11-20-2020, 01:26 PM
(11-20-2020, 12:29 PM)fifteenth Wrote: Josh Richardson question:
Why does half the board think that playmaking is in his toolbox, and half the board thinks playmaking is not in his toolbox?
I think he has it.
The argument is in the language. Everyone sees the meanings of "star, 3rd guy, 2nd ball-handler, secondary ball-handler, playmaker, secondary playmaker" differently.
Some of the people arguing might literally think "secondary playmaker" means backup PG.
Richardson was miscast in Philly and asked to handle the ball way too much, that's true. And, it's also true that other options, like Hayward, would've been MUCH better choices if secondary playmaking had been the most crucial thing, as I've suspected. My interpretation of this move is that the MAVS were focused on finding a guy whose DEFENSE was the main thing all along, just like many have said.
I agree with you that their plan for him on offense will include some secondary playmaking, and that an additional move to snag another new starting wing whose main thing is secondary playmaking (this season) isn't likely.
I think people are getting hung up on a lot of the grey area of that conversation.