How many guards in the NBA still fit the mold of a so-called "true PG"? I keep reading this as the #1 thing against Brooks. From what I've seen in the preseason, he's done a great job of involving guys like Wafer. Do people think that you can't be a true PG if you take more than 10 shots a game? Please, someone name me true "PG's" in the NBA who are worthy of playing 15+ mins a game. Would you rather have someone like Jeff McInnis or Jamaal Tinsley? Fact is that "true PG's" are a dying breed if you're looking for John Stockton or Magic Johnson. We don't need a true PG. We don't run fast break for 48 mins. We have 3 go-to guys. We just need someone who can bring the ball up against a non-pressure defense, something that 70% of NBA players can do. I feel like people overuse the term "true PG" particularly in this era where Steve Nash and Chris Paul have had success in the last few years. The fact remains that the last team whose best player was a PG who won the title was in 1990 when the Pistons won with Zeke. We won 2 titles with Cassell/Smith basically splitting 48 mins. The 2004 Pistons were too well-balanced to say Billups was clearly their best player, especially since Billups is arguably not a "true PG".
I don't think it's necessarily about that, but it's more that people feel like our point guard spot is the weak spot of our roster. Most championship teams in recent years and teams that have done very well have had very strong point guards (i.e. as you mentioned, Nash and Paul, but also Parker, Williams, Davis, etc.) that are not necessarily always pass first, but are able to make strong decisions and score in bunches when they need to. People are crying for a point guard that will be able to deliver the ball efficiently all the time to our stars, but deep down they also want one that can do it all and leave us with nothing to complain about, which is fairly unrealistic. Our guards right now, especially with the arrival of Barry, is probably enough in my opinion. I always thought the Celtics had a major hole at PG and they were able to pull it off last year, so really, I don't see why we can't.
We used to have a true PG in rafer alston who was able to give assists and make shot attempts sometimes. But this dude is no longer a PG because he has lost most of his dribbling and shooting and assisting skills, now his only trick to score is just the three pt shooting at the double corners. Nonetheless, as the old sentence goes, another thing comes as one thing lost. Rafer's defense has been greatly developed and he is even among the toughest defenders now. His duty for the upcoming season is to act as the third team defender following shane and ron, locking up their ray allen when facing celtics and matching up odom when againest lakers. say, defending the opponent's third score is his job now. He'll play 3 as he's lost his dribbling skills, even though he is a little bit undersized.
Understandable, but other than the Lakers, is there any team with a perfect starting 5? I'd rather our Achilles' Heel be at PG or SF than any other position. IMO, we're merely average at PG. Not good or horrible, just average. Ideally, Alston would hit closer to 40% on his open 3s, and Brooks would be more of a "heady" PG, but if that's our biggest gripe, I'll take it. Did the Bulls have a true PG when they won 6 rings? Hell, they had an old SG in Ron Harper playing PG for them for their last 3 titles. I know they had Pippen, which leads to me my point that you don't need a PG to be successful. We just need a PG who doesn't yield 30 points and 10 assists to someone like Williams or Paul.
Eh...just off the top of my head, a list of "pure PGs" to answer your question. Chris Paul Deron Williams Steve Nash Andre Miller Jason Kidd Jose Calderon Steve Blake Anthony Carter
And how many of those guys would start for us? Paul, Williams, Nash, Miller, Kidd, Calderon. No on Blake and big no on Carter. So that's 6 PG's out of 30 starting PG's? 20%? I'll do you a favor and throw TJ Ford into that mix, but he's not a good fit for our offense if he can't hit an open jumper. Fact remains that we need a spot-up shooter who can defend at PG more than a "true PG". Brooks can at least shoot. If you combine defense and/orshooting, you're left with Williams, Nash, Miller and maybe Calderon- who I haven't seen much of.
Are you referring to Rafer Alston here? Because that wouldn't make sense at all. Lost his dribbling? The former And-1 street legend losing his dribbling skills? LOL. Even Clutch would chuckle at that. And you thin he's undersized? LAWLZ. Brooks is the one who is undersized if anything.
The pg true or not has to be effective. He has to be able and willing to know when to push,pull, and lead and that goes in most systems. Now sometimes the system will dictate how much and the sheer respnsibility of that guy. The old bulls had bj and paxson as pg's, but really the triangle is a passing,motion offense. Pippen and Jordan were more of the distributors and bj and paxson were the shooters. The Jazz offense has looked the same with stocton and williams, but they also had guys like mo williams who didn't really fit what they were doing A lot of people was really like Miller nd I like him also, but he is better served when he can constantly control the game. He does a great job at it, like brevin, but on a team like houston, he wouldn't be as effective. Why?That's probably one of tracy's strongest asset. Its really a reason why Mo Wiiliams and West will fit good with James. Really, Rafer would be better on a team where he controlled all the action. If he was on a team of runners and finishers, he would put up good numbers. I'm not saying the team would be good, but I could easily see him pushing the ball and setting guys up. The pure pg isn't needed to be successful in this day and age. In the old days it was probably more neccessity because u didn't have point forwards. Even in the 80's when those guys 1st started poppin up, the pg basically assisted on most baskets and set everyone up. Now you need capable guys that can do something. I do think and have been talking about it that I think Brooks can impact the rox more than rafer. I just think rafers strength is nullified by mcgrady,yao, and now artest. Basically turning rafer into a spot up shooter which is by far the weakest part of his whole filled game.
We don't need a pure PG to win. In fact, if Brooks learnt to keep his dribble more and not try to over do things, the Rockets might excel much better with Brooks than Alston, simply because Brooks has the speed, and he can hit that 3 point shot. Although defense will still come into question, there is no doubt that Brooks is Tony Parker like. In fact, Brooks stands 2 ins shorter than Parker, yet Brooks seems to have a much easier time dunking the ball than Parker. So IMO, a PG with speed and athletism can cause a lot more damage than a "pure PG" that isn't able to draw double teams the way Brooks does.
Maybe if we're talking about preseason action or college three point shooting contests. 2007-08 Regular Season: Brooks - 33% 3pt FG% (36-109) Alston - 35.1% 3pt FG% (143-407) 2008 Playoffs: Brooks - 0% 3pt FG% (0-10) Alston - 44% 3pt FG% (11-25) Brooks still has a lot to prove. I'm still nervous if he's our backup PG next playoffs.
