What's new
By:

Following potential 2017 draftees...

r_u_s_t_b_u_c_k_e_t said:
He shot 38+% from three as a rook. Not a long list of players have done that, and plenty of those players turned out great.

https://www.basketball-reference.co...comp=gt&c2val=100&c6mult=1.0&order_by=fg3_pct
Click to expand...

He shot 32% last year and his lone year in college was 14%. Combine that with his poor free throw shooting (for a "shooter") and I'm not sure you can bank on him shooting 38% from here on out.

His terrible defense and rebounding are such that he NEEDS to shoot 38% or higher to justify being on the court.

Jury is still out, but I'm really skeptical that he is a good shooter.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
OK. They finished the regular season as the 5th ranked team and won the Championship, but they weren't really good. Got it.
Click to expand...

I don't know why I even bothered rephrasing my question even though I basically knew you'd dodge what I was interested in. I guess I'm insane.
 
BTP said:
I don't know why I even bothered rephrasing my question even though I basically knew you'd dodge what I was interested in. I guess I'm insane.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I really have no idea what you are asking. They won a ton of games and won all the games in the Tourney. Not sure what "context" you want. They were the best team in what's considered the best conference and won the Championship.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Sorry, I really have no idea what you are asking. They won a ton of games and won all the games in the Tourney. Not sure what "context" you want. They were the best team in what's considered the best conference and won the Championship.
Click to expand...

"Opponents dared them to shoot, resulting in a lot of open looks"
"They played the same sets like the Jayhawks do where they overpass it on the perimeter and end up taking poor shots"
"They wanted to attack the basket, but lacked firepower to create enough space in the paint"

Those are examples of how you'd characterize something. I watched a total of 1 game of the Tar Heels, leaving me in a position, where I'd like to understand the context around Justin Jackson. Just to get my imagination going and to get a feel for how to interpret his development.
 
BTP said:
"Opponents dared them to shoot, resulting in a lot of open looks"
"They played the same sets like the Jayhawks do where they overpass it on the perimeter and end up taking poor shots"
"They wanted to attack the basket, but lacked firepower to create enough space in the paint"

Those are examples of how you'd characterize something. I watched a total of 1 game of the Tar Heels, leaving me in a position, where I'd like to understand the context around Justin Jackson. Just to get my imagination going and to get a feel for how to interpret his development.
Click to expand...

Then go watch some more games.

They were a pretty deep team without much weakness. They had NBA size at every position, besides PG, and had were veteran led and didnt rely on any Freshman besides Tony Bradley, who was just a backup. I'm not a UNC scout, so I can't give you a detailed breakdown of their entire offense. If you want that, get on youtube and look for full games, there are plenty of them.
 
NCJazz said:
Ford has us picking the two Latvians Andzejs Pasecniks and Kurucs. Backup center is still a place of need and Kurucs has definite long term potential. Maybe see him in 3 years.
Click to expand...

I saw this too, I don't think Kurucs is there at 30
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top