If he doesn’t develop the distributing aspect of his game, Mo Williams seems like an apt comp. he’s going to score off his jumper. It’s everything else. Needs a Mo float
Mo never had the handles Garland has.
If he doesn’t develop the distributing aspect of his game, Mo Williams seems like an apt comp. he’s going to score off his jumper. It’s everything else. Needs a Mo float
Are they?
We're calling Sexton a poor defender because of what he did as a 19/20 year old? Ultimately the jury is still out on defense. Let's also remember that the Cavs didn't really coach or focus on D - hadn't since Lue was HC. D'Aaron Fox was pretty terrible in year one and became better than average in year two. I don't expect that with Sexton, but let's see if he grows. Sexton probably has a 6'7"+ wingspan right now. Sexton's height has always been smaller, but his length measurements are very good. Those measurements indicate that he may be able to guard the 2 - and he measured 6'7.25 last year. I'd be interested if his wingspan has increased - I'm guessing it has.
Garland is smaller than Sexton on the length comparison. Garland is a year younger, so still could grow.
Let's see where it all goes. I have a feeling they think Sexton could roll into the 2 - and they may experiment with that. Let's also see what the new coaching staff does. Does Colin grow on defense? We know he works hard and I guarantee you that he hates being ranked near the bottom at anything, including D.
As for Sexton, his length is not all that far off those that play the 2 despite his height. His wingspan is greater than CJ McCollum's and while McCollum is not a good defender he is okay (better than Klay Thompson for Defensive RPM).
It's not reasonable to hope for Sexton to be a star on defense, but I think he can be average on D even at the 2 with work. Many of his problems last year had to do with bad reads - but he's a smart guy. I think as he gains experience, his reads will get better.
Garland is another hard worker with a lot of upside - his upside goes all the way up to a Lillard type.
We'll have to see how the coaches develop everyone on both sides of the ball. The Cavs took some intriguing players.
Better prospect, Trae or Garland?
Watching garland highlights on youtube. Man, he has a natural talent. Effortless jumpshot and handles. I just hope he has the drive and work ethic of sexton. Would love to see their practices. Im sure sexton wont give an inch to this guy. Is this kyrie-waiters part 2?
Not even close, it is Trae IMO. Trae was a top 5 PG prospect all time in all the stuff I look at, behind only Lillard, Irving, Ball and Curry.
Elite facilitating cannot be learned. Trae was also just an awesome FT generator as a smaller player (0.442 FTA per FGA.......and 12.6 FTA per 100).....the per 100 rate was on par with guys like Kyrie, Kemba, Steph, Lillard. Trae also scored more efficiently than Garland.
Garland played so few games, it's such a crapshoot.....I'm just underwhelmed by his physical gifts and style of play. Any player type can succeed but scoring guards with his size, build, lack of vertical athleticism....coupled with non facilitating skills just are lower success outcomes. Any player can buck any trend but I still have trouble with it given his skillset and how poorly all our guards fit together.
Strange that you say Trae was your fifth best PG prospect all time based on the stuff you look at. Placing him behind Lillard, Irving, and Curry. Then mention that Elite Facilitating cannot be learned and 3 of the guys better then Trae are 2nd rate facilitators at best. Not saying your wrong or right here. Just think its odd you mention Facilitating after saying 3 of your top 5 PG prospects ever are guys that have never been known for being elite passers or facilitators.
Sure but they were miles better than Garland.
Per 100 AST:
Young - 12.9
Ball - 11.7
Curry - 9.1
Irving - 8.8
Lillard - 6.9
Garland - 5.4
AST/TO ratio:
Young - 1.6
Ball - 3.1
Curry - 2.1
Irving - 1.7
Lillard - 1.7
Garland - 1.2
Limited data on Garland but those were the concerns from HS too. And numbers pull down as players go up levels......so think about if you are calling those other guys non facilitators......and think about how much better their AST generation and AST/TO ratios are as prospects.
The reason I mentioned it is there's not many examples of someone being of Garland's physical and playing profile, with poor passing metrics, who was a really good NBA player. That's not to say Garland can't be, it's just less likely.
In this case I think the small sample size had something to do with it. He played 4 and a half games. No telling if he would have increased his passing as the season went along. Also don't know if some of his passes led to bricks by teammates. Irving in particular played with a rather stocked Duke team in his limited number of games. Garland was playing with 3rd tier players at Vanderbilt. I am not calling Garland a good passer. But he was also 18 in the 5 games he played where as Trae was 19 during his time at Oklahoma, Ball was also 19 at UCLA, Curry and Lillard spent 4 years in college. Would be interesting to compare their freshmen numbers. Irving again just had more talent around him. But coming out Curry and Lillard were not even thought to have high upside as facilitators. Garland has shown flashes in HS/HS All Star Games/AAU/Vanderbilt he made some nice passes. Just gotta give the kid time to develop that aspect of his game.