Yes or No? Rozier >D'Angelo Russell

[InameallmyanimalsLarry]

Rozier looked pretty good in the playoffs and he didn't betray the trust of his teammates (that I know of)

[greece66]

I do not exclude the (rather small tbh) possibility that Rozier might turn out to be the best of the two in say five-six years from now because all sorts of things might happen in the meantime.

But based on what we have seen until now, D-Lo is the best player by a large margin.

[chiken Green]

I hope the Lakers believe that, I'd trade Rozier for Russell in a heartbeat...

I'll pull the trigger if the Lakers can guarantee he doesn't come with a phone

At this moment in time, Rozier has next to no trade value.  He did nothing as a rookie. 

I hope he has a larger role next year and contributes, but until that happens, he's irrelevant to this league.

Having Value to the league and Value for your Team is 2 different things..  Rozier plays for a team that is improving and what he provides is meaningful to us.
Russell last year was meaningless to the lakers..

And I made the playoff comment because someone tried to use 13 points a game on the 2nd worst team in basketball..   I prefer a guy who can help a playoff team vs a guy who collects stats on a bum team.

Rozier provided next to nothing for us. You can't use the fact that Rozier was on a playoff team when he was an end of the bench guy. It's like saying Gabe Pruitt was better than Kevin Durant after his rookie year because he won a title while Durant was toiling away on a terrible Sonics team.

I think its just as fair as using Russell's stats on a team going on nowhere. See its all about perception..  I believe that if you put Rozier on the lakers last year with the same Roster he would have done the same thing.
Rozier to me is more mature than Russell, a harder worker..  A guy who would excell when given the chance which he has proven..   Russell in my opinion did next to nothing.. He just got handed the keys simply because of where he was selected in the Draft.. nothing earned.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

In fairness, Russell had a high usage rate as a rookie on a bottom three team. Rozier did not have that opportunity.

Russell's upside is limited due to athleticism and defense. He has fantastic court vision and projects to be a really good shooter (not elite but really good). He should fill up box scores and impress espn with his numbers, but when the rubber meets the road and he has to create his own shot or make a big defensive stop, in his prime will he be able to do that? As a Celtics can, hopefully not.

On the other hand, prime Rozier could be an elite shot creator/driver and defender. Even when he was drafted, I felt confident that his shooting and passing would improve with reps, and he has already shown improvement. In other words, Russell doesn't project to be good at Rozier's strengths (defense and shot creation) but Rozier projects to be good (shooting) and passable (court vision) at Russell's strengths.

There is not another player in the NBA who relies so heavily on step backs and jump shooting because  they can't get all the way to the rim. That could be bad or Russell, or he could be creating a new archetype.

Anway, that's the argument for Rozier. Not sure I agree with it, but it's not totally without reason.

[jambr380]

I really hope Rozier ends up better than Russell and Mickey ends up better than Okafor. I know it's not necessarily likely, but to assume these rookies who were drafted high are automatically going to be better than other players in the same draft who were drafted lower is a bit short-sighted. There are countless examples every year of this happening.

As others have said, Russell (and Okafor) were on teams that absolutely stunk up the joint. Let's see what happens when they are expected to make an actual contribution to winning. I am sure the same things were said about Draymond, Gobert, Gasol, etc. There are no absolutes.

[Irish Stew]

I think Ainge did better with last years draft than most people think by picking Rozier. D'Angelo Russell was taken number 2 and I think Rozier(16) is better

  Rozier can be a useful rotation guy or trade chip. Russell can be a 20 pts/game guy.

[pablohoney]

No lol. Russell is a much more talented player and comparing him to Rozier is insulting to Russell. Russell will be an all star in 3-4 years.

Almost as insulting as saying Jae Crowder is better than Michael Kidd Gilchrist

[Scintan]

No

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Here was one of my comments in early May:

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=84250.0

Rozier - I'm all-in on Rozier as a future all-star. I know that may undercut everything I say for some of you, but I'm all-in. He has elite competitiveness and athleticism. He can score in a variety of creative ways. He can get to the basket. He can pass. He is still raw, but I like Rozier so much that I am ready to trade Smart.

Later in that thread:

If he gets the playing time (which is hard when guys ahead of him are more settled as players in their roles), I think he could be at 20 mpg, 10 ppg, 4 rpg, 2 apg, on 42% 32% 78%. He is a more competitive Eric Bledsoe.

Rozier looks way more comfortable than Smart at scoring in every way except posting up. Rozier has left and right hand finishing and floaters. He has step-backs, the mid-range game, and very consistent form on his outside jumpshot. I think Smart has some of those things in his game, but he is far more raw in terms of rhythm and feel for getting those shots.

I'm all-in on Rozier as a future All-star. Before the obligatory "It's just summer league" come, I started to feel this way right before the draft.

http://www.nbadraft.net/forum/measurement-and-athleticism-analysis-2015

This is when I first got interested in him. This guy tried to find a correlation between the measurements and athleticism testing and success in the NBA. Rozier was the only point guard to meet the correlation for success and was 3/4'' away on his wingspan from meeting the correlation for success for a shooting guard.

Then I started looking at his game. Even though he was inefficient at Louisville, the plethora of ways in which he could score was obvious. Pullups, step-backs, runners with both hands, eurosteps, finishing at the rim with both hands, and a developing outside shot (with highly consistent form).

I was surprised as anyone when we picked him at 16, but my surprise quickly turned to excitement when I remembered this previous research.

As I said, I'm all-in on Rozier.

[Future Celtics Owner]

I really hope Rozier ends up better than Russell and Mickey ends up better than Okafor. I know it's not necessarily likely, but to assume these rookies who were drafted high are automatically going to be better than other players in the same draft who were drafted lower is a bit short-sighted. There are countless examples every year of this happening.

As others have said, Russell (and Okafor) were on teams that absolutely stunk up the joint. Let's see what happens when they are expected to make an actual contribution to winning. I am sure the same things were said about Draymond, Gobert, Gasol, etc. There are no absolutes.

Did you look up any of their physical measurements?
Did you review D-league stats, because Rozier and Mickey did play last year..a lot, just in the D-League.
Also, Philly and LAL did suck, but some players are not even capable of putting of stats if they are on a team that has no scorers or 3-point shooting to extend the floor/create space/keep the defense honest.
Jaylen Brown was in a horrible situation his frshman year in college and many teams overlooked him, same thing with Myles Turner. After following Okafor and watching his value fall, it is pretty obvious he was in a system that catered to his weaknesses and experience/physical ability as a 19 year old rookie.

[passesofftodj]

The hyperbole around the Celtics current players is getting out of hand.  I like Rozier but come on...