Westbrook's 08/09 Stats

[kjtruong]

I project 7ppg 2rpg 3apg 1.2spg

keep in mind his college stats...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/pr ... erId=31663

what do you project?

[sonic-ben]

depends on playing time...

if play 2 min a game his stat line is awesome if for forty min terrible

[dre_1614]

Depends what position he plays and how many minutes. At UCLA 2/3 of the time he was a Shooting Guard.

25-30 minutes per game and playing point the whole time i could see this...
8.1 PPG, 4.2 APG, 3.2 RPG, 1.1 SPG, 0.2 BPG, 2.9 TPG with solid defense...

which will be pretty good for a rookie point IMO.

[richboy]

Depends what position he plays and how many minutes. At UCLA 2/3 of the time he was a Shooting Guard.

25-30 minutes per game and playing point the whole time i could see this...
8.1 PPG, 4.2 APG, 3.2 RPG, 1.1 SPG, 0.2 BPG, 2.9 TPG with solid defense...

which will be pretty good for a rookie point IMO.

Thats good for a rookie taken 15. I think he be far behind most of the rookies that were taken around his draft position.

[AbdicatedReign]

He'll be terrible, of course. He's a long-term project with a ton of work to do. Hopefully he'll turn out to be a serviceable player in this league.

[Det the Threat]

I think Westbrook will struggle at the start of the season and might even come off the bench, backing up both guard spots. Though, i expect him to get better as the season goes on and to be our starting pg after the All-Star break, the latest.

His stats should be something like that:

10.4 ppg/4.1 apg/3.4 rpg/1.4 stl

All that, of course, combined with solid defense and opposing teams point guards shaking their heads that they're forced to work for their points real hard against the Sonics, of all teams...

[big L]

Westbrook will take two years to give us a true idea of where he will be in this league. We need to have patience with him.

[djthesonicsfan]

GP took some time, and he was the college player of the year. PG is the toughest position to play in the NBA. But I actually think he's going to make a quicker adjustment than some of you think. I base this on his superb intangibles... unselfishness, commitment, athleticism, toughness. Also, Pajamas wants the team to run & the open court plays to Westbrook's strengths. Personally, I'd give Westbrook all the playing time he can handle without shattering his confidence. Trading Watson will help out a ton all the way around.

Admittedly optimistic forecast...
30 mins, 10 pts, 5 assts, 4 rbds, 1.5 stls
1st team all-rookie

[Patches Pal]

There were just six rookies last year that averaged over 10 ppg. Two of them, Durant and Green, are on the Sonics. Mike Conley, the highly touted Memphis PG, averaged only 9.4 ppg. and 4.2 apg. He did not have two veteran starters in front of him, however. I think your expectations for Westbrook are a bit high. That does not mean he will not develop into a great player, however. Gary Payton only averaged 4.8 ppg his first year, along with 6.4 apg. and 2.6 rebs on 27 mpg.

[AbdicatedReign]

Westbrook is nowhere close to being the same type of player as Payton. We should be happy if he pans out to be a more athletic Rajon Rondo.

[yearsago]

7 points, 4 assists, 3 rebounds, 2 steals, 1 block

[Sonics3408]

6 points, 5 assists, 2 rebounds, 1 steal, .2 blocks, 2.5 TOs @ 22 MPG

[BBen]

I'm sorry but if one more person compares Westbrook to "a more _____ Rajon Rondo" I'm going to scream. There are no similarities between these players, none. Yes, both players have been knocked for their shooting and yes they both can run but this describes the bulk of NBA pgs. Care to explain to me any significant similarities?

After watching Westbrook in college you also realize that he's not a "long term project", that's ridiculous. For those of you who didn't watch UCLA I'll describe their offense. Love was anchored in the low post (except for screens and the occasional three); Mbah a Moute went back and forth from high to low post; Collison, Shipp and Westbrook were all behind the three pt line. Collison was the PG and Shipp and Westbrook both played on the wings.

When you watch the team play you realize that Westbrook did not get that many touches. He was one of five guys that could really play (ranked no. 1) and each had very defined roles in a complicated offense. A lot of what Westbrook did was create without the ball by making cuts and setting up players or getting himself open through off-ball screens. When the ball did get to him it was almost always a bucket, an assist or a kick-back to Collison.

He's a very intelligent player that barely forces passes and when a turnover is made it's because he made the right play he just under-threw it or made a dribbling error. This is a guy like Green that if you just look at the box score you don't understand the player or what he does on the court. Arenas puts up 24 and 6 which is way more than Westbrook ever will. The difference is that Arenas puts up 24 and 6 and you know why and how. Westbrook might get 12 and 4 but it's because he got them when he needed them and deferred when he didn't.

[dre_1614]

I'm sorry but if one more person compares Westbrook to "a more _____ Rajon Rondo" I'm going to scream. There are no similarities between these players, none. Yes, both players have been knocked for their shooting and yes they both can run but this describes the bulk of NBA pgs. Care to explain to me any significant similarities?

After watching Westbrook in college you also realize that he's not a "long term project", that's ridiculous. For those of you who didn't watch UCLA I'll describe their offense. Love was anchored in the low post (except for screens and the occasional three); Mbah a Moute went back and forth from high to low post; Collison, Shipp and Westbrook were all behind the three pt line. Collison was the PG and Shipp and Westbrook both played on the wings.

When you watch the team play you realize that Westbrook did not get that many touches. He was one of five guys that could really play (ranked no. 1) and each had very defined roles in a complicated offense. A lot of what Westbrook did was create without the ball by making cuts and setting up players or getting himself open through off-ball screens. When the ball did get to him it was almost always a bucket, an assist or a kick-back to Collison.

He's a very intelligent player that barely forces passes and when a turnover is made it's because he made the right play he just under-threw it or made a dribbling error. This is a guy like Green that if you just look at the box score you don't understand the player or what he does on the court. Arenas puts up 24 and 6 which is way more than Westbrook ever will. The difference is that Arenas puts up 24 and 6 and you know why and how. Westbrook might get 12 and 4 but it's because he got them when he needed them and deferred when he didn't.

How did he look at point when Collison was out, and when Darren was getting a breather late in the year?

[BBen]

He's a better point than Collison in my opinion hands down. Collison has the tendency to force passes and actually over-dribbles frequently. Also, I know that he's listed at 6'1 but he's maybe 5'11 and I'd be really, really surprised if he's 6'. Collison scored more than Westbrook and had less assists as the starting point. I think if he were taller the team would have been better off with their roles reversed. Westbrook is a natural passer with the gift of great court vision. He was a big reason that Kevin Love looked so good all season. The only area he may struggle in is orchestrating an NBA offense just like EVERY point guard.

Westbrook is just not a selfish player but when he needs to can light it up from midrange, occasionally outside (although he prefers to get to the bucket) and is a great slasher. Also he's a very underrated rebounder on both defense and offense. Whenever he puts up a shot he follows it to the bucket.

I must say that I still struggled with this pick despite liking UCLA as a squad. He wasn't ever the focal point of their offense and it was easy to ignore him during the flow of the game. However, if you put the rock in his hands good things happen. I've come to terms with him and I think he'll have a good career on a winning team.

By the way, if you want my opinion on most overrated player it's OJ Mayo. Man, I don't know where the hype comes from. I guess it must have been from high school? And I'm not privy to any inside information but what makes everyone think he's such a hard worker?

[dre_1614]

He's a better point than Collison in my opinion hands down. Collison has the tendency to force passes and actually over-dribbles frequently. Also, I know that he's listed at 6'1 but he's maybe 5'11 and I'd be really, really surprised if he's 6'. Collison scored more than Westbrook and had less assists as the starting point. I think if he were taller the team would have been better off with their roles reversed. Westbrook is a natural passer with the gift of great court vision. He was a big reason that Kevin Love looked so good all season. The only area he may struggle in is orchestrating an NBA offense just like EVERY point guard.

Westbrook is just not a selfish player but when he needs to can light it up from midrange, occasionally outside (although he prefers to get to the bucket) and is a great slasher. Also he's a very underrated rebounder on both defense and offense. Whenever he puts up a shot he follows it to the bucket.

I must say that I still struggled with this pick despite liking UCLA as a squad. He wasn't ever the focal point of their offense and it was easy to ignore him during the flow of the game. However, if you put the rock in his hands good things happen. I've come to terms with him and I think he'll have a good career on a winning team.

By the way, if you want my opinion on most overrated player it's OJ Mayo. Man, I don't know where the hype comes from. I guess it must have been from high school? And I'm not privy to any inside information but what makes everyone think he's such a hard worker?

What do you think he needs to work on to become a good point for us?

ball handling and slowing down? he seems to out of control often.

[Det the Threat]

What do you think he needs to work on to become a good point for us?

ball handling and slowing down? he seems to out of control often.

As far as i can tell, i've seen a couple of UCLA games as well, he'll surely has to learn how to slow down, but that's something every rookie point guard has to learn.

His handles are solid(but could use some more work) and he surely needs to work on his jumpshot.

[BBen]

The biggest one for me has to be leadership. A PG has to be a leader on the court and it helps if he's liked off the court too. He has an amicable personality so it shouldn't be hard for him to get along with our guys. The difference between UCLA and Seattle will be large. He'll be stepping into a situation where he'll need to be a leader and he won't be winning a lot. It's always a challenge to lose and not take it personally (especially since he won won and won some more at UCLA). As Det mentioned, he obviously has to work on the consistency of his shot. I liked what I saw in the tourney though since it seemed like he was improving his shot game by game.

EDIT: Also, he may have trouble adapting to a running style of game believe it or not. Despite what the normal Joe says, I don't think Westbrook will be the type of PG to want to push the ball constantly at least at first. UCLA was a VERY half court oriented team.

[AbdicatedReign]

I'm sorry but if one more person compares Westbrook to "a more _____ Rajon Rondo" I'm going to scream. There are no similarities between these players, none. Yes, both players have been knocked for their shooting and yes they both can run but this describes the bulk of NBA pgs. Care to explain to me any significant similarities?

Well, you've made it easy for me by saying there are zero similarities between the two players, but, you're right. Westbrook is no Rondo, I shouldn't disrespect Rajon like that. When I compare him to Rondo, I mean an uber-quick, defensive guard who absolutely kills their team on offense. They also both have freakishly long arms and large hands, but their playing styles do differ. I was talking more in terms of role, rather than how they go about executing said role.

After watching Westbrook in college you also realize that he's not a "long term project", that's ridiculous.

At UCLA, I saw a player who had horrible form on his jumpshot, and needed serious work on his ball-handling before he could be a threat (at the college level). If we wants to be an NBA PG, I'd say he needs some serious work. He has zero ability to create shots, for himself or anyone else, is strictly a catch-and-shoot guy (bad idea for a PG not in the Triangle offense), and even then he doesn't exactly inspire confidence in his shooting ability, and showed very little ability to attack defenses off the bounce.

I call that a long term project.

A lot of what Westbrook did was create without the ball by making cuts and setting up players or getting himself open through off-ball screens. When the ball did get to him it was almost always a bucket, an assist or a kick-back to Collison.

Right. And we drafted him to be our point guard.

Hmmmm.

He's a very intelligent player that barely forces passes and when a turnover is made it's because he made the right play he just under-threw it or made a dribbling error.

So you're saying he's smart enough to make the proper play, and when he fails it's because he lacks the skill level? Again, that doesn't scream starting PG to me.

[BBen]

At UCLA, I saw a player who had horrible form on his jumpshot, and needed serious work on his ball-handling before he could be a threat (at the college level). If we wants to be an NBA PG, I'd say he needs some serious work. He has zero ability to create shots, for himself or anyone else, is strictly a catch-and-shoot guy (bad idea for a PG not in the Triangle offense), and even then he doesn't exactly inspire confidence in his shooting ability, and showed very little ability to attack defenses off the bounce.

You start by saying you watched him play and then end by demonstrating you know nothing about him as a player. Catch and shoot? Huh? Doesn't know how to create? What are you talking about man? I can't argue with you because your assertions are just wrong. Maybe you should watch some of those games over.