re: About the draft . . .

quote:

---

That's literally the only column that matters because that's the only column he's above average in. So Hield shoots better than Crawford, that's going to get him more points, not more shots, and I already conceded that saying he might average 2-3 more points than Crawford.

---

This whole Crawford = Hield and in particular this line of logic is reductionist to the point of worthless.

You are beyond reaching with the Craford and Hield comparison. Comparisons tend to work better the more two players have in common, Crawford and Hield don't have a whole lot in common other then position. Crawford, from the moment scouts began analyzing him, has been pegged as a low efficiency, high volume shooter who loves long two's and less analytically optimal shots. And throughout his career has never shown the willingness to really expand his game the way Hield continues to do.

Frankly the problem with all of these attempts at comparison are the same that happened with Davis. Not that Hield is a transitional player but that you can't realy call him a clone or similar to any one player. People call him Redick but that kinda falls apart because Reddick was never as efficient a shooter or scorer and transition player and was and is more physically limited then Hield is.

But when you step back and just look at what Hield brings to the table as a prospect, for this team, he grades out pretty darn well.

I don't think you can discount the leadership and fire, especially on this team where our best crunch time option the past 2 years require Tyreke running the play. If Buddy had the swag and ability to be a closer that might make him special to the Pels.

Oh so wait, I can't use the comparison that Hield could be a more efficient version of Crawford, but now you to combine "get to the rim" Eric Gordon & 45% from 3 Eric Gordon and make this magical player that never existed?

Look I'm all for it, but don't go thrashing me over saying he could be a more efficient Crawford. Neither example truly exists but I think we can all use our imagination here.

As for 14-15' Gordon, clearly a player that lost some bounce & transitioned into mainly a 3pt threat. Not a good rim finisher this year.

So basically what you are telling me is you want a 40+ 3pt shooter that is able to play starter minutes on a playoff caliber team. That was Eric Gordon. For 1 year. That has been Redick for the last 3. Stop hating on Redick, you aren't making sense here.

If Gordon was as good of a shooter as Redick, you maybe would see him shoot 75% of his shots from your "dumb zone" as opposed to 60. Regardless, both are high numbers reserved for 3pt specialists.

quote:

---

Dumb zone (16-3pt)

---

You realize Redick doesn't have a dumb zone?

Klay is also one of the best defensive SG's if you think he will be too I would gladly take Heild.

Lillard IS better than CJ though.

This thread is getting silly. We need a third option who isn't a liability on defense and who doesn't play the same position as our best player while providing spacing for our 1st and 2nd option. If we can land a player like that in the draft, everyone should be ecstatic.

We are not getting heild. He's been lights out all season and turned it up a notch for the tournement. He will get picked by the Celtic or wolves and we will have atleast 1 of brown, Murray or Dunn available.

I have no faith in our staff to develop a high ceiling/low floor guy.

He shot 65% on FTs; maybe he really just can't shoot?