GimmeDat wrote:I cringe at my opening 'reminds me of E'Twaun Moore' opening post in this thread, but I understand what I saw in that, and I do really value Moore as a player. Really multi-positional, multi-skilled, can pass, spot up, etc.
I did defend him in subsequent posts though, I really warmed to his dynamism athletically. I didn't expect him to be so good attacking the hoop and facilitating, he's done great on those areas, and of course while he looked like a talented scorer, no one could predict him being this insanely good so early.
I liked him a lot, and a lot of people leading up to the draft liked him a lot, I remember, but I wasn't willing to give him the benefit of the doubt over some of the bigger names even though I probably saw more in him. I think that's my lesson with Mitchell, is to not get caught up in the reputation of some of the bigger guys and look at things more objectively.
For instance, I never had Monk that high, I remember there was a period when he was on fire and people and sites had him at like 3-4 and I kept him around 6-8, but when he was quieter I didn't drop him beyond there. I think I overvalued his production as opposed to tools. Mitchell did more with his athleticism, much better defender, etc. I also think I overvalue youth at times, sometimes I'm a bit scared of falling in love with the slightly older guy, especially when they've made a big jump between college seasons and I'm scared it's a flash in the pan.
And I still have hope for Monk, I don't think he's been in a great situation, I think he should definitely be getting minutes instead of MCW, they need to commit to developing him if they're going to keep him, he's got all the tools to be a shot creator/maker at this level. As for Mitchell, I don't see PG in his future, maybe as a secondary position but not full time.
The biggest mistake we make is trying to compare a NBA player with the same prototype to a college player. I always, and I mean ALWAYS look at college players compared to other college/HS/Euroleague prospects who are now in the NBA. It makes life a lot easier and my evaluations stopped sucking ass once I did it. I also stopped looking for a full player to compare a player to.
For example, parts of Ja Morant's game reminds me a lot of Brandon Jennings when I watched him in Italy. That doesn't mean he will be Jennings or that he will be Westbrook who I also compared him to or physically like Fox who I also used, or others like Trae Young for example. It's just a similarity score. At the end of the day, Ja's gonna be Ja.
I read the entire thread and the biggest thing you guys missed on was his high end 3pt variance especially for an off ball player. That has translated to the NBA and has been king in the modern NBA. If you didn't value it because he didn't do it enough, you are a fool. This is college basketball. If dudes are showing it once or twice, it's enough to take note, especially if it looked smooth and fluid. This isn't the NBA. Pro moves aren't super effective on this level as it is in the NBA.
I think another underrated thing is situations. I don't like Mitchell in Detroit. I felt they would have wasted him. Utah was a very good situation. They needed scoring and Mitchell can provide it without killing the offense with mistakes and inefficiency. Monk didn't go to the best of situations of course but he wasn't really gonna be more than a backup scorer in the mold of Lou Williams. The hope was that he is this modern Monta Ellis but he really couldn't shoot that well and Monta/Lou was a FT drawing machine which helps them and most important, those two played in eras were efficiency just wasn't as valued. For Monk to be effective, he would have needed to be a high end playmaker which he wasn't. He like Okafor was a very good prospect but for a different era.