Starting Point Guard thru December?

[JBcat]

Neither Ainge nor DJ were "assist" masters. But between them they got the ball over half court (it was a little dicey for Ainge sometimes...)and they initiated the offense.

Bird initiated a lot of the offense on the break or in the half court.

While having a guy like Rondo is a nice luxury, this team could be similar even when Rondo returns. Bradley Green can certainly initiate the break in certain situations and Olynyk could do a lot of facilitating in the half court sets.

Other than Rondo, nobody currently on the roster is as good a passer as Bird, McHale, Parish, or perhaps even Ainge were.  Passing was part of those guys' greatness.

I don't recall Mchale being that good of a passer.  Didn't Ainge call him a black hole on offense?

[Galeto]

With Rondo out, Pressey's the only real point guard on this team but he's a short, undrafted rookie.  I can't see him playing a lot of minutes just because he's the only one capable of dribbling and passing like a point guard.

I'd guess the Celtics are going to play with a point guard-less offense because they'll have to.  Whether it's Lee or Bradley or Green who is called the point, that guy isn't going to have the ball as much as a typical point.  They'll all take turns.  In other words, it'll be a disaster. After Pressey, the two best passers look to be Sullinger and Olynyk.  Crawford's a talented passer but has too much tunnel vision for scoring.  Green's not bad either; he's good at kickouts and pretty solid with pick and rolls/pops but everyone else is below-average or in the case of Bass, is probably even bad at feeding passes during warmups. 

[PhoSita]

Neither Ainge nor DJ were "assist" masters. But between them they got the ball over half court (it was a little dicey for Ainge sometimes...)and they initiated the offense.

Bird initiated a lot of the offense on the break or in the half court.

While having a guy like Rondo is a nice luxury, this team could be similar even when Rondo returns. Bradley Green can certainly initiate the break in certain situations and Olynyk could do a lot of facilitating in the half court sets.

Other than Rondo, nobody currently on the roster is as good a passer as Bird, McHale, Parish, or perhaps even Ainge were.  Passing was part of those guys' greatness.

I don't recall Mchale being that good of a passer.  Didn't Ainge call him a black hole on offense?

Passing ability and willingness to pass are not the same thing.

I'll stipulate to the fact that I never actually watched any of the live games with the original Big 3, but in a lot of those old videos of the team you can see pretty much everybody on the floor get involved in some really nifty fast-break passing, and even McHale gets into it flicking the ball behind his back or over his head (sometimes in reverse) to a cutting Bird or DJ or whoever.

[Galeto]

I was browsing through the basketball reference page of the Celtics and didn't realize Avery, Lee and Green all had higher turnover percentages than assist percentages last season.  In fact, Lee's the only one who has had a higher assist percentage than turnover percentage for a season and he's only done it once.  I can't believe these three guys might run the offense for the starting unit next season.  I can't say I mind this.  With no expectations, I'd rather they be bad in odd, almost experimental ways than bad in normal, conventional ways.   

[More Banners]

Neither Ainge nor DJ were "assist" masters. But between them they got the ball over half court (it was a little dicey for Ainge sometimes...)and they initiated the offense.

Bird initiated a lot of the offense on the break or in the half court.

While having a guy like Rondo is a nice luxury, this team could be similar even when Rondo returns. Bradley Green can certainly initiate the break in certain situations and Olynyk could do a lot of facilitating in the half court sets.

Other than Rondo, nobody currently on the roster is as good a passer as Bird, McHale, Parish, or perhaps even Ainge were.  Passing was part of those guys' greatness.

I don't recall Mchale being that good of a passer.  Didn't Ainge call him a black hole on offense?

Passing ability and willingness to pass are not the same thing.

I'll stipulate to the fact that I never actually watched any of the live games with the original Big 3, but in a lot of those old videos of the team you can see pretty much everybody on the floor get involved in some really nifty fast-break passing, and even McHale gets into it flicking the ball behind his back or over his head (sometimes in reverse) to a cutting Bird or DJ or whoever.

Actually, McHale was excellent as a passer.

What was really great about that little group together was ability and chemistry coming together.  They were smart passers.  They didn't need a distributor to run the fast break because they knew how to make the ball move faster than players and got hoops with 3-4 passes and not a dribble.  People moved without the ball, knew where the space would be and went there.  If McHale had to step out to get an entry pass, Bird would cut in.  2-man game, all passing an instinct, Bird and McHale.  Double either and Ainge and DJ (top of key) would make you pay.

We have several players that seem to have those type of instincts, and they include Rondo and Sully, and hopefully Olynyk as well, so much as we can tell from a summer league.

[Eric M VAN]

I was browsing through the basketball reference page of the Celtics and didn't realize Avery, Lee and Green all had higher turnover percentages than assist percentages last season.  In fact, Lee's the only one who has had a higher assist percentage than turnover percentage for a season and he's only done it once.  I can't believe these three guys might run the offense for the starting unit next season.  I can't say I mind this.  With no expectations, I'd rather they be bad in odd, almost experimental ways than bad in normal, conventional ways.   

Yet Crawford is at
19.4 ASST%
15.5 TOV%
With Boston
and
25.5 ASST%
14.9 TOV%
with Washington.

[Galeto]

I was browsing through the basketball reference page of the Celtics and didn't realize Avery, Lee and Green all had higher turnover percentages than assist percentages last season.  In fact, Lee's the only one who has had a higher assist percentage than turnover percentage for a season and he's only done it once.  I can't believe these three guys might run the offense for the starting unit next season.  I can't say I mind thneed toitakes.  With no expectations, I'd rather they be bad in odd, almost experimental ways than bad in normal, conventional ways.   

Yet Crawford is at
19.4 ASST%
15.5 TOV%
With Boston
and
25.5 ASST%
14.9 TOV%
with Washington.

Yeah, Crawford is a very talented passer. I think he's the best passer on this team after Rondo. He averaged over 4 assists per 36 minutes with the Celtics while Green, Lee and Avery were all under 3. I think he's like a poor man's Brandon Jennings, which sounds pretty absurd but he has the same overwhelming belief in his ability to score while making difficult shots.  He might be better at it than Jennings is but unlike Jennings, he commits a lot of foolish turnovers trying to make difficult passes. If he could just play more under controlled, he'd be a fine player. 

[Galeto]

I think Bradley's biggest weakness is his left hand.  Last season, he avoilded dribbling with the left.  I suspect the shoulder may not have been 100% just based on how he seemed to favor it but I don't know.

That is no small issue.  I hope he is working on it.

If you saw Bradley in high school and college, you wouldn't say it had anything to do with his shoulder. He's been a poor ballhandler since high school.

I'm astonished when people downplay the significance of ballhandling in playing point guard. If you can't handle the ball like it's on a string so you can scan defenses without worrying that you'll be stripped of the ball, you simply can't play the position.

Billups was a point guard in high school and college. Avery was not. Billups was a scoringg point guard but he was used to having the ball all the time unlike Avery. He had no problems with handling the ball or passing.  His problem wasn't skill level like with Avery, it was finding the right balance of scoring and passing.

I don't know how Billups is an example of anyone being capable of learning how to play point guard. He was the third pick in the draft as a point guard. He was a very talented player, I'd more talented than Bradley and about 90 percent of the league.

[Galeto]

I'm a bit surprised this at myself but the numbers I just looked at in the link I published above, say Bradley is possibly the WORST choice on this team to fill in at PG.

There a few caveats because of Bradley's injury, inexperience etc, but his performance has been his performance and his game (statistically) just doesn't lend to him playing the position.

His assists/TO % are abysmal, he can't hasn't shown an ability to create shots for himself or others.

Don't get me wrong, I like they guy, but not as a PG from what I'm seeing.

LOL - here I am - a tried and convicted, 'stats guy' - to say:  "Stats don't mean xxxxx!"  and "Try watching the games with your eyes!!!"

More specifically, that article is, imho, once again simply a very poor usage of statistics.

I'm not saying that Bradley might not be 'the worst' choice to fill in at PG.  But that analysis in that article is pretty much useless to me if I want to ask that question.

Measurement without a normalized context is not very useful.   None of the numbers used in that 'analysis' have a normalized context and they are from very small samples.   Remarking that Bradley falls far from the prototypical PG in Adrien's 'cluster' analysis is silly.   Bradley last year was only playing 'PG' in that he was bringing the ball up.   He was almost never initiating the offense and not in a role to generate assists.  Heck, even in his SG role, his expectations have been quite different from what is expected of other SGs.   Last year overall was just a bizarre, twisted tale of make-shift, changing lineups with lots of our players being asked to do things they weren't expected to do.

The are just a ton of extraneous factors that make that sort of linear comparison silly.  Aside from the injuries and lack of training camp and 'inserted into a new role' issues, there are larger issues of what the team is trying to do in development of each of these players and where each player is in his development.

Folks have a tendency to forget that Bradley is still only 22 years old, with only portions of his three seasons under his belt.  He's too young and too untried to really say whether he can or can't do certain things.  To Ainge and Stevens, he represents a lot of raw athletic potential that they want to mold.  They are going to push him through their process and see if he can be shaped to become what they want.   They aren't going to NOT do that just because, at the moment, a player like Jordan Crawford might look like he has better PG skills-related stats.   Jordan Crawford is two years older and they know who he is.

When Bradley was in H.S., he was often the primary initiator of his team's offense.  He was good at that. Rated neck & neck with John Wall as the top 2 players in the nation.

Here are a couple of scouting comments from his performance at the National Prep Showcase (absolute top H.S players in the nation) in the fall of his senior year:

Avery Bradley (#10 Scout, #8 Rivals, #15 ESPN) was hands down the top performer here at the National Prep Showcase, willing his team to a 2-0 record while putting up gaudy numbers in the meantime.

and:

The Washington native is an absolute nightmare to guard offensively. The bread and butter of his game centers around his pull-up mid-range jumper, which he can create and get off at will. Capable of stopping on the drop of a dime, he gets outstanding elevation with a high release point on his pull-up. When combined with his great first step, he is able to get defenders back on their feet with his strong initial drive, and then rise up before they are able to even contest his jumper.

From DraftExpress.com http://www.draftexpress.com#ixzz2fwlzCONN
http://www.draftexpress.com

And then, at the end of his senior year, he was still getting similar accolades.  This one is from the ESPN RISE National High School Invitational:

After a weekend in which he dominated some of the top teams in the country, Avery Bradley (#10 Scout, #8 Rivals, #1 ESPN) has recently risen to the number one spot on ESPN's rankings of the class of 2009. Having already been scouted extensively by DraftExpress at several other events this year, this write up will be short.

The future Texas Longhorn had all of his weapons on display this past weekend in Maryland. He scored a tournament high 27 points in his second game of the tournament, doing the bulk of his damage with his stellar mid-range game. Bradley is extremely difficult to cover due to his excellent quickness, but also because of his ability to stop on a dime and elevate with a smooth shooting stroke. The McDonald's All-American dunk champion was able to get out in transition and wow the crowd a couple of times during the course of his three games with several impressive throw-downs.

From DraftExpress.com http://www.draftexpress.com#ixzz2fwmvUBTH
http://www.draftexpress.com

So Bradley clearly showed potential to be a 'play creator' and offensive go-to guy back then.  He wasn't being scouted as just a pure defensive player.

However, when he was at Texas, he was basically told to stay outside and shoot from the perimeter and play D.   He was mediocre at the former, but terrific at the latter.  His offensive numbers were kinda lame.  He declared for the draft anyway and so he fell all the way to #19 where we got him.   He also injured his ankle in a pre-draft workout and so ended up missing training camp and sitting on the bench for much of his rookie year. 

During that year, though, he did go spend 9 games with the Red Claws in Maine.   During that stretch, when he got a solid 32+ mpg, he was once again used more like he was in High School:  as a primary offensive weapon, including play initiator.  His pace-adjusted points and assist numbers during that stretch were almost twice anything he posted at Texas or with the Celics (yes, even better than Bradley was in 2011-12).

So, there have been some small stretches (H.S., D-League) where Bradley was asked to play a more commanding role on offense and he has shown flashes of brilliance.  Those have been, of course, at lower competitive levels (though against a lot of guys who are now in the Association).   He has not been asked yet to really do that at the NBA level.   We don't really know if he can do it at this level yet.

Hopefully, he can stay healthy this year and we will find out.  He may fail.  But the Celtics need to find out before they decide how much to pay him.

And yeah, I know, some very vocal fans on this blog like to insist that they can already 'see it' that he can't and never will and assert so loudly and often.  But Danny & Co probably have seen a bit more of Bradley than we have and they will be the final judges.

None of your snippets mention anything about his passing, not one thing.  His "play creator" capability is exclusively about his scoring.  These snippets do not help make the case that Bradley once upon a time showed the ability to play point guard.  I remember what people said about him him high school.  They said he was amazingly quick, that he was committed to defense way beyond his years and possessed a great pull up jumper but that he was a combo guard all that way.  I think they used the word "combo" only because that's usually what's said about 6'2-6'3 guys who can't play point full time.

In nine games in the D-League in 2011, he averaged 5.2 assists and 4.3 turnovers per game.  If you've ever seen a D-League game and are familiar with the caliber of play, that is not very impressive.  It's not a positive data point in his viability to play point guard.

For a "tried and convicted" stats guy who loathes to say to people to watch the game, you blast almost every statistical analysis posted here.  Coincidentally or not, the ones you blast always tend to have negative views of the players.  What makes you think that watching Bradley play will lead to the opposite conclusion anyway?  Having seen him all these games, I am 100 percent convinced he can't play point guard oh because I don't know, he can't dribble the freaking ball.

And thanks for the clarification, in case anyone was confused, that Danny and Co. will be the final judges.  I really really doubt that anyone didn't know that.  I think people know that it's just their opinions.

[PhoSita]

Neither Ainge nor DJ were "assist" masters. But between them they got the ball over half court (it was a little dicey for Ainge sometimes...)and they initiated the offense.

Bird initiated a lot of the offense on the break or in the half court.

While having a guy like Rondo is a nice luxury, this team could be similar even when Rondo returns. Bradley Green can certainly initiate the break in certain situations and Olynyk could do a lot of facilitating in the half court sets.

Other than Rondo, nobody currently on the roster is as good a passer as Bird, McHale, Parish, or perhaps even Ainge were.  Passing was part of those guys' greatness.

I don't recall Mchale being that good of a passer.  Didn't Ainge call him a black hole on offense?

Passing ability and willingness to pass are not the same thing.

I'll stipulate to the fact that I never actually watched any of the live games with the original Big 3, but in a lot of those old videos of the team you can see pretty much everybody on the floor get involved in some really nifty fast-break passing, and even McHale gets into it flicking the ball behind his back or over his head (sometimes in reverse) to a cutting Bird or DJ or whoever.

Actually, McHale was excellent as a passer.

What was really great about that little group together was ability and chemistry coming together.  They were smart passers.  They didn't need a distributor to run the fast break because they knew how to make the ball move faster than players and got hoops with 3-4 passes and not a dribble.  People moved without the ball, knew where the space would be and went there.  If McHale had to step out to get an entry pass, Bird would cut in.  2-man game, all passing an instinct, Bird and McHale.  Double either and Ainge and DJ (top of key) would make you pay.

We have several players that seem to have those type of instincts, and they include Rondo and Sully, and hopefully Olynyk as well, so much as we can tell from a summer league.

Part of what allows that kind of passing to work is having multiple scoring threats on the floor.

What was so great about the 80s team is that every single player in the starting lineup could score 15-20 points on any given night, and you had Bird and McHale as guys who could go off for 40+.  Parish was an accomplished scorer, too.  The 86 team also had Walton.

Compare that to the team we have headed into this season -- without Rondo, Green is gonna be the only guy on the floor who can consistently score 15-20 points, and he's not even that great at creating his own shot.  There won't be that same kind of space to make all those pinpoint passes.

[mmmmm]

I'm a bit surprised this at myself but the numbers I just looked at in the link I published above, say Bradley is possibly the WORST choice on this team to fill in at PG.

There a few caveats because of Bradley's injury, inexperience etc, but his performance has been his performance and his game (statistically) just doesn't lend to him playing the position.

His assists/TO % are abysmal, he can't hasn't shown an ability to create shots for himself or others.

Don't get me wrong, I like they guy, but not as a PG from what I'm seeing.

LOL - here I am - a tried and convicted, 'stats guy' - to say:  "Stats don't mean xxxxx!"  and "Try watching the games with your eyes!!!"

More specifically, that article is, imho, once again simply a very poor usage of statistics.

I'm not saying that Bradley might not be 'the worst' choice to fill in at PG.  But that analysis in that article is pretty much useless to me if I want to ask that question.

<removed a lot of stuff>

Hey, I always go with your interpretation when it comes to stats, but regardless of how you feel about his methodology, what statistical info would you trot out that makes Bradley a good, or even acceptable band aid for the PG position vs Crawford or Lee?

I hear what you're saying but do you think his conclusions are wrong or do you just not like how he got to them?

Do you think the 9 games he played in the D-League and how he played in high school are a better barometer of how he'll perform in the NBA than how he's actually performed in 145 games in the NBA and a year of college?

He's just been mis-coached or under utilized and has been just waiting for the right situation to show he's now an adequate PG?

I'm seriously confused, are you just being contrarian (fellow grouchy old man  )

Well, to answer your question, I wouldn't.

The fact is, I don't see any statistical basis for advocating Bradley as the 'band-aid' starting PG over Crawford -- except maybe defense at PG.

My point is, I also don't see any statistical basis for ruling him _out_ as a better choice for this.

In my opinion, there just really isn't enough data on Bradley playing true point on offense in the NBA to say he's good or bad.

At some point, you have rely on scouting and development and what the staff believes is within the potential of a young player.   No player coming out of h.s. or college has ever really 'proven' he can do anything in the NBA until he does.

Danny has been scouting Bradley for years and he and his staff know more about all their players than we do.  This is not just an appeal to authority, but rather a simple fact that fans have to accept.  That doesn't mean that the staff won't be wrong at times.

There is a trend that is being used by a couple of executives - most notably whatsisname at Orlando who used to be with OKC.   The idea is that if you have an SG with the right physical attributes - quickness, among other things - you try him out at PG and force-feed him into becoming competent at it.   This was done with Westbrook and is going to happen with Oladipo.  There will be growing pains, but if he makes the transition, you end up with a bigger PG who can shoot.  If he doesn't you slide them back to SG.   

I don't think the Celtic's intend long term to turn Bradley into a starting PG in the same way - because they apparently want Rondo for the long term in that role - but they may feel based on his attributes (beyond what he's displayed in his limited NBA time) that it is possible for Bradley to do the job, with some decent training.   And that it won't hurt his development at SG to try this out.

[Vermont Green]

Neither Ainge nor DJ were "assist" masters. But between them they got the ball over half court (it was a little dicey for Ainge sometimes...)and they initiated the offense.

Bird initiated a lot of the offense on the break or in the half court.

While having a guy like Rondo is a nice luxury, this team could be similar even when Rondo returns. Bradley Green can certainly initiate the break in certain situations and Olynyk could do a lot of facilitating in the half court sets.

Other than Rondo, nobody currently on the roster is as good a passer as Bird, McHale, Parish, or perhaps even Ainge were.  Passing was part of those guys' greatness.

Well yeah, Green is no Bird, Sullinger is no McHale, etc but why wold anyone expect them to be comparable to hall of famers?  I don't think Bradley will be come the next Bob Cousy but I think it makes sense to give him this time to be the primary PG.

If he never learns to dribble with his left hand (as someone suggested based on seeing him in High School), then he is not going to make it as a PG.

I think there is still quite a bit of ceiling space above this 22 year old player.  He may always be a little raw in terms of some of the more traditional PG skills but Rondo is a great PG and pretty raw in terms of his shooting ability.

[mmmmm]

I was browsing through the basketball reference page of the Celtics and didn't realize Avery, Lee and Green all had higher turnover percentages than assist percentages last season.  In fact, Lee's the only one who has had a higher assist percentage than turnover percentage for a season and he's only done it once.  I can't believe these three guys might run the offense for the starting unit next season.  I can't say I mind this.  With no expectations, I'd rather they be bad in odd, almost experimental ways than bad in normal, conventional ways.   

I don't know why that would be surprising.  Not one of those guys was ever asked to run the offense.  They were all primarily there to finish plays, not start them.

This is really kind of strange that we are getting caught up on assist/to ratio as if that alone is going to tell us who the best point player would be.

[mmmmm]

None of your snippets mention anything about his passing, not one thing.  His "play creator" capability is exclusively about his scoring.  These snippets do not help make the case that Bradley once upon a time showed the ability to play point guard.  I remember what people said about him him high school.  They said he was amazingly quick, that he was committed to defense way beyond his years and possessed a great pull up jumper but that he was a combo guard all that way.  I think they used the word "combo" only because that's usually what's said about 6'2-6'3 guys who can't play point full time.

In nine games in the D-League in 2011, he averaged 5.2 assists and 4.3 turnovers per game.  If you've ever seen a D-League game and are familiar with the caliber of play, that is not very impressive.  It's not a positive data point in his viability to play point guard.

Well if you followed the links, you'd find that there are comments about his passing - and in particular they mention shortcomings.

And yes, I myself have always projected Bradley as a 2 and not a 1.   But that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying him out at the role.   This is a development season and the team is going to make development decisions.   That's my point that this decision is about far more than the passing and turnover statistics from a limited amount of NBA playing time.

But unless you feel they are incompetent, Danny and his staff aren't going to make those kinds of decisions without basis.   They almost certainly have more information about and familiarity with Bradley's raw capabilities than we do.

For a "tried and convicted" stats guy who loathes to say to people to watch the game, you blast almost every statistical analysis posted here.  Coincidentally or not, the ones you blast always tend to have negative views of the players.  What makes you think that watching Bradley play will lead to the opposite conclusion anyway?  Having seen him all these games, I am 100 percent convinced he can't play point guard oh because I don't know, he can't dribble the freaking ball.

And thanks for the clarification, in case anyone was confused, that Danny and Co. will be the final judges.  I really really doubt that anyone didn't know that.  I think people know that it's just their opinions.

Ya know - you should realize that CelticsBlog has rules about calling people out.

I criticize stat based arguments that I disagree with.  I also criticize non-statistical arguments I disagree with.   It's a blog.

Good to know you are "100 percent convinced he can't play point guard oh because [you] don't know, he can't dribble the freaking ball.".

You may be right.   Apparently, though, Ainge & Stevens are not quite at that '100%' confidence level that you are at yet.

With time, maybe they will reach your level of enlightenment on this.

[Eric M VAN]

I'm a bit surprised this at myself but the numbers I just looked at in the link I published above, say Bradley is possibly the WORST choice on this team to fill in at PG.

There a few caveats because of Bradley's injury, inexperience etc, but his performance has been his performance and his game (statistically) just doesn't lend to him playing the position.

His assists/TO % are abysmal, he can't hasn't shown an ability to create shots for himself or others.

Don't get me wrong, I like they guy, but not as a PG from what I'm seeing.

LOL - here I am - a tried and convicted, 'stats guy' - to say:  "Stats don't mean xxxxx!"  and "Try watching the games with your eyes!!!"

More specifically, that article is, imho, once again simply a very poor usage of statistics.

I'm not saying that Bradley might not be 'the worst' choice to fill in at PG.  But that analysis in that article is pretty much useless to me if I want to ask that question.

<removed a lot of stuff>

Hey, I always go with your interpretation when it comes to stats, but regardless of how you feel about his methodology, what statistical info would you trot out that makes Bradley a good, or even acceptable band aid for the PG position vs Crawford or Lee?

I hear what you're saying but do you think his conclusions are wrong or do you just not like how he got to them?

Do you think the 9 games he played in the D-League and how he played in high school are a better barometer of how he'll perform in the NBA than how he's actually performed in 145 games in the NBA and a year of college?

He's just been mis-coached or under utilized and has been just waiting for the right situation to show he's now an adequate PG?

I'm seriously confused, are you just being contrarian (fellow grouchy old man  )

Well, to answer your question, I wouldn't.

The fact is, I don't see any statistical basis for advocating Bradley as the 'band-aid' starting PG over Crawford -- except maybe defense at PG.

My point is, I also don't see any statistical basis for ruling him _out_ as a better choice for this.

In my opinion, there just really isn't enough data on Bradley playing true point on offense in the NBA to say he's good or bad.

At some point, you have rely on scouting and development and what the staff believes is within the potential of a young player.   No player coming out of h.s. or college has ever really 'proven' he can do anything in the NBA until he does.

Danny has been scouting Bradley for years and he and his staff know more about all their players than we do.  This is not just an appeal to authority, but rather a simple fact that fans have to accept.  That doesn't mean that the staff won't be wrong at times.

There is a trend that is being used by a couple of executives - most notably whatsisname at Orlando who used to be with OKC.   The idea is that if you have an SG with the right physical attributes - quickness, among other things - you try him out at PG and force-feed him into becoming competent at it.   This was done with Westbrook and is going to happen with Oladipo.  There will be growing pains, but if he makes the transition, you end up with a bigger PG who can shoot.  If he doesn't you slide them back to SG.   

I don't think the Celtic's intend long term to turn Bradley into a starting PG in the same way - because they apparently want Rondo for the long term in that role - but they may feel based on his attributes (beyond what he's displayed in his limited NBA time) that it is possible for Bradley to do the job, with some decent training.   And that it won't hurt his development at SG to try this out.

Okie dokie, My point is, we've had 145 games of NBA play to evaluate Bradley and what he can do and can't do. A portion of those games have been at PG.

I find it somewhat questionable that, at least from his statistical raw %'s for TOV & ASSTS & shot creation, he's going to improve to the point that he's an adequate PG.

If there's some idea that he'd been asked to be a lousy PG before and that NOW the braintrust is going to coach him up and grow him into playing well at the position ( I find it hard to believe that they somehow coached him to be sub-standard before this), that will be a revelation for me.

As for "No player coming out of h.s. or college has ever really 'proven' he can do anything in the NBA until he does.", Sure, but taking that to an extreme, I wouldn't expect the organization to suddenly say "Bradley could play Center, he's just never had a chance to show what he can do there"

Obviously I'm being facetious. Anyways, blah blah blah, I'm not getting your take on this. Maybe that's just me.