on his profile they said his nba comparison is antwan jamison and then on the mock draft 3.0 thing they said it was mike beasley!!! am i missing something here? lol
But the two nba player you mentioned are both capable scorers(beasley was in college) but both are terrible defenders.
McAdoo is Beasley without a jumpshot...not exactly the type of guy I would want on my team.
idk i just think beasley is like 100 times more skilled than mcadoo. and honestly the ONLY thing i can think of that they have in common is that they are both underachieving...but beasley is underachieving in the nba and mcadoo is underachieving in college. big difference. beasley killed it @ Kstate. idkkk kind of a horrible comparison in my book. and antwan jamison is just better. I mean im not trying to hate on mcadoo but he kinda looks clumbsy and stuff. IMO there is no way he plays well in the nba. I think he will get pushed around big time
James Mcadoodoo is more like it. He stunk it up this year. He put up solid numbers but I will admit I thought he was going to have a breakout season this year. Possibly be in the running for NPOY but boy was I wrong. He does play clumsy and rushed at times. This Carolina team had no leader. Hairston came on close to the end but I think alot of people were expecting McAdoo to be the leader from all the hype he was receiving. I don't think he was comfortable in that role. I do think he will come back and play better next year. And I think he has the potential to be an inside/outside player like Jamison and Beasley are. I still think he will become a good pro. But in terms of his game right now, he is nowhere near the players Beasley and Jamison were from a production standpoint.
McAdoo may have Beasley/Jamison shooting range on an elementary basketball court.
Mcadoo is an athlete that tries to play bball.
ncballer-exactly. i mean i dont think he will look totally out of place on an nba court but he just probably wont do &$#%#&@!
Perhaps you could say maximum upside Jamison and mid upside Beasley. Jamison has nearly 20,000 NBA career points in a long solid career, I think he is hell of a lot more proven and consistent than Michael Beasley has been so far.
Neither comparison is good, but I think McAdoo will look better when he's not expected to be a focal point (or even a top 3 option) offensively. I think he'll be more of an energy player, undersized 4 who can defend in space, move without the ball and run the floor.
His lack of skill was kinda shocking for someone so highly touted. The scouting reports that mentioned him having SF skills were dead wrong.
my personal comparison to McAdoo is Thadeus Young honestly, but even that, James isnt as consistent or give as much high energy as Thad does.
Hi there. Would love my Wizards to get McAdoo. We need an upside SF. My two cents. Take care. Thanks.
He's not what your team needs since he's not a SF.
Has he definitely declared for the draft yet ? I think he should come back for another year to develop, otherwise I could see him getting drafted late in the first and spending most of his time in the D-League.
Hi there. He's quick enough to play SF for my Wizards and it's a dream if he's there at 10th overall. My two cents. Take care. Thanks.
I think in todays NBA you need at least two shooters on the floor at almost all times. If you play John Wall with Beal in the backcourt Mcadoo doesn't fit at SF. You would be better off with Glenn Robinson III or even Doug McDermott over McAdoo.
The only way I see McAdoo having any success is playing PF on an uptempo team. I don't think he can hold his own in the paint with big guys but he could be useful as an energy guy off the bench to run the floor and get you some easy baskets.
It's not just about quickness (which BTW his is good for the PF position, not so much at the SF position), it's about skills as well. McAdoo has no perimeter skill.
Hi there. McDermott's an overrated post up 4 with no D and Robinson's a steady, but not great player. This draft gets thin after 8-9 picks, anyways. No offense, by the way. My two cents. Take care. Thanks.