ESPN Ranks NBA PG's
Comments
-
-
So your criteria is who you'd pick first in a pickup game at the gym?dnc said:
Any argument against Westbrook is ridiculous at this poont, and I've been a hater since dude entered the league. He's the best PG in the game, hands down, nuff said, case closed, end of discussion.Tequilla said:I think you're showing your bias against the Clippers and Paul show through here.
I will agree that the seemingly large gap between Paul and Curry is probably BS at this point. I don't think you can go wrong with either at this point as they both bring a lot to the table and do so in different ways. Curry is clearly the better scorer and has improved immensely as a passer and defender. Paul is one of the better defensive PGs in the league and looks to set up his teammates more than score ... but he has shown an ability to score at a high level if/when needed.
I think Westbrook is a step behind both right now in terms of being a complete PG ... no question that he's having a great year but as was mentioned elsewhere he's more of a volume scorer and I don't get the impression that his assists totals are tied to getting others involved in the game as much as they are tied to not having an option to score if that makes sense. I don't think Westbrook would be the player that passes it to others at the expense of his point totals.
Conley is definitely underrated by the public but probably properly rated here. Wall seems a bit overrated. I don't know enough about Lillard's defense to know if that ranking is deserved. Kyrie is probably low on this list considering the strides he's made in the last couple of months - he's still very young and should be a top 3-5 PG in the league in the next 2-3 years.
Bledsoe and Dragic seem a little low to me. Rondo on the surface seems low but he's not in a situation at the moment that plays to his strengths. He's definitely a player that needs to be in the right fit to maximize his talents.
If you're lining up at the gym and picking teams the only way Westbrook doesn't go before Paul and Curry is if Westbrook is a captain. Which he probably would be.
Westbrook is having a great year. Without what he has done, no chance OKC makes the playoffs. He's absolutely carried him and is putting up numbers that few have even scratched the surface of much less matched for such an extended stretch of time.
I also agree that putting Westbrook in a position where he's stereotyped as this or that is probably not the right way to look at it. But for the purposes of this discussion, we're talking about PGs. And if I'm building a team, I would rather have Paul or Curry on it provided I was able to build it in a manner that allowed me to get strong wing players to go with them.
I've never been a guy that looks at stats and says that because this guy is putting up numbers he's better than this guy. Numbers are generally meaningless to me in comparing players. I'm not convinced that you can build a team around Westbrook and get a championship caliber team with him looking to put up 40-50% of his team's shots. I personally don't think that that works out well. I think we'll see Curry win a title this year. I definitely think you could win a title with Chris Paul as your PG (whether we see that is way up in the air and unfortunately too much of his career was wasted playing on teams that didn't have great talent). -
It's not a bias. I've been watching the Clippers closely. They would be better with Curry or Westbrook. It's that simple.Tequilla said:I think you're showing your bias against the Clippers and Paul show through here.
I will agree that the seemingly large gap between Paul and Curry is probably BS at this point. I don't think you can go wrong with either at this point as they both bring a lot to the table and do so in different ways. Curry is clearly the better scorer and has improved immensely as a passer and defender. Paul is one of the better defensive PGs in the league and looks to set up his teammates more than score ... but he has shown an ability to score at a high level if/when needed.
I think Westbrook is a step behind both right now in terms of being a complete PG ... no question that he's having a great year but as was mentioned elsewhere he's more of a volume scorer and I don't get the impression that his assists totals are tied to getting others involved in the game as much as they are tied to not having an option to score if that makes sense. I don't think Westbrook would be the player that passes it to others at the expense of his point totals.
Conley is definitely underrated by the public but probably properly rated here. Wall seems a bit overrated. I don't know enough about Lillard's defense to know if that ranking is deserved. Kyrie is probably low on this list considering the strides he's made in the last couple of months - he's still very young and should be a top 3-5 PG in the league in the next 2-3 years.
Bledsoe and Dragic seem a little low to me. Rondo on the surface seems low but he's not in a situation at the moment that plays to his strengths. He's definitely a player that needs to be in the right fit to maximize his talents. -
Are you saying that because you think they are both better than Paul or because the Clippers need more scoring from the position and they are better fits on that team?RoadDawg55 said:
It's not a bias. I've been watching the Clippers closely. They would be better with Curry or Westbrook. It's that simple.Tequilla said:I think you're showing your bias against the Clippers and Paul show through here.
I will agree that the seemingly large gap between Paul and Curry is probably BS at this point. I don't think you can go wrong with either at this point as they both bring a lot to the table and do so in different ways. Curry is clearly the better scorer and has improved immensely as a passer and defender. Paul is one of the better defensive PGs in the league and looks to set up his teammates more than score ... but he has shown an ability to score at a high level if/when needed.
I think Westbrook is a step behind both right now in terms of being a complete PG ... no question that he's having a great year but as was mentioned elsewhere he's more of a volume scorer and I don't get the impression that his assists totals are tied to getting others involved in the game as much as they are tied to not having an option to score if that makes sense. I don't think Westbrook would be the player that passes it to others at the expense of his point totals.
Conley is definitely underrated by the public but probably properly rated here. Wall seems a bit overrated. I don't know enough about Lillard's defense to know if that ranking is deserved. Kyrie is probably low on this list considering the strides he's made in the last couple of months - he's still very young and should be a top 3-5 PG in the league in the next 2-3 years.
Bledsoe and Dragic seem a little low to me. Rondo on the surface seems low but he's not in a situation at the moment that plays to his strengths. He's definitely a player that needs to be in the right fit to maximize his talents. -
Chris Paul was getting major love when he played for NO and teamed up with David West to lose to the Lakers. Paul has always got a boost for off court shit like Katrina and Sterling. The media loves him because he was outspoken and said things they agree with.
He's not a winner. The Clippers have locker room issues big time. He has to be in the middle of that. -
Interested in hearing more of this ...RaceBannon said:
He's not a winner. The Clippers have locker room issues big time. He has to be in the middle of that.
From what I can see, I think Blake Griffin can be a little soft. Redick would probably be better served as a rotational guy playing in the 2nd unit with Jamal Crawford. They need a backup PG because Austin Rivers should still be at Duke. Barnes is a huge who knows guy to me ... but he probably shouldn't be starting on a team with championship aspirations. -
Both are better players. People are still stuck on the pure PG garbage. Who are these pure PG's winning titles?Tequilla said:
Are you saying that because you think they are both better than Paul or because the Clippers need more scoring from the position and they are better fits on that team?RoadDawg55 said:
It's not a bias. I've been watching the Clippers closely. They would be better with Curry or Westbrook. It's that simple.Tequilla said:I think you're showing your bias against the Clippers and Paul show through here.
I will agree that the seemingly large gap between Paul and Curry is probably BS at this point. I don't think you can go wrong with either at this point as they both bring a lot to the table and do so in different ways. Curry is clearly the better scorer and has improved immensely as a passer and defender. Paul is one of the better defensive PGs in the league and looks to set up his teammates more than score ... but he has shown an ability to score at a high level if/when needed.
I think Westbrook is a step behind both right now in terms of being a complete PG ... no question that he's having a great year but as was mentioned elsewhere he's more of a volume scorer and I don't get the impression that his assists totals are tied to getting others involved in the game as much as they are tied to not having an option to score if that makes sense. I don't think Westbrook would be the player that passes it to others at the expense of his point totals.
Conley is definitely underrated by the public but probably properly rated here. Wall seems a bit overrated. I don't know enough about Lillard's defense to know if that ranking is deserved. Kyrie is probably low on this list considering the strides he's made in the last couple of months - he's still very young and should be a top 3-5 PG in the league in the next 2-3 years.
Bledsoe and Dragic seem a little low to me. Rondo on the surface seems low but he's not in a situation at the moment that plays to his strengths. He's definitely a player that needs to be in the right fit to maximize his talents.
And Race is right about the locker room issues. Paul yells as glares at his teammates and refs the entire game. -
New Orleans lost to the Spurs in 7 in the Western Semi's ... they never played the Lakers.RaceBannon said:Chris Paul was getting major love when he played for NO and teamed up with David West to lose to the Lakers. Paul has always got a boost for off court shit like Katrina and Sterling. The media loves him because he was outspoken and said things they agree with.
He's not a winner. The Clippers have locker room issues big time. He has to be in the middle of that.
Paul never had the horses in New Orleans to come anywhere close to a title.
The squad he has right now with the Clippers is a far better version of New Orleans, but some similar parallels (more athletic PF, strong defensive centers, questionable wing players to support). -
-
I stand corrected ...RaceBannon said:
I don't give a lot of credit to teams losing in the 1st round as being close to the title. In some ways with the way the West is right now, that's a slight caveat ... but that New Orleans team wasn't close. Part of the reason why West bolted and Paul demanded a trade.
