JMac1 wrote:bwgood77 wrote:Sunzgunz wrote:As crazy as his daddy is, heck I don't even think ball is ad NBA ready as some might suggest, I think fox is better suited to play significant minutes, if he's there u gotta grab him? True point guards are a dying breed.
He reminds me of a young John stockton, right down to the hitch in his jumper, well in this case a wind up.
Is ok that I just compared a black player to a white one
?
Not sure how you came up with that comparison since Stockton may be the best passer ever and Fox isn't much of a passer, and Stockton could shoot and Fox can't. Fox averaged about as many assists as Knight in college and had was a far worse shooter.
You really don't like Fox.
I'm not mad. I can see why. You don't trust his shooting and that is understandable. When I listen to you about Fox, I prefer Tatum over him. When I envision Fox shooting better, I want Fox....but that could be fools gold. Same with Jackson.....which leads me back to Monk and Tatum.
But since there is a possibility that their shooting could get better, and you don't want to be on that train who passed them by, then it puts pressure on you to pick one of Fox or Jackson.
Someone is going to bust. I don't want that guy. If someone is a better player, but we still get a stud.....I'm cool. We didn't get KAT but we got Book. That's what I want.
I'll be fine with Fox. Ultimately I don't know as much as the scouts and trainers do. While his upside comparisons were better passers and 3 pt shooters with better size in college.
His shooting #s compare to Elfrid Payton's when he came out, though he is a slightly better FT shooter, younger, though not as good at assists or rebounds.
Even comparing Ulis to Fox in their season before coming out, Payton was the slightly better defender, but Ulis was better at everything else (except 2 pt fg%)...Fox is less than 2-1 ast/to, while Ulis was 3.5-1.
Basically if we are going with Fox, we are drafting him for his defense. I don't think he will ever be what even Bledsoe is as a playmaker or on offense.
He is a hard worker with good heart, so there is that.
I could be way off though. He could perhaps turn into whatever he wanted with enough hard work.
But a guy like Tatum is so much more fundamentally skilled that you can tell he's been working on his offensive game for years. And he has size.
Since the league is flush with good point guards, I'm not as sold on guys who have not already proven they can shoot, unless they can guard multiple positions and show a ton of intangibles and other skills.
I fear getting a guard who can't shoot because it's tough to play a guy like that and play winning basketball. Elfrid Payton has some amazing games but it doesn't typically help lead to wins. Unless you are an elite passer like Rubio or Rondo, then it's very tough to get away with it, and those guys are even hard to play at times.
Does Fox make others better? How did all those guys around him play other than Monk? It was a lot of taking turns with Monk shooting. You mention Monk being a catch and shoot guy. He had some SUPER high scoring games. Why did Fox only average 4.6 apg? Who was Monk catching these passes from?
