It was bad enough

There are a lot of differences between Smart and Westbrook, but I think Westbrook is relevant to the discussion because he's a classic case of position obsession. Even after establishing himself as an elite player, people continue to judge him based on antiquated notions of what a PG should be and the necessity of a "pure" PG. Saying Westbrook has questionable shot selection (shot quality) is a legitimate criticism; arguing that he takes too many shots (shot quantity) for a PG is not. If the Thunder began referring to Westbrook as a SG and started him alongside an off-ball, spot-up shooting PG (i.e. Chalmers) while giving Westbrook the same exact offensive role he currently has, I strongly suspect that Westbrook wouldn't get nearly as much criticism as he does now, because fans (and some writers) are just simple like that.

Smart isn't an elite athlete, but I believe his athleticism is underrated, probably because of his build, which can deceive the naked eye (i.e. James Harden). His steals and rebounding numbers (very good for someone his size) suggest that Smart is a better athlete than his detractors maintain. His athleticism is more than adequate for a player of his size. If he's asked to defend PGs, his size should help offset any athletic deficit; if he's asked to defend SGs, the presumed size deficit isn't nearly as big of an issue as is popularly believed. There are plenty of 6'4" SGs in the league that defend well. Also, playing good team defense is more important than the ability to defend one-on-one.

Smart's shooting, shot selection, and turnover rate are legitimate issues, but those are all areas in which younger players often improve. Shooting in particular is one of the most easily improvable skills, especially for young guys with a good work ethic. You can't judge a player that young as a finished product. I'm not convinced that Smart will be a star in the league, but I think he has a really high floor (low bust probability), like a good sixth man at worst, with potential to be more. A player drafted in the top half of the lottery doesn't have to be a perennial All-Star to qualify as a good pick in hindsight.
 
Smash Williams said:
There are a lot of differences between Smart and Westbrook, but I think Westbrook is relevant to the discussion because he's a classic case of position obsession. Even after establishing himself as an elite player, people continue to judge him based on antiquated notions of what a PG should be and the necessity of a "pure" PG. Saying Westbrook has questionable shot selection (shot quality) is a legitimate criticism; arguing that he takes too many shots (shot quantity) for a PG is not. If the Thunder began referring to Westbrook as a SG and started him alongside an off-ball, spot-up shooting PG (i.e. Chalmers) while giving Westbrook the same exact offensive role he currently has, I strongly suspect that Westbrook wouldn't get nearly as much criticism as he does now, because fans (and some writers) are just simple like that.

Smart isn't an elite athlete, but I believe his athleticism is underrated, probably because of his build, which can deceive the naked eye (i.e. James Harden). His steals and rebounding numbers (very good for someone his size) suggest that Smart is a better athlete than his detractors maintain. His athleticism is more than adequate for a player of his size. If he's asked to defend PGs, his size should help offset any athletic deficit; if he's asked to defend SGs, the presumed size deficit isn't nearly as big of an issue as is popularly believed. There are plenty of 6'4" SGs in the league that defend well. Also, playing good team defense is more important than the ability to defend one-on-one.

Smart's shooting, shot selection, and turnover rate are legitimate issues, but those are all areas in which younger players often improve. Shooting in particular is one of the most easily improvable skills, especially for young guys with a good work ethic. You can't judge a player that young as a finished product. I'm not convinced that Smart will be a star in the league, but I think he has a really high floor (low bust probability), like a good sixth man at worst, with potential to be more. A player drafted in the top half of the lottery doesn't have to be a perennial All-Star to qualify as a good pick in hindsight.
Click to expand...

Who are some of these 6' 4" NBA SG's that defend well?
 
Smash Williams said:
There are a lot of differences between Smart and Westbrook, but I think Westbrook is relevant to the discussion because he's a classic case of position obsession. Even after establishing himself as an elite player, people continue to judge him based on antiquated notions of what a PG should be and the necessity of a "pure" PG. Saying Westbrook has questionable shot selection (shot quality) is a legitimate criticism; arguing that he takes too many shots (shot quantity) for a PG is not. If the Thunder began referring to Westbrook as a SG and started him alongside an off-ball, spot-up shooting PG (i.e. Chalmers) while giving Westbrook the same exact offensive role he currently has, I strongly suspect that Westbrook wouldn't get nearly as much criticism as he does now, because fans (and some writers) are just simple like that.

Smart isn't an elite athlete, but I believe his athleticism is underrated, probably because of his build, which can deceive the naked eye (i.e. James Harden). His steals and rebounding numbers (very good for someone his size) suggest that Smart is a better athlete than his detractors maintain. His athleticism is more than adequate for a player of his size. If he's asked to defend PGs, his size should help offset any athletic deficit; if he's asked to defend SGs, the presumed size deficit isn't nearly as big of an issue as is popularly believed. There are plenty of 6'4" SGs in the league that defend well. Also, playing good team defense is more important than the ability to defend one-on-one.

Smart's shooting, shot selection, and turnover rate are legitimate issues, but those are all areas in which younger players often improve. Shooting in particular is one of the most easily improvable skills, especially for young guys with a good work ethic. You can't judge a player that young as a finished product. I'm not convinced that Smart will be a star in the league, but I think he has a really high floor (low bust probability), like a good sixth man at worst, with potential to be more. A player drafted in the top half of the lottery doesn't have to be a perennial All-Star to qualify as a good pick in hindsight.
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%. I'm not predicting Smart will become an NBA all-star. I do however believe he will be a good starting NBA PG.
 
propoke said:
I agree with this 100%. I'm not predicting Smart will become an NBA all-star. I do however believe he will be a good starting NBA PG.
Click to expand...

i bet that smart is not projected in the top 10 of next years draft come april 1 2014
 
coolm said:
I lived in Alameda and watched Jason Kidd play in HS.

Smart may be a physical specimen but he is nothing like Kidd. Not even close.

In some ways thats a good thing. He shoots better than Kidd and does have more physical skills. But, he's no Kidd. NO comparison.
Click to expand...

your memory might be getting a little foggy ...

j kidd as a frosh ... 13 points 7.7 ast 3.8 steals 4.9 boards on .463 fg .286 from 3

smart as a frosh 15.4 points 4.2 ast 5.8 boards on .404 fg .290 from 3

as a soph Kidd went to 16.7 ppg 9.1 ast 6.9 boards on .472 fg and .363 from 3

i doubt smart touches those numbers next season
 
Smash Williams said:
Tony Allen and Dwyane Wade (when he wants to be) are elite defenders at 6'4". Avery Bradley stole Ray Allen's starting spot at SG last year as a 6'2" defensive specialist.
Click to expand...

That's 2 1/2. You said there are plenty. There aren't. If you are under 6' 6" as a SG in the NBA you better be able to fill it up (ala Jason Terry) or you better be a supreme lockdown defender (ala Tony Allen), otherwise you won't stick long. Heck, even Jason Kidd is 6' 4" and Daquan Cook is 6' 5".
 
steverocks35 said:
That's 2 1/2. You said there are plenty. There aren't. If you are under 6' 6" as a SG in the NBA you better be able to fill it up (ala Jason Terry) or you better be a supreme lockdown defender (ala Tony Allen), otherwise you won't stick long. Heck, even Jason Kidd is 6' 4" and Daquan Cook is 6' 5".
Click to expand...
I named three players who defend the 2 spot at an elite level, to illustrate the point that being 6'4" is far from a crippling deficiency. When I said there are plenty of players that size who defend well, I didn't realize that you wanted to me list every above-average defender in that category, as it would likely devolve into highly subjective arguments about the defensive merits of the Wayne Ellingtons and Kirk Hinrichs of the NBA. Again, I never argued that Smart would be an elite defender in the NBA; I just said his size on that end of the floor isn't as big of an issue as people you like make it out to be.

Funny that you mention Kidd and Terry, as Kidd spent a lot of minutes defending wings in Dallas when sharing the floor with Terry, and he more than held his own. It also raises the point that positions aren't static. Teams use numerous lineups, some of which employ multiple "PGs" or "SGs." No matter what you classify him as, Smart isn't going to guard either position exclusively.

It makes no sense that you state...

steverocks35 said:
If you are under 6' 6" as a SG in the NBA you better be able to fill it up (ala Jason Terry) or you better be a supreme lockdown defender (ala Tony Allen), otherwise you won't stick long.
Click to expand...

immediately followed by...

steverocks35 said:
Daquan Cook is 6' 5".
Click to expand...

So does 6-year vet Daequan Cook "fill it up," or is he a "supreme lockdown defender?"

And what does Daequan Cook have to do with anything? Pointing out that there is a 6'5" SG who's already spent six years in the league despite lacking a single consistent NBA skill doesn't help your argument against a 6'4" player with superior talent.
 
Smash Williams said:
I named three players who defend the 2 spot at an elite level, to illustrate the point that being 6'4" is far from a crippling deficiency. When I said there are plenty of players that size who defend well, I didn't realize that you wanted to me list every above-average defender in that category, as it would likely devolve into highly subjective arguments about the defensive merits of the Wayne Ellingtons and Kirk Hinrichs of the NBA. Again, I never argued that Smart would be an elite defender in the NBA; I just said his size on that end of the floor isn't as big of an issue as people you like make it out to be.

Funny that you mention Kidd and Terry, as Kidd spent a lot of minutes defending wings in Dallas when sharing the floor with Terry, and he more than held his own. It also raises the point that positions aren't static. Teams use numerous lineups, some of which employ multiple "PGs" or "SGs." No matter what you classify him as, Smart isn't going to guard either position exclusively.

It makes no sense that you state...



immediately followed by...



So does 6-year vet Daequan Cook "fill it up," or is he a "supreme lockdown defender?"

And what does Daequan Cook have to do with anything? Pointing out that there is a 6'5" SG who's already spent six years in the league despite lacking a single consistent NBA skill doesn't help your argument against a 6'4" player with superior talent.
Click to expand...

To answer your question, Daequan Cook is a shooting specialist. He has an elite skill that is valued at his position (shooting). If you can't shoot you can't play shooting guard in the NBA unless you are a supreme lockdown defender. Period.

And if you're under 6' 6" you have a tough time defending other shooting guards in the league. That's a deficiency, maybe a minor one, but a deficiency nonetheless for a guy that's looking for a position in the League.

Back to the topic of Smart, the reason I bring this up is that if he can't make it as a PG he's going to have a tough time playing SG in the NBA. I'm not saying he can't, but it will be tough. Like I said earlier, I'd be in the gym hoisting a thousand jumpers a day if I was him.
 
Last edited:
steverocks35 said:
To answer your question, Daequan Cook is a shooting specialist. He has an elite skill that is valued at his position (shooting).
Click to expand...
Elite? He was a 28.6% 3-point shooter this season and 34.6% last year (32.9% combined over the last two seasons).

Cook's career 3-pt FG%: 35.9%
2012-13 league average: 35.9%

Not bad, but calling him an "elite" shooter is absurd, given that he's strictly a catch-and-shoot guy hitting at a league-average rate for his career.

steverocks35 said:
If you can't shoot you can't play shooting guard in the NBA unless you are a supreme lockdown defender. Period.
Click to expand...
Tell that to Monta Ellis and Jordan Crawford, inefficient chuckers that play terrible defense (and one of whom is on the verge of opting out of his 6-year, $67 million contract).

Contrary to its name, there is more to "shooting guard" than "shooting." The ability to create shots is a highly valued skill, which is why both of those players have carved out significant roles despite being relatively inefficient scorers with tunnel vision and minimal defensive effort. And unlike those guys, selfishness and effort aren't going to be major issues for Smart.

steverocks35 said:
And if you're under 6' 6" you have a tough time defending other shooting guards in the league. That's a deficiency, maybe a minor one, but a deficiency nonetheless for a guy that's looking for a position in the League.
Click to expand...
Guys like Wes Matthews, Courtney Lee, and Gerald Henderson are 6'5" and regularly defend both wing positions effectively. Lance Stephenson, also 6'5", has turned into a really good wing defender.

6'6" is an unnecessarily high mark to set for a SG. There are a lot of other factors involved in NBA defense besides how far the top of a guy's head is from the floor.

steverocks35 said:
Back to the topic of Smart, the reason I bring this up is that if he can't make it as a PG he's going to have a tough time playing SG in the NBA. I'm not saying he can't, but it will be tough. Like I said earlier, I'd be in the gym hoisting a thousand jumpers a day if I was him.
Click to expand...
Whether or not Smart is an NBA SG is largely a moot argument. He'll likely guard opposing PGs most of the time, while matching up with SGs for small stretches if/when his team goes small. Jeremy Lin is a high-turnover, shoot-first PG with good (but not elite) athleticism and limited shooting range, yet he's a quality NBA PG because he can get to the rim, draw fouls, and find open teammates even though his first instinct is to find his own shot. Smart is similar (right now), but he's bigger, more athletic, and much younger (meaning far more room to improve his all-around game).

A ton of guys come into the league not being able to shoot well, but many of them improve dramatically because that's what young players do, especially the ones who are dedicated to their craft (as Smart is, by all accounts). A lot of the criticism of Smart as an NBA prospect on this board seems to be based on the assumption that a high character kid who just turned 19 won't significantly improve. He wouldn't be rated so highly if NBA teams thought he was anything close to a finished product.
 
Last edited:
Smash Williams said:
Elite? He was a 28.6% 3-point shooter this season and 34.6% last year (32.9% combined over the last two seasons).

Cook's career 3-pt FG%: 35.9%
2012-13 league average: 35.9%

Not bad, but calling him an "elite" shooter is absurd, given that he's strictly a catch-and-shoot guy hitting at a league-average rate for his career.

Tell that to Monta Ellis and Jordan Crawford, inefficient chuckers that play terrible defense (and one of whom is on the verge of opting out of his 6-year, $67 million contract).

Contrary to its name, there is more to "shooting guard" than "shooting." The ability to create shots is a highly valued skill, which is why both of those players have carved out significant roles despite being relatively inefficient scorers with tunnel vision and minimal defensive effort. And unlike those guys, selfishness and effort aren't going to be major issues for Smart.

Guys like Wes Matthews, Courtney Lee, and Gerald Henderson are 6'5" and regularly defend both wing positions effectively. Lance Stephenson, also 6'5", has turned into a really good wing defender.

6'6" is an unnecessarily high mark to set for a SG. There are a lot of other factors involved in NBA defense besides how far the top of a guy's head is from the floor.

Whether or not Smart is an NBA SG is largely a moot argument. He'll likely guard opposing PGs most of the time, while matching up with SGs for small stretches if/when his team goes small. Jeremy Lin is a high-turnover, shoot-first PG with good (but not elite) athleticism and limited shooting range, yet he's a quality NBA PG because he can get to the rim, draw fouls, and find open teammates even though his first instinct is to find his own shot. Smart is similar (right now), but he's bigger, more athletic, and much younger (meaning far more room to improve his all-around game).

A ton of guys come into the league not being able to shoot well, but many of them improve dramatically because that's what young players do, especially the ones who are dedicated to their craft (as Smart is, by all accounts). A lot of the criticism of Smart as an NBA prospect on this board seems to be based on the assumption that a high character kid who just turned 19 won't significantly improve. He wouldn't be rated so highly if NBA teams thought he was anything close to a finished product.
Click to expand...

and how many of all the guys you have mentioned were top 10 picks
 
DUMBEST move I have ever seen, LOL. What a stupid move on his part. He obvously has a last name that doesn't apply to how he makes life and financial decisions. With all the great freshman that are coming in and going to be One and Done, he will drop to about 15th next year AND he already has lost about 3 million. And this is IF he doesn't get injured or have a sucky year. DUMB DUMB DUMB not Smart, LOL.

Well, we also get to hear all the media slobber over the Flopper. I bet the refs don't call all the flopping next year, bet all the Big-12 coaches are already talking to the league Ref officials to make sure they are better at calling that CRAP. We will see.
 
The stupidity of some of OUr fans is embarrassing. Just a total lack I basic basketball knowledge.
 
BoulderSooner said:
your memory might be getting a little foggy ...

j kidd as a frosh ... 13 points 7.7 ast 3.8 steals 4.9 boards on .463 fg .286 from 3

smart as a frosh 15.4 points 4.2 ast 5.8 boards on .404 fg .290 from 3

as a soph Kidd went to 16.7 ppg 9.1 ast 6.9 boards on .472 fg and .363 from 3

i doubt smart touches those numbers next season
Click to expand...

you look at numbers when I dispute that their styles differ?

my memory regarding Kidd isn't foggy at all. I know exactly how he played and remember his game vividly. Smart is nothing like Kidd was. Kidd's game was much more cerebral than Smart's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Thoughts on Louisville
Replies
0
Views
256
cowboysooner
C
W
Screw Porter Moser
2 3
Replies
43
Views
2K
Skeeter1
S
Sooner04
A Rainy Night in Fort Worth
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
mict085
mict085
N
I'll invite others to post about the epic game 48 years ago today
Replies
15
Views
368
NMSooner'80
N
C
Loved Auburn's Defensive Strategy
Replies
13
Views
468
steverocks35
steverocks35
Back
Top