CelticsStrong
Around the League => The Draft => Topic started by: jay on June 17, 2014, 01:42:52 PM
-
Russell Westbrook 6-2.25 w/o shoes. 6-3.5 with shoes. 6-7.75 wingspan. 36.5 vertical.
John Wall 6-2.75 w/o shoes. 6-4 with shoes. 6-9.25 wingspan. 39" vertical.
Derrick Rose 6-1.5 w/o shoes 6-2.5 with shoes. 6-8 wingspan. 40" vertical.
Marcus Smart 6-2 w/o shoes. 6-3.25 with shoes. 6-9.25 wingspan. 36" vertical.
Smart weighs 226 pounds. Rose weighed 197 at the combine. Westbrook 192. Wall 196.
Smart avgd 18 pts and 4.5 assists his sophomore year. Wall 16.6 pts, 6.5 assists. Rose 14.9 and 4.7. Westbrook was 12.7 and 4.3. Wall and Rose only played one year, while im using Smart and Westbrooks sophomore stats.
Smart is thicker and stronger than the others, and may not be quite as expolsive. But if he is anywhere close to these guys, shouldnt we take him no matter what? At the very least, he or Exum should be there. I guess if Utah took Smart, that would be the only nightmare scenario.
-
Smarts 1st step isn't even quick, so I never understood the rose and Westbrook comparisons. More of a slower D Wade.
-
Russell Westbrook 6-2.25 w/o shoes. 6-3.5 with shoes. 6-7.75 wingspan. 36.5 vertical.
John Wall 6-2.75 w/o shoes. 6-4 with shoes. 6-9.25 wingspan. 39" vertical.
Derrick Rose 6-1.5 w/o shoes 6-2.5 with shoes. 6-8 wingspan. 40" vertical.
Marcus Smart 6-2 w/o shoes. 6-3.25 with shoes. 6-9.25 wingspan. 36" vertical.
Smart weighs 226 pounds. Rose weighed 197 at the combine. Westbrook 192. Wall 196.
Smart avgd 18 pts and 4.5 assists his sophomore year. Wall 16.6 pts, 6.5 assists. Rose 14.9 and 4.7. Westbrook was 12.7 and 4.3. Wall and Rose only played one year, while im using Smart and Westbrooks sophomore stats.
Smart is thicker and stronger than the others, and may not be quite as expolsive. But if he is anywhere close to these guys, shouldnt we take him no matter what? At the very least, he or Exum should be there. I guess if Utah took Smart, that would be the only nightmare scenario.
I would probably take Smart over Exum. Smart's floor is much higher than Exum's and his ceiling is virtually as high. I'd take Smart over anybody at #6 without thinking twice about it. It's not just his measurables and skills that makes him so attractive; it's also his competitiveness, leadership, unselfishness and swagger.
His interviews are the kind of the thing that should have Celtics nation salivating. He says things like "I want to pester opponents so badly on defense that they have nightmares about me on the way into town" and "While other top prospects are afraid of being shown up, I relish playing 1 on 1s in workouts because it gives me a chance to show teams that I can play with anybody."
-
Russell Westbrook 6-2.25 w/o shoes. 6-3.5 with shoes. 6-7.75 wingspan. 36.5 vertical.
John Wall 6-2.75 w/o shoes. 6-4 with shoes. 6-9.25 wingspan. 39" vertical.
Derrick Rose 6-1.5 w/o shoes 6-2.5 with shoes. 6-8 wingspan. 40" vertical.
Marcus Smart 6-2 w/o shoes. 6-3.25 with shoes. 6-9.25 wingspan. 36" vertical.
Smart weighs 226 pounds. Rose weighed 197 at the combine. Westbrook 192. Wall 196.
Smart avgd 18 pts and 4.5 assists his sophomore year. Wall 16.6 pts, 6.5 assists. Rose 14.9 and 4.7. Westbrook was 12.7 and 4.3. Wall and Rose only played one year, while im using Smart and Westbrooks sophomore stats.
Smart is thicker and stronger than the others, and may not be quite as expolsive. But if he is anywhere close to these guys, shouldnt we take him no matter what? At the very least, he or Exum should be there. I guess if Utah took Smart, that would be the only nightmare scenario.
I would probably take Smart over Exum. Smart's floor is much higher than Exum's and his ceiling is virtually as high. I'd take Smart over anybody at #6 without thinking twice about it. It's not just his measurables and skills that makes him so attractive; it's also his competitiveness, leadership, unselfishness and swagger.
His interviews are the kind of the thing that should have Celtics nation salivating. He says things like "I want to pester opponents so badly on defense that they have nightmares about me on the way into town" and "While other top prospects are afraid of being shown up, I relish playing 1 on 1s in workouts because it gives me a chance to show teams that I can play with anybody."
Before having Jeff Green on my team I would've labeled all this as less important than a players athletic gifts. However, after watching that player I just want this team to get some drive back and Smart may never be a clubhouse leader I wouldn't ever have to worry about his effort night in and night out.
-
I wonder how well his weight will translate in the NBA. Smart is nowhere fat, he is a very big and strong pg. I wonder if his bulk will help him bully smaller guards. I hope to think so...
I too am very high on Smarts and hope we get him. I still don't know much about Exum.
-
If he is available at #6, Smart is the player that should be chosen...
Smart isn't as explosive or quick as the players in the comparison (he does have explosiveness and quickness in spades though), but they are overrated attributes for PGs. Wall didn't become the player that he is today until he understood how to change pace. Chris Paul is the best PG in the NBA despite not being top 10 at the position in explosiveness or speed.
Smart's ability to guard 1s, 2s, and potentially 3s at a high level will be the reason he will be a matchup nightmare in the NBA. Tweeners (usually 3/4) are only a problem when they can't defend well at either position (usually too slow for 3s and not strong enough for 4s) and give up more than they get. Using Smart and Rondo in a 2 PG system ala Dragic and Bledsoe (2 players that weren't known for their shooting until Dragic upped his 3P% to 40% this past season).
Of the 3 players mentioned, who had a refined shot coming out of college? My bet is on Smart...
-
Russell Westbrook 6-2.25 w/o shoes. 6-3.5 with shoes. 6-7.75 wingspan. 36.5 vertical.
John Wall 6-2.75 w/o shoes. 6-4 with shoes. 6-9.25 wingspan. 39" vertical.
Derrick Rose 6-1.5 w/o shoes 6-2.5 with shoes. 6-8 wingspan. 40" vertical.
Marcus Smart 6-2 w/o shoes. 6-3.25 with shoes. 6-9.25 wingspan. 36" vertical.
Smart weighs 226 pounds. Rose weighed 197 at the combine. Westbrook 192. Wall 196.
Smart avgd 18 pts and 4.5 assists his sophomore year. Wall 16.6 pts, 6.5 assists. Rose 14.9 and 4.7. Westbrook was 12.7 and 4.3. Wall and Rose only played one year, while im using Smart and Westbrooks sophomore stats.
Smart is thicker and stronger than the others, and may not be quite as expolsive. But if he is anywhere close to these guys, shouldnt we take him no matter what? At the very least, he or Exum should be there. I guess if Utah took Smart, that would be the only nightmare scenario.
I would probably take Smart over Exum. Smart's floor is much higher than Exum's and his ceiling is virtually as high. I'd take Smart over anybody at #6 without thinking twice about it. It's not just his measurables and skills that makes him so attractive; it's also his competitiveness, leadership, unselfishness and swagger.
His interviews are the kind of the thing that should have Celtics nation salivating. He says things like "I want to pester opponents so badly on defense that they have nightmares about me on the way into town" and "While other top prospects are afraid of being shown up, I relish playing 1 on 1s in workouts because it gives me a chance to show teams that I can play with anybody."
Before having Jeff Green on my team I would've labeled all this as less important than a players athletic gifts. However, after watching that player I just want this team to get some drive back and Smart may never be a clubhouse leader I wouldn't ever have to worry about his effort night in and night out.
I think Smart, Gordon and Saric are in that balls-out, full-tilt full-time category and I'd be happy with any of them (though I think Smart is the best of the bunch).
-
Smart's ability to guard 1s, 2s, and potentially 3s at a high level will be the reason he will be a matchup nightmare in the NBA. Tweeners (usually 3/4) are only a problem when they can't defend well at either position (usually too slow for 3s and not strong enough for 4s) and give up more than they get.
I agree with you.
-
Smart's ability to guard 1s, 2s, and potentially 3s at a high level will be the reason he will be a matchup nightmare in the NBA. Tweeners (usually 3/4) are only a problem when they can't defend well at either position (usually too slow for 3s and not strong enough for 4s) and give up more than they get.
I agree with you.
at 225, he is heavier than most small forwards which can help him defend against them in the post. But the biggest question is if he is as quick as they are.
-
If he is available at #6, Smart is the player that should be chosen...
Smart isn't as explosive or quick as the players in the comparison (he does have explosiveness and quickness in spades though), but they are overrated attributes for PGs. Wall didn't become the player that he is today until he understood how to change pace. Chris Paul is the best PG in the NBA despite not being top 10 at the position in explosiveness or speed.
Smart's ability to guard 1s, 2s, and potentially 3s at a high level will be the reason he will be a matchup nightmare in the NBA. Tweeners (usually 3/4) are only a problem when they can't defend well at either position (usually too slow for 3s and not strong enough for 4s) and give up more than they get. Using Smart and Rondo in a 2 PG system ala Dragic and Bledsoe (2 players that weren't known for their shooting until Dragic upped his 3P% to 40% this past season).
Of the 3 players mentioned, who had a refined shot coming out of college? My bet is on Smart...
If Wall improved at all, it was mostly in his three point shot. His PER went down by a tiny bit, his true shooting percentage went up by 0.003, his other numbers, good and bad, stayed pretty much the same. His reputation went up because the team around him got better.
Paul is one of the quickest and fastest players in the league. He's not a dunker but he has a lot of physical skills at his disposal.
-
Smarts 1st step isn't even quick, so I never understood the rose and Westbrook comparisons. More of a slower D Wade.
Wade was 6-3.75 w/o shoes. 6-4.75 in shoes. 212 pounds. So a little taller, but closer in weight. 35" vertical. 6-10.75 wingspan so he has the longest arms of the group.
My point is if he is just 80 to 90% as good as any of these other guys, shouldnt he be taken 6 overall? Really he should be taken 4th o 5th, but we want him to drop. Gordon, Randle, Vonleh are all intriguing but at the end of the day, they are projects. Athletic and talented, but projects.
-
I don't think he's on the level of any of those three but I do think his skill set corresponds well to the NBA and he will be successful. To me, he's NBA ready and helps fill a Celtics weakness.
If he's sitting there at #6, and we're not moving the pick as part of a trade package, he's my number one option to draft.
-
Smart isn't nearly as explosive as any of these three but overall, I don't think he's as far off, if at all, from these, especially at the same age. I don't think he's going to be the scorer that Rose is, or dazzle like Westbrook can but none of these three can play the defense that Smart can. Smart is as good a defensive guard prospect as has come around in a long time. He's super strong, very long, his lateral quickness is excellent, his hands are very quick and strong and he's committed to playing defense.
Take Smart and Avery Bradley. Smart's lateral quickness is as good as Bradley but he's also stronger, longer and his hands are much more lethal. Bradley can put on a good show of ball pressure but because he isn't that good of a ball thief (even though he's good for one outright theft every game), talented ballhandlers handle his pressure and often beat him off the dribble. Smart can apply the same ball pressure while intimating ballhandlers with losing the ball, which is going to make them more hesitant. When Wiggins struggled against Smart, that said less about Wiggins' handle or driving ability, since he easily drove by every other defender he faced and more about Smart's exceptional lateral quickness, hands and instincts. The same against Exum.
Smart stands a very good chance of being an all-nba defender. That's a lot of value right there. He also provides playmaking and the ability to get into the lane, with a good shooting stroke that portends improved shooting. Smart could be really good, a high impact two-way player.
-
Smart isn't nearly as explosive as any of these three but overall, I don't think he's as far off, if at all, from these, especially at the same age. I don't think he's going to be the scorer that Rose is, or dazzle like Westbrook can but none of these three can play the defense that Smart can. Smart is as good a defensive guard prospect as has come around in a long time. He's super strong, very long, his lateral quickness is excellent, his hands are very quick and strong and he's committed to playing defense.
Take Smart and Avery Bradley. Smart's lateral quickness is as good as Bradley but he's also stronger, longer and his hands are much more lethal. Bradley can put on a good show of ball pressure but because he isn't that good of a ball thief (even though he's good for one outright theft every game), talented ballhandlers handle his pressure and often beat him off the dribble. Smart can apply the same ball pressure while intimating ballhandlers with losing the ball, which is going to make them more hesitant. When Wiggins struggled against Smart, that said less about Wiggins' handle or driving ability, since he easily drove by every other defender he faced and more about Smart's exceptional lateral quickness, hands and instincts. The same against Exum.
Smart stands a very good chance of being an all-nba defender. That's a lot of value right there. He also provides playmaking and the ability to get into the lane, with a good shooting stroke that portends improved shooting. Smart could be really good, a high impact two-way player.
By this analysis then, what would we do with Bradley? I like Avery, but he's injury prone, can't pass or dribble, and only learned how to shoot coming off of a pick and roll presumably last summer. He often played like there weren't any of his teammates on the court with him by doing nothing, really, but taking too many of his 1 dribble pull ups, which frustrated us all, I'm pretty sure. To me, Smart is already far superior and younger, with better size and no injury history. I'd move Bradley in a sign and trade somewhere for a 1st round pick, assuming he's viewed by other teams as being worth such a selection. He's much better on a contending team, imo, but there are other clubs that need his defense, and the Pistons certainly come to mind, but I'm not sure moving him there would be a great idea, given that he'd still be in the same conference.
Honestly, Smart's size, ability, and demeanor make him sound a little like a young DJ, but I'm sure that I'm wrong about that. What do you guys think?
-
My opinion is of no more value than any other... I'm just shocked at the love for Smart. He is 6'2 and people are talking about him guarding a SF? Pair him with Bradley, one pick and switch and then it's post up against two 6'2 guards. Smart is not a shooter, so pair him with rondo and watch defenses sag into the paint and go under every pick and roll.
I may be wrong, but the Celtics need guys who can create space and at least keep perimeter defenders honest. Now if we don't get love and are total rebuild, then trade Rondo and gamble on smart...sign Jackson or mills as a FA. Add Hayward to that mix and you have three guys who can attack and shoot and pass.
-
My opinion is of no more value than any other... I'm just shocked at the love for Smart. He is 6'2 and people are talking about him guarding a SF? Pair him with Bradley, one pick and switch and then it's post up against two 6'2 guards. Smart is not a shooter, so pair him with rondo and watch defenses sag into the paint and go under every pick and roll.
I may be wrong, but the Celtics need guys who can create space and at least keep perimeter defenders honest. Now if we don't get love and are total rebuild, then trade Rondo and gamble on smart...sign Jackson or mills as a FA. Add Hayward to that mix and you have three guys who can attack and shoot and pass.
2 things regarding Smart guarding small forwads:
1) Not all small forwards are created equal, and they have different roles in their respective offenses. I think Smart could guard a wing like Jimmy Butler or Aaron Afflalo, who are sometimes the small forward in certain lineups. I don't think Smart could guard a LeBron-sized behemoth for the entire game, although few players can. He had enough size/strength/quickness to completely frustrate Andrew Wiggins in their three matchups this season, so at least at the college level, he's shown an ability to guard elite length and quickness.
2) Smart does have enough size and quickness to harass most small forwards on a switch. Guarding one the entire game might be too much, but he wouldn't necessarily be a liability if he switched onto a small forward on a screen, the same as Aaron Gordon wouldn't be a liability if he switched onto a point guard.
-
I think he's got a good shot at being an All Star and top 15 player.
People are saying he's not as quick as certain guards, but he is stronger than pretty much any PG in the NBA.
His lateral quickness is very good and he posted a lane agility score better than Westbrook and Chris Paul.
Watch him play defense against Exum at the U/19 world champs. Someone put the vid from draft express up recently and he completely shuts a young Exum down when Exum burns everyone else.
-
I think physically from his build and weight he is going to be stronger than all those guys in terms on strength. Strength is useful in basketball but not the end all. Most guys in the NBA will be stronger than the guys in NCAA. He won't as able to bully his way to rim in the pros. It should be an adjustment but by accounts he has heart and strong will.
His shot is not as good. He will probably take a few years to develop it more. Defensively once he learns how they call the game, I think he will be ok. Strong guys can guard guys taller than them. They push them around with their legs and with their arms and hope they don't get caught. But think of some of the strong guys we have had they can push guys outside of their comfort zone and throw guys off their game. I rather have an athletic guy ( fast and strong) over just a strong guy though if given a choice and a taller player if all other things were equal.
-
I think physically from his build and weight he is going to be stronger than all those guys in terms on strength. Strength is useful in basketball but not the end all. Most guys in the NBA will be stronger than the guys in NCAA. He won't as able to bully his way to rim in the pros. It should be an adjustment but by accounts he has heart and strong will.
His shot is not as good. He will probably take a few years to develop it more. Defensively once he learns how they call the game, I think he will be ok. Strong guys can guard guys taller than them. They push them around with their legs and with their arms and hope they don't get caught. But think of some of the strong guys we have had they can push guys outside of their comfort zone and throw guys off their game. I rather have an athletic guy ( fast and strong) over just a strong guy though if given a choice and a taller player if all other things were equal.
actually that reminds me, Wall, Westbrook came into the league not being fantastic shooters, and Westbrook is also a known chucker for a while (probably still is). I don't see why Smart's shot is that much of a deal breaker for people. I know for a fact some if not most people here would give up Rondo for Westbrook.
I am just imagining how Smart will bully small pg to the rim early on. And I also agree he will learn the NBA system quick offensively and defensively.
-
The crazy thing about Smart jumping up and down the top ten is that before predraft workouts, a lot of talking heads were saying they doubted his skills were transferrable to the NBA, that he was one of the guys with no upside, what you see is what you get.
-
I've said this before but since repeating oneself is part of being a good blog citizen:
I think Smart is going to be a good pro, and like many here, I love his attitude, but I personally do not like his style of play on offense and do not think it makes any sense to pick him at #6 unless we are trading him or Rondo.
A backcourt with both Rondo and Smart makes no sense from a spacing perspective. In fact, that sounds like a disaster.
Several posters post hopefully and encouragingly that maybe Smart will fix his absurdly broken jump shot. And maybe that will happen. But why does it still look SOOOO awful after TWO college seasons, during which he took a ton of 3PT shots in games (not to mention how many in practice)?
He's taken almost 300 3PT attempts over that span -- 4.6 per game -- and probably thousands in practice, so it is not as if this is some obscure, low usage part of his game that coaches can ignore.
Why hasn't it shown any improvement? He 'improved' from a gawd-awful 29.0% as a freshman to a still-gawd-awful 29.9% as a sophomore.
I can live without a PG who can shoot 3PT shots. Seriously, I don't really believe that a PG HAS to be able to make them. I could care less if Rondo never took another 3PT shot in his NBA career.
But if you can't make them at an efficient rate WHY THE HECK ARE YOU TAKING THEM?????
Taking lots of low-efficiency shots hurts your team. It's my biggest peeve in basketball. "It's a make/miss league." is not just a trite saying. It is a dead-on truism. Misses are no different than turnovers 70% of the time. If you miss a lot, you lose games.
This is one of the reasons why Rondo is such a good player - he may not take a lot of shots, but he takes the shots he's efficient at and that's why his career shooting efficiencies are very good. He doesn't hurt his team by generating excess misses.
If Smart had that same ugly shooting form and same lousy efficiency at them and only took maybe 1 3PT shot per game, and did everything else in his game exactly the same, I would be extremely high on him.
If I could be confident that he will change his game in the NBA to either (a) actually truly be able to fix his shot mechanics OR (b) become far more discriminating with his own shots (i.e., more "Rondo-like") then I'd be totally on-board with taking Smart at #6.
But I'm not confident of either of those things.
-
Smart is thicker and stronger than the others, and may not be quite as expolsive. But if he is anywhere close to these guys, shouldnt we take him no matter what? At the very least, he or Exum should be there. I guess if Utah took Smart, that would be the only nightmare scenario.
If Smart were anywhere close to these guys, he'd be the consensus #1 pick in the draft.
-
I've said this before but since repeating oneself is part of being a good blog citizen:
I think Smart is going to be a good pro, and like many here, I love his attitude, but I personally do not like his style of play on offense and do not think it makes any sense to pick him at #6 unless we are trading him or Rondo.
A backcourt with both Rondo and Smart makes no sense from a spacing perspective. In fact, that sounds like a disaster.
Several posters post hopefully and encouragingly that maybe Smart will fix is absurdly broken jump shot. And maybe that will happen. But why does it still look SOOOO awful after TWO college seasons, during which he took a ton of 3PT shots in games (not to mention how many in practice)?
He's taken almost 300 3PT attempts over that span -- 4.6 per game -- and probably thousands in practice, so it is not as if this is some obscure, low usage part of his game that coaches can ignore.
Why hasn't it shown any improvement? He 'improved' from a gawd-awful 29.0% as a freshman to a still-gawd-awful 29.9% as a sophomore.
I can live without a PG who can shoot 3PT shots. Seriously, I don't really believe that a PG HAS to be able to make them. I could care less if Rondo never took another 3PT shot in his NBA career.
But if you can't make them at an efficient rate WHY THE HECK ARE YOU TAKING THEM?????
Taking lots of low-efficiency shots hurts your team. It's my biggest peeve in basketball. "It's a make/miss league." is not just a trite saying. It is a dead-on truism. Misses are no different than turnovers 70% of the time. If you miss a lot, you lose games.
This is one of the reasons why Rondo is such a good player - he may not take a lot of shots, but he takes the shots he's efficient at and that's why his career shooting efficiencies are very good. He doesn't hurt his team by generating excess misses.
If Smart had that same ugly shooting form and same lousy efficiency at them and only took maybe 1 3PT shot per game, and did everything else in his game exactly the same, I would be extremely high on him.
If I could be confident that he will change his game in the NBA to either (a) actually truly be able to fix his shot mechanics OR (b) become far more discriminating with his own shots (i.e., more "Rondo-like") then I'd be totally on-board with taking Smart at #6.
But I'm not confident of either of those things.
A Rondo/Smart backcourt makes little sense, that's true, but what are your thoughts on having Smart as the third guard in the rotation?
-
Smart is thicker and stronger than the others, and may not be quite as expolsive. But if he is anywhere close to these guys, shouldnt we take him no matter what? At the very least, he or Exum should be there. I guess if Utah took Smart, that would be the only nightmare scenario.
If Smart were anywhere close to these guys, he'd be the consensus #1 pick in the draft.
This is where I am in all these threads.
-
I've said this before but since repeating oneself is part of being a good blog citizen:
I think Smart is going to be a good pro, and like many here, I love his attitude, but I personally do not like his style of play on offense and do not think it makes any sense to pick him at #6 unless we are trading him or Rondo.
A backcourt with both Rondo and Smart makes no sense from a spacing perspective. In fact, that sounds like a disaster.
Several posters post hopefully and encouragingly that maybe Smart will fix is absurdly broken jump shot. And maybe that will happen. But why does it still look SOOOO awful after TWO college seasons, during which he took a ton of 3PT shots in games (not to mention how many in practice)?
He's taken almost 300 3PT attempts over that span -- 4.6 per game -- and probably thousands in practice, so it is not as if this is some obscure, low usage part of his game that coaches can ignore.
Why hasn't it shown any improvement? He 'improved' from a gawd-awful 29.0% as a freshman to a still-gawd-awful 29.9% as a sophomore.
I can live without a PG who can shoot 3PT shots. Seriously, I don't really believe that a PG HAS to be able to make them. I could care less if Rondo never took another 3PT shot in his NBA career.
But if you can't make them at an efficient rate WHY THE HECK ARE YOU TAKING THEM?????
Taking lots of low-efficiency shots hurts your team. It's my biggest peeve in basketball. "It's a make/miss league." is not just a trite saying. It is a dead-on truism. Misses are no different than turnovers 70% of the time. If you miss a lot, you lose games.
This is one of the reasons why Rondo is such a good player - he may not take a lot of shots, but he takes the shots he's efficient at and that's why his career shooting efficiencies are very good. He doesn't hurt his team by generating excess misses.
If Smart had that same ugly shooting form and same lousy efficiency at them and only took maybe 1 3PT shot per game, and did everything else in his game exactly the same, I would be extremely high on him.
If I could be confident that he will change his game in the NBA to either (a) actually truly be able to fix his shot mechanics OR (b) become far more discriminating with his own shots (i.e., more "Rondo-like") then I'd be totally on-board with taking Smart at #6.
But I'm not confident of either of those things.
A Rondo/Smart backcourt makes little sense, that's true, but what are your thoughts on having Smart as the third guard in the rotation?
Why would I spend a #6 pick on someone to be a "3rd guard in the rotation"? Don't I want a guy I hope can be a starter? If I draft Smart, it's either to play at PG or SG. If at PG, I've already got Rondo starting. If at SG, he makes no sense next to Rondo. For Smart to be used as SG, you want him next to a more 'shoot-first' oriented PG like Curry, who can act as space-creator balance to Smart's bully-to-the-hoop game.
A '3rd guard in the rotation' has to end up paired with each of the other two guards at some point.
-
He's talented to reach their level but i don't see why we would take him. We're looking for a sf now so i don't see Ainge taking another guard. Unless we're moving Rondo we gonna take Gordon or Dougie McBuckets. Personally i'll take Napier over these two.
-
He's talented to reach their level but i don't see why we would take him. We're looking for a sf now so i don't see Ainge taking another guard. Unless we're moving Rondo we gonna take Gordon or Dougie McBuckets. Personally i'll take Napier over these two.
We take him if we believe he is the best player at six because you never, ever draft for position. It's the quickest path to failure. You always draft for talent.
-
He's talented to reach their level but i don't see why we would take him. We're looking for a sf now so i don't see Ainge taking another guard. Unless we're moving Rondo we gonna take Gordon or Dougie McBuckets. Personally i'll take Napier over these two.
I think if Ainge thinks he can upgrade the wing as a whole, he'd go either way with a 2 or a 3. I don't think he's hellbent on SF. The Celtics need help at both positions, IMO.
If he keeps the picks, I wouldn't be shocked to see him go Smart at #6 then address SF at #17. Seems like they'll be plenty of them there at #17.
-
He's talented to reach their level but i don't see why we would take him. We're looking for a sf now so i don't see Ainge taking another guard. Unless we're moving Rondo we gonna take Gordon or Dougie McBuckets. Personally i'll take Napier over these two.
We take him if we believe he is the best player at six because you never, ever draft for position. It's the quickest path to failure. You always draft for talent.
At #6, I definitely agree. I think Ainge can get a little cute with that second first rounder and maybe go for need.
-
I've said this before but since repeating oneself is part of being a good blog citizen:
I think Smart is going to be a good pro, and like many here, I love his attitude, but I personally do not like his style of play on offense and do not think it makes any sense to pick him at #6 unless we are trading him or Rondo.
A backcourt with both Rondo and Smart makes no sense from a spacing perspective. In fact, that sounds like a disaster.
Several posters post hopefully and encouragingly that maybe Smart will fix is absurdly broken jump shot. And maybe that will happen. But why does it still look SOOOO awful after TWO college seasons, during which he took a ton of 3PT shots in games (not to mention how many in practice)?
He's taken almost 300 3PT attempts over that span -- 4.6 per game -- and probably thousands in practice, so it is not as if this is some obscure, low usage part of his game that coaches can ignore.
Why hasn't it shown any improvement? He 'improved' from a gawd-awful 29.0% as a freshman to a still-gawd-awful 29.9% as a sophomore.
I can live without a PG who can shoot 3PT shots. Seriously, I don't really believe that a PG HAS to be able to make them. I could care less if Rondo never took another 3PT shot in his NBA career.
But if you can't make them at an efficient rate WHY THE HECK ARE YOU TAKING THEM?????
Taking lots of low-efficiency shots hurts your team. It's my biggest peeve in basketball. "It's a make/miss league." is not just a trite saying. It is a dead-on truism. Misses are no different than turnovers 70% of the time. If you miss a lot, you lose games.
This is one of the reasons why Rondo is such a good player - he may not take a lot of shots, but he takes the shots he's efficient at and that's why his career shooting efficiencies are very good. He doesn't hurt his team by generating excess misses.
If Smart had that same ugly shooting form and same lousy efficiency at them and only took maybe 1 3PT shot per game, and did everything else in his game exactly the same, I would be extremely high on him.
If I could be confident that he will change his game in the NBA to either (a) actually truly be able to fix his shot mechanics OR (b) become far more discriminating with his own shots (i.e., more "Rondo-like") then I'd be totally on-board with taking Smart at #6.
But I'm not confident of either of those things.
A Rondo/Smart backcourt makes little sense, that's true, but what are your thoughts on having Smart as the third guard in the rotation?
Why would I spend a #6 pick on someone to be a "3rd guard in the rotation"? Don't I want a guy I hope can be a starter? If I draft Smart, it's either to play at PG or SG. If at PG, I've already got Rondo starting. If at SG, he makes no sense next to Rondo. For Smart to be used as SG, you want him next to a more 'shoot-first' oriented PG like Curry, who can act as space-creator balance to Smart's bully-to-the-hoop game.
A '3rd guard in the rotation' has to end up paired with each of the other two guards at some point.
It's a common comment in Smart threads that you didn't address.
-
Wall, Westbrook came into the league not being fantastic shooters, and Westbrook is also a known chucker
You intrigued me enought to look it up. +1
John Wall FG% .46% 2PA% .51% FT% .75% 3P% .33% PPG 16.6
Westbrook FG% .47% 2PA% .50% FT%. 72% 3P% .33% PPG 12.7
Smart FG%. 42% 2PA%. 51% FT% .73% 3P% .30% PPG 18.0
http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/john-wall-1.html
http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/russell-westbrook-1.html
http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/marcus-smart-1.html
It is close, it is clear that he is worst long range shooter of the three but he is the best scorer as well. Not by much all you are absolutely right, it should not be a deal breaker. In fact, he is already a man physically (not skinny or weak) and could devote more time to shooting and less to weight lifting. Shooting is a skill that can be improved in most cases.
-
Russell Westbrook 6-2.25 w/o shoes. 6-3.5 with shoes. 6-7.75 wingspan. 36.5 vertical.
John Wall 6-2.75 w/o shoes. 6-4 with shoes. 6-9.25 wingspan. 39" vertical.
Derrick Rose 6-1.5 w/o shoes 6-2.5 with shoes. 6-8 wingspan. 40" vertical.
Marcus Smart 6-2 w/o shoes. 6-3.25 with shoes. 6-9.25 wingspan. 36" vertical.
Smart weighs 226 pounds. Rose weighed 197 at the combine. Westbrook 192. Wall 196.
Smart avgd 18 pts and 4.5 assists his sophomore year. Wall 16.6 pts, 6.5 assists. Rose 14.9 and 4.7. Westbrook was 12.7 and 4.3. Wall and Rose only played one year, while im using Smart and Westbrooks sophomore stats.
Smart is thicker and stronger than the others, and may not be quite as expolsive. But if he is anywhere close to these guys, shouldnt we take him no matter what? At the very least, he or Exum should be there. I guess if Utah took Smart, that would be the only nightmare scenario.
All this is very encouraging, but before getting too excited I would need to know where Marcus Banks and Randy Foye ranked against these guys.
-
You know who else is "close"? Troy Bell.
6'2 in shoes, 6'5 wingspan, 41 vertical.
Bell FG%. 42% 2PA%. 47% FT% .87% 3P% .38% PPG 21.6
http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/troy-bell-1.html
This type of conjecture is meaningless, for the most part. Marcus Banks is probably not a good example, since he played college ball at UNLV, but Foye also looks "similar", both in terms of measurements and stats.
-
This type of conjecture is meaningless, for the most part.
Yeah I agree the comparisons are not that useful but they are interesting. Just bored, waiting for the shoe to drop.
-
Have you considered watching the World Cup?
-
Have you considered watching the World Cup?
Really. It has its own thread and everything.
-
I get your point that this talk doesnt mean anything, but we are all just talking about the same thing over and over out of boredom.
But, Bell was 6-0.25 w/o shoes and Banks was listed at 6-2 - so basically they are a couple of 6-0 guys and the above 5 guys are all 6-2. Not a huge difference but it is enough.
My original point is that if he matches up physically with them, we know he is a good player, he should be seriously considered.