Does anyone else hate the term "pure" PG?

[game3524]

Seriously, WTF does that even mean?

There seems to be some belief that a PG job is to just set up teammates and that is wrong. The job is simply to run the offense and to get the best shot available, either for himself or his teammates.

Hell, Westbrook plays the PG position much more effectively then Rondo, yet Rondo still is consider a pure PG.:facepalm

[UK2K]

I like it.

I consider myself a pure point guard.

This last weekend, we played ball for about 2 hours. 5 on 5 full court. We played maybe 6 or 7 games, we lost one.

I shot one shot the whole time. But I assisted on 90% of our made baskets (I'm a wizard on the entry pass).

Because I sacrificed shots (aka I can't shoot) I developed the ability to pass the ball with English, back spins, lobs that are on point, full court passes that land in peoples hands.

For big guys who can't dribble, I make their job really easy.

I could get to the rim if I want, but its less effort for me to create an opportunity and allow my teammates to score.

[KnicksFan11]

Everytime i think or hear of "pure" PG . I also think of Rondo..

I'm guessing its because "pure" PG are players who mostly pass , just like Rubio

[imdaman99]

I like it.

I consider myself a pure point guard.

This last weekend, we played ball for about 2 hours. 5 on 5 full court. We played maybe 6 or 7 games, we lost one.

I shot one shot the whole time. But I assisted on 90% of our made baskets (I'm a wizard on the entry pass).

Because I sacrificed shots (aka I can't shoot) I developed the ability to pass the ball with English, back spins, lobs that are on point, full court passes that land in peoples hands.

For big guys who can't dribble, I make their job really easy.

I could get to the rim if I want, but its less effort for me to create an opportunity and allow my teammates to score.
Do you play against idiots? If you're telling me a guy shoots once a whole day, I am not even covering that guy and helping off you every play. Oh wait let me guess, if they didn't cover you than you would score more right? Not buyin it.

[Harison]

Why would anyone hate a term which depicts a playstyle and mentality? :confusedshrug:

Yes, there are "shoot first" and "pass first" PGs, is that ground breaking for some?

[bobopenguin]

deron. at his prime he can do everything that u asked from a PG, and he still got that in him.

[Flower_]

Everytime i think or hear of "pure" PG . I also think of Rondo..



Yeap, me too. When you are not good offensive player people calling you "pure" point guard, Rondo is Pure PG because he can't shoot basketball for sh*t.

[Harison]

Yeap, me too. When you are not good offensive player people calling you "pure" point guard, Rondo is Pure PG because he can't shoot basketball for sh*t.
Not really, Stockton and Nash were sharpshooters, and they were pure PGs.

[ILLsmak]

pure PG is extremely hard to play.

Shoot first PG is hard, too, but not as hard as pure PG because you always have to keep in mind that you are creating. You should only shoot when it makes life easier for your teammates.

It, of course, can 'make it easier' for them if you shoot, but that's a different playstyle. I love Iverson, but to play a 'pure PG' is probably the hardest position, no doubt.

Think about it: not only are you responsible for getting the ball in the right spot and not turning it over, but you have to be able to make huge shots time after time.

So, there are 4 guys and you have to know what each one can do, where they want the ball, when they want the ball... at what situation they are capable of making a play, when they'd try to make a play and fail... etc.

A pure PG could average 10 points and 6 assists per game and be the greatest PG of all time.

Edit:


Do you play against idiots? If you're telling me a guy shoots once a whole day, I am not even covering that guy and helping off you every play. Oh wait let me guess, if they didn't cover you than you would score more right? Not buyin it.


This is said a lot. Where are you going to help? Can you really keep the ball from 4 people? Seems like you would be doing a lot of running around for no reason and it would make his life so much easier. He could just stand there, yawning, and dribble while he watched the players move to the spot where he wanted them to be... and you would be either standing 10 feet from him with your hands up or trying to deny where you thought he was gonna pass it.

The idea of not guarding someone, in theory, sounds good, but it only works if it gets in the head of the person who is not being guarded... or his team doubts him. If everything goes as normal, then you're actually doing him a favor.

-Smak

[UK2K]

Do you play against idiots? If you're telling me a guy shoots once a whole day, I am not even covering that guy and helping off you every play. Oh wait let me guess, if they didn't cover you than you would score more right? Not buyin it.

Yes. Sometimes guys will stand 5 feet off me, which is the stupidest thing you could do (which is probably why you suggested it) because now I have a clear vision and am in no hurry to throw the ball. There's no shot clock in pick up games, I'll let my team set screens for each other until someone gets open, because eventually someone will get open.

I have no interest in shooting 3s because when I came up, we didn't need to shoot 3s. If you can't get a lay up every possession in a pick up game with no shot clock, you're doing something wrong.

That's like saying 'Tom Brady is the best QB in the game, so instead of blitzing him, we'll drop 8 into coverage."

Good plan.

[UK2K]

pure PG is extremely hard to play.

Shoot first PG is hard, too, but not as hard as pure PG because you always have to keep in mind that you are creating. You should only shoot when it makes life easier for your teammates.

It, of course, can 'make it easier' for them if you shoot, but that's a different playstyle. I love Iverson, but to play a 'pure PG' is probably the hardest position, no doubt.

Think about it: not only are you responsible for getting the ball in the right spot and not turning it over, but you have to be able to make huge shots time after time.

So, there are 4 guys and you have to know what each one can do, where they want the ball, when they want the ball... at what situation they are capable of making a play, when they'd try to make a play and fail... etc.

A pure PG could average 10 points and 6 assists per game and be the greatest PG of all time.

Edit:




This is said a lot. Where are you going to help? Can you really keep the ball from 4 people? Seems like you would be doing a lot of running around for no reason and it would make his life so much easier. He could just stand there, yawning, and dribble while he watched the players move to the spot where he wanted them to be... and you would be either standing 10 feet from him with your hands up or trying to deny where you thought he was gonna pass it.

The idea of not guarding someone, in theory, sounds good, but it only works if it gets in the head of the person who is not being guarded... or his team doubts him. If everything goes as normal, then you're actually doing him a favor.

-Smak
****ing nailed it.

Yeah back off and let me see the whole court. I already stated I make a living off throwing passes, so go on and back up and let me work my magic.

If anything you should pressure a good passer, not give him space (ala, the Tom Brady metaphor, pressure an accurate QB, not give him time).

One of these days, I'll host an ISH pick up game weekend, and have everyone drive into Indy. I'll provide the booze, and marijuana, and places to crash, and we can all run 5 on 5 on the courts by my place. Then we can all come back here and shit talk later.

[game3524]

Why would anyone hate a term which depicts a playstyle and mentality? :confusedshrug:

Yes, there are "shoot first" and "pass first" PGs, is that ground breaking for some?

I hate it because it is a stupid term that makes guys like Russ, Rose etc. seem like lesser PG because they aren't "pure", but they generally do their job just as effectively as a Chris Paul or Nash in his prime.

PG is the only position in the NBA that still clings to these define roles, you never hear anyone say Kobe Bryant isn't a "pure" SG like a Rip Hamilton in his prime.

[sd3035]

pure PG means you suck at scoring

[Dasher]

I've never really been a fan of the term because "pure" makes it sound like that is the "proper" way to play the position. PGs like every other position should be concerned not with being "pure", but with making good decisions with the ball. Often times it is a smarter decision to go for yours instead of trying to squeeze blood from players with stone hands.

[UK2K]

I hate it because it is a stupid term that makes guys like Russ, Rose etc. seem like lesser PG because they aren't "pure", but they generally do their job just as effectively as a Chris Paul or Nash in his prime.

PG is the only position in the NBA that still clings to these define roles, you never hear anyone say Kobe Bryant isn't a "pure" SG like a Rip Hamilton in his prime.

Not at all. Rondo/Rubio/Nash/Stockton are pure PG's. I wouldn't even use the word pure, I'd use the word 'traditional'.

Westbrook, Wall, Rose, they are just point guards. New age PG's.

It's not a knock on anyone, AFAIAC. Just different styles of play.

[game3524]

I've never really been a fan of the term because "pure" makes it sound like that is the "proper" way to play the position. PGs like every other position should be concerned not with being "pure", but with making good decisions with the ball. Often times it is a smarter decision to go for yours instead of trying to squeeze blood from players with stone hands.

Exactly.

Playing PG is about making the right basketball play. That play can be for your teammates or for the PG himself.

If a PG is taking 20 shots a game, but there are good shots then he is doing his job just fine.

[ILLsmak]

I hate it because it is a stupid term that makes guys like Russ, Rose etc. seem like lesser PG because they aren't "pure", but they generally do their job just as effectively as a Chris Paul or Nash in his prime.

PG is the only position in the NBA that still clings to these define roles, you never hear anyone say Kobe Bryant isn't a "pure" SG like a Rip Hamilton in his prime.

Could they be better by setting other people up more? Do they ever have games where they shoot their team out of the game?

Like I said, man, it's a thankless job to play pure PG because you can end up looking like it's your fault even when it's not. Your team loses and you can end up with a v bad statline. Where as if you are Rose or Westbrook you can just chuck out and be like well whatever.

People have now decided that pure PG is not the only kind of PG, but that doesn't mean it's not a legit playstyle. It's less so now because, as I said in another thread, the way D is, a player who attacks is the most valuable. Drive and kick is the best offense, it seems. Some pick and roll variant. So, really having a guy like those mentioned is valuable now.

Plus nobody knows how to get good shoots without the ball anymore. Or, the majority doesn't. Other than just spotting up. So, in the way that back to the basket C is dead, so is pure PG.

You also don't realize how hard it can be playing with a shoot first PG. It's not hard to make an open jumper in the NBA... but why do people miss? I think it's because of the length between shot attempts and not ever knowing when they are gonna get the ball. Plus standing open when you think you should get the ball I think lowers your percentage. Guys who can just sand there and wait then knock down the J are cold blooded and also invaluable in today's game.

-Smak

[game3524]

Not at all. Rondo/Rubio/Nash/Stockton are pure PG's. I wouldn't even use the word pure, I'd use the word 'traditional'.

Westbrook, Wall, Rose, they are just point guards. New age PG's.

It's not a knock on anyone, AFAIAC. Just different styles of play.

There is nothing new age about Rose or Westbrook.

Oscar was leading the league in scoring in his heyday as a PG, Cousy once led the league in shot attempts, Magic at his peak was getting 24 ppg. Point guards who have dominant scorers have been there since the beginning of time.

Hell, you can make the case that Rose and Westbrook are actually the traditional point guards, while guys like Rubio, Rondo etc. are they outliers.

[game3524]

Could they be better by setting other people up more? Do they ever have games where they shoot their team out of the game?

Like I said, man, it's a thankless job to play pure PG because you can end up looking like it's your fault even when it's not. Your team loses and you can end up with a v bad statline. Where as if you are Rose or Westbrook you can just chuck out and be like well whatever.

People have now decided that pure PG is not the only kind of PG, but that doesn't mean it's not a legit playstyle. It's less so now because, as I said in another thread, the way D is, a player who attacks is the most valuable. Drive and kick is the best offense, it seems. Some pick and roll variant. So, really having a guy like those mentioned is valuable now.

Plus nobody knows how to get good shoots without the ball anymore. Or, the majority doesn't. Other than just spotting up. So, in the way that back to the basket C is dead, so is pure PG.

You also don't realize how hard it can be playing with a shoot first PG. It's not hard to make an open jumper in the NBA... but why do people miss? I think it's because of the length between shot attempts and not ever knowing when they are gonna get the ball. Plus standing open when you think you should get the ball I think lowers your percentage. Guys who can just sand there and wait then knock down the J are cold blooded and also invaluable in today's game.

-Smak

You don't set up teammates for the sake of setting them up. It is about getting the best shot available, and the best shot available for teams like the Bulls and Thunder are usually the ones generated by Westbrook and Rose for themselves.

[bizil]

Why would anyone hate a term which depicts a playstyle and mentality? :confusedshrug:

Yes, there are "shoot first" and "pass first" PGs, is that ground breaking for some?


I agree! U can be a great scorer or sharpshooter AND STILL BE a pass first pure PG. Magic, Isiah, Big O, CP3, and Payton are all pass first PG's. But they ALSO had alpha dog scoring ability too.

CP3 reminded people of that last night. Then u have PG's like Westbrook, Irving, and Lillard who are score first PG's. They are very good and at times great passers. But they do it from a score first mentality.

Great players are great players. U can be a "pure PG" or a "score first PG" and still be a great player. But for my own personal taste I prefer a pure PG who ALSO can be an alpha dog scoring the rock. That's why I dig Paul's style of play best at PG.

[UK2K]

Could they be better by setting other people up more? Do they ever have games where they shoot their team out of the game?

Like I said, man, it's a thankless job to play pure PG because you can end up looking like it's your fault even when it's not. Your team loses and you can end up with a v bad statline. Where as if you are Rose or Westbrook you can just chuck out and be like well whatever.

People have now decided that pure PG is not the only kind of PG, but that doesn't mean it's not a legit playstyle. It's less so now because, as I said in another thread, the way D is, a player who attacks is the most valuable. Drive and kick is the best offense, it seems. Some pick and roll variant. So, really having a guy like those mentioned is valuable now.

Plus nobody knows how to get good shoots without the ball anymore. Or, the majority doesn't. Other than just spotting up. So, in the way that back to the basket C is dead, so is pure PG.

You also don't realize how hard it can be playing with a shoot first PG. It's not hard to make an open jumper in the NBA... but why do people miss? I think it's because of the length between shot attempts and not ever knowing when they are gonna get the ball. Plus standing open when you think you should get the ball I think lowers your percentage. Guys who can just sand there and wait then knock down the J are cold blooded and also invaluable in today's game.

-Smak

Exactly.

I loved playing point guard. In 8th grade I was 5'2", in 9th grade I was 6'0". I had (and still have) such an advantage being about 6'0.5" or so. Its easy to see over the defense. I was able to be aggressive on long rebounds, it made defense easier (which I was never great at) given my height and long arms.

On the offensive side though, it's true you don't get much credit. People think its easy to actually run the point. The ball is always in your hands (unless you play for the Rockets), you are front and center every time down the court. If you make a mistake, it's magnified. People underestimate the ability to read defenses, to move them with your eyes and motions, or a solid ball fake because you need that post defender to lean one way for just a split second so you can make that diagonal bounce pass across the lane into the opposite block. They underestimate how you can see the play happen before it happens. Ball is kicked into the corner, swings to the wing, now when it comes to me, where will the defenders shift to, and where will that leave an open lane? The game is getting too fast, let's get it into the block and let the big guy work. The other team seems rattled, let's get the ball and sprint the court this time and maybe get an easy transition bucket.

All those thoughts went through my head, every game, every play. It was like my job was to analyze options, choose the best one, and then execute it in a split second. But it wasn't just a me thing, I had to also recognize whether my teammates could see what I saw, and would move when I move. What happens if they don't? Then what's my next move.

I had a friend who I have played with for years, over a decade now. Him and I, we are like Stockton and Malone on the court. Even when the other team knows I can't shoot a jumper, they have to defend the pick and roll at the elbow. If he sets a good screen, it's over. I'll pick it apart. That's what guys like Rondo and Paul dont get enough credit for.

The ability to control the game is everything, and that's your job.

[bizil]

Could they be better by setting other people up more? Do they ever have games where they shoot their team out of the game?

Like I said, man, it's a thankless job to play pure PG because you can end up looking like it's your fault even when it's not. Your team loses and you can end up with a v bad statline. Where as if you are Rose or Westbrook you can just chuck out and be like well whatever.

People have now decided that pure PG is not the only kind of PG, but that doesn't mean it's not a legit playstyle. It's less so now because, as I said in another thread, the way D is, a player who attacks is the most valuable. Drive and kick is the best offense, it seems. Some pick and roll variant. So, really having a guy like those mentioned is valuable now.

Plus nobody knows how to get good shoots without the ball anymore. Or, the majority doesn't. Other than just spotting up. So, in the way that back to the basket C is dead, so is pure PG.

You also don't realize how hard it can be playing with a shoot first PG. It's not hard to make an open jumper in the NBA... but why do people miss? I think it's because of the length between shot attempts and not ever knowing when they are gonna get the ball. Plus standing open when you think you should get the ball I think lowers your percentage. Guys who can just sand there and wait then knock down the J are cold blooded and also invaluable in today's game.

-Smak

Great points! In the 80's and 90's, most of the elite PG's were pass first kind of players. U had Magic, Isiah, Stockton, Price, Tim Hardaway, KJ, Cheeks, Kidd, Nixon, Nash, Payton, etc. Some of them just happened to have alpha dog quality along with that. Even guys like Kenny Anderson and Marbury had more of a pass first approach than this new era of PG's.

If anything, score first PG's would often times come off the bench in a combo guard role. With the new rule changes and the influence of Iverson, u see smaller guards who are known mainly for their scoring prowess. They see the game like a great SG WHO HAPPENS to also be a very good to great passer. So a pass first PG like Paul who is ALSO an alpha dog quality scorer is a rare breed these days. In the 80's and 90s, PG's like Paul were the norm.