I'm saying is wrong. (I'm not talking about Carter-Williams, I'm talking about Lillard.) For example:



"We get our future PG" is what's called "begging the question". After his rookie year everybody thought Tyreke Evans was the "future PG" of Sacramento. And he had a more remarkable rookie campaign than Lillard, at a younger age. Turned out that he wasn't a real PG. This was actually pretty obvious if you watched. Lillard is not that bad, but he's not an intuitive PG. Let's hope he gets better, but let's not assume he will because floor vision is not something you learn. And let's stop comparing him to Derrick Rose, because he's not that guy: he's a better shooter but he's not the all-world athlete and scorer that Rose always obviously was.



1. If you actually READ what was written, I'm talking about someone to START NEXT TO LILLARD. So he would be IN THE STARTING FIVE.
2. Whoever we get at 10 is unlikely to be a starter for a couple of years anyway. Look at Leonard. If we're "addressing our starting five" then it will be by trade/FA/trading up in the draft.

1) So you think MCW is better than Wes Matthews? Despite his horrible FG%? Mediocre (gambles a lot - at best) defense? You think MCW is a "dynamic" SG - one whose only attribute is essentially having a high BBIQ and strong passing ability? That doesn't seem very dynamic to me. If you actually KNEW what you were talking about, you would know how ridiculous this idea is.

2) Depends who we get at 10. I can see a handful of guys being NBA ready, right now. Leonard was VERY, VERY raw for a lotto pick - everyone knew that. I'd say that Alex Len would probably be a starter from day one, dependent on who we signed as a FA. I do believe we should trade for a C/starting quality SG and look in FA for either pieces.

MCW is a more useless pick than if we were to draft Olynyk, IMO.

Tyreke Evans also plays in Sacramento. You know who else was lauded as PGOTF after their rookie years?

Kyrie Irving, John Wall, Seth Curry, Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Deron Williams, Brandon Jennings, etc.

I would say that is pretty welcome company.

And Tyreke is what? 6'5-6? 225 and has a PER of around 20.

I would say he isn't half bad...

 

[Rastapopoulos]

1) So you think MCW is better than Wes Matthews? Despite his horrible FG%? Mediocre (gambles a lot - at best) defense? You think MCW is a "dynamic" SG - one whose only attribute is essentially having a high BBIQ and strong passing ability? That doesn't seem very dynamic to me. If you actually KNEW what you were talking about, you would know how ridiculous this idea is.

As you would gather if you read what I wrote (why is that so hard) - I don't know jack about MCW. That's why I'm asking. If he's not any good, then we shouldn't draft him. I'm willing to bet he's got better PG skills than Matthews, but if the negatives outweigh the positives, stay away. I'm actually pretty doubtful he would be able to play PG in the NBA, because tall PGs are so rare.

2) Depends who we get at 10. I can see a handful of guys being NBA ready, right now. Leonard was VERY, VERY raw for a lotto pick - everyone knew that.

Actually, he was about average for big men taken around pick #10. Look it up.

I'd say that Alex Len would probably be a starter from day one,

And I'd say "only if we're tanking from day one." Seriously - go through the past few drafts and find big men chosen at or around #10. They average about 10 mpg.

MCW is a more useless pick than if we were to draft Olynyk, IMO.

Yikes. That's pretty damning. If that's true, I'd definitely say stay away then.

Tyreke Evans also plays in Sacramento. You know who else was lauded as PGOTF after their rookie years?

Kyrie Irving, John Wall, Seth Curry, Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Deron Williams, Brandon Jennings, etc.

Nearly all of them averaged more assists/48 than Lillard. Except for Seth Curry (but to be fair, he's still at Duke) and Deron Williams, who shared PG duties in college anyway.

And Tyreke is what? 6'5-6? 225 and has a PER of around 20.
I would say he isn't half bad...

Do you think you're disagreeing with me? Do you think I think Lillard is bad? Go back and read what I'm saying.