Grant and the NBA | Syracusefan.com

Grant and the NBA

007

All American
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
6,033
Like
15,882
I found this take on Grant from Orangeyes articles to be particularly interesting:

"For a guy with such limited skills, it's amazing how productive Jerami Grant continues to be. He relies strictly on his crazy length and athleticism to pick up buckets at the rim—no jumper, no shot creativity and a 65 percent free-throw stroke. ...But to play the wing in the pros, you must have some sort of a perimeter game. And Grant doesn't right now."

I love Grant's game as an elite college athlete, but I find myself agreeing with the above "scouting report." To be honest, I don't see Grant's skill set translating to the NBA - at least not yet. My opinion does not come from an egocentric Orange fan perspective who hopes he stays at SU just because it benefits SU. I think Grant is a player who will be better served in the long term by staying in college and developing his skill set to whatever degree he can before he enters the league.

But, I would not blame him for jumping given the majority of the NBA projections I have read.
 
I found this take on Grant from Orangeyes articles to be particularly interesting:

"For a guy with such limited skills, it's amazing how productive Jerami Grant continues to be. He relies strictly on his crazy length and athleticism to pick up buckets at the rim—no jumper, no shot creativity and a 65 percent free-throw stroke. ...But to play the wing in the pros, you must have some sort of a perimeter game. And Grant doesn't right now."

I love Grant's game as an elite college athlete, but I find myself agreeing with the above "scouting report." To be honest, I don't see Grant's skill set translating to the NBA - at least not yet. My opinion does not come from an egocentric Orange fan perspective who hopes he stays at SU just because it benefits SU. I think Grant is a player who will be better served in the long term by staying in college and developing his skill set to whatever degree he can before he enters the league.

But, I would not blame him for jumping given the majority of the NBA projections I have read.

It's still early in his career, and his skills will surely continue to develop, but in the NBA he runs the risk of becoming a relatively unproductive "'tweener" - too small for a PF, and too unskilled to be a SF. He can certainly make a very nice living, but he has a ways to go before living up to the family name.
 
He's what, 19 years old? MCW was 21/22 when he left. No doubt in my mind Grant expands his game by the time he's that age and is an very serviceable player in the NBA. He's just as athletic as Darius Miles was when he came out of high school and he was solid in the league. Anybody who questions Grants draftability at this stage of his career probably doesn't follow the NBA nor it's drafts, it's the same people who said MCW was stupid for leaving and the same people who think Ennis is in the lottery this year. Do your homework or leave it alone.
 
Grant shown flashes of being able to develop a jumper; his handle however, may be harder to develop. He is a stretch 3/4 in the NBA right now. He has 2 choices; put on more muscle and become more of a 4, or work on that shot a la CJ Fair and become a big 3. Right now he is very sloppy in driving to the rim, he just throws his body into defenders and kind of chucks at the basket hoping to either get a foul called or to somehow make it, that might fly in college but in the NBA vs. other elite athletes you better have a better move than that.

Like two3zone said, he's 19. He's far from his peak and he'll work on it. You can tell from last year to this year eeven that his jumper is way better.
 
I don't think that's a knock at all, at this point it's true, but I think the ceiling is higher for Grant.
Hak will be better a college player than Grant; but Grant will be better in the NBA IMO. Hak played a long time in the league and had some decent seasons, but he was never really an impact guy and I think Grant could be. You could tell Hak's game would have trouble translating to the next level.
 
Hak will be better a college player than Grant; but Grant will be better in the NBA IMO. Hak played a long time in the league and had some decent seasons, but he was never really an impact guy and I think Grant could be. You could tell Hak's game would have trouble translating to the next level.


Give us an example of what you're talking about. Hak was a pretty fair 3 point shooter as a senior and was a better rebounder. He also had that go-go-gadget dunkability that Grant is just beginning to approach. In what way do you project Grant to be better than Hakim? It's not the handle. I guess the only thing left is the defense, but Grant seems that same kind of in-between guy to me. People may have forgotten just how good of a college player Warrick was because his NBA career was a disappointment, relatively speaking.
 
Give us an example of what you're talking about. Hak was a pretty fair 3 point shooter as a senior and was a better rebounder. He also had that go-go-gadget dunkability that Grant is just beginning to approach. In what way do you project Grant to be better than Hakim? It's not the handle. I guess the only thing left is the defense, but Grant seems that same kind of in-between guy to me. People may have forgotten just how good of a college player Warrick was because his NBA career was a disappointment, relatively speaking.

You are probably right but I don't remember Hak being a three point shooter.
 
Grant shown flashes of being able to develop a jumper; his handle however, may be harder to develop. He is a stretch 3/4 in the NBA right now. He has 2 choices; put on more muscle and become more of a 4, or work on that shot a la CJ Fair and become a big 3. Right now he is very sloppy in driving to the rim, he just throws his body into defenders and kind of chucks at the basket hoping to either get a foul called or to somehow make it, that might fly in college but in the NBA vs. other elite athletes you better have a better move than that.

Like two3zone said, he's 19. He's far from his peak and he'll work on it. You can tell from last year to this year eeven that his jumper is way better.

I agree with all of this. It will be interesting what happens with his game in terms of working on being a 3 or developing more of a 4's body like you say.
 
Give us an example of what you're talking about. Hak was a pretty fair 3 point shooter as a senior and was a better rebounder. He also had that go-go-gadget dunkability that Grant is just beginning to approach. In what way do you project Grant to be better than Hakim? It's not the handle. I guess the only thing left is the defense, but Grant seems that same kind of in-between guy to me. People may have forgotten just how good of a college player Warrick was because his NBA career was a disappointment, relatively speaking.

Agree with most of this. Except I don't think Warrick's pro career was a disappointment based on where he was drafted. It would seem he had a better career than most 19th picks do.
 
You are probably right but I don't remember Hak being a three point shooter.

He wasn't until his senior year, but he got fairly good at it and made 1st team AA, if I recall correctly.
 
He wasn't until his senior year, but he got fairly good at it and made 1st team AA, if I recall correctly.

He was a great player but not a good 3 point shooter.
 
He may not have been a great three point shooter ...but he does have the biggest block in the biggest game.
 
He wasn't until his senior year, but he got fairly good at it and made 1st team AA, if I recall correctly.

He was a first team AA, but it had absolutely nothing to do with three point shooting. I wouldn't characterize 9 made three pointers as being fairly good at hitting three point shots, by that measure Elvir Ovcina would be a prolific 3 point marksman.

He played 8 seasons in the NBA, appearing in more than 60 games 6 of those seasons. Scored just under 5,000 career points and more than 2,000 rebounds. I'm not sure his career was a disappointment if you looked at it realistically. He was never a star, but everyone can't be.
 
IthacaMatt said:
Give us an example of what you're talking about. Hak was a pretty fair 3 point shooter as a senior and was a better rebounder. He also had that go-go-gadget dunkability that Grant is just beginning to approach. In what way do you project Grant to be better than Hakim? It's not the handle. I guess the only thing left is the defense, but Grant seems that same kind of in-between guy to me. People may have forgotten just how good of a college player Warrick was because his NBA career was a disappointment, relatively speaking.

Warrick was 9 for 31 for three his senior year. Not a great sample size but not good enough to call fair.
 
He was a great player but not a good 3 point shooter.


By his senior year, he showed that he could hit one. Proof of concept. It may have only been about 1 attempt a game, but he hit almost 30%. After having not hit any except for a lucky one his freshman year, that was an extra element he added to his game for the benefit of projecting his game to the next level, just like John Wallace never really made any until his senior year (and then, BOY, did he hit a couple big ones!).

Getting back to the original point, at what skill does Grant project better as a pro than Warrick?
 
He was 10/40 his entire college career. 9/31 his senior year.

Kind of like Fair a year ago. Showed he could make them if you left him open.
 
Warrick was 9 for 31 for three his senior year. Not a great sample size but not good enough to call fair.


It's better than MCW was able to put up.
 
rrlbees said:
Not a knock on Jerami but I view him as a poor mans Hak.

A very poor mans hak
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,146
Messages
4,683,102
Members
5,901
Latest member
CarlsbergMD

Online statistics

Members online
283
Guests online
1,415
Total visitors
1,698


Top Bottom