For once, you and I have something in common. I got called a hater and was shouted down when I was less than impressed with Layman's D-League performance. Many were raving about how great he was playing based strictly on raw per game stats, when I pointed out his absolutely horrible shooting percentages, all sorts of excuses were made about lack of a consistent role, etc. The fact is, after that first garbage time game against GSW, Layman hasn't been able to throw a rock in the ocean, in either the NBA or the D-League, and probably not even at the Pop-a-Shot at Chuck E. Cheese where he'd likely to get trounced by the average 8-year old birthday party attendee. BNM
Right now he's Victor Claver. You can see the badketball IQ, but the confidence or whatever isn't there
In the month of March, layman has had 5 shot attempts. In February, he had 1. In January, he had 7. These are the exact right amount of sample sizes I like to use to judge a player, and specifically a rookie. 100% for sure.
You left out his D-League stats. Still a small sample size, but he took 125 shots in 8 games, 53 of them, 3-pointers. He made 12 (.226 3FG%). BNM
It's not a confidence thing for Layman. He doesn't hesitate to shoot, the way Claver did. Claver was gun shy. Layman is trigger happy. BNM
I watched every single one of his dleague games and came away more optimistic about his future than before it, regardless of his shooting percentages. He showed his game isn't dependent on shooting, that he can score in multiple ways, and has a good basketball IQ. I remember when I wrote McCollum off after seeing him struggle in a limited role earlier in his career, and I remember how dumb I felt later on. I promised myself I would never do that again, and if I saw something I liked in a young player, I would ride with them until they properly got a chance to fail. Layman is no different.
I honestly don't see how we can even evaluate him. What he does in D league or in the last two minutes of a blow out is absolutely misleading. It reminds me of being in grade school and the coaches would clear the bench in the last two minutes. Whoever had the ball as we passed half court would fire away knowing you would never get the ball back..... Practice is a different story. Terry sees practice...... and we don't.
And please with these claver comps. Claver got 17 minutes a night and was even starting at one point. Until Layman gets an opportunity like that, he is a big fat TBD.
I was tutored by a pretty well known coach, who taught me something I never thought of. There are two types of shooters. 1. Not confident. Claver 2. Confident. Laymam is in this group. He is confident of the shot he is taking, but not that it is going in. Lillard on the other hand "knows" it's going in. I had never thought of it that way. Layman doesn't not think it's going in, but just doesn't think it's going in either. This is just my theory, but I don't believe he is seeing the shot go in as he releases it.
If we could ever blow out a team we'd have a better picture of our 3rd string...early in the season when we were getting blown out they played really well in stretches together. Connaughton reminds me of Delladova...great motor..funky shot...Layman has a good looking game...he moves well and isn't afraid to rebound or take it to the rim...these rookie contracts are like gold for saving cap space...after all, we're talking about the 13 or 14th rotation player on the bench
I guess I'm a little less enthusiastic based on his abysmal shooting. In addition to throwing up bricks in the D-League after that very first 5-7 from downtown performance against GSW, he's gone 5-34 on three pointers (.147 3FG%). Yeah, I now small sample size, but for some reason many of the same posters that play the small sample size card when Layman shoots poorly wanted to make him our starting SF after that one 5-7 game. And, unless you are 1st team all defense, or have some other truly elite skill, you need to be able to shoot to make it in the NBA. In this case the Claver comparison is valid (so far). Layman is already 23. He's not some 19-year old kid. I agree, the sample size is small, but if he was killing it in practice, he'd be getting more PT. In the 15 games Evan Turner missed, Layman played a total of 20 minutes. Patty Baseball gets (and deserves) more minutes than Jake Layman. Other than absolutely unwavering self-confidence, no matter how poorly he's shooting, I have not seen anything about Jake Layman that screams NBA player. Well, other than low rent end of bench NBA player. Sure, he could eventually prove me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath. Hell, I'd be elated if he could actually shoot well enough to make Allen Crabbe expendable. Because, at the very least, Layman appears to be less one dimensional than Crabbe. Combine Crabbe's shooting with Layman's ability to put the ball on the floor and we might actually have a bench player worthy of the average of their two salaries. BNM
I don't either. For the last few months, every time Layman shoots, I visualize him missing the shot. I have been right nearly 90% of the time. BNM
Come on @Mediocre Man you have to admit that was a good play and pretty funny.. come on. I deserve props for a rare funny man!
I think Jake is the only guy who lived up to our expectations this year. We thought he can be the next Chandler Parsons. He's playing EXACTLY like Parsons right now and by Neil Olshey's logic that means we now have to pay him 20 million a year.
