However, the experiments the last few years throwing Bertrand, Henry, Hill and now DJW down there - guys that are true wings - I'll pass.
Yep, height has little to do with it. It is the ability and skill-set to play the position. I have always claimed that Groce's biggest problem has been positional recruiting, rather than overall level of recruiting. That is, if Groce had been able to get the SAME level recruiting at key positions (e.g., PG and C), our team's success would had been different.
People love to bring up the Golden State Warriors as example of flexibility, but the truth is that the talent level required is a lot higher than we currently have on this team. Talent can mask a lot of positional gaps. Our own Flyin' Illini were a team that also thrived on flexibility, but that team had A LOT more talent than what we currently have. Worlds apart.
With the current level of talent, we have enough problems getting players to become consistent at their natural position (e.g., DJW at SF), let alone them becoming very consistent and effective at multiple positions, especially positions that they may not have (at least yet) the skills for. We can also solve problems by
significantly elevating the talent level on the team, getting great talent with the flexibility to handle multiple positions. The fallacy, however, is that we can turn average overall talent to multi-dimensional effective players. Chances of that happening are simply not good.
PS. On Villanova, don't confuse talent with depth. Nova had limited depth but really great talent, including positional talent. They had the luxury to have two exceptional PGs who could play together (Arcidiacono/Brunson), great play at SG/SF (Hart), and C (Ochefu). Sure, they had an undersized PF who may never be considered a pro prospect at that position but was really a PF in HS/AAU (watched him multiple times). The equivalent would be us solving all positional needs with very good talent and discussing whether Roger Powell can play PF...