When I see lack of compete, "Why did Alex Holtz fail for 1000" screams out at me. That said he seems to have a better all around scouting report than Holtz did, who was just a big shot and little much else to say about his game. Holtz lack of compete and bad defense, he seems to be good on defense, something doesn't add. Maybe it is he is younger, and though he has decent size, doesn't have confidence in his strength, or proper knowledge of how to use it, due to his age? Either way, he seems more interesting than some of your picks for 50.
The arguments about hitting, show up in compete level, winning board battles, etc.
I think it's also an adjustment he needs to make to his body. I'm not overly concerned with his compete level, though it would be nice to see him more active in some facets of the game.
As far as Holtz goes, it wasn't the best pick at the time (Rossi, Perfetti), but I get the arguments to why they did it. His development flatlining was the real killer IMO.
If you are not a willing worker, one who is willing to change, than you are not going to develop. If you think it was good enough to get you here, that is where you going to stay. A lack of development is equally on the player and the team. (This regards Holtz)
I would absolutely love this pick.
When I see lack of compete, "Why did Alex Holtz fail for 1000" screams out at me. That said he seems to have a better all around scouting report than Holtz did, who was just a big shot and little much else to say about his game. Holtz lack of compete and bad defense, he seems to be good on defense, something doesn't add. Maybe it is he is younger, and though he has decent size, doesn't have confidence in his strength, or proper knowledge of how to use it, due to his age? Either way, he seems more interesting than some of your picks for 50.
The arguments about hitting, show up in compete level, winning board battles, etc.
I think it's also an adjustment he needs to make to his body. I'm not overly concerned with his compete level, though it would be nice to see him more active in some facets of the game.
As far as Holtz goes, it wasn't the best pick at the time (Rossi, Perfetti), but I get the arguments to why they did it. His development flatlining was the real killer IMO.
If you are not a willing worker, one who is willing to change, than you are not going to develop. If you think it was good enough to get you here, that is where you going to stay. A lack of development is equally on the player and the team. (This regards Holtz)