All star point guard

[Auburn93 871]

19 hours ago, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

What is the basis of this thread? We haven’t seen the guys play yet lol 

https://247sports.com/college/auburn/article/denver-jones-auburn-tigers-basketball-point-guard-2024-238080109/

The basis is we are trying out different people at p.g. and that for a few years we haven't had a leader at that position. This added article shows that we are TRAINING D.J. to be the p.g. It is not a natural position.

I'm still crazily excited about the upcoming season. 

[Auburn93 871]

19 hours ago, AUSCalum87 said:

I don’t agree with this assessment that we need an all star point guard to make us compete for a championship. As DTR stated, we have enough offensive weapons where we just need Pegues to run the offense, and the guy has a great shot and is clutch. We just need someone to run the offense. Denver, CBM, Pettiford, Kelly and Broome can all create their own shots. That’s literally half our team. And again, Pegues can create his own shot as well. I have heard that it is taking Pegues some time to adjust though. But again, it’s early and it took CBM and Jones last year until half way through conference play to start showing out. But with our nonconference schedule, it’ll probably speed up the process for our newcomers. I’m not too worried about the PG position honestly. Talent alone is way better than what we have had since Sharife Cooper.

Why do you keep talking about Pegues when Denver Jones is the one who is being slotted for the starting position? https://247sports.com/college/auburn/article/denver-jones-auburn-tigers-basketball-point-guard-2024-238080109/

[Auburn93 871]

18 hours ago, AUSCalum87 said:

Go watch some of his highlights. He is legit. He was one of the top point guards coming out of the portal. However, it sounds like he is having difficulty picking up the offense, but that happens when you transfer to a new team and scheme. I’m not too worried about it. But off talent alone, our PG position is in much better shape than it has been since our Final 4 run.

Well that is good news, but you don't like that we rely on depth and I see your point there also. I think having an all-star pg is needed, but we shall see. Maybe if we have an all star p.g. Bruce wouldn't rely so much on depth. 

[Swamp Eagle 5,392]

On 10/15/2024 at 9:00 AM, Auburn93 said:

I think this is another year of not accomplishing our top goals because we are missing an all-star pg. I'm happy with the schedule though and what it will expose and how many big wins we can achieve. 

I agree.  If the Denver Jones project fails, it won't be pretty.  Bruce/PG's rivals Gus/OL's...

[boisnumber1 3,023]

We may not can count on a PG or QB, but we can definitely always count on pessimistic, whiny fans. Of course, there are some that are that way about every single thing. What a miserable way to be.

[Auburn93 871]

16 hours ago, Skip Jansen said:

 

I made a comment back in May, where I discussed the over emphasis of position designation. It was in response to the......"TP is not a PG. He's a scorer, so I want the ball in his hands" rhetoric that we were hearing, at the time. Those comments were meant to show (and explain why) that verbiage delivered in the preseason/recruiting periods is exactly that...."pre" and for "recruiting" purposes, and that.....building a roster with quality depth has never been tougher (due to the transfer portal). Now that the roster is built and practice has started....BP's oratory shifts toward managing that roster. IMO...that will be BP's toughest job this season because the roster is loaded and is championship caliber. The good news is, in less than a month......BP gets to take this team to Houston to face college basketball's top defensive litmus test and all the past rhetoric becomes meaningless and players roles will clarify and define themselves. It's like I've said in the past...BP never speaks or does anything without a reason. 

 

Sorry for the rant, but that leads me to my main point, which was...."position designation" and identifying a PG. I realize that BP's statements regarding the PG position has some questioning our ability there. There is no doubt that it's been confusing, but there's a method here. I would suggest that everyone consider a different perspective. Instead of looking at the lineup traditionally.....consider the following example-

 

 

-Ball Handler (1/2): Pettiford, Pegues, Jones

-Wing (2/3): Miles

-Swing (3/4): Baker-Mazerra, Moore

-Forward (4): Johnson, Hudson

-Post (5): Broome, Cardwell

These are the 10 guys I believe will get the majority of the minutes. IMO...this shows the versatility of the roster, due to the amount of non-typical 'hybrids' on the roster. Obviously, there are numerous lineup options and combinations, so...what's everyone's favorite? Although it may not be the starting lineup, IMO......Jones, Pettiford, Miles, Baker-Mazerra, and Broome will play a lot of minutes together, due to the quickness and ability to spread the floor. 

 

So, who is the PG is that lineup? It depends on your definition of it. Jones might bring the ball up the floor, but he's only one pass or dribble handoff away from being "off the ball". Pettiford would get the ball in transition because of his speed and BP would want Jones spotting up for a 3. Also, the flexibility could possibly create some cross matching in the backcourt that would give us an advantage. So again....who is the PG? 

 

Outstanding post. 

Edited Wednesday at 03:18 PM by Auburn93

[haleycenter 9]

I have to agree with the poster on this topic. The pg role concerns me. I haven't done real research, but my initial thoughts are teams that make deep runs and win championships have some form of a floor general at the pg. When we went to the final four we would give it to Harper when things were on the line.  That's how you get through difficult situations like that loss to Yale earlier this year. I think it's similar to that "team with two quarterbacks has no quarterback."

This situation has perplexed me for a while now. I felt TP would be just the pg we needed. Then I read there are plans to play him at 2. AT 5'10" that doesn't seem feasible. And, when I stated that I got flamed.  I personally thought Peguas was a coin flip. He seems tested. And, I think good players from mid majors can be good at the high level. Afterall, that's where Broome comes from. But, I know what Pearl likes at the guard. He wants that pg who can come off the flex cut and hit that three consistently like Harper and Chris Lofton did. I think Pegus can do that. But, he also likes that guard quick enough to get in the paint if the d  comes too close which will free up the shooters. That I'm not sure if Pegusus is explosive enough to do. I believe that's why he likes Jones at the 1. He can knock down that open shot. But, I'm uncomfortable with him there. I don't he has the explosivenss needed nor frankly the handle and overall pg feel to be what we need at that position. I don't like the status of the pg at all. 

I thought Kelly could get us over the top to be the knock down shooter we needed. But, if we don't have the point we need to collapse the d to get him open that will render him useless and we could see offensive stalls  which has been one of our weakneses in certain years.  If it were up to me I put Taj at 1 and tell him do your thing. And, also Jakhi at the 3 as well. I like him over CBM. If he didn't put on 10 pounds I don't think he can do what we need either to get a chip. And, from the pics I've seen he hasn't.  We shall see what happens.  

[Auburn93 871]

1 hour ago, haleycenter said:

I have to agree with the poster on this topic. The pg role concerns me. I haven't done real research, but my initial thoughts are teams that make deep runs and win championships have some form of a floor general at the pg. When we went to the final four we would give it to Harper when things were on the line.  That's how you get through difficult situations like that loss to Yale earlier this year. I think it's similar to that "team with two quarterbacks has no quarterback."

This situation has perplexed me for a while now. I felt TP would be just the pg we needed. Then I read there are plans to play him at 2. AT 5'10" that doesn't seem feasible. And, when I stated that I got flamed.  I personally thought Peguas was a coin flip. He seems tested. And, I think good players from mid majors can be good at the high level. Afterall, that's where Broome comes from. But, I know what Pearl likes at the guard. He wants that pg who can come off the flex cut and hit that three consistently like Harper and Chris Lofton did. I think Pegus can do that. But, he also likes that guard quick enough to get in the paint if the d  comes too close which will free up the shooters. That I'm not sure if Pegusus is explosive enough to do. I believe that's why he likes Jones at the 1. He can knock down that open shot. But, I'm uncomfortable with him there. I don't he has the explosivenss needed nor frankly the handle and overall pg feel to be what we need at that position. I don't like the status of the pg at all. 

I thought Kelly could get us over the top to be the knock down shooter we needed. But, if we don't have the point we need to collapse the d to get him open that will render him useless and we could see offensive stalls  which has been one of our weakneses in certain years.  If it were up to me I put Taj at 1 and tell him do your thing. And, also Jakhi at the 3 as well. I like him over CBM. If he didn't put on 10 pounds I don't think he can do what we need either to get a chip. And, from the pics I've seen he hasn't.  We shall see what happens.  

Another very good post. 

[AUSCalum87 493]

I think people are jumping off the cliff and making wayyy too many assumptions based off of no facts. How about wait and watch what happens these first two months before making these predictions or concerns about the position? Trust me, we will know our issues within the first week of our season when we play Vermont (who I think many of our casual fans of basketball are overlooking and don’t understand that game will more than likely come down to the last few minutes) and then play at Houston. If after 10-11 games we look like crap at the position, ok, might be cause for concern. Until then, why worry about something that you have no idea how it will turn out?

[Skip Jansen 44]

It's going to be interesting to see how it all plays out. Like I said...IMO managing the roster will be BP's biggest challenge this season. We have the pieces and I trust BP's ability to put them all in place. Fortunately, a lot of that roster management will take shape organically because of the schedule. It will be less about BP choosing a starting lineup and distributing minutes, and more about the performance. All of the off season rhetoric will be forgotten and words will become meaningless when we go to Houston in early November. The PG position will take shape pretty quickly IMO. I don't know how it will shake out, but...I do know one thing- TP will be the starting PG at Auburn, at some point. Whether that's this year remains to be seen. 

[Dual-Threat Rigby 9,261]

7 hours ago, Auburn93 said:

https://247sports.com/college/auburn/article/denver-jones-auburn-tigers-basketball-point-guard-2024-238080109/

The basis is we are trying out different people at p.g. and that for a few years we haven't had a leader at that position. This added article shows that we are TRAINING D.J. to be the p.g. It is not a natural position.

I'm still crazily excited about the upcoming season. 

We have a leader at the position…we’re also training Denver so we have depth at the position. He gives us a plus defender & big body at the spot, and he played point for them last year. They don’t want to have Pettiford be a full time on ball player like they forced Aden into being. Someone has to be the second PG lol 

[Dual-Threat Rigby 9,261]

The only way I could see Pegues not start after the first 5 games (starting game 1 doesn’t matter much as we pulled Tre as a starter after like 2 games lol) is if Kelly is so good that he just has to start. I don’t know why you wouldn’t just move Chaney to the bench and go skinnier with your 4 in that case, but that’s the only scenario I see. 
 

Denver being your starting 1 means what, he plays about 10 mins there and 10 mins as your 2? Where do you find the minutes they want for Miles? Pegues or Pettiford are effectively eliminated in this situation, because they (especially TP) should only be matched up on other PGs. It’d be a kiss of death defensively to have to put both on the court together.  
 

With Pearl’s adoration for playing 10 guys real minutes, I don’t see where Denver being an every day PG fits in 

[AUSCalum87 493]

8 minutes ago, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

The only way I could see Pegues not start after the first 5 games (starting game 1 doesn’t matter much as we pulled Tre as a starter after like 2 games lol) is if Kelly is so good that he just has to start. I don’t know why you wouldn’t just move Chaney to the bench and go skinnier with your 4 in that case, but that’s the only scenario I see. 
 

Denver being your starting 1 means what, he plays about 10 mins there and 10 mins as your 2? Where do you find the minutes they want for Miles? Pegues or Pettiford are effectively eliminated in this situation, because they (especially TP) should only be matched up on other PGs. It’d be a kiss of death defensively to have to put both on the court together.  
 

With Pearl’s adoration for playing 10 guys real minutes, I don’t see where Denver being an every day PG fits in 

I agree completely with everything you just posted. I think people are not understanding that Denver is playing PG as well to build that depth. As you said, Pearl doesn’t want to make the same mistake he did with Aden and put Pettiford in too soon and give him too much responsibility. I also believe the lineup you will see for most of the game will be Pegues, Denver, Kelly, CBM and Broome. Those are our best 5 right now, according to reports from practices. Off the bench first would be Pettiford, Chaney and Cardwell.

[Dual-Threat Rigby 9,261]

2 hours ago, AUSCalum87 said:

I agree completely with everything you just posted. I think people are not understanding that Denver is playing PG as well to build that depth. As you said, Pearl doesn’t want to make the same mistake he did with Aden and put Pettiford in too soon and give him too much responsibility. I also believe the lineup you will see for most of the game will be Pegues, Denver, Kelly, CBM and Broome. Those are our best 5 right now, according to reports from practices. Off the bench first would be Pettiford, Chaney and Cardwell.

I do think they definitely want him to be more of an on ball guy. I can more than understand, even outside of the depth piece, why they put so much focus on developing him there. He was a guy that had some chops on ball at FAU, and became more aggressive as the season spanned here. I totally get where they’re coming from 
 

I was very excited when they mentioned floaters. With how rough his finishing was, I just love to see him developing some creativity 

[Skip Jansen 44]

3 hours ago, AUSCalum87 said:

I agree completely with everything you just posted. I think people are not understanding that Denver is playing PG as well to build that depth. As you said, Pearl doesn’t want to make the same mistake he did with Aden and put Pettiford in too soon and give him too much responsibility. I also believe the lineup you will see for most of the game will be Pegues, Denver, Kelly, CBM and Broome. Those are our best 5 right now, according to reports from practices. Off the bench first would be Pettiford, Chaney and Cardwell.

I agree with what both of you guys are saying. No matter what position designation each is given, I am confident of one thing....2 of the 3 ball handlers (Jones, Pegues, Pettiford) will be on the floor together for most of the game. BP's lineups have always had a secondary ball handler (and even a 3rd), so...there's no reason to believe this team will be any different. He's not going to allow teams to load up on his primary ball handler. It's kinda difficult to matchup the rhetoric with our lineups right now and make sense of it, but that's not a bad thing. Our depth and versatility afford us that opportunity. And...I 100% agree with the lineup that includes CBM at the 4. Just because that hasn't been discussed publicly (like JB playing the 4) doesn't mean it's not real. That's been my point along. The preseason banter is meaningless once the ball is tossed up. 

[Cardin Drake 2,091]

13 hours ago, Auburn93 said:

Why do you keep talking about Pegues when Denver Jones is the one who is being slotted for the starting position? https://247sports.com/college/auburn/article/denver-jones-auburn-tigers-basketball-point-guard-2024-238080109/

That article specifically says Pegues is the likely starter at PG.  

[Dual-Threat Rigby 9,261]

2 hours ago, Skip Jansen said:

I agree with what both of you guys are saying. No matter what position designation each is given, I am confident of one thing....2 of the 3 ball handlers (Jones, Pegues, Pettiford) will be on the floor together for most of the game. BP's lineups have always had a secondary ball handler (and even a 3rd), so...there's no reason to believe this team will be any different. He's not going to allow teams to load up on his primary ball handler. It's kinda difficult to matchup the rhetoric with our lineups right now and make sense of it, but that's not a bad thing. Our depth and versatility afford us that opportunity. And...I 100% agree with the lineup that includes CBM at the 4. Just because that hasn't been discussed publicly (like JB playing the 4) doesn't mean it's not real. That's been my point along. The preseason banter is meaningless once the ball is tossed up. 

This may be the most versatile lineup he could ever dream off (while being reasonable), in terms of ball handling. That whole double the guy calling for the screen and jamming up the offense for 10 seconds s*** should be over!!!

[Cardin Drake 2,091]

12 hours ago, AUSCalum87 said:

I agree completely with everything you just posted. I think people are not understanding that Denver is playing PG as well to build that depth. As you said, Pearl doesn’t want to make the same mistake he did with Aden and put Pettiford in too soon and give him too much responsibility. I also believe the lineup you will see for most of the game will be Pegues, Denver, Kelly, CBM and Broome. Those are our best 5 right now, according to reports from practices. Off the bench first would be Pettiford, Chaney and Cardwell.

Any talk about Howard? 

[AUSCalum87 493]

2 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

Any talk about Howard? 

I’ve heard he’s got crazy athleticism and has the potential to be in the NBA, but right now he’s raw and young, learning the offense and working on his defense. We will see him in the beginning of the year, no doubt. I honestly believe the last spot for significant playing time will be between Hudson, Moore and Howard.

[Skip Jansen 44]

12 hours ago, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

This may be the most versatile lineup he could ever dream off (while being reasonable), in terms of ball handling. That whole double the guy calling for the screen and jamming up the offense for 10 seconds s*** should be over!!!

Exactly. Based on the off season talk, you could infer that the lineup of Jones at the 1 and Miles at the 2 will be a primary rotation option. While that combination would give us size and shooting....It's also the slowest and weakest ball handling duo that BP could employ. I do think that we will see them together on occasion, but...I don't see BP willing to give up quickness and ball handling for any long stints. 

[Skip Jansen 44]

20 hours ago, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

The only way I could see Pegues not start after the first 5 games (starting game 1 doesn’t matter much as we pulled Tre as a starter after like 2 games lol) is if Kelly is so good that he just has to start. I don’t know why you wouldn’t just move Chaney to the bench and go skinnier with your 4 in that case, but that’s the only scenario I see. 
 

Denver being your starting 1 means what, he plays about 10 mins there and 10 mins as your 2? Where do you find the minutes they want for Miles? Pegues or Pettiford are effectively eliminated in this situation, because they (especially TP) should only be matched up on other PGs. It’d be a kiss of death defensively to have to put both on the court together.  
 

With Pearl’s adoration for playing 10 guys real minutes, I don’t see where Denver being an every day PG fits in 

You pretty much nailed it. That's why the idea of certain guys playing multiple positions is more about hyperbole than reality IMO. BP said that we have 10 players that are going to play double digit minutes. That means that no one will likely play more than 25 mins per game. Thats why I keep talking about the lack of emphasis on position designation. Aren't we in the age of "positionless" basketball after all? 😁

[Dual-Threat Rigby 9,261]

48 minutes ago, Skip Jansen said:

You pretty much nailed it. That's why the idea of certain guys playing multiple positions is more about hyperbole than reality IMO. BP said that we have 10 players that are going to play double digit minutes. That means that no one will likely play more than 25 mins per game. Thats why I keep talking about the lack of emphasis on position designation. Aren't we in the age of "positionless" basketball after all? 😁

Yep yep. With our NIL purse being as tight as it reportedly is, I think the roster construction like 2018-19 or what we have this year is going to be both our best competitive advantage and recruiting pitch. 

[autigeremt 7,284]

On 10/15/2024 at 1:16 PM, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

What is the basis of this thread? We haven’t seen the guys play yet lol 

JABA 😊

[Auburn93 871]

Jason Caldwell comments on the point guard situation: I'm really interested to see how this season plays out for Bruce Pearl's Auburn Tigers. I believe it's a team with more offensive weapons than we have seen in a while, but I still have questions about how the point guard position is going to shake out and if Chaney Johnson/Turtle Hudson will be good enough to keep Johni Broome mostly at the center position. https://247sports.com/college/auburn/article/talking-auburn-football-and-auburn-basketball-238398994/

[Lotto 273]

On 10/16/2024 at 8:13 AM, gravejd said:

I don't think anyone is panicking. Just discussing the team with the season about to get started. PG is an unknown at the moment so its going to be a hot topic of discussion. Especially when it looks like we have all the other pieces required to be a really good team. Add on that the schedule Pearl has put together and I think there is a lot of excitement and anticipation for the the coming season. IMO any time there is discussion about the basketball team its a good thing! Means people care and are paying attention!

Good points brought up about the offense shifting a bit without having that one dominant on ball player. Its not something we have seen a lot of with Pearl so its kind of unfamiliar to us fans. Pearl tends to have guys that run the show at that position.....Trey, Aden, Green, Harper, Shariff but we've had some really good season without that. Like the Doughty/McCormick year in 2020 where they did not get a chance to play in the postseason due to COVID. Would have loved to see if that team could have made a run. 

The other big question mark to me is the 4 spot with Chaney. He was a pleasant surprise for myself last season but they are asking a lot of him to be the guy at that spot. But maybe that needs a new thread where we can 'panic' in

Nah Chaney is good we have 4 players who can play 4/5 with cardwell only able to play 1 position of the 2