You are contradicting yourself. Cartier was rated 50ish and you are downplaying Mitchell, yet saying you think Mitchell could be roughly equivalent to Cartier but are also suggesting Mitchell could not be around the 100 range.
I agree that Cartier was probably ahead skillwise if that is a code word for shooting. Looking at that clip, though (which, admittedly is a very small sample size), it appears Mitchell runs better, jumps better and handles the ball better than Martin.
no. i'm saying that mitchell appears to have a similar frame, athletic ability and style as martin. hence he could someday, maybe, be as good as martin. that is his upper limit (upside). but martin was a much better player at the same stage, because he had better skills. hence he was a top 50 (barely) recruit, whereas mitchell is prob. somewhere in the 150-200 range.
disagree that mitchell runs, jumps and handles better than martin. would say the reverse is true. mitchell looks longer though. and to be fair, i think i only saw martin as a hs senior, not a hs junior.
mitchell would be a much better recruit, imo if he gets another inch and some weight and develops a post game. better a highly skilled smallish 4 rather than a stiff, slow tall 3.
