He averaged 3.3 his senior year, but only 1.8 his junior year (with more minutes played than his senior year). There's no reason to think 3.3 is all we're going to get from him. He gets to the line (1st in the ACC for FTA), can shoot the 3 at a decent clip. His junior year was all-round superior to his senior year, except in getting to the line... we probably would have taken him last year instead of Babbitt.
I'd be pleased. "Thrilled" might be a bit much for adding a solid starter, but I'd certainly view it as a very nice value for the pick.
I guess I wonder about the whole "upside" vs. "demonstrable ability" debate when it comes to picking players late in the 1st round. I'd argue if one of the "high upside" players slipped to late in the 1st round, it's because the chances of that upside being realized are in serious doubt. The "demonstrable ability" guys are often solid rotation guys, but aren't projected to be superstars. I don't think a team can expect to land a superstar late in the 1st, and they should be looking for guys who can fill a niche (shooter off the bench, rebounder, backup combo guard). I'd rather take the player who's almost guaranteed to be at least "pretty good" (which I think is true of Nolan Smith) over the player who might turn out "outstanding" but is at least as likely to be a total bust. I like the pick, and expect that Smith will be a decent backup combo guard in the NBA. He'll need to improve, but four-year players at Duke tend to be sharp and hard-working (though I don't particularly like Duke, frankly). Anyway, I too am optimistic he'll put the necessary work in, and turn into at least a decent backup guard.
True, but he was playing shooting guard then. Less responsibility with the ball usually means less turnovers. Regardless his A/T ratio was pretty much the same as in his senior year. I'm not sure he's going to be a playmaker at the next level. Spark off the bench possibly, but pure point? Probably not.
Or, being thrust into the PG spot early in your senior season while playing for an elite team may not be an easy transistion. The guy took over at PG for Duke after playing off the ball, won ACC PoY, and did it playing a new position. For that, he's supposedly a terrible draft pick. I agree with BlazerCaravan, and I also made a mini-Roy comparison, at least in terms of style of play. Plus, Smith apparently had more dunks in college than Brandon, which is a surprise.
Right, he's not really a point guard, and for the first year at least, it's going to be frustrating for Nate who's going to try to play him as one. (imo) Not really, Brandon hid his athleticism to become more skilled.
Remember how mocked the Wesley Matthews signing was? Of course, if we had REALLY good COLLEGE scouts, we would've drafted him in the first place...
I'm sorry but that's just insane. "Sorry coach, not going to jump, I'm hiding my athleticism to become more skilled. Of course, NBA teams won't be put off thinking I'm an average athlete, so this'll work out great."
Maybe he's doing that again now. Maybe his knees are fine, he just figures that he should learn to play without them. By the time he's in his late 30's, he won't be using any part of his body to play, he'll just sit on the bench and think the ball into the hoop. barfo
Well, one difference is the players that are good enough to leave early do so now, while the ones that stay in three or four years are typically second rate. Or at least are perceived to be.
Other than the top 3 or 4 early entry players, at best, the rest would be better served to stay in college. The NBA draft is now mostly about potential. At the top of the draft, that's a good gamble. After the first 7-8 picks, it really rarely pans out, IMO. I think Bismack Biyombo will be a wasted pick, and that's if he's really 18. If he's older, then he'll be a bust.
I agree that there is no way in Hell that Williams is a PG. Do people think that? But I am not sure what your point is about Smith. Who cares how he got the job, if he can play the position. Mike K thought he could. Apparently so does Chad. Personally i have no idea.
The key here is that he's projected to be our #2 PG- not the savior of the franchise. We got him as neither Mills nor Johnson appear to be able to handle the duties of an NBA PG and Roy is a train wreck at that position. He got 4 years of excellent coaching at Duke, so his fundamentals are very sound. He has played in the highest of pressure situations at Duke and handled them well. I think it's a good pick at #21.
No one remembers that quote because no one believed it at the time. You're a sucker for a good Oregonian story. Nobody's able to hide their talent for years, if they play in real games. A more likely theory is that Roy flourishes only in McMillan-type systems. He played at UW like he would for most NBA coaches.
