Reply With Quote
i asked you to define a point guard. you have failed to do so. i'll give you another shot though
Ben Wallace was 6'6 without shoes yep. He had a huge wingspan which is why I love him on my team. He could guard a Pick & Roll
i asked you to define a point guard. you have failed to do so. i'll give you another shot though
He's also failed to explain why Bosh would be a better point guard than Blake, whose passing skills are good enough to be an important part of our offense
You're just gonna go down with the ship....being wrong be damned......
blake is arguably the best ball-handler at the positionHe's also failed to explain why Bosh would be a better point guard than Blake, whose passing skills are good enough to be an important part of our offense
just stop. No one wants to start 3 pg's.
Anyone is a point guard. Anyone is a centre. Anyone should be able to score on all areas of the court. Failure to do so will be exploited. Anyone is a point guard defender. Anyone is a centre defender. Anyone should be able to defend all areas of the court. Failure to do so will be exploited.
A point guard by the traditional definition is the player who brings the ball up the court and initiates the offence and sets players up.
In today's NBA that's very blurry. Manu Ginobili and Patty Mills. Who is the point guard? Mario Chalmers and LeBron James who is the point guard?
Which is why you want guys that cannot be exploited. Sean Livingston is less likely to be exploited than Steve Nash. Tiago Splitter is less likely to be exploited than Brook Lopez.
Advanced stats NBA offences and defences have the ability to put anybody in a compromising position. So the question is can your 'PG' do somewhat of an OK job guarding the biggest guy on the other team and can your 'C' do somewhat of an OK job guarding the fastest guy on the other team.
Nash, Parker, Bogut, Lopez, and these types fail brutally at this task. Which is why the league is becoming so wing dominated. Teams want the 6'6 guys that can move like a 1-2, with the length of a 4-5.
OK. But how come my team can beat you starting 5 SF's?
You're making my point. You can't start 3 'PGs' and 2 'C's, but how come my team can start 5 'SF's and beat you?
Doesn't that tell you that if you are going to have a 'PG', it should be a 'PG' that's able to guard a SF and if you are going to have a 'C', it should be a 'C' that's mobile enough to guard a SF? In which case, you've pretty much come down to an ideal roster of
5 Jimmy Butlers would beat 5 Steve Nashs
5 Kawhi Leonards would beat 5 Shaq's.
Why? Less areas to exploit.
NBA is going to become more versatile. It's trending that way whether you like it or not.
That'd be a nice luxury to have, but it's not realistic right now... LeBron is the exception, not the rule, so you still need specialists at certain positions....
I do agree that total positionless basketball is the future, but that's a long way off still and not relevant to today's game....
Please walk into a burning building and never come back out.
ok so i'm just gna cut the crap out and get your definition of a point guard
so tell me again how magic isn't a point guardA point guard by the traditional definition is the player who brings the ball up the court and initiates the offence and sets players up.
Also, reducing the point guard position to being able to score at that area of the court completely ignores all the other aspects that a point guard has to be good at....
OP hasn't heard of Isiah Thomas (the one from Detroit).
Exactly OP wants to twist things in his/her favor....turnabout is fair play. Kobe is small enough to play PG so I consider him a PG and him and Shaq won 3 les...there is another PG and C combo.ok so i'm just gna cut the crap out and get your definition of a point guard
so tell me again how magic isn't a point guard
Clipper Nation, I have a lot of respect for your bball knowledge and IQ.
I may be talking in extremes but I'm glad you're starting to see where I'm headed. Yes positionless basketball is the future and it's not there yet. That's why the team still has a Sean Livingston who is 6'7 and on the smaller side to go with a Chris Bosh who is on the larger side. It's not 5 LeBrons.
Yes a PG does other things.... but Stockton has to do all this because Malone and Ostertag cannot do for dribbling or passing.
In a positionless system, the burden of creating for others and passing and ball handling is spread equally. Just like how you see Kawhi bring the ball up for a rebound, this is what would happen if you had 5 Kawhis on the court at once. Anyone who got the rebound would lead the break.
Both Pop, Spoelstra, and Phil's system does not require certain players to bear all of the rebounding or bear all of the passing burden. It requires spacing, movement, and versatility.
This is why Patty can actually do ok cause he's got Manu and Belli taking on some of the PG duties.
If you need Chris Paul and Steve Nash to be dribbling for 20 seconds by themselves, it's cause you've got a seriously flawed roster. The fact that Blake is showing some bball IQ and passing ability is a great sign for the Clips. That's added versatility points. Unfortunately, if you're a 6'1 PG with a 6'2 wingspan or a 7'2 325lb centre, you're pretty limited in what type of versatility you'll be able to acquire over time.
Yep Kobe at PG, Kobe at SG + Shaq at C would indeed be better than Steve Nash at PG, Steve Nash at SG and Shaq at C.
The more you can have your PG be SF size, the better you'd be all things being equal. The more you can have your C be SF in speed, the better you'll be all things being equal.
Gino-Step what is a point guard? you keep using the term point guard, or PG, but i don't know what you are referring to tbh. can you please clarify in a post without going in a bunch of different directions and examples of lebron/kobe? just tell me what a point guard is
Disagree..again. You take Kobe off the Lakers and put in Nash in his prime with a prime Shaq..they win as many les as Kobe/Shaq....if not more.
Nash had the ability in his prime to take a career 8pt/gm player and turn him into a 15 pt/gm player. That is what a PG can do.
Take this upstairs, for Christ's ing sake.
I do get your point that having a bigger PG is an advantage - but then you listed a core of Deron Williams (a big PG) and Lopez as an automatic loser earlier in the thread, so you seem to be contradicting yourself.... additionally the downsides of having a small PG can also be mitigated if you have other players who can create for themselves and others when the PG is shut down by a bigger player, so claiming that it's impossible to win with a smaller point guard is an overreaction....
Also, you bring up the Heat as an example of your point - but a huge reason why Miami has been slumping as of late is because Norris Cole and Mario Chalmers have been struggling and it has had a negative impact on the offense.... even the Heat still need some production from the 1, tbh....
I don't think you understand where I'm going with this. Sorry for that.
You keep trying to define PG into a restricted thing. As if PG is someone who dribbles the ball and sets up his teammates. And then define C as a dominant big man who posts up and defends the paint.
I'm trying to tell you the future of the NBA is a positionless future. It doesn't matter who of your 5 players is posting up and who of your 5 players is bringing the ball up. It doesn't matter which of your 5 players is guarding whatever player on the other team.
The best way to accomplish that is to have 5 players on the court who are all 6-6 to 6-10 with 7-3is wingspans who can adequately move, rebound, shoot, pass, dribble.
To try to win with players that are less versatile is futile. That's why I'm calling out the guys who can only play "dribble the ball up the court and create for teammates" and calling out the guys who can only play "dominant big man who posts up and defends the paint".
The Sport is getting way more nuanced than that bro. Why do we see stretch 4's? Cause that's the first position that a wing guy is going to take over. Next, they take over the 5 and 1 positions until the sport is positionless.
At that point, Kawhi will be playing PG, C, SF, PF, SG it don't even ing matter what these positions are called.
Nothing is impossible. But these are the areas you can exploit in trades. Spurs traded George Hill for Kawhi Leonard. Spurs traded Nando de Colo for Austin Daye. Spurs tried to Sign Andrei Kirilenko. Every move they make is geared in this direction. Drafted DeJuan Blair.
If I'm the Clips and I can get a Jeff Green / Jimmy Butler type for DeAndre Jordan? Yep I do that. If I'm the Clips and I can get a Carmelo for Blake?
Dwyane Wade has a 6'11 wingspan and he plays SG.
Your clips are trying to play small at the guards and big at the PF/C spots which does not work in the playoffs. JJ Re has a 6'3 wingspan. Darren Collison has a 6'3 wingspan. Chris Paul has a 6'4 wingspan. This doesn't work against Manu Ginobili, Danny Green, Kawhi Leonard etc.
Jamal Crawford tho is 6'5 with a 6'10 wingspan (same as Blake Griffin). Those are the types of players your Clippers needs to be getting.
Question for you Clipper Nation respectfully: In a league that you admit is headed towards positionless, how does it feel to have the roster that is least flexible, most position dependent? Your bigs cannot play down: DeAndre cannot play PF. Blake cannot play SF. Your smalls cannot play up. Chris Paul cannot play SG, Jamal Crawford cannot play SF, JJ Re cannot play SF.
The Spurs are much more flexible. Bigs can play down: Tim Duncan can play PF. Tiago Splitter can play PF. Boris Diaw can play SF. Smalls can play up. Manu Ginobili can play SF. Danny Green can play SF. Kawhi Leonard can play PF.
I'd trade DJ in a heartbeat, mainly because I still don't trust him come playoff time, but I absolutely would not trade Blake for Melo and neither would the Clippers.... Blake is a plenty versatile player, and by trading for Melo we'd either be creating a massive hole in the starting lineup or downgrading at power forward for no reason....
Danny Granger is also big for his position and versatile (he can play spot minutes at the 4 if need be), and there's still a chance he could move up into the starting lineup if Barnes' play starts slipping again....Jamal Crawford tho is 6'5 with a 6'10 wingspan (same as Blake Griffin). Those are the types of players your Clippers needs to be getting.
Keep in mind that you also need to build a team with your conference in mind - in order to compete with teams who have traditional bigs, like Memphis, Houston, and yes, the Spurs, we need to be big at PF and C... this also gives us the same advantage that Indiana has in a matchup with Miami since the Heat are so reliant on small-ball...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
