The Trey Burke - Chris Paul Comparison

Post #81 » by **Ruzious** » Fri Apr 5, 2013 3:04 pm

Some of you guys put way too much emphasis on comparing prospects to HOFers. A guy like Nash wasnt even known as a great assist man in college. If you were grading him in college, you'd be saying stuff like he's a joke compared to Stockton.

BaunceyChillups · Post #82 » by **BaunceyChillups** » Fri Apr 5, 2013 3:40 pm

machu46 wrote:
Not to mention the fact that Nash is easily a better shooter and passer than Burke and it isn't even remotely close.

a 20 year old kid isn't as good a shooter or passer as a HOFer who ran some of the best offenses of all time

go figure

ComboGuardCity · Post #83 » by **ComboGuardCity** » Fri Apr 5, 2013 3:51 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
ComboGuardCity wrote:Burke is not quick enough for the NBA. He will end up being a shorter Jose Calderon at best.

Would you care to elaborate on just how much slower Burke is than Nash in his late 30s?

He is not nearly the shooter Nash was or the passer. Nash is the exception not the rule. Are you in favor of drafting Archie Goodwin because Westbrook was also athletic with no jump shot?

machu46 · Post #84 » by **machu46** » Fri Apr 5, 2013 4:45 pm

BaunceyChillups wrote:
machu46 wrote:
Not to mention the fact that Nash is easily a better shooter and passer than Burke and it isn't even remotely close.

a 20 year old kid isn't as good a shooter or passer as a HOFer who ran some of the best offenses of all time

go figure

Someone was comparing Burke to 30 year old Nash, not Nash coming out of college.

Post #85 » by **Doctor MJ** » Fri Apr 5, 2013 5:52 pm

Ruzious wrote:Some of you guys put way too much emphasis on comparing prospects to HOFers. A guy like Nash wasnt even known as a great assist man in college. If you were grading him in college, you'd be saying stuff like he's a joke compared to Stockton.

I'm just poking holes in superficial assessments. Someone says Burke is simply not quick enough for the NBA when we all know guys slower that are successful in the NBA. If you don't want people tear apart your oversimplistic assessments, refrain from making oversimplistic assessments.

EDIT: Looks like I misinterpreted you. My apologies.

Yeah, the reality is that it's pretty doubtful that a 1996 version of this board would see people trumpeting Nash for what he turned out to be. I suppose you could say that's my point, though I'm not trying to be that much of a jerk. I'm asking about Burke, and it's just interesting at this point how vehement some are that Burke just can't do X.

Incidentally, I have gotten good answers here in this thread. I definitely won't deny there's some great knowledge on this board, just feel like lately people are responding a bit strangely.

Post #86 » by **Doctor MJ** » Fri Apr 5, 2013 5:59 pm

ComboGuardCity wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
ComboGuardCity wrote:Burke is not quick enough for the NBA. He will end up being a shorter Jose Calderon at best.

Would you care to elaborate on just how much slower Burke is than Nash in his late 30s?

He is not nearly the shooter Nash was or the passer. Nash is the exception not the rule. Are you in favor of drafting Archie Goodwin because Westbrook was also athletic with no jump shot?

Why would you assume the one pointing out other people's lack of nuance in their thinking is advocating some other unnuanced point of view?

I've said before I'm not a draft expert. I'm not trying to claim I know more than this board. When I get responses from people though that are tissue paper thin though, I'm going to puncture them. Quite frankly it's bizarre to me that this doesn't seem to be what others are doing. People seem very quick to just side with whoever they perceive to be agreeing with them regardless of the arguments given. Heck, there are still people coming in here assuming that I'm arguing Burke will be the second coming of Paul, when all I'm doing is soliciting expert opinion.

ComboGuardCity · Post #87 » by **ComboGuardCity** » Fri Apr 5, 2013 6:10 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:Why would you assume the one pointing out other people's lack of nuance in their thinking is advocating some other unnuanced point of view?

I've said before I'm not a draft expert. I'm not trying to claim I know more than this board. When I get responses from people though that are tissue paper thin though, I'm going to puncture them. Quite frankly it's bizarre to me that this doesn't seem to be what others are doing. People seem very quick to just side with whoever they perceive to be agreeing with them regardless of the arguments given. Heck, there are still people coming in here assuming that I'm arguing Burke will be the second coming of Paul, when all I'm doing is soliciting expert opinion.

Your argument is the one that's way to simplistic. At least I'm taking multiple variables into account. You just said "He's as fast as Nash." Nash has GOAT Level Shooting, Courtvision, and good size. Burke is not even comparable in any of those aspects. My point is, Burke compares more to the likes of DJ Agustin than Chris Paul/Nash.

BaunceyChillups · Post #88 » by **BaunceyChillups** » Fri Apr 5, 2013 6:12 pm

I like how comboguardcity has compared burke to two completely different point guards in this thread

and the shabazz avatar is the cherry on top

ComboGuardCity · Post #89 » by **ComboGuardCity** » Fri Apr 5, 2013 6:21 pm

BaunceyChillups wrote:I like how comboguardcity has compared burke to two completely different point guards in this thread

and the shabazz avatar is the cherry on top

Shabazz has nothing to do with the topic on hand, but I would wager that Shabazz will have a much more productive NBA career than Burke. 2 completely different PGs? Sounds like you never saw below 30 Calderon.

MrBigShot · Post #90 » by **MrBigShot** » Fri Apr 5, 2013 6:29 pm

^I'll would wager that. If we end up taking Shabazz and he does better anyway, then I would happily eat crow...win-win.

@BaunceyChillips: If you're talking about Jose & Nash...they are pretty similar. One is obviously an HoFer, but their skill sets are similar. Both terrific shooters, terrific passers and excellent at running the pick and roll. Both suck horribly at defense, mostly due to the fact that they just can't match up with more athletic guards.

BaunceyChillups · Post #91 » by **BaunceyChillups** » Fri Apr 5, 2013 7:48 pm

ComboGuardCity wrote:
BaunceyChillups wrote:I like how comboguardcity has compared burke to two completely different point guards in this thread

and the shabazz avatar is the cherry on top

Shabazz has nothing to do with the topic on hand, but I would wager that Shabazz will have a much more productive NBA career than Burke. 2 completely different PGs? Sounds like you never saw below 30 Calderon.

a wing who didn't defend, didn't get steals and had only 27 assists in 1000 minutes this seasons sounds like a productive nba player

especially when compared to a point guard who runs an efficient, NBA-style offense in college

Post #92 » by **Doctor MJ** » Fri Apr 5, 2013 8:00 pm

ComboGuardCity wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:Why would you assume the one pointing out other people's lack of nuance in their thinking is advocating some other unnuanced point of view?

I've said before I'm not a draft expert. I'm not trying to claim I know more than this board. When I get responses from people though that are tissue paper thin though, I'm going to puncture them. Quite frankly it's bizarre to me that this doesn't seem to be what others are doing. People seem very quick to just side with whoever they perceive to be agreeing with them regardless of the arguments given. Heck, there are still people coming in here assuming that I'm arguing Burke will be the second coming of Paul, when all I'm doing is soliciting expert opinion.

Your argument is the one that's way to simplistic. At least I'm taking multiple variables into account. You just said "He's as fast as Nash." Nash has GOAT Level Shooting, Courtvision, and good size. Burke is not even comparable in any of those aspects. My point is, Burke compares more to the likes of DJ Agustin than Chris Paul/Nash.

All I'm doing is pointing out that someone damning Burke simply based on quickness is being foolish. Everything else you're just projecting on to me.

To be clear, I'm completely fine with you say "Okay but it's not just quickness it's X, Y, Z", I'm just rolling my eyes when people take the rebuttal of a simplistic argument to mean the one doing the rebuttal is the one insisting on this false simplicity.

Post #93 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sat Apr 6, 2013 11:23 pm

Okay so apologies, I know I come off looking like I'm trying to say something like "Burke will be a superstar!" even though I really wouldn't feel comfortable saying anything like that, but it does seem to me updates are warranted:

Burke has now won the AP & Wooden awards for player of the year, while also being the talk of the tournament.

The thought that just keeps coming to mind for me is that if this guy really can't hack it at the pro level, this seems to be rather unprecedented to me. Not that we haven't had great college players fail at the pro level. It's common for that to happen with upperclassmen, and we've seen Beasley suck. However basically no scout saw Beasley's struggles coming.

If Burke fails at the next level, there will be many who saw it coming, and that to me seems significant:

Has there ever been a sophomore acknowledged to be the best player in the country but who many thought simply couldn't play his game on the pro level?

Post #94 » by **UGA Hayes** » Sat Apr 6, 2013 11:53 pm

^Its a potentially really bad draft though and there was an exodus last year of good players, so I would be really hesitant to put stock in those awards. His comp was Porter (who I like), Olynyk, and oladipu guys who were in college last year and didn't get very much mention.

Post #95 » by **nate33** » Sun Apr 7, 2013 3:04 am

I think a good NBA comp would be Jameer Nelson. Burke is a deadly shooter and has a controlled and nuanced penetration game, but he doesn't overwhelm you with quickness.

Basically, I think he'll pan out to be a competent starter, maybe even a pretty good one, but I don't see him being ranked among the top 10 PG's. He's better than guys like D.J. Augustin though.

Marvin Martian · Post #96 » by **Marvin Martian** » Sun Apr 7, 2013 3:16 am

Doctor MJ wrote:Okay so apologies, I know I come off looking like I'm trying to say something like "Burke will be a superstar!" even though I really wouldn't feel comfortable saying anything like that, but it does seem to me updates are warranted:

Burke has now won the AP & Wooden awards for player of the year, while also being the talk of the tournament.

The thought that just keeps coming to mind for me is that if this guy really can't hack it at the pro level, this seems to be rather unprecedented to me. Not that we haven't had great college players fail at the pro level. It's common for that to happen with upperclassmen, and we've seen Beasley suck. However basically no scout saw Beasley's struggles coming.

If Burke fails at the next level, there will be many who saw it coming, and that to me seems significant:

Has there ever been a sophomore acknowledged to be the best player in the country but who many thought simply couldn't play his game on the pro level?

Burke can play his game. It's just that his game may not translate into an all-star career, especially in a league filled with quality talent at PG.

Cammo101 · Post #97 » by **Cammo101** » Sun Apr 7, 2013 3:53 am

I'd be careful reading too much into today's game. Playing against that Syracuse zone really does not translate to the NBA at all.

Post #98 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sun Apr 7, 2013 4:59 am

Cammo101 wrote:I'd be careful reading too much into today's game. Playing against that Syracuse zone really does not translate to the NBA at all.

It's a good caution to keep in mind. No denying though that Buirke looked daunted.

Post #99 » by **jman3134** » Sun Apr 7, 2013 5:11 am

I'd be careful reading too much into today's game. Playing against that Syracuse zone really does not translate to the NBA at all.

However, it helps to mimic NBA players' length and recovery timing which is far superior to what is found at the college level.

Cammo101 · Post #100 » by **Cammo101** » Sun Apr 7, 2013 5:34 am

jman3134 wrote:
I'd be careful reading too much into today's game. Playing against that Syracuse zone really does not translate to the NBA at all.

However, it helps to mimic NBA players' length and recovery timing which is far superior to what is found at the college level.

True, but in the NBA Burke will be able to drive around these guys. The zone negates that. His game is built on attacking his defender. He spent the first 10 minutes of the game trying and failing to attack right at the zone. After that, he just looked confused and tentative. If the NBA ever played zone defense, I would be a lot more worried about it.

Also, Burke should be given a lot of credit for the job he did defensively on Michael Carter Williams.