.
Pelicans Report
 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 51 to 74 of 74

Thread: Pelicans Exploring Move to Land No. 2 Pick, Draft RJ Barrett

  1. #51
    I would possibly move Ingram & 4 to get Barrett. I think he could be a better player or at least comparable to Ingram. So getting RJ on a rookie deal and not having to possibly pay Ingram next offseason could be worth it IMO. He’s for sure got a better NBA body. I like him and Ja about the same, but since we got Ball we don’t need another young point guard. I doubt Memphis would trade the pick for Ball & 4 cause I would do that too to take Ja instead. Ja and Ingram’s bodies are about the same. They almost look alike with same body & hair style.


    Well I just read that the Knicks are considering Darius Garland at 3. Man that would be so sick...
    Last edited by DaPelFromHell; 06-18-2019 at 11:07 PM.

  2. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by DaPelFromHell View Post
    I would possibly move Ingram & 4 to get Barrett. I think he could be a better player or at least comparable to Ingram. So getting RJ on a rookie deal and not having to possibly pay Ingram next offseason could be worth it IMO. He’s for sure got a better NBA body. I like him and Ja about the same, but since we got Ball we don’t need another young point guard. I doubt Memphis would trade the pick for Ball & 4 cause I would do that too to take Ja instead. Ja and Ingram’s bodies are about the same. They almost look alike with same body & hair style.


    Well I just read that the Knicks are considering Darius Garland at 3. Man that would be so sick...
    What I’m missing is how is having RJ better than having Ingram/Garland or Ingram/Culver? You’re losing an asset when it could be argued who has the bigger upside between RJ and Ingram anyways.

  3. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicans4Real View Post
    What I’m missing is how is having RJ better than having Ingram/Garland or Ingram/Culver? You’re losing an asset when it could be argued who has the bigger upside between RJ and Ingram anyways.
    I mean, at this point in their careers, RJ and Ingram have a lot of the same issues. Both lack defensive awareness and consistency, neither has a real outside shot, neither has fantastic footwork or technique, neither are particularly gifted nor instinctive passers, neither rebound particularly well, etc etc etc. They both have decent handles, drive fairly well, can create their own shot, and show signs of being potentially strong offensive players.

    Given that, you probably have to favour RJ over Ingram just because he's younger, but Ingram/Culver is better than just RJ, no doubt in my mind.
    Basketball.

  4. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    I mean, at this point in their careers, RJ and Ingram have a lot of the same issues. Both lack defensive awareness and consistency, neither has a real outside shot, neither has fantastic footwork or technique, neither are particularly gifted nor instinctive passers, neither rebound particularly well, etc etc etc. They both have decent handles, drive fairly well, can create their own shot, and show signs of being potentially strong offensive players.

    Given that, you probably have to favour RJ over Ingram just because he's younger, but Ingram/Culver is better than just RJ, no doubt in my mind.
    You put Culver above Garland?

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicans4Real View Post
    You put Culver above Garland?
    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.

  6. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    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.
    All great points

  7. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    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.
    I like Langford better than Garland from what I've seen

  8. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by AusPel View Post
    I like Langford better than Garland from what I've seen
    Well

    Uh

    Look again

  9. #59
    A Soulful Sports Fan Contributor Eman5805's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    29,859
    Garland’s handle isn’t meh. He needs to learn how to handle (and finish) in traffic better, but his ability to create space and get open looks on his own or off PnR is self evident.

  10. #60
    The Voice of Reason Contributor RaisingTheBar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    13,199
    Quote Originally Posted by AusPel View Post
    I like Langford better than Garland from what I've seen
    Get out.

  11. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Eman5805 View Post
    Garland’s handle isn’t meh. He needs to learn how to handle (and finish) in traffic better, but his ability to create space and get open looks on his own or off PnR is self evident.
    When I say handle, meh, what I mean is that it's not stunning. He's not looking like Iverson or Kyrie out there with it.

    But it's not bad at all either, it's perfectly competent. So it's meh.

  12. #62
    Now that the Grizzlies have Jae Crowder & Grayson Allen I might make a deal with them. I would trade Jrue & 4 for Jae Crowder, Grayson Allen, & 2. I like Jrue, but think Barrett has potential to be a way better player. A young core of Zion, Ingram, Barrett, & Ball would be extremely fun to watch. Then hopefully a good center falls to us at 39 to compete with Okafor.

  13. #63
    Snarky Optimistic Guy msusousaphone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Lake Charles
    Posts
    4,729
    Quote Originally Posted by Eman5805 View Post
    Garland’s handle isn’t meh. He needs to learn how to handle (and finish) in traffic better, but his ability to create space and get open looks on his own or off PnR is self evident.
    That Laurie Markannen sure is a.....Finisher.

    *The Who scream as I put on my sunglasses
    BI, Zion, and CJ had a net rating of +3 when on the court together. BI and Zion had a +13.4, BI and CJ had a +13.2, Zion and CJ was just +5.4.

    BI and Zion worked. BI and CJ worked. It was CJ and Zion and all three together that didn't work.

  14. #64



    RJ Barrett makes sense at #3 but the Knicks will Knicks. Perhaps they are considering a trade down but if they pass on Barrett there will be pandemonium.

  15. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by 60minutes View Post



    RJ Barrett makes sense at #3 but the Knicks will Knicks. Perhaps they are considering a trade down but if they pass on Barrett there will be pandemonium.
    btw how do you link these twitter posts..helpppp

  16. #66
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!! JunkHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Pels4Life View Post
    btw how do you link these twitter posts..helpppp
    Every tweet has a small arrow in the top right corner. Click it and choose embed. Then copy the entire text string in the box. Then come here and paste it.

  17. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by 60minutes View Post



    RJ Barrett makes sense at #3 but the Knicks will Knicks. Perhaps they are considering a trade down but if they pass on Barrett there will be pandemonium.
    They may be checking this guys out just in case we do get the 2nd pick and take Barrett in front of them. Most likely doing homework on additional prospects just in case.

  18. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Pelicanidae View Post
    When I say handle, meh, what I mean is that it's not stunning. He's not looking like Iverson or Kyrie out there with it.

    But it's not bad at all either, it's perfectly competent. So it's meh.
    So anyone who doesn’t have as good of handles and iverson or kyrie has meh handles?

  19. #69
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!! JunkHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,992






  20. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by JunkHead View Post





    Unless we can bring in Turner, the only other option I see is the trade with the Wolves. #4 and Hill for Covington, Saric, and the 11th pick.

  21. #71
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!! kinglio21093's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    3,020
    Quote Originally Posted by JunkHead View Post





    Bruh. Toss one over this way, Indy.

  22. #72
    Quote: Bruh. Toss one over this way, Indy.


    Do you mean Myles Turner?

  23. #73
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!! kinglio21093's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    3,020
    Quote Originally Posted by PelDave View Post
    Quote: Bruh. Toss one over this way, Indy.


    Do you mean Myles Turner?
    Yes. Or Sabonis.

  24. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by kinglio21093 View Post
    Yes. Or Sabonis.
    Either work for me.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •