Backup Point Guards

I hope Corbin hasn't settled on Watson. I don't think he needs to settle on one or the other. Play one or the other depending on matchups and how the game is going. Make sure both of them get periodic playing time to keep them involved. Keep them both hungry. Last night would have been a good time to play Tinsley again given that Tinsley hasn't seen much action lately and given that Tinsley carved up Phoenix for 14 assists for a win the last time we played them. JMO.

I completely agree. Another issue with the backup PG position is that we are looking at two veterans who have very different skill sets - do you go with Tinsley for his assist making and no defense or do you go with Watson who plays better D but is an offensive liability uncompensated by his play making? Ideally the Jazz would have a well-rounded, hungry youngster being groomed for the starting role or principal backup. I've always thought it an odd situation that the Jazz have 2 near-end-of-career backups. And obviously, despite fan hopes, Burks apparently does not have the aptitude. PHX game was unfortunately a harsh reminder that the Jazz a) inherently suck on the road and b) are not a consistent team who win or lose play up to their potential.

I think this is one area that Utah has handled just about perfectly. Mainly, because is there any situation that has presented itself with a young PG to groom etc, that Utah passed on??? Only one I can think of, is drafting Brandon Knight instead of Kanter. And thats one draft move that I totally agree with. I like Knight, but he's not a passing PG it seems, and certainly not yet. I like him, but dont see stud in his future. Probably good, not great. So I like they didn't take him.

Other than that, has their been a player in your minds that Utah didn't go after??? I was thinking of Machado, and a few others were too, but that was still a reach. I haven't seen any other situation or player come along that I thought could have been our "groomer" PG....

Burks is not someone who should be attempted to be converted to a PG. Its the same as when Corbin tries to put DFav on Al's block: he doesn't belong there. Burks is a score first player. He can be a Jason Terry, or way back, a Vinnie Microwave Johnson. Just let him do him.

So what they've done, is kept their extremely veteran, but also extremely smart back up PGs on the team, that are doing just fine. I still prefer Watson, as his defense and motivating play is huge on the court. And his passing is much much better than Tinsley's defense. So he gets my vote for most back up minutes.

So dont reach for a possible future PG, wait till the right one comes along. We've got assets, we've got players to move etc. The right situation will come.

Well that was ugly. Tinsley arguably just had his worst outing of the season against Memphis, seemingly morphing in to a shoot first point guard. And he missed seven of eight. One of his attempts was from four or five behind the arc with time on the clock. WTF? But Watson's appearance against Phoenix the night before also sucked. At least Tinsley eeked out a positive 4 plus/minus while he was on the floor whereas Watson against Phoenix had a horrendous minus 14 plus/minus.

Mo too, despite making a game winning shot against the Spurs, has been less than impressive since I mentioned him positively. Guess I should stop mentioning Jazz players positively. It's the kiss of death. LOL. Even so, I am going to risk mentioning Carroll and Kanter positively again. Carroll brought his usual energy last night and I loved the way Kanter bumped around the Memphis big guys under the basket a few times. Seems like we could have gone inside to Kanter more than we did.

Crunchtime1 wrote:

Well that was ugly. Tinsley arguably just had his worst outing of the season ....

That's what happens when you have a vet backup PG playing good ball and all of a sudden you sit him because you don't want Watson "talking to his agent" again That short fan memory we have...

Anyway, the two factors that killed the Jazz agaist Memphis IMHO were:
- Randolph ate Millsap
- Refs used two different set of rules and eyes to whistle the game (it's been a looooong time since the last time I said something about refs, but this is probably the 3rd or 4th game zebras killed us...)

outerspacefan wrote:

Crunchtime1 wrote:

Well that was ugly. Tinsley arguably just had his worst outing of the season ....

That's what happens when you have a vet backup PG playing good ball and all of a sudden you sit him because you don't want Watson "talking to his agent" again That short fan memory we have...

Anyway, the two factors that killed the Jazz agaist Memphis IMHO were:
- Randolph ate Millsap
- Refs used two different set of rules and eyes to whistle the game (it's been a looooong time since the last time I said something about refs, but this is probably the 3rd or 4th game zebras killed us...)

I agree with all three of your points.

I think Tinsley has to be our backup PG in almost every situation. The Tinman just needs constant lubrication and he will perform. He might not have the heart of Watson, but he has the mechanics to make our offense run.

Randolph definitely destroyed our Millman. Memphis definitely has the benefit of letting Gasol play Center, letting Zach dominate against other teams with smaller PFs. Zach would be a really good center for most teams in the league. Zach has the skills of a PF and the size of a Center-- and there are very few teams in the NBA that match up well against Gasol, Zach, and Rudy Gay. (I know that's a little off topic, but, it's accurate.)

Lastly, the Refs. I hate to complain against the refs, but, I usually have to do it. The Memphis game really made me think the League wants to promote Memphis as the "Unexpectedly good team." Tinsley wasn't getting any calls his way. I don't know if it would have made a difference, but, it really looked like the refs were handcuffing the Jazz when Tinsley was on the floor.

Saint Louis wrote:

<...> I agree with all three of your points. <...>

I can live with Mag tryin' to sell Millsap is Tim Duncan in his prime ... but Saint, man, agreeing with all of 2 posters points is just obnoxious

outerspacefan wrote:

Saint Louis wrote:

<...> I agree with all three of your points. <...>

I can live with Mag tryin' to sell Millsap is Tim Duncan in his prime ... but Saint, man, agreeing with all of 2 posters points is just obnoxious

LOL! I'm guessing your response was sarcastic. In case it wasn't: they were right, and I was right in agreeing with them. (Sorry if I wasn't controversial in my response-- but, I'm pretty sure you know I'll let anyone know if I disagree with something they say.)

I tweeted out while watching the Kings and Warriors game, that they need to move thomas or jimmer. Now, their solution to their backup PG problem has been to play both. If I was their GM, id be looking to move one of them for a draft pick or help on the wing.

Im not a huge jimmer fan, but im not from utah. However, he looked great in the first half last game scoring 11 points in 8 minutes. 2nd half they brought thomas as the first guard off the bench though. long term i still like thomas.

burks for thomas?

GS pick for thomas?

if im a GM, (and thank goodness im not) and I need a backup PG, im calling the kings.

therawns wrote:

I tweeted out while watching the Kings and Warriors game, that they need to move thomas or jimmer. Now, their solution to their backup PG problem has been to play both. If I was their GM, id be looking to move one of them for a draft pick or help on the wing.

Im not a huge jimmer fan, but im not from utah. However, he looked great in the first half last game scoring 11 points in 8 minutes. 2nd half they brought thomas as the first guard off the bench though. long term i still like thomas.

burks for thomas?

GS pick for thomas?

if im a GM, (and thank goodness im not) and I need a backup PG, im calling the kings.

Ya, on the same topic I just saw this on ESPN

Nick Borges wrote:

Sacramento Kings head coach Keith Smart has settled on Aaron Brooks to be his starting point guard, however he keeps going back-and-forth between Jimmer Fredette and Isaiah Thomas as the main backup off the bench.

Apparently the players aren't happy with Thomas' role and they would prefer that he was the starter, according to a report from Aaron Bruski of NBC's ProBasketballTalk.

Thomas, the No. 60 pick in the 2011 NBA draft, surprised many with his play during the 2011-12 season and he finished seventh for the Rookie of the Year award.

The players are also reportedly unhappy with Smart's system and "they don't know what they're running" with Brooks as the starter.

Both Brooks and Thomas are signed through 2013-14. Brooks has a player option, while Thomas' minimum salary is not guaranteed.

The Kings have issues off and on the court and nothing is going to change unless the team is sold and the basketball operations department has a complete overhaul.

I don't think the Kings players like playing with Jimmer at all, and they love Thomas, so it will be interesting to see what happens going forward.

Jimmer has been crazy efficient as a scorer off the bench, and I think he's definitely a Jamaal Crawford type role player, only he's better in almost every way than Jamaal Crawford. Thomas is a high energy player with great leadership ability. He's more of a pure point than Jimmer, but he still looks to score first.

I wouldn't mind having either of them to replace Tinsley/Watson to tell you the truth, but Thomas probably makes more sense for this team as it is now.

therawns wrote:

I tweeted out while watching the Kings and Warriors game, that they need to move thomas or jimmer. Now, their solution to their backup PG problem has been to play both. If I was their GM, id be looking to move one of them for a draft pick or help on the wing.

Im not a huge jimmer fan, but im not from utah. However, he looked great in the first half last game scoring 11 points in 8 minutes. 2nd half they brought thomas as the first guard off the bench though. long term i still like thomas.

burks for thomas?

GS pick for thomas?

if im a GM, (and thank goodness im not) and I need a backup PG, im calling the kings.

Thing is, would Jimmer actually be able to play a little point in a more organized system like the Jazz run? And I admit I have no idea what "system" the Kings run, if any. My guess though, if they're running Aaron Brooks out there as a PG, is the "none" system.

Brooks has proven repeatedly to be inadequate as a PG, and Jimmer is bigger and a much better shooter. I kind of like the idea of Jimmer to Utah, if the cost isn't high.

Trollificus wrote:

therawns wrote:

I tweeted out while watching the Kings and Warriors game, that they need to move thomas or jimmer. Now, their solution to their backup PG problem has been to play both. If I was their GM, id be looking to move one of them for a draft pick or help on the wing.

Im not a huge jimmer fan, but im not from utah. However, he looked great in the first half last game scoring 11 points in 8 minutes. 2nd half they brought thomas as the first guard off the bench though. long term i still like thomas.

burks for thomas?

GS pick for thomas?

if im a GM, (and thank goodness im not) and I need a backup PG, im calling the kings.

Thing is, would Jimmer actually be able to play a little point in a more organized system like the Jazz run? And I admit I have no idea what "system" the Kings run, if any. My guess though, if they're running Aaron Brooks out there as a PG, is the "none" system.

Brooks has proven repeatedly to be inadequate as a PG, and Jimmer is bigger and a much better shooter. I kind of like the idea of Jimmer to Utah, if the cost isn't high.

Good point about Jimmer being able to perform in a structured offense like the Jazz run (I don't think he's anywhere near that). Jimmer's playing in a pretty chaotic situation. For now, he's doing okay. Traditionally, though, it's usually the overly talented players that can thrive in a chaotic system-- and I don't see Jimmer at that level.

On the other hand, I like Jimmer. I just don't think he's a player we would be able to insert into our system very quickly. IMO, Jimmer would be a "project" player for the Jazz-- and we already have HayHay as our promising project.

Trollificus wrote:

Thing is, would Jimmer actually be able to play a little point in a more organized system like the Jazz run? And I admit I have no idea what "system" the Kings run, if any. My guess though, if they're running Aaron Brooks out there as a PG, is the "none" system.

Brooks has proven repeatedly to be inadequate as a PG, and Jimmer is bigger and a much better shooter. I kind of like the idea of Jimmer to Utah, if the cost isn't high.

Ya, that's kind of what I wonder myself. I mean Jimmer has never played in a system like the Jazz, so it would take him at least a couple seasons to get it, but if he could get it... whew, then he's like Steph Curry, a guy that can give you 20 points and 6 assists a night while shooting 45/40/90.

Still, while I don't think that is really asking him to be something he isn't, I think that is a bit of a long shot that he could develop into that kind of floor general. I don't think he has Curry's court vision or his nose for the ball defensively.

More realistically I think Jimmer would be great playing second fiddle to an all-star caliber PG who already has the offense designed around him, like the Bulls had in CJ Watson behind D-Rose or the Clippers have in Bledsoe behind Paul. Then you don't have adjust the offense when he's on the court, you just surround him with a bunch of role players and let him do his thing within a system that he's already comfortable with.

Regardless of all of that theory, Sacramento is probably the worst possible situation for him right now, because the team is loaded with immature chuckers who have no idea how to play together as a team in an offense designed around one of the least effective starting big men in the NBA. The only reason he can make it work is because Coach Smart has given him the green light to do what he does, but the problem is that it doesn't matter how well he does it (and he's doing it damn well this season) or how much his Coach tells him it's ok, his immature teammates are going to hate him for it because they feel like they aren't getting theirs.

Thomas, on the other hand, is a guy you can't help but love, and I think he could fit in to almost any situation and do well. He plays with passion and fire, and he uses that to get his team involved. But he's also often physically over-matched and he's not really great at any one thing.

I think the Kings make a very interesting trade partner if the Jazz decide to make a move, I could easily see the two teams doing some business before the trade deadline.

TheMagnus wrote:

Trollificus wrote:

Thing is, would Jimmer actually be able to play a little point in a more organized system like the Jazz run? And I admit I have no idea what "system" the Kings run, if any. My guess though, if they're running Aaron Brooks out there as a PG, is the "none" system.

Brooks has proven repeatedly to be inadequate as a PG, and Jimmer is bigger and a much better shooter. I kind of like the idea of Jimmer to Utah, if the cost isn't high.

Ya, that's kind of what I wonder myself. I mean Jimmer has never played in a system like the Jazz, so it would take him at least a couple seasons to get it, but if he could get it... whew, then he's like Steph Curry, a guy that can give you 20 points and 6 assists a night while shooting 45/40/90.

Still, while I don't think that is really asking him to be something he isn't, I think that is a bit of a long shot that he could develop into that kind of floor general. I don't think he has Curry's court vision or his nose for the ball defensively.

More realistically I think Jimmer would be great playing second fiddle to an all-star caliber PG who already has the offense designed around him, like the Bulls had in CJ Watson behind D-Rose or the Clippers have in Bledsoe behind Paul. Then you don't have adjust the offense when he's on the court, you just surround him with a bunch of role players and let him do his thing within a system that he's already comfortable with.

Regardless of all of that theory, Sacramento is probably the worst possible situation for him right now, because the team is loaded with immature chuckers who have no idea how to play together as a team in an offense designed around one of the least effective starting big men in the NBA. The only reason he can make it work is because Coach Smart has given him the green light to do what he does, but the problem is that it doesn't matter how well he does it (and he's doing it damn well this season) or how much his Coach tells him it's ok, his immature teammates are going to hate him for it because they feel like they aren't getting theirs.

Thomas, on the other hand, is a guy you can't help but love, and I think he could fit in to almost any situation and do well. He plays with passion and fire, and he uses that to get his team involved. But he's also often physically over-matched and he's not really great at any one thing.

I think the Kings make a very interesting trade partner if the Jazz decide to make a move, I could easily see the two teams doing some business before the trade deadline.

I dunno, Mag. I think Jimmer or Thomas would both be projects for the Jazz. IMO, Jimmer and Thomas both have a better shot with the Kings than they would have with the Jazz. Until proven otherwise, they're both marginal players with only a slight chance at becoming important in the NBA.

Wouldn't a unstructured offense actually fit Jimmers game better? From what I have seen (which isn't much mind you) he is more of an iso player and wouldn't really be good in a structured offense.

Romoholic wrote:

Wouldn't a unstructured offense actually fit Jimmers game better? From what I have seen (which isn't much mind you) he is more of an iso player and wouldn't really be good in a structured offense.

Yea, agree Romo. Jimmer became "Jimmer" because he was the man on a team that the only offense they ran was get it to Jimmer. Problem is, this isn't college anymore and it doesn't work for him; these players are 10x better. I think think he would be that great in a structured offense. Its exactly what he never excelled in.

Mutangclan wrote:

Romoholic wrote:

Wouldn't a unstructured offense actually fit Jimmers game better? From what I have seen (which isn't much mind you) he is more of an iso player and wouldn't really be good in a structured offense.

Yea, agree Romo. Jimmer became "Jimmer" because he was the man on a team that the only offense they ran was get it to Jimmer. Problem is, this isn't college anymore and it doesn't work for him; these players are 10x better. I think think he would be that great in a structured offense. Its exactly what he never excelled in.

At BYU the offense was't just get the ball to Jimmer and clear out so he could do his thing, in fact BYU ran a very "NBA style" iso heavy offense while he was there, doing a lot of high pick and roll, running him off backside pin-down screens when he didn't have the ball the way the Jazz like to do... it was very iso-centric but that doesn't mean it wasn't structured.

The problem isn't structure, it's philosophy, and it's how that philosophy works with the other players on the court. Right now when Jimmer hits the court he's playing like he did back at BYU, both in philosophy and production, he expects the other players on the court to react to what he does, and that is how NBA Iso centric offenses are designed to work, but the complimentary players in Sacto don't fit well together within that system because most of them think the world should revolve around them. If he came to the Jazz he would have to learn a new philosophy that isn't designed to react and revolve around him, but rather asks him to read and react to what everybody else is doing. It's a massive philosophy shift that is at the heart of both Mo and D-Wills comments, essentially he would have to learn how to play the game the RIGHT way, basically form the ground up.

I think he could do it, he's a smart coach-able guy that works his ass off, but it would take time, and it wouldn't change the fact that he is a liability defensively.

I guess I just don't buy it. There is zero proof that he could fit into a system like the Jazz run. I get that you MOs love you some Jimmer But I don't think you bring in a guy that doesn't fit the system and try to change him. There are better options with the trade assets we have to work with.

Saint Louis wrote:

I dunno, Mag. I think Jimmer or Thomas would both be projects for the Jazz. IMO, Jimmer and Thomas both have a better shot with the Kings than they would have with the Jazz. Until proven otherwise, they're both marginal players with only a slight chance at becoming important in the NBA.

Ah, but the question is, "Would Jimmer or Thomas be a better backup for the Jazz, going forward, than Earl and/or Jamal T??". Or. "Would a Jimmer/Earl or IT/JT combo be better for the Jazz than just the pairing of equally old mismatched backups?". And I think it would. Maybe.

Tell me I'm probably wrong on this one and I'll just go away, coz I'm not sure at all about it. I'm not immune to wishful thinking where the Jazz are concerned.

Romoholic wrote:

I guess I just don't buy it. There is zero proof that he could fit into a system like the Jazz run. I get that you MOs love you some Jimmer But I don't think you bring in a guy that doesn't fit the system and try to change him. There are better options with the trade assets we have to work with.

Well I have watched a lot of Jimmer, and that is why I said Thomas was a better fit right now. I think there is more potential upside with Jimmer, and just as you see no evidence that he can fit, I see no evidence that he can't, but if you are looking for a guy that won't upset the apple cart in the short term Thomas is definitely your guy.

There's zero evidence that he can't play well in such a role, too. Of course he's never been asked to fulfill such a role-he'd probably been the best player on every team right up until he reached The League.

Just means he hasn't done it before. And of course, as the backup PG playing with the 2nd teamers, he'd still need to be more "Jimmer"ish than he would as a starter.

But forget all that. Why don't we just get Bledsoe and be done with it?

Trollificus wrote:

There's zero evidence that he can't play well in such a role, too. Of course he's never been asked to fulfill such a role-he'd probably been the best player on every team right up until he reached The League.

Just means he hasn't done it before. And of course, as the backup PG playing with the 2nd teamers, he'd still need to be more "Jimmer"ish than he would as a starter.

But forget all that. Why don't we just get Bledsoe and be done with it?

Exactly!

TheMagnus wrote:

I think he could do it, he's a smart coach-able guy that works his ass off, but it would take time, and it wouldn't change the fact that he is a liability defensively.

I didn't watch nearly as much of BYU and Jimmer, but why do people say he is a smart guy (and could learn a new offense etc)? Certainly in reference to him being able to learn a COMPLETELY new way of playing, verses the way he's been playing his entire life. I personally dont think he would do well in that role. But dont know why people always say he is smart. I mean, he's a nice guy, and wants to be a good teammate. I'm sure he wants to win.

As for the offense that was run, I was short in my response but that iso heavy offense they ran actually was just get the ball to Jimmer and then he got his 30 shot attempts. I mean the guy took soooo many shots. And he was the man, and always has been* (see Morrison, Adam). The difference with Jimmer though, was that he went to BYU and a guy like Redick who was the same collegiate player, went to Duke and he was taught how to play and play as a team. For you Jimmer watchers, did he ever facilitate anything else other than getting open and shooting?

I would LOVE for Utah to be pro-active and go trade for Isiah Thomas now though. He was close to ROY last year, can dish and shoot/score, has a Mo Williams type attitude. Really should go after him, and I think we could get him for cheap right now. Jimmer I'd take for free, but wouldn't want to give anything up.

Mutangclan wrote:

TheMagnus wrote:

I think he could do it, he's a smart coach-able guy that works his ass off, but it would take time, and it wouldn't change the fact that he is a liability defensively.

I didn't watch nearly as much of BYU and Jimmer, but why do people say he is a smart guy (and could learn a new offense etc)? Certainly in reference to him being able to learn a COMPLETELY new way of playing, verses the way he's been playing his entire life. I personally dont think he would do well in that role. But dont know why people always say he is smart. I mean, he's a nice guy, and wants to be a good teammate. I'm sure he wants to win.

As for the offense that was run, I was short in my response but that iso heavy offense they ran actually was just get the ball to Jimmer and then he got his 30 shot attempts. I mean the guy took soooo many shots. And he was the man, and always has been* (see Morrison, Adam). The difference with Jimmer though, was that he went to BYU and a guy like Redick who was the same collegiate player, went to Duke and he was taught how to play and play as a team. For you Jimmer watchers, did he ever facilitate anything else other than getting open and shooting?

I would LOVE for Utah to be pro-active and go trade for Isiah Thomas now though. He was close to ROY last year, can dish and shoot/score, has a Mo Williams type attitude. Really should go after him, and I think we could get him for cheap right now. Jimmer I'd take for free, but wouldn't want to give anything up.

Well I think the first thing that is evidence of his BASKETBALL smarts (that's what we are talking about here) is the fact of his improvement from his rookie to his sophomore year in the NBA. He was terrible as a rookie, and a lot of people had completely written him off as an NBA player, but he made a number of little adjustments to his game and now he's putting up numbers not that far off of what he did in college in just his second year in the league. That's a massive difference between him and Morrison too, Morrison could never translate his game to the NBA for any period of time.

Thomas is more of a balanced player, but surprisingly Fredette is averaging just as many rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks per minute as Thomas this year. Not sure if that is just an anomaly, but it's worth noting.

I also think it is funny that Bledsoe is the guy that people go to next. The Clippers tried him as a traditional PG and he was terrible at it for two years, now they took the shackles off and just let him do what he does and he's blowing up, which is great, but doesn't that just make him the same as Jimmer? Who says that he can learn to play the Jazz system? What I will say about Bledsoe though is that he brings the D, still, the reality is that the Jazz and Clips make terrible trade partners and Bledso would come at a premium, while the Kings PG's would likely come at a bargain.

I'm also surprised nobody threw Tyreke Evans out there, I mean, the guy was rookie of the year as a PG, he's still got loads of potential, why not try and turn him into a system guy?

TheMagnus wrote:

I'm also surprised nobody threw Tyreke Evans out there, I mean, the guy was rookie of the year as a PG, he's still got loads of potential, why not try and turn him into a system guy?

Tyreke, that is who I'm thinking of. As you already said, he was ROY as a PG. Neither Thomas or Jimmer are going to be long term starters IMO, so If you are going to chase a Kings player, make it Evans.