Point Guard Dilemma

by **Metsis** on Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:29 pm

The fact that there are no big men or passing point guards is because of the JORDAN effect... Jordan while being the greatest ball player ever has done some very serious damage to the game in the process too. Everyone just wants to fly... Take off from the free throw line and put it down...

Jordan made his impact with his gravity defying anthics and people were floored by them. And the only way to make your mark on the game seemed to be by making even crazier dunks and stuff... Dunking is great, but the game is everything else but dunking. As Stockton proved, you can be a great player if not the greatest point man even if you can't dunk or in his case won't dunk. (I believe he could, but just put up a lay-up as it was much more comfortable for him)

Dunking is great, but the cost of all the dunking can be seen in the game today... The fundamentals are going, going, gone.... The new breed of the Basket Ball player will be along the lines of LeBron James. Now this kid can do everything. He's got that flashy dunking down, but he's got some good fundamentals to boot and that's why he is just that great that there is no one quite like him. On the other end of the scale, we have Amare... He is todays equivalent of Olajuwon and Ewing... A dominant "big man" that can dunk the ball on anyone and everyone and will only get more dominant as the years go by.

The Ewings and Stocktons are of the 20th century... This is the 21st century and the Legacy of Jordan is seen here... Dunking is great, but if you can't dribble or pass then what good are you???

Sarunas will show some passing straight from Europe... He'll be intresting to watch and I believe Tinsley will have to step aside after few games... Sarunas' athleticism has been questioned as he can't put a dunk down from the free throw line, but he'll bring some more of that passing flare into the game.

There are Stocktons out there... They just aren't that flashy and thus don't get the credit they are due and thus don't make such big bleeps on the NBA radar as they can't put it down from the freethrow line... If I were a scout today, I'd be looking for the guys that play for the team as there might be more there than meets the eye.

by **Bang** on Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:46 pm

I agree completely with what Metsis said. It is the Jordan effect. At least around 70% of all the young players in the NBA probably grew looking at Jordan, imitating him, emulating him. Heck, when I played on the playground everyone wanted to play like if they were Jordan! Who the hell plays the post when they're young? Who the hell goes "Stockton!" after making an assist unless you're a mormon? No, instead you make a behind the back pass that almost misses completely and say "Jason Williams"! This is why so many Centers and forwards are playing a weird semi-guard's game and point guards are shooting like hell. (Just look at KG! So many jumpshots! Yes there was Danny Manning before him, but I doubt KG modeled his game after Danny Manning?)

I feel people just don't see the beauty of post play. Go look at some Hakeem Olajuwon videos. See how he played. It was art. The NBA is still generally the big man's game. It always was! Shaq, Tim Duncan, Amare are still the top players in the league. I wonder if the league will ever get over the Jordan effect...

by **COOLmac©** on Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:01 pm

i think parker is good in terms of playing the point. as well as chauncy. those two are good to have in your offense. (Y)

by **Carmo** on Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:15 pm

I honestly don't know why you guys have a problem. Do you not want the game of basketball to be as exciting as it is at the moment? I personally find it a lot more exciting to watch flashy dunks, passes, etc rather than watching perfect fundamentals. That is why I never really enjoy watching Duncan play. It isn't because I don't like him and think he is a hack, it is because I like to watch exciting things more than less exciting things. I'm not saying all the traditional players were boring, but the way some of you are talking it seems like you want some players with perfect fundamentals. I think that players who have less perfect fundamentals are more interesting to watch. I still want the fundamentals there, but I don't want every position to have a set criteria. The diversity is the best part of the game.
I guess if I was a coach I would see it differently though.........

by **Matt** on Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:48 pm

1. LOL@Jasikevicius playing in the starting 5. He's not gonna beat out Artest, Jackson or Tinsley for a spot. Especially since Tinsley has an ever improving offensive game and defense that Jasik hasnt seen yet.

2. LOL@Kidd better than Payton. Not defensevily, not offensively.

by **GloveGuy** on Tue Aug 23, 2005 1:48 am

Carmo wrote:I honestly don't know why you guys have a problem. Do you not want the game of basketball to be as exciting as it is at the moment? I personally find it a lot more exciting to watch flashy dunks, passes, etc rather than watching perfect fundamentals. That is why I never really enjoy watching Duncan play. It isn't because I don't like him and think he is a hack, it is because I like to watch exciting things more than less exciting things. I'm not saying all the traditional players were boring, but the way some of you are talking it seems like you want some players with perfect fundamentals. I think that players who have less perfect fundamentals are more interesting to watch. I still want the fundamentals there, but I don't want every position to have a set criteria. The diversity is the best part of the game.
I guess if I was a coach I would see it differently though.........

I don't think you understand. It's not about what they can do, but what they do. The role of the point guard for most teams used to be the catalyst, the guy who could set the offense up and put the ball in his teammates' hands. If he can dunk, awesome. But if he can't make his teammates better and/or play a lick of defense, he will never be one of those first tier point guards.

If they wanna dunk when they can, that's cool, but a point guard is supposed to be a player who controls the other four players on his team. A point guard is supposed to be a point guard, not some 6'3" shooting guard.

Dunks and flashy passes are only exciting to a certain degree. Be honest, do you want the NBA to turn into the And1 tour? The quality play is what's most important, and I hate to say it but, it's descending.

Sorry, but it's really hard to blame Michael Jordan on this, seeing as he was one of the most if not most fundamental players in the league during his prime.

by **fgrep15** on Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:41 am

Matt wrote:1. LOL@Jasikevicius playing in the starting 5. He's not gonna beat out Artest, Jackson or Tinsley for a spot. Especially since Tinsley has an ever improving offensive game and defense that Jasik hasnt seen yet.

2. LOL@Kidd better than Payton. Not defensevily, not offensively.

I don't know how he'd beat Artest even, why would they want a 6'4 SF? :lol:

. Even if he was 6'8, he still wouldn't beat Ron, Javisevikuis is definately going to be the 6th man, I didn't think their was an argument about it.

by **air gordon** on Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:33 am

GloveGuy wrote:
Sorry, but it's really hard to blame Michael Jordan on this, seeing as he was one of the most if not most fundamental players in the league during his prime.

thanks for pointing that out(Y)

sorry should have mentioned dream's assortment of counter moves for his dream shake...

by **fgrep15** on Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:25 am

Sorry, but it's really hard to blame Michael Jordan on this, seeing as he was one of the most if not most fundamental players in the league during his prime.

Very true, it's an underatted part of his game too, many people don't realize how fundamentally sound he really was because he was so athletic and exciting.

by **Carmo** on Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:00 pm

GloveGuy wrote:
Carmo wrote:I honestly don't know why you guys have a problem. Do you not want the game of basketball to be as exciting as it is at the moment? I personally find it a lot more exciting to watch flashy dunks, passes, etc rather than watching perfect fundamentals. That is why I never really enjoy watching Duncan play. It isn't because I don't like him and think he is a hack, it is because I like to watch exciting things more than less exciting things. I'm not saying all the traditional players were boring, but the way some of you are talking it seems like you want some players with perfect fundamentals. I think that players who have less perfect fundamentals are more interesting to watch. I still want the fundamentals there, but I don't want every position to have a set criteria. The diversity is the best part of the game.
I guess if I was a coach I would see it differently though.........

I don't think you understand. It's not about what they can do, but what they do. The role of the point guard for most teams used to be the catalyst, the guy who could set the offense up and put the ball in his teammates' hands. If he can dunk, awesome. But if he can't make his teammates better and/or play a lick of defense, he will never be one of those first tier point guards.

If they wanna dunk when they can, that's cool, but a point guard is supposed to be a player who controls the other four players on his team. A point guard is supposed to be a point guard, not some 6'3" shooting guard.

Dunks and flashy passes are only exciting to a certain degree. Be honest, do you want the NBA to turn into the And1 tour? The quality play is what's most important, and I hate to say it but, it's descending.

I agree with all that you said. I was not only talking about point guards though (other positions seemed to come into the conversation earlier). I was just saying that it would be boring if every player had perfect fundamentals.

Bluesky · by **Andrew** on Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:36 pm

GloveGuy wrote:Sorry, but it's really hard to blame Michael Jordan on this, seeing as he was one of the most if not most fundamental players in the league during his prime.

Not surprisingly, I agree. With all the anti-MJ culture, he cops the blame for a lot of things.

And if indeed it's his highlight reel plays that have "ruined" the game...shouldn't the coaches be at fault for not benching and disciplining players that simply want to be flashy rather than good, well-schooled players? Just because the media might like to play up the dunks and whatnot doesn't mean coaches can't teach fundamentals, strategy and team concepts as they always have done. Or always used to...

by **The X** on Tue Aug 23, 2005 10:11 pm

GloveGuy wrote:
The X wrote:I'd personally put GP on the 2nd tier....he's not on the same level as the other 3, especially Magic and Isiah....

No one in the first tier could dominate on the offensive and defensive end like GP. That's why he's a first tier great in my mind. Also, he's the only one of the four to score over 20,000 points, 8,000 assists, and 2,000 steals.

hmm....I never realised GP's numbers were so good....I'm not disputing that he is one of the best in his generation, but I still don't consider him on the same tier as Magic or Isiah....Magic and Isiah lifted their respective teams to titles....sure, both were probably on more talented squads, but when they had to, each lifted their games to another level to get the win or get the title....I didn't see that from GP to the same extent....I definitely think GP was better than Tim Hardaway and Kevin Johnson (who I think is overrated IMHO)....I also put Stockton ahead of GP just because I luv the guy and it never ceased to amaze me with his pinpoint passes and clutch play....maybe I've just soured a little, like many, on the Glove due to his last couple of seasons....I just wish Kemp had of stayed in Seattle and it would be a different story, probably....

so I'll put Gary Payton on tier 1.5 (below top tier, above 2nd tier) :wink:

by **Emiliano** on Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:21 am

The X wrote:
GloveGuy wrote:
The X wrote:I'd personally put GP on the 2nd tier....he's not on the same level as the other 3, especially Magic and Isiah....

No one in the first tier could dominate on the offensive and defensive end like GP. That's why he's a first tier great in my mind. Also, he's the only one of the four to score over 20,000 points, 8,000 assists, and 2,000 steals.

hmm....I never realised GP's numbers were so good....I'm not disputing that he is one of the best in his generation, but I still don't consider him on the same tier as Magic or Isiah....Magic and Isiah lifted their respective teams to titles....sure, both were probably on more talented squads, but when they had to, each lifted their games to another level to get the win or get the title....I didn't see that from GP to the same extent....I definitely think GP was better than Tim Hardaway and Kevin Johnson (who I think is overrated IMHO)....I also put Stockton ahead of GP just because I luv the guy and it never ceased to amaze me with his pinpoint passes and clutch play....maybe I've just soured a little, like many, on the Glove due to his last couple of seasons....I just wish Kemp had of stayed in Seattle and it would be a different story, probably....

so I'll put Gary Payton on tier 1.5 (below top tier, above 2nd tier)

I agree with X. Of course GP was and probably still is a great point guard but when it comes to comparing him to Magic, Isiah or Stockton, he is clearly below them.

by **cyanide** on Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:12 am

The X wrote:Kevin Johnson (who I think is overrated IMHO).

Really? I always thought of him as underrated. He's been injured a lot, but he put up a 22 ppg and 12 apg season before and he had a triple double by halftime before. He was a good player, but maybe you find him overrated because of the much hyped dunk over Hakeem Olajuwon? I don't hear about the guy very much.

by **air gordon** on Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:18 am

gloveguy.. i just recently heard another sportsbroadcaster mentioning how gary payton is deceptively strong.

i always get confused when i hear this. i think the opposition gets to properly assess GP's strength since they face him at least 2 times a year. and payton has been in the league for some time now, who exactly is he fooling now?? does GP wear some fake body suit on the court or something?

by **GloveGuy** on Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:53 am

air gordon, I'll be honest -- I have no clue what the hell you're talking about. The guy's always been in top shape, still looks the same as he did 10 years ago. At his prime, he was the best point guard in the post and even today is extremely consistent when you isolate him down-low. "Deceptively strong"? Wtf?

X and Emiliano, I realize that his resume doesn't necessarily match up with the three I put alongside him and I'm not saying that he's as good as they are. But there was a time when Gary Payton WAS the best point guard in the league. That's something, you could debate, that can't be said about Stockton. The fact is, I'm more comfortable putting him in the same sentence as Magic, Isiah, and Stockton than I am with putting the second tier in the same sentence as Gary Payton.

by **The X** on Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:00 pm

GloveGuy wrote:The fact is, I'm more comfortable putting him in the same sentence as Magic, Isiah, and Stockton than I am with putting the second tier in the same sentence as Gary Payton.

I agree....he's better than the 2nd tier guys, but I put him slightly below tte 1st tier guys....

The X wrote:so I'll put Gary Payton on tier 1.5 (below top tier, above 2nd tier)

he's a top PG of his time....I do miss the true PG's too....hope that guys like Telfair and Livingston can develop, although they're high schoolers so it could take a while, or might never happen at all....

by **air gordon** on Thu Aug 25, 2005 6:09 am

GloveGuy wrote:air gordon, I'll be honest -- I have no clue what the hell you're talking about. The guy's always been in top shape, still looks the same as he did 10 years ago. At his prime, he was the best point guard in the post and even today is extremely consistent when you isolate him down-low. "Deceptively strong"? Wtf?

dude, i'm not ripping on payton's physical condition so relax

i've heard many broadcasters, sportswriters, even you have mention this deceptively strong thing

i figured maybe you could answer this mysterious thing call "deceptively strong" since you are payton fan #1 around here.

by **GloveGuy** on Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:14 am

Haha, I honestly have no clue. I'm guessing they're hailing Payton as one of the stronger point guards in the league. Someone you wouldn't expect to be able to overpower some certain players, yet is able to hold his ground against them.

by **air gordon** on Thu Aug 25, 2005 4:32 pm

how disappointing.. ah well.. i was expecting more since i made 2 (now 3)posts about it.. i don't feel like i got resolution haha

you figure he's been doing his thing for quite some time now, yet he still is deceiving people

by **Metsis** on Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:59 pm

Gary Payton has always been a low-post threat... He's always been able to post down his defenders on offense and some of that has to be due to the sheer strength of the guy. GP is on the decline... He was very good during the nineties and was one of the best at one time or another... Don't get me wrong, he was a very good player. His numbers on the other hand, well if you play on a team with no-ones and you are the star, you are bound to have great numbers especially the way Seattle did during the nineties. GP was supposed to do everything and he did... He just didn't have the support to take it to that title level. That Kidd better than Payton thing is based on today and the hunger and play of the guys today. Kidd is very good, while Payton has been on the back burner since he left Seattle.

Jordan bashing??? I am not Jordan bashing... He was the player the game has ever seen and did things that weren't so flashy all the time, but all we every saw (guys that didn't get the chance to see those games) was the dunks, the clutch shots and exciting stuff... It was marketed that way and it probably did damage the overall team game play of the league... Fundamentals are what you learn when you are 10-15 years old... When you come into the league as a 20 year old, you need to have the fundamentals set so you can play... NBA coaches have 100+ games to coach the guys through in about 250 days... That doesn't leave too much time for teaching fundamentals. They need to taught in high school and college... This is the reason why it is said of some people that they should go to college for a couple of years before coming to the NBA. College coaches do have the time and desire to teach fundamentals compared to the NBA. Yeah the coaches can teach fundamentals to players at all levels but the fact is, do they have the patience to wait for some guy to learn how to pass the ball on a professional level? Those guys shouldn't be professionals if they don't have the fundamentals of one.

What I am trying to say is that as great and marketable Jordan was, his legacy wants to make all the kids ever seeing his highlight reels to fly... Everyone wants to fly like Jordan... That's his legacy. If someone were to ask you "tell me about Michael Jordan?" wouldn't the first thing to come into mind be dunk from the free throw line! The big buzzer beaters to win the title! This is what is shown to people, this is what the common people know! And maybe that jumper he used to pull up. Legacy of Jordan has produced great players like Kobe, TMac, LeBron, Vince etc. But these are the rare few of the bunch that go for Jordanesq play.

Jordan was the best and will be the best for a long time, but I would say that his legacy has tarnished the game a bit and taken it away from the fundamentals... The lost art of Point Guarding is a good example. Guys like Stockton put the plays into action and were contend with that role, but the guys looking up to Jordan think about his 30+ ppg averages from his prime and you can't get those kinds of numbers if you don't take the shots... It's math... How many times have you heard that this and that guy is the next baby Jordan??? How many of them have panned out? None... They have probably tried to play like him, but have fallen flat on their asses when faced with NBA caliber competition...

This is a long one... Well I ain't done yet...

I've seen this in many young players of my age... As teens they ruled the court and scored tons of points and had people trumping in their heads that they are so great etc. etc. But you have to remember that they are playing against teens too... But in the end, the guys were so hyped up about being the next great player that they just quit practising and thought they were ready stars... And when the competition got a lot harder, well they just crumbled off and vanished into the void... Basket ball is played with the heart and if you don't have your heart in it, you probably won't succeed. You have rise up to the challenge and be humble about it and willing to learn, but when you learn not to train when you are young, you won't want to do it when you are older too...

I still say that I am not bashing Jordan... His legacy is made up of a lot of things and only the footage that's available is due to him. Someone else has edited and cut the film... He's just the star, someone else is on the directors seat. And those people have made his legacy into one which makes us all want to fly through the air like His-Airness himself.

by **kinokong** on Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:37 pm

nice article, nice read. i agree with the points you made in your article. but jordan isn't all at fault. the media is mostly the problem. when you see your daily sportscenter during the basketball season what do you see? do you see guys like kidd hitting the open man with a simple bounce pass? rarely, only if the guy receiving the ball creams a facial on his opponent then guys like kidd get their 2 seconds on tv and then its about how vince carter made himself another poster. you rarely see guys hitting 3's unless kobes doing a damn fadeway from 30ft or making 15 in a row. you turn on the tv, the audiene wants a damn show not a simple bounce pass leading to a assist. also i believe david stern is partly at fault also. he is a great commisioner, not doubting that but he also knows that the nba is a business and revenues are raised by drawing crowds so it is his job as the commisioner to advertise the players that draw crowds. overall michael jordan was the reason that this generation actually got excited about basketball again but the media and david stern over-advertised him to get their revenues and ratings up to levels never thought before but that has gradually eroded the basic fundamentals everyone was required to have in the 80's.

Bluesky · by **Andrew** on Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:40 pm

I certainly didn't mean to accuse you of Jordan bashing Metsis, I know that's not where you were coming from. I was just pointing out that a lot of people do like to place the blame for all kinds of things on Michael Jordan because of the anti-MJ culture that sprang up.

I mean, you could also point at Magic Johnson and blame him for taller players wanting to be guards and players preferring to throw fancy passes than make the easy, fundamental pass (which Magic of course also did, though once again that doesn't make the highlight reel). Or Hakeem Olajuwon and David Robinson for the evolution at centre. Or any high school player that succeeded for the Kwame Browns and Leon Smiths.

It's the system that's truly at fault, not the individual players. The media hypes up the glitz and the coaches aren't disciplining the talented but troublesome players. If you're not prepared to sit a player that has talent but wastes it trying to be fancy at the expense of the team, you shouldn't be coaching. Obviously you're going to cop some flak, but once that discipline yields positive results, everyone's going to be talking about how it was a good decision and commending you for sticking to your principles. Well, in the best case scenario anyway.

by **Metsis** on Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:01 pm

To tell you the truth, I never really was too big on Jordan... I always liked to vote for the underdogs and Jordan never was an underdog...

I actually was rooting more for Jordan when he was in Washington than any of his Bulls days. I would have really wanted to see Stockton-Malone get the final spit-shine finish for the great duo they were, but they just couldn't beat Jordan. Basically the Jazz had no one big and fast enough to guard him... So Jordan did what he does best, win!

I give respect where respect is due... And Jordan was the force that really rejuvenated the entire sport and we should all be grateful to him for that... No matter what you think of the guy otherwise.

by **Fenix** on Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:13 pm

Perhaps Payton is called "deceptively strong" because he's a 180 lbs 6'4 PG who can post up guys bigger than him? I mean, look at him. He's skinny but he can still push you around.

Point Guard Dilemma

Who is online