JJ
Comments
-
He might be. Time will tell.ThomasFremont said:
Nobody took issue with that.RoadDawg55 said:If only someone on this board had previously said JJ was a decent role player.
It was you saying he was way better than Gant that was incorrect. -
So we should let it play out?RoadDawg55 said:
He might be. Time will tell.ThomasFremont said:
Nobody took issue with that.RoadDawg55 said:If only someone on this board had previously said JJ was a decent role player.
It was you saying he was way better than Gant that was incorrect. -
TSIOThomasFremont said:
So we should let it play out?RoadDawg55 said:
He might be. Time will tell.ThomasFremont said:
Nobody took issue with that.RoadDawg55 said:If only someone on this board had previously said JJ was a decent role player.
It was you saying he was way better than Gant that was incorrect.
-
At this point in their respective careers, he is better than Gant. And that doesn't even account for the fact that Gant was never coming off of an ACL tear.ThomasFremont said:
Nobody took issue with that.RoadDawg55 said:If only someone on this board had previously said JJ was a decent role player.
It was you saying he was way better than Gant that was incorrect. -
JJ is slightly better than what Gant was in his third year but that's really not saying much.GreenRiverGatorz said:
At this point in their respective careers, he is better than Gant. And that doesn't even account for the fact that Gant was never coming off of an ACL tear.ThomasFremont said:
Nobody took issue with that.RoadDawg55 said:If only someone on this board had previously said JJ was a decent role player.
It was you saying he was way better than Gant that was incorrect.
He makes a few nice passes but for someone who was a guard in high school, the guy's got butter fingers.
Watching other bench players play, I get why JJ gets the minutes he's getting this year.
This team is a disaster without NWG. -
They are probably similar players. Both were ok shooters, soft as a babys bottom around the hoop, pretty versatile on defense.
Maybe I just dont remember very well because Ive pickled my brain but Gant just seemed like he was an explosive jumper. JJ seems like he has ankle weights on alot of the time.
Both can be important parts of a good team, as long as they arent asked to do things they arent capable of, ie Gant taking the 3 pointer at the buzzer against Cal a few years back. Still cant believe that was the play we drew up that night... -
THISBayDawg said:They are probably similar players. Both were ok shooters, soft as a babys bottom around the hoop, pretty versatile on defense.
Maybe I just dont remember very well because Ive pickled my brain but Gant just seemed like he was an explosive jumper. JJ seems like he has ankle weights on alot of the time.
Both can be important parts of a good team, as long as they arent asked to do things they arent capable of, ie Gant taking the 3 pointer at the buzzer against Cal a few years back. Still cant believe that was the play we drew up that night...
Gant was money with the base line jumper.
And an amazing defender.
JJ doesnt have a signature/go to move yet. And he's not as good on defense.
Gant was an explosive jumper. He ran the floor well and finished a lot of easy dunks as a result.
I'm too lazy to look at their block numbers, but Gant definitely made more difficult blocks (against fast breaks) whereas JJ's height advantage allows him to just stick his arms straight up and alter shots.
To me Gant's biggest strength is that he knew his role on a championship caliber team. JJ doesn't yet.
RoadDawg could be right if JJ improves a lot next year. But at this point, Gant had a better career. -
Only in his final year.ThomasFremont said:
THISBayDawg said:They are probably similar players. Both were ok shooters, soft as a babys bottom around the hoop, pretty versatile on defense.
Maybe I just dont remember very well because Ive pickled my brain but Gant just seemed like he was an explosive jumper. JJ seems like he has ankle weights on alot of the time.
Both can be important parts of a good team, as long as they arent asked to do things they arent capable of, ie Gant taking the 3 pointer at the buzzer against Cal a few years back. Still cant believe that was the play we drew up that night...
Gant was money with the base line jumper.
And an amazing defender.
JJ doesnt have a signature/go to move yet. And he's not as good on defense.
Gant was an explosive jumper. He ran the floor well and finished a lot of easy dunks as a result.
I'm too lazy to look at their block numbers, but Gant definitely made more difficult blocks (against fast breaks) whereas JJ's height advantage allows him to just stick his arms straight up and alter shots.
To me Gant's biggest strength is thathe knew his role on a championship caliber team. JJ doesn't yet.
RoadDawg could be right if JJ improves a lot next year. But at this point, Gant had a better career.
Gant wanted to be a scorer that he wasn't but he definitely played better than what stat sheet shows.
As for JJ, he does have better blocking numbers than Gant although not as flashy.
Both are similar type of players in terms of physical attributes yet different playing style on the court.
To me, if JJ can constantly play the way he did the last two games with Gant's energy, I'll be a very happy man.
Gant has won two PAC championships and three NCAA tourney appearances in Husky career, that alone separates him from JJ and his accomplishments if there's any. -
I agree with most of this, but defining Gant by the success of his team is a stretch. He was always a role player, the 4th option at best on offense.
JJ will never play in the NBA, nor did Gant. But they both have/had their roles. I'm encouraged by JJ's performance vs. Tulsa. He did have a nice feel for the game and played defense. The previous game, though, he was horrible.
The biggest issue on the team this year is the play at SG. Andrews is lazy on defense and makes too may mistakes on offense. Assist to turnover ratio at 1:1, and the vast majority of those turnovers are not forced. It appears that his confidence is writing checks his play can't cash. Contrast that with DJ, who plays with little to no confidence. -
Gant did have a better career, but I still think you over value him. He wasn't a great defender. He was a good and willing team defender, but hardly a shut down guy and his lack of size/strength down low hurt at times.ThomasFremont said:
THISBayDawg said:They are probably similar players. Both were ok shooters, soft as a babys bottom around the hoop, pretty versatile on defense.
Maybe I just dont remember very well because Ive pickled my brain but Gant just seemed like he was an explosive jumper. JJ seems like he has ankle weights on alot of the time.
Both can be important parts of a good team, as long as they arent asked to do things they arent capable of, ie Gant taking the 3 pointer at the buzzer against Cal a few years back. Still cant believe that was the play we drew up that night...
Gant was money with the base line jumper.
And an amazing defender.
JJ doesnt have a signature/go to move yet. And he's not as good on defense.
Gant was an explosive jumper. He ran the floor well and finished a lot of easy dunks as a result.
I'm too lazy to look at their block numbers, but Gant definitely made more difficult blocks (against fast breaks) whereas JJ's height advantage allows him to just stick his arms straight up and alter shots.
To me Gant's biggest strength is that he knew his role on a championship caliber team. JJ doesn't yet.
RoadDawg could be right if JJ improves a lot next year. But at this point, Gant had a better career.
JJ is a much better shot blocker. 1.2 this year so far for JJ. Gant's highest was .5 per game. JJ is rebounding better than Gant ever did too. I bet JJ's block and rebounds keep increasing as his knee gets better.
Both guys are average, but I would take JJ over Gant. Two inches taller, longer wingspan, slightly more skilled (the guard talk was always FS), better shot blocker and rebounder. Gant was a more versatile defender, more explosive, and had more range although JJ has a decent jumper too.
