^If Collison was a better set-up PG, the bench might have some consistency chance to look decent. The problems that plagued him as a starting PG might be more evident with Jamal starting.
We'll see, maybe the increased on ball responsibility will cause him to produce more in those minutes that Paul is resting.
There's a misconception floating around that Stephen Curry is a bad defensive player, and I'm not really sure where it comes from to be honest. How come you think he is bad on defense?
My mini rant about defense is also that people overly value individual lock-down defense in terms of its impact in the grand scheme of a teams defense in comparison to the every possession, sticking to and executing the game plan type defense. Curry: pressures the ball well, works around screens, works to contest shots, competes on the defensive glass, makes his rotations correctly and consistently, stays with plays, is active in passing lanes. I just don't get how that then = bad defender because he can't imitate Avery Bradley or one of those always aggressive guys.
Now if we are talking about Kyrie Irving, that's a different story because he's actually a bad defender, and he's not elite on offense like Paul, Curry and Parker despite very solid scoring skills.
It's a bit off to imply that Curry's only positive player attribute while putting up 24/4/9 is his ability to score isn't it?
Also "I like defense you guys like offense" might not be the issue. I love defense personally, especially from my bigs and for my team, and I want my PG to be able to defend or at least be a guy that maybe he won't do anything special, but doesn't hurt me or what we call average. Cause if my team has an elite defensive system with an anchor to match, then my average defensive PG will maintain that status quo. These guys though (Curry, Westbrook, Parker) aren't bad defenders. We will have to conclude it as different preference, but then can we say my preference = better or higher impact player?
Westbrook for example is an inconsistent defender who get's lost more than he should, but again is not a bad defender. He's in the above average to good level cause when he isn't getting lost, he's quite good. Bledsoe actually had a similar issue in that while he could defend, he lacked in some fundamental areas, but could make it up with athletic ability at times (not always).
So yea, it's perfectly fine if you prefer or would take Rondo or Wall, but can you say that because you like them better it objectively means they are better players? Those are two different discussions.
In the end though it's about which gap is bigger and impacts the team more for PG's, defense or offense. As PG's, the difference between very good PG defense and above average to good PG defense is hard to argue as having more impact than the difference between elite PG offense and average to below average offense (and offense not meaning "scoring" as in PPG).
Though I guess the divide in our thinking might be that you and some others might see Rondo as better on offense than I do. To me, the past three seasons Rondo has been below average as an offensive player for many reasons than one (spacing, weak iso scoring, lack of 3PT shooting, poor FT shooting, high turnover rate, mediocre overall scorer) and Wall has just been average also for different reasons (half court execution which is improving, pace control, perimeter shooting, mid-range and off dribble shooting is getting much better, also turnovers).
Now, the player that is actually getting lost here if one "loves" defense is Mike Conley. He's always been considered the "upper middle class man" Chris Paul. He's an excellent PG defender in the mold of how Paul is, and unlike Rondo and Wall, also a very positive and high level offensive player. Control's pace, takes care of the ball, is deadly off the pick and roll, can shoot from outside effectively.
He's not going to have flashy assist numbers because of how his teams offense runs, but he's showing himself to be a higher overall impact player than a Rondo for example, but when people don't see "20 PPG" or like "8-9+ APG", they might not notice great play.
I dislike some of the little arbitrary statistical thresholds used to gauge players, not because there are totally useless, but because people get lost in them (not you, this is just a rant about that).