RealGM

Booker is going to be great. I don't know how you can disagree, he's had multiple 30 point games and diversified his offense. Murray plays pg for his national team and plays it very well. He destroyed ron baker, Bobby brown, Melo trimble whoever guarded him in pan ams. Steve Nash thought he was a pg.

Justwar wrote:Booker is going to be great. I don't know how you can disagree, he's had multiple 30 point games and diversified his offense. Murray plays pg for his national team and plays it very well. He destroyed ron baker, Bobby brown, Melo trimble whoever guarded him in pan ams. Steve Nash thought he was a pg.

He looked amazing at the Pan Am but this is also a tournament where Bennett looked like a good player

Dr Positivity wrote:

Justwar wrote:Booker is going to be great. I don't know how you can disagree, he's had multiple 30 point games and diversified his offense. Murray plays pg for his national team and plays it very well. He destroyed ron baker, Bobby brown, Melo trimble whoever guarded him in pan ams. Steve Nash thought he was a pg.

He looked amazing at the Pan Am but this is also a tournament where Bennett looked like a good player

He looked amazing as a ball handler as an 18 year playing against grown men. That kind of poise cannot be taught.

LV-Suns wrote:

Dr Positivity wrote:

Justwar wrote:Booker is going to be great. I don't know how you can disagree, he's had multiple 30 point games and diversified his offense. Murray plays pg for his national team and plays it very well. He destroyed ron baker, Bobby brown, Melo trimble whoever guarded him in pan ams. Steve Nash thought he was a pg.

He looked amazing at the Pan Am but this is also a tournament where Bennett looked like a good player

He looked amazing as a ball handler as an 18 year playing against grown men. That kind of poise cannot be taught.

He has the poise and he is smooth, but neither the ball-handling, athleticism, quickness or 1st step are there, and that stuff can't be taught.
Like some people have stated if you expect him to be a reference in the perimeter or your lead-guard you are bound for disappointment.
Other than that he can be a fantastic role player, even an All Star, but not as a PG, he just doesnt have those natural capabilities.

I've seen successful PG's with worse athleticism and quickness than Murray. I don't know about the ball handling, but there's a lot of stuff you can be below average on if you're smart enough to compensate.

Worm Guts wrote:I've seen successful PG's with worse athleticism and quickness than Murray. I don't know about the ball handling, but there's a lot of stuff you can be below average on if you're smart enough to compensate.

just name me one.

Fischella wrote:

Worm Guts wrote:I've seen successful PG's with worse athleticism and quickness than Murray. I don't know about the ball handling, but there's a lot of stuff you can be below average on if you're smart enough to compensate.

just name me one.

Mark Jackson and Andre Miller

Worm Guts wrote:

Fischella wrote:

Worm Guts wrote:I've seen successful PG's with worse athleticism and quickness than Murray. I don't know about the ball handling, but there's a lot of stuff you can be below average on if you're smart enough to compensate.

just name me one.

Mark Jackson

So you are comparing Murray's game to Jackson?

Fischella wrote:

LV-Suns wrote:

Dr Positivity wrote:
He looked amazing at the Pan Am but this is also a tournament where Bennett looked like a good player

He looked amazing as a ball handler as an 18 year playing against grown men. That kind of poise cannot be taught.

He has the poise and he is smooth, but neither the ball-handling, athleticism, quickness or 1st step are there, and that stuff can't be taught.
Like some people have stated if you expect him to be a reference in the perimeter or your lead-guard you are bound for disappointment.
Other than that he can be a fantastic role player, even an All Star, but not as a PG, he just doesnt have those natural capabilities.

Don't mean to be nit-picky, but ball-handling can be taught (DeMar DeRozan), athleticism can be taught (Doug McDermott), and quickness can be taught (Myles Turner)

Fischella wrote:

Worm Guts wrote:

Fischella wrote:just name me one.

Mark Jackson

So you are comparing Murray's game to Jackson?

That's not what I said. I said there have been successful PG's with less athleticism.

Fischella wrote:

Worm Guts wrote:

Fischella wrote:just name me one.

Mark Jackson

So you are comparing Murray's game to Jackson?

Well you can compare it to Steph Curry who had a lot of the same concerns, except Murray is four years younger than Curry was. If Murray were able to stay in college as long as Curry he might have been better. Not saying he would be, but the possibility is there for Murray to be better than projected (which I think is 6th man material).

If you watch Murray on YouTube from the pan am games you can see him getting by anyone. His passing made everyone better. I suggest everyone with athleticism concern to watch him in that setting on YouTube. Theres practically full ganes there

Justwar wrote:If you watch Murray on YouTube from the pan am games you can see him getting by anyone. His passing made everyone better. I suggest everyone with athleticism concern to watch him in that setting on YouTube. Theres practically full ganes there

We've been watching him for a long time, we've seen him in those games. What you're not realizing is that guys in the NBA are much faster, much more athletic and much smarter. It's also a bigger court with the three point line farther away. He can get by scrubs from other countries, the US usually dominates other countries because we're much faster and much more athletic (not that he's from the US). Against other countries it's easier to get by with average athleticism. Jose Calderon is a good player in international play, it doesn't mean he's a viable NBA player right now. There is also barely any defense in international play.

Well against team usa he was the best player there by far. Like I said Bobby brown, Melo trimble, ron baker are no slouch athletes. He definitely got by them.

Justwar wrote:Well against team usa he was the best player there by far. Like I said Bobby brown, Melo trimble, ron baker are no slouch athletes. He definitely got by them.

That's actually a big question for all of those players -- they're all average athletes.

Justwar wrote:Well against team usa he was the best player there by far. Like I said Bobby brown, Melo trimble, ron baker are no slouch athletes. He definitely got by them.

Melo Trimble and Baker are below average athletes compared to NBA guards. And Brown plays in China, he's not NBA level either

I dont know if we've seen a player quite like Jamal Murray. Everyone is trying to label him something, but there is no pro comparison.

What we know, he can score efficiently in college, he can hit the big shot, and he can handle the spotlight.

I dont think we can label him as pro, he's going to be a unique talent. His game will either completely work or completely not work

sweetcity wrote:I dont know if we've seen a player quite like Jamal Murray. Everyone is trying to label him something, but there is no pro comparison. What we know, he can score efficiently in college, he can hit the big shot, and he can handle the spotlight. I dont think we can label him as pro, he's going to be a unique talent. His game will either completely work or completely not work

I don't get this. Murray doesn't have a weird game or skillset--he's a very good scorer who can shoot, drive if he gets a lane, do herky-jerky midrange stuff, etc. His athleticism isn't stellar and there are serious question marks about his adaptation to the NBA, but I don't think anyone thinks he's a boom/bust guy.

The real argument is about how good he'll be as a score-first guard. Some see a special scorer that will find a way to create no matter what, and others see a guy that will make shots but won't be able to create that many in a regular NBA offense. Nothing particularly wild or unique about him as a prospect, though, and that's a pretty standard question for college shooting/scoring guards.

Some rave about hisBBIQ, he is crafty moving off the ball and utilizing high screens, thats about it. His assist rate(11.6%) was startlingly low for a player masquerading as a point guard at the beginning of the season and is not even a strong passer by the lowered standards of wing players. Also his assist to turnover ratio is .87 doesn't even break even, which is even worse considering how Ulis became primary ballhandler after Calipari gave up experimenting on Murray as a playmaker. Also doesn't get to the line much his ftRate is only .261, has a hard time drawing contact and doesn't have a explosive first step. Not to mention he's a sieve on D. Unlike Booker he has been given the opportunity to showcase himself and I just ain't seeing it.

Murray's athleticism on offense will be fine. He will have enough edge to be able to score points. His game is about moving off-ball, and when he has the ball it's about taking advantage of defenders' mistakes. It's his lateral quickness that gives me pause. Players can get passed him pretty easily. And it's not for lack of effort on Murray's part, it's lack of lateral quickness. Other than that it seems like his court awareness is top notch. Very advanced for his age. Makes good decisions quickly. Determined and skilled scorer. Any time a player averages 23.1 points per 40 pace adjusted on 0.60 TS% as a FRESHMAN then you gotta pay attention.

I just can't figure out if he's a 6th man or a legitimate starting SG. I spose it's easier to hide SG's on defense than it is for C's.

Are there any starting guards in the NBA right now who have similar lateral quickness? Maybe McCollum? Their athleticism seems very similar.
McCollum has more "shake" though, in terms of gamestyle. CJ can dance with the ball and create space. Murray doesn't have that. He's more of an opportunist with the ball.