Thing is though, can plays be run for Fields off the bench as it would with a very good passer with Baron Davis as a starter?
You gotta remember Fields played with much confidence too early on last year. If Fields gets chemistry with Davis, and if Shumpert continues to show confidence and plays well, then we can make a much, much better judgement. We know D'Antoni is gonna start Fields early on, what if the other starters aren't clicking with Fields? That might mean having him come off the bench when B. Diddy comes back isn't a good idea. If Shumpert has "it", then he'll get it, whether it's off the bench or being a starter. I think don't D'Antoni will wait around this time for a rookie to get earned minutes,
The issue is how their respective roles change depending on the circumstance, or relative to the state of the current team.
Fields had success before the trade because of his role combined with the team identity. With Gallo, Felton, Chandler and co. and the addition of STAT (who was our unquestioned leader) we were still a work in progress; we were overachievers knowing we had something to build. And it was basically "get STAT the ball", simple enough, and thats just what Fields would do. We would applaud because we was like yes n!gga, get the best player the ball and move the f*ck out the way; Fields did that well. But when the bright lights were on... different ball-game.
Each player had a role to solidify but the pressure was not there because we had low expectations. All Fields had to do was "fit in", put in hard-work, and hustle. Those attributes stood out amongst fans and teammates alike.
As the roster got better and better we almost instantly transformed to a "win-now" team, with greater expectations. Greater demand from additions.
This results in pressure. An analogy would be the Yankees. Everyone can't play on the Yankees. What was "good enough" on a young team is seen as "not good enough" on the Yanks. They demanded the best of the best, because they were the best. And it happens in all sports.
Fields did fit in. He proved his worth and brought something to the table, but that was in relation to who we were. Those same attributes now stand out as weaknesses on a better team. The pressure is too high, and some players can't deal with that. Some players thrive when there are no expectations- because they know they can rarely disappoint. A hustle player here and there is gold to starved fans.
Picture Fields on the Lakers. He would have been a bench player, no question; a Barnes or Shannon Brown type. Good enough to start on other teams, but a role player on the Lakers.
Well I'm not saying we are the Lakers. I know this sounds premature being that Shump only played in two preseason games. What I've seen and read, from highlights, and news clippings, and from the full season with Fields, I've concluded Shump is better. Better suited for what we need in my opinion. Shump is our PG of the future. He is the prototypical guard with size, defense, and a pass first mentality.
He has the athletic ability and the stones needed. He has what we should deem more important than what we know Fields brings, on his best day. Because Fields may bring hustle, rebounds, etc... and because we are now a different team, I know Fields isn't more important than what we need out of our PG. That goes for TD- in fact I don't mind replacing either. So we can leave Fields if you want, but we have to agree that TD is too better suited as a 6th man. With that said, the sooner we decide, the sooner we groom Shump as a definite Point Guard, no question, no options, or we'll sees...
the better. And thats the purpose now. No more experimenting, no more try everyone till someone fits... we should be starting the best players period. Not looking for someone to step up (i.e. Gallo, Chandler), we should already know that the best start, the rest do exactly what Fields is use to... try to fit in.