Picking up from this Rodney Stuckey assessment, to date (from January 2008) (http://wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11348&highlight=stuckey)

Wondering how everyone feels about him now.

The season hasn't even started.

The season hasn't even started.

This is a factual statement.

If you want to wait to vote or not vote at all, then I approve and will respect your decision.

^tried to make that funny, and failed.

How come you don't have an option you can choose? I would assume you would go with #3 but that implies that you ever thought he was a PG.

The options aren't perfect for everyone. I'll pick the best one for me, I suppose.

#3 could still be completely factual in my case, btw. It doesn't specify when I (hypothetically) gave up hope.

And I' m shocked that you are more focused on picking apart the poll options rather than the question at hand.

I've been concerned, but will give him the 1st quarter or half of the season.

There were lots of changes last year, I'm hoping a stable team will help him out.

Option #4: He'll never be as good at PG as Glan is at beating a dead horse.

lol, yes, Stuck's still a "sacred cow" here, but it won't stop me from bringing it up when it's merited. IMO.

Does "sacred cow" mean topic you are tired of Gla harping on?

Y'all act like it's just me, but I got news for ya, it ain't.

Dude, it is what it is. I respect the way you feel, and I feel the same way myself, but I also know that nothing is going to change about the situation for a few years.

I don't know what bothers you so much about this. This team wasn't making another ECF with or without Chauncey. It's over. Pistons are a crucible now for a few years. Best we can hope for is some flashes of promise from young players, and maybe one day a coach who can put it all to work for the W.

Stuck is not the answer at PG. I get it. Bynum isn't the answer either because you can't invest that much playing time in a guy you can't hold on to. It turns out that this is a team that isn't in need of an "answer" at all. It's not like there was deep greatness at every position and the only piece missing was a solid PG. Someone's got to play the spot, and the money has been invested. You might as well question whether or not we really needed another winter after last year - it would be every bit as effective and worthwhile.

Stuckey's going to surprise people and make many eat their words, IMO. Not talking about Glan, but rather the columnists and announcers who have said he doesn't have what it takes.

Swam, I'll address some of that tomorrow, but I was kind of hoping that we could actually discuss Stuckey without this being another "Glan" thread. So I'd like to not steer this too far off track.

Stuck will be fine... he's a cool cat ... still ahead of Chauncey's pace... for the first year this is his team... no worries.

I have stated before that I give every rookie 3 seasons to show and prove.

So far Stuckey has shown flashes of talent.

Is he the PG for the long-term? Who knows?

What we do know is he's got some skills and some potential. I'm very interested to see how he goes this season.

Thank Christ, he's back.

So you have to wait 3 years to even get concerned?

Roger (Oakland Twp., Mich.): I’m no longer convinced Stuckey should start over Will Bynum. It looks like Bynum is superior in quickness, getting to the hoop, passing, ballhandling and every trait that is a supposed strength for Stuckey. What are the chances Bynum ends up starting?

Langlois: I don’t see it, Roger. Bynum is ideally suited to coming off the bench. Do I think he’s talented enough to start in the NBA? Sure. Do I think your team is better if you can bring a guy with his punch off the bench? Absolutely. Stuckey’s had two shooting clunkers in his first four games, but I don’t think it’s cause for alarm just yet. He’s also been really good in the other two games and Kuester has said that even on the nights he hasn’t shot well, he’s liked the other aspects of his game. There’s a dynamic element to Bynum’s game – the ability to squeeze through tiny cracks and to finish in traffic – and it’s pretty obvious he’s going to be a regular part of the mix this year. But the Pistons will be a better team if Stuckey plays at the level he was consistently hitting in December and January of last season - and there’s no reason to think, at 23, that he’s reached a career plateau – to allow them to keep bringing Bynum off the bench for intense bursts.

wasuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup p

Also, I'd like to get this thread back on topic...meaning Glan and his hatred of Stuckey. :)

Thank Christ, he's back.

So you have to wait 3 years to even get concerned?

Of course not.

If a guy doesn't show squat in year 1 then obviously I think there is an issue. I wouldn't throw the dude under a bus though.

If the same guy doesn't show anything in year 2 then things are not looking good and I'd be prepared to field offers for him.

Stuckey is in a completely different situation.

He has shown flashes of real talent. He has played pretty well for some periods of time in his first 2 years. I don't think anyone is questioning his talent or skills though.

I think this topic keeps being discussed because it's pretty clear to some he's not a "PG". The people who do think he's capable of playing "PG" obviously view that position's description differently.

So you guys go ahead and continue to discuss the "Is he or is he not a PG". I'm just gonna sit back and read it.

I'm more concerned with how the kid performs this season in whatever position he plays

He is what we (glan and I) thought he was.

Flip Murray?

Actually, I've been seeing a lot of Stackhouse comparisons.

I don't like that one.

The Stackhouse comparison?

Yeah, I'm not sure about that one either. Do you have one that you like better?

I'd like Rod Stickland as a scorer, but he was a great passer as well as penetrator. Stuck puts his head down and you know exactly where he's going. I think Rip is a better passer off the dribble than Stuck. I just don't know another guy like this who plays point:

He can't shoot 3s
He doesn't set up teammates
He gets blown by against quick guards.
He dribble penetrates and finishes strong using his body.

That's a 2 guard. It just is. I don't care how tall he is. There is no guy in the league making it with those abilities at that size.

Ron Mercer. That's it. He made a career out of it. A bit of one at least.

Hermy is my poster of teh day.

I just don't know another guy like this who plays point:

He can't shoot 3s
He doesn't set up teammates
He gets blown by against quick guards.
He dribble penetrates and finishes strong using his body.

That's a 2 guard. It just is. I don't care how tall he is. There is no guy in the league making it with those abilities at that size.

agreed.

...so you're saying the difference between him and Chauncey is....he doesnt shoot threes?

Or come near leading the league in TO/Asst or get lots of votes for All D teams or serve as the only point in the history of the NBA who slows a break down more than Patrick Ewing, or is the most popular guy in the league.

Other than that, no difference between him and Cbill.

Or come near leading the league in TO/Asst or get lots of votes for All D teams or serve as the only point in the history of the NBA who slows a break down more than Patrick Ewing, or is the most popular guy in the league.

Other than that, no difference between him and Cbill.

Woah tiger. Do you remember Chauncey and "the break"?

I remember him walking the ball up, and on 3-1s shooting 3s. Tell me of this break.

Exactly ... oh shit. My brain reversed what you were saying. My bad.

Yeah, I was knocking Stuck in all the others and Cbill in just that one. I thought it might confuse, but that's half the fun. Stuck deserves praise where due, and he can lead the break decently.

There's something on hoopshype about Stuckey firing his agent (Aaron Goodwin). I wonder what the story behind that is?

I don't see him as a PG now or for the long-term.

I think he is perfectly suited to being a 6th Man. Having him as the 3rd guard would be awesome. We just don't have the roster to have him in that role right now

I just don't know another guy like this who plays point:

He can't shoot 3s
He doesn't set up teammates
He gets blown by against quick guards.
He dribble penetrates and finishes strong using his body.

That's a 2 guard. It just is. I don't care how tall he is. There is no guy in the league making it with those abilities at that size.

Will Bynum

:kennythejet:

Will Bynum

:kennythejet:

When I think strong, I think Bynum.

Roz (Ann Arbor, Mich.): Once again, folks are saying Stuckey is overrated or not a true point guard and Bynum is the man for the spot. Joe D has made it clear that he sees great promise in Stuckey. What are your thoughts?

Langlois: Once Stuckey finds the consistency on his 18-foot jump shot that he was showing midway through last season, he’ll be back on course to become one of the top 10 point guards in the league. If Stuckey were a stock, I’d be issuing a strong buy recommendation. He’s 23. That shot is going to come for him, and when it does, the other pieces of his game are going to fall neatly into place.

SIG

HE'S ONLY 23!

Found this on Mlive, but it very easily could have been found here.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b240/CuTThroaT313/stuckey1.jpg

That proves that Joe D made the right decision!

Exactly.

But honestly, how is he only averaging 1.5 assists in 27+ minutes?

Q WANTS HIM TO BE ASSERTIVE!!

3pt%...

But honestly, how is he only averaging 1.5 assists in 27+ minutes?
The players are missing shots purposely to bring down his stats. It's a conspiracy.

But honestly, how is he only averaging 1.5 assists in 27+ minutes?

Not that he's a pass first guard (or amazing passer) anyway but he didn't have a single forward who could get an easy inside basket (including forwards who could but never would).

Not that he's a pass first guard (or amazing passer) anyway but he didn't have a single forward who could get an easy inside basket (including forwards who could but never would).

That's a fair point.

Bynum's averaging 3.3 assists in 21.7 mins and Rip is averaging 2.9 in 26 mins.

He's worried he might have the flu and be contagious. He's just thinking about the team.

Who cares how many assists he averages?

I'd rather see him improve running the offense/his ability to direct the team/get fuckers organised out there.

If he improves all that and still doesn't average many assists I don't give a shit. Tony Parker doesn't average a ton of assists (around 7 or something) but you know he's running shit in San Antonio.

Stuckey might not be a real PG but he has the potential to control shit/run shit from that position. I hope he can realise that potential.

Who cares how many assists he averages?

I'd rather see him improve running the offense/his ability to direct the team/get fuckers organised out there.

If he improves all that and still doesn't average many assists I don't give a shit. Tony Parker doesn't average a ton of assists (around 7 or something) but you know he's running shit in San Antonio.

Stuckey might not be a real PG but he has the potential to control shit/run shit from that position. I hope he can realise that potential.

Is there a way I can filter out things and just read P's posts? 'Cause the Negative Nancy bit is getting old really fast.

what does it matter if the team's primary ballhandler/playmaker isn't getting assists? Well, probably doesn't matter that much if you aren't concerned about little things like scoring points.

LOL @ comparing the potential of Stuck to handle to teams O to Parkers. Only 6 guys in the league averaged 8 dimes or more. If Stuck plays like Tony then big win for everyone.

I love how people take a certain part of an entire post, single it out and then ask a question about that certain part like I actually fucking said that in the first place.

For Glenn (who must have actually done some work and mis-read my entire post) I posted:



Who cares how many assists he averages?

I'd rather see him improve running the offense/his ability to direct the team/get fuckers organised out there.

If he improves all that and still doesn't average many assists I don't give a shit. Tony Parker doesn't average a ton of assists (around 7 or something) but you know he's running shit in San Antonio.

Stuckey might not be a real PG but he has the potential to control shit/run shit from that position. I hope he can realise that potential.

Did you only read the section in bold?

And Hermy (I agree with almost everything you post but):

I didn;t directly compare Stuckey's potential to run a team to Parker's. I used Parker as an example of a guy who traditionally hasn't averaged a ton of assists yet their is no doubt he runs the team.

Why couldn't Stuckey eventually be a guy that gets 5 or 6 assists per game but actually does a good job running the team, directing traffic, getting fuckers... Didn't I already post that?

I'm just got back but let's not pretend I've been fornicating in a cave for the past 5 months. I haven't taken stupid pills. And I read an entire post before I rush to reply. I suggest other people do the same.

And BTW, if you 2 actually read my post any other way than what I stated then how is that my fault? (and I'm guessing you 2 are just trying to stir the shitstorm)

No offense, but I see that type of post as extremely unrealistic. If he excels at running the offense, directing the team, getting things organized, then how likely is it that his assist output won't improve? It seems like another example of setting up the excuse machine for possible failure. It's like any attempt at a quantifyable measure is cast aside. I know that assists aren't everything for a PG, but if he's doing a good job in those areas, then they will come.

There's just a big difference between "barely in the top 10 in assists in the league" and "can't get his offense set".

Maybe Bibby would be a better goal to set our eyes on.

That's a fair point.

Bynum's averaging 3.3 assists in 21.7 mins and Rip is averaging 2.9 in 26 mins.

Yeah but they're getting their assists by passing to Stuckey.....

Yeah but they're getting their assists by passing to Stuckey.....
I appreciate your help in making my point.

No offense, but I see that type of post as extremely unrealistic. If he excels at running the offense, directing the team, getting things organized, then how likely is it that his assist output won't improve? It seems like another example of setting up the excuse machine for possible failure. It's like any attempt at a quantifyable measure is cast aside. I know that assists aren't everything for a PG, but if he's doing a good job in those areas, then they will come.

I don't see my post as unrealistic. I see it for what it is: Me hoping that Stuckey can improve in those areas I mentioned.

Obviously if he improves in those areas his assist numbers will improve but how high do you think they'll go? I thought averaging near 7 assists (the Parker example) for a guy like him (a-never-gonna-be-a-real-PG-he's-a-scorer) would be pretty freaking high.

And while I know you want to get something written in stone in my case it's all subjective. He will improve in running the offense. How much will he improve in that area? Who the fuck can answer that? How do you measure that?

And Hermy - are there any players in the league that aren't top 10 in assists that can direct an offense/run shit? Or do you have to be top 10 in assists to even be looked upon as someone capable of initiating an offense/directing traffic?

I really don't have the time or care enough about Stuckey to waste time on explaining my post. The guy ain't a PG now, wasn't one when we drafted him. Shit ain't changed.

IF he can improve his PG skills then we'll be better for it, and he'll be a better player because of it. If not? Then too bad for us and him.

Yes, you can run an offense without being top 10 in dimes.

You can not run an offense without getting a lot of assists, and be top 10 in the league in assists. That's impossible.

Obviously if he improves in those areas his assist numbers will improve but how high do you think they'll go? I thought averaging near 7 assists (the Parker example) for a guy like him (a-never-gonna-be-a-real-PG-he's-a-scorer) would be pretty freaking high.

Why do I even bother?

Maybe I'm not being clear enough for you?

I really don't care anymore. Discussing one of our SG's playing PG and his potential to ever be a quality PG is kinda fucking stupid when I don't think he'll ever be a quality PG EVER!

^I will accept that answer from you and move on.

Who's next?

Why do I even bother?

Maybe I'm not being clear enough for you?

I really don't care anymore. Discussing one of our SG's playing PG and his potential to ever be a quality PG is kinda fucking stupid when I don't think he'll ever be a quality PG EVER!

Yes, being in the top 10 in assists would be pretty high. No doubt.

Ryan (Troy, Mich.): If the 2008-09 Pistons had replaced Stuckey with Derrick Rose do you think he could have done any better?

Langlois: There’s no reason to think they would have, Ryan. Let’s remember the first meeting between Rose and Stuckey last season – Stuckey scored 40 points and Rose spent half the game on the bench in foul trouble caused by trying to stay with Stuckey. It’s undeniable that Stuckey hit a wall in February and didn’t play well for a stretch, but any point guard would have struggled to look good and get last year’s offense in a rhythm given all the instability around that position.

lol

^I will accept that answer from you and move on.

Who's next?

Just for the record I'm not one of your "converted" people.

I never thought he was gonna be a legit PG.

He wasn't one when we drafted him and he'll never be a real PG. He can improve certain aspects of his game that will benefit the team and make him capable of running the point - but that doesn't make him a real PG.

Besides, aren't PG's born not made?

Besides, aren't PG's born not made?
LB might say something about this.... although he couldn't convert A.I.

It's some bullshit quote I thought Marbury made...

Why do I even bother?

Maybe I'm not being clear enough for you?

I really don't care anymore. Discussing one of our SG's playing PG and his potential to ever be a quality PG is kinda fucking stupid when I don't think he'll ever be a quality PG EVER!

^Negative Nancy -- Atticus will be shattered.

Could someone compile a list of the "real" PGs in the league today? It should take all of ten seconds, as it should be a pretty short list. Paul, Williams, Nash, and Kidd rounds out my list.

Boo hoo that we don't have one I guess.

^Negative Nancy -- Atticus will be shattered.

Nah, P roots for Piston success, not failures that will prove his points to the WTF community.

^spicy

I know what Fool would say, based mostly on his love for German men, but do you really think that I pull for Piston failures? How much of my own time do you think I put into following this team? Not being a homer and calling it like you see it doesn't make you a hater.

I want the team to be as good as it can possibly be, and when I see shortcomings or missteps, I like to point them out. We're all here to discuss the good, the bad and the ugly, right? Or is it only the good?

I'd be jump-up-and-down thrilled if Stuck played great.

And Harris, Ford, Sessions, and of course Calderon are all pure points. Parker has a great asst/to rate for how much he scores. Both the guys in ORL fit the bill.

I've maintained all along that Stuckey can play - he's a scorer - he just shouldn't be running an offense. I don't hate the guy or hope for him to fail, it's not his fault that he's a square peg being crammed into a round hole by the organization. I don't think he asked for this.
Having an unbalanced roster has always irked me. As it stands, one could make a very good argument that our best 4 players are all scoring guards. That's a recipe for the lottery. My outlook will change drastically if we can move 1 of the 4 (and something else, if need be) for a quality post player.

The point I was trying to make with my post that kicked off the Glenn/Hermy/Pharaoh back and forth was:

Stuckey doesn't have to be a "real" PG in order for the team to be successful long-term. I think the team will be pretty good for the next few years regardless of his development or lack thereof.

But if he can develop and improve his ability to run shit then our team will be so much better for it and as a player he will be so much better for it. Right now everyone knows he's going to the hoop.

Develop a money jumpshot, improve as a PG and after a while defenses are gonna be wondering how the fuck they can contain a dude like him.

Don't be a Stackhouse and rely on your strengths for your career. Work on your weaknesses and turn them into strengths.

Or don't players give a shit anymore?

Some of the roster imbalance could have been alleviated if Rip would have been traded before giving him that extension, but we've been through this before.

I know it would have changed the perception of the Ben Gordon signing, for sure.

As it stands, one could make a very good argument that our best 4 players are all scoring guards. That's a recipe for the lottery. My outlook will change drastically if we can move 1 of the 4 (and something else, if need be) for a quality post player.

There is no arguement IMO.

Rip, Gordon, Stuckey and Bynum are all scorers.

And I agree thats not a good thing.

And I'm wondering if little Bynumite could be packaged with Kwame Brown's expiring deal at the deadline to net us a reasonably priced big man?

Don't know who that big man might be... just wondering if that is a more realistic option (rather than trying to deal Rip's contract)

I wonder if Joe was too concerned about the PR/box office effect of trading Rip right on the heels of moving Chauncey? How much differently would the AI experiment have gone with Rip out of the picture?

Who knows what we would have gotten in return for Rip, maybe expiring deals/picks, but it might have totally changed the direction of the "rebuilding".

Rip's contract being extended didn't surprise me. Joe has always taken care of his guys (Cliff Robinson even got extended!).

It's just that Joe didn't seem to have an end game this off-season. It was like he just went out and drafted/bought the BPA regardless of who we had or how the pieces would fit.

Now we've got a team full of perimeter scorers all not capable of drawing a double team. At least last season there was always the threat of Sheed or Dice posting up and maybe drawing an extra defender. Who's the threat now? Nova? Wilcox? Maxiell? That's a big drop off.

On the nights when our jumpers are falling we'll look great. Every other night we better be prepared to get busy on D and try to grind it out otherwise things could get ugly

Imagine if we did get expirings for Rip...

Nah, I can't travel down this road with you Glenn.

I'll end up going on a rant.

Off-season is over - let the season begin

Nova is good. I'm using that.

Glan, my intent wasn't to say that you root for Pistons failure. But at times, others seem to delight in failures that prove their points. Having read your full assessment of Stuckey a few pages back, I see that you're pretty unbiased. I've probably mistaken some of your purposely-in-jest comments a bit too seriously, which has tainted my view of your opinion on Stuckey. My bad.

That said, I should accuss Glan of being a Piston-hater more often. This thread has been on fire since I did so, IMO.

Any thread I deem important enough to post in = on fire, Atti.

You need to remember that you love me more than you love GD...

Atti - you've gone as far to make the allegation, now we need names!

Then watch the thread blow up.

That would actually be pretty funny...

Agreed.

Also, the Princeton offense will allow Stuckey to explode. I'm expecting 18/5 w/ 42% shooting/horrible efficiency.

I don't have the time or care to hunt back through the archives -- game tonight, after all. If it makes everyone in who felt disrespected or wronged feel better, I'll just retract my statement and say that we all root for Piston success no matter what.

WE'RE ALL IN FOR THE PISTINS!

I couldn't agree more. Just no more fucking volcanoes though.

Is Rodney the strongest PG in the league? I've seen/heard this mentioned somewhere.

"He would definitely win the tunnel-vision strength competition, because he's not a point guard lol" - Media

He'd look like a superstar if he had a big guy down low to keep other bigs from sliding over and playing him for the drive.

It's tough when you get by your man and you have another big waiting for you and no drop-off option.

And can't shoot the ball well enough to just pull-up.

Jason (Algonac, Mich.): I understand it’s early, but Stuckey’s performance in the OKC game was awful. His assist/turnover ratio was dismal. And 4-of-15 shooting, not to mention his foul trouble. Can he be coached to pass to an open BG or Charlie V?

Langlois: C’mon, Jason. It was one game. And he did have 21 points, getting to the line 13 times. It wasn’t a great game for him, granted, but if that counts as his clunker, I think the Pistons can survive. The whole “Stuckey isn’t a point guard” argument is getting a little tired. Look around the league. There are about five guys that the Stuckey critics would readily agree are point guards. He’s 23 and he didn’t play in a very competitive conference in college, where he was so far and away the best player on his own team that he was expected to create points for himself more than others. There will be a learning curve. He’s never going to look like Steve Nash or Jason Kidd, but Chauncey Billups doesn’t, either, and he was good enough to help the Pistons to an NBA title.

LOL

Tiba (Detroit): I will say it until someone or something proves me wrong, but Rodney Stuckey put up three assists in the opener. Will Bynum had seven, Rip four and even Prince had three. My point? Anybody can get three assists a game. With Gordon’s 3-point threat along with his strength and driving ability, why not make him the starting point guard and have Stuckey as the backup behing Rip?

Langlois: In John Kuester’s offense, assists are going to be distributed more evenly than they were in, say, Flip Saunders’ offense, where the point guard dominates the ball. I really don’t get people suggesting Gordon should be a point guard. While he can make plays off the dribble, you really want to get Gordon the ball when he’s on the move, coming off a screen or a cut, so he can catch and shoot or penetrate while the defense is shifting. Stuckey can do that, too, of course, but he’s not the shooter Gordon is. Many NBA teams are taking a similar approach these days unless they have somebody like Jason Kidd or Steve Nash or Deron Williams or Chris Paul. Kuester is very high on Stuckey’s point guard skills.

So Jason and Tiba are inept. Can we move on, please?

In John Kuester’s offense, assists are going to be distributed more evenly than they were in, say, Flip Saunders’ offense, where the point guard dominates the ball???????????????????

so when will bynum or Stuckey run point they don't dominate the ball?

langlois is retarded.

i still hope Rodney can develop into a more well rounded PG, he just needs more time like Chauncey...i dont know if he will ever be able to run an offense like Chauncey did...but he has the will and the work ethic to get better

The whole “Stuckey isn’t a point guard” argument is getting a little tired.

There is an arguement? Where?

Can someone please plead the case FOR Stuckey being a PG.

And him starting at "PG" is not a defense you can use.


Stuckey is 23 and he didn’t play in a very competitive conference in college, where he was so far and away the best player on his own team that he was expected to create points for himself more than others.

WTF does this have to do with what he's doing now? The kid ain't a rookie. This is his 3rd season. College was a long fucking time ago.


There will be a learning curve. He’s never going to look like Steve Nash or Jason Kidd, but Chauncey Billups doesn’t, either, and he was good enough to help the Pistons to an NBA title.

Comparisons to Chauncey (one of our most loved players of the last 10 years) is not a good idea. And Hot Rod really doesn't need the added pressure of that.

Langlois should have just said: "Once Stuckey is good enough to help us to another title no one will give a fuck what guard spot he plays".

It's easy to pick on someone that can't be here to defend himself.

LMAO - there's always someone here to defend everyone who ain't here.

Let the defending begin

I hope you guys are talking about finding some one to defend Langlois, because there's plenty of defenders for Stuckey here, we're practically a witness protection agency for him.

I thought he meant Langlois

Greg (Waterford, Mich.): What do the Pistons do if Rodney Stuckey proves incapable of becoming the point guard they envisioned? After committing $11 million a year to Ben Gordon, it’s clear they have no intention of moving Stuckey to shooting guard. So is it basically point guard or bust for Rodney in a Pistons uniform?

Langlois: When everybody’s healthy, the Pistons have four guards who can create plays. Rip Hamilton doesn’t put it on the floor to get to the rim much, but he’s shown he can set teammates up for baskets. Their roster is set up in a way that doesn’t place the onus on Stuckey alone to run the offense. That’s not unusual around the NBA except on the few handfuls of teams whose point guards fit the textbook definition. Under Larry Brown and especially under Flip Saunders, the ball was almost always in Chauncey Billups’ hands, and he blossomed into a point guard worthy of such trust and responsibility. But he wasn’t that at 23. Despite the barrage of skepticism from outsiders, the Pistons believe Stuckey is suited to be a point guard – currently, in an offense that distributes responsibility more evenly among several ballhandlers; eventually, perhaps, in a role more like the one Billups grew to fill.

Langlois: When everybody’s healthy, the Pistons have four guards who can create plays.

Translation = The organisation has already determined Stuckey ain't a PG


Their roster is set up in a way that doesn’t place the onus on Stuckey alone to run the offense.

Translation = The organisation has already determined Stuckey ain't a PG


That’s not unusual around the NBA except on the few handfuls of teams whose point guards fit the textbook definition.

Excuse #1 for Stuckey not being a real PG


Under Larry Brown and especially under Flip Saunders, the ball was almost always in Chauncey Billups’ hands, and he blossomed into a point guard worthy of such trust and responsibility. But he wasn’t that at 23.

Another comparison to Chauncey (a fucking Finals MVP!!!) and Excuse #2. "Poor little Stuckey - dude is 23 and you can't expect him to be a PG".

Why not? He ain't fucking 17, 18 or 19 years old.


Despite the barrage of skepticism from outsiders, the Pistons believe Stuckey is suited to be a point guard – currently, in an offense that distributes responsibility more evenly among several ballhandlers

Translation = offense is designed the way it is because the organisation has already determined Stuckey ain't a PG.


eventually, perhaps, in a role more like the one Billups grew to fill.

Stop comparing Stuckey to Billups. It's pissing me off.

Great post, lol.
Nice use of the translator.

Fill in the blank:

Rodney Stuckey's career ceiling will be similar to this NBA player ______________.

Fill in the blank:

Rodney Stuckey's career ceiling will be similar to this NBA player ______________.

Baron Davis?

I'm not going to just Flippantly just throw and answer out there, I need to Murray this over a bit.

David Wesley.

I'm not going to just Flippantly just throw and answer out there, I need to Murray this over a bit.

I'll take the bait and ask a question, hoping for a straight-up serious answer: Do you think Flip Murray is a better player than Stuckey?

Also, just wanted to say that I'm glad we're getting away from the Stuckey-PG talk and actually talking about his abilities as a basketball player.

Also, just wanted to say that I'm glad we're getting away from the Stuckey-PG talk and actually talking about his abilities as a basketball player.

Stuckey gets a slight edge due to his size/rebounding, but they are very comparable in almost every other way. Flip's got a better handle, for sure.

And I think we're all getting closer to being on the same page about him not being a PG, so that would explain the shift to talking more about his value and future potential.

Sucknut just doesnt' have that 'it' factor.

Baron Davis? DAMN! IMO Stuckey won't be as good as Baron is.

Flip Murray? DAMN! And this is just a joke. Stuckey is gonna be a journeyman scorer for shit teams?

I like the David Wesley comparison. I'll run with Herm

“Rodney is someone that is a competitor. He can be one of the best defensive guards in our league. He had some moments, where his shot selection had to get smarter. Defensively, he knows what happens. He has to bring that every time.’

Kwame's hands improve every day.

Donald (Howell, Mich.): I keep hearing the comparison of Stuckey to Billups. People have to remember that it took a long time and several teams for Billups to become the player he is. What do you think?

Langlois: It’s worth noting that at 23, Stuckey’s current age, Billups was in his third season, as Stuckey is, and had just been traded for the third time. He averaged 8.6 points and 3.0 assists that season, one in which he was limited to 13 games by a shoulder injury. It would be three more years until he became a full-time starter in the NBA upon joining the Pistons for the 2003-04 season.

The problem with the players mentioned (Baron, Billups, Wesley) is that all were/are far better three point shooters than Stuckey. Stuckey's game is closest to Wade really, just not even close to as good. I really didn't think Wade would even be close to that good out of college. I probably expected about what we are getting from Stuckey really.

I wonder what Stuckey would be like today if he were simply a SG from day one here. Obviously his approach in practice would have been totally different. I think he would be a much better NBA scorer right now.

The only reason Billups is used as a comparison so much (besides being on the same team for a season), is they are both scorers first. Billups didn't become a decent PG until his 10th season though. Why does Joe expect Stuckey to be able to do that after 1 season?

Billups made 64 threes his rookie year making about 1 in 3 (only playing 25 MPG). Stuckey has made 29 in his career being a full time starter for a year plus. Stuckey can't play off the ball like Billups did (even when he wasn't good) because he doesn't have the range. Perhaps he would have developed that if he wasn't put in the PG role, I don't know.

What I do know is he belongs at SG, or maybe in the Manu/Gordon role of playing both guard spots off the bench until he's got better range. The problem is that they won't admit that.

I don't get Keith's defense though. How is telling us that Billups took 10 years at all helpful to the Pistons now?

I think if Stuckey is only a three point shot away from being solid, as I surmise that some of you feel, it's probably only a matter of time. I base that reasoning upon his suddenly solid mid-range game. I mean, face it, Stuck's shooting percentage isn't low because of missed mid range jumpers; it's because of the handful of forced attempts at the rim that he puts up each game.

He's a three point shot away from being the PG that Billups was for his first 8 seasons (or Gordon is now). Still doesn't have the PG skills of Billups or Davis.

Question:

What's the bigger case of square peg in a round hole (putting a player at the wrong position and ruining his potential)?

Darko as a post player or Stuckey as a PG?

Question:

What's the bigger case of square peg in a round hole (putting a player at the wrong position and ruining his potential)?

Darko as a post player or Stuckey as a PG?

Did Darko really have potential outside of being a post player? I don't remember thinking that.

He clearly thought he was a face up mid range player. whether he could do that effectively who knows? could be his confidence was destroyed here. could be he was just a plain bust to begin with.

I don't get Keith's defense though. How is telling us that Billups took 10 years at all helpful to the Pistons now?

You didn't read the WTF Translation?

I'll provide it:

"Chauncey was a shitty PG for 8 years. Y'all need to stop whining about Stuckey. Come back after he's spent 8 years in the role and we'll see what we have then"

And just who the fuck continually compares Stuckey to Billups? Dipshit Langlois.

And it's painfully obvious to everyone that Stuckey is ideally suited to coming off the bench as a combo guard. He'd be awesome in that role.

We just don't have a real PG to pair with Rip.

LMAO - maybe if we moved Tay for one in the off-season, then traded Rip for a big man AND still signed Gordon and Nova we'd be amazing!

And it's painfully obvious to everyone that Stuckey is ideally suited to coming off the bench as a combo guard. He'd be awesome in that role.


Thank the heavens for this comment.

Thank the heavens for this comment

WTF Translation?


Thank heavens Pharoah tolerates all the shit and keeps coming back otherwise I just might go kill some fucker

HE'S ON THE ALL STAR BALLOT

I'm just going to agree to disagree re: RS and stay out of this thread. Adios, friends.

I would love for someone to plead the case FOR Stuckey being a PG.

It could be you, Atti.

IMO everything about his game screams SG. That's not a bad thing.

I would love for someone to plead the case FOR Stuckey being a PG.

It could be you, Atti.

IMO everything about his game screams SG. That's not a bad thing.

All but the "shooting" part.

"Scoring guard" is probably more accurate for him.

Or "swatted guard".

Now you're just trying to start shit and make it all about you, GD.

Stuckey is more of a shooting guard than a point guard.

And no fucking position called scoring guard...

Except on whatever team Flip Murray is on this month cause even blind Freddy knows he can't shoot.

I feel so free now that we have a "safe" thread for those who do not wish to engage in open and honest discussion/debate.

I don't think this is that thread it's just that the "Stuckey is a PG" club has no evidence to prove their case so they avoid the discussion altogether.

I actually wanna read someone/anyone plead the case for Stuckey being a PG. It would interest me.

He's short.

lol

I can make a good case for why it'd be better for him to be a PG but not for why he is a PG.

The only argument for is that PG is a harder position to fill.

If you can have a 6'5" PG that is above average at running an offense, but can also score when needed, that's a huge asset.

A 6'5" SG that is an above average (but not dominant) scorer is not the same level of asset.


However, that doesn't mean Stuckey will ever be above average at running an offense. It also doesn't mean he's best suited to that position. At some point you have to pull the plug on the true PG notion and realize he's a combo guard or SG and develop his scoring more.

I think Stuckey would make a better point forward than a point guard.

He's shown he's a better defender at the 3 than the 1. I have yet to see any forward get by him off the dribble this season.

The only argument for is that PG is a harder position to fill.

If you can have a 6'5" PG that is above average at running an offense, but can also score when needed, that's a huge asset.

A 6'5" SG that is an above average (but not dominant) scorer is not the same level of asset.


However, that doesn't mean Stuckey will ever be above average at running an offense. It also doesn't mean he's best suited to that position. At some point you have to pull the plug on the true PG notion and realize he's a combo guard or SG and develop his scoring more.

16 pts/game from your SG is not above average.

Fool is lost.

Both of those scenarios I mentioned are assuming he reaches potential at either position.

I'm not lost. I assumed you were talking about a potential if he developed at PG versus what he is providing now in a SG role.

I would love for someone to plead the case FOR Stuckey being a PG.

It could be you, Atti.

IMO everything about his game screams SG. That's not a bad thing.

Since you're my favorite, I'll try to outline where I'm coming from. I know everyone will disagree, which is why I said I'd agree to disagree and move on, but here goes:

I've always viewed a point guard as a player who brought the ball up the floor on offense and initiated the offense. I know we all can agree and see that Stuckey brings the ball up on almost every possession. It's not worth debating, because it is fact, and facts are not debatable.

The second part of my view of a PG is a little less clear, so I'll elaborate. In my opinion, "initiating" the offense entails both a) making a play call (or passing it on when the coach makes the call) b) and getting others in position. It is also true that the PG makes the first pass within the flow of the offense.

I can see that some may have a beef that RS isn't always the one calling plays, but I often see him directing traffic on the floor. He seems to do it much like Chauncey did -- I think Stuck studied this carefully while playing under Chauncey, because, if you look closely, his body language is even similiar when directing his teammates.

I think Stuckey's handles are PG quality, and this is just a judgement call, IMO, and I know a lot of you won't agree. That's fine. But he doesn't get stripped any more than other PGs. His turnovers occur at the basket, primarily because his "bigmen" don't get in position to receive a drop-off pass. And let's face it, if you're RS, are you really going to dump off to Kwame Brown, Jason Maxiell, or Ben Wallace? You're better off trying to dunk over Superman.

Lastly, to address the assist thing, which I know would be the rebuttal from most of you, it's a non-issue to me, because a PG's job is not simply to hold onto the ball and create a scenario that results in an assist-situation. Ideally, that ball is zipping around the court, landing in the hands of all five guys, before a shot is taken. So, I could care less that Stuckey doesn't get a lot of assists at this stage in his development as a PG. He gets us into the offense that Kuester has drawn up. If Stuckey doesn't look like the Chris Paul PG that you have in mind, that's on Kuester, not RS. I think it's being a bit critical, IMO.

I'm just a basketball purist -- probably because I was never the most physically gifted player, just a hard-worker and dead-eye shooter -- and because I operated mostly in flex-type offenses, I don't buy that your PG needs to be the one making the last pass before the bucket to be considered a PG.

I'm not trying to be a Stuckey apologist, I just truly feel he is a PG under my definition. No homerism, just my honest analysis.

If Stuckey doesn't look like the Chris Paul PG that you have in mind, that's on Kuester, not RS.
---------------------------------------------------

yeah.

I'm not lost. I assumed you were talking about a potential if he developed at PG versus what he is providing now in a SG role.

Why would we go by what he's providing now for SG when we're talking about PG potential? It's fair to assume he'd be scoring more than 16 PPG in a legit SG role.

If Stuckey doesn't look like the Chris Paul PG that you have in mind, that's on Kuester, not RS.
---------------------------------------------------

yeah.

Watch some games. Our offense doesn't call for the PG to hold the ball and create randomly. It's predicated on movement and passing, though that has been skewed with Rip out. NO's offense is basically all about what Paul can create.

Did I say that RS would like like CP3 if he played for NO? Nope. Reading is fundamental, as P says.

Edit: Herm, by "watch some games" I meant watch some NO games. I know you watch plenty of Pistons games, and wasn't trying to stir the spot.

Why would we go by what he's providing now for SG when we're talking about PG potential? It's fair to assume he'd be scoring more than 16 PPG in a legit SG role.

Why? He can't possibly take MORE of the team's shots. Can he?

Ah , that takes me back to the days when Flip Murray was labeled a ballhog.

Stuck did learn from the master, after all.

Watch some games. Our offense doesn't call for the PG to hold the ball and create randomly. It's predicated on movement and passing, though that has been skewed with Rip out. NO's offense is basically all about what Paul can create.

Did I say that RS would like like CP3 if he played for NO? Nope. Reading is fundamental, as P says.

Edit: Herm, by "watch some games" I meant watch some NO games. I know you watch plenty of Pistons games, and wasn't trying to stir the spot.

Gonna go out on a limb, there may be a different skill set with those 2 that allows Paul to look different.

Herm, doesn't mean RS isn't a PG though.

I hope everyone heard Kelser a moment ago.

Ben Gordon looked really good running the point tonight (yup you read that right). Stuckey was doing much better at finding open team mates and taking better shots when it wasn't all on him to start the offense. He's a very good team orientated SG/SF. Stuckey could be like Igouldala with better court vision.

Herm, doesn't mean RS isn't a PG though.

No, many other things do however.

You can't propose something "He doesn't look like Chris Paul because of the system", then when I dismiss that say it's a bad argument. It's your argument.

It doesn't mean he IS a pg. That is what we are trying to prove here. The facts, as you say, can't be argued and up to this point his stats and performance as a 1 have been lacking.

Atti - forget other systems, other players, other everythings.

Right here, right now on this team, in this system is Stuckey a PG?

Or is he really a SG that also happens to help initiate the offense?

When Will Rodney Stuckey Put It Together? For Pistons\' Sake, It Better Be Soon - Sean Deveney - The Baseline - Sporting News (http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/The_Baseline/entry/view/42910/when_will_rodney_stuckey_put_it_together?_for_pist ons_sake,_it_better_be_soon)

When Will Rodney Stuckey Put It Together? For Pistons' Sake, It Better Be Soon

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Posted By Sean Deveney 1:44 AM

When backup Will Bynum looks at Stuckey, he sees “someone who will be the leader of this team for a long time.”

When Pistons coach John Kuester looks at Stuckey, he sees a player who “has the potential to be one of the best defensive guards I have been around, because he is so strong, he is athletic and he is willing to accept the challenges of the other great guards in the league.”

There is potential for Stuckey to be all of those things, and the Pistons have wagered that he will. But for now, let’s point out what Stuckey is—a big, athletic guard who hasn’t shown enough team-running instincts to be considered a point guard and hasn’t shown enough shooting range to be considered a shooting guard.

This is Rodney Stuckey’s third season, and already, it’s a make-or-break year for both him and the franchise.

Stuckey, for one, understands that. He entered this season without Chauncey Billups ahead of him or Allen Iverson next to him. He could lean on any number of excuses for his slow growth so far—point guard is a tough spot to learn, he had trouble finding a role among the team’s stars, he is on his third coach in three years—but, to his credit, he declines to do so.

“It’s nothing like that, it’s just about me doing it every night,” he said. “I just need to be consistent, and I think that’s been my biggest problem so far.”

At 6-5, with outstanding athleticism, there are times when Stuckey looks like a top-notch point guard. He has the size and speed to get into the lane and the strength to finish once there. But he is not an instinctive passer, and if he doesn’t show some improvement in running the offense this year, the Pistons will have to wonder whether he should be moved to shooting guard.

That would create a huge problem—the Pistons just gave a five-year, $55 million contract to Ben Gordon and awarded Richard Hamilton a three-year, $34 million extension last November. In other words, Detroit has too much money in their shooting guards for Stuckey not to be a point guard.

That’s what makes this such a huge season for Stuckey and the team. With most players, it’s clear by the end of the third year how his NBA career will shape up. Stuckey clearly had a long way to go when it comes to leading the Pistons. He is averaging a career-best 16.0 points and 5.9 rebounds, but he has struggled with shooting and turnovers, and the Pistons are among the lowest scoring teams in the league (in part because Tayshaun Prince and Hamilton have been injured).

Still, Detroit is sticking with Stuckey. “I tell you what is impressive,” Kuester said. “He knows exactly when he has done wrong, and he takes responsibility for it. He will look right over at me and say, ‘My bad.’ That’s refreshing.”

Perhaps that’s refreshing, and maybe Stuckey warrants extra leeway because of the difficulty of his position. But remember, he came out of college as a junior and turns 24 in April. His time for youthful mistakes is running short.

Nice find.

Kstat and RugbyPike's board.

Atti - forget other systems, other players, other everythings.

Right here, right now on this team, in this system is Stuckey a PG?

Or is he really a SG that also happens to help initiate the offense?

Not hiding or anything, just been really busy the last few days.

IMO, Stuckey is a point guard and played like one the last game.

Will I admit that he doesn't always play like a good PG should? Heck yeah. I get just as disappointed with RS as the rest of you, because he's physically and mentally better than half the doofuses trying to check him on a nightly basis. When he doesn't try too hard and makes solid decisions, he's a darn good PG, as he was against Charlotte the other night.

And Herm, are you hinting that stats determine a player's position? It's too early to look at anyone's stats at this point, IMO, and draw any conclusions.

And if my CP3 comparison isn't valid for the sake of the argument, then I guess nobody is ever allowed to make any kind of player comparison in these types of discussions. All I said was Stuckey isn't going to look like CP3 -- I know he isn't as good, yes, but even if he was, the system is different than what NO runs. I think too many of y'all try basing the "RS isn't a PG" discussion on comparisons to other players and other players' stats, which isn't much different than what I'm doing.

I just don't see what you all see. I just hope I'm the one who is right in the end, and I know y'all do, too. It'd be the best thing for the team.

I watched the highlights of that Charlotte game and there was one play that stuck in my mind every time I watched them:

Stuckey was at the top of the key and he somehow drives/ends up near the foul line. (I can't remember if it's a crossover or he just bullies his way). Stuckey pulls up and there is significant seperation. Dude has got the shot I've seen him make a ton of times. Stuckey jumps into the air...

Out of the corner of his eye Stuckey must have seen Gordon coming off a screen to his left. He passes to Gordon, who nails an open 22 footer.

First Viewing? Damn! Good shot!

2nd Viewing? Great vision, Stuckey!

3rd Viweing? WHY FUCKING PASS IT?

Seriously, Stuckey had a 15 footer I've seen him hit a thousand times and was into his shot when he passed the ball...

To a team mate further away from the hoop (open or not the 22 footer is more difficult to hit than the 15 footer)

Now while I was sitting there re-watching those highlights I started to wonder WHY Stuckey passed the ball.

Did he pass it cause his team mate was in a better position (for a dunk or lay-up)? No

Did he pass it cause BG was red hot (can't really tell from highlights or boxscore)? I'm guessing BG wasn't.

So why the fuck did he pass it? To "be" a PG? To "involve" his team mate?

Fuck that shit - you got a shot you can make and your open? Shoot the fucking ball already.

Seriously, Stuckey had a 15 footer I've seen him hit a thousand times and was into his shot when he passed the ball...

To a team mate further away from the hoop (open or not the 22 footer is more difficult to hit than the 15 footer)



You've seen Stuck consistently hit open 15ft jumpers? I wish I saw the same thing as you did. I usually see someone who's jumper is improved but still needs some practice.

I dunno why Stuck passed the ball. I do know that I'd much rather have Gordon shoot from 20. He's going to make it from there alot more often than Stuck from 15.

Yeah, that's those guys roles, whether it's what Stuck is best at or not, if he sees BG open, get the dude the ball.

Stuckey's mid-range shot was locked in that game, too. He wasn't missing much from the floor and probably should have shot it. The only thing I can think of is that it didn't feel right in his hands as he went up and thought BGs shot would be higher percentage than his putting up a shot with his hands out of wack.

Look, I understand that an open Ben Gordon from 22 feet is a damn good option.

I just don't understand why Stuckey passed up a shot in the lane that I have seen him hit a ton of times. (Did I say he's got a consistent jump shot from 15 feet, Koolaid? Or did I say I've seen Stuckey hit that shot a ton of times?)

Atti is probably right - the ball wasn't "right" in Stuckey's hands (since he did just bump off a defender who likely swiped at the ball).

It doesn't matter though - just a minor thing that I thought of while watching the highlights.

(Did I say he's got a consistent jump shot from 15 feet, Koolaid? Or did I say I've seen Stuckey hit that shot a ton of times?)



so if you seen a player hit a shot then he should shoot it? even if a shot that's more likely to go in is available? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Anytime Stuckey passes the ball it makes me think that he's trying to be a distributor instead of a PG with selfish tendencies wearing horse blinders.
All for the next chapter in his development.

so if you seen a player hit a shot then he should shoot it? even if a shot that's more likely to go in is available? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

I said I've seen Stuckey make that shot a ton of times.

IMO he should have taken the shot cause he was in the lane.

The object of the game is to score points. It's easier to score points if you get closer to the hoop. Stuckey was closer than Gordon.

WTF do I need to explain?

I said I've seen Stuckey make that shot a ton of times.

IMO he should have taken the shot cause he was in the lane.

The object of the game is to score points. It's easier to score points if you get closer to the hoop. Stuckey was closer than Gordon.

WTF do I need to explain?

why you'd rather have Stuckey shoot a jumper in the lane, a shot he normally misses over Gordon shooting an uncontested jumper. You know Gordon's jumpshot is WAY better, so it doesn't make sense why you'd think that. Just because a player is closer to the basket it doesn't make him more of a threat, especially when the other option is Gordon.

Dude, I am not gonna continue to post the same thing over and over.

I merely posted my thoughts on ONE play during a 10 minute highlight reel to ask out loud:

Why did he pass the ball?

It could be any number of things.

I agree with the others and think it was a good choice to make the pass. I hope that is why he did it rather than some kind of self-consciousness about his shot. I want his shot to improve. I don't want him afraid to take open jumpers.

I was wondering if he passed on the shot because a little voice in his head said, "that's what a real PG would do"

That's why I posted it. Shouldn't have bothered...

Or maybe should have articulated it better.

I was wondering if he passed on the shot because a little voice in his head said, "that's what a real PG would do"

That's why I posted it. Shouldn't have bothered...

Or maybe should have articulated it better.

I understand what you were saying. I'm just not sure if you're saying you don't want the starting point guard to actually play like a point guard, because finding the most efficient chance at putting points on the board is exactly what a PG should be doing.

I understand what you were saying.

If you did then why ask this...


I'm just not sure if you're saying you don't want the starting point guard to actually play like a point guard, because finding the most efficient chance at putting points on the board is exactly what a PG should be doing.

You understand what I'm saying, but you're not sure?

WTF?

Yes, I want him to play like a PG.

Fuck - the next time I watch highlights I ain't posting shit.

who was to blame on that turnover last night stuckey or gordon? Under our own basket

How come Stuckey is held to such a different standard in here than Bynum and Gordon?

Because Bynum and Gordon weren't designated the heir apparent.

Because Bynum and Gordon weren't designated the heir apparent.
A valid point. But it seems a little harsh that Stuckey is always villified for certain things when Bynum is applauded for the very same reason.

Someone applauded Bynum for not being able to defend Kobe?

I can see the day approaching very quickly where Tayshaun is dealt, and Stuckey takes over as the starting SF, while Bynum starts at PG.

Someone applauded Bynum for not being able to defend Kobe?
Nope, but no one is harsh on Bynum for his inability to guard him.

I can see the day approaching very quickly where Tayshaun is dealt, and Stuckey takes over as the starting SF, while Bynum starts at PG.

That's kind of where I was going in post #65.

Visions of Desmond Mason are streaming through my mind. Ugh.

Might be better than this, though.

because Dez Mason was so great off the dribble...

because Dez Mason was so great off the dribble...
Forgive me, for I am not on your level. I'm sure you would have come up with the perfect player comparison in under 60 seconds flat.

Nope, but no one is harsh on Bynum for his inability to guard him.

Who is harsh on Stuckey's lack of guarding Kobe? Gla is mad that Stuckey couldn't play offense while Kstat is saying Stuck guarded Kobe well.

Forgive me, for I am not on your level. I'm sure you would have come up with the perfect player comparison in under 60 seconds flat.
I'll give you 60 minutes.

Shit, I'll give you 60 days. It makes no difference.

I'm not "being harsh" on Stuckey for not being able to guard Kobe. Nobody can guard Kobe. I'm taking exception to Kstat lauding his defense on Kobe on a night where he was -30, Kobe went for 40 but it was all because Coach Q had to pull the plug on the Kobe Stopping just to get more offense.

of those 40, he scored a whopping two points on Stuckey on 9 touches in the post.

At that point, the Pistons were winning, then Stuckey had to come out and by the time he got back in, Kobe had gone off.

Throw me a link to that, just for giggles.

So is it your position that Stuckey went -30 despite playing excellent defense on whomever he switched to after he shut Kobe down? And can you also explain why getting more offense was more important than keeping Kobe shut down by keeping Stuckey on him?

Again, full disclosure, I only saw the 1st half.

I'll give you 60 minutes.

Shit, I'll give you 60 days. It makes no difference.


Do you have one? I'll take CMaggs I guess.

Its a hell of a lot better than Mason.

A poor man's Grant Hill wouldnt be a bad one, either. Stuckey has a little of everything Grant had in a smaller package. Obviously he wouldnt be as dominant a SF as Grant, be I can see him putting up a triple double or two from that sport, as well as playing solid defense.

Dude, I just pulled out the first name of an undersized SF that can't shoot that came to mind. God, get over yourself.

well, thinking was probably your first critical error.

LMAO @ Grant Hill as a Stuckey comparison.

And you had the nerve to laugh at Desmond Mason? ha ha ha

Here's an opinion on Stuckey from this summer, if you like stats.

http://blog.mlive.com/its-just-sports/2009/06/statspeak_deconstructing_the_m.html

Warning: it gets a little crazy at the end.

Hill similar to Stuckey? Hill was pretty damn good with his pull up mid range jumper off the dribble. I don't remember Stuckey being any good at that.

Who is harsh on Stuckey's lack of guarding Kobe? Gla is mad that Stuckey couldn't play offense while Kstat is saying Stuck guarded Kobe well.
This wasn't an isolated quote I was pointing at. I might have done better to post that thought in the "Will Bynum owns" or "Rodney Stuckey Evaluation" threads. I've just noticed around here that Stuckey gets a lot of criticism for a lot of silly things while Bynum gets praised for doing a lot of the same things Stuckey already does. I just see a double standard here.

Grant Hill was the most complete player in the NBA during his tenure with the Pistons. They don't even play remotely the same type of game. I'm not sure that's the best comparison you've ever made, K.

Tahoe definitely agrees with you that there are double standards here.

Grant Hill was the most complete player in the NBA during his tenure with the Pistons. They don't even play remotely the same type of game. I'm not sure that's the best comparison you've ever made, K.

The only hole in his game would have been 3 point range. Otherwise he could do just about anything you needed.

I think Stuck has 5 double digit assist games in his career as a PG, not sure how many he'd get one fed the ball on the wing as passing off the dribble is not a skill of his.

I think he'd do a bit better job passing off the ball. It would be easier for him to play off of instinct if he wasnt asked to run the offense.

Stuckey has the potential to be a guy that can give you a little bit of everything. He's a fantastic rebounder, a very good slasher, a decent passer, and a much better defender at the 3 than he is at the 1.

He's also very good at creating his pull-up jumper. He really needs to work on the accuracy, but the potential is there.

Stuckey is Baron Davis (without hops).

Stuckey's a good guy though. Decent actor from what I saw in that one commercial.

Stuckey is Baron Davis (without hops).

baron davis has really good court vision.

Just wanted to agree with Mo:


But it seems a little harsh that Stuckey is always villified for certain things when Bynum is applauded for the very same reason

And the reason for it is... Joe's choice to trade Chauncey.

Throw in the fact that Bynum is one of those undrafted/unwanted/underdogs and you can see why Will Bynum gets nothing but love while Stuckey gets nothing but hate

Just wanted to agree with Mo:



And the reason for it is... Joe's choice to trade Chauncey.

Throw in the fact that Bynum is one of those undrafted/unwanted/underdogs and you can see why Will Bynum gets nothing but love while Stuckey gets nothing but hate
That, and their actual play.

But I agree that from the moment that Joe 'anoited' Stuckey in the "no sacred cows" speech and then the Chauncey trade, he put he bullseye on him.

That, and their actual play.

But I agree that from the moment that Joe 'anoited' Stuckey in the "no sacred cows" speech and then the Chauncey trade, he put he bullseye on him.
I really don't want to start a huge argument, but how is Will Bynum that much better than Stuckey in your opinion? How does he get that much love from you, and yet you want to murder Stuckey's family and have Darko fuck his daughter?

He's shooting .100 better and getting more FTs out of his attempts.

I wouldn't go that far, Mo.

But, yes GD has an intense hatred for Stuckey

I really don't want to start a huge argument, but how is Will Bynum that much better than Stuckey in your opinion? How does he get that much love from you, and yet you want to murder Stuckey's family and have Darko fuck his daughter?

I just don’t enjoy watching him play basketball. It’s too frustrating.

Poor court vision
Poor shooting
Poor shot selection
Can’t finish at the rim
Doesn’t look to involve teammates/tunnel vision/ballhogging
Poor passing skills
Poor handle
Lacks finesse in his movements (he’s like a bull in a china shop)
Low bball IQ
etc.

I don't see a problem with any of those things with Bynum.

I just don’t enjoy watching him play basketball. It’s too frustrating.

Poor court vision
Poor shooting
Poor shot selection
Can’t finish at the rim
Doesn’t look to involve teammates/tunnel vision/ballhogging
Poor passing skills
Poor handle
Lacks finesse in his movements (he’s like a bull in a china shop)
Low bball IQ
etc.

I don't see a problem with any of those things with Bynum.

You forgot to add that he's stupid to your list. He just doesn't get how to play basketball and that sometimes it's better just to rotate the ball in hopes of putting you(and others) in a better opportunity to score later in the possession. Stuckey's an idiot.

I guess that's what you get when you annoint someone as a future leader when they weren't even good enough to lead their college team to anything but a .500 record in both of his collegiate seasons. Stuckey sucks.

I thought I'd never have to sit through another stackhouse-like experience of being forced to watch someone play big minutes and ruin a basketball team but I guess history has a way of repeating itself.

ok Glan. And mrs. Glan.

Flip Murray.


I just don’t enjoy watching him play basketball. It’s too frustrating.

Poor court vision
Poor shooting
Poor shot selection
Can’t finish at the rim
Doesn’t look to involve teammates/tunnel vision/ballhogging
Poor passing skills
Poor handle
Lacks finesse in his movements (he’s like a bull in a china shop)
Low bball IQ
etc.

I don't see a problem with any of those things with Bynum.

Flip has better handle, court awareness/vision, body control and he finishes strong.

But there are more similarities between the two of them than differences, that's for sure.

For a true apples/apples comparison, if we can re-sign Stuckey to a vet's minimum contract and cut his minutes way back, then you'll rarely ever hear me complain about him again.

Flip has better handle, court awareness/vision, body control and he finishes strong.
which still resulted in lower fg% and assists, and higher turnovers?



For a true apples/apples comparison, if we can re-sign Stuckey to a vet's minimum contract and cut his minutes way back, then you'll rarely ever hear me complain about him again.
You are saying you have a problem with his contract and/or minutes. That's what frustrates you to watch him play.

I'm saying that I expect and accept a lot of flaws in veteran's minimum players that move from team to team as snipers off the bench. There's a different standard for "the future of the franchise" players.

I'm saying that I expect and accept a lot of flaws in veteran's minimum players that move from team to team as snipers off the bench. There's a different standard for "the future of the franchise" players.
Wait, so if stukey makes less and plays less, you would actually ENJOY watching him play like you do flip? Wouldn't this be the year for you to do that, considering even Flip Murray is making more than Stuckey FWIW?

If his play doesn't warrant him a contract that "the future of the franchise" would get, he probably won't get it. Why does that bother anyone?

which still resulted in lower fg% and assists, and higher turnovers?


2008/09 Stats
FG%
Stuckey .439
Murray .447

Ast per 36
Stuckey 5.5 (While playing PG, exclusively)
Murray 2.9 (As a SCORER off the bench)

TO per 36
Stuckey 2.5
Murray 2.3

Nevermind that they are playing totally different roles and that Murray makes a fraction of what Stuckey soon will.

The fact that you are making me pull stats to compare Stuckey to Murray says a lot about how far we've come in this discussion, I suppose. It's regrettable that this has to degrade into another Flip Murray vs. Stuckey debate and not what MoTown intended it to be, but you took it there, so be it.

Wait, so if stukey makes less and plays less, you would actually ENJOY watching him play like you do flip?


No, if he made less (than he soon will) and he played less, then my expectations would be different so I wouldn't be as vocal about his shortcomings. Seeing him put on this plateau by the organization and fans is very troubling to me as A PISTONS FAN.

So here's the hypocrisy. Flip was making peanuts here as a hired gun and got scrutinized to no end. Stuckey was anoited as the sacred cow and is the golden boy. WTF is up with that?

I've said time and time again that I don't really think all that highly of Murray, he's certainly got his flaws, but he's got a role in today's NBA - and he is in the right role, whereas Stuckey is well, not. I just recognize that the dude got a raw deal from those here. And again, if Flip Murray is the standard that you are comparing Stuckey too, I wouldn't be too proud of that.

Ast per 36
Stuckey 5.5 (and he isn't a point guard, remember?)
Murray 2.9

TO per 36
Stuckey 2.5 (While playing PG, exclusively)
Murray 2.3 (As a SCORER off the bench)



Flip has better handle, court awareness/vision




Career Stats
FG%
Stuckey .423
Murray .418




if he made less (than he soon will) and he played less
...
Flip was making peanuts here as a hired gun and got scrutinized to no end.
Really? With you on the board you found Flip was criticized more?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but again Stuckey is making the same as Murray did, and less than what Murray is making now.


I've said time and time again that I don't really think all that highly of Murray Good. On the other hand, how many here is making Stuckey the anointed one, the golden boy? Are you worried that if he plays like crap or to the level of Flip Murray, he'll get a max deal?

I didn't bring up Flip Murray to compare their production, but their style of play. There's got to be different standards wrt expectations on their productions, that I agree. Stuckey may or may not fulfil these expectations, and Flip is what he is.

But different standards wrt what you enjoy is something I don't quite get. What you listed you don't enjoy about Stuckey, how many of them are less true of Murray? You like what Flip does for 24 min a game, and you don't like it when he does it for 31 min? Or you like that too but you just don't like Stuckey doing it for 31? Because he makes - scratch that - might some day make, more money?

Gla doesn't think much of Murray, he just never stops bringing him up or defending him whenever he thinks Murray's honor is being besmirched.

The Murray thing is a gag, if you haven't figured that out by now, then I don't know what to tell you. I like to have fun with it from time to time, but every once in a while it would be nice to have some legitimate discussion about Stuckey, which is what I thought we were doing here. I'm okay with keeping it going if that is what you guys want.

Another thing that is concerning about the Stuckey situation is the common perception (led by Langlois) that his struggles last year were due to all of the chaos with Curry, AI, etc. Well, those obstacles are not there this year, and he might even look worse this year. And yes, there are new ready-made excuses, with varying degrees of validity, in play (injuries, new coach, etc) but at what point does stuckey need to wear the hat of responsibilty?

I know that some of you will twist this, but I'll try to be clear here, yes, he is by far better off than Darko was when he was here, but if you tell me that at least some of this doesn't feel familiar, then I will question your honesty.

OK, GD - I just wanna get a clear answer here:

Was any of your hate for Stuckey born out of the organisation pimping him as the "sacred cow"?

Do you hate him because they are making him play PG?
Do you hate him because they are starting him over Bynum?
Do you hate him because they are generally doing everything they can to push him as the "future of the franchise"?

Cause if you hate him for any of that you might wanna remember that the kid has no control over it. He's here to play and is doing the best he can.

You know I don't think he's a PG. Why would I hate him because the organisation is trying to make him one? It's not the kid's fault.

The list of things that I posted earlier today in this thread are the main reasons I don't care for his game. The things that you just posted are merely secondary annoyances.

I'm also hoping that Joe doesn't do something stupid like give him a big extension before he has to.

Flip gets paid less on the min. deal, the league picks a piece of it up.

And the issue isn't the pay, it's the assets sunk into him. Vet's min guys are supposed to sit on their asses until the 46th minute of blowouts. 15th overall picks from supposedly strong drafts should be able to handle a starting role.

You put that better than I did, thanks.

Since he doesn't have the sullied rep that I do around here, and he's widely accepted as a very good poster, it would be nice if someone other than Kstat would comment on yargs' post, too.

I don't think he's gonna get a massive extension - not unless he really steps it up between now and when it's due.

Yarg was angry. I don't really know about Stuck's intellect, I'm not at practices to see him try and grasp things. I just see him not enact them at game time.

All this Bynum v Stuckey shit bums me out but:

Has the organisation done Stuckey a dis-service by trying to fit his square peg into the round hole?

From the get-go he was touted as a poor man's Wade. So instead of using him off the bench behind Billups and Rip, or Iverson and Rip we moved Chauncey and gave him the starting job at PG.

Dude wasn't ready for that. He wasn't and is not a PG.

Yes, Bynum is more of a PG than Stuckey. Priase Willie, Amen!

Bynum also has a clearly defined role while it seems Stuckey's is not.

One night he needs to be a "real" PG - getting the ball to the right dudes at the right time while picking his spots in the offense.

The next night he needs to be the scorer cause other dudes aren't firing and on these nights we'll forgive him if he takes a few bad shots or whatever cause he's Luke fucking Skywalker (aka our only hope)

The next night he's being asked to defend bigger players cause we simply don't have other options and also either run the offense or be the leading scorer.

The next night he's back to running the show and picking his spots!

WTF?

He's not a veteran that knows his game inside out, knows what he can and can't do every single night and knows what to do to get himself in the flow of the game. He's still finding his way because he's been fucked around by the organisation.

Bynum? It's real easy for him - come in, push the pace, take it to the rack and go young fella. You did good!

I wonder if we're once again screwing with a promising young player...

And let the record show that this organisation has not "developed" any young talent since Tayshaun Prince.

You forgot to add that he's stupid to your list. He just doesn't get how to play basketball and that sometimes it's better just to rotate the ball in hopes of putting you(and others) in a better opportunity to score later in the possession. Stuckey's an idiot.

lol I wouldn't say Stuckey is an idiot.



I guess that's what you get when you annoint someone as a future leader when they weren't even good enough to lead their college team to anything but a .500 record in both of his collegiate seasons. Stuckey sucks.

I bolded the part about "annoiting someone as the future leader" cause it seems to be one of the main things people point to when hacking on the kid.

Did he annoit himself? Is he at fault for the organisation dealing Chauncey? Is he at fault because they wanna make him a PG? Dude gets drafted, is happy to be here and play BEHIND Billups and Rip. Dude plays pretty well as a rookie and BOOM! next thing you know he's the sacred cow.

How is that his fault?



I thought I'd never have to sit through another stackhouse-like experience of being forced to watch someone play big minutes and ruin a basketball team but I guess history has a way of repeating itself.

I certainly hope he ain't another Stackhouse. That dude never improved shit. Sucked on D, too.

And I honestly think that if Joe didn't annoit Stuckey the hatred for him wouldn't be at the level it is.

And I believe people blame Stuckey for the organisation's faults that have existed for years, but were hidden behind our run to the ECF every fucking season.

But now that we're not so successful people are seeing that maybe everything ain't right in the front office after all...

I can admit that the Darko experience effects how I feel about this go around to a small degree. I don't care who is at fault, I just hope it gets corrected. I agree with many of your points in your earlier post, fwiw. I don't blame stuckey for the situation he's in, I just think he might not be very good.
Another note of interest, the latest line of BS that I've been seeing from Langlois is the assertion that we don't need to worry about stuckey because Q's offense doesn't require a "traditional" PG.

I read that and translated it too, remember?

lol I wouldn't say Stuckey is an idiot.

I bolded the part about "annoiting someone as the future leader" cause it seems to be one of the main things people point to when hacking on the kid.

Did he annoit himself? Is he at fault for the organisation dealing Chauncey? Is he at fault because they wanna make him a PG? Dude gets drafted, is happy to be here and play BEHIND Billups and Rip. Dude plays pretty well as a rookie and BOOM! next thing you know he's the sacred cow.

How is that his fault?

I certainly hope he ain't another Stackhouse. That dude never improved shit. Sucked on D, too.

And I honestly think that if Joe didn't annoit Stuckey the hatred for him wouldn't be at the level it is.

And I believe people blame Stuckey for the organisation's faults that have existed for years, but were hidden behind our run to the ECF every fucking season.

But now that we're not so successful people are seeing that maybe everything ain't right in the front office after all...

Maybe in life stuckey isn't an idiot, he seems like a nice enough fellow and to genuinely care, but on the basketball court it seems like he doesn't get it...for now. At some point after getting your $hit thrown for the 13th time in a game (which essentially is a turn over because it usually leads to a fast break for the other team) you'd think you'd take a step back, reflect and re-think some of the decisions you make on the basketball floor in terms of your shot selection. He doesn't appear to do this.

With that being said, he's not nearly as bad as he's currently playing (and is infinitely better than both flip murray and jerry stackhouse, I might have hyperbolized a bit in my prevous post).

He's unfortunately being asked to make plays while playing major minutes with 2 (and sometimes 3 when charlie V gets in foul trouble) offensive zeroes in ben wallace and the swede which can make quality shots difficult to find in a 24 second span (and reminds me of the good 'ole days of when ben wallace and michael curry were in the same lineup and we wondered why the pistons couldn't score points....I thought I couldn't hate a piston more than sean elliott until michael curry came along)

I just think stuckey is a bit over-hyped. He's really not that good and really not that bad. I also don't recall him playing exceptionally well his rookie season. His so-called "break-out" during the post-season in 2008 resulted in him lighting up the nets at a 37% clip which is downright awful.

Last year he played well enough and shot a decent % and took better shots mainly out of necessity because of the amount of veterans on the club the he needed to get the ball to so he's capable of being much better than he is now with better players around him. I just wished he'd recognize his inability to score consistently and efficiently and instead use his strengths (quickness, strength) to benefit his teammates by finding the efficient scorers better shots, the true sign of a guy that understands how to play basketball.

Maybe I'm just biased against him because I wanted nothing to do with him on draft day, which I believe is documented somewhere on this forum. I don't like tweener guards that can't shoot and can't finish near the rim and weren't good enough to win basketball games in college. I do hope he figures things out and proves me wrong.

I bolded the part about "annoiting someone as the future leader" cause it seems to be one of the main things people point to when hacking on the kid.

Did he annoit himself? Is he at fault for the organisation dealing Chauncey? Is he at fault because they wanna make him a PG? Dude gets drafted, is happy to be here and play BEHIND Billups and Rip. Dude plays pretty well as a rookie and BOOM! next thing you know he's the sacred cow.

How is that his fault?


I don't like this response. No one is advocating walking up to Stuckey and telling him he is responsible for failing to rise to the challenge of being annointed the leader of the group. So it not being "his fault," doesn't really matter at all. It's clearly Dumars' fault as he was the one who did the annointing but again, it doesn't matter who's fault it is. Stuckey isn't getting it done and what he's not getting done is being the leader of the team. It doesn't matter how he got there or why, only that being the new leader is his job and he's not doing it well right now.

It's worth noting that, at the moment, Stuckey is top 10 in minutes played in the league.

I don't like this response. No one is advocating walking up to Stuckey and telling him he is responsible for failing to rise to the challenge of being annointed the leader of the group. So it not being "his fault," doesn't really matter at all. It's clearly Dumars' fault as he was the one who did the annointing but again, it doesn't matter who's fault it is. Stuckey isn't getting it done and what he's not getting done is being the leader of the team. It doesn't matter how he got there or why, only that being the new leader is his job and he's not doing it well right now.

Again I'll go with the bolded section:

His job is being the leader? According to who?

How old is Stuckey? How long has he been here?

How the fuck does he get the job of leader on a team with Prince, Rip, Ben Gordon and Ben Wallace?

Rip, Tay or Ben x2 should be leading Stuckey, mentoring him and helping the kid through.

But hey, who cares right? It's easier to blame the "sacred cow."

And yargs, I had a long ass reply but I lost it.

According to fucking Dumars Australia. It was in sentence right before.

Exactly - so hate the person responsible.

Most people mention the sacred cow speech AND the leader thing.

Who put all that on Rodney Stuckey?

Blame Joe. Hate Joe.

But it seems that's not an option for many of you.

Is Joe the ultimate "sacred cow"?

Joe and his cronies have a history of:

Wasting Draft picks. Documented over and over again.

Hiring the wrong Coach, firing said Coach, then repeating the fucking mistake over and over again.

Having no fucking idea when it comes to re-signing their own players, going all the way back to Cliff Robinson's extension that the GSW thankfully saved us from (Shout out to Bobby Sura). Maxiell and Rip are just the latest examples of this shit.

But we can't blame Joe.

You can blame the players he brings here.
You can blame the Coaches he hires.
You can blame the scouts he oversees.
You can blame the owners he works for.

But you can't blame Joe.

He is the sacred cow!

I think most do blame Joe and have made that relatively clear.

Doesn't change the fact that Stuckey's not cutting it in the role he's been given, regardless of who's fault it is.

If it was made clear why all the hate for Stuckey?

The kid is in his 3rd season.

Playing for his 3rd fucking coach.

As I stated previously his role seems to change on a nightly basis

And according to the great Joe Dumars the future of this franchise hinges on this kid!

Who would wanna be Stuckey?

And yargs, I had a long ass reply but I lost it.

No problem. You know I respect your opinion so I'm sure similar subjects will be hit upon in the future. This is shaping up to be a very interesting season.

Yeah - the Stuckey/Bynum thing is likely gonna be THE topic of the season.

I'm sure it looks like I'm a massive Stuckey fan but the truth is I'm not. I just don't like seeing the amount of crap this kid cops when it's not his fault.

Fool might not care who's fault it IMO if you wanna pick on the kid for shit beyond his control that's pretty fucked up.

Yeah - the Stuckey/Bynum thing is likely gonna be THE topic of the season.

I'm sure it looks like I'm a massive Stuckey fan but the truth is I'm not. I just don't like seeing the amount of crap this kid cops when it's not his fault.

Fool might not care who's fault it IMO if you wanna pick on the kid for shit beyond his control that's pretty fucked up.
2 things:

1. I think the disconnect with the position that you are taking in this post stems from you seemingly putting "justice for Stuckey" ahead of "putting the best team on the floor". It's a noble and kind-hearted position to take about a cold-hearted game. And I'm lolling a bit because...

2. It sounds a lot like the argument that I've made time and again when defending another former Piston that has already been mentioned way too much when talking about Stuckey, especially the last part of your post. If you change the name in that post it almost reads like it could be straight from me in Fool's watch thread in The Stands, The problem is, one guy was a vet's minimum role player that should have had little/no expectations and one is our starting point guard that was deemed the untouchable face of the franchise by the organization. It's really hard to judge them by the same standard.

Lastly,
it's too bad that a lot of this discussion is going to get buried in a game thread, maybe I'll get bored enough to move some of it to one of our Stuckey threads someday. It's cool that we can actually have some discussion about this, though.

2 things:

1. I think the disconnect with the position that you are taking in this post stems from you seemingly putting "justice for Stuckey" ahead of "putting the best team on the floor". It's a noble and kind-hearted position to take about a cold-hearted game. And I'm lolling a bit because...

I am not putting "justice for Stuckey" ahead of the team.

Fuck Rodney Stuckey.

My position is that if you wanna crucify the kid then let's look at the real reasons he's so hated:

He's hated cause he was called the sacred cow (Joe's fault)
He's hated cause he was called the future of the franchise/future leader (Joe's fault again)
He's hated because the organisation, via your local media, protects the kid from the harsh realities of fandom (witness Langlois' shit)

Yes, I understand the kid isn't the greatest guard to ever play the game. Yes I understand he makes some dumbass plays on a nightly basis.

I also understand that he's in his 3rd season, on his 3rd coach and his role seems to change constantly. Or doesn't any of that matter? The fact that he survived last season and isn't totally mentally destroyed by it (Hello, Darko) is a good thing.




2. It sounds a lot like the argument that I've made time and again when defending another former Piston that has already been mentioned way too much when talking about Stuckey, especially the last part of your post. If you change the name in that post it almost reads like it could be straight from me in Fool's appreciation thread, The problem is, one guy was a vet's minimum role player that should have had little/no expectations and one is our starting point guard that was deemed the untouchable face of the franchise by the organization. It's really hard to judge them by the same standard.

Flip Murray has NOTHING to do with this discussion as far as I'm concerned. I'm not concerned with his paycheck, the expectations people have or the hype.

I'm looking at a young guard that seems to be doing pretty well most of the time - yet he cops a lot of shit on here.



Lastly,
it's too bad that a lot of this discussion is going to get buried in a game thread, maybe I'll get bored enough to move some of it to one of our Stuckey threads someday. It's cool that we can actually have some discussion about this, though.

Don't care if it gets buried, moved or made into it's own thread.

I'm just happy we can actually discuss the PG situation (and Stuckey in particular) without it turning into a shitstorm.

And now the Yargs reply. I didn't wanna just move on, man - cause you so rarely post I had to do it:


Maybe in life stuckey isn't an idiot, he seems like a nice enough fellow and to genuinely care, but on the basketball court it seems like he doesn't get it...for now. At some point after getting your $hit thrown for the 13th time in a game (which essentially is a turn over because it usually leads to a fast break for the other team) you'd think you'd take a step back, reflect and re-think some of the decisions you make on the basketball floor in terms of your shot selection. He doesn't appear to do this.

I put this down to him changing roles nightly and IMO thinking too much out there. He's "trying" to do what a PG would do but it just goes against his natural game - which is to be a SG.

I'm guessing he's been the gunslinger on every team he's ever been on. As a rookie he was expected/told to come in and play your natural game. But once Chauncey got dealt he was forced to change and it just goes against his nature.



With that being said, he's not nearly as bad as he's currently playing (and is infinitely better than both flip murray and jerry stackhouse, I might have hyperbolized a bit in my prevous post).

He's unfortunately being asked to make plays while playing major minutes with 2 (and sometimes 3 when charlie V gets in foul trouble) offensive zeroes in ben wallace and the swede which can make quality shots difficult to find in a 24 second span (and reminds me of the good 'ole days of when ben wallace and michael curry were in the same lineup and we wondered why the pistons couldn't score points....I thought I couldn't hate a piston more than sean elliott until michael curry came along)

And having all these non-scorers on the floor with him makes his task as a "PG" even more difficult for the him because he's not a real PG. Again he's being asked to manufacture points out of 2 dudes that couldn't score with a $2 whore.

A guy like Chris Paul or Rondo can get those kind of guys easy buckets because they're real PG's. Stuckey is not a PG. He doesn't naturally think of ways to set those dudes up for the easy hoop.



I just think stuckey is a bit over-hyped. He's really not that good and really not that bad. I also don't recall him playing exceptionally well his rookie season. His so-called "break-out" during the post-season in 2008 resulted in him lighting up the nets at a 37% clip which is downright awful.

Last year he played well enough and shot a decent % and took better shots mainly out of necessity because of the amount of veterans on the club the he needed to get the ball to so he's capable of being much better than he is now with better players around him.

I think he proved in the right situation he can be very effective (despite the poor FG%. By being allowed to pick his spots he probably let the game come to him more and he wasn't under pressure to deliver cause we had Chauncey and Rip or Iverson and Rip to score the ball.


I just wished he'd recognize his inability to score consistently and efficiently and instead use his strengths (quickness, strength) to benefit his teammates by finding the efficient scorers better shots, the true sign of a guy that understands how to play basketball.


I think now that's not an option for him, depending on the night lol. Some nights he's gonna have to just keep launching it cause Gordon is off, or Bynum is off, or Rip/Tay are injured. I think he understands the game, he's just not in a position to let the game come to him and operate naturally.



Maybe I'm just biased against him because I wanted nothing to do with him on draft day, which I believe is documented somewhere on this forum. I don't like tweener guards that can't shoot and can't finish near the rim and weren't good enough to win basketball games in college. I do hope he figures things out and proves me wrong.

Maybe you are, maybe you aren't. I'm sure if Stuckey was controlling the game and directing shit out there you'd be happy to be proven wrong. I'm sure actual stats mean little too you and it's more his play that will make you happy/pissed off

Same for me and Maxiell - if that fucker ever has a stellar season I'd be so fucking happy I'll jump for joy.

I just don't think that Maxiell or Stuckey will ever proven us wrong here because of the situation they find themselves in.

The Detroit Pistons organisation is not a place for young players to develop. That's proven. That's fact.

WOW! How's that for an essay? Told ya it was long yargs.