Following potential 2013 draftees
- Thread starter Dr. Jones
- Start date
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
In fact, all George REALLY has on Hayward right now is close-range finishing, defense (even though Hayward is no slouch) and rebounding. Passing is a definite wash, and shooting is a wash. Hayward is one consistent mid-range shot away from averaging the same PPG as George, with less minutes. And don't give me the "they have different roles" excuse, because George was never their first offensive option this season. Their sets were run through West during the regular season, and then Hibbert when he exploded in the playoffs.
They count, but I don't think being a couple inches off in wingspan puts someone out of similar range. Either way they are both at a big disadvantage defensively when it comes to the wingspan of most PGs in the league. FWIW the wingspan argument was used against Lawson, and I'd dare say if the 2009 draft were done over he'd be a top 5 pick.
d@!!0n0rcutt
Well-Known Member
How is Paul George a better 3pt shooter, really?
Paul George's stats from 3 for the last two seasons:
2011-12: makes 1.4 attempts 3.5 = 38.5%
2012-13: makes 1.8 attempts 5.6 = 33.0%
Averages: 1.6/4.6 = 35.8%
Hayward's
2011-12: makes 0.8 attempts 2.4 = 34.6%
2012-13: makes 1.4 attempts 3.4 = 41.5%
Averages: 1.1/2.9 = 37.9%
So with an increased role Paul George got worse and makes him look like a chucker, and I never thought that about Paul George. I guarantee if we look up the rest of their stats they come out almost equal maybe favoring Gordon Hayward. Which tells us George is a less efficient player when given a bigger role and than Hayward is.
Having said all that if the Jazz had a coach like Frank Vogel and a half decent point guard and George Hill isn't that great I promise Hayward would be better. And if Hayward had an offense focus around him and not ALfense, the more we would be saying Hayward is the steal of that draft.
Well I think the Ty Lawson pick was a Watershed moment for the NBA draft in general. How can a guy that short make such a big impact in the NBA??
Having said that, you probably wouldn't want to go shorter than Lawson, or smaller physically.
d@!!0n0rcutt
Well-Known Member
And I would take Ty Lawson in this draft, and on this young team with this core any day!
Having said that I still want Nate Wolters at least at 21 if not 14!
Yeah but Lawson is plenty physical enough to play in the NBA even coming out of college. Don't think I can say the same about Larkin.
Plus it's not a stretch to say he may never be physical enough to be a starter in the NBA.
A few comments, having cruised through the last 10 pages:
- I still like Schroeder at 14, unless Adams or Zeller is there
- The assumption that the Jazz will pick Larkin at #14 is pretty loose and could just be DX imitating Chad Ford.
- Glen Rice Jr. and Tony Mitchell should be in the conversation at #21. I'll be surprised if Giannis is there.
- Archie Goodwin is a steal based on where he's being mocked.
- People who compare Wolters to Jimmer aren't being rational. Jimmer was a fad who chucked 28-foot 3s, while Wolters is an underrated player who scores from just about everywhere and actually has good size and skills for the PG position. I would understand if the Jazz drafted him.
- If Saric is really such a special player, he won't be on the board at #21 (not airtight logic, I know)
- I still like Schroeder at 14, unless Adams or Zeller is there
- The assumption that the Jazz will pick Larkin at #14 is pretty loose and could just be DX imitating Chad Ford.
- Glen Rice Jr. and Tony Mitchell should be in the conversation at #21. I'll be surprised if Giannis is there.
- Archie Goodwin is a steal based on where he's being mocked.
- People who compare Wolters to Jimmer aren't being rational. Jimmer was a fad who chucked 28-foot 3s, while Wolters is an underrated player who scores from just about everywhere and actually has good size and skills for the PG position. I would understand if the Jazz drafted him.
- If Saric is really such a special player, he won't be on the board at #21 (not airtight logic, I know)
Also, if you want a 'D-and-3' guy, why not Tim Hardaway Jr.? He has more all-around game than Bullock and only gives up about an inch.
Here's another guy on the radar at #21.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oG8mWEI81h0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oG8mWEI81h0
No way in hell does Wolters go before #21.
If you really want him take him there, which is still a reach.