Reply With Quote
He's very clever around the basket -- great up and under. May be better than leaping ability in close quarters.
How many above the rim PGs are in the league? Like, one? sake, we won four champeenships with a below the rim PG.
He's very clever around the basket -- great up and under. May be better than leaping ability in close quarters.
Don't think of him as a point guard, think of him as a 6-5 guard. 6-5 guys that people credit as good, long athletes usually get up more than just on uncontested transition lobs.
Strangely enough, I'm listening to the CBS EYE ON BASKETBALL mock draft episode, that only went up maybe three hours before the draft, and sure enough, Murray is the pick for the Spurs there. Talked up as a great project for the Spurs.
Nah. I'm going to think of him as a PG, like everyone else.
Given this, I really wish we'd either taken Damian Jones or Deyonta Davis instead, or taken Murray and traded for 31 and 35 to take a young big. Oh well.
Fantastic podcast. I've been listening to those guys for a couple of years and they know their stuff while also being fun to listen to. Best NBA podcasts IMO: Eye on Basketball, Lowe Post, Simmons when he talks NBA, and Vertical with Woj. I also have ESPN and Starters but they're annoying and repe ive respectively.
I listened to it the day of the draft and was very impressed that they nailed the Spurs' pick.
While DeJuan Blair was an American All-McDonald's.
I don't know if that would make sense for him game, though. He seemed to be a crafty guard who's athletic rather than an athletic guard who's crafty. When you prod and weave like he does, you don't tend to have your full explosion. I'd even say that most players don't dunk as the ball-handler in the half-court often. It's just too hard to get up to speed.
I will say though, that he only seems to have one dunk. So I wouldn't confuse him with Gerald Green. He seems like he likes using his length to finish rather than athleticism, and that will probably serve him well in the NBA. If he plays the one, he'll have plenty of size over most of his opponents. I think his tools a great, but he isn't going to make it in the league solely based on them. He'll have to learn to shoot and put on weight to be more consistent at the rim.
He's 6-5, with long arms, fast down the court, and has a handle at the college level where he could get by guys at will. All those things combined, he should have at least a few college highlights just taking the ball and exploding into a dunk. Not even as impressive as Payton II (who's 3 inches smaller), just something.
It's not a big knock, just recognition that he doesn't have explosive athleticism, and one of the factors in why teams didn't have him rated super high or had him as a project
The Spurs still rated him very high.
Plenty of very athletic dunkers don't amount to much, just saying.
I like his craftiness. But he does need work. He's also too light to finish through contact.
If Chip could fix Kawhi, Bruce Bowen, Richard Jefferson, and others shots, he can fix a 19 year olds.
People are going to think I'm cursing the kid, but his game reminds me a lot of what I think Anderson's game will eventually be, though at a faster pace. Murray seems to like to go through his man rather than around them. By that I mean that he likes to go into defenders rather than trying to use speed to get by them in space. If you look at his highlights, you can see that Murray isn't a big crossover guy, at least not when he's facing up his defender from a few feet away. Rather than trying to make the defender commit to a direction, he seems to try to beat his defender to a spot so he can seal them. That's a lot like Kyle does when he attacks, but obviously his size is more objectively a mismatch, so shooting over his man is always a possibility.
I'm not sure if Murray's strategy is good or bad. I could understand him losing a lot of balls with the way he likes to dribble into the defense. But at the same time, it's much harder to defend a guy when staying in front of him plays into his strategy. It's going to be interesting to see if he can develop into a PG. His idol Crawford never did it. Murray seems to have some natural play-making ability, but he may not be able to show that with his current offensive proclivities
Who posted otherwise?
There's some nuance that is present.
I responded to a question about how he could fall, and I laid out some reasons, all factored together, caused him to be available where he was (which quite a few people had him rated as being there, and others had him higher and he fell compared to their expectations)
That's all.
But another way to look at it is this: take any of the things I posted and make him good/great at it: does that get him drafted higher? If he had everything you've seen positive, the speed, the handle, the size, the nice enough vision, the rebounding ... and he played above the rim in the half court? If when he got by people he wasn't rising for floaters but kept on and rose for dunks? Don't you think he gets drafted higher? Or rated higher?
If he was 18 going on 19 instead of 19 going on 20, wouldn't that change how teams view him?
If he shot well at the college level, wouldn't he have been higher?
If he was 190 or whatever with a matured body at his age, maybe he's rated higher? Maybe teams think he can contribute sooner because he can handle the physicality better right away?
Just factors, that's all. Not declarative of his career, but elements that affect a project.
Its possible he's really a SG at heart but bc he didn't have a good enough shot (I hope that's fixable) his college coach used him more as an on ball PG. When asked about him, even RC implied they had observed him in some games but he didn't know that much about him. He declined comparing him to anyone, and when asked if he was a PG or SG, he also said they didn't know yet. RC also said they can't draft for need. One assumes he was the best talent available in their estimation and they will figure out what he is and go from there.
I look forward to seeing him develop. I like the Spurs idea to nurture what the guys's talent is, (is he looking to set others up with his moves or is he looking for his shots? how does he really play? until they have him and see him play they don't know for sure). Kyle is usually always looking to pass. Even at the last sec if he sees somebody spring open he will pass. He used and still uses misdirection and fakes moves to create for someone. That's just his game. I think he only takes shots one on one if he doesn't draw help, and what seems like passiveness to us really is a desire to avoid taking bad shots and looking for the best possible shot. I always get the feeling he can get his shot whenever he wanted, but you don't run an offense that way. That's just Kyle's game again. Sometimes you see Kyle even in the NBA get all the way into the paint leisurely and one wonders how the heck at his pace he's getting into the paint. It's easy, at the sight of a double or help he passes. At that rate he can end with 7 assists games like the one he had against the Grizzlies. So after he kills the other team with his passing eventually they just let him go one on one and don't help. That's how he was defended in college. They feared more his passing. Pop hasn't taken advantage of that instead using Kyle as a spot up shooter but that is a gripe for another day.
For Dejonte, I don't know, I think his intention is probably scoring rather than passing and that's where he ends all twisted up with inefficient shots, but his craftiness is very helpful to get by someone and he can maybe fake guys into positions that he's learned to exploit. I read somewhere that some players would rather let the defense commit to something and based on that they go to their moves, rather than just go out there wildly and get surprised by a defender showing once the offensive player committed to a move and can't adjust. That kind of cerebral craftiness is a talent that he seems to have naturally But I really can't say, I haven't watched him enough TBH, but I look forward to.
Fair enough and I agreed with your original comments which I thought were very much on point. I only commented on athleticism bc you seemed to emphasize later on that he wasn't an athletic freak. He's athletic, but not an athletic freak. I do think that could devalue him to some GM. But plenty of athletic freaks don't know how to play basketball unfortunately so their potential is never fully realized and they "bust" for those GM. But he's athletic enough to play for the Spurs I guess. It wasn't a slight to your comment.
Spurs like guys with length vs guys with bounce. He's got length but just an average bounce.
He's almost as big as D. Green, so that's a big plus.
Spurs will need to fix his shot so its more consistent. Honestly, he's got more upside than Cory Joseph.
He might. He's definitely ahead of freshman Cory. I think Joseph was a better driver, though. Let's hope Murray takes the shooting compe ion.
I just say this because he's got a lot more length than Cory. I always thought Cory as too small as a defensive player.
down to start him. idc if he's a rookie. i believe in trial by fire.
at the very least with him starting over parker the ball would be in kawhi's hands more. where it belongs.
He can handle the ball he just needs to play more under control and make better decisions. Where does everyone get that this guy is slow? He's not a speed demon but I wouldn't necessarily call him slow. Hard to tell at this point. His height and wingspan is a bonus. I see alot of upside with this kid.
There's always a risk with any of these players. Especially when your drafting at the end of the first round.
He's definitely more aggressive looking to score than freshman Cory.
They need to change the photo to him on the bench after he gets cursed out by Pop during the regular season and use the same exact caption.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
