No. With the exception of Michael Jordan. Most point guards have the ball the majority of the time and therefore are more important. Just look at where the top notch (Chris Paul) guards are taken in the draft.
I would say very close. Obviously, a team needs a point guard to run it. However, a team cannot survive without a main scorer, usually a shooting guard. For instance, how would the Sacramento Kings be without Kevin Martin? Not that great. Same goes for the Lakers and Kobe Bryant- they can't win without him. That's not saying point guards aren't important- they are needed very much. It's just a matter of what your team needs. If your teams shooting guard is unbelievable and can handle the ball, and the shooting guard is more important. If your team already has a decent shooting guard but has a phenomenal point guard, then the point guard is more important.
Chat with our AI personalities
Yes, I think so just as long as your feet is NOT inside the arc, or the ref will count it as a two.
It wasn't forbidden, it just wasn't really done. Up to about that point in time, the weapons used by most armies were not accurate enough to target a particular person at any sort of range. When the colonists brought out their long range rifles and started picking off people at a couple hundred yards, warfare changed. There were some battles in which the shooting of officers served as a key turning point in the fight.
to kill them it was a quicker method and less emotional on the germans then just shooting them
Yes. Shooting a firearm at another person, and depending on the circumstances, even just pointing it at another person is considered deadly force, the highest level of physical force.
8456 and that was just enough for the emperor tutillian to eat when he was tired of shooting