Jeff Green will get minutes at the shooting guard position!

[bfrombleacher]

Sounds like a recipe for losses ...

why?! He is athletic enough to keep up with shooting guards and big enough to take advantage of size over most of them.

Because putting Jeff at SG would IMO be trading one advantage for one disadvantage.  You add an advantage because obviously he is bigger and stronger than just ab out every guard out there.  You add a disadvantage because Jeff is a mediocre ballhandler even by SF standards, and I think putting him at the SG spot will only emphasise this problem (much like AB at PG).

The other reason is that we currently have about 5 SG's, about 5 PF's and only only two legit SF's - Green and Wallace.  The SF position is one of the positions we are most lacking depth.  So, why take your best SF away from a position you lack depth at and then move him to a position you are most stacked at?  Makes zero sense unless there is a very big (i.e. 3+ player) trade happening some time soon.

JG is going to play 35+. Gerald Wallace can probably do 30 a game.

"Stackedness" counts for nothing when your SGs are all very flawed, to the extent that significant floor time might not even be justifiable for some (J-Craw, Marshon Brooks and especially Keith Bogans (though I think Bogans might log the most consistent minutes out of the mentioned guards)). With AB being the PG according to Stevens, the depth is an illusion. Much more so than the PF depth in my opinion.

[birdwatcher]

Sounds like a recipe for losses ...

why?! He is athletic enough to keep up with shooting guards and big enough to take advantage of size over most of them.

Because you have Gerald Wallace at SF alongside Jeff Green instead of Pierce and G-Wallace has nowhere near the offensive skill-level of Pierce. His inability to create proper floor spacing dooms that lineup.

You have two bigs on the floor who have jump-shots (Sully, Bass, Olynyk. A limited jump-shooting SF in Wallace. J.Green at SG. Then either Rondo, Bradley or Pressey at PG who all have limited jump-shots relative to their position too. That means defenses can collapse all over J.Green when he gets deep catches. And J.Green he gets touches far away from the basket, he is attacking a defender who is quicker than he is and better able to stay in front of him. And if it is Rondo, you have to take the ball out of his hands to run post-ups for J.Green and G.Wallace inside which lowers the value of Rondo's playmaking.

All it is going to do is kill ball + player movement (by forcing post ups and creating stagnant movements) and result in the team taking a much larger number of long range two point jump shots ... the least efficient shot in basketball.

This Boston team doesn't have the personnel to make J.Green at SG an effective option.

They are too short on offensive firepower.

I buy what you're saying, but in a halfcourt set, the opposing team is not going to let Green post up their 2 guard every time down the floor without help. They will have to double team or cheat towards the ball which will open a pretty big gap weak side, and of course leave someone wide open. It's a nice alternative to spacing the floor giving Green a higher percentage shot with his back to the basket where he can either back his man down, use his height advantage face up, and see over his man to cutters like Rondo, BRadley and Wallace.
That being said, I wouldn't want to see it every time down the floor, but depending on the match up, it sounds good to me.

[crimson_stallion]

Sounds like a recipe for losses ...

why?! He is athletic enough to keep up with shooting guards and big enough to take advantage of size over most of them.

Because putting Jeff at SG would IMO be trading one advantage for one disadvantage.  You add an advantage because obviously he is bigger and stronger than just ab out every guard out there.  You add a disadvantage because Jeff is a mediocre ballhandler even by SF standards, and I think putting him at the SG spot will only emphasise this problem (much like AB at PG).

The other reason is that we currently have about 5 SG's, about 5 PF's and only only two legit SF's - Green and Wallace.  The SF position is one of the positions we are most lacking depth.  So, why take your best SF away from a position you lack depth at and then move him to a position you are most stacked at?  Makes zero sense unless there is a very big (i.e. 3+ player) trade happening some time soon.

JG is going to play 35+. Gerald Wallace can probably do 30 a game.

"Stackedness" counts for nothing when your SGs are all very flawed, to the extent that significant floor time might not even be justifiable for some (J-Craw, Marshon Brooks and especially Keith Bogans (though I think Bogans might log the most consistent minutes out of the mentioned guards)). With AB being the PG according to Stevens, the depth is an illusion. Much more so than the PF depth in my opinion.

When you have a young team you are trying to develop you usually want to give guys opportunities. 

I don't thnk having Crawford, Brooks and Bougans (about $9M between them in salary) all bench warming is really making the most of your available assets.

I think Pierce at SG was bad.  I think Green at SG is worse.  Why?  Because Pierce (while not a flashy ball handler) always had a good handle on the ball, was skilled at using his footwork to appear quicker than he was, and was also a very good passer who could basically function as a secondary PG.  Green, though more athletic, has none of these skills.  He just does not have a guard skillset - he is a mediocre ball handler for a small forward (terrible by guard standards), he's not by any means a fantastic passer, and I cringe when I think of him trying to bring the ball up the court against full court pressure.  You think Avery Bradley's ball handling is a problem?  Green's is far worse. 

I'm against the idea mainly because I believe that Green will match up far more favourably against small forwards and power forwards (who are also poor ball handlers, not likely to press on defense, etc) than he will at SG.  Unless he has REALLY improved his ball handling in the offseason (which there is nothing to suggest this). 

I would much rather play Green at SF and Wallace at PF, or play Green at SF (plus some PF) and Wallace as a backup SF/PF combo.

There are certain matchups where I don't mind seeing Green at SG (agaisnt teams like Brooklyn) but that would be the exception rather than the rule.

I think Lee, Brooks, Crawford and Bougans would probably all handle the SG position better than Green would personally because they all have guard skillsets.

P.s. a Backcourt of Avery Bradley and Jeff Green would have to be one of the worst ball-handling and passing  backcourts in the entire NBA...it wouldn't be pretty.