How do you get that when Paul George is clearly the superior player to anyone not drunk on the punch? If Hayward is that much smarter, then George is all that much more naturally talented, more athletic, and bigger.
Following potential 2013 draftees
- Thread starter Dr. Jones
- Start date
How do you get that when Paul George is clearly the superior player to anyone not drunk on the punch? If Hayward is that much smarter, then George is all that much more naturally talented, more athletic, and bigger.
To head off something...
The difference between the discussion of Paul George and Larkin is that it is abundantly clear that George is NBA-size and NBA-proven. How much an inch here or there helps him isn't totally clear. Two inches in height, 6 inches in wingspan, 8 inches in reach, and 20 pounds is a lot of size to be missing when you already are playing the smallest position on the floor and you haven't proven anything in the NBA.
As Larkin compares to Millsap as prospects, I wouldn't have drafted Millsap at the end of the lottery in that draft either (knowing what was known at the time, knowing what we know now, Millsap would've been top-5). If Larkin ends up being more Ty Lawson (which Lawson had a much stronger resume, IMO) than any number of undersized washouts, then hopefully it's with the Jazz.
The difference between the discussion of Paul George and Larkin is that it is abundantly clear that George is NBA-size and NBA-proven. How much an inch here or there helps him isn't totally clear. Two inches in height, 6 inches in wingspan, 8 inches in reach, and 20 pounds is a lot of size to be missing when you already are playing the smallest position on the floor and you haven't proven anything in the NBA.
As Larkin compares to Millsap as prospects, I wouldn't have drafted Millsap at the end of the lottery in that draft either (knowing what was known at the time, knowing what we know now, Millsap would've been top-5). If Larkin ends up being more Ty Lawson (which Lawson had a much stronger resume, IMO) than any number of undersized washouts, then hopefully it's with the Jazz.
Game6Conley
Well-Known Member
paul george is also a much better 3 point shooter...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHmRykTdh8E
hayward shot 2 for 13 in 4 games from 3, including an O-for during the home games
??? To me George vs Hayward = Schroeder vs Larkin.
George = Schroeder: both unknown quantity at the draft, both tantalizing physical specimen at draft
Larkin = Hayward: both leaders of their team, both more or less known quantities (i.e., both can shoot the 3's, both have high bball IQ, both not good physically as the other pair
So when you're comparing George and Larkin I'm scratching my head a bit..
Two different topics, similar subject matter. I'm not really comparing them against each other. I'm pre-emptively responding to part 2 of, "But wait, you just said that being tall is the only thing that matters and it applies equally to all players in all contexts regardless of any other variable. What gives?" (hence "To head off something...")
Our God is a God who gives.
Honest question out of pure ignorance.
Larkin physically measures up to Ty Lawson. What exactly does Lawson possess that separates him from Larkin? Is Larkin just not a good enough scorer?
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
I'd say FG%. Lawson averaged over 50% for 3 years in college, IIRC. Thats how he makes up for his lack of height-- his finishing ability is uncanny.
Larkin peaked at 47% this season.
To me, this is what sets them apart. I think Lawson's finishing ability > Larkin's.
No they don't.
According to DraftExpress:
- Ty Lawson is 5'11.25" and 6'0.75" wingspan
- Shane 5'10.25" and 5'10.75" wingspan
So Lawson is a whole inch taller and a couple of inches on the wingspan. In a game of inches, those measurements count.
Lawson also seems to be a bit "bulkier" similar to Burke - so he can take the knocks and bruises better on both the offensive and the defensive ends.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Paul George shot 23% from three in his first playoff series-- and he is currently a career 26% shooter from 3 point-land in the playoffs.
Try again. Even Al Jefferson can nail miraculous threes to send games to overtimes.
Not to mention the contrast in 3PP between the two players this season. All that George has is that he averages more three-point attempts-- unsurprising when you understand that he plays nearly 10 more minutes per game. George is by no means a clear-cut better shooter as of this point.
BENTLEY
Well-Known Member
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
In fact, all George REALLY has on Hayward right now is close-range finishing, defense (even though Hayward is no slouch) and rebounding. Passing is a definite wash, and shooting is a wash. Hayward is one consistent mid-range shot away from averaging the same PPG as George, with less minutes. And don't give me the "they have different roles" excuse, because George was never their first offensive option this season. Their sets were run through West during the regular season, and then Hibbert when he exploded in the playoffs.
They count, but I don't think being a couple inches off in wingspan puts someone out of similar range. Either way they are both at a big disadvantage defensively when it comes to the wingspan of most PGs in the league. FWIW the wingspan argument was used against Lawson, and I'd dare say if the 2009 draft were done over he'd be a top 5 pick.
d@!!0n0rcutt
Well-Known Member
How is Paul George a better 3pt shooter, really?
Paul George's stats from 3 for the last two seasons:
2011-12: makes 1.4 attempts 3.5 = 38.5%
2012-13: makes 1.8 attempts 5.6 = 33.0%
Averages: 1.6/4.6 = 35.8%
Hayward's
2011-12: makes 0.8 attempts 2.4 = 34.6%
2012-13: makes 1.4 attempts 3.4 = 41.5%
Averages: 1.1/2.9 = 37.9%
So with an increased role Paul George got worse and makes him look like a chucker, and I never thought that about Paul George. I guarantee if we look up the rest of their stats they come out almost equal maybe favoring Gordon Hayward. Which tells us George is a less efficient player when given a bigger role and than Hayward is.
Having said all that if the Jazz had a coach like Frank Vogel and a half decent point guard and George Hill isn't that great I promise Hayward would be better. And if Hayward had an offense focus around him and not ALfense, the more we would be saying Hayward is the steal of that draft.
Well I think the Ty Lawson pick was a Watershed moment for the NBA draft in general. How can a guy that short make such a big impact in the NBA??
Having said that, you probably wouldn't want to go shorter than Lawson, or smaller physically.
d@!!0n0rcutt
Well-Known Member
And I would take Ty Lawson in this draft, and on this young team with this core any day!
Having said that I still want Nate Wolters at least at 21 if not 14!
Yeah but Lawson is plenty physical enough to play in the NBA even coming out of college. Don't think I can say the same about Larkin.
Plus it's not a stretch to say he may never be physical enough to be a starter in the NBA.