Crittenton thread continued

[exodus]

As a junior Law shot 45% from the field and 33% from 3, very similar to what Crit did as a freshman.

[thesheedera]

I just think being the youngest team in the NBA means that we're already at least 2 years away from being a contender. Get the best guy you can get and let him grow up alongside the other guys on the multi-year development plan.

We're so far away from being respectable it's ridiculous!!! We're not in a "win now" mode, we're in a long term development mode.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

I certainly see your point, but personally, I'd rather wait on the "something special" than take a guy who can immediately help to get us to 36-40 wins but not much further.

---

Same thinking had us take Marvin over Deron and Paul.

[vdunkndunk]

Quote:

---

Crittendon:

FG%= 45% 3pt FG%= 35%

Law:

FG%= 50% 3pt FG%= 46%

Shooting is a pretty important part of the game. Can't forget about this.

With these stats I don't see how any scout can claim Crittendon is a better shooter then Law.

Crittendon may be the better athlete but there is no question who the better shooter is or who's game is more polished.

---

Don't forget that Javaris was a Freshman in the ACC and Law was a Senior in the Big 12. Here's a look at JC as a Freshman and Law as a Junior:

Javaris: 14.4 ppg, 5.8 apg, .450 fgp, .356 3fg, .783 ftp

Law....: 16.1 ppg, 4.0 apg, .448 fgp, .330 3fg, .778 ftp

So basically, as a freshman Crittenton got more assists, shot better from the field, shot better from 3, and shot better from the line than Law did as a junior. It stands to reason, then, that Crittenon would far surpass what Law did 3 years from now, even if he hardly improves at all. I mean, Law averaged 7 ppg as a freshman and wasn't even on the NBA radar back then.

[TexasPete]

I would take JC over Law because they aren't far apart now and JC is 3 years younger. He is a big PG who is athletic and is a true distributor. He will be an ALL Star within a few years. The NBA game will suit him better than college. We also have 3 other PG's to pick up the slack while he learns, which won't take long. He may not be around when we pick anyway.

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Crittendon:

FG%= 45% 3pt FG%= 35%

Law:

FG%= 50% 3pt FG%= 46%

Shooting is a pretty important part of the game. Can't forget about this.

With these stats I don't see how any scout can claim Crittendon is a better shooter then Law.

Crittendon may be the better athlete but there is no question who the better shooter is or who's game is more polished.

---

Don't forget that Javaris was a Freshman in the ACC and Law was a Senior in the Big 12. Here's a look at JC as a Freshman and Law as a Junior:

Javaris: 14.4 ppg, 5.8 apg, .450 fgp, .356 3fg, .783 ftp

Law....: 16.1 ppg, 4.0 apg, .448 fgp, .330 3fg, .778 ftp

So basically, as a freshman Crittenton got more assists, shot better from the field, shot better from 3, and shot better from the line than Law did as a junior. It stands to reason, then, that Crittenon would far surpass what Law did 3 years from now, even if he hardly improves at all. I mean, Law averaged 7 ppg as a freshman and wasn't even on the NBA radar back then.

---

Although I'm a huge Crit fan, that stat is skewed. Law improved tremendously, it doesn't matter that he wasn't great until this year. He single handedly raised ALL his percentages, points, and at the same time MADE A&M a top 10 team, who had previously not even been ranked. This is all while he was the main focus of the defense.

I'd still rather have Crittenton, I'm just saying..

For comparisons sake, as a junior Deron Williams only averaged 12 and 6.8, while shooting just 43% FG and 36% from 3. He was also only a 68% FT shooter.

[Diesel]

I love it when People compare previous years stats as if what they do currently doesn't matter!!

The bottom line is this.

Either Jarvis will get better or he want. What he can do means nothing. Just because his numbers are similar to Law's numbers as a Junior doesn't mean that :

1. Critt will be as good as Law.

2. Law's current numbers are expendable.

[vdunkndunk]

Quote:

---

I love it when People compare previous years stats as if what they do currently doesn't matter!!

The bottom line is this.

Either Jarvis will get better or he wont. What he can do means nothing. Just because his numbers are similar to Law's numbers as a Junior doesn't mean that :

1. Critt will be as good as Law.

2. Law's current numbers are expendable.

---

To me the bottom line is this: Critt is bigger, more athletic, gets more assists, and has better pure PG skills than Law.

He's also 3 years younger and he's putting up stats RIGHT NOW that rival what Law did as a senior and surpass everything else that Law did as a freshman, sophomore or junior in a weaker league.

So that's why I think Critt is the better pick for the future, and that's why I'm not necessarily convinced that Law will even be better next season.

Yeah...we've gone for upside before and missed with Marvin. But we've also gone for polish before and missed with Shelden.

In this case, though, you've got a guy with more upside who also put up equal or better production in a better league. That means, to me, Critt should be the guy over Law.

[Diesel]

Are you talking about right now or are you talking about Law's Junior year??

YOu see, that's the problem vDunk.

What Critt will be hasn't happened yet.

It's easy to say that somebody was better than Somebody else years ago.

Marvin had a better rookie year at UNC than Jordan. Does that mean that Marvin will be as good as Jordan??

HELL NO.

That's not a good way to prognosticate a player's future.

The one thing you can say about Critt with respect to Law is that He's bigger... And that's it.

Get the homerism off of you for a moment.

Critt put up good freshman numbers, but SO did Felipe Lopez, James Forrest, and a bunch of other guys who never made it anywhere. WHat's required is abreakout year where he reaches that point...

The point is that point where you can definitely say he's better than Law. Right now, all he has is potential. If nobody ever pushes or causes the boulder to go over the cliff, guess what.. The potential will mean very little.

[vdunkndunk]

I'm saying that, based on last season, their numbers were very similar. And other than their numbers, Critt has every possible advantage over Law in terms of what you look for in an NBA prospect...height, quickness, athleticism, ballhandling, passing, and the ability to penetrate, score, or create when the shotclock is winding down.

True...Law, for one out of four seasons, was a better shooter than Critt. But not by a significant margin, and shooting is the one thing that you can usually count on to improve over time. Especially since Critt has shown that he can shoot...nearly 80% from the line and over 35% from 3 as a freshmen gives you every reason to believe that he's got the ability to develop into a threat from outside.

My question for you is this: Outside of Law's numbers, what makes you think he's a great NBA prospect? True...Law's numbers are slightly better than Critt's THIS SEASON, but even this year Critt had more assists, more steals, and more rebounds than Law.

But numbers aren't everything. Height DOES matter. Athleticism DOES matter. Quickness DOES matter. Ballhandling DOES matter. And Critt is better in all these categories. Law has a good scoring feel, but so does Critt.

Critt may or may not improve, as Diesel has pointed out...but I think it's far more likely that Critt will improve than it is that Law will get any taller or more athletic. It's not like it's unreasoable to expect improvement from Critt....he was already twice as good in the second half of the season as he was in the first half.

So I just don't see what makes Law a better prospect. MAYBE Law will be better next season...maybe. But within 3 years I expect Critt to be the better player. (And by the way, I'm not a homer about Critt. Just look at where I live...Athens, GA. Not exactly the place where you'd expect to find a Tech fan.)

[coachx]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I love it when People compare previous years stats as if what they do currently doesn't matter!!

The bottom line is this.

Either Jarvis will get better or he wont. What he can do means nothing. Just because his numbers are similar to Law's numbers as a Junior doesn't mean that :

1. Critt will be as good as Law.

2. Law's current numbers are expendable.

---

To me the bottom line is this: Critt is bigger, more athletic, gets more assists, and has better pure PG skills than Law.

He's also 3 years younger and he's putting up stats RIGHT NOW that rival what Law did as a senior and surpass everything else that Law did as a freshman, sophomore or junior in a weaker league.

So that's why I think Critt is the better pick for the future, and that's why I'm not necessarily convinced that Law will even be better next season.

Yeah...we've gone for upside before and missed with Marvin. But we've also gone for polish before and missed with Shelden.

In this case, though, you've got a guy with more upside who also put up equal or better production in a better league. That means, to me, Critt should be the guy over Law.

---

Better League ? The ACC had a down year big time this year. The Big 12 had 3 top 10 teams: Kansas, Texas, & Texas A&M. By the way, Law had his best games vs. the best competition (Kansas & Texas). The Big 12 was much better than the ACC last season.

It is common view that good stats are harder to produce for good team vs. producing on a average team. Tech was just average this year and played a fairly fast paced game to enhance offensive their stats. Texas A & M was a really good, top 10 team all year, heck top 5 most of the year thanks to Law. He single handidly bailed them out in the clutch time and time again. He totally earned the rep of being the country's top clutch player ! They ran a slow paced offense which would lower your PPG and APG b/c your team has less offensive possesions to work with. When you play the likes of Kansas and Texas twice a year who can run with those squads with offensive fire power at every position. A&M ran a slow offensive out of necissity that lowered per game offensive stats. FORGET THE STATS, JUST WATCH THE GAMES.

Who cares about stats and atheletic ability...This is a PG we are taklking about.

Have you really wathched Crittendon and Law play more than a couple of games ? They are no where near the same level. Crittendon is plain sloppy. Law is as effiecient as they come. He will score a teams last 8 points in the finlal 3 minutes of a game consistently. I have seen alot of ball but have never seen a player mentioned as lottery pick who plays as sloppy as Crittendon. At least one more year in college is the best hing for him.

"Crittendon had more assist"

Due to Texas A&M's huge lack of talent they had to run a slow 1/2 court game to compete. They did not have the fire power to out score anyone. They only average about 60 ppg as a team and Law was responsible for almost a 1/3 of the teams points while shooting over 50% from the field. It really was the Acie Law show. I would love to see him play with some talented fowards who can finish ala-Smoove. Law makes some great passes.

Stats are mis-leading. If you have seen both play they are worlds apart. As I have said a million times atheltic ability is not that important at the PG position when compared to all the other position in basketball where atheletic trumphs everything else.

Can't wait for group workouts !!

I see a crystal ball of the Clippers taking Law at #14 and climbing right back in the playoffs. We take Crittendon and wait for him to develop like we have been doing for Marvin the last 2 years.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

And other than their numbers, Critt has every possible advantage over Law in terms of what you look for in an NBA prospect...height, quickness, athleticism, ballhandling, passing, and the ability to penetrate, score, or create when the shotclock is winding down.

---

Let me see.

When I look for a PG, here's some of the things I look for (In order):

1. BBIQ - First and foremost.

2. Poise under pressure.

3. Latteral quickness with the ball.

4. Ability to penetrate.

5. Ability to make plays (hand and hand with #1).

6. Scoring abilty.

7. On-Ball Defense.

Most of the things that you wrote down were attributes we saw in Jason Terry. Check the list again and see. That's not a good PG. JT would crack under pressure. I remember Mookie making him and us look like a fool his rookie year and Eddie House doing the same thing his 4th year. If you don't have the BBIQ or the POISE under pressure, then you're just another SG.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Looking back, it seems kind of unbelieveable that a guy that talented could come here and ace the workout and yet we still pass him up.

---

It just goes to show how much BK puts into workouts. Paul had his BEST workout here, and Marvin was panting away like a dog out of breath.

Then LAST year, BK didn't even workout the other top prospects, electing to take SW a month before the draft. In other words, whoever dominates the workout (IF BK schedules one, which is a big IF), it won't effect BK's decision..

---

...a workout

Think about it. Not only would we all have worked out SW, I would have said to he and his agent, we're bringing in Milsap and Craig Smith to compete against you. If you want us to pick you at 5 where we're leaning (not where I would lean, but where bonehead BK was leaning, obviously), then show up and show them up. If you don't we'll be signifiantly less inclined to draft you and you will have demonstrated to other teams your unwillingness to compete against the "best of the rest" (in a weak class) at your position.

Put the player in direct competition. It's a sin to not both work out any player (as AHF says, at least as a PR and relationship building event) and it's a sin to not work a HIGHLY questionable player (at 5) like SW out HARD, against direct, similarly skilled competition.

I believe we did have that competition with Paul's workout, but it's obvious also that BK isn't smart enough to witness or acknowledge greatness at least in the face of hyped PO-tential.

Maybe BK canceled the workouts last year knowing just how little he knows about workouts.

W

P.S. I am also disappointed in the Speedy physical. No way a physical misses his chronic conditions that can't be missed on a simple x-ray or an even simpler manual test (the briefly painful but impressively accurate "crunch" test). BK and ownership knew about this chronic condition and are just too incompetent and too desperate to get a Pg thanks to their past incompetence to avoid such a red flag.

[Guest Walter]

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

[vdunkndunk]

Quote:

---

FORGET THE STATS, JUST WATCH THE GAMES.

---

I saw nearly every game Crittenton played and I saw at least 6 games from Texas A&M, including some of Law's best perfromances. And what I saw was a young PG in Critt who has far more athletic talent and pure PG skills than Law...and just as much feel for the game when you factor in their ages.

Here's the thing: Law is not going to be anyone's savior at PG next year in my opinion, and he's not going to be as good a PG as Crittenton in the long haul. So I see no reason to go with Law over Critt.

I do think Law is a nice prospect, but I still see him as more of a combo guard, a guy who has an ability to score but who is not fully comfortable running the point and is just an average NBA athelete.

I hear the Sam Cassell comparisons a lot, and I see where it's coming from (they're both average athletes who carried smaller schools with clutch plays...although the last time we saw Law I believe he was missing a crucial layup and costing his team the game, but that's beside the point). The main point for me is that guys like Cassell are rare.

More than likely Law will end up more like Luther Head or someone like that. Of course, there's no guarantee that Critt will be an all-star and whoever drafts him will have to wait and see what they've got, but I do think he has more upside than Law. (And Law certainly isn't a sure thing himself.)

But whether you want to ignore his stats or not, Critt was already Tech's best player last season as a freshman, and if he comes back to school he'll be dominant next year.

[vdunkndunk]

Okay, here's my final statement on how I feel about Critt: He's definitely still a project, but his upside is huge.

Strengths:

He will eventually give you size and athleticism at the PG spot, great ballhandling, great penetration, the ability to finish around the basket, solid freethrow shooting, the potential for solid jumpshooting, a couple of steals a game, some incredible passes, and the ability to create and score with the clock winding down.

Weaknesses:

Mostly he just needs to work on the mental aspect of the game and learn how to run a team, how to pick his spots and when to be a distrubitor and when to take over offensively. It is true that at times he had some meltdowns as a freshman. He needs to get his turnovers down, make better decisions more consistently, and not disappear from games for stretches. Of course he also needs to keep working on his jumpshot and develop a midrange game. But I think all that stuff will come for him with time. Overall, there's just too much talent there to pass up.

[DJlaysitup]

Quote:

---

...To me the bottom line is this: Critt is bigger, more athletic, gets more assists, and has better pure PG skills than Law.

He's also 3 years younger and he's putting up stats RIGHT NOW that rival what Law did as a senior and surpass everything else that Law did as a freshman, sophomore or junior in a weaker league.

So that's why I think Critt is the better pick for the future, and that's why I'm not necessarily convinced that Law will even be better next season.

Yeah...we've gone for upside before and missed with Marvin. But we've also gone for polish before and missed with Shelden.

In this case, though, you've got a guy with more upside who also put up equal or better production in a better league. That means, to me, Critt should be the guy over Law.

---

I agree...and to Diesels arguement that the Big12 was similar to the ACC this year - that's Malarkey. The top 3 teams - OK - top to bottom - not even close. There are four or five Iowa State level teams in the Big12 that couldn't win the JR College Championship. Top to bottom the ACC is clearly superior.

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.

Is a 6'5" pure PG (meaning that's what he's always played) going to take some development to adapt to the speed of the NBA game - Yep...chances are he will...and he'll likely get picked by the little rocket ships until he learns some tactics to prevent that. But once he does he will be able to throw over the top of them and post them up. And they sure as h#ll won't be able to block his shot.

[AHF]

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).

[vdunkndunk]

Quote:

---

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?

Law is nothing like John Stockton in terms of being a pure PG or playmaker. In fact, it was only this year that NBA scouts started to project him as anything besides a run-of-the-mill combo guard.

And Law doesn't have anything close to Isaiah Thomas's unbelieveable quickness and athleticism. So I don't think that's a good comparison either.

And while there are more things to consider in a PG than just size and athleticism, please don't pretend like it actually hurts an NBA prospect if he's got size, strength, and athleticism.

In other words, there are factors besides physical assets that make a great PG, but physical assets are a huge part of it. If you're slow and unathletic you're simply not going to be in the NBA - no matter how intelligent you are or how high your basketball IQ...otherwise guys would never retire. And everything else being equal, a big, strong, athletic kid is going to do better than a smaller, slower, less athletic kid.

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

In fact, it was only this year that NBA scouts started to project him as anything besides a run-of-the-mill combo guard.

---

What does this have to do with anything? Players aren't allowed to improve? He took an A&M team by himself and put them on the map, and made them a top 10 team all season long. He was the complete focus of the defense, yet he STILL increased his shooting %'s and hit numerous clutch shots.

Quote:

---

If you're slow and unathletic you're simply not going to be in the NBA - no matter how intelligent you are or how high your basketball IQ...

---

I realize you're just making an example here and not referring to Law in particular, but don't think that Law is slow and unathletic.