Minnesota Sports Forum

PorkChop wrote:Is putting Culver at pg putting him in a position to succeed? If that's not his long term position wouldn't that be a huge mistake in his overall development ? We always talk about the organization failing at player development and now you want to play our first round pick out of position for a year and hope for a pg in the draft? Then what? We start that guy at power forward until we find a solution there too?
I say make him earn his starting role at his natural position and if he fails then let him come of the bench for a season.

Good point, Pork. But Rosas appears to see Culver as a potential PG or a primarily facilitator in a positionless offense of some kind. So it's incumbent upon the Wolves to put that notion to the test sooner rather than later. If the experiment fails, it won't be hard for Culver to transition to more of a SG/wing role. The only risk is a blow to his confidence, but he can benefit from developing his PG-related skill set and that will serve him well as a SG. On the other hand, I think the primary focus should be on developing Culver's perimeter shooting. Shooting 30% from behind the college arc as a sophomore is certainly a red flag, especially given his mediocre free-throw shooting. So that should be the focus. Nevertheless, I'm fine with testing him out as a PG.

I'm in the camp of wanting Culver to be our pg too. But Teague can hit 3s when he's willing. Teague to start but with healthy minutes for Culver and Okogie

What does a PG mean these days? I think it's fair to say you don't need to be a smaller, quicker guy like a more traditional PG.

So many bigger guys like LeBron, Harden, Jokic and other players who have traditionally been labeled forwards, shooting guards, or even centers have taken over primary ball handling and playmaking. Guys like Simmons and Doncic are coming in as unconventionally big ball-handlers. They usually don't guard the other team's primary ball-handler when that PG is a traditionally small and quick guy. Offensively, this can be a bit of an advantage because forces defenders to play in a somewhat different role than they are used to.

Do I think Culver could do this? Maybe. His handles look better than any Wolf's other than Teague's and Napier's (though that's a low bar in some cases). He looks like he's a willing passer and able to make some interesting passes. It's at least worth running plenty plays though him. I'd definitely like to see him and Towns in the PNR.

But if we are really going to improve in the future, we realistically need to be able to put two good ball handlers/playmakers on the court at all times. It doesn't really matter what we label Culver. Even if he does pan out as a primary ballhandler/playmaker, we still need to find another one for after Teague leaves after this year.

So yes, I'm all for giving the kid the ball a bit. But let's not put too much pressure on him and remember he's only one (potential) part of the puzzle.

I often wonder if KG right out of HS entered the league right now what position he would end up playing.

monsterpile wrote:I often wonder if KG right out of HS entered the league right now what position he would end up playing.

My bet is most teams would want him to essentially be the 5, though I don't think he had the weight or strength until a few years in to be able to guard some of today's centers.

The trend seems to be to move to a point where you can put the most skills on the floor from as many players as possible, ideally with the longest wingspan you can at every position.

I remember KG used to insist on playing the 3 because he wanted to stress he had the ball handling and passing skills to play that position and didn't want to be seen as just a banging PF or a lumbering C. Today, we've basically gotten rid of the prototypical banging PF and lumbering centers and now everybody wants skills at all positions. With KG's length, I'm sure every team in the league would probably give him plenty of minutes at the 4, but hope that he'd fill out and be a versatile 5.

I'm not sure Culver is an NBA rotation player at this point. I'm sure he is going to get the chance to play PG, but I think you need to pump the brakes a little bit on this.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:I'm not sure Culver is an NBA rotation player at this point. I'm sure he is going to get the chance to play PG, but I think you need to pump the brakes a little bit on this.

I already have my foot placed firmly on the break when it comes to Culver, regardless of position. :) I'm putting some faith in Rosas that he knew what he was doing with this pick and that he drafted something akin to the next Brandon Roy. I'm all for giving him opportunities to handle the ball and even run the offense. But I have yet to be convinced that he's a potential all-star caliber player. And to your point, I'm not sure he's an NBA rotation player yet either. He won't be a rotation player unless he substantially improves his three-point shooting.

Positionless basketball has always, to me, been code for "dammit, we have a lot at this one position, but can't seem to address a weaker position, so let's just play everyone and pray it works because I'm really too scared to trade the wrong guy to address a need."


You want guys who are VERSATILE. Nothing wrong with that. If Culver can play a little bit of PG and have an idea of how the offense should flow, awesome, but in no way should Culver be tried out as a hopeful answer to the position. If Culver will eventually get big minutes, it has to be at Wiggins' expense (and to a lesser extent, Okogie). Sure, you wanna have different lineups that function together, but GS had a C/PF/SF/SG/PG that could mismatch in several different combos. The Raptors had versatile players but in the end it was a C/PF/SF/SG/PG starting lineup. If Rosas wants his chance at a PG, the 2020 draft will have plenty of them and we'll suck. Rosas has made sure of it. If they want a versatile bench or starters that can move over if need be, cool, but ultimately, Culver's not a combo guard. He's a SG. Pretending he's not only a PG but potentially a damn good one that could one day be above average there is Rosas praying he doesn't have to bank on a rookie PG in 2020.

Culver is a slow rookie that has never played point other than facilitating occasionally for Texas Tech. The only reason for wanting him as our primary option at point would be because we are tanking.

Remember Don Nelson!

I hope we are all laughing at this conversation in a few years. Minutes at the 1. Who will start at the 4?

I don't believe Rosas or Saunders view basketball that way, and I don't believe most of the winning teams coach towards that model.

Basketball really is about matchups, and if you have a group of players that are flexible on defense with 1 or 2 dominant skills on offense there is zero need to worry about roles like "point guard."

Are we worried about breaking a zone press?