Bynum drives the lane (and actually finishes), dishes, etc, gets his team involved, scores.

He is a true PG, no?

Rip and AA at the 2, pick up another guard in the draft.

If Stuck could be packaged with ??? in a trade or just to move up in the draft, I'm thinking I'd consider it.

Is that a Johnny come lately thought?

Bynam is a true PG, but he's a bench player. Not suited to be a full time starter.

The draft also is not strong enough to trade up unless you're moving into the top 3.

Bynum drives the lane (and actually finishes), dishes, etc, gets his team involved, scores.
Doesn't do it every night. Only a retard trades either guy at this moment. You got two solid pg's who pick up each other's slack on their off nights? Whats the lion fan idea "trade one!!!!"..

Bynam is a true PG, but he's a bench player. Not suited to be a full time starter.
i actually agree with Kstat, i wonder how many people watch every game and see that as good as these scoring bursts are, they are bursts. Bynum is not dropping these numbers every game.

Well, put him in a situation every night where he plays with a consistent bunch and his scoring might be more consistent.

Well, put him in a situation every night where he plays with a consistent bunch and his scoring might be more consistent.
Thats not a good enough excuse to trade stuckey. Let stuckey miss 30+ games, then tout the notion. You can't use "what if" to magically poof out proof of consistency against what has been a lack of consistency overall.

U can also say "what happens when he's in the gameplan from opposing teams more often. Does production go up or hit a wall as it did with Stuckey?"

Thats not a good enough excuse to trade stuckey. Let stuckey miss 30+ games, then tout the notion. You can't use "what if" to magically poof out proof of consistency against what has been a lack of consistency overall.

What if you knew that you could pick up a good combo guard (or whatever kind of guard) in the draft to replace Stuck?

I mean, is Stuck really that irreplaceable?

If you want to use a draft pick to replace Stuck, why replace him at all?

What if you knew that you could pick up a good combo guard (or whatever kind of guard) in the draft to replace Stuck?

I mean, is Stuck really that irreplaceable?
Better question, is he so easy to replace you rush to trade him? Irreplaceable doesnt apply to 90 percent of the players in this league, but a good portion are not easy to replace. You have some serious gun jumping hype lover issues. It's like a lions fan beefing up charlie batch( a great backup find prematurely turned into a starter).

If you want to use a draft pick to replace Stuck, why replace him at all?
To guarantee Will bynum a start, which is idiotic.

If you want to use a draft pick to replace Stuck, why replace him at all?

I saw that when I wrote that.

But in that scenario he'd be traded or packaged and traded. Say we packaged him and traded him for a big, cuz JoeD knew we could get a player like him in the draft.

I saw that when I wrote that.

But in that scenario he'd be traded or packaged and traded. Say we packaged him and traded him for a big, cuz JoeD knew we could get a player like him in the draft.
I hope Joe is never that naive. Luckily in his history as gm he's never traded any starter to bank on a draft pick replacement.

To guarantee Will bynum a start, which is idiotic.

I realize that Stuck has put up close to the numbers that WB put up tonight, but I like Bynum's game. Thats all.

It looks like we have some issues at guard and was just thinking it through and airing it out.

I hope Joe is never that naive. Luckily in his history as gm he's never traded any starter to bank on a draft pick replacement.

If he's that KEY to our cough cough SUCCESS this year, then NO, don't do it.

I realize that Stuck has put up close to the numbers that WB put up tonight, but I like Bynum's game. Thats all.

It looks like we have some issues at guard and was just thinking it through and airing it out.
1.) Thats all isnt a good enough reason, sorry. You know its not. You need to turn your hype meter down 70 notches.

2.)No, our issues were AI and at center and maybe PF next year.

Hey, I'm Tahoe at 10 lately, I can turn it down. Tahoe at 4 is much better.

And keep the Tahoe at ZERO comments to yourself. :)

I'm just really excited to see what Gl'enn's first post says in this thread.

I'm just really excited to see what Gl'enn's first post says in this thread.
No pressure there, lol.

I actually wouldn't choose to trade Stuckey, unless another team overvalues him and is willing to pay accordingly.

I think I would do one of two things:

1. Make him a 6th man

2. See if you can trade Rip for a legit young center like Okafor, then use the cap room to acquire a playmaking PG in his prime. This PG would start with Stuckey with Bynum and Afflalo making up the 4 guard rotation.

I like Rip, a lot, but if you're going to keep Stuckey and try to build around him, then Rip probably has to go, IMO.

I'm just not confident that Stuckey is the guy that Joe should be building around.

I'm waiting on Fool to catch how you are looking to knockout two long time agendas you've had in one setup.

You had to run that through Fool to make your point? lol

It's funny how you equate "opinion" with "agenda".

Too much Oliver Stone/JFK, methinks.

The only agenda I have is wanting the Pistons to be better.

You had to run that through Fool to make your point? lol
So is Motown going through you to make his? I dont care enough to blabber with you about your agendas, and the "trade Rip" agenda is about a year old now. Maybe you're picking a fight or really that scared of Fool on this one.


It's funny how you equate "opinion" with "agenda".
Opinion turns into agenda when you try to put it into every other post and every slighted thread you can think up. Sorry if that offends you. I figured you to be proud of it. :(


Too much Oliver Stone/JFK, methinks.
Unlike you i dont apply one idea to everything.

I saw that when I wrote that.

But in that scenario he'd be traded or packaged and traded. Say we packaged him and traded him for a big, cuz JoeD knew we could get a player like him in the draft.

If Joe knew we could get a combo guard in the draft why have we been looking for one off the bench for 6 years?

There are no guarentees you can replace him, so it would be stupid to assume you will.

I want to at least see if he can develop that outside J a bit more, because if he can... watch out. This is really his first full season in the league, I'm willing to give him more of a chance, for sure.

RIP couldn't hit threes for a few years here either. If Stuckey adds that to his game he'll be a monster.

I wish Stuckey would look at Rip as a role model. Guy trains his ass off in the offseason to be in the best shape in the league. Each year he picks something and develops the shit out of it. If Stuckey went into this offseason with that mindset, he could train his butt off to get in the best shape he's ever been in, and just work on his outside shooting for a whole summer. Come back next year in that kind of shape with a jumper to go with it and he'd be phenomenal. Then next summer he focuses on his D or his handle or something along those lines. The kid would develop into a beast with that mentality.

A lil thread reset here...I'm not saying JoeD should start calling peeps the 2nd the buzzer sounds on the season. I'm saying if someone calls and asks about a deal that includes Stuck, he should consider it.

If its a good deal, he should do it, BECAUSE Bynum has shown enough at PG to prove he can play that position.

If its a trade, he can draft a guard.

If there is a way to move up in the draft to get a big and the other teams wants Stuck, he should do it, cuz Bynum has shown he can handle the PG duties.

Stuck is no longer untradeable, imo.

He's not un-tradable, but he better be getting us Dwight Howard or something. That won't happen, but I'm not moving him unless we get a good young center.

I'm worried he's bad at basketball.

Bynam is a true PG, but he's a bench player. Not suited to be a full time starter.

The draft also is not strong enough to trade up unless you're moving into the top 3.

Why is that?

BTW...if we did trade Stuckey, what would happen? Would we end up...like...8th seed in the playoffs or something?

Would it, could it be that bad if we traded him?

I don't think many people have a problem with you saying "Stuckey is not untouchable anymore" (that's basically what you're saying, right?) it's the way you posted it.

IMO, the first post SCREAMS that you are a Bynum fanboy and want him to get more minutes, even at the expense of the team. You are willing to trade Rodney Stuckey in order to see your latest trick play big minutes.

Sorry my friend, that's just wrong.

I'm all for keeping Bynum, giving him consistent minutes and making sure that we don't sign any fucker that could even come close to making our Head Coach think of benching Bynum next season, but to go so far as to push for Stuckey to be traded is just insane.

BTW, what is wrong with exploring trades for Rip? Dude ain't getting any younger.

BTW, what is wrong with exploring trades for Rip? Dude ain't getting any younger.
IMO he's probably severely underrated. Looking at SG's in this league, how can you depend on for points w/o ISO plays, extended ball in their hands requirements, and fast breaks? I don't think we can get any better at SG(no one is giving us Kobe). With that in mind, a trade seems a lil' much.

So, because you can't significantly upgrade at SG you just refuse to look at trading him?

SG is not a tough position to fill. If we could move Rip for a quality big man you would be against that?

I'm guessing you're against the idea of Stuckey playing SG, with a real live PG here?

I would move RIP only if it got us a quality big man. otherwise I wouldn't move him.

SG is a lot easier to fill than C, so you'd have to make that move if there was one to make.

So, because you can't significantly upgrade at SG you just refuse to look at trading him?

SG is not a tough position to fill. If we could move Rip for a quality big man you would be against that?

I'm guessing you're against the idea of Stuckey playing SG, with a real live PG here?

tread lightly, thin ice

I'm guessing you're against the idea of Stuckey playing SG, with a real live PG here?
I personally think Stuckey at SG is one of the dumbest ideas going. But that's only my opinion. Not forcing on anyone, just what i think.

I don't think many people have a problem with you saying "Stuckey is not untouchable anymore" (that's basically what you're saying, right?) it's the way you posted it.

IMO, the first post SCREAMS that you are a Bynum fanboy and want him to get more minutes, even at the expense of the team. You are willing to trade Rodney Stuckey in order to see your latest trick play big minutes.

Sorry my friend, that's just wrong.

I'm all for keeping Bynum, giving him consistent minutes and making sure that we don't sign any fucker that could even come close to making our Head Coach think of benching Bynum next season, but to go so far as to push for Stuckey to be traded is just insane.

BTW, what is wrong with exploring trades for Rip? Dude ain't getting any younger.

Yea, I kind of fucked up the first post. I'm not saying trade Stuck for the sake of trading Stuck, just that with Bynum definately stepping up, Stuck is available, imo.

Stuck
32 mins, 13.4 pts, 4.8 ast

Bynum
13 mins, 6.7 pts, 2.7 ast

Bynum is productive and a true PG. Rip is a true 2. AA is a 2.

With all the shit we've gone through this year, with peeps out of position, Bynum at the point makes sense to me. If Stuck goes in a trade, so be it.

I personally think Stuckey at SG is one of the dumbest ideas going. But that's only my opinion. Not forcing on anyone, just what i think.

A little passive agressive, but that's okay.

I see progress!

Uncalled for Glenn, the thin ice and the passive posts.

You 2 either need to get a room and fight it out or fuck each other and be done with it.

Gutz, why do you think that Stuckey at the 2 is such a bad idea? What about his game (other than his D) makes you adamant it's a bad call?

I was just trying to tell you that "Stuckey at the 2" is sort of a taboo subject here.

I definitely think that Stuckey has been a bit of a disappoinment this season and is no longer "untradeable". I'm not ready to give up on him though, at least not yet. Everyone has to keep in mind that he has no role model PG on the team to pattern himself after. Curry is worthless as far as coaching so I suspect his teaching skills are about the same. I was actually hoping that we would have traded AI for Kidd at the dealine (both expiring) and give our young guards a mentor.

Is Stuckey not progressing?......yes.
Does he look more like a SG at this point?........yes.
Is there still room for improvement?...........YES!

BTW P, Bynum did break Zeke's single quarter scoring record the other night. He can score. There's good reason for some Bynum love.

Stuckey could definately play the 2 IMO, but Bynum is not a full time 33 MPG PG at this point. Also, their games overlap too much (both slashers and neither a stellar 3 point shooter). So you wouldnt want both out there together for 30 minutes a night.

You can switch Stuckey to SG when Bynum is in though. If you trade RIP for a big man you need to replace him with a starting SG (a younger Raja Bell or Bowen would be ideal). Someone that can play defense and knock down threes is enough. We'd have the big man (RIP trade) and Stuckey to create shots and Tay as a solid complementary scorer too. That doesn't factor in any big we'd get with out cap space either.

I'm not moving RIP for another wing though.

Bynum should get 20 minutes a night and Stuckey can play a few minutes a night backing up RIP. The other 15 minutes of backup SG go to AA. We should be drafting a legit backup to Tay and using our cap space to address C.

I sure hope that nobody here thinks anyone on this team is untouchable.

There are only a handful of untouchables in the whole league.

Stuckey could definately play the 2 IMO, but Bynum is not a full time 33 MPG PG at this point. Also, their games overlap too much (both slashers and neither a stellar 3 point shooter). So you wouldnt want both out there together for 30 minutes a night.

You can switch Stuckey to SG when Bynum is in though. If you trade RIP for a big man you need to replace him with a starting SG (a younger Raja Bell or Bowen would be ideal). Someone that can play defense and knock down threes is enough. We'd have the big man (RIP trade) and Stuckey to create shots and Tay as a solid complementary scorer too. That doesn't factor in any big we'd get with out cap space either.

I'm not moving RIP for another wing though.



I agree with your post completely, except just a clarification on this point.

Stuckey could be that starting SG. Of course, then you'd need a starting PG, which Bynum is not ready to be.

If Joe can snag a top flight PG with cap space in a trade or maybe someone like Bibby in free agency, then Rip for a young center (Okafor, Kaman, Bogut, etc) makes all the sense in the world, from a Pistons perspective.

I don't have a problem with that.

I agree with your post completely, except just a clarification on this point.

Stuckey could be that starting SG. Of course, then you'd need a starting PG, which Bynum is not ready to be.

If Joe can snag a top flight PG with cap space in a trade or maybe someone like Bibby in free agency, then Rip for a young center (Okafor, Kaman, Bogut, etc) makes all the sense in the world, from a Pistons perspective.
If you got a top flight PG, sure. But you won't. How many good PG's are there? Half dozen? Nobody is trading them. The teams with cap problems certainly don't have top flight PG's and what you'd be trading is Amir or Max to a team with cap issues. If that did happen, i'd start Stuckey at SG.

The more realistic senario is RIP for a center (Nene, Kamen, whoever). Then you move Amir or Max to a team needing size for a quality SG (not at RIP's level, but good enough).

Bibby is unrestricted, and I wouldn't mind him one bit.

If you could get Kidd for a couple of years at a reasonable price that might not be bad, either.

Sessions is a RFA, and with Milwaukee's payroll issues, he could be signed, too.

Not necessarily "top flight" (unless he's playing the Pistons) but he's good.

Andre Miller is also unrestricted.

The problem with bringing in an old PG is that you just traded away Chauncey.

Bibby is unrestricted, and I wouldn't mind him one bit.

If you could get Kidd for a couple of years at a reasonable price that might not be bad, either.

So we bring in a vet PG, move Stuckey to SG and then back when the PG retires?

I don't like it. Unless we're getting a young true PG that Stuckey can play with for many years I'm not switching his position.

The problem with bringing in an old PG is that you just traded away Chauncey.


Joe might have to admit that doing so was a mistake, if not with words, then with actions.

Which championship caliber PGs aren't "old"?

What are you considering "old"? Were you referring to Kidd (obviously old) or were you including Bibby/Miller in that?

Sessions is a RFA, and with Milwaukee's payroll issues, he could be signed, too.

Not necessarily "top flight" (unless he's playing the Pistons) but he's good.

Andre Miller is also unrestricted.

Miller is 33. I would consider him but he's probably at the top of the age I would consider.

Sessions would be a decent idea except that he's a %17 3 point shooter. I'd like to get a guy that would actually stretch the floor for Stuckey.

So we bring in a vet PG, move Stuckey to SG and then back when the PG retires?

I don't like it. Unless we're getting a young true PG that Stuckey can play with for many years I'm not switching his position.

Who suggested that? (switching him back). DWade isn't going to switch back, neither is Terry or Ben Gordon.

They could take a PG in this (Lawson?) or next year's draft. They could get one in free agency (MLE) 3 years from now, too.

I'm not too worried about three-four years from now, to be honest. The entire composition of the team will be different by then.

Joe might have to admit that doing so was a mistake, if not with words, then with actions.

Which championship caliber PGs aren't "old"?

What are you considering "old"? Were you referring to Kidd (obviously old) or were you including Bibby/Miller in that?

Young PG's I would consider good enough to move Stuckey to SG:

Chris Paul
Deron Williams
Calderon
Rondo
Harris
Rose
Westbrook
Chalmers

Probably none of those are getting moved.

Who suggested that? (switching him back). DWade isn't going to switch back, neither is Terry or Ben Gordon.

They could take a PG in this (Lawson?) or next year's draft. They could get one in free agency (MLE) 3 years from now, too.

I'm not too worried about three-four years from now, to be honest. The entire composition of the team will be different by then.
If you draft a legit starting PG (let's say Lawson), then I agree you move Stuckey to SG. Lawson is a great 3 point shooter (already has NBA range), so he'd be ideal with Stuckey. I'd use an extra pick if need be to get him I think.

I am worried about 3 years from now I guess. We got lucky with Billups. We botched Cleaves. I'd rather know we have that PG (Lawson) before moving Stuckey.

I think we just disagree on needing the PG to be young. We're trying that this year and it's not working out so hot.

I like having a vet PG, even if that means we have to get another one in 3-4 years.

I was hoping that we got Kidd at the trade deadline. He's expiring so he would have only played half the year with Stuckey learning from him. Then we would have known if we needed to bring Kidd back or let him leave. He couldn't have been any worse than AI.

To be fair, Glenn, you were done with Stuckey at PG before he was starting.

To be fair, Glenn, you were done with Stuckey at PG before he was starting.

Does that mean that I was wrong?

True, I didn't like the "directive" that he be made into a PG. I didn't like what I saw from him as a PG back then, and I haven't seen anything from him to change my mind. He seems much better suited to be a SG to me.

If it's better for the team for him to play SG, then that's got to be explored. Not saying that it's definitely going to happen, but that's just what I think.

I know that some here will never admit that might be a good option because I was out front with it early (and often), but that's kind of silly.

Other Pistons boards have been discussing him being better suited for SG for a long time now, yet we're in a cone of silence here.

This thread has actually been a bit of a breakthrough. Not that anyone else is actually endorsing the idea, but at least some are willing to discuss it, rationally, which is appreciated.

I think we just disagree on needing the PG to be young. We're trying that this year and it's not working out so hot.

I like having a vet PG, even if that means we have to get another one in 3-4 years.
To me, centers and PG's are like QB's in the NFL. Once you have a good young one you don't trade them away because it's very hard to find another young good one later.

Obviously you are talking about moving him to SG, but we'd still be looking to fill that position again in a few years.

Another issue I have with getting an older PG is that we suck at guarding the pick and roll already. Throw some 35 year old legs out there and it will get even worse.

If we got a young one like Lawson then I'd be on board.

I'm saying, you are just continuing your old song. You don't mind an old PG because you didn't want to lose the old PG. You don't mind using this year as your "proof" that he can't be a PG even though this year was totally fucked by the entire A.I./Rip thing, it's only been one season at the helm of an ever changing lineup, and he didn't play poorly just not as well as hoped.

I'm not trying to do that at all. I'm just asking people to at least consider the options and factor in what they have seen with their own eyes, honestly. Don't base your opinion on what the organization/Langlois has sold you. Don't just accept and hope that he'll get better some day.

If people can honestly do that and still think he's the Pistons Championship PG of tomorrow, then I have to respect that.

It just doesn't mesh with what I'm seeing from Stuckey, so there's the disconnect.

I really would like to make this less about me and more about the Pistons, but that's like pulling teeth sometimes.

This is why I said a while back that I keep getting the same feeling that I had when we used to discuss Darko & Joey Harrington. What I (and others) are seeing isn't what is being sold to us. Disclaimer: Stuckey is going to be a much better pro than those two, it's the hype/promotion/hope that I am comparing, not pro potential.

I have never thought he should be a pg. He can't pass off the dribble. I'd sooner Rip play the 1 and I am not kidding.

Thanks for posting that.

I really think that people here are letting their dislike for me and my opinions cloud the issue.

I'm glad that Herm and I can agree and he can still hate me at the same time.

I'm in the camp of he can be a solid PG in time (Billups was a bad PG at first). I could see him at either position, but I'm not making the move without a good young alternative.

So Stuckey was ready to start at PG this year, but Bynum can't? Isn't ready? or whatever y'all have been saying.

I like the way Bynum delivers the ball to Rip on the curl better than Stuck. Stuck still gets it done but Bynum has some pretty good timing on that pass

So Stuckey was ready to start at PG this year, but Bynum can't? Isn't ready? or whatever y'all have been saying.

I like the way Bynum delivers the ball to Rip on the curl better than Stuck. Stuck still gets it done but Bynum has some pretty good timing on that pass

Bynum is going to have to fight the perception that he's too small.

He's listed at 6'0" but he looks smaller than that.

It's kind of similar to what Jameer Nelson had to overcome (also listed at 6'0"), but Bynum has even less name recognition and he has the "had to go play overseas" baggage on him, so he's got an ever steeper mountain to climb.

Chris Paul is listed at 6'0", too, FWIW.

I see a little Jameer in Bynum and a little Mike James, too.

Bynum is at time clumsy with the ball, especially if trapped on the pick and roll, but his passing is crisper than Stuck. He's also small and not the best 3 point shooter. He's not a starter because he isn't talented enough to lead a team to a title as a starter, and that's my criteria.

I do think that Bynum has the best court vision on the team, right up there with Sheed.

Tahoe- peep the title change, does that do a better job of what you were getting at as opposed to "I'm beginning to think that I'd trade Stuckey"?

Tiny Archibald was prolly my favorite PG, he was 4'2" or something. He'll be fine.

He does need to develop some range on his jumper. Stuckey definately has a better outside shot, but I like WB mentality as a PG more than Stuck.

I've read the stuff where peeps are saying he scored the other night cuz he snuck up on coach, but if he plays all the time, he won't score like that. Opposing coaches will plan for him. blah blah blah.

^ sorry bout the shotgun post.

re: the title

Yeah, thats what I wrote. :)

Well, yeah, he isn't going to set franchise records every night. Teams will play off an beg him to shoot jumpers. And they'll post him over and over.

But they're doing whatever they want to Stuck right now, so whatever.

Bynum is at time clumsy with the ball, especially if trapped on the pick and roll, but his passing is crisper than Stuck. He's also small and not the best 3 point shooter. He's not a starter because he isn't talented enough to lead a team to a title as a starter, and that's my criteria.

Is to.

And as of late, he's actually hitting the jumpers when they back off him.

Will it continue? Is his outside shot that good or is he just in a zone right now?

Again, if some GM calls JoeD and says lets get Sheed (or Dice) signed at this price(or however that works), add Stuck for his 2mil a year we'll trade X for Sheed and Stuck...I'm doing it cuz Bynum is a player.

Should I just stick to the NFL forum?

I'm in the camp of he can be a solid PG in time (Billups was a bad PG at first). I could see him at either position, but I'm not making the move without a good young alternative.

I'm in line with this.

Why anyone would think they need to tear down some kind of Langolis effect HERE, I can't say. I don't even read Evil Keith (sorry ... Tahoe?). Like ESPN really determines what we think on WTF. Anyway, that's why I'm cool with the guy playing SG if somehow an undeniable PG falls into out laps. IMO, that's a mark FOR Stuckey, that he has the versatility, not a mark against him (as it's been used by plenty of people). I don't want to replace Chauncey with Andre Miller and pretend that one year under the worst coach we could find and a team full of guys waiting to leave means the kid won't be better than 13ppg and 5 apg. There were times this year where we were more than happy with his play. Not the last two months or whatever but ... whatever.

I'm happy Bynum is playing superb lately and if the guy forces himself into the starting lineup all the better.

Again, if some GM calls JoeD and says lets get Sheed (or Dice) signed at this price(or however that works), add Stuck for his 2mil a year we'll trade X for Sheed and Stuck...I'm doing it cuz Bynum is a player.

Should I just stick to the NFL forum?

It depends on who player X is. No one should ever be untouchable. :nosacredcows:

I have questions about Stuck. Watch the guys on the wings on a 3 on 1 or 3 on 2 break with the ball in Stucks hands in the middle. Watch Rip, it looks to me like Rip doesn't have a clue what Stuck is going to do.

You could say thats a good thing cuz the D doesn't either, but I don't have much more confidence in Stucks decision making ability now than I did at the begining of the year.

Bynum seems more better. Bynum is 26 already. Maybe that has something to do with it.

It depends on who player X is. No one should ever be untouchable. :nosacredcows:

Agree. The only untouchables are if you leave yourself with a huge hole that can't be replaced on your roster, right? And if Stuck is included in a trade, I think we have a PG on the roster that won't hurt us even with his little bit of playing time.

I agree that Stuckey's versatility is an asset.

Some people think that Tay has similar versatility, but I haven't liked seeing him playing any other role besides SF, certainly not handling the ball.

Hey Fool, you didn't weigh in on this, what do you think?
http://wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14657

I have no clue if the kid has baby mits. He does run really upright.

So has Stuckey improved from the begining of the season?

I'm sure he has some.

Has he improved in those categories to an acceptable level? Surpassed you expectations?

Asts?
Scoring?
knowledge of plays? directing the team?
ball handling?

I can't point to any specific thing I'm sure he's better at now than before the season began. Of course I don't know Bynum is any better at anything either. We know so little of both and this has been a shitty season for anyone to "learn" in.

Be nice to have a coach who I thought had something to teach. Even if it is just how to throw a 'bow and get into the opponents head.

The media keeps suggesting that he's hit the wall. So that would mean that there is a conditioning issue.

His minutes seem to be going down with Bynum's success, so you'd think that he'd get rejuvenated to some degree.

He's also had that wrap on his wrist for most of the year, so that's obviously lingering too.

I can't point to any specific thing I'm sure he's better at now than before the season began. Of course I don't know Bynum is any better at anything either. We know so little of both and this has been a shitty season for anyone to "learn" in.

Be nice to have a coach who I thought had something to teach. Even if it is just how to throw a 'bow and get into the opponents head.

It has indeed.

Good messageboarding today, guys.

A little passive agressive, but that's okay.

I see progress!
So you have a beef with my opinion.

Gutz, why do you think that Stuckey at the 2 is such a bad idea? What about his game (other than his D) makes you adamant it's a bad call?
He's a ballhandler who needs the ball to be at his best. I really don't want a guy like that being groomed into a SG, I think you gain so much more out of him grooming him as a pg for many of the same reasons we gained so much out of Billups.

He's a ballhandler who needs the ball to be at his best. I really don't want a guy like that being groomed into a SG, I think you gain so much more out of him grooming him as a pg for many of the same reasons we gained so much out of Billups.

Wade, Lebron, Kobe, etc are the primary ball handlers on their teams (at least half court). I think the biggest drawback would be if he doesn't improve his three point shooting and you have a PG paired with him that also has that deficiency.

Wade, Lebron, Kobe, etc are the primary ball handlers on their teams (at least half court).
All guys like AI who probably wouldn't fit our team's make up(maybe lebron would if you could teach the ballhog out of him again). So yea i dont want that. Apologies for assuming that you'd know I for sure didn't want him trying to be Kobe out there.

Yeah, fuck that Chris, who would want those guys or someone like them?

Yeah, fuck that Chris, who would want those guys or someone like them?
Or who would want your player trying to ballhog like them on a team that really isnt built for that. I can only hope Joe isnt as hard headed blind as you are to that notion. Star eyed fickle as fuck. And no balls to defend his points, but plenty to question mines.


Damn, this is all i get rather than straight forward answers. Spins and deflects. And a question never answered.

I'm not fascinated with you, I'm addressing your mindnumbing opinions.

The guy needs to dominate the ball, so naturally, you want him to be the PG so everyone else can stand around and watch him not pass.

I'm not fascinated with you, I'm addressing your mindnumbing opinions.

The guy needs to dominate the ball, so naturally, you want him to be the PG so everyone else can stand around and watch him not pass.
Now he doesn't pass? As you would say: WOW... Maybe your minds numb because you come up with some ridiculous garbage in it. Say one thing Glenn extends it to something else. I know you live off cynicism to your grave and beyond, but are you gonna shoot straight talk at all 2 day?

How much of Stuckey's problems result from the inability of our coaching staff to mold a young PG?

Why can't we have 2 PG's on the floor at the same time?

If we could get a 6'4" guy that could shoot the 3 and handle the rock I'd have no drama at all having Stuckey start at "SG".

Positions are fucking pointless - the league is fast becoming one where you need 2 ball handlers on the floor at all times, as the D is so fucking good.

All I keep thinking about while reading this thread is a debate I saw on the Raptors board years ago, where they wondered if Camby could play C, or if he was a PF.

The answer that was never posted? Who gives a fuck what position he plays, so long as he plays!

Who knows what Joe is thinking? Maybe he wants to trade Rip for a young big and then sign Ben Gordon?

Maybe he wants to Draft a PG with reasonable size, trade Rip for a young big and then use our cap space on another big? Then use the rest of the cap space to take back more salary when we trade Amir for a veteran PG?

We've got options all over the place and we, as fans are too busy trying to work what fucking position Stuckey should play?

My answer = the guy should play guard. Get another one that compliments him and we'll be OK. Our bench guards are fine, cause AA and Bynum do what they need to do and just need to get consistent.

I agree that position labels are overrated. TD is a center, but plays PF. Who cares?

What matters is that you can match up defensively. Stuckey is big enough to guard SG's, so he can play that position. On offense it doesn't really matter what your "position" is. Not all PG's are drive to the basket types. Not all SG's can knock down threes. Not all SF's are slashers. Every player has their own strengths and weaknesses.

My only reservation with moving Stuckey to SG (assuming RIP is dealt for a big) is that we had a PG that could hit threes. I don't want two guards that suck at threes and the defense just packs it inside.

What's more important is that you've got all your roles on offense (doesn't matter where they come from). We have Stuckey/Bynum, so we have dribble penetration covered. We have a versitile solid wing in Tay. We have hustle PF's and midrange big men (assuming Dice stays). We have a great jump shooter in RIP. What we lack is a solid post player. That's what Joe has to find. If he moves RIP to get that, he then needs to replace him with another solid jump shooter (what we'd have lost with RIP going). Otherwise we lose that dynamic from our team. So you can't replace him with another guy that just drives to the hoop, for example. If that jump shooter is a PG, you move Stuckey to SG. If that jump shooter is a SG, you keep him at PG.

Great post Pharaoh. My primary concern is that we have a playmaker on the floor, someone that knows how to get his teammates good, high percentage shots in the right places, at the right time.

We've seen how the offense stagnates when Stuckey is running the point, and how the ball movement and easy looks instantly improve when Bynum comes in the game (at least that is what I see).

My concern with Bynum is that he can't keep defenses honest with his jumper (although he may prove me wrong if this recent stretch is not just a hot streak), and that he'll get muscled by larger opposing guards. That's where a Bynum/Stucky backcourt could work, Stuckey can take the larger guard, unless they have two big guards, that is, in which case Afflalo can help with that.

If we're letting go of Sheed, there is no question we need another 3 point shooter.

If we're letting go of Sheed, there is no question we need another 3 point shooter.

Agreed. That's another area that Bibby could help (he's among the leaders in 3pt made/gm and around 40%).

Jamal Crawford anyone? I think he has an ETO.

Agreed. That's another area that Bibby could help (he's among the leaders in 3pt made/gm and around 40%).

Jamal Crawford anyone? I think he has an ETO.

Has Crawford turned into a PG? I haven't seen him play much in the last couple years, but he wasn't any better than Stuckey at getting teammates involved.

He's a combo guard, a much better SG than a PG, but Joe does like his combo guards.

He can certainly shoot the three, but he would probably further complicate the duplication on the roster, unless Rip was traded for a big.

I wouldn't endorse Crawford for this team for that exact reason Chris, he's a volume scorer, not a playmaker, but I know that he has fan(s?) here.

I'd rather have Bibby (even with his age). The first step has to be getting a big man. Then we can worry about guards. For all we know Joe will move Amir or Max for a center and we'd still have RIP. Then all this is a moot point.

Nellie told Crawford he won't play him next year and not to use his option....but he'd be an idiot not to. He's up for what, 10 mil?

And yes, there is a 95% chance Rip will be here next year with Stuckey and Tay and AA. Fill in the blanks from there.

There is the option of reinventing the offense once most of the legacy players are gone. Tay never performed consistently well in this offense anyway and it was geared to get jumpshots which is a critical flaw as well.

Maybe it's not the players but the scheme. Curry isn't the guy to do that with however.

That would have to be done anyway if we added Boozer, Bosh or some other solid big man anyway. I agree it needs to be adjusted. Hopefully a move for a big man dictates that happening.

Be nice to have a coach who I thought had something to teach. Even if it is just how to throw a 'bow and get into the opponents head.
ISWYDT

My only reservation with moving Stuckey to SG (assuming RIP is dealt for a big) is that we had a PG that could hit threes. I don't want two guards that suck at threes and the defense just packs it inside.
Wait, you mean someone like Billups?

Tony (Roseville, Mich.): I still think Rodney Stuckey is going to be a big part of the Pistons’ return to the NBA Finals one day, but I have felt all season that Will Bynum was the best pure point guard on the roster since Billups left. Is there a chance we see Bynum be the starting point guard next season with Stuckey being used as more of a combo guard?

Langlois: I don’t think it’s going to come to that, Tony. I do think it’s possible that Bynum’s progress will get to the point that the Pistons next year will often use a three-guard rotation with Stuckey and Hamilton starting, Bynum checking in for Stuckey late in the first quarter, then Stuckey coming on for Hamilton after sitting out six minutes or so, then Hamilton coming back for Bynum with about four minutes left in the half. But Arron Afflalo could have something to say about that, too.


Malik (Dearborn, Mich.): Do you think one year Rodney Stuckey will average around 18 points and six assists and do you think the Pistons will stick with him as their point guard for years to come?

Langlois: Statistics are relatively meaningless, Malik, because so much depends on the style of play a team employs and, even more critically, on the teammates around him. For instance, when one or more of their core starters has been out of the lineup the last few years, Tayshaun Prince’s stats go up markedly. That doesn’t mean he’s a better player, it just means he gets more scoring opportunities and more time with the ball in his hands. Stuckey is certainly capable of 18 and six – but he could also score 15 points and by a dynamic player if he’s surrounded by two or three other scorers capable of getting 20. Will he be here for years to come? Well, the Pistons wouldn’t have traded Chauncey Billups if they didn’t think Stuckey would be there point guard for a very long time.

Wait, you mean someone like Billups?

If he didn't make as much as he did he'd still be here.

Well, has anyone thought about Anthony Parker? He's not too old, has tons of experience and is a free agent.

I don't know what his 3 point shooting is like (too lazy to check stats) but surely he's a better option than Bibby or Jamal Crawford...

Chances are we just spend our cap space and keep Stuckey at the PG position. I don't see Rip being traded for Bosh, Amare or any other young big. Joe doesn't seem like the type to gamble which likely means it's Carlos Boozer time.

I would hate to see that as I don't think our squad with Boozer would be a title contender and would not be on the path to becoming one, especially with his (likely) huge contract hanging over us.

All this "Stuckey is a SG" talk, yet these replacement ideas are all guys that are more shoot first than he ever was.

Huge numbers are nice, but if Rodney Stuckey plays with the quiet efficiency he displayed Wednesday night, the Pistons will be a tough out in the playoffs.
Advertisement

Stuckey's 14 points and seven assists played a part in the Pistons' 113-86 demolition of the Knicks.

The Pistons (38-40) tied Chicago for the No. 7 spot in the East.

Stuckey ran the offense smoothly and committed only two turnovers. But his performance went beyond the stat line for coach Michael Curry. He was more impressed when the second-year point guard showed patience when the play just wasn't there.

"Three or four times we got the rebound and he pushed the break, didn't have anything, and he pulled it out and ran a set," Curry said. "That's big. That's game management. That's the next step in his progression as a player, as he keeps learning how to manage the game. We're going to need that from him."

Stuckey has been inconsistent of late, which was not unexpected. But veteran Rip Hamilton was impressed Wednesday night.

"He controlled tempo. He made plays and kept his dribble," said Hamilton. "When guys were open, he got them the ball."
Hmm weird, sounds like a PG. Must be an aberration.

If it was typical, it wouldn't be newsworthy.

I hope he keeps it up against teams not named the Knicks.

It means he's learning

Glenn won't acknowledge that; to him, it's an anomaly with no indication of progress.

All this "Stuckey is a SG" talk, yet these replacement ideas are all guys that are more shoot first than he ever was.

I don't care how much the guy shoots, I want him to manage the game.

Glenn, do you ever think about how Chauncey was when he came into the league?

What did it take him, 6 years?

I still don't think of Chauncey as a playmaking PG, and that is what I want.

If it weren't for his 3 point shooting ability, Chauncey would barely be a starter in this league, IMO.

And if you are willing to consider a good game vs. the Knicks a big leap forward, more power to you.

Who said it was a big leap? A sign of progress, yes.

Nice sample size.

Is Bynum an All Star?

Hope is a good and a bad thing.

Bynum is an all star in my heart.

Sample size for what? It's a sign of progress, not an indicator that Stuckey is already a good game manager. Grow a brain, dipshit.

And Bynum's game was a sign that he can be a good to great backup in this league. Not that he already is.

It was the Knicks.

If he can get his teammates open looks, manage the game and keep the ball moving with consistency in the playoffs, then maybe we've got something.

Nice fallback. It's good to see him play well and show signs of doing what we want him to do no matter who the opponent.

If history is any guide, Glenn will now tout someone else's play against the Knicks forgetting that he's just discredited them so he can ignore someone's point about Stuckey.

Go.

Wrong-o.

All stats vs. the Knicks are devalued.

I didn't see the game, so I don't have much more to add than that.

Unless you are using them to support your opinion, for proof, see the last time we talked about Stuckey close to a Knick game.

Unless you are using them to support your opinion, for proof, see the last time we talked about Stuckey close to a Knick game.

I'm not really catching what you are implying.

Then there's this:
http://wtfdetroit.com/forums/showpost.php?p=310476&postcount=117

And why do you feel the need to keep talking about me?

You guys are hilarious. I criticize Stuckey (even in a somewhat non-critical way) and you come after me time and time again, it's like you're his big brothers or something, lol.

It's okay to not be a homer sometimes.

Yes, it's all about you Glenn. This narcissism bit isn't getting old fast.

So you don't see that happening, huh?

I'd much rather we stay on the topic than talk about me, is that narcissistic?

ATTACK THE POST, NOT THE POSTER

ha ha

I ripped your dismissing of a stat based on the fact that you like to do it to suit your needs. That's a post on the topic of the conversation. You tried to play it like a personal thing even though I was calling out the tactic not the guy using it.

Ge't ov'er yo'urself Gl'enn.

For Tahoe...


Angelo (Detroit): I’ve been watching the ups and downs this season and it’s been frustrating. But a bright spot is Will Bynum. He has had more impact than Stuckey after he was made untouchable. Is it possible Joe D misread the cards and thought Stuckey was his ace but now sees Bynum as his ace?

Langlois: A measure of perspective could come in handy here. Bynum is 25; Stuckey is 22. Bynum played at a higher level of college basketball and spent two years playing at the highest level of the Euroleague with Maccabi Tel Aviv. Expectations were high for Stuckey off of his sparkling playoff performance as a rookie and they went higher when he dropped 40 points on the Bulls back in December. If you had written this question in back then, I suspect it would have a different bent to it. I think Joe D feels pretty secure about his point guard position going into next season.

Bynum shines, but Stuckey still on point

BY VINCE ELLIS • FREE PRESS SPORTS WRITER • April 7, 2009

Will Bynum's historic night against the Charlotte Bobcats raises an interesting question for Pistons coach Michael Curry.

Who will get the nod at point guard down the stretch?

Will it be Bynum, who in the fourth quarter Sunday set a franchise record with 26 points in a quarter on his way to a career-high 32 points in the Pistons' 104-97 victory? The victory also gave the Pistons much-needed breathing room in the chase for a playoff spot from hard-charging Charlotte.

Or will it be the point guard of the future, Rodney Stuckey, who has struggled with consistency in the second half of the season?

Curry said after Bynum's breathtaking performance that Stuckey was the guy, but he just had to ride the hot hand Sunday.

"Tonight was just a situation," Curry said of the fourth quarter on Sunday. "A lot of times I like to get Stuckey back about at the 6-minute mark. With the way that things were going tonight... it's a unique night -- 26 points, the most ever by a Piston player in a quarter.

"So definitely like Stuckey down the stretch, like Stuckey's defense down the stretch. ... But tonight it was Will, and Will did an excellent job."

Stuckey has delivered little but inconsistency in the season's second half.

Bynum, who spent the last three seasons honing his craft in the NBA Developmental League and Israel, has displayed a better feel for the point guard position, especially when running the pick-and-roll. He had seven assists against the Bobcats.

Curry wants Bynum to keep playing well whenever called upon.

"But what he has to do is he has to continue to be an assist guy," Curry said. "If they're going to load the paint up, it's on us to make sure we put shooters around him, and he's got to find those guys because all it takes is back-to-back threes and then a four-point lead can go to 10 if you're getting stops."

I think Angelo and the Tahoe knows the answer to that question. Keith could have been more direct and gave the 1 word answer, Yes.

Some of the comments with that article are interesting: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090407/SPORTS03/904070355&s=d&page=1#pluckcomments

One guy made a point that I haven't seen or considered before. Did Dumars do Stuckey (and the team) a disservice when he proclaimed that Stuckey was "untouchable"? Did it remove some of the incentive for him to work as hard as he might, otherwise? Did it create resentment amongst his teammates?

Just something to chew on.

Alex (Oak Park, Mich.): Why don’t the Pistons sign Ramon Sessions this summer along with Paul Millsap if their salary cap allows and move Stuckey to the two and bring Rip off the bench?

Langlois: Signing another point guard would be well down Joe Dumars’ list of priorities, I’m guessing. The Pistons see Stuckey as a point guard and they like what they’ve seen of Will Bynum behind him. Plus, Sessions and Millsap are both restricted free agents and we’ve detailed several times the disadvantages inherent in extending offer sheets to RFAs – there’s a good chance the original team matches, and in the seven days they have to decide, you’re cap room is eaten up while other free agents sign elsewhere.

One more for Tahoe...


James (Plano, Texas): What are the odds Bynum takes the starting job from Stuckey by next season? If that doesn’t happen, could we possibly deal Bynum for a bigger-name player?

Langlois: Bynum is under contract to the Pistons for next season at less than $1 million. The way he’s producing now, that makes him a highly valuable player. No way the Pistons trade him unless they’d be getting back something really significant. They could do that, too, because of their cap space – not worry about having to match salaries for cap purposes. But that would also leave them with a hole in their backcourt. Bynum has become more than a backup point guard, he’s become the No. 3 guy in what is shaping up as largely a three-guard rotation.

You wouldn't expect that much smartz from soeone in Plano, but it happened.

i'm begining to think i'd be willing to trade RIP and Tay....Tay just can't handle guys like Bron, Pierce at all...i know no one can defend those guys, but other good (allstar) SF can at least score against those guys...but Tays shortcomings on the offensiv end really hurt us, if we could get a guy like Butler, Tay can go....both RIP and Tay aren't leaders, and it seems to me RIP defense has regressed, he is still an effectiv scorer and midrange shoter, but i doubt he gets better anymore, and its not like RIPs production can't be replaced at the SG spot...

I missed the first part but they looked like it was the first game of the fucking season when I was watching.

Blow this bitch up!

i'm begining to think i'd be willing to trade RIP and Tay....Tay just can't handle guys like Bron, Pierce at all...i know no one can defend those guys, but other good (allstar) SF can at least score against those guys...but Tays shortcomings on the offensiv end really hurt us, if we could get a guy like Butler, Tay can go....both RIP and Tay aren't leaders, and it seems to me RIP defense has regressed, he is still an effectiv scorer and midrange shoter, but i doubt he gets better anymore, and its not like RIPs production can't be replaced at the SG spot...
I was just looking up this shit, and Rip's D this year is actually pretty good overall. On 82games, his opponent PER is 13, which is above average. Now, opponent PER isn't the be-all and end-all of defensive measures, especially when you consider team defense,, but I think it's a reasonable starting point. The 82games folks are the only ones I know who track this sort of thing and report it publicly. We could do a lot worse. Where we're leaking defensively is with our staring bigs, neither of whom are great against strong starting Cs or faster starting PFs

Letting Bron get 30-35 isn't costing us games. It's letting big men get layups because Sheed plays with cement boots on.

If Tay was more of an offensive threat maybe the Lebron's, Pierce's etc of the world wouldn't have so much left in the fucking tank come the 4th quarter?

It's almost like Tay refuses to shoot/score - WTF? It can be argued he is the 2nd best offensive player on this team. We've been saying "Dude needs to step up" for a very long time. It ain't happening.

Either he gets traded or we live with the fact our starting SF plays quality D and scores approx 15ppg but is paid like a fucking All-Star.

If AI was more of an offensive threat maybe the Lebron's, Pierce's etc of the world wouldn't have so much left in the fucking tank come the 4th quarter?

It's almost like AI refuses to play - WTF? It can be argued he is the best offensive player on this team. We've been saying "Dude needs to step up" for almost the entire season. It ain't happening.

Either he gets traded or we live with the fact our starting guard plays shitty D and scores approx 18ppg on poor shooting but is paid like a fucking All-Star.
Fixed. :)

Seriously, Tayshaun plays like he has no backup and is worn down. Big shocker. At least he isn't getting paid like an All-Star. He didn't crack $10 million this year. This season, Pierce and LeBron shot >40% in only half their games against us and scored underneath their season averages by a bit. I think that's the best we can reasonably expect. He's gonna have some good games and bad games. We'll see how this series goes.

I know he's gonna have his off days, but I wish he would be more selfish offensively. It's obvious he's got the skills - maybe he is too worn out?

Josh (Jenison, Mich.): Personally, I think Bynum is a better point guard and Stuckey would be a better fit at shooting guard. Do you think that could be a possibility in the future?

Langlois: I think Bynum has shown enough this year that if the Pistons don’t add a significant free-agent guard this summer, he’ll go into next season ahead of Arron Afflalo in the pecking order. And that means Bynum will get minutes at point guard and some of those minutes might come with Stuckey in the game, as well. Bynum will be guarding opposition point guards, but Stuckey might still have the ball in his hands more often than Bynum, but they’ll play to Bynum’s strength, which is to create off the dribble.

Thanks for posting that Josh... err.... Glenn. I kid. But Bynum is not a better PG than Stuckey. No way, no how (that saying doesn't really make sense, does it?). Bynum benefited from playing with guys that actually moved around (Walter, Afflalo) and he matched up against lesser-competition. I predict Stuckey will be on the fringe of All-Star consideration next year.