The Case for Mo Williams (With Poll)

I'd like to preface this post by saying that I understand fully that what I post here is simply my own opinion and not in any way the fact of the matter.

With that said, I have to say, I have been quite appalled by the backlash against Mo WIlliams throughout Blazersedge. As soon as the Blazers were rumored to be chasing him, people were immediately crying foul and begging KP to stay far away. I...honestly, couldn't believe it. I got to thinking: what, exactly, are we seeking in a PG? A shooting touch? The ability to drive and kick? A strong defender? Of course, if we could have it all, we would; unfortunately, barring a miracle by KP, this can never happen. What is it, then, that we need for the PG to do? I've been thinking, and I've come to this conclusion: in order to truly identify what we need in our PG, we need to look back through history, find the greatest two guards who played on championship teams, and analyze the traits that the PG's on those teams had. Then, we cross those traits with the strengths of Mo Williams, and then we can truly decide whether he is the man for this team.

Player: Michael Jordan

Championships: 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998

Point Guard: John Paxson, B.J. Armstrong, Ron Harper(combo guard)

In considering great two guards, one must start with Michael Jordan, perhaps the greatest player of all-time. Now, in looking at the PG's that Jordan played with, a few things stand out immediately. First and foremost, the shooting-touch. John Paxson, in his time, was a heavenly clutch shooter, and was relied on as a three-point threat while deferring to Jordan. This idea is found even moreso in B.J. Armstrong, who was, arguably, a top five three-point shooter in the league, capturing the 3-Point Field-Goal Percentage crown one season with a mark of 45.3%. In looking at Ron Harper, the shooting touch was less evident; he was only a 28.9% career 3-point shooter, although he did reinvent himself as a shooter later in his career. Despite of this, Ron Harper did something else to spread the floor: he could score, and he could do it well. Although his averages were average at best for the Bulls during his championship years, he was a perennial 20 PPG player before that.

There is more to these PG's than the fact that they were able to spread the floor with their shooting and scoring touch. Indeed, there is one more very important factor: the ability to defer to Michael Jordan. Indeed, their numbers were pale, at best:

John Paxson:

B.J. Armstrong:

Ron Harper:

As you can see, the most PPG any of these guys averaged per game was 12.3, and the most assists any of them averaged was 4.0, both by B.J. Armstrong in the 1992-1993 season. Well, then, what gives? Don't teams need a great point guard like John Stockton or Gary Payton to win championships? Actually, no. As we see here, playing along a great two guard, all these point guards needed were these: the ability to space and the floor, and the ability to defer to the two guard.

Player: Kobe Bryant

Championships: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2009, 2010

Point Guard: Derek Fisher

Ah, the black mamba, Mr. Terrible Photoshoot. Putting Kobe's fashion sense aside, much can be taken from analyzing the point guard that he has played with for ages, Derek Fisher. Although there have been others, Derek Fisher has been the one that has been there by and by through it all. What, exactly, is it in Fisher that made him such a great complement to Kobe Bryant? It is, in fact, eerily similar to what made the Bulls PG'S so special: the ability to spread the floor and the willingness to defer to greatness. Let's take a look at his stats for the last decade.

Derek Fisher:

Notice anything similar to the Bulls' PG's? Yup, basically everything. Fisher has never averaged more than 11.7 PTS and 4.4 Assists for the Lakers? Why, then, does he have five championships to his name Simple: the ability to perfectly complement Kobe with his career 37.3% 3-Point Stroke and ability to stand aside and observe greatness.

I was thinking about adding more examples of PG's, but I thought my time would be better spent analyzing this question instead: if all we  needed from a PG was the ability to shoot and defer to the two guard, than wasn't Steve Blake perfect? In a sense, yes; there was a reason Brandon Roy was so reluctant to let him go. However, although Steve was proficient in the two categories I identified as important in the ideal PG, he was quite deficient in other areas that the PG's listed above weren't, making him unfit to be the PG of the future. However, he was still a great fit in Nate's system, which is really just proof the type of PG we need.

The Case for Mo Williams

With all that I have mentioned in mind, how good of a fit, exactly, is Mo Williams for this team? The answer, as will become evident, is that he is not only a good fit, but a great one. I know what you're thinking..."What?! That chucker who can't play D?". I understand these complaints, but lets take a look at the statistics and make an educated decision here.

Mo Williams:

First and foremost, his great 3P% becomes quickly evident. Indeed, his efficiency from the 3-Point line is borderline as great as the greatest shooting PG listed above, B.J. Armstrong. Further, it illustrates another important point to us: he is not a chucker. He does not hoist up prayers, with the hope that they go in. If this were the case, that percentage would have likely been much lower, closer to his Milwaukee days then anything else.

So, we all know he can shoot. But what else can he do? Can he defer to a great player like all of the PG's I have mentioned could? This is up for debate. Putting all my biases aside, his numbers were considerably higher than of those mentioned above, and there is no denying this. But, why don't we look at the other side of the coin. Is it possible that Williams ability to still play a prominent role while being a very efficient shooter is exactly what we need? I mean, after all, this distinction has to be made: Brandon Roy is no Kobe Bryant, and he sure as heck isn't in the same league as Michael Jordan. There is slack that needs to be picked up by his teammates, and Mo Williams does exactly this: he spreads the floor with his shooting, poses a threat to the defense, and is efficient from the 3-Point line. In fact, during his Cleveland years, his TS% was greater than that of B.J. Armstrong.

The concern with Williams, then, becomes the same concern we had with Blake and Miller: they are not fully competent on the defensive end. However, I would like to offer you with this: Williams, unlike Blake and Miller, has the physical tools to be a good defensive player. It is no longer a matter of being too old or having the lateral quickness of an old-man, but, rather, a matter of getting into the right mindset. And, if the last few years has shown us anything, it's that Nate and his staff have a good habit of getting players to work. And work hard.

Besides, if Derek Fisher has shown us anything, it's that a long frontline can do wonders to cover for a PG's bad defense. I do seem to remember a certain man named Oden taking names before he went down.

Thoughts?

(P.S...Please excuse spelling/grammatical errors, it was a long post and I'm kinda too lazy to proofread right now :))

EDIT: Lots of you are mentioning the fact that it is hard to compare B-Roy to Jordan or Kobe. I said I would be willing to add some more analysis on other two guards, but no one really asked for it. However, I understand the point that is being made, and I would kindly like to ask you to go back and look at any other championship teams built around two guards, and you'll find the same thing. Jordan and Bryant are not anomalies; great two guards  almost always have a PG who can space the floor along side them.