Originally Posted by
Pelicanidae
I do, but mainly just for body of work reasons. I can judge Culver relatively well, but Garland only played 5 games before going down for injury and that makes it a lot harder to make real, consistent judgements.
With Culver, I can talk about his defensive ability and versatility, his high level footwork, his ability to create space on drives even when he's not the fastest guy on the court, his finesse, his handles. I can talk about how he's a pretty solid passer, and how his shot has some potential even though it regressed in his second year.
With Garland, I can say he can shoot. That's it: he showed nothing else. His handle, meh. His passing, poor. Defense? Not there yet. Vision? No idea, really. Rebounding, not really. All of it either develops or it doesn't, and we didn't get to see enough of him to be sure. He could be the much better prospect, but we haven't really seen enough to be sure.