Yes or No? Marcus Smart Our Next Superstar?

[Big333223]

Sitting in the third row in the Cox Pavilian and I'm afraid my impression of smart is spot on.  Looks very slow to the naked eye.  Waiting to see if he has another gear.

lol

I love that you just declared your opinion to be accurate. I guess there's no arguing with you.

[droopdog7]

Sitting in the third row in the Cox Pavilian and I'm afraid my impression of smart is spot on.  Looks very slow to the naked eye.  Waiting to see if he has another gear.

lol

I love that you just declared your opinion to be accurate. I guess there's no arguing with you.

Not just that.  I'm already convinced that smart will never be a good offensive player.  There is almost nothing there.

[jpotter33]

Sitting in the third row in the Cox Pavilian and I'm afraid my impression of smart is spot on.  Looks very slow to the naked eye.  Waiting to see if he has another gear.

lol

I love that you just declared your opinion to be accurate. I guess there's no arguing with you.

Not just that.  I'm already convinced that smart will never be a good offensive player.  There is almost nothing there.

[CelticsJG]

I don't see Smart being a superstar. His offensive skill set is very limited. He is basically a 3 and D guy with an inconsistent 3 point shot.

[droopdog7]

Sitting in the third row in the Cox Pavilian and I'm afraid my impression of smart is spot on.  Looks very slow to the naked eye.  Waiting to see if he has another gear.

lol

I love that you just declared your opinion to be accurate. I guess there's no arguing with you.

Not just that.  I'm already convinced that smart will never be a good offensive player.  There is almost nothing there.

I think I can honestly say that the only evidence I've ever heard that smart might be a good offensive player one day is based on a wing and a prayer.  Rarely if ever any solid evidence.

So I'm not surprised when posters resort to misdirection when defending smart.  I mean, what else do they have to lean on?

[GratefulCs]

Sitting in the third row in the Cox Pavilian and I'm afraid my impression of smart is spot on.  Looks very slow to the naked eye.  Waiting to see if he has another gear.

lol

I love that you just declared your opinion to be accurate. I guess there's no arguing with you.

Not just that.  I'm already convinced that smart will never be a good offensive player.  There is almost nothing there.

[dang] lannisters

[tankcity!]

Sitting in the third row in the Cox Pavilian and I'm afraid my impression of smart is spot on.  Looks very slow to the naked eye.  Waiting to see if he has another gear.

lol

I love that you just declared your opinion to be accurate. I guess there's no arguing with you.

Not just that.  I'm already convinced that smart will never be a good offensive player.  There is almost nothing there.

I think I can honestly say that the only evidence I've ever heard that smart might be a good offensive player one day is based on a wing and a prayer.  Rarely if ever any solid evidence.

So I'm not surprised when posters resort to misdirection when defending smart.  I mean, what else do they have to lean on?

So what do you expect his averages will be when he reaches his prime? I think most expect him to be able to score 15 and shoot 43-45% from the field, with great defense. I actually think he can average 7 assists a game. He seems to have good vision.

[littleteapot]

I think I can honestly say that the only evidence I've ever heard that smart might be a good offensive player one day is based on a wing and a prayer.  Rarely if ever any solid evidence.

So I'm not surprised when posters resort to misdirection when defending smart.  I mean, what else do they have to lean on?

The evidence for Smart becoming a good offensive player is that he was one against older kids in college, he extremely strong, and he is a good athlete based on every metric we have and based on being able to match up athletically with a variety of other NBA athletes.

The evidence against him becoming a good offensive player is that you watched him and didn't like him.

[Celtics4ever]

I think he is going to be a roller coaster in terms of his shot but as +/- showed last night he can still impact a game when he is not hitting in a positive manner.

[droopdog7]

I think I can honestly say that the only evidence I've ever heard that smart might be a good offensive player one day is based on a wing and a prayer.  Rarely if ever any solid evidence.

So I'm not surprised when posters resort to misdirection when defending smart.  I mean, what else do they have to lean on?

The evidence for Smart becoming a good offensive player is that he was one against older kids in college, he extremely strong, and he is a good athlete based on every metric we have and based on being able to match up athletically with a variety of other NBA athletes.

The evidence against him becoming a good offensive player is that you watched him and didn't like him.

College scoring means nothing.  Take the leading scorer in college every year going back to whenever you like and I'm betting the large large majority never make it in the nba.  Players like Kurt rambis were great college scorers.

In terms of athleticism, I just don't see it.  Can't get off the ground without gathering on two feet.  Not especially quick and has trouble driving by his man.  His handle average and his shot is below average.  Let's see, is that enough evidence?

Yes, he's strong but I saw no evidence yesterday, and have seen very little evidence throughout the nba that it will be a huge advantage.  With the explosiveness or the basketball skills, strength will only take you so far.

[jpotter33]

I think I can honestly say that the only evidence I've ever heard that smart might be a good offensive player one day is based on a wing and a prayer.  Rarely if ever any solid evidence.

So I'm not surprised when posters resort to misdirection when defending smart.  I mean, what else do they have to lean on?

The evidence for Smart becoming a good offensive player is that he was one against older kids in college, he extremely strong, and he is a good athlete based on every metric we have and based on being able to match up athletically with a variety of other NBA athletes.

The evidence against him becoming a good offensive player is that you watched him and didn't like him.

Bingo! TP!

[jpotter33]

I think I can honestly say that the only evidence I've ever heard that smart might be a good offensive player one day is based on a wing and a prayer.  Rarely if ever any solid evidence.

So I'm not surprised when posters resort to misdirection when defending smart.  I mean, what else do they have to lean on?

The evidence for Smart becoming a good offensive player is that he was one against older kids in college, he extremely strong, and he is a good athlete based on every metric we have and based on being able to match up athletically with a variety of other NBA athletes.

The evidence against him becoming a good offensive player is that you watched him and didn't like him.

College scoring means nothing.  Take the leading scorer in college every year going back to whenever you like and I'm betting the large large majority never make it in the nba.  Players like Kurt rambis were great college scorers.

In terms of athleticism, I just don't see it.  Can't get off the ground without gathering on two feet.  Not especially quick and has trouble driving by his man.  His handle average and his shot is below average.  Let's see, is that enough evidence?

Yes, he's strong but I saw no evidence yesterday, and have seen very little evidence throughout the nba that it will be a huge advantage.  With the explosiveness or the basketball skills, strength will only take you so far.

3 great offensive games + 1 bad offensive game = he'll never be a good offensive player. Hmmm, that sounds like sound logic, eh.

[littleteapot]

College scoring means nothing.  Take the leading scorer in college every year going back to whenever you like and I'm betting the large large majority never make it in the nba.  Players like Kurt rambis were great college scorers.

In terms of athleticism, I just don't see it.  Can't get off the ground without gathering on two feet.  Not especially quick and has trouble driving by his man.  His handle average and his shot is below average.  Let's see, is that enough evidence?

Yes, he's strong but I saw no evidence yesterday, and have seen very little evidence throughout the nba that it will be a huge advantage.  With the explosiveness or the basketball skills, strength will only take you so far.

College stats don't mean nothing. If they meant nothing, D'Angelo Russel wouldn't have been picked #2 overall. Yes there are tons of guys who can put it together in college but not the NBA, but it doesn't mean that it's bad or completely irrelevant to be good in college.

I don't know how he can be so effective on defense if he can't move laterally and can't jump from awkward positions. He is absolutely lacking in offensive skills to take advantage of his athleticism right now, but I don't see how you can say this is due to a lack of athleticism.

It has already been mentioned on this thread how many guys in the NBA are good but not great athletes but are built like brick houses and use it to be all-star caliber offensive players.

[knuckleballer]

College scoring means nothing.  Take the leading scorer in college every year going back to whenever you like and I'm betting the large large majority never make it in the nba.  Players like Kurt rambis were great college scorers.

In terms of athleticism, I just don't see it.  Can't get off the ground without gathering on two feet.  Not especially quick and has trouble driving by his man.  His handle average and his shot is below average.  Let's see, is that enough evidence?

Yes, he's strong but I saw no evidence yesterday, and have seen very little evidence throughout the nba that it will be a huge advantage.  With the explosiveness or the basketball skills, strength will only take you so far.

College stats don't mean nothing. If they meant nothing, D'Angelo Russel wouldn't have been picked #2 overall. Yes there are tons of guys who can put it together in college but not the NBA, but it doesn't mean that it's bad or completely irrelevant to be good in college.

I don't know how he can be so effective on defense if he can't move laterally and can't jump from awkward positions. He is absolutely lacking in offensive skills to take advantage of his athleticism right now, but I don't see how you can say this is due to a lack of athleticism.

It has already been mentioned on this thread how many guys in the NBA are good but not great athletes but are built like brick houses and use it to be all-star caliber offensive players.

I totally agree.  TP.  He has the talent to drive to the hoop and score and draw fouls.  He just needs to improve his skills and comfidence to do it in the NBA as he did in college.  We have seen some of that during the summer league.  With his work ethic, I think he will get there.  I'm not saying he will become a "superstar", but I'm excired about his potential.  It surprises me how many Celtics fans are so down on him.

[droopdog7]

I think I can honestly say that the only evidence I've ever heard that smart might be a good offensive player one day is based on a wing and a prayer.  Rarely if ever any solid evidence.

So I'm not surprised when posters resort to misdirection when defending smart.  I mean, what else do they have to lean on?

The evidence for Smart becoming a good offensive player is that he was one against older kids in college, he extremely strong, and he is a good athlete based on every metric we have and based on being able to match up athletically with a variety of other NBA athletes.

The evidence against him becoming a good offensive player is that you watched him and didn't like him.

College scoring means nothing.  Take the leading scorer in college every year going back to whenever you like and I'm betting the large large majority never make it in the nba.  Players like Kurt rambis were great college scorers.

In terms of athleticism, I just don't see it.  Can't get off the ground without gathering on two feet.  Not especially quick and has trouble driving by his man.  His handle average and his shot is below average.  Let's see, is that enough evidence?

Yes, he's strong but I saw no evidence yesterday, and have seen very little evidence throughout the nba that it will be a huge advantage.  With the explosiveness or the basketball skills, strength will only take you so far.

3 great offensive games + 1 bad offensive game = he'll never be a good offensive player. Hmmm, that sounds like sound logic, eh.

I don't believe I've mentioned anything at all about stats.  Having said that, I thought his first game was average.

Anyway, it isn't about stats it's about skills.  we already know he isn't a great shooter.
 He's streaky at best.  We already he has an average handle.  We already know he has trouble finishing.  We already know he is a tweener right now.