Oh he had them and over time he developed into someone that could literally run an offense up to a point, but he was never anything other than a true wing. People are comparing Murray to players in one aspect of their game when there are other safer examples of players that were potentially missing some of the same attributes. Unlike a Tatum or Pierce, Murray is going to be a PF that can possibly play some SF and C and that brings it's own set of positives. And I think people are doing the same thing some people did to Tatum, to Ivey and Murray. The difference is when you compare someone to a particular player you have to call out the differences with the similarities otherwise everything is off to some degree. That's why I think the Morant comps to Ivey are off. If he can become that as a lead guard then you really don't pass that up. This is what disappoints people. Vlade says Bagley is like Giannis. Sure, some of that was there, but they never even attempted to develop the other aspects of his game like the passing and pick and roll game. Of course, those were never actually there either but yes, the potential was there. When a player is 20/10/1-2 apg it could be usage, but it could also be that's just what they are. Murray, Ivey, or Sharpe all seem like solid choices to me, but with where the league is at and where the Kings sit it would be Ivey, Sharpe, and Murray in that order for me even though I agree, Murray is a safer pick.