The Box Office wrote:chefo wrote:The Box Office wrote:Yes. You and me are in the minority about Tyrese Haliburton. I made in depth post about him in another thread.
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1987725&start=60He's our guy at number 4. His advanced metrics are really good. He's efficient as hell. He's currently the 2nd best prospect (people will disagree, but I don't give a crap).
He's probably the true number one pick. A kid who might be able to get John Stockton numbers. I can tell that LaMelo and Killian Hayes doesn't have the IQ and skills to do what Haliburton does.
And yes, if he score off the dribble and drew a lot of fouls then he's the number one pick, no question.
Haliburton just screams George Hill to me
LOL. George Hill?
It's obvious you didn't watch George Hill AND scout Haliburton. Hali plays nothing like George Hill. Again, where did you get this lazy scouting?
- George Hill can't do no look passes, hockey passes, and pass fakes.
- George Hill was a decent shooter, but he was never good enough to become a threat.
- George Hill didn't have the ability to run fast breaks.
- George Hill wasn't a true point guard.
- George Hill never looked up to do full court passes.
- George Hill wasn't a Top 10 prospect for his draft.
Haliburton is the complete opposite of George Hill. The kid can do all of the above right now.
OK, since you asked, here you go:
1.) On watching George Hill--I've actually watched quite a bit of him. Both when on the Spurs and when in Indy. and I've watched him play deep in the NBA playoffs against the best players in the NBA, not just against college kids.
2.) On George Hill never becoming a 'good enough' shooter to be a threat: Are you for real with this one? I mean, seriously? A small guard who shot 46% for his career, and 38.5% from 3, including a bunch of seasons over 40%? If that's your definition of not good enough, I don't know what your expectations for Haliburton is--GOAT shooter? I don't even know what kind of shooter he'll be in the NBA until he actually fixes that funky, low-release shot of his.
3.) On George Hill not being a good passer? Again, seriously? That's a guy who averaged 4-5 assists in his prime, usually with a 3:1 A/TO ratio in the NBA, not as a soph in the Big 12. That's a guy that had to share the ball with ball-dominant players like Tony and Manu in SA and Paul George and Lance in Indy. That's like saying MJ and Scottie were not good passers just because they averaged 5-6 assists when playing in the triangle. Just non-sense.
4.) George Hill did not run fast breaks--ok, at this point these arguments are just laughable.
5.) Yeah, Hill wasn't a true 'point guard', so what? He was definitely quite competent when he was asked to play the position full-time. And his teams did well with him doing it. The cyclones were what, 12-19 this year, with Haliburton running the show? A 'top' pick that couldn't even will his team to a mediocre record, let alone a good one? When was the last time he willed his team to victory by just taking over a game? Preferably against a good opponent? These 5/6 point outings against Kansas and Baylor where his team got spanked are not very awe-inspiring. What was his best game against a quality, ranked opponent? We're talking about a top pick in the NBA draft here, not at a pick-up game at the Y. He needs to be able to dominate his peers at the college level to be worthy of that kind of expectations.
6.) Again, about long passes, I'd be cautious with the use of the word 'never', especially about something that a high-school hooper can do competently.
7.) George Hill wasn't a top 10 prospect--in a normal draft, neither would Haliburton; so again, what's your point?
As for why I think Haliburton reminds me of George Hill--go read my entire original post. No point in repeating the whole thing here. My point is that he'll probably have to play Hill's role in the NBA to have a career in the league. And, just to reiterate, being a George Hill, a guy who's been a winner everywhere he's played, and has positively contributed efficient, good hoops, is not a knock on anybody. That's the good outcome in my opinion--a quality starter. The bad outcome is a bum, a 12th man off the bench for his rookie contract.
In the meanwhile, I'll wait for your argument how a kid that doesn't have the quickness, strength or speed to beat other kids off the dribble in college will do so in the NBA. Maybe you'll convince me somehow. Here's another comparison for you--he's shorter Sato, with just as slow, and lower, release on his jumper and similar passing ability.
He may end up being a really good player--but that would require for him to overcome his already exhibited physical limitations in terms of quickness AND re-working his jumper. That's a tall mountain to climb. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but low odds.
