College basketball and 2017 draft - One more poll after last game

[gaspar]

I understand Lonzo being an acquired taste or a preference kind of thing. But how anybody can question his on court ability is baffling to me.

The NBA draft is not an exact science. We're all just guessing. We've seen plenty of great college players who didn't do **** in the NBA. There are big time busts at the top of almost every draft. We can predict that Ball's transition game and shooting when he's wide open will translate fairly easily to the pros, but there are also some parts of his game that can prevent him from being a great NBA player, e.g. slow first step, (in?)ability to run the pick and roll, getting to the rim, mid-range jumpshot (yes, I know it's the least efficient shot but sometimes it's the only shot available), "heavy feet" on defense.

[Marcus]

I understand Lonzo being an acquired taste or a preference kind of thing. But how anybody can question his on court ability is baffling to me.

The NBA draft is not an exact science. We're all just guessing. We've seen plenty of great college players who didn't do **** in the NBA. There are big time busts at the top of almost every draft. We can predict that Ball's transition game and shooting when he's wide open will translate fairly easily to the pros, but there are also some parts of his game that can prevent him from being a great NBA player, e.g. slow first step, (in?)ability to run the pick and roll, getting to the rim, mid-range jumpshot (yes, I know it's the least efficient shot but sometimes it's the only shot available), "heavy feet" on defense.

I guess where I get lost in the argument is why folks want him to show them things he doesn't need for his game to be effective. He's not a one on one scoring guard and shouldn't have the ball given to him with the idea that he'll be that.

He doesn't take bad shots so the idea that he should pull up for midrange jumpers if something else is open doesn't make a lot of sense to me. He's hit a few this year when the looks were clean same as he's done with any other open look he takes. Could stand to be a bit more aggressive but he's not one to force something that isn't there.

UCLA doesn't run a ton of PnR but when he's been in it he's been effective. Even if I hadn't seen it I would assume a kid with that kind of vision that sees things frames ahead would be able to navigate a PnR pretty effectively.

As I said before could be a preference thing, but for a guy that gets so much love for his high IQ on the floor he sure does take a lot of heat for not making dumb plays.

[gaspar]

I understand Lonzo being an acquired taste or a preference kind of thing. But how anybody can question his on court ability is baffling to me.

The NBA draft is not an exact science. We're all just guessing. We've seen plenty of great college players who didn't do **** in the NBA. There are big time busts at the top of almost every draft. We can predict that Ball's transition game and shooting when he's wide open will translate fairly easily to the pros, but there are also some parts of his game that can prevent him from being a great NBA player, e.g. slow first step, (in?)ability to run the pick and roll, getting to the rim, mid-range jumpshot (yes, I know it's the least efficient shot but sometimes it's the only shot available), "heavy feet" on defense.

I guess where I get lost in the argument is why folks want him to show them things he doesn't need for his game to be effective. He's not a one on one scoring guard and shouldn't have the ball given to him with the idea that he'll be that.

He doesn't take bad shots so the idea that he should pull up for midrange jumpers if something else is open doesn't make a lot of sense to me. He's hit a few this year when the looks were clean same as he's done with any other open look he takes. Could stand to be a bit more aggressive but he's not one to force something that isn't there.

UCLA doesn't run a ton of PnR but when he's been in it he's been effective. Even if I hadn't seen it I would assume a kid with that kind of vision that sees things frames ahead would be able to navigate a PnR pretty effectively.

As I said before could be a preference thing, but for a guy that gets so much love for his high IQ on the floor he sure does take a lot of heat for not making dumb plays.

Well, if you think that Ball doesn't shoot from midrange or attack the rim off the pick-and-roll because he doesn't have to, that's fine. I think he doesn't do those things because he can't.

And if you think that a non-scoring guard can be effective in today's NBA, that's fine too. I just disagree.

[Bogyo]

I understand Lonzo being an acquired taste or a preference kind of thing. But how anybody can question his on court ability is baffling to me.

The NBA draft is not an exact science. We're all just guessing. We've seen plenty of great college players who didn't do **** in the NBA. There are big time busts at the top of almost every draft. We can predict that Ball's transition game and shooting when he's wide open will translate fairly easily to the pros, but there are also some parts of his game that can prevent him from being a great NBA player, e.g. slow first step, (in?)ability to run the pick and roll, getting to the rim, mid-range jumpshot (yes, I know it's the least efficient shot but sometimes it's the only shot available), "heavy feet" on defense.

I guess where I get lost in the argument is why folks want him to show them things he doesn't need for his game to be effective. He's not a one on one scoring guard and shouldn't have the ball given to him with the idea that he'll be that.

He doesn't take bad shots so the idea that he should pull up for midrange jumpers if something else is open doesn't make a lot of sense to me. He's hit a few this year when the looks were clean same as he's done with any other open look he takes. Could stand to be a bit more aggressive but he's not one to force something that isn't there.

UCLA doesn't run a ton of PnR but when he's been in it he's been effective. Even if I hadn't seen it I would assume a kid with that kind of vision that sees things frames ahead would be able to navigate a PnR pretty effectively.

As I said before could be a preference thing, but for a guy that gets so much love for his high IQ on the floor he sure does take a lot of heat for not making dumb plays.

That is simply not true. Period. Not in the mood for alternative facts today. Watch the video on page 50, or look up some stats.
"Turnover on 32%+ of all pick-and-roll posessions puts him on the bottom of all college PGs."
How is that gonna fly in the league? Especially when he gets benched in favour of a better P'n'R PG who happens to be a carrer backup, and his daddy is throwing a tantrum behind the bench somewhere?

Also, first 4 minutes of that video is also intresting. His shot is picked apart, and the "coach" doesn't even mention the fact that he starts the motion well below his waistline. I have less and less confidence that he will be such a stud that he is made out to be.
OK starter with some great plays and some obvious flaws? Sure. But not the MVP level game changer.

[Marcus]

The NBA draft is not an exact science. We're all just guessing. We've seen plenty of great college players who didn't do **** in the NBA. There are big time busts at the top of almost every draft. We can predict that Ball's transition game and shooting when he's wide open will translate fairly easily to the pros, but there are also some parts of his game that can prevent him from being a great NBA player, e.g. slow first step, (in?)ability to run the pick and roll, getting to the rim, mid-range jumpshot (yes, I know it's the least efficient shot but sometimes it's the only shot available), "heavy feet" on defense.

I guess where I get lost in the argument is why folks want him to show them things he doesn't need for his game to be effective. He's not a one on one scoring guard and shouldn't have the ball given to him with the idea that he'll be that.

He doesn't take bad shots so the idea that he should pull up for midrange jumpers if something else is open doesn't make a lot of sense to me. He's hit a few this year when the looks were clean same as he's done with any other open look he takes. Could stand to be a bit more aggressive but he's not one to force something that isn't there.

UCLA doesn't run a ton of PnR but when he's been in it he's been effective. Even if I hadn't seen it I would assume a kid with that kind of vision that sees things frames ahead would be able to navigate a PnR pretty effectively.

As I said before could be a preference thing, but for a guy that gets so much love for his high IQ on the floor he sure does take a lot of heat for not making dumb plays.

Well, if you think that Ball doesn't shoot from midrange or attack the rim off the pick-and-roll because he doesn't have to, that's fine. I think he doesn't do those things because he can't.

And if you think that a non-scoring guard can be effective in today's NBA, that's fine too. I just disagree.

Fair enough

[Marcus]

The NBA draft is not an exact science. We're all just guessing. We've seen plenty of great college players who didn't do **** in the NBA. There are big time busts at the top of almost every draft. We can predict that Ball's transition game and shooting when he's wide open will translate fairly easily to the pros, but there are also some parts of his game that can prevent him from being a great NBA player, e.g. slow first step, (in?)ability to run the pick and roll, getting to the rim, mid-range jumpshot (yes, I know it's the least efficient shot but sometimes it's the only shot available), "heavy feet" on defense.

I guess where I get lost in the argument is why folks want him to show them things he doesn't need for his game to be effective. He's not a one on one scoring guard and shouldn't have the ball given to him with the idea that he'll be that.

He doesn't take bad shots so the idea that he should pull up for midrange jumpers if something else is open doesn't make a lot of sense to me. He's hit a few this year when the looks were clean same as he's done with any other open look he takes. Could stand to be a bit more aggressive but he's not one to force something that isn't there.

UCLA doesn't run a ton of PnR but when he's been in it he's been effective. Even if I hadn't seen it I would assume a kid with that kind of vision that sees things frames ahead would be able to navigate a PnR pretty effectively.

As I said before could be a preference thing, but for a guy that gets so much love for his high IQ on the floor he sure does take a lot of heat for not making dumb plays.

That is simply not true. Period. Not in the mood for alternative facts today. Watch the video on page 50, or look up some stats.
"Turnover on 32%+ of all pick-and-roll posessions puts him on the bottom of all college PGs."
How is that gonna fly in the league? Especially when he gets benched in favour of a better P'n'R PG who happens to be a carrer backup, and his daddy is throwing a tantrum behind the bench somewhere?

Also, first 4 minutes of that video is also intresting. His shot is picked apart, and the "coach" doesn't even mention the fact that he starts the motion well below his waistline. I have less and less confidence that he will be such a stud that he is made out to be.
OK starter with some great plays and some obvious flaws? Sure. But not the MVP level game changer.

Not a fan huh?

[Sampagne]

The NBA draft is not an exact science. We're all just guessing. We've seen plenty of great college players who didn't do **** in the NBA. There are big time busts at the top of almost every draft. We can predict that Ball's transition game and shooting when he's wide open will translate fairly easily to the pros, but there are also some parts of his game that can prevent him from being a great NBA player, e.g. slow first step, (in?)ability to run the pick and roll, getting to the rim, mid-range jumpshot (yes, I know it's the least efficient shot but sometimes it's the only shot available), "heavy feet" on defense.

I guess where I get lost in the argument is why folks want him to show them things he doesn't need for his game to be effective. He's not a one on one scoring guard and shouldn't have the ball given to him with the idea that he'll be that.

He doesn't take bad shots so the idea that he should pull up for midrange jumpers if something else is open doesn't make a lot of sense to me. He's hit a few this year when the looks were clean same as he's done with any other open look he takes. Could stand to be a bit more aggressive but he's not one to force something that isn't there.

UCLA doesn't run a ton of PnR but when he's been in it he's been effective. Even if I hadn't seen it I would assume a kid with that kind of vision that sees things frames ahead would be able to navigate a PnR pretty effectively.

As I said before could be a preference thing, but for a guy that gets so much love for his high IQ on the floor he sure does take a lot of heat for not making dumb plays.

That is simply not true. Period. Not in the mood for alternative facts today. Watch the video on page 50, or look up some stats.
"Turnover on 32%+ of all pick-and-roll posessions puts him on the bottom of all college PGs."
How is that gonna fly in the league? Especially when he gets benched in favour of a better P'n'R PG who happens to be a carrer backup, and his daddy is throwing a tantrum behind the bench somewhere?

Also, first 4 minutes of that video is also intresting. His shot is picked apart, and the "coach" doesn't even mention the fact that he starts the motion well below his waistline. I have less and less confidence that he will be such a stud that he is made out to be.
OK starter with some great plays and some obvious flaws? Sure. But not the MVP level game changer.

Now be honest, how many actual GAMES have you seen of Lonzo? not HIGHLIGHTS but GAMES

[ATTL]

Watch on YouTube

Love me some josh Jackson, a second unit with Jones and Jackson would have incredible defense and athleticism.

[Bogyo]

I guess where I get lost in the argument is why folks want him to show them things he doesn't need for his game to be effective. He's not a one on one scoring guard and shouldn't have the ball given to him with the idea that he'll be that.

He doesn't take bad shots so the idea that he should pull up for midrange jumpers if something else is open doesn't make a lot of sense to me. He's hit a few this year when the looks were clean same as he's done with any other open look he takes. Could stand to be a bit more aggressive but he's not one to force something that isn't there.

UCLA doesn't run a ton of PnR but when he's been in it he's been effective. Even if I hadn't seen it I would assume a kid with that kind of vision that sees things frames ahead would be able to navigate a PnR pretty effectively.

As I said before could be a preference thing, but for a guy that gets so much love for his high IQ on the floor he sure does take a lot of heat for not making dumb plays.

That is simply not true. Period. Not in the mood for alternative facts today. Watch the video on page 50, or look up some stats.
"Turnover on 32%+ of all pick-and-roll posessions puts him on the bottom of all college PGs."
How is that gonna fly in the league? Especially when he gets benched in favour of a better P'n'R PG who happens to be a carrer backup, and his daddy is throwing a tantrum behind the bench somewhere?

Also, first 4 minutes of that video is also intresting. His shot is picked apart, and the "coach" doesn't even mention the fact that he starts the motion well below his waistline. I have less and less confidence that he will be such a stud that he is made out to be.
OK starter with some great plays and some obvious flaws? Sure. But not the MVP level game changer.

Not a fan huh?

I just don't see the amount of hype justified, and think that the flaws are ovelooked and played down for whatever reason.
I do see him as a good NBA player, and I do see the possibility for him to become a multiple all star. I just happen to think that this chance is a lot smaller than it is made out to be. I think his overall impact on the game will be similar to Rubio, maybe a bit better. That's still a very good player. Currently he is about 3rd best behind Fultz and Jackson, slightly ahead of DSJ, Tatum and Isaac. March can obviously change this - for good or bad.

[Bogyo]

I guess where I get lost in the argument is why folks want him to show them things he doesn't need for his game to be effective. He's not a one on one scoring guard and shouldn't have the ball given to him with the idea that he'll be that.

He doesn't take bad shots so the idea that he should pull up for midrange jumpers if something else is open doesn't make a lot of sense to me. He's hit a few this year when the looks were clean same as he's done with any other open look he takes. Could stand to be a bit more aggressive but he's not one to force something that isn't there.

UCLA doesn't run a ton of PnR but when he's been in it he's been effective. Even if I hadn't seen it I would assume a kid with that kind of vision that sees things frames ahead would be able to navigate a PnR pretty effectively.

As I said before could be a preference thing, but for a guy that gets so much love for his high IQ on the floor he sure does take a lot of heat for not making dumb plays.

That is simply not true. Period. Not in the mood for alternative facts today. Watch the video on page 50, or look up some stats.
"Turnover on 32%+ of all pick-and-roll posessions puts him on the bottom of all college PGs."
How is that gonna fly in the league? Especially when he gets benched in favour of a better P'n'R PG who happens to be a carrer backup, and his daddy is throwing a tantrum behind the bench somewhere?

Also, first 4 minutes of that video is also intresting. His shot is picked apart, and the "coach" doesn't even mention the fact that he starts the motion well below his waistline. I have less and less confidence that he will be such a stud that he is made out to be.
OK starter with some great plays and some obvious flaws? Sure. But not the MVP level game changer.

Now be honest, how many actual GAMES have you seen of Lonzo? not HIGHLIGHTS but GAMES

3 so far, and all extended game highligts from youtube, and other draft-highlights even the highlights are several hours... I will also watch his game in march. If you care to say something meaningful, or contradict the fact about his putrid pick and roll execution, or bring an example of an all star NBA point guard with such a funky shot, please do so, and we can continue. If not then please let's end this conversationm where you only throw some shady, passive-aggressive sht on my arguments trying to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about. Ridicoulus. I might not be right (see my conversation with Marcus), but at least he and I are talking and arguing.

[ImNotMcDiSwear]

Im starting to be intrigued by Frank Ntilikina, which is very rare, as i usually almost always tend to shy away from Euro prospects.

He needs to work on being more vocal on the court and more aggressive (He's somewhat French), but from what ive seen and read about the kid, he has some amazing skills on both ends of the floor and is supposed to be one of the best Euro prospects to come over in years.

Im almost at a loss to figure out what we really need when it comes to the draft or FA. I mean Booker is locking in at SG, Warren has shown some promise, but since his mysterious head injury he hasnt really been the same, Bender/Chriss are fighting for that PF spot, but its also fee-sable that one of them could slide over to SF if need be. Len is a bust, an absolute bust, here he is in the last year of his contract, supposed to be playing the best ball of his career trying to get that major payday, and yet he is failing on every level. But the good part about that is the emergence of Big Sauce. I have been waiting and waiting for the Suns to unleash him, and ever since they did, he has been having great games night after night. Williams is what we hoped Len would give us, so why give Len a big payday when Williams is doing exactly what he should be doing.

Now with the PG spot we have a question mark. Bledsoe has been playing great, but his knees are on borrowed time. Do i trust them enough to offer him another contract? No way. Do i expect him to stay injury free until his current contract expires? Not a chance. Then we have Ulis, who has shown some promise as a playmaking PG. He's small and crafty, but i still question his skills. Since we have been giving him minutes he has shined, but other teams arnt prepared for him, and dont really have much of a scouting report to go on about how to play against him. Once they learn, will he still be effective? Its like the LINsanity situation, but without the super gaudy numbers Lin was putting up. Once teams learned how to defend him and play against him, he pretty much fell off a cliff again.

So what i see is we maybe need a PG, maybe need a SF, and maybe need a C, but all 3 of those positions are still kinda questionmarks.

I think the 4 is clearly the position of least need, because we have all of Quese, Bender and Dudley taking minutes there. After that, the 2, because of Booker (I thought about whether we could open up minutes for a player like Monk by sliding Booker to the 3 more, but I don't think that works with Ulis and Bled taking up 100% of the minutes at the 1 - Barbosa is actually a better fit for that role, IMO.

After that, we have Bledsoe/Ulis at the 1 and Warren/DJJ/Bender/Dudley/Booker at the 3. Problem with drafting players at either position is - if you're not introducing an All-NBA level player, you're not really upgrading the talent level. Bled/Ulis will win more games next year than would either Bled/Smith or Bled/Ntilikina; if you drafted Ntilikina, do you put him on the bench behind Ulis and trade Bled? Weird. I'd rather just not touch the PG slot unless Fultz or Ball is the pick.

Between the 3 spot and the spot - I just don't love these threes. I like Isaac the most. I think Jackson is a 4, and I have him below each of Isaac and Tatum - whom I also suspect of being a 4. Strangely, the 6'11" guy might be the most SF of the three. But what - we're gonna stick this guy on our bench and try to see if he can crack a forward rotation that looks includes TJ, DJJ, Chriss, and Bender? Eeesh. Naw.

That leaves center. And I think that unless we have a top 2 pick - McDonough's best play is no longer to draft the BPA. He needs to draft positionally. In a sense, that gives him some flexibility, as he can look to deal HONESTLY with another team (and it's that honesty that can get you the right deal, IMO) and deal down in the draft if necessary.

That said, I don't think THIS GUY is going to last past our pick (if we're not in the top 3), so I just hope he lasts that long:

Watch on YouTube

First real look at Robert Williams, not bad at all, he could rise around top 5ish.

Word. 3+ months out from the draft, Robert Williams is my vote if we're outside the Top 2. Lets hope I remain in the minority. Fortunately, the last thing the Sixers need is a center, and each of Dallas, Sacramento and Orlando can be expected to draft positions 1-3. That leaves us, Boston, LA and Minny as top-10 teams with a need at center. I'd say we'd have a good shot at getting him if the FO shared my early assessment.

... There. That's my Plan A.

[Marcus]

That is simply not true. Period. Not in the mood for alternative facts today. Watch the video on page 50, or look up some stats.
"Turnover on 32%+ of all pick-and-roll posessions puts him on the bottom of all college PGs."
How is that gonna fly in the league? Especially when he gets benched in favour of a better P'n'R PG who happens to be a carrer backup, and his daddy is throwing a tantrum behind the bench somewhere?

Also, first 4 minutes of that video is also intresting. His shot is picked apart, and the "coach" doesn't even mention the fact that he starts the motion well below his waistline. I have less and less confidence that he will be such a stud that he is made out to be.
OK starter with some great plays and some obvious flaws? Sure. But not the MVP level game changer.

Not a fan huh?

I just don't see the amount of hype justified, and think that the flaws are ovelooked and played down for whatever reason.
I do see him as a good NBA player, and I do see the possibility for him to become a multiple all star. I just happen to think that this chance is a lot smaller than it is made out to be. I think his overall impact on the game will be similar to Rubio, maybe a bit better. That's still a very good player. Currently he is about 3rd best behind Fultz and Jackson, slightly ahead of DSJ, Tatum and Isaac. March can obviously change this - for good or bad.

Acquired taste and preference like I said before.

[Zelaznyrules]

Now be honest, how many actual GAMES have you seen of Lonzo? not HIGHLIGHTS but GAMES

3 so far, and all extended game highligts from youtube, and other draft-highlights even the highlights are several hours... I will also watch his game in march. If you care to say something meaningful, or contradict the fact about his putrid pick and roll execution, or bring an example of an all star NBA point guard with such a funky shot, please do so, and we can continue. If not then please let's end this conversationm where you only throw some shady, passive-aggressive sht on my arguments trying to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about. Ridicoulus. I might not be right (see my conversation with Marcus), but at least he and I are talking and arguing.

I watch a lot of college basketball but there are just so many prospects and so many games that it's pretty much impossible to have true first hand opinions on all of them. So I have no problem if someone questions what the basis of my opinion is, sometimes it's from watching a lot of games (Markkanen) and sometimes it's mostly second hand information with a few games and clips thrown in (Tatum, Jackson) and sometimes it's in between (Ball).

[Zelaznyrules]

Now be honest, how many actual GAMES have you seen of Lonzo? not HIGHLIGHTS but GAMES

3 so far, and all extended game highligts from youtube, and other draft-highlights even the highlights are several hours... I will also watch his game in march. If you care to say something meaningful, or contradict the fact about his putrid pick and roll execution, or bring an example of an all star NBA point guard with such a funky shot, please do so, and we can continue. If not then please let's end this conversationm where you only throw some shady, passive-aggressive sht on my arguments trying to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about. Ridicoulus. I might not be right (see my conversation with Marcus), but at least he and I are talking and arguing.

I watch a lot of college basketball but there are just so many prospects and so many games that it's pretty much impossible to have true first hand opinions on all of them. So I have no problem if someone questions what the basis of my opinion is, sometimes it's from watching a lot of games (Markkanen) and sometimes it's mostly second hand information with a few games and clips thrown in (Tatum, Jackson) and sometimes it's in between (Ball). I'd imagine that's true for most of us and, to me, it makes sense that someone might want to know the particulars.

[Marcus]

Just so I'm clear. I'm far from the belief that Lonzo is flawless or has no holes. He's nowhere near as engaged defensively as he should be consistently. He definitely takes plays off where he resorts to meaningless gambles and he falls back into the Chino Hills style of passing his guy off to the next man up. He also completely dies on picks and that won't fly in the league. Frustrating part of all that being when he seems to want to or the matchup is big enough he locks in. So he needs to have that lazy coached out of him at the next level.

Offensively he'll be forced to score more on the PnR to prove that he can and keep defenses honest. I thought he needed a push or a floater to negate his shooting motion on midrange pull ups BUT he changes his form and it's much more compact (if you can find the 2nd Washington and AZ games on youtube you'll see what I mean). I thought he'd have problems shooting going right but he alleviated that as well. With Lonzo the beginning, ending, and results with his jumper are great. It's everything in between that scares people and I get that. Watching the kid though his feet are always in the right place and his rotation is perfect with range out to 30 and a high clip on good volume you have to get past the cosmetics. He's gotten it off over various sizes this year and he's not a volume shooter scoring type guard. He takes the shots he has clean looks for. I mentioned this on the draft board but it's hard for me to fathom that a kid with that type of spacial awareness and that moves that well off the ball can't find himself with enough open looks to be a threat in the league when a guy like Steph Curry who the whole league is aware of finds himself with a solid handful of open looks nightly.

I'm huge on high IQ players which is the reason Josh Jackson has never left my number one slot since before the season started. Lonzo's IQ is off the charts. Where some see a kid not doing something because he's not capable I see a kid smart enough to not force the issue. He's taken bad shots this year but far fewer than Fultz, Smith, Monk, Tatum. All guys that will be scoring reliant to be at their best at the next level and all guys that hit tough shots and show people the things they are asking from Lonzo. I personally think those things are harder to replicate from college to pro right out the gate than taking good shots and moving the ball until the league slows down for you is.

PnR numbers are bad. Ok, as I stated before they don't run a lot but I don't see a kid making bad decisions. Shots don't fall when you run them at low volume doesn't mean you can run it. If one of the main weapons of PnR is reading a defense and taking what's available why would a kid whose appeal is based off that have a problem doing so if put situations to do it.

I've stated it a few times. If you need/want a guy to drop 20+ a night and be able to go 1 on five in the half court I would take 5 to 6 guys ahead of him because he's not going to do that and you'd be highly disappointed expecting that. But for a team like Phoenix who has guys to put the ball in the basket a kid like this to chef the kitchen for you would bring it all together going forward.

All concerns about Ball are valid I just don't think they're as huge as others seem to believe. The thing with his pops is a little blown as well as he's yet to say anything to a coach or in reference to time or usage. He's very rah rah off the court but Zo still plays his game on it and you never hear see poppa Ball doing too much in the stands during a game. He's actually harder on his boys than he's been on coaches.

[Bogyo]

Very nice post Marcus! I will look at the changes in his shots next time I get a chance to see him, but I'm still not a huge believer.
Let's see in march and next year how he does.
Keep on posting here whenever you have the time.

[Marcus]

Very nice post Marcus! I will look at the changes in his shots next time I get a chance to see him, but I'm still not a huge believer.
Let's see in march and next year how he does.
Keep on posting here whenever you have the time.

Fasho. You guys always keep a good draft convo around here.

[MrMiyagi]

The way Ulis keeps playing, I say we're locking in on Josh Jackson.

[Marcus]

The way Ulis keeps playing, I say we're locking in on Josh Jackson.

Can't go wrong with Josh.

[Cactus Jack]

The way Ulis keeps playing, I say we're locking in on Josh Jackson.

With the Suns track record, its gotta be a Kentucky guard. My money is on Fox.