What's new

For real doe... It should probably be Randle

His dribble is loose. His shot is slow and suspect.
His court vision is lacking.

I didnt take these into consideration.

Good answer
 
He proved he wasn't the:

1. Athlete
2. Ball handler
3. 3 pt shooting
4. Passer that was advertised.

He lived off of bully ball, which he doesn't have as much upside with in the NBA given his height. He also raised questions about being genetically obese by posting a body fat % of 9.8. Not a bad player, but clearly of a different caliber than the projected top 4. Has tweener status and questionable upside. Wingspan of 7"0 is decent, but his height is crap. Doesn't have handles, passing, or lateral speed to play SF.


It would be a lot easier to teach Aaron Gordon how to shoot than to teach Randle d. Adequate D, based on his combination of position, athleticism, and measurements will be next to impossible.
 
Gordon had a .495 fg%, and .356 3 pt% in college, yet people want to act like he's MKG. So he's not the best shooter, but he is far from hopeless. Kid is 18 with incredible gaurd like athleticism (finished first in shuttle run!), and nice measurements. 39" vert!
 
Just looking around mock drafts I've seen Randle from 3 to 11... I also saw us taking Mcdermott. Ok then..
 
I said not comparing, you **** face.

Of course not.

Davis is a once-per-decade stud.

I'm asking who cares what a TEAM does when talking about how good a player is...

When 2 players have pros and cons, and are similar in the final tallying analysis, I go to heart and determination and fight, etc. Because at the end of the day I'd rather pick a fighter when going to WAR.


On that basis I go with Randle.
 
Back
Top