PDA

View Full Version : Are We Entering The Era of the Point Guard?



ProdigyI
05-03-2009, 08:51 PM
Think I heard them talking about it on TNT or ABC how there's so many good point guards right now, and so many that are going to be great, that we might be entering the era of the point guard.

You got guys like CP3, D-Rose, Mo-will, Deron, Parker, Arenas, Billups, Nash, Nelson, Harris, Rondo, Andre Miller, Calderon, Westbrook, Barron

Then you got guys like Ricky Rubio, Brandon Jennings, Tyreke Evans coming into the league.....John Wall the season after....

I don't have an absolute certain answer....but i'm leaning more toward yes than no.

Lakersfan2483
05-03-2009, 08:58 PM
No, the game is still won in the paint. Basketball has always been a sport dominated by big men and titles are won down low. Most of the teams that have won championships have had great big men.

Hawkalicious
05-03-2009, 08:58 PM
In a word... yes.


To add to that, the fast break era seems to be making a return (somewhat), or at least more so than it was in the mid 90's. With that is a need for a great point guard.

ink
05-03-2009, 09:00 PM
All great ball distributors. I think it's a good thing for basketball and pushes the sport more and more in the direction of a true team game.

Soto>Norris
05-03-2009, 09:01 PM
no. its more of an age of the point guard that it is the poing guard

Kyben36
05-03-2009, 09:04 PM
Absolutly not. This is not the era of the PG, its the era of teamwork. The best example of teamwork is when you have a player like a PG, who moves the ball. If you have any other possision doing the same thing, that meaning moving the ball, you will succede. People seem to think that PG is the only possision that does that, yet, do the Cavs need a good PG, no, because Lebron can move the ball just as efectivly as a PG, And by the way, Mo williams aint your typical PG, he is a score first guard. but you get what im saying. The heat need no PG due to the fact that D Wade does move the ball and get the offense initiated. If a PF did this, then he would work too. Its not PG, its ball movement that is coming in.

KobeIs
05-03-2009, 09:05 PM
i guess u can say that.

good big men are hard to come by. ur more likely to have a good pg than a big.

Cubs Win
05-03-2009, 09:08 PM
The game will still be won largely down low, but in terms of talent at the position, I think we may be entering the golden era of PGs.

Blackification
05-03-2009, 09:12 PM
Good point guards are easier to get than good big men. The people with the good big men have the advantage.

bal_ravens
05-03-2009, 09:13 PM
Nope. Because when someone wins with a big, dominant force on the inside, they will ask the samething. But having a point guard who can control the game doesnt hurt.

D-Leethal
05-03-2009, 09:14 PM
every great team either has a superstar who handles the ball 90% of the time or a great PG to get everyone involved. So to answer your question, yes. The game is still won in the paint, yes, but right now there are only 2 guys who can be considered franchise centers. Dwight, Yao.................

and there are probably 15-20 guys who are franchise point guards

lakers4sho
05-03-2009, 09:14 PM
What's a poing guard??

ink
05-03-2009, 09:18 PM
Its not PG, its ball movement that is coming in.

I hope that's true. Better basketball. But you have to realize that 98% of the time the player who does move the ball is the PG.

BALLER71
05-03-2009, 09:20 PM
No. I still think this league is dominated by great wing players and shooting guards like Kobe, Wade, Lebron, Durant, Joe Johnson.

lakers4sho
05-03-2009, 09:25 PM
This league is still ran by wing superstars and big men.

Point guards generally do well in pick-and-roll systems, which not all of the coaches implement fully in their playbooks.

Westbrook36
05-03-2009, 09:32 PM
PG's are starting to rise up and up with new PG's every single year making a bigger and bigger impact (Rose/Westbrook).

It could change in a few years

Super.
05-03-2009, 09:35 PM
What's a poing guard??

damn you! you beat me to it!

Ironman5219
05-03-2009, 09:43 PM
Yes big men score and are vital to winning championships, but it takes a tallented PG to run the offence to set up the bigs. I voted yes, we are in the golden age of the PG

superkegger
05-03-2009, 09:57 PM
Absolutely. With the rule changes to disallow hand checking, it has made guarding perimeter players so damn hard. So super quick PG's who can penetrate are so difficult to defend against, especially when they're aggressive. Devin Harris is the perfect example. I'm not saying he's not good, but when you can basically drive the lane and just throw your body into whoever is there and get the call, your job has all of the sudden become much easier.

still1ballin
05-03-2009, 10:27 PM
yo creo que si

ink
05-03-2009, 10:30 PM
btw, we're not ENTERING the era of the PG. We've been in that era since Nash was re-signed by the Suns. Success breeds imitators, plus several outstanding PGs have come into the league over the past few years.

theuuord
05-04-2009, 12:11 AM
btw, we're not ENTERING the era of the PG. We've been in that era since Nash was re-signed by the Suns. Success breeds imitators, plus several outstanding PGs have come into the league over the past few years.

Not so.

Well, kind of so, in the sense that a lot of teams have good point guards.

But not so as far as championship teams.

ink
05-04-2009, 12:14 AM
^ TP is pretty good. :D

theuuord
05-04-2009, 12:23 AM
^ TP is pretty good. :D

well, yeah, it's better to have a good point guard than a bad one. no one will disagree with you there. it's just not a necessary cog like a big man is.

ink
05-04-2009, 12:32 AM
well, yeah, it's better to have a good point guard than a bad one. no one will disagree with you there. it's just not a necessary cog like a big man is.

Honestly you need a well-balanced team. The Spurs typify that. Great big man (decent backups), great shooters, great penetrating PG. What I'm getting at is that we've been in the "era of the PG" for a while. Nash and Parker, not to mention JKidd? They all pre-date the great PGs we see now, just as Stockton, Isiah, and even Magic pre-date them, and Oscar pre-dated all of them before that. Basically we've never really had an era when the PG wasn't important or central to the team's success.

primetime10
05-04-2009, 12:49 AM
No. I still think this league is dominated by great wing players and shooting guards like Kobe, Wade, Lebron, Durant, Joe Johnson.

i agree. i feel that there are more great point guards than ever before, but if you look close enough at all of their teams they have options to distribute to (which ultimately is what makes them great players, because they make their bigs better statistically)

however, domination of games still lies in the shooters/wing guys. when it came down to it, the bulls-celts series came down to gordon vs allen/pierce.

kobe and lebron are the best in the game for a reason

Chronz
05-04-2009, 12:50 AM
I miss the era of the PF/C, remember when the West had them all

Tom81
05-04-2009, 10:07 AM
for sure not a center era

JayW_1023
05-04-2009, 10:48 AM
for sure not a center era

I miss the era of great bigs: in the nineties we had Hakeem, Robinson, Mourning, Ewing, Kemp and Shaq among others...those were the days.

ink
05-04-2009, 11:53 AM
I miss the era of great bigs: in the nineties we had Hakeem, Robinson, Mourning, Ewing, Kemp and Shaq among others...those were the days.

Do you? That's one era I don't miss. The game slowed to a crawl and more often than not ended up with long slow games with certain bigs missing a ton of free throws. :shrug: I love the ball movement game.

theuuord
05-04-2009, 11:54 AM
i agree. i feel that there are more great point guards than ever before, but if you look close enough at all of their teams they have options to distribute to (which ultimately is what makes them great players, because they make their bigs better statistically)

however, domination of games still lies in the shooters/wing guys. when it came down to it, the bulls-celts series came down to gordon vs allen/pierce.

kobe and lebron are the best in the game for a reason

If dominance of the game still lies in wings and shooters, then how come the only common piece of every championship team of the last 20-30 years has been a great big man?

ink
05-04-2009, 12:14 PM
It's really not either/or guys. For every championship team with a dominant big there has been a complementary perimeter player. For every Shaq there's a Kobe, for every Wallace there's a Billups, for every Duncan there's a Parker and Ginobili, for every KG there's a Pierce and Allen. Balance is what wins.

THE_FLASH_21
05-04-2009, 12:23 PM
Yeah it is.. Many teams will take MORE chances on PG's in the drafts..

J-Relo
05-04-2009, 12:46 PM
I hope that's true. Better basketball. But you have to realize that 98% of the time the player who does move the ball is the PG.

it's not that high percentage...

but I agree that most of the teams have the systems made for playmakers, preferably PG...

Testaverde16
05-04-2009, 12:47 PM
we are entering, but were not there yet.... it is still more likely that a team without a key PG wins the title this year, when it is rose vs paul in the finals in a few years, that is the era of the PG.

theuuord
05-04-2009, 02:01 PM
It's really not either/or guys. For every championship team with a dominant big there has been a complementary perimeter player. For every Shaq there's a Kobe, for every Wallace there's a Billups, for every Duncan there's a Parker and Ginobili, for every KG there's a Pierce and Allen. Balance is what wins.

The pre-Parker Spurs team had Duncan, Robinson, and a bunch of nobodies. Two bigs and zero compliments.

The only exception to the big man rule is Michael Jordan, who I think we can all agree was the exception to every rule ever.

Tom81
05-04-2009, 02:12 PM
I miss the era of great bigs: in the nineties we had Hakeem, Robinson, Mourning, Ewing, Kemp and Shaq among others...those were the days.

agreed

fire2last
05-04-2009, 02:39 PM
Nope. Go big(man) or go home.

ink
05-04-2009, 02:45 PM
The pre-Parker Spurs team had Duncan, Robinson, and a bunch of nobodies. Two bigs and zero compliments.

The only exception to the big man rule is Michael Jordan, who I think we can all agree was the exception to every rule ever.

I give you 4 examples from the last decade alone, you give me 1 exception (btw, in that 1 exception, the "nobodies" were named Mario Elie, Avery Johnson, Sean Elliott, and Steve Kerr. "Nobodies" that a lot of teams could have won with. :) ). There's no doubt that pre-Parker team was completely dominated by the Twin Towers, but how often do two bigs like that come along? Maybe Hakeem and Sampson, or Hayes and Unseld, but it's rare. I still go with balance.

You are right about Jordan. He started the over-dependence on the SG that is gradually being replaced by a ball movement game where everybody gets touches until clutch time when one or two perimeter players try to close out the game. There are some bigs that do this, but they're the exception today and not the rule.

MPScribbles
05-04-2009, 03:00 PM
You got guys like CP3, D-Rose, Mo-will, Deron, Parker, Arenas, Billups, Nash, Nelson, Harris, Rondo, Andre Miller, Calderon, Westbrook, Barron

Then you got guys like Ricky Rubio, Brandon Jennings, Tyreke Evans coming into the league.....John Wall the season after....
.

I voted no.

I think only a few of the guys on that list are or are most likely going to be great. Most of them are just pretty good and a few are downright average players. I also think that you could put together a pretty comparable list for all positions except for center. I do love that the NBA continues to be infused with good young talent, though. That means that this league's popularity should continue to grow and maybe someday take over baseball as it should. Football will remain king for the foreseeable future.

theuuord
05-04-2009, 03:09 PM
I give you 4 examples from the last decade alone, you give me 1 exception (btw, in that 1 exception, the "nobodies" were named Mario Elie, Avery Johnson, Sean Elliott, and Steve Kerr. "Nobodies" that a lot of teams could have won with. :) ) I still go with balance.

You are right about Jordan. He started the over-dependence on the SG that is gradually being replaced by a ball movement game where everybody gets touches until clutch time when one or two perimeter players try to close out the game. There are some bigs that do this, but they're the exception today and not the rule.

first of all, lol @ plea coppage for the Spurs role players. Yeah, those guys are real championship cogs. Mario Elie had a huge 9.7 points per game. Steve Kerr is truly a multi-dimensional player. Sean Elliot was irreplaceable, with his 41% field goal percentage and below average offensive rating. And of course, the great Avery Johnson, who's actually being listed with Kidd and Nash right now for greatest point guards ever.

Not one of those players was a significant championship piece.


All four examples had a dominant big presence leading the team. The difference is that outside of Michael Jordan - who, as mentioned, is the exception to every basketball rule ever in ever's existence - every team starts with the big. Without the presence, you don't get to the Finals in the first place.

theuuord
05-04-2009, 03:11 PM
and as a +1: of course balance is good. Nobody dislikes balance. Having good players is better than having bad players. It's just that the championship team's good player starts in the frontcourt and moves outward, rather than the other way around.

ink
05-04-2009, 03:16 PM
first of all, lol @ plea coppage for the Spurs role players. Yeah, those guys are real championship cogs. Mario Elie had a huge 9.7 points per game. Steve Kerr is truly a multi-dimensional player. Sean Elliot was irreplaceable, with his 41% field goal percentage and below average offensive rating. And of course, the great Avery Johnson, who's actually being listed with Kidd and Nash right now for greatest point guards ever.

:confused: It's still only one exception, and those players are not as bad as you make them out to be. Fact is, they WERE championship pieces, just as Michael Finley and Robert Horry are. They complemented two dominant big men. Still the rule with NBA champions is balance.

Back on the topic of the Point Guard era, I really don't think we are ENTERING any such era. We just have a wealth of incredible PGs right now. If anything, we are exiting the SG dominated era and moving into a superior team game era.

ink
05-04-2009, 03:19 PM
and as a +1: of course balance is good. Nobody dislikes balance. Having good players is better than having bad players. It's just that the championship team's good player starts in the frontcourt and moves outward, rather than the other way around.

I don't think anyone discounts the value of a great big man. But the great ones are extremely rare. For the 25 or so teams that aren't lucky enough to possess a great big, other systems have to be developed.

The point about balance is that it takes a good PG to run that balanced attack.

sep11ie
05-04-2009, 03:23 PM
What's a poing guard??

Poing Guard- (noun) - one who is gaurding the po

theuuord
05-04-2009, 03:26 PM
I don't think anyone discounts the value of a great big man. But the great ones are extremely rare. For the 25 or so teams that aren't lucky enough to possess a great big, other systems have to be developed.

And the ones that have them end up winning the championships.
Garnett. Shaq. Duncan. Olajuwon. The Wallace Wallace. Laimbeer. Bird. Kareem. Wilt. Walton. Russell. Jordan (Mr. Exception). Weird how that works out...

theuuord
05-04-2009, 03:27 PM
:confused: It's still only one exception, and those players are not as bad as you make them out to be. Fact is, they WERE championship pieces, just as Michael Finley and Robert Horry are. They complemented two dominant big men. Still the rule with NBA champions is balance.

Back on the topic of the Point Guard era, I really don't think we are ENTERING any such era. We just have a wealth of incredible PGs right now. If anything, we are exiting the SG dominated era and moving into a superior team game era.

lol, i know what point you're trying to make, but the Spurs did not win the championship because of Steve Kerr and Avery Johnson. Those guys are the definition of replaceable.

You could substitute 200 some-odd players for that position. That doesn't make them a presence.

ink
05-04-2009, 03:29 PM
lol, i know what point you're trying to make, but the Spurs did not win the championship because of Steve Kerr and Avery Johnson. Those guys are the definition of replaceable.

You could substitute 200 some-odd players for that position. That doesn't make them a presence.

Who said they were a presence? I was countering the point about them being nobodies. There's a bit of hyperbole involved in calling some of those players nobodies.

theuuord
05-04-2009, 03:35 PM
Who said they were a presence? I was countering the point about them being nobodies. There's a bit of hyperbole involved in calling some of those players nobodies.

well i mean they're not players you pick up off the street in rucker park and institute in an NBA game. they're fine NBA role players. but they're not important championship cogs.

put it this way. you surround Duncan and Robinson with pretty much any decently competitive NBA role players and they're going to win the championship that year. The same was not true for Kidd, Carter, and Jefferson.

See what I'm saying?

MrBloop
05-04-2009, 03:40 PM
No, the game is still won in the paint. Basketball has always been a sport dominated by big men and titles are won down low. Most of the teams that have won championships have had great big men.

You're absolutely wrong, not to be a dik, but this is a guards league now, and its been that way for a few years.

Big men have slowly been fazed out and you often find smaller lineups in games at crucial moments. Big men have evolved into basically 6-11 SF's and crazy athletic 7 footers. Duncan ushered in the new era of big men and changed the game. As a result, there really are no more plodders left clogging up lanes.

You need a presence in the paint, but guards and the matchups created by smaller players, usually decide the outcome of most games.

When was the last time you saw a big take a crucial shot at the end of a game...all you see now is some nut guard chucking up off balance threes.

MrBloop
05-04-2009, 03:42 PM
lol, i know what point you're trying to make, but the Spurs did not win the championship because of Steve Kerr and Avery Johnson. Those guys are the definition of replaceable.

You could substitute 200 some-odd players for that position. That doesn't make them a presence.

Your really selling Avery Johnson and Steve Kerr short. They were money players.

charlsdq7
05-04-2009, 03:43 PM
somewhat but not fully der yet

MrBloop
05-04-2009, 03:45 PM
The pre-Parker Spurs team had Duncan, Robinson, and a bunch of nobodies. Two bigs and zero compliments.

The only exception to the big man rule is Michael Jordan, who I think we can all agree was the exception to every rule ever.

Sean Elliot was pretty damn good complimentary player.

MrBloop
05-04-2009, 03:54 PM
btw, we're not ENTERING the era of the PG. We've been in that era since Nash was re-signed by the Suns. Success breeds imitators, plus several outstanding PGs have come into the league over the past few years.

I think there were in the era of elite PG's and guards in general way b4 Nash.

You just insulted a lot of really good PG's.

I don't really understand your logic here? When has having an elite PG not been a top priority???

What was so significant about the Nash signing other than him completely showing the world he was better than we all thought he was? I'm just curious as to what you meant.

We have been a guard dominated league for a while now, PG or otherwise.

NYY 26 to 7
05-04-2009, 04:03 PM
Really? Saying Steve Kerr wasn't important? I think the best 3 point percentage in the history of the NBA is pretty important. If Lebron had a guy who could knock down open shots like Kerr he would love it. Those kinds of pieces are vital to a championship team and are not neccessarily interchangable with anyone. Kerr certainly is not.

On to the issue at hand though I do think we are entering the era of the point guards. There is a weath of guys at the position and others (DWade and Lebron) who bring it up sometimes and really at as a point often as well running the offense and setting up teammates. Another reason for this is a lack of dominate big men. Where have the bigs gone? I know that the trend has been the athletic bigs but the days of Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson, and young Shaq among others are gone.

ink
05-04-2009, 04:04 PM
I think there were in the era of elite PG's and guards in general way b4 Nash.

You just insulted a lot of really good PG's.

I don't really understand your logic here? When has having an elite PG not been a top priority???

We have been a guard dominated league for a while now.

The slight against the PG fraternity was unintentional sir. :)

I guess I see it this way. Pre-Jordan era, Jordan era, post-Jordan era, now.

Pre-Jordan - tons of amazing PGs, we all know the list -- Oscar, Cousy, Magic, Isiah, etc.
Jordan - changed the balance of the team entirely because he was so thoroughly dominant. Also, PJ with his triangle relied less on PGs ...
post-Jordan - players that the media anointed as the next MJ were either SG's or played like SG's (i.e. Iverson).
now - Nash's two MVPs mark the change away from SG dominated ball ...

ProdigyI
05-04-2009, 05:21 PM
Really? Saying Steve Kerr wasn't important? I think the best 3 point percentage in the history of the NBA is pretty important. If Lebron had a guy who could knock down open shots like Kerr he would love it. Those kinds of pieces are vital to a championship team and are not neccessarily interchangable with anyone. Kerr certainly is not.

On to the issue at hand though I do think we are entering the era of the point guards. There is a weath of guys at the position and others (DWade and Lebron) who bring it up sometimes and really at as a point often as well running the offense and setting up teammates. Another reason for this is a lack of dominate big men. Where have the bigs gone? I know that the trend has been the athletic bigs but the days of Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson, and young Shaq among others are gone.

Agreed. Now-a-days you get lucky if you find yourself a skilled dominant big man in the post.

brendol
05-04-2009, 05:37 PM
I miss the era of great bigs: in the nineties we had Hakeem, Robinson, Mourning, Ewing, Kemp and Shaq among others...those were the days.

but the team without the great center beat them out =P

theuuord
05-04-2009, 06:36 PM
Your really selling Avery Johnson and Steve Kerr short. They were money players.

Dude, Avery Johnson averaged like 9 points and 7 assists. That's like the perfect average point guard. You could put 20 point guards in that position with two Hall of Fame big man and they'd average 9 and 7.
Hell, I'd average like 6 and 3 and my handle sucks.

And Steve Kerr? Great shooter. Great shooter. Great shooter. That's all you can positively say about his abilities, so I'll just keep saying it. Great shooter. Great shooter.


Sean Elliot was pretty damn good complimentary player.

As are like 200 other players. They're interchangeable. Sean Elliot was on the tail end of his career at this point and averaged 11 points per game on 41% shooting with teams double-teaming two bigs inside. He was... okay. decent. The definition of replaceable and not really what you want from a third option.

theuuord
05-04-2009, 06:38 PM
And for what it's worth, Kerr had one of his worst seasons ever in that championship year. A shooter who does nothing but shoot who shoots under 40%, and 31% from 3? Definitely not an important piece of a championship puzzle.
(oh: and he was even worse in the playoffs, too.)

ink
05-04-2009, 06:49 PM
As are like 200 other players.

I don't agree. Players aren't auto parts. You don't just plug in any one of 200 players and win championships with them. Besides that it's a hypothetical. The Spurs won with THOSE players, not with 200 other players.

And you're still short-changing some great players. Just because it's a "star" league doesn't mean we should under-value the kind of complementary players it takes to win championships.

ink
05-04-2009, 07:04 PM
btw, to bring this back on topic, a good PG can make a "nobody" look pretty damn good by getting them constant open looks.

Chronz
05-04-2009, 07:12 PM
btw, to bring this back on topic, a good PG can make a "nobody" look pretty damn good by getting them constant open looks.

Just curious, can you name to me a nobody that ever became a somebody, only to become a nobody once his pg left?

Chronz
05-04-2009, 07:18 PM
And for what it's worth, Kerr had one of his worst seasons ever in that championship year. A shooter who does nothing but shoot who shoots under 40%, and 31% from 3? Definitely not an important piece of a championship puzzle.
(oh: and he was even worse in the playoffs, too.)
Kerr had one saving grace moment against Dallas. Though thats probably not the year your referring to, it does show an example of a game where the role player ended up completely saving his stars. Without Kerr, the Mavs take I think a 3-1 lead in the series. Id still put my money on Duncan so I agree with your overall point, just Kerr did have his 1 moment.


I don't agree. Players aren't auto parts. You don't just plug in any one of 200 players and win championships with them. Besides that it's a hypothetical. The Spurs won with THOSE players, not with 200 other players.

And you're still short-changing some great players. Just because it's a "star" league doesn't mean we should under-value the kind of complementary players it takes to win championships.
Teams continue winning chips even when those role players leave, they stop winning once their stars leave. I think thats all hes getting at. Its not like the Spurs dont win the title without the presence of a role player. The role player replacing him could go in either direction but Id still put my money on the star dictating the outcome of the game moreso than the loss of any role player.

ink
05-04-2009, 07:44 PM
Just curious, can you name to me a nobody that ever became a somebody, only to become a nobody once his pg left?

No, because they never were nobodies in the first place. :D

ink
05-04-2009, 07:51 PM
Teams continue winning chips even when those role players leave, they stop winning once their stars leave. I think thats all hes getting at. Its not like the Spurs dont win the title without the presence of a role player. The role player replacing him could go in either direction but Id still put my money on the star dictating the outcome of the game moreso than the loss of any role player.

It wasn't me that made the point about "nobodies" anyway. I had said that for every big man there was a corresponding perimeter player -- Duncan-TP-Ginobili, Shaq-Kobe, Shaq-Wade, Wallace-Billups, KG-Pierce-Allen. None of those guys are exactly nobodies.

ProdigyI
05-04-2009, 07:52 PM
The slight against the PG fraternity was unintentional sir. :)

I guess I see it this way. Pre-Jordan era, Jordan era, post-Jordan era, now.

Pre-Jordan - tons of amazing PGs, we all know the list -- Oscar, Cousy, Magic, Isiah, etc.
Jordan - changed the balance of the team entirely because he was so thoroughly dominant. Also, PJ with his triangle relied less on PGs ...
post-Jordan - players that the media anointed as the next MJ were either SG's or played like SG's (i.e. Iverson).
now - Nash's two MVPs mark the change away from SG dominated ball ...

I totally agree. After that, the media and people started to take notice. That was the start. Now with the emergence of CP3, Deron, Rose, Rondo, Mo, Harris, Nelson, just to name a few who are all fantastic and very young, the era is swinging changing toward PG.

ARMIN12NBA
05-04-2009, 07:55 PM
Nope. In all fairness to point guards, they are only as good as their teammates. They need their teammates to contribute big time, hit shots, and play well in a PG oriented system (a lot of P & R). A dominant big just need a decent post passer to dominate the league.

MrBloop
05-06-2009, 02:13 PM
The slight against the PG fraternity was unintentional sir. :)

I guess I see it this way. Pre-Jordan era, Jordan era, post-Jordan era, now.

Pre-Jordan - tons of amazing PGs, we all know the list -- Oscar, Cousy, Magic, Isiah, etc.
Jordan - changed the balance of the team entirely because he was so thoroughly dominant. Also, PJ with his triangle relied less on PGs ...
post-Jordan - players that the media anointed as the next MJ were either SG's or played like SG's (i.e. Iverson).
now - Nash's two MVPs mark the change away from SG dominated ball ...

The only thing I gathered from your post was you some how tried to tie in
MJ to a discussion about PG's...which I don't really get. I guess your trying to distinguish SG era's and PG era's, understood.


Nash's two MVPs mark the change away from SG dominated ball

This is what I don't get. Maybe you were just focussing on the teams that won the championship (phil/triangle teams). PG's still dominated the ball like any other era, atleast thats what I was watching. All Nash's two MVP's showed was that he was better than every1 thought he was, and that he was looked upon as the sole reason his team was as great as every1 thought they were...which was also a load of crap by the way.

MrBloop
05-06-2009, 02:19 PM
And for what it's worth, Kerr had one of his worst seasons ever in that championship year. A shooter who does nothing but shoot who shoots under 40%, and 31% from 3? Definitely not an important piece of a championship puzzle.
(oh: and he was even worse in the playoffs, too.)

Again, your selling Avery Johnson, Steve Kerr, and Sean Elliot very short.

They were big time role players who all stepped up in the most crucial moments of the playoffs. Your purely looking at their value based on scoring avg's from those years.

You don't really understand the game of basketball from a stand point of players knowing their roles and being ingredients to success. Every team doesn't have a big three or need a big three to be champs...just ask the bulls and the spurs.

How old are you by the way, honestly?

MrBloop
05-06-2009, 02:30 PM
I totally agree. After that, the media and people started to take notice. That was the start. Now with the emergence of CP3, Deron, Rose, Rondo, Mo, Harris, Nelson, just to name a few who are all fantastic and very young, the era is swinging changing toward PG.

Every era has a group of about 5 or six ELITE type PG's that I can remember. Most of which are a lot better than this group.

If Harris, Mo, and Nelson, round off your top 7, this isn't close to being the the ERA of great PG's or w/e.

You also left off Parker which is weird.

ink
05-06-2009, 02:33 PM
The only thing I gathered from your post was you some how tried to tie in MJ to a discussion about PG's...which I don't really get. I guess your trying to distinguish SG era's and PG era's, understood.

I was responding to someone else who brought up MJ. It was part of a discussion that went on for a few posts.


This is what I don't get. Maybe you were just focussing on the teams that won the championship (phil/triangle teams). PG's still dominated the ball like any other era, atleast thats what I was watching. All Nash's two MVP's showed was that he was better than every1 thought he was, and that he was looked upon as the sole reason his team was as great as every1 thought they were...which was also a load of crap by the way.

You're entitled to your opinion. I made the point that SGs dominated for a fair length of time because of MJ's influence on the game, and players like Kidd and Nash reversed that trend.

All along I've been saying that balance in a team is most important, that this isn't the first and only era of the PG, and that the ball movement game we're seeing more and more today is facilitated by a new generation of elite PGs.

ULT WARRIOR408
05-06-2009, 02:43 PM
I voted yes but I honestly think that this is more of a combo guard era.

MrBloop
05-06-2009, 02:52 PM
I was responding to someone else who brought up MJ. It was part of a discussion that went on for a few posts.



You're entitled to your opinion. I made the point that SGs dominated for a fair length of time because of MJ's influence on the game, and players like Kidd and Nash reversed that trend.

All along I've been saying that balance in a team is most important, that this isn't the first and only era of the PG, and that the ball movement game we're seeing more and more today is facilitated by a new generation of elite PGs.


I was responding to someone else who brought up MJ. It was part of a discussion that went on for a few posts.


understood.


You're entitled to your opinion. I made the point that SGs dominated for a fair length of time because of MJ's influence on the game, and players like Kidd and Nash reversed that trend.


What about players like T-Mac, Kobe, Vince, A.I. etc ? they didn't stop playing their games. Nash and Kidd where just playing the way they play on their respective teams. There were still other PG's playing well, and there are still plenty of SG's dominating the game today.

My point is, there is no way you can really say this is a PG era. Its the same NBA, just now every position is that much more athletic.


All along I've been saying that balance in a team is most important, that this isn't the first and only era of the PG, and that the ball movement game we're seeing more and more today is facilitated by a new generation of elite PGs.


I personally think the ball movement is MUCH worse today. Instead of having 4-5 guys who can pass on the court properly, we're (or atleast me) seeing one guy who can pass the crap out of the ball make most of the decisions. If anything this has become the age of the "ISOLATION PLAY" and "NO MID-RANGE JUMPERS"

As a matter of fact, all the new era PG's do better is score the basketball, mainly b/c they're taking 20 shots a ballgame.

ink
05-06-2009, 03:04 PM
I personally think the ball movement is MUCH worse today. Instead of having 4-5 guys who can pass on the court properly, we're (or atleast me) seeing one guy who can pass the crap out of the ball make most of the decisions.

Really depends on which team you're watching. The teams I watch move the ball better than ever. Even the Lakers (and I say even the Lakers because Kobe has been the king of the ISO play for years) are moving the ball better than ever before. They're obviously not a good example of a PG driven team but most of the teams with excellent pass-first PGs are facilitating some great ball movement games.

MrBloop
05-06-2009, 03:17 PM
Really depends on which team you're watching. The teams I watch move the ball better than ever. Even the Lakers (and I say even the Lakers because Kobe has been the king of the ISO play for years) are moving the ball better than ever before. They're obviously not a good example of a PG driven team but most of the teams with excellent pass-first PGs are facilitating some great ball movement games.

As a whole, I watch all teams, and they all as a whole don't move the ball like teams from yesteryear. Its all about taking a guy off the dribble and abusing the no hand check rule. Maybe your not old enough to have watched and remembered 80's and 90's basketball.

The Lakers have always moved the ball well, The triangle wont allow other wise. If you just focus on Kobe, then maybe you'll miss all the times Shaq and other players on the team passed the ball beautifully to open shooters.

Its not just about PG's passing, its about all the other players on the court being able to dish the rock properly...thats what's diminished in todays game.

ink
05-06-2009, 03:20 PM
As a whole, I watch all teams, and they all as a whole don't move the ball like teams from yesteryear. Its all about taking a guy off the dribble and abusing the no hand check rule. Maybe your not old enough to have watched and remembered 80's and 90's basketball.

The Lakers have always moved the ball well, The triangle wont allow other wise. If you just focus on Kobe, then maybe you'll miss all the times Shaq and other players on the team passed the ball beautifully to open shooters.

Its not just about PG's passing, its about all the other players on the court being able to dish the rock properly...thats what's diminished in todays game.

I did watch 80's ball as a kid. That's why Magic is my favourite player of all time. My point is that the ISO ball that we've been forced to watch since MJ retired has started to go away -- slowly, but I'm convinced it will fade away. All the Iversons, TMacs and VCs will be gone in a few years.

defender4m
05-06-2009, 03:23 PM
In a few years devin harris will be a superstar watch out.

theuuord
05-06-2009, 04:52 PM
Again, your selling Avery Johnson, Steve Kerr, and Sean Elliot very short.

They were big time role players who all stepped up in the most crucial moments of the playoffs. Your purely looking at their value based on scoring avg's from those years.

You don't really understand the game of basketball from a stand point of players knowing their roles and being ingredients to success. Every team doesn't have a big three or need a big three to be champs...just ask the bulls and the spurs.

How old are you by the way, honestly?

LOL, right, I don't understand the game of basketball because I recognize that role players are replaceable. Are you serious right now?
I'm looking at their value based upon their performance on the basketball court, not just scoring averages.

I never argued that you need a big three. I don't get why people keep disagreeing with points I don't make. It's weird.

The Spurs won the championship in that lockout year because they absolutely dominated the paint with two of the best post players in NBA history, bar none. Not because of Avery Johnson and Steve Kerr.

And the Bulls won because they had the best player ever in the universe ever ever without a doubt who basically broke every conventional rule in the ever history of basketball ever ever.