
J. J. Redick’s NBA future
Everyone wants to know where I stand on the whole Adam Morrison vs. J.J. Redick debate.
For me, Morrison is the choice for the best player in college basketball because of his ability to make any shot from inside of half court. Though he was accused of not having three-point range last season, this year he has made 2.3 three’s per game on 45 percent shooting from the land of plenty. With his 6-foot-8-inch height and long wingspan, Morrison can make his array of runners, floaters and bank shots with people draped all over him.
Redick plays along with six other McDonald’s All-Americans to shoulder the load while the only Morrison teammate that people have to worry about is J.P. Batista, who is known as the poor man’s Sheldon Williams – Redick’s main sidekick. Against Memphis, the only Top 25 team each has played, Morrison went for 34 in front of a raucous Tiger crowd while being guarded mostly by Rodney Carney, a guy that held Redick to zero in the second half (15 for the game).
After reading the Bill Simmons’ (ESPN’s The Sports Guy) recent comments about Redick I decided to exchange in a debate with Simmons about how good Redick will be in the pros. This question seems to be on everyone’s mind, and while I would have loved to e-mail Simmons back and forth like he does with stars, I had to settle for paraphrasing his arguments from his Feb. 17 mailbag column:
“If (Redick) went anywhere else but Duke, he wouldn’t take 9/10th’s as much crap from anyone. Switch him with Mike Nardi and stick Redick on the bombs-away Villanova team and everyone would be raving about how much fun Redick is to watch.”
He is absolutely right – Redick on a Villanova team with three people who can beat their man off the dribble might be the most entertaining college team ever. For pro purposes (and Simmons wasn’t going for this, admittedly) the better comparison is to switch Redick with my separated-at-birth twin, West Virginia’s Mike Gansey.
Gansey shoots 57 percent from the field and is even with Redick at 44 percent from three-point land for 17.7 points per game. This in an offense which almost never runs a play for him.
Redick shoots 51 percent from the field and averages 29 points a game in an offense that is tailor-made to get him open off screens and quick hitters in transition (Redick has shot 180 more shots from the field then Gansey). Gansey and Redick are nearly identical in height and weight, yet Gansey averages six rebounds and two assists a game while Redick gets his team only 2.6 boards and 1.9 dimes a night. Redick can’t play defense, so it’s not like he gives a bonus there, and scouts are on record (well, Chad Ford’s record) saying that Gansey is a better athlete. So, why is Redick considered to be a mid-first round pick and a for-sure NBA prospect if it’s not the Duke Effect kicking in? It’s not like Gansey has been doing this quietly either – he was the best player on a team that went to the Big East Tournament Championship game and Elite 8 last season. I just think it’s worth asking why Gansey isn’t projected just as high, and how many points Gansey would score in the Duke offense?
“Redick’s such a deadly shooter that it’s shocking when he misses a wide-open three, and he’s one of those rare guys who can sink open threes in any situation, from any angle, anywhere on the court. There aren’t five NBA players who have more confidence than Redick from 25 feet.”
Simmons is absolutely right about Redick in college. He plays with tons of confidence, and with what is the quickest release I have ever seen in person. But, there is a huge difference in what his role will be at the pro level. Getting into a rhythm when shooting 20 shots a game isn’t a problem, but being cold on a bench and coming into the game displaying the same amount of confidence and shooting ability is a completely different task. Just ask Randolph Childress, Trajden Langden, Curtiss Staples and a whole slew of other lights-out college shooting guards with no ball handling ability. Plus, Redick will have to guard and be guarded by athletic two guards, who can deny him the ball and exploit his porous defense.
“Anyone who thinks that Redick – in the right offense, with shot blockers to protect him on defense – cannot end up being an asset in the NBA is insane. He’s a better shooter than Steve Kerr, John Paxson or Craig Hodges, all of whom had similar games and played roles for championship teams. I would actually compare his ceiling to Rip Hamilton’s ceiling (who is almost as bad defensively, by the way); you could craft a decent offense from running Redick off multiple picks and getting him open shots.”
I love the comparison to Hamilton. Simmons may be the only member of the media who will compare a white player to a black player. Yes, the limitations on defense are similar (Redick is a better deep shooter, too) but I am one of the insane. There are two problems. Hamilton is a much better mid-range shooter and gets to the hoop off curls ten times better then Redick. When Redick goes to the hoop, never left by the way, he leans in looking only for contact, and whenever a defensive player pulls the chair out from underneath him he usually blows the runner/lay-up.
Two, how many NBA teams are actually constructed like the Pistons? Answer: none. So, all Redick needs to be successful is two all-star shot-blocker/rebounders behind him, a rangy long-armed small forward to guard the other team’s best swingman, a top-notch point guard to run the show and hit a ton of big shots and an offense that sets a ton of picks for him. Yikes! That’s not happening, and it is for those reasons Redick won’t be successful in the pros.
This writer can only hope that Simmons will defend Redick to me. Instead, I will probably settle for my readers telling me I’m an idiot, which is a normal week for The Redd Zone.