seattlejazzfan
Well-Known Member
i'm just asking what you think. do you think their size is a disadvantage? they seem like great pgs even if they aren't mvp caliber players. i don't think either would be quite as good or impactful if they were 6'4". to answer your other question, pg standard changed when guys who were 6'6" and 6'7" started being able to play the position without it being a disadvantage. iow, you always want taller players at every position as long as they can still do the things that position requires.How are they proof that 6'7 is elite PG size, when neither one is a top tier player?
Im just asking. I dont know when PG standard was changed. The mark used to be 6'3 to 6'5 and more or less was considered a disadvantage.