Is Zoom an upgrade from Lowe?
- Thread starter ChocoChicken
- Start date
I don't know if it's an upgrade from Aberdeen, but since we now have at least 2 PG on the team, the position has been upgraded.
My school is Kentucky. But I’m done with this experiment, zoom is okay but I don’t want him as my starting pg, if I have final 4 hopes. If he was a final 4 peg, wouldn’t Washington have done better than 16-17?At Kentucky it is.
Not sure about your school.
Does he remind anyone else of poor man’s Andrew Harrison? I am not saying he will be as good or have the success here he did, but big and strong. Good finisher
Probably a little better distributor and similar-ish shooter on offense. Not even close to Butler on defense.
So coaching played no role in the terrible season? I can’t agree with that (not that it matters).
I don't really like the shooting %.......that being said..........well who knows lol. I mean Lowe didn't play a whole lot for us anyways so yes this is an upgrade lol.
You can’t sag Diallo. He made 57% of his mid range jumpers last year. Totally different kind of player than you see around CBB these days.
Just about everyone on the planet is inferior to a healthy Butler.
Do you think that’s due to analytics? Not trying to be smart, I appreciate your thoughts.
Holy shitballs! We got one! I did NOT expect to land Zoom! Happy we did! GBB! Ima enjoy my crow now!
You finally signed a player, and you are already questioning him, real cool. Zoom is a very good player, much better than even a healthy Lowe.
Same here. I really liked seeing Stokes reaction to it too.
Apologies. It seemed like you were chalking last year up solely to a disconnect between the players.
As many others have said, if he stays healthy and plays than he is an upgrade. But aside from that, it seems more like he’s just a very different player than Lowe, vs being an upgrade or downgrade.
2 totally different type players, but Zoom is here and Butler is not so Zoom is a much better player. How long will it take 1/2 of you start posting on here how bad Zoom is ?
Yes. Analytics would prioritize layups and dunks. Most coaches structure offenses around that and most players don’t work on midrange as much for that reason. However, if you have elite midrange shooters, analytics are still in favor of those shots. It’s just a rare skillset to have these days.
TLDR: Don’t shoot midrange. But if you’re KD, DeRozan or Michael Jordan, hell yea shoot mid range.
Right there with ya brother. I've been in such a pissy mood lately re: basketball. This may help turn me around.
I’d give my left
to have the old BB92 back! You still the homie, but I miss your balanced and nuanced thoughtsZoom is good, but not that good. Don't start putting stuff like that on here, and give a bunch of these guys that gripe about everything amunition Zoom does as bad.
No Pope is the one who put them together. They still didn't get along. I should have said the players getting along is more important than anything.
But I'm just trying to be positive for the moment. If we don't land Stokes I'll consider it a fail either way. Must land him for me to be truly excited.
And that's just because we didn't get any of the other targets. Stokes is the only difference make left
Last edited:
That should always be the criteria for every player who puts on a UK jersey.At Kentucky it is.
Not sure about your school.
So kind of an off the wall question here. Since there’s such a heavy reliance on threes and layups do you think exploiting midrange opportunities with plus shooters can be successful in today’s game?
100%
(1) SEC ready body at 6'4" 180
(2) made major strides from FR to SO year in shooting. 18% 3FG -> 32% 3FG, 72% FT -> 83% FT
(3) rates high in pick and roll and in the midrange
(4) consistent rebounder 3.1 / 3.9
no reason to think he cant get 2%-3% better shooting the three. look at what the staff did with aberdeen in terms of assists/turnovers. tools are there.
(1) SEC ready body at 6'4" 180
(2) made major strides from FR to SO year in shooting. 18% 3FG -> 32% 3FG, 72% FT -> 83% FT
(3) rates high in pick and roll and in the midrange
(4) consistent rebounder 3.1 / 3.9
no reason to think he cant get 2%-3% better shooting the three. look at what the staff did with aberdeen in terms of assists/turnovers. tools are there.
Save the big bucks on Stokes, and get the pieces that make a team. If you get the right pieces you don't need a prima dona player just looking for the biggest paycheck.
Stokes made a comment on social media, I can’t remember which app but he put on the Diallo announcement “my brudda”
Definite upgrade over Lowe. Need the right roster construction and system for him now.
Stokes is really good and he played really unselfish in the game I watched him play in. I think it’s a smart move by him to wait and see what the rosters look like before he commits.
Please reread the last 8 words of my post. Did you quote the right post? I only ask because the question and tone just don't seem like a logical reaction to my post since I said almost exactly what you said.
Most of the time I would say “no.” Most mid range shooters simply aren’t efficient enough to make it a worthy shot. It’s actually one of the things I dislike most about Pope. He allows average-below average midrange shooters to shoot from there far too often. Other coaches like Oats, Golden and Hurley are extremely selective about who gets to shoot midrange jumpers. Pope is far too lax. Someone like Diallo will be correctly encouraged to shoot them.
He has a similar game to UK SGA not NBA SGA., good handle, confident driver and mid-range game
I like a big rangy point guard over a diminutive defender
From what I read he gets to the rim & hits his FT at an 85% clip.