Harrison Barnes Will Be a BETTER PRO than MKG
I am prepared to be bashed so here it goes.
I am not saying that MKG is a bad player; I’m not saying he will be a bust, and I’m trying to bash him at all. MKG is the consensus number 2 prospect on everyone’s board maybe 3 or 4 at worst. I would say 99% of the boards have MKG ahead of Harrison Barnes. I understand why he is ahead of Barnes but I don’t agree with him being ahead of Barnes.
I believe Harrison Barnes will be a better pro than MKG.
MKG has a lot of hype and deservedly so for playing an important role on a National Championship team; while Harrison Barnes disappointed in the Tournament. I am aware of this. I am also aware Barnes has played 1 more season of college basketball.
Barnes’ stat line: 17PPG, 5 Reb, 1Ast, 1Stl, .3Blk, 44% FG%, 35%3PT, 72%FT, 2To
MKG stat line: 12Ppg, 7.5 Reb, 2 Ast, 1Stl, 1blk, 49%FG, 26% 3PT, 75% FT, 2.2TO
MKG is very athletic and a great defender. He will be a great pro I believe and I can see him being very similar to Gerald Wallace which is nothing to complain about. I do not see MKG ever being anything special offensively. He will be a 15ppg with solid numbers across the board but I highly doubt he ever scores 20ppg in a season. He will be tasked with guarding the likes of LBJ, Durant, Kobe and I know he will be a solid defender but at the end of the day no one can shut those guys down on offense.
Harrison Barnes can score at the next level. He has put up great numbers at UNC despite playing in Roy Williams’s offense that focuses on pounding the ball into the big men. There is no doubt in my mind that Barnes will be able to average 20ppg at the next level. Barnes is also very athletic and won’t be a liability on defense. Look at every team Roy Williams has coached. One of them has had a SG/SF dominate offensively. The PG and PF/C get the bulk of offensive touches (Paul Pierce) had very similar numbers to Barnes in College. In Pierce’s junior season he broke the 20ppg mark (He was at 16Ppg his sophomore season).
If Barnes went to a College where the system was tailored to his game people would be drooling over him. I’m glad he went to UNC and played in a system that didn’t tailor to his game because we had a chance to see what type of numbers he would put up and they were very good. Barnes also learned and grew from playing in that type of system.
With that being said I am not saying that Barnes will be a franchise savior for any team but I think after everything is said and done 5 years from now Barnes will be considered the better player when you compare the two.
Feel free to bash me but that is how I see it. For those of you that say MKG will change the game on the defensive side you are wrong. MKG will be a great defender but he won’t shut down Durant, Kobe, LBJ, Carmelo. If he can’t shut down those guys how can he change the game on the defensive side? I’ll take the great scorer over the great defender all day in the NBA because great scorers beat great defenders.
I see MKG becoming a solid defender 15ppg scorer with solid numbers across the board. I see Barnes becoming a great scorer with solid numbers across the board.
You make a fair argument, but Kidd-Gilchrist just goes so hard, you just know he's gonna be a good pro, the reason I think he'll be a solid 18 and 9 guy is because he drives to the rim with agression, and he's a good finisher, with Barnes, we all hope he pans out but the fact of the matter is that he can't drive and he depends on fast break opportunites and creating space with his jumper, which can be deadly but isnt as consistent as we'd like it to be. If they land on the right teams, they can both become All-Stars, I see Barnes as a guy that can get you about 17 a game, good scorer, but not much else. I see a lot of Ron Artest potntial in Kidd-Gilchrist, not comparing their offensive games or even their defensive games because we all know how great Artest was, but I could really see Kidd-Gilchrist thriving as a defensive stopper and a decent scoring option at close to 20 ppg, but your predictions and assesments are valid as well.
I like his game but he just doesn't have the ball handling to be a star at the next level. He'll be a solid finisher and a good catch and shoot guy in the league. He'll probably even be a good defender. But I don't think he'll ever score in high volume. Though, he can be a great role player on pretty much any team because he fits an NBA small forward mold.
Gilchrist can do everything Barnes can do better except shoot the 3. Scout believe he'll be a much better defender. He's a leader off the ball. He knows how to win and plays big in big game situations. He can be a great 2nd or 3rd option on a championship team down the road which many just don't see in Barnes right now.
Harrison Barnes is in the Sean Elliott mold. About 17-18 points a game, some 3's, some rebounds. Not known as a great athlete or a great ball handler/passer. He should be a solid all-around player though.
However, 17-18 points a night with a few rebounds and good shooting stats could make him one of the top 3 or 4 players in the draft. Maybe lacks some of the "upside" of Drummond, MKG, PJIII, and T Rob but he might have a higher floor.
Even if Barnes fails to be a superstar, he still could be a guy that can get you the clutch basket. No reason why he can't hit some last second jumpers to win ball games, similar to Carmelo, Paul Pierce, Rudy Gay, and Joe Johnson. Barnes could turn into a bigger version of Joe Johnson, or Rudy Gay without the hops but with a higher basketball IQ, or even a Paul Pierce silent assassin type if he gets into the right system and has some other stars around him. You can't underrate a guy who you can project as an NBA player who can shoot from just about anywhere and should have the ability to take and make big shots.
Sounds like you described MKG as the better player... I like 15 ppg and solid numbers across the board compared to 20 ppg & only offense.
you sound like some1 else.
I am UNC all day, and I think Barnes is going to be special. That being said....I really love MKG. I think Barnes will be better, but then again, it depends on how you look at it. MKG could have the longer more productive career, its a tough call for me. They both will have great careers, but one could be glorified and the other unsung. Sort of like my Melo vs J Smoove argument.
Where people are concerned with Barnes is his lack of a first step and effiency without a pass first pg....this guy without Marshall looked kinda lost
I'm still trying to see the star inside of Harrison Barnes. I just don't see it. Only thing stopping me from not believing in him is the fact that Roy Williams did the same thing with Paul Pierce
I think Barnes will be a guy who can and will score at the same if not a higher clip than he did in college, yet I think he is pretty one dimensional considering his size. I think he'll always disappoint you as a rebounder and defender, but he's got a nice shot and that paired with his height and ability to get a shot off will make him an effective shooter in the NBA.
That being said, I think at best he'll be a guy similar to Kevin Martin. Despite the fact he can give you 18-24 ppg, depending on how good your team is, he isn't a building block and I don't really see him making any All-Star teams.
For the top 2 SF prospects in the draft, they couldn't be more different. I think MKG will surpise and please you as an NBA rebounder and defender, but with his junky shot you may wish he was scoring closer to 20 ppg. I see MKG as the player with higher potential, but comparing the two is like apples and oranges IMO.
They could both be stars, but both really project as elite or very good complimentary starters. It more depends on whether your team needs a guy who can give you 19 ppg, 100+ 3 pointers made and 4 rebounds or a guy who can give you 15 ppg and 8 rebounds 1.5 steals and a block.
Apples and Oranges, but thats just my opinion
I agree with the OP, but think he's selling Barnes short. Barnes will be a superstar. I see Kidd-Gilchrist as more of a role player, albeit a very good one.
Comparing freshman year stats.
Pts. Rebs. Asts.
Michael Jordan 13.5 4.4 1.8
MKG 11.8 7.6 2.0
MKG averaged 49% from the field, 74% from the line, and around 1 steal and 1 block a game. Jordan shot 53% from the field and 72% from the line as a freshman to go along with 41 steals and 8 blocks in 34 games. Both players won titles as a freshman. That UNC team also featured Sam Perkins and James Worthy. MKG's Kentucky team had Anthony Davis, and Terrance Jones.
I am not saying that MKG is the next MJ, because that would be tough to do. Even Mike Jordan wasn't MJ coming out of college. My point is that if you have talent and a great motor and work ethic then you can have a great NBA career. Projections are tough to make. Predictions about the future is not an exact science, as is comparing today's college stars to the last generation of stars.
^ You're better than that, man. That's like a cyclo stat, lol.
I said that the comparisons and projections game is a tough business. To make my point I put up MKG's freshman year stats next to Jordan's. Both guys had similar freshman year stats and each won a title as a freshmen on teams built around big men.
I think we might be better off looking at what Jordan was projected to be coming out of college. I think he was supposed to be a very good player but I don't think guys were saying he was going to be a surefire superstar.
If MKG maximizes his talent then he could be a very special player.
Barnes has higher upside, but MKG has an extremely high basement, persay.
True, but you're also comapring a energy 3/4 in college who often played PF when Jones was on the bench to a guy who was and always has been a true shooting guard.
The stats weren't even that similar other than they were not eye popping. Bringing Jordan into the conversation is a stretch. You could point out Brian Scalabrine's 14.6 ppg 6.4 rpg 2.4 apg Freshman year just as easily as you could Michael Jordan's.
I'll ignore that MJ talk because mentioning his name is crazier than me saying Barnes will be a better than MKG. Bring that name up changs an entire conversation.
I agree MKG will be a better defender but I also believe Barnes isn't going to be a bum on defense I think he can hold his own.
My main point is I believe Barnes will be a great scorer. You can disagree with me that is fine. With that being said I will take a great lights out scorer over a great defender any day of the week. Great scorers are a lot harder to find than great defenders. I don't think Barnes is going to be the Jordan Crawford jacking up shots scorer. I am talking about a Carmelo Anthony type scorer to clarify my point.
Barnes has a great mid range game. I really believe he will be a lights out shooter that can score from anywhere on the floor.
Barnes has great size at 6'8 220 with a 6'11 wingspan. He can hold his own physically with nearly any player at his position. He can get his shot off and I understand people criticize his first step but I really don't think that will hurt his style of play. There are a lot of players that don't have quick first steps. (Paul Pierce, Carmelo).
Give me the Carmelo Anthony type player over the Gerald Wallace type player.
I think the worst case scenario for Barnes is OJ Mayo.
I think Barnes will be a better player early on and MKG may have a chance to surpass him if he goes to the right team. More than likely, he will go to a team that needs him to be a star and he will be solid but not great. Barnes is a guy that can be a number one option on a lot of teams. I think when people compare him to Glen Rice, they forget how cold the young Glen Rice was in Miami and then Charlotte. No way I take Gerald Walace over Glenn Rice. Those are the people that these players are being compare to. Also MKG has more hype because he is leaving as a freshmen. Barnes was a top 2 pick if he left after his freshmen year. People need to not fall into the hype.
I have already said this before and posted video to illustrate my point. People are frustrated by me first athletes who seem more worried about their legacy than the team. So when a guy like mkg comes on the scene everybody falls in love with his attitude and intangibles and his lack of true skills for his position are ignored. Everybody keeps saying it would be great if he turned out like Iggy or GW but when you ask the same people if they would ever draft those players as a number 2 pick you can hear the crickets in the background.
If you are really into basketball you know that the hitch mkg shoots with is a real bad thing for a shooter. I do not care that its ugly Reggie Miller's shot was ugly but it worked. MKG basically stops his wrist snap halfway through his shot. That causes him to lose the ability to add a lot of range on his shot because he loses the momentum on his shot half way through. Wroten for example shoots a poor percentage but has a smoother more fundementally sound shot, therefore over time working at the same rate he would most likely be able have better range on his shot due to his better mechanics.
Harrison Barnes is more sound in almost every offensive skill except ballhandling. That is a fact no basketball fan can really dispute, mkg may hustle more maybe be a better locker room guy. Those traits won't help when a team pulls on him what heat did to Rondo last night, and just dare hism to beat them shooting the ball. The fact is that he was less skilled than Barnes coming out HS, less skilled in college, and will be less skilled in the NBA . Barnes at this point needs to really work hard on his ball-handling an just continue to improve his already solid offensive game. MKG will have to work on his range, mid range game, coming off screens, jab steps, post game, all things Barnes is significantly ahead of him in.
For everyone that will site mkg defense, yes it is better than Barnes and he will most likely be able to guard positions 1-3. However Barnes will be able to guard his on position and won't be a liability defensively.
I am not saying this because I love Barnes and hate MKG I have sat and watched every game or hightlight reel I could find of both players since high school. I love MKG's heart and attitude, but his upside with hard work is Iggy and Gw and Barnes is Pierce or Joe Johnson. I think almost eveyone would pick JJ and Pierce before the Iggy and GW.
Hes going to be more well-known, and popular because of his noticeable ability to score
Meanwhile a guy like MKG is known for his rebounding and defensive ability, who'll probably fly under the radar..kinda depends on what you consider as "better"
Iggy had better team success this year than Joe Johnson. Both those guys are very nice borderline all-star type players for years and make the all-star team in their top years. Both are good guys but not superstars.
JJ is an ideal 2nd or 3rd option. Iggy is good core guy on a Big Three that features a great inside score and a great perimeter scorer. Neither are franchise guys on championship teams.
I think that Iggy is a better TEAM player than Joe Johnson. I would rather have Iggy lead a great all around team like this year's Sixers than have Joe Johnson being the designated scorer/shooter on a marginal playoff team. But, that's just me.
Shooting is obviously the big deciding factor for MKG. If he can tighten up his feet while shooting and develop a more consistent jump shot, he will be the better player. Outside of my concerns with his shot he is the most well rounded player in this draft hands down and his motor will set him apart. The Gerald Wallace comparison is a very good one because I think MKG will have a similar 3 point % when it is all said and done (just under 32%). I do not agree that MKG will score much more than 15 ppg for his career though. He can come close to 20, but unlikely he will surpass that unless he is on a run and gun team.
Barnes concerns me also because of everything already mentioned (handle and ability to finish at the rim). He will be a very good player with an elite level PG to get him the ball in good spots on the floor, but he is never going to be a big iso threat on the wing. If you get him the ball quickly and he can make a jab step and drive he can score that way. If you find him in great spots on the perimeter he will drop plenty of 3s.
I think MKG will be better. Barnes may be the top scorer, but Kidd-Gilchrist will likely be the more efficient scorer and the superior defender and rebounder. Barnes was in an offense that was a great fit in college, as Kendall Marshall did a great job setting him up. On another team with a less talented pg, he would have had to rely on his own ability to create his own shot and be less efficient for that.
I think some of the posters on here are overrating Barnes scoring ability a bit. He does use the triple threat well, he is an above average spot-up jump shooter, and he has potential as a post scorer, but he isn't great at attacking the basket and creating high percentage looks or getting to the free throw line. MKG may lack iso scoring ability and spot-up jump shooting, but he is deadly in transition and can make strong cuts to the rim and finish down low in the half-court.
I think the Gerald Wallace comparison is a good one and I doubt that Barnes becomes a player of that caliber. MKG likely will never lead his team in scoring, but he can make up for his lack of range with his ability to attack the rim and he is already an outstanding defender.
I think people are looking at this all wrong. When scouting these players we need to look at them both as complete players and not just a scorer or defender. Everyone says MKG is a great passer but he only averaged 2 assists on a team where Marquise Teague is a scoring pg, and Doron Lamb was a 2 playing some point, but they were both scorers. So MKG is an okay passer. Harrison Barnes is also an okay athlete. MKG is better athletically, but Harrison Barnes is definitely the better scorer. MKG is better on defense but Harrison Barnes isn't a defensive liability. MKG is seen as the better defender because of his superior athleticism.
At this point you have a good scorer/shooter, a good defender and an okay athlete in Barnes against a good open floor player, great defender, and superior athelete in Kidd-Gilchrist. That's a toss up. Because drafting off of potenital isn't working that much anymore, also. What if MKG doesn't reach his potential, then you have tony allen/gerald wallace at the small forward position, if Harrison Barnes doesn't reach his potenital you have Luol Deng/glen rice, I would rather Loul over Tony Allen, that's just me.
Someone said people always bring up motor to make up for a lack of skills. Tim Tebow has the motor and work ethic but his throwing motion and his throwing still sucks.
MGK has a motor and the work ethic but that doesn't mean his jumpshot will improve. A great hustle player can be good. Dennis Rodman is a hall of Famer, but it's really a toss up between Barnes and MGK and I'd take Barnes.
Your comparisons are very skewed. Luol Deng is NOT the floor for Barnes. If Barnes becomes as good as Deng, he will be seen as a success. Deng is a very versatile player who is a very underrated defender. Barnes won't be as good as Deng for a few years, unless he goes to the ideal team.
MKG, on the other hand, could easily be better than Tony Allen almost immediately. He is already a better ballhandler, shooter, and finisher at the rim than Tony.
Becoming Gerald Wallace is not a bad thing for MKG. Wallace was, and is, when healthy, an outstanding rebounder and defender who is/was very underrated on offense. Wallace had an eight year stretch during which he averaged over 15 ppg in each season, despite playing for a Charlotte team that often played at a turtle slow pace, helping negate Wallace's transition scoring ability.
I think Gerald Wallace and Luol Deng are very favorable comparisons for Barnes and Kidd-Gilchrist, but I think MKG has a greater chance of becoming a Gerald Wallace-type player than Barnes has of becoming a player of Deng's ability.
If a team really wants MKG but isn't able to draft him, why don't they just trade for Tyreke Evans?
I wasn't saying those were floors, I was saying those were ceilings. I see I didn't put Gerald Wallace the last time but the CEILING for Barnes is Luol Deng/Glen Rice and the CEILING for Michael Kidd- Gilchrist is Gerald Wallace/Tony Allen.
The Igoudala comparisons for MKG are so wrong, even his trainer in Cleveland said they were working on ball handling and jump shot. Igoudala is a great ball handler and now a 39% 3 point shooter. MKG isn't that great of a playmaker an in college he was more athletic than everyone. I think Harrison Barnes is a better defender an athlete than people give him credit for. I'm not saying he's on MKG's level, he is FAR from it but he isn't Kyle Korver. Harrison Barnes is getting the PJIII syndrome if you didn't do what people expected, you're ging to be a bust and overrated, but if you just put up stats and have a "motor" you're going to be amazing. In my opinion, i'd take a scorer over a defender any day because the dominatn scorer always win. Not saying Barnes will be a dominat scorer, and not saying MKG will be a dominant defender. I'd take Barnes over MKG. Defense is effort, something that is easier to teach than how to score..
You did say that if Barnes didn't reach his potential, he would be Luol Deng/Glen Rice, so I took it you weren't saying that was his ceiling, but oh well.
The problem with selecting Barnes over MKG due to his scoring ability is that Barnes really is not a dominant scorer. He is better than MKG, but MKG was no slouch in college and seems to be a perfect role player, being productive without a high usage rate. I just think that Barnes' lack of an elite offensive skill will hinder his success in the NBA.
This all speculation anyway it all depends on what is important to you. I rather Pierce at his peak over Wallace or Iggy at theirs, if we are all speaking their top level potential.
I really think it is a simple a case for most people of risk tolerence. With mkg you know what you are getting he will hustle and work hard and be a good team guy. As a GM you go to bed at night know what you are getting. With Barnes it's more tricky you could end up with a great spot up shooter or a superstar wing. Neither will be a bust but when you draft one you sleep at night right away and the other you stare at the ceiling. I am personally a night owl so I take Barnes, I can sleep when I am dead.
To be honest, I'm not even sure if MKG will be better than Kawhi Leonard 5 years down the track. Leonard got a lot less hype playing at a small college, but they are very similar players who have reputations as elite defenders, great athletes and high energy guys who are poor shooters.
Leonard has one big advantage over MKG and that is his shooting. He really worked on getting consistency with his jumper and it paid off, but while MKG is also working very hard to improve, that hitch is going to continue to hold him back. Not only does it hurt his shooting from range, but it will make the shot easier to block in the NBA.
Leonard averaged 12.7 points per game and 9.9 rebounds along with shooting 45.5% from the field as a freshman, which compares well with MKG as a freshman.
Leonard is only 20 (turning 21 in June), and has ended up in the perfect situation as a role player on a championship contender. He fixed his shooting woes though, shooting .49/.37 from the field/3pt. Leonard is doing all this as a 15th overall pick so he's great value, but if you take MKG and his hitch at second overall you're going to be reaching.
As far as Barnes vs MKG, I think Barnes will be better, he has one tangible skill in shooting and I think the Deng comparison is very apt. He's a guy who will defend his position well, play as part of the team without complaining, and shoot well from the mid-range and deep.
I'd take Deng over Wallace, Iggy or any other MKG comparison you want to throw at me. Deng/Barnes work just as hard as these guys, but are more stoic in their mannerisms so don't get as much credit.
If Barnes delivers on his potential and tightens his handle, I think being a Paul Pierce type player is achievable. As has been said, Pierce is another guy who was held back by Roy Williams in college, and doesn't have a particularly good first step, but manages to score with his great mid-range game.
After watching a workout video with MKG, I've lost faith that he'll lose that hitch and be able to get off contested jumpers with such a slow release (which is a problem neither Iggy nor Wallace had by the way).
I think it will come down to where they get drafted and what sort of opportunites they get.
@Entropy; wise words from a guy with Beasley as his avatar, B-Easy is a classic example of a guy who struggled because of the situation he was in, nice to see you learned that lesson.
Based on the posts I have seen this is what it looks like everyone can agree on
Better overall athlete and defender. Plays at a very fast pace (high motor) a term I hate.
MKG is not a liability on offense but he will be lucky if he sniffs close to 20ppg in the NBA and will most likely average around 15-17ppg at his peak.
Needs to work on his shot big time.
Better shooter/scorer and more well rounded on the offenseive end.
Not as good of a defender at MKG but still a good defender for his position. He won't be a liablility.
Not the best athlete and needs to work on his handles.
Neither guy has a character issue (wash)
Both work hard (wash)
Both are good team players by all accounts (wash)
Neither one are head and shoulders above eachother in passing or ball handling (wash)
You can argue the (wash) points until you are blue in the face but it's a wash so if you bring up those points you just look like a fool.
Both players are good character guys.
Barnes by all accounts will be a better player on the offensive end
MKG by all accounts will be a better player on the defensive end
Neither player will be a liability on either end of the floor
Their value really is in if you believe Barnes will take the next step and become a great scorer. I think he will that is why I believe he will be a better NBA player. You can disagree which is completely fair. What you can't say is MKG will work harder, is a better team mate, blah blah blah because it's not a valid point.
Give me the guy that can score at will and won't hurt you on the defensive end over the guy that is a great defender but nothing special on the offensive end.
Would you rather have Gerald Wallce (jack of all trades master of none) or Carmelo Anthony?
About the MKG vs. Kawhi Leonard comparison: Leonard has an advantage with shooting, but MKG has an equally big advantage with athleticism. Leonard is a very unique and gifted athlete, but he doesn't have the explosiveness that MKG does. He doesn't have MKG's quickness, straight line speed, or ability to elevate and finish in traffic. They are both similar in that they are versatile defenders who rebound and move well without the ball, but the difference is that MKG is an incredibly explosive athlete who is also a better ball handler.
I don't know if MKG will be better than Leonard. Maybe MKG will never improve as a shooter and will get stuck on a half-court oriented team that doesn't let him use his slashing ability to its fullest extent. On the other hand, MKG has several huge advantages over Leonard on the offensive end of the floor that should make him a more dynamic threat.
@slash787: I just think that there is almost zero chance that Barnes will be as good a scorer as Carmelo, but that MKG could easily be just as good a player as Wallace. I suppose we can agree to disagree on that, as I just don't see what makes Barnes have that kind of potential. Melo is a better shooter from the mid range, is a far superior ballhandler, is a far superior post threat, and is a far more explosive athlete. Barnes may work out of the triple threat, and he uses shot fakes and jab steps like top scorers do, but he doesn't have the slashing ability or the shooting ability to become an elite scorer. I see Barnes as a player who, if on a bad team, scores 20-24 ppg in his prime with below average efficiency, but takes a long time to reach that level. I think Barnes is more like Danny Granger than Melo, and it isn't some lock that he becomes as good a scorer as Granger.
I'm not saying MKG will be Gerald Wallce and I'm not saying Harrison Barnes will be Carmelo Anthony. I am saying they will be in that mold of a player. I have no problem to agree to disagree if Barnes scoring ability will translate to the NBA.
To clarify and to stop people from saying there's no way he's Carmelo or Wallace I will put it this way.
Barnes will be a great scorer like (insert name) and MKG will be a jack of all trades master of none like (insert name).
It's nearly impossible to compare two players you can only compare the mold/type of player. If I say someone is going to be a Carmelo Anthony type scorer I'm not saying he's the next Carmelo I'm saying he will be a scorer in the NBA and I use Carmelo as an example as a player to make my point.
People take everything so literal use your head.
If someone says Anthony Davis is similar to Marcus Camby they don't mean Anthony Davis is the next Marcus Camby, they're saying he has those traits and will be a little better or worse than Camby and put up similar numbers to Camby (give or take).
I like comparing players on what they would be if they peak, because I hate trying to throw a floor on a player, or calling him a bust. Like someone said, situations and you can't speak on that enough. If they both reach their ceiling, I'd take every Barnes comparison over every MKG comparison.
omphalos talked about the hitch on MKG's jumpshot, MKG'S shooting coach in cleveland said it will always be there, so they just want to try and make his shot better through repition.
In all honesty, of course these are just personal opinions and educated guesses. Who knows what will happen? However, if we are giving educated guesses, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Just like some of us here like one or the other, the same as if a scout, GM, or team covets.
UNC is my team, so Barnes is my guy. Honestly, I cant say one has the advantage over the other as far as what they bring. I really compare them to the careers of Carmelo Anthony and Josh Smith (one more glamourous and one not as popular and possibly underappreciated) I like my comparison of Steve Nash and Jason Kidd as well. One who had great individual success and more accolades against another who had great individual success but team success to the highest level.
I think they will be two of the best players selected.
MKG is the ultimate team player...but so is Barnes. Barnes couldve avg 20ppg easy at UNC had he wanted to take shots outside of the flow of the offense, but he didnt. Thats not Roy Williams system and it likely wouldve made Barnes look worse than what people project him as already. I expect him to really show off his NBA range and I also expect him to be a hard player to contain in the open court.
As far as MKG vs Kawhi...MKG would be beasting the same way Leonard is if he were at San Antonio, maybe even better. His shot isnt picture perfect, but he can hit it, particularly wide open, where Kawhi gets a lot of his shots. Kawhi is good, I love him, but MKG has something special. Maybe Kawhi is the better shooter, but everything else MKG does just as well or better.....particularly ballhandling and passing.
I wont say who will be better, these two will definitely be two of the best players when we look back at this draft several years from now.
I like all of these post calling Barnes the better overall offensive player yet MKG managed to shoot 5% better from the floor and 2% better from the FT line. Barnes is often scared of contact so he takes that little pull up half shoulder shot. Those calling MKG's ceiling Wallace and Barne's ceiling Pierce are being ridiculous. I could easily make the argument that MKG is the next Pippen, who managed a decent career despite only hitting more than 35% of his long range attempts in one season his entire career and only topping 25% once in his first 6 seasons. Go back and watch MKG's mid range game. It was a thing of beauty last year off of that high post screen where he slid slightly to the right side of the key. Keep sleeping on him and saying he has no offense.
MKG shot 20% on his jumpshots, nothing about that is a thing of beauty, mid-range or otherwise. Even if he shot better from the field, the majority of his buckets came on put-backs and in transition, which just won't be there to the same extent in the pros.
Also, I think Melo is a terrible comparison for Barnes, Barnes is a much more committed defender, ball-mover and scorer off the ball, where as Melo has traditionally been ball-dominant. It's gotta be Deng/Pierce to me. For those of you saying he isn't very athletic, you should probably take a second look at Barnes' high school mixtapes, he had great hops, he just didn't display it very much in college, but the flashes were there.
Don't forget he was carrying a couple of nagging injuries last season after hurting his ankle, with the time off to rehab and work out before the draft he can get back to being more athletic than he showed in college.
I would definitely like a link to MKG shooting 20% on his jumpshots. He shot 25% on his three pointers alone, so it doesn't make much sense to me that his percentage dropped as he got closer to the basket.
comparing, barnes = melo VS. mkg = gerald wallace
is not fair. if anything barnes will be more towards an old paul pierce while mkg is a great perimeter defender, who rebounds better, has more handles, better passing, more hustle etc...
mkg will be AT LEAST a gerald wallace type of player, while barnes can be deng without the defense.
It's the latest mock-draft from nbadraft.net. If you don't believe me, I hope you at least trust Aran to do his homework.
EDIT: I find it hilarious that trying to link to the site's own mock triggered the spam filter.
Wouldn't be surprised to see Barnes picked before MKG, don't think he'll be a better pro though.
I think what this discussion has showed us is that Bobcats need a scorer. Barnes is that. They really don't need another defender because offense brings fans and they have already added a defensive player in Biyombo. In order to play him big minutes you need a guy who can score enough to cover that liability. MKG is a good player but he will not do this. Barnes is a UNC guy and if he has success like he should, it will improve the team and bring in fans. Also to me Barnes is a starter right now. I think he will come in ready. A guy who is mostly a defender has to be on the right team or he will be on the bench a lot.
actually i see a lot of Lual Dang in MKG game, he is more well rounded than what pepole give him credit.
Unless they make a trade I really don't see the Bobcats drafting Robinson. He is very similar to Biyombo in the fact neither can play center. Why have 2 young guys with potential at the same position? The same goes for Beal. They have Kemba and DJ who play a similar position./skill set.
That leaves MKG, Drummond, Barnes.
I can see either of the above three going to the Bobcats. MJ took Kwame before and I really doubt he goes that road again with Drummond.
Making it MKG and Barnes. I think Barnes is a better fit and that is who I would take if I were the Bobcats. Bismack is pretty useless offensively, why take another guy with a low offensive skill set in MKG.
Do people not remember what Pierce was like when he was young? Because he used to have a dynamite first step. He could absolutely blow by defenders. He lost his first step after the 2008 season but the notion that Pierce didn't have great short area quickness is just flat out wrong.
Regardless, it's not too relevant how quick the first step is. You just have to show the ability to take your man off the dribble. Pierce did that in college and he did that in the NBA. People had doubts about Brandon Roy's penetration abilities but he demonstrated he could do it in college and he carried it into the NBA. That's not the case with Barnes. However his first step and handle break down, he couldn't effectively break down his man off the dribble in college so it's hard to think he'll suddenly do it at a much higher level.
Also, the idea that better spacing will help Barnes drive is overblown. If it was so much easier to drive in the NBA than in college, why can't everyone penetrate then. You have to have the right skills to do so and I don't think Barnes does.
Yeah, anyone that says Paul Pierce doesnt have quick first step is crazy....that was really one of the best facets of his game. He had an electrifying first step for a guy with is length and size. I would argue about him losing it in 2008 because on the 2010 ECF he was putting some moves on Lebron.
When comparing Pierce to Barnes at any stage, Pierce was always the better all-around player. What Barnes is though....a deep ball shooter who is going to be able to shoot it from anywhere on the floor....with the potential to be unstoppable in the open court with his fluidity. He can be a terrific defender. I only compare the two because of Roy Williams, other than that its not much to compare outside of their shooting ability. Pierce had a much better handle even coming out of high school. Barnes is like a Glen Rice.....and that is nothing to shake a stick at.
The spacing is going to help him because you wont be able to overplay his jumper...which is his deadliest weapon. He can take 2 or 3 dribbles and not have defense waiting to collapse as he did in college.
The thing about Barnes is in college he constantly got the ball on the wing in the open court with little to no help defense off of long passes from Marshall. He was in the ideal offense for a slashing wing, but constantly settled for contested pull up jumpers. Sure, he is a good pull up jump shooter, but you would like him to be able to create easier shots for himself in college. Even when he drove towards the rim, he often was forced to shoot off balance floaters that he didn't make consistently. I think at UNC MKG's ppg would have been significantly higher than it was at Kentucky, probably at least 15 ppg, if not more.
In the NBA, the help defenders will only be bigger and more athletic. Barnes will be able to score due to his jumpshot, but there is no guarantee he will be the 20 ppg scorer everybody seems to be assuming he will become. And if he does score 20 ppg, it will likely be more in manner of Danny Granger, reliant on his jumper, not like that of Paul Pierce. Barnes didn't slash tons in an offense that was ideal for getting to the rim in college and he likely won't in the NBA.
This is good commentary here and we all tend to over-analyze at times. I am not saying you are wrong and I am right, but merely offering a different perspective.
Placing MKG into UNC's offense this year changes all dynamics. Barnes was not particularly strong slashing or attacking the basket, that is admittedly something he has to work on. MKG relentlessly attacks the basket because he has much less of a jumpshot. Barnes roll was to shoot from outside, in half court or transition....why? Because he was the best shooter they had as a freshman. As a soph, when Bullock was healthy, you saw a significant improvement of putting the ball on the floor, but still, that was not what he was supposed to do. The offense is designed around two tall athletic bigs who get out in transition for the score or the rebound. Its just not as easy to do some of the things Barnes was expected to do in Roy Williams offense.
That offense had no flexibility and was pretty cut and dry and they lived off of offensive glass. MKG wouldve slashed more, but that doesnt mean he wouldve averaged more....not in the least because Barnes got most of his points on the interior where MKG got a lot of his on the interior when talking half court.
Barnes is not a finished product. I think a big mistake is judging him as such off of just two years of college ball in an offense designed around big men where he was always the top perimeter option.