Top 5 PG's Of All Time

#1
BadJerry20

BadJerry20

Internet Super Hero
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
65,905
Likes
8,582
#1
Sorry if done before, insomnia is a b though.

1. Magic, shouldn't be much of an argument here.

2. Big O, just going off of what guys older and wiser than I have said, plus ridiculous numbers.

3. Zeke, anyone that calls Zeke a shoot first PG obviously never watched him play. The catalyst on back to back championships.

4. GP, eyebrows raised but man crush aside, the best combination of offense and defense in history for a PG. Would give you 20-8-4 and terrorize opposing ballhandlers.

5. Stockton, pass first second and third PG, could score when needed. Chicken and the egg argument with Malone hurts him a little.

Just outside, Kidd horrible shooter a lot of his career hurts him. Nash, pathetic defensively. KJ might be the most
underrated PG ever. Any PG still playing can't judge a career that isn't over, CP3 is the only one I ever see maybe cracking top 5 though. Any old dude that I never saw, if I didn't see you idc, except Oscar of course.
 
#5
#5
Really tough to leave Kidd off but I don't have the motivation to make the case this morning.
 
#8
#8
I'll only worry about modern era:

1A) Magic - a decade of offensive dominance...defensive, not so much.
1B) Stockton - 19 years of greatness. Went for 17 and 14 with def. honors twice...easily the 2 greatest years by a PG ever.
3) Kidd - gets the edge over GP for longevity
4) GP
5) CP3 - he'll probably be #3 by the time he's done.
 
Last edited:
#9
#9
a8_600_101211.jpg


John%20Stockton.jpg
 
#10
#10
Mo Cheeks was my man growing up and when I passed it to myself for a jumper in the driveway I was Andrew Toney.
 
#11
#11
BadJerry20 said:
Sorry if done before, insomnia is a b though.

1. Magic, shouldn't be much of an argument here.

2. Big O, just going off of what guys older and wiser than I have said, plus ridiculous numbers.

3. Zeke, anyone that calls Zeke a shoot first PG obviously never watched him play. The catalyst on back to back championships.

4. GP, eyebrows raised but man crush aside, the best combination of offense and defense in history for a PG. Would give you 20-8-4 and terrorize opposing ballhandlers.

5. Stockton, pass first second and third PG, could score when needed. Chicken and the egg argument with Malone hurts him a little.

Just outside, Kidd horrible shooter a lot of his career hurts him. Nash, pathetic defensively. KJ might be the most
underrated PG ever. Any PG still playing can't judge a career that isn't over, CP3 is the only one I ever see maybe cracking top 5 though. Any old dude that I never saw, if I didn't see you idc, except Oscar of course.
Click to expand...

:whistling:

Kidd - .507 TS%, .349%
Zeke - .516 TS%, .290 3P%
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#12
#12
n_huffhines said:
I'll only worry about modern era:

1A) Magic - a decade of offensive dominance...defensive, not so much.
1B) Stockton - 19 years of greatness. Went for 17 and 14 with def. honors twice...easily the 2 greatest years by a PG ever.
3) Kidd - gets the edge over GP for longevity
4) GP
5) CP3 - he'll probably be #3 by the time he's done.
Click to expand...

I never get the longevity argument, unless a guy plays 7 years or less. If I was starting a team who do I want, GP>>>Kidd.
 
#14
#14
BadJerry20 said:
I never get the longevity argument, unless a guy plays 7 years or less. If I was starting a team who do I want, GP>>>Kidd.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess it just depends on what the question is. "Top PGs" is vague. If you're talking about grading just their primes, then yeah GP would probably be a better pick than Kidd. If you're talking about who had the better career then longevity factors and Kidd wins out, IMO.
 
#15
#15
n_huffhines said:
Yeah, I guess it just depends on what the question is. "Top PGs" is vague. If you're talking about grading just their primes, then yeah GP would probably be a better pick than Kidd. If you're talking about who had the better career then longevity factors and Kidd wins out, IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree. My thought process is, if I get a guy in his prime who do I want. But I see your side as well.
 
#17
#17
BadJerry20 said:
Kidd 11 years under 40%, 6 under 37.5%, only 4 over 42%, a high of 44.4% that's turrible.
Click to expand...

Yet he had virtually the same career shooting efficiency as Isiah. I'm not saying it's not a fair knock on Kidd. I'm saying it's a knock on Zeke. Kidd was a better distributor and a much better defender than Zeke. They are both mundane with regard to scoring efficiency so you have to go with Kidd, IMO.

I will say this about Zeke....he had an incredible 3-year run during his physical prime and you could argue he was as good as any PG ever during that stretch, but from a career perspective I think he is vastly overrated.
 
#20
#20
n_huffhines said:
Yet he had virtually the same career shooting efficiency as Isiah. I'm not saying it's not a fair knock on Kidd. I'm saying it's a knock on Zeke. Kidd was a better distributor and a much better defender than Zeke. They are both mundane with regard to scoring efficiency so you have to go with Kidd, IMO.

I will say this about Zeke....he had an incredible 3-year run during his physical prime and you could argue he was as good as any PG ever during that stretch, but from a career perspective I think he is vastly overrated.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying Kidd from the field was really bad. Kidd's fts were better though, and had a ridiculous increase after his first 5 years. Any guard that shots under 80% fts annoys me, and Zeke did. But I'd rather a guy miss a ft over a fg I guess. I just remember Zeke was one of the first guys I saw play and he was awesome, of course at 11 I wasn't bball savvy.
 
#21
#21
BadJerry20 said:
I'm just saying Kidd from the field was really bad. Kidd's fts were better though, and had a ridiculous increase after his first 5 years. Any guard that shots under 80% fts annoys me, and Zeke did. But I'd rather a guy miss a ft over a fg I guess. I just remember Zeke was one of the first guys I saw play and he was awesome, of course at 11 I wasn't bball savvy.
Click to expand...

I think we look at FTs in a funny way. Obviously you want players to shoot a high %, but when you think of how it contributes to winning even shooting 65% from FT is more efficient than anybody shoots from the field, so having that guy shoot FTs is actually a good result to a possession even if he's a relatively bad FT shooter.

FT shooting is important but it's about 29th on my list of priorities.
 
#22
#22
n_huffhines said:
I think we look at FTs in a funny way. Obviously you want players to shoot a high %, but when you think of how it contributes to winning even shooting 65% from FT is more efficient than anybody shoots from the field, so having that guy shoot FTs is actually a good result to a possession even if he's a relatively bad FT shooter.

FT shooting is important but it's about 29th on my list of priorities.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying its high on my list of values. It just annoys me when guards can't hit them at a high%, its a wide open uncontested shot, that you practice daily for 10+ years.

29th? Damn Cal
Many teams have lost because of bad ft% btw *cough Memphis cough*
 
#23
#23
BadJerry20 said:
I'm not saying its high on my list of values. It just annoys me when guards can't hit them at a high%, its a wide open uncontested shot, that you practice daily for 10+ years.

29th? Damn Cal
Many teams have lost because of bad ft% btw *cough Memphis cough*
Click to expand...

I'm with you, it annoys me too, but I do sympathize since I'm a bad FT shooter myself. I'm not really good at anything in sports that is mostly about concentration and repetition (FTs, golf, darts, bowling). I get bored.

It's terrible when poor FT shooting costs you a game, but does Memphis get to the Final if they focus on FTs rather than the things that made them good?
 
#25
#25
n_huffhines said:
I'm with you, it annoys me too, but I do sympathize since I'm a bad FT shooter myself. I'm not really good at anything in sports that is mostly about concentration and repetition (FTs, golf, darts, bowling). I get bored.

It's terrible when poor FT shooting costs you a game, but does Memphis get to the Final if they focus on FTs rather than the things that made them good?
Click to expand...

Its weird cause I never really practiced shooting from the field a lot, cause I drove 85% of the time, but I practiced fts like a mad man because I got fouled a lot. I'd shoot maybe 50 jumpers a day, but a couple hundred fts. Lol I am a Spazz and can't focus either, but I loved fts.

Maybe, maybe not but to me making finals doesn't matter if you lose. Lose last or lose first, you're still just a loser. Lol I wonder what past champions pros and college have shot rankings wise.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top