Camden wrote:TeamRicky: I'm not sure where the Doug McDermott pumping was coming from my end. Can't remember myself boasting about him that much. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make false claims. Actually, I'd appreciate it even more if you just didn't reply to anything I say, and vice versa, from now on. I think I proposed that long ago. Seems like we'd both be better for it.
Except that I am sure you did. You have selective memory. It took me a couple minutes and I dug up this post: Camden0916 wrote: McDermott as an NBA SF is intriguing. Probably the most intriguing prospect in the class for me. If we do trade Love, I want him on our team.
I agree that you pumped Stauskas more than McDermott , but I also listed Stauskas. To accuse me of making "false claims" is beyond ridiculous.
How quick is Murray's release? He has a low release point so if it isn't fast I can see him struggling. That's part of the reason I don't think he's going to be that great of a threat off the dribble. Lack of quickness and a low release point don't bode well for him at the 2. He could probably shoot over most 1's but at the same time I don't see him having a prayer of guarding PG's. We'll just have to wait and see I guess.
khans2k5 wrote:How quick is Murray's release? He has a low release point so if it isn't fast I can see him struggling. That's part of the reason I don't think he's going to be that great of a threat off the dribble. Lack of quickness and a low release point don't bode well for him at the 2. He could probably shoot over most 1's but at the same time I don't see him having a prayer of guarding PG's. We'll just have to wait and see I guess.
He does have a low release point, which might be of some concern, but the ball doesn't stick in his hands for very long. He gets it off pretty quickly from my point of view. I know that's subjective, but I can't find anything timed for you to compare it to.
Murray scored 0.855 points per possession as a pick-and-roll ball handler. That's above average.
BizarroJerry wrote:Well said Ricky. I don't claim to know much about Murray, cam. But from what I've read from the "experts", Buddy is the better shooter and all around player
He's also a lot older. Age and college experience really matters when it comes to comparing these two. I don't necessarily have a strong preference one way or the other, but you can't say Buddy is a better all-around player without inserting the caveat that he's been in school for 4 years vs. 1 year.
If Buddy were a freshman, he'd be number 1 overall so I get what you are saying, but a lot of upperclassmen made dramatic improvements despite their age. Duncan, Butler, Draymond Green, Curry, Klay, Middleton, Lillard, Horford, Noah, Millsap, Crowder, Tony Allen were seniors or juniors when they came out and still made dramatic improvements in the NBA. Buddy is a hard worker and I have no doubt he's going to be a much more well rounded NBA than many think.
Sure Buddy can still improve. But doesn't that logic apply even more so to Murray, who is younger and is starting at a higher level of performance to begin with (at similar ages)?
BizarroJerry wrote:Well said Ricky. I don't claim to know much about Murray, cam. But from what I've read from the "experts", Buddy is the better shooter and all around player
He's also a lot older. Age and college experience really matters when it comes to comparing these two. I don't necessarily have a strong preference one way or the other, but you can't say Buddy is a better all-around player without inserting the caveat that he's been in school for 4 years vs. 1 year.
If Buddy were a freshman, he'd be number 1 overall so I get what you are saying, but a lot of upperclassmen made dramatic improvements despite their age. Duncan, Butler, Draymond Green, Curry, Klay, Middleton, Lillard, Horford, Noah, Millsap, Crowder, Tony Allen were seniors or juniors when they came out and still made dramatic improvements in the NBA. Buddy is a hard worker and I have no doubt he's going to be a much more well rounded NBA than many think.
Sure Buddy can still improve. But doesn't that logic apply even more so to Murray, who is younger and is starting at a higher level of performance to begin with (at similar ages)?
Not necessarily. I don't think you go off solely age as a basis for upside improvement. You also look at physical tools, work ethic and demonstrated improvement and Buddy fares pretty well comparatively in these categories.
I like him a lot more as a PG then as a SG. I like his age. He can shoot the ball, see him as a CJ McCollum type player. Not going to be a + defender and lacks length, but will get it done. 3 years younger then Dunn and Hield. I would have to take him.
Dunn has the traits you want in a guard. He can play and guard both spots. He would ahve been a lottery pick last year, but really didn't improve much this year. Will he get better? Poor FT% is a concern.
Hield has shown he can get better, but was a second round talent late 2015. His 3% percentage jumped 10 points last year. It was his only year he shot over 40%. Is it s fluke or is he trending up?
I am hoping Murray falls to us, but if he doesn't I would take a hard look at Bender or Chriss (I would trade Chriss to someone that loved his workouts).
BizarroJerry wrote:Well said Ricky. I don't claim to know much about Murray, cam. But from what I've read from the "experts", Buddy is the better shooter and all around player
He's also a lot older. Age and college experience really matters when it comes to comparing these two. I don't necessarily have a strong preference one way or the other, but you can't say Buddy is a better all-around player without inserting the caveat that he's been in school for 4 years vs. 1 year.
If Buddy were a freshman, he'd be number 1 overall so I get what you are saying, but a lot of upperclassmen made dramatic improvements despite their age. Duncan, Butler, Draymond Green, Curry, Klay, Middleton, Lillard, Horford, Noah, Millsap, Crowder, Tony Allen were seniors or juniors when they came out and still made dramatic improvements in the NBA. Buddy is a hard worker and I have no doubt he's going to be a much more well rounded NBA than many think.
Sure Buddy can still improve. But doesn't that logic apply even more so to Murray, who is younger and is starting at a higher level of performance to begin with (at similar ages)?
Not necessarily. I don't think you go off solely age as a basis for upside improvement. You also look at physical tools, work ethic and demonstrated improvement and Buddy fares pretty well comparatively in these categories.
Well, it's hard to look at demonstrated improvement for Murray when he's already really damn good as a freshman and there is no other data to go off of. As for work ethic, do you have any info on Murray that would suggest his work ethic is inferior to Hield's? I honestly don't know. Physical tools makes sense and that's one area where Hield has a small advantage.
I don't really have a horse in this race, but I just think you make the Hield vs. Murray thing way more black and white than it really is.
bleedspeed177 wrote:I like him a lot more as a PG then as a SG. I like his age. He can shoot the ball, see him as a CJ McCollum type player. Not going to be a + defender and lacks length, but will get it done. 3 years younger then Dunn and Hield. I would have to take him.
Dunn has the traits you want in a guard. He can play and guard both spots. He would ahve been a lottery pick last year, but really didn't improve much this year. Will he get better? Poor FT% is a concern.
Hield has shown he can get better, but was a second round talent late 2015. His 3% percentage jumped 10 points last year. It was his only year he shot over 40%. Is it s fluke or is he trending up?
I am hoping Murray falls to us, but if he doesn't I would take a hard look at Bender or Chriss (I would trade Chriss to someone that loved his workouts).
Yeah, you can pick apart these guys when you really start to break down their games. I put them all in roughly the same tier, but sort of end up leaning toward Dunn because of the defense/steals/rebounds/assists/generally-does-a-lot-of-shit characteristics.
All these guys are flawed. Some of the top 7 are going to bust. I'm almost afraid to pick at #5. Still might want to look at selling to the highest bidder.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:All these guys are flawed. Some of the top 7 are going to bust. I'm almost afraid to pick at #5. Still might want to look at selling to the highest bidder.
Yeah if the Wolves can get a high enough price I certainly wouldn't mind moving the pick.
