Hoopshype Executive Survey: Top Players Under 25 to Build Around

[LoveMyRaps]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[BK_2020]

<snip> If you want to put SGA over Garland that's fine, but Garland is only 22 years old and just put up 21 points on 46/38/89 splits while averaging 8.6 assists and 3.6 turnovers. <snip>

It's really not fine.

Garland at +12.1 and Tatum at +13.8 are the only players out of this entire group with superstar level On-Off +/-.

We can even go back a year and look Zion's On-Off +/- and while +5.6 would put him behind those two, it's not up in the superstar level.

You're gonna bring up +/- stats as a negative to SGA when he plays on **** teams... +/- stats has something to do with the players you play with as well

On/off is not +/-.

Sent from my SM-G991U using RealGM mobile app

[DreamTeam09]

It's really not fine.

Garland at +12.1 and Tatum at +13.8 are the only players out of this entire group with superstar level On-Off +/-.

We can even go back a year and look Zion's On-Off +/- and while +5.6 would put him behind those two, it's not up in the superstar level.

You're gonna bring up +/- stats as a negative to SGA when he plays on **** teams... +/- stats has something to do with the players you play with as well

On/off is not +/-.

Sent from my SM-G991U using RealGM mobile app

Even so, on/off still isn't an individual stat, **** teams aren't going to have players with great on/off #s

[JonFromVA]

<snip> If you want to put SGA over Garland that's fine, but Garland is only 22 years old and just put up 21 points on 46/38/89 splits while averaging 8.6 assists and 3.6 turnovers. <snip>

It's really not fine.

Garland at +12.1 and Tatum at +13.8 are the only players out of this entire group with superstar level On-Off +/-.

We can even go back a year and look Zion's On-Off +/- and while +5.6 would put him behind those two, it's not up in the superstar level.

You're gonna bring up +/- stats as a negative to SGA when he plays on **** teams... +/- stats has something to do with the players you play with as well

It sure does, which is why I brought up On-Off ...

SGA's on-court +/- (according to BBR) was -6.8, which means the Thunder were still a 20 something win team when he was on the floor, but hey they were 2.9 worse when he was off. Which is fine, but if his teammates were soooo awful, that means even less.

By comparison, let's take a look at a veteran combo-guard who played on a good team and a bad team last season. CJ McCollum had a +7.0 On-Off when he was on Portland, but that dropped to +5.4 on New Orleans. So, like I said, it should be easier to put up a higher On-Off on a bad team than a good team and at least in CJ's case it was.

My point is if I had my choice I'd build around a player who provides uplift to his teammate. Maybe it's not the optimal choice if you can predict who's going to be the next Giannis, but you're going to win a lot of games with that type of player and filling out the roster around him is much simplified.

SGA may produce efficiency and winning on a team where he doesn't need to carry so much of the load, but that's to be seen, not to be presumed.

[yoyoboy]

1. Doncic
2. Tatum
3. Garland
4. Young
5. Morant
6. Williamson
7. Edwards
8. Mobley
9. Barnes
10. Cunningham

That would be my list personally.

I respect that it’s your opinion. But garland above all those guys is quite insane. He will never be the best player on a championship team.. cant whereas I can see some below him

Garland has already blown the expectations for him out of the water for consecutive seasons after being viewed as a total bust who was "the worst player in the league" his rookie year. I think it's silly to say "never" when he's been improving so much and he's still just 22 years old. I mean check RAPTOR's projections of him before the 2021, 2022, and then 2023 seasons to see just what I mean.







Why can't Garland turn into the kind of player who can be the best player on a championship team? People said the same thing about Steph at one point. Trae in his third year was already the best player on a team 2 wins away from the Finals, losing to the title winners. If Stoudemire didn't get injured in the 06 season, Nash might have been the best player on a championship-winning team. A 36 year old Chris Paul was so close to being that, despite being clearly past his prime. Yeah the latter three didn't end up happening, but they were close enough where it's silly to say they couldn't happen. There's this prevailing idea now that unless you're a big two-way wing, you can't be the best player on a title team and I find it to be just so flawed.

Garland ranked 6th in the league in RAPM this past season, behind only Curry, Tatum, Jokic, Embiid, and Holiday. 18th in luck-adjusted RAPM. 13th in RAPTOR. 21st in EPM. His plus-minus metrics are already superstar level, and when the Cavs were healthy this year, he was leading a team that was 1st in the East in SRS/3rd in the East in record.



Garland projects to be an absolutely elite-tier shooter, shooting 89% from the line and over 38% from 3 on a diet of mostly self-created looks. He can do it off the bounce or off the catch. His off-ball movement for his age is ahead of the curve, and figures to only be utilized more with the Mitchell addition. He's an exceptional playmaker who especially excels at creating easy looks inside, which are the most high leverage kind of passes. His shiftiness and ballhandling ability allow him to break down just about any defender 1-on-1. His PnR efficiency is great and his extended range allows him to really put pressure on the defense as soon as he gets into the half court. And despite the reputation people try to assign to him of being a terrible defender, the stats don't back this up at all.

19-20: -0.69 D-RAPM / -0.76 Luck-Adjusted D-RAPM
20-21: -0.12 D-RAPM / +0.02 Luck-Adjusted D-RAPM
21-22: +1.55 D-RAPM / +0.92 Luck-Adjusted D-RAPM

19-22: +0.97 D-RAPM / +0.32 Luck-Adjusted D-RAPM

The Cavs maintained an absolutely elite defense with Garland on the court, and one that was better when he was on than off in spite of being backed up by a phenomenal defender in Rubio for a good portion of the year. And if you look at the data for his first two years even on a horrid Cavs team, his metrics were never that bad. I'm not saying he's some great defensive PG or anything, but that fact, combined with his plus-minus stats, don't point to a horrible defender at all. It points to someone who's probably doing things on the court defensively that get missed by the eye test (like communication and timely rotations) similarly to Steph who's been labeled a liability on that end despite being a clearly good team defender the last few years. I definitely don't think he's as good of a defender as Steph right now, but if you compare them at the same age, Garland is better on that end. And it's reasonable to expect him to improve even more. His physical limitations will always be a factor, but I think he'll be solidly average on that end at the very least throughout his prime.

Just as was the case the prior season, Garland improved as the year went on. He averaged 24.5 points and 9.8 assists on 58% TS and with a 2.6 ast/tov ratio in the final 32 games, despite being the sole capable creator after Rubio went down. I mean just look at the starting lineup, which consisted of three bigs who function as finishers and a total non-threat offensively in Okoro. His FTA doubled from just 2.4 per game in the first 36 games to 4.8 in those final 32, as he gradually started to discover ways of drawing contact. Lastly, Garland is a fantastic team leader, who's loved not just by teammates but also by virtually every star veteran, like LeBron, Curry, CP3, Durant, Draymond, etc. He's your favorite player's favorite young player so to say. I think that goes a long way when you have an energy that makes guys enjoy playing with you.

I know I'm a lot higher on DG than the general consensus, but I'm okay with that. People act like these kinds of rankings should be set in stone and not questioned, but I guarantee if you go back to polls like this from 5-10 years ago, they'd look a lot different from how the reality played out. We'll just have to wait and see what happens, but I really believe in Garland's potential.

[JonFromVA]

SGA is better than garland, at the very least they're = but I'm taking SGA 10x outta 10. I'm always gonna go with the bigger player if I find their skill level =

SGA has just been in a crap situation, replace garland with Sga and clv still has the same outlook or even better. I'd like a SGA Mitchell backcourt over a Garland + Mitchell backcourt. Keep in mind I think Garland is amazing too, definitely a franchise lead guard regardless

Fair chance SGA and Mitchell would just end up taking turns ISO'ing ... he needs to show he can run a team on his own before I'd hand him the keys.

And fwiw, the Thunder were 3.2 pp100 worse defensively with SGA on the floor, so your claims are basically wish-casting. The actual evidence is not there.

[ocelot17]

I don’t know why so many people are high on Edwards but not Green. They both had very similar rookie seasons.

In the last eight games of the season, Green averaged an effortless 28 ppg without wood and Gordon in the lineup. He struggled the first couple of months, but he really started figuring it out in the second half of the season.

I really think Green has the potential to be the SG version of Ja Morant.

It's really about build, Ant is built like a tank, so he'll be able to absorb contact better, get better spacing, has a higher ceiling on defense. Jalen has incredible athleticism no doubt which can allow him to be a plus defender, but his physical tools are a limitation (height and strength) in terms of overall defensive impact.

There's no doubt people think Green has the potential to average 28+ PPG sometime in the future, however there are questions related to the rest of his game (defense, rebounding, passing) about his slim frame and height.

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=QVoJn9cynAQLDk9Q_5Xuyg

[Vampirate]

1. Doncic
2. Tatum
3. Garland
4. Young
5. Morant
6. Williamson
7. Edwards
8. Mobley
9. Barnes
10. Cunningham

That would be my list personally.

Why can't Garland turn into the kind of player who can be the best player on a championship team? People said the same thing about Steph at one point. Trae in his third year was already the best player on a team 2 wins away from the Finals, losing to the title winners. If Stoudemire didn't get injured in the 06 season, Nash might have been the best player on a championship-winning team. A 36 year old Chris Paul was so close to being that, despite being clearly past his prime. Yeah the latter three didn't end up happening, but they were close enough where it's silly to say they couldn't happen. There's this prevailing idea now that unless you're a big two-way wing, you can't be the best player on a title team and I find it to be just so flawed.


I know I'm a lot higher on DG than the general consensus, but I'm okay with that. People act like these kinds of rankings should be set in stone and not questioned, but I guarantee if you go back to polls like this from 5-10 years ago, they'd look a lot different from how the reality played out. We'll just have to wait and see what happens, but I really believe in Garland's potential.

Well if we are going on hypotheticals, let me give you some more.

What if Lamelo turns into a 6"7 version of Trae Young?
What if Scottie Barnes turns into Kawhi Leonard 2.0 with elite playmaking?
What if Ant becomes the next Dwayne Wade
What if Cade become a 6"6 version of what Garland currently is but with better, scoring, defense and rebounding
What if Mobley's offense advances to the state that he's KD 2.0 with elite defense?
What if Jalen Green becomes the next biggest scoring superstar?


All seem outlandish right now, but are in the realms of possibility with player's build and athleticism.

As for why Garland can't become the best player on a championship team, theoretically he can however the odds are against him, Steph Curry is the rare exception, not the norm. It's just extremely hard to build a championship team for a 6"1 player as the best player.

Possible? Yes.
Unlikely? Also yes.

[reanimator]

Trae and Cade too low
Ant and Garland too high
I like Zion or Cade for the #4 slot

[yoyoboy]

Why can't Garland turn into the kind of player who can be the best player on a championship team? People said the same thing about Steph at one point. Trae in his third year was already the best player on a team 2 wins away from the Finals, losing to the title winners. If Stoudemire didn't get injured in the 06 season, Nash might have been the best player on a championship-winning team. A 36 year old Chris Paul was so close to being that, despite being clearly past his prime. Yeah the latter three didn't end up happening, but they were close enough where it's silly to say they couldn't happen. There's this prevailing idea now that unless you're a big two-way wing, you can't be the best player on a title team and I find it to be just so flawed.


I know I'm a lot higher on DG than the general consensus, but I'm okay with that. People act like these kinds of rankings should be set in stone and not questioned, but I guarantee if you go back to polls like this from 5-10 years ago, they'd look a lot different from how the reality played out. We'll just have to wait and see what happens, but I really believe in Garland's potential.

Well if we are going on hypotheticals, let me give you some more.

What if Lamelo turns into a 6"7 version of Trae Young?
What if Scottie Barnes turns into Kawhi Leonard 2.0 with elite playmaking?
What if Ant becomes the next Dwayne Wade
What if Cade become a 6"6 version of what Garland currently is but with better, scoring, defense and rebounding
What if Mobley's offense advances to the state that he's KD 2.0 with elite defense?
What if Jalen Green becomes the next biggest scoring superstar?


All seem outlandish right now, but are in the realms of possibility with player's build and athleticism.

As for why Garland can't become the best player on a championship team, theoretically he can however the odds are against him, Steph Curry is the rare exception, not the norm. It's just extremely hard to build a championship team for a 6"1 player as the best player.

Possible? Yes.
Unlikely? Also yes.

Very strange response given 90% of the post didn’t deal with hypotheticals at all. It deals with the RIGHT NOW in terms of how good Garland already is. Whereas the players you think should be above him are in fact based mostly on the hypotheticals since they’re not contributing to winning nearly as much as Garland currently does. And it’s not like we’re talking a guy who’s 5 years older than those guys either - he’s like 1-2 years older than them.

Also, people constantly make the mistake where they assume guys who are already high-level contributors with more polished skillsets are finished products, while the sexy mystery boxes are only viewed in terms of their ceilings.

[vxmike]

I’ll take Barnes over Edwards and Zion for sure

Barnes was my pick but Ant was my second choice.

Zion shouldn’t even be on the list until he can remain on the court.

[vxmike]

It's got to be Cade for me. If I'm building a team around a guy it has to be a perimeter playmaker since he can be the focal point of an offense, and I think he's going to be the best one.

Let’s pump the brakes on Cade. He had a decent rookie year but shot poorly and missed 18 games. Let’s see if he’s durable and can get those shooting %ages up. This is a critical year to see if he continues to grow or plateaus too low.

[Vampirate]

Well if we are going on hypotheticals, let me give you some more.

What if Lamelo turns into a 6"7 version of Trae Young?
What if Scottie Barnes turns into Kawhi Leonard 2.0 with elite playmaking?
What if Ant becomes the next Dwayne Wade
What if Cade become a 6"6 version of what Garland currently is but with better, scoring, defense and rebounding
What if Mobley's offense advances to the state that he's KD 2.0 with elite defense?
What if Jalen Green becomes the next biggest scoring superstar?


All seem outlandish right now, but are in the realms of possibility with player's build and athleticism.

As for why Garland can't become the best player on a championship team, theoretically he can however the odds are against him, Steph Curry is the rare exception, not the norm. It's just extremely hard to build a championship team for a 6"1 player as the best player.

Possible? Yes.
Unlikely? Also yes.

Very strange response given 90% of the post didn’t deal with hypotheticals at all. It deals with the RIGHT NOW in terms of how good Garland already is. Whereas the players you think should be above him are in fact based mostly on the hypotheticals since they’re not contributing to winning nearly as much as Garland currently does. And it’s not like we’re talking a guy who’s 5 years older than those guys either - he’s like 1-2 years older than them.

Also, people constantly make the mistake where they assume guys who are already high-level contributors with more polished skillsets are finished products, while the sexy mystery boxes are only viewed in terms of their ceilings.

"Why can't Garland turn into the kind of player who can be the best player on a championship team?"

Because this is indeed a hypothetical.

You are extremely high on Garland of him turning into a best player on a championship type of player. You believe he has that type of potential.

As for the bolded, compare year 3 Ja Morant to Year 2 Ja. The third year can make a huge difference. In fact year 2 garland was nowhere near the player year 3 garland is, no?

Here's another point, you are also banking on the likes of Mobley, Barnes, Cade, Green not making the same strides that Garland has. It's implied in your post that basically none of the 4 will get to the bonefide All Star/Superstar tier by year 2 or year 3 and I completely disagree.

You are counting on minimal progression on all 4 players in year 2 which is really, really low balling them.

[JonFromVA]

Well if we are going on hypotheticals, let me give you some more.

What if Lamelo turns into a 6"7 version of Trae Young?
What if Scottie Barnes turns into Kawhi Leonard 2.0 with elite playmaking?
What if Ant becomes the next Dwayne Wade
What if Cade become a 6"6 version of what Garland currently is but with better, scoring, defense and rebounding
What if Mobley's offense advances to the state that he's KD 2.0 with elite defense?
What if Jalen Green becomes the next biggest scoring superstar?


All seem outlandish right now, but are in the realms of possibility with player's build and athleticism.

As for why Garland can't become the best player on a championship team, theoretically he can however the odds are against him, Steph Curry is the rare exception, not the norm. It's just extremely hard to build a championship team for a 6"1 player as the best player.

Possible? Yes.
Unlikely? Also yes.

Very strange response given 90% of the post didn’t deal with hypotheticals at all. It deals with the RIGHT NOW in terms of how good Garland already is. Whereas the players you think should be above him are in fact based mostly on the hypotheticals since they’re not contributing to winning nearly as much as Garland currently does. And it’s not like we’re talking a guy who’s 5 years older than those guys either - he’s like 1-2 years older than them.

Also, people constantly make the mistake where they assume guys who are already high-level contributors with more polished skillsets are finished products, while the sexy mystery boxes are only viewed in terms of their ceilings.

"Why can't Garland turn into the kind of player who can be the best player on a championship team?"

Because this is indeed a hypothetical.

You are extremely high on Garland of him turning into a best player on a championship type of player. You believe he has that type of potential.

As for the bolded, compare year 3 Ja Morant to Year 2 Ja. The third year can make a huge difference. In fact year 2 garland was nowhere near the player year 3 garland is, no?

Here's another point, you are also banking on the likes of Mobley, Barnes, Cade, Green not making the same strides that Garland has. It's implied in your post that basically none of the 4 will get to the bonefide All Star/Superstar tier by year 2 or year 3 and I completely disagree.

You are counting on minimal progression on all 4 players in year 2 which is really, really low balling them.

You're tempting me to grave dig last year's version of this thread and see how many players fans were expecting to take the next step did, and how many players they didn't expect to did.

I'm pretty sure a lot of fans had RJ penciled in to take another step forward.

Anyway, some will, some won't... what these guys have shown is simply a safer predictor and personally I like to focus on team uplift over everything else.

[Vampirate]

Very strange response given 90% of the post didn’t deal with hypotheticals at all. It deals with the RIGHT NOW in terms of how good Garland already is. Whereas the players you think should be above him are in fact based mostly on the hypotheticals since they’re not contributing to winning nearly as much as Garland currently does. And it’s not like we’re talking a guy who’s 5 years older than those guys either - he’s like 1-2 years older than them.

Also, people constantly make the mistake where they assume guys who are already high-level contributors with more polished skillsets are finished products, while the sexy mystery boxes are only viewed in terms of their ceilings.

"Why can't Garland turn into the kind of player who can be the best player on a championship team?"

Because this is indeed a hypothetical.

You are extremely high on Garland of him turning into a best player on a championship type of player. You believe he has that type of potential.

As for the bolded, compare year 3 Ja Morant to Year 2 Ja. The third year can make a huge difference. In fact year 2 garland was nowhere near the player year 3 garland is, no?

Here's another point, you are also banking on the likes of Mobley, Barnes, Cade, Green not making the same strides that Garland has. It's implied in your post that basically none of the 4 will get to the bonefide All Star/Superstar tier by year 2 or year 3 and I completely disagree.

You are counting on minimal progression on all 4 players in year 2 which is really, really low balling them.

You're tempting me to grave dig last year's version of this thread and see how many players fans were expecting to take the next step did, and how many players they didn't expect to did.

I'm pretty sure a lot of fans had RJ penciled in to take another step forward.

Anyway, some will, some won't... what these guys have shown is simply a safer predictor and personally I like to focus on team uplift over everything else.

The issue with Barrett is that he really doesn't have any huge advantages that he can use to exploit a defense with. The best I can come up with is that he's 6"6 and is strong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . He may still end up as an All Star, but it will probably be more in the FVV territory.

As for Cade, Green and Mobley, it's very easy to see what they can use to score with. They are all pretty much as advertised.

Barnes wasn't though. Barnes came in and shattered Raptor fans expectations.

We all thought he was going to average something like 8 points, 4 rebounds and 4 assists on 42/28/65 splits.

Here is Barnes college stats.

[JonFromVA]

"Why can't Garland turn into the kind of player who can be the best player on a championship team?"

Because this is indeed a hypothetical.

You are extremely high on Garland of him turning into a best player on a championship type of player. You believe he has that type of potential.

As for the bolded, compare year 3 Ja Morant to Year 2 Ja. The third year can make a huge difference. In fact year 2 garland was nowhere near the player year 3 garland is, no?

Here's another point, you are also banking on the likes of Mobley, Barnes, Cade, Green not making the same strides that Garland has. It's implied in your post that basically none of the 4 will get to the bonefide All Star/Superstar tier by year 2 or year 3 and I completely disagree.

You are counting on minimal progression on all 4 players in year 2 which is really, really low balling them.

You're tempting me to grave dig last year's version of this thread and see how many players fans were expecting to take the next step did, and how many players they didn't expect to did.

I'm pretty sure a lot of fans had RJ penciled in to take another step forward.

Anyway, some will, some won't... what these guys have shown is simply a safer predictor and personally I like to focus on team uplift over everything else.

The issue with Barrett is that he really doesn't have any huge advantages that he can use to exploit a defense with. The best I can come up with is that he's 6"6 and is strong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . He may still end up as an All Star, but it will probably be more in the FVV territory.

As for Cade, Green and Mobley, it's very easy to see what they can use to score with. They are all pretty much as advertised.

Barnes wasn't though. Barnes came in and shattered Raptor fans expectations.

We all thought he was going to average something like 8 points, 4 rebounds and 4 assists on 42/28/65 splits.

Here is Barnes college stats.

He played a lot fewer minutes in College, even with all the talk about his improved jumper his nba stats are almost identical per minute or per possession (except assists). His TS% was slightly up.

Of course there was no guarantee even with an NBA ready body he could do that, just like there's no guarantee he takes a big step next season - or that he won't.

The fun part is finding out what these guys can do.

[DG88]

1 Luka (unaminous #1 pick)
2 Tatum (11 of 15 second place votes)
3 Morant (4 second place votes)
4 Mobley
5 Ant Edwards
6 Zion
7 Scottie Barnes
8 Lamelo
9 Trae
10 Garland
11 Cade
12 Jalen Green
T-13 SGA
T-13 Haliburton

https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-poll-top-players-to-build-around-luka-doncic-jayson-tatum-ja-morant-zion-williamson-lamelo-ball/

What do we think?

SGA should definitely be ahead of Green, Cade, Garland, Lamelo and has an argument vs others. He just put up 30/6/7 in the second half of the season on 49/39 shooting despite being the second most doubled player in the NBA. Is this a joke?

Mobley is amazing, but he isn’t a shot creator really. He’s an elite defensive anchor with pick and pop potential. Is that more valuable than a guy who should be a consistent 25 ppg player and lead playmaker, that can get a shot anytime he wants in 2022?

SGA on a good team would have done every bit as well as Ja or Trae. He’s top 4-5 here with Ant, Morant, Tatum, Trae group. Zion IF he is who they thought he’d be, but we don’t have enough sample size yet

Mobley could wind up being the best defensive player in NBA history.

Bill Russell is rolling in his grave.

Yes, Mobley is a great versatile defender and mature beyond his years but let's hold our horses a bit here. He did show that his defense was bolstered because he was beside Jarrett Allen. I think he can become like Bosh as a defender based on how he is now. I also think he'll be a multi-time defensive player of the year. But to say he'd become the best defensive player in NBA history is a stretch.

[Vampirate]

You're tempting me to grave dig last year's version of this thread and see how many players fans were expecting to take the next step did, and how many players they didn't expect to did.

I'm pretty sure a lot of fans had RJ penciled in to take another step forward.

Anyway, some will, some won't... what these guys have shown is simply a safer predictor and personally I like to focus on team uplift over everything else.

The issue with Barrett is that he really doesn't have any huge advantages that he can use to exploit a defense with. The best I can come up with is that he's 6"6 and is strong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . He may still end up as an All Star, but it will probably be more in the FVV territory.

As for Cade, Green and Mobley, it's very easy to see what they can use to score with. They are all pretty much as advertised.

Barnes wasn't though. Barnes came in and shattered Raptor fans expectations.

We all thought he was going to average something like 8 points, 4 rebounds and 4 assists on 42/28/65 splits.

Here is Barnes college stats.

He played a lot fewer minutes in College, even with all the talk about his improved jumper his nba stats are almost identical per minute or per possession (except assists). His TS% was slightly up.

Of course there was no guarantee even with an NBA ready body he could do that, just like there's no guarantee he takes a big step next season - or that he won't.

The fun part is finding out what these guys can do.

His 3 point percentage was up slightly but on a larger volume, but what was much more surprising was his Free Throw percentage took a 10 percent jump from his college stats.

In the first game playoffs Barnes was actually our best player, then he got injured. He couldn't hit a three point shot to save his life, but another encouraging sign was shooting 81.3% while averaging 9 boards and 4 assists while almost having a 4/1 A/TO ratio. This in 33 mpg. Overall his FG% took a dip as well so hopefully his scoring production was because of the injury mostly.


Obviously there's no guarantees, but while not perfect, there are some great signs here. I also remember Mobley played very well in the loss to Brooklyn.

[basketballRob]

I expect 2-3 Magic players on the list next season.

Sent from my SM-G950U using RealGM mobile app

[God Squad]

I don’t know why so many people are high on Edwards but not Green. They both had very similar rookie seasons.

In the last eight games of the season, Green averaged an effortless 28 ppg without wood and Gordon in the lineup. He struggled the first couple of months, but he really started figuring it out in the second half of the season.

I really think Green has the potential to be the SG version of Ja Morant.

It's really about build, Ant is built like a tank, so he'll be able to absorb contact better, get better spacing, has a higher ceiling on defense. Jalen has incredible athleticism no doubt which can allow him to be a plus defender, but his physical tools are a limitation (height and strength) in terms of overall defensive impact.

There's no doubt people think Green has the potential to average 28+ PPG sometime in the future, however there are questions related to the rest of his game (defense, rebounding, passing) about his slim frame and height.

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=QVoJn9cynAQLDk9Q_5Xuyg

lol. Ahh the obligatory 10 pounds of muscle picture. But I do like Greens potential particularly his shooting/athleticism. But then there are still questions about his defense/height/strength. I did see some improvement in his playmaking which I was worried about, but would like to see more. But it's just like Barnes IMO. I'd like to see more improvement in his shot creation/3pt shooting. Nothing wrong for a rookies/sophomores to have holes in his game, as long as they acknowledge and work on it.