TeamRicky wrote:If you want offense, Hield is a far superior shooter and hes actually got better length and lateral quickness than Murray.
Murray's 19-years old posting much, much better numbers than Hield did as a freshman, as a sophomore, and as a junior. Stay objective about these two guys. Hield, age 22, is having a monster season, but you're ignoring the growth that Murray can and will have over the next several years. Also, Hield's length advantage is less than two inches of wingspan. Not a deal breaker by any means. The offset there is that Murray's more advanced with his handle, court vision, and arguably his decision-making, which makes draft pundits wonder if he could play point guard at the next level. Hield will strictly be an undersized two-guard.
The Murray hate-wagon you're driving continues to go off course.
Sometimes we make too much out of the age difference. Buddy is what he has transformed himself into, not how he was as a freshman. Buddy is a known commodity. All we know about Murray is what he is today. Murray the offensive player is decent, but Buddy is on another level. Murray the defensive player is not good. Hield is the better defensive player now and despite the age difference I believe Hield will always be a better defender. He has more size. He has a greater wingspan. He is more athletic. He has better lateral quickness. Hield has better physical tools to defend and that won't change with time. From watching both of them, Hield puts more energy into playing defense too.
I am not saying Murray is a bad player, but I think his calling card is his offense. I just don't see any reason he projects well on the defensive side. What this team needs the most is a good two player and so he must project to be a good defender.
Cam you said "The Murray hate-wagon you're driving continues to go off course."
I stand by my aversion to drafting Murray and I back it up. I think he's a one way player and not a good fit. Last year, you had a haterade on Porzingis. How did that one work out? I liked Zingis and you can look it up. But I didn't mention him often because you ripped on anyone who talked him up.
TeamRicky wrote:If you want offense, Hield is a far superior shooter and hes actually got better length and lateral quickness than Murray.
Murray's 19-years old posting much, much better numbers than Hield did as a freshman, as a sophomore, and as a junior. Stay objective about these two guys. Hield, age 22, is having a monster season, but you're ignoring the growth that Murray can and will have over the next several years. Also, Hield's length advantage is less than two inches of wingspan. Not a deal breaker by any means. The offset there is that Murray's more advanced with his handle, court vision, and arguably his decision-making, which makes draft pundits wonder if he could play point guard at the next level. Hield will strictly be an undersized two-guard.
The Murray hate-wagon you're driving continues to go off course.
Sometimes we make too much out of the age difference. Buddy is what he has transformed himself into, not how he was as a freshman. Buddy is a known commodity. All we know about Murray is what he is today. Murray the offensive player is decent, but Buddy is on another level. Murray the defensive player is not good. Hield is the better defensive player now and despite the age difference I believe Hield will always be a better defender. He has more size. He has a greater wingspan. He is more athletic. He has better lateral quickness. Hield has better physical tools to defend and that won't change with time. From watching both of them, Hield puts more energy into playing defense too.
I am not saying Murray is a bad player, but I think his calling card is his offense. I just don't see any reason he projects well on the defensive side. What this team needs the most is a good two player and so he must project to be a good defender.
This is coming from a guy who like Buddy over Murray. But it is hard to say that Buddy will be a sure thing. Look at Payne, he was terrible his freshman year and he continued to improve and he transformed himself into a 3 pt shooting and defensive stud in college. Now he does not do one thing above average in the NBA and might be out of the league.
I like Buddy a lot but there I think it is unfair to Murray to say the he can't get to where Heild is at. I mean Buddy was a sub par defender in his scouting report before this year. It took time to develop that side of the ball for him and Murray could do the same. Overall I think my top 5 going into this draft would be Simmons, Ingram, Hield, Murray then Dunn.
TeamRicky wrote:If you want offense, Hield is a far superior shooter and hes actually got better length and lateral quickness than Murray.
Murray's 19-years old posting much, much better numbers than Hield did as a freshman, as a sophomore, and as a junior. Stay objective about these two guys. Hield, age 22, is having a monster season, but you're ignoring the growth that Murray can and will have over the next several years. Also, Hield's length advantage is less than two inches of wingspan. Not a deal breaker by any means. The offset there is that Murray's more advanced with his handle, court vision, and arguably his decision-making, which makes draft pundits wonder if he could play point guard at the next level. Hield will strictly be an undersized two-guard.
The Murray hate-wagon you're driving continues to go off course.
Sometimes we make too much out of the age difference. Buddy is what he has transformed himself into, not how he was as a freshman. Buddy is a known commodity. All we know about Murray is what he is today. Murray the offensive player is decent, but Buddy is on another level. Murray the defensive player is not good. Hield is the better defensive player now and despite the age difference I believe Hield will always be a better defender. He has more size. He has a greater wingspan. He is more athletic. He has better lateral quickness. Hield has better physical tools to defend and that won't change with time. From watching both of them, Hield puts more energy into playing defense too.
I am not saying Murray is a bad player, but I think his calling card is his offense. I just don't see any reason he projects well on the defensive side. What this team needs the most is a good two player and so he must project to be a good defender.
This is coming from a guy who like Buddy over Murray. But it is hard to say that Buddy will be a sure thing. Look at Payne, he was terrible his freshman year and he continued to improve and he transformed himself into a 3 pt shooting and defensive stud in college. Now he does not do one thing above average in the NBA and might be out of the league.
I like Buddy a lot but there I think it is unfair to Murray to say the he can't get to where Heild is at. I mean Buddy was a sub par defender in his scouting report before this year. It took time to develop that side of the ball for him and Murray could do the same. Overall I think my top 5 going into this draft would be Simmons, Ingram, Hield, Murray then Dunn.
"Could do the same." Based on what?? That's not a very convincing argument. How much did Bazz improve his defense in three years?? If you don't have the physical tools or the desire, its pretty unlikely to happen.
Defensively, Hield has the tools to be very effective on this end of the floor when he's fully dialed in, as he has good strength, a solid wingspan, nice lateral quickness and is not afraid to be physical and put a body on opponents. He's not very consistent with this part of his game at this stage, though, as his fundamentals are just average. He's prone to closing out wildly on the perimeter, falling asleep in his stance, and losing focus off the ball. Hield will come up with some very impressive possessions from time to time, but needs to do a better job of staying engaged at all times, something scouts will likely be watching closely as it's a major key to his evolution as a NBA prospect.
This was 2 years ago on Buddy, what says that Murray can't make the same improvements. You are right Shabazz hasn't improved on D. You might end up being right that Murray will be bad on defense who knows. But we are comparing a player who it took 4 years to become a plus defender and to put effort on that side of the ball to a guy in Murray who is farther along offensively then Buddy was as a freshman.
TeamRicky wrote:If you want offense, Hield is a far superior shooter and hes actually got better length and lateral quickness than Murray.
Murray's 19-years old posting much, much better numbers than Hield did as a freshman, as a sophomore, and as a junior. Stay objective about these two guys. Hield, age 22, is having a monster season, but you're ignoring the growth that Murray can and will have over the next several years. Also, Hield's length advantage is less than two inches of wingspan. Not a deal breaker by any means. The offset there is that Murray's more advanced with his handle, court vision, and arguably his decision-making, which makes draft pundits wonder if he could play point guard at the next level. Hield will strictly be an undersized two-guard.
The Murray hate-wagon you're driving continues to go off course.
Sometimes we make too much out of the age difference. Buddy is what he has transformed himself into, not how he was as a freshman. Buddy is a known commodity. All we know about Murray is what he is today. Murray the offensive player is decent, but Buddy is on another level. Murray the defensive player is not good. Hield is the better defensive player now and despite the age difference I believe Hield will always be a better defender. He has more size. He has a greater wingspan. He is more athletic. He has better lateral quickness. Hield has better physical tools to defend and that won't change with time. From watching both of them, Hield puts more energy into playing defense too.
I am not saying Murray is a bad player, but I think his calling card is his offense. I just don't see any reason he projects well on the defensive side. What this team needs the most is a good two player and so he must project to be a good defender.
It's not so much the age difference, it's the years of experience a player's had in college. You're comparing a senior to a freshman while disregarding that the freshman is also going to improve his game. As for what I've bolded, how does that make any sense? Buddy transformed his game from the time he was a freshman, but Murray is only what he is today? No. You draft a player based on what kind of player you project him to be in the future. So, as for your "Buddy is a known commodity" line, it means nothing because it's not at the NBA level. At that level, he's just another rookie with everything to prove all over again.
Also, please stop posting like Hield is a better athlete than Murray. It's splitting hairs between the two. Hield does have a longer wingspan, but as I previously said, it's not a game-changer. And I've also highlighted for you that in the past, Hield was a poor defender too as an underclassman. You quite obviously have shrugged that off for the benefit of your argument.
TeamRicky wrote:Cam you said "The Murray hate-wagon you're driving continues to go off course."
I stand by my aversion to drafting Murray and I back it up. I think he's a one way player and not a good fit. Last year, you had a haterade on Porzingis. How did that one work out? I liked Zingis and you can look it up. But I didn't mention him often because you ripped on anyone who talked him up.
You back it up with conjecture that essentially states that a 19-year is done improving his game. You have also talked about Murray in ways that make no sense, as if you hadn't even watched him play. That's what I find bothersome about the whole Murray debate with you. Too much head-scratching.
I didn't like Porzingis the prospect. That's well noted since you bring it up every chance you get. I thought he was too skinny and would get pushed around by more physical bigs. I said he'd have to rely on his jumper to often for my liking. I'd argue that all of that is true, but he has surpassed anything that I thought he'd accomplish this quickly mainly because of his length. He's been a nice surprise and I'm OK with being wrong about him. I wasn't the only one with many questions.
I haven't thrown a prospect in your face, but I figure it's about time I did. You've called me out about my Porzingis disliking. Why don't we go dig up some of the posts you had about D'Angelo Russell? You were way more anti-Russell than I was anti-Zingis. The difference is that film on Zingis in the states was way more limited than it was on Russell. Go ahead and claim that one because the board's history is there for all to see. You talked about him like you do Murray this year. At least you're consistent on that front.
kekgeek1 wrote:Defensively, Hield has the tools to be very effective on this end of the floor when he's fully dialed in, as he has good strength, a solid wingspan, nice lateral quickness and is not afraid to be physical and put a body on opponents. He's not very consistent with this part of his game at this stage, though, as his fundamentals are just average. He's prone to closing out wildly on the perimeter, falling asleep in his stance, and losing focus off the ball. Hield will come up with some very impressive possessions from time to time, but needs to do a better job of staying engaged at all times, something scouts will likely be watching closely as it's a major key to his evolution as a NBA prospect.
This was 2 years ago on Buddy, what says that Murray can't make the same improvements. You are right Shabazz hasn't improved on D. You might end up being right that Murray will be bad on defense who knows. But we are comparing a player who it took 4 years to become a plus defender and to put effort on that side of the ball to a guy in Murray who is farther along offensively then Buddy was as a freshman.
Buddy is not a great defender (maybe a 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 to 10), but he's at least not going to hurt you. Murray is a bad defender (probably a 1 or 2 on the same scale). Murray just doesn't have the tools to be a plus defender and he doesn't seem to put much effort into that side of the ball from what I have watched. Maybe he can elevate himself to a 3, but that's about as high a ceiling I see in his defense. Do we really want to use a top 5 pick on a guy who may be Bazz bad on defense, when he'll be at best the 4th scoring option behind KAT, Wiggins and Lavine?
TeamRicky wrote:Cam you said "The Murray hate-wagon you're driving continues to go off course."
I stand by my aversion to drafting Murray and I back it up. I think he's a one way player and not a good fit. Last year, you had a haterade on Porzingis. How did that one work out? I liked Zingis and you can look it up. But I didn't mention him often because you ripped on anyone who talked him up.
You back it up with conjecture that essentially states that a 19-year is done improving his game. You have also talked about Murray in ways that make no sense, as if you hadn't even watched him play. That's what I find bothersome about the whole Murray debate with you. Too much head-scratching.
I didn't like Porzingis the prospect. That's well noted since you bring it up every chance you get. I thought he was too skinny and would get pushed around by more physical bigs. I said he'd have to rely on his jumper to often for my liking. I'd argue that all of that is true, but he has surpassed anything that I thought he'd accomplish this quickly mainly because of his length. He's been a nice surprise and I'm OK with being wrong about him. I wasn't the only one with many questions.
I haven't thrown a prospect in your face, but I figure it's about time I did. You've called me out about my Porzingis disliking. Why don't we go dig up some of the posts you had about D'Angelo Russell? You were way more anti-Russell than I was anti-Zingis. The difference is that film on Zingis in the states was way more limited than it was on Russell. Go ahead and claim that one because the board's history is there for all to see. You talked about him like you do Murray this year. At least you're consistent on that front.
Go ahead. My aversion to Russell has been pretty spot on. He was in the discussion for the top pick and I didn't like him there. I didn't think he was a top 5 player then and I still don't. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/rankings/2016/02/04/karl-anthony-towns-kristaps-porzingis-jahlil-okafor-justise-winslow-myles-turner-rookie-rankings/79687744/Earlier this month, he got rated 7th. I said he was an inefficient shooter and a poor defender, and the stats back up those assertions. Also, the context of my aversion to Russell were board discussed proposals to draft Russell instead of KAT and then trade Rubio. Both would have been franchise crippling moves. Are you saying you would rather Russell than KAT and we should have traded Rubio when his trade value was at its lowest?
kekgeek1 wrote:Defensively, Hield has the tools to be very effective on this end of the floor when he's fully dialed in, as he has good strength, a solid wingspan, nice lateral quickness and is not afraid to be physical and put a body on opponents. He's not very consistent with this part of his game at this stage, though, as his fundamentals are just average. He's prone to closing out wildly on the perimeter, falling asleep in his stance, and losing focus off the ball. Hield will come up with some very impressive possessions from time to time, but needs to do a better job of staying engaged at all times, something scouts will likely be watching closely as it's a major key to his evolution as a NBA prospect.
This was 2 years ago on Buddy, what says that Murray can't make the same improvements. You are right Shabazz hasn't improved on D. You might end up being right that Murray will be bad on defense who knows. But we are comparing a player who it took 4 years to become a plus defender and to put effort on that side of the ball to a guy in Murray who is farther along offensively then Buddy was as a freshman.
Buddy is not a great defender (maybe a 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 to 10), but he's at least not going to hurt you. Murray is a bad defender (probably a 1 or 2 on the same scale). Murray just doesn't have the tools to be a plus defender and he doesn't seem to put much effort into that side of the ball from what I have watched. Maybe he can elevate himself to a 3, but that's about as high a ceiling I see in his defense. Do we really want to use a top 5 pick on a guy who may be Bazz bad on defense, when he'll be at best the 4th scoring option behind KAT, Wiggins and Lavine?
How do you know he can't get better. I'm not saying he is going to be a first team all NBA defender. I mean Steph curry didn't have the defensive potential either and he turned to be an ok defender based on working on it and scheme.
Good coach can hide to an extent your problems on defense a lot more than he can hide problems in offense. I mean if we are selecting 5th whoever we pick won't be a top 4 offensive option anyways so your point is mute.
It is team defense, you can build a defensive scheme to fit your players. It is hard to teach a guy to be like Murray and have the combo guard skills and the catch and shoot ability. He would be great off the bench as a role player.
