Doug McDermott

doordoor123 · Post #301 » by **doordoor123** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:55 pm

Mik317 wrote:Over the course of this last year it has became clear that many people have never seen Melo play in their life.

McDermott: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS8hO5QWJYw

Anthony: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeYmRC0hFJc

Offensively, they're VERY similar. Only thing that's different is McDermott's athleticism and speed.

Notanoob · Post #302 » by **Notanoob** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:18 pm

CBB_Fan, you are seriously underrated the athleticism of a number of those guys, and those who you aren't underrating are significantly different from Doug in ways that make the comparisons moot, IMO. Sharman, Unseld and Hayes are all pre-80's players. Rice, Miller, and Mullin are all more athletic than Doug by a decent margin. Nash, Bird, McHale, Parrish...I wouldn't call all of them unathletic in the same way as Doug, but they're all players on another level from Doug. Nash was at least fast, Bird/McHale/Parrish were all strong and I wouldn't call McHale or Parrish generally unathletic. McHale sometimes guarded SFs for Bird IIRC. Nash and Bird are generational passers, Doug can hang his hat on his shooting, but that makes him basically a role player like Kerr.

zronv7 · Post #303 » by **zronv7** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:21 pm

The guy just looks very uncoordinated out there like he doesn't know what he's doing. Mid-late 1st round, I'm a big fan though and hope the best.

CBB_Fan · Post #304 » by **CBB_Fan** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:54 pm

[Vine][/Vine]

Notanoob wrote:CBB_Fan, you are seriously underrated the athleticism of a number of those guys, and those who you aren't underrating are significantly different from Doug in ways that make the comparisons moot, IMO. Sharman, Unseld and Hayes are all pre-80's players. Rice, Miller, and Mullin are all more athletic than Doug by a decent margin. Nash, Bird, McHale, Parrish...I wouldn't call all of them unathletic in the same way as Doug, but they're all players on another level from Doug. Nash was at least fast, Bird/McHale/Parrish were all strong and I wouldn't call McHale or Parrish generally unathletic. McHale sometimes guarded SFs for Bird IIRC. Nash and Bird are generational passers, Doug can hang his hat on his shooting, but that makes him basically a role player like Kerr.

Hindsight is 20/20 though. Coming into the draft, were those guys considered players on a different level than Doug? Were they considered more athletic? It is okay to claim so after the fact, but the truth is that coming into the NBA they all had similar questions.

I'm not, I repeat NOT trying to say McDermott is any of those players, I'm not making a comparison. My argument is not about McDermott, it is about the process of assigning labels. The problem is that we redefine those labels after players enter the NBA. Steve Nash? He's not unathletic, he's a generational passer. Bird? No, he wasn't slow, he was strong. We explain away the labels after the fact so that we look like we are batting a thousand, and that is the problem with using them.

Slow white guys are bad, unless they are good, in which case the label gets dropped. See, all slow white guys are bad! But that is no way to make a decision, because we don't have the luxury of hindsight in our predictions. McDermott is not athletic enough to score on a drive or defend a telephone pole, but he's isn't the type of player that needs the ball in his hands to score. Maybe that means he will be capable of scoring like old Miller or Allen, who were superb scorers even when their athleticism faded. Maybe he'll be another Mike Dunleavy.

There is no way to tell before he actually plays in the NBA, but the real analysis has to go beyond his skin color and footspeed and actually look at his game.

zronv7 wrote:The guy just looks very uncoordinated out there like he doesn't know what he's doing. Mid-late 1st round, I'm a big fan though and hope the best.

? McDermott has by far the best fundamentals of anyone in this draft. He has to, otherwise he would not get drafted at all.

Mik317 · Post #305 » by **Mik317** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:13 pm

doordoor123 wrote:
Mik317 wrote:Over the course of this last year it has became clear that many people have never seen Melo play in their life.

McDermott: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS8hO5QWJYw

Anthony: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeYmRC0hFJc

Offensively, they're VERY similar. Only thing that's different is McDermott's athleticism and speed.

Thats a pretty big **** difference, no?

Melo has one of the best first steps in basketball and despite his looks is a pretty good athlete, and unlike Doug, he can play D...he just doesn't.

The gap between Melo and Doug (and also his other constant comp Parker) is vast because of that major difference

RSCD3_ · Post #306 » by **RSCD3_** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:32 pm

Notanoob wrote:CBB_Fan, you are seriously underrated the athleticism of a number of those guys, and those who you aren't underrating are significantly different from Doug in ways that make the comparisons moot, IMO. Sharman, Unseld and Hayes are all pre-80's players. Rice, Miller, and Mullin are all more athletic than Doug by a decent margin. Nash, Bird, McHale, Parrish...I wouldn't call all of them unathletic in the same way as Doug, but they're all players on another level from Doug. Nash was at least fast, Bird/McHale/Parrish were all strong and I wouldn't call McHale or Parrish generally unathletic. McHale sometimes guarded SFs for Bird IIRC. Nash and Bird are generational passers, Doug can hang his hat on his shooting, but that makes him basically a role player like Kerr.

Not to mention bird was almost out of his athletic peak when he entered the league and was a respectable athlete for today's time, he didn't have much of a first step or vertical buyt besides that he was a good athlete in his early days for boston.

Post #307 » by **Slartibartfast** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:29 pm

tong po wrote:
ManualRam wrote: that's what made a guy like dell curry an exceptional shooter.

I don't know why you bring up Dell Curry, because he was a perfectly acceptable level of athlete. McDermott is clearly going to be a bottom-of-the-barrel type of athlete in the game, which the guys you mentioned simply weren't. I mean, Chris Mullin? That guy used to abuse people off the dribble in his prime. Jeff Hornacek used to play some point guard.

Those guys may not have been great NBA-level athletes, but they were decent enough. When you watch McDermott, even when he scores, he just…looks…so…slow. He looks like he has lead in his feet even when he goes by people, like he's a 6'8" Brad Miller or something.

By the measurements, he might not be much worse an athlete than, say, a 33-year-old Mike Dunleavy, but Dunleavy's got over a decade of experience to rely on. By the time he was slowing down, he was fully used to playing against NBA defenses. McDermott? He's going straight from college to the NBA with that 33-year-old athleticism. He's already behind the ball.

"Slow" is a pretty wide net. "Doug McDermott-slow" is a tiny net with one dude in it.

Have you been watching Creighton games in slo-mo? McDermott gets up and down the court just fine. Sure he lacks in explosiveness and top speed, but he's plenty mobile.

Big_C_KU · Post #308 » by **Big_C_KU** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:50 pm

Heard this comparison and I think it's a good one when it comes to what he brings to an NBA team. Wally Sczerbiak.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using RealGM Forums mobile app

karkinos · Post #309 » by **karkinos** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:24 pm

you guys can cool the debate for a bit
bookmark this thread and just come back in 2 years to discuss it :]

Post #310 » by **jazzfan1971** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:54 am

Matt Harpring

doordoor123 · Post #311 » by **doordoor123** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:59 am

jazzfan1971 wrote:Matt Harpring

Oh, man. I remember him. Memories...

I see similarities, but I just don't see it completely. McDermott has a post game.

Post #312 » by **jazzfan1971** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:02 am

Ill bet harpring had a post game -- in college.

LloydFree · Post #313 » by **LloydFree** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:29 pm

jazzfan1971 wrote:Matt Harpring

That's about right in terms of possible impact, but their games were different. Matt Harpring was a better athlete, but was not as good of a shooter.

Post #314 » by **jazzfan1971** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:54 pm

I never thought Harpring was much of an athlete. I may have seen him dunk ONE time.

Strong, yeah. But, not a leaper or terribly quick.

Leslie Forman · Post #315 » by **Leslie Forman** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:14 am

Slartibartfast wrote:Have you been watching Creighton games in slo-mo? McDermott gets up and down the court just fine. Sure he lacks in explosiveness and top speed, but he's plenty mobile.

That's fine if you're talking about a 7-footer. When you're describing a 6'8", 220 guy like that…it's probably not going to end up well in the NBA for him.

Dr Positivity · Post #316 » by **Dr Positivity** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 3:25 am

McDermott isn't the bottom ring of athletes like Novak, but even if he's next level up, his size disadvantage for a PF compounds it and moves him closer to least physically gifted 4s

Novocaine · Post #317 » by **Novocaine** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:49 pm

Harpring was a post player in college, he was always posting, he played the 4 and sometimes the 5. He'd still post up smaller guys in the NBA as well.

Yeah, really similar game to McDermott, much more than Wally, except Harpring range was limited to 19 foot or so while McDermott can shoot from everywhere. Matt Harpring with a deadly 3 point shot would be quite a player, as long as playing in a flex offense like Sloan's.

However, Harpring, while slow laterally (although not as slow as McDermott), was stronger and a bully. He was an extremely good rebounder for his position, he had an elite motor, he was gritty as very few are. He was tough and smart and had great defensive fundamentals. There are plenty of gritty and intelligent players, but few are on the level of Harpring or, I don't know, a committed James Posey. McDermott isn't even close to that, at least he's never shown it. Harpring had the athletic tools of a bad defender and was at least an average one, even a bit above average in his prime, good enough to often being put in the opponent's best offensive wing. McDermott has the tools of a terrible defender and will likely be one.

karkinos · Post #318 » by **karkinos** » Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:05 pm

^agree
harpring was a hard-nosed defender
he didn't care if he was slower or smaller. he played 80s bball on you, and it didnt matter if you were kobe bryant or some 2nd round rookie. hand checks, bumps, grabs, he sold the works. i would say like 75% of his defense was off the ball. he wasn't a great defender because he had a hand in your face every time like battier. he was a great defender because you had to work like hell just to get the ball.

SJSF · Post #319 » by **SJSF** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 1:38 am

Doug would be fine if your a playoff team looking for a reserve. But for a team that needs immediate help. Keep looking. He is a 20-30 pick guy. He has already peaked with his game and has no upside.

ManualRam · Post #320 » by **ManualRam** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 1:47 am

SJSF wrote:Doug would be fine if your a playoff team looking for a reserve. But for a team that needs immediate help. Keep looking. He is a 20-30 pick guy. He has already peaked with his game and has no upside.

so he can contribute to a playoff team, but he's not immediate help?
that makes no sense.