ImageImageImage

Garland or Culver

Moderator: jbk1234

NatiboyB
Pro Prospect
Posts: 763
And1: 232
Joined: Jun 15, 2013

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#21 » by NatiboyB » Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:51 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
NatiboyB wrote:I still think we should of went with Culver...But I will do some more research on Garland I just didn't even consider him an option.
I hadn't realized how bad Culver's shooting was. If he can improve from that end, he'll be a great two way guard. If he can't, you just took Nwaba at No. 5.

Really the Wolves blew it by not trading for 4. They were in talks with the Pelicans and had to know they were other teams bidding on the pick. People were only offering value to trade up for one of two players and either way they weren't getting Garland at No. 6.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app



I'm sorry for the very late reply...So I was thinking Culvers percentages aren't great but he should be hitting at a decent clip....But I was really thinking at the time that the T-wolves were planning on doing something involving Culver for Garland..But now that I have just settled in on having Garland I just moved on. But Culver was a great fit 2 way player who like you said if he had a deeper more consistent shot he would be outstanding.
JonFromVA
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,201
And1: 1,637
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#22 » by JonFromVA » Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:16 pm

NatiboyB wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
NatiboyB wrote:I still think we should of went with Culver...But I will do some more research on Garland I just didn't even consider him an option.
I hadn't realized how bad Culver's shooting was. If he can improve from that end, he'll be a great two way guard. If he can't, you just took Nwaba at No. 5.

Really the Wolves blew it by not trading for 4. They were in talks with the Pelicans and had to know they were other teams bidding on the pick. People were only offering value to trade up for one of two players and either way they weren't getting Garland at No. 6.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app



I'm sorry for the very late reply...So I was thinking Culvers percentages aren't great but he should be hitting at a decent clip....But I was really thinking at the time that the T-wolves were planning on doing something involving Culver for Garland..But now that I have just settled in on having Garland I just moved on. But Culver was a great fit 2 way player who like you said if he had a deeper more consistent shot he would be outstanding.


Meh, if the Cavs had taken Culver we'd all be talking about his potential as a shooter, and how he was taking steps to transition from a spot-up shooter to a off-the-dribble shooter. We'd write off his struggles in the NCAA championship game as inexperience and how lots of freshman struggle in the tourney. We'd talk up his fit on the team. etc. etc.

The issue here is that Darius Garland has the potential to be great at something the NBA highly values (long range, off the dribble shooting ala Curry/Lillard/Irving). It's not clear that Culver has a high-level skill like that. He may develop one, or his upside may just be that of a solid all-around player.

We're just going to have to see ... but it's what's made this draft pretty tricky. Lots of interesting prospects, but not much in the way of sure things. And the surest thing in the draft (Zion) may just be too big for the stress he puts on his body.
Stillwater
General Manager
Posts: 9,984
And1: 2,548
Joined: Jun 15, 2017
   

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#23 » by Stillwater » Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:33 pm

JonFromVA wrote:
NatiboyB wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:I hadn't realized how bad Culver's shooting was. If he can improve from that end, he'll be a great two way guard. If he can't, you just took Nwaba at No. 5.

Really the Wolves blew it by not trading for 4. They were in talks with the Pelicans and had to know they were other teams bidding on the pick. People were only offering value to trade up for one of two players and either way they weren't getting Garland at No. 6.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app



I'm sorry for the very late reply...So I was thinking Culvers percentages aren't great but he should be hitting at a decent clip....But I was really thinking at the time that the T-wolves were planning on doing something involving Culver for Garland..But now that I have just settled in on having Garland I just moved on. But Culver was a great fit 2 way player who like you said if he had a deeper more consistent shot he would be outstanding.


Meh, if the Cavs had taken Culver we'd all be talking about his potential as a shooter, and how he was taking steps to transition from a spot-up shooter to a off-the-dribble shooter. We'd write off his struggles in the NCAA championship game as inexperience and how lots of freshman struggle in the tourney. We'd talk up his fit on the team. etc. etc.

The issue here is that Darius Garland has the potential to be great at something the NBA highly values (long range, off the dribble shooting ala Curry/Lillard/Irving). It's not clear that Culver has a high-level skill like that. He may develop one, or his upside may just be that of a solid all-around player.

We're just going to have to see ... but it's what's made this draft pretty tricky. Lots of interesting prospects, but not much in the way of sure things. And the surest thing in the draft (Zion) may just be too big for the stress he puts on his body.

Culver was a sophomore who lead his team to and through the tournament only to eventually get basically shut down on the biggest stage by the best role playing ceiling defender in the draft who got severely overrated to the point of ATL trading up for him.
Garland was definitiely the best prospect at 4 let alone 5 when it comes to shooting abilty, but overall this draft class came down to many other factors in decision process' such as ATL absolutely valuing defense because Young is a terrible defender.
I think Minnesota traded up for the wrong guy and should have taken Coby White who I think has better overall abilty offensively and only a small drop off in defense.
That being said I would have been fine with Culver for CLE, but like I said before the draft was higher on Sekou & didn't see us taking Garland if there because of Sexton
water aint the mirror unless you steal it
2019 REALGM draft contest winner
Revenged25
Rookie
Posts: 1,215
And1: 357
Joined: Jun 05, 2018
   

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#24 » by Revenged25 » Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:56 pm

Stillwater wrote: Culver was a sophomore who lead his team to and through the tournament only to eventually get basically shut down on the biggest stage by the best role playing ceiling defender in the draft who got severely overrated to the point of ATL trading up for him.
Garland was definitiely the best prospect at 4 let alone 5 when it comes to shooting abilty, but overall this draft class came down to many other factors in decision process' such as ATL absolutely valuing defense because Young is a terrible defender.
I think Minnesota traded up for the wrong guy and should have taken Coby White who I think has better overall abilty offensively and only a small drop off in defense.
That being said I would have been fine with Culver for CLE, but like I said before the draft was higher on Sekou & didn't see us taking Garland if there because of Sexton


I think Atlanta thought they were going to be getting a better version of Ariza which is why they traded up to get him. Hunter won't need to be the 1st or even 2nd option for them so he can just be there and do all the other things that's asked of him, primarily defense, to help the team win. 4th might be a little high for that but they got the higher potential version at #10 in Reddish so they were able to temper their risk/safety between the two picks.
JonFromVA
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,201
And1: 1,637
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#25 » by JonFromVA » Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:35 pm

Stillwater wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
NatiboyB wrote:

I'm sorry for the very late reply...So I was thinking Culvers percentages aren't great but he should be hitting at a decent clip....But I was really thinking at the time that the T-wolves were planning on doing something involving Culver for Garland..But now that I have just settled in on having Garland I just moved on. But Culver was a great fit 2 way player who like you said if he had a deeper more consistent shot he would be outstanding.


Meh, if the Cavs had taken Culver we'd all be talking about his potential as a shooter, and how he was taking steps to transition from a spot-up shooter to a off-the-dribble shooter. We'd write off his struggles in the NCAA championship game as inexperience and how lots of freshman struggle in the tourney. We'd talk up his fit on the team. etc. etc.

The issue here is that Darius Garland has the potential to be great at something the NBA highly values (long range, off the dribble shooting ala Curry/Lillard/Irving). It's not clear that Culver has a high-level skill like that. He may develop one, or his upside may just be that of a solid all-around player.

We're just going to have to see ... but it's what's made this draft pretty tricky. Lots of interesting prospects, but not much in the way of sure things. And the surest thing in the draft (Zion) may just be too big for the stress he puts on his body.

Culver was a sophomore who lead his team to and through the tournament only to eventually get basically shut down on the biggest stage by the best role playing ceiling defender in the draft who got severely overrated to the point of ATL trading up for him.
Garland was definitiely the best prospect at 4 let alone 5 when it comes to shooting abilty, but overall this draft class came down to many other factors in decision process' such as ATL absolutely valuing defense because Young is a terrible defender.
I think Minnesota traded up for the wrong guy and should have taken Coby White who I think has better overall abilty offensively and only a small drop off in defense.
That being said I would have been fine with Culver for CLE, but like I said before the draft was higher on Sekou & didn't see us taking Garland if there because of Sexton


Thanks for the correction, but hey, Hunter (a year older than Culver) struggled in the early rounds - but came up big in the championship, Culver was terrific in the early rounds, but struggled in the championship.

My point is just that there are always ways to look at this stuff if you want to focus on the positive. Unlike some who for whatever reason seem to take a stake in all of this during the pre-draft process, I admittedly prefer to take the optimistic approach, try to figure out what our GM/scouts were thinking, and cross my fingers they got it right until proven otherwise.

As for Sekou, the reports say he's a pretty raw prospect, very athletic, and potential defensive standout. Obviously there's a potential pay off if a player like that can be developed, but I don't mind that our FO seemed to focus on players with what they believe to be NBA-level skills. They took some pretty big risks as it were, but at least these guys should have a defined skill they can lean on while developing the rest of their game and avoid being labelled an outright bust.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 36,735
And1: 21,104
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#26 » by jbk1234 » Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:48 pm

Stillwater wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
NatiboyB wrote:

I'm sorry for the very late reply...So I was thinking Culvers percentages aren't great but he should be hitting at a decent clip....But I was really thinking at the time that the T-wolves were planning on doing something involving Culver for Garland..But now that I have just settled in on having Garland I just moved on. But Culver was a great fit 2 way player who like you said if he had a deeper more consistent shot he would be outstanding.


Meh, if the Cavs had taken Culver we'd all be talking about his potential as a shooter, and how he was taking steps to transition from a spot-up shooter to a off-the-dribble shooter. We'd write off his struggles in the NCAA championship game as inexperience and how lots of freshman struggle in the tourney. We'd talk up his fit on the team. etc. etc.

The issue here is that Darius Garland has the potential to be great at something the NBA highly values (long range, off the dribble shooting ala Curry/Lillard/Irving). It's not clear that Culver has a high-level skill like that. He may develop one, or his upside may just be that of a solid all-around player.

We're just going to have to see ... but it's what's made this draft pretty tricky. Lots of interesting prospects, but not much in the way of sure things. And the surest thing in the draft (Zion) may just be too big for the stress he puts on his body.

Culver was a sophomore who lead his team to and through the tournament only to eventually get basically shut down on the biggest stage by the best role playing ceiling defender in the draft who got severely overrated to the point of ATL trading up for him.
Garland was definitiely the best prospect at 4 let alone 5 when it comes to shooting abilty, but overall this draft class came down to many other factors in decision process' such as ATL absolutely valuing defense because Young is a terrible defender.
I think Minnesota traded up for the wrong guy and should have taken Coby White who I think has better overall abilty offensively and only a small drop off in defense.
That being said I would have been fine with Culver for CLE, but like I said before the draft was higher on Sekou & didn't see us taking Garland if there because of Sexton
I don't think Hunter is overrated at all. I still wish he was there at No. 5.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
JonFromVA
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,201
And1: 1,637
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#27 » by JonFromVA » Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:10 am

jbk1234 wrote:
Stillwater wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
Meh, if the Cavs had taken Culver we'd all be talking about his potential as a shooter, and how he was taking steps to transition from a spot-up shooter to a off-the-dribble shooter. We'd write off his struggles in the NCAA championship game as inexperience and how lots of freshman struggle in the tourney. We'd talk up his fit on the team. etc. etc.

The issue here is that Darius Garland has the potential to be great at something the NBA highly values (long range, off the dribble shooting ala Curry/Lillard/Irving). It's not clear that Culver has a high-level skill like that. He may develop one, or his upside may just be that of a solid all-around player.

We're just going to have to see ... but it's what's made this draft pretty tricky. Lots of interesting prospects, but not much in the way of sure things. And the surest thing in the draft (Zion) may just be too big for the stress he puts on his body.

Culver was a sophomore who lead his team to and through the tournament only to eventually get basically shut down on the biggest stage by the best role playing ceiling defender in the draft who got severely overrated to the point of ATL trading up for him.
Garland was definitiely the best prospect at 4 let alone 5 when it comes to shooting abilty, but overall this draft class came down to many other factors in decision process' such as ATL absolutely valuing defense because Young is a terrible defender.
I think Minnesota traded up for the wrong guy and should have taken Coby White who I think has better overall abilty offensively and only a small drop off in defense.
That being said I would have been fine with Culver for CLE, but like I said before the draft was higher on Sekou & didn't see us taking Garland if there because of Sexton
I don't think Hunter is overrated at all. I still wish he was there at No. 5.


Hunter is a good prospect, but how much better of a prospect is he than oh for example Dylan Windler who as a Senior is only 14 months older because Hunter was red-shirted at UVA? Hunter went to a higher-level school with a much stronger schedule and has shown that he will likely be a very strong defender. He's got all that going for him, but offensively are they so different? And we might even give Windler the advantage in rebounding and passing.

NBADraft.net's appraisal of their skills is interesting. They rated Windler as a guard, and Hunter as a forward, so they didn't even rank them in all the same categories; but clearly the main difference between Hunter's 94 and Windler's 90 rating is Hunter's strength and defense.

Not saying those things aren't important, but we may be talking the difference between Trevor Ariza and Kyle Korver.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 36,735
And1: 21,104
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#28 » by jbk1234 » Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:20 am

JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
Stillwater wrote: Culver was a sophomore who lead his team to and through the tournament only to eventually get basically shut down on the biggest stage by the best role playing ceiling defender in the draft who got severely overrated to the point of ATL trading up for him.
Garland was definitiely the best prospect at 4 let alone 5 when it comes to shooting abilty, but overall this draft class came down to many other factors in decision process' such as ATL absolutely valuing defense because Young is a terrible defender.
I think Minnesota traded up for the wrong guy and should have taken Coby White who I think has better overall abilty offensively and only a small drop off in defense.
That being said I would have been fine with Culver for CLE, but like I said before the draft was higher on Sekou & didn't see us taking Garland if there because of Sexton
I don't think Hunter is overrated at all. I still wish he was there at No. 5.


Hunter is a good prospect, but how much better of a prospect is he than oh for example Dylan Windler who as a Senior is only 14 months older because Hunter was red-shirted at UVA? Hunter went to a higher-level school with a much stronger schedule and has shown that he will likely be a very strong defender. He's got all that going for him, but offensively are they so different? And we might even give Windler the advantage in rebounding and passing.

NBADraft.net's appraisal of their skills is interesting. They rated Windler as a guard, and Hunter as a forward, so they didn't even rank them in all the same categories; but clearly the main difference between Hunter's 94 and Windler's 90 rating is Hunter's strength and defense.

Not saying those things aren't important, but we may be talking the difference between Trevor Ariza and Kyle Korver.
Let's just say I'll be thrilled if Windler is 70% if the defender Hunter is in the NBA.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
Stillwater
General Manager
Posts: 9,984
And1: 2,548
Joined: Jun 15, 2017
   

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#29 » by Stillwater » Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:27 am

I would not have been happy with a high floor older prospect in the high lottery,but thats not a knock on Hunter who as is right now a top 3 defender from the draft and has elite role player written all over him... my biggest concern with him is he has ltd ability to handle the ball or initiate offense which was a high priority as evident in who they brought in.
water aint the mirror unless you steal it
2019 REALGM draft contest winner
JonFromVA
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,201
And1: 1,637
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#30 » by JonFromVA » Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:46 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:I don't think Hunter is overrated at all. I still wish he was there at No. 5.


Hunter is a good prospect, but how much better of a prospect is he than oh for example Dylan Windler who as a Senior is only 14 months older because Hunter was red-shirted at UVA? Hunter went to a higher-level school with a much stronger schedule and has shown that he will likely be a very strong defender. He's got all that going for him, but offensively are they so different? And we might even give Windler the advantage in rebounding and passing.

NBADraft.net's appraisal of their skills is interesting. They rated Windler as a guard, and Hunter as a forward, so they didn't even rank them in all the same categories; but clearly the main difference between Hunter's 94 and Windler's 90 rating is Hunter's strength and defense.

Not saying those things aren't important, but we may be talking the difference between Trevor Ariza and Kyle Korver.
Let's just say I'll be thrilled if Windler is 70% if the defender Hunter is in the NBA.


Oh, sure, all those things are part of why Windler went 24 and Hunter went 4; but Korver and Ariza were both 2nd round picks. There was some hope that Ariza would develop in to more than just a 3&D player, but he couldn't handle being "the man". Taken at #4, the expectations are going to be even higher for Hunter, but like Ariza, that may just be a step he's unable to take.

The trade-offs in this draft were pretty crazy, and I think the Cavs took a risky but correct approach with Garland and Porter Jr by trying to guess how their skills would translate if they had played more games/seasons in the NCAA like Morant, Hunter, Culver, etc, all did.

Taking a high-upside freshman is a good approach, the big question is whether they took the right ones given the draft was sprinkled with interesting frosh prospects most with fewer question marks like White, Reddish, Hayes, Little, Johnson, Herro, Langford, Bol, etc, and some young foreign prospects like Doumbaya and Samanic.
User avatar
Jamaaliver
Forum Mod - Hawks
Forum Mod - Hawks
Posts: 22,456
And1: 7,873
Joined: Sep 22, 2005
Location: Officially a citizen of the World...
Contact:
     

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#31 » by Jamaaliver » Fri Aug 2, 2019 2:39 pm

NBA Rookies Who Could Shock Us This Season

Darius Garland, Cleveland Cavaliers

Image

Four full games from Darius Garland at Vanderbilt were enough for the Cleveland Cavaliers to draft him fifth overall. And despite seeing limited action over the past year due to a knee injury, he's in position to surprise as one of the league's most productive rookies.

Sharing the ball with Collin Sexton, Garland won't match Ja Morant's numbers with the Memphis Grizzlies. But he is a dark horse to finish as the third-highest scorer in the class.

An advanced ball-handler and versatile shot-maker, Garland looks ready to create offense from the point or catch-and-shoot from the wing next to Sexton. He's distinguished for his off-the-dribble footwork and jumper. While efficiently finishing at the rim will be challenging, Garland should be ready to punish defenses with his pull-up, step-back and spot-up shooting.

His decision-making needs work, but he's also shifty and skilled enough to generate offense as a driver and passer off ball screens.

Expected to land in the 2020 lottery, the Cavaliers' front office will use the year to assess the development and projected value of their previous two lottery picks. Garland should receive plenty of touches and chances to play through mistakes, which will lead to a poor field-goal percentage, a weak assist-to-turnover ratio and some high-scoring outputs.
Bleacher Report
JonFromVA
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,201
And1: 1,637
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#32 » by JonFromVA » Fri Aug 2, 2019 3:50 pm

We'll see how Beilein decides to manage things, but in theory Garland and Sexton's minutes could be staggered so one of them is on the floor at all times. So, that could mean something like playing 16 minutes together and 16 minutes apart.

Sexton had the ball in his hands a lot last season, but didn't generate a lot of assists (just 3 per game). It would make sense to use him offensively like a SG, which means his ISO opportunities should come after they'd already run the offense for a while.

So perhaps Garland will get the touches he needs to generate a significant number of assists? That is ... if he can create, see the floor, and involve teammates significantly better than Collin as we anticipate.
User avatar
Jamaaliver
Forum Mod - Hawks
Forum Mod - Hawks
Posts: 22,456
And1: 7,873
Joined: Sep 22, 2005
Location: Officially a citizen of the World...
Contact:
     

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#33 » by Jamaaliver » Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:04 pm

The Rookie Curve: Can Darius Garland Make It Work Next to Collin Sexton?

For the Cavs’ backcourt of the future to work, one of the two lottery picks is probably going to need to change the way he plays

Image

The Cavaliers have a type in the backcourt. Both Darius Garland, the no. 5 pick in the 2019 draft, and Collin Sexton, the no. 8 pick in 2018, are undersized, score-first guards with shaky defensive chops. Both will undergo an adjustment process next season as they learn how to play next to another player with so many of the same strengths and weaknesses. And though Cleveland, still at the beginning of a long rebuild, doesn’t need them to click right away, it will need one of the two to diversify his game for the Cavs’ new backcourt of the future to work in the long run. The hope for the Cavs is that Garland can change his approach now that he is on a team with more talent.

Both Garland and Sexton are scorers at heart; their games are based on their ability to create shots off the dribble and threaten the defense from every part of the floor. Neither has great physical tools: Garland (6-foot-2 and 175 pounds) and Sexton (6-foot-2 and 190 pounds) have average size for an NBA point guard, and while Sexton is a better athlete than Garland, he doesn’t have elite quickness or leaping ability, either. The reason they are hard to stop is because they are tough shot-makers who are always looking for their own shot.

Spoiler:
The biggest difference between the two is the way they get their points. Sexton, 20, is an inside-out scorer, a slasher who gets to the rim and uses his jumper to punish defenders when they sag off him. Garland, 19, is more of an outside-in scorer; he’s an elite shooter with unlimited range whom defenses have to guard as soon as he crosses half court, which creates driving lanes for him to attack the rim. Garland took 42.6 percent of his field goal attempts from 3 in college, while Sexton took just 24.5 percent in the NBA.

Garland’s game fits the direction the point guard position is trending, especially after the success of Trae Young as a rookie. It’s easy to dream on a player like Garland when he shoots lights-out at a pre-draft workout. The question is his passing. He had an assist-to-turnover ratio of 0.87-to-1 at Vanderbilt, which is where the comparisons between Garland and Young fall apart.

Sexton was a poor passer in his one season at Alabama, averaging 3.6 assists and 2.8 turnovers per game, and that didn’t change at the next level. Sexton was no. 33 in assist rate (15.3 percent) among the 43 players 6-foot-3 and under in the NBA who qualified for the minutes leaderboard last season. The players below him were mostly shooting specialists like Bryn Forbes and defensive specialists like Avery Bradley. It’s unclear how much Sexton could even change his game if he tried. He scores by relentlessly attacking and taking advantage of even the narrowest crack in the defense. Taking a step back and playing a more deliberate style would take away from what he does well.

The most encouraging thing about the potential fit between Garland and Sexton is that the latter is already comfortable playing off the ball. He shot 40.2 percent from 3 on 3.6 attempts per game as a rookie, and was in the 91st percentile of players in catch-and-shoot situations. The defense won’t be able to leave him open when Garland has the ball. The key will be for either Garland or Sexton to improve as a passer.
The endgame for Cleveland may not be a Sexton and Garland backcourt. It’s possible that drafting Garland a year after Sexton was similar to what the Mavericks did when they took Luka Doncic a year after taking Dennis Smith Jr.: They selected the best available player without worrying about fit because they had already fallen out of love with their other young building block. The bigger concern for the Cavs is that they made the same mistake with Garland that they did with Sexton. A 6-foot-2 guard can take you only so far if he’s not a good passer.
The Ringer
Stillwater
General Manager
Posts: 9,984
And1: 2,548
Joined: Jun 15, 2017
   

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#34 » by Stillwater » Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:38 pm

^ The fact that review said Sexton does not have elite quickness completely negates anything else they said as being worthy of my attention. Just another opinion of a copy and paster
water aint the mirror unless you steal it
2019 REALGM draft contest winner
JonFromVA
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,201
And1: 1,637
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#35 » by JonFromVA » Sat Aug 31, 2019 6:58 am

Stillwater wrote:^ The fact that review said Sexton does not have elite quickness completely negates anything else they said as being worthy of my attention. Just another opinion of a copy and paster


If he's not elite he's super quick and either way its just lazy to imply Sexton and Garland are the same player.

They can compliment each other but it hinges on buy in and coaching ... two things we can only speculate about at this point.
Stillwater
General Manager
Posts: 9,984
And1: 2,548
Joined: Jun 15, 2017
   

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#36 » by Stillwater » Sat Aug 31, 2019 10:18 am

JonFromVA wrote:
Stillwater wrote:^ The fact that review said Sexton does not have elite quickness completely negates anything else they said as being worthy of my attention. Just another opinion of a copy and paster


If he's not elite he's super quick and either way its just lazy to imply Sexton and Garland are the same player.

They can compliment each other but it hinges on buy in and coaching ... two things we can only speculate about at this point.

Sexton is faster than 95% of all under 25 players...he doesnt have elite leaping ability yet but hes still not maxed out either.
like i said i dont pay attn to these naysayers
water aint the mirror unless you steal it
2019 REALGM draft contest winner

Return to Cleveland Cavaliers