When Austin shot the midrange bank shot, I got flashbacks of Brick shooting similar shots off the top of backboard, but Austin's shot went in. I did feel triggered for a second when Brick PTSD kicked in, but fortunately Austin is good at basketball.
You put waaaay too much weight on ballhandling part of being a PG. This he can work upon. Vision, calmness, understanding of the game, knowing what is the right play can't.
Reaves had a slick up and under move to end the first half. His follow through helps his shot and is not a herky jerky motion to it.
Well yeah. BUT he continues to improve his handle. Which is the only thing keeping him from playing the point when needed, more often. See bigger, fatter guy Luka Doncic . If @KareemtheGreat33 will stay off him, he can add still some more lbs strength wise up top, since lower body already a great base for him, and continue to work on that handle. He's a tremendous passer and obviously very smart on the floor with great height for the position. Again ... as needed. He will only get better at it at the NBA level.
I don't know what all the fuss is about either. He's a secondary playmaker, with is wrong with that? His struggles comes with ball pressure, it takes him too long to consistently get into our offensive sets if he gets pressured, that's why he's not a PG. So what? He's similar to Caruso, but Alex has a slightly better handle, both work better with Lebron, because he's the PG when they play with him.
ballhandling and speed. slick hit it: not sure how many times people need to see him harassed into turning his back and slowing his dribble, getting sets started late, etc., but it's there when he's forced into that role. not to mention that his defensive abilities get lost when you match him up against nba pgs (yikes). people say lebron and luka can play point. sort of. nobody dares pressure them with the ball because you can just clear a side and let them post up that smaller player and feast. very unique situations that do not at all extend to reaves. not a pg. it's ok. he can be good without being a pg. fin.
What would you say hypothetically if he made another 25-33% improvement handling the ball, it's not like he's not quick enough, with that nice size. Don't really care what we call him as really he's a combo guard that can fill in nicely in limited fashion at the point. And he's going to get better because why would his handle not get maybe that much better? He has the drive obviously.
I would characterize is this as the difference between a playmaker and a PG Just because a dude isn't great at handling ball pressure doesn't mean you can't run him as a playmaker. Most guys are not Lebron/Luka types who can fill the traditional PG role of being able to initiate the offense from anywhere on the court consistently for most of the games. There are a lot of NBA players like Booker/Derozan/Jimmy butler though, who anybody would feel running plays through them: this is where Reaves is exciting for Lakers fans Reaves is definitely more in that playmaker mode - he's got a nice handle and passing ability so that he can relieve full-court pressure and you can run plays for him where the play is essentially designed for him to initiate and run the action. (oddly Shroeder can do a lot of the stuff of the PG role - defeat ball pressure, get into the paint, but he's not as good of playmaker as Reaves)
I see Reaves as a combo guard. Not a pure traditional PG, and not exclusively a shoot first and always SG like Beasley. But combo guards are cool. Kobe was a pretty decent combo guard. He ran our offense for years and then scored whenever he wanted. Reaves is not Kobe, but he is Hillbilly Kobe.
Playmaker works for me. Yeah long as he's not overmatched .... and has the ball in his hands ready to make the smart plays and get our offense moving. Again he is a terrific passer.
i think the origin of the debate a long time ago involved playing reaves as the pg (i.e., in lineups without another pg). that's what i'm saying isn't happening unless we're forced into (like now, with russell and lebron both out). of course he can improve, and of course he's a strong ballhandler and passer. but there's just a whole other level between that and an nba pg. and again, a lot of this is ignoring defense, where he really can't guard pgs. just be happy he's a playmaking sg who can also knock down threes. was it svtzr who said he was like the sg version of joe ingles?
it was me who said that he looks like a smaller joe I don't see that much of a gap between him and DAR in that ballhandling or defensive sense. Noone argued DAR isn't a PG. Yes, DAR is a better ballhandler, but not by thaaat much and yes, he turns his back a lit too. we'll see
lol. i agree. also that joe ingles isn't a pg. i've actually seen that argued a lot, and i don't think it's off base. he's still a lot closer to being a credible pg than reaves, though. yeah, it's a problem. but he's a bigger threat to blow by and keep you behind him for a long stretch. reaves has a nice quick burst that he can use to his advantage in the halfcourt (really, three point line down), but you have to make the opponent fear what will happen if they try to pick you up full court. if they don't, you don't have a pg, imo. my argument is that i think we've seen. but you're right, there's plenty of time. typing about this has helped me clarify my thoughts, though. if basketball were played like halfcourt pickup games, reaves can be a pg. but it's not.
