Author Topic: Smart is not a point guard  (Read 28262 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Smart is not a point guard
« Reply #105 on: December 28, 2014, 06:18:10 PM »

Offline Chris22

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5081
  • Tommy Points: 460
Quote
I think Bradley is a bust.

Rookie who just came off an injury, I think he deserves more time.    Those of us, that follow college ball, knew he would have trouble shooting.   What is most disconcerting to me, is lack of elite burst speed in driving past other guards.  A lot of time guys, who can't shoot develop a drive that compensates but I am not seeing that from Smart thus far.   I think he is a good not great athlete but as tough and hard nosed as they come.  He is about what I expected, last years draft for all the hype was not as deep as they said.

Read my quote. I said Bradley was a bust, not Smart.
I like Smart.

Re: Smart is not a point guard
« Reply #106 on: December 28, 2014, 07:21:04 PM »

Offline birdman33

  • Xavier Tillman
  • Posts: 33
  • Tommy Points: 1
Give Smart some time. We gave up on Billups too early but still draft a point or trade for Dragic. He needs to improve in year 2

Re: Smart is not a point guard
« Reply #107 on: December 28, 2014, 08:17:57 PM »

Offline dreamgreen

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3558
  • Tommy Points: 182
21mpg
35% FG
26% 3PT
81% FT
7.9 ppg
3.5 apg
1.6 rpg
2.3 tpg
1.3 spg

vs.

19 mpg
34% FG
29% 3PT
78% FT
5.6 ppg
2.2 apg
2.2 rpg
1.2 tpg
1.1 spg

Nobody took the bait, so...the bottom numbers are Smart's from his first 14 games in the NBA.

Top numbers are Chauncey Billups' from his first 15 games in the NBA.

Should we have given up on Billups too?

Oh, wait....
Because numbers over 14 games when playing short minutes are almost meaningless.  You gotta actually see with your eyes to truly evaluate a guy.  While billups may have exceeded early expectations, he came into the league with some plus skills.  He was a deadeye shooter and he could take it to the basket.  Smart is neither of those things.

During Billups rookie season he couldn't hit a shot, could not drive to save his life, at times it was so bad I wondered if he could jump and touch the net, he looked worse than any rookie I can recall (for the Celtics).

Re: Smart is not a point guard
« Reply #108 on: December 28, 2014, 08:45:15 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31869
  • Tommy Points: 10047
21mpg
35% FG
26% 3PT
81% FT
7.9 ppg
3.5 apg
1.6 rpg
2.3 tpg
1.3 spg

vs.

19 mpg
34% FG
29% 3PT
78% FT
5.6 ppg
2.2 apg
2.2 rpg
1.2 tpg
1.1 spg

Nobody took the bait, so...the bottom numbers are Smart's from his first 14 games in the NBA.

Top numbers are Chauncey Billups' from his first 15 games in the NBA.

Should we have given up on Billups too?

Oh, wait....
Because numbers over 14 games when playing short minutes are almost meaningless.  You gotta actually see with your eyes to truly evaluate a guy.  While billups may have exceeded early expectations, he came into the league with some plus skills.  He was a deadeye shooter and he could take it to the basket.  Smart is neither of those things.

During Billups rookie season he couldn't hit a shot, could not drive to save his life, at times it was so bad I wondered if he could jump and touch the net, he looked worse than any rookie I can recall (for the Celtics).
agreed.  Billups looked horrendous.  anyone who questioned trading him for Kenny Anderson couldn't have seen how bad he was his rookie season.  took Billups 4 teams before he got it together.  if he wasn't a #3 pick, he wouldn't have gotten that many chances.

Smart looks appreciably better than Billups if for no other reason than Smart plays pretty solid D already

Re: Smart is not a point guard
« Reply #109 on: December 28, 2014, 08:49:57 PM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
Quote
I think Bradley is a bust.

Rookie who just came off an injury, I think he deserves more time.    Those of us, that follow college ball, knew he would have trouble shooting.   What is most disconcerting to me, is lack of elite burst speed in driving past other guards.  A lot of time guys, who can't shoot develop a drive that compensates but I am not seeing that from Smart thus far.   I think he is a good not great athlete but as tough and hard nosed as they come.  He is about what I expected, last years draft for all the hype was not as deep as they said.

Read my quote. I said Bradley was a bust, not Smart.
I like Smart.
I saw that and did laugh but then I thought poster hit quote instead of general reply.

Re: Smart is not a point guard
« Reply #110 on: December 29, 2014, 01:27:48 AM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065
21mpg
35% FG
26% 3PT
81% FT
7.9 ppg
3.5 apg
1.6 rpg
2.3 tpg
1.3 spg

vs.

19 mpg
34% FG
29% 3PT
78% FT
5.6 ppg
2.2 apg
2.2 rpg
1.2 tpg
1.1 spg

Nobody took the bait, so...the bottom numbers are Smart's from his first 14 games in the NBA.

Top numbers are Chauncey Billups' from his first 15 games in the NBA.

Should we have given up on Billups too?

Oh, wait....
Because numbers over 14 games when playing short minutes are almost meaningless.  You gotta actually see with your eyes to truly evaluate a guy.  While billups may have exceeded early expectations, he came into the league with some plus skills.  He was a deadeye shooter and he could take it to the basket.  Smart is neither of those things.

During Billups rookie season he couldn't hit a shot, could not drive to save his life, at times it was so bad I wondered if he could jump and touch the net, he looked worse than any rookie I can recall (for the Celtics).
agreed.  Billups looked horrendous.  anyone who questioned trading him for Kenny Anderson couldn't have seen how bad he was his rookie season.  took Billups 4 teams before he got it together.  if he wasn't a #3 pick, he wouldn't have gotten that many chances.

Smart looks appreciably better than Billups if for no other reason than Smart plays pretty solid D already

I'd prefer to reserve judgment...

Re: Smart is not a point guard
« Reply #111 on: December 29, 2014, 08:58:22 AM »

Offline nacceltic

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 245
  • Tommy Points: 27
These kinds of threads are the ones that will take 4-5 years off my life...

1) The habit of evaluating young talent, not just in basketball, after such a small sample size drives me nuts...Good or bad. Remember Ron Jaworski calling Colin Kaepernick an MVP before last season? The attention span is SHOT in 2014...Someone doesn't produce in the first 1/4 of their first season, they're "done"...Comical.

2) The PG position is the toughest position in the league to learn/handle, especially at 20...The fact that he's stepping into Rondo's shoes makes it even more tough. The fact that he's played most of this season at less than 100% makes it even that much tougher. To judge him long term as a player/PG, after starting 4 or 5 games at the position, is ludicrous.

3) STOP comparing him to Rondo...He's not Rondo and he'll never be Rondo. Two completely different players in practically every way. Rondo is singular in that league regarding his skill set. The fact is, many PG's in the league now are complete opposites of Rondo...Rondo was a throw back - A "pure" handle and dish '1'. Smart is in the role of combo guard, which is how the position is evolving with bigger and better athletes on the floor.

4) Looking at any of Smart's stats right now & shooting percentages and using those numbers as a basis that the kid is a "bust" is a waste of time...It's basically making the statement that this kid CAN'T improve over the next 2-3 years, which is silly. How many players come into the league and don't wow you with their shooting, only to improve over the next few years? Too many to make a list here...

5) In Stevens' offense, you don't need to pound the ball on the deck for 20 seconds...You need to handle the ball well enough to be trusted and have good enough vision to take advantage of certain situations...Smart can and will do that. Again, we're not looking for Rondo II, so to speak.

6) You know what defines 98% of rookies? Inconsistency. There's a reason why one game they look unreal (Smart v. Wall in Washington weeks ago) and why they'll look slightly lost in the next. It's part of maturing as a professional. Did we expect Smart to be unstoppable night in and night out? When's the last time that happened with a rookie, let alone the #6 pick? And, how often does it happen?

Give. It. Time.

I believe Smart will be an All-Star caliber player...I also believe too many fans and even pundits want to grade guys right away and because of that, expectations become unrealistic.

You talk of unrealistic expectations but you project Smart to be an All-Star caliber player.  That seems quite unrealistic based on what Smart has shown so far.  Ainge has said Smart isn't a born PG.  I agree Smart needs time to develop but I don't think he should be force fit into the PG position.  The multiple attempts to force Bradley into the PG role didn't work out well.  Right now, I'd use Smart in ways that focus on his defensive strengths and I'd focus his training on improving his shooting and shot selection.  I'd like to see Smart make the All-NBA defensive team this year.

I said I believe he'll be an all-star caliber player, which is not the same as posting, "Smart Will Be an All-Star"...It could happen in 5, 6, 7 or 10 years from now...This post is "Smart is Not a Point Guard"...I don't agree with end all be all statements after 5 starts.

Re: Smart is not a point guard
« Reply #112 on: December 29, 2014, 09:06:04 AM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11688
  • Tommy Points: 1469
He'd better be a point guard.  If he isn't, trading Rondo away for peanuts makes even less sense.   
DKC Seventy-Sixers:

PG: G. Hill/D. Schroder
SG: C. Lee/B. Hield/T. Luwawu
SF:  Giannis/J. Lamb/M. Kuzminskas
PF:  E. Ilyasova/J. Jerebko/R. Christmas
C:    N. Vucevic/K. Olynyk/E. Davis/C. Jefferson

Re: Smart is not a point guard
« Reply #113 on: December 29, 2014, 09:43:07 AM »

Offline Joe Green

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 206
  • Tommy Points: 25
Quote
You talk of unrealistic expectations but you project Smart to be an All-Star caliber player.  That seems quite unrealistic based on what Smart has shown so far.  Ainge has said Smart isn't a born PG.  I agree Smart needs time to develop but I don't think he should be force fit into the PG position.  The multiple attempts to force Bradley into the PG role didn't work out well.  Right now, I'd use Smart in ways that focus on his defensive strengths and I'd focus his training on improving his shooting and shot selection.  I'd like to see Smart make the All-NBA defensive team this year.

Smart is much less suited to be a SG than PG. He will never be an elite shooter (could be much better than now, he is never going to be great). He skillset and size is much better suited to PG.

Also, Bradly was "pushed" into PG position becase his lack of size has and still does limit him as a SG. He was NEVER half the passer or ballhandler Smart is already.

Smart will play PG in the NBA. He could be great. He could be OK and he could even be a bust, but he will do it at PG.

Lastly, he is a very interesting running mate for AB since Smart has the tools to pick up opposing SG on defense, thus mitigating one of ABs biggest drawbacks.

Re: Smart is not a point guard
« Reply #114 on: December 29, 2014, 09:55:19 AM »

Offline piercetruth34

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 269
  • Tommy Points: 20
He can play multple positions, but I think Smart is definately a pg.  He is a sneaky good one too imo.  People are just too used to Rondo. He's not like that but different.  It's going to take him time to learn the position though but I don't think it will be that long for him.

If Melo is a narcissistic scorer, Rondo was a narcissistic passer and really controlled the offense adn the entire team around him. Smart is a classic pg imo.  Similar to Doc Rivers maybe.  Really good athlete for the position and can do a lot of things.

Smart will be a well rounded player.

Re: Smart is not a point guard
« Reply #115 on: December 29, 2014, 10:11:00 AM »

Offline Joe Green

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 206
  • Tommy Points: 25
He can play multple positions, but I think Smart is definately a pg.  He is a sneaky good one too imo.  People are just too used to Rondo. He's not like that but different.  It's going to take him time to learn the position though but I don't think it will be that long for him.

If Melo is a narcissistic scorer, Rondo was a narcissistic passer and really controlled the offense adn the entire team around him. Smart is a classic pg imo.  Similar to Doc Rivers maybe.  Really good athlete for the position and can do a lot of things.

Smart will be a well rounded player.

I could call Smart a lot of things, but classic PG is not one of them. CP3 is a classic PG. Smart is a sub-par shooter and passer. His weight, wingspan and strength are typical for SG. He is unique, as was Rondo though in a very different way.

Re: Smart is not a point guard
« Reply #116 on: December 29, 2014, 10:14:50 AM »

Offline piercetruth34

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 269
  • Tommy Points: 20
He can play multple positions, but I think Smart is definately a pg.  He is a sneaky good one too imo.  People are just too used to Rondo. He's not like that but different.  It's going to take him time to learn the position though but I don't think it will be that long for him.

If Melo is a narcissistic scorer, Rondo was a narcissistic passer and really controlled the offense adn the entire team around him. Smart is a classic pg imo.  Similar to Doc Rivers maybe.  Really good athlete for the position and can do a lot of things.

Smart will be a well rounded player.

I could call Smart a lot of things, but classic PG is not one of them. CP3 is a classic PG. Smart is a sub-par shooter and passer. His weight, wingspan and strength are typical for SG. He is unique, as was Rondo though in a very different way.

yeah i don't know classic.  But more in the traditional sense.  There are only so many chris pauls, rondo's, magic johnsons and stocktons in the world.  Marcus is unique though if you really watch him.  He hasn't done much yet but I can already tell some things about his game are unique.

Doc Rivers was a classic pg imo.  Define classic I guess.  I consider classic a pg who sets up the offense and can do a variety of things.  Smart is that at the very least. He is still learning the position.

Dennis Johnson, Doc Rivers I consider classic pgs in that sense. Thing is if you watch marcus how he passes the ball is similar to those guys. I wouldn't say they are below average.  Mark JAckson passed the ball the same way and lead the league in assists I think. He just didnt score as much as those guys.

Doc and DJ played both guard spots too.  They had Ainge and Hawkins who were combo guards themselves. I think we are in for a long rebuild at this point because of that anyways because we dont really have that secondary guard unless avery becomes that.  I'm not sold on turner or avery.

Marcus passes the ball fine. He's more learning the position imo.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2014, 10:25:24 AM by piercetruth34 »

Re: Smart is not a point guard
« Reply #117 on: December 29, 2014, 10:27:27 AM »

Offline Dino Pitino

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1822
  • Tommy Points: 219
Quote
Smart is much less suited to be a SG than PG. He will never be an elite shooter (could be much better than now, he is never going to be great). He skillset and size is much better suited to PG.

Also, Bradly was "pushed" into PG position becase his lack of size has and still does limit him as a SG. He was NEVER half the passer or ballhandler Smart is already.

Smart will play PG in the NBA. He could be great. He could be OK and he could even be a bust, but he will do it at PG.

Lastly, he is a very interesting running mate for AB since Smart has the tools to pick up opposing SG on defense, thus mitigating one of ABs biggest drawbacks.

Why does a SG need to be an elite shooter? Because the position is called "shooting guard"? At this point, that's an anachronism. No single position today requires elite shooting, or even good shooting. It's all contextual now. If you have a team with 3 or 4 good to great shooters, it doesn't really matter how that shooting is distributed. There will be enough spacing. In today's game, positional requirements are few. A center has to be able to rebound and challenge shots. A point guard has to be able to bring the ball up, protect it, and pass it. Everything else is contingent on what the other players you have can or can't do. If your PG, SF, and C can shoot well then you don't need your SG and PF to be marksmen. Any combination of 3 or 4 shooters will do. But if your PG can't reliably dribble against pressure or make the right passes at the right time, you're sunk. Smart has wing skills there, not PG skills. Thankfully there are literally dozens of legit PG's in the league now and on their way, so finding one in the next year or two won't be difficult. It probably won't be Bradley next to Smart, as Bradley is a defensive SG in a PG's body, doomed to be a role player off the bench for any good team. Smart is a defensive SG in a SG's body. His ballhandling and passing at that position will be a plus, not a minus. His shooting will only need to be adequate, as long as the rest of the team can more or less stroke it. His defense will be extraordinary. On a future Celtics contender, if his potential is fulfilled or exceeded, he might be like a SG version of Ron Artest. That would help win games. Unnecessarily limiting positional definitions won't.
"Young man, you have the question backwards." - Bill Russell

"My guess is that an aggregator of expert opinions would be close in terms of results to that of Danny." - Roy H.

Re: Smart is not a point guard
« Reply #118 on: December 29, 2014, 10:52:26 AM »

Offline ViolentGhandi

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 238
  • Tommy Points: 22
Smart has a good shot motion and an slightly quicker relase than Bradley I think. He sure has much room to improof having that solid base to built on. Rondos shot never looked that good.

Early in the season he showed that he can get to the rim but he nearly allways went to slam it down just to discover that NBAs bigs can not be overpowered that easy. In result he was blocked in nearly every attemp.

That combined with his injuries and the resulting lower physical form make him shying away from goining to the basket to score. He will have to improof on his penetrations and finishing around the rim without beeing blocked. With his strong frame he has to tools to bully a lot of defending players and force himself to the line amd opponents into foul trouble. He has shown his potential in that regard. If opposing players have to foul him to stop him he really can't be to slow to play PG. Even if he can't beat one of the faster defending PG he should always be able to lose him using picks and then keep his wide frame between the ball and the guard. His arsenal of layups with eighter hand has to increase for sure. Havent seen much of that yet. His staight line dunk attemps are just too easy to block for bigs or result in offensive fouls.

The only part of his offence I'm having a problem with is his ballhandling and passing. He is overthinking things which slows the offence down and takes away opportunities and good passing lanes. Having him playing the point after Rondo will allways make him look weak in that regard - one has allways have to keep that in mind. Also Rondo was doing a lot of high risk - hi reward passes. At some nights that resultet in 5+ TO but it also enabled him to goble up 10+ assist per game and made it easy for his team mates to score. I whished he was traded on a later point in the season so Smart would have had the chance to learn more from him.

His D is at a level he can be really proud of - he should concentrate primerly on improofing his offence. Its too early to call him a bust imo - at age 20 and after only close to a 3rd of the season with him beeing injured twice its way too early to pass the final judgement. In Nelson he now has a expierienced PG which resembles (not in size but in speed and body structure) his play much better than Rondo's did to learn from. If he is working as hard as ppl say I don't see why he shouldnt be able to quickly improof at playing the PG role.

Hopefully he can stay healthy. Some ppl compared him with TA. I hope not. Tony was allways good on D but awkward on the offense - his shoot ing was bad and his attemp near the rim way to often disrupted by bigs cause he wasnt able to score after adjusting his shoots. Sure there are a lot of simularities but Smarts outside shot allready looks better - his 3P% will catch up to that. And even if Smart allready got injured twice I hope he can stay healthy in general. I hope that was just bad luck. TA never played thru long stretches wearing green. Every time his offence showed signs of improofment he was injured again. You just can't improof your game if injuries keep setting you back. Hopefully Smart isnt that unlucky/injury prone. I would really start to worry about him if he gets injured again in the near future other than that I think ppl should just be patient with him. Many of the guys who allready complain about his game had way to high expectations. Saying he will be the cornerstone of the Celtics Team, the team leader, a All-Star even before the season started was again a mild case of wishfull thinking. Comparing Smart to  these unrealistic dream constructs will always make Smart look bad no matter how he plays because in your minds eye you see a LeBron wearing a Smartskin. Its not gonna happen anytime soon so better stop dreaming ;) Give the kid more time and lower you expectations to realistic proportions and you will feel sad less often.

Same goes for Young - if he was remotly close to the level of Turner, Bradley or any other guy manning the SF or 2 guard spot he would be getting minutes. I don't think BS would do him a big favour if he would give him major minutes. Playing time could help him improof but getting owned night in and night out could as well totally take his confidence and bring his improofment to a hold. When Oly started at Center this season it only took a couple of games until he totally collapsed offensivly because he struggled so hard on D that it took all his confidence. He knew his D was awefull and that carried over to his offence. Instead of shooting he keeped passing up wide open shoots after stoping himself in midmotion because his mind keeped telling him that he was playing awefull. Everyone keeping a close watch on him could see that he was really bothered with the way he played. Putting him on the bench took so much presure of his shoulders - I think it worked even better than BS was expecting it would. I still trust BS to make the right moves in regard of the young players and their development. So if Young doesnt get minutes I asume he hasnt reached a level where he can take profit from them.

Re: Smart is not a point guard
« Reply #119 on: December 29, 2014, 10:53:55 AM »

Offline Joe Green

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 206
  • Tommy Points: 25
Quote
Smart is much less suited to be a SG than PG. He will never be an elite shooter (could be much better than now, he is never going to be great). He skillset and size is much better suited to PG.

Also, Bradly was "pushed" into PG position becase his lack of size has and still does limit him as a SG. He was NEVER half the passer or ballhandler Smart is already.

Smart will play PG in the NBA. He could be great. He could be OK and he could even be a bust, but he will do it at PG.

Lastly, he is a very interesting running mate for AB since Smart has the tools to pick up opposing SG on defense, thus mitigating one of ABs biggest drawbacks.

Why does a SG need to be an elite shooter? Because the position is called "shooting guard"? At this point, that's an anachronism. No single position today requires elite shooting, or even good shooting. It's all contextual now. If you have a team with 3 or 4 good to great shooters, it doesn't really matter how that shooting is distributed. There will be enough spacing. In today's game, positional requirements are few. A center has to be able to rebound and challenge shots. A point guard has to be able to bring the ball up, protect it, and pass it. Everything else is contingent on what the other players you have can or can't do. If your PG, SF, and C can shoot well then you don't need your SG and PF to be marksmen. Any combination of 3 or 4 shooters will do. But if your PG can't reliably dribble against pressure or make the right passes at the right time, you're sunk. Smart has wing skills there, not PG skills. Thankfully there are literally dozens of legit PG's in the league now and on their way, so finding one in the next year or two won't be difficult. It probably won't be Bradley next to Smart, as Bradley is a defensive SG in a PG's body, doomed to be a role player off the bench for any good team. Smart is a defensive SG in a SG's body. His ballhandling and passing at that position will be a plus, not a minus. His shooting will only need to be adequate, as long as the rest of the team can more or less stroke it. His defense will be extraordinary. On a future Celtics contender, if his potential is fulfilled or exceeded, he might be like a SG version of Ron Artest. That would help win games. Unnecessarily limiting positional definitions won't.

There are no starting shooting guards in the league who are not good shooters. Perimeter shooting has never been more valuable in the league. Also, defensive specialists are rarely starters in the NBA and are usually expert 3 point shooters i.e 3&D moniker...

Smart will most likely never be an above average shooter. He can and should be an above average passer and is already a decent perpetrator and very good defender. I like him, but only as a PG..