How good can Isaiah Thomas be in his 3rd season?
- Thread starter K F Jay
- Start date
Gary
All-Star
Oops.. Didn't see the "3rd season" part. Depending on the kind of offense we run he could be a starting PG on a playoff team. Ty Lawson and Avery Johnson did it, so why can't IT?
But how good could IT get? I would put his cap at about Ty Lawson, but he probably won't reach that level.
But how good could IT get? I would put his cap at about Ty Lawson, but he probably won't reach that level.
I certainly wouldn't say that there's no question. If nothing else, there's the small matter of the five and six inch, respectively, height difference between Thomas and Chalmers and Sessions. I don't know how regularly you check guys six inches taller than you in pick up games, but it's not as fun as it sounds.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
Difficult to say what IT's ceiling is. When I compare him and Lawson, I think he's a better and more creative passer, and probably will be just as good of a shooter as Lawson. The key with IT will be his ability to continue to grow in antipitating plays. Guys like Paul, Rondo and Nash have a great feel and antipitation for the game, so if IT wants to be great, that's what he will need to continue to develop. It will help him in that regard if there is some continuity in coaching and in the players he plays with over the next few years.
Section 101
All-Star
Do you work for the Kings doing some kind of research projects? Have you made any posts that aren't stupid polls?
K
Kingsguy881
Guest
Easy there, tiger cub!
bajaden
Hall of Famer
All polls are subjective, but I prefer polls where I have more information to work with. By info, I mean games seen. The second year in the league is always a good yardstick. The NBA giveth, and the NBA taketh away. I've always thought that a players second year in the league is his hardest, and the year that tells a lot about the player. I can't tell you how many times I've seen players have a great rookie season, and then come into year two, out of shape, and with little work done on their game.
Add those factors into the league now knowing who you are, and what your game is, and your in for a tough year. So we'll see with IT. Personally I think he's one of those guys with a chip on his shoulder that will do anything required to survive. So in his case, I'm expecting improvement. If he can lean a little more toward distribution than shooting, his game will go to the next level. The one thing about pass first PG's that gets lost on people, is that they can get their shot almost anytime they want. The defense is always looking over their shoulder for the pass. Thats why guys like Nash and Paul are so dangerous. You never know what they're going to do.
Add those factors into the league now knowing who you are, and what your game is, and your in for a tough year. So we'll see with IT. Personally I think he's one of those guys with a chip on his shoulder that will do anything required to survive. So in his case, I'm expecting improvement. If he can lean a little more toward distribution than shooting, his game will go to the next level. The one thing about pass first PG's that gets lost on people, is that they can get their shot almost anytime they want. The defense is always looking over their shoulder for the pass. Thats why guys like Nash and Paul are so dangerous. You never know what they're going to do.
Section 101
All-Star
I'm waiting for the which hand does each player wipe with poll.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
Did you know that Paul took more shots per minute than IT? (Using starter stats). He took far more shots per game than IT. IT as a starter took one shot every 2.95 minutes; Paul took one shot every 2.45 minutes. Paul takes about 14.83 attempts per game; IT was 10.7 attempts per game. I think the impression of IT as a shoot first point guard is erroneous, unless Paul is also considered a shoot first point guard. I had no problem with the amount of shots IT took. Maybe he should have shot more, not less.
Gary
All-Star
Chalmers is a VERY good player whose stats would show that if he didn't have three of the top 15 players in the starting lineup. Chalmers does what he's asked to do, and if he was a FA I wouldn't mind going after him.
As for Sessions, I think he's decent but not a game changer.
Gary
All-Star
Who cares. It's injecting some discussion, or we could go back to how Evans isn't a PG?
Gary
All-Star
I would have a problem if IT wasn't making his shots, but he was one of the better shooters on our team so I have no issue. I would have had an issue if he was shooting at a high % and not creating for the team or taking too many shots at a low %. He did better than anyone could have asked in terms of creating for others (as seen in the team stats with IT starting) and he was shooting at a high %.
Section 101
All-Star
Who cares about 2 years from now? Way too much can happen in 2 years.
Gary
All-Star
Now you are sounding like Grant Napear. At least you didn't use the word "crystal ball". That's a word Grant likes to say when ragging on the people who want to talk about the future. .. It's just a discussion nothing more.
bluntsnbball
G-League
Forget about his height, the kid made some insanely good plays last season, plays a vet couldnt have made. i think if Thomas was 3 inches taller there would be little doubt that he would be a solid player in the future. I'm going to be an optimist and look at him just like i would any other rookie pg, and i was impressed this season.
Big Cuz 15
All-Star
Mvp
The Hammer
All-Star
But if I do that then I don't get to whine like a little *****, draw a whole bunch of attention to me, myself, and... myself, and get into a whole bunch of petty arguments, and therefore feel loved cause that's the only form of love I know. See my problem?
bajaden
Hall of Famer
There there, I love you Hammer. Everything is going to be alright.. This is strictly paternal you understand!
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
