Not interesting enough to belabor but your argument basically boils down to "If we were conceiving of the lineup in a traditional 1 through 5 sense" we wouldn't have three defined point guards in the starting lineup which is true but completely irrelevant to the point of the initial observation, which was that we had three guys in the starting lineup who essentially functioned as a point guard in the context of a largely positionless offense. It seems like a strange thing to refute for anyone who watched the team play but, like I said, not really an interesting enough idea to continue debating.
I'm exhausted trying to explain myself here so this is my last post on the subject as we have gotten way off track.
"We started 3 PGs this year. Our 3rd most prolific PG might get drafted in the top 5. Not really an issue for me, I hope it's not an issue for recruits."
The above was the initial statement. It was in response to the potential challenge of selling our program to multiple PG's, as players who consider themselves PGs may have particular expectations about handling the ball, running an offense, etc. I actually think Lewis is the only kid we are currently recruiting who considers himself a pure PG, so it may be irrelevant. But the quote above made it seem like we needed to sell the idea of a 3 PG type system to guys we recruited for last year's team, which I don't believe to be the case at all in the case of Spencer. Steph - absolutely...we needed to sell the idea to him that he could still carve out a PG type role playing aside Tristen. But for Cam - even though he did end play some PG and having some PG responsibilities in a position-less offense - never would have considered himself a PG and had any of these expectations, as SG is clearly his traditional position.
Hope this makes sense.
