Westphal and the "we don’t get caught up in who’s the point guard" philosiphy

RookieOfTheDay

RookieOfTheDay

Starter
Is this an approach shared by any other NBA coaches? I'm far from an expert on the fundamentals of basketball, I've just never seen a coach shrug off the idea of having a designated PG before. This isn't a hate on Westphal thread, i'm just genuinely curious about this. I can't help but wonder if the lack of defined roles might be somewhat responsible for discombobulated nature of this team.
 
Last edited:
RookieOfTheDay said:
Is this an approach shared by any other NBA coaches? I'm far from an expert on the fundamentals of basketball, I've just never seen a coach shrug off the idea of having a designated PG before. This isn't a hate on Westphal thread, i'm just genuinely curious about this. I can't help but wonder if the lack of defined roles might be somewhat responsible for discombobulated nature of this team.
Click to expand...

It is an oddity. Not sure whether it is an oddity originating around Tyreke or not, but it should be noted that Westphal's previous NBA stops included 2 of the top 10 PGs of all time in Gary Payton and Kevin Johnson, so one doubts he was spouting this line then. Its actually reminscient of a college approach. Lot of colleges just have "guards" that share the duty.

Now of course the fact is that PG play in the NBA varies so wildly a lot of coaches could probably make statements like this if they wanted to. You've got PGs taking 20 shots a night like Rose or Westbrook. You've got PGs who just dribble the ball across halfcourt, hand it to their stars, and go spot up like Derek Fisher or Mario Chalemers. And you have purish PGs like a Nash.

In the end it doesn't really matter. Its not about having a "PG", its about having offensive creaters and initiators. Back in our heyday Webber and Vlade were actually far more our PGs than was Bibby. Phil Jackson won 11 titles without ever having a PG who did more than just give the ball to MJ/Kobe and go spot up. Its been an odd line coming from Westphal, but the premise isn't really a problem so long as you have the right personnel.
 
Right, the key is having players that are willing and capable of creating easy buckets for people. Not just dribbling the ball and passing to open people.

For example, the Clippers are probably going to start Paul and Billups. It’s going to hurt them on defense, but it’s not going to be a problem on offense. While Paul will be the primary ball handler, there will be times where both share the duties. The Kings backcourt goes the other way and creates its own tradeoffs and limitations.

Jerry likes to throw out the 70s Knicks and say that Frasier and Monroe were just guards. Except, that’s not really true. Frasier was a great point. He was a scoring point by 1970s standards, but today he would just be a point. Moreover, Monroe was a brilliant play maker and a willing passer. Therefore, the analogy Jerry uses isn’t really on point or accurate … so basically it’s like 75% of the stuff that Jerry says.

The Knicks backcourt was more like the Clippers than the Kings.

Bill Simmons made a funny point about playing two combo guards. If you drink two Arnold Palmers, you didn’t have an ice tea and a lemonade. You had two Arnold Palmers.

Westphal is smart enough to know the limitations of his roster, and with his job on the line, he isn’t going to trash the GM and say, “Yeah, I wish I had a more conventional roster” or “Evans has to be a good play maker, or we’re going to get beat and have problems with sharing the ball.”
 
PG is the most overrated position in all of sports. All you need is someone who can create offense for themselves and others. By being able to create offense for themselves that forces the defenses to double/pay more attention to them and therefore allows your other teammates to get open due to their man leaving to help.

It doesn't matter if the player creating the offense is a PG, SG, SF, PF, or C. Just that you have at least 1 person that can do this.
 
Bricklayer said:
I actually strongly suspect that the PG on this team is going to be Cousins.
Click to expand...

Yep. "PG" duties(run offense) will be shared by a lot of people, but it's safe to say Cousins and Evans will be running the offense most of the time they're in the game.

The heyday Kings were pretty extreme in running the offense through the bigs, but I think the situation here will be similar. Back then, Bibby, Christie, or Bobby could all dribble the ball past halfcourt. That seems to be criteria #1 for some of you people. Bibby, Vlade, or Webber would initiate the offense, that's criteria #2.

We won't be anywhere near as smooth, but the non-traditional roles will be here with this Kings team and it's OK.
 
Westphal and the "we don’t get caught up in who’s the point guard" philosiphy

Revised headline:

Petrie and the "we don't get caught up in who's the shot blocker" philosophy
 
Bricklayer said:
I actually strongly suspect that the PG on this team is going to be Cousins.
Click to expand...

He should be. But if you factor in way he turned the ball over last year and a coach fighting for his NBA life, not sure Westphal is going to give him that role.

Cousins can help, but if the Kings are going to get over the fact that they've got a lot of wing players that like to shoot a lot, some guard is going to have to put his numbers aside and worry about playing winning basketball.

On a team like the Kings, you need a player not just to create easy shots and find players in their spots, but regulate the offense.
 
Westphal says this because he knows he does not have a "true" PG on the team. It looks like it will just be a combo effort with most of the responsibilities falling to Reke. Kinda weird they would set the team up this way as it has been proven over and over, unless you run the triangle and have some one named Jordan or Kobe, you will not win a championship with out a PG.
 
jayfly said:
Westphal says this because he knows he does not have a "true" PG on the team. It looks like it will just be a combo effort with most of the responsibilities falling to Reke. Kinda weird they would set the team up this way as it has been proven over and over, unless you run the triangle and have some one named Jordan or Kobe, you will not win a championship with out a PG.
Click to expand...

That's patently wrong and a bit disingenuous by excluding every Kobe/Jordon finals. You *do* know that Jordon/Kobe are the primary reason those teams won the championship; right?

2011 - Jason Kidd won the finals. Pretty sure it was because he's a pure PG. I watched those games and his PG play stands out as the straw that stirs the drink.

The finals are littered with winning PGs like Chauncy Billups and Tony Parker. Had the Kings won, Bibby would have fit that mold.

The recipe for a championship is stout defense and the ability to "grind it out" offensively; usually with ISOs performed by a superstar player.

The league has only a handful of elite PGs and they're often not even in the playoffs.
 
not wrong or disingenuous at all, dont think you understand what I am saying. my point is, and history shows, in order to win a championship you must either run the triangle which does not require a true PG but does require a superstar like Kobe or Michael, or have good PG play. I am well aware of the reason Kobe and Jordan won, thats why I exclude them. Your point about Jason Kidd just validates what I am saying. You must have good PG play to win unless you have the superstar. Lets look at the PG's who have won titles the past 23 years (since Magic's last title) excluding the Lakers and Bulls.

Isiah-2 rings

Kenny Smith and more importantly Sam Cassell- 2 rings with Rockets

1999 Spurs-Avery Johnson

2003 2005 and 2007 Spurs-Tony Parker

2004 Pistons-Chauncey Billups

2006 Miami Heat- JWill and Gary Payton

2008 Celtics-Rondo

2011 Mavs-Kidd


Several of those guys were perennial all stars and the ones that werent like Billups and Cassell were just straight up winners and leaders. If using iso's was the way to win in the playoffs I think the Heat would have swept everyone last year with Lebron and DWade. They failed because at crunch time they had no true leader. Never said you need an elite PG to win a championship but you do need a good one as history shows.
 
jayfly said:
Several of those guys were perennial all stars and the ones that werent like Billups and Cassell were just straight up winners and leaders. If using iso's was the way to win in the playoffs I think the Heat would have swept everyone last year with Lebron and DWade. They failed because at crunch time they had no true leader. Never said you need an elite PG to win a championship but you do need a good one as history shows.
Click to expand...

LOL. If the heat won (and they will win eventually WITHOUT a "true pg") u would be saying well you can't win a title unless u have Jordan/Kobe/Lebron.
 
no I dont think I would say that because I dont put Lebron in the class of Kobe or Jordan. Something is clearly missing with him. You are right they should eventually win one. Once they get a better PG lol
 
Last edited:
The Heat nearly did sweep everyone last year. If Lebron wasn't a headcase; they probably would have.

The Rockets won because of their bigs, the Spurs because of their bigs, the later Pistons because of their defense with some help from the imploding Lakers. The Heat won because of Wade+Refs. Rondo certainly helped the '08 Celtics, but he certainly wasn't their first or second most important player. The Mavs won because Dirk was playing out of his mind, then other people stepped up around him, including Kidd.

My point: Defense, rebounding, and low post play almost always determines the winner in the playoffs. In fact, I'd go as far as to say; traditional PG play becomes LESS important in the playoffs.

I love watching good PG play. It's way more fun to watch than ISO basketball. The players you listed above with the exception of Isiah Thomas, did not cause their teams to win the finals, players like Hakeem, Dirk, Wade, and Duncan did.
 
jayfly said:
not wrong or disingenuous at all, dont think you understand what I am saying. my point is, and history shows, in order to win a championship you must either run the triangle which does not require a true PG but does require a superstar like Kobe or Michael, or have good PG play. I am well aware of the reason Kobe and Jordan won, thats why I exclude them. Your point about Jason Kidd just validates what I am saying. You must have good PG play to win unless you have the superstar. Lets look at the PG's who have won titles the past 23 years (since Magic's last title) excluding the Lakers and Bulls.

Isiah-2 rings

Kenny Smith and more importantly Sam Cassell- 2 rings with Rockets

1999 Spurs-Avery Johnson

2003 2005 and 2007 Spurs-Tony Parker

2004 Pistons-Chauncey Billups

2006 Miami Heat- JWill and Gary Payton

2008 Celtics-Rondo

2011 Mavs-Kidd


Several of those guys were perennial all stars and the ones that werent like Billups and Cassell were just straight up winners and leaders. If using iso's was the way to win in the playoffs I think the Heat would have swept everyone last year with Lebron and DWade. They failed because at crunch time they had no true leader. Never said you need an elite PG to win a championship but you do need a good one as history shows.
Click to expand...

I don't know that including the 2006 Miami Heat helps your argument, considering Payton was waay past his prime, and JWill didn't do much of anything. The offense really went through DWade.
 
I dont know but i think it has to do with Reke. He has the potential to be something special. In his first couple years in the league, forcing him to play a certain position would probably put limitations on him and his potential and lead him to develop in the wrong way. So this "hes just a guard" mentality, is a way of allowing him to maybe flourish into something special. Of course this is just my opinion.

Personally, i wouldnt agree with this. I think a part of this also has to do with people seeing or expecting Reke to be a PG who would compete with the likes of the other elite PG's in the league, somewhat pushing him into trying to be something hes not. I always thought that he was a SG, without a shot. The point of a SG is to score above all else. And that's the primary thing i saw with Reke. I would've liked to see Reke play and develop the SG role and allowing another player to do the other things he was trying to do - creating, moving the ball etc which probably ended up confusing him and limiting his natural instinct to score.

We're probably going to be running a 3 guard lineup often once the season starts, and i dont really know how that's going to play out.
 
The recipe for a deep playoff team/championship team is most cases:
1 HOFamer
1 superstar/high level star
1 star
1 low post defensive anchor
1 low post scorer
1 perimeter stopper

A bunch of roleplayers(defenders, 3 point specialists).

Obviously the HOFamer/superstar/star will be your defensive anchor, scorer, or stopper as well. And you might have 3 HOFamers, 3 superstars, etc. But a team constructed roughly like that will win playoff games and championships and its as true now as it was 50 years ago. My point is the positions that your best 3 guys play is not as important as just having the three guys. Obviously, if you have them spread out position wise is some way you are better off. Our big 3 are Cousins, Reke, and Thorton. We have to have Reke and Thorton on the floor at the same time because they are two of our best three players. However Westphal can make that happen, that is what we should do.
 
Great teams may not have a true pg, but they have at least two guys who can get their shots off when needed, create their own, and create for others. A pass first pg, who can't get his own, won't have the ball at the end.

Three guys in the league I want with the ball in their hands at the end, and are largely responsible for how their teams do, are not pg's. Dirk, Wade, and Kobe. If your best player happens to be a scoring pg, he'll have the ball at the end, such as Rose. A phenomenal creator can be negated simply by not having a great scorer next to him. If he does have a great scorer next to him, he gets him the ball, and gets out of the way.

A great creator can compliment a great team. A great scorer, who can also create, can carry a great team. And who says the best creator has to be the smallest on the court? Cousins will be a better creator than half the leagues pg's in a couple years.
 
Bricklayer said:
I actually strongly suspect that the PG on this team is going to be Cousins.
Click to expand...

It sounds this way from what I've been hearing.

The problems with this is that it puts a lot of pressure on Cousins. Even when Vlade adn Webber were our offensive organizers, that is still two people. You also had Christie, Brad Miller and Mike Bibby who could all handle the job of making sure the offensive set is run.

The Kings don't appear to have anyone reliable enough to do this beyond Cousins.
 
RookieOfTheDay said:
That would be consistent with saying you need a superstar or true PG, no?
Click to expand...

Well if you consider Tony Parker a "true pg" even though hes more of a scoring PG than a passing one there are like 20-25 "true pgs" in the NBA right now. Jimmer can/should easily become one. Again his passing is incredibly underrated.
 
mr. moustache said:
The Heat nearly did sweep everyone last year. If Lebron wasn't a headcase; they probably would have.

The Rockets won because of their bigs, the Spurs because of their bigs, the later Pistons because of their defense with some help from the imploding Lakers. The Heat won because of Wade+Refs. Rondo certainly helped the '08 Celtics, but he certainly wasn't their first or second most important player. The Mavs won because Dirk was playing out of his mind, then other people stepped up around him, including Kidd.

My point: Defense, rebounding, and low post play almost always determines the winner in the playoffs. In fact, I'd go as far as to say; traditional PG play becomes LESS important in the playoffs.

I love watching good PG play. It's way more fun to watch than ISO basketball. The players you listed above with the exception of Isiah Thomas, did not cause their teams to win the finals, players like Hakeem, Dirk, Wade, and Duncan did.
Click to expand...

Yup. PG is one of, if not the least important position on the bball court. There is a reason a teams best player has almost never been a PG when they won a title.

Star SG/SF/PF/C's just mean more than a star PG.
 
Last edited:
Westphal: "...And we dont get caught up in any of the sane rotation, defensive/offensive systems, basic fundamentals philosophies either! ISO REKE ISO!!!"
 
Last edited:
I agree you don't have to have a very good point guard to win. But if the other players on the floor are mediocre in their creativity and passing skills, then you probably do need a very good point that can offset the weaknesses of his teamates. I think that why this subject is discussed so often on this board: We're dying for some good ball handling. In the days of old you had two excellent passers in Divac and Webber, and then three good passers in Bibby, Christie and Peja. Everyone was a willing passer.

Cousins looks like a willing passer and a gifted passer, but he's going to have to take a big step up this year in the turnover department. Other than that, who else has shown he is consistently 1) willing and 2) gifted in this regard? So far, I haven't seen it. That's why I did want a veteran point guard on this team. Unless Westphal can cast a magic spell on several of the players on this team, I think it's going to be very rough in the area of playmaking. The fact that practice time has been so curtailed by the shortened season makes this aspect of the game even more difficult on the coaching staff and the players who may be asked to do what by nature is not the comfortable thing for them. The key thing to watch is the last 5 minutes of the close games. Are we going to see the one-on-one show, or are going to run some plays with player movement and have players pass at the right opportunity?
 
I am more concerned with his claim that a PF in our system is radically different and he is looking to play Outlaw and Donte at both 3 and 4. C'mon now! :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

venom_7
Venom_7 Doxxes | A Ghost of Christmas Past
Replies
2
Views
564
venom_7
venom_7
Blob
The #10 Pick if We Get Fox and No Trade Happens....
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
kingdivac
K
Jkbiker
Possible Tax-free for City, Great deal for Maloofs, Arena In Rancho Cordova?
Replies
11
Views
2K
Merdiesel
M
venom_7
Venominal: Knee Jerk reactions, and other assorted musings (11/30/09)
Replies
18
Views
2K
deekay2o9
deekay2o9
B
Maloofs in the Bee-We don't have the right group(paraphrasing)
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
Bricklayer
Bricklayer