Viewing Byron Mullens as a 4-man.

[Veteran_Picksetter]

I'd say no. One thing I like about him is that he can pull the opponent's C out of the paint when we're on offense or get a bunch of open looks. Plus, I want him to learn to play C, his inevitable position, really well rather than make him a 'tweener.

I really just want him to turn into Okur.

Good points, but maybe just the same he could actually have an effective low post game against a lot of "4's", whereas now he can't against 5's. I personally don't see a lot of difference between learning the "4" vs. the "5". It's just a matter of pairing him with a massive Center so a lot of teams are forced to guard Mullens with a 6'9" 245 guy.

[Veteran_Picksetter]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, "position" doesn't matter. The only thing that does matter is who guards whom. If Bismack and Mullens are playing the heat, Bismack will guard the "PF" Bosh and Mullens will guard the other big. If Bismack and Mullens are playing the Magic, Bismack will guard the "C" Dwight and Mullens will guard the other big.

OR I could rename the thread, "Viewing Byron Mullens as a guy to play next to an even larger, stronger, more interior-oriented 7-footer." But "4-man" just works better for me.

And yes, there are instances where Biyombo would guard the "5" while Mullens guards the "4" versus the other way around. But my way of putting that is that Biyombo is a 4 who can also handle the 5 against many players, at least part time. I don't know if I want Biyombo guarding 260-280 lb guys fulltime yet. He's strong, but that could do some wear and tear on him.

[Zoolander]

The way the game is now versus 10-15 years ago, I think Mullens can be a starter at C for us and do well. Thing is he needs Biyombo out there with him to compliment his style of play. Mullens can't play with Diaw, Thomas, etc but Biyombo's strengths balance out Mullens weaknesses and Mullens strengths do the same with Biyombo's weaknesses. If you think less of it as a dedicated PF and C and more of two bigs that play down low, it is easier to accept. I'm sure in the end we will draft this year's best PF, continue grooming Biyombo to be our center and have Mullens come off the bench as a 6th man. Personally, I believe Biyombo can add another inch or two, 15 lbs of muscle and some offensive moves in the next 2-3 years and be a solid 6'10" -6'11" 14/12/2 center in this league that is feared in the paint.

right now he's an energy guy. That's pretty much all he can do consistently. Until he rounds off his game he won't be more than a 6th man, but hey, a lot of guys make a damn good living that way. A good sixth man is a valuable commodity.

[SWedd523]

OR I could rename the thread, "Viewing Byron Mullens as a guy to play next to an even larger, stronger, more interior-oriented 7-footer." But "4-man" just works better for me.

And yes, there are instances where Biyombo would guard the "5" while Mullens guards the "4" versus the other way around. But my way of putting that is that Biyombo is a 4 who can also handle the 5 against many players, at least part time. I don't know if I want Biyombo guarding 260-280 lb guys fulltime yet. He's strong, but that could do some wear and tear on him.

Why is there a need for arbitrary classifications? Bismack is smaller than Mullens yet has the ability to guard the bigger guys out there. Chuck Hayes is 6'6 yet guards the biggest opposing player.

Is Bismack a PF just because he's 6'9?
Is Gerald Wallace a SF or a PF? He's a wing but rebounds like a big man.
Would you call Derrick Rose a PG or a SG?He handles the ball, but he does most of the shooting.
What would you call LeBron? He handles and passes like PG, but plays on the wing.


The point is that the game has evolved, especially since the time Hubie grew up. There are far less positional players and far more "basketball players" The only reason people call Mullens a Center is because he's 7 feet tall. He doesn't play the game in the pivot like traditional Centers, but it's not like traditional Centers exist anymore.

I guess what I'M trying to say is that "searching for a defensive Center" is unnecessary because he needs a defensive partner regardless of position and "converting Mullens to a PF" is unnecessary because he already plays like a traditional PF anyway. It's not like his game is going to change just because you play him next to Dwight Howard.

[spectre]

Why is there a need for arbitrary classifications?

When you desperately need a 2 guard, your best player is a SF and your GM Bernie Bickerstaff drafts Adam Morrison with the rationale "there is no SG or SF...only "wings".

I generally agree with you, but that one pissed me off.

[Veteran_Picksetter]

Why is there a need for arbitrary classifications? Bismack is smaller than Mullens yet has the ability to guard the bigger guys out there. Chuck Hayes is 6'6 yet guards the biggest opposing player.

Is Bismack a PF just because he's 6'9?
Is Gerald Wallace a SF or a PF? He's a wing but rebounds like a big man.
Would you call Derrick Rose a PG or a SG?He handles the ball, but he does most of the shooting.
What would you call LeBron? He handles and passes like PG, but plays on the wing.


The point is that the game has evolved, especially since the time Hubie grew up. There are far less positional players and far more "basketball players" The only reason people call Mullens a Center is because he's 7 feet tall. He doesn't play the game in the pivot like traditional Centers, but it's not like traditional Centers exist anymore.

I guess what I'M trying to say is that "searching for a defensive Center" is unnecessary because he needs a defensive partner regardless of position and "converting Mullens to a PF" is unnecessary because he already plays like a traditional PF anyway. It's not like his game is going to change just because you play him next to Dwight Howard.

There is still a place for the 1-5 positional terminology in this game. It is simply a starting place for communicating about players. Of course there are gray areas, but that is the case with just about anything.

Derrick Rose is a Point Guard, a "1" who can obviously score better than most. He brings the ball up the court and usually guards the opponents primary ballhandler.

Gerald Wallace is a great-rebounding 3 starting next to 2 bigs. Yes, he can slide over to the 4-spot for a period and guard a bigger player for small stretches.

LeBron is a 3 who can do a lot of things.

Magic Johnson was clearly a 1 who could guard 1's to 4's. I see no problem describing it that way.

Paul Pressey was called a "Point Forward" for a reason. It was understood that he was a 3 defensively who behaved more like a 1 on offense.

And Hubie Brown understands more about TODAY'S game than any of us here. I heard him doing a great job on TV just the other night.

If you pair Mullens with a Dwight Howard or an Andrew Bynum(or at least the poor man's version), the other team will often be forced to guard Mullens with a smaller big(generally speaking a "4"), and that could very easily change Mullens's approach. He could add more post up attempts to his game and see how that goes. I see no problem referring to him as the "4" in that lineup situation.

[adam187]

i think the real issue is probably that mullens isn't quite as good as he needs to be, no matter where he is on the court. i hope he continues to get better and i will say he has attacked the rim more often lately. he's still young with plenty of time to improve.

that said, the only two 7 footers in the league who carry their teams with outside shooting are dirk and durant, and those dudes are elite shooters (and elite scorers). mullens has a pretty good shot, but he's never gonna get to that level.

[Marvel]

Mullens defense is BAD, on an epic level. His offense is catch it and shoot it from 20 ft out.
Seems like all the Mullens fans creamed their pants a little early.

[dnbman]

I don't think this is just about what you do with one player, though. We have to practice with guys working as a unit. That doesn't mean they can't switch positions, but I'd rather have our limited talent understand where they're supposed to be and what they're supposed to do really well at one position than be switched back and forth. It doesn't matter to me if those roles change from one side of the court to the other (playing the 5 on O; playing the 4 on D), but I think developing players need some consistency.

[dav7z]

Mullens defense is BAD, on an epic level. His offense is catch it and shoot it from 20 ft out.
Seems like all the Mullens fans creamed their pants a little early.

Mully is still much better than i expected . I still belive it was a steal by CHO. Hell we talking about a solid rotation player for all most nothing . Hell they paid us to take him . I can tell age is the main factor in determining positions. Sweed is right about the true old post up centers . Its a dying breed replaced by more athletic players . But i still consider position on the defencive side of the ball. As in our strongest player guards thair strongest player. Thats why i all ways say Smack is a center . Because the way he guards the paint . See most teams this year have been useing the quicker 4 man to guard Mullly any way . See if we just considered offence . DJ White looks more like a center than any player we have. Because most of his work is with his back to the basket posting up defenders. Whitch like another said is a dieing bread.