RealGM

I've been saying this since he was drafted
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67EMOfYJDmA&playnext_from=TL&videos=FUytTZVqn1g&feature=sub[/youtube]
'

My opinion on him

He brings offensive rebounding. He's a three point shooting threat. He gets to the foul line(30% of his points are from the foul line). He bring excellent size at his position. He's an effective ball handler. And he can be a legit point forward. He's a good passer. And has a high basketball Iq. And he's a good defensive player

He was an amazing 3 point shooter but for the second half of the season they forced him to create his 3 point shot off the dribble as opposed to just being a knock down shooter. That's a hard adjustment to make mid season for any young player but he clearly has the ability.

He wasn't a good defender in college?
He spent most of his time defending power forwards whiles his natural position is the 3. But he was still effective because he never gives up on plays he ralerly gives his man lanes to the basket . He also uses his Iq on the defensive end and understand the tendencies of the players he's guarding.

I don't know anything about college players but from what I've been reading, can he be like a Manu Ginobili type player?

I bet college basketball and watch him numerous times. He will be similiar to Kukoc and Turkaglou just shorter with a little worse 3 point ability. Good player that makes your team better. Im happy with the pick.

I think he goes on to say how he thought Adam Morrison was gonna be great as well.

I think he said at worst he's gonna be Adam morrison

I should have been more specific. On the youtube page in the comments section he mentions that he also thought that Adam Morrison was going to be good.

"Worst case Adam Morrison"... lol.... that's the very definition of ludicrousness...

Purch wrote:I think he said at worst he's gonna be Adam morrison

So at worst he's going to be a complete bust whose only role is high-fiving players when they come off the floor?

How reassuring.

Here's what was said of Mike Dunleavy Jr. right before the 2002 NBA draft:

"Summary: Dunleavy is a top 5 talent and should stay in the draft if he can go that high. He may not be ready to contribute because of his body, but he should be a Dirk Nowitzki-type talent for years to come".

The best think about him is passing abiity and ability to get to free throw line.He has a high point for Shot ratio of 1.6 . I still think I would of drafted Henry or Davis.

To counteract the ridiculous hyperbole of the original post, here's what another NBA analyst thinks:


"Gordon Hayward – Here is another guy that people love that I just don’t understand. My prediction is that Hayward either won’t be in the league in five years or he won’t have elevated past 10th man. But the idea that this kid is a future starter is a farce. Again, let’s do a quick comparison. Mike Dunleavy Jr. is the guy that I think is most comparable to Hayward. Dunleavy was an excellent player on an outstanding Duke team, and he played against the best competition in the country during his time with the Blue Devils. And he hasn’t exactly blown it up in the NBA. So I would say that Hayward is about 1/5th of what Dunleavy was in college. So if that’s what you’re into, then he’s all yours. All I know is that he is a wasted pick and the most overrated player in the draft pool this year."

Count me in with this guy. I just don't get it.

I hate "experts" or "analysts" really it's just them taking a guess. Yeah they say he sucks because most white players don't do very well, but if these experts knew anything then they would've known darko, kandi man, etc would be busts. You can't predict these things and if you think analysts actually know about them then fine but wouldn't the jazz scouts who do the same thing as experts except go much more in depth. Wouldn't they have a much better idea then a guy who has watched a few films? I think the jazz said they watched close to 60 tapes on this kid or something, so I think they have a better idea of the so called analysts.

This guy lost me when he compared Derrick Favors to Demarcus Russel.

Darko was very highly regarded, but everyone though Kandi would bust. His only accomplishments were being seven feet tall and running the 40 in 4.8 seconds.

If Hayward can turn into a Hedo Turkoglu type player I think the Jazz would have to be very happy.

Personally I just hope he can play 25 minutes a game during his career and be smart enough to not cost the Jazz when he's on the floor.

We can use his rebounding, ball handing, toughness and ability to create. Hopefully he can knock down open shots.

CAE15 wrote:I hate "experts" or "analysts" really it's just them taking a guess. Yeah they say he sucks because most white players don't do very well, but if these experts knew anything then they would've known darko, kandi man, etc would be busts. You can't predict these things and if you think analysts actually know about them then fine but wouldn't the jazz scouts who do the same thing as experts except go much more in depth. Wouldn't they have a much better idea then a guy who has watched a few films? I think the jazz said they watched close to 60 tapes on this kid or something, so I think they have a better idea of the so called analysts.

The Jazz experts you are referring to also drafted all the other terrible players for the Jazz in recent years. It's not a record I would want to stand on.

drivewayball wrote:

CAE15 wrote:I hate "experts" or "analysts" really it's just them taking a guess. Yeah they say he sucks because most white players don't do very well, but if these experts knew anything then they would've known darko, kandi man, etc would be busts. You can't predict these things and if you think analysts actually know about them then fine but wouldn't the jazz scouts who do the same thing as experts except go much more in depth. Wouldn't they have a much better idea then a guy who has watched a few films? I think the jazz said they watched close to 60 tapes on this kid or something, so I think they have a better idea of the so called analysts.

The Jazz experts you are referring to also drafted all the other terrible players for the Jazz in recent years. It's not a record I would want to stand on.

Didn't they also draft Brewer and Sap? They have had some success as well as failures. I would let it play out before you assume this is a bad pick.

HammerDunk wrote:

drivewayball wrote:

CAE15 wrote:I hate "experts" or "analysts" really it's just them taking a guess. Yeah they say he sucks because most white players don't do very well, but if these experts knew anything then they would've known darko, kandi man, etc would be busts. You can't predict these things and if you think analysts actually know about them then fine but wouldn't the jazz scouts who do the same thing as experts except go much more in depth. Wouldn't they have a much better idea then a guy who has watched a few films? I think the jazz said they watched close to 60 tapes on this kid or something, so I think they have a better idea of the so called analysts.

The Jazz experts you are referring to also drafted all the other terrible players for the Jazz in recent years. It's not a record I would want to stand on.

Didn't they also draft Brewer and Sap? They have had some success as well as failures. I would let it play out before you assume this is a bad pick.

Exactly, like every team in the entire league you have bad picks. It's not like Utah is special in drafting bad players. Also another big factor is if that player doesn't buy into utah's system chances are he will not succeed at least for utah. For every snyder or humphries there is a AK or Millsap. Hayward is a team player and makes the guys around him better. Now I hated the pick at first like many others but i've come around, i'll give him a fair chance, and it's not like he's going anywhere anyway so I'm going to support my team no matter what. Yes he might flop but so might cousins or johnson. Was he takin too high? maybe but Matthews and several other nba players have proved that they should've been drafted themselves.

You guys really shouldn't listen to Coach Nick. What a moron.

Also, there's a certain habit everyone gets into, where they stay within a race to compare players. He's either Larry Bird, Jeff Hornecek, Adam Morrison or Keith Van Horne.. okay.. are we talking basketball or celebrity look alikes?

He's not Adam Morrison, you'll be very fortunate if he has a career as productive as Mike Miller's.. who I know "is another white guy" but I'm not talking in terms of his game but in terms of what level he'll reach.. so a starter/sixth man.. system guy. He was a reach and you guys should have gone for Aldrich who will be a stud, or Ed Davis who could be a stud, but Hayward isn't as bad a pick as some of you are making it. It's a reach.. a bit.. maybe 2-3 picks.

Hayward sees the floor extremely well, he is not as tunnel visioned as Adam Morrison, Mike Miller, or even Dunleavy. He runs plays extremely well and works hard without the ball to open himself up; this is another difference from the above. I would say KOC was more correct with his comparison of a possible Reggie Miller. I think that Reggie Miller would be more of a player that Hayward's style emulates.

Now that being said I'm not a fan of the pick because I am worried about the front court. We all know we need another big man, and it looked like in this draft we could have had some. That is why I'm upset, not that it is Hayward. Hayward is a good player and I think he will surprise many of you if you give him a chance to learn the system. And I don't think it will take him that long to learn and understand it. I think CJ should be scared because Hayward could force him to the bench by end of the first season. It might even push CJ to start working for a shot before he gets the ball.

But this will be a good pick IF we can somehow secure our Front court during this offseason. And this does not involve just resigning Boozer. We need some defense in the middle, someone who prides themselves in defending the paint.