I'm also glad Jacobs said it - re: Stevens. Apparently she surprised Geno by leaving (I wonder what went thru her mind). And per Jacobs, "Bad decision, Azura". I agree. No one in the W is going to push her to be more of a post presence like Geno and CD would have. Her interior game will not develop the same way in the pros as it would have at UCONN.
It would not surprise me to see her range way more out on the perimeter in the W and forego learning more about playing effectively in the post. I asked in a different thread if her career will be closer to Iciss Tillis or Brit Griner. It remains to be seen, but if she fancies herself a wing, it will be more Iciss Tillis.
Z's inclination is to roam the outside and shoot 3's which as she is far from a great 3 point shooter and being 6'6, a waste and makes her I. Tillis and how long of a career did she have in the WNBA? Geno was transforming her to be much more of a post player against her instincts and another year of doing that with strength training would have helped her tremendously. Oh well...
@EricLA , that was an interesting comparison, by referencing Tillis and Griner. I believe a better player comparison at the top end of the spectrum is Elena Delle Donne, if you are using Iciss Tillis on the low end of the spectrum. I wanted to respond to both your post and
@dtbtbtb 's post together.
Having seen both players countless times in college, here is my assessment of Iciss Tillis vs. Azura Stevens:
-- In terms of north/south speed and leaping ability, Tillis was superior.
-- Tillis was a slightly better three-point shooter (using Stevens' three-point shooting at Duke as the barometer, instead of the one year at UConn).
-- Tillis was not especially adept at getting her own shot.
-- Stevens, by contrast, is much better at creating her own shot. Her pull-up and mid-range jumpers are excellent.
-- Stevens is better in attacking the boards at angles.
-- Stevens is a better rebounder and shotblocker.
-- Stevens is mentally tougher and more aggressive than Tillis, which was obvious from the first minute Azura walked onto the floor.
-- Iciss Tillis was a ridiculous athlete who happened to play basketball.
-- Azura Stevens is a basketball player who happens to be a very good athlete. Stevens would be a basketball player at any height.
Basically, it boils down to these key points, in my assessment:
Azura Stevens is a natural guard. She grew up being a guard, playing the position. She then had a massive growth sport.
Stevens' game is built for the modern pro game. If a WNBA franchise is drafting Azura Stevens to make her into a center, that would be, to be blunt, idiotic, unless you are running a five-out motion, like Phoenix did in 2007.
In essence, Stevens is not Tillis (she is significantly better than Tillis), nor is she Griner (Stevens is not a center). She is going to be a better Tangela Smith, in that Stevens is more physical, has a handle, can attack the rim, but also can face-up. Tangela Smith made one All Star team and was a career 11.0 ppg scorer over her 15 WNBA seasons. I see Stevens as the next evolution of Smith, someone who can make a few All Star teams, but will not likely be a first or second All-WNBA team performer. In other words, she will be a great WNBA player, but not an outstanding one.
I think she got her third early as well and once you are in foul trouble, your entire game changes.
