Marquese Chriss News, Discussion and Highlights (New Poll)

[Bogyo]

And while judging our guys, remember they were only coached yoga, and not basketball in their first year - where Bender was injured for a significant amount of time, while he should have been starting over Watsons boy Chriss.

[ImNotMcDiSwear]

Bender is playing behind Chriss. I mean if you went through the entire history of the NBA you're likely to find a lot of players who were not that good to start their career. Chauncey Billups for example shot under 33% as a rookie. He shot under 34% in his 3rd year in the league when he was 23.

Chriss had fairly similar per 36 #s (scored more and had the same steals, and close in rebounds) and a better TS% ( shot better from 2 and 3) than Kevin Garnett at the age of 19.

Dirk Nowitzki played over 20 mpg as a rookie at 20 and scored 8.2 ppg on 40% shooting, shot 20% from 3 and had 3.4 rpg.

Rashard Lewis came in young and was a rookie at 19 and scored 2.4 ppg on 36.5 shooting along with 1.3 rpg. At 20 with almost 20 minutes he scored 8.2 ppg, with 4.1 rpg and shot 48.6%. He later played in 2 all star games.

Mark Price was bad as a rookie...so bad they drafted KJ with their first pick the next year. He was even a bit older at 22.

Baron Davis was bad a rookie.

Sorry but most of those players you mentioned had very good second years unlike Chriss and Bender. I'll give you Lewis because he was 19 like our two players. The others were older. Do I want these two to be all-stars sure ... right now they certainly don't look like it. Hoping that they will pan out in the next two to three years seems like a waste. I would rather trade draft picks for sure things (veteran all-stars) to put next to Booker soon.

Chriss and Bender haven't even played their second years. Bender didn't really have a first year. He was injured by the time he was going to get playing time. This is basically his rookie year. In the draft class there are only a couple of rookies playing very well so far. Dunn sucks. Murray sucks. Ingram sucks. Brown is ok. Hield is ok, but he played 4 years in college. The only guy playing really well is Simmons. It really wasn't a great draft, but none of those guys are playing very well. Outside of those guys you basically have Sabonis who is playing ok and Brogdon who is playing well, but Brogdon is quite a bit older and Sabonis is older too.

Based on all that evidence, I believe it's safe to conclude that the 2016 draft was one of the worst drafts of all time. Not one all-star on that list.

[bigfoot]

Sorry but most of those players you mentioned had very good second years unlike Chriss and Bender. I'll give you Lewis because he was 19 like our two players. The others were older. Do I want these two to be all-stars sure ... right now they certainly don't look like it. Hoping that they will pan out in the next two to three years seems like a waste. I would rather trade draft picks for sure things (veteran all-stars) to put next to Booker soon.

Chriss and Bender haven't even played their second years. Bender didn't really have a first year. He was injured by the time he was going to get playing time. This is basically his rookie year. In the draft class there are only a couple of rookies playing very well so far. Dunn sucks. Murray sucks. Ingram sucks. Brown is ok. Hield is ok, but he played 4 years in college. The only guy playing really well is Simmons. It really wasn't a great draft, but none of those guys are playing very well. Outside of those guys you basically have Sabonis who is playing ok and Brogdon who is playing well, but Brogdon is quite a bit older and Sabonis is older too.

Based on all that evidence, I believe it's safe to conclude that the 2016 draft was one of the worst drafts of all time. Not one all-star on that list.

Simmons will be a perennial all-star ... no doubt.

[ImNotMcDiSwear]

And while judging our guys, remember they were only coached yoga, and not basketball in their first year - where Bender was injured for a significant amount of time, while he should have been starting over Watsons boy Chriss.

To be fair, Chriss has outplayed Dragan of late, by just about any measure.

Dragan needs to learn to be physical and to be aggressive. I think the biggest reason he's hesitant to shoot at this point is that his teammates start looking him off real quick after one or two missed threes. And Dragan needs to take that shot almost every time. Even if you shoot 40% from 3, you'll brick your first two attempts 36% of the time.

One thing I'd like to see more of is Dragan getting the ball in the high post, free-throw line area. As he adds bulk, he should be very effective playing a Boris Diaw role for us.

This team is going to have so many offensive weapons when these guys hit they're prime, it'll be nuts.

[bwgood77]

Chriss and Bender haven't even played their second years. Bender didn't really have a first year. He was injured by the time he was going to get playing time. This is basically his rookie year. In the draft class there are only a couple of rookies playing very well so far. Dunn sucks. Murray sucks. Ingram sucks. Brown is ok. Hield is ok, but he played 4 years in college. The only guy playing really well is Simmons. It really wasn't a great draft, but none of those guys are playing very well. Outside of those guys you basically have Sabonis who is playing ok and Brogdon who is playing well, but Brogdon is quite a bit older and Sabonis is older too.

Based on all that evidence, I believe it's safe to conclude that the 2016 draft was one of the worst drafts of all time. Not one all-star on that list.

Simmons will be a perennial all-star ... no doubt.

You're right. And guess what. He was drafted #1.

[ImNotMcDiSwear]

Based on all that evidence, I believe it's safe to conclude that the 2016 draft was one of the worst drafts of all time. Not one all-star on that list.

Simmons will be a perennial all-star ... no doubt.

You're right. And guess what. He was drafted #1.

McDonough sucks at winning lotteries. If only Sarver were willing to spend $$$ on a REAL good luck charm.

[Saberestar]

Based on all that evidence, I believe it's safe to conclude that the 2016 draft was one of the worst drafts of all time. Not one all-star on that list.

Simmons will be a perennial all-star ... no doubt.

You're right. And guess what. He was drafted #1.

I think that Simmons, Ingram, Jaylen Brown and Jamal Murray are gonna be All Stars. All of them are solid starters already and improving big time in his second season in the league.

[jcsunsfan]

Simmons will be a perennial all-star ... no doubt.

You're right. And guess what. He was drafted #1.

McDonough sucks at winning lotteries. If only Sarver were willing to spend $$$ on a REAL good luck charm.

[ImNotMcDiSwear]

Simmons will be a perennial all-star ... no doubt.

You're right. And guess what. He was drafted #1.

I think that Simmons, Ingram, Jaylen Brown and Jamal Murray are gonna be All Stars. All of them are solid starters already and improving big time in his second season in the league.

I dunno. I watched Marquese Chriss the other night and he was whooping some T-Wolf ***.

[bwgood77]

Simmons will be a perennial all-star ... no doubt.

You're right. And guess what. He was drafted #1.

I think that Simmons, Ingram, Jaylen Brown and Jamal Murray are gonna be All Stars. All of them are solid starters already and improving big time in his second season in the league.

Murray's been terrible. He's a SG trying to play point, but he can't really pass (2.5apg, 1.8topg), and he hasn't been a good shooter..32% from 3....that's what Chriss shot last year and Chriss is shooting almost 42% from 3 this year and he's not even a SG. And Murray is even far worse defensively.

I don't get the Murray love. He has not been impressive whatsoever.

Chriss has played as good as Ingram this year and way better last year.

[Saberestar]

You're right. And guess what. He was drafted #1.

I think that Simmons, Ingram, Jaylen Brown and Jamal Murray are gonna be All Stars. All of them are solid starters already and improving big time in his second season in the league.

Murray's been terrible. He's a SG trying to play point, but he can't really pass (2.5apg, 1.8topg), and he hasn't been a good shooter..32% from 3....that's what Chriss shot last year and Chriss is shooting almost 42% from 3 this year and he's not even a SG. And Murray is even far worse defensively.

I don't get the Murray love. He has not been impressive whatsoever.

Chriss has played as good as Ingram this year and way better last year.

Murray can be the next Lillard/Curry, that's why you will not find a single Nuggets fan that would trade him. Try to find him. They love him because they watch him on every game and they understand that his skillset, shooting and basketball IQ are terrific.

Chriss has played as good as Ingram? I would love that to be true, but that's not the case.

Ingram is putting 14.5 points, 5 rebounds, 2.4 assists and 1.2 steals per game with a solid 45% shooting. He is solid on both sides and he is only 20 and watching him you can see that his potential is off the charts.

[suns91fan]

You're right. And guess what. He was drafted #1.

I think that Simmons, Ingram, Jaylen Brown and Jamal Murray are gonna be All Stars. All of them are solid starters already and improving big time in his second season in the league.

Murray's been terrible. He's a SG trying to play point, but he can't really pass (2.5apg, 1.8topg), and he hasn't been a good shooter..32% from 3....that's what Chriss shot last year and Chriss is shooting almost 42% from 3 this year and he's not even a SG. And Murray is even far worse defensively.

I don't get the Murray love. He has not been impressive whatsoever.

Chriss has played as good as Ingram this year and way better last year.

Murray had a really rough first five games of the season. Since then (last 8 games) he's averaging 16 ppg on 66% TS. I agree about him not being a PG though. But in the end, i guess a team with Jokic doesn't really require a true playmaker at PG.

[bwgood77]

I think that Simmons, Ingram, Jaylen Brown and Jamal Murray are gonna be All Stars. All of them are solid starters already and improving big time in his second season in the league.

Murray's been terrible. He's a SG trying to play point, but he can't really pass (2.5apg, 1.8topg), and he hasn't been a good shooter..32% from 3....that's what Chriss shot last year and Chriss is shooting almost 42% from 3 this year and he's not even a SG. And Murray is even far worse defensively.

I don't get the Murray love. He has not been impressive whatsoever.

Chriss has played as good as Ingram this year and way better last year.

Murray can be the next Lillard/Curry, that's why you will not find a single Nuggets fan that would trade him. Try to find him. They love him because they watch him on every game and they understand that his skillset, shooting and basketball IQ are terrific.

Chriss has played as good as Ingram? I would love that to be true, but that's not the case.

Ingram is putting 14.5 points, 5 rebounds, 2.4 assists and 1.2 steals per game with a solid 45% shooting. He is solid on both sides and he is only 20 and watching him you can see that his potential is off the charts.

I know Nuggets fans don't want to trade him. He's their only top 5 or 6 pick in a while. But he hasn't been good.

Well here is Chriss vs Ingram last year....Chriss was better across the board except for assists...Ingram played more minutes so it's better to use per 36, but he still looks better just in the minutes they played. MUCH better shooting %s which was what was supposed to be Ingram's strength. Advanced metrics on b-ref he was far better.

http://bkref.com/tiny/vP8fC

Despite getting off to a rough start because of the weight gain, Chriss is still playing comparable this year, though they have different strengths. Chriss is a much better 3pt shooter though (41.7% to 31.8%) and of course Ingram was supposed to be a shooter/scorer.

Ingram is also playing 33.5 mpg and Chriss 20.5 mpg. Even in far fewer minutes, they avg the same rebounds, and Chriss has almost triple the blocks.

Chriss has a much better TS% and eFG%.

Sure Ingram scores 14.5 ppg, but that's not all that impressive in almost 34 mpg and he's not efficient. Per 36 Chriss averages way more rebounds, blocks, and about the same in assists and steals, and slightly less points.

http://bkref.com/tiny/xTqr7

[AtheJ415]

It's very simple dude ... name one 18/19 year old who had a sub-par two-three years at the beginning of his career that magically turned into a multi-year all-star. Name one ... that's all you have to do. When you can then you might be able to support your argument for being patient with Chriss and Bender. I didn't take most of us four years to figure out Len isn't anything but a role player. Right now Chriss and Bender are following in his footsteps. I'm willing to given Bender a bit more leeway because he was injured a good deal of last season.

Again your thought process goes against everything you post ... in particular it blows up your dream to tank for top prospects (1-5 picks) that will hopefully turn into all-stars. In my post I gave you two lists ... young players who are eventually all-stars that scored 11+ in their rookie campaign. The second list (who don't score 11+) is littered with role players, especially if they don't show anything in their second season. Hope you noticed both Chris and Bender are on the second list while Booker is on the first. I sure hope these two start turning their second seasons around soon.

I'll name one. Jermaine O'Neal. He hasn't used great examples, though you'd have to compare these guy's college years against far lesser competition to get good comparisons. When Draymond Green was 19 he was scoring 3 ppg. When he was 20 he was scoring less than 10 ppg and shooting 12.5% from 3 at Michigan St playing against college kids.

I'm sure there are all sorts of examples of people who started out slow in the nba. In Tyson Chandler's 3rd year, at 21, he scored 6 ppg on 42% shooting.

Edit: I see cosmo mentioned Jermaine O'Neal, but I've mentioned him before as an example. I'll mention another one. Zach Randolph. He averaged less than 3 ppg and less than 2 rpg at the age of 20. Could barely get much playing time. Shot under 45%.

Zach Randolph (2x All-star) played behind Rasheed Wallace on Portand
Jermaine O'Neal (6x All-star) played behind Sabonis on Portland
Tracy McGrady (7x All-star) played behind Walt Williams on Raptors

One thing they have in common is they were playing behind much better players on playoff bound teams. So it is understandable they could be late bloomers. We have Chriss and Bender playing behind no one on a losing team and both have produced less than journeyman stats. That is the difference I am trying to point out. Great young players typically bring it when they are given the opportunity.

This is simply not true. It is not backed by damn near all of the statistics and analytics that exist in the history of the league, and is another one of your statements with almost no backing except for the occasional random example while excusing all other examples that contradict it as not the same.

Generally big men in particular are slow to develop. That is in fact more common than the other way around.

I will challenge you this way. Name the 18/19 year old bigs who dominated in year 1 in the modern NBA. You will be left with generational talents, and leaving out the vast majority of star players that have existed in this league, while conveniently ignoring the guys who were struggling in college at this age because you for some reason are ultra harsh on guys playing in the NBA but not on guys struggling against college players despite being the same age. It is nonsense.

[AtheJ415]

Are you saying it's better to get later picks?

I think he means that a player drafted lower, naturally, will take more time to develop, and so are more valuable than guys picked higher. I think.

No Booker took half a season to develop ... We knew he was special his rookie year. Rookies that step up are all-stars or future superstars. Rookies that don't are role players or out of the league in four years. Doesn't matter where they are drafted. Key is Chriss and Bender aren't showing it right now.

The is quite possibly the most incorrect thing I have ever read on the internet.

Please provide the statistical backing for said statement. I know you won't because you haven't done so thus far, instead picking and choosing individual examples with no consideration of any alternative or an actual group of players, but please find this non-existent backing.

[AtheJ415]

Also, Curry was not special. He was a guy who was seen as an injury-riddled starter caliber guy who was not seen leaguewide as max worthy let alone by his own team, and who could do one thing on the court (shoot). He didn't become a star until 27. To re-write history here is insanity. Many criticized his rookie extension. But hey, you're just the guy who thinks Jimmy Butler averaging 3, 1, and 0 (yes 0) at 22 and then following that up with 8, 4, and 1 on horrible shooting is "proving himself against hardened vets" while Chriss averaging better numbers at 19 is nothing more than a role player going forward.

To say Curry wasn't special even as a rookie is a little much. 17.5/4.5/5.9/1.9spg with almost 44% from the 3 (on almost 5 3PA) is nothing to scoff at. Sure he came in older than his fellow draft class but the guy was special and he proved it in year 1. Let's also not forget the original plan was for the Warriors to draft Curry on our behalf to trade for an All-Star by the name of Amare Stoudemire. He was special even before he was drafted and our front office recognized that.

Not to say there aren't late bloomers or player who became elite players despite putting up pedestrian rookie numbers but in general most young rookies who don't put up solid numbers generally won't turn into upper echelon players. There will always be outliers, both ways. I have to disagree Curry wasn't a star until he was 27. He wasn't a star at 27, he was an MVP calibre player at 27. He made his first all star team at 25. The Warriors won 26 in his rookie season then improved by 10 games in his 2nd season. Despite having a similar squad the following season when he was only healthy for 25% of the games, that team only won 23 games. He comes back from injury to play 78 games and the Warriors make playoffs by winning 47 games and he averages 23/8 in the playoffs as 24 year old. The guy wasn't just an injury plagued shooter. If your definition of a star is a player that's worthy of a max deal, then that's a fairly short list. By most people's measures, he was a star by 25.

This whole thing about him being injury prone was true but to be fair to him, he's only played in less than 74 games once (that injury plagued 3rd season) and it's in that offseason when he was offered and took what was considered a steal now but at the time, a fair contract for a guy who was injury prone but was also extremely productive when healthy. As a comparison, Bledsoe played less games and averaged lower stats when he got his $70m extension. As a percentage of the salary cap, over the 4 seasons (including this season) that Bledsoe was on our roster, his deal averaged around just under 17% of the salary cap. In the 4 seasons Curry was in his 2nd contract, his deal averaged just under 16% of the salary cap.

Is this just my own revisionist perception of Curry's career or.....?

He was seen as special by our front office in the Amare trade, and yet he still went later than many in the draft, including multiple PGs. Point being, the entire league didn't view him as such. They viewed him as a one dimensional shooter who would need to develop as a playmaker and was probably never athletic enough to develop into a high upside player. That was his scouting report coming out of college. Some even said he was a best fit for a career 6th man.

The Warriors own beat writers weren't sure he should even play over Acie Law, and he was benched repeatedly in the 4th quarters in favor of Law due to Curry's constant turnovers his first few years in the league.

There was also rampant debate over him v. Ellis, and then the injury history and questioning of his contract. Many criticized that deal, which was below max, largely due to his injury history (he averaged 14 per game that season), and he had NEVER made an all star team at that point.

Compare that to even Bledsoe, who most of the media criticized Phoenix for NOT giving him the max. Steph was always seen as a good player, but nobody, not even GSW, thought he was going to be an MVP candidate and true star. Otherwise he gets maxed without question, and if the rest of the league was unified in that thought when he was drafted, then they would have been falling all over themselves to trade up for him. He would have never lasted to GS. Even GS, who liked him the most, was willing to risk him falling to them.

In all seriousness, Steph was a 0 time all star and coming off an injury riddled 14 ppg season when he signed that extension. He was a great shooter but not the greatest ever like he is now, and he was good at literally nothing else. How is that any different from Goran, Bledsoe, or even IT at the time of their extensions? Steph took a giant step forward after signing that deal, which is when he made a huge jump to MVP candidate/generational player at the same time he made his first All NBA and first All Star team. Even Harden as a 6th man had proven more at the time of his deal.

I am not saying Steph sucked or anything, but the idea that he was some future legend or special player when he had made 0 all stars, was coming off an injury shortened and disappointing season, was a defensive liability to huge proportions, and had led his team to not even a playoff appearance IIRC, is alarming. That deal was widely criticized as risky in large part because he was not seen as this obviously special player.

[bigfoot]

I'll name one. Jermaine O'Neal. He hasn't used great examples, though you'd have to compare these guy's college years against far lesser competition to get good comparisons. When Draymond Green was 19 he was scoring 3 ppg. When he was 20 he was scoring less than 10 ppg and shooting 12.5% from 3 at Michigan St playing against college kids.

I'm sure there are all sorts of examples of people who started out slow in the nba. In Tyson Chandler's 3rd year, at 21, he scored 6 ppg on 42% shooting.

Edit: I see cosmo mentioned Jermaine O'Neal, but I've mentioned him before as an example. I'll mention another one. Zach Randolph. He averaged less than 3 ppg and less than 2 rpg at the age of 20. Could barely get much playing time. Shot under 45%.

Zach Randolph (2x All-star) played behind Rasheed Wallace on Portand
Jermaine O'Neal (6x All-star) played behind Sabonis on Portland
Tracy McGrady (7x All-star) played behind Walt Williams on Raptors

One thing they have in common is they were playing behind much better players on playoff bound teams. So it is understandable they could be late bloomers. We have Chriss and Bender playing behind no one on a losing team and both have produced less than journeyman stats. That is the difference I am trying to point out. Great young players typically bring it when they are given the opportunity.

This is simply not true. It is not backed by damn near all of the statistics and analytics that exist in the history of the league, and is another one of your statements with almost no backing except for the occasional random example while excusing all other examples that contradict it as not the same.

Generally big men in particular are slow to develop. That is in fact more common than the other way around.

I will challenge you this way. Name the 18/19 year old bigs who dominated in year 1 in the modern NBA. You will be left with generational talents, and leaving out the vast majority of star players that have existed in this league, while conveniently ignoring the guys who were struggling in college at this age because you for some reason are ultra harsh on guys playing in the NBA but not on guys struggling against college players despite being the same age. It is nonsense.

Look at this ... the list of all rookie big men since 2001 that are still active in the league sorted by points scored in their rookie year.

http://bkref.com/tiny/lzJ3E

What do you see. The elites are all clustered at the top. For the most part, role players are clustered at the bottom. There is an occasional big man at the bottom who might be considered elite but mainly because he is a rebounding defensive big like Gobert, Chandler, Jordan, etc.

Now look at the combined points for their first two seasons.

http://bkref.com/tiny/lThJZ

That does a pretty good job separating the men from the boys. I don't know why you can't see that a player usually establishes themselves as elite within the first two seasons. Your desire to give Chriss and Bender five or six years until they are 25-26 seems like nonsense.

Just to give you one more take here is the big sorted by total rebounds in their first two years

http://bkref.com/tiny/YKVFo

Again separates the studs from the duds.

I'm being harsh on our players that don't bring it in the first two years because statistically it shows they are likely to be role players if they can't score or rebound at a high level.

[lilfishi22]

He was seen as special by our front office in the Amare trade, and yet he still went later than many in the draft, including multiple PGs. Point being, the entire league didn't view him as such. They viewed him as a one dimensional shooter who would need to develop as a playmaker and was probably never athletic enough to develop into a high upside player. That was his scouting report coming out of college. Some even said he was a best fit for a career 6th man.

The Warriors own beat writers weren't sure he should even play over Acie Law, and he was benched repeatedly in the 4th quarters in favor of Law due to Curry's constant turnovers his first few years in the league.

There was also rampant debate over him v. Ellis, and then the injury history and questioning of his contract. Many criticized that deal, which was below max, largely due to his injury history (he averaged 14 per game that season), and he had NEVER made an all star team at that point.

Compare that to even Bledsoe, who most of the media criticized Phoenix for NOT giving him the max. Steph was always seen as a good player, but nobody, not even GSW, thought he was going to be an MVP candidate and true star. Otherwise he gets maxed without question, and if the rest of the league was unified in that thought when he was drafted, then they would have been falling all over themselves to trade up for him. He would have never lasted to GS. Even GS, who liked him the most, was willing to risk him falling to them.

In all seriousness, Steph was a 0 time all star and coming off an injury riddled 14 ppg season when he signed that extension. He was a great shooter but not the greatest ever like he is now, and he was good at literally nothing else. How is that any different from Goran, Bledsoe, or even IT at the time of their extensions? Steph took a giant step forward after signing that deal, which is when he made a huge jump to MVP candidate/generational player at the same time he made his first All NBA and first All Star team. Even Harden as a 6th man had proven more at the time of his deal.

I am not saying Steph sucked or anything, but the idea that he was some future legend or special player when he had made 0 all stars, was coming off an injury shortened and disappointing season, was a defensive liability to huge proportions, and had led his team to not even a playoff appearance IIRC, is alarming. That deal was widely criticized as risky in large part because he was not seen as this obviously special player.

Arguably every player that could've gone top 5 in most drafts has something special about them and Curry could've easily gone in the top 5. It's not like he was overlooked by 12 other teams like Steve Nash. We're talking 5 teams (Khan-era Wolves had 2 picks) Guys slip not just because of talent but because certain GM's decide to go one way or another which affects the draft landscape. That was a guard heavy draft with higher profile and more balanced players like Harden, Evans and Flynn going before and of course Rubio, who was seen as a phenom but also a draft and stash player. The only question pre-draft was whether he could run the point because he didn't have the size or athleticism to play the 2 at the NBA level. That was the only legitimate gripe against name.

Young players get benched all the time, doesn't make them any less special. Being a a big Chriss supporter, you should know this. But Curry also played A LOT more minutes than many young players in his first couple of years so I don't get your point about *some* Warriors beat writers questioning whether he would outplay Acie Law(lol). The guy played 36mpg in his rookie season. That's veteran starter minutes. In January in his rookie season he was already averaging 19/4/5 and post-all star he was averaging an all-star level 22/6/8 on great shooting percentages. Bledsoe didn't come close to putting up these numbers until last season when he averaged 24/5/8 in January and Curry averaged that post-ASW in his rookie season. Who cares what some beat writers write

The only debate between Curry v Ellis was largely during the draft when the Warriors drafted Curry when they already had Ellis who averaged 20/5/4 in the previous two seasons. There were a lot of questions ranging from, what are they doing? To are they drafting for someone else (Suns)? No matter how special Curry was, they still had a 25ppg scorer in Monta so I don't blame them for being cautious with the contracts especially with those injury concerns as well. Also, signing him to something reasonable meant he wasn't going to hit the open market where they may have had to match an even more expensive deal and it's been talked about that had he gotten through the season healthy, they would not have blinked at matching a max offer. They got the deal done that worked for both sides but there were no denying he was a star level talent at that point. Nobody thought he was MVP calibre but how many players are legitimately MVP calibre? If your suggestion was that a young Curry wasn't MVP calibre when he was young so he wasn't special, then your barometer is way off. It would certainly help if we knew what your definition of 'special' is.

You're basing his entire early career on three things to support your argument that he wasn't special; the fact that he had an injury riddled 3rd season, that Monta was still around and that he got a less than max rookie extension. No he wasn't Lebron or KD at that point where he was undeniable but he was at that time already one of the most prolific shooters in the NBA with a 2:1 AST:TO ratio. He answered pretty much all questions many had pre-draft but it was his ankle injuries which held him back. For the record, I've never said people saw him as a generational talent or would be the greatest shooter in NBA history at that point in his career. Nobody saw that coming. My argument still is that he was already seen as a special talent who could be more if he can stay healthy.

[AtheJ415]

He was seen as special by our front office in the Amare trade, and yet he still went later than many in the draft, including multiple PGs. Point being, the entire league didn't view him as such. They viewed him as a one dimensional shooter who would need to develop as a playmaker and was probably never athletic enough to develop into a high upside player. That was his scouting report coming out of college. Some even said he was a best fit for a career 6th man.

The Warriors own beat writers weren't sure he should even play over Acie Law, and he was benched repeatedly in the 4th quarters in favor of Law due to Curry's constant turnovers his first few years in the league.

There was also rampant debate over him v. Ellis, and then the injury history and questioning of his contract. Many criticized that deal, which was below max, largely due to his injury history (he averaged 14 per game that season), and he had NEVER made an all star team at that point.

Compare that to even Bledsoe, who most of the media criticized Phoenix for NOT giving him the max. Steph was always seen as a good player, but nobody, not even GSW, thought he was going to be an MVP candidate and true star. Otherwise he gets maxed without question, and if the rest of the league was unified in that thought when he was drafted, then they would have been falling all over themselves to trade up for him. He would have never lasted to GS. Even GS, who liked him the most, was willing to risk him falling to them.

In all seriousness, Steph was a 0 time all star and coming off an injury riddled 14 ppg season when he signed that extension. He was a great shooter but not the greatest ever like he is now, and he was good at literally nothing else. How is that any different from Goran, Bledsoe, or even IT at the time of their extensions? Steph took a giant step forward after signing that deal, which is when he made a huge jump to MVP candidate/generational player at the same time he made his first All NBA and first All Star team. Even Harden as a 6th man had proven more at the time of his deal.

I am not saying Steph sucked or anything, but the idea that he was some future legend or special player when he had made 0 all stars, was coming off an injury shortened and disappointing season, was a defensive liability to huge proportions, and had led his team to not even a playoff appearance IIRC, is alarming. That deal was widely criticized as risky in large part because he was not seen as this obviously special player.

Arguably every player that could've gone top 5 in most drafts has something special about them and Curry could've easily gone in the top 5. It's not like he was overlooked by 12 other teams like Steve Nash. We're talking 5 teams (Khan-era Wolves had 2 picks) Guys slip not just because of talent but because certain GM's decide to go one way or another which affects the draft landscape. That was a guard heavy draft with higher profile and more balanced players like Harden, Evans and Flynn going before and of course Rubio, who was seen as a phenom but also a draft and stash player. The only question pre-draft was whether he could run the point because he didn't have the size or athleticism to play the 2 at the NBA level. That was the only legitimate gripe against name.

Young players get benched all the time, doesn't make them any less special. Being a a big Chriss supporter, you should know this. But Curry also played A LOT more minutes than many young players in his first couple of years so I don't get your point about *some* Warriors beat writers questioning whether he would outplay Acie Law(lol). The guy played 36mpg in his rookie season. That's veteran starter minutes. In January in his rookie season he was already averaging 19/4/5 and post-all star he was averaging an all-star level 22/6/8 on great shooting percentages. Bledsoe didn't come close to putting up these numbers until last season when he averaged 24/5/8 in January and Curry averaged that post-ASW in his rookie season. Who cares what some beat writers write

The only debate between Curry v Ellis was largely during the draft when the Warriors drafted Curry when they already had Ellis who averaged 20/5/4 in the previous two seasons. There were a lot of questions ranging from, what are they doing? To are they drafting for someone else (Suns)? No matter how special Curry was, they still had a 25ppg scorer in Monta so I don't blame them for being cautious with the contracts especially with those injury concerns as well. Also, signing him to something reasonable meant he wasn't going to hit the open market where they may have had to match an even more expensive deal and it's been talked about that had he gotten through the season healthy, they would not have blinked at matching a max offer. They got the deal done that worked for both sides but there were no denying he was a star level talent at that point. Nobody thought he was MVP calibre but how many players are legitimately MVP calibre? If your suggestion was that a young Curry wasn't MVP calibre when he was young so he wasn't special, then your barometer is way off. It would certainly help if we knew what your definition of 'special' is.

You're basing his entire early career on three things to support your argument that he wasn't special; the fact that he had an injury riddled 3rd season, that Monta was still around and that he got a less than max rookie extension. No he wasn't Lebron or KD at that point where he was undeniable but he was at that time already one of the most prolific shooters in the NBA with a 2:1 AST:TO ratio. He answered pretty much all questions many had pre-draft but it was his ankle injuries which held him back. For the record, I've never said people saw him as a generational talent or would be the greatest shooter in NBA history at that point in his career. Nobody saw that coming. My argument still is that he was already seen as a special talent who could be more if he can stay healthy.

I'm supporting that he wasn't special based on the contract he was given and how it was viewed by the league. Also, he had a lot more question marks heading into the draft. You say it was just a matter of whether he could play the 1. That is flat out incorrect. His biggest question mark was defensive ability, which remains his biggest question mark. In fact, the only thing people were sure he could do at this level was shoot. Everything else was an open question. Could he pass enough to play the 1? Could he defend any NBA position? Did he have the elite athleticism to hang with NBA point guards? All of these were question marks about him, and are why guys like Flynn went ahead of him, and Flynn was not viewed as special imo either. If what you were saying was true about anybody who "could have been a top 5 pick", then the Alex Len's of the world are by definition viewed as special. I don't subscribe to that.

Curry at the end of his rookie deal was injured after putting up 14 ppg, and given a less than max contract. How often do young players who are viewed as special get less than max? It doesn't happen for a reason. Even guys like Embiid get super maxes despite a rampant injury history. Curry was simply not viewed that way. Otherwise he gets maxed. He had NEVER MADE AN ALL STAR TEAM at that point or an all NBA team and was coming off a 14 ppg season that he played less than half the season in.

From any objective perspective, he was basically in Bledsoe's type of shoes. Even Goran made All-NBA before getting his Miami extension. Curry then blew up and took his volume and shooting to a new level, as well as his handles and passing improving to unforeseen levels, and even has improved defensively of late. That is actually what happened here. He went from never making an All-Star team to the league's MVP in a little over a year.

[Revived]

Are you saying it's better to get later picks?

I think he means that a player drafted lower, naturally, will take more time to develop, and so are more valuable than guys picked higher. I think.

No Booker took half a season to develop ... We knew he was special his rookie year. Rookies that step up are all-stars or future superstars. Rookies that don't are role players or out of the league in four years. Doesn't matter where they are drafted. Key is Chriss and Bender aren't showing it right now.

Bender is showing it, he just needs a bit more confidence. He has that prime Lamar Odom game in him.