What is the most important thing to produce a successful point guard?

Martin, Dragic and Bud for Harris and Kanter?

 

You need shooters around you...Wing players that can catch and shoot.... And not pick up your dribble ...ever!!!!

 

I'd do that in a heartbeat.

 

Point guard success is a lot like quarterback success. All the factors you listed (plus others) go into making a player succeed, but the percentage of determining success differs for every case. Skill set is needed for every player, but it is seldom enough.

Of course, there are some players who have a certain skill set that just elevates them to a different level (I have Rubio and Rose in mind at the PG, and Manning and Vick being the corresponding QB examples).

You also have guys that need the right coach or need to get into the right offensive system that features their unique skillset (Nash and we'll say Drew Brees).

However, here in Houston, Lowry gives us an example of an ingredient that goes into PG success that probably should be added to your poll -- which is work ethic and studying the game. How many highly skilled players have come into the NBA and burned out for a lack of this very thing?

Remember Jamal Tinsley? the guy was a natural point guard who come in his rookie year and immediately impressed. If he would have studied the game and made himself into a shooter like Kyle Lowry has then he'd probably have a gold medal right now and Dwight Howard would be trying to force a trade to play wherever Tinsley was.

Overall, considering that all of these players are highly skilled, I think the success of the PG is very much like the success of the QB, it requires the player himself to put in vast amounts of effort to learn the nuances of the game and to be a mental giant on the court/field.

Both the Association and the League are littered with highly skilled passers who did not put in the work, and it is also filled with guys like Lowry, who may not have the most talent, but are willing to put the work it takes to excel.

 

Skill (basic) set:

Average to exceptional level passer
Average to exceptional court vision
Average to exceptional mid range shooter
Quality (efficient) shooter (at least 45% from the field)
Have the ability to get to the free throw line on a bad team or a team where he might be the best scorer

- A player could be fairly (or slightly better than) average at everything, and still be a quality player.


Not required (but does help alot)
The ability to score and beat defenders off the dribble
Defense (for every player essentially)
Athleticism

- It typically balances out given that all players have a different skill set. Example, Kyle Lowry is a better defender to Ricky Rubio (Rubio is ok on defense for any NBA player, more so for a rookie), as well as getting the tough points inside. On the other hand, Rubio has superior court vision, simply a better passer and can create more opportunities for the offense.

- Point guards do not necessarily need really outstanding shooters or finishers to pile up assists or give the offense more opportunities/make a more wide open offense.

(For Example, the 2000-01 Nets only had two players who shot over 45%, both centers who did not reach 50%, and one player who shot over 35% from 3 point land . . . Keith Van Horn. Here comes the 2001-02 season with newly acquired Jason Kidd, the Nets improved to six players in the regular rotation alone who acquired at least 45% shooting and two players who acquired at least 35% shooting (Keith Van Horn ended at .345, so if rounded up, it becomes 3).


Give a team, like the Sacramento (bad Western conference team) or Atlanta (high playoff seed, but no way they are contenders) in fuse a player, like Steve Nash (circa 04-08) or Magic Johnson in his prime. Both of those teams would instant title contenders, just by changing point guards or a capable person running the offense.

 

It really depends on the surrounding players for a PG. While a great PG will obviously make those around him better (John Stockton, Magic Johnson, Steve Nash, and Chris Paul), they are still capped by the tools they are given. You can also find mediocre PG's such as Kenny Smith become a "successful" PG even with his sub par dribbling and ball handling skills.

A PG's primary job is to FEED THE SCORER. It does not matter whether it is the designated scorer, someone who got in the position to score, breaking the offense to create a scorer, or self-feeding (scoring himself), a successful PG must always be thinking about the best way for an OFFENSE to score. Depending on who you have on the team, this job can be peachy easy to impossibly difficult. For example, Kenny Smith and Sam Cassell had the incredibly easy job of dribbling up court and dumping the ball down to Hakeem or Drexler. Said scorers would work the mid range to post area and kick it out if necessary. Neither were ever really called upon to create scoring situations and when needed to score, were placed in good positions to score typically.

 

Great players are great on any team.

 

I counter with this -- having a successful point guard isn't the most important factor in having a successful team. So, does it matter? The majority of the recent championship teams have had role players at PG.

I'd say PG is the least important position in the current era after post and wing.

So a successful point guard in my eyes is one that can fit a system and play his role.

 

True, but Steve Nash was already a pretty good point guard in Dallas, again as you say it was the system that inflated his numbers. Yet in Dallas, he was already one of the best shooters in the league and still a very exceptional passer. Only difference, they played Nelly ball, where he really couldn't dominate the offense.

The reason I mentioned this is, because Nash could almost fall into the first group (like Brees), but that's a good analogy with Brees. Though Brees numbers went to another level in New Orleans, mainly because they are throwing 500 to 660 passes per season vs. a more ball-control offense in San Diego with LT and Schottenheimer. Regardless, both players are in that superior to very good level of their respective position, in spite of what offensive system they play in the league.

Very good example for category B is Tim Tebow, who really needs particular system or offensive plan to succeed at QB, which is not necessarily the case with Nash and Brees, because they could succeed and be HOF caliber players in any system. Early on, the Denver coaching staff had to completely re-haul their offensive game plan for Tebow, and the Broncos succeed enough to win. If he were expected to run an offensive in the same manner that either of Mannings or Brees had to run, then he might fail. He needs a particular system to succeed, because it utilize his uncommon skills.

 

One star point guard and 12 after-thoughts stuck in embarrassingly 80s attire.

 

Let Cynthia Cooper and Chris Paul copulate...