Top 5 Most Promising Backcourts

[Built Ford Tough]

Just like last week, I'm defining "youth" as "players who will enter the 2011-2012 season with five or fewer years of NBA experience underneath their belts." Teams that appear to be conspicuously missing from this list may have a vet with six or more years of experience, even if their frontcourt mate coming in is a rookie. Both guys have to be below that threshold.

 

Here they are, the top five most promising young backcourts in the NBA:

 

#5 – Darren Collison & Paul George, Indiana Pacers

#4 – Eric Bledsoe & Eric Gordon, Los Angeles Clippers

#3 – John Wall & Nick Young, Washington Wizards

#2 – Ray Felton & Wesley Mathews, Portland Trailblazers

#1 – Russell Westbrook & James Harden, Oklahoma City Thunder

 

HM – DeMar DeRozan & Jerryd Bayless, Jrue Holiday & Evan Turner, Toney Douglas & Landry Fields, DJ Augustin/Kemba Walker & Gerald Henderson, Jimmer Fredette & Tyreke Evans, Ty Lawson & Wilson Chandler, Ricky Rubio & Wesley Johnson, JJ Barea & Roddy Beaubois

 

Explainations and such at:

 

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=20463#ixzz1TFCmWPZe

 

Thoughts on this?

 

I definitely see some questionable rankings here and normally I wouldn't post something from Hoopsworld anyways, but since there isn't much to talk about now, I figured I might as well.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Built Ford Tough

[Legacy]

No love for Monta and Steph?

[Real Deal]

No love for Monta and Steph?

LOL. Very ridiculous.

 

You have to consider the fact that guys like Barea and Beaubois are just beasts, so even seeing Monta and Curry in an honorable mention would be shocking...right?

[Built Ford Tough]

LOL. Very ridiculous.

 

You have to consider the fact that guys like Barea and Beaubois are just beasts, so even seeing Monta and Curry in an honorable mention would be shocking...right?

 

Or you can consider the fact that Ellis has played 6 years in the league and therefore doesn't meet the inital criteria of having 5 or less years of NBA experience...right?

[Real Deal]

Or you can consider the fact that Ellis has played 6 years in the league and therefore doesn't meet the inital criteria of having 5 or less years of NBA experience...right?

Not necessarily a good reason to leave them out because veterans are considered to be players with 10 or more years under their belts. There are players in the NBA that have improved greatly in that span of 6-10 years.

 

It's not me pointing out that he should've added Ellis despite his criteria, it's more me saying his criteria is a poor decision on his part.

[Built Ford Tough]

Not necessarily a good reason to leave them out because veterans are considered to be players with 10 or more years under their belts. There are players in the NBA that have improved greatly in that span of 6-10 years.

 

It's not me pointing out that he should've added Ellis despite his criteria, it's more me saying his criteria is a poor decision on his part.

 

I'm not arguing that the criteria is perfect or anything, but the bottom line is that he is ranking them based on a criteria that Ellis doesn't fit. It isn't "absolutely ridiculous" to leave Ellis and Curry off of the list, like you and Legacy suggest, considering the criteria is 5 or less years of experience, which I think is fair for a ranking that is based on potential.

 

I agree that there have been plenty of players that have improved greatly throughout the 6-10 year span, but the list of players who stopped developing after their 5th year in the league is a hell of a lot greater than the ones who continued to. More often than not, you know what kind of player you have on your hands after he has been in the league for 6 years and I think it is safe to assume that what we see is what we get from Ellis. He has been the same player for the past 4 years, so why should we suddenly expect him to suddenly become something else?

 

If you want to take it that far, though, why stop at Ellis? If we are saying that anybody who doesn't have 10 years under their belt, or your definition of a true veteran, should be considered why not include Dwyane Wade and Mario Chalmers?

 

Deron Williams and Anthony Morrow?

 

Hell, Chris Paul is the same age as Monta Ellis, twice the player he is, so should we put him and Marco Belinelli in the discussion as well?

 

Sure, guys like Chalmers, Morrow and Belinelli aren't as good as Stephen Curry, but that is more than made up for by how much greater guys like Williams, Paul and Wade are than Ellis.

 

I'll give you that Wade isn't the best example since he is almost 30, but the point remains for 25 and 26 year old Paul and Williams respectively.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Built Ford Tough

[Real Deal]

I'm simply saying the criteria should be loosened a bit. Ellis is still considered a young player that may not be in his prime yet. It's unfair to him, and especially Curry.

 

But, with that said...the 10 years isn't exactly MY definition of a veteran, it's the NBA's, based on the CBA (new or old).

[Real Deal]

By the way, I have no idea why Barea and Beaubois are listed. Same with Augustin and Henderson (and I know Kemba is thrown into the mix, but I don't see Henderson or Augustin being relevant).

[?QuestionMark?]

Does Felton/Matthews really qualify? I know I can barely do math, but by my count Felton has played 6 years. So he doesn't even fit the writer's own criteria.

 

I like Westbrook/Harden and Collison/George mostly for their two-way potential.

 

PS....the NBA CBA doesn't define a veteran has having 10+ years of experience. Their definition is surprisingly a lot looser. Just someone who is not a rookie.

[TheNextBestThing]

Does Felton/Matthews really qualify? I know I can barely do math, but by my count Felton has played 6 years. So he doesn't even fit the writer's own criteria.

 

I like Westbrook/Harden and Collison/George mostly for their two-way potential.

 

PS....the NBA CBA doesn't define a veteran has having 10+ years of experience. Their definition is surprisingly a lot looser. Just someone who is not a rookie.

 

 

Also, Felton/Matthews are much less talented than most of the other duos mentioned. But, yeah, there's also the "6 years" thing.

[Newman]

The Kings backcourt might make it higher up the list if it was Marcus Thronton's name there instead of Jimmer. I agree with the rest though in saying that the list is a tad weird.

[Real Deal]

PS....the NBA CBA doesn't define a veteran has having 10+ years of experience. Their definition is surprisingly a lot looser. Just someone who is not a rookie.

Veteran's minimum salary is available to anyone who has been in the league for 10+ seasons.

[?QuestionMark?]

Veteran's minimum salary is available to anyone who has been in the league for 10+ seasons.

 

All minimum salaries are scaled based on experience. A 2nd year player get's a veteran's minimum too just for a lot less.

[Real Deal]

All minimum salaries are scaled based on experience.

Exactly.

 

A 2nd year player get's a veteran's minimum too just for a lot less.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

 

Back in 2004 (I believe that was when the previous CBA expired, but don't quote me on that), it referred to 10+ year players as league veterans. Many analysts today will still do that.

 

For some odd reason, Coon's CBA FAQ was written with the idea that anyone NOT a rookie is a league vet. I have no idea when or why that fell into play. Those players don't fit the term. All two-year players (NBA sophomores) are students of the game, not veteran NBA players. Kevin Willis, Dikembe Mutombo...these were guys that earned the right to be called vets, and were only considered veterans after their long tenure.

 

But, all of that is really irrelevant to the conversation, I guess. The writer should've considered Ellis (and other five-year players) still young enough to be part of future "promising" backcourts, but oh well.

[?QuestionMark?]

Exactly.

 

 

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

 

Back in 2004 (I believe that was when the previous CBA expired, but don't quote me on that), it referred to 10+ year players as league veterans. Many analysts today will still do that.

 

For some odd reason, Coon's CBA FAQ was written with the idea that anyone NOT a rookie is a league vet. I have no idea when or why that fell into play. Those players don't fit the term. All two-year players (NBA sophomores) are students of the game, not veteran NBA players. Kevin Willis, Dikembe Mutombo...these were guys that earned the right to be called vets, and were only considered veterans after their long tenure.

 

But, all of that is really irrelevant to the conversation, I guess. The writer should've considered Ellis (and other five-year players) still young enough to be part of future "promising" backcourts, but oh well.

 

I understand your point that by most analyst account a veteran is a 10+ year player. I don't necessarily agree with that because IMO, a player like Wade who was battle tested by his 3rd year is much more of a veteran than a guy like Randy Livingston whose been in and out of the league for 10+ season but hasn't played any real meaningful role.

 

My point was that the CBA has never defined a vet as 10+ years. Neither in 1999 nor when they agreed once again in 2004. That's why Coon has Veteran labeled for anyone not a rookie. He's following the CBA's definition. I think the 10+ years as a qualifier is something analysts have arbitrarily picked to define for themselves what a veteran is.

 

I personally think a Curry/Ellis backcourt should have been included, but here the writer clearly has a set definition for what a young player is using experience as a guage. Ultimately what is considered a "young" player and what a "veteran" is just semantics.