Quote:
Originally Posted by Five-ofan
Generally speaking you have to do at least one thing really well to be an nba player. What do you think crowder does well or will potentially do really well? Shoot? Hell no. Pass? He's not bad for a wing but he doesn't have amazing court vision or anything, it's more that he doesn't screw up simple passes most of the time than anything. Attack the rim? No, not athletic enough nor does he have good enough handles. Defend? Not athletic enough to guard wings, not big or explosive enough to guard bigs.
I just don't see what you are hoping to develop him into other than a poor mans dahntay jones. Cunningham sucks but physically he's got tools that could lead him to being good. If we are gonna live with a young players struggles That's fine by let's develop someone with potential.
|
It's simply too early to assess in my eyes. You can't just go out and judge a player based on the first 37 games of his pro career. Obviously there are a bunch of players with more talent than him, but in general you can still hope that with time he is able to bring what he brought in college. I share your concern on defense, but:
I think he moves very well without the ball and he leads the team in steals per minute without fouling too much. He should be able to rebound a lot better and his shot has gone ice-cold, but his college numbers and start to the season (18-for-44 on threes) indicate that he could get better in these areas again. Rooks hit a wall sometimes, it just happens.
He also takes way more long shots than in college and part of it is system-based. So I think the Mavs could utilize him a a bit different, bc from what you read he used to be a good finisher around the rim in Marquette.