Collin Sexton | The Young Bull

thedarkness2332 said:

I don't know that it has to be so cut and dry as two assisting "point" guards. It's all about basketball players on the floor in general.

When LeBron played here with Kyrie, LeBron averaged something like 8 assists per game while Kyrie also got around 5 assists.

This past season, Draymond Green averaged 6.9 assists per game, Stephen Curry at 5.2 assists per game, and Kevin Durant at 5.9 assists per game.

Would we not agree those were the best teams over that span in the NBA?

There isn't a detriment to having multiple players on the court that can share the basketball and create for teammates. An insistence on having a single point guard is somewhat tired and outdated.

Click to expand...

I'll say this at the outset -- if someone has already concluded that Sexton is never going to be good enough to be a 5-6 apg PG in the league, and must become an undersized SG to have a role in the league, then my argument doesn't matter. Otherwise....

You sorta ducked the question I asked. I asked how many other teams operated "two co-equal facilitators in the backcourt". You didn't answer other than to say it was essentially an irrelevant question ("An insistence on having a single point guard is somewhat tired and outdated"), and to point me to teams that had a primary facilitator in the backcourt, and another in the frontcourt.

But if it is true that having a primary PG is "somewhat tired and outdated", shouldn't it have been relatively easy for you to name a bunch of pairs of co-facilitating guys in the backcourt, to prove how tired and outdated the PG concept is? But you didn't name even find one, and that's because it is still overwhelmingly common for NBA teams to have a a primary PG and then an SG in the backcourt, even if there is another primary facilitator in the frontcourt. And yes, I think distinction between having both primary facilitators in the backcourt v. splitting between the frontcourt and the backcourt matters. You can find lots of instances like the ones you did -- one primary facilitator in the frontcourt, one in the backcourt. But the splitting those duties between two shrimpy combo-guards? Again...how common is that truly?

The reason I asked that wasn't to be a pendantic jackass (though I may be one anyway). It was trying to establish what the market is going to be for someone like Sexton 2-3 years down the road if he hasn't developed sufficient point guard skills. What are we teaching him to become?

Look at the two examples you used -- Kyrie and Curry. When they entered the league, both of those guys were well ahead of where Sexton currently is in terms of being a facilitator. Both also played the PG position exclusively (not in a dual facilitator role with someone else in the backcourt) upon entering the NBA to help develop those skills. Kyrie had 5.4 apg his rookie year -- Steph had 5.9. Sexton was at 3.0 So yes, both of those guys eventually had other wing players on their team who facilitated more than they did, but both were fully capable of holding down a normal PG role with another team. You trade for either guy...you've got your primary backcourt distributor, and can pair him with a longer, more traditional SG-type in the backcourt.

But Sexton's skills are not at that point -- he's behind where those guys were in their development. He needs the kind of possession after possession ball handling/facility that you get from being the primary facilitator in the backcourt, not trying to figure out when it is your turn versus the turn of the guy next to your (which is part of why I don't think that ever really works). Garland needs the same thing because he also is well-behind where both Kyrie and Steph were in terms of being a facilitator when they entered the league.

I don't believe that putting Sexton and Garland in dual combo-guard roles is going to be nearly as good for the development of their distributing/facilitating skills as would be making either the full-time PG. They'll be doing the "your turn/mine turn" thing, which basically amounts to getting half as much experience as they might otherwise get. And we'll be running a backcourt style that nobody else in the league really uses. Neither guy will be developing the true range of skills to make him as valuable to other teams as he might otherwise be, because other teams are going to be looking for a different skill set from 6' 1.5" guards.

inliner311 said:

I agree with this. People are getting too concern with having one of them become a pure PG. The pure PG is a dying breed in the NBA.

Click to expand...

Okay...name me as many teams as you can where the facilitating duties are equally divided between the two starters in the backcourt.

ETA: I'll start off by conceding the Rockets, and I don't think it is purely a coincidence that Paul and Harden absolutely can't stand playing with each other.

The Human Q-Tip said:

I'll say this at the outset -- if someone has already concluded that Sexton is never going to be good enough to be a 5-6 apg PG in the league, and must become an undersized SG to have a role in the league, then my argument doesn't matter. Otherwise....

You sorta ducked the question I asked. I asked how many other teams operated "two co-equal facilitators in the backcourt". You didn't answer other than to say it was essentially an irrelevant question ("An insistence on having a single point guard is somewhat tired and outdated"), and to point me to teams that had a primary facilitator in the backcourt, and another in the frontcourt.

But if it is true that having a primary PG is "somewhat tired and outdated", shouldn't it have been relatively easy for you to name a bunch of pairs of co-facilitating guys in the backcourt, to prove how tired and outdated the PG concept is? But you didn't name even find one, and that's because it is still overwhelmingly common for NBA teams to have a a primary PG and then an SG in the backcourt, even if there is another primary facilitator in the frontcourt. And yes, I think distinction between having both primary facilitators in the backcourt v. splitting between the frontcourt and the backcourt matters. You can find lots of instances like the ones you did -- one primary facilitator in the frontcourt, one in the backcourt. But the splitting those duties between two shrimpy combo-guards? Again...how common is that truly?

Click to expand...

OK, but riddle me this... why does it matter that one is a forward and one is a guard?

After all, would you call LeBron James a front court player when he primarily operated on the perimeter, beating a man off the dribble and finding an open shooter? Offensively, it doesn't matter that they are both 6'2. Which leads me to your second question....

Defense. The reason we don't see a lot of these pairings among two combo guards is the inability to be effective defensively. However, offensively, I don't see it as a problem, or a "my turn" and "your turn" situation. Especially when both can shoot and play off-ball. You just simply exploit match-ups that you like and rotate the basketball. Having multiple players on the floor capable of creating shots for others is not a negative thing.

Now defensively, I've expressed my concerns with that fit. However, that's not what we are discussing here. We're discussing their offensive fit.

The reason I asked that wasn't to be a pendantic jackass (though I may be one anyway). It was trying to establish what the market is going to be for someone like Sexton 2-3 years down the road if he hasn't developed sufficient point guard skills. What are we teaching him to become?

Look at the two examples you used -- Kyrie and Curry. When they entered the league, both of those guys were well ahead of where Sexton currently is in terms of being a facilitator. Both also played the PG position exclusively (not in a dual facilitator role with someone else in the backcourt) upon entering the NBA to help develop those skills. Kyrie had 5.4 apg his rookie year -- Steph had 5.9. Sexton was at 3.0 So yes, both of those guys eventually had other wing players on their team who facilitated more than they did, but both were fully capable of holding down a normal PG role with another team. You trade for either guy...you've got your primary backcourt distributor, and can pair him with a longer, more traditional SG-type in the backcourt.

But Sexton's skills are not at that point -- he's behind where those guys were in their development. He needs the kind of possession after possession ball handling/facility that you get from being the primary facilitator in the backcourt, not trying to figure out when it is your turn versus the turn of the guy next to your (which is part of why I don't think that ever really works). Garland needs the same thing because he also is well-behind where both Kyrie and Steph were in terms of being a facilitator when they entered the league.

I don't believe that putting Sexton and Garland in dual combo-guard roles is going to be nearly as good for the development of their distributing/facilitating skills as would be making either the full-time PG. They'll be doing the "your turn/mine turn" thing, which basically amounts to getting half as much experience as they might otherwise get. And we'll be running a backcourt style that nobody else in the league really uses. Neither guy will be developing the true range of skills to make him as valuable to other teams as he might otherwise be, because other teams are going to be looking for a different skill set from 6' 1.5" guards.

Click to expand...

For starters, I think it's hard to take a player that has vision limitations and teach him to be an elite facilitator. He can get better, but there's a cap to that growth. Sexton is a gifted scorer with a first step that allows him to get to the secondary level of the defense easily. Once there, however, he's been prone to forcing shots or trying to draw fouls. His improved shooting has only opened up more driving lanes, giving a degree of hope that he's evolving into an efficient scoring guard. While effective, only so much can be taught with seeing teammates. If you don't see them, you don't see them. If you're looking to shoot, you're looking to shoot. It didn't help that we had absolutely no offensive guidance last year.

In that regard, facilitating is also about knowing the offense and seeing plays develop. Last year, we didn't have any type of offensive system whatsoever. For someone like Sexton, that's a nightmare scenario. While you can't really teach vision on the court, you can remedy some of this by knowing exactly where players are going to be on the floor and designing around these two guard's abilities to beat a defender. In that regard, I think it should make it easier to find the open man with an actual coach whether you're playing any position on the floor.

Secondly, I hardly think if Collin Sexton beats his man while playing the "Shooting Guard" position and a help defender leaves a guy open on the baseline, he's going to say "well, since I'm a two and not a point guard, I'm going to force a shot and not pass to that open man." It's not a conscious decision. It's instinctive. Whether he's playing point guard or center, it's not going to change his decision.

At that point, whether he's a "2" or a "1" offensively simply doesn't matter.

The Human Q-Tip said:

Okay...name me as many teams as you can where the facilitating duties are equally divided between the two starters in the backcourt.

ETA: I'll start off by conceding the Rockets, and I don't think it is purely a coincidence that Paul and Harden absolutely can't stand playing with each other.

Click to expand...

I don't think it matters as much with he facilitating is split between two backcourt player, that's not what I was pointing out. It's the fact that NBA teams are moving toward getting facilitating from any of the 5 positions. They aren't solely relying on a pure PG but relying on multiple players to take up some of the point duties. For that reason, PGs have to learn to play off the ball just as much as on the ball.

I don't even think the Cavs envision Garland and Sexton splitting 100% of the ball handling and facilitating duties in he future. I expect Cedi to take up some of that if he keeps developing. I also expect us to draft a wing or forward that is a good ball handler in the future.

thedarkness2332 said:

OK, but riddle me this... why does it matter that one is a forward and one is a guard?

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the real question, isn't it?

I think it matters, and I think it's because frontcourt distributors and backcourt distributors tend to do it differently, so it creates different looks/offensive sets, and keeps the defense more off balance. It may be matchup based, or work even within a single possession -- the PG may start the play with an attempt to penetrate and kickout, then the frontcourt guy may be in more of a high post position to distribute the ball when it swings around to him, etc.. Two backcourt guys who give you the same basic look...I think it is much easier to defend, doesn't really help with matchups, and also doesn't have a natural breakdown in terms of which plays you're running. It's "your turn/my turn" more than anything else. And that's why I think it is done so rarely. Generally, if you've got a guy in the backcourt with those skills, he wants to be the guy in the back court. And I think more often than not, it will gravitate towards one guy becoming more of a PG, and the other guy moving more towards a traditional SG role. That's particularly true if you add a frontcourt player who also is a distributor.

I'm not saying it can't work with the Cavs offensively. It may. The problem is that if it doesn't work either for offensive or (more likely) defensive reasons, you've created at least one players who has underdeveloped PG skills, and who likely will be looked at as SG's by other teams because most other teams don't run two combo guards. The market for 6'1.5" SG's isn't nearly as strong as it is for 6'1.5" PG's.

Defense. The reason we don't see a lot of these pairings among two combo guards is the inability to be effective defensively. However, offensively, I don't see it as a problem, or a "my turn" and "your turn" situation. Especially when both can shoot and play off-ball. You just simply exploit match-ups that you like and rotate the basketball. Having multiple players on the floor capable of creating shots for others is not a negative thing. Now defensively, I've expressed my concerns with that fit. However, that's not what we are discussing here. We're discussing their offensive fit.

Click to expand...

Okay, this is where I think the rub is. I'm not really discussing their offensive fit. I'm discussing their offensive development. Teams in general don't like the two-combo guard approach because of defensive fit. If we're trying to sell Sexton down the road because it's not working defensively, he's going to be more marketable if he hasn't been sharing ball-handling/facilitating duties with Garland and is a credible PG, because that's the role most other teams will see him best suited for physically.

Now, maybe where we differ is in terms of how the "dual combo-guard" approach will affect their development. I'm envisioning a situation where the same guy brings the ball up the floor on 80% of the possessions, getting a little bit better every time as he learns how to respond to on-ball pressure, etc.. His downcourt vision will improve as he consistently looks for opportunities for deeper passes if the defense makes a mistake. He'll be the guy on 80% of possessions making that initial move to set up the first play, whatever it happens to be. He'll be on ball at the start of all those possessions instead of off-ball.

I just don't see how you can split all those duties between two different guys in the backcourt (and we may well have an additional frontcourt facilitator as well), and expect them to develop the same PG skills as if it was just them.

The Human Q-Tip said:

The market for 6'1.5" SG's isn't nearly as strong as it is for 6'1.5" PG's.

Click to expand...

They seem to be getting shorter with every consecutive post.

Now, maybe where we differ is in terms of how the "dual combo-guard" approach will affect their development. I'm envisioning a situation where the same guy brings the ball up the floor on 80% of the possessions, getting a little bit better every time as he learns how to respond to on-ball pressure, etc.. His downcourt vision will improve as he consistently looks for opportunities for deeper passes if the defense makes a mistake. He'll be the guy on 80% of possessions making that initial move to set up the first play, whatever it happens to be. He'll be on ball at the start of all those possessions instead of off-ball.

I just don't see how you can split all those duties between two different guys in the backcourt (and we may well have an additional frontcourt facilitator as well), and expect them to develop the same PG skills as if it was just them.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is where the difference seems to be.

In my mind, Collin Sexton is always going to be a score-first guard. In terms of getting better at facilitating, I think this can come a little from practice but most of his opportunities will come through having an actual offensive strategy and coaching. I don't see how this couldn't also happen while soaking up 40-50% of his court time as a shooting guard. After all, I also think it's important to learn how to play off the ball as well. He thrived off-ball last year when paired with Knight.

Garland shows more natural feel as a passer, but the same is true of him in terms of betterment through coaching. Putting them both on-ball and off-ball situations is a positive, in my mind.

thedarkness2332 said:

They seem to be getting shorter with every consecutive post.

Click to expand...

Haha! I went and checked the combine measurements, and they both were shorter than I thought.

Yes, this is where the difference seems to be.

In my mind, Collin Sexton is always going to be a score-first guard. In terms of getting better at facilitating, I think this can come a little from practice but most of his opportunities will come through having an actual offensive strategy and coaching. I don't see how this couldn't also happen while soaking up 40-50% of his court time as a shooting guard. After all, I also think it's important to learn how to play off the ball as well. He thrived off-ball last year when paired with Knight.

Garland shows more natural feel as a passer, but the same is true of him in terms of betterment through coaching. Putting them both on-ball and off-ball situations is a positive, in my mind.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's fair. We're both projecting what we think their respective roles will be once the season begins, but that's something we really can't know until we see it.

thedarkness2332 said:

They seem to be getting shorter with every consecutive post.



Yes, this is where the difference seems to be.

In my mind, Collin Sexton is always going to be a score-first guard. In terms of getting better at facilitating, I think this can come a little from practice but most of his opportunities will come through having an actual offensive strategy and coaching. I don't see how this couldn't also happen while soaking up 40-50% of his court time as a shooting guard. After all, I also think it's important to learn how to play off the ball as well. He thrived off-ball last year when paired with Knight.

Garland shows more natural feel as a passer, but the same is true of him in terms of betterment through coaching. Putting them both on-ball and off-ball situations is a positive, in my mind.

Click to expand...

Not sure you can tell at 20 years old what a player will become. Sexton is intelligent and a hard worker. Cant wait to see what he is at 23

Says he has been watching lots of tape. Good sign.

Garland initiating the offense, Collin Drive and kick to Garland could be very cool. Collin looks bulkier

Garland is the PG and Sexton combo guard.

Sexton who is a hard worker who will do what it takes for the better of the team.

Sexton actually has size that isn't terrible for the shooting guard. His wingspan is 6'7.25" and his standing reach is only a half inch shorter than Bradley Beal whom a lot of people consider a prototype shooting guard. Beal has a .52 % advantage in standing reach (functional height) and a .95 % advantage in wingspan. So, pretty insignificant to say the least. Beal is about 9 % heavier though.

TyGuy said:

Sexton actually has size that isn't terrible for the shooting guard. His wingspan is 6'7.25" and his standing reach is only a half inch shorter than Bradley Beal whom a lot of people consider a prototype shooting guard. Beal has a .52 % advantage in standing reach (functional height) and a .95 % advantage in wingspan. So, pretty insignificant to say the least. Beal is about 9 % heavier though.

Click to expand...

Lets get this boy some potatoes smothered in gravy!!! Gotta be thicc by November

bigfoot5415 said:

Lets get this boy some potatoes smothered in gravy!!! Gotta be thicc by November

Click to expand...

I don't think Sexton is that frail. He's short, but he has extremely long arms which is what is giving him that boost to play up a position. Collin is listed at 190 lbs. I'm not sure he wants to get more than 195 with his build.

TyGuy said:

I don't think Sexton is that frail. He's short, but he has extremely long arms which is what is giving him that boost to play up a position. Collin is listed at 190 lbs. I'm not sure he wants to get more than 195 with his build.

Click to expand...

I was messaging with him on fb and he said he’s hoping to get to 205

He’s also big on Trump and puts ketchup on his steak.

The Oi said:

I was messaging with him on fb and he said he’s hoping to get to 205

He’s also big on Trump and puts ketchup on his steak.

Click to expand...

H'es probably buying that USDA select steak. It doesn't matter what you put on that crap.