Kings vs Wizards 7 PM ET(4 PM PT)
- Thread starter funkykingston
- Start date
Then you must have not been paying very close attention this preseason. The names won't blow you away, but sometimes, in fact lots of times, it goes beyond that. Joerger's got the vets playing good, mature, winning ball. Once you get past the Golden States, that's really all it takes. The Toronto Raptors won 56 games last year with this lineup:
Stars:
Lowry
DeRozan
Other Major Minute Guys:
Demarre Carroll (only played 26 games)
Jonas Valanciunas (60 games)
Patrick Patterson
Corey Joseph
Terrence Ross
Bismack Biyombo
Luis Scola
James Johnson (57 games)
Norman Powell (49 games)
is that some wildy intimidating group of talent? Hardly. Two lower tier stars, one of whom played above his head last year. A talented young center who missed a lot of time and has trouble turning talent into value. A free agent signee roleplayer who barely played. And then just...stuff. Random roleplayers of various shapes and sizes. There's nothing intimidating about that group on paper.
A good coach can give you synergy and make the team greater than the sum of its parts. For most of the last decade we've had exactly the opposite situation.
Stars:
Lowry
DeRozan
Other Major Minute Guys:
Demarre Carroll (only played 26 games)
Jonas Valanciunas (60 games)
Patrick Patterson
Corey Joseph
Terrence Ross
Bismack Biyombo
Luis Scola
James Johnson (57 games)
Norman Powell (49 games)
is that some wildy intimidating group of talent? Hardly. Two lower tier stars, one of whom played above his head last year. A talented young center who missed a lot of time and has trouble turning talent into value. A free agent signee roleplayer who barely played. And then just...stuff. Random roleplayers of various shapes and sizes. There's nothing intimidating about that group on paper.
A good coach can give you synergy and make the team greater than the sum of its parts. For most of the last decade we've had exactly the opposite situation.
Yeah, he's played well this preseason, but with his recent past anything unexplained is going to be instantly suspect, rightly or wrongly.
If he holds it together though he's a piece I think people are seriously SERIOUSLY sleeping on. This was a player long considered borderline All-Star. he won't be here, and we don't need him to be. But if stays clean, its a big talent pickup, and would absolutely put the lie to the idea the Kings are weak at PG. 2 years ago you say your PG rotation was Ty Lawson as your starter and Darren Collison as your backup, and people would tell you that you were Top 10 at the position.
If he holds it together though he's a piece I think people are seriously SERIOUSLY sleeping on. This was a player long considered borderline All-Star. he won't be here, and we don't need him to be. But if stays clean, its a big talent pickup, and would absolutely put the lie to the idea the Kings are weak at PG. 2 years ago you say your PG rotation was Ty Lawson as your starter and Darren Collison as your backup, and people would tell you that you were Top 10 at the position.
dude12, just watch some of Richardson's predraft scouting notes and stats... I'm just telling you what I saw from him last year. I have no reason to lie lol. I'll just pull up Draft Express because they're pretty well-respected
READ THIS ONE
I don't know why you'd think I'm lying about what I said.... lots of Syracuse fans were surprised when his name was being brought up in potential lotto and even 1st round. They thought he definitely needed 1 more year in school.
Richardson looked like an unatheletic Nick Young who can't finish around the rim. I don't know what he'll become in the NBA, but these were his limitations in college. He had very questionable basketball IQ because he constantly forced up shots that made you REALLY scratch your head. He's a shot creator................but not a shot maker since his % were soooooo terrible.
READ THIS ONE
I don't know why you'd think I'm lying about what I said.... lots of Syracuse fans were surprised when his name was being brought up in potential lotto and even 1st round. They thought he definitely needed 1 more year in school.
Richardson looked like an unatheletic Nick Young who can't finish around the rim. I don't know what he'll become in the NBA, but these were his limitations in college. He had very questionable basketball IQ because he constantly forced up shots that made you REALLY scratch your head. He's a shot creator................but not a shot maker since his % were soooooo terrible.
I agree, at this point I dont want to see Ben play any meaningful minutes at all. The way Joerger talked I thought maybe a light bulb turned on but watching pre season footage its just same old Ben. Defensively, he still gets totally lost while his man cuts back door and on-ball he is still too handsy. Offensively he hasnt improved either as his handle is still so bad that you cant run a pick and roll with him. He still can't finish with his left hand as well.
Normally I'd say fine, burry him on the bench, but this year we could really use his roster spot to keep Farmar around who seems to be fit very well in this offense. Moreover we actually had teams desperatly calling us about Ben and we declined those offers? Wow. Just wow. Even if you think that MCW doesnt fit you could still try to get a high secound rounder from Milwaukee instead or flip MCW to Detroit. Just as a reference point in last years draft Ulis went #34, Brogdon #36, Onuaku #37, McCaw #38 and they are now on very team friendly deals. What an immense high opportunity cost for a guy that is probably out of the rotation after Collison returns.
I just dont see the upside in keeping Ben. If he is still bad after 8 games (most likely) his trade value will go down even further. But even if he improves we probably keep him and then is a RFA after the season. Do you want to pay him 10 mil when you have Afflalo, Temple, Richardson, Bogdanovic at the same position? Honestly, if I can get a high secound rounder + Farmar for Ben I jump at that deal.
Normally I'd say fine, burry him on the bench, but this year we could really use his roster spot to keep Farmar around who seems to be fit very well in this offense. Moreover we actually had teams desperatly calling us about Ben and we declined those offers? Wow. Just wow. Even if you think that MCW doesnt fit you could still try to get a high secound rounder from Milwaukee instead or flip MCW to Detroit. Just as a reference point in last years draft Ulis went #34, Brogdon #36, Onuaku #37, McCaw #38 and they are now on very team friendly deals. What an immense high opportunity cost for a guy that is probably out of the rotation after Collison returns.
I just dont see the upside in keeping Ben. If he is still bad after 8 games (most likely) his trade value will go down even further. But even if he improves we probably keep him and then is a RFA after the season. Do you want to pay him 10 mil when you have Afflalo, Temple, Richardson, Bogdanovic at the same position? Honestly, if I can get a high secound rounder + Farmar for Ben I jump at that deal.
That's been my outlook too. I'm not interested in MCW but if Ben or MCW could be flipped for a lottery protected first (to a team like the Spurs, Cavs etc that are expected to have a pick at the end of the first round) I'd definitely pull the trigger on such a deal.
Temple could be the primary SG backup and swing to PG occasionally if needed and Farmar would make for a cheap and steady 3rd PG.
Vlade's drafting prowess is still very suspect but it's always good to have guys on rookie deals providing depth and possibly much more if they develop.
EDIT: Looks like the Bucks have agreed to send MCW to the Bulls for Tony Snell.
Wow, Carter-Williams' value around the league has really fallen off.
I know the Bucks need wing/shooting help with Middleton out and the Bulls want a backup for Rondo but this is a former ROY being dealt for a bench wing that the Bulls essentially gave up on.
Temple could be the primary SG backup and swing to PG occasionally if needed and Farmar would make for a cheap and steady 3rd PG.
Vlade's drafting prowess is still very suspect but it's always good to have guys on rookie deals providing depth and possibly much more if they develop.
EDIT: Looks like the Bucks have agreed to send MCW to the Bulls for Tony Snell.
Wow, Carter-Williams' value around the league has really fallen off.
I know the Bucks need wing/shooting help with Middleton out and the Bulls want a backup for Rondo but this is a former ROY being dealt for a bench wing that the Bulls essentially gave up on.
Last edited:
The NBA has no room for non-shooting PGs. A giant misconception about MCW is that he's a great defender because of his overall size. In reality, he's just a tad above average.
On offense, he's a good playmaker, but he's not as good of a playmaker as Rondo and Rubio. Also unlike them, he lacks leadership qualities on the floor. His basketball IQ is really questionable because of his costly turnovers in key points of games.
His overall game requires the ball to be in his hands. He's the type of player who needs an offense to run through him. No team in the NBA is going to run their offense through a non-shooting PG who demands the ball as much as him. He can't play off-ball at all which is a gigantic problem in "positionless basketball".
I also don't feel like any team in the NBA sees MCW has a franchise PG anymore. Just way too many holes in his game.
People joke that MCW peaked in his first 5 games......................arguably true considering what he's been dealt for 3 years later.
On offense, he's a good playmaker, but he's not as good of a playmaker as Rondo and Rubio. Also unlike them, he lacks leadership qualities on the floor. His basketball IQ is really questionable because of his costly turnovers in key points of games.
His overall game requires the ball to be in his hands. He's the type of player who needs an offense to run through him. No team in the NBA is going to run their offense through a non-shooting PG who demands the ball as much as him. He can't play off-ball at all which is a gigantic problem in "positionless basketball".
I also don't feel like any team in the NBA sees MCW has a franchise PG anymore. Just way too many holes in his game.
People joke that MCW peaked in his first 5 games......................arguably true considering what he's been dealt for 3 years later.
Oh, you're preaching to the choir. I was never big on Carter-Williams going back to the draft. When I thought Tyreke was going to be re-signed I wanted McCollum. But then MCW was putting up big numbers for a terrible Sixers team and McCollum couldn't stay healthy or carve out playing time and I started thinking I'd misjudged both players. Which wouldn't be odd. I've missed on countless guys over the years.
And even with Ben still looking inconsistent and ineffective I said I had no interest in seeing the Kings trade him for Carter-Williams.
I'm just surprised that in the space of a year he went from being dealt for essentially the Lakers 1st round pick (that could have easily been the 4th pick in this last draft) to being dealt for Tony Snell.
And honestly MCW seems like a poor fit for the Bulls. Its a talent upgrade on paper and the SG spot was overcrowded for them but another non-shooter to pair with Butler, Rondo & Wade will not help their spacing on offense. Seems like the Bulls would be better with a guy like Farmar or Seth Curry backing up Rondo.
And even with Ben still looking inconsistent and ineffective I said I had no interest in seeing the Kings trade him for Carter-Williams.
I'm just surprised that in the space of a year he went from being dealt for essentially the Lakers 1st round pick (that could have easily been the 4th pick in this last draft) to being dealt for Tony Snell.
And honestly MCW seems like a poor fit for the Bulls. Its a talent upgrade on paper and the SG spot was overcrowded for them but another non-shooter to pair with Butler, Rondo & Wade will not help their spacing on offense. Seems like the Bulls would be better with a guy like Farmar or Seth Curry backing up Rondo.
Oh man that 2013 draft. I really wanted McCollum, but was extremely ecstatic when McLemore dropped to us...
To think, the former ROY has been on 3 teams in his first 4 years.
MCW is such an awkward fit with the Bulls...but they must see him as a long-term PG? Or maybe they're giving him 1 more year under his rookie contract to prove something? Man... Rondo-Wade-MCW-Butler. I bet they roll with that lineup a few times....
To think, the former ROY has been on 3 teams in his first 4 years.
MCW is such an awkward fit with the Bulls...but they must see him as a long-term PG? Or maybe they're giving him 1 more year under his rookie contract to prove something? Man... Rondo-Wade-MCW-Butler. I bet they roll with that lineup a few times....
Wow...you know what? Maybe we should've did that MCW trade.
Marc Stein Verified account @ESPNSteinLine
Story posting now: League sources say Ty Lawson must explain himself to Kings officials after missing the team's Friday flight to Kentucky.
Story posting now: League sources say Ty Lawson must explain himself to Kings officials after missing the team's Friday flight to Kentucky.
Wow...you know what? Maybe we should've did that MCW trade.
Marc Stein Verified account @ESPNSteinLine
Story posting now: League sources say Ty Lawson must explain himself to Kings officials after missing the team's Friday flight to Kentucky.
Story posting now: League sources say Ty Lawson must explain himself to Kings officials after missing the team's Friday flight to Kentucky.
Your right about Richardson's shot selection, but you have to take in the big picture, which I did during the year when I wrote about him. First he was playing for Syracuse, which is famous for covering up a players weaknesses and exploiting a players strengths. Sounds good from a coaching point of view, but from a scouting point of view, it makes it more difficult. I scout players a little differently than others. At least I think I do. I pay a little less attention to stats, and more attention to what I see on the court. From there I go to what's correctable and what is likely to follow a player for his entire career.
The hardest judgement to make with Syracuse players is how well they can defend because they only play a zone, and it's a pretty strict zone. So while the team as a whole may look good defensively, it's difficult to translate that to the players. So you make an educated guess. When I watched Richardson last season, he was the go to guy on many occasions. As a result, he had a green light on the offensive side of the ball. He'll admit that by the way. That resulted in a lot of bad shots on his part. I remember writing down that he had good forum and if he could improve his shot selection, he could be a good shooter. Shot selection is correctable.
I thought his off the dribble shot selection was the worse, and an area where he needed the most improvement. As for his ability to finish at the basket, I didn't have a problem with it. Lets put it this way. He's light years ahead of where McLemore was coming out of Kansas. Is he Jamal Crawford? Of course not! It's and area where he needs to improve, and will over time. Lets not forget that he's a rookie, and wasn't a top ten pick. I'm not sure what some people expect out of low first round picks.
As for his athleticism, he's fine! No he's not the athlete that McLemore is, but he just as good an athlete as Paul Pierce and a lot of other successful players were coming out of college. Athleticism is great to have, but it isn't a cure all, even though some of today's athlete's think it is. I'm all about results, and there has been a lot of average NBA athlete's that have been above average players. So its about a players skill level more than it is his athleticism. J. Will of the glory days was not an elite athlete, but he had elite skills, and no PG in the league could stay in front of him. No, I'm not comparing Richardson to J. Will.
But just for comparison, here are some other players along with Richardson's agility and sprint results.
Richardson: 6'6". Agility - 10.56, Sprint - 3.33.
Gabe York: 6'3", Agility - 10.73, Sprint - 3.30.
Tyler Ulis: 5'10", Agility - 10.80, Sprint - 3.20.
Wade Baldwin: 6'4", Agility - 10.45, Sprint - 3.19.
Patrick McCaw: 6'6.75", Agility - 11.01, Sprint - 3.30.
Isaiah Cousins: 6'5.5", Agility - 11.06, Sprint - 3.30.
Sooooo, according to his, Richardson is right there with the rest of them. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing!!!!! Oh it's helpful if you have the athletic ability, but if you don't have the instincts and the IQ, it's all worthless. Great defenders anticipate your move before you make it. Some of that is just great instincts, and some of that is doing your homework in advance. No one would claim that Larry Bird was a terrific athlete, but he was a very good defender. Am I saying that Richardson is going to be a great player, or a great defender? No! I'm saying we don't know, and it's all up to him. If he puts in the work, he'll improve. Ask me what I think in a couple of years and I'll have a better idea. But anyone that passes judgement on him right now, well, I'll leave it at that.
As for DraftExpress, I read it from time to time, but never at the beginning of the college season. I don't want anyone influencing my judgement. If someone tells you in advance what a players weaknesses are, you tend to look for them and that may override your objectivity. Just my opinion of course. I disagreed with Jonathan Givony on Tryeke Evans. and told him so at summer league a few years ago when we were staying at the same hotel. He has revised his opinion over the years, as have I. In a sense, we were both right, and both wrong to some degree. It's not a perfect science. On the whole, with the limited staff he has, he does a remarkable job.
The hardest judgement to make with Syracuse players is how well they can defend because they only play a zone, and it's a pretty strict zone. So while the team as a whole may look good defensively, it's difficult to translate that to the players. So you make an educated guess. When I watched Richardson last season, he was the go to guy on many occasions. As a result, he had a green light on the offensive side of the ball. He'll admit that by the way. That resulted in a lot of bad shots on his part. I remember writing down that he had good forum and if he could improve his shot selection, he could be a good shooter. Shot selection is correctable.
I thought his off the dribble shot selection was the worse, and an area where he needed the most improvement. As for his ability to finish at the basket, I didn't have a problem with it. Lets put it this way. He's light years ahead of where McLemore was coming out of Kansas. Is he Jamal Crawford? Of course not! It's and area where he needs to improve, and will over time. Lets not forget that he's a rookie, and wasn't a top ten pick. I'm not sure what some people expect out of low first round picks.
As for his athleticism, he's fine! No he's not the athlete that McLemore is, but he just as good an athlete as Paul Pierce and a lot of other successful players were coming out of college. Athleticism is great to have, but it isn't a cure all, even though some of today's athlete's think it is. I'm all about results, and there has been a lot of average NBA athlete's that have been above average players. So its about a players skill level more than it is his athleticism. J. Will of the glory days was not an elite athlete, but he had elite skills, and no PG in the league could stay in front of him. No, I'm not comparing Richardson to J. Will.
But just for comparison, here are some other players along with Richardson's agility and sprint results.
Richardson: 6'6". Agility - 10.56, Sprint - 3.33.
Gabe York: 6'3", Agility - 10.73, Sprint - 3.30.
Tyler Ulis: 5'10", Agility - 10.80, Sprint - 3.20.
Wade Baldwin: 6'4", Agility - 10.45, Sprint - 3.19.
Patrick McCaw: 6'6.75", Agility - 11.01, Sprint - 3.30.
Isaiah Cousins: 6'5.5", Agility - 11.06, Sprint - 3.30.
Sooooo, according to his, Richardson is right there with the rest of them. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing!!!!! Oh it's helpful if you have the athletic ability, but if you don't have the instincts and the IQ, it's all worthless. Great defenders anticipate your move before you make it. Some of that is just great instincts, and some of that is doing your homework in advance. No one would claim that Larry Bird was a terrific athlete, but he was a very good defender. Am I saying that Richardson is going to be a great player, or a great defender? No! I'm saying we don't know, and it's all up to him. If he puts in the work, he'll improve. Ask me what I think in a couple of years and I'll have a better idea. But anyone that passes judgement on him right now, well, I'll leave it at that.
As for DraftExpress, I read it from time to time, but never at the beginning of the college season. I don't want anyone influencing my judgement. If someone tells you in advance what a players weaknesses are, you tend to look for them and that may override your objectivity. Just my opinion of course. I disagreed with Jonathan Givony on Tryeke Evans. and told him so at summer league a few years ago when we were staying at the same hotel. He has revised his opinion over the years, as have I. In a sense, we were both right, and both wrong to some degree. It's not a perfect science. On the whole, with the limited staff he has, he does a remarkable job.
There are some points I was trying to raise with Richardson and 206 brought up the draftexpress stuff but defensively I think Richardson has a chance in part because I think he has a different athleticism than Ben and part of that is his length....I think Richardson moves well enough based on SL and early part of career. The shot selection is controlled when your a rookie and not a go to guy.....if he stays within the team concept he may get some minutes, get in there and start chucking and he's buried on the bench. Funny how trying to earn minutes makes a player do the right thing.
I remember being enamored with Ben and his shooting stroke and him being an athlete....he passed the look test but then he started clanking shots in SL and dribbling and being an average at best defender......has showed some moments of being a real rotational guy and lots of moments of not being effective.
At this point, if its the 3rd string spot we are talking about, Richardson needs to get those precious few minutes. I personally think the organization is attempting to build his trade value. It's 8 games where Temple is need at the PG spot and then after that we have a real logjam of guys better than Ben.
I remember being enamored with Ben and his shooting stroke and him being an athlete....he passed the look test but then he started clanking shots in SL and dribbling and being an average at best defender......has showed some moments of being a real rotational guy and lots of moments of not being effective.
At this point, if its the 3rd string spot we are talking about, Richardson needs to get those precious few minutes. I personally think the organization is attempting to build his trade value. It's 8 games where Temple is need at the PG spot and then after that we have a real logjam of guys better than Ben.
Like you I'm not a big MCW fan. I have this thing about PG's that can't shoot the ball. I don't lump them all into one bucket though. With some you can see the potential to become a decent to good shooter, And with others, you can see that don't have a feel for shooting at all. I've always put Williams into that second group. I've never thought of him as a pure PG either. I look at him as a poor man's Rubio. Rubio's BBIQ far exceeds Williams. So he was never on my bucket list. McCollum was! I really, really liked him. Like a lot of hot shooting players that come out of a lesser conference, (Patriot League) he didn't come with all the press clippings that McLemore did.
I went and looked up my notes from that year, and the players that I wanted and the order in which I would have taken them. Of course I didn't expect all of them to be there when we picked, but one can always hope.
1. Oladipo
2 Porter
3. Noel
4. McCollum
5. McLemore
6. Adams
7. Caldwell-Pope
8. Burke
9. Snell
So, when we took Ben, I couldn't really complain at the time. I had some reservations about him, and unfortunately, a lot of those same reservations still exist. The main one that stood out at Kansas was his tendency to disappear during games. I chalked it up to coming to the game late, and thought that over time, that part would catch up with the rest of his abilities. So far, I've been wrong. To be honest, my instincts told me that McCollum was a better player at the time. But coming from Lehigh, and being undersized for the SG position, it wasn't hard to talk myself into McLemore. Almost every time I talk myself into a player instead of following my gut, I'm wrong!
I went and looked up my notes from that year, and the players that I wanted and the order in which I would have taken them. Of course I didn't expect all of them to be there when we picked, but one can always hope.
1. Oladipo
2 Porter
3. Noel
4. McCollum
5. McLemore
6. Adams
7. Caldwell-Pope
8. Burke
9. Snell
So, when we took Ben, I couldn't really complain at the time. I had some reservations about him, and unfortunately, a lot of those same reservations still exist. The main one that stood out at Kansas was his tendency to disappear during games. I chalked it up to coming to the game late, and thought that over time, that part would catch up with the rest of his abilities. So far, I've been wrong. To be honest, my instincts told me that McCollum was a better player at the time. But coming from Lehigh, and being undersized for the SG position, it wasn't hard to talk myself into McLemore. Almost every time I talk myself into a player instead of following my gut, I'm wrong!
I think I commented during the college season when talking about Richardson, is that if he could cut down on his bad shots, he could be a plus 40% shooter from the three. So then the question that needs to follow, is, is he coachable? So far, by all accounts, he is. Apparently he's worked on his game all summer, and that bodes well. I'd love to see him get meaningful minutes with the Kings, but if that's not in their plans, then I rather see him spend a lot of time at Reno, where he'll get a lot of minutes. Truth is, we don't really need him to contribute much this season if McLemore remains with the team.
My response was all towards a guy who was suggesting that Richardson could easily overtake McLemore's production this year. I feel like you pretty much agreed with me on the main points, but your interpretation is different.
Let's look at Richardson's field goals attempted at the rim, and his FG% there in comparison to other SGs from this draft
Richardson- % of shots: 20.9, FG%- 58.1
Murray- % of shots: 20.4, FG%- 65.5
Beasley- % of shots: 32.6, FG%- 68
Hield- % of shots: 31.6, FG%- 64.1
Bembry- % of shots: 38.3, FG%- 69.1
McCaw- % of shots: 31.9, FG%- 66.1
His numbers are clearly behind these prospects. When I watched him, I saw him struggle to get to the rim, and when he did get there, he struggled to finish. However, to you, it's perfectly fine, despite some numbers putting him behind the rest of his class. Our interpretations are different. I personally feel like his long 2s are a bailout for his inability to get to the rim, which is why he takes a low % of his shots there.
If SL showed me anything, it did show me that Richardson has the ability to play in control and adapt to as a role player. He wasn't flying off contested long 2s like he did in Syracuse.
However, the only reason why I pointed out Richardson's faults were because another person here suggested that Richardson could possibly BE BETTER than McLemore this year. That's ridiculous, but I wouldn't ridicule anyone for not watching a bunch of college games. Just as someone who's watched 6-7 full Syracuse games, it just seems really out of reach. Again, I said I have no clue who will be better in the future, but clearly McLemore is the better player right now.
Baja, from the sum amount of games you've watched this year.....could you tell me with a straight face that you'd think Richardson could fully and effectively contribute for 20mins a playoff chasing team?
That's the argument he was trying to make. I don't think so at all.
Let's look at Richardson's field goals attempted at the rim, and his FG% there in comparison to other SGs from this draft
Richardson- % of shots: 20.9, FG%- 58.1
Murray- % of shots: 20.4, FG%- 65.5
Beasley- % of shots: 32.6, FG%- 68
Hield- % of shots: 31.6, FG%- 64.1
Bembry- % of shots: 38.3, FG%- 69.1
McCaw- % of shots: 31.9, FG%- 66.1
His numbers are clearly behind these prospects. When I watched him, I saw him struggle to get to the rim, and when he did get there, he struggled to finish. However, to you, it's perfectly fine, despite some numbers putting him behind the rest of his class. Our interpretations are different. I personally feel like his long 2s are a bailout for his inability to get to the rim, which is why he takes a low % of his shots there.
If SL showed me anything, it did show me that Richardson has the ability to play in control and adapt to as a role player. He wasn't flying off contested long 2s like he did in Syracuse.
However, the only reason why I pointed out Richardson's faults were because another person here suggested that Richardson could possibly BE BETTER than McLemore this year. That's ridiculous, but I wouldn't ridicule anyone for not watching a bunch of college games. Just as someone who's watched 6-7 full Syracuse games, it just seems really out of reach. Again, I said I have no clue who will be better in the future, but clearly McLemore is the better player right now.
Baja, from the sum amount of games you've watched this year.....could you tell me with a straight face that you'd think Richardson could fully and effectively contribute for 20mins a playoff chasing team?
That's the argument he was trying to make. I don't think so at all.
I mean, if you're talking about for the 3rd string spot, McLemore is still clearly better than Richardson. However, you could make the argument that we should trade McLemore if Temple is our backup SG. This would give Richardson the 3rd string SG spot(probably not, I could see Casspi/Barnes splitting the minutes there)
I have no problem with that argument... the only problem I had with your original argument was saying Richardson is as good as McLemore at this stage in both their careers. Just by itself, Richardson's body probably isn't ready to take the physical toll of the NBA yet. He has lots of frame left to fill out just like Ingram. I think Richardson is at least 1 year away from being a NBA contributor. I'm personally fine with this because I don't think Richardson offers anything different that we don't already have on the team.
Our wing depth is pretty good. We don't need him to contribute this year yet.
I have no problem with that argument... the only problem I had with your original argument was saying Richardson is as good as McLemore at this stage in both their careers. Just by itself, Richardson's body probably isn't ready to take the physical toll of the NBA yet. He has lots of frame left to fill out just like Ingram. I think Richardson is at least 1 year away from being a NBA contributor. I'm personally fine with this because I don't think Richardson offers anything different that we don't already have on the team.
Our wing depth is pretty good. We don't need him to contribute this year yet.
At this point...the 2013 lotto guys look really underwhelming.
Dipo looks like he could be a franchise SG, but he's ball dominant and struggles to play off the ball. It'll be interesting to see how he does alongside Westbrook.
Noel has been as expected. Really good defensively, with lots of potential on offense. Not a franchise player, but still, a very good player.
McCollum is a liability on defense, but his volume scoring pretty much overrides that end. McCollum is a franchise SG(I'd argue PG too), and he's currently the 2nd best player from the entire overall class behind Giannis.
The rest of the lotto guys are just role players........ when was the last time a lotto was this bad? The guys have lots of time to improve. The guys who were drafted outside the lotto seem to be better players. Giannis, Schoreder, and Gobert.
Dipo looks like he could be a franchise SG, but he's ball dominant and struggles to play off the ball. It'll be interesting to see how he does alongside Westbrook.
Noel has been as expected. Really good defensively, with lots of potential on offense. Not a franchise player, but still, a very good player.
McCollum is a liability on defense, but his volume scoring pretty much overrides that end. McCollum is a franchise SG(I'd argue PG too), and he's currently the 2nd best player from the entire overall class behind Giannis.
The rest of the lotto guys are just role players........ when was the last time a lotto was this bad? The guys have lots of time to improve. The guys who were drafted outside the lotto seem to be better players. Giannis, Schoreder, and Gobert.