Really, name me another team with better history at the average position the Jazz have drafted at.
So who would of you picked?
- Thread starter Beantown
- Start date
Really, name me another team with better history at the average position the Jazz have drafted at.
I agree. That being said, I just have no clue why nobody is willing to give this kid a chance in the league.
TheMulletMutilator
Member
I know I have been angry with the pick because it seemed very foolish at the time and still does to me. Do I see Hayward as a bench player who can contribute? Yes. I also see other guys taken in the draft behind him having better careers. This is tough to accept.
vslice02
Well-Known Member
What are you talking about? Jackson had a 36" vertical, shot 49-86-44 and like Babbitt is a lefty-sharpshooter who struggles to defend on the perimeter and to create his own shot , because unlike Hayward he isn't effective putting the ball on the floor. Hayward will struggle to defend as well, but the idea that Babbitt was a much cleaner prospect is laughable.
You guys keep bringing up a draft where we picked Snyder and Humphries, yet Like guys like George and Babbitt. Unreal. Both KHump and Snyder were good athletes, but Snyder had a sub pair shooting % from the floor, which was his biggest risk. George is also a Forward shooting 42% in College. This is atrocious. Both guys also faced inferior competition. KHump and Babbitt have nearly identical great numbers (only Khump did it when he was 2 years younger than Babbit) again garbage competition. Both great athletes and both did not come even close to taking their teams to next (ranked) level. So, when you say these guys would be perfect players for Jazz, think about Snyder/KHump draft. Didn't turn out perfect, did it?
Hearsky
Well-Known Member
This is as stupid as saying John Crotty was the same size as John Stockton, played exactly like Stockton, had the same wingspan as Stockton, similar athleticism and same physical limitations that were exposed at the NBA level....
Crotty was Stockton.
Predictably Irrational
New Member
Wrong.
Jefferson visited SLC for workouts, but he was injured at that time and couldn't do anything else except an interview. Things might have been different if he actually had worked out for the Jazz. I remember this because I was interested in him.
He just graduated from high school and never played a single basketball game at the college level! Also, the Jazz still had "fresh" memory of DeShawn Stevenson at that time. I think it was a safe call for the Jazz to draft Humphries instead of Jefferson at that time, even though it didn't work out well.
richgates
Well-Known Member
People who are comparing Gordon Hayward to anyone else in the NBA before he has played even a single minute of pro basketball are complete imbeciles. He may end up being a complete bust, he may not. Physical characteristics alone do not a player make. It might be cliche, but intangibles do mean something. Hayward may end up having mental toughness which does carry you far in this league. Give the guy some time to either sink or swim.
Spurs.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
I remember that time. I remember seeing video of both Jefferson and Humphries and thinking that Jefferson was significantly better. They were only a year's difference in experience. As I recall, Utah didn't work out Brewer, either, but still drafted him, so it's not like they had a rule set in stone to draft only players whom they worked out.
The Jazz didn't work out Koufos, either. Look how badly that has turned out, except some morons still think that he and Fesenko should have been getting minutes at the expense of the team. Good thing those brain-deads aren't evaluating talent.
I agree. Any more? Or is drafting in the late rounds a crap shoot that most teams hit or miss on?
Hayward playing in the Horizon Conference didn't really face top competition for most of his games either. Comparing Hayward to George, Hayward only shot 46% in his sophomore year compared to George's 42%. However, George also shot 47% his freshman year and 90% from the line in his sophomore year. He shot lights out in the combine and in most of his workouts. Hayward only shot 39% from the field in his last 5 games in this year's tournament against nationally-ranked teams. George averaged more points and assists than Hayward this year. George is a very skilled player. At 6'9" he's practically as tall as Lamar Odom, and if he pans out, he could be a borderline All-Star. If Hayward pans out....well, I'm not sure it makes that much difference to a team trying to get to the WCF. Who knows though...
In spite of Hayward facing top competition and winning in NCAA tourney on the biggest stage, his FG% turned out to be overall respectable 46.4 (in spite of shooting 2-11 in the title game). George was not good enough to take his team anywhere, did not play at all at the same stage Hayward did, and still his % was lowly 42.4. The fact he shot better as a freshman is not exactly comforting, because we already know when his role increased, his shooting % went to crap. Hayward was a leader for #2 team in nation and shot overall respectable percentage. Huge difference here. Also, Hayward led his team to 25 straight wins and won under 19 World championships for US and made all tournament team there. The guys just wins and performs well at pretty much the highest stages up to this point. Geroge in that sense is much more iffy. His biggest accomplishment last year is combine performance (just like Snyder) - that should tell you something. And as far as Odom, his differentiating asset was superb ball handling and rebounding from that forward spot, something Hayward does much better than George.
Yep, winners win, and this kid has won A LOT when he wasn't supposed to. I'm not making any predictions, but I'm more than willing to give him a chance.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
You're high if you think George's height and standing reach are anywhere near Lamar Odom's.
Why are you continuing to sweat George? It's already been shown that Babbitt was better than him in most statistics/measurements.