thank god the jazz picked hayward over paul george

And thank god Houston signed goran dragic and not Lin!

 

Hayward is so underrated. I've always liked the way he plays. Good defender and high iq player. Hes still so young and has tons of potential.

 

I'm a huge Hayward fan. Gotta admit, the Opie look had me concerned but that kid can ball.

 

With the way the thread is going: "cleverly disguised heap praise on Hayward" thread. lol

 

Hayward can be a good to very good starter. George is on a different level altogether.

 

PER is just one metric but Hayward's was 16.81 for the 2012-2013 season and George's was 16.84.

 

He's a homeless man's Chandler Parsons. And Chandler Parsons is a homeless man's LeBron.

 

How big of a gap do you think there is between George and Parsons?

 

Well there you have it. George is THREE BETTER than Hayward.

 

Honestly...not a whole lot. I mean, for Paul George being the 10th pick and Parsons being the 38th, I'm taking Parsons.

 

GTFO!

So many ways to put it, Paul George is the best player in a team that's going to the conference finals.

 

Chandler Parsons - 15.5 PPG, 3.5 APG, 5.3 RPG, 48% shooting, 38% from three, 15.33 PER, 2nd season, 4 year 3.6 million dollar contract

Paul George - 17.7 PPG, 4.1 APG, 7.6 RPG, 41% shooting, 36% from 3, 16.84 PER, 3rd season, 4 year 10.5 million dollar contract

I obviously know that Paul George is the best player on a team that is maybe going to the conference finals, but his team is much better throughout the roster than the Rockets, and they play in the Eastern conference, while the Rockets play in the much tougher West. I'd bet we could have a pretty decent shot at beating the Hawks and Knicks in a 7 game series. And obviously George is better than Parsons, and he's a better defender (though that is helped in part because the rest of his team is very good defensively), nobody is denying that, but just looking objectively at the numbers, the production, and the money, Paul George is not that much better than Parsons, at least not to the degree that it's assumed he is.

 

You spelled "handsome" wrong.

 

There was a thread on this topic in the GARM a while back. George is a lot better than Parsons. He's not just the best player on a better team, but he's the #1 option for an offense on a slow-it-down half court team, which means he has to do most of his damage against set defenses that are focused on him. His numbers would go way up playing in our fun and gun system.

I think Chandler can get to the level where Paul is at now, but unless George just stops getting better, he'll remain the superior player as their respective careers go forward.

 

Oh, and Hayward's pretty nice. And I doubt the Jazz would have taken George anyway. He wasn't a big prospect coming out of college. A lot of people thought the Pacers were reaching.

 

That is not something I had considered. Very good point, and I agree.

 

Chandler is a better shooter than Paul George, but George is better at everything else.

 

Lol....

 

wtf...