Doug McDermott

Sixercise · Post #141 » by **Sixercise** » Mon Mar 3, 2014 7:05 am

ManualRam wrote:terrible comparison. morrison was an iso player in college who created a lot of his own offense, specializing in making difficult, contested shots. doug is not an iso player, does not create his offense and does his work early to get easier shots.

if what u say is true, then mcdermott could be a potentially reallllly bad lotto pick....i'd honestly be surprised if his draft value stays in the lower teens after this month

ManualRam · Post #142 » by **ManualRam** » Mon Mar 3, 2014 7:29 am

jiggy08 wrote:
ManualRam wrote:terrible comparison. morrison was an iso player in college who created a lot of his own offense, specializing in making difficult, contested shots. doug is not an iso player, does not create his offense and does his work early to get easier shots.

if what u say is true, then mcdermott could be a potentially reallllly bad lotto pick....i'd honestly be surprised if his draft value stays in the lower teens after this month

he could be a bad lotto pick because why? because he has the type of game that'll make scorers' jobs easier while still getting buckets within the flow of the offense as opposed to someone who forces his own offense and sucks at it?

explain

Dr Positivity · Post #143 » by **Dr Positivity** » Mon Mar 3, 2014 8:04 am

Keep in mind McDermott is more trustworthy shooting prospect than Ammo, because of 88%+ FT (77% for Ammo his junior year), but also because McDermott has been an elite shooter all 4 years, while Ammo's 3P% was only 30-31% his first 2 seasons in college. If Ammo was as good an NBA shooter as a player like Korver or Redick he may have been a lotto caliber player so I don't think the comparison works against Doug a ton, since everything is pointing towards an elite shooter

Tave · Post #144 » by **Tave** » Tue Mar 4, 2014 11:41 am

Dr Positivity wrote:Keep in mind McDermott is more trustworthy shooting prospect than Ammo, because of 88%+ FT (77% for Ammo his junior year), but also because McDermott has been an elite shooter all 4 years, while Ammo's 3P% was only 30-31% his first 2 seasons in college. If Ammo was as good an NBA shooter as a player like Korver or Redick he may have been a lotto caliber player so I don't think the comparison works against Doug a ton, since everything is pointing towards an elite shooter

Ammo is diabetic and tore his ACL in pre-season his second year. Just because a guy compares favorably to Morrison doesn't mean we write him off as a prospect, IMO, but anyway yeah Doug is a lot different shooter + scorer than Ammo.

karkinos · Post #145 » by **karkinos** » Tue Mar 4, 2014 4:15 pm

EricAnderson wrote: yeah show me Korver showign this type of skillset ever

http://cdn1.sbnation.com/assets/4012763/creighton2.gif

if you bothered to read my follow up response just below what you quoted

cancer wrote:i can see how you may have interpreted my comment that way, but if you read closely that wasn't at all what i meant given the context of what i originally typed and the conversation that followed. i was talking about a korver type player relative to his contributions (could be starter material as a solid role player, not a first or second option as a scorer). i've already acknowledged his threat with off the ball movement and slashing ability to the bucket.

JrueHK · Post #146 » by **JrueHK** » Wed Mar 5, 2014 5:58 am

How does he compare to all time great, Larry Bird in college? I never watched Bird in college but wondered how they compared. And when I say compare, I meant playing styles, not how good they are.

Again don't bash me, I'm not saying he's going to be good as Bird but just wondering the playstyle.

jmnvcavs · Post #147 » by **jmnvcavs** » Wed Mar 5, 2014 7:38 am

JrueHK wrote:How does he compare to all time great, Larry Bird in college? I never watched Bird in college but wondered how they compared. And when I say compare, I meant playing styles, not how good they are.

Again don't bash me, I'm not saying he's going to be good as Bird but just wondering the playstyle.

Doug is a scorer. Larry Bird was a play maker.

Johnlac1 · Post #148 » by **Johnlac1** » Wed Mar 5, 2014 11:53 am

JrueHK wrote:How does he compare to all time great, Larry Bird in college? I never watched Bird in college but wondered how they compared. And when I say compare, I meant playing styles, not how good they are.

Again don't bash me, I'm not saying he's going to be good as Bird but just wondering the playstyle.

Bird was a better one on one player. Longer and a little quicker than McDermott. Maybe not as strong.

Johnlac1 · Post #149 » by **Johnlac1** » Wed Mar 5, 2014 4:12 pm

I should add Bird, by no means a great leaper, could also jump better than McDermott. So because he was longer, a little quicker, and could jump better, combined with his million moves and great shooting, nobody could handle Bird one on one. Plus, he was a great passer. The think about Bird is because they didn't televise virtually every college game like they do today, few people saw Bird until his team got into the NCAA tournament his senior year. I never saw Bird play with his college team until his senior year. The first game I saw him play, he scored 49 points. Few people doubted Bird would be less than an exceptional pro. McDermott just lacks that little extra length and athleticism that would put him in Bird's league.

tidho · Post #150 » by **tidho** » Wed Mar 5, 2014 8:44 pm

Johnlac1 wrote:I should add Bird, by no means a great leaper, could also jump better than McDermott. So because he was longer, a little quicker, and could jump better, combined with his million moves and great shooting, nobody could handle Bird one on one. Plus, he was a great passer. The think about Bird is because they didn't televise virtually every college game like they do today, few people saw Bird until his team got into the NCAA tournament his senior year. I never saw Bird play with his college team until his senior year. The first game I saw him play, he scored 49 points. Few people doubted Bird would be less than an exceptional pro. McDermott just lacks that little extra length and athleticism that would put him in Bird's league.

With due respect, he lacks a bit more than that.

Johnlac1 · Post #151 » by **Johnlac1** » Wed Mar 5, 2014 10:19 pm

tidho wrote:
Johnlac1 wrote:I should add Bird, by no means a great leaper, could also jump better than McDermott. So because he was longer, a little quicker, and could jump better, combined with his million moves and great shooting, nobody could handle Bird one on one. Plus, he was a great passer. The think about Bird is because they didn't televise virtually every college game like they do today, few people saw Bird until his team got into the NCAA tournament his senior year. I never saw Bird play with his college team until his senior year. The first game I saw him play, he scored 49 points. Few people doubted Bird would be less than an exceptional pro. McDermott just lacks that little extra length and athleticism that would put him in Bird's league.

With due respect, he lacks a bit more than that.

The amount of athleticism or skill needed to separate a great player from an average player at the pro level is less than you think. Bird was probably not any faster than McDermott, but he was longer and a little quicker. There have been numerous players who would have been a lot better with just a little more speed, length, or skill. But it's either extremely difficult or impossible for many to add that extra whatever that would transform them from average to good or great.

Dr Positivity · Post #152 » by **Dr Positivity** » Thu Mar 6, 2014 10:11 pm

McDermott is a smart player but Bird is a basketball genius. That's a bigger difference than the physical ones

Johnlac1 · Post #153 » by **Johnlac1** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 1:51 am

Dr Positivity wrote:McDermott is a smart player but Bird is a basketball genius. That's a bigger difference than the physical ones

I'm not denying Bird was a great player, and that it's highly unlikely that McDermott will ever be more than a serviceable i.e. niche player. I'm just saying many times the difference between a great or good player and an average player is not huge. McDermott simply lacks that little extra length, speed, or quickness that would greatly improve his prospects. Bird was inside the five smartest players in NBA history. You don't have that high of a bb IQ to be a great player. McDermott is a very smart/skilled player...he just could use some more length or quickness.

42uptop · Post #154 » by **42uptop** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 5:26 am

ManualRam wrote:he could be a bad lotto pick because why? because he has the type of game that'll make scorers' jobs easier while still getting buckets within the flow of the offense as opposed to someone who forces his own offense and sucks at it?

explain

Because he has bad athleticism, bad size, plays bad defense and has no true position

ManualRam · Post #155 » by **ManualRam** » Fri Mar 7, 2014 5:32 am

42uptop wrote:
ManualRam wrote:he could be a bad lotto pick because why? because he has the type of game that'll make scorers' jobs easier while still getting buckets within the flow of the offense as opposed to someone who forces his own offense and sucks at it?

explain

Because he has bad athleticism, bad size, plays bad defense and has no true position

i'm sure dude can speak for himself

Mr.Raptorsingh · Post #156 » by **Mr.Raptorsingh** » Sun Mar 9, 2014 3:53 am

McDermott with 45 pts today on crazy efficiency again.

thamadkant · Post #157 » by **thamadkant** » Sun Mar 9, 2014 5:29 am

McDermott doesn't have eye popping athleticism... But his reaction time is elite... You don't dominate others without having an elite trait physically.

Like Kevin Love... watching him dominate is purely because he reacts so much quicker than most PFs that try to guard him...

McDermott is the same... Sure he is smaller but it he will have a role as a SF... Antawn Jamison like.

miltk · Post #158 » by **miltk** » Sun Mar 9, 2014 9:40 am

not to single him out,,,but if gordon hayward can make it (and there's plenty more like him), mcderm will make it in spades. so everyone can froth over these bouncing athletes, but mcD can shoot and he's 6'8", who DOESN'T want that package = kiki V

ManualRam · Post #159 » by **ManualRam** » Sun Mar 9, 2014 9:44 am

1UPZ wrote:McDermott doesn't have eye popping athleticism... But his reaction time is elite... You don't dominate others without having an elite trait physically.

Like Kevin Love... watching him dominate is purely because he reacts so much quicker than most PFs that try to guard him...

that's a function of great instincts, ability to read the game and anticipation. all qualities that are not as common among players as one would think. there's more than one way to beat a defense. one is to read and react before the defense does and then having the skill to capitalize on that advantage within that slight time frame.

ManualRam · Post #160 » by **ManualRam** » Sun Mar 9, 2014 9:46 am

oh i listened to this a couple of days ago. wally szczerbiak was asked how doug's game compares to his. the discussion is right at the beginning of this podcast

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketb ... omparisons