Combo Guards, AAU Showcases and the True PG Personality

Sounds like the kid was ready to blow away the competition by the time he reached pre-school http://www.azstarnet.com/sports/225103

a very good interview. One thing I think Brian leaves out in his determination of a point guard is mental power—the ability to see, discern, digest and quickly react to the rapid action of the game. It takes a quick mind to be one of those players who see the game in slow motion. Walton and Bird had it in spades and so does Roy. Jack didn’t at all; that’s why he couldn’t run a fast break. Blake is probably average. Haven’t the slightest idea about Bayless. Sergio, I think possesses some of that. It’s a hugely important quality and we are extremely fortunate that in Brandon, we have perhaps the NBA’s best in that department.

I agree with Brian in that it takes a certain personality to run the point, but it’s not like there’s a shortage of “facilitator personalities” – and it’s hard not to think the progression of the game itself isn’t to blame. GM’s, coaches, and fans alike love to see {insert flashy offensive threat here} score in bunches – often by their own devices.

Look at it this way, unless it’s an double-bounce, off-the glass, eyes-closed alley oop assist, we’re more likely to see (and even want to see) a guy manhandle defenders on his own, en route to scoring by any means necessary. I’m not pointing fingers, b/c I’m just as guilty, but I think it’s amusing that the question of “where are all the true PG’s?” seems much more prevalent as of late, but over the last 10 years we’ve steadily been pining for guys like Kobe, LeBron, Wade and the likes to run the show and play 1 on 5 basketball.

So where are all the facilitators? Where are all the true PGs?? They’re here…it’s just that they’ve disbanded the prospects of running their team like a well-oiled machine, scoffed at the thought of passing first/shooting second, and have given in to the demand that we’ve all been asking for – dropping 40 points a night…by any means necessary.

Not many guard busts in the last 15 years. Guards in the top 10 seem to pan out. I think he’ll be just fine.

Opposite, that is, of the usual notion that older generations believe “kids these days have no respect for their elders”.

I’m 25 (was born in 1983) so I grew up with the Jordan era, mostly. At least, my earliest basketball cognizance was the tongue-wagging, Gatorade-chugging force known as “Air”. I may have been alive at the time, but I pretty much missed out on the Bird, Thomas, Magic (except for the AIDS thing) era. Regardless, I really started to follow basketball in the mid-nineties, which was kind of the beginning of the ‘showboat’ age.

All of this is to say that I often look back at the old times, especially back to the “Big O” times, as being “real” basketball. Think “Hoosiers”, not “Hoop Dreams”. It’s easy enough to say money’s been the downfall of the game, but what I grew up on seemed to be the onset of a new era, for better or for worse, regardless the impetus. More Rodman, less Laimbeer. More Charles Barkley, less Moses Malone. Shoe sales and rim-wrecks ruled the day. I remember being like Mike with a Gatorade on the court and having a Shaq Attack 1-Liter of Pepsi afterward. I took this as the way things were, but never the way things should be.

It wasn’t until I was older that it dawned on me that those qualities I found lacking, the electric five-man fast break, the high-post pick and roll, were THE GAME not so long before I was born. Thinking back to even the ‘77 Blazers, things were certainly different. But why? I wondered for a long, long time. I still don’t know, but your recent interview brought those very questions back in a very full effect. The one thing I think may have been overlooked was what brings me (finally) to my point:

To contrast the (I’m sure over-idealized) NBA before my youth and the league in its current state, I’d have to guess that there’s a much higher premium placed upon “making it” – the stakes are higher, whether for salary or endorsements. I’m not sure if the players themselves are from more desperate backgrounds (again, less “Hoosiers”, more “Hoop Dreams”), but even considering my own young-adulthood, if 25 points and 8 assists got me millions more than 15 points and 15 assists, I’d be like “sorry high school team, but 12sharks needs a new pair of shoes”. Even at this stage of my life, especially considering the current fiduciary climate, I’m putting a lot of emphasis on financial security. I can’t blame kids five or even ten years my junior for doing that, either.

Then again, this could be the crux of the loss of the “pure” point guard, and perhaps even the loss of “pure” NBA basketball. Sure, people probably said the same thing when Dr. J came on the scene, but this seems a little more.. institutional. It seems you’ve either got a shoe deal or you’re a failure. You’re either drafted in the first round or you’re doomed. People cite statistics on “success ratios” for draftees all the time, but that success relies more on fame and fortune (if not simply staying in the league) than adding something to a team while you’re there. Forget 1-on-5 play, it seems we’ve cultured expectations for 1-on-9 – one person trying to outshine everyone else on the court.

Regardless of psychological makeup, natural involvement, high school coaches or zone defense, I see a basketball structure at hand that is ruled by drawing attention, not setting screens, by standing out, not winning. That, to me, is the genuine source of the demise of the lead guard. But, then again, this is coming from a 25-year-old old man who meant to respond in only a sentence or two. Thanks for reading, anyway.

concerning the development of “tweeners”.

Some athletes are late bloomers physically—they don’t fully develop (height, muscle mass, etc) until later in life. Others develop early, ahead of their peers.

I wonder if tweeners have a greater tendency to be “early bloomers”-players who have their big growth spurt earlier than their classmates, then whose development slows when they get older (while their peers continue to develop). A player who is bigger than his teammates in AAU or prep ball (or even junior high/middle school)-ain’t as likely to be playing point guard; a role often doled out to whoever the shortest kid is. With the result that some kids are trained in other roles, reach physical maturity—and find that they are 6’2” but have no clue to run an offense, because they’ve been 6’2” since 9th grade, which made them the small forward on the varsity team.

Anyone have any clue if this is a good hypothesis? Or am I all wet?

Sorry, but people that hold on to the “True PG” mantra I think have missed a step or two in the evolution of the game. Chris Paul, Nash, Williams, Parker…players that fit the definition of True PG do exist and are succesful for their respective teams. However, IMO ever since Magic Johnson bounced a basketball on an N.B.A. court the reality of what a PG is, and what a playmaker is, has been changing. Every team needs an on the court leader and an on the court playmaker. Every team needs that guy. The Facilitator. You can have more than one playmaker but I don’t necessarily think it has to BE your PG. In other words, I could see us getting 20 pts and 2 assists from Bayless while we get 12pts and 8 assists from Brandon, while technically Bayless comes in as our PG and Brandon as our SG. Plus that balance could shift from night to night. I just think the game has evolved to a point where your leader and your playmaker doesn’t necessarily have to be your PG and that reality has changed the definition of “true pg”. I think The Blazers are going to be fine with our “Guards” call them PG’s, Shooting Guards, or Combo. I think Roy has grasped the mantle of team leader, I think he is our main playmaker does that mean when the game starts and he is introduced he has to be called our PG? No. People are getting to hung up of “definitions” of a bygone era. Magic Johnson and Isiah Thomas are probably two of the most succesful PG’s of their respective era’s. Surrounded by great talent but two “guards” that led their teams to championship viability. Were they the prototypical PG? Certainly they had the skills to execute anything their team needed be it scoring or assists. The Blazers are going to be deep and talented but the truth might develop that we don’t really play with the prototype PG. People get upset about how we are going to match up against the Chris Pauls and the Deron Williams and even Allen Iversons, but when I look at our group of guards in Brandon, Bayless and others I think the question becomes how are other teams going to match up against us. We have size, strength and skill. If a waterbug like Allen Iverson can occasionally find a way past Brandon or Bayless? Then we have a guy named Oden in the paint. No we might not ever obtain the singular PG that so many seem to be clamoring for but we are building a guard core that I think has the skills as a unit to offer a great versatility to our team.

You’re swell. Thanks to Mr. McCormick too. I love his spices.

The word “personality” may not be as descriptive as it seems here. The term is used here to describe behavior tendencies of predisposition in making teammates better. But haven’t we read consistently that KP looks for this disposition for all the Blazer players? Should Martell be more of a gunner, he might be celebrated as the “star” of this team. But he certainly has not looked like a point guard while deferring to teammates. The individual preferences and tendencies of players seems fairly consistent in the limited exposure under this coach and with these teammates. Not convinced that sets them in stone. The needs of a team dictate the roles of the players in the best of worlds.

Are point guard characteristics inherited or acquired? Brian seems to maintain they are acquired at an early age (Freudian?) from being played out of position. He also seems to maintain that the inherent (inherited?) underlying personality type needs to be of a certain quality. Perhaps both are necessary.

What we have are multi-talented flexible players who have all (through last year) seemed to want to share the ball and facilitate as needed to win. This is why the team point guard still does not feel right about this team. But Brian’s point about understanding the subtle needs and mental state of his teammates is essential to a point guard is absolutely true of the primary leader no matter what his position. Jerryd Bayless has been described with the mental toughness and intensity to be that leader. As much as love Brandon I have not yet seen the dominant leader emerge. It has been the single factor most lacking (other than experience) with the team.

Steve Nash seems to have, along with Chris Paul. Rudy may have it. Petteri may have it. Jerryd may have it. Greg may have it. Or maybe all of them. This year I look forward to who shall emerge.

As far as this being lost at HS, AAU and college levels, I submit the model exposed by Kansas this year. Lots of people said Mario Chalmers was a SG and doubted he could play PG. Lots of people said Brandon Rush was too passive. Both served the needs of their teams and will likely prove those declarations wrong. Kansas played as a team and as a team won their championship. It is not a lost art.