Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Brooky03, post: 2552508"]
Including Small Forwards in the analysis is troublesome because less than 25% of the 'SF/PF' guys in the first round will play any significant minutes at PF in the NBA.  Still, the point is taken that a lot of PF's projected to go in the 1st round shoot, albeit not for volume.  That said, Chimezie Metu is arguably the most comparable player to Hakim Warrick.  Similar height, similar production, similar 3 point output (Metu: 12-40, Warrick: 9-39).  Warrick was the 19th pick in the 2015 draft.  Metu is projected 24th right now.  If the NBA emphasis on 3 point shooting is so strong now compared to then, I would think Metu would be projected as a second rounder, not just 5 picks away from Hakim Warrick from the apparent prehistoric days of baskeball when shooting 3 pointers was blasphemy.

[U]Let me clarify my stance for all involved in this thread because my points may not be clear and we've forked into at least 3 separate arguments.  This isn't directed at you, Knick411:[/U]
1)  You have to have at least 4 capable scorers on the court at all times.  We all agree.
2)  Assuming PG-SF are shooters, the PF does not [B]have[/B] to be a shooter to win you 30+ games, and recent evidence of successful teams without a 3-point shooting PF and/or C is easy to find.
3)  If we have a chance to land a PF who can shoot 3's and do all the other stuff a PF is expected to do, sign him the heck up.  Sounds phenomenal.
4)  If we have a choice between a PF who does most things well but can't shoot or a Stretch 4 who is just average at the other things, or bad at one or two, sign up the athletic inside scorer.
5)  As a team, we need to shoot 3's better than we did this season.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?