How did Draymond become a C? Mark Jackson was thinking Draymond has no other skills but defense and is too small to be a C, had him backing up the 3 and 4 spots. Would that ever have worked if Jackson stayed on? Mark Jackson saw Draymond Green as a Ryan Bowen. The more important thing is, elite defensive play is almost exactly as valuable to wins as elite offensive play. So just like you try to hide a player defensively when you discover they can put up elite offensive numbers, you do the same for elite defensive players if like most people you're smarter than Mark Jackson. You hide them on offense by having them set picks or if they can hit a wide open corner 3 you're golden. If you can't do anything on the roll and you can't hit any 3's, you're f*cked. Right now, Garuba is slightly better than that, but not good enough for a competitive NBA team. A previous poster mentioned Spain's system and that's a good example too, though that would require overhauling our whole system for Usman Garuba (in Spain's case, they built their system around a big man shooter). Not going to happen at least until Jabari develops. Garuba has not done anything to warrant that kind of attention from us, but I know a transcendent defensive player when I see one. If he shows no development on offense, he simply won't make it in the NBA so we're all on the same page there. However, if he gradually improves his wide open 3pt shooting and continues to improve as a passer, he is going to be worth $20m+ per season mark my words. If this dude was just another good-great defender like say a PJ Tucker or a Steven Adams, I'd say f*ck it, it's not worth our time with his offense this raw. However, there's something else here. There's DPOY potential in this guy so if we like nice things, we should try to give him 10-15 minutes a game while he works on his 3pt shot or the guards get good at PnR or as we design more Spain-like plays around Jabari. As a tanking team, you can afford to take on projects and I can't think of a better one.
I don't watch eurobasket so that's where some of my ignorance is on his value. But, the NBA is no Euroleague and for the NBA I just don't see his upside yet
Draymond is a great passer who can dribble and has one of the highest basketball IQs in today's game. It's completely unreasonable to bring Draymond up when talking about Garuba. Garuba has earned the benefit of the doubt because he hustles and brings energy. So, that helps his case for us developing him. But, he'll need to do more than just work hard to stay with us long term. Even his defense upside is overrated imo.
You're talking about Draymond in his recent state or you're not fully remembering how his career started. Second season, after 4 years in college, one season in the NBA, age 24 with Curry and Klay Thompson already lights out shooters: 6.2 points (40/33/67 splits on 5.6 shots per game) 5 rebounds 1.9 assists to 1.1 TO's 1.2 stl 0.9 blk 21 minutes per game Everything you're saying about Garuba would have applied to Draymond's first two seasons in the NBA. Please don't try to convince me that more than 1% of people could see that Draymond was going to become an elite defensive anchor and elite passer as the vocal leader of a title team. Yes Draymond can dribble a little but he never drives and rarely brings the ball up even now. He was just passing out of the roll to start his career, then the high post, then it expanded. On the other side of the coin, Garuba is twice the rebounder and unlikely to have as low a FG% as Draymond. No one is exactly like someone else. Your question was how to use Garuba since he can't score or dribble. The only thing Draymond can do that leads to points on offense is set great picks and pass the ball really well when surrounded by elite movement and two of the greatest shooters in NBA history. They didn't build around him, but it would be impossible to have him on the floor without an offense tailored for shooting off movement. That's why I said Jabari's development can create more instances for someone like Garuba to flourish. Draymond is not dribbling his way to the basket. He's an atrocious scorer. When those shooters were out, Draymond could not do a damn thing to stop his defensive and offensive metrics from becoming garbage except asst/to ratio. When he was not developed in his first season - like Garuba now - he looked useless in the NBA. He shot 40% from the field in his second season. Garuba was a good passer before the NBA. He looked great in the summer for Spain. He had 17 assists to 6 TO's total in his rookie season. He can totally end up Draymond with lesser passing, better FG%, better rebounding. I bet he can be a better shooter than Draymond as well who has regressed to a 30% shooter. I also can't see a reason why Garuba can't have an even better defensive career than him if he stays in the NBA, he's a much better defender right now than Draymond was in his second season and much younger. All those avenues are open, to say someone will never develop at anything much because they don't do it when they'e 19 or 20 years old is not reasonable.
You'd think a person that massive would be able to catch the ball easily but nope. Dudes got mittens as hands.
He has a 7’3” wingspan. He is not too short to be a pf/c in this league. He is going to be a really good player off the bench at a minimum.
Feels like you're responding to someone else with the points you're making. I do remember young Draymond. I was a big fan of the Baron Davis Warriors which transitioned into a Curry/Ellis Warriors and watched them transition to Curry, which was questioned because Curry had glass ankles at the time and Monte had his own weird fan club ("Monte has it all" - quote from Monte himself). This is the time Draymond was drafted. GSW certainly got that one right and Curry made an comeback. Warriors were an intriguing team to watch and I was watching more NBA back then than I do now. I don't know why you bring up his first year stats though. For starters, when has stats defined Draymond's game? Second, it doesn't make or break any part of my argument that Garuba does not have any NBA offensive skills and doesn't have the offensive upside either. Draymond's stats have 0 impact on whether Garuba will ever learn how to catch a ball, become an offball threat, lead a fast break, become a playmaker or become a contributing offensive player. His best hope is to become a respectable 3 point shooter. Keep in mind as I write out what I am about to write out, you're the one who wants to compare Garuba to Green, not me. But, even at Michigan St Green had shown clear signs of understanding the game. Garuba is still very mechanical. In fact, even when he is setting screens he is doing exactly what the play says and not really looking to read and react to the defense. The only read and react that he does is when the ball is loose for a rebound or in general. He has an excellent ability to find his way to the ball... but, not at some elite level. Green was an undersized PF who really didn't fit in as a SF, but knew how to play the game. Garuba's best attributes are his wingspan, strength, lateral movement and having a nose for the ball, but none of those attributes are enough to project him into some first team all nba defense. Even his lateral movement has some stiffness about it. Green wasn't even known as some elite defender, from what I remember. But he had that "connective tissue" ability and IQ. It's his IQ that elevated him to become the defender he is today and his IQ and passing ability to find openings in the offense - even for himself at times -- special thanks to playing with the Splash Brothers. Did I think he was going to become the player he is today? No, but I knew he had a place in the NBA. If you want to compare anyone on our team to Draymond I'd say Tate is the smaller Draymond. There are a few things we can agree on: Developing Garuba is a low risk move. He doesn't take the ball out of the hands of Green/Sengun/Smith nor does he stop any of those players development or the other players whose future is brighter (ex Tari). He hustles and tries his hardest when he is on the floor and has an NBA body. He deserves us giving him a chance to develop. He is young and we aren't winning anything this year so he is someone you take a flier on. You are entitled to project him however you want to, but you certainly didn't convince me that he will ever be more than some high energy 15-20 minute bench guy. I'm sure I didn't convince you either. There's nothing Draymond has done throughout his career that makes me feel Garuba can follow because they're two very very different players. I still don't know who a good analogy is for Garuba... a better shooting but less lengthy/athletic Bismack Biyombo?
I'll summarize the points I think you're sweeping under the rug here: - Draymond was in a college 4 years before the NBA. Garuba joined the NBA as an 18 year old from Europe. It's odd to say Garuba is no Draymond when Draymond was no Draymond in his first two seasons. - Draymond didn't show any signs of being an elite passer in college. Good for a big man. Garuba has shown it in international play. Spain would crush any college team. All elite big man passers - like Jokic and Draymond - have negligible passing stats to start their career. - You're still trying to say that there is a difference between them. Of course there's a difference in their games (one can dribble, the other can't). They're literally different players. They are just similar in what you asked: what a coach would run to help one is exactly what would help the other. - Garuba has never had a problem catching the ball, I'm pretty sure you're basing that off this one last game. I think let's leave it at that, you probably disagree with those points. With the ability to hit a wide open 3pter and already being a great passer on the roll, that's more than enough to start for a contender. His defense is insane for his age. Non-negative offense and elite defense has always returned incredible on court impact in the NBA, even if not as popular as the other way around. Let's see how it goes. Silas: Garuba is earning minutes by the day.
Yup, still respectfully disagree and not sweeping any of your points under the rug. I understood your points the first time.
I think that's the main issue with y some folks just dismiss sengun and usman potential. American elitism at its finest.
First off, I admitted to not watching him much overseas and said that could be causing some of my ignorance on why people view him higher than I do. Second, explain to me how this is an example of American elitism.
Nope, its actually the opposite. Bunch of goofballs convinced every scrub from Europe is the next Ginobili or Dirk. It's not 2008. The quality of the European leagues has gone way down relative to the NBA. The best European players are drafted young, and drafted early in the draft or are playing in the G league. They don't stay till their mid 20's. I mean look no further than Real Madrid itself, Garubas former club, a team laden with fossils like 37 year old Rudy Fernandez (who started for Portland - 2 decades ago) and fringe NBA cast-offs like Anthony Randolph - some posters hold this club out as something good due to soccer when it would actually get crushed by the Vipers. Let's be honest, if Usman Garubas name was Oswald G. Robinson and he went to Central Michigan nobody would give a **** about a small slow defense only center
Since the big man are usually late to grow, it's not easy to determine garuba's ceiling or floor now. İt really depends mainly on himself and also the coaches he is going to work with of course. Draymond example may not be realistic because it's a rare story to come by. His dedication, high IQ and right coaching obviously turned his career around. İt may or may not apply to garuba. He is an interesting guy as well. He seems to anticipate well and knows what to do in defense but shows up fat after his rookie season which is a bit disappointing. Let's see how his career plays out.
