I have seen a lot of people say that Haliburton is not a playmaker. I am a little confused about this. People compare him to Lonzon and say, "he's not a playmaker either". Lonzo is 15th in the NBA behind Jokic.
Can someone explain to me how a guy averaging 6.6 assists in college, who plays as the lead guard isn't a playmaker on winning team? When I watch his tape, he looks like one of the best decision makers I have ever seen at the college level. Like he knows exactly whether to pass or shoot. He moves the defense with head fakes, shot fakes, pass fakes, is great at no look passes, and he has eyes in the back of his head while being large enough to pass over the defense to hit guys in the corner.
He is the THE most efficient guard in decades and while not a Lonzo Ball style maestro, he seems like he has such a feel for the game. What am I missing here? Why do people say he would be a secondary playmaker? He seems to have the best feel in the draft, and I am trying to think of a guy with that elite feel that hasn't been a great success. If he was 6' I might understand, but he has length and height and long strides.
I would be all in for Haliburton if we didn't have Garland and it has made me go back and re-evaluate him, and I think he has star potential. I think people are worried about his slow release, and his athleticism. He has a high shot, which i think will help, and his athleticism is actually pretty good. Long strides in a Shai sort of way, and while he doesn't beat his man without a screen with a first step, he can get 2 defenders to commit with his in out dribble and then hit the open man. He seems to get where he wants to go with his lateral dribble instead of quickness.
Can someone help me? I am just not getting it. This is like when people were saying Porter Jr wasn't special last year and it didn't fit with the tape I was seeing.