Is it? We have played one quality team, played them at home, and lost.
One bad part about Ty being PG is it gives Hawkins an excuse to hang around the top of the key. Then we have 2 non PGs handling the ball a lot. Heck, not guards at all.
I always felt good with Darwin Barney on the field. He did everything correctly.
Replying to you but not picking on you specifically, because there are a good number of people on this board who are saying pretty similar things.
Darwin Barney was consistently one of the absolute worst hitters in Major League baseball to get regular playing time during the entire course of his career. Did he hit correctly?
That's the problem I have with this panic folks have whipped themselves into around not having a True Point Guard -- when you strip away everything else, it's about 99.99% vibes and no substance. In recent threads we've had people say all sorts of stuff about Moretti and how he compares to Rodgers. He doesn't turn the ball over (though he had two TOs in 13 minutes just like Ty did last night). He hits free throws (said during the Valpo game at which point he was 2-4 on the night). That he's got a credible jumper (though he has attempted and made just as many threes as Rodgers on the season). That the ball doesn't stick when he's on the court (though there were a few possessions last night where he did the whole Bob Cousy/Andre Curbelo "I'm gonna dribble until something opens up" routine).
If you're like me, you watched a lot of basketball and learned about the game in an era when big men were not only supposed to have specific skills around the basket, but also that they were doing something wrong if they tried to play on the perimeter even if they had the skills to do so. The NBA locked out skilled European big men for the better part of a decade after the Eastern Bloc stopped restricting their movement. We heard all sorts of reasons for this -- I'm partial to 'they were too soft' which is objectively hilarious if you've ever taken the time to watch a basketball game played in Serbia or whatever -- but mostly, coaches had no idea what to do with them.
The game has changed and it's better for it. You can have big guys handle the ball or make plays or shoot jump shots and it's actually a good thing, and at least the people on the inside of the game recognize that as a thing that you want to take advantage of if you can.
But we're not even talking about a big man here. We're talking about Ty Rodgers, who is maybe 6'6" and in today's game there are plenty of 6'6" guards. Since he's Not A Point Guard because he's never played Point Guard, though, folks have jumped to all sorts of conclusions about what he can and can't do. Does he have experience running the point at the college level? No, but he's got just as much as Moretti or Gibbs-Lawhorn. Still, those guys Are Point Guards, maybe because they wouldn't have looked out of place playing the role 40 years ago, or maybe because, I don't know, reasons?
But there's zero substance behind that. It's just folks wanting the game to look differently than it does today, and frankly, folks having really forgotten what the game looked like back then. Just the worst, most vapid sports talk radio stuff imaginable, and you're gonna keep swinging it around until the facts match up with your narrative.
Anyway, you do you, I'm just gonna tune out, and maybe hope that the people who actually get to make decisions about this stuff aren't listening, either.
