Darius Garland

[Stillwater]

Maybe its been mentioned, but i have to ask.

Other than shooting a much better 3 ball in college, could somebody tell me about some of the ways Garland is different from Reggie Jackson?

Havent scouted him much tbh. When I watch him I feel like Im watching Jackson play against college kids.

Somebody set me straight. Thank you.

would you draft Reggie at 3 -5 in this draft? I wouldn't. far better prospect in Garland which should be confirmed by a high pick Thursday with the price being hefty for those who get into the bidding war to get him.

You didn't really answer my question, but I don't disagree his draft stock is high. I'm asking if it's mainly in the three point shooting that separates him from Reggie Jackson. Don't get me wrong, it's a huge difference. But the rest of his game is what I'm asking about.

Being high on draft board does not make one good at basketball. Being good at basketball often makes one high on a draft board. I think you know the difference as a Cavs fan, at least since Anthony Bennett.

I'm not making claims about his value, I'm trying to decipher more about Garland's game, outside of his three point shooting. The comparisons I'm reading are all over the place.

use the internet https://www.redteamscouting.com/darius-garland

[Richfield]

would you draft Reggie at 3 -5 in this draft? I wouldn't. far better prospect in Garland which should be confirmed by a high pick Thursday with the price being hefty for those who get into the bidding war to get him.

You didn't really answer my question, but I don't disagree his draft stock is high. I'm asking if it's mainly in the three point shooting that separates him from Reggie Jackson. Don't get me wrong, it's a huge difference. But the rest of his game is what I'm asking about.

Being high on draft board does not make one good at basketball. Being good at basketball often makes one high on a draft board. I think you know the difference as a Cavs fan, at least since Anthony Bennett.

I'm not making claims about his value, I'm trying to decipher more about Garland's game, outside of his three point shooting. The comparisons I'm reading are all over the place.

use the internet https://www.redteamscouting.com/darius-garland

And now you're trolling. I was asking posters here a specific question. Reggie Jackson is an NBA player. If you don't know the difference other than his projected draft position, that's okay, you' don't have to respond.

Is this about me questioning you for saying Reddish's stock was rising because he had surgery? You had him 5th overall at that point I think, and claiming his stock might even go up. Now a month later you have him in the 30's or 40's on your board? It's fair to say I wasn't asking you.

Get over it. This isn't your board, no matter how you want to label your threads. And you're losing credibility with the stuff you're saying. In other words, I wasn't asking you, unless you have something to contribute.

[Stillwater]

You didn't really answer my question, but I don't disagree his draft stock is high. I'm asking if it's mainly in the three point shooting that separates him from Reggie Jackson. Don't get me wrong, it's a huge difference. But the rest of his game is what I'm asking about.

Being high on draft board does not make one good at basketball. Being good at basketball often makes one high on a draft board. I think you know the difference as a Cavs fan, at least since Anthony Bennett.

I'm not making claims about his value, I'm trying to decipher more about Garland's game, outside of his three point shooting. The comparisons I'm reading are all over the place.

use the internet https://www.redteamscouting.com/darius-garland

And now you're trolling. I was asking posters here a specific question. Reggie Jackson is an NBA player. If you don't know the difference other than his projected draft position, that's okay, you' don't have to respond.

Is this about me questioning you for saying Reddish's stock was rising because he had surgery? You had him 5th overall at that point I think, and claiming his stock might even go up. Now a month later you have him in the 30's or 40's on your board? It's fair to say I wasn't asking you.

Get over it. This isn't your board, no matter how you want to label your threads. And you're losing credibility with the stuff you're saying. In other words, I wasn't asking you, unless you have something to contribute.

blah blah blah if you arent asking me than dont pose a question as a response to me...and whats with the Reddish love? Ive hated that bitch of a player all season and yes i did try to move him up the big board after the core muscle excuse came out but you know that was only because of my fear the Cavs were targeting him. in the end nobody knows what version of Reddish the nba will get until he proves it so i went back to my original opinion of him : a weak finisher who cant play off ball.
Garland is nothing like reggie imo.
much more shake rattle and roll going on not to mention he is a sniper ala curry long term
and in the same way doesnt defend.
try not to discredit yourself if it matters to you, i couldnt care less what you think of me trying to justify reddish higher then coming to my senses

[Richfield]

blah blah blah if you arent asking me than dont pose a question as a response to me

Actually I asked the forum, not you. To which you replied citing his draft position, which isn't an answer to my question, so I asked again, yes in my response to you, to clarify what I was asking. I'm aware he's rated highly.

...and whats with the Reddish love?

Did I ever even say I liked the guy? Are you confusing me with somebody else? Does asking you for clarification on your opinion mean I "love" the guy? I asked you whey you thought surgery increases his draft stock as a response to you saying so. Don't worry, I'll post the exchange below to jog your memory.

Ive hated that bitch of a player all season and yes i did try to move him up the big board after the core muscle excuse came out

Wow those are strong feelings. Sounds personal.

Garland is nothing like reggie imo.
much more shake rattle and roll going on not to mention he is a sniper ala curry long term
and in the same way doesnt defend.

And now you're finally responding to my question. Thank you.



And in case you're confusing me with someone who "loves" Reddish, here's our earlier exchange, where you explain why all of a sudden you might buy into Reddish after all your apparent hate. Why? Because he had core muscle surgery? I questioned what you meant because I figured that could be a medical red flag where as you thought maybe it would boost his stock. If me asking questions gets you so emotional and thinking it's all about you, maybe just keep it moving next time, and don't respond..

Ill admit I haven't done my homework on the details of this. But instead of seeing it as a medical red flag or that he might be injury prone in his core muscles or have this same problem again in the future, you see it as an excuse as to why he wasn't better and assume he will be in the future and it raises his value?

I enjoy watching you rationalize.

if the repair doesn't work than it confirms he is all that he was in college and that makes his stock less, but the point is it will likely raise his stock as the repair for this is usually very successful and really is about the only thing that had the capability of changing my mind about him as a prospect. I mean if what was perceived as passiveness was a direct result of the physical issue that will not be present after the repair, one has to assume his game will be elevated to what it was expected to be going into the college season. rationalization isn't really the best description of what I am doing... more or less just reacting to facts

And after responding to another poster questioning why you had Reddish in the 30's or 40's on your board...

Yep and I know he is a lottery lock, but until it is proven that his struggles were 99% based on his core muscle issue( which could also reoccur and create future problems etc) Than I have a difficult time believing he will live up to his HS ranking and if overpicked could very possibly be a complete bust.
I do think he could become a solid pro, but right now it's just way to risky to put him ahead of many others.

Why the flip flop on Reddish?

Less than a month ago you were trying to convince us, or maybe yourself, that the core muscle thing actually boosted his value because something to the effect of imagine how good he really is when healthy.

You don't feel that way anymore?

If that is all it was, then maybe he will turn it around and I do think there is a chance for that to happen, but the more I looked into it, I don't believe that could be enough of a reason until I see results and so I do not rank him that high now going into the draft even though somebody will probably gamble on it being the issue and may or may not get a steal and may or may not get a bust.

May or may not get a steal, and may or may not get a bust?

Wow, this has been really productive.

[Mr.Raptorsingh]

He reminds me of Reggie Jackson

[twiggy2]

Bust material. He is a pg that averaged more turnovers then assist. Best case scenario is Lou Williams. He reminds me of dejuan Wagner.

[No-Man]

Garland's bust potential is like 0, he is going to be a good Guard, I just don't see the high-end ceiling

[The Moose]

Maybe its been mentioned, but i have to ask.

Other than shooting a much better 3 ball in college, could somebody tell me about some of the ways Garland is different from Reggie Jackson?

Havent scouted him much tbh. When I watch him I feel like Im watching Jackson play against college kids.

Somebody set me straight. Thank you.

Yeah, I can see what you are seeing. He plays a bit like Reggie Jackson pre injuries (so his first season in Detroit) with a better 3pt jumper.
They look very similar in the PnR, attacking the ring, the floater etc

[Axolotl]

Bust material. He is a pg that averaged more turnovers then assist. Best case scenario is Lou Williams. He reminds me of dejuan Wagner.

With that handle and shot, bust potential is low. Garland's floor is a Lou Williams -type, that and the weak draft are the reason he might go #4 with as many question marks as he has.

[Richfield]

Sounds like at least a few people see some legitimacy to the Reggie Jackson comparisons.

If any of the die hard Garland fans dislike or get discouraged about that, id like to point out that that is a physical comparison. The way he moves and some of the ways he gets buckets. Doesn’t have to be a bad thing.

Jackson was signed to a big contract at one point for a reason. He can undoubtably get some things done out there. And when he gets hot, he can really be a thorn in the side of the opponent.

Knocks on Jackson’s game, i believe, mainly have not been about the physical attributes or lack there of, but rather whats going on between the ears. His decision making. He seems to get over confident as to what he can do, his role, perhaps gets some tunnel vision, and takes some untimely bad shots at times.

The physical comparison to Garland has nothing to do with that. You take Reggie Jackson’s body and put another man’s basketball mind in his skull, and maybe add a better three ball or even a great three ball (small sample size on Garland), and you might have something special.

Not saying Garland is that guy, with that brain, i haven’t watched him really play beyond highlights. Just pointing out that the Reggie Jackson comparison, physically, doesn’t have to be an entirely bad thing.

[Stillwater]

Sounds like at least a few people see some legitimacy to the Reggie Jackson comparisons.

If any of the die hard Garland fans dislike or get discouraged about that, id like to point out that that is a physical comparison. The way he moves and some of the ways he gets buckets. Doesn’t have to be a bad thing.

Jackson was signed to a big contract at one point for a reason. He can undoubtably get some things done out there. And when he gets hot, he can really be a thorn in the side of the opponent.

Knocks on Jackson’s game, i believe, mainly have not been about the physical attributes or lack there of, but rather whats going on between the ears. His decision making. He seems to get over confident as to what he can do, his role, perhaps gets some tunnel vision, and takes some untimely bad shots at times.

The physical comparison to Garland has nothing to do with that. You take Reggie Jackson’s body and put another man’s basketball mind in his skull, and maybe add a better three ball or even a great three ball (small sample size on Garland), and you might have something special.

Not saying Garland is that guy, with that brain, i haven’t watched him really play beyond highlights. Just pointing out that the Reggie Jackson comparison, physically, doesn’t have to be an entirely bad thing.

fyi i enjoyed your attempt to break apart my comments and twist truth to make your case...
they way i see it with Garland or any other prospect : never try to decipher the mans intelligence when thats your problem.
you think too much and still dont get it

[Richfield]

Some people come here to talk basketball and seek knowledge and ask questions and share observations.

If me asking questions, or directly quoting you, equates to “twisting” your words, i dont know what to tell you. Maybe for someone so sensitive you’re in the wrong place.

For a person that calls themself “Stillwater”, ironic that you seem boiling mad about something. About what is anybody’s guess. But your venting it here where folks are just talking hoops seems kind of strange.

If people directly quoting what you say bothers you, maybe dont say it in the first place? Just an idea.

Have a bright and shiny day, Stillwater.

[BlazersBroncos]

Lou Williams as a floor is for a Allen Iverson level talent, not a Darius Garland level talent.

I think he can be a nice, scoring oriented CG but am not ready to call him Irving. Deep dive but I can see him as a taller Mookie Blaylock. Who BTW was hoisting 7.7 3PA per game in 1995. Talk about a man ahead of his time.

[drone3]

Garland just doesn't seem like NBA starter material. He's still a solid rotation piece, will probably have a Jason Terry like career.

[BlazersBroncos]

Garland just doesn't seem like NBA starter material. He's still a solid rotation piece, will probably have a Jason Terry like career.

A Jason Terry caliber player is worth a 4-6 pick in most drafts, especially this one.

[Yuri Vaultin]

I think Garland is somewhere between a Brandon Knight and Lillard type player. He might be really, really good or might be a SG trapped in a PG body.

[Ruzious]

I think Garland is somewhere between a Brandon Knight and Lillard type player. He might be really, really good or might be a SG trapped in a PG body.

He's easily a better shooter and ball-handler than Knight - but not as explosive to the hoop as Lillard. Problem is we didn't get to see him for an entire season, so we can't tell for sure on things like - Is his shot selection better than Lillard's, how good is he at creating for teammates, how well does he play off the ball.

[No-Man]

Garland is a bit better than Nick Van Exel, he is a lotto talent, but I am not sure how high you take him, late top10 would be where I feel alright with him

[clyde21]

Garland has all the makings of a 20+ ppg scorer in the NBA, can shoot off the dribble, off the catch, versatile shot, a lot of range, can get anywhere on the court with his handle...

if he gets better as a playmaker, he's an all-star type.

[12footrim]

Does anyone know what this guys percentages were in high school?