Collin Sexton | The Young Bull

[The Human Q-Tip]

When you say it may work "just fine" in the regular season, are you including defense? We already smashed the record for worst defensive season in NBA history last year...yeah, I know some of that had to do with historically incompetent coaching, but a lot of it was due to personnel as well, and the situation looks really grim on that front if we'll be playing the Sexton/Garland backcourt and Love at center for significant minutes. Good news is I really don't think we're gonna lose our 2020 pick

Fair point, though I think you can get away with worse defense much more easily in the regular season. But here's the core question - if it doesn't appear to be working defensively, which reaction is more likely:

1) "This pairing is fundamentally flawed, and we need to trade one of these guys"; or

2) "We need to teach these two guys to play better defense and/or see if we can make up for their defensive lapses elsewhere"

Personally, I think it's going to be 2). And it won't shift to 1) until the coach basically admits that he can't get them to play any better defense.

This isn't a shot at Beilein, but I think that's a hard thing for any coach to concede. And generally, it takes at least 3 or so years for a guy to stop progressing defensively.
So my guess is that we're going to end up beating our heads against that wall for much longer than we should, trying to make something work that is conceptually flawed.

 

[inliner311]

It’s all likely a moot point—if they both pan out as expected, one of the two is likely to be dealt down the line.

You’d pick the one you want to build around and get good value on the other.

If one isn’t as expected, he likely becomes a 6th man down the line.

If neither develops into what we expect, well.... shit.

There could be a scenario where we just ride Sexton and Garland as a backcourt until we have a better option. It will be hard to move either one of them if they both pan out. Look at Portland, they could move either Dame or McCollum but it's so hard for them to do that because they can't get the return that will instantly improve their team. It's even hard for them to put together a trade that they know it will be a better fit.

I really think if both pan out, someone homegrown will have to step up to be their replacement as a starter to then get the front office to trade one of them. I really think that is years away. We have to keep building and bring in classes of young talent like Koby did this year. I really liked bring in 3 1st round draft picks this year. It's what they should be aiming to do each year for the next 2 or 3 years.

 

[dark2332]

Absent any other information, the most reasonable baseline assumption for top ten picks in consecutive drafts is that you intend to play them together. Here, there was zero pre-draft leaking that we planned to, or attempted to, trade either guy, and Beilein flat-out stated that he sees zero problem playing them together. Every single leak/hint I've seen suggests that belief is genuine.

What is your objective basis for choosing not to believe him? Seems to me your assumption is a lot less fact-based than is mine.

Fire it up, Q!

This is the Gregg Williams-Freddie Kitchens coaching argument Part Dos. On-field results in front of us versus assumptions of Kitchen’s true impact on the team. And you know it pains me to debate with you.

In this particular situation, it seems you are listening to what we have plainly heard and seeing what we’ve seen. I agree that’s really all we can truly know. I cede that point.

However, I think interpretation of the same information is open.

In the 2nd year of a rebuild, I don’t think we can wholly assume that consecutive Top 10 picks are looked at as ideal court pairings.

Rather, I think the more logical assumption is that in consecutive years, we simply took the player who we believe to be the best long-term basketball player. To that end, Beilein wasn’t even with the contingent last season that drafted Collin Sexton.

Could it not be as simple as “Wow, we like Darius Garland the basketball player. We believe in Darius Garland the person. We believe he’s the best player at #5?”

It also seems to me that they’ve said things similar to this as well since making the selection.

Ultimately, I don’t see how Collin Sexton has to even be involved in that decision.

Koby mentioned that Sexton was informed of the decision pre-draft and it was he who mentioned the Lillard/McCollum comparisons. The fact that they even reached out indicates that they recognize a degree of overlapping skill—otherwise why do prophylactic damage control? Surely, our front office encourages both to be positive about the pairing—but that doesn’t mean they believe an on-court pairing is ideal.

That also doesn’t mean they have to be closed minded to the idea whatsoever. Maybe they both show enough defensive improvement to make it work with the right pieces behind them. I personally doubt it, but we shall see. That doesn’t mean the selections of two consecutive BPA’s were dependent on one another. I believe each to be made in a vacuum.

I'm not arguing that he has a fetish for short guards in particular. I'm saying that he doesn't appear to have any aversion to two short combo guards working just fine inthe NBA.

In this instance, what would you like him to say at the press conference?

“We have doubts they can play together 30 minutes per night successfully.”

Beilein clearly likes both players, but he also has an obligation to get the most out of them until a decision is made on each’s future.

Thus, positivity and having both believe in that “We’re the next Lillard/McCollum” mindset is good for business for both of them.

Again, perhaps they even are successful together. My point is that you’d expect Beilein’s words to be nothing less than positive.

Basing it now on his background, Beilein’s most effective college teams in his two-guard system had a primary ball handler paired with a longer two-guard who can also create offense for himself and others.

I’m not going to hold it against him for having an open mind. It benefits all parties right now to have an open mind. If nothing else, it promotes trade value. Offensively, I do believe they can be successful.

Again, your apparent read on this - that they just took BPA and secretly plan to trade one or other down the road - is more or less a whole-cloth invention on your part. I see no actualevidence supporting that belief.

Why does it have to be black and white?
“They took one to trade one.”
“They believe they are a perfect pairing.”

Can’t the answer fall in between?

They simply took the best player and person on their board and are going to have an open mind with their development. It’s a simple as that.

Again, I don’t understand how having an open mind and having ideas on how they can work together on the floor is an indictment of John Beilein.

You have two players you like. You try to make it work. You promote each’s development. In due time, if a player doesn’t develop and the other does, your problem is solved. If they both develop and they are successful together, your problem is solved. If both develop but they prove to be a poor defensive combination, you then can trade the one of your choosing while maintaining a high value return.

We have the right to be patient. In the interim, there is no benefit to John Beilein expressing doubt about the two players as a tandem.

We know where we are going this year. We know that’s the lottery.

I think he believes it will work just fine, just as he apparently believes that playing Love full-time at the 5 regardless of matchups will work just fine.

In today’s NBA, Kevin Love has become more of a 5 due to the propensity to play small with more wings at the 4.

Love, defensively, is likely better off with a center than guarding a wing. He also has an inability to switch which is very difficult to scheme around as a four.

We know that Love isn’t a good defender. In the modern NBA, playing him minutes at the 5 at least allows him to bring opposing fives out to the perimeter on the other end.

There is a point of diminishing returns. Love is a poor defender wherever you place him on the floor. You may as well put him in a spot that takes advantage of his offense.

I think Beilein wants to use him a lot like he did Kevin Pittsnogle at WVU. A 5 that can space the floor.

Personally, I have no issues with the leaks we are hearing until I see it in action.

There’s still a degree of likelihood that Kevin Love has a trade market this offseason. He may even be moved in the right deal.

I think having two guys like that as your starting backcourt may work just fine during the regular season.

Perhaps it will. In which case, great.

If not, we know the two should complement each other enough offensively that both should have a degree of success.

This team is keeping that draft pick this year anyway. No reason to make a rash decision trading either one until they prove they can’t co-exist.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Fire it up, Q!

And you know it pains me to debate with you.

Nothing wrong with a bit of verbal fisticuffs to keep us sharp!

However, I think interpretation of the same information is open.

In my defense, I did say:

I have an issue with Beilein to the extent he truly sees Garland/Sexton as a long-term starting NBA backcourt. If the secret plan is to move one of them, that's different. But of course, if that plan is being deliberately hidden, there's no way I can know that.

Back to your post....

In the 2nd year of a rebuild, I don’t think we can wholly assume that consecutive Top 10 picks are looked at as ideal court pairings.

I agree, and I'm not claiming they see it as the "ideal" pairing. I'm claiming they see it as a reasonable pairing that can work long-term.

That also doesn’t mean they have to be closed minded to the idea whatsoever.

And right there is the crux of it. I'm saying they should be closed-minded to the idea. I don't believe in the "there's no harm in trying" approach in this instance. I think there are major opportunity costs that can never be recovered if we spend a couple of years trying to make this work.

So if they really think it may work, I'm critical. If they're just blowing smoke up our asses and already plan to move one or the other as soon as feasible, I'm okay with that.

Like I said at the start of this discussion - I'm admittedly very biased against this pairing, and the regular season can't convince me otherwise. I'm inevitably going to be the turd in the punchbowl in these discussions, and nobody - including me - wants that. So I'm just going to avoid this particular issue for awhile because I don't think it is something that will be resolved anytime soon.

 

[Cavatt]

Absent any other information, the most reasonable baseline assumption for top ten picks in consecutive drafts is that you intend to play them together. Here, there was zero pre-draft leaking that we planned to, or attempted to, trade either guy, and Beilein flat-out stated that he sees zero problem playing them together. Every single leak/hint I've seen suggests that belief is genuine.

What is your objective basis for choosing not to believe him? Seems to me your assumption is a lot less fact-based than is mine.



I'm not arguing that he has a fetish for short guards in particular. I'm saying that he doesn't appear to have any aversion to two short combo guards working just fine in the NBA.



Again, your apparent read on this - that they just took BPA and secretly plan to trade one or other down the road - is more or less a whole-cloth invention on your part. I see no actual evidence supporting that belief.

I think he believes it will work just fine, just as he apparently believes that playing Love full-time at the 5 regardless of matchups will work just fine.



I think having two guys like that as your starting backcourt may work just fine during the regular season. But it's fool's gold that won't be apparent until much further down the line when you're trying to become a competitive playoff team.

One thing I will say it's that Sexton is not Beileins pick. We know he was giddy Garland, but have no idea on Sexton

 

[dark2332]

And right there is the crux of it. I'm saying they should be closed-minded to the idea. I don't believe in the "there's no harm in trying" approach in this instance. I think there are major opportunity costs that can never be recovered if we spend a couple of years trying to make this work.

So if they really think it may work, I'm critical. If they're just blowing smoke up our asses and already plan to move one or the other as soon as feasible, I'm okay with that.

Like I said at the start of this discussion - I'm admittedly very biased against this pairing, and the regular season can't convince me otherwise. I'm inevitably going to be the turd in the punchbowl in these discussions, and nobody - including me - wants that. So I'm just going to avoid this particular issue for awhile because I don't think it is something that will be resolved anytime soon.

I find it hard to say that there’s lost opportunity when we have plenty of minutes to provide our young players and a staff devoted to player development.

Likewise, outright stating that they can’t coexist and trying to deal Sexton does not allow time for them to properly weigh all trade options. It plummets the value.

It’s perfectly reasonable that the new staff wants to get their hands on both of them.

What if Sexton and Garland both play exceedingly well this upcoming season, but we come to the conclusion that we’d like to deal one based on long-term fit?

At that point, we’ve both increased trade value for the players as well as allowed ourselves to properly evaluate which we’d like to build around.

I just don’t think it’s so cut and dry. There’s nothing wrong with having a little patience in the early stages of a rebuild.

 

[dark2332]

Here is a high school highlight video compilation, which normally doesn’t mean much to me...

However, it’s interesting seeing Garland and Sexton back to back. Quite a juxtaposition. It’s clear how much more skilled Garland is than Sexton at that age.

Collin scores by sheer will—2nd chances, getting fouled. He’s improved so much as a shooter in the NBA game, but it’s still clear why he’s the Young Bull. There’s no finesse to his game, and he lacks some natural feel. At times, he’s sloppy and makes the wrong basketball plays. I love Sexton as a worker and have faith in his continued development, but the two are entirely different players.

Meanwhile, Garland’s highlights show more vision and a smooth perimeter game. Just the ability to get anywhere he wants on the floor so easily, it really does give off a high school Kyrie vibe. The passing is very encouraging. His game has more of a refined quality, while not being the athlete that Sexton is.

It’s just interesting watching them back to back versus separately. It’s worth a look.

 

[red.]

Here is a high school highlight video compilation, which normally doesn’t mean much to me...

However, it’s interesting seeing Garland and Sexton back to back. Quite a juxtaposition. It’s clear how much more skilled Garland is than Sexton at that age.

Collin scores by sheer will—2nd chances, getting fouled. He’s improved so much as a shooter in the NBA game, but it’s still clear why he’s the Young Bull. There’s no finesse to his game, and he lacks some natural feel. At times, he’s sloppy and makes the wrong basketball plays. I love Sexton as a worker and have faith in his continued development, but the two are entirely different players.

Meanwhile, Garland’s highlights show more vision and a smooth perimeter game. Just the ability to get anywhere he wants on the floor so easily, it really does give off a high school Kyrie vibes. The passing is very encouraging. His game has more of a refined quality, while not being the athlete that Sexton is.

It’s just interesting watching them back to back versus separately. It’s worth a look.

Excellent post. I agree.

This is a post I’ve wanted to make, but couldn’t string the words together without sounding like a Sexton hater.

I just believe Garland is the Cavs PG.

 

[dark2332]

Excellent post. I agree.

This is a post I’ve wanted to make, but couldn’t string the words together without sounding like a Sexton hater.

I just believe Garland is the Cavs PG.

I have to say that I’m not a Sexton hater.

The strides he’s made are enormous, and I can’t recall a player changing his game so much in-season. I love his attitude. I’ve defended him on here before. His growing confidence in his shot is a game-changer.

They’re just different players, and I think Sexton can really benefit offensively from having Garland around. Garland is just so smooth with the basketball that it’s impossible not to see that translating instantly to the open-floor NBA game.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I find it hard to say that there’s lost opportunity when we have plenty of minutes to provide our young players and a staff devoted to player development.

Here's my opportunity cost....

I see PG as the ideal position for both Garland and Sexton because both are significantly less than ideal size for an SG. That's true not just for the Cavs, but for potential trading partners. Sexton as a 6'1.5" PG is going to have a lot more value trade value than is Sexton as a 6'1.5" SG. The problem is that both Sexton and Garland need a lot of work on their distributing skills before they become acceptable options as a PG. That was clearly going to be the focus for Sexton this year - he was going to be the 32 mpg PG and get a crash course on becoming our PG of the future. And that's actually what Garland needs as well.

But you can't give both of them that PG 32 mpg crash course at the same time. At best, the two of them split all 48 of the available mpg at PG. But even that assumes that 1) neither Delly nor anyone else will get minutes at PG, and 2) that all the statements about wanting to play them together as "dual-facilitators" was a lie, and we're really going to run a traditional PG-centered offense instead.

So...either 1) we split the baby and neither of guy gets the PG development they so desperately need, or 2) we commit to one or the other as the true PG, and the other guy basically becomes a SG. I suppose if we move one or the other quickly, the damage to their development will be minimal. But if we're serious about "let's see if this works", and "we'll see how much both of them can improve defensively", then we're talking 2-3 of lost PG development for at least one of them.

For me, the best case scenario is that we give 32+ mpg at PG to Sexton for the first half of the season. He shows enough improvement in distributing skills as the starting PG that we can move him while his value is high. And, Garland shows enough as a backup in the remaining 16 or so mpg that we feel confident in him as the PG of the future.

tl;dr: The shorter this pairing lasts, the better.

 

[dark2332]

But you can't give both of them that PG 32 mpg crash course at the same time. At best, the two of them split all 48 of the available mpg at PG. But even that assumes that 1) neither Delly nor anyone else will get minutes at PG, and 2) that all the statements about wanting to play them together as "dual-facilitators" was a lie, and we're really going to run a traditional PG-centered offense instead.

I guess I don't see why there has to be a single PG position in this offense with one of them always being the true "point guard" in the traditional sense of the word.

You have two on the floor, they both initiate. Garland has the ball, runs a set, and we don't like the look, you throw it back out, and the other is perfectly capable of running the offense.

Two guys capable of beating each's own man individually, getting in the lane, and creating shots for both themselves and others doesn't seem like a problem.

 

[inliner311]

I guess I don't see why there has to be a single PG position in this offense with one of them always being the true "point guard" in the traditional sense of the word.

You have two on the floor, they both initiate. Garland has the ball, runs a set, and we don't like the look, you throw it back out, and the other is perfectly capable of running the offense.

Two guys capable of beating each's own man individually, getting in the lane, and creating shots for both themselves and others doesn't seem like a problem.

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.

For them to succeed not just on the Cavs but in the modern NBA, they will have to learn to play on and off the ball. I don't think either has to distribute at the level they might have been asked to if they played 10-15 years ago. PGs are being asked to play off the ball more than ever.

If I were the Cavs I wouldn't refer to either of them as a PG. Just refer to them as guards or combo guards.

As for development, I would play them with vets like Delly and Knight to learn to share the ball. It's better that a vet, who can be a extension of the coaching staff on the floor, has the ability to make the right decision with plays and dictating how the offense runs to help these young guys develop. Let the Sexton and Garland make mistakes with vets that can be forgiving and it doesn't build animosity between the two of them on the court. The coaching staff can balance out putting the ball in the young guys hands or take it away from them without looking like they are playing favorites between them.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

You have two on the floor, they both initiate. Garland has the ball, runs a set, and we don't like the look, you throw it back out, and the other is perfectly capable of running the offense.

Before I address that, would you agree that most teams do not operate with two co-equal facilitators in the backcourt? I mean, the most common example tossed out there as the protoype is Lillard/McCallum, but Lillard is 6.9 apg, and McCollum is only 3.0 apg.

 

[dark2332]

Before I address that, would you agree that most teams do not operate with two co-equal facilitators in the backcourt? I mean, the most common example tossed out there as the protoype is Lillard/McCallum, but Lillard is 6.9 apg, and McCollum is only 3.0 apg.

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.

Getting players who can facilitate at all positions is a positive, not a negative. Sure, someone is going to dominate the ball a little more than others in most offenses, but sometimes that player is a wing--not a guard--and that is an entirely separate issue. Either way, having multiple facilitators on the floor is a benefit offensively.

I would argue that it also benefits all players to also learn to play without the basketball because if you wish to be a good team someday, this is the ability that can take a team to the next level. There are too many teams that stack good ball-dominant players and they don't reach their potential. For Garland and Sexton--both of whom have shown an ability to shoot the basketball--this pairing should really only help them both grow their games.

 

[Vee-Rex]

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.

Getting players who can facilitate at all positions is a positive, not a negative. Sure, someone is going to dominate the ball a little more than others in most offenses, but sometimes that player is a wing--not a guard--and that is an entirely separate issue. Either way, having multiple facilitators on the floor is a benefit offensively.

I would argue that it also benefits all players to also learn to play without the basketball because if you wish to be a good team someday, this is the ability that can take a team to the next level. There are too many teams that stack good ball-dominant players and they don't reach their potential. For Garland and Sexton--both of whom have shown an ability to shoot the basketball--this pairing should really only help them both grow their games.

100% agree. Now, more than ever before, the emphasis on play-making is distributed throughout all the positions. If you look at the Celtics who have made the semi and conference finals the past two years, they were employing guards that really weren't great distributors (Kyrie, Rozier, Smart, Brown). Even Al Horford who is a really great passer for a big man had a big part of running the offense.

Denver's offense runs through Jokic who is the best passing center in the league and arguably the best center in the league (I'd take him over Embiid).

Point is - right now the best thing we can do is to acquire as much young talent with huge upside/potential as possible. We can worry about positional roles and who is systematically running the offense later.

We do NOT trade Sexton or Garland until we learn more. Garland looks to have incredible offensive potential. The dude could literally become one of the best scorers in the league years down the line. Sexton is extremely hard-working - who knows where his limits are. Even if a couple years down the road it doesn't work out, there's ALWAYS another team willing to give one of them a 2nd chance and we could make a trade at that time.