Rooscooter wrote:Kobe dominating the ball isn't directly related to who we have playing PG IMO.... it's more a product of the fact we have only one player on the roster that can create his own shot. Solve that with a SF that can score and create and he will BE ABLE to play off the ball.
TIME wrote:The failure of the Nash experiment was not because Kobe could not / would not relinquish the ball. It was because of how the rest of the team was constructed. If we replace Gasol, MWP, and Meeks with a true stretch 4, a starting SF that can consistently hit a 3, and a more consistent bench swing who can shoot the 3, then Nash would have been fine as long as he was healthy.
The problem is that without shooters, the PG has to be able to do one of two things every time down the court; either create his own shot or break down the D so he can get D12 a decent look. At Nash's age that was asking too much. So, by default, Kobe was the only one that could do those two things every time down. Replace Nash with Kyrie or Steph, or CP3, etc. and Kobe would have zero issue fitting with their game.
I think these two responses are the most intriguing insights. (I hope they complement eachother, as why I lumped them together)EDIT: gcc's right ^^^there is great too and in the same vein
Since a starting SF and a healthy Nash or a starting PG are the necessary cogs, on which would either of you place your chips, (assuming best possible scenarios for gasol trade, blake trade, and either amnesty or opt-out&resign Metta) under the mindset that the FO is willing to do all within reason to milk Kobe's last few years? (Yes, I know the death tax thing, Roos
Would you place your chips with the best possible SF and roll the dice with Nash being healthy enough to start? Or do you place your chips with the best possible PG, an adequate SF, and run Nash as backup PG? I know neither may be likely, so just humor me with the hypothetical of bext case scenario of what ideally should be done.