You guys are focusing too much on MKG at #2 and not enough on the Jazz. If you don't think MKG is worthy of the #2 then trade down and take in the 5-6 range while grabbing another asset. And you're insane if you think professional GMs and scouts are missing the Ronnie Brewerness that your armchair eyes see in MKG. It's overblown on here how wrong the industry can be on draft day. GMs know when they're taking a gamble on a guy and when they are not. There's a reason you hear words like project, upside, raw talent, and potential so frequently on draft day. MKG isn't a project.
Trade idea
- Thread starter franklin
- Start date
GVC
Well-Known Member
dude will be good, and if the Jazz were committed to moving Al, he could be a solid contributor on the Jazz. He's the type of player who tilts the floor with his energy and physicality. His shot is completely broken though.
GVC
Well-Known Member
I'm basing most of that on the few UK games I've watched and the stats/analysis from DX (and elsewhere). If you have a team that is going to get pick and rolled to death and depend on halfcourt offense through a ball dominant post player, it sounds as if MKG's strengths will be nerf'd and his weaknesses amplified (he's a physical defender in the halfcourt and a fantastic finisher/initiator on the break).
If the Jazz are committed to playing Favors and Hayward, adding MKG and a 1 who can shoot and run the break, they could run a lot of teams out of games and still play really tough D (think Suns meet Celtics).
If the Jazz are committed to playing Favors and Hayward, adding MKG and a 1 who can shoot and run the break, they could run a lot of teams out of games and still play really tough D (think Suns meet Celtics).
GVC
Well-Known Member
A starting 5 of:
Kanter
Favors
MKG
Hayward
Nash/Lillard/Machado
wouldn't be much fun to play against. Run a bunch of high screen rolls with Favors and either Hayward or a point guard, with Kanter (mid-range on the weakside) and the other guard (again, either Hayward or a point guard from the corner) spreading the floor and MKG working the baseline (from the weakside). Try to get out in transition, and punish teams on D. Could be really fun to watch.
Kanter
Favors
MKG
Hayward
Nash/Lillard/Machado
wouldn't be much fun to play against. Run a bunch of high screen rolls with Favors and either Hayward or a point guard, with Kanter (mid-range on the weakside) and the other guard (again, either Hayward or a point guard from the corner) spreading the floor and MKG working the baseline (from the weakside). Try to get out in transition, and punish teams on D. Could be really fun to watch.
I would still rather have Harrison Barnes.
I'm not arguing any of these points, btw .. but would you take Barnes #2? I assume not, so, if not, who would you take 2, 3, 4, 5?
Because he does what besides shooting better than average in catch and shoot situations?
What's average? He shot 35.8% from 3 this past year.
Are you kidding? He's excels at carrying a team on his back.
As troust would say, by "a team" I mean hype. Just say no to Harrison "Matt" Barnes.
I qualified it with "catch and shoot" because I think I remember seeing a stat to that effect about him. But yeah, we are saying the same thing.
You obviously know where I stand on he and QMiller, but no one has really been able to tell me how Barnes will translate in the NBA. They were told he's a shooter so all of a sudden they are convinced he'll be a star. There's more to the NBA than that, and even that has been overblown and proven to be wrong.
I believe he's a much better shooter than what he shot this past year. I think he'll make it and be good in the NBA .. it's just that he was so hyped coming out of HS that he'll likely never recover from it. Therefore, he'll likely 'bust' from what people originally perceived he'd become/was. That doesn't mean he can't have a very solid career and even worthy of this years top 6.
Barnes is one of those players who received too much hype so now he receives too much criticism. He wasn't as good as everyone thought he might be, but he also isn't nearly as bad as some think he will be now.
What do you see him averaging at his peak in the NBA? I see him as a 14-15pt a night guy on about 13-14 shots, 4 boards and not much else, at his peak. Overall 15 and 4 isnt terrible but I'd point out the fact that I think he'll do it on almost as many shots.
Maybe I'm wrong on he and Miller and wrong the other way on Lillard and MKG, I guess we'll see.
I think you're pretty in line with my thinking.
MKG on a team that has taken care of business elsewhere with shooting would be awesome. But that's a very far ways away (even without Al, and even with a PG that can spread the floor, How effective could a lineup with him and Burks on the floor at the same time be?).
At any rate, and not that this should matter, but I would hope for more than a perimeter player with a broken shot - despite what he does well - at #2.
That's all besides that I don't think Charlotte bites on a deal for the Jazz's refuse, and I wouldn't be interested if it was anything more than that.
At any rate, and not that this should matter, but I would hope for more than a perimeter player with a broken shot - despite what he does well - at #2.
That's all besides that I don't think Charlotte bites on a deal for the Jazz's refuse, and I wouldn't be interested if it was anything more than that.