What's new
By:

Following 2016 potential draftees

spycam1 said:
Seemed like he had lots of dunks that came from half court sets, both from his own drives and from lobs.

Just one example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYlCsyZcQFc
Click to expand...


My bad. If you put a large white Plumlee on him on the perimeter, he will also be able to use his athletic ability.
 
King Cy said:
Yes, I think performing well against top tier talent is important.

Baldwin was on a team that a lot of people liked over Kentucky to win the SEC and they barely made the NCAA Tourney (controversial bid tbh). Then they get blown out in the Tourney and Baldwin doesnt do ish vs Baker/Van Vleet.

Meanwhile you have Richardson playing at his best vs teams like Virginia (twice with one being a big game in the Tourney)and Miami.

I think that is a logical reason to have Richardson over Baldwin on a big board.

I like both players, I just see more potential in Richardson.
Click to expand...

I think it's important if you're going to be a leading player...but neither of these guys will be. You're just looking at an extremely small sample size.

Again, what role does Richardson play here? He's not going to be our top option, or even a secondary option. He's not a good shooter. Maybe he can be a decent defender. I know that Baldwin can hit open shots, handle the ball, play great defense...that kinda fits our needs. We've been talking all year about how we need shooting and perimeter defense, here it is.
 
stitches said:
What's your opinion of him? He seems explosive and somewhat offensively skilled and he also has some attitude in him. I really like him.
Click to expand...

I wish he rebounded the ball better, but he was still productive overall; he has obvious potential.
 
#bern said:
I think it's important if you're going to be a leading player...but neither of these guys will be. You're just looking at an extremely small sample size.

Again, what role does Richardson play here? He's not going to be our top option, or even a secondary option. He's not a good shooter. Maybe he can be a decent defender. I know that Baldwin can hit open shots, handle the ball, play great defense...that kinda fits our needs. We've been talking all year about how we need shooting and perimeter defense, here it is.
Click to expand...

He'd be a wing player. He'd either be the 4th or 5th wing and would be a project.

Even if we draft Baldwin, it's not like he is guaranteed to be our 2nd string PG either. Anyone we draft is likely going to be a player who gets very limited minutes in his first season unless there is some sort of injury.
 
#bern said:
I think it's important if you're going to be a leading player...but neither of these guys will be. You're just looking at an extremely small sample size.

Again, what role does Richardson play here? He's not going to be our top option, or even a secondary option. He's not a good shooter. Maybe he can be a decent defender. I know that Baldwin can hit open shots, handle the ball, play great defense...that kinda fits our needs. We've been talking all year about how we need shooting and perimeter defense, here it is.
Click to expand...

Not right away, but maybe eventually he could turn into a secondary option. I like his potential to create his own shot more than Beasley's, for example.

And the form on his shot looks better than what his 3PT% suggests.
 
King Cy said:
He'd be a wing player. He'd either be the 4th or 5th wing and would be a project.

Even if we draft Baldwin, it's not like he is guaranteed to be our 2nd string PG either. Anyone we draft is likely going to be a player who gets very limited minutes in his first season unless there is some sort of injury.
Click to expand...

Even as a developing project I'd rather watch him play than Chris ****ing Johnson.
 
King Cy said:
He seems really explosive vertically for sure. He doesnt seem as athletic as someone like Burks though. He seems like Ben McLemore athletic. IF he isnt in the open court, you arent going to notice it.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. Mclemore is more explosive than he plays so his explosiveness isn't worth much sense he doesn't really use it.

Is that the gist of it?
 
King Cy said:
He'd be a wing player. He'd either be the 4th or 5th wing and would be a project.

Even if we draft Baldwin, it's not like he is guaranteed to be our 2nd string PG either. Anyone we draft is likely going to be a player who gets very limited minutes in his first season unless there is some sort of injury.
Click to expand...

I don't think you need to play Baldwin at PG. He has the size and ability to play off ball well. That's where I'd like him.
 
fishonjazz said:
Makes sense. Mclemore is more explosive than he plays so his explosiveness isn't worth much sense he doesn't really use it.

Is that the gist of it?
Click to expand...

I think there's some validity to that claim, but not completely accurate. He uses his athletic ability in other ways, such as rebounding the ball (5th best rebounding guard pace adjusted in DX's top 100 guards).
 
I think buddy heild will be a star.

So one weird thing I saw is that heild averaged over 35 minutes per game last year. How is that possible? OT games and playing every minute of every other game? Kinda crazy
 
fishonjazz said:
Makes sense. Mclemore is more explosive than he plays so his explosiveness isn't worth much sense he doesn't really use it.

Is that the gist of it?
Click to expand...

Ben has a couple issues... First he's not the smartest basketball player in the world... second he can't dribble. I think Beasley may share the same second issue to a degree. I also think it's tough to evaluate any player that has come through Sacramento the last 5 years or so... not a real development culture there.
 
fishonjazz said:
I think buddy heild will be a star.

So one weird thing I saw is that heild averaged over 35 minutes per game last year. How is that possible? OT games and playing every minute of every other game? Kinda crazy
Click to expand...

I don't think he can create well enough to be considered a star at the NBA level. I think of him as a Wes Matthews type.
 
fishonjazz said:
I think buddy heild will be a star.

So one weird thing I saw is that heild averaged over 35 minutes per game last year. How is that possible? OT games and playing every minute of every other game? Kinda crazy
Click to expand...
40 minutes in a game.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
 
fishonjazz said:
I think buddy heild will be a star.

So one weird thing I saw is that heild averaged over 35 minutes per game last year. How is that possible? OT games and playing every minute of every other game? Kinda crazy
Click to expand...

If this wasn't fish, I'd roast this post.

Love you fish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top