THE POINT GUARD

New Orleans Hornets guard Greivis Vasquez (21) drives against Charlotte Bobcats center Byron Mullens (22) as the New Orleans Hornets take on the Charlotte Bobcats at the New Orleans Arena, Tuesday October 9, 2012. (Photo by Ted Jackson, Nola.com / The Times-Picayune)
It was an enjoyable conversation that I had recently with a small group of obvious "basketball junkies." The topic centered around the point guard position and the various differences their skill sets displayed.


Does a team (like the New Orleans Hornets) need a pure point guard to win big in the NBA?


The immediate response would be no really, didn't the Lakers do just fine with Derek Fisher as their point? Steve Nash is considered a pure point guard, and he doesn't have an NBA Title on his resume'.


Russell Westbrook isn't considered a play-making point guard, and OKC almost won the title.


All of the above are true, but let's not forget a few things.


1.) What is the caliber of talent surrounding your point guard?
2.) What style of play does his team play (uptempo or a more controlled tempo style)?


What are the job requirements?


I am a member of the school that believes you need a primary type of a guard that can be your playmaker. Does he hit the following points?


A.) Set up others to score/court vision.
B.) Execute the pick and roll properly.
C.) Advance the ball with quickness in the open floor with or without traffic.
D.) Run the half court sets/ball handling skills/takes care of the ball.
E.) The ability to get into the lane off the dribble.
F.) Deliver scoring passes.
G.) Awareness of time, score, and timeout situations.
H.) Strong personality.
I.) Reliable jump shooter.
J.) Decent enough defender.


Those precious late game situations require that you have someone on the floor who can manage and perform under pressure.


You would like your point guard to have enough quickness that allows him to make trapping defenses chase him. It's also significant to have the speed to break traps off the dribble and pass, as this puts the defense under pressure.


The first pass gets you out of trouble.


The second pass puts the defense in trouble.


The third pass gets you a score or a good shot.


This is what happens when you are in the attack mode.


What's the difference?


I always like to observe point guards to see how they operate when being pressured or chased at full- or three-quarter court.


A.) Can they maneuver in traffic with a change-of-direction game without losing quickness and speed?
B.) Do they have the acceleration to get from circle to circle and create numbers off the break?


It's easy to advance the ball with a pass or dribble without defensive obstruction to change your path to the basket.


The real test is handling defensive traffic and being able to make a play.


So how critical is this position for this Hornets team?


It's very important that the Hornets get reliable guard play. As a matter of fact, I was expressing to the group that the guard play will be the life line for this year's team.


The guard play will determine the overall efficiency of this basketball team.


Greivis Vasquez, Brian Roberts, and Austin Rivers are all entirely different players when it comes to point guard play.


I'll share why next time.

More posts like this please. Will try to give better feedback when I get off work.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

More coming up all season

Quote:

---

A.) Set up others to score/court vision.
B.) Execute the pick and roll properly.
C.) Advance the ball with quickness in the open floor with or without traffic.
D.) Run the half court sets/ball handling skills/takes care of the ball.
E.) The ability to get into the lane off the dribble.
F.) Deliver scoring passes.
G.) Awareness of time, score, and timeout situations.
H.) Strong personality.
I.) Reliable jump shooter.
J.) Decent enough defender.

---

Looks identical to my list. Thing that is disturbing though, how many of those would you put a "check mark" next to for Greivis?

I'm not sure about if we need pure PG or not yet. Jury's out, but the OKC team you mentioned and teams that have one in the past without one: Lakers, Bulls, Heat, Spurs (to a degree before when parker was more of a slasher than a passer), all had really dominant scorers or were in a system that didn't utilize PGs in the tradtional sense as well (The triangle and as mention with the spurs and parker being a slasher at the time). It all matters the system you play. My gut tells me the Hornets will need a traditional guy to best use Anthony Davis' skillset on the offensive end at least for the first 4 or 5 years, and I don't see Eric Gordon being an All-Time great scorer. I think my answer is if you have a system that requires it then yes, if not then no. Kind of a cop out.

The last team that I can think of that won with a traditional point is Detroit with Isaiah Thomas. Even then, he was just an exceptional all around player.

I think that may be something that people get hung up on. A "pure/traditional point" doesn't do much for you if he is not an excellent player. Think about it.

A guy who handles the ball a ton for a team but isn't a great player generally means that his team is in trouble. In basketball, you want your best players to have the ball in their hands. Why would you want to have an average player to touch the ball so much?

I think you really just need a dominant wing player of any sort to start/setup your offense. It doesn't have to be a point guard. Just someone that is a multi-faceted threat with the ball in his hands.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kibner

The last team that I can think of that won with a traditional point is Detroit with Isaiah Thomas. Even then, he was just an exceptional all around player.

I think that may be something that people get hung up on. A "pure/traditional point" doesn't do much for you if he is not an excellent player. Think about it.

A guy who handles the ball a ton for a team but isn't a great player generally means that his team is in trouble. In basketball, you want your best players to have the ball in their hands. Why would you want to have an average player to touch the ball so much?

I think you really just need a dominant wing player of any sort to start/setup your offense. It doesn't have to be a point guard. Just someone that is a multi-faceted threat with the ball in his hands.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

---

Jason Kidd with Dallas.

Not really. He wasn't even the primary ball handler on that team. He'd give it to a wing and then sit on the perimeter. He was not a play maker at all. The only way he could hurt you was if you let him post up on a smaller guard or left him wide open for 3. At that point in his career, he did not have the physical ability left to cause the defense to adjust against him. He didn't give them much of anything that couldn't be replaced by many other people in the league.

Kidd of 8 years ago would have been the type of player I was talking about in my previous post. Shame he didn't win a championship back then, though.

So 8.2 assist per game that season isn't a playmaker ? Get real.

Because that one numbdr totally tells you how he played in their offense. Felton looked like an All-Star at one point if you go by stats.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kibner

Because that one numbdr totally tells you how he played in their offense. Felton looked like an All-Star at one point if you go by stats.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

---

When is that? 1 year in New York? we didn't say they had to be an all world PG, just a True PG, which I consider a pass first PG. was Kidd at the height of his skills? No, and we agree there, but he is a pass first PG. He did not run the pick and roll well, but if i remember correctly, the pick and roll wasn't a huge part of the offense. Jason Kidd has always and will always be a pass first PG. We're getting a little off subject here I think.

What I am saying is that Kidd was not integral to that playoff run and they would have done even better if they had a PG that was a threat to score and pass. What he did in that run was not special and could have been duplicated by several league average guards. That Dallas team won with Kidd being one of their weakpoints.

My point is that a pass first guard doesn't really help your team unless he is an elite talent. Which means that people need to stop looking for "true" point guards that are only of average talent and instead look for elite guard talents that are willing passers.

That is why I'm not high on Vasquez and why I hope Rivers can develop into a stand-out combo guard. I want my offense to be as versatile and aggressive as possible. Having Gordon and Rivers in the back-court keeps pressure on the defense at all times. If Roberts can perform that same job, I'm all for it. I am tired of having only one guy who can handle the ball and escape traps, penetrate the lane, etc.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kibner

What I am saying is that Kidd was not integral to that playoff run and they would have done even better if they had a PG that was a threat to score and pass. What he did in that run was not special and could have been duplicated by several league average guards. That Dallas team won with Kidd being one of their weakpoints.

My point is that a pass first guard doesn't really help your team unless he is an elite talent. Which means that people need to stop looking for "true" point guards that are only of average talent and instead look for elite guard talents that are willing passers.

That is why I'm not high on Vasquez and why I hope Rivers can develop into a stand-out combo guard. I want my offense to be as versatile and aggressive as possible. Having Gordon and Rivers in the back-court keeps pressure on the defense at all times. If Roberts can perform that same job, I'm all for it. I am tired of having only one guy who can handle the ball and escape traps, penetrate the lane, etc.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

---

I completely disagree. I don't think many people do what he does or did during their championship run. he shot when he needed to shoot, passed when he needed to pass. Not many guards know the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kibner

What I am saying is that Kidd was not integral to that playoff run and they would have done even better if they had a PG that was a threat to score and pass. What he did in that run was not special and could have been duplicated by several league average guards. That Dallas team won with Kidd being one of their weakpoints.

My point is that a pass first guard doesn't really help your team unless he is an elite talent. Which means that people need to stop looking for "true" point guards that are only of average talent and instead look for elite guard talents that are willing passers.

That is why I'm not high on Vasquez and why I hope Rivers can develop into a stand-out combo guard. I want my offense to be as versatile and aggressive as possible. Having Gordon and Rivers in the back-court keeps pressure on the defense at all times. If Roberts can perform that same job, I'm all for it. I am tired of having only one guy who can handle the ball and escape traps, penetrate the lane, etc.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

---

I'm not sold on Vasquez as well. I think he's ideal in the role he was in last year, backing someone up.I think we're on the same page about the Hornets.

Cool. :)

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

We have found our PG's.