That same system resulted in Sheppard's 70% TS so if it was so bad how did Sheppard became so successful in it? Udoka isnt exactly Rick Carlisle, he wont develop an offense tailor fit for Sheppard.
Both Curry and CP3 have 6'4 wingspans, so less than an inch more. I suppose it's a good thing that the ONLY thing passing for criticism about Reed Sheppard is his physical measurables. The nitpicking about his wingspan or height is easily enough ignored, if there were any serious concerns about his game, that would be a much larger issue.
He is also identical to Seth Curry. Most people forget there are so many scrubs identical to Steph Curry even his own brother so thats not exactly a good data point.
Bad coaches try to stick to their system and make the players fit the system, good coaches tailor their system to their best players.
My dream offseason would be the following: - Draft Reed Sheppard - Somehow turn deadweight (Landale, Tate) and some pick into Jonathan Isaac - Find some bouncy, very long 3rd center (rim protector/lob threat type) either in the draft or on the free market - just to be able to give teams a different look - Sign another deadeye 3-point shooter (either through draft or free agency) who is better than Reggie Bullock was. Not sure if DougMcDermott could be had?
Seth Curry's stats were worse than Sheppard's across the board (FG%, 3-point %, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks).
If thats the case why did Phil Jackson run his triangle system for both MJ and Pippen and Shaq/Kobe? Those are two diff sets of playerd with diff playstyle. I dont expect Ime Udoka to copy MDA just cuz Jalen Green will play better in 7 secs or less offense.
If you are only putting up big numbers as a 23 year old senior then your nba upside is likely capped, so why are you comparing that to Sheppard who put up historic numbers as a freshman? You say that there are way more examples of 6’3 guards who haven’t made it vs the historical greats that have - and you are right. But, please name the 6’3 guards who didn’t make it and also put up numbers like Sheppard this year, that seems to be what you are missing.
I said tailor the system to their best players, not their worst players. Also, the way the system was run in Chicago was different than the way it was run in LA.
Sheppard didnt put up amazing numbers he scored just 12.5 ppg thats what you are missing. He put up amazing percentages, but the volume on those percentages is lacking. There is also context lacking where Sheppard is the 3rd or 4rth option on a loaded Kentucky team, opponents didnt focus on him like they did to Steph. Also Sheppard isnt 6'3 he is 6'1.75 thats what you are missing. if College translates so well to NBA why arent we targetting Zach Edey? Dude is a two time college MVP he blows Sheppard out of the water in college.
Yeah, so if 12.5 ppg is all you can see then obviously there’s no point having a conversation with you.
Its not all I can see but you cant deny its there nonetheless. If he was the sole focus of the defense like Steph would he still have these percentages? We dont know right, because outside of a few games where he got hot he's didnt have to carry the team that's why his ppg is so low.
Why does that matter if you wanna argue college stats translates to NBA? Edey is a senior but he made most of his time in college by winning B2B mvp. His college stats blow Sheppard out of the water. Edey is only 3 yrs older than Sheppard how much better do you think Sheppard will be in 3 yrs? Will he be shooting 70% from 3 by his senior year? You cant argue college stats dont matter and at the same tine say how impressive Sheppards stats are and how much better than are than Curry's lol wtf. Isnt Steph Curry himself a junior? So if its Edey he is old and he wont be a star unlike Steph Curry but if its Sheppard naw he shot better than Steph Curry!!!!
The system was bad because they had multiple 4/5 star recruits (with 2-3 potential guys in this draft, including 2 lottery guys), and yet they were unable to beat a much inferior (on paper) Oakland team (plus struggled against other teams). And all it took was an uncommon zone defense from Oakland to shut down their offense, which Oakland used throughout the season AFAIK (i.e., not a surprise). You seem to be assuming I meant it was a bad system for Reed. I meant it was a bad system for winning games. As I said, maybe this system helped developed multiple talents, which is an argument I'd be sympathetic to. Not sure I'd agree with it, but it might be semi-plausible. But watching that system in a meaningful tournament game was pretty maddening IMO. I do think the system (and having multiple offensive options being utilized) did help keep Reed ultra efficient, and if you actually made Reed a high usage guy, his TS% would likely fall off quite a bit. I 100% agree that Reed not having high usage (and not being super aggressive in general, though possible due to coaching) does complicate his evaluation, and you'd certainly like to have more evidence of high level play combine with high usage. But that's the data we have. Having watched the Oakland game (and other games), I've seen enough encouraging signs to not be that worried, but it is a concern either way. I don't think Ime will develop an offense tailor fit for Sheppard (nor should he). But I also don't think Ime will be doing things like pulling his fake starters 3-5 minutes into every game/half, and going with his "real" starters the rest of the way. It won't be that tough to do much better than what I saw with Kentucky. The NBA game in general will probably fit Reed well, assuming he can overcome the question marks around his size, athleticism, handle, etc. And yes, that's a big assumption, but IMO everyone at the top of this draft will have similar assumptions.
