For me to not be disappointed in him, I'd have to see him average close to what Tyreke Evans did as a rookie: 20.1 points, 5.8 assists, 46% shooting. That was what multiple people compared him to when he entered the league. Tyreke Evans floor with Dwayne Wade ceiling. He's been nowhere near that so far. He's been a poor man's Tony Allen.
How did anyone watch Marcus Smart play at the same school as Tony Allen, putting up nearly identical numbers, with the same body type and style and say, "He looks like a cross between Tyreke Evans and Dwayne Wade?"
If they thought he was the next tony Allen, he wouldn't have gone 6th. Julius Randle was widely believed to be a guy who, while limited defensively, could be a Zach Randolph level all star averaging 20 and 10 some day. You don't pick Tony Allen above that.
BTW, I told people last Summer that Smart vs Randle was going to continue to be an interesting debate and people acted like I was out of my mind, because Randle missed his rookie season. Throughout the season, I continued to believe Smart was above him. Randle closed the gap considerably, though. Averaged a double-double. Per-36 numbers of 14.5 points, 13.1 rebounds. Randle Vs Smart is a real thing. It's going to be really interesting to see how these two develop. Clearly Smart is on another level defensively. Randle still looks like he could be a future Zach Randolph some day. FWIW... NBA2k16 ratings recently came out and they have Randle with a higher Overall rating (77) than Smart (76), so there's that.
When you compare Randle's ceiling to something a bit above Smart's floor then yeah, Randle wins. Nice job.
They are both presumably at their floors. Seems it's a tossup which floor is better. Apparently NBA2k16 thinks Randle's floor is better, for instance. Yet to be seen if either will improve beyond their floor. We've only seen 1 season out of Randle. We've seen 2 out of Smart and in some ways he regressed.
That really doesnt respond to the idea that your comparison was dumb. Right now Randle could be a Jared Sullinger level guy, while Smart has the potential to turn into a Chauncey Billups or a Mike Conley. You dont take Jared Sullinger over Chauncy Billups or Mike Conley.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Randle is arguably better now and may be better long-term.
you wrote that you dont draft Tony Allen over the next Zach Randolph.
You don't draft the
next Tony Allen over the
next Zach Randolph.
The comment was made that Smart basically looked exactly like Tony Allen in College and that all anyone should have expected him to become was Tony Allen:
How did anyone watch Marcus Smart play at the same school as Tony Allen, putting up nearly identical numbers, with the same body type and style and say, "He looks like a cross between Tyreke Evans and Dwayne Wade?"
... the suggestion there is that it was foolish to expect him to ever be anything more than Tony Allen long term... but obviously people expected him to be more than Tony Allen.
My point was, if they really thought he was going to develop into the next Tony Allen, they wouldn't have taken him 6th. Clearly they had higher expectations than him developing into the next Tony Allen. You don't draft a guy who projects to be the next Tony Allen over a guy who projects to be the next Zach Randolph (Randle).
Not sure where you got the idea we were comparing Smart's floor to Randle's ceiling.
Again, my comment was: "If they thought he was the next tony Allen, he wouldn't have gone 6th." They wanted a star there, not a long-term role player.
So basically, I disagree with what IDreamCeltic is saying. Everyone expected more from Smart than "the next Tony Allen". Some people were comparing him to Westbrook, Evans, Harden, Wade, etc. He was widely thought at the time to have star potential... hence why he went 6th. He's been a disappointment thus far. Hopefully he makes a major leap soon. If he peaks out at Tony Allen, that's a big disappointment considering we used a #6 pick on him.
Obviously, Smart isn't as good as Tony Allen yet and Randle isn't as good as Randolph yet. We were always referring to what could develop into.