with the scarcity of "true PGs" and "true SGs". Is the future backcourt of the nba 2 combo-guards? (10-15 years from now)
take in consideration all the scoring PGs and combo-guards in recent years!
YES, NO, or MAYBE (please answer)
or you can just neg me or plus me and i'll tell from there
PLEASE IF YOU THINK THIS IS STUPID, NEG ME PLEASE
IF YOU THINK ITS A POSSIBILITY, UP ME PLEASE
... I think you may be over simplifying the issue. In the end you need to look at it on a case by case scenario... Maybe it would be more clear if you listed some examples... Pundits use the term" pure pg" and "combo guard" to mean "I like this player" or "I dont like this other player"... In the end, I think I agree with the ethymeme of your argument; namely that you may not need a pure pointguard to win in the NBA if you have two players who are somewhat pointguardish & and being that those players are more available than pointguards, teams may move towards that as a viable option in the future.
I would advise caution though because there are many small 2 guards out there who might represent themselves as combo guards... Look at sacramento they could not do anything with two talented guards in Evans and Thorton until they brought Isiah Thomas II into the mix who plays as a more traditional pg. Also, the fact that GS pulled the trigger on their trade seems to me to be direct evidence against that some teams still want a traditional back court. That said, Milwakee is going to give it a try...persoanlly I think they will be successful to a degree because pundits have been understating monta's pg skills for a long time ( he can do the drive and kick which is one of the hardest requirements of a PG [not saying that he is a pg just that he can do some pg things well]). Whether or not you consider Jennings a scoring point, true point, combo, or undersized two would be important in evaluating your claim over time.
That said, I think you may also be premature in your statement because I think there are really only two teams that use two combo guards.. and that might be only because they use rookies who are not adept to the nba game.. Detroit when they have stuckey and knight in (gordon is a pretty clear undersized 2 guard) and the knicks when they play shumpert and j.r. smith... maybe a stretch could be the heat when they play wade and cole (but lebron is really the pg on that team...).
Criticism aside I still gave you an upvote because it was a thought provoking statement..
I think the future will be two guards who complement each other. Jordan and Ron Harper wasn't a true pg/sg backcourt but Harper could shoot and defend some and he handled the ball. Pippen ran the offense anyway so Harper used his size to the Bulls' benefit.
Jerry West won his first title with Gail Goodrich as his teammate in the backcourt. West played most of his career as a shooting guard but he played more of a point guard role that year.
Walt Frazier and Earl Monroe wasn't a traditional backcourt but it worked.
Isiah Thomas was a scoring point guard and he teamed with Joe Dumars who was an undersized shooting guard. But, those two guards complemented each other.
And, last year the Mavs started Jason Kidd at point guard (the prototype point guard) with Deshawn Stevenson at the two but they used Jason Terry at shooting guard a lot or JJ Barea in combination with one of the other two small guards. I think they even started Kidd and Barea in the backcourt together in the last couple of Finals games with Terry coming off the bench along with the bigger Stevenson.
I think the ideal backcourt is having two guards who can both shoot, pass, and defend while each one exels in something different and complements each others' game. I think a premium will be placed on quickness and length, if not height. I think you can see a smaller shooting guard if the point guard is somewhat taller and stronger than other point guards.
I agree with Memphis in the future backcourts will be 2 guards who between them can do eveerything that the "PG" and "SG" do today but without labels of which position is supposed to do what(ideally both of them being able to do everything but each excel at different aspects). When you look at a prospect like Tony Wroten he is really a SG with the passing skills of a PG (once he starts making better choices) so a player like him could be played with someone like Kemba Walker (scoring PG). Players like Evan Turner would tradionally play SG or SF but could (and think he should) be playing some PG because of his playmaking ability.
I think we will see these 'barriers' of which each position are supposed to do start to crumble (kinda already happened with PF's--there are a lot more stretch PF's than 15 years ago). In a few years as long as the backcourt of a team has a primary scorer and a primary playmaker I dont think it will matter what position they technically play. So basically the SG could potentially be the nowaday "PG" and vice versa. There are just so many combo guards now that traditional position bariers are bound to be broken.
is because everyone wants to SHOOT.....
I'm guessing the Bucks new backcourt duo inspired this question...honestly I think it is overhyped. The Thunder have the best record in the West, they play a combo guard at PG. The Clippers were 2nd in the West starting 2 PGs, Paul and Billups until Billups went down. The Heat's primary ballhandlers are a SG and a SF, they are the best team in the league. The idea that you need a true position player at each spot is just silly, you need 5 players who play well together, can reasonably match up against other teams, and that's really it.
it inspired me to finally post a thread about it, but i've been thinking about this.
The differences between the positions aren't that large, just like whether a player plays PF or C. As long as you meet the height and/or weight requirements, you can play either PF or C. Just ask Dirk or Pau. Even though they're not considered Cs, they can play there if they need to, they're certainly tall enough. And with the lack of quality Cs in the league right now, the difference between playing either a Bargnani or a Perkins isn't as large as it used to be.
Look at this year's draft, It's really PF heavy, too. Players in college can decide which position they want to play, with minimal adjustment period.
But when you say "true" pg or sg what do you mean?
To me a combo is just a player that can do it all for you.
i mean that most of the elite PGs we have today are scoring PGs and our elite SGs are semi-combo guards... lets take a look:
GOING BY "POINTS PER GAME"... SG:
kobe (legit sg)
wade (started as a pg first year for the heat, semi-combo-guard)
johnson (legit sg)
harden (better passer than westbrook, same size, enough said, combo-guard)
tyreke evans (do i need to explain, combo-guard)
nick young (sg)
rodney stuckey (playing sg, combo-guard)
lou williams (combo guard)
jason terry (combo guard)
ray allen (sg)
mo williams (combo-guard)
jordan crawford (combo-guard)
9 combo-guards / 6 "true SG"
i don't want to do PGs..... but certainly the increase in "scoring PGs" as opposed to "true PGs" is evident
I agree with you but no way in hell is Batum a guard more so than a forward. Definitley a SF, who can play minutes at the 2. A lot of these guys can play the 3. That is the thing. Usually if you are THAT good, you can play multiple positions. LeBron can honestly play 1-4 and be the best at that position in the league, although he plays 3 the best.