Anybody Else Dislike These New-Age PG's?
In today's NBA I love PG's like Andre Miller and Chauncey Billups, guys who show leadership, make smart decisions, and don't need athleticism to be affective. That's why I'm mad that a guy like Kendall Marshall can't make a team.
Guys like Payton or Stockton weren't super athletes, but they were effective and new how to play the game the right way.
Now we have guys like Westbrook, Wall, Rose, who IMO don't know how to play the game the right way. They are good athletes, but not good players. They get by with their athleticism, but I feel as they get older will fall off very steeply.
Is it just me or does anyone miss the crafty PG who thinks his way through the game and still gets the job done, rather than these new guys. High schoolers see these guys and want to become them, so I feel we might never see PG's like that again.
I disagree with you. The point guards you mentioned were better at being a true point guard but the game has changed. Also even back then there were scoring point guards. This generation has more players that can pass so the PG has less responsibility to pass but also score as well. The new rules also makes it better to have point guards who can get to the basket which opens up the game for everyone else.
MCW who is more of a play maker and he is a rookie would also kill your argument. Wall is a pretty good passer as well and he is among the young group and despite what people think Westbrook is not a bad passer and you can see how his presence opens up the game for KD and Ibaka.
I'd argue Chris Paul is that type of player. He will continue to play well when his athleticism is gone.
Chris Paul's athleticism has been gone for years now. That injury robbed him of his blow-by speed and explosive quickness.
People forget exactly how fast Chris Paul was.
are you forgetting about guys like: chris paul, steph curry, rick rubio...?
Russell Westbrook I believe will have a major drop off like Steve Francis once he loses his athletic ability. Not too many cerebral pg's left other then Rondo, Parker, Nash and Paul. Imo, kyrie and Curry both the IQ to be great all around pg's also then just being an offensive threat.
You may not like them, but It's not realistic to say that they aren't good players. You can't make that kind of impact on your team purely as an athlete and not as a skilled player. Also, even a guy like Westbrook who doesn't make his teammates better in the same way that an old school pg like stockton would does make guys better using the other things he's good at. Ibaka is a much better player with Westbrook on the floor even though Westbrook is as far from a traditional point guard as there is.
Don't get me wrong I want a pg that is a great athlete, but it would be even better if he has a legit pg mind set as well.
I do agree that i miss more of the less athletic types playing bigger roles, but simply put, the explosive PG's are better, just part of the development of the game.
Nope. The game is more interesting with variety. Variety makes EVERYTHING more interesting. There's more than 1 way to skin a cat. If the player has a positive impact on his team and helps his team win, then he's doing his job right. There is no one, correct way to play a position.
The old school point guards like Magic Johnson, John Stockton, Isiah Thomas Penny Hardaway, Jason Kidd, Gary Peyton, Rod Strickland, Tim Hardaway, Kevin Johnson, and Mark Price were much more effective than the new school point guards Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Russell Westbrook, Deron Williams, Kyrie Irving, Tony Parker, John Wall, Jrue Holliday, Damian Lillard, Rajon Rondo, and Stephon Curry
Because the old school point guards were true point guards who had a better feel for how to control the game from the point guard position ( example: how to dictate pace and tempo, directing offensive formations, making sure players get the ball in areas where they can be efficient and effective as offensive players, being a coach on the floor, being a vocal leader, knowing when and how to feed the hot hand, consistently making intelligent decisions, etc )
The new school points are better athletes and better scorers, but some are not even real point guards and are more like combo guards who at times struggle to consistently get around 9 to 11 assist per game
There is no such thing as a true PG. Floor general, distributing PGs still exist and they're still coming up the pipeline (Tyus Jones, Andrew Harrison, Derryck Thornton, Joel Berry, Jalen Brunson, Bryant Crawford, Lonzo Ball etc). They are NOT a dying breed. All you're describing is a preference for how the position should be played. The scoring point is not the norm and it's not exactly easy to become a prolific one at the NBA level because it requires supreme physical talent, a whole lot of freedom and a perfect team circumstance. It just so happens to be that some of the best PGs currently are the scoring type. If the floor general PGs can't impact as much as scoring PGs then that is not the scoring PGs problem. They're just that good.
Would I like to see smarter play in general? Yes, but that's across ALL positions, not just the PG position. Players in general were smarter and more skilled back in the day, period.
Siggy let's keep it real, if you were a young developing point guard who had the opportunity to learn from the new school point guard or old school point guard - who would you choose?
It would have to be the old school point guards, because they were easily the smarter and better players
Some of the new school point guards are just very overrated to me, because at times they can be very dominate as scorers and athletes. But also at times can be very average at making the players around them better, average decision makers, average play-makers, and average facilitators. I think it is very sad that their is a lot of starting point guards who only average 5 to 6 assist a game
You can't just "learn" to be a dominant scoring PG because of the reasons I mentioned before. It takes supreme talent to physically dominate your position. A player can't just "learn" to play like Derrick Rose because chances are they aren't even close to the athlete that he is. What guys like Derrick and Westbrook do is unique and they put pressures on the defense that other, less talented PGs cannot. If I were to choose a PG to be mentored by I'd choose a PG who's style I had the talent and skill to emulate. Otherwise the development of my game would be all on me.
You tell me what a guy like Derrick is supposed to do. I can't even count how many times Derrick had to carry the offense during his MVP season. Not only was he the primary ball-handler and decision maker, but he also happened to be the only player on his team that could create his own offense. Running offense can only go so far. When the clock is winding down, and the team has gone through its offensive progressions, that's when talent matters and these scoring points are often the most talented, best shot creators on the team.
If they get 5-6 assists a game it doesn't matter. All that matters is if they have a positive impact on the game and help their team win games. I'd have more of a problem if they were only getting 5-6 assists and their teams were underachieving.
PGs having a lower bball IQ is because they have a lower bball IQ, not because they're a new school, scoring point. What about Tony Parker? He's considered more of a scoring, "new school" point yet he also has a tremendous bball IQ. Same can be said about Steph Curry. Players are smarter than others across ALL positions, not just PGs. But just like any other position, players can still have a tremendous impact on the game in spite of their decision making.
Siggy I'm sorry, but great play making, great decision making , and great facilitating point guards. Will always be better than the dynamic scoring and athletic point guards you see in today's game. These young guns are talented and athletic, but lack the needed and necessary decision making habits that will help them compete with the hall of fame point guards I listed earlier. I want point guards who can make the others around them better. And some of these new school point guards are greatly lacking in their ability to utilize that needed skill
Name the last playmaking, facilitating PG to LEAD his team to a chip. Now name the last one to make the finals.
You just have a preference. You have no proof that one type of PG is more conducive to winning or team success than the other.
Siggy we just have to agree to disagree. I'm getting tired and sleepy. So my competitive spirit can't operate at it's full potential because I'm tired. But I leave you with this.
Steve Nash and Jason Kidd. Were a lot more effective at playing winning basketball. Compared to Steve Francis and Stephon Marbury who were athletic and talented scoring point guards who were not capable of helping their teams compete at a very high level because of their style of play
The wizards games that I've seen makes me feel bad for John wall. He really wants to be an elite athletic PG who can also be a distributor his teammates just dont know how to play basketball tho lol they cant catch, cut, run off screens right, etc
To be honest one of the reasons why these point guards an NBA players in general struggle is because the fundamentals of the game is lost. There is a problem with the way the game is big taught to these young players. I watch a lot of basketball and what kills me is the fact that so many point guards today can not pass the ball in the post. Big man don't understand the concept of re-posting if they are not in a comfortable position. When the big man does kick it out to a guard they don't pass it back down after the re-post. These guys today are super athletic but there fundamentals are awful.
But the point guard position in the NBA is arguable the most talented collection of players in the league...so I don't dislike today's guards. I just think that they could be much better.
He has good athleticism and even without that he sees t he game as well and maybe even better than Lebron. Does not have Lebrons physical advantages but Rondo is the smartest player in the L. Tony Parker and Rondo have been the best playoff pg's throughout all these new school point guards. Those two guards are smart point guards.
I don't get too wrapped up in the "new trends" of position players, because all that really means is that a handfull of players like a Derrick Rose or Russell Westbrook are having great success.
Chris Paul, who's started off the season with a bang, isn't cut from that cloth and is the best PG in the league as far as I'm concerned. Rajon Rondo will never average more than 15 ppg is also one of the best lead guards in the NBA when healthy. Steph Curry is an exciting throwback that scores in bunches without jaw dropping athleticism, yet still finds a way to set up his teammates to the tune of 7-10 assist per game...he's a complete throwback with shades of Tim Hardaway, Kevin Johnson and a prime Jeff Hornacek in his game.
In addition, it's not like a lot of the top PG's of the 90's didn't fill up the score card. Tim Hardaway was an 18 shot per night player, how is Tim Hardaway's 18 shots somehow nostalgic greatness, while Russell Westbrook's 18 shots are somehow running the Kendall Marshall's out of the league?
You look at the assits per game stats from last season compared to 20 years prior in the 92-93 season and they're pretty freaking identical. There were 3 guys dropping over 9 apg in 92-93 and guess how many there were in 12-13?...yep, 3 guys. There were 16 guys averaging over 7 apg in 92-93 and there were 13 guys averaging over 7 apg in 12-13. That doesn't look like any definitive evidence that the distributer is a dying breed.
The 6'3'' 210 lb super athletic combo guard playing point guard is a very effective type player, but if a guy can play he can play. Shannon Brown isn't starting anywhere, yet Gervius Vasquez is, just cuz a few guys who fit the same mold are the current rage, doesn't mean the whole league is that way. Just take a closer look.
I actually like the new aged point guards. I think the position is branching out and becoming more diverse. We have the athletic, scoring point guards like Rose, Westbrook, Wall, and Bledsoe, as well as the more traditional point guards like CP3, Rubio, and Rondo. We also have the scoring/shooting pg's like Irving and Curry. The NBA is simply becoming more rigorous which requires more diveristy out a pg.
My only point is these types of PG's will never win a NBA championship, JMHO. You look at past champions and their PG's are all true floor generals. I just feel the future of the NBA is going to lack these true PG's as younger players idolize guys like Rose and want to play like them.
Phil Jackson won 11 rings without a traditional pg...
The Heat have won 2 straight rings with Chalmers who is a combo guard running the point..
Tony Parker is among the elite pgs in the nba,but he's more of a scoring guard..Houston won it with Cassell & Kenny Smith,those guards looked to score first...
You have to go back over 20 yrs to the Pistons or Lakers to find a pass first pg that lead his team to a title....Over the past 20 yrs high IQ versatile players that can create plays like Jordan,Pippen,Lebron,Duncan,Kobe and Wade have carried teams to titles....The 2004 Pistons won becuz they were a competitive and played as a team and with a smart combo guard like Billups running the show....
Jose Calderon has been starting most of his career.
That is all.
He has 2 finals appearances and check his head to head playoff stats against Rose. They are amusing. Check his head to head against Parker. Check the Celtics head to head against Parker pre Rondo. Parker nor Rondo or Billups average 20 a night throughout the season. They won titles.
What's the thing about rose not being a pg one of his NBA comparison coming in was Jason kidd. At Memphis he led a team of players who aren't in the nba today to the finals of the few top 3 picks to even get to the ncaa championship this decade. won the pg challenge many may say its nothing but not just anybody wins it you have to be a great passer also rejuvenated a dying franchise. Rose is a point guard he controls the game PERIOD scores when no one else does , and set other up , when he attacks life gets easier for teammates. If he didn't get as much defense attention as he gets the floor would shrink substantially making it harder for the bulls to do anything . PPL FORGET HE WAS THE YOUNGEST MVP EVER .
Rondo and Billups also played with a great offensive team. Rose never had the luxury of not having to make a play every time he touches the ball. Celtics declined because of age rondo didn't get another ring. The league got better the pistons couldn't get another one. So I don't think rings alone says whos the better pg FISHER WAS A STARTING PG ON A CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM.
While I won't say I dislike the way the NBA has changed, I definitely miss how it was when I was a kid and started watching.
When I was young the point guards were the quarterbacks, they were very good passers, and usally decent shooters. They made everyone look better than they probably were. Now days point guards are the opposite, they're decent passers but not great, most of them aren't very good shooters(there's exceptions obviously). Instead of running the offense through their teammates they run it through themself. 15 years ago you wouldn't see a point guard completely ignore their teammates and slash to the rim for a contested layup or dunk like you see now days.
I do believe the PG's of today are much more entertaining to watch, but I do highly miss the old school as well.
The same goes for today's big men too. As a kid the bigs I watched could rebound, block, defend, and got their points by working their strength on the inside and overpowering opponents. Today's bigs are soft, most of them can't bang, and a lot of them despite being so tall/long don't rebound or block as well as they should. Most bigs now days score by shooting or with "finesse" (as if finesse is such a thing when you're 7'0 250 lbs).
While I do find the PGs of today more entertaining, I dislike the bigs of today. I miss the bangers, the pitbulls, the beasts.
My guess is that it was Allen Iverson who influenced this new generation of "scoring" point guards. I have no problem whatsoever with this new generation of PGs. There is many of these new point guards but also still some traditional and incredibly efficient ones, namely CP3 as said before. Rondo is another one. So is Nash. There is also more coming, and one name to remember is Tyus Jones, one of the top HS seniors in the country. Traditional PGs aren't dead.
People who overanalyze positions annoy me. Who cares if they aren't "pure" PGs? Phil jackson has won 11 titles in the past 25 years, and with none of them did he have a pure PG.
What does anything that Rose or Westbrook do have to do with leadership? Because they shoot more? Both are probably better passers than Billups ever was.
They are good basketball players, and that is what matters. Good players can take games over, and more times than not, the "classic" PG lacks the skill set that lets him take games over.
And Kendall Marshall isn't in the league because hes bad. It has nothing to do with favortism of style. He's just bad.