What's new
By:

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

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
 
PKM said:
^tifwiw, but McCollum is highly/widely thought of as VERY coachable. A very much yes sir, no sir .. run through a brick wall kid.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what tifwiw means. lol Sorry not update on all these acronyms. I grew up with LOL and JK in jr high. haven't got passed anything else beside that.

That is good he seems coachable but changing your entire game to not being so aggressive toward scoring is hard to convince someone of. If he can than that is awesome but even coachable guys have had a hard time changing.
 
Twin Towers said:
I have no idea what tifwiw means. lol Sorry not update on all these acronyms. I grew up with LOL and JK in jr high. haven't got passed anything else beside that.

That is good he seems coachable but changing your entire game to not being so aggressive toward scoring is hard to convince someone of. If he can than that is awesome but even coachable guys have had a hard time changing.
Click to expand...

tifwiw = take it for what it's worth
 
I share the same concerns with TT about CJ's ability to run the point. I like him a lot as a player and from the interviews I've seen he seems smart and coachable. However, not all players are cut out to be a PG. It is true that today's PG shoot more because they are open more. You can't touch PGs nowadays and so the ability to break a guy down is made easier in today's NBA. However, you must remember that as great as Stockton was there were many times he passed the ball too much instead of taking the shot. Stockton became great when he became better at making the decision to pass or shoot.

Does or will CJ be able to adjust and learn this decision-making skill? No one knows but if he does than I think he can definitely be a balanced PG which is what you want more nowadays but worse case scenario, he becomes our 6th man Vinnie "the microwave" Johnson.

I doubt CJ will be on the board at 14 but if he is you have to take him because most likely he will be BPA. The kid's shooting numbers are outrageous. However, I share TT concerns.
 
Qman said:
Replace PG with 'the playmaker' and you have a point. PG no longer must be the playmaker. Burks and Hayward have the ability to be playmakers. Now they need to refine it. But Foye-Burks-Hayward lineup seems to do pretty well. And shooting is very, very important.

The talented players at every position has worked pretty well for the Pacers, Heat and Spurs. Or would you call Parker, Chalmers or George Hill traditional points?
Click to expand...
Very good point (pun intended). Hayward will be very much more involved as a playmaker in the offense. So will Burks. I hope we see everyone throwing the ball around, cutting, curling, etc. In fact, if the Jazz were near the top of the league in assists and had a PG that was only around 6/per game, I'd be happy. That would tell me the Jazz were getting back to having an efficient offense.
 
cowhide said:
I share the same concerns with TT about CJ's ability to run the point. I like him a lot as a player and from the interviews I've seen he seems smart and coachable. However, not all players are cut out to be a PG. It is true that today's PG shoot more because they are open more. You can't touch PGs nowadays and so the ability to break a guy down is made easier in today's NBA. However, you must remember that as great as Stockton was there were many times he passed the ball too much instead of taking the shot. Stockton became great when he became better at making the decision to pass or shoot.

Does or will CJ be able to adjust and learn this decision-making skill? No one knows but if he does than I think he can definitely be a balanced PG which is what you want more nowadays but worse case scenario, he becomes our 6th man Vinnie "the microwave" Johnson.

I doubt CJ will be on the board at 14 but if he is you have to take him because most likely he will be BPA. The kid's shooting numbers are outrageous. However, I share TT concerns.
Click to expand...

I can also tell you most scouts I've talked to believe he can play the PG spot, easily.
 
PKM - Well if that is the case then there is no way the Jazz will have a shot at him. Even without his PG skills, I think the only way Utah gets CJ is if they move up.
 
Core4 said:
TT probably hasn't heard of google or bing. Even yahoo would probably work.
Click to expand...

Too many acronyms out there. Its getting ridiculous. Just type what you are saying. Don't be lazy and make someone else look up what you were too lazy to type out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top