Boozer is much more skilled than Samuels. He’s also a lot stronger physically. The body types are similar, and both have good footwork. But Boozer is a better athlete and much more skilled.

And the Bouldin/Hinrich comparison is pretty week. Hinrich is/was much quicker player than Bouldin, and also a much stronger ballhandler and MUCH better defender. I’d also argue that Hinrich is as good a shooter as Bouldin if not better. Hinrich was a 43% 3pt shooter in college, compared with Bouldin’s 37%.

Basically, as you noted, the only similarities I see are that both are white, both can pass pretty well, and neither is really a true PG or a true SG. Other than that, their skill sets aren’t comparable (basically, Hinrich is better across the board).

its such a weak criticism. His game has charisma and he’s a likable guy. They have different personalities, big deal. At this point we really have no idea what that means in terms of basketball leadership.

Rose has lead his mediocre team to the playoffs twice, that’s all we have to go on at this point.

steals, blocks, bringing the ball up on the break, but whenever he has to make a decision he chooses to go into Micheal Jordan mode, which he obviously doesn’t have the skills for. I think he can be effective on the Bulls if he’s not in a decision making position.

In Summer league he tried to be the leader without having the basketball IQ to be the leader, he put himself in a position to look bad. I think he’ll look different when he’s at the bottom of the totem pole again.

When every rookie was coming into the league at 22, then obviously 22 wasn’t bad. But right now if you’re a rookie at 22 and all the other rookies (that matter) are 19-20, you’d better a) be the best rookie b) have dominated your previous level, and JJ was nowhere close to either. In 2010, 22 is old for a rookie—go look at the last four lotteries (or even the first round) and you’ll see that.

Let’s do a little thought experiment: Say you’re the recruiting director for a big-time college program, a UNC or something. You have to choose one of two players: a 19-year old starter who looks like a good college player but was held back a year in school and therefore is one year older than everyone else, or a 17-year old starter who put up basically the same stats but skipped a grade and is a year younger than everyone else. You pick the younger one every time, and that’s obvious—the older guy isn’t as good as he looks, and the younger guy is probably better. Extenuating circumstances aside (Joakim Noah comes to mind).

And that’s assuming performance is equal. With JJ, we see that not only is he older than NBA players with comparable experience, but his performance has been worse. The notion that a 23-year old could be a project is slightly ridiculous—the guy’s a full year older than Kevin Durant!