Following potential 2015 draftees
- Thread starter Dr. Jones
- Start date
Eh. Free-throws are 70%. For a freshman on a bigger stage, that's understandable.
Yeah, assists could be better, but he doesn't handle the ball much. He makes decent passes that are there.
His dribble is a bit rough, but that should improve as he gets stronger.
His body control, coordination and timing are really quite good.
His steal rate is on par with Johnson and better than Winslow given that he plays fewer minutes.
He does have a bit of a cocky, immature countenance, a bit like Quincy Miller before Miller got injured.
Well other than James Johnson, yeah.
Oubre's size, weight and wing-span are very close to Tracy McGrady. It's pretty prototypical. That said, TMac also had a 40" vertical, which I'm doubting Oubre has, and TMac was super quick and explosive. Will be interesting to see how Oubre develops athletically.
This young TMac stuff is obviously over the top, but if Oubre could do even a fraction of this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYxJ5MmiuFc
This young TMac stuff is obviously over the top, but if Oubre could do even a fraction of this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYxJ5MmiuFc
Can't put my finger on it, but if I ever own a team or is a GM on a team, I want no part of Oubre... it's irrational I know but there it is... .
Done some more detailed looking at most of the wings we've been looking at and here are my impressions:
Hezonja: + Great spot up shooter, also probably 2nd best off the dribble shooter in the draft (behind Russell, Booker also good), seems to have the physical tools, defense generally pretty solid, creative if not always the most willing passer
- His handle is a little loose, I think he'll have trouble finishing at the rim in the NBA, gambles on defense routinely
Booker: + Great spot up shooter, good off the dribble as well, willing passer, good decision making
- defense is a bit of a question, creativity seems low, just an alright athlete (for a lottery pick)
Winslow: + Strong athlete, good in transition, plays hard on D/on the boards, solid finisher around the basket
- His shot is not good (as in actually slightly broken), relatively no offensive game for pro level
Oubre: + Smooth athlete, active hands on defense, good (not great) spot up shooter, solid in transition
- his ballhandling is on the weaker side, passing isn't a strength, I think he could get pushed around a bit by NBA size
Johnson: + Absolute freak athlete (seriously, this man is Lebron/Melo size, he may not be as quick as some of the others on the list, but for his size he is more than quick enough), great in transition, along with Booker I'd say he has the best ball skills of the bunch, good defender- both physically and in being in the right spots (watch vs Levert and Michigan), solid passer and rebounder
- shot is not a strength, needs to work on a bit of a post game at his size (I put this as a weakness, but really he's the only one of the bunch I could see developing any post scoring)
Other general notes: Hezonja/Johnson seem to be the only two with a bit of "the man" complex, which could be good or bad depending on what we're going for. All interview alright, but in my opinion Johnson comes off as very well spoken for a college freshman.
Overall I'd go with this rating for the Jazz:
1. Johnson - chance to be absolutely special, I see shades of Paul Pierce
2. Booker - seems to have a very high floor
3. Hezonja - shooter, not sure he has much else
4. Oubre - potential to be best here, but does need to develop
5. Winslow - really not that interested in him
Side note: I fully expect Arizona or Wisconsin to upend Kentucky in the tourney. Wisconsin's offense is a machine and Stanley Johnson does not know how to lose.
Hezonja: + Great spot up shooter, also probably 2nd best off the dribble shooter in the draft (behind Russell, Booker also good), seems to have the physical tools, defense generally pretty solid, creative if not always the most willing passer
- His handle is a little loose, I think he'll have trouble finishing at the rim in the NBA, gambles on defense routinely
Booker: + Great spot up shooter, good off the dribble as well, willing passer, good decision making
- defense is a bit of a question, creativity seems low, just an alright athlete (for a lottery pick)
Winslow: + Strong athlete, good in transition, plays hard on D/on the boards, solid finisher around the basket
- His shot is not good (as in actually slightly broken), relatively no offensive game for pro level
Oubre: + Smooth athlete, active hands on defense, good (not great) spot up shooter, solid in transition
- his ballhandling is on the weaker side, passing isn't a strength, I think he could get pushed around a bit by NBA size
Johnson: + Absolute freak athlete (seriously, this man is Lebron/Melo size, he may not be as quick as some of the others on the list, but for his size he is more than quick enough), great in transition, along with Booker I'd say he has the best ball skills of the bunch, good defender- both physically and in being in the right spots (watch vs Levert and Michigan), solid passer and rebounder
- shot is not a strength, needs to work on a bit of a post game at his size (I put this as a weakness, but really he's the only one of the bunch I could see developing any post scoring)
Other general notes: Hezonja/Johnson seem to be the only two with a bit of "the man" complex, which could be good or bad depending on what we're going for. All interview alright, but in my opinion Johnson comes off as very well spoken for a college freshman.
Overall I'd go with this rating for the Jazz:
1. Johnson - chance to be absolutely special, I see shades of Paul Pierce
2. Booker - seems to have a very high floor
3. Hezonja - shooter, not sure he has much else
4. Oubre - potential to be best here, but does need to develop
5. Winslow - really not that interested in him
Side note: I fully expect Arizona or Wisconsin to upend Kentucky in the tourney. Wisconsin's offense is a machine and Stanley Johnson does not know how to lose.
Regarding Side Note: while UK has a better chance of losing a game, statistically, than remaining undefeated, I had to laugh at your reasoning behind AZ being the victor.
And Wisconsin, while I feel is the most likely to do so, has only played two top 20 teams all year, and lost both.
Team defense and frontline size/skill are also reasons for Arizona. Mostly it's due to what I feel is a slight overestimation of Kentucky though- not to say they aren't extremely good and shouldn't be the favourites, but the SEC is easily the weakest of the big 5 conferences and their out of conference wasn't a gauntlet by any stretch. They have about 4 real solid wins. Kansas(shot 20%...), UNC(a team a contender should beat), Louisville(tough game/team), Arkansas(a team with no real good wins).
Anywho, from what I've seen of Johnson he seems like a "winner", more often than not his team seems to wind up on the right side of the scoreboard when it counts. Grant it, that was high school, but I would not be surprised to see it transfer.
The reasoning you are using is laughably bad.Team defense and frontline size/skill are also reasons for ArizonaMostly it's due to what I feel is a slight overestimation of Kentucky though- not to say they aren't extremely good and shouldn't be the favourites, but the SEC is easily the weakest of the big 5 conferences and their out of conference wasn't a gauntlet by any stretch. They have about 4 real solid wins. Kansas(shot 20%...), UNC(a team a contender should beat at home), Louisville(tough game/team), Arkansas(a team with no real good wins).
First you say Arizona would upset Kentucky because Johnson refuses to lose. Yet, AZ has multiple losses to UK's none.
Next you mention AZ's team defense (even though UK ranks #1 in that category) and their frontline size (even though UK has a bigger front line that 29 of 30 NBA teams).
Add to that UK not having a tough schedule because;
Kansas - only shot 20% (you see why that is funny?)
UNC - UK "should" win that (why should a contender be defined as should be beaten by an overrated UK team?)
I don't disagree with Arkansas having no real good wins, but then how do you pimp Wisconsin so heavily? Zero wins against top 20 teams...
And Arizona? Losses against UNLV, Oregon State, and Arizona State??
Look, I will be the first to say UK has a better chance of losing a game than winning out, but your arguments are awful.. I would suggest sticking with a "gut feeling" or something of more substance than what your brain is telling you.
1. How much did any of those Arizona losses matter? I'm talking about the fact that Johnson is a 4x California state champion. Sure seems like he wins a lot in elimination games.
2. I didn't say they were either better or bigger than Kentucky in either of those categories, nor did I mean to. I mean they are better than anybody Kentucky has played in those categories.
3. If you don't think Kansas shot hilariously poorly in that game I don't know what to say, any team in the top 25 on their game would have beat Kansas that day.
4. That'd be because I try not to blindly follow the rankings. Somehow according to the rankings UNC is a better win than Iowa, but they have the same record in a major conference and Iowa went in to UNC and beat them? Yeah, Wisconsin has some wins that are just fine.
At the end of the day, Kentucky is easily the favourite and fairly so. I personally expect them to get beat at some point, and Wisconsin and Arizona are the two other teams in the nation that I see as truly elite this season. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see all three in the final four (barring the fact that it looks like Kentucky and Wisconsin will be in the same bracket at this point).