What's new

Following potential 2014 draftees

Why is everybody so enamored with a 40% shooter?

He doesn't shoot 3's well. He doesn't shoot FG's well. He doesn't shoot FT's well…but he can dunk!

I just don't get it.

I like him alright. Wouldn't take him in the lottery. Reminds me a lot of CJ Miles. Has a good feel for offense and can get hot, but usually doesn't. Not a bad player to draft in the early 20's.
 
I like him alright. Wouldn't take him in the lottery. Reminds me a lot of CJ Miles. Has a good feel for offense and can get hot, but usually doesn't. Not a bad player to draft in the early 20's.

Yeah, I agree with that. He's got enough potential that he's worth a later pick, but there's no chance I would take him in the lottery.

He's a "shooter" who shoots 40%. Why should I think that he's going to get better in the NBA?
 
Why is everybody so enamored with a 40% shooter?

He doesn't shoot 3's well. He doesn't shoot FG's well. He doesn't shoot FT's well…but he can dunk!

I just don't get it.

I think he'll get better and stuff. But that's just my own prediction. We'll see but I think if he's going to develop in a way that I think he's going to help the team that drafts him, no matter where he lands.

You can't be serious.

About what? I just looked at facts and shared my conclusions.
 
I think he'll get better and stuff. But that's just my own prediction. We'll see but I think if he's going to develop in a way that I think he's going to help the team that drafts him, no matter where he lands.



About what? I just looked at facts and shared my conclusions.

No one is going to read a wall of text like that.
 
No one is going to read a wall of text like that.

Well then don't. Maybe one or two do it. Maybe another 2 or 3 will read the first segment where I want to start a discussion about proposed two and through rule and another 2 have me on ignore. So what?
 
Well then don't. Maybe one or two do it. Maybe another 2 or 3 will read the first segment where I want to start a discussion about proposed two and through rule and another 2 have me on ignore. So what?

Just saying if you want your thoughts read and responded to, it will help if you make them more readable. Just trying to give some advice. If you just want to type a personal journal or something, then it works because I'm sure most people won't read all of that.
 
*Not trying to be a dick.*

Yeah I understand that. I just think if a couple read it, one has an opinion he wants to share that can light a discussion. Then others will respond to that and stuff.
I wanted to take a look at the time span of one and dones and look how their careers developed. So I was like: Instead of picking a few and then reading whine about how I cherrypick, I simply looked at all of them. It's only 8 years or something since this rule exists.
And things that I noticed was that nearly everyone other the future all-nba 1st and 2nd team guys had productivity issues early on. Very few successful point guards are one and dones. And those who became very good also had problems to get going.

Questions I can derive out of it are:
-Do playmakers benefit more from learning in college and improving their leadership skills?
-Is a point guard's talent less visible when they're very young and thus they're getting the recognition at a later point(e.g. sophomore season)?
-Are NBA franchises simply bad at evaluating point guards?
-Is the superior physique of wings and bigs a difference that leads to them more often being a one and done and having a quicker translation of their bodies?
-Do their bodies make it more simple for scouts to grade them as good talents?
-Is it fair to withhold next level talents like Irving, Davis for one more year because all the other guys that use their hype to get drafted hurt the league and perception of rooks?
 
Yeah I understand that. I just think if a couple read it, one has an opinion he wants to share that can light a discussion. Then others will respond to that and stuff.
I wanted to take a look at the time span of one and dones and look how their careers developed. So I was like: Instead of picking a few and then reading whine about how I cherrypick, I simply looked at all of them. It's only 8 years or something since this rule exists.
And things that I noticed was that nearly everyone other the future all-nba 1st and 2nd team guys had productivity issues early on. Very few successful point guards are one and dones. And those who became very good also had problems to get going.

Questions I can derive out of it are:
-Do playmakers benefit more from learning in college and improving their leadership skills?
-Is a point guard's talent less visible when they're very young and thus they're getting the recognition at a later point(e.g. sophomore season)?
-Are NBA franchises simply bad at evaluating point guards?
-Is the superior physique of wings and bigs a difference that leads to them more often being a one and done and having a quicker translation of their bodies?
-Do their bodies make it more simple for scouts to grade them as good talents?
-Is it fair to withhold next level talents like Irving, Davis for one more year because all the other guys that use their hype to get drafted hurt the league and perception of rooks?

The "Enter" bar is your friend, use it.
 
DX has Jazz picking up Vonleh with the 7th pick.


Who do you guys think he could be? Is he a starting PF caliber player in the NBA? Is he more of a Tyrus Thomas/Gibson type player, or does he have the upside to be a Chris Bosh type?


Serious responses only, please no vonleh/volley type jokes.
 
Back
Top