Dekker's a good looking young player. We should get some more of those but we're too focused on stuffing $20 mil a year down Ryan anderson's undies.
Bud's issue was that he lacked mental edge. He was simply a soft, inconsistent player on the offensive end and garbage on the defensive end. If he played with aggression, he would have been a far better player than the one he ended up as. One game he good be good and make you think that he turned a corner and the next, he would completely crap the bed. As a rookie, Parsons was a vastly superior player IMO.
He really is quite a bit like Parsons on offense. More of a slasher and more savy around the rim. His shot looks good too with plenty of arc. His form already seems better than it did in college. He almost plays a little differently than he did in college. I hate the tall token white guy comparisons but he really is a mix between Gordon Hayward and Parsons the way he can handle the ball off a pick into the lane and finish with the right or left. Needs to continue working on his handles and playmaking skills. Needs to develop a mean pump fake like Parsons has and obviously needs to work on his defense but I like him to win about 15-20 minutes of backup minutes at the 3 and maybe some spot minutes at the 4 to see how he does. He seems like he bulked up a little but is still a natural 3. I remember Parsons rookie year where he played really solid defense to earn minutes then his defense went away. Hopefully it is the reverse with Dekker where he learns to play defense over time and is dedicated to it unlike Parsons who could care less about defense since offensive stats get you max contracts. I can see Dekker making solid contributions like Parsons and Hayward did their rookie seasons especially in a fast paced offense that requires improv.
So you are saying he could probably replace Ariza pretty soon? Ariza didn't quite live up to replacing Parsons but then again Parsons was on the sidelines alot in Dallas.
Ariza was definitively better than Parsons his first year. He was an above average versatile, multi-position defender. He guarded 1-4, and did so admirably. Something even healthy Parsons can't do. Last year, different story... Except as you noted, Parsons has been injured a lot in Dallas and frankly, they aren't completely random, independent injuries... he started getting these nagging injuries that seemed like they could lead to life long, every year injury issues his last year in Houston.
He's a lot stronger than Parsons and a lot better offensively. Parsons, however was really good on defense while he was here.
actually it's probably the exact opposite. Parsons was only good on defense his first 1-2 seasons here, and then dropped off considerably. And as of today, Parsons' offense is still a lot better than Dekker's. Dekker shows promise and skill in transition, finishing around the rim, and has a chance to be a decent 3-point shooter -- but his playmaking and overall athleticism is not near peak-Rockets Parsons
I would kill for Dekker to live up to that description. Both of those guys are making big bucks for a reason.
Wow, what a weird assessment. I don't think Dekker is much of an offensive player at all, he'll likely be a defensive role player. Parsons can actually create his own shot and for others and was actually horrible on defense his last two years here. I'm talking Harden-level bad defense.
