Is Finchie actually correct about the PG position

[FNG]

A recurring theme here is that we need to find our PG of the future, that we need another PG now in case Bite Bite goes down, etc. But I listened to a very interesting discussion yesterday on NBA Radio about the role of the PG in today's NBA. They made the point that there are really only 5 true classic PGs in the historical sense in the starting lineups (they included Conley, although they also pointed out that often he plays off the ball and doesn't originate the offense). I get frustrated with Finchie not playing JMac and instead using NAW to initiate the offense. But the guys on NBA Radio say that is the current practice...and I guess I can't argue with success. Last night JMac only played 8 minutes (with no assists by the way), and during much of Conley's minutes, either Ant or NAW brought the ball up and initiated much of the time, but we still ended up with 32 assists. The segment changed my way of thinking about Finchie's rotations. I still enjoy the way we look at both ends of the court when JMac plays, but Finchie likes the rotation the way it is, and it is working.

Bite Bite is still a vital part of our team because of his steadying influence, but I suspect Finchie thinks SloMo can provide that stability if Conley gets hurt. And as for the PG of the future, I pooh poohed the idea of Clark sometime taking over that role yesterday, because he was almost exclusively a 2 in college. But we know he is an exceptional defender, and maybe he can eventually become a starter in this new non PG-centric NBA. Just provide defense, and let our ISO players create on offense.

Anyway, I'm not opposed to drafting a PG this year if one is available when we pick (late in the first round and also early in the second round with the Memphis pick), but I no longer see it as essential...I go for the best player available with both picks. And I also am very much against using assets to sign a backup PG this season. What do others think? Is the PG position becoming obsolete?

[Q-is-here]

Because teams play more "in the flow" and with less structure, the need for a pure floor general type PG to run a structured offense is less critical. In addition, we now have players that size-wise and defensively are not PGs, but effectively play the PG role on offense. Think Jokic, Doncic, LeBron, and Draymond. You don't really need a pure PG with these guys on the floor.

But it's team-specific. The reality is that the Wolves don't have any non-PGs that are nearly as capable running a halfcourt offense as the names mentioned above (including Kyle Anderson, who is sort of a Draymond Light). Our high-usage stars (Ant and KAT) have proven to be pretty poor decision makers when given too much freedom to operate.

So while I agree with Finch's assessment for the NBA as a whole, I think the Wolves in particular need a pure PG that can run a half court offense responsibly while also hitting the open 3. In other words, Mike Conley is the PERFECT fit for this team right now. And Tyus Jones just might be the second most perfect fit!

[thedoper]

I don't think Ant has those PG skills naturally. He's a downhill player. He has improved and will keep improving his PG skills, but I think ultimately having another guard out there with PG skills helps the flow. A defensive distributor PG would be ideal. The good thing is these types of players often slip in the draft. I am not sure Finch doesn't think we need a PG, he ultimately must have been part of the conversations on switching DLo (who really is a 2 guard) for Conley. I absolutely think we need a PG next to Ant, but ideally one that is smart defensively and off the ball and doesn't need to dominate the ball.