As much as I hate to beat a dead horse, I really wish we had Brandon Roy right about now. \"Injury concerns\" and all.

I just have a hard time seeing Foye as turning out to be a good point guard. Right now, Brandon Roy seems to be doing a decent job running the offense...and we will probably not know how Foye turns out until January, after he gets back into the swing of things.

7sixes wrote:

Yeah, that really sucks. I was so stoked when we drafted Roy. Sigh.

Roy is doing a \"decent job\" to the tune of 18.9 points per game and 4.8 assists per game. Foye isn't even on the court.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/brandon_roy/index.html

7sixes wrote:
Why do you have a hard time seeing Randy Foye turning out to be a good point guard? Has it been the result of his play so far? Or has it been because the \"experts\" say he is not a true point guard?

mmaland wrote:
Even though he's obviously not a \"true pg\" by any means, he's still miles ahead of anyone we've got at the point. I'd take him as our PG any day of the week. Darn.

Outside of ONE draft McHale has been a disaster.

One thing I think that gets missed when talking about what I'd call three misfires in the last 3 TWolves 1st round picks...

Ebi over the obvious choice of Josh Howard
McCants over the obvious choice of Danny Granger
Foye over the obvious choice of Roy

What makes them so painful is that if any chump off the street had been given and espn draft talent rankings sheet and sent into the draft we make those picks. And not only do we have those players but we also have KG still here and the twolves are contending. Even just looking at Roy I think he was good enough last year to likely buy the team the more wins and more importantly give Garnett enough hope for the future and he'd still be here.

Another thing that is rarely mentioned but I think it could be an very good analogous to the Roy versus Foye is the Ray Allen versus Marbury. If the wolves had that one star to put with KG who was a good \"sane\" guy many many things would have been different.

Ok there is my round up of coulda shoulda woulda's. All I can say is... thank God Al Jefferson looks legit.

College Wolf wrote:
Thats my point. 7sixes said he had a hard time seeing Foye as a GOOD point gard. You can be a good point guard without being a \"true\" pass first shoot only when necessary point guard. A GOOD point guard is one that can run the offence. Foye is very capable of doing this and has shown an ability to do this numerous times in the past.

Again, perspective is needed here. The Roy-Foye and Allen-Marbury comparisons will (& should) always be made, but I just can't agree with posters who always feel that going the other way than the Wolves did with those choices is a no-brainer. Marbury DID have star-level talent. Had he been mature enough to mesh KG and sublimate his immense ego, great things could have occurred. All draft picks (even the highest ones) are rolls of the dice. The greatest college player I ever saw play was David Thompson. A Jordan-esque player well before Jordan. Events conspired to make his pro career less than stellar.

Roy has had a greater opportunity to shine in Portland than Foye has here. Everyone felt Roy would be good, but the jury on Foye is out and will be for a long time to come.

As to who is a 'real' point guard, again, how many NBA teams function today with players at that position who many posters would feel are not 'true' point guards? For one example, is Chauncey Billups a true point guard? Many critics felt for years that San Antonio should get rid of Tony Parker because he was not a 'true-enough' point guard. Remember all the Parker for Kidd scenarios. I doubt the Spurs regret not making those deals. In fact, Kidd seems to be a name that writers are always hoping their team trades for, yet he has been unable to take his team to a title.

I have often stated, and will continue to, that I hope Foye, who has undenieably high slashing skills, will be allowed to develop into a scoring combo guard, similar to Gilbert Arenas or maybe Baron Davis. For that, he won't need to be an excellent playmaker or infinite court vision. He needs to bring the ball up without turning it over and then kickstart the offence with the ability to create for himself and spreading the defence with the treat to either shoot or driving to the lane. Both the aforementioned players are producing assists not only because of steady hands and great vision, but more of the scoring threat they pose themself, drawing defenders and either kicking the ball out to an open shooter on the wing or just handing it over to a post player.

With a legit low post player in Jefferson, this could turn out a similar lethal one-two combination that the Wolves envisioned when they drafted Marbury to play along KG(not identical, because KG never was that post-oriented like Jefferson is)...if Foye was allowed to develop that way and really makes himself respected as a relieable outside shooter.

I can't believe I end up defending McHale from time to time, but in the case of Foye, I can understand why he preferred him over Roy. At that time, widespread believe was, that the Wolves had just signed a lethal shooter and dependable distributor in Mike James for at least the next two years. With a lot of PGs, especially those with a good shooting touch, playing good ball well beyond their 30s these days, it was not to be expected that James would decline...physically. That he just wasn't able to handle the responsibility mentally was another thing that might or might not have been forseeable after his killer season in Toronto. But with the PG situation clear, I don't think McHale's choice to draft Foye to become exactly this what-maybe-Marbury-could-have-become-if-he-was-not-such-a-nutcase-player KG would have needed was such a bad decision as many other.

As much as I need to give McHale any excuses, but decisions need always to be judged \"ex ante\", not \"post ante\". And in this case, in this exact situation, at that time it wasn't a dumb one.

A discussion, if I would prefer NOW that the Wolves had kept Roy BACK THEN makes not much sense, imho.

And another thing...I admire College Wolf for his insight and knowledge, but an unforseeable injury to a player over a year AFTER the original dicission was made...that is absolutly zero of an argument. Injuries happen to all players or they don't.

One could argue if in Oden's case, there was serious evidence (rumors say so), but in Foye's case, no one could forsee that he would be injured so long at the start of his second season. The probability that Roy would be injured were exactly the same.

With an argument like that, it could also be argued that the Wolves should never have aquired Malik Sealy (RIP), because he would later die in a tragic accident.

When I said a good point guard, I meant being a leader in a way. Not necessarily a \"true\" point guard all of the way but someone who can, in a way, run the offense.

I just can't see Foye coming back being a leader of this team, which is something this team needs.

Which is WHY I think McCants has adapted KG's old pregame rituals and is trying to become the leader. Also, notice his keeping the team focused by saying \"lets finish this\" or whatever he kept yelling at the other game.

I disagree with the fact that this is considered \"beating a dead horse.\" In all actuality, as fans, we undeniably have a right to muse as to what could of been. I think it's fun to pontificate. Hell, I wanted Rudy G over both Foye and Roy. But there is still one undeniable fact. Anyone having watched both players in college would undoubtedly state that Roy is a much more solid presence on the floor than Foye. Although Foye had his moments in college, it was readily apparent that Roy would be an above average guard in this league. I recall watching several Washington games on FSN with intrigue due to the skill set he possessed. He had the shooters mentality along with the touch that made him a dangerous threat on the offensive end of the floor. Although he never was particularly spectacular with awe inspiring dunks or quickness; he was a solid scoring threat that carried Washington down the stretch in a number of games. Foye, on the other hand, is fairly gifted athletically, yet lacks overall strength in any particular part of his game. His athleticism fueled his game in college. In the NBA, athleticism, at times, takes a backseat to court awareness and a shooter's touch. Some may consider athleticism alone a skill. I disagree. Athleticism is a physical characteristic while skill is either a natural or unnatural attribute that is developed within the boundaries of a certain action, or in our case, the \"game of basketball.\" Skills are honed and enhanced, whereas athletic ability can be improved only to the extent in which ones physical being allows.

Although it is too early to determine whether or not the rest of Foye's game will catch up with his athleticism, I find it amusing to watch players that we potentially could have drafted. And considering we did have Roy's draft rights, it makes the debate all the more captivating. What could have been? If we, as fans, never honestly tackled these subjects head on, would we still be sane (or insane, however one looks at it)? Watching the evolution of each player will be interesting, and without our truthful recognition of their development, we in turn are denying what could have been. And hence, we are denying our \"fanhood\" true satisfaction.

mmaland wrote:

That is a fair point about him being a \"good\" point guard without having to be a \"true\" point guard. The problem is, I just don't think he's very good. He's vastly overrated, especially by our fanbase (for some reason.) He's not a very good shooter, he's small, doesn't facilitate the offense, and plays pretty bad defense (e.g. doesn't keep his man in front of him and jumps waaaay too much trying to get blocks and from ball fakes.)

ogishkemuncie wrote:

The thing is, those guys are all better players than Foye will ever be. That's apparent already. We won't have to wait several seasons to \"wait and see\" if Foye is as good as Billups, Parker, and Kidd.

Sanyarin wrote:
I'm just saying that some people defended the trade by saying that Roy is \"injury prone\" and missed games last year, so they were glad we got Foye. Well, Roy looks to be playing very, very well this year and now Foye is the one that is injured. It's probably irony more than anything.