Kidd-Gilchrist versus Barnes
Sorry if this has been covered before. I noticed Kidd-Gilchrist had risen on the draftexpress mock recently.
I don't claim to be an expert, but it is my understanding that Kidd-Gilchrist has about everything you'd want at SF except for a solid outside shot. Am I offbase?
What are your thoughts on these two? I would be fine with either one.
Great defender and rebounder. But don't expect him to offer anything on the offensive side of the ball. Plays a lot like a young Crash.
A young crash wouldn't be so bad, I guess. Defense and rebounding should translate to the Association pretty easily.Originally Posted by SWedd523
longterm start 5?
Kemba
Hendo
K-Gilchrist
Biyombo
Mullens
That's at least 3 defenders and 2-3 guys who can put the ball in the hole. If Mullens works out, he draws out the bigs, allowing space for Biyombo and Gilchrist to operate with whatever offensive skills they can bring.
Good enough for the long haul?
We need a go to and Barnes fits much better. Barnes just needs more attitude. Like Kemba and SMACK
Thanks Ammofan!
Kidd-Gilchrist has everything you cant teach, his biggest "flaw" is his outside shot (he's still a 33% 3pt shooter, not a 17% from the closer line like Crash was at the same age or a 9% shooter like DeRozan). He's more like a mediocre outside shooter, not exactly bad. His ballhandling isn't perfect, but its not like Barnes is any better. Barnes flaws are things you can't teach: confidence, elite athleticism, finishing ability etc. He's a decent catch and shoot guy but we already have a LOT of those guys. MKG is the better fit for us and the better prospect
If we are picking with one of the first 2, it wont be Kidd-Gilchrist. It could be if we trade back with NO for a 2 for 1. Kidd-Gilchrist will likely go in the 4-8 range. I'd be for a trade with NO if it enabled us to get 2 Lottery picks.
Gilchrist is a terrible "fit" for us as he's basically a taller Gerald Henderson. Hendo/Gilchrist can't score on their own, so having a shoot-first PG like Kemba is going to be a real downer on the offensive side of the ball. He's also no better an athlete than Barnes (neither one is elite).
Neither Gilchrist nor Barnes is a great "fit", but Barnes is the better option of the two because we need perimeter shooting more than we need perimeter defense
From what little I've read and seen, I'm inclined to agree with this notion that Gilchrist pretty much has all the things that you can't teach.
Maybe Barnes will be better for a few years but Gilchrist will eventually surpass him?....
Where do you get these ideas from?
Confidence, he must have some kind of confidence in his game when he shoots .436 from down town.
Elite athleticism, He doesnt have that but neither does Gilchrist. He has more then enough to play the position.
Finishing ability, have you seen the Clemson game from last year or Miami game. Draining the winning shot in both of those games. Those two instances can also fall under confidence.
What you might be looking for is he lacks that "killer instinct" that a super star posses. He's not begging for the ball in the final min or throwing the team on his back when things get tough. He did show glimpse of that in the tournament by stepping up his game BIG time but never a whole season.
Can attitude be taught??
On the flip side, over the course of an 82 game schedule, maybe skills are way more important than having an attitude in the sense that you mean "attitude" here....
We definitely know Barnes is capable of catching and scoring off 0-2 dribbles. And he should be able to overpower 2's and some 3's in the lane.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks