Aaron Gordon, a No. 5 Pick?
- Thread starter Sexual Favors
- Start date
Sexual Favors
Well-Known Member
Who says he can't develop into that? He's got a big part of the package w/ his elite NBA athleticism, his great handles, his offensive rebounding, his above-the-rim play, ability to read the defense, strength for an SF, and decent jump shot?
W/O his FT struggles, would you question his ability to develop into an offensive threat @ the 3?
Also, this is probably our last chance to get a wing of his caliber from the draft. Next year, we will be lottery bound, but we won't be sitting at 5, and next year's draft doesn't have a bunch of elite wings. It has bigs, which is what everyone is saying we should take this year. I don't understand it.
sahlensguy
Well-Known Member
He has too much upside, all around game, size, smarts, athleticism and grit at 18 years old to worry about him coming into the draft as a go to scorer. If his shot was broken then yeah, I might stay away, but it doesn't seem broken. Sit pat, draft him at 5 and develops his shot. In three years, he can be a great value with that pick.
Last edited:
I don't really follow much of the college game until I get to looking at stats, more or less (admit it, so does the majority of everyone else), leading up to the draft. However, I remain skeptical about Gordon. Not necessarily that he can't be good and a significant player, but more that I'm skeptical about how non-complimentary his weaknesses are to our team. Previously, I've mentioned the JazzFanz Bonerz scale, which is essentially a ratio of athleticism:talent. I think if people are excited about Gordon, then that's fine. However, amidst that excitement, it's not necessary to have to feel obligated to believe they'll improve at something beyond a degree that is reasonable. Very often we talk about players developing some certain part of their game, one that they're not just poor at, but something they're not skilled at, at all. There are many components of the game and it's the amalgam that makes someone an NBA caliber player. Too often we assume that there's this magic where just because somebody is at a professional level overall, that each aspect of their game is of NBA quality. The point I'm getting at is that people typically can develop skills of which they already have and can improve upon. They typically don't develop something from nothing simply by some kind of NBA magic... or even by working with a shooting coach. Every year we thought AK was going to come back with a jumpshot because we thought all he needed to do was work on it over the off-season... or all he needed to do was work with Hornacek.
The bottom line is that Gordon's free throw shooting is on the level of pretty poor city league guys. This isn't a knock of Gordon because obviously he has a significant amount of talents and abilities that has advanced him despite that. But just because we may like the guy doesn't mean that we need to believe that he's going to "work hard" and become a decent FT shooter. We can accept that as part of his game and be ready for it without compromising our excitement or passion for him.
My feeling is that it's possible this guy could be a good accessory piece that could put you over the top. But you can't have a guy put you over the top if you don't have the pieces to get you close to the top to begin with. So, I'd rather pick up a guy that at least has that potential. Is he a rich man's Chris Singleton? Who knows.
The bottom line is that Gordon's free throw shooting is on the level of pretty poor city league guys. This isn't a knock of Gordon because obviously he has a significant amount of talents and abilities that has advanced him despite that. But just because we may like the guy doesn't mean that we need to believe that he's going to "work hard" and become a decent FT shooter. We can accept that as part of his game and be ready for it without compromising our excitement or passion for him.
My feeling is that it's possible this guy could be a good accessory piece that could put you over the top. But you can't have a guy put you over the top if you don't have the pieces to get you close to the top to begin with. So, I'd rather pick up a guy that at least has that potential. Is he a rich man's Chris Singleton? Who knows.
sahlensguy
Well-Known Member
Not sure what the bolded part means. These players all have question marks. I'd much rather draft Gordon and take a chance on his shooting than draft any other player at 5 and take a chance on their flaws. Gordon's upside is greater imo and can be a more valuable piece to a contending team than the others.
Sexual Favors
Well-Known Member
A. Gordon isn't starting from nothing! He has a jump shot. He doesn't have FT's. If he has one, he can transfer the form to another with breaking down the form of the other.
Aaron Gordon isn't devoid of an offensive game. His efg% was .516, while Jabari's wa .511. His TS%, which takes his FT's into account, wass .503, while Jabari's was .558.
Obviously, Gordon is still effective offensively. At 18, and with an already decent jump shot , his FT's aren't doomed to be broken forever.
Aaron Gordon isn't devoid of an offensive game. His efg% was .516, while Jabari's wa .511. His TS%, which takes his FT's into account, wass .503, while Jabari's was .558.
Obviously, Gordon is still effective offensively. At 18, and with an already decent jump shot , his FT's aren't doomed to be broken forever.
Sexual Favors
Well-Known Member
Then maybe you shouldn't be forming opinions about these players.
ncoloradojazz
Banned
No Kidding
I don't recall offering up many opinions, other than stating that his free throw shooting is city league level, but qualified everything else pretty strongly.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Just dropped -51 on yo raggedy ***, and I aint kiddin either.
Maybe read my post again, champ. Feel free to add in a few straw men.
Sexual Favors
Well-Known Member
You also said his weaknesses are non complimentary to our team. His weakness is his FT%. It's singular. As an SF, his skillset is incredibly complementary to our team because he has great handles, vision, passing, rebounding, defense, length, height, ability to attack the rim, above-the-rim play, uptempo pace that would enable our other wings and bigs to run, high BBIQ, and yes, an adequate jumper for this stage of his development.
You implied AG doesn't have a jumpshot, which he does. He isn't starting from scratch, and had you watched him, you would know this. It is entirely possible for someone to be good at one, and not the other. One is a set shot (FT's), and the other has the lift of one's legs. Trey had the reverse happen to him last year. He shot like **** from the field, but was lethal from FT's. How? Trey didn't have his legs, and they are two different forms for the body. If you had watched A. Gordon actually play, you would know he wasn't devoid of a jumper w/ good form.
You can believe he'll never get better at FT's if you want, but to say he is starting from scratch is entirely inaccurate.
Also, the Chris Singleton comp has already been discussed in another thread about Vonleh and Gordon. I think it was Jazz4ever who first made that comp. go check out the discussion and ask yourself if you truly believe it holds weight.