True PGs and POSITIONS in general
This post stems from the debate about Derrick Rose and Russell Westbrook....
Let me first say that I am extremely biased towards Westbrook- he's hands-down my favorite player in basketball. I love UCLA, and all the players that have come outta UCLA and Russell is my favorite Bruin. If I was a GM and had to pick between Rose and Westbrook, I would pick Westbrook (but I would probably get fired by the owner for doing that)
All that aside... I read somewhere about how even if Westbrook plays better than Rose, Rose is still better because he's a more TRUE PG.
People, STOP CATEGORIZING PLAYERS INTO FICTITIOUS POSITIONS. These positions are made up! In some systems there are 3 guards and 2 bigs, in some there 4 guards and 1 big, in some there are 2 guards and 2 forwards and 1 big... NO MATTER WHAT, ON EVERY BASKETBALL TEAM THERE ARE 5 GUYS OUT THERE.
whether or not they fit into the categories of Point Guard, Shooting Guard, Small Forward, Power Forward, and Center MATTERS NOT ONE BIT. WHAT MATTERS IS: DO YOU WIN BASKETBALL GAMES.
The lineup of Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, Trevor Ariza, Kobe Bryant, and Derek Fisher just won a championship (let's face it, NBA games are won in the 4th, and that was the team the Lakers put out there)...
Pau Gasol, is not a TRUE center... Lamar Odom is not a TRUE power forward... Derek Fisher is not what I'd call your prototypical point guard (he basically brought the ball up the floor and canned open 3s, but I don't think he's much more than a slightly above average passer)
The point is IT DOESN'T MATTER.
Somebody (I believe it's SDE) keeps saying Dwyane isn't good cuz he's a shooting guard and he's not even a good perimeter shooter. WHO CARES! Do not put Dwyane Wade into your cookie-cutter positions and say he's not a good player because he doesn't fit your mold! the fact that many times, a team has a bigger guard, who often times shoots the ball very well, DOESN'T TAKE ANYTHING AWAY FROM A TEAM THAT HAS A BIGGER GUARD WHO DOESN'T SHOOT THE BALL THAT WELL...
The same holds true for Russell... just because he doesn't fit your cookie-cutter mold of a "True PG" Doesn't take anything away from him as a basketball player. If you don't think he contributes as much to his team winning as Rose does (which is probably true) than that's fine, but the fact that Westbrook is not a PURE/TRUE PG should not be a consideration... For every aspect of his game that is not "pure PG," there is an aspect of his game that a prototypical PG cannot do. How many PROTOTYPICAL PGs can guard big guards and do a DARN good job at it? How many PURE PGs can rebound like Westbrook can?...
Stop Categorizing players. Who Cares.
Dude if we could never categorize players......then lets compare biedrieins and calderon ? But wait they play different position categories are made to clarify the game more......you can't just say lets forget Who plays what positions and play basketball........well after the game, people analyze the games compare players and how they did.....have you ever seen a comparision between a point guard a center? No because they play different games......
Dude i think your talking your love of Westbrook and making a excuse. Your indirectly trying to tell us that he is better than rose. I like westbrook better but he isn't better then rose
youre right. the performance of players is influenced by their individual ability and the system they play in. people should stop putting down players because they are not the prototypical player at their position or they are unorthordox in technique. i mean, if someone's form is ugly, as long as they can get it over someone, it does not matter. a ref is not going to not count the point because its ugly. however, people do hold the right to their opinions. although i dont believe people should rank players because they are unorthordox, they do hold the right to compare players as to what they like about them. people are retarted but what are you gonna do?
i think you are missing the point. BigTenHustler is not saying that positions don't exist or are irrelevant. But people who try to define what a position should be and criticize every player that does not perfectly fit that characterization of the position are not looking at the big picture. If a player can play, then he will find his way to make an impact. Westbrook is not a typical pg, but hwo many GM's would'nt gladly take him.
that's exactly what i was trying to avoid FUTURE.... it really was more about the positions, and not about russell. That's why I was blatant about the fact that I like Russell better. In terms of who I would really pick if my job depended on it? I'd pick Rose today, although i still see all the potential in the world.
other ppl who i feel have been slighted at some point in their careers (esp early on):
KG- when he first came up everyone was like he's a SF, not a true PF. Well, who cares, now he can play "SF", "PF", and "C". Is that not an advantage that he can play all 3 "positions"? that means you can put more combinations of other one-dimensional players around him
(Anthony Randolph is getting a lot of this right now. So does Hakim Warrick. Dirk also got it when he first came up, Lamar Odom, etc)
AI- also got this a lot. people would say he's not a PG, he's a SG. Oh wait, he's too short to play SG... who cares! If the guy does work, the guy does work. (in this category: Chauncey Billups when he was getting traded every year, Ben Gordon had these question marks initially, )
I've also mentioned people saying DWade is not a true SG.
Now, I will admit that some people grill Russell Westbrook (sorry to get back to this, but this is the best/most recent example) in a more intelligent way than just saying he's not a True PG. I think Tezo is the one who does this the best... They will call out his decision making, or cite the fact that he turns the ball over too much. Now there's an argument... And, while those are traits of the stereotypical PG, being able to identify the specific aspects is the key to winning the Rose v Westbrook debate on the Rose side.
I honestly have started to lean more towards Rose since earlier in the summer, although it wouldn't surprise me if Russell over takes Rose after this year. the guy has improved more over the last two years than any player I've ever seen, and there's no reason to believe he wasn't back in the gym this summer working harder than everyone else.
Ha ha you had to bring it up bruh! I agree 100% with your post though. You're on point.
On another note... Keep dreaming by thinking your boy will overtake Rose after this year! It's not happening lol. IMO they need to move Westbrook off the ball. I think he'd be more successful as a slasher/scorer, not a creater. He just lacks the decision making to be the primary ball handler.
While I agree their are plenty of good players who do not fit one position perfectly, Rose is the better player of the two. He has better decision making and sees the court better. He could become an elite player. Westbrook is good but still won't become better than Rose. And while Westbrook is better defensively than Rose, Rose is not a bad defender.
I am the one that said that Rose was more of a true point and I stand by that. Westbrook is more a two guard. In the NBA having a true point guard changes a lot of things. Asks the Denver Nuggets. Harden's play could help OKC out because he is a decent playmaker and putting him next to Westbrook should ease that but putting a true point on the floor with talented players equals a greater success. All player positions are not created equal. The point guard position is one of the hardest positions to play.
I like Westbrook but as of now he is more like a two than a one some saying he is better than Rose is ridiculous because Rose can do a lot of what Westbrook can and Rose can make plays to help his teammates out. You have to factor in that because basketball is a team game. Westbrook does have some talents that as a point guard look good but he is not really a point so he should be doing some of the stuff he does anyway. he may rebound pretty well on a team that has no dominate rebounder but he is not great at running a team at this moment. I will give you an example if Arenas were 2 inches talller he would be shooting guard and not a point guard. His game is more suited a the 2 than the one so comparing him to other point guards can be misleading because they do more than he does point guard wise but he scores more. Everyone has their opinion but I don't see your point because you would not compare Jordan to Shaq but Jordan to Kobe. Different position has different roles and comparing players of different roles is hard because they will each bring something different to the table.
Sheltwon, I wasn't just trying to call u out because many ppl on here have said that Westbrook is not a true point... I would in no way disagree that Russell is not a True Point.
I would like to disagree with one of your comments: "but putting a true point on the floor with talented players equals a greater success. All player positions are not created equal. The point guard position is one of the hardest positions to play."
I don't really know if a "True PG" really translates into greater success... I donno, I'm not convinced that having a true PG DOESNT lead to success, but I also look around the league at a lot of the very successful teams, and I can only think of two off the top of my head who have a True PG (Denver and Boston)
Teams that don't:
Lakers: Derek Fisher, Magic: Jameer Nelson, San Antonio: Parker, Cavs: Mo Williams...
And while they aren't true PGs, they make good decisions with the ball, but none of them made those kinds of decisions when they first came into the league (like russell). To me, that will come with experience, which is all Russell is going to get from here on out... and if that's his biggest weakness, than it's inevitably going to get better with time... just a thought. what do u think?