Clearly Zion's availability plays a big role in his ranking, but is Dyson really this good? Am I just clouded by his years at the Pels when his offense was terrible?
I know he's incredible defensively, but I mean Herb didn't crack the top 100, and Jrue barely did. I admittedly didn't watch him last year, so I'm curious.
ESPN ranks Dyson Daniels higher than Trey & Zion
byu/poorwhitecash inNOLAPelicans
6 comments
No.
NBA media often have a difficult time (and adverse incentives) admitting how horrible the eastern conference is. Daniels wouldn’t be a starter on any West playoff team (and shouldn’t be a starter on the Hawks this year). Ranking him 55 is preposterous.
Dyson isn’t even better than herb.
The list is nonsense. Don’t fall for the bait.
i watched two hawks games last year: Dyson had a much bigger role, and looked *slightly* less gun-shy. I wouldnt say that he got better offensively, just slightly more willing to force the issue on offense, and that probably has to do with the fact he played more minutes and was in a better flow.
to my mind Dyson is better at defending guards and herb is better at forwards, with herb being more switchable and just an overall better offensive player.
if we’d kept both we would have had two 1st team defenders on the wings, making us on par with the Thunder wing defense. but neither is a great shooter, so Trey & Poole would have had to bomb threes & Zion would have attack 1v3 a lot of the time. I understood the trade at the time, and feel terrible for DJM’s unlucky injuries, but sure wish we hadnt done it.
Yall still listen to ESPN 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 clowns