Reply With Quote
Very good in garbage time, increased the lead in garbage time instead of blowing it. Looks to soak up all those Larpo minutes
They're not comparing careers or accomplishments. You're just off base in your assessment. Cool you don't think Murray is as "good" as Westbrook at what Westbrook does, that's not what people are saying.
Okafor compares to Duncan, as they're the same type of player. Dedmon compares to David Robinson as that's the same type. Their efficiency or ability to produce is not the discussion.
Westbrook was a athletic, long, quick burst pg who you couldn't keep from the rim.
Murray is an athletic long, quick, burst pg who you can't keep from the rim.
It's not in anyway premature to compare two players who are the same type of player. Accomplishment and pedigree is a different story, but that's not what people are saying, which you clearly are having trouble understanding.
As you admitted, they are both very athletic. That is a comparison. And it is not too early to make that comparison..
Eat a snickers bro.
Very good in garbage time, increased the lead in garbage time instead of blowing it. Looks to soak up all those Larpo minutes
------------------------------------------
thanks man
Kyle as a starter had zero points.....
hmmmmmmmm
Wiz looks promising, looking forward to seeing him get more run when there is a rest night for MVParker or Patty.
Murray would have to work hard on his point guard skills & shooting if he wants to be like Jennings who has always had pretty good floor vision & could stroke it even as rookie. The issue w/ Jennings was that he played on terrible teams & became a gunner. One main difference would also be that Jennings has never been known for his rebounding.
People forget that Jennings broke Kareem's single game rookie scoring record & destroyed Curry as a rookie:
Only played in the last couple minutes, but had a great assist to Dedmon for an alley-oop slam and a nice floater after some nice footwork.
Actually, he's lived off that game for years. I don't think anyone's forgot it since it's literally the only reason he's remained relevant. That game blinds people into thinking he was ever more than a low percentage chucker.Murray would have to work hard on his point guard skills & shooting if he wants to be like Jennings who has always had pretty good floor vision & could stroke it even as rookie. The issue w/ Jennings was that he played on terrible teams & became a gunner. One main difference would also be that Jennings has never been known for his rebounding.
People forget that Jennings broke Kareem's single game rookie scoring record & destroyed Curry as a rookie:
Yeah he was 0 for 6 with 3 of the misses on one play under the basket a point blank range. He couldn't buy a bucket, but he had several turn overs to make up for it. Oddly his +/- was +14.
He tied the lowest plus minus within the starters.
Would the plus/minus be higher if it wasn't for him? Players are evaluated on themselves and not too much on how the team is doing.
Yes and Pops wouldnt have to rest anybody because theyd never touch the ball again.
I don't see the Jennings comparison. Jennings is too small and only has value tied to the nights his volume chucking is on. Murray's physical attributes give him a huge edge on the boards and the defensive end that Jennings or Jackson never had.
I think a good comparison is George Hill except he has a much higher ceiling in the play-making department, which gives him a higher ceiling than Hill overall. Murray also has elite foot speed/ lateral quickness that can make him a better defender than Hill too. Hill was a Kawhi type athlete, in that he didn't have great foot speed, lateral quickness, but he had elite length to compensate.
Think his ceiling is somewhere between George Hill and Westbrook, as outlandish as that sounds. He'll never be as great as Westbrook, but I think he has a lot of the same attributes -- just not scaled to the highest degree like RW.
Yes the +/- would be higher as well as the fg%, especially in the first half.He tied the lowest plus minus within the starters.
Would the plus/minus be higher if it wasn't for him? Players are evaluated on themselves and not too much on how the team is doing.
would like to see Phoenix keep those young players together, see how they develop. seems like whenever a team has a promising young 'core' of players, it gets blown up before they reach potential...
Disappointing...Kawhi gets the s and my man Kyle s the bed.
That's usually because a) most players bust and b) teams have a hard time letting lesser guys go if their contracts come up first. Honestly, only Booker, Chriss and Bender look like they'll be anything, but they'll be paying Warren and Len big bucks in addition to their vets.
Kind of a problem that Portland had in having to pay role players just to avoid getting worse (what woul they replace them with?) ... but as they are not any good right now maybe they evaluate things differently. With Portland they were a playoff team with a star in their prime... But Phoenix in general has mishandled their affairs with players so I wouldn't venture to see how that one goes.
I thought the same thing, though not too sure about keeping Watson around.
Considering the Jamal Crawford influence, I feel like Murray would be a gunner if he was ever an above average 3 point shooter as he used to chuck them up in college while being pretty mediocre.
I brought up Jennings b/c he was a slightly built athletic gunner w/ a quick first step that was a blur in the open court. Jennings also has those Seattle handles & iness like Crawford. On defense, Jennings is a high motor guy who's very good at getting steals/deflections along w/ having a penchant to pressure ball-handlers which is something that would suit Murray. Jennings is an average rebounder b/c of his size but that's why I said a 6'5" Jennings who I'm pretty sure would have stuck his nose in there if he had the physical attributes.
Under the tutelage of PATFO, he can be groomed to be like the good version of Reggie Jackson on offense who basically attempts 50% of his shots within the restricted area & scores on a variety of floaters. If Reggie wasn't lazy, he could be a very good rebounder & defender w/ his 7 feet wing span as an athletic 6'3" point guard but dude has the same motor as Joe Johnson.
Well at least you talk basketball.
Look - Westbrook was about 6'3" and over 190 lbs. coming out of college. Murray was 6'5" and barely over 160 lbs. Westbrook was muscular as even then, and Murray is still like a scarecrow. Physically, they are totally different. Westbrook was considered an elite college defender (he kicked the out of OJ Mayo and Harden defensively in college), and that reputation continued into the NBA. Murray? Well Murray was definitely not known for defense in college, and he still has a LONG way to go before being comparable even to a rookie Westbrook defensively.
Westbrook was a #4 draft pick, which Presti was questioned about - until the first summer league game. Almost immediately, people began commenting on what a great pickup he was at #4. He had a good pull-up jumper, even then. Murray looked nothing like that in summer league. And he hasn't looked particularly good in most of his NBA minutes. (Go back and check game logs, if you remember it differently.) Murray is athletic, but he's nowhere near as explosive as Westbrook was as a rookie.
Bottom line, the only basis for comparing the two is guessing at who/what Murray might become. I know some above said that you can compare them just by making a comparison. I guess by that theory, you can compare Murray to Matt Bonner, too. But Sean was talking about them being similar, and so far there just aren't a whole of a lot of similarities other than coming out of college early, and being... aggressive, I guess?
I don't think you comprehended what I said to be quite honest.
1. I never compared him to Westbrook.
2. I never said he will have the ceiling of Westbrook, I mentioned he had similar attributes, just not scaled the same ( meaning the ceiling isn't as high). Similar attributes being elite size, length, speed, and quickness ( all vital attributes that make a great defender -- add in work ethic/motor -- which are necessary for the defensive end), great rebounding for his position, effective transition game with the ball, effective PnR game, inconsistency with his shot but its very early and Spurs have the best shooting coach in the NBA. For those who have trouble undestanding this, an example could be comparing Pat Pattersons' strengths to Draymonds strengths. Both have very similar strengths, but Draymonds' talent is scaled to the highest degree for that type of skillset/player.
3. I mentioned his CEILING being BETWEEN Hill and Westbrook. Emphasis on ceiling and between.
4. He has a long ways to go, but he has a much stronger foundation to build off of than Jennings or Jackson at his age IMO. Add in the fact that he has elite work ethic and gets groomed by the best personnel development system in the NBA (or one of the best) and you have a really nice prospect to be excited about.
You have good takes, but sometimes you exaggerate what was said into something that wasn't said.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 12-29-2016 at 02:52 AM.
Heh. I wasn't ing at you - I was giving you credit for talking ball, and having a reasonable expectations for Murray at this point. All the other BS up above just makes me want to pull my hair out. Sorry (and I mean it) for not being clear that I thought you were the only one with something intelligent to say about that whole thing.
Sean was just doing what Sean does during a game. He was paying the kid a compliment, and saying that he thinks there's a bunch of upside for him. Too many people here take a comment like that and run with it. Pretty soon they're discussing how James Anderson is destined for greatness. Or Boban. Or...
And Hanga, I want him to come over as well
No Kawhi, no problem. NEXT!
GO SPURS GO!!!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions