# Can Rudy Gay be a successful shooting gaurd in the NBA?



## BG7

Rudy Gay, is 6'8", he is classified as a shooting guard. Some people think that he can't play shooting guard because of his height, and claim no shooting guard on a good team has been that tall, which is true, but still, MJ, Kobe, and Manu are all 6'6 only 2 inches shorter, and Rip Hamilton is only an inch shorter. T-Mac is 6'8 and good, so do you think that Rudy Gay could be a successful NBA shooting guard?

And not just could he, because anything COULD happen. But do you think he realistically could be successful.


----------



## Krstic All-Star

If not, it won't be because of his height. There have been plenty of decent shooting guards at 6'7 or 6'8. While many of them have also spent time at SF or other positions, they were at least adequate at SG. Craig Ehlo, Billy Owens, Steve Smith, to name a few


----------



## Lebbron

Most people consider Rudy a SF. With his size and athleticism, he can play the 2-5 positions I think, although really it doesn't matter what you call a player.


----------



## freddie flintoff

id prefer to wait until he gets to the nba before talking about him,he might get injured and never get drafted

silly poll


----------



## Thuloid

Drexler was 6'7", wasn't he? McGrady is close to 6'10" and plays some SG. Not a big deal as I see it--the question is the skills, not the height.


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu

Joe Johnson is 6'8...sorry, don't have much to contribute other than that.


----------



## naibsel

i have not seen him play except for the occasional sportcenter highlight or review of a huskies game (although i would like to, but all espn shows over here in australia is adam morrison and dicky V's sex toy reddick)

but statistically analysing his game and from what i have seen on tv. he is definately a small forward. he has got the speed to be a good 3 but it would be mediocre at off guard. i know he shot better last season, but 8 from 30 3pt is also pretty mediocre at college level. considering his size he is playing well defensively as a college forward (2.6spg and 2.0bpg) but only 2.6 assists per game shows he doesn't create enough to be a allround guard in the nba.


----------



## matt!

No, and not because of his height.


----------



## Dissonance

Is Gay a good enough shooter to be one or even that good of a shooter? Most times I've seen him he doesn't shoot often so I can't tell. I have noticed he's not that aggressive


----------



## MemphisX

Hmmm...the SG on the best team in the league last regular season was 6'8" so I think you can win a few with that size SG. However, Gay does not have the handles IMO.


----------



## matt!

MemphisX said:


> Hmmm...the SG on the best team in the league last regular season was 6'8" so I think you can win a few with that size SG. However, Gay does not have the handles IMO.


Manu isn't 6'8".


----------



## MemphisX

matt! said:


> Manu isn't 6'8".


...and you can't read :clown:


----------



## Dodigago

Rudy Gay is considered by nearly everyone to be a protypical SF..


----------



## Sir Patchwork

He is athletic enough to guard shooting guards, but he doesn't have the handles or shot yet. He is more ideal at the 3 at this point, but if he develops those things, he could easily play 2, but then again, his best position will probably always be the 3.


----------



## thekid

What he just said, his shot and to more of an extent, his ballhandling are not guard caliber as of now. Those parts of his game can improve though but for now his game and size makes him mainly a 3.


----------



## crazyfan

he may be the same height as t-mac but does he shoot or handle the ball as well?
i seriously doubt so and until he can improve on those two areas he is definitely a SF.
T-mac started on the raptors as a SF as well before developing into more a SG


----------



## Skeet Skeet Skita

SG = SF = Wing


----------



## Spriggan

Rip Hamilton is 6'7, by the way. I remember being surprised when I first heard that. He doesn't look that tall. Maybe it's because he's a twig, so he doesn't seem as big.


----------



## ralaw

Gay is a prototypical sf. I will say he needs to be more assertive on offense and defense if he wants to be worthy of a top 3 pick. Did you guy see Steve Novak of Marquette light UConn up yesterday? Big time players should step up in big time situations on offense as well as defense.

Gay's state line from last night
29 minutes, 3-12 fgs, 7 reb, 5 assist, 8 pts

Novak's stat line:
37 minutes, 12-20fgs, 16 rebounds, 2 assist, 41 pts


----------



## Skeet Skeet Skita

Why is Peja actually considered a SF, when he has a game completely similar to Rip Hamilton, who is considered SG ?

Or Why is Tracy McGrady considered a SF, when he handles and brings the ball up the court on a lot occassions ?

Note:

These are rhetorical questions. They only have the purpose to illuminate how nonsensical all these categorisations between SG and SF are.


----------



## ralaw

Skeet Skeet Skita said:


> Why is Peja actually considered a SF, when he has a game completely similar to Rip Hamilton, who is considered SG ?
> 
> Or Why is Tracy McGrady considered a SF, when he handles and brings the ball up the court on a lot occassions ?
> 
> Note:
> 
> These are rhetorical questions. They only have the purpose to illuminate how nonsensical all these categorisations between SG and SF are.


I disagree, sf's and sg's still have different responsibilities. That doesn't mean that some of those resposibilities don't overlap, but there are still some subtle differences.


----------



## Spriggan

Skeet Skeet Skita said:


> Why is Peja actually considered a SF, when he has a game completely similar to Rip Hamilton, who is considered SG ?


He doesn't. Rip Hamilton can handle the ball and make nice passes. Peja is incapable of this.



> Or Why is Tracy McGrady considered a SF, when he handles and brings the ball up the court on a lot occassions ?


Because he can? Why wouldn't he? Just because he plays the 3 doesn't mean his game must resemble that of a stereotypical SF if he's capable of doing other things. He's also by far his team's best playmaker.


----------



## Skeet Skeet Skita

Okay, I understand...

Some players are classified in one position because they play stereotypical to it, some are classified in one position because they don't play stereotypical to it at all...

Ahhh...Logical.


----------



## Spriggan

Skeet Skeet Skita said:


> Okay, I understand...
> 
> Some players are classified in one position because they play stereotypical to it, some are classified in one position because they don't play stereotypical to it at all...
> 
> Ahhh...Logical.


So I suppose what _is_ logical is that a player with the skillset and talent to play 2 or more positions should relegate himself to playing one because that's what he's officially classified as.

Those are rare players. Not many can play both SG and SF and dominate equally at both. Kobe, McGrady, LeBron... who else? Only big, talented, quick guards with ball-handling ability can accomplish that.

Does Dirk Nowitzki play like a power forward?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Skeet Skeet Skita said:


> SG = SF = Wing


Not for all players. Some players can't play both. Ray Allen, David Wesley, Luther Head, and Rashad McCants can't play SF. Rashard Lewis, Carmelo, Glenn Robinson can't play SGs.


----------



## shookem

Paul Pierce.


----------



## Skeet Skeet Skita

WTChan said:


> Not for all players. Some players can't play both. Ray Allen, David Wesley, Luther Head, and Rashad McCants can't play SF. Rashard Lewis, Carmelo, Glenn Robinson can't play SGs.


Ray Allen, David Wesley, Luther Head, Rashad McCants, Rashard Lewis, Carmelo, Glenn Robinson are playing Wing.

That's why Ray Allen, David Wesley, Luther Head, Rashad McCants, Rashard Lewis, Carmelo, Glenn Robinson = Wing...


----------



## matt!

MemphisX said:


> ...and you can't read :clown:


Hey, I don't care about the records, Manu played for the best team.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Skeet Skeet Skita said:


> Ray Allen, David Wesley, Luther Head, Rashad McCants, Rashard Lewis, Carmelo, Glenn Robinson are playing Wing.
> 
> That's why Ray Allen, David Wesley, Luther Head, Rashad McCants, Rashard Lewis, Carmelo, Glenn Robinson = Wing...


SG and SF are two different positions.


----------



## HB

Rudy Gay reminds me eerily of a certain player. His handles arent that great, he is inconsistent with his shooting, off the wall athleticism but the big thing about this kid is talent. His potential is off the wall. If I were him I'd stay one more year in college and hone those skills. Right now I seem him as a SF, his handles wont let him cut it as a SG although he has the footspeed to masquerade as one


----------



## Skeet Skeet Skita

Spriggan said:


> So I suppose what _is_ logical is that a player with the skillset and talent to play 2 or more positions should relegate himself to playing one because that's what he's officially classified as.
> 
> Those are rare players. Not many can play both SG and SF and dominate equally at both. Kobe, McGrady, LeBron... who else? Only big, talented, quick guards with ball-handling ability can accomplish that.
> 
> Does Dirk Nowitzki play like a power forward?



Look...

My point is that there is no difference between SG and SF, hence it is unnecessary to discern between these positions. In most setplays of modern basketball, the setplay starts off with a 1-2-2 set-up of the players. Have a look at this, so you know what I am talking about:










This set, like most others in modern basketball, does not discern between SG and SF, hence, like I said, render a categorisation between SG and SF unnecessary.

You could say the same for PF and Center.

And it's not like this is all coming from my fantasy, but from my experience from playing in quite professional leagues here in Europe. And I also might want to add, that European coaches emphasise tactics and setplays way more than US coaches. So I quite know what I am talking about.

Just to sum it up. In modern basketball the positions are Playmaker, Wing and Post. That's it.

And to come to your question about Nowitzki. He plays like a Post. Only because he shoots 3 pointers, does not mean he can't be a post player. It's not like Dallas runs plays that has Nowitzki running through screens and make him a spot up shooter. Most of his 3 pointers come from pick and pops and transition situations and he does not even shoot the ball every time he gets after he sets a pick, he also takes it to the basket. But Nowitzki mostly gets the ball on the low or high block and either shoots his deadly fadeaway, faces up and uses pump fakes to get his man off his feet or uses his speed to enter the paint and attack the basket, that's why he gets a fair amount of free throws every game.


----------



## Skeet Skeet Skita

WTChan said:


> SG and SF are two different positions.


Read my post above...


----------



## matt!

Hbwoy said:


> Rudy Gay reminds me eerily of a certain player. His handles arent that great, he is inconsistent with his shooting, off the wall athleticism but the big thing about this kid is talent. His potential is off the wall. If I were him I'd stay one more year in college and hone those skills. Right now I seem him as a SF, his handles wont let him cut it as a SG although he has the footspeed to masquerade as one


Sounds like Marvin Williams minus some bulk.

I actually just saw all of his stats for the first time: he dissapears against good competition it seems.

UConn has played four teams of similar talent this year: Arizona, Gonzaga, Arkansas, and Marquette.

His averages for those games? 13 ppg (thanks to 26 vs. Ark) / 1.7 apg / 4.5 rpg / 1.25 SPG/ .25 BPG / 4.25 TO / 41% FG / 8% 3FG%

Seems pretty special...


----------



## matt!

Skeet Skeet Skita said:


> Look...
> 
> My point is that there is no difference between SG and SF, hence it is unnecessary to discern between these positions. In most setplays of modern basketball, the setplay starts off with a 1-2-2 set-up of the players. Have a look at this, so you know what I am talking about:
> 
> This set, like most others in modern basketball, does not discern between SG and SF, hence, like I said, render a categorisation between SG and SF unnecessary.
> 
> You could say the same for PF and Center.
> 
> And it's not like this is all coming from my fantasy, but from my experience from playing in quite professional leagues here in Europe. And I also might want to add, that European coaches emphasise tactics and setplays way more than US coaches. So I quite know what I am talking about.
> 
> Just to sum it up. In modern basketball the positions are Playmaker, Wing and Post. That's it.
> 
> And to come to your question about Nowitzki. He plays like a Post. Only because he shoots 3 pointers, does not mean he can't be a post player. It's not like Dallas runs plays that has Nowitzki running through screens and make him a spot up shooter. Most of his 3 pointers come from pick and pops and transition situations and he does not even shoot the ball every time he gets after he sets a pick, he also takes it to the basket. But Nowitzki mostly gets the ball on the low or high block and either shoots his deadly fadeaway, faces up and uses pump fakes to get his man off his feet or uses his speed to enter the paint and attack the basket, that's why he gets a fair amount of free throws every game.


You're just ignoring everyone else's point. Nobody is saying that SG and SF are totally different positions and nobody could ever think of overlapping them, but in a lot of systems there are some subtle differences that separate the positions.

They are not mutually exclusive, but they are not the exact same "wing position" that you describe. 

For instance, in HS I played the 3 because my handles weren't good enough to bring the ball up and run a play, and my outside shot wasn't as good as a 2 guard, but I rebounded better than a 2 guard and generally played a more inside-outside game. Our 2 guard was responsible for running off screens in our offense and getting open catch-and-shoot opportunities. My responsibility was catching baseline passes for inside moves or putting me on the move to drive.

So every offense doesn't necessarily use the two positions exactly the same. And I played basketball in America, so I quite know what I'm talking about.


----------



## HB

matt! said:


> Sounds like Marvin Williams minus some bulk.
> 
> I actually just saw all of his stats for the first time: he dissapears against good competition it seems.
> 
> UConn has played four teams of similar talent this year: Arizona, Gonzaga, Arkansas, and Marquette.
> 
> His averages for those games? 13 ppg (thanks to 26 vs. Ark) / 1.7 apg / 4.5 rpg / 1.25 SPG/ .25 BPG / 4.25 TO / 41% FG / 8% 3FG%
> 
> Seems pretty special...



His biggest problem is no killer instinct not his talent. His talent is unquestionable, you just have to watch a few games of his to see what I mean


----------



## ralaw

Hbwoy said:


> His biggest problem is no killer instinct not his talent. His talent is unquestionable, you just have to watch a few games of his to see what I mean


I agree, not that he has to have Adam Morrison's intensity, but he seems to have a nonchalant attitude when he is on the court. I think he is a great player, but I think he suffers from having the "talent of a superstar and the mentality of a role player" which typically means the player won't fullfill the potential people have of them.


----------



## Skeet Skeet Skita

matt! said:


> You're just ignoring everyone else's point. Nobody is saying that SG and SF are totally different positions and nobody could ever think of overlapping them, but in a lot of systems there are some subtle differences that separate the positions.
> 
> They are not mutually exclusive, but they are not the exact same "wing position" that you describe.
> 
> For instance, in HS I played the 3 because my handles weren't good enough to bring the ball up and run a play, and my outside shot wasn't as good as a 2 guard, but I rebounded better than a 2 guard and generally played a more inside-outside game. Our 2 guard was responsible for running off screens in our offense and getting open catch-and-shoot opportunities. My responsibility was catching baseline passes for inside moves or putting me on the move to drive.
> 
> So every offense doesn't necessarily use the two positions exactly the same. And I played basketball in America, so I quite know what I'm talking about.



You make a mistake a lot of people make - take an example and generalise it.

I'm not even saying that you are wrong with what you say, but kinda missed what I've been trying to explain.

The scenario that you have illuminated basically stated that players have to play according to their abilities, which is completely right, because it is nonsensical to let a player shoot who can't. That's why coaches run setplays according to the abilities of the players. 

Now what you've described falls IMO in the field of activity of a wing player. The field of activity of a wing player cannot be pinned down to one or two things. It's like when a post player shoots 3's, that does not automatically disqualify him as a post player, because shooting from the outside may eventually be a part of the activity field of a post player. That is also the reason, why a lot of European players are as fundamentally sound as they are.


----------



## HB

ralaw said:


> I agree, not that he has to have Adam Morrison's intensity, but he seems to have a nonchalant attitude when he is on the court. I think he is a great player, *but I think he suffers from having the "talent of a superstar and the mentality of a role player" which typically means the player won't fullfill the potential people have of them*.


If he gets the right amount of criticism it could just be enough to light a fire in him. Say he ends up in a place like New York (God forbid the knicks get him) the media would never let him be a role player not with that type of talent. He will get chewed up if he thinks he is going in for an easy pass


----------



## HB

Skeet Skeet Skita said:


> You make a mistake a lot of people make - take an example and generalise it.
> 
> I'm not even saying that you are wrong with what you say, but kinda missed what I've been trying to explain.
> 
> The scenario that you have illuminated basically stated that players have to play according to their abilities, which is completely right, because it is nonsensical to let a player shoot who can't. That's why coaches run setplays according to the abilities of the players.
> 
> Now what you've described falls IMO in the field of activity of a wing player. The field of activity of a wing player cannot be pinned down to one or two things. *It's like when a post player shoots 3's, that does not automatically disqualify him as a post player, because shooting from the outside may eventually be a part of the activity field of a post player. That is also the reason, why a lot of European players are as fundamentally sound as they are*.


Not trying to cause anything here, I agree with most of your points except the bolded part. Are you saying European post players are fundamentally sound because they are willing to step out of the whats considered the norm.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

Skeet Skeet Skita said:


> You make a mistake a lot of people make - take an example and generalise it.
> 
> I'm not even saying that you are wrong with what you say, but kinda missed what I've been trying to explain.
> 
> The scenario that you have illuminated basically stated that players have to play according to their abilities, which is completely right, because it is nonsensical to let a player shoot who can't. That's why coaches run setplays according to the abilities of the players.
> 
> Now what you've described falls IMO in the field of activity of a wing player. The field of activity of a wing player cannot be pinned down to one or two things. It's like when a post player shoots 3's, that does not automatically disqualify him as a post player, because shooting from the outside may eventually be a part of the activity field of a post player. That is also the reason, why a lot of European players are as fundamentally sound as they are.


Not all SFs can do what SGs do. Except for Pippen, SFs don't bring the ball up the court. SFs generally guard other SFs cuz SGs are too fast. Sure, some can, but not all. You're making the same mistake you say other people is making. You're generalizing.


----------



## Skeet Skeet Skita

Hbwoy said:


> Not trying to cause anything here, I agree with most of your points except the bolded part. Are you saying European post players are fundamentally sound because they are willing to step out of the whats considered the norm.


No, that is not the reason...

IMO there are two reasons for europeans being more fundamentally sound than american players.

1st reason is the basic training. In Europe every player is getting the same training, so the big players learn hwo to shoot, how to dribble and the smaller ones learn how to post up and play on the block.

The 2nd reason is the perception of the game. Most of European coaches expect their players to be versatile, in order to execute certain setplays, that are only possible if every player has the same basic foundation and that kinda goes back to the 1st reason.

I'M not sure, but I think in the USA the perception of the game is different. Big players are restricted to play only down low an smaller players are only supposed to play guards or wings. Now I know that there are fundamentally sound players in the USA as well, but the frequency of these is not nearly as high as in Europe. I also think the NBA's ruleset and the arrangement of the courts has done its job to conceal several shortcomings that US players have in their game. I think th Olympics in Athens have been quite an example of how far ahead Europe is in understanding the basics of the game. I really think that Europe has better basketball players in the sense, that they are technically better and Americans are only to compensate that with their huge superiority in the athletic area.


----------



## Skeet Skeet Skita

WTChan said:


> Not all SFs can do what SGs do. Except for Pippen, SFs don't bring the ball up the court. SFs generally guard other SFs cuz SGs are too fast. Sure, some can, but not all. You're making the same mistake you say other people is making. You're generalizing.


Wing A cannot do what Wing B can do...Still they are Wings.

Shaq cannot do what Dirk can do, still both are post players.


----------



## SeaNet

I haven't seen him play this season, yet, but last year he looked like a prototypical SF to me. Capable of playing both inside and out. Why would you play him at SG?


----------



## Krstic All-Star

A lot of it has to do with the specific team's needs and gameplan. The 3 is truly the 'swing' position. The coach can look to put a player who is more of an extra big man there or more of a guard-type. In an extreme example, it would be like putting another PF as opposed to putting a three guard set in. Matchup comes into play there too. But the essence is that the 3 really can take any form, and combine many attributes of the 2 and 4 in almost any combination. Thurl Bailey playing the 3 gave the Jazz a very different type of lineup than, say, Latrell Sprewell playing it for the Knicks


----------



## Skeet Skeet Skita

Krstic All Star said:


> A lot of it has to do with the specific team's needs and gameplan. The 3 is truly the 'swing' position. The coach can look to put a player who is more of an extra big man there or more of a guard-type. In an extreme example, it would be like putting another PF as opposed to putting a three guard set in. Matchup comes into play there too. But the essence is that the 3 really can take any form, and combine many attributes of the 2 and 4 in almost any combination. Thurl Bailey playing the 3 gave the Jazz a very different type of lineup than, say, Latrell Sprewell playing it for the Knicks


I agree with that...

It really depends on the macth up and on the systems the coach runs and because of this diversity, I refuse to categorise certain players into certain positions and that's why I just sum it all up with the position wing.


----------



## HB

Skeet Skeet Skita said:


> No, that is not the reason...
> 
> IMO there are two reasons for europeans being more fundamentally sound than american players.
> 
> 1st reason is the basic training. In Europe every player is getting the same training, so the big players learn hwo to shoot, how to dribble and the smaller ones learn how to post up and play on the block.
> 
> The 2nd reason is the perception of the game. Most of European coaches expect their players to be versatile, in order to execute certain setplays, that are only possible if every player has the same basic foundation and that kinda goes back to the 1st reason.
> 
> I'M not sure, but I think in the USA the perception of the game is different. Big players are restricted to play only down low an smaller players are only supposed to play guards or wings. Now I know that there are fundamentally sound players in the USA as well, but the frequency of these is not nearly as high as in Europe. I also think the NBA's ruleset and the arrangement of the courts has done its job to conceal several shortcomings that US players have in their game. I think th Olympics in Athens have been quite an example of how far ahead Europe is in understanding the basics of the game. I really think that Europe has better basketball players in the sense, that they are technically better and Americans are only to compensate that with their huge superiority in the athletic area.


I really enjoyed reading this post, lots of sense in it


----------



## bigbabyjesus

Yes.. people are saying Rudy Gay won't be a SG because he is 6'8 :raised_ey


----------



## thekid

Skeet Skeet Skita said:


> Wing A cannot do what Wing B can do...Still they are Wings.
> 
> Shaq cannot do what Dirk can do, still both are post players.



You can generally call them wings but at the NBA level, the SG and SF position have differences. You mention Wing A cannot do what wing B does and vice versa, that's why they are different. That logic is like saying Carmelo Anthony is a Nugget, Larry Hughes is a Cavalier. But they are still NBA players.


----------



## zagsfan20

Gay got called out by Jim Calhoun after the Marquette game:



> "I don't think Rudy Gay did anything today except report for the starting lineup," Calhoun said. "We don't have anyone on our team right now in our first Big East game that plays like an all-star or a top-15 player."


----------



## The Truth IV

I'm from Canada so both Europeans and Americans will think I don't know what I'm talking about.

But to me there is no distinction between a SG and SF. They play on the wing. If they have the skill-set, they can post-up a smaller player. (but then again, so do PGs like Kidd, Payton, and Mark Jackson back in the day) but for the most part wing players play a slashing, outside shooting game.

I've never understood why drooling fans of prep players make outrageous statements about guys' future positions. Does anyone recall the universally accepted truth that "Tyson Chandler can play all 5 positions" or "Kevin Garnett can play the point". Meanwhile, it has yet to be proved whether Chandler can play ANY position and the thought of playing KG at the point is laughable. 

And why is Tim Duncan considered a PF? The guy is a center - I don't care what anyone says.

While the 1-5 positions may have relevant in the pre-Magic Johnson NBA, they mean nothing now. It's all about match-ups. You've got 7 footers shooting threes, 6"2 guys like Baron Davis that will crown anyone in the league, etc....


----------



## Odomiles

The Truth IV said:


> the thought of playing KG at the point is laughable.


I agree with most of what you're saying, but I would like to point out that KG did play point in the 2004 Playoffs. He brought the ball up and set up the offense at the end of all the big games. He didn't start at PG but that doesn't mean he didn't play his fair share of the point during the game, so I wouldn't really say it's laughable.


----------



## jg

Watched him Tuesday night against Marquette. He was slow and D was terrible. He tried guarding Novak from MU. Novak is not known for his speed, but Guy couldn't keep up to him. What the hell would happen if he tries to guard a 2 in Pro ball. It would be SAD.


----------



## crazyfan

so is rudy gay overhyped?
still a top 3 pick?


----------



## Team Mao

Why would anyone want to play Rudy Gay at the 2 spot? Has he ever played the 2, I'm pretty sure that with UConn, he's only played the 3 or 4 position.

In terms of the positional debate, i think there are two types of small forwards now, there are those who can play both 3 and 4 (Garnett, AK47, Odom, Harrington, Deng, Jamison, Villanueva in the future maybe) would be examples of 3/4 players, on the other hand there are the players who can play the 2 or 3 positions (Lebron, Kobe, TMac, Pierce, Vince). The thing is that players who play the SF position are almost all capable of playing another position, but the two different types (the 3/4s or the 3/2s) both bring a different skill set and look to the team on offence or defence.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

The Truth IV said:


> I'm from Canada so both Europeans and Americans will think I don't know what I'm talking about.
> 
> *But to me there is no distinction between a SG and SF.* They play on the wing. If they have the skill-set, they can post-up a smaller player. (but then again, so do PGs like Kidd, Payton, and Mark Jackson back in the day) but for the most part wing players play a slashing, outside shooting game.
> 
> I've never understood why drooling fans of prep players make outrageous statements about guys' future positions. Does anyone recall the universally accepted truth that "Tyson Chandler can play all 5 positions" or "Kevin Garnett can play the point". Meanwhile, it has yet to be proved whether Chandler can play ANY position and the thought of playing KG at the point is laughable.
> 
> *And why is Tim Duncan considered a PF? The guy is a center - I don't care what anyone says.*
> 
> While the 1-5 positions may have relevant in the pre-Magic Johnson NBA, they mean nothing now. It's all about match-ups. You've got 7 footers shooting threes, 6"2 guys like Baron Davis that will crown anyone in the league, etc....


If you consider SGs and SFs as wings, why do you distinguish the difference between PF and C?


----------



## aizn

i think rudy gay can if he works hard enough. he reminds me of a certain someone in A-town...josh smith. he's prob more skilled than smith, which is why i think he might b able to pull it off.


----------



## fobbie

GAY= another AI II?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

No


----------



## martymar

well he should be able to play 2 since he is athlethic enough to do it, most 2 guards are slashers anyways and if he gets beat off the dribble he just need to make sure he force them to the help defense


----------



## Scuall

So who's going to buy his jersey?


----------



## crazyfan

me!


----------



## Team Mao

Would anyone play Marvin Williams or Luol Deng at SG?


----------



## matt!

Look what happens when he doesn't have crappy teams to stat-pad against? Another ho-hum 11-9-4 for Gay.


----------



## cpawfan

matt! said:


> Look what happens when he doesn't have crappy teams to stat-pad against? Another ho-hum 11-9-4 for Gay.


Physicality from opponets appears to bother him quite a bit. Gay is going to have to get a lot tougher to play in the NBA.


----------



## Jesus of CopyMat

You guys are absolutely maddening sometimes. You can't use the argument "SG's and SF's have different responsibilities, so they're different positions", because SG's have different responsibilities than other SG's, and SF's have different responsibilities than other SF's. Are they different positions? Of course they are, and do you know why? Because one's called "shooting guard" and the other is called "small forward", and that's the only reason. Any other reason you give makes you split each position up even more.

I know this might be hard for some of you to understand, but sometimes things are the way they are "just because". If Carmelo Anthony plays a different position than JR Smith, than Carmelo Anthony also plays a different position than Boris Diaw, who, in turn, plays a different position than Peja. You're gonna' tell me that Scottie Pippen in his hey-dey played the same position as Kyle Korver, but he didn't play the same position as Gary Payton? Try again. In the real world, he was closer to Payton. These "positions"... they aren't real, guys. They're labels.


----------



## sov82

One thing to note about Gay is he is a young sophmore.

Compared to other top draft candidates:

Brewer is 1.5 years older
Aldridge is 1 year older
Morrison is 2 years older
Rush is 1 year older
Tyrus Thomas is 1 day older
Shawne Williams is 6 months older

Lets not forget that when we think about Gay at this point in his young career.


----------



## NOODLESTYLE

Rudy Gay will probaly get the Go at SF. This dude reminds me too much of Josh Smish of the Hawks. He's all hopps, but no jump shot.


----------



## Chris Bosh #4

Who ever said that Rudy Gay doesn't have good handles is dead wrong, he has very good ball handling skills.


----------



## Like A Breath

Rudy Gay is a much better ball-handler than Luol Deng and Marvin Williams. He's probably not as tough on the inside, but he has crazy versatility. His true position is SF, he's not a SF-PF tweener like those other guys at all.

He's been playing awesome against ranked competition lately. He'll just keep getting better from here.


----------



## sov82

Gay actually has a very soft, high arcing jump shot with an excellent follow through. Its only a matter of time before he is shooting closer to 45-50%


----------



## BigMac

not sure but these last 6 games for GAy made have move him back to the number 1# pick in the draft. He's been playing like what alot of us thought he can play like.


----------



## ralaw

BigMac said:


> not sure but these last 6 games for GAy made have move him back to the number 1# pick in the draft. He's been playing like what alot of us thought he can play like.


That is true Gay has been playing more consistently and with aggressiveness as of late. I don't think a GM will pass on him past the # 2 overall pick.


----------



## crazyfan

as long as he does not end in atlanta


----------



## Dissonance

crazyfan said:


> as long as he does not end in atlanta


 
They draft another SF, Atlanta fans will have a mutiny. They should take Aldridge if he's in the draft. He's more of a safe bet than the Italian IMO. I think it's better to go the safe way.

And yeah Rudy is playing very well. I love watching him. I think he got complacent with the talent around him before.


----------



## ATLien

dissonance19 said:


> They draft another SF, Atlanta fans will have a mutiny. They should take Aldridge if he's in the draft. He's more of a safe bet than the Italian IMO. I think it's better to go the safe way.
> 
> And yeah Rudy is playing very well. I love watching him. I think he got complacent with the talent around him before.


I wouldn't rule it out.

If Atlanta lands the #1 pick, and Rudy seperates himself as the heads and shoulder prize of the draft. I think it isn't out of the question to keep him, and then start wheeling and deeling some serious trades this summer if that happens. It's better than taking Darius Washington Jr. at #1, imo.

It's not like Atlanta's current SF's are showing anything, anyways.


----------



## Dissonance

TheATLien said:


> I wouldn't rule it out.
> 
> If Atlanta lands the #1 pick, and Rudy seperates himself as the heads and shoulder prize of the draft. I think it isn't out of the question to keep him, and then start wheeling and deeling some serious trades this summer if that happens. It's better than taking Darius Washington Jr. at #1, imo.
> 
> It's not like Atlanta's current SF's are showing anything, anyways.



True but you still need to give those guys time to develop a bit. You'll be in almost the same situation as before with someone else there though. Rudy though will be seasoned more playing 2 yrs of college ball though. Not sure how much that will help. I would take Aldridge if he's there for Atlanta. You guys need someone like him upfront that is not a SF. Then if you got #1 next yr, no question you take Oden then too haha.

I doubt Washington is #1 PG if/when he comes out and yeah no doubt it's better than taking him #1. I don't think any PG prospect should go #1. But I would take Kyle Lowry over Washington, he reminds me of Iverson a bit. Not saying he has amount of talent like him or will be like him though.


----------



## ATLien

I'm just saying. What if he dominates the tournament or something, you know? He's been stepping his game up a lot lately. I wouldn't want to miss out on the next Carmelo just cause you got a few young guys at the same position who haven't showed you anything.


----------



## DHarris34Phan

If ATL drafts another SF/PF Tweener, the whole front office should be fired.


----------



## Dissonance

TheATLien said:


> I'm just saying. What if he dominates the tournament or something, you know? He's been stepping his game up a lot lately. I wouldn't want to miss out on the next Carmelo just cause you got a few young guys at the same position who haven't showed you anything.



very true.


----------



## Dissonance

AJ Prus said:


> If ATL drafts another SF/PF Tweener, the whole front office should be fired.


Gay isn't a tweener though. He wouldn't be able to play PF as the other Hawk SF's can't, just he has more seasoning. He's a 6'9" athletic SF who can shoot pretty well and has major hops. He could score around the basket with put backs, but he doesn't play in the post or have any moves. Marvin at least showed some in college but nothing that great to be a PF


----------



## ATLien

AJ Prus said:


> If ATL drafts another SF/PF Tweener, the whole front office should be fired.


Well, I think the easy solution for Atlanta would be to draft Lamarcus Aldridge. But right now, Atlanta has the third worst record and the franchise in history has had really bad luck at the lottery. So, I don't think they are going to have much of a shot at Aldridge. So then what.. I think you take a look, and take whoever and then try to deal. Wouldn't you?

Seems smarter than reaching for a Darius Washington or Shelden Williams with a top five pick. JMO.


----------



## ralaw

AJ Prus said:


> If ATL drafts another SF/PF Tweener, the whole front office should be fired.


Rudy gay is a prototypical SF with the skill of a Carmello Anthony, and athleticism of Jason Richardson, but also is 6'9. I can easily see Atlanta drafting him and trading away in a package deal Smith, Harrington, Childress and/or possibly Williams for a proven star veteran or several veteran players. I think the Hawks GM should have been fired last year for not drafting Paul, Felton or Williams. Just imagine the promise they could have had if they had done it the right way! Oh, and I wouldn't mess with Washington he has the AI syndrome.


----------



## ATLien

ralaw, to be fair.. Every draft expert had M. Williams labeled as the prize of the draft, and the best available player. He still might end up being the best player out of that draft, but Chris Paul's explosion has definately made everyone question the picks who passed him by.


----------



## butr

Shouldn't successful shooting guards be able to shoot?


----------



## Like A Breath

Rudy can shoot, consistency is his issue. If you think he's another Gerald Wallace or Josh Smith you are sorely mistaken.


----------



## zagsfan20

Dude's shooting 30% from behind the arc....He's not a good 3 point shooter..


----------



## ralaw

zagsfan20 said:


> Dude's shooting 30% from behind the arc....He's not a good 3 point shooter..


At this stage I really don't think that is going to be an issue, plus Gay isn't going to be a 3 point shooter in the league, nor should he be expected to be. Gay will be a Carmello Anthony type talent, but I don't think he will come into the league putting up the same type of numbers. I think the major issues Gay needs to work on are his consistency as a player. Actually he should spend one day with Adam Morrison and maybe some of that fiery attitude will wear off on him.


----------



## SkywalkerAC

Rudy is going to be a good wing player in the league. He may be called upon to guard some of the better shooting guards out there, eventually, and therefore he will cross the boundary from small forward to shooting guard in the only sense that reall matters- matchups. 

I'd be inclined to look in another direction if i already had a very similar guy on the wing (Josh, Marvin, Gerald Wallace) but most teams have shooters out there.


----------



## master8492

TheATLien said:


> ralaw, to be fair.. Every draft expert had M. Williams labeled as the prize of the draft, and the best available player. He still might end up being the best player out of that draft, but Chris Paul's explosion has definately made everyone question the picks who passed him by.



*** the draft expert! :curse:


----------



## Like A Breath

If you think Rudy Gay CAN'T shoot look at this Villanova game. Already two sweet-looking NBA 3's with great form. Like I said, he has the ability but struggles with consistency...but I guess some people would rather watch a few highlights and then form an opinion.


----------



## sov82

zagsfan20 said:


> Dude's shooting 30% from behind the arc....He's not a good 3 point shooter..


10/19 over the last 5 games
46.7% Last Year

Dude is 19 years old. He'll be fine shooting the 3 at the Pro Level. If he wants to be a Shooting Guard, he'll need to continue to improve on his ball handling and passing. His shot is the least of NBA scout's worries.


----------



## UVM Hoop Cat

I think he is a very talented player, but it is tough to understand why there is so much hype surrounding him, and I have seen UConn quite a bit this year. He disappears a lot in games- not anywhere near as good a prospect or as dominating as Ray Allen, Richard Hamilton, Donyell Marshall, and Caron Butler all were at UConn. 

Don't get me wrong, he has the potential to be a very good NBAplayer, but he could use another year of school IMHO.


----------

