Agree. High BBiq players make few mistakes. Make a lot of smart plays on offense/defense. Pick up for the mistakes of others. Basically make the smartest play in each situation.
No he wasn't. He's playing the position. You've made it more than clear that you don't think Tony Parker playing every game of his entire life at the point guard position is enough to make him a point guard. You need to pick a position and stick to it.
As stated, pick a position. You can say that you think both guys are out of position, and you'd only be half wrong for a change.
So you're saying Gary Neal is not a point guard, only that he's playing the position.
That's what I'm saying about Tony, but you are telling me it's not possible because he's always been a point guard.
You just quoted my position.As stated, pick a position. You can say that you think both guys are out of position, and you'd only be half wrong for a change.
I'm betting you still don't get it and will come back with another stupid reply.
Well said.
Probably the most accurate description you could do regarding Manu's gameI classify Ginobili as more of an instinctual player rather than someone who relies on high basketball IQ. Ginobili doesn't often settle for the most fundamentally sound option, which is part of the reason why he's the most entertaining Spurs player of the last 30 years.
Sometimes his instincts don't work out (Dirk foul) but he's a Hall of Famer because he follows his creative instincts even if it isn't necessarily "smart".
lol nobody agrees with you
I think Bonner has pretty high BBIQ. His rotations are usually correct and he usually makes the right play on offense unless he's scared.
he rarely ever fouls. but when you've been ted on so many times on a fastbreak, a hard foul is probably a better option than raising your short arms straight up in the air.
gy opinion + certainty = bag status
you have problem with semantics, in all of of your argument you not once said somthing that show Tony Parker is not a PG, basically what you saying is that in your opinion Parker is a scoring PG rather than a pure PG but still a PG.
Lol gnsf
I don't know how LJ or anyone can debate Manu's BB IQ. His court vision is unparalleled and he knows the proper play to make in just about any offensive situation. That's why he's so efficient. He knows how to take advantage of every defender and defensive tendency out there, so he can fake people up in the air and draw fouls. He also doesn't need to be told by a coach when to hold for the last shot, when to go for a 2-for-1, etc.
I think most of Ginobili's instinctive "unsound" play is on the defensive end, tbh, and even RC Buford said when they were first evaluating him as a prospect he was a terrible defender and it was something he had to learn.
That's exactly what I said. Gary Neal never played point guard until this season. He's been a shooting guard everywhere he's ever been prior to this season. He's only the backup point guard at this point because TJ Ford had to retire, Cory Joseph isn't NBA ready yet and Patty Mills stinks on ice. He can mostly handle the ball, and he kind of passes sometimes. Manu is more of a point guard than Neal is when they're on the floor together, but you don't see anybody posting that Manu's a point guard.
So you're suggesting that Tony Parker has been a shooting guard his entire career. Allow me to sum up: You're an idiot.
Glad someone was finally able to state it clearly, because you seem more interested in acting like Chumpdumper to just say what you're thinking.
Conclusion: As I said, you're only half wrong.
Blake with the quality trolling goods
Blake is pretty much of the opinion that scoring and not passing means you're not a point guard. He's made his stupid argument, now he seems married to it.
In short, Gary Neal will never be considered a point guard because he'll never develop the ball handling skills that Tony Parker has ALWAYS had in his professional career. Its not just about assists.
BBIQ and having instincts are two different things. BBIQ manifests itself in passing a great deal, but it also shows up in spacing and rotations because when you understand where the ball should move and when it should get there then it helps your defense just as much as it helps your passing.
I think Manu has a pretty high BBIQ in addition to instincts. I don't think its an either or with him. Now, sometimes he checks his BBIQ at the door and decides to give up 3 point plays to Dirk in the WCF (that play is the an hesis of BBIQ, TBH) but he also knows exactly where to be in many situations.
I agree that he does all those things, but I think it's only been through hard work and rote learning of the system, not any inherent basketball ap ude.
I've never seen him make a great pass, for example. I would think someone with a high BBIQ would see and understand the game better than others, and because of that make better plays than other players.
Bonner makes correct plays for the system, but it's like he's studied an algorithmic flow chart to get to that point. By doing so little he reduces his weaknesses.
Perhaps a more concrete definition of BBIQ is needed. Is this inherent ap ude or can it be strictly learned?
Possibly, but it might be important to remember just how good NBA players are. A lot of guys that do well in college just never amount to anything due to their inability to adjust. Like Bonner or hate him, he's improved pretty dramatically since he arrived.
Im of the opinion and Im sure its wrong, had the Spurs won game 1 last year, Bonner would've been the hero due to his shots, and that would've changed his mindset.
Im most likely wrong.
Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili have terrific BBIQs..
Timmy must be the center with the lowest average vertical leaps per game. As he has grown older and his athleticism has faded over the years, he has relied more and more and more on his BBIQ. It really is a treat watching him play. Before he used his IQ and his athleticism to simply own the post - jabbing, faking, outmuscling, dribbling etc to get the highest percentage shot..
Now he relies on confusing the centers by mixing his post game with jump shots and dribble steps. More than that, his play on the pick and roll is a thing to watch as well.
On defense, he must be the only blocker around who simply has to wait for the scorer to get his shot swatted away *into traffic*. He never gambles or leaves position in order to block. He is always in a position to get the defensive rebound and his outlet passes are terrific as well.
It has been a great mental exercise for us fans to see Duncan in his not-so-prime evening years where he simply out-thinks his opponent.
Manu on the other hand is simply a freak of nature. He not only has high BBIQ, he has BBESP (extra sensory perception). Very difficult to describe that. He is not an "out-thinker", but a "think out of the box"er. It is very difficult to coach that into a player. The only player I think that approximates Manu is that kid James Harden who is uncannily similar to Manu in many ways. Or perhaps Ricky Rubio.
What's the difference between a scoring point guard and a two guard that's a good passer?
I already conceded several posts back he's probably somewhere in between. You're getting angry over nothing. Again.
lol summing up
Tony Parker is a shooting guard who's a good passer, and Manu Ginobili is a point guard who's a good scorer, OK, i got your memo.
If somebody is playing the PG position, then I guess that will make him a PG.
Seriously though, i think youre accusing tony of 'not being a PG', in the basis that he's not a pass first, playmaking PG. he never was and he never will. im not saying that he doesnt know how to pass or make plays because as he's demonstrated to us all season long, he can set up his team mates to score just fine, but taking all things into account, he's still a scoring PG. just like rose. and to a lesser extent, westbrook. i guess my point is, while those guys are not your prototypical stockton-like or nash-like PG they're still a PG but they have a different approach to the game and the position.
thanks for reading.
Low: Mahinmi
High: Oberto
ability to run a team!
BBIQ is about seeing everything and knowing what is likely to happen next and next after that. It's also about understanding the game situation and being ready to do what's appropriate at a moment.
Example: in game 7 vs Detroit, very late 4th quarter, Manu has a layup. Instead of taking the shot he speed dribbles right past the basket and back to the 3 point line, when the shocked Pistons finally foul him after several more seconds have elapsed. That is BBIQ.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
