A_3PO, I think this is your answer in the form of a question. When some people think of players they think of what they don't like. If they can't find something or find very little they are forced to believe the player is really good. He's slightly above average at a lot of things and a good passer. He's not a good shooter, but he knows it. He has some nice passing ability but he isn't a good enough overall player to dominate the ball on a good team. He looks great around players with poor handles, on a team that needs him to make all the plays. He's one of those guys that helps the team simply because he isn't hurting the team. But, you have to wonder how affective he would be playing off of a better player. Can he space the floor at the 3 point line? Can he come off screens for jumpers? He may be a decent player but how good is the TEAM that has Sessions with the ball in his hands most of the time?
Agree with everything but the first sentence. Andre has a much bigger body of work and as Knote mentioned, has averaged double digit assists over a whole season. Miller has averaged about 7.5 assists each season over the length his career. I think its too early to say that Sessions has better PG skills than Dre.
Okay but with all the highlights he has.... and Millers' there the same. Anyone can look good in a youtube video.
Whew! I watch a ton of NBA games during the season but confess that I only saw Sessions 3-4 times last year. You two guys have obviously seen him play much more. From my limited time watching, I just don't see a premiere PG in the making. He can't shoot worth a lick, which has to change or he won't get within sniffing distance of "elite" (please don't bring up Jason Kidd). Most great shooters like Nash don't start out as very poor shooters like this guy. If Sessions puts up a 50%/40% (2pt/3pt) season ONE time like Nash has done the last 5, I'll be surprised. I don't recall Sessions being such a dynamic playmaker and great decision-maker. His b-ball IQ seemed about average. Last season he put up 12/6 on a sorry team on nearly 30 mins/game, which doesn't portend anything, IMO. He has great quickness, the ability to get to the rim & draw fouls and takes care of the ball. But nothing I saw screamed out he would "explode" if put on a good team. DD, I think your comment that he is a better passer than Andre Miller is absolutely ludicrous! But that's just my opinion about your opinion. If Sessions has so much upside and 4yrs/$25MM is all it would have taken to keep a developing star PG, why did the Bucks draft Brandon Jennings? Is Scott Skiles running off another player (which would not surprise me at all)? I'm not saying Sessions is worthless and not worth a dime, but on a championship-level team in the future, he better be the 5th best starter. I will pay attention to Sessions when watching the T-Wolves next season instead of just focusing on Big Al and Johnny Flynn.
So who is the next PG half of this board is going to start having wet dreams over? I heard Sebastian Telfair is available!
The offer from the T-Wolves is only $16MM (not $25MM) for 4 years. This is supposed to be a 22 year-old player on his way to being an "elite" PG? Yeah, right.
How would you rank him, Brooks, and Lowry? I don't know if he'll be elite, but I assume his upside is greater than the PGs we have (both of whom I like, but I don't think they're stars).
I make it a point to watch about 20 games each of every team. I think sessions is a really good player. He's a guy that play similar to Miller that needs finishers to maximize his play. He can create, get in the paint which is a plus, great vision and decision making and is a good competitor. Personally, after Williams,CP,Parker,Nash,a healthy Davis,Billups,and Miller, he's right there. Maybe not as good as rondo, but if he was on a team with better talent, people would be talking about him in better terms. If he was in Dantoni's system or with nellie, he would probably be a 10 asst guy. I like him alot, but like i said, he needs finishers.
Right now, I would rank Sessions under AB and above Lowry in terms of upside, but with all the hoopla on the forum, I need to take a closer look. Your measured view of him make sense. I just checked the Bucks stats for last season and he got fewer minutes than Luke Ridnour, who I think is a complete dog. I know that doesn't prove he's worse than Ridnour, but just sayin'.
I really don't know how you can make a assessment of a player after you admitted to only seeing the guy 2 times. Sessions as a pg is bette than both, but all have different elements. When you scout or watch players, you try to make comparisons to other players. Sessions woulnt be as good on a team that takes the ball out of his hands. He's a true pg through and through, but if you play in a triangle or adelman type offense, he's not going to be as effective as a guy like brooks. Just as brooks wouldn't be as effective if he was asked to set the table for everyone. Sessions have a lot of traits like andre miller, brooks is more like terrel brandon/tony parker, and lowry is like earl watson. In terms of a playmaker, Sessions is better than lowry and brooks. In terms of scoring or being a scorer, brooks is better than the other 2.
Even the biggest Sessions fans still seem to be unable to explain why the Bucks drafted Brandon Jennings, why Sessions' minutes/play were so inconsistent and, lastly, why the Bucks were so willing to let a player of his age/caliber walk out the door for chump change. I mean, isn't this a player that some of you are trying to act like is a top 10 player at his position? 23-years-old? The *BEST* offer that he could get was from the lowly T-Pups at $16M over 4-years to accept a BACKUP role? What gives? Is everybody just THAT wrong about him? I have seen him play enough to know that he's a solid player. Why are the Tyronn Lue's and Linus Kleiza's of the world generating more interest than this guy?
We're talking about the Bucks here. They limited his minutes so they could dummy his salary down guys. They had Ridnour starting and playing the major minutes. What does that tell you? They were hiding this guy, keeping their record poor, so they could draft high and get him on a cheap contract. The Bucks were doing everything they could to showcase Ridnour to trade hiim. It didn't work. Now, I believe Ridnour is an expiring. And the BPA at their pick was Jennings. So now they've got two quality point guards, provided they match the offer to Sessions, which I suspect they will. Then Sessions turns into a trade chip for them with the maturation of Jennings. Or.........if Jennings doesn't pan out, they are on with Sessions. Frankly, if they match the offer, I think Jennings is going to have a tough time beating out Sessions because Sessions strikes me as the guy that teammates will prefer to play with. This is a unique situation with Sessions. All the GMs assumed (correctly so, in my opinion) that if they signed him to an offer sheet, Milwaukee would match it. Then the draft happened and low and behold, there sits Jennings for the Bucks to pick up. Nobody offers Sessions the MLE, they sign other players, now the Bucks are in a really strong position with Sessions and they have been trying to get a trade ever since. I think if they could squeeze somebody for a first rounder and a young talent, they would trade Sessions and a S&T would have already materialized. I look for Milwaukee to match, then figure out which guy they want to roll with and trade the other guy. Whomever they decide to move, they are going to showcase to the hilt to get as much value for him as possible, while tucking down below the luxury tax.
Disagreed. I don't think this about hiding or manuevering or anything at all like that. The Bucks are dangerously close to the LT threshold. By matching Minnesota's offer to Sessions that would put over the threshold, if I am reading the numbers correctly. That said, I have a hard time imagining the Bucks doing the smart thing and simply matching the offer. Plus, per his ESPN player page: As for the draft, since those top PG's were all over the board I think that they planned on taking a PG all along. The question was merely which would would be available at spot #10. I don't think it mattered if it was Curry, Evans, Rubio, Flynn or Jennings -- they were taking one of them.
Every PG doesn't have to have Steve Nash's shooting and passing ability to be considered a good PG. Steve Nash is one of a kind. Andre Miller is just as bad, if not worse at the 3pt line with a 21% career average. Andre Miller is still a great a PG. I can definitely see Sessions being as effective.
