What's new
By:

CJ McCollum: "This culture, is perfect for me."

Twin Towers said:
That is what I mean exactly. I don't care how many assists per game they get. If anything I think its better to have that spread around. But they need some play making ability. I don't see it with McCollum. I could be wrong but I haven't seen anything or read anything that shows he will curb his scoring.
The tough part is Chalmers(I wanted him over Dofous) and George Hill do not dominate the ball. They have good coaches who make sure everyone touches the ball. But they understand TEAM which helps them too. If you put a guy like Mo Williams on the Pacers he would of ruined Chemistry because he is so selfish.
Corbin showed he did not have the ability to coach a ball hog PG. He just let him run wild and everyone's game suffered because of it.
I don't want another John Stockton. I want a PG like B.J. Armstrong or Chalmers. Someone who understands there role is to settle everyone down and make sure the ball moves and hit the open jumper. Not be the leading scorer on the team.
Click to expand...

Very well said. I couldn't have said it better (and in fact didn't).
 
Stoked said:
OK fair enough. My question then is, Is there another viable player (especailly PG) for the Jazz to take? Do we push a PG at 14 or try to pick one up at 21?

If not McCollum than who? (or if not "insert player name" than who?)
Click to expand...

Ya got me, I don't know. I don't feel I have a good enough handle on the players to have an informed opinion. I know what I don't want and want I want, I'm just not sure who gives that.
 
mhindy said:
You realize Chalmers is terrible, right? Saying you don't want McCollum and then following up by saying you want a Chalmers type PG kills your argument. If McCollum regresses as an NBA player, he'll be Mario Chalmers.
Click to expand...

I am not saying Chalmers is a great all around. I mean his decision making is much better than a Mo Williams type player. He understands his role. That is what I like personally.
 
This thread has a nice twist. With the headline you come in thinking it's going to be pro-McCollum, but it's not.
I really like hearing different points of view. Especially when they are clearly not done out of hatred, or just trying to be different.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
I also am a fan of pass first PGs. What I don't want is Mo Williams 2.0, a point guard who is a gunner first and who does not get other players involved to the extent they should be. (And please, Dear God, a PG who doesn't ALWAYS try to play hero ball at the end of each period.) I really hope that Corbin installs more of a high P&R with Favors, which means we also want a PG who excels at P&R. I'm not against McCollum, but that 2.6 assists a game really concerns me.
Click to expand...

Jimmy eat Jazz - actually said it much better than I did. Kept it simple.

I actually think PG might not be something we should go after with the first pick we have. We should try to trade up and get Burke. If we cannot pick the next best player at SG or SF. When I say best not the most talented the best who understands their role. Draft a PG at the 21st pick for a back up PG position. The Majority of late first round picks never end up in rotations. Most teen picks do though. So we need to be more careful in finding the RIGHT player not just the most talented player.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
Ya got me, I don't know. I don't feel I have a good enough handle on the players to have an informed opinion. I know what I don't want and want I want, I'm just not sure who gives that.
Click to expand...

Well what if that type of player that you do not want is clearly the best player left at your pick? Do you go with a lesser talent just because he is not what you and I would prefer? Or do we draf thim adn just accept that it was the best we could do?
 
I don't really see it with McCollum, but I trust people that do. I guess. His shooting efficiency is pretty ****ing bonkers, though. The translation of Steph Curry and Damian Lillard definitely help his case, but I still worry about his playmaking ability for others (largely based on stat-watching and essentially naivete).
 
Responding to Stoke and Numberica

I would normally take the lesser physical talent(but smart and realizing that he needs to change) than taking the player who may be better physically but is hard headed and doesn't seem like he will change much.

I think this is where the interview process takes a huge role. I am not sure how well this player is willing to make huge adjustments to his game. The likely hood of a player changing his entire game...... Very rare. If we think he has the ability to be more modest with his offense than WOW he could be amazing for us. But if it doesn't work out which history shows it usually doesn't than it could be a disaster. Leading to CJ Miles at the PG while our big men stand around doing nothing but going after offensive rebounds.

He seems like he has a good head on his shoulders but I think its too big of a risk. But again I am very picky on PG's and Centers. You need Centers(wide frame) that can clog the lane and PG's who set the tone and can hit jumpers but are modest in their offense. I am personally very stubborn on this topic.
 
^tifwiw, but McCollum is highly/widely thought of as VERY coachable. A very much yes sir, no sir .. run through a brick wall kid.
 
If we have the chance ti move yo for McCollum and dont, itll haunt us for years.



posted from my htc one using tapaBONGO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top