What to do with Bledsoe and Knight?

[thamadkant]

140 million dollars to undersized combo guards who arent elite in either offense or defense is not ideal.


Booker and Goodwin produces the same output at 3.5 million dollars combined and 1/10th the experience (minutes played).

With that said. Knight and Bledsoe has worth.
And keeping one is not a bad option.




No brainer to me.


But if I was GM. Id rebuild clean and use the 140 million in the below players.
Get a play making SF who plays Defense instead... And a high scoring big man.

[GMATCallahan]

They could play in a three-guard rotation (as distinct from a three-guard lineup): with 96 available minutes per game at the two guard spots, Bledsoe could average 35 minutes, and Knight and Booker could more or less split the remaining 61 minutes, with one of them coming off the bench yet still potentially playing 30 minutes per game. Knight would probably be better suited for that role, but if his ego is too sensitive, Booker is still young enough to fill it without sacrificing his minutes and development.

So then you have no time for Archie or Bogdan (or the PG we will invariably draft...)

Either way you splice it, someone has to go. If you keep Knight purely for the intent of playing him with Bledsoe in the hope of seeing him flourish, you're choosing to roll the dice with him at the expense of relegating a could-be superstar SG to the sixth man role. I think most here have seen enough of Booker to want to give him every possible opportunity to succeed.

Booker could be a terrific shooting guard; I do not know about a "superstar," but then again, I do not throw around that label as loosely as some. Regardless, he will turn twenty just before the start of next season; featuring him as a Sixth Man for a year or two is not going to say anything about his future. (Remember that Kobe Bryant came off the bench during his first two NBA seasons.) As long as he plays, that is what will matter.

Knight is not going to flourish simply by playing alongside Bledsoe. But with a three-guard rotation (regardless of who starts), the Suns do not need to give up on any of these guards just yet. Knight can play a fair portion of his minutes alongside Bledsoe and a fair portion alongside Booker.

As I noted in another thread, I would really look at Archie Goodwin more as a small forward. Frankly, splitting the small forward minutes between Goodwin and T.J. Warren next season, and having them compete for the starting job, would make quite a bit of sense. Of course, that matter could be changed depending upon whom the Suns draft.

As for Bogdanovich, we do not know when exactly he will come over and whether he will be ready to contribute as soon as he enters the NBA.

Basically, my point is that the Suns do not need to make a trade just for the sake of a making a trade. If an attractive deal emerges, Phoenix can take advantage of it, but otherwise the Suns can continue to explore the players currently on hand. There is no rush.

[GMATCallahan]

140 million dollars to undersized combo guards who arent elite in either offense or defense is not ideal.


Booker and Goodwin produces the same output at 3.5 million dollars combined and 1/10th the experience (minutes played).

With that said. Knight and Bledsoe has worth.
And keeping one is not a bad option.




No brainer to me.


But if I was GM. Id rebuild clean and use the 140 million in the below players.
Get a play making SF who plays Defense instead... And a high scoring big man.

Bledsoe ranked first among point guards in Defensive Real Plus-Minus in '13-'14, third last season, and tenth this year.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/year/2014/sort/DRPM/position/1

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/year/2015/sort/DRPM/position/1

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/DRPM/position/1

For a three-year composite, he would probably place among the top five in defense, which would certainly be elite.

As for Booker and Goodwin, the Suns have won, what, one game with these guys? At least with Bledsoe and Knight, Phoenix could win games here and there.

Of course, Booker is Phoenix's shooting guard of the future, and Goodwin could fill some role (although not as a starting guard), but the Suns have missed Bledsoe and to some extent Knight. That said, an offense built around those two is likely to be mediocre at best.

[TOO]

Since taking them for a long drive into the woods and leaving them there isn't an option, trade them both.

[thamadkant]

140 million dollars to undersized combo guards who arent elite in either offense or defense is not ideal.


Booker and Goodwin produces the same output at 3.5 million dollars combined and 1/10th the experience (minutes played).

With that said. Knight and Bledsoe has worth.
And keeping one is not a bad option.




No brainer to me.


But if I was GM. Id rebuild clean and use the 140 million in the below players.
Get a play making SF who plays Defense instead... And a high scoring big man.

Bledsoe ranked first among point guards in Defensive Real Plus-Minus in '13-'14, third last season, and tenth this year.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/year/2014/sort/DRPM/position/1

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/year/2015/sort/DRPM/position/1

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/DRPM/position/1

For a three-year composite, he would probably place among the top five in defense, which would certainly be elite.

As for Booker and Goodwin, the Suns have won, what, one game with these guys? At least with Bledsoe and Knight, Phoenix could win games here and there.

Of course, Booker is Phoenix's shooting guard of the future, and Goodwin could fill some role (although not as a starting guard), but the Suns have missed Bledsoe and to some extent Knight. That said, an offense build around those two is likely to be mediocre at best.

Regarding Bledsoe's defense.
When he is motivated he can impact for sure.
But more than half the time he puts under 100% effort guarding his man and it shows.


Booker and Goodwin NOT winning games doesnt mean much. Wiggins/Towns combo is arguably going to be amongst the best in the future yet are losing a lot.... It comes down to the team's overall structure and personnel. Experience and a mature system also are huge factors.

[carey]

Yeah, I guess people forget how much Durant & Westbrook lost at first. And no one is accusing Booker and Goodwin of being Durant and Westbrook.

[GMATCallahan]

Regarding Bledsoe's defense.
When he is motivated he can impact for sure.
But more than half the time he puts under 100% effort guarding his man and it shows.


Booker and Goodwin NOT winning games doesnt mean much. Wiggins/Towns combo is arguably going to be amongst the best in the future yet are losing a lot.... It comes down to the team's overall structure and personnel. Experience and a mature system also are huge factors.

There is a difference between not winning much and virtually never winning a game. Let me put it this way: Booker is the Suns' shooting guard of the future, but "Backcourt 2020" (an inside joke for those in the know) will not be Goodwin and Booker.

Bledsoe's on-ball defense is not the best, but his help defense is excellent, in part because of his long arms.

[GMATCallahan]

Yeah, I guess people forget how much Durant & Westbrook lost at first. And no one is accusing Booker and Goodwin of being Durant and Westbrook.

Oklahoma City went 23-59 in Durant and Westbrook's first year together; the Thunder then made the playoffs in the their second year together.

The Suns are 1-10 with Goodwin and Booker starting together. More to the point, Goodwin is not this team's point guard of the future, and thus these guys will not constitute the back-court of the future (although Booker should be the shooting guard of the future). Phoenix cannot dump Bledsoe and Knight and say, "We'll be no worse off with Archie Goodwin."

That is not to say that Goodwin does not have a future in some capacity, but the Suns have definitely missed Bledsoe, and for as misplaced as Knight happens to be as a point guard, Phoenix could use him right now, too.

[letsgosuns]

I have seen enough of a sample size of Bledsoe leading the team and Knight leading the team to want them both traded. I cannot stand selfish point guards, especially ones that are turnover prone like Bledsoe and Knight. The worst kind of a player to have offensively is a selfish point guard. Point guards are supposed to keep everyone engaged. Selfish point guards keep everyone disengaged. Bledsoe and Knight have both been in the league long enough for people to know what kind of players they are. And I want nothing to do with them. Trade them both before next season.

I also do not see Goodwin as a point guard. He can be a combo guard but he seems best suited to attack the rim and create for himself rather than facilitate an offense. I do not think the future point guard of the Suns is on the team right now and that player needs to be acquired through the draft, free agency, or trade.

[GMATCallahan]

I have seen enough of a sample size of Bledsoe leading the team and Knight leading the team to want them both traded. I cannot stand selfish point guards, especially ones that are turnover prone like Bledsoe and Knight. The worst kind of a player to have offensively is a selfish point guard. Point guards are supposed to keep everyone engaged. Selfish point guards keep everyone disengaged. Bledsoe and Knight have both been in the league long enough for people to know what kind of players they are. And I want nothing to do with them. Trade them both before next season.

I also do not see Goodwin as a point guard. He can be a combo guard but he seems best suited to attack the rim and create for himself rather than facilitate an offense. I do not think the future point guard of the Suns is on the team right now and that player needs to be acquired through the draft, free agency, or trade.

Of course, one could argue that there are not many true point guards—at least good ones—in the NBA nowadays. Guys like Stephen Curry, Russell Westbrook, Damian Lillard, Kyrie Irving, Kyle Lowry, Derrick Rose, and Isaiah Thomas are all scorers who nominally function as "point guards" as opposed to being true point guards. (They are distinct in that regard from Chris Paul, a true point guard who also happens to be a scorer; Tony Parker belonged with that first group earlier in his career yet has since learned to straddle the line, so to speak; Rajon Rondo is a wonderful passer yet a deficient scorer, undermining his offensive value.) The difference is that many of those guys, especially Curry, are better shooters than Bledsoe and Knight, and Westbrook is a dominant athlete who reaches the free throw line a ton. But true point guards with enough of an offensive game to be worthy of a starting role are difficult to find in this era.

I concur that the Suns' optimal point guard is not currently on their roster, but a forward who can really pass could prove just as worthwhile. The question is whether the Suns can find that player, either: a versatile forward along the lines of Markieff Morris yet one with a higher skill level and obviously a better attitude.

[Twuan89]

What's wrong with Bledsoe's attitude?

[carey]

I don't like the term "true point guard." The position is evolving with the times. I think as fans we have to get used to it and either find a way to appreciate what is being played or don't watch.

I enjoy teams with a good distributor at PG. The passing can sometimes be infectuous. There's also something to be said about GS where nearly every player can shoot or pass. Then the passing really is infectuous.

[vincecarter4pres]

I have seen enough of a sample size of Bledsoe leading the team and Knight leading the team to want them both traded. I cannot stand selfish point guards, especially ones that are turnover prone like Bledsoe and Knight. The worst kind of a player to have offensively is a selfish point guard. Point guards are supposed to keep everyone engaged. Selfish point guards keep everyone disengaged. Bledsoe and Knight have both been in the league long enough for people to know what kind of players they are. And I want nothing to do with them. Trade them both before next season.

I also do not see Goodwin as a point guard. He can be a combo guard but he seems best suited to attack the rim and create for himself rather than facilitate an offense. I do not think the future point guard of the Suns is on the team right now and that player needs to be acquired through the draft, free agency, or trade.

Of course, one could argue that there are not many true point guards—at least good ones—in the NBA nowadays. Guys like Stephen Curry, Russell Westbrook, Damian Lillard, Kyrie Irving, Kyle Lowry, Derrick Rose, and Isaiah Thomas are all scorers who nominally function as "point guards" as opposed to being true point guards. (They are distinct in that regard from Chris Paul, a true point guard who also happens to be a scorer; Tony Parker belonged with that first group earlier in his career yet has since learned to straddle the line, so to speak; Rajon Rondo is a wonderful passer yet a deficient scorer, undermining his offensive value.) The difference is that many of those guys, especially Curry, are better shooters than Bledsoe and Knight, and Westbrook is a dominant athlete who reaches the free throw line a ton. But true point guards with enough of an offensive game to be worthy of a starting role are difficult to find in this era.

I concur that the Suns' optimal point guard is not currently on their roster, but a forward who can really pass could prove just as worthwhile. The question is whether the Suns can find that player, either: a versatile forward along the lines of Markieff Morris yet one with a higher skill level and obviously a better attitude.

I read letsgosuns post differently, but forgive me as a visitor who doesn't read many of his posts, so maybe you knew where he was going with this better.

But... the way I read his post was Knight and Bledsoe are simply selfish point guards. He didn't say they were scoring points, or score first, just that they were selfish and don't involve anyone while turning the ball over.

You can be a score first point guard and still be unselfish, involve the other players and understand how to run an offense and plays. You can be a score first point guard and still be unselfish. You can also be pass first, or a traditional point guard and be selfish, by dominating the ball so much no one can do anything other than cut, spot up, roll and wait.

I personally wouldn't say a score first point guard isn't a true point guard, they just aren't traditional. You can say it's just arguing semantics, but I would disagree with that sentiment.

[saintEscaton]

The prototypical abstraction of the floor general is becoming more obsolete with every year, off the top of my head I only think CP3, Wall, Rubio and Rondo in their current form as truly fitting that label. The new breed of ball dominant scoring guards are only nominally PGs in that they are the primary ballhander bringing it up the court. Posting this just for reference. It seems like the cutoff to be considered elite is posting a TS% near 60% and and AST% more than 40% on a high usage (well over 20%). So I'm not a purist in that regard and am not nostalgic for the bygone era that will never be resurrected . But Knight and Bled obviously don't cut it


Player USG% AST% TS% APG PPG PER
John Stockton (career) 18.9% 50.2% 60.8% 10.5 13.1 21.8
Magic Johnson (career) 22.3% 40.9% 61.0% 11.2 19.5 24.1
Isiah Thomas (career) 25.3% 37.4% 51.6% 9.3 19.2 18.1
Jason Kidd (career) 19.2% 38.5% 50.7% 8.7 12.6 17.9
Steve Nash (career) 21.0% 41.5% 60.5% 8.5 14.3 20.0
Chris Paul (career) 23.7% 46.6% 57.6% 9.9 18.6 25.6
Tony Parker (career) 25.7% 32.9% 55.1% 6.0 16.8 19.1
Deron Williams (career) 23.9% 40.9% 55.9% 8.6 17.5 19.1
Derrick Rose (2010-2011) 32.2%38.7%55.0% 7.7 25.0 23.5
Rajon Rondo (2011-2012)20.7% 52.5% 48.3% 11.7 11.9 17.5
R Westbrook (2012-2013)32.8%38.4% 53.2% 7.4 23.2 23.9
Steph Curry (2013-2014) 28.3% 39.9% 61.0% 8.5 23.9 24.1
Kyrie Irving (2013-2014) 28.2% 31.6% 53.3% 6.1 20.8 20.1
Ricky Rubio (2013-2014) 16.4% 37.8% 49.1% 8.6 9.5 15.4

[Frank Lee]

Since taking them for a long drive into the woods and leaving them there isn't an option, trade them both.

can't see it being a bad thing.... or at least a 'worse' thing. By the time this team is relevant... Bledsoe and his trail boss RPaul will be off to greener pastures.

[GMATCallahan]

I read letsgosuns post differently, but forgive me as a visitor who doesn't read many of his posts, so maybe you knew where he was going with this better.

But... the way I read his post was Knight and Bledsoe are simply selfish point guards. He didn't say they were scoring points, or score first, just that they were selfish and don't involve anyone while turning the ball over.

You can be a score first point guard and still be unselfish, involve the other players and understand how to run an offense and plays. You can be a score first point guard and still be unselfish. You can also be pass first, or a traditional point guard and be selfish, by dominating the ball so much no one can do anything other than cut, spot up, roll and wait.

I personally wouldn't say a score first point guard isn't a true point guard, they just aren't traditional. You can say it's just arguing semantics, but I would disagree with that sentiment.

Well, he can speak for himself, but I do imagine that "score-first" and "selfish" are interchangeable in the context of his comments. A "score-first" point guard could be a true point guard, but a true point guard who is not necessarily "score-first" can also be less than traditional. Frankly, there are many shades of gray and a full gamut, and the labels are often simplistic and self-defeating, anyway. Any point guard who generally plans on automatically passing or automatically scoring, as part of a preconceived mindset, is less than optimal. The best point guards in history have generally kept their options open, refused to commit prematurely, and responded based upon the defensive coverage and the situation.

[GMATCallahan]

I don't like the term "true point guard." The position is evolving with the times. I think as fans we have to get used to it and either find a way to appreciate what is being played or don't watch.

I enjoy teams with a good distributor at PG. The passing can sometimes be infectuous. There's also something to be said about GS where nearly every player can shoot or pass. Then the passing really is infectuous.

Are your first and second paragraphs not in contradiction with one another?

Saying that Stephen Curry, for example, is not a "true point guard" is not a criticism of him; it is just an acknowledgment of the way in which he plays, and he is an incredible player.

Some point guards shoot too much, and some point guards look to pass too much. The pivotal matters are how efficient a player happens to be and the extent to which he can put his team over the top if necessary.

By the way, the notion that someone must "appreciate" something that is in vogue is nonsense. That is how the media operates because its real business is to promote the game, not to cover it in an objective journalistic manner.

[GMATCallahan]

The prototypical abstraction of the floor general is becoming more obsolete with every year, off the top of my head I only think CP3, Wall, Rubio and Rondo in their current form as truly fitting that label. The new breed of ball dominant scoring guards are only nominally PGs in that they are the primary ballhander bringing it up the court. Posting this just for reference. It seems like the cutoff to be considered elite is posting a TS% near 60% and and AST% more than 40% on a high usage (well over 20%). So I'm not a purist in that regard and am not nostalgic for the bygone era that will never be resurrected . But Knight and Bled obviously don't cut it


Player USG% AST% TS% APG PPG PER
John Stockton (career) 18.9% 50.2% 60.8% 10.5 13.1 21.8
Magic Johnson (career) 22.3% 40.9% 61.0% 11.2 19.5 24.1
Isiah Thomas (career) 25.3% 37.4% 51.6% 9.3 19.2 18.1
Jason Kidd (career) 19.2% 38.5% 50.7% 8.7 12.6 17.9
Steve Nash (career) 21.0% 41.5% 60.5% 8.5 14.3 20.0
Chris Paul (career) 23.7% 46.6% 57.6% 9.9 18.6 25.6
Tony Parker (career) 25.7% 32.9% 55.1% 6.0 16.8 19.1
Deron Williams (career) 23.9% 40.9% 55.9% 8.6 17.5 19.1
Derrick Rose (2010-2011) 32.2%38.7%55.0% 7.7 25.0 23.5
Rajon Rondo (2011-2012)20.7% 52.5% 48.3% 11.7 11.9 17.5
R Westbrook (2012-2013)32.8%38.4% 53.2% 7.4 23.2 23.9
Steph Curry (2013-2014) 28.3% 39.9% 61.0% 8.5 23.9 24.1
Kyrie Irving (2013-2014) 28.2% 31.6% 53.3% 6.1 20.8 20.1
Ricky Rubio (2013-2014) 16.4% 37.8% 49.1% 8.6 9.5 15.4

If your point guard rarely looks to score, or if he does not constitute a legitimate threat to score, or if he is an ineffective scorer, you are at a disadvantage. People who used to dismiss the value of scoring in a point guard were regressive thinkers, whereas Cotton Fitzsimmons proved ahead of his time by believing that point guards needed to score rather than just standing at the top of the key and passing. The same was true of Don Nelson, who told Steve Nash circa 2000 in Dallas that he needed to score—or else he was not going to play.

"Don Nelson insisted that I score," Nash wrote. "I always wanted to pass but he said, “It’s goddamn selfish when you don’t shoot.” ... He insisted that I be aggressive. That growth was a turning point in my career."

http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/dallas-mavericks/mavericksheadlines/2015/03/21/former-mavericks-guard-steve-nash-retires-tells-stories-of-his-days-in-dallas

Not coincidentally, Nelson is also the guy who (more or less) drafted Stephen Curry and who enjoyed a lot of success with Tim Hardaway during the coach's first stint in Golden State.

By the same token, one could certainly argue that the pendulum has now swung too far in the other direction, as epitomized by this apparent quotation (or paraphrase) from Derrick Rose:

He response this year was almost as comical as it was self-assured: "He is a scoring guard - he has to score." "Pass, not so much."

http://truehoopsny.blogspot.com/2013/03/point-guard-project-derrick-rose.html

A point guard should look to score with conviction if doing so represents the best option within the context of the defensive coverage. In other words, you want to be aggressive and judicious at the same time, which is a difficult balance to strike, but not implausible—Chris Paul probably represents the best example of it nowadays. But many of the present-day "point guards" just look to be aggressive and throw judiciousness out the window rather than tailoring their scoring talent to the context of the defensive coverage, the flow of the game, the situation, and so forth. Some of them, such as Stephen Curry and Kyrie Irving, possess such fabulous shooting ability off the dribble, and from such deep ranges, that they can get away with a lack of judiciousness. But at the same time, would Irving necessarily lead a team anywhere without LeBron James by his side? Russell Westbrook gets away with a lack of judiciousness to an extent because he is such a dominant athlete (perhaps the most dominant athlete ever to function as a "point guard") and he reaches the free throw line so often, a place where he is efficient. But he could be an even better player if he could somehow mix his aggressiveness with judiciousness, thus cutting down on his turnovers, improving his assist-to-turnover ratio, and enhancing his field goal percentage and overall scoring efficiency, which he limits by shooting a high volume of threes despite being a terrible three-point shooter.

In other words, many point guards nowadays are self-indulgent. Being self-indulgent is actually okay if you are really good at those acts of self-indulgence—like Stephen Curry. But guys such as Russell Westbrook and Derrick Rose are not nearly as good in some of their areas of self-indulgence, most notably three-point shooting.

I thought that this quotation from Kenny Gattison in 2014 was pretty revealing. (Gattison played for the Suns in the late eighties and then served as a Phoenix assistant coach during the previous two seasons.)

On Kevin Johnson, the player and person…

You saw it athletically at first. KJ was real quiet. He wasn’t a real vocal leader. You could see the explosiveness, his athleticism. Just physically. I think KJ was one of those type guys where he didn’t try to take over the game like some of these new-fangled point guards. They try to take over the game from the start to the finish. He did it in his own little subtle way. Even in practice. He would take over and there was nothing nobody could do about it.

http://www.nba.com/suns/suns-throwback-kenny-gattison

In other words, he picked his spots, for Kevin Johnson, after all, could easily either create his own jump-shot or reach the basket on virtually every possession—and he was a terrific shooter. But he played within the flow of the game, and that may be what this whole debate really comes down to. Who among us can say that Eric Bledsoe or Brandon Knight does an especially good job of playing within the flow of the game? For the most part, they play outside of a flow, like Stephon Marbury—except that they are worse passers than Marbury.

This point may be a little 'meta' to some, kind of like deciphering nuances in jazz, but I imagine that some people will understand what I mean.

[saintEscaton]

The prototypical abstraction of the floor general is becoming more obsolete with every year, off the top of my head I only think CP3, Wall, Rubio and Rondo in their current form as truly fitting that label. The new breed of ball dominant scoring guards are only nominally PGs in that they are the primary ballhander bringing it up the court. Posting this just for reference. It seems like the cutoff to be considered elite is posting a TS% near 60% and and AST% more than 40% on a high usage (well over 20%). So I'm not a purist in that regard and am not nostalgic for the bygone era that will never be resurrected . But Knight and Bled obviously don't cut it


Player USG% AST% TS% APG PPG PER
John Stockton (career) 18.9% 50.2% 60.8% 10.5 13.1 21.8
Magic Johnson (career) 22.3% 40.9% 61.0% 11.2 19.5 24.1
Isiah Thomas (career) 25.3% 37.4% 51.6% 9.3 19.2 18.1
Jason Kidd (career) 19.2% 38.5% 50.7% 8.7 12.6 17.9
Steve Nash (career) 21.0% 41.5% 60.5% 8.5 14.3 20.0
Chris Paul (career) 23.7% 46.6% 57.6% 9.9 18.6 25.6
Tony Parker (career) 25.7% 32.9% 55.1% 6.0 16.8 19.1
Deron Williams (career) 23.9% 40.9% 55.9% 8.6 17.5 19.1
Derrick Rose (2010-2011) 32.2%38.7%55.0% 7.7 25.0 23.5
Rajon Rondo (2011-2012)20.7% 52.5% 48.3% 11.7 11.9 17.5
R Westbrook (2012-2013)32.8%38.4% 53.2% 7.4 23.2 23.9
Steph Curry (2013-2014) 28.3% 39.9% 61.0% 8.5 23.9 24.1
Kyrie Irving (2013-2014) 28.2% 31.6% 53.3% 6.1 20.8 20.1
Ricky Rubio (2013-2014) 16.4% 37.8% 49.1% 8.6 9.5 15.4

If your point guard rarely looks to score, or if he does not constitute a legitimate threat to score, or if he is an ineffective scorer, you are at a disadvantage. People who used to dismiss the value of scoring in a point guard were regressive thinkers, whereas Cotton Fitzsimmons proved ahead of his time by believing that point guards needed to score rather than just standing at the top of the key and passing. The same was true of Don Nelson, who told Steve Nash circa 2000 in Dallas that he needed to score—or else he was not going to play.

"Don Nelson insisted that I score," Nash wrote. "I always wanted to pass but he said, “It’s goddamn selfish when you don’t shoot.” ... He insisted that I be aggressive. That growth was a turning point in my career."

http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/dallas-mavericks/mavericksheadlines/2015/03/21/former-mavericks-guard-steve-nash-retires-tells-stories-of-his-days-in-dallas

Not coincidentally, Nelson is also the guy who (more or less) drafted Stephen Curry and who also enjoyed a lot of success with Tim Hardaway during the coach's first stint in Golden State.

By the same token, one could certainly argue that the pendulum has now swung too far in the other direction, as epitomized by this apparent quotation (or paraphrase) from Derrick Rose:

He response this year was almost as comical as it was self-assured: "He is a scoring guard - he has to score." "Pass, not so much."

http://truehoopsny.blogspot.com/2013/03/point-guard-project-derrick-rose.html

A point guard should look to score with conviction if doing so represents the best option within the context of the defensive coverage. In other words, you want to be aggressive and judicious at the same time, which is a difficult balance to strike, but not implausible—Chris Paul probably represents the best example of it nowadays. But many of the present-day "point guards" just look to be aggressive and throw judiciousness out the window rather than tailoring their scoring talent to the context of the defensive coverage, the flow of the game, the situation, and so forth. Some of them, such as Stephen Curry and Kyrie Irving, possess such fabulous shooting ability off the dribble, and from such deep ranges, that they can get away with a lack of judiciousness. But at the same time, would Irving necessarily lead a team anywhere without LeBron James by his side? Russell Westbrook gets away with a lack of judiciousness to an extent because he is such a dominant athlete (perhaps the most dominant athlete ever to function as a "point guard") and he reaches the free throw line so often, a place where he is efficient. But he could be an even better player if he could somehow mix his aggressiveness with judiciousness, thus cutting down on his turnovers, improving his assist-to-turnover ratio, and enhancing his field goal percentage and overall scoring efficiency, which he limits by shooting a high volume of threes despite being a terrible three-point shooter.

In other words, many point guards nowadays are self-indulgent. Being self-indulgent is actually okay if you are really good at those acts of self-indulgence—like Stephen Curry. But guys like Russell Westbrook and Derrick Rose are not nearly as good in some of their areas of self-indulgence, most notably three-point shooting.

I thought that this quotation from Kenny Gattison in 2014 was pretty revealing. (Gattison played for the Suns in the late eighties and then served as a Phoenix assistant coach during the previous two seasons.)

On Kevin Johnson, the player and person…

You saw it athletically at first. KJ was real quiet. He wasn’t a real vocal leader. You could see the explosiveness, his athleticism. Just physically. I think KJ was one of those type guys where he didn’t try to take over the game like some of these new-fangled point guards. They try to take over the game from the start to the finish. He did it in his own little subtle way. Even in practice. He would take over and there was nothing nobody could do about it.

http://www.nba.com/suns/suns-throwback-kenny-gattison

In other words, he picked his spots, for Kevin Johnson, after all, could easily either create his own jump-shot or reach the basket on virtually every possession—and he was a terrific shooter. But he played within the flow of the game, and that may be what this whole debate really comes down to. Who among us can say that Eric Bledsoe or Brandon Knight does an especially good job of playing within the flow of the game? For the most part, they play outside of a flow, like Stephon Marbury—except that they are worse passers than Marbury.

This point may be a little 'meta' to some, kind of like deciphering nuances in jazz, but I imagine that some people will understand what I mean.

Great post. Elaborated on my thoughts succintly

[RunandGunSuns]

Pulling off a James harden deal would be epic...
But far fetched and would hinder the development of booker!


Pick N Roll at its best with a side of pop! RIP Amare + Nash