List your desired PG's this offseason

Imagine we could land any available PG this offseason, now list them in order of who you would want the most.

1. Chris Paul
2. Eric Bledsoe
3. Brandon Jennings
4. Trey Burke
5. Jeff Teague

1. Burke
2. McCollum
3. Paul
4. Teague
5. Not Jennings

Yep Rookies before Paul. Why? $$$$

1. Burke (most realistic)
2. Bledsoe
3. Teague
4. Vasquez
5. McCollum

Not taking Paul cse its not realistic. I get you said "any available player", but your living in fantasy land if you think he is coming back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenGlansberg

Not taking Paul cse its not realistic. I get you said "any available player", but your living in fantasy land if you think he is coming back.

---

This thread has nothing to do with what's realistic and what isn't, just who would you want the most IF we could sign any of these guys.

1. Chris Paul
2. Rajon Rondo
3. Eric Bledsoe
4. Dennis Schroeder
5. C.J. McCollum

We probably aren't taking a point guard in the draft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsl05

We probably aren't taking a point guard in the draft.

---

I really doubt it too and will eat a huge plate of crow if we do

In no particular order, except it kinda is

Burke
Bledsoe
Jennings
Teague
Paul

1. Paul
2. Burke
3. Bledsoe
4. Jennings
5. Teague

I'm all in on Bledsoe.

Or continuing to develop Rivers and Vazquez. Don't want a rookie PG, even though I really enjoyed watching Burke in NCAA tournament.

1-Burke
2-Burke
3-Burke
4-Burke
5-Burke
6-Bledsoe, but he kills our flexibility moving forward since he will need to be extended next season.
7-anybody but Jennings, he's so awful

Forgot about Teague, I'd put him ahead of everyone except Burke because he'll be cheaper than Bledsoe and their games are fairly similar. Plus Teague has ran his own team for two years now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenGlansberg

1. Burke (most realistic)
2. Bledsoe
3. Teague
4. Vasquez
5. McCollum

Not taking Paul cse its not realistic. I get you said "any available player", but your living in fantasy land if you think he is coming back.

---

This. Maybe McCollum and Vasquez are 4a and 4b for me. I don't even consider Paul an option.

The very thread is instituted on a fantasy land scenario so what's the harm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeauxPelicans

1-Burke
2-Burke
3-Burke
4-Burke
5-Burke
6-Bledsoe, but he kills our flexibility moving forward since he will need to be extended next season.
7-anybody but Jennings, he's so awful

---

Unless Bledsoe has a breakout season, I doubt he'd get paid any more than Memphis extended Mike Conley for. If he breaks out, I'm ok paying him. Doesn't kill our flexibility if we're set at PG, PF and either we're set at SG or we've created flexibility by trading Gordon.

1.)Rivers
2.)Carter-Williams
3.)McCollum
4.)Bledsoe
5.)Vasquez

1. Burke
2. Evans
3. Paul
4. Vasquez
5. I don't like anybody else

So I still don't understand why everyone is enamored with Burke, but the biggest surprise is Teague! What in the world do people like about him?

Bledsoe
Burke
Jennings
Teague

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsl05

So I still don't understand why everyone is enamored with Burke, but the biggest surprise is Teague! What in the world do people like about him?

---

Rookie contract that gives financial flexibility along with the upside to become better than any of the PG's listed here except Paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kumar

Rookie contract that gives financial flexibility along with the upside to become better than any of the PG's listed here except Paul.

---

Teague is coming off his rookie deal and will be a restricted free agent this summer...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NMThreeMVP

I'm all in on Bledsoe.

Or continuing to develop Rivers and Vazquez. Don't want a rookie PG, even though I really enjoyed watching Burke in NCAA tournament.

---

I don't think we end up with a rookie PG but are you worried about not making the playoffs? If there's a team that can afford to start a rookie PG it's us. Throwing Burke into the fire might pay off. He won't make or break a season and by giving him extended PT (much like Rivers) he has an edge on the learning curve and if the experiment fails it's not a huge loss in $$$ and he provides a veteran backup in the future. There aren't any bluechip players in this draft but who's to say he doesn't defy "experts" like 2 or 3 do every year and become a superstar? That being said, I'd rather have a 2 or 3 year guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeauxPelicans

7-anybody but Jennings, he's so awful

---

I love Jennings. Pelicans would be lucky to get him. With THAT being said...

Obviously I'd love to have Paul back. Anyone who says they wouldn't want him back is a 14 year old girl still reeling from the breakup. He'll go down in history as one of the greatest to play his position. I'm not willing to give him a 4 year max deal with the possibility of him only being able to play 2 of those because of his knees though, and he's not going to take less money to come back to NOLA.

1. Bledsoe (although I'm not willing to give up what it would take)
2. Jennings
3. Burke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DefensiveMind

Teague is coming off his rookie deal and will be a restricted free agent this summer...

---

I believe he's talking about Burke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kumar

Rookie contract that gives financial flexibility along with the upside to become better than any of the PG's listed here except Paul.

---

I think Rondo is much better, and I'd even rather Schroeder than Burke. As far as Teague goes, he is a RFA and will command money.

Bledsoe
Brandon Jennings
Nate Robinson
Jeff Teague
Tyreke Evans
rodney stuckey
devin harris
mario chalmers
Jerryd Bayless


if not attained in FA, then C.J McCollum should be our man over Burke. yada yada. this board considered that blasphemer a month ago; but as the national pundits keep nudging CJ's name higher up the draft boards it seems like the thought of him is gaining ground.

it's easy. watch Cj's film. he is lethal. we need offense and he can shoot soo well (Curry) and penetrate.
almost everything translates. he's got a right, left, high/quick release, unreal shooter, hesitation moves ect. ect.


needless to say, we don't need a 'position' we need a STAR!!!!! and I think Bennet is our best option if there.


Tyreke Evans (can off-set Gordon's....)
Eric Gordon (till his value goes up)
Anthony Bennet (should be our pick)
Anthony Davis
JJ Hickson (wouldn't start at center, but would plan with AD at the end as a perfect compliment)

Burke is a ...................bust. think johnny flynn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fullcourtpress

Burke is a ...................bust. think johnny flynn

---

Wow already a bust?! Man, that was quick. :hihi:
I will say i love that we honestly have NO IDEA who we are picking this year.
Last year we knew Anthony was 1 and we basically knew Rivers... right now.. WE ARE ALL CLUELESS! It's fantastic if you ask me.

1. CP
Long way down

2. Jennings
3. Burke
4. Vasquez
5. Carter-Williams
6. McCollum
7. Bledsoe

999999. Rivers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fullcourtpress

Burke is a ...................bust. think johnny flynn

---

Not a surprise coming from you. The ONLY THING you judge players by is how high they can jump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeauxPelicans

Not a surprise coming from you. The ONLY THING you judge players by is how high they can jump.

---

http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibti...4/09/burke.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsl05

So I still don't understand why everyone is enamored with Burke, but the biggest surprise is Teague! What in the world do people like about him?

---

He won't command a huge amount of $$$ from the PG position which is historically the easiest position to fill on a championship team, shoots a good % from the PG spot, shoots a good % from 3 point range, top 10 in steals yearly, 12th in assists this year while playing only 32 min, what's not to like?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mxlad1

I don't think we end up with a rookie PG but are you worried about not making the playoffs? If there's a team that can afford to start a rookie PG it's us. Throwing Burke into the fire might pay off. He won't make or break a season and by giving him extended PT (much like Rivers) he has an edge on the learning curve and if the experiment fails it's not a huge loss in $$$ and he provides a veteran backup in the future. There aren't any bluechip players in this draft but who's to say he doesn't defy "experts" like 2 or 3 do every year and become a superstar? That being said, I'd rather have a 2 or 3 year guy.



I love Jennings. Pelicans would be lucky to get him. With THAT being said...

Obviously I'd love to have Paul back. Anyone who says they wouldn't want him back is a 14 year old girl still reeling from the breakup. He'll go down in history as one of the greatest to play his position. I'm not willing to give him a 4 year max deal with the possibility of him only being able to play 2 of those because of his knees though, and he's not going to take less money to come back to NOLA.

1. Bledsoe (although I'm not willing to give up what it would take)
2. Jennings
3. Burke

---

Please, please, please tell me what's so great about Brandon Jennings. He's a shooter, who can't shoot. Convince me otherwise.

Beautiful, hope he's doing that to Westbrook in the conference finals in a couple of years wearing a Pelicans uniform!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeauxPelicans

Beautiful, hope he's doing that to Westbrook in the conference finals in a couple of years wearing a Pelicans uniform!!!

---

If that's Westbrook he better get out the way!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TBlaze

1. CP
Long way down

2. Jennings
3. Burke
4. Vasquez
5. Carter-Williams
6. McCollum
7. Bledsoe

999999. Rivers

---

Alright! Austin made the top one million!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeauxPelicans

Please, please, please tell me what's so great about Brandon Jennings. He's a shooter, who can't shoot. Convince me otherwise.

---

I've said this 100 times now. Put Westbrook on a comparable team to the 2012-13 Bucks and he'd have similar stats. Westbrook isn't a #1 option, and a lot of the success he has comes from the attention Durant demands. Westbrook's has a great PPG but doesn't necessarily have a great % and has a mediocre APG.

Am I saying Jennings = Westbrook? Of course not. But he could be a poor man's version. Jennings can and never will be a #1 option, just as Westbrook should never be. His % is average at best because he's THE guy in Milwaukee.

What Jennings (like Westbrook) can do is drive the basket and hit clutch shots down the stretch. If we're building our team on combo guards and athletic big men, which by indications we are, he'd be incredible in our system.

Of course you have every right not to like him for his stats. While I don't think stats ever tell a complete story, I rely on them too a lot of times. It'll take a team giving him a chance to prove my point while you can claim yours is already made. The difference is I would be willing to give him a shot as a small market team who needs to take chances. Again, I understand your points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mxlad1

I've said this 100 times now. Put Westbrook on a comparable team to the 2012-13 Bucks and he'd have similar stats. Westbrook isn't a #1 option, and a lot of the success he has comes from the attention Durant demands. Westbrook's has a great PPG but doesn't necessarily have a great % and has a mediocre APG.

Am I saying Jennings = Westbrook? Of course not. But he could be a poor man's version. Jennings can and never will be a #1 option, just as Westbrook should never be. His % is average at best because he's THE guy in Milwaukee.

What Jennings (like Westbrook) can do is drive the basket and hit clutch shots down the stretch. If we're building our team on combo guards and athletic big men, which by indications we are, he'd be incredible in our system.

Of course you have every right not to like him for his stats. While I don't think stats ever tell a complete story, I rely on them too a lot of times. It'll take a team giving him a chance to prove my point while you can claim yours is already made. The difference is I would be willing to give him a shot as a small market team who needs to take chances. Again, I understand your points.

---

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

I think Rivers is given every chance to be our PG. if you sign Jennings or Teague you've already given up on river as our PG.

Bledsoe should be the pick because he is only on contract for a year. If Rivers excels you could probably resign Bledsoe cheap and if the rivers experiment fails you can match whatever contract is thrown at Bledsoe, if he plays well.

Burke to me would only be the pick if we can't trade out and that's best player available. To me the good part about Burke if we would draft him, is he'll have a year to learn and if the rivers experiment fails you don't have to grab another PG.

I'd do another rookie next like the kid from Germany or Texas.

Chris Paul is 1st but I'm trying to plan for the worst and I think Dell/Monty will grab a transitional Experienced PG till a decision is made on Rivers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tdcreator

I think Rivers is given every chance to be our PG. if you sign Jennings or Teague you've already given up on river as our PG.

Bledsoe should be the pick because he is only on contract for a year. If Rivers excels you could probably resign Bledsoe cheap and if the rivers experiment fails you can match whatever contract is thrown at Bledsoe, if he plays well.

Burke to me would only be the pick if we can't trade out and that's best player available. To me the good part about Burke if we would draft him, is he'll have a year to learn and if the rivers experiment fails you don't have to grab another PG.

I'd do another rookie next like the kid from Germany or Texas.

Chris Paul is 1st but I'm trying to plan for the worst and I think Dell/Monty will grab a transitional Experienced PG till a decision is made on Rivers.

---

Rivers needs to play SG, but he gives our roster a lot of wiggle room with lineups because he can run the point if we need him to... which we will... but I don't think he'll ever be a #1 PG in the NBA. I think he's got every chance in the world to be a #1 option at SG or if anything a very, very reliable 6th man.

Would anyone be willing to bring back Darren Collison?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mxlad1

I've said this 100 times now. Put Westbrook on a comparable team to the 2012-13 Bucks and he'd have similar stats. Westbrook isn't a #1 option, and a lot of the success he has comes from the attention Durant demands. Westbrook's has a great PPG but doesn't necessarily have a great % and has a mediocre APG.

Am I saying Jennings = Westbrook? Of course not. But he could be a poor man's version. Jennings can and never will be a #1 option, just as Westbrook should never be. His % is average at best because he's THE guy in Milwaukee.

What Jennings (like Westbrook) can do is drive the basket and hit clutch shots down the stretch. If we're building our team on combo guards and athletic big men, which by indications we are, he'd be incredible in our system.

Of course you have every right not to like him for his stats. While I don't think stats ever tell a complete story, I rely on them too a lot of times. It'll take a team giving him a chance to prove my point while you can claim yours is already made. The difference is I would be willing to give him a shot as a small market team who needs to take chances. Again, I understand your points.

---

Jennings will always be "the man" in his head. He thinks he's a max contract player, which is laughable and wants a big market. Jennings and Westbrook shouldn't even be compared considering Westbrook is on a whole nother level. Westbrook proved his worth with how bad OKC was when he was injured. The Bucks would of been fine if Jennings didn't play. Plus he had Monta Ellis and Ilyasova to take some pressure off of him but he still choose to shoot the ball 25 times a game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeauxPelicans

Jennings will always be "the man" in his head. He thinks he's a max contract player, which is laughable and wants a big market. Jennings and Westbrook shouldn't even be compared considering Westbrook is on a whole nother level. Westbrook proved his worth with how bad OKC was when he was injured. The Bucks would of been fine if Jennings didn't play. Plus he had Monta Ellis and Ilyasova to take some pressure off of him but he still choose to shoot the ball 25 times a game.

---

Eh. Nothing wrong with having the desire to be the best. Hell. I commend it. And OKC and Westbrook was more a matter of no one else but Durant being able to step up than just how great a player Westbrook is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeauxPelicans

Jennings will always be "the man" in his head. He thinks he's a max contract player, which is laughable and wants a big market. Jennings and Westbrook shouldn't even be compared considering Westbrook is on a whole nother level. Westbrook proved his worth with how bad OKC was when he was injured. The Bucks would of been fine if Jennings didn't play. Plus he had Monta Ellis and Ilyasova to take some pressure off of him but he still choose to shoot the ball 25 times a game.

---

Do you know Jennings on a personal level or something? He hasn't had a stable coaching staff his entire time in Milwaukee, so if you're going to sit here and make the only logical explanation of that statement by saying "despite what the coach has told him he goes down and pulls up regardless" that's complete BS considering that team has basically been set loose.

They're the two most comparable guys in the league as far as potential, and you'll notice (even though I'm high on him) that I mentioned that Jennings is a poor man's version of Westbrook.

As far as Westbrook proving he's worth it with how bad OKC was when he was injured, I AGREE. How does that change what I said? That's irrelevant to this argument. If you removed Jennings from the lineup they're a low 20-something win team and to argue the alternative is insane.

Westbrook shoots the ball 27 times a game nearly every other game. Why? He should never take that many shots. He's not a pure shot either. If you tell me he is you might be the only person I've ever met who will argue he is. Like I said, he penetrates the lane like a boss (as does Jennings) and can hit the clutch 3 or J when it's dished out. And are you going even further to tell me that Ellis and Ilyasova are the better players on that roster? Ellis is going to be very, very lucky to get more than 10 minutes a game next year in the NBA. Jennings is the best player on that roster other than a decently good center, and he's not the type of center like Gasol or Davis who you're going to bring out for a 15 footer. Jennings' shots and the way that offense runs is a result of him being #1. In NOLA he'd easily be #2 or #3 and Ryan Anderson will provide something he never had in Milwaukee in a reliable outside guy.

Unless you know Brandon personally don't tell me he thinks he's the man and that he thinks he's a max contract player and only wants to be in a big market. The same **** was said about LeBron when he was scouting teams in free agency and obviously none of those 3 things were true*.

*No, I didn't say Jennings is LeBron. I merely pointed this out to say whoever says that kind of stuff is full of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mxlad1

Do you know Jennings on a personal level or something? He hasn't had a stable coaching staff his entire time in Milwaukee, so if you're going to sit here and make the only logical explanation of that statement by saying "despite what the coach has told him he goes down and pulls up regardless" that's complete BS considering that team has basically been set loose.

They're the two most comparable guys in the league as far as potential, and you'll notice (even though I'm high on him) that I mentioned that Jennings is a poor man's version of Westbrook.

As far as Westbrook proving he's worth it with how bad OKC was when he was injured, I AGREE. How does that change what I said? That's irrelevant to this argument. If you removed Jennings from the lineup they're a low 20-something win team and to argue the alternative is insane.

Westbrook shoots the ball 27 times a game nearly every other game. Why? He should never take that many shots. He's not a pure shot either. If you tell me he is you might be the only person I've ever met who will argue he is. Like I said, he penetrates the lane like a boss (as does Jennings) and can hit the clutch 3 or J when it's dished out. And are you going even further to tell me that Ellis and Ilyasova are the better players on that roster? Ellis is going to be very, very lucky to get more than 10 minutes a game next year in the NBA. Jennings is the best player on that roster other than a decently good center, and he's not the type of center like Gasol or Davis who you're going to bring out for a 15 footer. Jennings' shots and the way that offense runs is a result of him being #1. In NOLA he'd easily be #2 or #3 and Ryan Anderson will provide something he never had in Milwaukee in a reliable outside guy.

Unless you know Brandon personally don't tell me he thinks he's the man and that he thinks he's a max contract player and only wants to be in a big market. The same **** was said about LeBron when he was scouting teams in free agency and obviously none of those 3 things were true*.

*No, I didn't say Jennings is LeBron. I merely pointed this out to say whoever says that kind of stuff is full of it.

---

LOL, this is hilarious. I hope you really don't think he'll play only 10 min a game. Ellis for his career shoots 45.6% FG, and averages 19.4 points per game. He's more of a 2 G though and not a point guard imo, but to answer your question yes I think he's a better player than Jennings right now. Jennings may get paid more, but that's because Jennings is still young and may get better. I'd rather some other team overpay for him.

As far as if I know Jennings personally, no of course not. All u need to do is google Brandon Jennings max contract and I'm sure you'll find at least 3 times where he's said he wants max money and also wants to play in a large market. There was a post on this forum titled something along the lines of "Jennings wants to play in a big market." I thought everyone had seen or heard about this by now.

I also think jennigns will be a stud, he's still only 23! he will get better without a doubt, he averaged 20-7-4 per 36 minutes on a bad team, when he gets older, better and with a good team around him i think he will be incredible, and he also stopped his chucking ways and played way more efficient in the last month of the season. i would be very happy to get him.

A new and improved Austin Rivers.

George Hill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UNO Gracias

George Hill

---

Everybody last year laughed at me when I said we should trade Gordon to Indiana for George Hill and Paul George. They definitely say no now, but maybe not last year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeauxPelicans

Everybody last year laughed at me when I said we should trade Gordon to Indiana for George Hill and Paul George. They definitely say no now, but maybe not last year.

---

Doubtful, George was oozing star potential last year just stuck behind Granger. Don't remember if hill was starting last year but if he was doubt they give him up either. But it would have been worth a shot. By the way with all the stuff that gets thrown around here, who would have the audacity to laugh at that?

Yeah really. Where is that thread?

Austin Rivers will be our PG 15/6/5/2 and shoot 45%/75%/35% next season

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeauxPelicans

Everybody last year laughed at me when I said we should trade Gordon to Indiana for George Hill and Paul George. They definitely say no now, but maybe not last year.

---

they laughed because Indiana would have never contemplated it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UNO Gracias

Yeah really. Where is that thread?

---

Good question, I've searched for it but can't find it. I claimed George was a future superstar and a bunch of people told me I was wrong and I think you might of been one if them UNO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by All Metro

they laughed because Indiana would have never contemplated it.

---

Wrong, everyone said we weren't getting enough for Gordon because he was a future superstar. Wish I could find the thread, but I can't.