Sexual Favors
Well-Known Member
Burks at PG
I wouldn't hate this for next season. He'd at least get a lot of minutes, and then we could realistically get Marcus Smart next year.
Burks at PG
I am not a fan obviously. Look at what is happening the finals- the games are getting very physical and imo Larkin doesn't have the strength to fight through the contact.
Look at how the NBA is moving towards bigger, faster, and stronger guards.
Larkin would be a defensive liability on most nights.
And against elite PGs, a complete abomination (imagine what Rondo, Rose, Westbrook, Parker, etc would do to him. It would be a layup drill).
As Jazz fans, do we really want this? Perhaps, the best thing to do would be to swallow our pride, reup Mo, and wait another year or two for the PG that we actually want. Just sayin. Nothing is forcing us to take an inferior prospect (like Larkin) just so we fill the need of PG.
He has pedigree as well. He has winning in the genes.
(I have winning in my jeans just thinking about it)
As both predictions mentioned, Larkin is the best PG prospect expected to be there at #14. SO BPA has been thrown out the window with the Jazz going PG since there are ZERO currently on the roster. I expect Lindsey to hold to the BPA philosophy, regardless of position. Jazz may end up drafting NO PG's in the draft. Or they could get a backup PG with the 21 or 46 and wait for free agency, the trade deadline or next year's draft to get a PG they feel will be the starter.Out of curiosity, just how many of those were drafted in the top 14?
Why do you assume that it's between German Steve Nash and Larkin at 14? Are there no other prospects at 14? Or are they the clear cut best prospects who have the potential to be there when we draft?
If he was built like a pit bull on steroids I'd consider him at 14. But, he's not. Doesn't look like he can/does put up any resistance on the defensive end with his body. He's got career backup written all over him by my eye.
I'd much rather draft Schroeder, at least the upside is there to be a starter in the league. If Larkin is still on the board at #21, and I don't see why he wouldn't be, I'd be willing to burn a pick on him then. I have no problem drafting both Schroeder and Larkin out of this draft.
And I think you can entirely ignore his leaping numbers. I didn't see him finishing above the rim or getting up to bother shots in any of the film I looked at. He plays below the rim despite any leaping ability he possesses. It's not translating to the court IMHO.
Good post. Problem at 21 is I can name about 10 guys I'd rather have than Larkin.
Rice jr.
Ledo
Green
Bullock
ew.
What's your problem with Bullock, master quoter?