If You Can't Build Around 5'7'' IT B/C He Shot 39% in the Playoffs

[mef730]

Really my only concern with IT as a core piece of our team is that he may only have three or four years left as a starter caliber player. Maybe fewer.

Guys like IT fall off a cliff around age 30.

I agree just because his body will definitely start breaking down at some point.  He takes a serious pounding going inside.  I think he'll probably be quicker than pretty much everyone until he retires.

I've gotta think that, if there were plans to trade him, this is the year. He's got two years left on his contract, so he can give his new team some time before becoming UFA. If he only had one year left, we'd get a lot less for him.

Mike

[PhoSita]

Lillard had over a 31% usage rate with Portland this year, but you don't hear anybody talking about him being a 6th man.

IT is a scorer and a playmaker - this is why he isn't just a 6th man.

The point is, if we added another high usage scorer or two, presumably IT would no longer have a 30% usage rate.  Would his role also change as a result?  Is he best suited to playing with a super high usage rate, even if that means he comes off the bench?  I think these are fair questions.

[kozlodoev]

Then you can't build around 6'2'' Damian Lillard who shoots 37% during the playoffs.

Lillard's limitations on defense and from 2 point range have been on full display during the playoffs, just like IT. If IT was 5 inches taller with the same productivity, there wouldn't be any question that we can build around IT.

Thomas is not 5'7.

[slamtheking]

Then you can't build around 6'2'' Damian Lillard who shoots 37% during the playoffs.

Lillard's limitations on defense and from 2 point range have been on full display during the playoffs, just like IT. If IT was 5 inches taller with the same productivity, there wouldn't be any question that we can build around IT.

Probably best to call IT 5'9" since that is what he is listed at, but I wholeheartedly agree - people only think less of IT because of his height and his draft position. His actual production is just about as good as Lillard and Irving.

I have to say, I wonder about this.

IT has a 30% usage rate with the Celts.

Would his offensive production still justify his limitations elsewhere if he had a significantly lower usage rate? This is where the sixth man debate comes back in.

Lillard had over a 31% usage rate with Portland this year, but you don't hear anybody talking about him being a 6th man.

IT is a scorer and a playmaker - this is why he isn't just a 6th man.

but he's not really a playmaker though.  his passing is mediocre and he doesn't run an effective offense.  too many passes are jump passes or he has to twist/contort his body to get around his defender to make a pass.  His passing is what I would consider the level of a backup PG, not a starter.  This is where I see the primary difference between him and Lillard in any discussion. 

I still think he'd be more effective coming off the bench with a primary focus of scoring --ala Vinnie Johnson.  Of course that would mean we'd have to have a PG who's effective at running an offense and has to be respected by the defense for his own ability to score.  sadly, we don't have that player on the roster.

[Neurotic Guy]

IT may be the best offensive player in history under 5'9".  Since 5'9" is actually the average male height in America, it's pretty high praise.  This also means that with all the 5'8 - 5'10" guys in Amerca the reality is not one has ever led an NBA team to a championship.  Alan Iverson, who may be as close as it gets, was listed at 6'.   

No one should want to build around IT. We have a short (sorry) window with IT on a very friendly contract -- but he needs to be the 3rd or 4th best guy. And that needs to happen quickly.