I'm actually shocked how many people saw the video I posted a few pages back and are only just now realizing the potential KJ has 20 pages later and 6 months after acquiring him. Nothing is a sure thing, but KJ supposedly has a terrific work ethic and I think most would agree the athelticism and size part shouldn't be an impediment for him - if it's all a gamble, I think this is a solid bet.
That Blake comparison is absurd, so I'll skip it. But I don't think they'd earmark the MLE for someone they find unimpressive. Hell, I like the kid and don't think he's worth the full MLE... but I assume they're in a better position to evaluate his talent and potential than I am.
I disagree with you, but it really doesn't matter. Whether you want to characterize it as a "comparison" or a "point," it remains absurd, in my opinion. Obviously someone of Blake's caliber could come in and supplant Ariza or Brewer. KJ is not of Blake's caliber, nor did anyone suggest he was. There's a pretty large gap between "Blake Griffin" and "garbage," as that poster referred to KJ in another thread.
Its only absurd if you don't get the point. If a person has the talent and shows it in practice he will eventually find his way to the court regardless of who is in front of him. There was never a comparison between KJ and Blake. It was really a pretty easy point to follow. If you disagree with it then fine. If you disagree that KJ has the talent to make it to the floor then fine. But to try and pretend like there was an actual comparison between Blake and KJ is just trying to remove attention from what the actual point of the statement was.
You're obviously intent on arguing with me just for the sake of arguing, so I'll humor you. Try reading slowly this time. First, I disagree with the general premise that a rookie who shows talent in practice will "find his way to the court regardless of who is in front of him." Have you met Kevin McHale? You know, the coach notorious for being pressed into playing rookies only in the event of injury? When did Canaan see the floor? Capela? Nick Johnson? DMo before them? So yes -- I disagree with the notion that if McHale isn't playing a rookie the second he arrives, it must be because he isn't showing anything in practice. Again, it makes no sense that you'd earmark the ENTIRE MLE for someone who has shown nothing to the coaching staff. And the Blake Griffin example remains absurd because it is an EXTREME example. If Blake Griffin comes to the team mid-season, everything I wrote goes out the window because he is Blake Griffin. You can keep harping on the semantics of "it's not a comparison, it's a point, wah wah wah" -- but MY opinion remains that it was a ridiculous name to throw out there. And you know the beauty of it all? You don't have to agree. Feel free to continue arguing with dead air over nothing, tho.
agreed. The premise that every rookie who has shown a lot in practice will find playing time in this team is false.
KJ stands 6'4.5" and was a second round pick. There is no demand for him because his potential is journeyman. Morey is bidding against himself. Brandon Rush 2.0.
He has no skills. Can't shoot. Can't dribble. Can't pass. That's why he was drafted in the second round.
all correctable with hard work. Esp the shooting. And he can defend and block shots. Wiggins can't dribble or pass either and his handles are horrible but he was picked no.1.
Yeah. We wouldn't want that. Wallace has always sucked. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SKB1NNvJOE8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
