NBA 2021 - 2022 BENched Simmons

[Tywin et al.]

Hayes rookie season was not good, though the sample size was small. And after reading his player profile I wouldn't bank on him being anything other than a backup. 

Cade should be a good pro, but having a negative assist to turnover ratio in college is not a good sign that he can consistently play as a PG at the next level.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Cade should be a good pro, but having a negative assist to turnover ratio in college is not a good sign that he can consistently play as a PG at the next level.

I think that has much more to do with his usage rate and quality (or lack thereof) of his teammates than indicative that he can't handle the 1 in the pros.  More importantly, I'm not sure the "1" distinction matters much anymore - if Cunningham reaches his potential, or anything close to it, he will be the primary playmaker and ballhandler for his team.

[DireWolfSpirit]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Hayes rookie season was not good, though the sample size was small. And after reading his player profile I wouldn't bank on him being anything other than a backup. 

Cade should be a good pro, but having a negative assist to turnover ratio in college is not a good sign that he can consistently play as a PG at the next level.

His teamates were abysmal from what I've read. I.o.w.'s  some of those t.o.'s were probably assists in a more talented cast.

Eta: dude was triple teamed at times and still had guys not finishing when he dished.

[Tywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think that has much more to do with his usage rate and quality (or lack thereof) of his teammates than indicative that he can't handle the 1 in the pros.  More importantly, I'm not sure the "1" distinction matters much anymore - if Cunningham reaches his potential, or anything close to it, he will be the primary playmaker and ballhandler for his team.

 

6 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

His teamates were abysmal from what I've read. I.o.w.'s  some of those t.o.'s were probably assists in a more talented cast.

It's certainly possible that explains his numbers in that specific facet, but we also can't ignore that they're not good. Maybe he improves in the pros, but I wouldn't force a square peg into a round hole if they don't. It's okay for him to be a scoring wing and secondary distributor similar to how KD plays.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's okay for him to be a scoring wing and secondary distributor similar to how KD plays.

I don't think that's a valid comparison at all.  Cunningham is clearly at his best with the ball in his hands running the offense.

[DireWolfSpirit]

I think not forcing anything will be the feature. If a piece is not working around Cade, expect Weaver to jettison that player.

One things for certain, well 2 things actually- 1. were building around Cade and 2. Weaver will not be afraid to get rid of ANYONE that doesn't fit around him.

[Tywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't think that's a valid comparison at all.  Cunningham is clearly at his best with the ball in his hands running the offense.

Isn't KD as well? That doesn't mean you have to run everything through him like say LeBron or Curry. I just looked at the last few drafts starting with 2016 and the top PGs in each draft had much better assist to turnover numbers. And again, maybe his numbers weren't great because he was overused on a middling team. But I just am not sold on him playing a traditional PG role. And that's okay because I think he's going to be good either way. I sort of see him as a potentially better version of Tatum, and if that's what the Pistons got with the first pick, hell, that ain't bad. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Isn't KD as well?

No.  Durant plays much better off the ball relying upon a primary playmaker/ballhandler.  Cunningham is a primary playmaker/ballhandler.  I'd liken Cunningham a hell of a lot closer to a "Ben Simmons who can actually shoot" type than anything resembling Durant.

Anyway, I think you're a bit too preoccupied with a rather crude statistic - especially when you consider obvious intervening factors when it comes to college ball.

[Tywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

No.  Durant plays much better off the ball relying upon a primary playmaker/ballhandler.  Cunningham is a primary playmaker/ballhandler.  I'd liken Cunningham a hell of a lot closer to a "Ben Simmons who can actually shoot" type than anything resembling Durant.

Anyway, I think you're a bit too preoccupied with a rather crude statistic - especially when you consider obvious intervening factors when it comes to college ball.

And yet, he was at his peak in the last playoffs as a primary ballhandler in stretches, which is the way I view Cade right now. And Simmons was a much better passer in college even if the numbers don't jump out like some of the other young PGs drafted recently. I'm not sure their games line up at all other than being tall PGs. Simmons was also a better rebounder and defender by far coming out of school while Cade has the potential to be a lethal shooter at that size. That's why I think Durant and Tatum, or to throw it way back, Grant Hill, are better comps, which again, is not an insult to the kid. 

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And yet, he was at his peak in the last playoffs as a primary ballhandler in stretches, which is the way I view Cade right now.

I disagree with this characterization.  Unless you're saying when he was playing without Harden and Irving, which, well, duh.

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And Simmons was a much better passer in college even if the numbers don't jump out like some of the other young PGs drafted recently. I'm not sure their games line up at all other than being tall PGs. Simmons was also a better rebounder and defender by far coming out of school while Cade has the potential to be a lethal shooter at that size. That's why I think Durant and Tatum, or to throw it way back, Grant Hill, are better comps, which again, is not an insult to the kid. 

I saw Simmons live, twice, in college.  He was decidedly not a much better passer IMO.  As for Simmons being a better rebounder and defender, sure of course, I was talking about an offensive comparison. 

Anyway, I think your comparisons are wildly scattershot.  Durant is a freak, one of the greatest players of all time, and probably about 4 inches taller than Cunningham.  Most importantly, their games are entirely different.  Tatum, meh, I frankly haven't watched him much, but my understanding is he plays off the ball much more than Cunningham ever has - much more of a traditional wing.  Actually, that's probably Cunningham's most glaring weakness right now - it's almost entirely unknown how he can perform off the ball. 

Hill, actually, is a pretty good comp.  But that's exactly because he was, at his peak, a point forward.

[Proudfeet]

Putting my two cents in, I watched the Jazz quite a bit last season. Conley and Mitchell basically take turns doing the same role, except when the Jazz can't find anything and relies on Mitchell to put the team on his back. 

Or if you take Ingles and Clarkson, despite all the fuss on Ingles catch and shoot numbers and their listed positions, he's probably the main bench shot creator. Clarkson creates for himself most of the time.

I don't think it matters. Everyone is expected to play at least one position up and down, and they have to fill the needs of the line up. Not saying whether specific players can or can't, but they are expected to. 

[Tywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

I disagree with this characterization.  Unless you're saying when he was playing without Harden and Irving, which, well, duh.

That's kind of the point. A team can use him like a PG. Doesn't mean they should rely on it.

Quote

I saw Simmons live, twice, in college.  He was decidedly not a much better passer IMO.  As for Simmons being a better rebounder and defender, sure of course, I was talking about an offensive comparison. 

Anyway, I think your comparisons are wildly scattershot.  Durant is a freak, one of the greatest players of all time, and probably about 4 inches taller than Cunningham.  Most importantly, their games are entirely different.  Tatum, meh, I frankly haven't watched him much, but my understanding is he plays off the ball much more than Cunningham ever has - much more of a traditional wing.  Actually, that's probably Cunningham's most glaring weakness right now - it's almost entirely unknown how he can perform off the ball. 

Hill, actually, is a pretty good comp.  But that's exactly because he was, at his peak, a point forward.

To the last part, being a point forward is great and every team should try to have one. That doesn't necessarily mean that player should also be your primary ballhandler. Part of the magic of the Warriors death lineup was that they had four guys on the court who could initiate the offense. There's nothing wrong with Cade being the second guy on that front.

KD is certainly taller, as is Tatum, but the latter had a growth spurt and maybe Cade will too. I just think he fits in more with the model of a wing with some PG skills. You don't have to force that guy to handle the PG duties, and in a lot of cases maybe you shouldn't. LeBron is a better passer than 99% of the PGs during his era, but he rarely played the role for extended stretches of time. That's all I'm saying. 

Regarding Simmons, he was billed as the best passing big prospect since LeBron. I haven't heard Cade described in the same way. That's why I mentioned players like Hill. That seems like a better fit, and again, that's a damn good hope for a player to be. Hill may have been an all time great if not for the injuries. 

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's kind of the point. A team can use him like a PG. Doesn't mean they should rely on it.

They can, but that's not the optimal way to use Durant.  The optimal way to use Cunningham IS to use him like a PG.  That's a pretty key distinction.

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That doesn't necessarily mean that player should also be your primary ballhandler.

The entire concept of a "point forward" is based on the premise that the player is, in fact, the team's primary ballhandler rather than the traditional 1.

As for the rest of your post (I don't want to keep on quoting so much), I don't suspect Cade to grow anymore than he already has.  That'd be very rare. 

Bringing up LeBron - yes, I think Cunningham would play a similar role to LeBron.  LeBron may not have ever been a 1, but he's always been the primary playmaker/ballhandler of his team.  Again, as a "point forward" if we want to use that label.  That's where I see the difference between a Tatum - which, as you say, is more of a traditional wing with some PG skills - and a Cunningham.

As for Simmons, I definitely don't think he was "the best passing prospect" since LeBron.  Unless you mean passing "big" men.  In which case, the hype for Cunningham is fairly analogous to Simmons - albeit I agree I'd give the edge to the latter overall -- slightly.  And of course, if he turns out to be what Hill could have been, that'd be an amazing career.  Far far better than anything Simmons has accomplished or is likely ever to.

[Tywin et al.]

58 minutes ago, DMC said:

They can, but that's not the optimal way to use Durant.  The optimal way to use Cunningham IS to use him like a PG.  That's a pretty key distinction.

The entire concept of a "point forward" is based on the premise that the player is, in fact, the team's primary ballhandler rather than the traditional 1.

As for the rest of your post (I don't want to keep on quoting so much), I don't suspect Cade to grow anymore than he already has.  That'd be very rare. 

Bringing up LeBron - yes, I think Cunningham would play a similar role to LeBron.  LeBron may not have ever been a 1, but he's always been the primary playmaker/ballhandler of his team.  Again, as a "point forward" if we want to use that label.  That's where I see the difference between a Tatum - which, as you say, is more of a traditional wing with some PG skills - and a Cunningham.

As for Simmons, I definitely don't think he was "the best passing prospect" since LeBron.  Unless you mean passing "big" men.  In which case, the hype for Cunningham is fairly analogous to Simmons - albeit I agree I'd give the edge to the latter overall -- slightly.  And of course, if he turns out to be what Hill could have been, that'd be an amazing career.  Far far better than anything Simmons has accomplished or is likely ever to.

So I took a step back and watched 15-20 minutes of his highlights. Cade is nothing like LeBron or Simmons. He's not that kind of passer. But what he is is a monster scoring threat kind of like a blend of KD and Harden and Luka, where his game isn't as explosive but it just works around the rim, and he's a sniper from a young age. You want the ball in this kid's hands, yes, but he doesn't have to be your 1 or fill that role. I still feel that way as of now, but hey, if he goes out and averages around 6-7 assists this year I'll admit I was wrong. Bet you a Coke?

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Bet you a Coke?

How much coke is "a" coke?

Anyway, you seem to be throwing out so many players as comps it's hard to even tell how much I disagree, or agree, with your assessment.  The point (heh) from the beginning is simply that Cunningham will be the primary playmaker on his team - like many of the players you've mentioned including Hill, Harden, Luka, Simmons, and LeBron.

[Tywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

How much coke is "a" coke?

Anyway, you seem to be throwing out so many players as comps it's hard to even tell how much I disagree, or agree, with your assessment.  The point (heh) from the beginning is simply that Cunningham will be the primary playmaker on his team - like many of the players you've mentioned including Hill, Harden, Luka, Simmons, and LeBron.

A decent eightball in college cost $80 IIRC. Not that it's ever been my thing.

And I'm bring up more comps because you can see a lot of positives in his tape. My point is that I think he's going to be better utilized more as a SG or wing than a traditional PG. He can do PG things, but I want to see him average more than 3.5 assists before I run the offense through him completely.

[Tywin et al.]

It's funny that we're disagree about this specific thing because I think your team got the best pure PG in the draft. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

My point is that I think he's going to be better utilized more as a SG or wing than a traditional PG.

Yeah I think this is where we fundamentally disagree.  First, because I don't think "traditional PG" matters that much any more.  There's very few "pure" 1s in the way I remembered them growing up left - at least among above-average to elite caliber players. 

Second, and more importantly, because I do think Cunningham's skillset should be utilized as the primary playmaker for his team.  Most any team he could be on, really, but of course obviously for the Pistons right now.  Of course, how that manifests itself very much remains to be seen.  It could be more like Hill, or Luka, or Simmons, or even Harden (although I don't see him in that light at all), but to me they all fall under the same larger umbrella.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's funny that we're disagree about this specific thing because I think your team got the best pure PG in the draft. 

Sure I agree with that.

[Tywin et al.]

So the T-pups, being the T-Pups, fired their PBO just before the start of the season. Not sure why, but if it was performance based why the hell was he allowed to construct the roster during the offseason? His first two years were awful and it's hard to say he made many good moves other than drafting Ant. 

Just goes to show that trash franchises tend to remain being trash franchises. Watch this team be good in five years when they're playing in Seattle....

[DireWolfSpirit]

Someone was wondering the differences between the President of Basketball Operations and the General Manager.

My favorite answer-

"GM does all the moves but PBO calls the final shots."