nahom1319 wrote:Quincy Miller off to a hot start
How is that game not in HD on Rogers? #3 vs. #5? So dumb.
PJ3 in the post. Nice.
This is a crazy pace.
Moderators: DG88, niQ, Duffman100, tsherkin, Reeko, lebron stopper, HiJiNX, 7 Footer, Morris_Shatford

nahom1319 wrote:Quincy Miller off to a hot start
FluLikeSymptoms wrote:nahom1319 wrote:Quincy Miller off to a hot start
How is that game not in HD on Rogers? #3 vs. #5? So dumb.
PJ3 in the post. Nice.
This is a crazy pace.
<--- May 22 2012Dr Mufasa wrote: I wouldn't bet any of my personal money on Valanciunas being in the NBA after his rookie contract.
BlackFalcon wrote:I saw someone say Quincy Miller is nothing but a spot up shooter in the NBA. Smh, watch him play. Tune in RIGHT NOW! NOW I SAY!!

DarkKnight wrote:sunny wrote:my whole point regarding roy williams and barnes is that I think it is unfair and wrong to assume that his offense is being hindered by the system and that he will show new skills in the nba that he doesn't display in college.
I think its a mistake people have made when discussing unc/duke players over the past decade and the results are always the same IMO.
It's not about him showing new skills - he's shown pretty much every skill you could ask of a wing player. It's about his numbers and the way he gets them. He's shown dribble-drive skill but many will say he's mostly a jump shooter, which is where his looks will come primarily in the UNC offense.
I think people do fall into the trap of projecting players too much, but it's certainly not limited to UNC/duke guys, and scouts fall into the opposite trap as well. Look at lawson, who was too short (7th PG taken in his draft but probably the best all around NBA player of the group now) or Hansbrough (many were calling him a Madsen-type NBA player but he's been a solid rotation guy and was a very good starter for a stretch last year).
The key is to evaluate Skills, Production, and Potential and not get too swayed by any one of the 3. Potential is the sexiest of the 3 but Skills is the most important. A perfect example is Demar - a guy with great potential but almost no skills coming out of college. It's hard to develop skills in the NBA. Barnes has a world of skills - Plus defender, plus shooter, plus IQ, solid handle, plus size, solid athleticism, plus clutch guy. He also has very good production - only 26 minutes per game but 17/5/1 on very good percentages. And he was the highest regarded high schooler in a long time so there's definitely potential.
Rapsfan07 wrote:BlackFalcon wrote:I saw someone say Quincy Miller is nothing but a spot up shooter in the NBA. Smh, watch him play. Tune in RIGHT NOW! NOW I SAY!!
The great thing about Miller today is not so much how many points he has, it's about how he's getting them.

Rapsfan07 wrote:BlackFalcon wrote:I saw someone say Quincy Miller is nothing but a spot up shooter in the NBA. Smh, watch him play. Tune in RIGHT NOW! NOW I SAY!!
The great thing about Miller today is not so much how many points he has, it's about how he's getting them.

FluLikeSymptoms wrote:Quincy dominant?
<--- May 22 2012Dr Mufasa wrote: I wouldn't bet any of my personal money on Valanciunas being in the NBA after his rookie contract.

nahom1319 wrote:Recap of the begining of the second half and final 3 minutes of first half?
I take it alot of Quincy yelling "ITS EASY"
DarkKnight wrote:
I think its a mistake people have made when discussing unc/duke players over the past decade and the results are always the same IMO.
It's not about him showing new skills - he's shown pretty much every skill you could ask of a wing player. It's about his numbers and the way he gets them. He's shown dribble-drive skill but many will say he's mostly a jump shooter, which is where his looks will come primarily in the UNC offense.
I think people do fall into the trap of projecting players too much, but it's certainly not limited to UNC/duke guys, and scouts fall into the opposite trap as well. Look at lawson, who was too short (7th PG taken in his draft but probably the best all around NBA player of the group now) or Hansbrough (many were calling him a Madsen-type NBA player but he's been a solid rotation guy and was a very good starter for a stretch last year).
The key is to evaluate Skills, Production, and Potential and not get too swayed by any one of the 3. Potential is the sexiest of the 3 but Skills is the most important. A perfect example is Demar - a guy with great potential but almost no skills coming out of college. It's hard to develop skills in the NBA. Barnes has a world of skills - Plus defender, plus shooter, plus IQ, solid handle, plus size, solid athleticism, plus clutch guy. He also has very good production - only 26 minutes per game but 17/5/1 on very good percentages. And he was the highest regarded high schooler in a long time so there's definitely potential.


HSOB SIRHC wrote:Has anyone talked about possibly getting a second first round pick to go after Kendall Marshall? He seems like a solid pass-first PG with good size.

HSOB SIRHC wrote:Has anyone talked about possibly getting a second first round pick to go after Kendall Marshall? He seems like a solid pass-first PG with good size.
sunny wrote:DarkKnight wrote:
I agree with much of what you said. However, just because a player becomes good or is likely to succeed in the nba is not necessarily relevant to our conversation or gm's on draft day. Every gm wants to select a player with the potential to be great. If you guarantee me that Barnes will be the 4th best player from the draft class - avg 20 points etc. it still doesn't mean he should be taken 4th (or in that range).
Everyone expects Sully to be a GREAT player in the nba. However, there is a reason nobody is talking about him and raptor fans don't really care. Everyone wants a superstar.
FluLikeSymptoms wrote:nahom1319 wrote:Recap of the begining of the second half and final 3 minutes of first half?
I take it alot of Quincy yelling "ITS EASY"
Quincy scoring a few different ways in the paint and hitting one 3. Baylor playing through him.