Williams is a more explosive version of a young Paul Pierce.
Somebody explain Derrick Williams love to a Jazz Fan
- Thread starter oldtimer
- Start date
Did you watch the rest of the interview? Do you understand how him saying that could be an argument for his humility (that he doesn't expect to put up 25 points in a half)? His was my favorite interview that I've seen.
Did you watch the rest of the interview? Do you understand how him saying that could be an argument for his humility (that he doesn't expect to put up 25 points in a half)? I didn't think his interview was bad at all.
Last edited:
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
Ironically enough, Williams is on that list. The guys I like are Knight and Biyombo. But my idea of how to draft is not to simply take the best guy at 3 and 12. Like, if he has Knight and Biyombo rated pretty even on future potential, he could trade back to 6 knowing one of them will be there as long as the asset he picks up in that deal is worth it. Alternately, if he is convinced Williams is a superstar in the making, I wouldn't be upset if he traded the 3 and 12 to get him. If he did that, I would know that Utah scouts truly see Williams as a bona fide 3 in the NBA and I'd get on board.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Williams' efficiency, both shooting the ball and drawing fouls, was head and shoulders better than Beasley's. Beasley was the better rebounder.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
Not if you compare their freshmen numbers. Williams gets a slight nod in FG%. But Williams wasn't anywhere near the dominant player Beasley was in college. It's beside the point, anyway. Beasley was considered a lock to transition to the 3. Scouts are iffy on Williams making the transition. I am, too, but I defer to KOC on that.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Getting to the line counts, especially in the NBA. And, fwiw, I was and still am a Beasley fan. The Jazz could do a lot worse than picking up a mature Michael Beasley, especially since Williams seems to have a much better feel for the game (which, like drawing fouls, counts for a hell of a lot).
I seem to remember everyone thinking Beasley might be half-crazy but might be a PF/C until he measured out as a tweener, only one position lower. I also see Williams as more athletic, or at he very least, far more aggressive to take advantage of what he's been given.
And don't go by their freshman numbers. You're comparing a sensational one-and-done top-100 player to a guy that made himself and has a great head on his shoulders. If you give Michael Beasley a brain, and in this **** draft, drafting him at two or three is a decision everyone makes. Or should. Maybe not the Timberwolves since they are cursed and retarded.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
You should compare numbers coming out of college, and numbers from the players' last year in college, not analogous years. Williams isn't in the draft after his freshman year.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
d
Disagree. I'm not comparing the numbers of a 4th year senior to a one and done freshman to use an extreme example. The 4th year senior's numbers are going to be inflated, just as a second year player should see improvement as he gains experience, learns the college game, and increasingly plays against younger players. Some guys really get better. Some guys really get better at college ball.
Players that have high stock and pull out of the draft get worse or don't get any better as much or more often as get better. Ceiling isn't determined strictly by age, I would expect someone that was upset with Sloan for 'not-developing' Ronnie Price at 26-years old to understand that.