Which standout floor leader would guide your team?

After the Atlanta Hawks took forward Marvin Williams with the second pick of the 2005 draft, many of their fans were thinking: Why didn't they take Chris Paul? A few minutes later, fans of the Utah Jazz were thinking the same thing: OK, why didn't we take Chris Paul? The New Orleans/Oklahoma City Hornets made their fans happy when they took Paul with the fourth pick.

But while Atlanta fans may still be pondering that same question, Jazz loyalists feel a whole lot better. From the beginning, the brass and coach Jerry Sloan had their sights on another point guard -- Deron Williams out of Illinois. He wasn't as quick or as flashy as Paul, but they liked his defense and his I'm-in-charge-here maturity.

Even though Paul was the 2006 Rookie of the Year, the second-year Jazz QB has progressed so quickly that the question is now a relevant one: Would you rather have Paul or D. Williams running your show?

The bailout answer is to say it depends on the offense; Paul is more natural with a running team, Williams a better fit with a Sloan-style set-up team. But we won't bail on it. An answer will be forthcoming.

The stats of the young PGs are remarkably similar. They each score about 17 points a game, shoot about 45 percent from the floor and about 32 percent from three-point range, rank among the league leaders in assists (Williams is second at 9.3, Paul fourth at 8.6) and commit nearly the same number of turnovers (2.67 for Paul, 2.89 for Williams.) Williams remains the superior defender of the two, though Paul gets more steals and, surprisingly, is a better rebounder (4.1 to Williams' 3.5). Paul is a better free-throw shooter.

Both players are of crucial significance to their respective teams. The Hornets are starting to make a playoff move in the West now that Paul is back from an ankle injury, and the Jazz are running away with the Northwest Division with Williams firmly in charge. Paul is as good as advertised. Williams is better than advertised, even though he went one pick higher.

"Everybody expected great things from Chris, and a lot of people raised an eyebrow when the Jazz went after Williams so high," says one NBA coach. "Everybody knew Paul could get in the lane to score and dish, but it wasn't so clear with Williams. But now? Any team would be lucky to have either of them."

I'm going to cast a narrow vote for PAUL, based on his quickness and overall athleticism. But it's great to see two such mature young points in the league. They will be rivals for years to come.

Here's a sampling of your responses to last week's Choosing Sides about the better location for the All-Star Game -- Las Vegas or hell:

Don of Albuquerque, N.M.: "Having spent more time in Vegas than hell, I may not be qualified to answer, but I know this: You don't have to go through a casino level first to get to your room in hell."

Richard of Bristow, Va.: "The venue is one of many problems with the NBA All-Star Game. I recommend the NBA stop the madness and get back to the KISS concept (Keep It Simple Stupid). Have the All-Star Game at the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame. Just like the NFL holds the Hall of Fame game in Canton and the Pro Bowl in Hawaii, the NBA should play the game at its signature location. Keep the the game fun and loose, show off the history of the NBA, the talent (or lack thereof), and keep it simple. Same place, same time each year."

Sam of Pittsburgh: "Hell. Dunk contest goes up in flames."

Richard of Canton, Ohio: "I wasn't there, but it was so painful to watch on TV that it must have been excruciating to experience it first hand. I could only tune in intermittently. Every time I did, though, there was some third-rate carnival freak show happening that made me go back to HBO. I kept waiting for a basketball game to happen, but it never did. One thing is sure, for me at least: Based on what I saw, I'll never go back to that town."

Stewart of Beijing: "This is a trick question isn't it? Correct answer: Las Vegas IS hell, so either."

Clay Carson of Denver.: "Wow, McCallum. I can't think of a better place to have ANY event than in Vegas, and if you can't apreciate Sin City for what it is, go get your heart rate up watching another hour of CSPAN while the rest of us give meaning to the phrase, 'What happens in Vegas'" ...

Bill Brady of Tucson, Ariz.: "I was in Las Vegas during the weekend of the All-Star Game. Traffic was unbearable, everywhere you went was mobbed and the strippers outside the casino were dressed more modestly than most of the women trying to navigate the strip. Personally, I don't plan on going to hell, but since I can't get or afford a game ticket at either location, as far as I am concerned, the All-Star Game can go to hell and take the NFL Pro Bowl with it."

Steve Forsythe of Las Vegas: "Thank you so much for your trite and overused steroetypical analysis of Las Vegas. The best thing about your article is that it confirms that those of us who make our homes and raise our families here won't have to put up with overbearing, self-important people such as yourself, as I don't expect we'll be seeing you anytime soon."

Scott of Skokie, Ill.: "Hell is just an enhanced version of Las Vegas."

Greg of Niagara Falls: "The Cocteau Twins sang Heaven or Las Vegas, so let's debate that choice. Advantages for heaven: Manna is free, unlike a casino buffet; God makes for an awesome PA announcer. Disadvantages for heaven: All the dead rock stars are in hell, and you know God's not going to allow any really good parties there. It's close to a toss-up, but I think what swings it to heaven is the potential of an argument between David Stern and God over who can wield more power over the NBA."

James Peacock of El Paso, Texas: "Hell has the advantage. At least in hell, the fans might have a chance to go watch the players they voted for without forking over $20,000 to watch a bunch of ball hogs throw up bricks. I didn't even watch the All-Star Game this year. The NBA has turned it into such a crock, it's impossible to sit through 45 minutes of pregame BS, and then be expected to watch Joe Johnson in an All-Star Game from one of the worst teams in the league while every member of the Chicago Bulls is at home. Maybe when league viewership drops for this game, fans will be invited back, not just high-rolling celebrities."