Jamal Murray. 79/100 threes

[hpantazo]

Coach Cal thinks he should be #1 .... go figure.

http://espn.go.com/nba/draft2016/story/_/id/16052499/kentucky-head-coach-john-calipari-says-philadelphia-76ers-take-wildcats-guard-jamal-murray-no1-pick-nba-draft

Well of course, Coach Cal is going to bat for his own guy as he should. Still, the way Murray has been reportedly performing in workouts so far, its hard to argue with Coach Cal on this.

[wiley]

I think Murray is far more likely to be C.J. McCollum or Kevin Martin than Steph Curry.  Far, far, far more likely.

Would you not want CJ McCollum on the Celtics?

I don't think we'll see another Steph for a decade, anyway.  No reason to look for one.

I like C.J. a lot.  If that's the kind of player you get with a top 3 pick, that's not so bad. 

He is a one-way player though.  A really nice one way player, but still one-way.

What the Celts really need is guys that can make an impact on both ends.  I want to see the Celts try and add one with the #3 pick.

Not to nitpick from another thread, but you suggested trading not just Crowder, not just Crowder and AB, but Crowder, AB and Smart...all for one way player Kevin Love.  Are you that much of a Love fan?  Or that down on our guards/wings?

[Beat LA]

Coach Cal thinks he should be #1 .... go figure.

http://espn.go.com/nba/draft2016/story/_/id/16052499/kentucky-head-coach-john-calipari-says-philadelphia-76ers-take-wildcats-guard-jamal-murray-no1-pick-nba-draft

In regards to Calipari, this is the same guy who said that Boston 'would love' James Young .

"He's got a ways to go," said Calipari, according to CSNNE.

"He's 19. [He's] as fast as anyone in the Draft, as long and athletic as anyone in the Draft and can really shoot. The people in Boston are going to love him."

http://www.sportsmole.co.uk/basketball/boston-celtics/news/youngs-old-coach-says-boston-will-love-him_172373.html

[Mattybriand]

Coach Cal thinks he should be #1 .... go figure.

http://espn.go.com/nba/draft2016/story/_/id/16052499/kentucky-head-coach-john-calipari-says-philadelphia-76ers-take-wildcats-guard-jamal-murray-no1-pick-nba-draft

In regards to Calipari, this is the same guy who said that Boston 'would love' James Young .

"He's got a ways to go," said Calipari, according to CSNNE.

"He's 19. [He's] as fast as anyone in the Draft, as long and athletic as anyone in the Draft and can really shoot. The people in Boston are going to love him."

http://www.sportsmole.co.uk/basketball/boston-celtics/news/youngs-old-coach-says-boston-will-love-him_172373.html

"He's got a ways to go"

Telling sign obviously we had green goggles on when first reading this..

[chambers]

Shame he is a guard.

If he was European, enigmatic, and playing in an obscure overseas league he'd be the consensus top pick in the draft.

I think being a 7 foot monster with the defensive versatility of a large small forward is what you mean?
Although I like him, Jamal Murray can't defend a chair right now.

[Beat LA]

Shame he is a guard.

If he was European, enigmatic, and playing in an obscure overseas league he'd be the consensus top pick in the draft.

TP! But you forgot non-athletic!

Well, there is not "if" on the non-athletic part for Murray so it seems it was left out.

He's average. As a minimum, considerably better than Hield. Given his age and production, I'd love to have him at 3.

Problem is he's an awful defender, struggles offensively versus athletic defenders, and his assists (2.2) to turnovers (2.1) is horrible for a player that projects as a combo guard. Kevin O'Conner is really down on him and has him much lower than others.

What was Hield doing at the same age?

I don't like this kind of comparison.  To me, you draft based on the known talent and perhaps a bit of projection but not too much.

I like that kind of comparison.   Say two kids graduate high school the same year.

One is a 17 year old who finished his Senior year with 3.6 GPA
The other is a 21 year old who finished his Senior year with a 3.8GPA, after failing Senior year 3 times.

Which do you expect will have a better shot of succeeding in College?

That's a horrible comparison on so many levels, just as the case that the only reason that seniors do well at the collegiate level is because they're playing against freshman, which simply isn't the case.  I'm not saying that Hield will be a 25 ppg scorer at the next level, but to right him off because of his age is ridiculous.  You're dismissing the fact that players improve from year to year, their roles may change, coaches are much more familiar with them as prospects and will have a pretty good idea on how to stop them in terms of game planning, and only a handful of college players are one-and-dones, which means that he's not just competing against fresh meat every game, he's competing against many of his contemporaries who have also improved from year to year, like Taurean Prince.

Also, academic success in high school doesn't automatically guarantee that the student will perform the same way or better at college, and there are tons of people who do far better, academically, while in college than they did high school.  Why?  Because the expectations, format, teachers, tests, and schedules are completely different as opposed to high school.  If you want to get an idea of what college is like in terms of scheduling, etc., while you're still in high school, fail a class and take summer school.  It's practically the same thing as college. 

[PickNRoll]

Shame he is a guard.

If he was European, enigmatic, and playing in an obscure overseas league he'd be the consensus top pick in the draft.

TP! But you forgot non-athletic!

Well, there is not "if" on the non-athletic part for Murray so it seems it was left out.

He's average. As a minimum, considerably better than Hield. Given his age and production, I'd love to have him at 3.

Problem is he's an awful defender, struggles offensively versus athletic defenders, and his assists (2.2) to turnovers (2.1) is horrible for a player that projects as a combo guard. Kevin O'Conner is really down on him and has him much lower than others.

What was Hield doing at the same age?

I don't like this kind of comparison.  To me, you draft based on the known talent and perhaps a bit of projection but not too much.

I like that kind of comparison.   Say two kids graduate high school the same year.

One is a 17 year old who finished his Senior year with 3.6 GPA
The other is a 21 year old who finished his Senior year with a 3.8GPA, after failing Senior year 3 times.

Which do you expect will have a better shot of succeeding in College?

That's a horrible comparison on so many levels, just as the case that the only reason that seniors do well at the collegiate level is because they're playing against freshman, which simply isn't the case.  I'm not saying that Hield will be a 25 ppg scorer at the next level, but to right him off because of his age is ridiculous.  You're dismissing the fact that players improve from year to year, their roles may change, coaches are much more familiar with them as prospects and will have a pretty good idea on how to stop them in terms of game planning, and only a handful of college players are one-and-dones, which means that he's not just competing against fresh meat every game, he's competing against many of his contemporaries who have also improved from year to year, like Taurean Prince.

Also, academic success in high school doesn't automatically guarantee that the student will perform the same way or better at college, and there are tons of people who do far better, academically, while in college than they did high school.  Why?  Because the expectations, format, teachers, tests, and schedules are completely different as opposed to high school.  If you want to get an idea of what college is like in terms of scheduling, etc., while you're still in high school, fail a class and take summer school.  It's practically the same thing as college.

Nobody fails for 3 years then becomes a straight A student, in spite of what Bender fans say.

[tankcity!]

Shame he is a guard.

If he was European, enigmatic, and playing in an obscure overseas league he'd be the consensus top pick in the draft.

TP! But you forgot non-athletic!

Well, there is not "if" on the non-athletic part for Murray so it seems it was left out.

He's average. As a minimum, considerably better than Hield. Given his age and production, I'd love to have him at 3.

Problem is he's an awful defender, struggles offensively versus athletic defenders, and his assists (2.2) to turnovers (2.1) is horrible for a player that projects as a combo guard. Kevin O'Conner is really down on him and has him much lower than others.

I'm down on Kevin O'Connor as a scout recently. He did post an article saying Smart is exactly where he should be in terms of progression, which makes no sense since Smart has gotten worse at shooting and didn't improve in offense at all.

It's really hard to complain about defense when our team sucks on offense. Is IT a good defender? Why do we have him on the team? Also, people act like Murray won't improve. He's the closest thing I've personally seen to Curry coming out of school.

[Quetzalcoatl]

I love how people who are pro Hield are so anti Bender for not being good right away.  That's the most contradictory position I've seen on CB.

Anyways, Westbrook didn't start his first year and struggled for awhile when eventually given the reigns in college.

Parsons and Beal did not look to be anything special in college.  I mean they were NBA players but nobody thought they would be stars.  I mean look at this: http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/chandler-parsons-1.html

DeAndre Jordan was drafted 100% on potential.

Jimmy Butler was almost not recruited out of high school to be on a college team.

Rudy Gobert averaged something like 12 minutes a game when he was Bender's age, then looked okay the next year, then eventually started to blossom.

etc.  There are SO MANY examples of this. 

A counter example is that there are no more than 70 American men that are at least 7 feet and between the ages of 20 and 40.  17% of them play in the NBA.  https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2014/03/09/footers-percent-chance-playing-nba/fNnbP8zybYfXZtsw0eYPDK/story.html

Bender is 7'1", can shoot, can rebound okay (not a weakness, check his stats), has been playing against professionals for 4 years, is the youngest player in the draft, has a really strong work ethic and has a frame that can add muscle.  I want Murray, but the idea that Bender is a guaranteed bust is crazy.  NBA Scouts are betting their reputations on him right now.

[tankcity!]

Shame he is a guard.

If he was European, enigmatic, and playing in an obscure overseas league he'd be the consensus top pick in the draft.

TP! But you forgot non-athletic!

Well, there is not "if" on the non-athletic part for Murray so it seems it was left out.

He's average. As a minimum, considerably better than Hield. Given his age and production, I'd love to have him at 3.

Problem is he's an awful defender, struggles offensively versus athletic defenders, and his assists (2.2) to turnovers (2.1) is horrible for a player that projects as a combo guard. Kevin O'Conner is really down on him and has him much lower than others.

What was Hield doing at the same age?

I don't like this kind of comparison.  To me, you draft based on the known talent and perhaps a bit of projection but not too much.

I like that kind of comparison.   Say two kids graduate high school the same year.

One is a 17 year old who finished his Senior year with 3.6 GPA
The other is a 21 year old who finished his Senior year with a 3.8GPA, after failing Senior year 3 times.

Which do you expect will have a better shot of succeeding in College?

LOL, spot on. Murray also has a better handle already, but supposedly that's not important.

[tankcity!]

Shame he is a guard.

If he was European, enigmatic, and playing in an obscure overseas league he'd be the consensus top pick in the draft.

That player is Furkan Korkmaz, and he's mocked in the mid-first. Korkmaz is a 6'7 athletic version of Murray.

Yep, far from 'the consensus top pick'. It just reflects the anti-european bias some people here have, which is pretty narrow minded considering how much the international game has changed in the past 10 years, and how many great international players have been succeeding in the NBA recently. Nobody is jumping all over Bender because he's european. People are excited about him despite the fact that he's european. It's the fact that he's 7'1, 18 years old, and has the quickness and skills of a small forward.

Can somebody put this kid through a shuttle drill or something so we can dispel this myth that he's quick. It's way out of hand.  Sure he has some SF skills, but he doesn't have any 7 footer skills!  So you have a small forward, who is incidentally tall, and necessarily slower and awkward. With the strength of a pg.

What matters more, if he's quick in a shuttle or if he is quick enough to guard smaller players. There is already film of him defending smaller players.

In the modern NBA, 4's play on the perimeter, so attributing his perimeter skills as "small forward" skills doesn't make sense. The league is moving towards positionless ball so fitting him into a specific position archetype is useless.

Bender is billed as a 7 footer who has shown the ability to block shots, defend smaller players in space, hit 3's, drive close outs and pass the ball. If all these skills translate to the NBA then he's going to be a hell of a player. I trust Ainge to determine whether these skills translate to the NBA because he has more information than we do.

But there's also film of him being burned by players of all sizes.  It doesn't happen every time, just a lot.

I don't know how else to say it.  I watch the film and I see a guy that is NOT able to block shots.  Not even in Israel.  His shot blocking statistics are basically a dead match for Jared Sullinger.  There are roughly 5 Bender blocked shots that exist on film and we've all seen them.  I see a guy who struggles mightily guarding 4's and 5's.  As in, he's an F.  He is average on the perimeter, and can stay in front of some 3's, and is again helpless against guards.  As a 7 footer, his rebounding is an F.  Not a D.  Straight F.  His ability to drive closeouts is something like a D-.  Like I said, he's a SF with the quickness of a PF.  His FG% was 42% over 38 games, so he's definitely not finishing those closeout drives.  Not strong enough.

I guess what I'm saying is, who is making this stuff up?  None of it is true.  He didn't block shots at an appreciable rate.  He doesn't rebound.  He was an ineffective defender in most of the games I watched.  Where do these projections come from?

Stop stating facts.

[tankcity!]

Shame he is a guard.

If he was European, enigmatic, and playing in an obscure overseas league he'd be the consensus top pick in the draft.

I think Timothe Luwawu has just as much upside as Murray. Its to bad He's not a higher prospect.

What are you even talking about? I'd be happy if that guy was as good as Sefolosha. What are people on this board seeing? By the way, Murray is younger and is light years away handling the ball, not to mention scoring. My god.

[PickNRoll]

Shame he is a guard.

If he was European, enigmatic, and playing in an obscure overseas league he'd be the consensus top pick in the draft.

TP! But you forgot non-athletic!

Well, there is not "if" on the non-athletic part for Murray so it seems it was left out.

He's average. As a minimum, considerably better than Hield. Given his age and production, I'd love to have him at 3.

Problem is he's an awful defender, struggles offensively versus athletic defenders, and his assists (2.2) to turnovers (2.1) is horrible for a player that projects as a combo guard. Kevin O'Conner is really down on him and has him much lower than others.

I'm down on Kevin O'Connor as a scout recently. He did post an article saying Smart is exactly where he should be in terms of progression, which makes no sense since Smart has gotten worse at shooting and didn't improve in offense at all.

It's really hard to complain about defense when our team sucks on offense. Is IT a good defender? Why do we have him on the team? Also, people act like Murray won't improve. He's the closest thing I've personally seen to Curry coming out of school.

All due respect to Kevin, but isn't he just a blogger?  One of us, more or less?  I don't know his background, but I'm really down on a lot of the evaluations I see from the patrons of this blog, lol.  That's just how blogs work.  You've got some excited pre-teens and a slew of casual fans. All part of the fun.

[jambr380]

All due respect to Kevin, but isn't he just a blogger?  One of us, more or less?  I don't know his background, but I'm really down on a lot of the evaluations I see from the patrons of this blog, lol.  That's just how blogs work.  You've got some excited pre-teens and a slew of casual fans. All part of the fun.

Kevin obviously puts a lot of work into his draft guide and provides a lot of solid analysis, but I don't think that's what sets him apart.

What he does well is breaking down plays / players, then using video to explain what worked, what didn't, and what can be improved upon. This is especially helpful to most fans who watch games, but don't notice the intricacies of why a player like AB (for example) should be successful shooting threes instead of long twos off of the hand-off. It's almost as if Stevens saw this article by Kevin, because AB started getting the ball a little deeper off of screens and double screens and became a very effective three-point shooter.

[vjcsmoke]

I love Murray's shooting ability and competitiveness.  I am scared of his lack of athleticism and only average length for the SG position.

I do feel Bender is the better prospect if he pans out and reaches his ceiling, because a guy with his length, size, skills, and agility is rare.

But Murray does give me serious pause, because I feel like today's NBA favors shooters.  Imagine a small ball lineup of IT, AB, Murray with two bigs or Crowder plus an athletic big at the 5 such as Deyonta Davis?

I'm not saying we'd turn into the Warriors East, but that lineup would intrigue me.  And it would give us the option to eventually cash out one of those guards if their contract demands got too high.

Just what we need a fairly above average sg with the #3 pick.   No thanks.  Murray is a good all around player but Bender, Brown, Hield would have had to do something wrong to pass on those guys I think.  We have Marcus and Bradley who are better imo.  We also don't need to follow the Lakers model for success.  Teams are trying to copy the Warriors here moreso and get guys like Steph Curry when not every player is that.

I don't think we should take a sg at all.  I think Brown can at least play other positions.  I would rather trade the pick if Bender isn't as advertised and we feel like Brown can't do some things.

What is average about an 18 year old freshman who scores 20 a game?

Murray is a good player but he's not Steph Curry is what I'm saying.  I don't know how possible trade scenarios are, but if it comes down to us taking a SG in general there are hopefully better trade options out there.  Butler and Okafor still seem somewhat far fetched though.  If we are taking bpa there are still better players on the board potentially.  Brown and Bender and Hield are that. Even Chriss I think depending on upside although he has a way to go himself.  So do most of these guys.

I just think finding an Isaiah/Smart clone if they mated isn't what we need.  He's a solid scorer, shooter and ball handler but eh.  Probably the most sure thing all around at least being a good player in the nba.  But we don't need it.

I hope Ainge takes a chance on Bender or Brown if we stay put.  I don't think we need Hield either.