Reply With Quote
I disagree.
Aaron Gordon? Julius is and will be better than Gordon.
I disagree.
Fair enough. Julius actually has legitimate skills around the rim. A lot more offensively polished.
Julius per 36: 15/12/3/1steal/0blocks on 44%FG & 67%FT (he can't shoot 3's - he's missed every 3 point attempt). PER 14.7. All stats rounded up.
Gordon per 36: 14/9/2/1steal/2blocks on 46% FG & 67% FT (28% 3PT - not a good 3PT shooter, but has shown early stages of being able to hit that shot). PER 18. All stats rounded up.
It's pretty clear to me, beyond the stats, that Gordon has a ceiling that is considerably higher than Randle's. Both because of his elite athleticism, likelihood that he can be a servicable 3PT shooter & his defense which grades out significantly better than Randle's.
Not really tbh. He's basically a better ball handling version of Blair. Can't shoot, has no real chance to extend to 3PT range, isn't big enough/athletic enough to consistently score inside efficiently. His value is energy, rebounding and ball handling/vision. All good things, but with his poor defense, lack of shooting and athleticism he has a very low ceiling IMO.
He can shoot from midrange, it just hasnt completely come around yet. He had a good midrange shot at Kentucky and in HS with the ans. I think he can be what Zach Randolph was. You're right that his athleticism is limited, but he has good hands. On the right team, with a good defensive center, I think he can do well.
Well he has not proven at all that he can shoot while in the NBA, certainly not against NBA talent and size. Point was/is, even if you believe that, nothing has shown at all (both eye ball test and statistically) that he grades out higher than Gordon at this point.
So from me watching both and seeing the numbers, seems pretty clear at this point that reason points to Gordon>Julius and I don't think it's really close. Gordon isn't a super stud either, but he looks like he may at least have an all-star game if things break right.
You got a crystall ball. I was just reading a thread where a respected poster said the same about Draymond Green. Anyone think Bowen would be a good 3 point shooter? How about Kidd later in his career?
I haven't watched Gordon much so it's tough to make a straight-up comparison. I just think Julius is more skilled than given credit for. Maybe those skills wont transition to the NBA, but it's silly to say that with the current sample size.
Could I be wrong? Absoultely. Will I be? Doubt it. You naming a few outliers doesn't change the fact that more often then not, guys like Randle don't develop that skill.
It's why guys like Green go from undrafted to stars and it's incredibly rare.
Huh? All we can go off of is what we have seen. You were quick to say Julius was better than Gordon on the same sample size while admitting you haven't really watched him very much.
The numbers are what they are, sample size or not. Beyond just the numbers, if you watch both players, it has been pretty clear before I even checked the stats that Gordon was better with a higher ceiling. Could I be wrong? Again, yes, but nothing at all to this point other than some bias would be a logical reason to say Randle is better or has a better ceiling. Ceilings are just that though and sometimes guys obviously don't reach them despite having "potential".
The real alarming part, that Killa isn't mentioning, is that the guys he mentioned (Bruce, Draymond) are also great defenders. Julius has proven to be pretty poor there which is alarming too.
bad coaching and basically his rookie year. I am not even saying you are wrong just that it's to early to tell ...
I agree - it's early, I can only comment on the information I have at this point though. The fact he's on a bad team, with a bad coach and terrible teammate is not a bonus either btw. It's really detrimental to a player with a bad injury already and another wasted year full of bad habits.
Didnt say it was a bonus just saying to early to evaluate. But you speak as if the outcome is already determined and it seems a bit biased or agenda driven. I could say wow, Oakafor is a dumbass with repeated off-court mis-steps ...but is that the finished product? He is like 19 or 20. but all the information I have so far, says he gets in to fights in clubs, cant handle heckling and drives recklessly. Does that mean he will ALWAYS do these things? Let these kids develop as men on and off the court. Losing 18 straight for a kid that has always won like Oak has got to be tough ... although I tease and call him "franchise" because this forum was on his nuts ...doesnt mean I dont realize these young kids need to develop fully before we judge.
What bias would I have in favor of Aaron Gordon? This is me watching both players play a lot to start this year. Evaluating what I see their skillsets/ceilings to be and then looking at the stats to help clarify the picture.
Again, Julius has a bad injury, is developing bad habits and losing another crucial year towards developing. Beyond that, just watching him play, I don't see a capable shooter (at least not as good as I think Gordon is progressing). He rebounds well, handles the ball well for his size and is a good passer.
But developing a shot is very hard, I don't like his form, he's in a terrible spot for development & his defense is flat out bad. Could all of that turn around? Sure. Is it really reasonable to think it will and that he will catch up to a guy like Gordon who's already outpacing him and has other things (athleticism/defense) that would naturally give him a higher ceiling? No, I don't think that is reasonable and a lot of that you can't change (lack of athleticism/environment for development).
Randle is athletic. Not Gordon explosive but a better athlete than Duncan or Aldridge who are superior players than Gordon or Randle. His defense is bad but he has potential to be solid I think with good coaching he could be good at defending pnr because he has quick feet. I dont think you have the full picture of Randle's game ...
here is what arguably the 2nd best PF since Tim had to say:
Dirk Nowitzki on Julius Randle: "He's going to be tough in this league. He puts the ball on the floor like no other PF in this league."
— Serena Winters (@SerenaWinters) November 2, 2015
Nowitzki continuing on Randle: "He's strong, he's athletic, he can finish. He's a tough match-up for a lot of 4s in this league."
— Serena Winters (@SerenaWinters) November 2, 2015
Sounds very unathletic to me ...
should I listen to Dirk who played against him or DPG?
?
IIRC, there was a period when he was playing at KY that he didn't make a jumper from beyond 15 feet for like 2 months.
Always possible to develop one, though. I didn't see Leonard becoming the jumpshooter he is, especially with those giant hands, which has typically prevented players from becoming elite shooters. But the Lakers development program is stone age compared to the Spurs.Jump shooting is another area of his game that stands out, as he shot only 17.3% on jump shots logged by Synergy, with the 0.40 points per possession he scored on those attempts being the lowest mark in this power forward class. He didn't attempt very many at only 1.3 shots per game, but him being a complete lack of a threat outside of the paint is something that is currently holding his game back.
From DraftExpress.com http://www.draftexpress.com/#ixzz3tO49hFo8
http://www.draftexpress.com
Didn't Dirk slaughter him in the first matchup?
he did. That is why I agree with DPG on the defensive side ... but why would dirk lie or exaggerate? He schooled the rook but was still impressed.Didn't Dirk slaughter him in the first matchup?
Welp...this dude sucks. Lakers are f*cked
Dirk's nice. And players are typically politically correct. But notice who the teams are that Randle has good games against. They all lack size and length. For instance, any time Vonleh was on him when they played Portland, Randle had trouble (Aminu was on him most of the game for some inexplicable reason). He was terrible against Miami (Whiteside/Bosh), Detroit (Drummond/Morris), New York (Porzingis/Lopez), etc.
He needs an 18-20 footer desperately. Could happen. But his lack of size/length will always prevent him from really becoming a centerpiece player. His absolute peak (if the cards fall right) is Paul Milsap.
Not bad, but not worth holding onto if you get can some talent in exchange for him to put around Clarkson/Russell.
So one guy (a slow guy, whom everyone looks fast too) saying something negates something all of scouts saw and what the majority of people say?
That's like finding one person who says Kobe is a good teammate and unselfish then saying "See, this guy said the opposite of what we all know, see and have read!"
I think a bigger Milsap is not bad. Not sure I see the star the LAkers FO sees without a jump-shot but I get why they value him. he has play-making ability that reminds them of Odom but in a bigger although shorter package. I dont see anybody that we could trade for that would be worth it. With Kobe hogging shots and Scotts crappy offense Randle wont improve or showcase his game much and like is obvious he needs to develop his off -hand and his range. But he is a hard-worker has talent so I say he has some chance to be a good player. I think most likely a #3 on a good team a #2 on a mediocre on with very little chance of ever being a #1 on a team that matters. But that is just my early thoughts dont know if he will develop in to even a #3 yet ...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions