Have we talked much about Garland here? I've just watched the highlights, but he doesn't look like a good defender or a true distributor. I just see him as a shooter and a guy who can create his own shot. Those are valuable skills, but that's not enough for me.
Is there more to him than that?
Not that he’s shown, but shot creation and shooting are probably the two most important skills. And he’s pretty elite at them.
Don't you also have to have other skills that show your bballiq, such as passing and creating for others? I would think those would be pretty important as a PG. Another would be ball handling. Just thinking out loud, but if you only judged your PGs by shot creation and shooting, wouldn't they just be a SG? Cam Johnson is pretty good, and probably better at shooting and perhaps even shot creation, but I wouldn't think of him as a PG.
Garland is a pretty elite ball handler. I haven’t watched Cam Johnson much, is he not more of a catch and shoot guy?
Garland creates shots off the dribble and has deep range. Small sample size of course, but he hit over 45% from 3 this year and although I don’t have the numbers, I’ve heard that his shooting percentages look pretty legit when including games before college.
I also never called Garland a pg. I’m not a huge fan of the term, it pigeon holes people into roles. He’s probably always going to be more of a scoring guard, just means you need other players that can pass. Of course you’d want him to develop some playmaking for others as well. And it’s not like he is TJ Warren, he can pass...just not his strong suit.
But hardly anyone is coming into the nba as a complete player. Do you want Garland, elite shooter and ball handler who needs to learn how to make plays for others?
Do you want Culver, well rounded player without any real elite tools?
Do you want Clarke, elite defensive skills, but needs to learn to shoot?
Anyone we’ll be picking in this draft has flaws. We just need to decide which ones we can live with, which tools we want, and which players we think will develop.
Agree with he last part; we certainly aren't getting a guy who will sell a bunch of jerseys on draft night. The sad thing is, even with all of those flaws, Culver and Garland are probably gone at 6. At least one will be one for sure.
I have a hard time seeing Garland as elite. Like I say, I've only watched the highlights, but I wasn't blown away. Here's hoping the Suns find gold in this draft.
The league needs heroes, villains... and clowns. -- Aztec Sunsfan
Have we talked much about Garland here? I've just watched the highlights, but he doesn't look like a good defender or a true distributor. I just see him as a shooter and a guy who can create his own shot. Those are valuable skills, but that's not enough for me.
Is there more to him than that?
Not that he’s shown, but shot creation and shooting are probably the two most important skills. And he’s pretty elite at them.
Don't you also have to have other skills that show your bballiq, such as passing and creating for others? I would think those would be pretty important as a PG. Another would be ball handling. Just thinking out loud, but if you only judged your PGs by shot creation and shooting, wouldn't they just be a SG? Cam Johnson is pretty good, and probably better at shooting and perhaps even shot creation, but I wouldn't think of him as a PG.
Garland is a pretty elite ball handler. I haven’t watched Cam Johnson much, is he not more of a catch and shoot guy?
Garland creates shots off the dribble and has deep range. Small sample size of course, but he hit over 45% from 3 this year and although I don’t have the numbers, I’ve heard that his shooting percentages look pretty legit when including games before college.
I also never called Garland a pg. I’m not a huge fan of the term, it pigeon holes people into roles. He’s probably always going to be more of a scoring guard, just means you need other players that can pass. Of course you’d want him to develop some playmaking for others as well. And it’s not like he is TJ Warren, he can pass...just not his strong suit.
But hardly anyone is coming into the nba as a complete player. Do you want Garland, elite shooter and ball handler who needs to learn how to make plays for others?
Do you want Culver, well rounded player without any real elite tools?
Do you want Clarke, elite defensive skills, but needs to learn to shoot?
Anyone we’ll be picking in this draft has flaws. We just need to decide which ones we can live with, which tools we want, and which players we think will develop.
Agree with he last part; we certainly aren't getting a guy who will sell a bunch of jerseys on draft night. The sad thing is, even with all of those flaws, Culver and Garland are probably gone at 6. At least one will be one for sure.
I have a hard time seeing Garland as elite. Like I say, I've only watched the highlights, but I wasn't blown away. Here's hoping the Suns find gold in this draft.
I think that Garland could become an elite shooter. I'm just wondering what type of player he becomes. Will he be the next Steph Curry, Monta Ellis, Lou Williams or Malik Monk?
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." ~ Frederick Douglass
I think that Garland could become an elite shooter. I'm just wondering what type of player he becomes. Will he be the next Steph Curry, Monta Ellis, Lou Williams or Malik Monk?
This is the question. Garland is so young, and our sample size so small, that this is all projection. His frame is slight. I'm not sure he has the toughness or athleticism to overcome that, or if he will add the strength. Plus, he has the injury history. How can people be so confident that he is Steph Curry, rather than Seth?
Enormous gamble, in my view. Are we really in the optimal position to roll the dice?
Last edited by OE32 on Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I just kind of hope that the Lakers take that gamble, instead of the Suns. I could end up being totally wrong about him.
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." ~ Frederick Douglass
Have we talked much about Garland here? I've just watched the highlights, but he doesn't look like a good defender or a true distributor. I just see him as a shooter and a guy who can create his own shot. Those are valuable skills, but that's not enough for me.
Is there more to him than that?
Not that he’s shown, but shot creation and shooting are probably the two most important skills. And he’s pretty elite at them.
Don't you also have to have other skills that show your bballiq, such as passing and creating for others? I would think those would be pretty important as a PG. Another would be ball handling. Just thinking out loud, but if you only judged your PGs by shot creation and shooting, wouldn't they just be a SG? Cam Johnson is pretty good, and probably better at shooting and perhaps even shot creation, but I wouldn't think of him as a PG.
Garland is a pretty elite ball handler. I haven’t watched Cam Johnson much, is he not more of a catch and shoot guy?
Garland creates shots off the dribble and has deep range. Small sample size of course, but he hit over 45% from 3 this year and although I don’t have the numbers, I’ve heard that his shooting percentages look pretty legit when including games before college.
I also never called Garland a pg. I’m not a huge fan of the term, it pigeon holes people into roles. He’s probably always going to be more of a scoring guard, just means you need other players that can pass. Of course you’d want him to develop some playmaking for others as well. And it’s not like he is TJ Warren, he can pass...just not his strong suit.
But hardly anyone is coming into the nba as a complete player. Do you want Garland, elite shooter and ball handler who needs to learn how to make plays for others?
Do you want Culver, well rounded player without any real elite tools?
Do you want Clarke, elite defensive skills, but needs to learn to shoot?
Anyone we’ll be picking in this draft has flaws. We just need to decide which ones we can live with, which tools we want, and which players we think will develop.
You are right, everyone has flaws and no one is a complete player.
Do you want Garland, who had more turnovers than assists or a 6'2" shooting guard when the best player on the team is a SG?
I prefer Clarke who had more assists, almost as many steals, and more than twice as many blocked shots than he had turnovers. He also had more blocked shots than missed shots.
He played 5 games...I’m not going to read too much into his a/to ratio. And I’m not sure why you’re calling him a sg, he can clearly be a primary ball handler and share the court with booker.
I like Clarke, I’m not opposed to him, in fact I’ve said I have him 3rd on my overall board, just think the suns need ball handlers and shooters more than they need defenders.
Not that he’s shown, but shot creation and shooting are probably the two most important skills. And he’s pretty elite at them.
Don't you also have to have other skills that show your bballiq, such as passing and creating for others? I would think those would be pretty important as a PG. Another would be ball handling. Just thinking out loud, but if you only judged your PGs by shot creation and shooting, wouldn't they just be a SG? Cam Johnson is pretty good, and probably better at shooting and perhaps even shot creation, but I wouldn't think of him as a PG.
Garland is a pretty elite ball handler. I haven’t watched Cam Johnson much, is he not more of a catch and shoot guy?
Garland creates shots off the dribble and has deep range. Small sample size of course, but he hit over 45% from 3 this year and although I don’t have the numbers, I’ve heard that his shooting percentages look pretty legit when including games before college.
I also never called Garland a pg. I’m not a huge fan of the term, it pigeon holes people into roles. He’s probably always going to be more of a scoring guard, just means you need other players that can pass. Of course you’d want him to develop some playmaking for others as well. And it’s not like he is TJ Warren, he can pass...just not his strong suit.
But hardly anyone is coming into the nba as a complete player. Do you want Garland, elite shooter and ball handler who needs to learn how to make plays for others?
Do you want Culver, well rounded player without any real elite tools?
Do you want Clarke, elite defensive skills, but needs to learn to shoot?
Anyone we’ll be picking in this draft has flaws. We just need to decide which ones we can live with, which tools we want, and which players we think will develop.
You are right, everyone has flaws and no one is a complete player.
Do you want Garland, who had more turnovers than assists or a 6'2" shooting guard when the best player on the team is a SG?
I prefer Clarke who had more assists, almost as many steals, and more than twice as many blocked shots than he had turnovers. He also had more blocked shots than missed shots.
He played 5 games...I’m not going to read too much into his a/to ratio. And I’m not sure why you’re calling him a sg, he can clearly be a primary ball handler and share the court with booker.
I like Clarke, I’m not opposed to him, in fact I’ve said I have him 3rd on my overall board, just think the suns need ball handlers and shooters more than they need defenders.
I agree that the Suns need ball handlers and shooters, but they were also the worst defensive team in the league, so defenders should probably be on the same tier. I also think you can get the ball handlers and shooters in FA and/or trades.
You said, "I also never called Garland a pg. I’m not a huge fan of the term, it pigeon holes people into roles.", so I assumed that he could be called as SG just as much as a PG. You can call him whatever you want, sorry.
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." ~ Frederick Douglass
Don't you also have to have other skills that show your bballiq, such as passing and creating for others? I would think those would be pretty important as a PG. Another would be ball handling. Just thinking out loud, but if you only judged your PGs by shot creation and shooting, wouldn't they just be a SG? Cam Johnson is pretty good, and probably better at shooting and perhaps even shot creation, but I wouldn't think of him as a PG.
Garland is a pretty elite ball handler. I haven’t watched Cam Johnson much, is he not more of a catch and shoot guy?
Garland creates shots off the dribble and has deep range. Small sample size of course, but he hit over 45% from 3 this year and although I don’t have the numbers, I’ve heard that his shooting percentages look pretty legit when including games before college.
I also never called Garland a pg. I’m not a huge fan of the term, it pigeon holes people into roles. He’s probably always going to be more of a scoring guard, just means you need other players that can pass. Of course you’d want him to develop some playmaking for others as well. And it’s not like he is TJ Warren, he can pass...just not his strong suit.
But hardly anyone is coming into the nba as a complete player. Do you want Garland, elite shooter and ball handler who needs to learn how to make plays for others?
Do you want Culver, well rounded player without any real elite tools?
Do you want Clarke, elite defensive skills, but needs to learn to shoot?
Anyone we’ll be picking in this draft has flaws. We just need to decide which ones we can live with, which tools we want, and which players we think will develop.
You are right, everyone has flaws and no one is a complete player.
Do you want Garland, who had more turnovers than assists or a 6'2" shooting guard when the best player on the team is a SG?
I prefer Clarke who had more assists, almost as many steals, and more than twice as many blocked shots than he had turnovers. He also had more blocked shots than missed shots.
He played 5 games...I’m not going to read too much into his a/to ratio. And I’m not sure why you’re calling him a sg, he can clearly be a primary ball handler and share the court with booker.
I like Clarke, I’m not opposed to him, in fact I’ve said I have him 3rd on my overall board, just think the suns need ball handlers and shooters more than they need defenders.
I agree that the Suns need ball handlers and shooters, but they were also the worst defensive team in the league, so defenders should probably be on the same tier. I also think you can get the ball handlers and shooters in FA and/or trades.
You said, "I also never called Garland a pg. I’m not a huge fan of the term, it pigeon holes people into roles.", so I assumed that he could be called as SG just as much as a PG. You can call him whatever you want, sorry.
You’re not wrong, I think we’d find it easier to get defenders in FA though. And I do think we have some potentially good defenders already on the roster who just need time and structure.
As for the pg/sg comment. I guess all I was trying to say is he brings something different than booker and you can play them together. He’s not stuck being a backup to Booker.
Garland is a pretty elite ball handler. I haven’t watched Cam Johnson much, is he not more of a catch and shoot guy?
Garland creates shots off the dribble and has deep range. Small sample size of course, but he hit over 45% from 3 this year and although I don’t have the numbers, I’ve heard that his shooting percentages look pretty legit when including games before college.
I also never called Garland a pg. I’m not a huge fan of the term, it pigeon holes people into roles. He’s probably always going to be more of a scoring guard, just means you need other players that can pass. Of course you’d want him to develop some playmaking for others as well. And it’s not like he is TJ Warren, he can pass...just not his strong suit.
But hardly anyone is coming into the nba as a complete player. Do you want Garland, elite shooter and ball handler who needs to learn how to make plays for others?
Do you want Culver, well rounded player without any real elite tools?
Do you want Clarke, elite defensive skills, but needs to learn to shoot?
Anyone we’ll be picking in this draft has flaws. We just need to decide which ones we can live with, which tools we want, and which players we think will develop.
You are right, everyone has flaws and no one is a complete player.
Do you want Garland, who had more turnovers than assists or a 6'2" shooting guard when the best player on the team is a SG?
I prefer Clarke who had more assists, almost as many steals, and more than twice as many blocked shots than he had turnovers. He also had more blocked shots than missed shots.
He played 5 games...I’m not going to read too much into his a/to ratio. And I’m not sure why you’re calling him a sg, he can clearly be a primary ball handler and share the court with booker.
I like Clarke, I’m not opposed to him, in fact I’ve said I have him 3rd on my overall board, just think the suns need ball handlers and shooters more than they need defenders.
I agree that the Suns need ball handlers and shooters, but they were also the worst defensive team in the league, so defenders should probably be on the same tier. I also think you can get the ball handlers and shooters in FA and/or trades.
You said, "I also never called Garland a pg. I’m not a huge fan of the term, it pigeon holes people into roles.", so I assumed that he could be called as SG just as much as a PG. You can call him whatever you want, sorry.
You’re not wrong, I think we’d find it easier to get defenders in FA though. And I do think we have some potentially good defenders already on the roster who just need time and structure.
As for the pg/sg comment. I guess all I was trying to say is he brings something different than booker and you can play them together. He’s not stuck being a backup to Booker.
1. I'm not a huge fan of the PGs in this draft and think it's a reach to go with one at 6. Like I said, I could be wrong about that.
2. I also think their are a ton of PGs in FA available this year, along with available in possible trades.
3. Next year's draft is going to be outstanding for possible PG targets, could be the best and deepest draft for PGs ever.
4. The PF and wings are pretty decent in this draft, even if the draft is pretty weak.
5. I think Clarke is going to have Marion type impact and help Ayton defensively all over the place.
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." ~ Frederick Douglass
You are right, everyone has flaws and no one is a complete player.
Do you want Garland, who had more turnovers than assists or a 6'2" shooting guard when the best player on the team is a SG?
I prefer Clarke who had more assists, almost as many steals, and more than twice as many blocked shots than he had turnovers. He also had more blocked shots than missed shots.
He played 5 games...I’m not going to read too much into his a/to ratio. And I’m not sure why you’re calling him a sg, he can clearly be a primary ball handler and share the court with booker.
I like Clarke, I’m not opposed to him, in fact I’ve said I have him 3rd on my overall board, just think the suns need ball handlers and shooters more than they need defenders.
I agree that the Suns need ball handlers and shooters, but they were also the worst defensive team in the league, so defenders should probably be on the same tier. I also think you can get the ball handlers and shooters in FA and/or trades.
You said, "I also never called Garland a pg. I’m not a huge fan of the term, it pigeon holes people into roles.", so I assumed that he could be called as SG just as much as a PG. You can call him whatever you want, sorry.
You’re not wrong, I think we’d find it easier to get defenders in FA though. And I do think we have some potentially good defenders already on the roster who just need time and structure.
As for the pg/sg comment. I guess all I was trying to say is he brings something different than booker and you can play them together. He’s not stuck being a backup to Booker.
1. I'm not a huge fan of the PGs in this draft and think it's a reach to go with one at 6. Like I said, I could be wrong about that.
2. I also think their are a ton of PGs in FA available this year, along with available in possible trades.
3. Next year's draft is going to be outstanding for possible PG targets, could be the best and deepest draft for PGs ever.
4. The PF and wings are pretty decent in this draft, even if the draft is pretty weak.
5. I think Clarke is going to have Marion type impact and help Ayton defensively all over the place.
All good points.
Who do you like as a pg target?
I like a lot of them, but they don’t seem particularly available. We’ll see what happens.
He played 5 games...I’m not going to read too much into his a/to ratio. And I’m not sure why you’re calling him a sg, he can clearly be a primary ball handler and share the court with booker.
I like Clarke, I’m not opposed to him, in fact I’ve said I have him 3rd on my overall board, just think the suns need ball handlers and shooters more than they need defenders.
I agree that the Suns need ball handlers and shooters, but they were also the worst defensive team in the league, so defenders should probably be on the same tier. I also think you can get the ball handlers and shooters in FA and/or trades.
You said, "I also never called Garland a pg. I’m not a huge fan of the term, it pigeon holes people into roles.", so I assumed that he could be called as SG just as much as a PG. You can call him whatever you want, sorry.
You’re not wrong, I think we’d find it easier to get defenders in FA though. And I do think we have some potentially good defenders already on the roster who just need time and structure.
As for the pg/sg comment. I guess all I was trying to say is he brings something different than booker and you can play them together. He’s not stuck being a backup to Booker.
1. I'm not a huge fan of the PGs in this draft and think it's a reach to go with one at 6. Like I said, I could be wrong about that.
2. I also think their are a ton of PGs in FA available this year, along with available in possible trades.
3. Next year's draft is going to be outstanding for possible PG targets, could be the best and deepest draft for PGs ever.
4. The PF and wings are pretty decent in this draft, even if the draft is pretty weak.
5. I think Clarke is going to have Marion type impact and help Ayton defensively all over the place.
All good points.
Who do you like as a pg target?
I like a lot of them, but they don’t seem particularly available. We’ll see what happens.
Yeah, I'm not sure who is "gettable", but I certainly hope that Jones has a better idea on this. I like a bunch of them like Satoransky, Wright, DLo, Dinnwiddie, Rubio, and Jones. Any of them is going to be an upgrade for the Suns, and even if they don't trade away or stretch Johnson, he would be a good backup for a bit. Plus, Johnson's large expiring contract could be very helpful in a deadline deal.
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." ~ Frederick Douglass
I think that Garland could become an elite shooter. I'm just wondering what type of player he becomes. Will he be the next Steph Curry, Monta Ellis, Lou Williams or Malik Monk?
In my head I'm thinking CJ McCollum for some reason, and it makes me sick to my stomach
Last edited by Bucktastic365 on Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jeremy Woo is someone who thinks Clarke is a Center, and that taints his view and ceiling of him. I can understand that and I wouldn't think he's worth it if he was just a center.
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." ~ Frederick Douglass
