Crittenton thread continued

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Vdunk, it's hard for me to believe that you saw Acie Law in EITHER game vs Texas, and didn't come away highly impressed with him. That guy is a big time floor leader. The type of guy that teams covet.

In the first game @ Texas A&M, he scores 21 points and dished out 15 assists . . with only 1 turnover. That's easily the best PG performance of the year in D-1 last season. He COMPLETELY controlled that game. He had 15 points in the 1st half, when A&M needed him to score and really put pressure on Texas to score, to keep up with the pace that A&M was setting.

( remember, this is a 1/2 court style team . . and they were KILLING Texas from the jump, because of the play of Law. )

In the 2nd half, he scored only when he needed to, and found people for easy looks the entire half. He had like 8 - 9 assists in the 2nd half alone. Ish . . he even had a mini-Willis Reed moment, when he got hurt in that game, but returned a little bit later. The crowd was chanting his name like he was some basketball god. It was EASILY the best college PG performance I'd seen all year.

*********

The 2nd game @ Texas, should be an instant ESPN Classic. Not only do you see the best of Durant and Augustin, you see EXACTLY why people compare Acie to Sam Cassell or a Chauncey Billups . . ( and not some guy like Luther Head ).

From the 3 minute mark, until the end of the 2OT, Law scored 19 of his 33 points. That included:

- A&M's last 9 points to end the half

- a 3 pointer over 6-9 Durant with a second to go, to send the game into OT. An absolute incredible shot that even Law called "lucky".

- Another 3 pointer in the 1st OT, that eventually sent the game to double OT. A shot in which the entire team knew that he was going to get the ball, and he still made the shot from 21 - 22 feet out.

- And he would've sent the game into triple OT, if his lay-up didn't get blocked with about 10 seconds to go.

That entire game was incredible, because it truly illustrated what the hype was all about surrounding Durant. But Law did everything in his power to get his team the win, and really put him in the national spotlight as well.

********

Here's what should scare the H-E-L-L out of people about Javaris. We all know that he has turnover problems. And it's been documented by me that he's had 11 games in which he's commited 5 or more turnovers.

Well how about another stat concerning Javaris and his turnovers:

He had 13 games in which his number of turnovers either equaled or surpassed the number of assists.

Usually, you'll see those types of numbers in guys who play the 2, not guys who play the point.

If he stays in school, Javaris probably has a good chance to be a top 10 pick next year, and a top 5 pick in 2 years. The kid obviously has skills. He just needs to develop the mental part of his game. And the only way he can do that, is to keep playing on the college level.

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I wasn't saying that at all, Crittenton is my #1 PG in the draft, I've said this numerous times. Law is a close 2nd though.. I also think Crittenton will contribute much sooner than people expect.

I just think it's unfair how everyone is claiming Law a finished product.

---

...just not a very good one IMO. He's not better IMO than AJ, Lue, or Speedy. I think we have to aim higher.

W

---

We have completely different opinions on Law. As much as Law improved from last year to this year, how could he be close to being a finished product? Improving your game has nothing to do with age unless you are an athletic freak that doesn't completely understand the game yet.

Improving your game involves how hard you work to get better, and how much you practice working on things you need to improve upon..

Law took a team that hadn't been ranked in YEARS, and turned them into a top 10 team all season long. Can you even name another player on that team? He improved his shooting percentages TREMENDOUSLY, despite being the #1 focus of the defense every game. I don't know how many games you saw of him, but Law is a true leader, something this team DESPERATELY needs.

I rate him over Conley because he can actually shoot, he's bigger, and he can also run a team very well (although it isn't evidenced in his assists because of the talent around him). Making a good pass inside doesn't count as an assist if the player doesn't finish or gets fouled. These are the types of things that get overlooked in the box score.

[vdunkndunk]

I probably haven't seen Law enough to have a really solid opinion of him (for instance, I didn't see that monster game with 15 assists and 1 turnover, which would have been very impressive).

But I saw a lot of Critt and, while right now he definitely has his weaknesses, he did a lot of stuff that blew my mind. He has a ton of talent, and not just physical talent (but that's part of it). I just think he's going to be a very good player down the road.

And I don't buy the argument at all that how much you improve has nothing to do with age. In fact, I disagree so much that I have to believe it's a bit of hyperbole...I mean, isn't it basically a fact that most seniors are better than they were when they were freshman? Isn't it a fact that most NBA players are better after they've been in the league for a while than when they were rookies? Yes, it's not just age, it's also work ethic...but you have to have time to apply your work ethic, and if you're 18 you really haven't had a lot of time.

So I think it's a little bit naive to try and ignore the difference experience difference between a freshman and a senior and act like they should be judged by the exact same standard. Law averaged 7 ppg as a freshman and 18 ppg as a senior...and age and experience have just as much to do with that as hard work.

In other words, there's no reason to believe that Critt wouldn't improve significantly over the next few years. Does that mean he will certainly be better than Law? No. But I think that, given the fact that he's a far better athetle, it's not unlikely that he will eventually become a better player.

It's not that I don't like Law. It's just that, theoretically, I believe Critt is the better longerm pro prospect, and I don't believe Law is going to be good enough to be worth sacrificing a better longterm player for a quick fix that really want get us all that far.

I may be wrong about Law though. Some of the stuff he's done is very impressive, and I guess I haven't seen his best games since I didn't see any of the great one's mentioned above, plus the last image I have is of Law blowing a layup with the game on the line, when I'd heard all season long about how clutch his was. I could be letting that last image influence me too much...but I'm also basing a lot on the fact that, according to Draftexpress and Chad Ford, Law is only supposed to be an average athlete and still has combo guard tendencies. I'm just not sure that that's what we need.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And as far as upside and all that jazz...I'll take a 6'5" true PG over a 6'0" PG or a 6'3" combo guard any day.

---

Just lost my reply, suffice to say it said that there are a lot of other factors besides physical assets that go into making a PG. Isiah Thomas and John Stockton (for example) were 6'1'' points who were better than any 6'5'' true PGs in NBA history (unless you count Oscar as a true point and not a combo guard).

---

Yeah, there are a lot of other factors besides physical assets that go into making a PG. I accept that as a general statement. But what do John Stockton and Isaiah Thomas have to do with Acie Law?

---

Were you arguing that Law was a 6'0'' pure PG? I was responding to the statement that someone would take a 6'5'' PG (who always played PG) over a 6'0'' pure PG or a 6'3'' combo guard. I assumed you considered Law a combo guard. I was just pointing out historically that the very best PGs have not been 6'5'' and that many of the truly elite PGs have been barely more than 6'0''. Height is not my primary criteria for a PG.

[coachx]

Since when is Chad Ford an expert? The guy is joke 90% of the time. This is the same guy that labled Smoove to be the bust of his draft on draft night.

Who was the #1 PG entering the 2006/2007 college season ???

Give up?

It was Dominc James of Marquette.

He has outstanding athletic ability but was a turnover machine and every one expected him to finally just magically get it in his sophmore year and be a true PG. That never happened. He will probably return for his junior season b/c as of now there is no way he would go in the 1st round. Dominc James regressed his sophmore season.

Just forcasting Crittendon will get better b/c he is so young is dangerous, especially if you hand him millions of $$$ based on one year of sloppy play in college. There is no absolute truth that players automaticlly get better in their sophmore season or with age. Just ask players who stocks slid dramatically from last year: Dominic James, Glenn Davis, Noah, etc.

If a guy (Crittendon) had at least 5 turnovers in 1/3 of his games at the college level, how does that make him ready to be an NBA PG ? To me it does answer why Tech was an inconsistent and at best average team while on paper you saw their potential that never equaled production.

I just don't get it.

I don't care how tall or how fast you are, a PGs #1 responsibility is to take care of the ball and protect their teams most important assets, possession of the basketball.

This might be too overwhelming too learn at the NBA level. That is what college is for ! The kid's confidence could be shattered and his potential never realized.

The poise and control Law has displayed numerous times show he is an NBA ready PG who can handle pressure without fading in the clutch. (15 assist to 1 turnover vs, Texas)

Conley has also displayed poise and control in big games though he is not the guy he can bail you out him self by scoring too.

Poise & Control are very, very important at the PG position. The whole team feeds off the poise of their floor general. We know Law and Conley have this. Hence, there teams were winnners. There is little doubt why the majority of people have them as the top 2 Pgs.

If Tech has Acie Law last year they would have easily been the 2nd best team in the ACC. With Law on your team he will dictate pace to be sure his team has a chance to beat anybody at the end of the game no matter if the other team has more fire power. This was proven with his teams body of work vs. teams with superior talent. Law's teams were never blown out. Every game they played was fought to the very end. Law is that kind of player, a true leader and warrior. The type of PG a teams gets its personality, leadership, and desire from. The kind a player who won't let his teamates quit. JJ is a silent leader. Law would be the true leader this young Hawks teams has been searching for.

This are things not seen in box scores. These are things you seen when you watched Law and A & M. I don't see these things when I watch GT or Crittendon.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Were you arguing that Law was a 6'0'' pure PG? I was responding to the statement that someone would take a 6'5'' PG (who always played PG) over a 6'0'' pure PG or a 6'3'' combo guard. I assumed you considered Law a combo guard. I was just pointing out historically that the very best PGs have not been 6'5'' and that many of the truly elite PGs have been barely more than 6'0''. Height is not my primary criteria for a PG.

---

Realize AHF, there are almost NO 6'5" Pg prospects, much less with NBA talent to begin with.

If I have 100 small apples and 1 large one, what are the odds of the large apple tasting the best? There are so few large Pgs that can even remotely be considered. I don't consider the fact that Magic Johnson leads a short list bad at all. It was a short list of candidates to begin with.

You don't have to want the tall Pg, but don't use this "evidence" as any sort of rationale to not want one. More importantly, watching Crittenton you MUST be able to see the vast NBA Pg potential. He can really be a good one aside from his height, but it's his height that does make him special. I'm not sure Conley or especially Law can be special.

W

[DJlaysitup]

And as far as upside and all that jazz...I'll take a 6'5" true PG over a 6'0" PG or a 6'3" combo guard any day.

---

Just lost my reply, suffice to say it said that there are a lot of other factors besides physical assets that go into making a PG. Isiah Thomas and John Stockton (for example) were 6'1'' points who were better than any 6'5'' true PGs in NBA history (unless you count Oscar as a true point and not a combo guard).

---

....

---

Well let's remember...the best PG who ever played the game...and the best player ever... (tough for me to admit because I'm a Bird fan)..is Earvin "Magic" Johnson.

A 6'9" PG out of Michigan State.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Were you arguing that Law was a 6'0'' pure PG? I was responding to the statement that someone would take a 6'5'' PG (who always played PG) over a 6'0'' pure PG or a 6'3'' combo guard. I assumed you considered Law a combo guard. I was just pointing out historically that the very best PGs have not been 6'5'' and that many of the truly elite PGs have been barely more than 6'0''. Height is not my primary criteria for a PG.

---

Realize AHF, there are almost NO 6'5" Pg prospects, much less with NBA talent to begin with.

If I have 100 small apples and 1 large one, what are the odds of the large apple tasting the best? There are so few large Pgs that can even remotely be considered. I don't consider the fact that Magic Johnson leads a short list bad at all. It was a short list of candidates to begin with.

You don't have to want the tall Pg, but don't use this "evidence" as any sort of rationale to not want one. More importantly, watching Crittenton you MUST be able to see the vast NBA Pg potential. He can really be a good one aside from his height, but it's his height that does make him special. I'm not sure Conley or especially Law can be special.

W

---

????

Where are you getting the idea that I somehow "don't want" a 6'5'' point guard from?

I said that height isn't the main consideration for a point guard and that would not be a starting point for me in weeding out candidates or ranking them.

Height would be several steps down the list well behind things like playmaking ability and basketball IQ.

I am happy to take a 6'5'' point guard if he can effectively run an offense, make the smart play consistently, play D, etc.

I just pointed out that there is no historical basis for wanting a 6'5'' point guard over a 6'1'' or 6'2'' point guard.

The skills and what is between the ears matter much more for a point guard than the height.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

I just pointed out that there is no historical basis for wanting a 6'5'' point guard over a 6'1'' or 6'2'' point guard.

The skills and what is between the ears matter much more for a point guard than the height.

---

And I'm pointing out that these are flawed statistics given just how few the number of 6'5" or taller Pgs there have been relative to 6'2" or shorter Pgs. The fewer possibilities, the fewer realities.

W

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I just pointed out that there is no historical basis for wanting a 6'5'' point guard over a 6'1'' or 6'2'' point guard.

The skills and what is between the ears matter much more for a point guard than the height.

---

And I'm pointing out that these are flawed statistics given just how few the number of 6'5" or taller Pgs there have been relative to 6'2" or shorter Pgs. The fewer possibilities, the fewer realities.

W

---

I pointed to the absence of evidence that 6'5'' points are better than shorter points.

What is the flaw in that analysis?

Where is the support that height is more important than basketball IQ for point guards?

I understand you are saying the sample size is small but there are a LOT of 6'5'' basketball players out there. That is not a height that is a rarity in the NBA. Not many of them have made for good point guards, though. Plenty of numbers on that to at least make the observation about total lack of statistical support for using 6'5'' height as an indicator of high upside PG play. I would posit that this has a lot to do with these players not being able to stay with smaller quicker points and the consequences this has in terms of being able to control the pace of the game and effectively penetrate against quicker guards.

(Again, this doesn't mean that I would not be willing to support Crittenon - but that would depend more on his mental ability and understanding of the game than on his height or the height of any other PG candidates.)

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

I pointed to the absence of evidence that 6'5'' points are better than shorter points.

What is the flaw in that analysis?

---

Again, 100 small apples and 1 large apple. What are the odds that the 1 large apple tastes better than all the 100 small ones? Even if big apples generally taste better the odds are slim because the large apple has to taste better than ONE HUNDRED small apples.

For every 6'5" true Pg prospect (and that's what Crittenton (or Livingston) is IMO, there are 50, 6'2" and shorter true Pg prospects. The flaw is stating that any dearth of QUALITY tall true-Pgs is more about them being somehow inadequate than there being...a dearth of tall, true-Pgs to begin with.

Quote:

---

I understand you are saying the sample size is small but there are a LOT of 6'5'' basketball players out there.

---

And Charles Barkley was a 6'5" Pf, but we're not talking about height solely. I may be assuming something within my analysis. After watching Crittenton I see him as a true Pg, not a combo guard. Yes, he can score, but ex was right, he's always looking up with the ball. He's always seeking the pass or play IMO. He's not there yet in terms of consistency but the guy is a true Pg in my estimation. That may or may not be the "basketball IQ" you are thinking of, meaning when I say "true Pg" I may be accepting he has the basketball IQ whereas you do not yet.

Regardless, there haven't been and aren't alot of 6'5" true Pgs to come into the NBA to begin with. I-F Critentton is one as I believe he shouldn't be ill considered because of the 6'5" combo guards or Sgs that came before him.

BTW, isn't Nash 6'5"? I'll take Magic, Nash, or Livingston even out of this.

W

[TexasPete]

Nash is 6'1...

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I pointed to the absence of evidence that 6'5'' points are better than shorter points.

What is the flaw in that analysis?

---

Again, 100 small apples and 1 large apple. What are the odds that the 1 large apple tastes better than all the 100 small ones? Even if big apples generally taste better the odds are slim because the large apple has to taste better than ONE HUNDRED small apples.

For every 6'5" true Pg prospect (and that's what Crittenton (or Livingston) is IMO, there are 50, 6'2" and shorter true Pg prospects. The flaw is stating that any dearth of QUALITY tall true-Pgs is more about them being somehow inadequate than there being...a dearth of tall, true-Pgs to begin with.

Quote:

---

I understand you are saying the sample size is small but there are a LOT of 6'5'' basketball players out there.

---

And Charles Barkley was a 6'5" Pf, but we're not talking about height solely. I may be assuming something within my analysis. After watching Crittenton I see him as a true Pg, not a combo guard. Yes, he can score, but ex was right, he's always looking up with the ball. He's always seeking the pass or play IMO. He's not there yet in terms of consistency but the guy is a true Pg in my estimation. That may or may not be the "basketball IQ" you are thinking of, meaning when I say "true Pg" I may be accepting he has the basketball IQ whereas you do not yet.

Regardless, there haven't been and aren't alot of 6'5" true Pgs to come into the NBA to begin with. I-F Critentton is one as I believe he shouldn't be ill considered because of the 6'5" combo guards or Sgs that came before him.

BTW, isn't Nash 6'5"? I'll take Magic, Nash, or Livingston even out of this.

W

---

I'll ask again. Where are you getting the idea that I think Crittenon should be "ill considered" because of the guards who came before him?

I pointed out a lack of evidence of the superiority of 6'5'' point guards. I did not originally make any kind argument that 6'5'' point guards are less likely to succeed in the NBA or that they are ill disposed to play the PG position. Your apple analogy would be applicable if I was arguing that 6'5'' players can't play point guard or that the history of the NBA shows they can't play point guard. When I am arguing the reverse - that there is not enough evidence of 6'5'' points being more successful to justify using height as a primary criteria in evaluating point guards - it is not applicable.

I did make an argument that feel and understanding for the game is more important than height or straight physical characteristics in many cases for point guards (such as non-elite athletes like All-Star point guards Stockton, Price, Jackson, Nash, etc.). In doing so I was not arguing that 6'5'' point guards are doomed to failure or should be "ill considered." I simply argued that height should not be among the first factors used to analyze point guards.

I feel like you arguing with a straw man a bit on this one by coming back to the statement that think larger points should be "ill considered" when evaluating PG prospects. I would much rather have a 6'5'' point guard who can run an offense and make smart decisions than I would a 6'1'' blur of point guard who doesn't understand the game or a 6'8'' ultra-athletic dynamo who can dunk from the free throw line and drain the three but who turns the ball over constantly and fails to put his teammates in position to succeed.

If Critt has the skills we need and can effectively run an NBA offense now or in the near future then I have no problem at all with him as a prospect because of his height. I already would have him as an essential prospect for the team to heavily scout and work out prior to the draft.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Nash is 6'1...

---

He is listed at 6'3", 190. He is at least 6'2", certainly he is bigger than JT.

There are a lot of bigger than average pgs (Hinrich, Billups, Kidd, Baron, Deron) still playing which i think is interesting.

[Swatguy]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Nash is 6'1...

---

He is listed at 6'3", 190. He is at least 6'2", certainly he is bigger than JT.

There are a lot of bigger than average pgs (Hinrich, Billups, Kidd, Baron, Deron) still playing which i think is interesting.

---

I look at Nash Eye-to-Eye. I'm 6'3". I look forward to the workouts. I hope Acie and Conley Jr. excell in the workouts. I hope also that Javaris be available at 11 (or where we select).

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Nash is 6'1...

---

He is listed at 6'3", 190. He is at least 6'2", certainly he is bigger than JT.

There are a lot of bigger than average pgs (Hinrich, Billups, Kidd, Baron, Deron) still playing which i think is interesting.

---

I look at Nash Eye-to-Eye. I'm 6'3". I look forward to the workouts. I hope Acie and Conley Jr. excell in the workouts. I hope also that Javaris be available at 11 (or where we select).

---

It is almost a lock that at least one of the 3 will be available at 11.

[hawkman]

Indeed. One of the three WILL be there at #11. The question is whether or not we will actually pick a PG in this draft. I sincerely hope that we do. I know we need to. But I thought the same thing two seasons ago and ended up extremely disappointed.