Here is how I see it (No grades...but grade link)

[Reality Man]

Last year and I thought Burke would have a career in the NBA as a starter somewhere but not be elite. I thought THJ did better than I thought last year but basically a streaky shooter. Probably will stick around...long term journeyman.

Now to these recent picks.

I think Stauskas will eventually become a high level off the bench scorer. Specialty guy who can excel if his opposition (bench) is not too strong offensively. I see a Jamal Crawford type role. Maybe not as athletic but a little more refined.

I see McGary as jack of all trades player who will be successful if he becomes 100% healthy. I think his effort, his rebounding (offense and defense) and his ability to rotate between the 4 and 5 will make him very effective.

I see GR3 as surprisingly the player with the most upside. I don't think he becomes a superstar but next to Burke..he is the guy most likely to be a NBA starter.

Wanted to say something about GR3 and his draft position. There is a saying...you never get a 2nd chance to make a first impression. I think what happened to GR3 is that coming out of the gate in his sophomore year was overall disappointing. He was hyped up in the pre-season and I think people got the impression (justly) that he was a passive role player.

I don't know if that is true or not right now but his last 3rd of the season was discounted by first 2/3rd's of his season.

Lets be honest here. People get an impression based on a couple of games. Did McGary really warrant a 1st round pick over GR3? Seriously. How many games did McGary play? It was the perception of a energetic guy in the tourney. That 'perception' held and overrode all the other negatives.

Would you really pick McGary over GR3 based on production. Even factor in size, position, etc. The perception was positive for McGary because of his tourney performance and GR3 would have been picked as high based on his tourney performance but he undid that 'goodwill' for a lack of a better term with some subpar early/midseason performances.

GR3 had a good Arizona game. This was a learning experience for me. Perception of performance is greater than the reality of performance.



Reality Man

http://q.usatoday.com/2014/06/26/nba-draft-grades-pick-by-pick-instant-analysis/

 

[tarun262]

College stats do not translate to the Pros. Reality Man, not sure how old you are, but do you remember Respert? Cleaves? Both MSU players that would light it up and did absolutely nothing in the Pros. Lebron never played a minute of college ball and is the best player in the league right now. Your notion that GR3 deserved more then McGary is flawed. Reality is, GR3 is still too timid, did not test well in the combines and is likely a great #4 or #5 player in the league. McGary on the other side has the potential to be a great #3 on a team - he could go on to have a career like Bill Lambeer, etc. He has a great atitude, quick on his feet, has the size and can really pass the ball. GR3 on the hand could end up being the next Green (plays for Phoenix) or a complete flop. GR3's athleticism rarely translates into games.

I also disagree with you on Burke's ceiling - I think he will be good but will eventually be a backup PG in the league - he is just too small. Maybe he can be like an Augustin or CJ Watson but only time will tell. Stauskas is interesting - he can shoot and if he plays for the right team he can be great. I can see him become a better version of Reddick or perhaps like a Korver - or a Peja S? I do like your analogy of Crawford minus the athleticism.

I hope all these players do really well but all said and done from the 5 players in the league right now here is what my rank would be based on potential and body of work (in reverse order

5) GR3 - huge upside, but can it translate to a game? It did not really at Michigan consistently.
4) Burke - great vision, confidence, but his size will hurt when the new PGs in the league are all now over 6ft 4
3) Stauskas - can flat out shoot and based on that alone he will have a long career (maybe a 2nd Peja S in Sacto?)
2) McGary - full of potential, he was lights out in the tourney and has all the tools. Could be a great #3 on a good team.
1) TH Jr. - his athleticism really translated well in the Pros despite playing on a team with 3 major ball hogs!!!

Anyway, good discussion thread though - in general how cool is it that all 5 starters are in the Pros??? Even the Fab 5 could not have claimed that!

 

[Reality Man]

I will respond later...busy and have to head out but your first

comment is actually wrong. Respert actually did o.k. for awhile in the Pro's. Milwaukee? I'll go look up his stats but I specifically remember him performing well at least for 1 year in the pro's...I am in San Diego.


Reality Man


P.S. By the way...I saw an article that he went through cancer treatments during his career. Please see link.
This post was edited on 7/2 7:11 PM by Reality Man

 

[tarun262]

Re: I will respond later...busy and have to head out but your first

Respert played in 172 total NBA games and average 4pts/game - that is hardly a good career. I will give you another one - Randolph Childress - remember him? Tim Duncan's sidekick? Played for 2 years and average 2pts per game.
Here's another way for you to look at it - Manny Harris was a better player at UM then GR3 was (GR3 is obviously more athletically gifted) but Manny has sucked in the Pros and hurt himself by leaving too early as well.

 

[Reality Man]

You mentioned that both Cleaves and Respert did nothing in the pro's..

actually respert averaged 4.9 pts per game and had stomach cancer after his rookie year. Yes...stomach cancer. Didn't tell anyone and stuck around for 8 years.

Stomach cancer. I am sure you would agree that stomach cancer is a serious issue and would hamper even the all time great players. Cleaves was a bust. Did anyone really think Cleaves was going to make it big in the NBA? I didn't. Guy couldn't shoot and wasn't very quick. I don't know where he was drafted but whoever put him on the roster must have been looking for leadership qualities.

Back to Respert. He stuck around for 8 years while dealing with stomach cancer. Stomach cancer. I have never had stomach cancer but it has to be a physically imposing disease. Respert should be an inspiration for all athletes everywhere for playing a professional sport with stomach cancer. Stomach cancer.

In our PC world where playing a professional sport while wanting to have same gender sex is celebrated...Respert should have his own statute. Damn. If I were an MSU fan I would put him up on a pedestal after reading about his story.



Reality Man

 

[gw73]

Re: I will respond later...busy and have to head out but your first

IIRC Respert had cancer, ruined any chances in the NBA.

 

[Reality Man]

5) GR3 - huge upside, but can it translate to a game? It did not really at Michigan consistently.
4) Burke - great vision, confidence, but his size will hurt when the new PGs in the league are all now over 6ft 4
3) Stauskas - can flat out shoot and based on that alone he will have a long career (maybe a 2nd Peja S in Sacto?)
2) McGary - full of potential, he was lights out in the tourney and has all the tools. Could be a great #3 on a good team.
1) TH Jr. - his athleticism really translated well in the Pros despite playing on a team with 3 major ball hogs!!!


I disagree on #1. THJ would be down on my list. Too many flaws. Still not convinced he is a consistent shooter. Will stay on a roster.

GR3 has quiet efficiency. Remember..you are being tricked into looking at his entire career. Look at his last 10-12 games..he was blossoming. You are going to recognize one day that GR3 was much better than you gave him credit for. You are correct that he has a lot of development to do but hitting the glass, running the floor, score from the perimeter. He will develop into a 3 or 4th option in my opinion. He could be a bust but I think he flourishes when he has 2 primary scorers and then his 'talent' is showcased.

Amazing how many people just don't appreciate his contributions. McGary..tell me about his offensive prowess at the NBA level. You believe McGary has more offensive upside than GR3? Disagree.

Stauskas. We agree. Something tells me that he is going to be lit up. He can score and will be a valued commodity but his defense must improve or he is going to see more bench time than he wants. Speaking of Crawford..he would light up Stauskas for 30 a night. That's problematic right there.

I don't disagree on Burke although I think he has enough talent to be a starting NBA journeyman. I think we'd agree that Burke may wind up getting traded 5 times in his career . I saw some UM fans trying to 'spin' Utah taking Dante E. That tells me that Utah isn't sold on Burke.



Reality Man

 

[tarun262]

Well only time will tell. TH Jr has a greater mental game then GR3 - if you look at NBA players, athleticism alone does not cut it. If GR3 had the killer mentality of Burke, he would be an All-Star but he just does not have that instinct. Yes he did well in the last 10-12 games but that was also because everyone was double-teaming LeVert & Stauskas. Now GR3's game does lend itself much much better to the NBA then the Pros (1-1 style basketball where GR3 could strive), but I would like to see more from him. I would not be shocked to see him in a developmental league for a year or 2 - he could have greatly benefited from another year in college.

As for Stauskas - your comment is a tad bit unfair - dude, Crawford could score 30 points on a lot of players in the NBA - lots of good players as well - he averaged almost 20 on Westbrook! I do agree Stauskas is too much of a 1-way player but I think that kid has an incredible work ethic - I would not be shocked to see him be better then average in a few years though.

Either way, I hope all these guys do really well in the Pros - all really classy kids with good heads on their shoulder. Beilein and his players are just ultimate class IMHO.

 

[Mroad]

I hope GR3 has a great NBA career but it wouldn't surprise me if he ends up being a very marginal player possibly a journeyman. People keep saying how much athleticism he possesses but most NBA players possess great athleticism....GR3 won't even be top 20% of athletes in the NBA. The Pistons drafted Tony Mitchell at #38 in last years draft, a couple spots in front of where GR3 went this year. Go to youtube and type in Tony Mitchell and checkout his athleticism. He's got more athleticism than GR3 and he didn't see the floor this year and may not even stay in the NBA long term. My point is that the majority of NBA players are great athletes but you have to be good at other things, such as ball handling, taking the ball to the hoop, great rebounder, great shooter, etc. At this point I don't see GR3 being very good at any of these things....I thought this before the draft and NBA experts must have seen the same thing which resulted in him being picked at the 40th pick. We all like him because he went to UM but I'm trying to be objective and at this point I don't see NBA greatness in his future.

 

[tarun262]

Great point!

 

[Reality Man]

Fair points. I don't particulary care whether he went to UM at this...

point but am looking at his 'skills'. I agree with your premise..athleticism is really overrated on some level.

Here is where I disagree with the 'other' side. Lets leave off some teams were looking at him as a late 1st round.

The question really is whether GR3 is a legitimate NBA player now or in the near or short term. I wouldn't disagree with some assertion that GR3 needs to continue to develop but there seems to be a focus on what GR3 doesn't do and/or didn't do in the majority of his career. Its the glass is half empty.

Let me focus on what he does do well that translates to the NBA. We could talk about things he doesn't do well but that will be for another poster.

1. He has a pretty decent NBA body. The guy can get physical rebounding. He has good athleticism and size to go get rebounds. That is a skill. Can he get 5-7 rebounds per game. A putback or two at the NBA level? I think he can.

It is correct to assume dunk/lobs are not of high value. Agree.

2. Can GR3 shoot from the perimeter. Sure. Is he a great shooter...no..but he can become a solid perimeter shooter. Nice form and again pretty good size with a nice release.

3. Improving ball skills.


Guy is a work in progress but not as bad as some would have you believe. Against the best competition...he had very good tourneys in both years. I personally like his game in the sense he has a nice structure to become a better player. For all the criticism of his emotional makeup (I was one of his critics)...he had a very positive end to his career.

I think a lot of his has to do with human nature. You never get a 2nd chance to make a 1st impression. Players improve. I think Lebron is a different player than he is now emotionally..it happens to even the best and it can happen and is happening emotionally with GR3.

What is one thing JB says when he recruits..he'd rather get a guy who is improving what than stagnate. Is GR3 improving?



Reality Man

 

[CinciBlue]

good try.

Last time I checked, NBA teams don't play 1 of any position for 48 mins. You need a bench, and if you can get a potentially versatile player like Exum you take him.

No one really knows what he is yet based on the comp he has played.

That said, everyone was high on him. Doesn't mean everyone can't be wrong when it's all said and done, but you take that guy.

If you think utah is looking for a replacement already after 3/4 of a season with Burke you aren't based in reality. Burke may well flame out, but there is no gain for Utah to grab Exum as a replacement already when they are so far away.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Reality Man]

Whispers are that Burke isn't an elite PG. I would agree with you

that the jury is still out and its premature to write Burke off. That being said..I do think Utah took Exum with an eye to see if he is an elite PG..not for bench depth with a 1st round pick.

From what I saw from Burke...he is an NBA pg but clearly doesn't have elite athleticism and size. I thought he was solid and can develop but I also saw why a GM wouldn't be overly committed to him at this time.


Reality Man

 

[tarun262]

Re: Whispers are that Burke isn't an elite PG. I would agree with you

Here's the deal with Burke - there are some elite PGs (Rose, Westbrook, Parker, Chris Paul, Curry, Lilliard, etc) that you can build teams around and then there are PGs that you just need to run your offense and not do anything fancy really (Lin or Beverly, CJ Watson, etc). Burke is not and likely will never be in the first bucket - he just does not have the size, speed or athleticism those folks possess. What Burke does have is supreme confidence and he can certainly have a long career as a starter somewhere. Put it this way - if the Heat had Burke as their PG they would have won the championship - Chalmers was terrible. On teams like Indiana, Miami, New York, Houston, etc Burke would do very well.

Jury is still out on Exum - I agree with the pick - you take the best available player you have. As I mentioned in a previous post the Jazz have so many gaps that one player was not going to make or break them. If Exum pans out to be as good as he is then the Jazz have tons of trading leverage with either him (to get 2-3 good players in return) or to trade Burke for a good big, etc. It's the right move on their part.