↓ Login/Logout ↓
Schedule/Results
↓ Roster ↓
Salaries
↓ Archives ↓
↓ About ↓

Have the Pistons been too patient with Rodney Stuckey?

This passage about Rodney Stuckey in Vincent Goodwill’s one-on-one interview with Joe Dumars drew my attention:

The only difference now is that we’re asking him to take on more of a leadership role, to take on more responsibility as the starting point guard.

Stuckey was the Pistons’ clear starting point guard for 95 percent of the 2008-09 season. He was the Pistons’ clear starting point guard all of last season. Why weren’t the Pistons asking him to take the responsibility of being a starting point guard until now?

I thought I might be ready too much into that, but when I kept reading, Dumars said:

We’re patient with him and, at the same time, pushing him.

I’m still not sure what to make of this. What do you guys think?

11 Comments

  • Oct 25, 20106:52 am
    by Zeiram

    Reply

    Well too patient is a strange term. Did the pistons didn´t have enough patience with Darko, the right amount with Prince?
    What didn´t they do, that they should have done regarding Stuckey?
    I don´t think Stuckey will ever be a star pg (or sg for that matter). We know that now. I don´t know if Dumars agrees with me on that but even if he didn´t, even if he supposedly still has the patience to wait for a sudden turnaround in Stuckeys career-trajectory, what would have changed?
    There wasn´t a star playmaker for the Pistons avaible and Stuckey isn´t exactly trade bait.
    As to the question if Bynum should by now start over Stuckey, I´m still in the camp that this only matters if were in playoff contention.

  • Oct 25, 20109:10 am
    by Justin

    Reply

    I don’t think it’s that big of a deal.  In 08-09 Stuckey clearly took a back seat to the veterans and in 09-10, most point guards would struggle to put up traditional assist numbers with that roster and style of play.  I’m not saying he still didn’t disappoint, because he did, but it’s hard to pin his failures completely on him.  A healthy Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva, along with the addition of sharpshooting Austin Daye should boost Stuckey’s assist numbers. If he actually has developed a more consistent mid-range game, we can safely peg him as a positive building block for the future.

  • Oct 25, 20109:25 am
    by Sean

    Reply

    I think you are, in fact, probably reading too much into it. I think throughout the interview he’s talking about Stuckey in terms of taking on the responsibility of a vocal leadership role on the team. I believe he is saying as a starting point guard, taking on the responsibility of leadership is important.

  • Oct 25, 20109:52 am
    by Patrick Hayes

    Reply

    @Justin:
    How long does it take to extend his range? Trevor Ariza added a three-point shot in one offseason after coming into the league as strictly a slasher and playing that way in NY and Orlando. Will Bynum apparently worked on extending his range last offseason and looked comfortable on three-point attempts this preseason. Stuckey has allegedly been working on this every offseason since he came into the league with no real progress.

  • Oct 25, 201011:17 am
    by nuetes

    Reply

    I don’t think they had any other option but to be patient with him, that is after they traded Billups. Once that move was made your stuck, because Stuckey was/is on a rookie deal so you might as well be patient with him. What was the alternative? They could have drafted another PG like Lawson, but acquiring one a different route probably wasn’t a reality. The timing was bad. Last offseason they had the cash, they could have went after Andre Miller or something, but Stuckey was coming off his first season at PG. This offseason they didn’t have any cash to spend, and Stuckey is in the last year of his contract so you might as well see if he can do anything. There wasn’t ever a clear point where you say this isn’t working out and we have to go a new direction. It’s been a gray area the whole time.
     
    In that interview Dumars still included Stuckey as a future piece of the team along with Daye, JJ, and Monroe. I took that qoute a little more seriously than the qoutes above. It comes down to getting better players. The PG position is certainly not the only position hurting for a long-term option.

  • Oct 25, 20101:02 pm
    by Laser

    Reply

    in a word: yes.
     
    in more than one word: there will always be another excuse for why THIS is his season and you can’t judge him based on anything else. the expectations have been the same for him once he became the starting PG, and he has had a consistent role. he just isn’t cut out for it. lineup shuffles, locker room turmoil, changing coaches. not only were these all brought on him by dumars, but if he was a good leader (or even had any leadership instincts), he could have been a stabilizing force. he’s been the one constant throughout all the shuffling, but he’s no better today than when he first put on the uniform.
     
    but there’s always another excuse. we should all be so lucky to have throngs of apologists grasping at straws to explain why we need fifty do-overs. i mean, is john kuester’s system THAT different from curry’s, from saunders’s?? it looks basically the same to me. maybe i’m missing something.
     
    the bottom line is that he hasn’t been put in a position to succeed. he should be a spark off the bench to come into games and score points. he’s not a leader. he’s not built to run a team. plain and simple. it doesn’t take THAT many years to figure this out.

  • Oct 25, 20101:09 pm
    by Laser

    Reply

    i didn’t even read everyone’s comments before making my own, and… lo and behond! more excuses. it will never end.
     
    joe had (and has) many options with stuckey. trade him, put him in a role that suits him (as bynum’s backup). i personally think he’d make nice trade bait. if all of you guys are wasting your time making excuses for him, surely there’s at least an executive or two who wastes time doing the same. but even if he’s been exposed by now, and he may well be, there was a time when he would have gotten us a very nice return. but he was deemed “untouchable” because joe dumars can not evaluate talent. if he’s turned stuckey into another amir johnson (who could have gotten us a great return at some point but ended up a salary dump casualty), it’s joe’s own damn fault.

  • Oct 25, 20101:14 pm
    by Patrick Hayes

    Reply

    “i mean, is john kuester’s system THAT different from curry’s, from saunders’s??”
    I think the systems are different. Under Saunders, the Pistons were top six in the league in offensive rating. Under Kuester, they were 27th. Under Curry, they were 17th. Certainly Billups missing played a large role in the drop-off, but one player along couldn’t cause that much of a plummet. Saunders’ flex offense (which they ran really well during the regular season and gave up on in the playoffs) had perfect spacing and player movement at all times. Curry and Kuester, whatever the hell they’ve tried to run, have had horrid spacing and iso after iso.

  • Oct 25, 20104:30 pm
    by Laser

    Reply

    you won’t be surprised to learn that i just don’t buy it. curry and kuester are worse coaches, but how different could these systems possibly be? particularly the slapdash offenses of curry and kuester.
     
    i’d say it’s more likely we were top six in offensive rating under saunders because of the personnel we had. possibly something to do with his experience as a coach. but i really do think chauncey’s absence (along with the ensuing ripple effects) had every bit as much impact as these numbers indicate. our backcourt was limited to scoring guards, the only constant we had up front was an aging, lazy rasheed wallace. it’s hard to space with amir johnson and jason maxiell on the floor.
     
    chauncey’s absence had a direct and profound effect on spacing and neverending isos. nobody has to guard stuckey honestly because he’s so predictable, and isos are all you can hope for when your team is made entirely of scorers and no facilitators. how can you honestly say otherwise?

  • Oct 25, 20104:31 pm
    by Laser

    Reply

    it’s not like we’re going from the princeton offense to triangle to a motion offense. it’s the same shabby offensive scheme where someone dribbles around the perimeter for 20 seconds before making a pass to someone who jacks up a desperation shot.

  • [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by PistonPowered Feed, Patrick Hayes. Patrick Hayes said: PistonPowered: Have the Pistons been too patient with Rodney Stuckey? http://bit.ly/aEywyz [...]

  • Leave a Reply

    Your Ad Here