I know it's just summer league, but didn't he do just that in the first game? The step back three after leading a 20-point comeback in the second half?
I agree with it as a generalization, but it's totally useless as a blanket statement applied to individuals, which is what Ed O. always ends up doing. Guys like Roy, Wade, and Battier (just a few off the top of my head) are way more valuable to rebuilding or established teams than the majority of young "upside" players.
So... cherry-picking three great examples is a valid comparison against "the majority" of younger players? That's just a wrong-headed way of looking at things. The FACT is that if two players are equally capable in college and one is 18 and the other is 21, the 18 year-old is the superior prospect barring something else overriding it. And another FACT is that if two players are dominating in college and one is at a big school and the other is at a small one, the big school kid is usually the superior prospect. Put those two things together (old, small-school) and you have to be a truly special player to be a better prospect than those circumstances usually dictate. It's possible that you are capable of sniffing out these truly special players, but I have no confidence in my ability to do it. I also have almost no confidence in NBA general managers to be able to consistently do it. As such, I prefer younger players who are very good at big schools. I will definitely be wrong on some players... but who isn't? Ed O.
to answer the OP's original question - the war has been won, he looks very good, total justifying his pick at #6 and will be the PGOTF and at the least a very solid PG in the NBA. The battles to be fought will be how good he can, lets enjoy the "LILLARD YEARS"
He looks amazing. Clearly we made the right choice and the NBA will award us eight NBA championships after his three summer league games. He looks amazing... but when the team starts losing and if he's struggling while shooting a lot... I think we'll see that the debate is still alive. Ed O.
the point was, you just need to be a focal point, look at beasley "omg better numbers than durant!" 19 year old freshman
No, you're missing the point. It has nothing to do with disproving that younger players generally have more upside. The flaw with your position is that you instantly discount the possibility of an older player improving just as much. Time and time again. No disagreement there, but when has that been the case? It's usually a matter of an older player being superior (i.e., Lillard vs. his PG competition), with the question being is it by enough to negate the age factor. "FACT ... usually" ... uh, seriously? And yet you discounted Lillard without taking into account that he could be that truly special player. That's very close-minded. Everyone gets it wrong from time to time, but the odds of getting it wrong go up dramatically when you stick to tired stereotypes instead of objective analysis. Look back at the 80's and 90's. Before Garnett, most guys coming out of college were what we would now consider old players. They were still pre-prime and improving steadily. Nothing has changed there. It's just that most top tier players come out early now, so the guys that don't have a stigma attached. Doesn't mean squat, though, without looking at the individual.
Absolutely the truth. I can say I was pro-Lillard, which is fine and dandy, but what I don't get is how posters can completely trash a draft pick before he's played even a minute in summer league, let alone a regular season game. I also have to admit that I was pro-Nolan Smith, and defended that pick.
