devilalum
Heavily Redacted
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2002
- Posts
- 16,776
- Reaction score
- 3,187
If he stays healthy he could be the 6th best PG.
Bledsoe Contract: 5 Years, $70 million
- Thread starter crisper57
- Start date
If he stays healthy he could be the 6th best PG.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Posts
- 36,867
- Reaction score
- 16,679
Probably not. He might become the 6th best player in the league but as a pure point guard, I don't think he'll ever be top 10.
Steve
Chaplin
Better off silent
Depends on your definition of a "pure" point guard.
elindholm
edited for content
Are there even ten starting-caliber "pure point guards" in the league? These days, "pure point guard" is a euphemism for "point guard who can't score."
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Posts
- 36,867
- Reaction score
- 16,679
I guess but I think the skills of a pure point guard are reasonably well defined and Bledsoe is mediocre in many of those areas (court vision, ball handling, decision making when he's going full speed etc). But he's far from mediocre as a basketball player and that's all that matters to me. I think it's important to keep another guard out there with him that is at least as capable at running a team as Eric is. Pair him with a Dragic or even IT and I think you have a dynamite pair of guards.
Steve
JCSunsfan
ASFN Icon
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2002
- Posts
- 22,115
- Reaction score
- 6,551
I like the word "euphemism."
Chaplin
Better off silent
Kendall Marshall is a "pure" point guard. I'm ok with Bledsoe not being a top 10 "pure" point guard, considering that there are very few pure point guards in the game today.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Posts
- 36,867
- Reaction score
- 16,679
If that's the case I shouldn't have used that as the baseline for Bledsoe. My point is just that Eric doesn't excel in some of the areas that we expect a point guard to excel in. IMO he more than makes up for those shortcomings in other areas. But I've long thought that pairing him with a traditional shooting guard is likely to expose his weaknesses.
Steve
JCSunsfan
ASFN Icon
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2002
- Posts
- 22,115
- Reaction score
- 6,551
Was Steve Nash a pure pg? If not, then I don't want one.
AZCrazy
ASFN Lifer
- Joined
- May 18, 2014
- Posts
- 3,984
- Reaction score
- 2,562
Not sure how that's possible. The Suns will be very happy he stayed on the team. They were far far better with him than without him last year. Now if only we could get a dominant big man we'd be set. We've got a bunch of 'guys'.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Posts
- 36,867
- Reaction score
- 16,679
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with? Is it the idea that he can become a top 6 player without being a top 6 point guard or are you simply contesting the idea he could become a top 6 player?
Maybe we've just got a "bunch of guys" but that doesn't mean they will stay that way. The issue will probably come down to whether we stay with them until they become the players they can be or whether we'll showcase them and then trade them for more "win now" players. If Markieff, Len and Plumlee all turn out to be just a bunch of guys, we'll probably have to trade Bledsoe or Dragic to get a quality big man.
Steve
elindholm
edited for content
No he wasn't, and you're right.
I would consider Nash a pure PG. As far as I know combo-guards who regularly play both Guard positions are not considered pure PGs. At least when I was coaching youth leagues we never referred to a player as a combo-guard unless he played both positions regulary. Nash played his primary position as a PG so wouldn't that make him a pure PG? Just because they stuck him on SG on defense to hide him, doesn't preclude him from that category IMO.
I guess we better have a clear definition of what people mean by that. I consider the following type of players "pure" (not counting when they were old and moved out to SG):
Nash
Paul
Rondo
Williams
Billups
J.Kidd
KJ
Stockton
Payton
Maybe some of you mean traditional PG's? That is more of a loose term IMO and can mean guys like Penny who didn't fit the typical mold of PG but played that position. In is prime he was a pure PG but not a traditional one. Just trying to determine what you guys mean by each of these?!?!
I guess we better have a clear definition of what people mean by that. I consider the following type of players "pure" (not counting when they were old and moved out to SG):
Nash
Paul
Rondo
Williams
Billups
J.Kidd
KJ
Stockton
Payton
Maybe some of you mean traditional PG's? That is more of a loose term IMO and can mean guys like Penny who didn't fit the typical mold of PG but played that position. In is prime he was a pure PG but not a traditional one. Just trying to determine what you guys mean by each of these?!?!
Last edited:
Chaplin
Better off silent
Stockton, yes. He always appeared to be the epitome of "pure" point guard. Can shoot well if he needs to, but he didn't need to most of the time because he was surrounded by scorers. Guys like KJ, Deron Williams and Chris Paul frequently are asked to be the main scorer for their team, so that fudges the definition of "pure" a bit.
Phrazbit
ASFN Icon
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2011
- Posts
- 20,366
- Reaction score
- 11,462
Gary Payton as a pure PG? Yeah, he was solid at passing the ball but his first instinct was to score.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2010
- Posts
- 11,660
- Reaction score
- 844
Steve Nash was definitely a pure PG imo...
I was thinking the same thing but it could also be a guard that looks to first setup his teammates before himself versus a shoot first point guard.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Posts
- 36,867
- Reaction score
- 16,679
I have no problem with a point guard that can score as long as he knows how and when to get his teammates involved. Nash knew how to do that and so did Gary. I don't think the fact they could shoot or score detracts at all from their point guard skills.
Steve
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Posts
- 119,253
- Reaction score
- 59,868
I like this definition of a pure PG. A guard that has the skills to run an offense, pass the ball to set up players and shoot the ball as a byproduct of the offense. As previously noted, Steve Nash is an excellent example.
elindholm
edited for content
The problem with that definition is that it's unresponsive to what the defense does. A point guard should recognize who the best offensive option is under the circumstances, even if it's him. PGs who look only to their teammates become liabilities and are easily exploited.
There are many scenarios that fudge the definition of Pure PG. Some guys had better finishers around them so they didn't need to shoot as much. Some guys like Kidd were better passers so the team didn't ask him to take as many shots.
That's why the discussion might be moot.
So even the "pass first PG" thing is a bit dodgy as well. In the example above maybe Payton did prefer to score first but dude set franchise records for assists and is the 8th all time leader in the NBA in assists which means he liked to pass as well as he liked to shoot. You can't get that many assists if you don't like to pass the ball.
Nash LOVED to pass first but dude could also take over games when needed and put up a bunch of points. I still consider him the prime example of a pure PG. By the way he only averaged 2 less points than Payton career wise and during his awesome Suns run averaged almost the same as Payton. Yet most people would consider Nash being a pass first guy during his run here.
That's why the discussion might be moot.
So even the "pass first PG" thing is a bit dodgy as well. In the example above maybe Payton did prefer to score first but dude set franchise records for assists and is the 8th all time leader in the NBA in assists which means he liked to pass as well as he liked to shoot. You can't get that many assists if you don't like to pass the ball.
Nash LOVED to pass first but dude could also take over games when needed and put up a bunch of points. I still consider him the prime example of a pure PG. By the way he only averaged 2 less points than Payton career wise and during his awesome Suns run averaged almost the same as Payton. Yet most people would consider Nash being a pass first guy during his run here.
Last edited:
SirStefan32
Krycek, Alex Krycek
It's hard to define a "pure point guard." To me, a point guard is a play maker, someone who runs an offense, has a high basketball IQ, and (I hate to use this term) makes other around him better. To me, Nash, along with Stockton is the very definition of a point guard.
Either way, Bledsoe is not anything close to a real point guard. One can argue that his scoring, quickness, ability to get to the rim, etc make up for his short-comings as a play maker, but he is not a point guard. Same thing can be said about Dragic, though in his case, he is almost tall enough to be a shooting guard, he can actually shoot like a shooting guard should shoot, and he can adequately run an offense, but while he is closer to being a real PG than Bledsoe, he's not really a point guard.
SirStefan32
Krycek, Alex Krycek
That's pure fantasy. If he can become the sixth best player in the NBA, he'll likely become a Star Ship Captain as well.
EDIT:
Upon reading your original post again, it appears you were making a point, and the "sixth best player in the league" was not to be taken literally.
devilalum
Heavily Redacted
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2002
- Posts
- 16,776
- Reaction score
- 3,187
OK, he's a top 6 player among players who are designated as point guards.
Of course. That is what a pure PG would do. That's what Nash did. It's called making the right play.
