Garland is the right choice all these guys like hunter or reddish are guys who can’t shoot or dribble. Garland at worst will be scorer off the bench.
Hunter can’t shoot
Reading is fundamental. Can he handle the ball?
Writing is also fundamental. No but he can shoot. And your post is written like neither guy can do either.
Or you don’t comprehend. If I wanted to say they both couldn’t do it (shoot and handle) I would have worded it “They can’t shoot and they can’t handle the rock”
AND
To identify objects that meet all criteria within a set of list
OR
To identify objects that meet at least one criteria within a set of list _________________ Coach Vogel, Kidd, Hollins
Max slot : Kawhi
Last edited by Car54 on Wed May 22, 2019 8:08 am; edited 1 time in total
I love how confident people are every year about a certain prospect. Usually, around this time, LG turns into the Hive mind about a player.
2015 - okafor > Russell lol nobody who supported Russel could get a word in because the okafor supporters took over.
2016 - Simmons > Ingram. This one had more validity. I won’t go into detail but I still feel Ingram was the correct choice. .
2017 - fultz > Lonzo. I remember a few Fox supporters too, but mostly it was believed that fultz was a prospect in his own tier. That wasn’t the case at all and anyone who watched Lonzo completely outclass him in their matchup would have known that.
2018 - garland > anyone else and we haven’t even really seen the guy play yet lol he’s being compared to players like CP3 and Kyrie. Personally I don’t even see what the fuss is about. He’s not even as good as any of our last few draft picks. Not even Randle and he was picked 7th.
This hive mind ish is crazy.
Imo reddish and Bol Bol are better upside prospects than garland. I honestly don’t think he’s better than the HS prospect last year Anfernee somons. I liked him but he went later in the first. _________________ “like I never left”
Joined: 23 Apr 2006 Posts: 6572 Location: Oceanside Ca
Posted: Wed May 22, 2019 9:27 am Post subject:
PICKnPOP wrote:
I love how confident people are every year about a certain prospect. Usually, around this time, LG turns into the Hive mind about a player.
2015 - okafor > Russell lol nobody who supported Russel could get a word in because the okafor supporters took over.
2016 - Simmons > Ingram. This one had more validity. I won’t go into detail but I still feel Ingram was the correct choice. .
2017 - fultz > Lonzo. I remember a few Fox supporters too, but mostly it was believed that fultz was a prospect in his own tier. That wasn’t the case at all and anyone who watched Lonzo completely outclass him in their matchup would have known that.
2018 - garland > anyone else and we haven’t even really seen the guy play yet lol he’s being compared to players like CP3 and Kyrie. Personally I don’t even see what the fuss is about. He’s not even as good as any of our last few draft picks. Not even Randle and he was picked 7th.
This hive mind ish is crazy.
Imo reddish and Bol Bol are better upside prospects than garland. I honestly don’t think he’s better than the HS prospect last year Anfernee somons. I liked him but he went later in the first.
Bol Bol is a nice prospect, the concern is that foot. As a young dude playing the small amount of games in college vs NBA. Not good to have hoof problems already
I love how confident people are every year about a certain prospect. Usually, around this time, LG turns into the Hive mind about a player.
2015 - okafor > Russell lol nobody who supported Russel could get a word in because the okafor supporters took over.
2016 - Simmons > Ingram. This one had more validity. I won’t go into detail but I still feel Ingram was the correct choice. .
2017 - fultz > Lonzo. I remember a few Fox supporters too, but mostly it was believed that fultz was a prospect in his own tier. That wasn’t the case at all and anyone who watched Lonzo completely outclass him in their matchup would have known that.
2018 - garland > anyone else and we haven’t even really seen the guy play yet lol he’s being compared to players like CP3 and Kyrie. Personally I don’t even see what the fuss is about. He’s not even as good as any of our last few draft picks. Not even Randle and he was picked 7th.
This hive mind ish is crazy.
Imo reddish and Bol Bol are better upside prospects than garland. I honestly don’t think he’s better than the HS prospect last year Anfernee somons. I liked him but he went later in the first.
You posted this like there’s a lot of strong options out here. He doesn’t have to be better than Randle etc.. he’s most likely the best available at 4. Do you believe reddish will be better than Ingram? Do you believe any of the guys who are available at 4 is better than Ingram? _________________ Coach Vogel, Kidd, Hollins
Max slot : Kawhi
Any of these guys Hunter, Reddish, Garland, Culver can be great, good, moderate or bust, that's why the draft is a crap shoot.
Does anybody know if the Lakers are bringing them in for workouts?
Apparently some team either Lakers or Suns have made commitments to Garland.
hes probably the next dennis smith jr, stop with the steph curry, Damian lillard nonsense
steph played 3 years in college
dame played 4 years
Garland is a small guard
played 5 games!! actually played 4.1 games (got hurt in game 5 in 3 minutes)
averaged 2.6 assists! All the games were early season where no one really cares and still only 2.6 assists and only 16 pts
he played against winthrop, alcorn state, usc, liberty for goodness sakes
one of those games he has 3 pts in 28 minutes going 1-6
hunter or culver. Id go with the Virginia kid
you don't waste a top 4 pick on a back up PG _________________ I got Nothing interesting to put here
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29150 Location: La La Land
Posted: Wed May 22, 2019 9:55 am Post subject:
BlackStarMamba wrote:
steph played 3 years in college
dame played 4 years
Same goes for whoever is getting compared to Jimmy Butler. I think it's Culver.
Butler spent 3 years in college and still needed 2 more years in the league before he turned the corner. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
I love how confident people are every year about a certain prospect. Usually, around this time, LG turns into the Hive mind about a player.
2015 - okafor > Russell lol nobody who supported Russel could get a word in because the okafor supporters took over.
2016 - Simmons > Ingram. This one had more validity. I won’t go into detail but I still feel Ingram was the correct choice. .
2017 - fultz > Lonzo. I remember a few Fox supporters too, but mostly it was believed that fultz was a prospect in his own tier. That wasn’t the case at all and anyone who watched Lonzo completely outclass him in their matchup would have known that.
2018 - garland > anyone else and we haven’t even really seen the guy play yet lol he’s being compared to players like CP3 and Kyrie. Personally I don’t even see what the fuss is about. He’s not even as good as any of our last few draft picks. Not even Randle and he was picked 7th.
This hive mind ish is crazy.
Imo reddish and Bol Bol are better upside prospects than garland. I honestly don’t think he’s better than the HS prospect last year Anfernee somons. I liked him but he went later in the first.
You posted this like there’s a lot of strong options out here. He doesn’t have to be better than Randle etc.. he’s most likely the best available at 4. Do you believe reddish will be better than Ingram? Do you believe any of the guys who are available at 4 is better than Ingram?
Reddish? Idk. Garland? Def not.
I’m saying he’s not even in the same conversation as our other prospects. I feel like bol bol and reddish are at least the same caliber of talent and potential.
That’s the issue though. Even though we have super talented prospects, they all needed years to develop (they are still developing). That is the only reason I’m not too interested in this class. We need a player that can come in and be a contributor in the rotation from day 1. The only prospect I see with that potential is hunter and I don’t think he has much upside tbh. He’s a 3& D player in this league.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the pick is traded. If not go for the highest potential
Bol bol and reddish at 4 imo _________________ “like I never left”
I know player comps aren't great, but how about these?
Garland: Dame, Kemba
Culver: Joe Johnson with a worse 3 point shot.
Hunter: Artest/Stanley Johnson with a better 3 point shot.
Am I off?
Dame - 4 years, Kemba came out as junior played at UCONN
Garland played 5 games
someone could argue well Kyrie only played 8 games. But look. Kyrie was the #2 recruit in class as a PG. and He went to DUKE. Dude was that good.
Garland #15 in class and the #3 PG in his class and went to vanderbilt.
I hope im wrong; but im not hype on Garland at all. Id draft Coby White over him (if i were looking for a PG) since Ja is gone _________________ I got Nothing interesting to put here
Garland is a small guard
played 5 games!! actually played 4.1 games (got hurt in game 5 in 3 minutes)
averaged 2.6 assists! All the games were early season where no one really cares and still only 2.6 assists and only 16 pts
I'm not disagreeing with your point about cooling hype/expectations of a very young player who played a small amount of games...
Just want to point he's not awful... and the way you quote stats is very misleading.
Kawhi scored 12 points, had 1.4 STLs, 0.7 BLKs his first year in college... look how that turned out.
from my perspective, our biggest needs are SG and C. we have lonzo at PG with kidd to groom him, LBJ at SF obviously and Kuzma as stretch PF.
culver and hunter are the ideal choices since there are no good centers in the top 5 (bol bol is too big a risk and hayes will likely go 10 or later). hunter is more NBA ready but culver has the potential to be a great player. lonzo is NOT a SG and picking another PG to try pairing with him is a big mistake IMO. _________________ We only celebrate championships.
from my perspective, our biggest needs are SG and C. we have lonzo at PG with kidd to groom him, LBJ at SF obviously and Kuzma as stretch PF.
culver and hunter are the ideal choices since there are no good centers in the top 5 (bol bol is too big a risk and hayes will likely go 10 or later). hunter is more NBA ready but culver has the potential to be a great player. lonzo is NOT a SG and picking another PG to try pairing with him is a big mistake IMO.
Why isn't Lonzo a "SG?" I'm not wedded to traditional positions. Assume we get Garland (or even Kyrie/Kemba via FA), Lonzo would be slotted as a "SG" but defend the other team's best guard threat every night.
I usually define a player (crudely) by the position they mostly defend. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
I love how confident people are every year about a certain prospect. Usually, around this time, LG turns into the Hive mind about a player.
2015 - okafor > Russell lol nobody who supported Russel could get a word in because the okafor supporters took over.
2016 - Simmons > Ingram. This one had more validity. I won’t go into detail but I still feel Ingram was the correct choice. .
2017 - fultz > Lonzo. I remember a few Fox supporters too, but mostly it was believed that fultz was a prospect in his own tier. That wasn’t the case at all and anyone who watched Lonzo completely outclass him in their matchup would have known that.
2018 - garland > anyone else and we haven’t even really seen the guy play yet lol he’s being compared to players like CP3 and Kyrie. Personally I don’t even see what the fuss is about. He’s not even as good as any of our last few draft picks. Not even Randle and he was picked 7th.
This hive mind ish is crazy.
Imo reddish and Bol Bol are better upside prospects than garland. I honestly don’t think he’s better than the HS prospect last year Anfernee somons. I liked him but he went later in the first.
You posted this like there’s a lot of strong options out here. He doesn’t have to be better than Randle etc.. he’s most likely the best available at 4. Do you believe reddish will be better than Ingram? Do you believe any of the guys who are available at 4 is better than Ingram?
Reddish? Idk. Garland? Def not.
I’m saying he’s not even in the same conversation as our other prospects. I feel like bol bol and reddish are at least the same caliber of talent and potential.
That’s the issue though. Even though we have super talented prospects, they all needed years to develop (they are still developing). That is the only reason I’m not too interested in this class. We need a player that can come in and be a contributor in the rotation from day 1. The only prospect I see with that potential is hunter and I don’t think he has much upside tbh. He’s a 3& D player in this league.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the pick is traded. If not go for the highest potential
Bol bol and reddish at 4 imo
Get the duck outta here. Cam ain’t close to being the prospect Ingram was. What exactly is he good at? Garland is good at scoring and handling the ball. All you can do is talk about Reddish potential. _________________ Coach Vogel, Kidd, Hollins
Max slot : Kawhi
from my perspective, our biggest needs are SG and C. we have lonzo at PG with kidd to groom him, LBJ at SF obviously and Kuzma as stretch PF.
culver and hunter are the ideal choices since there are no good centers in the top 5 (bol bol is too big a risk and hayes will likely go 10 or later). hunter is more NBA ready but culver has the potential to be a great player. lonzo is NOT a SG and picking another PG to try pairing with him is a big mistake IMO.
Why isn't Lonzo a "SG?" I'm not wedded to traditional positions. Assume we get Garland (or even Kyrie/Kemba via FA), Lonzo would be slotted as a "SG" but defend the other team's best guard threat every night.
I usually define a player (crudely) by the position they mostly defend.
he doesn't "shoot" well? lonzo's biggest asset is his playmaking, and garland's small stature will be a liability given lonzo isn't yet strong enough to handle the larger 2's in the league. _________________ We only celebrate championships.
from my perspective, our biggest needs are SG and C. we have lonzo at PG with kidd to groom him, LBJ at SF obviously and Kuzma as stretch PF.
culver and hunter are the ideal choices since there are no good centers in the top 5 (bol bol is too big a risk and hayes will likely go 10 or later). hunter is more NBA ready but culver has the potential to be a great player. lonzo is NOT a SG and picking another PG to try pairing with him is a big mistake IMO.
Why isn't Lonzo a "SG?" I'm not wedded to traditional positions. Assume we get Garland (or even Kyrie/Kemba via FA), Lonzo would be slotted as a "SG" but defend the other team's best guard threat every night.
I usually define a player (crudely) by the position they mostly defend.
he doesn't "shoot" well? lonzo's biggest asset is his playmaking, and garland's small stature will be a liability given lonzo isn't yet strong enough to handle the larger 2's in the league.
Lonzo is bigger and stronger than most 2s in the league _________________ Previously LBJ23
I know player comps aren't great, but how about these?
Garland: Dame, Kemba
Culver: Joe Johnson with a worse 3 point shot.
Hunter: Artest/Stanley Johnson with a better 3 point shot.
Am I off?
I don't see Garland as a Lillard/Kemba level athlete around the rim. He certainly has enough vertical pop and touch to be an effective finisher at the rim, but I don't see Garland putting the same downhill pressure on defenses as those two (and Kemba's only recently got his 3-ball going). Garland tends to go east-west rather than north-south, which could be a comfort thing that could be coached out of him or it might be a sign of a half-step slow first step. I'd actually compare Garland more to a young Steph Curry stylistically, but obviously the comparison ends there.
Culver will likely be a better defender than Johnson. Offensively there's definitely some overlap and remember that Johnson wasn't a knock-down 3pt shooter his first few seasons in the league.
Artest was a wrecking ball team defender along with being an intimidating man defender. Hunter is much more conservative and akin to Klay Thompson as a smart, unambitious team defender who shines defending on-the-ball. Offensively? Stanley Johnson with a reliable 3pt jumper is probably accurate. _________________ Under New Management
from my perspective, our biggest needs are SG and C. we have lonzo at PG with kidd to groom him, LBJ at SF obviously and Kuzma as stretch PF.
culver and hunter are the ideal choices since there are no good centers in the top 5 (bol bol is too big a risk and hayes will likely go 10 or later). hunter is more NBA ready but culver has the potential to be a great player. lonzo is NOT a SG and picking another PG to try pairing with him is a big mistake IMO.
Why isn't Lonzo a "SG?" I'm not wedded to traditional positions. Assume we get Garland (or even Kyrie/Kemba via FA), Lonzo would be slotted as a "SG" but defend the other team's best guard threat every night.
I usually define a player (crudely) by the position they mostly defend.
he doesn't "shoot" well? lonzo's biggest asset is his playmaking, and garland's small stature will be a liability given lonzo isn't yet strong enough to handle the larger 2's in the league.
Lonzo is bigger and stronger than most 2s in the league
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum