and I liked the part about your high school playing career – reminds me of mine.

But you answered your own question “How is Tyreke Evans not a point guard?” Or at least, he isn’t, yet. Your main complaint (if I can call it that) is that his passing needs work. In both of your quotes from Wikipedia, passing is mentioned as a key aspect of a point guard’s job. So, when his passing improves, he will be – not just a point guard – but a great point guard.

We matched Evans to a really generic definition of a point guard.

Here’s your argument:
‘Pass first point guard’ is only a style of point guard?
He is quick.
He can learn to pass better.

To answer the question at the end of your post:
Watch him play. He is more suited to play SG than PG. His passing skills are pretty limited. He can dish on a drive. I think that yesterday he had more missed layups that were put back in than he had assists. Maybe that’s a Tyreke Assist—a drive and missed layup that is put back. The best argument to him being a PG is “He plays the position of PG”. Hopefully surrounding him with enough skilled passers (as I feel is the plan) will make the best use of Tyreke. I dont think he is good as a PG, in general. But he is very effective at what he does, and we would do well to emphasize that. Hopefully he can develop his passing along the way, too.

This kid is obviously special at driving in and scoring. And passing is

Even though he was bigger than most small forwards, Lebron played point guard his first year in the league because the Cavs lacked a point guard and Lebron was clearly the best ball-handler on the team. When the Cavs eventually switched Lebron off the point, it wasn’t because he lacked point guard skills – it was because his greatest talents lie elsewhere.

If you can answer that question about Lebron James (a small forward), then I think you can answer the question about Tyreke.

Better than anything i’ve put up that’s for sure! Interesting basketball career you’ve had. How old is Evans?? 19, 20? Evans will be a tremendous PG. He gets into the lane with ease, he makes it look easy, that he is moonwalking to the lane. I feel he should be getting 4 assists easy once the season starts. He has Shock and Hawes to dump off to once the defense collapses on him. And he will have K$ and Cisco as shooters, and some times Noc and Greene (sometimes…). 4 assists easy. Now what i really liked so far out of him was his rebounding ability. We can always use more rebounding.

as getting the best talent/difference maker at #4 in the draft. They are in no position to draft for need, because they need everything. So the fact that they didn’t get the best pure-passer in the draft doesn’t bother me at all. Great ball-handling/defense/rebounding/decision-making/foul-drawing/physique is good enough for me. Fair passing? I can deal with that.

I think the fans more than the organization thought the Kings needed to draft a great passer to be a good team. The organization knew they needed a great overall player to be a good team again.

Okay … My basketball knowledge probably wouldn’t manage to make a thimble top heavy. Especially compared to most of the people here.

But, why is it presumed that Evans best opportunity to be a superstar is at the 2 and while achieving that at the 1 is possible, it is likely than at the2?

Based on what I’ve gathered from the net, Evans has played the point essentially his entire career. The only time he was put at the 2, was when Calapari put him there initially. Evans struggled and the team struggled, until he was moved to the point.

From what I saw in the games – again I don’t have anywhere the grasp of the finer points most people here have – yesterday’s A/TO is a poor judge of his passing skills. Of the 5 TOs yesterday, one was the 8 second violation, one he got ahead of himself, slipped and lost the ball. I don’t recall the other 3, but I don’t seem to remember a glaring passing error.

In addition assists, I did see quite a few entry passes to initiate the offense. Isn’t that what a PG is supposed to do?

I know somebody had to get named, an example needed to be set for the shoot-first pg that did not succeed. It’s not a huge surprise that Marbury is the guy either. But I have an instinctual, albeit irrational, knee-jerk reaction to try to jump to his defense(or at least muddy the waters surrounding the issue).

I am curious what the op considers the barometer for success in the nba in general, and particularly for a shoot-first pg. I understand it is unlikely for the op to see my post among hundreds, let alone want to respond. So that’s where you, the people who are reading this, come in.

For my own sense, getting a good contract is a measure of success, plus no one can argue Stephon was unsuccessful in this category.
Did he need to reach the postseason more often? He gets no credit for last years boston team, but prior to that he had been only 4 times, and never got the nets there(despite being named to the all-star team).
He obviously has put up numbers, I don’t think I need to look any up to verify that for anyone. If I am wrong, do tell. Ok screw it, some numbers anyways: he is top 20 career in both assists and assists per game. Yes that is ever.

How far do we as basketball fans expect shoot-first pgs to take their teams? Browsing the list of past NBA champs, I could not easily recognize a team that sported such a player recently.
What statistics are at the core of a shoot-first pg? I am genuinely curious about this to look at current players and how far their respective teams have gotten.

And like most propoganda, I will leave you with a completely one-sided, handpicked quote for fun and ammo.
""I love his toughness, No. 1; I love his competitiveness, No. 2," Colangelo said. “In the world of sports or the world of life, who do you want with you in the trenches in time of war? Stephon Marbury is the kind of guy I want with me in the foxhole.”

I believe Tyreke Evans is a natural 2. I say that for a few reasons

1. He is a better scorer then anything else so I would rather him shoot the ball more then his teammates do.

2. I don’t see the ability to play at different tempos (yet) which I think is crucial during games where you are matched or overmatched physically. I don’t want him as the primary ball handler if a team like the Spurs gets into a groove.

3. Its easier to run plays to get talented scorers open off the ball then to just have him drive with a set defender on him. I think it is at least.

There are plenty of things to like about Tyreke as a point guard, he does indeed get to the basket effortlessly and he does find teammates when help comes over. He doesn’t have to be the primary ball handler to do that though, Kobe and Vince Carter are excellent at driving and finding open teammates when the defense does a good job rotating.

He is also a pretty tough matchup as well, which is why I think at some point this year you will see him start with Kevin in the back court. The Kings aren’t very good, so the best players should play regardless of exact fits.

If Tyreke is around when the Kings become a championship contender however, I am confident that he will be playing off the ball.

“When we recall better times for the Kings, we remember that Jason Williams was a brilliant passer, but the team was better when Mike Bibby, more of a scoring point guard, joined the team”.
I agree that the Kings were a better team with Mike Bibby as evidenced by statistics and number of wins vs losses. But I became a Kings fan when watching highlights of Jason Williams on ESPN when I was still living in another country. I got upset when Kings traded him for Bibby and tried to follow his game when he went to Grizzlies, too bad nothing was showed on international television. Now, I’m still a Kings fan, primarily because I’m a die hard basketball fan and I live here in Sacramento, but all this started when I saw Jason Williams…..Hey, I didn’t even know where Sacramento was back in those days.