[valentine]

 They’re about equally as good now, Hield was a senior and Murray was only freshman. I think Buddy can play and will be a good pro, but c’mon. Why not take the one who’s already as good with more potential? Seems like someone is still stuck in the college basketball season hype

[natevalParticipant]

 Agree 100%

[natevalParticipant]

 Agree 100%

[dremill24Participant]

 I think you could argue that between his track record of vast improvement, along with his solid size and good Length, with better athleticism..he projects as potentially a better defender, where Murray already has a reputation as a subpar defender, with more physical limitations. 

 

That said, I have Murray #3 in my mock, but I think that’s the best argument for Hield.

 

 

[dremill24Participant]

 I think you could argue that between his track record of vast improvement, along with his solid size and good Length, with better athleticism..he projects as potentially a better defender, where Murray already has a reputation as a subpar defender, with more physical limitations. 

 

That said, I have Murray #3 in my mock, but I think that’s the best argument for Hield.

 

 

[Sewok15Participant]

Murray seems to have a more versatile offensive attack than Buddy already. Plus Murray has PG potential so I think most people have had Murray over Hield for a while despite Buddy’s awesome college season.

The only other thing is maybe they are thinking Buddy is more ready to contribute right away for a Boston team that wants to contend next season…but that isn’t the way you should think when picking 3rd overall.

[Sewok15Participant]

Murray seems to have a more versatile offensive attack than Buddy already. Plus Murray has PG potential so I think most people have had Murray over Hield for a while despite Buddy’s awesome college season.

The only other thing is maybe they are thinking Buddy is more ready to contribute right away for a Boston team that wants to contend next season…but that isn’t the way you should think when picking 3rd overall.

[DolanCareParticipant]

 I agree that Murray should go ahead of Buddy but I think it’s close. Hield dominated this past season showing NBA talent as a shooter, defender and leader- all things that go at a premium. He did it against great compeition, something Damian Lillard did not do while at college.

 

[DolanCareParticipant]

 I agree that Murray should go ahead of Buddy but I think it’s close. Hield dominated this past season showing NBA talent as a shooter, defender and leader- all things that go at a premium. He did it against great compeition, something Damian Lillard did not do while at college.

 

[CavFanPRParticipant]

I’d take Murray over Hield too.

[CavFanPRParticipant]

I’d take Murray over Hield too.

[Memphis MadnessParticipant]

 I would take Hield.  

They would have a Core Four of guards with IT, Hield, Smart, and Avery Bradley.  

Hield would fit in with any combination of those guys.

 

 

[Memphis MadnessParticipant]

 I would take Hield.  

They would have a Core Four of guards with IT, Hield, Smart, and Avery Bradley.  

Hield would fit in with any combination of those guys.

 

 

[moximusParticipant]

I get your logic but it’s a gamble that can work against you, just in the recent history.  

An older and seemingly less "potential" PG like Lillard pan out much better than say the riskier higher potential freshmen Austin River, also Steph Curry did a bit better than the high potential freshy Tyreke Evans as well.

 

 

[Phenomenal1]

 I don’t think you do. How is it really a gamble? Buddy could very well be bad pro just as much as anyone. There are no sure things.

Also you are picking example that fit your argument. Look at Jimmer, older but more productive player but is out of the league while in that draft Irving, Knight and Joseph were all freshmen and had more "potential" and they are in the NBA. See I can find examples too.

Plus Murray and Buddy are similar players, very good scorers and elite 3 point shooters. Lilard/Rivers and Curry/Evans were/are very different players as prospects.

[therealbballerParticipant]

 I would say that the Lilliard/Rivers comaprison is quite simillar though Curry/evans is quite off! 

[therealbballerParticipant]

 I would say that the Lilliard/Rivers comaprison is quite simillar though Curry/evans is quite off! 

[Phenomenal1]

 I don’t think you do. How is it really a gamble? Buddy could very well be bad pro just as much as anyone. There are no sure things.

Also you are picking example that fit your argument. Look at Jimmer, older but more productive player but is out of the league while in that draft Irving, Knight and Joseph were all freshmen and had more "potential" and they are in the NBA. See I can find examples too.

Plus Murray and Buddy are similar players, very good scorers and elite 3 point shooters. Lilard/Rivers and Curry/Evans were/are very different players as prospects.

[moximusParticipant]

I get your logic but it’s a gamble that can work against you, just in the recent history.  

An older and seemingly less "potential" PG like Lillard pan out much better than say the riskier higher potential freshmen Austin River, also Steph Curry did a bit better than the high potential freshy Tyreke Evans as well.

 

 

[holefillers1Participant]

 They are both the two most overrated players in the draft.  Kris Dunn goes before both of them

[holefillers1Participant]

 They are both the two most overrated players in the draft.  Kris Dunn goes before both of them

[MopgrassParticipant]

I take Murray over Hield, but it’s not crazy to take Hield first. Hield shot almost 9 3’s a game and made 46% of them. Murray shot 41% at 8 attempts. Moreover, Hield was way more heavily guarded than Murray because Kentucky had more different weapons. Hield averaged almost double the amount of points as the next guy on his team. It’s harder to make a shot when everyone knows you’re going to shoot it. While Murray shot a respectable 78% from the line, Hield shot FT’s at 88%. That’s rarified, exceptional shooting.

All of this to say, Hield is a great shooter. His basketball growth from Freshman to Senior year is insane. Even his form is entirely different. He’s a super competitor with experience in some of the NCAA’s biggest games. I think Murray could end up a better shooter. Maybe. Hield can keep getting better too. I like Murray’s versatility, his effortless scoring, and he has a more well-rounded offensive game.

[MopgrassParticipant]

I take Murray over Hield, but it’s not crazy to take Hield first. Hield shot almost 9 3’s a game and made 46% of them. Murray shot 41% at 8 attempts. Moreover, Hield was way more heavily guarded than Murray because Kentucky had more different weapons. Hield averaged almost double the amount of points as the next guy on his team. It’s harder to make a shot when everyone knows you’re going to shoot it. While Murray shot a respectable 78% from the line, Hield shot FT’s at 88%. That’s rarified, exceptional shooting.

All of this to say, Hield is a great shooter. His basketball growth from Freshman to Senior year is insane. Even his form is entirely different. He’s a super competitor with experience in some of the NCAA’s biggest games. I think Murray could end up a better shooter. Maybe. Hield can keep getting better too. I like Murray’s versatility, his effortless scoring, and he has a more well-rounded offensive game.

[Dazzling Dunks and Basketball BloopersParticipant]

 I disagree that they are equal right now. Hield is clearly better right now imo. Put Murray on Oklahoma in the same situation heild was last year and I doubt he has the same level of success. Now whether Murray will ultimately end up as the better player is up for debate however. 

Murray is bigger than hield and projects as more of a combo guard, whereas hield will project more as a spot up shooter. Murray is not as good a shooter as hield (at least not right now anyway) but could develop into a guy you could use as a primary ball-handler for stretches, although I don’t think he’ll  ever really be a true pg. I think he has the potential to be a little more versatile than hield in his overall offensive skill set, and that might make him the better long-term prospect. Really, it’s a matter of personal preference, but I think both will be very good at the next level and I could easily make an argument for taking hield over Murray based on circumstances and team needs.

 

[Dazzling Dunks and Basketball BloopersParticipant]

 I disagree that they are equal right now. Hield is clearly better right now imo. Put Murray on Oklahoma in the same situation heild was last year and I doubt he has the same level of success. Now whether Murray will ultimately end up as the better player is up for debate however. 

Murray is bigger than hield and projects as more of a combo guard, whereas hield will project more as a spot up shooter. Murray is not as good a shooter as hield (at least not right now anyway) but could develop into a guy you could use as a primary ball-handler for stretches, although I don’t think he’ll  ever really be a true pg. I think he has the potential to be a little more versatile than hield in his overall offensive skill set, and that might make him the better long-term prospect. Really, it’s a matter of personal preference, but I think both will be very good at the next level and I could easily make an argument for taking hield over Murray based on circumstances and team needs.

 

[Author]

Posts