I have long thought the Nets would take a Euro at #40--Tomic, Claver, Petrovic, Dragic or one of the big Turks--but Polinsky said this the other day about Jaycee Carroll, the mad shooter from Utah State. “Jaycee Carroll, I wouldn’t say was the biggest surprise of the workout because we knew that he could shoot the ball. I think the thing that was a little surprising is that he’s a deceptively good athlete. When you say athlete that’s all relative, but I think from what he’s been cast to be to what he is, he leans more on having more athleticism in certain areas than we realized before. With the way he shoots the basketball not only the Nets but also a number of teams have to look at him if it’s a need they have to address.” He's 25 years old, because he took two years off to serve as a MORMON MISSIONARY in Chile. I think it would be great having him and Marcus Williams in the same backcourt.
Carroll's too one dimensional and undersized to play in the NBA. He's a hell of a shooter, but there's a lot of shooters on his level with a lot more experience and more well-rounded skillsets that are playing in the minor leagues at the moment. Besides, if you were set on taking him, why take him at #40? He's most likely going to go undrafted, so you could just pick him up during free agency and use the #40 pick on a European or post player.
Polinsky says he's not one-dimensional, which is the point of my post. You may think he is one-dimensional, but the chief scout of an NBA team is now on the record saying he is not one-dimensional. As for me, I like one-dimensional SHOOTERS. Kyle Korver was seen as one-dimensional.
I don't know what "one-dimensional" means, anyway. Is it a euphemism for being unable to play defense? There are a lot of guys like that. Does it mean that a player isn't athletic enough to dunk? Then why not just say that he isn't very athletic? Is J.J. Redick "one-dimensional"? If so, why was he drafted #11? Is Boki "one-dimensional?" Is Josh Boone? (albeit a different dimension).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Polinsky says he's not one-dimensional, which is the point of my post. You may think he is one-dimensional, but the chief scout of an NBA team is now on the record saying he is not one-dimensional. As for me, I like one-dimensional SHOOTERS. Kyle Korver was seen as one-dimensional.</div> Chief scouts aren't always the greatest authority. Sometimes, they're the biggest idiots in the NBA, hence all the bad decisions they've made over the years, decisions that most knowledgable fans could have done better with (ie: passing on Granger in '05, passing on Boozer in '02, etc.). I like to call them like I see them with my own eyes, not let someone else's authority be the end-all. And no, I'm not arguing with Polinsky in this case. I'm just saying you can't hold up a scout's opinion as if it were a fact. As for Polinsky's comments, they weren't exactly describing Carroll as a multi-demensional player, but rather as a shooter who is a "deceptively good athlete." In the bigger picture, he's a 6'2" (maybe shorter), twenty-five year old two-guard who hasn't shown the ability to run the point and whose only real translatable skill on the next level is shooting the rock, something that a lot of other players in the draft (Neitzel, Singletary, etc.) can do just as well, if not better, while bringing more to the table in terms of overall abilities. And like I said in my other post, if you just want a niche shooter, there's plenty of them on the free agent market, and they're all more experienced than any rookie. Just because they're not the sexy picks at this time of year, doesn't mean you can't talk about guys four or five years removed from college like Darnell Archey (43.1% 3pt, 97.3% FT). Hell, even Gerry McNamara would be a better addition. Not to mention that he wasn't invited to the Orlando Pre-Draft Camp, and he's not projected to be drafted by just about any source, so why would the Nets waste a pick on him when they could get him as an undrafted free agent? There's a lot of European talent in this year's draft that would get late-first round looks in pre-Vasquez/Splitter years. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 18 2008, 01:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't know what "one-dimensional" means, anyway. Is it a euphemism for being unable to play defense? There are a lot of guys like that. Does it mean that a player isn't athletic enough to dunk? Then why not just say that he isn't very athletic? Is J.J. Redick "one-dimensional"? If so, why was he drafted #11? Is Boki "one-dimensional?" Is Josh Boone? (albeit a different dimension).</div> One-dimensional is a pretty self evident term. It simply means that the player only excells in one of the dimensions needed to be a good basketball player on whatever level of competition they're playing on (ie: being a good shooter, having a quick first step and being able to get to the rim a lot because of it, being a good defender, etc.).
Jaycee's an INCREDIBLY efficient scorer. I'd take a chance. To me, Carroll's stroke looks identical to Michael Redd's, but he's a righty. Beautiful shot.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Voodoo Child @ Jun 18 2008, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Polinsky says he's not one-dimensional, which is the point of my post. You may think he is one-dimensional, but the chief scout of an NBA team is now on the record saying he is not one-dimensional. As for me, I like one-dimensional SHOOTERS. Kyle Korver was seen as one-dimensional.</div> Chief scouts aren't always the greatest authority. Sometimes, they're the biggest idiots in the NBA, hence all the bad decisions they've made over the years, decisions that most knowledgable fans could have done better with (ie: passing on Granger in '05, passing on Boozer in '02, etc.). I like to call them like I see them with my own eyes, not let someone else's authority be the end-all. And no, I'm not arguing with Polinsky in this case. I'm just saying you can't hold up a scout's opinion as if it were a fact. As for Polinsky's comments, they weren't exactly describing Carroll as a multi-demensional player, but rather as a shooter who is a "deceptively good athlete." In the bigger picture, he's a 6'2" (maybe shorter), twenty-five year old two-guard who hasn't shown the ability to run the point and whose only real translatable skill on the next level is shooting the rock, something that a lot of other players in the draft (Neitzel, Singletary, etc.) can do just as well, if not better, while bringing more to the table in terms of overall abilities. And like I said in my other post, if you just want a niche shooter, there's plenty of them on the free agent market, and they're all more experienced than any rookie. Just because they're not the sexy picks at this time of year, doesn't mean you can't talk about guys four or five years removed from college like Darnell Archey (43.1% 3pt, 97.3% FT). Hell, even Gerry McNamara would be a better addition. Not to mention that he wasn't invited to the Orlando Pre-Draft Camp, and he's not projected to be drafted by just about any source, so why would the Nets waste a pick on him when they could get him as an undrafted free agent? There's a lot of European talent in this year's draft that would get late-first round looks in pre-Vasquez/Splitter years. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 18 2008, 01:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't know what "one-dimensional" means, anyway. Is it a euphemism for being unable to play defense? There are a lot of guys like that. Does it mean that a player isn't athletic enough to dunk? Then why not just say that he isn't very athletic? Is J.J. Redick "one-dimensional"? If so, why was he drafted #11? Is Boki "one-dimensional?" Is Josh Boone? (albeit a different dimension).</div> One-dimensional is a pretty self evident term. It simply means that the player only excells in one of the dimensions needed to be a good basketball player on whatever level of competition they're playing on (ie: being a good shooter, having a quick first step and being able to get to the rim a lot because of it, being a good defender, etc.). </div> Pure sophistry...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Jun 18 2008, 04:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How is his defense? I read Marcus Williams - Jaycee Carroll (6'2) backcourt. I thought bad thoughts.</div> He hustles...that's a start. And name the great defenders in the draft after the first round. I still think the smart move is take a Euro...Ante Tomic of Croatia or Victor Claver of Spain are my current favorites. It's good to be drafted in the second round by the Nets. In the Thorn era, when the Nets take a player in the second round, no matter how late, they either stash them in Europe or sign them to a vets minimum deal with an option for the second year. The only exception was Korver. 2000 - Soumaki (one year with option) 2001 - Scalabrine (one year with option) 2002 - Slay (one year with option) 2003 - Korver (sold for $125,000) 2004 - Drejer (stashed in Europe) 2005 - Ilic (stashed in Europe) 2006 - Adams (one with an option) 2007 - no pick
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 18 2008, 06:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Jun 18 2008, 04:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How is his defense? I read Marcus Williams - Jaycee Carroll (6'2) backcourt. I thought bad thoughts.</div> He hustles...that's a start. And name the great defenders in the draft after the first round. </div> Bruce Bowen, Ben Wallace, Manu Ginobili, Stephen Jackson
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 18 2008, 06:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Jun 18 2008, 04:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How is his defense? I read Marcus Williams - Jaycee Carroll (6'2) backcourt. I thought bad thoughts.</div> He hustles...that's a start. And name the great defenders in the draft after the first round. I still think the smart move is take a Euro...Ante Tomic of Croatia or Victor Claver of Spain are my current favorites. It's good to be drafted in the second round by the Nets. In the Thorn era, when the Nets take a player in the second round, no matter how late, they either stash them in Europe or sign them to a vets minimum deal with an option for the second year. The only exception was Korver. 2000 - Soumaki (one year with option) 2001 - Scalabrine (one year with option) 2002 - Slay (one year with option) 2003 - Korver (sold for $125,000) 2004 - Drejer (stashed in Europe) 2005 - Ilic (stashed in Europe) 2006 - Adams (one with an option) 2007 - no pick </div> It's been reported in the last couple days that Victor Claver has withdrawn. http://www.solobasket.com/contenidos/clave...si/c-18210.html
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 18 2008, 04:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Voodoo Child @ Jun 18 2008, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Polinsky says he's not one-dimensional, which is the point of my post. You may think he is one-dimensional, but the chief scout of an NBA team is now on the record saying he is not one-dimensional. As for me, I like one-dimensional SHOOTERS. Kyle Korver was seen as one-dimensional.</div> Chief scouts aren't always the greatest authority. Sometimes, they're the biggest idiots in the NBA, hence all the bad decisions they've made over the years, decisions that most knowledgable fans could have done better with (ie: passing on Granger in '05, passing on Boozer in '02, etc.). I like to call them like I see them with my own eyes, not let someone else's authority be the end-all. And no, I'm not arguing with Polinsky in this case. I'm just saying you can't hold up a scout's opinion as if it were a fact. As for Polinsky's comments, they weren't exactly describing Carroll as a multi-demensional player, but rather as a shooter who is a "deceptively good athlete." In the bigger picture, he's a 6'2" (maybe shorter), twenty-five year old two-guard who hasn't shown the ability to run the point and whose only real translatable skill on the next level is shooting the rock, something that a lot of other players in the draft (Neitzel, Singletary, etc.) can do just as well, if not better, while bringing more to the table in terms of overall abilities. And like I said in my other post, if you just want a niche shooter, there's plenty of them on the free agent market, and they're all more experienced than any rookie. Just because they're not the sexy picks at this time of year, doesn't mean you can't talk about guys four or five years removed from college like Darnell Archey (43.1% 3pt, 97.3% FT). Hell, even Gerry McNamara would be a better addition. Not to mention that he wasn't invited to the Orlando Pre-Draft Camp, and he's not projected to be drafted by just about any source, so why would the Nets waste a pick on him when they could get him as an undrafted free agent? There's a lot of European talent in this year's draft that would get late-first round looks in pre-Vasquez/Splitter years. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jun 18 2008, 01:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't know what "one-dimensional" means, anyway. Is it a euphemism for being unable to play defense? There are a lot of guys like that. Does it mean that a player isn't athletic enough to dunk? Then why not just say that he isn't very athletic? Is J.J. Redick "one-dimensional"? If so, why was he drafted #11? Is Boki "one-dimensional?" Is Josh Boone? (albeit a different dimension).</div> One-dimensional is a pretty self evident term. It simply means that the player only excells in one of the dimensions needed to be a good basketball player on whatever level of competition they're playing on (ie: being a good shooter, having a quick first step and being able to get to the rim a lot because of it, being a good defender, etc.). </div> Pure sophistry... </div> Howso? Firstly, logic is logic, and it's hard to argue with the logic that if he's going undrafted (which he most likely is), then he should be signed as an undrafted free agent, allowing the Nets to use the #40 pick on a European prospect. Secondly, Carroll's "athleticism" didn't help him a few weeks ago at the PIT, where guys like Rob McKiver, Arizona Reid, and even Martin Zeno outplayed him. The 6'2" Carroll went 0-9 from behind the arch on the week, going 4-13 overall from the field in his last game, all the while having a hard time running the point and having an even harder time creating his own shot. It's not like the PIT is even the Orlando Pre-Draft Camp (which Carroll wasn't invited to); the standout performers at the PIT that weekend were the likes of Jiri Hubalek and JaJuan Smith for God's sake. As for his defense, I did a google search and found this review from DX - "Another problem is how his defensive abilities will translate at the next level. In terms of the NBA, it is safe to say that there are very few players, if any, that Carroll will be able to guard. As mentioned earlier, his physical profile leaves much to be desired, and his lack of lateral quickness hurts him as well. That being said, however, he is a fundamentally sound defender, maintaining a good stance with his hands up most of the time. His effort is admirable, and as evidenced in his 6.2 rebounds per game. One thing that he should work to improve, however, is staying close to his man on the perimeter. He sometimes allows his man too much room and then is late closing out on the perimeter jumper or is beaten off of the dribble by his man." There are more than a few decent defensive players in the second round, by the way. Kyle Weaver, Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, Joey Dorsey, and several others could wind up being solid defensive players on the next level, to name the few.
how really cares?? there is about a 2% chance of getting anyone consistently useful that late in the draft anyway
