You don't really see what you are saying sometimes. "Oh, well people thought Jason Kidd, Draymond & Bowen couldn't shoot too!". "Duncan & LMA are not athletic".
You keep comparing him to guys who are 10x more gifted, skilled, and defensive. You can't change his size, his athleticism compared to most NBA guys, etc...He's not anywhere close to all the guys you keep throwing out there as outliers.
And I don't see Millsap as anywhere close to his ceiling. They are different players because Millsap can shoot and even to 3PT range.
Julius couldn't shoot in college, it looks worse (so far) in the pros so I don't think it's reasonable at all to assume he will develop that skill especially out to 3PT. Anything is possible of course, but if you were a betting man no one would bet on that.
I don't see how you can compare aaron gordon to randle. they are nothing alike imo.
I think that is definitely the style of player he resembles the most. They have unique ball handling/playmaking for their size/position. Sure, he's not the athlete Gordon is, but in terms of some skill set, somewhat similar there.
I don't see Randle's playmaking ability. Every time he gets the ball, he pretty much bull rushes to the rim (Lakers fans have been complaining about it in the game threads on LG). Odom was just natural at it, and a much better ball handler (I don't agree with Dirk that Randle puts the ball on the floor better than any PF in the league, unless he's talking about Randle's first step, which is moderately quick).
But yeah, never know how a player is gonna develop. I never thought Kawhi could become a legit MVP candidate. I thought his peak might be something 18 and 8 but playing elite level defense. A middle-class Scottie Pippen. Now, Leonard is on peak Scottie's level.
All the scouts saw? So no scouts thought he could be better than what you just said? Hmm
First one I found on Google: http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/5/2...nba-draft-2014
1. Randle is a much better athlete than people realize, and it showed in the first few minutes of this game. He raced down court, chasing down an Ole Miss fast break and swatted the ball at the rim. A few possessions later he caught an alley-oop in traffic. Watch how quickly he gets off the ground: (see story for video)
2. He's often compared to Zach Randolph because both are left-handed post players, but Randle is much lighter on his feet. He isn't a great rim protector, but he slides his feet really well, allowing him to stick with quicker players out to the perimeter. That skill allowed Kentucky coach John Calipari to implement a defensive system that relied heavily on switching ball screens.
3. Randle's hands are so strong and he's so aggressive that it's nearly impossible to beat him on the glass one-on-one.
4. type of defense college teams played all season against Randle. He averaged 24.0 points and 14.3 rebounds through the first three games, then teams starting focusing all of their defensive attention on him. No one in college basketball faced more double and triple teams this year. Kentucky had few shooters to keep defenses honest, so it was easier to send more attention to Randle in the paint.At the beginning of the year, Randle was a turnover machine, but that improved through the course of the season, once he began to learn how to deal with extra defenders. Through the first 17 games, he averaged 3.3 turnovers. But in the remaining 23, he turned the ball over just 1.9 times per game.
There were times in this game where Randle was out of control, forcing his way to the rim rather than taking what the defense gave him. Florida was one of the best college defenses last season; Randle wasn't going to beat the Gators by driving through three defenders.
5. Randle heavily favors his left hand. When he drives right, he'll come back left 99 percent of the time. If he doesn't, he'll try to finish with his left hand on the right side. But he gets away with it because of his unusually stable body control. He can contort his body, use his size advantage, and still get off a controlled shot with his left hand.
6. Randle could have forced up a shot through traffic, but instead, he fired a laser right into Harrison's shooting pocket for the eventual game-winning jumper. Randle made a lot of great plays in his NCAA Tournament run, but that one tops them all.
Randle is a forward with a rare combination of power and finesse. He can plow through defenders or spin around them. He shot 9.4 free throws per 40 minutes and sank 71 percent of those attempts. He can grab a rebound and bring the ball up court or sit in the post and work his defender from the block.
7. He has his shortcomings, of course. Randle will never be an above-average shot blocker, his shot selection still needs some work and he needs to improve his overall perimeter game. But the tools are there. He can come into the NBA and be a productive offensive player from Day 1.
Does any of that mean he wont bust? Of course not. This scouting report shares many of the same concerns you have ...but of course you left out the positives.
Again where is the lack of athleticism you speak of? he lacks length absolutely. no off hand and limited range.He also is bad on defense but has the feet to be solid in pnr ...
Aaron Gordon, just like Tobias Harris, just like Kevin Durant, like Rudy Gay are oversized SF, Randle is an undersized PF. He has the same height, but is much heavier, he is like David West but with worse wingspan and no jumper. Pretty much JJ Hickson. And his ballhandling is meh, it's been overhyped because he's on a bad team, against even a decent team, those penetrations are charges everytime. Aaron Gordon has stone hands but is athletic and fast.
Of course he does we have no offensive structure. So when Randle gets a chance to drive he has to take it cuz he doesnt trust his shot and Kobe dominates the FGA's. LG Especially me used to complain about the same thing with LO what Odom had was length which Randle lacks.
LOL you the one that he was unathletic, I never said he was as good as LMA or Duncan not even as good as Draymond. My point was that athleticism which he has some wont determine his success. Skill will because some of those guys I mentioned were not gifted athletes or at least not anymore so than Randle. I also gave you examples of plenty of players who improved their skill level.
Killa, none of what you posted really differs from what I said are his strengths. And people saying "he's better than people realize athletically" both implies a) that majority of people like I said comment on his lack of athelticism and b) that he's still not that athletic.
People like you are crazy to me. You ignore college (couldn't shoot there). Ignore the pros (even worse here) and still say "well, anything can happen - you aren't a fortune teller!".
By that logic, how do scouts analyze talent and then GM's/Coaches draft? By your logic, anything can happen so just take whomever and if they work hard enough bam! you have an all-star. Obvioulsy, even with limited sample sizes, people have to make judgment calls based on what they have seen over the sample size they have.
Do they get stuff wrong? Like the Millsap's of the world and others? Sure, but that doesn't change the overwhelming odds/facts that most 2nd round picks and even a lot of first round picks don't make a lot of noise or stick in the league beyond a couple years.
No, you listed guys that have an INSANE amount of skills, much bigger size and/or defensive ability. That is just being blind and unrelasitic. Their lack of athleticism was negated by insane skills (which Randle doesn't have), great defense (which Randle doesn't have) and very good size (Randles doesn't have). It's a terrible parallel to draw.
You may end up being right, but its' blind dumb luck and not because you put together a well reasoned argument or really analyzed anything.
Are you even reading what I post? Or are you to busy typing a rebuttal? That is what drives ME crazy ...Did I JUST SAY THAT HE NEEDS TO IMPROVE HIS RANGE? I'll bump ...
where am I ignoring what you said ...Deeps? Pretty straightforward and not buried in one of my longer posts ...
well you either are longer or you have to be more athletic than your opposition if you want to contest a shot. He can't do either.
So why make the comment to me about "Seeing the future" when it comes to his shooting? What have you seen either in college, scouting reports or at the nba level that makes you reasonably believe he can be a decent shooter?
Again I never said he would be those guys. Did I say that he was as good as any of them? I gave you examples of unathletic forwards.I also gave you some of players that improved a negative attribute. We started this dance with it's early.
We agree on his shortcomings. but yet you get all self-righteous and argue basically that I should condemn him 20 games in to bust status. Which makes more sense? me saying I see some positives and I definitely agree on some of the short-comings but wanting to wait and see or saying definitively he will not improve?
Nothing.But I have seen videos of him making deep shots in practice, but to hear Shaq or Dwight tell it...they make FT's in practice as well. Until he shows it, he can't do it. All I said was he has played 20 games to early to tell. I saw Jason Kidd play in HS and did not have a 3 point shot at all same in college. Does that mean I am saying Randle will be Jason Kidd or improve at a similar rate? No. Just saying the kid has talent. Now he has to put the work in. He also has to show he has the right mental make-up which I am also unsure about tbh ...but again early.
There's a huge difference in trying to frame an argument using players like Duncan/LMA/Kidd compared to Randle and saying you don't think he's a bust.
I also said nothing about a bust. Never used the word. I evaluated him based on what I've seen to this point very plainly. I said he has a lower ceiling than Gordon. But you saying "you see some positives" isn't the issue. It's you saying "what are you a fortune teller" and then saying things like "anything can happen" when in reality, nothing we have seen to date suggests the arc you see.
Huge difference in studying something and seeing something that can reasonably lead you to a conclusion vs just saying "well, you can't be certain because we just don't know" with nothing tangible (small sample size and all) to back that up.
I clearly said he has some good skills and named them (rebounding, ball handling, passing), but then said his short comings (lack of size, defense, lack of shot & yes, lack of athleticism compared to his peers) would prevent him from being a player with a high ceiling. I don't think that's biased and I don't think it's unreasonable based on every piece of evidence we have so far.
Of course he could be an anomaly, that doesn't make the current evaluation about him wrong.
Where did I say anything can happen? I realize you did not say bust ... I chose that word. But that is what it sounded like to me. Besides Raven is lurking and he pretty much has called him that. small sample size ...exactly.
Another player example is Blake Griffin who had no jumper or range in HS or college. Now he shoots pretty decent from up to 20 feet. Guess what he improved his range. over time ...imagine that. He also has short arms (much better athlete though) and limited range. Again was Griffin a much better prospect than Randle? ABSOLUTELY. the comparison is not to say he will be Griffin ...just to say that if I watched college or Blake early in his career a reliable 20 footer looked far from certain. what would make me believe Griffin would be able to hit 20 footers in college or 20 games in to his 2nd year?! By that logic his ceiling is just a dunker nothing else. he is not agreat rebounder or shot blockers and sucks on defense ...
In fact he also sucked at Ft's which Randle is Ok at is not a good rim protector or defender.
... sometimes good Ft shooting can predict better jump shooting but not always.back to Julius ... think the fact he is a decent Ft shooter (form wise) makes me believe his range will improve . but I dont know if he will ..why?
Because it's to ing early.
Last edited by Killakobe81; 12-04-2015 at 05:18 PM.
yeah, he's clearly a bust. Now, admittedly, I have high standards and maybe the guy will find a role as enforcer off the bench like Hickson and Blair, if he'll work hard. Maybe he'll even develop a decent jumper, but unless he goes on a complete reconstruction of his body, becoming a sf (never happens), he will never be a legitimate starter. He just doesn't have the potential, sorry. I consider him a bust, especially because you have to consider the fact that there were much better prospects still on the board.
Perfect example of Randle's lack of athleticism - he's supposed to be a good finisher and polished down low. However, while he takes almost 50% of his FG's from 3 feet or less, he only finishes at 53%. Compare that to Aaron Gordon? Gordon takes about the same amount of his shots from inside 3FT has Randle, but finishes at 61%.
The league average is at 61%. So for a guy that couldn't shoot in college, can't shoot in the NBA and is supposed to be a polished inside guy, he finishes well below league average in the one spot he's supposed to be good at and where he takes almost 50% of his shots.
Such as ?
This is all to say, it's not me being biased. This is an opinion of me watching him and doing research to form an opinion. Not just pointing to All-Star caliber outliers to say "well, they overcame a short-coming, why can't Randle". He can, it just seems really, really unlikely at this point.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote