Ben B. wrote:Are you perhaps confusing me with someone else? I just wrote a pretty long and, I thought, detailed breakdown of the red flags I see raised by Williams' offensive history. I had one clause-- a clause that, by the way, I edited and inserted after having written the original post-- saying that with all of his limitations Williams certainly couldn't be viewed as a Gordon replacement, and I inserted that clause after I realized that another poster had just referred to Williams as a potential replacement after Gordon walks. The rest of my post was all about Williams' offensive limitations. You write about "what if" Williams can just learn to shoot? Great! What if Blair just learns a mid-range jumper? He'll be unstoppable! What if Deng learns to shoot 3-pointers reliably? We'll be set! But my point was that players who shoot as badly as Williams did over FOUR YEARS of college rarely "learn" to shoot well magically AND learn how to draw fouls at a rate that'll boost his scoring average into the acceptable zone. Can you name someone who's done it? I can't, off-hand.
Tyrus is a bad comparison, b/c he had only 1 year of college ball. He already showed the ability to hit jumpers well if one watched him play in that 1 year, as I did, and he's worked on it a lot but he's still not really a jump-shooter. But he's also a power-freakin'-forward, not a guard (or 2/3 tweener). And Williams has been shooting poorly for FOUR YEARS already.
My first choice has long been DeJuan Blair, who's obviously not a big-time scorer. I'm also OK with Mullens (only b/c of his long-shot talent) and James Johnson (b/c he seems to have some interesting skill sets), but neither of them are Gordon replacements.
So, maybe you're thinking of someone else who's always looking for a Gordon replacement?
No, I didn't confuse you for anyone else. You're initial arguement from my post was that WIlliams wouldn't be a Gordon replacement because of his lack of offensive ability.
My arguement is again, so what? No one in this draft would be a replacement for Gordon on the offensive end, and quite frankly he doesn't NEED to come in a shoot a fantastic percentage. Bowen was never considered a good shooter earlier in his career, neither was Roger Mason, and someone like Williams has LOADS more talent and atheltic ability than both of those players combined. If Williams becomes even a 38% 3 point shooter, he'd be great, and yes it's a big IF, but who isn't in this draft?
You're arguement is that I'm putting a big IF on Williams potential, yes and? So is everyone else in this draft, including the other players that I want in Henderson, Blair and Tyler. What's your point? So is everyone else is past history that was picked in the draft. Yes, Williams is a 4 year player, and some players come into the league with only a year experience in college, so they are "projected" to have more potential but that doesn't mean they have a greater percentage of success in the league either. My point is that, if GMs were afraid of the "IF" factor there wouldn't be a draft, because most players coming into the draft have that big IF hanging around their neck, so I really don't see what your point is.
Additionally, the NBA is a different game some good college players faulter in the NBA, and vice versa, but my argument for Williams is that he has the tools, and the versatile player that can translate to the NBA because he does many things well and doesn't just rely on one thing - though I do and will continue to admit his shot isn't up to the NBA starting level.
If Gordon leaves, will slot Salmons into the starting two spot who wouldn't be a massive drop from Gordon anyhow, and then you have Williams coming off the bench playing spot minutes at 2, 3 and maybe occasionally even 1, and to have versatile player is a great asset to have.
