I am curious as to the most effective way to utilize a solid guard that can rebound. Is it better to keep them in a PG/SG role and go for the large rebounding advantage there, or would it be a better use of the rebounding to slot them as a SF?

www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx

This is D3, I play this player as my PG. 

My question isn't really specifically about this team, as I think he is best slotted at PG here. But more in general, is the rebounding advantage at guard worth keeping a player like this at PG, or would he be better suited as a SF?

No answers at all?

We're all filling out brackets.

Appreciate the candidly honest answer. Just hoping that, that is not the cumulative insight I may garner from the board.

without looking at your roster, the answer is that it depends on the rest of his skills and the rest of your roster

guards will get fewer reb than a guy playing in the SF slot - because of position

if his other skills make him more a SF use him there

compare the guys who would replace him at G vs the guy who would take the SF slot - who is better?  play him in the other slot

or play him at both - you may be able to get him mins at each.....

To me it would depend on what else you had available at PG and SF.  Specifically on the rebounding question. . I would rather, almost, have the Passing and ballhandling at small forward.  Could make for a very low turnover and efficient team - a 'point forward'.

I was gonna suggest you play him at SG (before I looked at his profile/ratings) and than after doing so, I saw that he was already a SG. With his decent LP for a guard, he's already gonna be in position to get some inside rebounds, so with his great REB for a guard, I would use him as a SG. With that SP, REB, LP, PER, BH, and PASS for a SG, you're gonna clean up. Just be careful with his DEF and who you match him up against. Remember, you can always play a floating roster game in and game out depending on the opposing matchups.

I think he's better suited to the 2 or the 3 (my preference might be the 3), and not pg.