PDA

View Full Version : Is Rondo really a true point guard?



el hidalgo
09-05-2012, 10:35 PM
Lets be real for a bit, the guy gets a lot of assists, but he lacks in many other areas. He can't shoot the 3 point shot for a lick. The truest of true point guards, Steve Nash and John Stockton, were deadly 3 point shooters. Another true to the 3rd degree point guard, Magic Johnson, scored over 19 points per game. Rondo barely averages over 10 points per game.


We need to stop calling Rondo a true point guard, because he is VERY different than those who are labeled "true" point guards.

D12 fan
09-05-2012, 10:42 PM
This is ban worthy.

Why did you change your sig from the 2 dudes making love?

el hidalgo
09-05-2012, 10:46 PM
This is ban worthy.

Why did you change your sig from the 2 dudes making love?

you must be confusing my sig with your dreams that have dwight howard in them

jerellh528
09-05-2012, 10:49 PM
yes, in fact, I would consider him one of the most true of pgs in the league today.

douglas
09-05-2012, 10:49 PM
you must be confusing my sig with your dreams that have dwight howard in them

oh snap!

KB-Pau-DH2012
09-05-2012, 10:52 PM
No, he's a fake point guard.

D12 fan
09-05-2012, 10:55 PM
you must be confusing my sig with your dreams that have dwight howard in them

Oh snap!My bad just asking a question.

wordup45
09-05-2012, 10:55 PM
you must be confusing my sig with your dreams that have dwight howard in them

Lol that was pretty funny. Although, I'm not sure if true point guards are evaluated on the jump shot as much as they are their passing and getting the offense going.

D12 fan
09-05-2012, 10:57 PM
Steve Francis is a hall of famer and Rondo is not a true pg.Wow!

Kashmir13579
09-05-2012, 11:00 PM
lol

Swashcuff
09-05-2012, 11:03 PM
you must be confusing my sig with your dreams that have dwight howard in them

:laugh:

Swashcuff
09-05-2012, 11:06 PM
It is said that true point guards should have a stead jump shot and be reliable at the line. That is NOT Rajon Rondo. That's why I still think in every sense of the word Chris Paul is the best PG in the NBA and Nash is better offensively than Rondo.

Rondo is a true PG just not a complete one.

Mishmin
09-05-2012, 11:15 PM
True point guard, yes. As good a play-maker, and player finder as anyone in the league right now. Just has an inconsistent shot. Close thread.

I Rock Shaqs
09-05-2012, 11:21 PM
Somebody likes attention lol

vikesblitz
09-05-2012, 11:39 PM
:facepalm: What exactly is he then?

IndyRealist
09-05-2012, 11:53 PM
So we're judging PG ability by how good they are at being a SG?

ThunderousDemon
09-05-2012, 11:57 PM
Does the pope **** in the woods?

KG2TB
09-06-2012, 12:00 AM
I think the OP has a point considering the best 'pure' pgs have been good jump shooters and free throw shooters. However the term pure pg and pass first pg can be confused. Like any debate, words and meanings are so critical. Rondo is a pure pass first pg with a great ability to rebound as a pg. He's a solid but overrated defender. He's a unique player and has a great impact on the game. He's unfortunately both severely underrated and overrated.

StinkEye
09-06-2012, 12:26 AM
Distributing is the most important part of a PG's role. He's great at that. I'd say he's a true PG, even with his flaws as a player.


Did you see how ugly Magic's shot was?

JNoel
09-06-2012, 12:27 AM
He is one of the best true point guards in the league imo, my definition is a player who knows how to pass effectively which Rondo does. Players like Westchuck, Westbrick, and WildshotWestbrook are not true point guards, just for a few examples.

StinkEye
09-06-2012, 12:33 AM
He is one of the best true point guards in the league imo, my definition is a player who knows how to pass effectively which Rondo does. Players like Westchuck, Westbrick, and WildshotWestbrook are not true point guards, just for a few examples.

those 3 guys are more like SG's than PG's

LaLa_Land
09-06-2012, 12:40 AM
Rondo is the best all around point guard in the league, with 3 point shooting his ONLY weakness.

I know people may not agree with me saying he's the best in the L, but he is at the very least top 3. How can a top 3 point-guard be questioned as to whether or not he's a "true point guard"? This is the most absurd thread I've ever seen created.

Stress
09-06-2012, 12:43 AM
lol he starts off the thread with "Lets be real...."

Gram
09-06-2012, 12:46 AM
OP. :facepalm:

Showtime Steve
09-06-2012, 12:59 AM
Dont see why it matters. All i know is a TRUE PG hustles, and thats wat he does. Defends, rebounds, excellent dribbler, gets in anybodys face, tough and pass first? I think his points are lower because he wants assists. He turns down layups for open 3 to allen, pierce etc. He has mouths to feed. And honestly i i played with them, why not make my life easier and just set them up.

thrice4
09-06-2012, 12:59 AM
A rondo thread that questions his role and people talking about guy sex? Glad to be a part of psd.

Faneik
09-06-2012, 07:11 AM
So we're judging PG ability by how good they are at being a SG?

pretty much

SteBO
09-06-2012, 07:45 AM
Um, he is a true PG. The definition of a PG in the traditional sense is a player who gets his team into the offense smoothly, moves the ball, sets up his guys for easy baskets. Rondo is exactly that. As many have said, his only weakness in regards to becoming a more complete PG is the fact that he isn't a consistent shooter. That's it really.

SteBO
09-06-2012, 07:48 AM
Oh and to the OP, Rondo does the same things as the guys you mentioned in Magic Johnson, Steve Nash, and John Stockton sans the jump shot. However, they aren't labeled as "true" PG's because of their jumper. It's how they involve their teammates in the offense. As a matter of fact, that was their greatest strength so to knock Rondo for his jumpshot in regards to traditional PG play is a bit of a stretch.....

JNoel
09-06-2012, 07:55 AM
Um, he is a true PG. The definition of a PG in the traditional sense is a player who gets his team into the offense smoothly, moves the ball, sets up his guys for easy baskets. Rondo is exactly that. As many have said, his only weakness in regards to becoming a more complete PG is the fact that he isn't a consistent shooter. That's it really.


Oh and to the OP, Rondo does the same things as the guys you mentioned in Magic Johnson, Steve Nash, and John Stockton sans the jump shot. However, they aren't labeled as "true" PG's because of their jumper. It's how they involve their teammates in the offense. As a matter of fact, that was their greatest strength so to knock Rondo for his jumpshot in regards to traditional PG play is a bit of a stretch.....

:clap:

slyone_nyc
09-06-2012, 08:37 AM
Lets be real for a bit, the guy gets a lot of assists, but he lacks in many other areas. He can't shoot the 3 point shot for a lick. The truest of true point guards, Steve Nash and John Stockton, were deadly 3 point shooters. Another true to the 3rd degree point guard, Magic Johnson, scored over 19 points per game. Rondo barely averages over 10 points per game.


We need to stop calling Rondo a true point guard, because he is VERY different than those who are labeled "true" point guards.

Is this a joke??? lol, it must be or you obviously need a lesson or two about basketball. you mention he lacks in other areas, but you only mention shooting and scoring, the irony about the whole thread is, the definition of a TRUE PG IS A PASS 1st PG!!!

scoring and shooting efficiency would be a plus, but they aren't the top qualities of a pass 1st pg. setting the table for your players is tho, like knowing where ray or paul will spot up on the fastbreak or when & where kg wants the ball in the post. basically knowing guys tendencies and getting the the ball in the the best positions to be successful... RONDO is the definition of pass 1st pg, BUT IN THE MOLD OF JASON KIDD, WAS KIDD NOT A PASS 1st pg???

slyone_nyc
09-06-2012, 08:46 AM
very, very disturbing thread... especially, if your an adult... and this is coming from someone who hates the Celtics. what Rondo lacks on offense he makes up with defense, rebounding and intangibles...

bagwell368
09-06-2012, 09:05 AM
:facepalm: What exactly is he then?

Oh boy!

Defense: An excellent 1 on 1 defender that gambles for steals a bit too much

Rebounding: A great rebounder for a smurf sized guard. OTOH, he often fights for offensive glass when the Coaches plans call for him to go back on D, and that gives a net benefit that's matched by other PG's

Driving: very good ball handler and driver. He's been getting pounded for several years since his FT% is so poor. He does not drive the lane as much as he did in his prime (2008-2010).

Shooting: Frankly a terrible shooter. Awful at the line, very poor outside of 12'. This has two negative effects: his defender sloughs off of him, adding D to the paint or as a double, or guarding passing lanes. His FT% is actually getting worse. His bricking compared to an average PG considering the Celtics are a very poor offensive rebounding team add up to more turnovers.

Passing: Creative and he certainly does a lot of it (perhaps because that's the offensive thing he does very well - outside of driving the lane).

Turnovers: they have gone up, perhaps a bit more then his assist %, but it's not out of line.

Other: He's erratic (look at his triple double percentage in National TV games vs other games sometimes). He's emotional and combustable (look at the 14 game stretch he tossed away two years ago over the Perkins deal). He quite Team USA rather then be cut in favor of Westbrook. Both his college and pro coaches have labelled him stubborn and uncoachable. He's pissed off teammates. He's pissed off former Celtic greats (media member) that travel with the team. His GM has attempted to trade him at least 3 times.

It seems that DA has decided to build the team around Rondo over the remaining years of contract. He had better grow up. He's been hyped as the leader of this team since 2008-2009, and he never made it - even last year KG outplayed him.

There is obvious Rondo hysteria in the league, him getting into the top 10 in MVP voting is a bald joke.

Now back to the question - he is a "true" PG - complete with many warts. He isn't in the top 5 in the league, and Irving may jump ahead of him shortly.

Swashcuff
09-06-2012, 09:24 AM
Am I the only person around here that gets what the OP is saying? Really? Seriously did you guys play ANY level of basketball. He's essentially saying that Rondo isn't the complete PG or as complete as you would like to get out of your PG.

7 seconds to go you're up by 3 and you're about to inbound the other team is going to foul or go for the steal you want the ball in the hands of your best ball handler and free throw shooter if possible Rajon Rondo is NOT that guy. It's basic basketball. You want a PG with a steady shot so that when defense even thinks to sag off a bit to limit your playmaking ability that you're able to hurt them by being able to consistently make a shot from mid range.

Just think of how deadly Rondo was against the Heat in game 2 of the ECF when he made 11 of shot attempts from 9 feet out. Now if Rondo could mirror a shooting performance half of that on a consistent basis he'd really be what we all consider a true PG. You give Paul, Nash, Stockton, Magic etc those kind of windows and they'll kill you all day every day Rondo just doesn't do that.

Now I am not saying Rondo isn't a true PG but he is NOT a complete PG. The OP may have it wrong but what he's saying does have merit.

Swashcuff
09-06-2012, 09:26 AM
The OP has the wrong idea with the whole 3 point shooting (I mean really how good a 3 point shooter was Bob Cousy?) but in terms of Rondo lacking some essential basics of what you'd want out of a true PG he's correct.

InRoseWeTrust
09-06-2012, 09:32 AM
This thread is ridiculous, and this is coming from someone who DESPISES Rondo.

A "true point guard" is someone who runs and initiates the offense for the team. Rondo does just that. Since when is "deadly 3 point shooting" a prerequisite to be a 'pure' point guard?

Swashcuff
09-06-2012, 09:35 AM
Is this a joke??? lol, it must be or you obviously need a lesson or two about basketball. you mention he lacks in other areas, but you only mention shooting and scoring, the irony about the whole thread is, the definition of a TRUE PG IS A PASS 1st PG!!!

That's not true. That's actually very wrong. Pass first shoot first it matters not what type of PG he is what matters is that he runs his offense as effectively and efficiently as possible and if he's a handicapped passer or shooter he can't do that those failing to maximize the offensive capability of his team. There is a reason why a PG like Nash has led some of the greatest offenses ever you know.

He knew when to pass and when to shoot and guess what he could do them both and did them both way more efficiently than Rondo ever has.


scoring and shooting efficiency would be a plus,

Its not a plus its essential. Its not about being a scoring type like Rose but at least having the ability to do so on more occasions than not when needed.


but they aren't the top qualities of a pass 1st pg.

Duhhh and that's why a pass first PG isn't the real definition of a true PG. Brevin Knight was one of the best passers around but he couldn't shoot a lick as because of it he was seen as just what he was a pass first PG and not a true PG. There is a difference.


setting the table for your players is tho, like knowing where ray or paul will spot up on the fastbreak or when & where kg wants the ball in the post. basically knowing guys tendencies and getting the the ball in the the best positions to be successful... RONDO is the definition of pass 1st pg, BUT IN THE MOLD OF JASON KIDD, WAS KIDD NOT A PASS 1st pg???

And had Jason Kidd been as reliable a 3 point shooter in his prime as he was in his championship Dallas days and had a more reliable mid range game he may have had hardware resembling that of Steve Nash's.

dh144498
09-06-2012, 09:39 AM
Lets be real for a bit, the guy gets a lot of assists, but he lacks in many other areas. He can't shoot the 3 point shot for a lick. The truest of true point guards, Steve Nash and John Stockton, were deadly 3 point shooters. Another true to the 3rd degree point guard, Magic Johnson, scored over 19 points per game. Rondo barely averages over 10 points per game.


We need to stop calling Rondo a true point guard, because he is VERY different than those who are labeled "true" point guards.

true pg = pass first, not 3point shooting.

2-ONE-5
09-06-2012, 09:48 AM
Lets be real for a bit, the guy gets a lot of assists, but he lacks in many other areas. He can't shoot the 3 point shot for a lick. The truest of true point guards, Steve Nash and John Stockton, were deadly 3 point shooters. Another true to the 3rd degree point guard, Magic Johnson, scored over 19 points per game. Rondo barely averages over 10 points per game.


We need to stop calling Rondo a true point guard, because he is VERY different than those who are labeled "true" point guards.

do you not know who Rondo played/plays with? his job wasnt/isnt to score, it was to pass to the big 3. So bcuz he cant shoot well he is not a true PG? Get outta here clown. Rondo is also a strong defender

JasonJohnHorn
09-06-2012, 10:12 AM
While he may not be as good a shooter as Nash and Stockton, he does have the ability to create shots for himself, and in so doing creates shots for his teammates. the traditional PG's job is to set up his teammates to score, and Rondo does that. He also defends the position very well. I would say Rondo is a true PG, I just wouldn't say that he has as many weapons as Stockton and Nash.

mjm07
09-06-2012, 10:28 AM
Oh and to the OP, Rondo does the same things as the guys you mentioned in Magic Johnson, Steve Nash, and John Stockton sans the jump shot. However, they aren't labeled as "true" PG's because of their jumper. It's how they involve their teammates in the offense. As a matter of fact, that was their greatest strength so to knock Rondo for his jumpshot in regards to traditional PG play is a bit of a stretch.....

This.

Plus, the HEAT know Rajon can score.

Corey
09-06-2012, 10:30 AM
It is said that true point guards should have a stead jump shot and be reliable at the line. That is NOT Rajon Rondo. That's why I still think in every sense of the word Chris Paul is the best PG in the NBA and Nash is better offensively than Rondo.

Rondo is a true PG just not a complete one.

Bingo.

Swashcuff
09-06-2012, 10:33 AM
This.

Plus, the HEAT know Rajon can score.

Tony Delk can score too :shrug:

Hawkeye15
09-06-2012, 11:04 AM
Can someone define a "true" PG please?

TheNumber37
09-06-2012, 11:28 AM
is Kobe a true scorer? Did I beat him to the next thread?

Jamiecballer
09-06-2012, 11:41 AM
The OP has the wrong idea with the whole 3 point shooting (I mean really how good a 3 point shooter was Bob Cousy?) but in terms of Rondo lacking some essential basics of what you'd want out of a true PG he's correct.

you are putting a LOT of words in his mouth.

Jamiecballer
09-06-2012, 11:42 AM
is Kobe a true scorer? Did I beat him to the next thread?

yes. the thread will be is Kobe a true scorer, and the argument will be that he isn't a great rebounder...

Swashcuff
09-06-2012, 12:07 PM
you are putting a LOT of words in his mouth.

well that's what I perceive he meant to convey but just wasn't capable of doing so in his opening post.

TheIlladelph16
09-06-2012, 12:21 PM
It is said that true point guards should have a stead jump shot and be reliable at the line. That is NOT Rajon Rondo. That's why I still think in every sense of the word Chris Paul is the best PG in the NBA and Nash is better offensively than Rondo.

Rondo is a true PG just not a complete one.

This. Close thread.

Structures
09-06-2012, 12:22 PM
Am I the only person around here that gets what the OP is saying? Really? Seriously did you guys play ANY level of basketball. He's essentially saying that Rondo isn't the complete PG or as complete as you would like to get out of your PG.

7 seconds to go you're up by 3 and you're about to inbound the other team is going to foul or go for the steal you want the ball in the hands of your best ball handler and free throw shooter if possible Rajon Rondo is NOT that guy. It's basic basketball. You want a PG with a steady shot so that when defense even thinks to sag off a bit to limit your playmaking ability that you're able to hurt them by being able to consistently make a shot from mid range.

Just think of how deadly Rondo was against the Heat in game 2 of the ECF when he made 11 of shot attempts from 9 feet out. Now if Rondo could mirror a shooting performance half of that on a consistent basis he'd really be what we all consider a true PG. You give Paul, Nash, Stockton, Magic etc those kind of windows and they'll kill you all day every day Rondo just doesn't do that.

Now I am not saying Rondo isn't a true PG but he is NOT a complete PG. The OP may have it wrong but what he's saying does have merit.

Yeah people are overreacting as usual.

Rondo is one of my favorite players but why are people acting as if "true" PGs aren't allowed to shoot? It's not always a good sign if the other team is leaving you're point guard wide open at the top of the key because he's that bad of a shooter.

I know this isn't a comparison thread but a big reason why I think Chris Paul is the best PG is because he can get everybody involved but also take over the game himself if he wants.

Heatcheck
09-06-2012, 12:28 PM
He's one of the few true point gaurds in the game. he's a floor general who can run an offense, distribute the ball, and control the tempo of the game. none of what the op listed has ANYTHING to do with being a true point guard, nor did play into those other guys being considered true point gaurds.

TheIlladelph16
09-06-2012, 12:32 PM
He's one of the few true point gaurds in the game. none of what the op listed has ANYTHING to do with being a true point guard. shows lack of understanding of the game.

I would say this is a classic case of pot meeting the kettle. Swashcuff has summed it up pretty nicely... He is absolutely a true point guard, but he lacks specific skills that are needed to be a complete player. Just because you should be of a pass first mentality as the PG does not mean you should not also be able to make the defender pay from outside.

Heatcheck
09-06-2012, 12:38 PM
I would say this is a classic case of pot meeting the kettle. Swashcuff has summed it up pretty nicely... He is absolutely a true point guard, but he lacks specific skills that are needed to be a complete player. Just because you should be of a pass first mentality as the PG does not mean you should not also be able to make the defender pay from outside.

the term true point gaurd is a grouping of several important aspects of a pgs game (which he absolutely has), lack of anything else is a knock on his overall game.

mjm07
09-06-2012, 01:18 PM
Tony Delk can score too :shrug:

Not against the HEAT:down:

SteBO
09-06-2012, 01:18 PM
Can someone define a "true" PG please?
My definition of a true pg is a guy that can create easier offense for his teammates on the floor. I think Rondo does that as good as anyone in the NBA. But he isn't a complete pg by any means because of the jump shot or lack of one. This is why Rondo will never surpass CP3 as a complete PG.

I think people are mixing the two. This thread was taken in the context of what a PG should be able to do by definition. Having a jump shot isn't necessarily one of them, when the main objective should be to get your team into smooth offensive possessions.

Hawkeye15
09-06-2012, 01:26 PM
My definition of a true pg is a guy that can create easier offense for his teammates on the floor. I think Rondo does that as good as anyone in the NBA. But he isn't a complete pg by any means because of the jump shot or lack of one. This is why Rondo will never surpass CP3 as a complete PG.

I think people are mixing the two. This thread was taken in the context of what a PG should be able to do by definition. Having a jump shot isn't necessarily one of them, when the main objective should be to get your team into smooth offensive possessions.

And wouldn't a PG who is such a scoring threat do the same for his teammates, since the defense is overly accounting for that player? All I mean is, the word "true" has no meaning. A PG's job is to run a teams offense and make the players around him more efficient. There are plenty of ways to do that. A "complete" PG is Chris Paul. But there are only so many players that have virtually no weaknesses.

Heatcheck
09-06-2012, 01:40 PM
And wouldn't a PG who is such a scoring threat do the same for his teammates, since the defense is overly accounting for that player? All I mean is, the word "true" has no meaning. A PG's job is to run a teams offense and make the players around him more efficient. There are plenty of ways to do that. A "complete" PG is Chris Paul. But there are only so many players that have virtually no weaknesses.

there are plenty of ways to accomplish that, but in the term "true pg"is for someone who runs the offense, distributes the ball, controls tempo, mostly the mental attributes (although obviously, you have to be a good passer and dribbler as well).

rapjuicer06
09-06-2012, 01:42 PM
Was Shaq a true Center?

Hawkeye15
09-06-2012, 01:42 PM
there are plenty of ways to accomplish that, but in the term "true pg"is for someone who runs the offense, distributes the ball, controls tempo, mostly the mental attributes (although obviously, you have to be a good passer and dribbler as well).

All I mean is that is your definition. There is no clear definition. To me, people use the term to describe point guards who suck at scoring, to somehow give them some level of accomplishment in their own right.

SteBO
09-06-2012, 01:53 PM
And wouldn't a PG who is such a scoring threat do the same for his teammates, since the defense is overly accounting for that player? All I mean is, the word "true" has no meaning. A PG's job is to run a teams offense and make the players around him more efficient. There are plenty of ways to do that. A "complete" PG is Chris Paul. But there are only so many players that have virtually no weaknesses.
Oh no disagreement from me here. That's "my" definition of a true PG. It's an interesting debate for sure, but there's no doubt that CP3 is a "complete" PG because he can do virtually anything offensively as a PG.

KNICKS R BACK
09-06-2012, 02:11 PM
its time for you to retire this account and try again under a new alias to save yourself embarassment...being a true point guard is about play making abilities and court vision...defense is also nice to have but steve nash doesnt have any and hes still a true point guard...jason kidd wasnt a great shooter or scorer for most of his career, are you going to have the nerve to tell me he wasnt a true point guard? find the nearest bridge and jump...

Heatcheck
09-06-2012, 02:13 PM
All I mean is that is your definition. There is no clear definition. To me, people use the term to describe point guards who suck at scoring, to somehow give them some level of accomplishment in their own right.

Thats the thing, it snot MY definition (i didnt invent the phrase), it THE definition, its been around for quite sometime.

it just differentiates between players who play the 1 and provide the things that (at least classically) are needed from a point gaurd, as opposed to being too short to play the 2 or being the best ballhandler on the court.

Again, what you wrote is not wrong, but its not what we're talking about.

Hawkeye15
09-06-2012, 02:24 PM
Thats the thing, it snot MY definition (i didnt invent the phrase), it THE definition, its been around for quite sometime.

it just differentiates between players who play the 1 and provide the things that (at least classically) are needed from a point gaurd, as opposed to being too short to play the 2 or being the best ballhandler on the court.

Again, what you wrote is not wrong, but its not what we're talking about.

I have never seen an accepted definition. It's like trying to define "clutch". There are a hundred answers. Classically, a PG is the guy who runs the offense, right? So what if Paul had LeBron on his team? The ball would leave his hands a TON. Is he now not a "true" PG?

I just mean, as with many terms in basketball, this is another one that seems to me made up to classify the PG's who are much more pass first.

Heatcheck
09-06-2012, 02:40 PM
I have never seen an accepted definition. It's like trying to define "clutch". There are a hundred answers. Classically, a PG is the guy who runs the offense, right? So what if Paul had LeBron on his team? The ball would leave his hands a TON. Is he now not a "true" PG?

I just mean, as with many terms in basketball, this is another one that seems to me made up to classify the PG's who are much more pass first.



as far as i know, its definetly not an abstract term like "clutch", it has a definition. It doesnt reflect what you do (because everyteam has its needs and strengths) its about what your capable of doing (which is run the offense, set your team mates, distribute, manage the clock, ect. [basically, be a floor general]) which Rondo has shown he can do since his second year.

As opposed to having to play the 1 because your height deficiencies.

dee279
09-06-2012, 02:48 PM
Well idk bout true. He has been caught in a few lies that cant be overlooked.

TheLegend
09-06-2012, 03:27 PM
Lets be real for a bit, the guy gets a lot of assists, but he lacks in many other areas. He can't shoot the 3 point shot for a lick. The truest of true point guards, Steve Nash and John Stockton, were deadly 3 point shooters. Another true to the 3rd degree point guard, Magic Johnson, scored over 19 points per game. Rondo barely averages over 10 points per game.


We need to stop calling Rondo a true point guard, because he is VERY different than those who are labeled "true" point guards.

Obviously you're having trouble understanding the game of basketball.:facepalm: Rondo is every bit of a true PG. Shooting the 3 or averaging 19PPG doesn't make you a true pg. Do you even know what a PG is suppose to do? He's suppose to get the offense going and into a tempo; getting player's into their sweet spots and setting up the offense. Now if he can shoot the 3, that's really a added bonus. Rondo is excellent at dictating the tempo and maintaining offensive efficiency. Rondo runs the celts offense according to their strengths and individually skill sets. He knows how to get Pierce, Allen, and KG going. He also knows when is the appropriate time to look for a particular player. He's definitely every bit of a true PG and I consider him to be an elite PG.

Hawkeye15
09-06-2012, 03:42 PM
as far as i know, its definetly not an abstract term like "clutch", it has a definition. It doesnt reflect what you do (because everyteam has its needs and strengths) its about what your capable of doing (which is run the offense, set your team mates, distribute, manage the clock, ect. [basically, be a floor general]) which Rondo has shown he can do since his second year.

As opposed to having to play the 1 because your height deficiencies.

If you are dead set on the definition, fine. What I prefer, is a productive player at the position, the one who does the most things to help my team win. Whether that fits "true" or not, I don't care.

Swashcuff
09-06-2012, 03:56 PM
If you are dead set on the definition, fine. What I prefer, is a productive player at the position, the one who does the most things to help my team win. Whether that fits "true" or not, I don't care.

That's sounds like the truth to me right there.

kobe4thewinbang
09-06-2012, 11:30 PM
Rondo is a great player. In case people forgot, he almost beat the champs by himself last year. He has room for improvement and is nowhere near his prime yet. He's getting better. And he can shoot the 3 well enough. As I said, he can only get better at shooting. The assists and playmaking are most important. And he pulls off dazzling inside plays for himself too.

IndyRealist
09-06-2012, 11:51 PM
All I mean is that is your definition. There is no clear definition. To me, people use the term to describe point guards who suck at scoring, to somehow give them some level of accomplishment in their own right.

People use it to describe PG's who contribute to the game and elevate their teammates with means other than scoring, by setting up their teammates and creating scoring opportunities though passing out of dribble penetration, pick n' roll, etc.

If you accept that people are interchangeably using the terms "true PG" and "pure PG" then it is an accepted definition, as there's a Pure Point Rating to highlight that exact skill set. Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean there isn't a concensus.

The average NBA fan can only judge a player by how many points per game they score, and in a very limited way rebounds as well. Thus people tend to undervalue other aspects of the game besides volume scoring. I'd imagine the term "pure PG" evolved as a way for people who didn't understand the game in depth to acknowledge that a player who didn't score was still a good player.

Swashcuff
09-06-2012, 11:56 PM
People use it to describe PG's who contribute to the game and elevate their teammates with means other than scoring, by setting up their teammates and creating scoring opportunities though passing out of dribble penetration, pick n' roll, etc.

If you accept that people are interchangeably using the terms "true PG" and "pure PG" then it is an accepted definition, as there's a Pure Point Rating to highlight that exact skill set. Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean there isn't a concensus.

The average NBA fan can only judge a player by how many points per game they score, and in a very limited way rebounds as well. Thus people tend to undervalue other aspects of the game besides volume scoring. I'd imagine the term "pure PG" evolved as a way for people who didn't understand the game in depth to acknowledge that a player who didn't score was still a good player.

Elevating your teammates is great how about elevating your team's offense on a whole?

Hawkeye15
09-07-2012, 12:23 AM
People use it to describe PG's who contribute to the game and elevate their teammates with means other than scoring, by setting up their teammates and creating scoring opportunities though passing out of dribble penetration, pick n' roll, etc.

If you accept that people are interchangeably using the terms "true PG" and "pure PG" then it is an accepted definition, as there's a Pure Point Rating to highlight that exact skill set. Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean there isn't a concensus.

The average NBA fan can only judge a player by how many points per game they score, and in a very limited way rebounds as well. Thus people tend to undervalue other aspects of the game besides volume scoring. I'd imagine the term "pure PG" evolved as a way for people who didn't understand the game in depth to acknowledge that a player who didn't score was still a good player.

It seems to me, that people use it to describe a pass first PG who struggles to score. That is what I come across here. For instance, list your top "true" PG's. And Indy, I really respect your knowledge, I expect a very rational and true response from you. I mean the others in this thread. List me the "true" PG's, and lets see if we can find a correlation.

el hidalgo
09-07-2012, 12:25 AM
All I mean is that is your definition. There is no clear definition. To me, people use the term to describe point guards who suck at scoring, to somehow give them some level of accomplishment in their own right.

Bingo.

Heatcheck
09-07-2012, 09:23 AM
If you are dead set on the definition, fine. What I prefer, is a productive player at the position, the one who does the most things to help my team win. Whether that fits "true" or not, I don't care.

definitely (no pun intended). overall productivity is much more important, im not disputing that. I think you got the impression i was arguing for the "true pg", instead of simply its definition. Nash, Chauncey, Paul, Rondo, Deron these are all guys who can get their own shot, but can also perform the traditional role of a PG at an elite level.

However you get the job done, as long as you get it done. If what you offers fits the team your on...

Ezekial
09-07-2012, 09:41 AM
What position is he listed on the depth chat? PG? So that's his position right?

Why do players need to conform to a certain play style.... He wouldn't be a SG can't play forward, can't play center obviously, so what do you wasn't him to do? Not play? He's a champion, he can pass and he is a great defender.... And I hate Rondo.

Lakeshow24KB
09-07-2012, 09:50 AM
^amen

IndyRealist
09-07-2012, 09:51 AM
It seems to me, that people use it to describe a pass first PG who struggles to score. That is what I come across here. For instance, list your top "true" PG's. And Indy, I really respect your knowledge, I expect a very rational and true response from you. I mean the others in this thread. List me the "true" PG's, and lets see if we can find a correlation.

In no particular order off the top of my head:

Steve Nash
Jason Kidd
John Stockton
Jason Williams
Andre Miller
Tim Hardaway
Mark Jackson
Magic Johnson
Penny Hardaway

When I think of a true/pure PG, I look at guys who's first option was to pass, whether it was out of PnR, off dribble penetration, etc. I do not include the guys who looked to score as the first, second, and third option, and only passed when they were trapt with very little time left on the clock (Iverson, Westbrook). There are several very good scorers on that list, and the idea that someone is a pure PG doesn't have to do with scoring ability. Pure PG's control the tempo and look to set up their teammates. As great as Westbrook is, the rest of the team stands around when he attacks the basket because, well, they know he's not going to pass.

In the current draft class, Damien Lillard is a fantastic example. He's got a shot at Rookie of the Year, can blow by his defender and can shoot. But he's not a pure PG by any stretch. He's a scoring PG. Passing comes secondary to his intent to shoot the ball. By comparison, Scott Machado is a pure/true PG. His ability to control the speed of the game and push the pace allows him to distort the defense and force them out of position. His intent is to pass, and only if the transition D closes out on the shooters does Machado take the layup.

I think the defining question is: if my big man runs the break as hard as he possibly can, am I going to pass him the ball for a higher percentage shot even if I have a lane to the basket? If the answer is yes, then I'm probably a pure PG.

JiffyMix88
09-07-2012, 10:02 AM
well i guess ben wallace wasnt a good center cause all he ever did was grab rebounds and block shots but he didn't average 10 points either :rolleyes:

C_Mund
09-07-2012, 10:10 AM
well i guess ben wallace wasnt a good center cause all he ever did was grab rebounds and block shots but he didn't average 10 points either :rolleyes:

True.... or like Tyson Chandler because he doesn't often create his own shot.

I can't believe this is a thread. Rondo is a great pg and has the tools to become one of the best in recent years. What makes him a "pure" pg is that he can control an offense, even when not scoring.... and he can be a team's first line of defense on the perimeter. Plus he can turn on the jets and get to the tin when the need arises. Jump shot or not, the kid is for sure an honest-to-goodness point guard.

el hidalgo
09-07-2012, 10:21 AM
True.... or like Tyson Chandler because he doesn't often create his own shot.

I can't believe this is a thread. Rondo is a great pg and has the tools to become one of the best in recent years. What makes him a "pure" pg is that he can control an offense, even when not scoring.... and he can be a team's first line of defense on the perimeter. Plus he can turn on the jets and get to the tin when the need arises. Jump shot or not, the kid is for sure an honest-to-goodness point guard.

Translation: He can't score well, so he has to make up for it in passing.

Pretty much what I'm seeing is that Rondo is a pure pg because he isn't a good scorer. This "floor general, controlling the offense" bs is purely subjective and a way to give him more credit than he deserves. Other PG's can score well and control the offense extremely well. (see derrick rose...)

Rondo is what he is. A PG that has limited options because of his lack of scoring ability.

tcav701
09-07-2012, 10:56 AM
If Rondo isnt a true PG, nobody is.

IndyRealist
09-07-2012, 12:15 PM
Translation: He can't score well, so he has to make up for it in passing.

Pretty much what I'm seeing is that Rondo is a pure pg because he isn't a good scorer. This "floor general, controlling the offense" bs is purely subjective and a way to give him more credit than he deserves. Other PG's can score well and control the offense extremely well. (see derrick rose...)

Rondo is what he is. A PG that has limited options because of his lack of scoring ability.

Because you're focus is on scoring, when in fact it's not about scoring at all. It's about mindset. If my first option is to get my own shot, then I'm not a pure PG. If my first option is to set up my teammate for a high percentage shot, then I am. There are plenty of pure PG's who can shoot, and there are plenty of scoring point guards that can't or won't pass.

Magic Johnson was a pure PG and he was a fantastic scorer. So is Steve Nash. So basically what you're saying is, if you don't take a lot of shots, then you don't matter in the NBA.

TeamSeattle
09-07-2012, 12:17 PM
I think I know what race the original poster was. Stick to baseball or golf kid.

LA_Raiders
09-07-2012, 12:39 PM
Yes he is, and a hell of a PG...

el hidalgo
09-07-2012, 12:50 PM
Because you're focus is on scoring, when in fact it's not about scoring at all. It's about mindset. If my first option is to get my own shot, then I'm not a pure PG. If my first option is to set up my teammate for a high percentage shot, then I am. There are plenty of pure PG's who can shoot, and there are plenty of scoring point guards that can't or won't pass.

Magic Johnson was a pure PG and he was a fantastic scorer. So is Steve Nash. So basically what you're saying is, if you don't take a lot of shots, then you don't matter in the NBA.

This is such BS. The reason Rondo's first option isn't to score is because he isn't good at it. A "pure" PG should be one that efficiently runs the offense and does it in the best manner. If the best option for a situation is to take the shot, then he should shoot. If the best option is to pass the ball, then he should pass. Unfortunately, Rondo can't shoot the ball for jack and just isn't very good at scoring. Defenders sag off Rondo and let him take the open shot. An absolutely wide open shot SHOULD be the best option for the offense at the given time. Since Rondo can't hit the open shot and do what is best and most efficient for the offense at that time, I just can't call him a pure PG.

el hidalgo
09-07-2012, 12:50 PM
I think I know what race the original poster was. Stick to baseball or golf kid.

I think I know what race you are. Stick to karate and ping pong kid.

8kobe24
09-07-2012, 01:00 PM
Rondo is a true point guard.

Mishmin
09-07-2012, 01:38 PM
Oh boy!

Defense: An excellent 1 on 1 defender that gambles for steals a bit too much

Rebounding: A great rebounder for a smurf sized guard. OTOH, he often fights for offensive glass when the Coaches plans call for him to go back on D, and that gives a net benefit that's matched by other PG's

Driving: very good ball handler and driver. He's been getting pounded for several years since his FT% is so poor. He does not drive the lane as much as he did in his prime (2008-2010).

Shooting: Frankly a terrible shooter. Awful at the line, very poor outside of 12'. This has two negative effects: his defender sloughs off of him, adding D to the paint or as a double, or guarding passing lanes. His FT% is actually getting worse. His bricking compared to an average PG considering the Celtics are a very poor offensive rebounding team add up to more turnovers.

Passing: Creative and he certainly does a lot of it (perhaps because that's the offensive thing he does very well - outside of driving the lane).

Turnovers: they have gone up, perhaps a bit more then his assist %, but it's not out of line.

Other: He's erratic (look at his triple double percentage in National TV games vs other games sometimes). He's emotional and combustable (look at the 14 game stretch he tossed away two years ago over the Perkins deal). He quite Team USA rather then be cut in favor of Westbrook. Both his college and pro coaches have labelled him stubborn and uncoachable. He's pissed off teammates. He's pissed off former Celtic greats (media member) that travel with the team. His GM has attempted to trade him at least 3 times.

It seems that DA has decided to build the team around Rondo over the remaining years of contract. He had better grow up. He's been hyped as the leader of this team since 2008-2009, and he never made it - even last year KG outplayed him.

There is obvious Rondo hysteria in the league, him getting into the top 10 in MVP voting is a bald joke.

Now back to the question - he is a "true" PG - complete with many warts. He isn't in the top 5 in the league, and Irving may jump ahead of him shortly.

Shame on you Bagwell. I'd agree that he won't be an mvp, but you have an "other" catagory that lists only negatives in one of the most unique players in history. There are some strong points about Rondo that would fall in this category that I don't feel I even need to state. Stubborn, yes, but take that ego away and you lose the fire that makes Rondo so special.

Hawkeye15
09-07-2012, 02:59 PM
In no particular order off the top of my head:

Steve Nash
Jason Kidd
John Stockton
Jason Williams
Andre Miller
Tim Hardaway
Mark Jackson
Magic Johnson
Penny Hardaway

When I think of a true/pure PG, I look at guys who's first option was to pass, whether it was out of PnR, off dribble penetration, etc. I do not include the guys who looked to score as the first, second, and third option, and only passed when they were trapt with very little time left on the clock (Iverson, Westbrook). There are several very good scorers on that list, and the idea that someone is a pure PG doesn't have to do with scoring ability. Pure PG's control the tempo and look to set up their teammates. As great as Westbrook is, the rest of the team stands around when he attacks the basket because, well, they know he's not going to pass.

In the current draft class, Damien Lillard is a fantastic example. He's got a shot at Rookie of the Year, can blow by his defender and can shoot. But he's not a pure PG by any stretch. He's a scoring PG. Passing comes secondary to his intent to shoot the ball. By comparison, Scott Machado is a pure/true PG. His ability to control the speed of the game and push the pace allows him to distort the defense and force them out of position. His intent is to pass, and only if the transition D closes out on the shooters does Machado take the layup.

I think the defining question is: if my big man runs the break as hard as he possibly can, am I going to pass him the ball for a higher percentage shot even if I have a lane to the basket? If the answer is yes, then I'm probably a pure PG.

But many of those examples also shoot first when its the best shot available. If you are looking for a PG who thinks pass pass, pass, pass, then shoot, he is hurting his team. You never INTEND to do anything, except get your team the highest percentage look.

IndyRealist
09-07-2012, 03:43 PM
But many of those examples also shoot first when its the best shot available. If you are looking for a PG who thinks pass pass, pass, pass, then shoot, he is hurting his team. You never INTEND to do anything, except get your team the highest percentage look.

That's true in theory, but the reality is that doesn't happen on a consistent basis. I agree, you should take the best shot, whether it's for you or someone else. But not every PG is capable of making that distinction. Kevin Durant is arguably the best offensive player in the league, and so the highest percentage play in almost any situation is to get him open and put the ball in his hands. Yet Russell Westbrook has many games where he has more FGA, despite taking lower percentage shots.

It's generally accepted that wing isolation 16-20ft is the worst shot in basketball. Then why do people still take it? On any given set there's half a dozen higher percentage shots available, yet people still take the bad shot.

The point is that even superstar basketball players do not make the right basketball decisions all the time or even most of the time. If you work under the assumption that players will do what is in the team's best interest every time, you're going to lose an awful lot of bets. Players pad their own stats, they freeze teammates out of the offense, and they let their ego's tell them they are better than they really are. Players have varying degrees of understanding what the "best shot" is in any play, and the ones with a higher understanding of that are more likely to be labeled pure PG's.

It's obvious that Rondo has a defecit as a basketball player. Does that make him worse than someone with his exact same skill set, who can also shoot? Yes. But who does that describe? Magic, Isiah, etc. There's no shame in being compared to HOF'ers and coming up short. But I'd take Rondo over Westbrook. Because Rondo would get the ball to Durant.

Hawkeye15
09-07-2012, 03:54 PM
That's true in theory, but the reality is that doesn't happen on a consistent basis. I agree, you should take the best shot, whether it's for you or someone else. But not every PG is capable of making that distinction. Kevin Durant is arguably the best offensive player in the league, and so the highest percentage play in almost any situation is to get him open and put the ball in his hands. Yet Russell Westbrook has many games where he has more FGA, despite taking lower percentage shots.

It's generally accepted that wing isolation 16-20ft is the worst shot in basketball. Then why do people still take it? On any given set there's half a dozen higher percentage shots available, yet people still take the bad shot.

The point is that even superstar basketball players do not make the right basketball decisions all the time or even most of the time. If you work under the assumption that players will do what is in the team's best interest every time, you're going to lose an awful lot of bets. Players pad their own stats, they freeze teammates out of the offense, and they let their ego's tell them they are better than they really are. Players have varying degrees of understanding what the "best shot" is in any play, and the ones with a higher understanding of that are more likely to be labeled pure PG's.

It's obvious that Rondo has a defecit as a basketball player. Does that make him worse than someone with his exact same skill set, who can also shoot? Yes. But who does that describe? Magic, Isiah, etc. There's no shame in being compared to HOF'ers and coming up short. But I'd take Rondo over Westbrook. Because Rondo would get the ball to Durant.


There is no doubt there are different styles of playing the PG position. Rubio is my teams PG. He is as pass first, or "pure" as it gets. I simply mean, I hate creating a club that only certain players fit into, it seems to me that is a way for fans of those players to validate their style of play against a seemingly better player.

I really just don't see the need to classify styles of play, on individuals. Give me production and impact, and keep your titles.

IndyRealist
09-07-2012, 03:55 PM
This is such BS. The reason Rondo's first option isn't to score is because he isn't good at it. A "pure" PG should be one that efficiently runs the offense and does it in the best manner. If the best option for a situation is to take the shot, then he should shoot. If the best option is to pass the ball, then he should pass. Unfortunately, Rondo can't shoot the ball for jack and just isn't very good at scoring. Defenders sag off Rondo and let him take the open shot. An absolutely wide open shot SHOULD be the best option for the offense at the given time. Since Rondo can't hit the open shot and do what is best and most efficient for the offense at that time, I just can't call him a pure PG.

A pull up jumper off the dribble is not always the best shot, even if he's open. If he drives to the basket causing the D to sag, kicks the ball to a 3pt shooter who got left open, then that's a better shot. So is probing the paint, pulling back and making the D come to you, then dumping the ball off to the open big man.

There's a disconnect in the argument here. You're equating "pure PG" with "good PG", whereas the generally accepted definition of "pure PG" is one that primarly passes and sets up teammates. Travis Diener is a pure PG, it doesn't mean he's a GOOD PG. Chris Duhon is a pure PG.

IndyRealist
09-07-2012, 03:59 PM
There is no doubt there are different styles of playing the PG position. Rubio is my teams PG. He is as pass first, or "pure" as it gets. I simply mean, I hate creating a club that only certain players fit into, it seems to me that is a way for fans of those players to validate their style of play against a seemingly better player.

I really just don't see the need to classify styles of play, on individuals. Give me production and impact, and keep your titles.

In the beginning the idea of the "point guard" and "shooting guard" was just a fabrication to make the game easier to understand for casual fans, anyway. I think we arrived at the term "pure PG" in the same way. The average fan doesn't understand how a guard can be useful without scoring, so the term was coined to give us an easy way to describe what was happening. Much like the terms "point forward" or "stretch 4". 20 years ago you'd be laughed off the court for having a PF shoot 3's.

Hawkeye15
09-07-2012, 04:03 PM
In the beginning the idea of the "point guard" and "shooting guard" was just a fabrication to make the game easier to understand for casual fans, anyway. I think we arrived at the term "pure PG" in the same way. The average fan doesn't understand how a guard can be useful without scoring, so the term was coined to give us an easy way to describe what was happening. Much like the terms "point forward" or "stretch 4". 20 years ago you'd be laughed off the court for having a PF shoot 3's.

I couldn't agree more dude, which is why I really don't get into the terminology so much. When you start to learn something, you sort of do need the terms, and the game made easier to understand. The more you understand, the more you realize that there is no reason for all the terminology. They are basketball players, and the key is finding the right skill sets that match with each other on both sides.

Nycbball08
09-07-2012, 04:10 PM
No, he's a fake point guard.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Ebbs
09-07-2012, 04:14 PM
Well my definition of pure point guard is he looks to pas before he shoots. Which is what he does. . . The dude had 10.8 shot attempts per game and 11.7 assists lol

meadowlarklemon
09-07-2012, 09:41 PM
Lets be real for a bit, the guy gets a lot of assists, but he lacks in many other areas. He can't shoot the 3 point shot for a lick. The truest of true point guards, Steve Nash and John Stockton, were deadly 3 point shooters. Another true to the 3rd degree point guard, Magic Johnson, scored over 19 points per game. Rondo barely averages over 10 points per game.


We need to stop calling Rondo a true point guard, because he is VERY different than those who are labeled "true" point guards.

yes, he is