Author Topic: Not impressed with Okafor  (Read 6393 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Not impressed with Okafor
« Reply #15 on: February 11, 2015, 01:32:29 PM »

Offline littleteapot

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 852
  • Tommy Points: 93
I will go with Towns, too
JO is too slow to play the NBA, he somehow reminds me of Fab Melo with higher IQ
OK don't go too far. The guy is a beast and I would be shocked if he doesn't have an nba impact. I'm just not sure he has the versatility that Towns has to justify being picked higher.
How do you feel about websites where people with similar interests share their opinions?
I'm forum!

Re: Not impressed with Okafor
« Reply #16 on: February 11, 2015, 02:27:36 PM »

Offline konkmv

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1518
  • Tommy Points: 104
Everything i read about draft prospects is b...... you can only guess right now... from what i see okafor stein towns and turner would be good picks for boston. Everyone has weaknesses. It is up to them and their next team to improve them... i am very impressed with all of them...

Re: Not impressed with Okafor
« Reply #17 on: February 11, 2015, 03:10:43 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975
JO is too slow to play the NBA, he somehow reminds me of Fab Melo with higher IQ

Re: Not impressed with Okafor
« Reply #18 on: February 11, 2015, 03:14:27 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20090
  • Tommy Points: 1331
Okafor would be fine replacing Sully but not alongside of him, I think.

Re: Not impressed with Okafor
« Reply #19 on: February 11, 2015, 05:08:02 PM »

Offline Sketch5

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3247
  • Tommy Points: 281
I'm not super impressed by either Okafor or Towns. Okafor has a decent offensive game, but doesn't get good postilion all the time and gets pushed out a lot, which for the first couple of years in the NBA will happen a lot.

Every time I try to check out Towns, he's on the bench, and a lot of the time during crucial parts of the game. He also looks more like a PF than a center. Which he may be a nice upgrade over Sully.  But I don't see him as a rim protector.

I'm sure the C's will put them threw the tests if they get a chance and maybe the defensive ability is there for Okafor, he's just never had to learn it in highschool and it's showing in college.

Re: Not impressed with Okafor
« Reply #20 on: February 11, 2015, 05:15:51 PM »

Offline jpotter33

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 51955
  • Tommy Points: 3186
I think Okafor seems to be a better rebounding Al Jefferson type. A good player in his own right, but not necessarily what we're looking for or where the league is trending now.
Recovering Joe Skeptic, but inching towards a relapse.

Check out my Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@Yakin_Bassin/shorts

Re: Not impressed with Okafor
« Reply #21 on: February 11, 2015, 05:50:06 PM »

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4100
  • Tommy Points: 419
He kind of reminds so me of Kevin McHale, as weird as that sounds.  The one thing that really stands out to me though is that while McHale is a much better free throw shooter, Okafor is shooting .665 for his FG% on 11 shots a game.  That's really good.  I think Okafor would be better as a PF than a pure C, though.

Re: Not impressed with Okafor
« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2015, 06:08:04 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8994
  • Tommy Points: 583
He kind of reminds so me of Kevin McHale, as weird as that sounds.  The one thing that really stands out to me though is that while McHale is a much better free throw shooter, Okafor is shooting .665 for his FG% on 11 shots a game.  That's really good.  I think Okafor would be better as a PF than a pure C, though.
I don't see the McHale comparison at all.  McHale was an excellent defender and Okafor is below average.  Okafor would be a terrible PF.  He wouldn't be able to defend the athletic PFs and 3pt shooting PFs.