Guano wrote:It's extremely insulting to Brunson that some of you use the Cleveland backcourt as an example of Donovan not working here. Like Garland and Brunson are in the same realm of players. Shameful.
Nah, don't get it wrong. Brunson would be the alpha in the relationship. He has been better than Mitchell since last year. It's a non-starter to even consider bringing in Mitchell so Brunson could be the "Darius Garland" in the relationship. If Mitchell gets here, both guys need to adjust, but Mitchell would be sacrificing more.
The big question is how good Mitchell would be in a secondary role (aka whether he can be a good Robin to Brunson). It's a tough ask: Mitchell has to be Mitchell (at times), but the rest of the time, he'd have to play a Klay Thompson/Derrick White role...less of a ball-dominating ball, but needing to contribute elsewhere. Unfortunately, things aren't going to be equal for Brunson...we know he's not the best 1 on 1 defender, but that's kinda how it goes. Someone in the backcourt needs to guard the Maxeys and Haliburtons and all that. Someone needs to be DiVincenzo when Brunson takes over in the late game and gets doubled and needs to pass it out. If Mitchell has more energy because Brunson is gonna get the ball more, he needs to step up. Mitchell is basically the one who needs to prove that he would be better than Garland in a secondary role, and not just better than Garland, but MUCH better than Garland. Garland is not the standard.
Luckily, there's a good opportunity to really evaluate this. We've heard that Mitchell is a great two-way player now. The main concern many posters have is that he and Brunson are too small. Boston is a really big team with big guards and forwards that are very talented, and they might be a team we'll need to try and surpass in the foreseeable future. I'm sure the Knicks scouts are watching too. I'll keep an open mind too. Maybe Mitchell proves me wrong...DWade was a monster defender, so not impossible. It won't answer all the questions, but it's a big one that deserves answering.