What's new
By:

Aaron Gordon, a No. 5 Pick?

da ThRONe said:
What part of that did you disagree with? Gordon has the ability to attack off the dribble. He certainty can slash and finish.
Click to expand...

Gordon can finish, but attack…he didn't do much of that this year.

Again, I got this information from Deanondraft, but Gordon had 18 unassisted field goals at the rim in a little under 1200 minutes. Granted, it didn't seem like anybody from Arizona really tried to get to the rim that much by themselves, so it could be a team concept, but we certainly cannot say that we saw Gordon do a lot of slashing and finishing.
 
da ThRONe said:
What part of that did you disagree with? Gordon has the ability to attack off the dribble. He certainty can slash and finish.
Click to expand...

He finishes at a 73% rate. That is amazing. As an 18 year old, this explains some of the reason why his shot isn't where we would like it. He has never needed it to this point. He will definitely need it in the pros. Randall finishes at 70% and Vonleh at 59% #hungry
 
Quin Snyder "It is hard to be good at everything right away. Defense is where a team can connect."
 
NUMBERICA said:
how is Aaron Gordon better than Jeremy Evans?
Click to expand...

Better defender, passer, ball handler, leader, rebounder.

Where was evans picked in the draft?
Weird comparison
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
When you can't realize that Gordon is obviously much better than Jeremy Evans, it's kind of hard to begin a conversation. It's not like we are the only people on the planet who like Gordon, people are saying he is locked in as the 6th pick for the Celtics.
Click to expand...

This.
 
framer said:
He finishes at a 73% rate. That is amazing. As an 18 year old, this explains some of the reason why his shot isn't where we would like it. He has never needed it to this point. He will definitely need it in the pros. Randall finishes at 70% and Vonleh at 59% #hungry
Click to expand...

His % are probably boosted by transition finishes, which he is obviously amazing at.

Vonleh's number worries me a lot though. He tested well athletically, but are we looking at another Kanter in terms of a slow jumper off of two feet under the rim (but without the mass to create space)?
 
NUMBERICA said:
At least at this point, Smart and Randle have been that before. But a point I'm trying to get at is that the Jazz should try really hard to move up. The sanctimonious turds that are married to nice scraps and wouldn't give any up to get a bona fide #1 option are hopefully not in the front office, although I don't know why anyone in the top-3 would trade out. There's chatter about someone slipping out of the consensus top-3 because sometimes teams out-think themselves and fall in love with players below the consensus. If that's the case - for example, if Philly wants Exum and want a return on where they sit - maybe they'll make a deal to get the player they want and more in order to make it happen.

I'm holding onto hope that the Jazz get one of those three guys and I don't know why. But of everyone in play in the top-10, TODAY, Aaron Gordon is literally at the bottom of the list of players that you could build an offense around and the Jazz need one badly. And with all of this talk of him becoming a player that he simply isn't close to being, well, **** in one hand in wish in the other and see what fills up first.
Click to expand...

I agree pretty much 100% with the first paragraph.

Though I would agree that you don't build an offense around Gordon, I do think he can be a very solid #2 guy if his shot improves. We probably disagree about that, and like you I really want the Jazz to get a #1 guy in this draft, but if they can't a solid #2 guy does have a lot of value.
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
His % are probably boosted by transition finishes, which he is obviously amazing at.

Vonleh's number worries me a lot though. He tested well athletically, but are we looking at another Kanter in terms of a slow jumper off of two feet under the rim (but without the mass to create space)?
Click to expand...

Agreed on the finishing % in regards to Gordon. Since he didn't attack much, it shows that most of his finishes are going to be transition finishes or off of assists where he was pretty open. Still a good sign though.

Exactly. These tests don't mean anything. Cody Zeller tested the same as Anthony Davis, or something like that (I can't remember). Stuff like how quickly and how high you get on your 2nd jump are more important, IMO. It's also why the eye test never lies. If he doesn't look explosive on tape, then it doesn't matter how he tests, he doesn't play explosive.

I'll admit that I got caught up in the Vonleh hype, but the more I research, the more I watch, the less I like. Still a good player, I'm just not seeing the total package that everybody else is.
 
da ThRONe said:
What part of that did you disagree with? Gordon has the ability to attack off the dribble. He certainty can slash and finish.
Click to expand...

framer said:
He finishes at a 73% rate. That is amazing. As an 18 year old, this explains some of the reason why his shot isn't where we would like it. He has never needed it to this point. He will definitely need it in the pros. Randall finishes at 70% and Vonleh at 59% #hungry
Click to expand...

Well you never answered my question, but ill be a gentleman and answer yours:

Being a good ball handler, being athletic, being a slasher and finishing at a high percentage arent the same thing as creating your own shot.

They are certainly great, and traits you want, but they arent the thing we are talking about. His percentage at the rim is amazing but a large portion are from transition buckets, O-boards and hustle plays. Again, i want those. They arent creating your own shot though and you typically dont build an offense around that premise.

Fair?
 
I think what I like about Gordon so much, and it's part of why I like Smart a lot too, is that when I watch him play, all I notice is that he's just a good player. I realize he has his deficiencies, but he just looks and plays like an actual good basketball player. He passes the film test, which is always the most important test. I'm not too worried about his percentages, cause that dude can ball out.
 
I'm probably different than the average Gordon lover on here in that I actually like him as a PF more than SF, or at least I like him playing in small ball lineups that feature at least 3 wings. You can't build an offense around Gordon, but you can use him to create a deadly transition team. If his skills develop over the first couple of years, then maybe you move him to SF in more traditional lineups.

Kanter/Gordon frontcourt would give you excellent spacing (assuming Kanter is taking and making 3's this year) that would give room for our cutters and slashers.

Favors/Gordon would have worse spacing, but would be very athletic defensively.

This would put him in a position to succeed early and would put less pressure on him to develop his shooting game right away.
 
Hantlers said:
I think what I like about Gordon so much, and it's part of why I like Smart a lot too, is that when I watch him play, all I notice is that he's just a good player. I realize he has his deficiencies, but he just looks and plays like an actual good basketball player. He passes the film test, which is always the most important test. I'm not too worried about his percentages, cause that dude can ball out.
Click to expand...

I concur.

Maybe im super late to the game with this conclusion, but it seems like we are all mega let down that we actually arent getting what we thought we'd be getting in this draft, and thats the #1 option this team really needs.

So as a result we are all trying to talk ourselves into making #2's and 3's into #1's in our mind. Its time for me to accept we likely arent getting a #1 unless Exum falls/pans out.
 
Bodhi said:
I concur.

Maybe im super late to the game with this conclusion, but it seems like we are all mega let down that we actually arent getting what we thought we'd be getting in this draft, and thats the #1 option this team really needs.

So as a result we are all trying to talk ourselves into making #2's and 3's into #1's in our mind. Its time for me to accept we likely arent getting a #1 unless Exum falls/pans out.
Click to expand...

If can't get the number one and you don't think that you have that guy, the next best option is to play tough D and score in transition. The jazz as they were constructed last year had neither a dominant scorer, nor the ability to d up and score in transition. My ultimate dream would be to find a way to get both Smart AND Gordon, which added to Favors, Kanter, Heyward, and Burks would be ideal for this type of game. I still think we could pry that 8 out of Sacramento by trading a player (Burke or Gobert) a later pick and taking their junk. I don't think the Lakers or the Celtics are high on Smart, but I could easily see them trading down with someone who is, so that is problematic. If only I could go back and cheer for a better Sacramento tank.
 
It would be sweet to get both Smart AND Gordon.

I'll admit I was pretty down on the idea of Aaron Gordon, but the more I research the better I feel about him. And Smart looks pretty great too. Jazz will get one of them or someone else falls.

If they could get both? Awesome.
 
Bodhi said:
Well you never answered my question, but ill be a gentleman and answer yours:

Being a good ball handler, being athletic, being a slasher and finishing at a high percentage arent the same thing as creating your own shot.

They are certainly great, and traits you want, but they arent the thing we are talking about. His percentage at the rim is amazing but a large portion are from transition buckets, O-boards and hustle plays. Again, i want those. They arent creating your own shot though and you typically dont build an offense around that premise.

Fair?
Click to expand...

Well the tone of your post was facetious I just assumed it was more rhetorical. I've seen a lot of highlights. Yes I watched the entire draftexpress.
My point was getting to the basket is a form of shot creation therefore he's not a complete liability as shot creation is concern. Yes he's a poor shooter and that carries over to shooting off the dribble. But jumpers aren't the only kind of shots to be created.
I agree with you and I don't understand why you found fault in my post. It seems like we are saying something very similar. The only difference seems to be you don't consider getting to the rim as creating a shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top