I really buy this reasoning:
"A lot of people have it etched in stone that everybody has to be a certain position - you have to fit into a mold, but that really isn't the way that I look at it. If you had him, Josh Smith, Al Harrington, all those guys to me are forwards. They can play some at either position and I think that's a positive for your team and for those players, so it gives them another opportunity to get on the floor. If you say he's a power forward, he's got to play the power forward spot only. You say he's a forward, maybe you're going to go with three forwards, so he can get on the floor at any time. . . . There's such a thing as him being a basketball player."
Positions are mostly overrated in basketball these days. Hell, if you look at the Eastern Conference, are there that many centers that would present a match-up problem for Al Harrington or Marvin Williams? The two-time Eastern Conference champions play a 6'9 power forward at center and they seem to do OK. Admittedly, a frontline of Harrington, Williams, and Josh Smith would be a rebounding liability because none of them can board like Ben Wallace, but if they committed to rebounding, there's no reason why they couldn't play together on the floor, especially with a strong rebounding guard like Josh Childress.
This whole "must have a seven-footer to play center" reasoning reminds me of a dilemma that Michigan has coming into this year. They have a deep receiving corps full of high school All-Americans, as well as two quality tight ends. They also have a major problem in that they lost their fullback from the past two years and don't have a ready replacement. Given that, why would they play a fullback when they would simply be taking snaps away from a better wide receiver or tight end? Why would the Hawks give an Obinna Ekezie major minutes when they can get a better player on the floor, even if that player isn't a true center?