|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Luminous8
Star Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2017
Posts: 2192
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KeepItRealOrElse wrote: | | LakersMD wrote: | | I’m slowly talking myself out of taking a big at 11. Outside of Hayes and Clarke I’m not confident the available bigs can defend in space well enough to stay on the floor come playoff time. |
Yeup. |
Have neither of you watched Fernando? That dude guards thenpick and roll like he’s Kwame Brown. Dude can seriously switch onto guards. Also seems to me to be a more functional defender overall than Hayes despite Hayes having possibly more upside. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LakersMD
Star Player
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 8014
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Luminous8 wrote: | | KeepItRealOrElse wrote: | | LakersMD wrote: | | I’m slowly talking myself out of taking a big at 11. Outside of Hayes and Clarke I’m not confident the available bigs can defend in space well enough to stay on the floor come playoff time. |
Yeup. |
Have neither of you watched Fernando? That dude guards thenpick and roll like he’s Kwame Brown. Dude can seriously switch onto guards. Also seems to me to be a more functional defender overall than Hayes despite Hayes having possibly more upside. |
Yes I’ve seen him play. Don’t think he’s worth considering at 11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakersMD
Star Player
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 8014
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bfc1125roy
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 682
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Luminous8 wrote: | | KeepItRealOrElse wrote: | | LakersMD wrote: | | I’m slowly talking myself out of taking a big at 11. Outside of Hayes and Clarke I’m not confident the available bigs can defend in space well enough to stay on the floor come playoff time. |
Yeup. |
Have neither of you watched Fernando? That dude guards thenpick and roll like he’s Kwame Brown. Dude can seriously switch onto guards. Also seems to me to be a more functional defender overall than Hayes despite Hayes having possibly more upside. |
I get the point, but I don't think Kwame Brown was ever adeptly switching onto guards in the PnR. He was primarily a low post defender, back when teams tried to score through there.
_________________
(bleep) David Stern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If one of those guards doesn't fall, I'd still take a shot at Bol.
Our cowardice last season caused us to pass on Mitchell Robinson.
I won't be sad if we get Clarke... but I'd rather have Garland, White, or Bol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luminous8
Star Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2017
Posts: 2192
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bfc1125roy wrote: | | Luminous8 wrote: | | KeepItRealOrElse wrote: | | LakersMD wrote: | | I’m slowly talking myself out of taking a big at 11. Outside of Hayes and Clarke I’m not confident the available bigs can defend in space well enough to stay on the floor come playoff time. |
Yeup. |
Have neither of you watched Fernando? That dude guards thenpick and roll like he’s Kwame Brown. Dude can seriously switch onto guards. Also seems to me to be a more functional defender overall than Hayes despite Hayes having possibly more upside. |
I get the point, but I don't think Kwame Brown was ever adeptly switching onto guards in the PnR. He was primarily a low post defender, back when teams tried to score through there. |
No. Kwame WAS a terrific post defender, it he was also a terrific pick and roll defender. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GameCock-MD
Star Player
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 4498
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sentient Meat wrote: | If one of those guards doesn't fall, I'd still take a shot at Bol.
Our cowardice last season caused us to pass on Mitchell Robinson.
I won't be sad if we get Clarke... but I'd rather have Garland, White, or Bol |
Bol Bol isn't really a great prospect that would make us regret passing on him.
Mitchell Robinson was a great athletic prospect who could develop into an elite BIG.
Bol is similar to Ingram in which he needs to gain weight/bulk/strength to grow into an NBA body. Neither are elite athletic prospects which would give you reason to believe they could become the face of a franchise like KG was.
Hayes
Fernando
Clarke
Gafford
I'd take all 4 way before I'd take Bol Bol...not our of fear...they are just better.
1 "Slender Man" on the team is enough, IMHO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GameCock-MD
Star Player
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 4498
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dylan Windler is moving up my draft board.
The past couple of years, guys like Kevin Huerter, DiVincenzo, Shamet, J Robinson and Derrick White have been players that I thought were being mocked lower than they would be taken.
I think Windler will move up and if he falls to the 2nd round, someone will get a steal.
I know it was Belmont in the Ohio Valley Conference but when someone scores 21.3ppg, grabs 10.8rpg while shooting over 42% from 3 and 84% from the FT? At 6'7 as a SF?
One of the things that stands out to me is he doesn't try to do too much with the ball. He moves well without the ball and is good at creating separation with stepbacks. Obviously has a good nose for the ball, which can't be taught, IMHO.
He's the type of player that GSW or SAS picks up and makes everyone look stupid for chasing a bigger name earlier in the draft. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KeepItRealOrElse
Retired Number
Joined: 11 Oct 2012
Posts: 32767
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not to poop on your statement but GSW has been pretty damn bad-mediocre at drafting the last 5 years.. which is funny 😁
I wouldn’t mind Windler in the 2nd, he’s in my top 45 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GameCock-MD wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: | If one of those guards doesn't fall, I'd still take a shot at Bol.
Our cowardice last season caused us to pass on Mitchell Robinson.
I won't be sad if we get Clarke... but I'd rather have Garland, White, or Bol |
Bol Bol isn't really a great prospect that would make us regret passing on him.
Mitchell Robinson was a great athletic prospect who could develop into an elite BIG.
Bol is similar to Ingram in which he needs to gain weight/bulk/strength to grow into an NBA body. Neither are elite athletic prospects which would give you reason to believe they could become the face of a franchise like KG was.
Hayes
Fernando
Clarke
Gafford
I'd take all 4 way before I'd take Bol Bol...not our of fear...they are just better.
1 "Slender Man" on the team is enough, IMHO. |
I'm reading the 2015 draft thread since this thread is kind of dead right now... and I see a lot of people high on players like Stanley Johnson, Exum, WCS, Mudiay (who seems to be finally panning out)
I'm confused only because the knowledgeable posters here all agree that the draft is weak... yet there are so many examples of athletic players who flame out at the NBA level.
So if you have a skilled player like Bol who is a subpar athlete... but then you have a bunch of unremarkable bigs who are way more athletic... what's the harm in picking someone who might be capable of doing something different?
I've been reading your thoughts on the draft, and enjoying them (unlike most of your Ingram posts) so I'm considering your ideas with an open mind... but people in the 2015 thread are so sure these athletes are going to pan out... and many of them simply don't.
(I started reading to see if anyone called Jokic... so far no one has... but it's hundreds of pages of reading so many I'll find one.)
At any rate... I do respect the regular posters on the draft thread... who watch college ball much more than I do... and have learned a lot from each of them. But I also notice they tend to overrate athleticism over skill... which of course is natural since basketball is one of the most athletic sports. Many times they are right... but surprisingly many times they are wrong as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GameCock-MD
Star Player
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 4498
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sentient Meat wrote: | | GameCock-MD wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: | If one of those guards doesn't fall, I'd still take a shot at Bol.
Our cowardice last season caused us to pass on Mitchell Robinson.
I won't be sad if we get Clarke... but I'd rather have Garland, White, or Bol |
Bol Bol isn't really a great prospect that would make us regret passing on him.
Mitchell Robinson was a great athletic prospect who could develop into an elite BIG.
Bol is similar to Ingram in which he needs to gain weight/bulk/strength to grow into an NBA body. Neither are elite athletic prospects which would give you reason to believe they could become the face of a franchise like KG was.
Hayes
Fernando
Clarke
Gafford
I'd take all 4 way before I'd take Bol Bol...not our of fear...they are just better.
1 "Slender Man" on the team is enough, IMHO. |
I'm reading the 2015 draft thread since this thread is kind of dead right now... and I see a lot of people high on players like Stanley Johnson, Exum, WCS, Mudiay (who seems to be finally panning out)
I'm confused only because the knowledgeable posters here all agree that the draft is weak... yet there are so many examples of athletic players who flame out at the NBA level.
So if you have a skilled player like Bol who is a subpar athlete... but then you have a bunch of unremarkable bigs who are way more athletic... what's the harm in picking someone who might be capable of doing something different?
I've been reading your thoughts on the draft, and enjoying them (unlike most of your Ingram posts) so I'm considering your ideas with an open mind... but people in the 2015 thread are so sure these athletes are going to pan out... and many of them simply don't.
(I started reading to see if anyone called Jokic... so far no one has... but it's hundreds of pages of reading so many I'll find one.)
At any rate... I do respect the regular posters on the draft thread... who watch college ball much more than I do... and have learned a lot from each of them. But I also notice they tend to overrate athleticism over skill... which of course is natural since basketball is one of the most athletic sports. Many times they are right... but surprisingly many times they are wrong as well. |
Sorry you don't share my opinion of Ingram but I'd really like to know what YOU think my opinion of Ingram is? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts it's not the same as what my real opinion of Ingram is.
As for Bol, he's fairly skilled for someone his size but he's also not ready to play anywhere near the post in the NBA. When he's defending the post, he's guaranteed buckets for anyone who is even a mediocre post player in the NBA.
His skillset doesn't fit all teams.
Some people evaluate players for the flash and "icing" and ignore the "meat". People assume a BIG who can shoot is worth their weight in gold in the NBA. I don't agree. I think shooting at the 4/5 is an asset if and only if the player is good or great at all other aspects/skills required for that position including setting hard picks, grabbing rebounds, basic post moves and protecting the rim.
IMHO, everything Bol does can be had by taking a SF. Nothing he does in the post will keep him on the floor or make him a starter in the next 3 years on most teams.
Now, can a player like Bol end up in the perfect situation and succeed? Sure. That doesn't mean others missed on him. If a team decides to build around him or has a great UTILITY type BIG who does all of the other things, doesn't require a lot of touches and can play next to Bol, sure, Bol'd have a chance. That's not the same thing as evaluating Bol in a normal situation where his only useful skill in the NBA, until he bulks up or gets stronger, is shooting.
Could I be wrong? Sure. Is that likely in this situation? Nope. We are here evaluating players in a vacuum. I can't predict all of the variables that would lead to certainty of his future nor do I claim that ability.
What I do say is if I were building a team, I'd bank on Hayes, Bruno, Clarke, Gafford learning how to shoot as well as Bol does now before I'd bank on Bol becoming a reliable post option, rim protector or post defender at the NBA level.
I value Athleticism because it provides a base for development. An un-athletic person has to be MUCH more skilled than a freak athlete to create the same shot at the NBA Level - see D'Angelo Russell vs Zach LaVine:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/russeda01.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lavinza01.html
If Russell had LaVine's athleticism, we're talking about a future top 10 player...but he doesn't and there's nothing he can do to change that. It's perfectly Ok to acknowledge that LaVine easily has more potential and a higher ceiling because he's more athletic.
Same with Bol here. I'm not saying he's un-athletic. I'm saying his physical limitations are a concern that training and development aren't likely to solve. So picking him and him turning out good would be more guessing than actually analysis.
I'm sorry you disagree. I've watched some film on Bol on youtube (games, not highlights) and he looks intriguing but not "can't miss". Add in the injury concern and it's a hard pass for me at #11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KeepItRealOrElse
Retired Number
Joined: 11 Oct 2012
Posts: 32767
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I liked WCS at a point in that college season but eventually cooled on him before the draft.. was like my 2nd season looking at prospects too
With Bol it is really about more “physical limitations” than pure athleticism in the sense you’re referencing it Sentiant Meat
Last edited by KeepItRealOrElse on Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:42 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KeepItRealOrElse
Retired Number
Joined: 11 Oct 2012
Posts: 32767
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bitadze is growing on me. Probably in my 9-12 tier . Fills a great need for us too, and is way more nba ready than these college guys |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GameCock-MD
Star Player
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 4498
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KeepItRealOrElse wrote: | I liked WCS at a point in that college season but eventually cooled on him before the draft.. was like my 2nd season looking at prospects too
With Bol it is really about more “physical limitations” than pure athleticism in the sense you’re referencing it Sentiant Meat |
Exactly. People like to compare KD, Giannis and Porzingis to other really skinny prospects. All of those guys were good to great athletes AND they had wide frames that could support more bulk and muscle mass. You could tell from looking at them that they would grow into their height/athleticism.
Bol Bol isn't just skinny. He's frail looking. BIGs with foot problems in college scare me. I'm not getting off the couch for anyone with those issues who isn't a can't miss prospect like Embiid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GameCock-MD wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: | | GameCock-MD wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: | If one of those guards doesn't fall, I'd still take a shot at Bol.
Our cowardice last season caused us to pass on Mitchell Robinson.
I won't be sad if we get Clarke... but I'd rather have Garland, White, or Bol |
Bol Bol isn't really a great prospect that would make us regret passing on him.
Mitchell Robinson was a great athletic prospect who could develop into an elite BIG.
Bol is similar to Ingram in which he needs to gain weight/bulk/strength to grow into an NBA body. Neither are elite athletic prospects which would give you reason to believe they could become the face of a franchise like KG was.
Hayes
Fernando
Clarke
Gafford
I'd take all 4 way before I'd take Bol Bol...not our of fear...they are just better.
1 "Slender Man" on the team is enough, IMHO. |
I'm reading the 2015 draft thread since this thread is kind of dead right now... and I see a lot of people high on players like Stanley Johnson, Exum, WCS, Mudiay (who seems to be finally panning out)
I'm confused only because the knowledgeable posters here all agree that the draft is weak... yet there are so many examples of athletic players who flame out at the NBA level.
So if you have a skilled player like Bol who is a subpar athlete... but then you have a bunch of unremarkable bigs who are way more athletic... what's the harm in picking someone who might be capable of doing something different?
I've been reading your thoughts on the draft, and enjoying them (unlike most of your Ingram posts) so I'm considering your ideas with an open mind... but people in the 2015 thread are so sure these athletes are going to pan out... and many of them simply don't.
(I started reading to see if anyone called Jokic... so far no one has... but it's hundreds of pages of reading so many I'll find one.)
At any rate... I do respect the regular posters on the draft thread... who watch college ball much more than I do... and have learned a lot from each of them. But I also notice they tend to overrate athleticism over skill... which of course is natural since basketball is one of the most athletic sports. Many times they are right... but surprisingly many times they are wrong as well. |
Sorry you don't share my opinion of Ingram but I'd really like to know what YOU think my opinion of Ingram is? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts it's not the same as what my real opinion of Ingram is.
As for Bol, he's fairly skilled for someone his size but he's also not ready to play anywhere near the post in the NBA. When he's defending the post, he's guaranteed buckets for anyone who is even a mediocre post player in the NBA.
His skillset doesn't fit all teams.
Some people evaluate players for the flash and "icing" and ignore the "meat". People assume a BIG who can shoot is worth their weight in gold in the NBA. I don't agree. I think shooting at the 4/5 is an asset if and only if the player is good or great at all other aspects/skills required for that position including setting hard picks, grabbing rebounds, basic post moves and protecting the rim.
IMHO, everything Bol does can be had by taking a SF. Nothing he does in the post will keep him on the floor or make him a starter in the next 3 years on most teams.
Now, can a player like Bol end up in the perfect situation and succeed? Sure. That doesn't mean others missed on him. If a team decides to build around him or has a great UTILITY type BIG who does all of the other things, doesn't require a lot of touches and can play next to Bol, sure, Bol'd have a chance. That's not the same thing as evaluating Bol in a normal situation where his only useful skill in the NBA, until he bulks up or gets stronger, is shooting.
Could I be wrong? Sure. Is that likely in this situation? Nope. We are here evaluating players in a vacuum. I can't predict all of the variables that would lead to certainty of his future nor do I claim that ability.
What I do say is if I were building a team, I'd bank on Hayes, Bruno, Clarke, Gafford learning how to shoot as well as Bol does now before I'd bank on Bol becoming a reliable post option, rim protector or post defender at the NBA level.
I value Athleticism because it provides a base for development. An un-athletic person has to be MUCH more skilled than a freak athlete to create the same shot at the NBA Level - see D'Angelo Russell vs Zach LaVine:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/russeda01.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lavinza01.html
If Russell had LaVine's athleticism, we're talking about a future top 10 player...but he doesn't and there's nothing he can do to change that. It's perfectly Ok to acknowledge that LaVine easily has more potential and a higher ceiling because he's more athletic.
Same with Bol here. I'm not saying he's un-athletic. I'm saying his physical limitations are a concern that training and development aren't likely to solve. So picking him and him turning out good would be more guessing than actually analysis.
I'm sorry you disagree. I've watched some film on Bol on youtube (games, not highlights) and he looks intriguing but not "can't miss". Add in the injury concern and it's a hard pass for me at #11. |
My main argument isn't so much that Bol is not a project but that the gurus here are so negative about the draft to begin with... that instead of us signing another Tariq Black, Nance... even Ed Davis type player... that maybe we try to develop the unicorn instead.
If you all were excited about Hayes, Gafford, Fernando... then sure... it all makes sense about signing the future potential starter over the wild card who Bol clearly is.
But since many on the board are saying stuff like trade down... no one is surefire other than the top 5... then in that context I wonder why not try Bol. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GameCock-MD
Star Player
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 4498
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Now, if we take him, I'm going to hype him like no other just because he's on the Lakers and I hope he succeeds. Beforehand, if you ask if I hope that happens, not really. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KeepItRealOrElse
Retired Number
Joined: 11 Oct 2012
Posts: 32767
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sentient Meat wrote: | | GameCock-MD wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: | | GameCock-MD wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: | If one of those guards doesn't fall, I'd still take a shot at Bol.
Our cowardice last season caused us to pass on Mitchell Robinson.
I won't be sad if we get Clarke... but I'd rather have Garland, White, or Bol |
Bol Bol isn't really a great prospect that would make us regret passing on him.
Mitchell Robinson was a great athletic prospect who could develop into an elite BIG.
Bol is similar to Ingram in which he needs to gain weight/bulk/strength to grow into an NBA body. Neither are elite athletic prospects which would give you reason to believe they could become the face of a franchise like KG was.
Hayes
Fernando
Clarke
Gafford
I'd take all 4 way before I'd take Bol Bol...not our of fear...they are just better.
1 "Slender Man" on the team is enough, IMHO. |
I'm reading the 2015 draft thread since this thread is kind of dead right now... and I see a lot of people high on players like Stanley Johnson, Exum, WCS, Mudiay (who seems to be finally panning out)
I'm confused only because the knowledgeable posters here all agree that the draft is weak... yet there are so many examples of athletic players who flame out at the NBA level.
So if you have a skilled player like Bol who is a subpar athlete... but then you have a bunch of unremarkable bigs who are way more athletic... what's the harm in picking someone who might be capable of doing something different?
I've been reading your thoughts on the draft, and enjoying them (unlike most of your Ingram posts) so I'm considering your ideas with an open mind... but people in the 2015 thread are so sure these athletes are going to pan out... and many of them simply don't.
(I started reading to see if anyone called Jokic... so far no one has... but it's hundreds of pages of reading so many I'll find one.)
At any rate... I do respect the regular posters on the draft thread... who watch college ball much more than I do... and have learned a lot from each of them. But I also notice they tend to overrate athleticism over skill... which of course is natural since basketball is one of the most athletic sports. Many times they are right... but surprisingly many times they are wrong as well. |
Sorry you don't share my opinion of Ingram but I'd really like to know what YOU think my opinion of Ingram is? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts it's not the same as what my real opinion of Ingram is.
As for Bol, he's fairly skilled for someone his size but he's also not ready to play anywhere near the post in the NBA. When he's defending the post, he's guaranteed buckets for anyone who is even a mediocre post player in the NBA.
His skillset doesn't fit all teams.
Some people evaluate players for the flash and "icing" and ignore the "meat". People assume a BIG who can shoot is worth their weight in gold in the NBA. I don't agree. I think shooting at the 4/5 is an asset if and only if the player is good or great at all other aspects/skills required for that position including setting hard picks, grabbing rebounds, basic post moves and protecting the rim.
IMHO, everything Bol does can be had by taking a SF. Nothing he does in the post will keep him on the floor or make him a starter in the next 3 years on most teams.
Now, can a player like Bol end up in the perfect situation and succeed? Sure. That doesn't mean others missed on him. If a team decides to build around him or has a great UTILITY type BIG who does all of the other things, doesn't require a lot of touches and can play next to Bol, sure, Bol'd have a chance. That's not the same thing as evaluating Bol in a normal situation where his only useful skill in the NBA, until he bulks up or gets stronger, is shooting.
Could I be wrong? Sure. Is that likely in this situation? Nope. We are here evaluating players in a vacuum. I can't predict all of the variables that would lead to certainty of his future nor do I claim that ability.
What I do say is if I were building a team, I'd bank on Hayes, Bruno, Clarke, Gafford learning how to shoot as well as Bol does now before I'd bank on Bol becoming a reliable post option, rim protector or post defender at the NBA level.
I value Athleticism because it provides a base for development. An un-athletic person has to be MUCH more skilled than a freak athlete to create the same shot at the NBA Level - see D'Angelo Russell vs Zach LaVine:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/russeda01.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lavinza01.html
If Russell had LaVine's athleticism, we're talking about a future top 10 player...but he doesn't and there's nothing he can do to change that. It's perfectly Ok to acknowledge that LaVine easily has more potential and a higher ceiling because he's more athletic.
Same with Bol here. I'm not saying he's un-athletic. I'm saying his physical limitations are a concern that training and development aren't likely to solve. So picking him and him turning out good would be more guessing than actually analysis.
I'm sorry you disagree. I've watched some film on Bol on youtube (games, not highlights) and he looks intriguing but not "can't miss". Add in the injury concern and it's a hard pass for me at #11. |
My main argument isn't so much that Bol is not a project but that the gurus here are so negative about the draft to begin with... that instead of us signing another Tariq Black, Nance... even Ed Davis type player... that maybe we try to develop the unicorn instead.
If you all were excited about Hayes, Gafford, Fernando... then sure... it all makes sense about signing the future potential starter over the wild card who Bol clearly is.
But since many on the board are saying stuff like trade down... no one is surefire other than the top 5... then in that context I wonder why not try Bol. |
I’ll take a risk on an upside guy.. just not Bol - he just doesn’t have the quicks+strength necessary. If you don’t have one you need the other, length doesn’t cover for those massive deficits at bigman positions like it can on the wing - Ingram
Bol’s lowlights are just next level. Barely D1 athletes abusing him |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KeepItRealOrElse wrote: | I liked WCS at a point in that college season but eventually cooled on him before the draft.. was like my 2nd season looking at prospects too
With Bol it is really about more “physical limitations” than pure athleticism in the sense you’re referencing it Sentiant Meat |
I wasn't referring to you specifically or trying to call anyone out. (which is why I mentioned no names) I simply noticed a pattern of many posters advocating for athletes... like how many pundits had Nassir Little really high at the beginning of the season... only to see those athletes fade in the NBA.
I make regrettable comments all the time and I'm sure if one were inclined to go through my posts that I'd have my share of bad calls.
What I'm looking for is not to prove anyone wrong... which we've all done many times... but rather to find the gems... someone who saw something that no one else did.
So I was looking for a Jokic advocate in 2015... nothing more.
As I said, I learn a lot from all of you who post in the draft threads and respect most of the information even if I challenge it often. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GameCock-MD wrote: | | Now, if we take him, I'm going to hype him like no other just because he's on the Lakers and I hope he succeeds. Beforehand, if you ask if I hope that happens, not really. |
Yeah, what you and KIROE say makes sense... I can see the deficits myself.
But it's all a question if any of those deficits can be fixed.
Is he truly incapable of becoming a viable player?
Can you use him in a zone like defense when you have a superior defensive PG like Lonzo?
Maybe he works paired with another big body at PF?
Obviously you can't use him with a weak defensive point guard... but maybe he works with four strong defenders.
These are the questions I wonder.
And do you guys conversely consider how anyone defends our length if we have him? We could field lineups where LBJ is the shortest player. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GameCock-MD
Star Player
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 4498
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sentient Meat wrote: | | GameCock-MD wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: | | GameCock-MD wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: | If one of those guards doesn't fall, I'd still take a shot at Bol.
Our cowardice last season caused us to pass on Mitchell Robinson.
I won't be sad if we get Clarke... but I'd rather have Garland, White, or Bol |
Bol Bol isn't really a great prospect that would make us regret passing on him.
Mitchell Robinson was a great athletic prospect who could develop into an elite BIG.
Bol is similar to Ingram in which he needs to gain weight/bulk/strength to grow into an NBA body. Neither are elite athletic prospects which would give you reason to believe they could become the face of a franchise like KG was.
Hayes
Fernando
Clarke
Gafford
I'd take all 4 way before I'd take Bol Bol...not our of fear...they are just better.
1 "Slender Man" on the team is enough, IMHO. |
I'm reading the 2015 draft thread since this thread is kind of dead right now... and I see a lot of people high on players like Stanley Johnson, Exum, WCS, Mudiay (who seems to be finally panning out)
I'm confused only because the knowledgeable posters here all agree that the draft is weak... yet there are so many examples of athletic players who flame out at the NBA level.
So if you have a skilled player like Bol who is a subpar athlete... but then you have a bunch of unremarkable bigs who are way more athletic... what's the harm in picking someone who might be capable of doing something different?
I've been reading your thoughts on the draft, and enjoying them (unlike most of your Ingram posts) so I'm considering your ideas with an open mind... but people in the 2015 thread are so sure these athletes are going to pan out... and many of them simply don't.
(I started reading to see if anyone called Jokic... so far no one has... but it's hundreds of pages of reading so many I'll find one.)
At any rate... I do respect the regular posters on the draft thread... who watch college ball much more than I do... and have learned a lot from each of them. But I also notice they tend to overrate athleticism over skill... which of course is natural since basketball is one of the most athletic sports. Many times they are right... but surprisingly many times they are wrong as well. |
Sorry you don't share my opinion of Ingram but I'd really like to know what YOU think my opinion of Ingram is? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts it's not the same as what my real opinion of Ingram is.
As for Bol, he's fairly skilled for someone his size but he's also not ready to play anywhere near the post in the NBA. When he's defending the post, he's guaranteed buckets for anyone who is even a mediocre post player in the NBA.
His skillset doesn't fit all teams.
Some people evaluate players for the flash and "icing" and ignore the "meat". People assume a BIG who can shoot is worth their weight in gold in the NBA. I don't agree. I think shooting at the 4/5 is an asset if and only if the player is good or great at all other aspects/skills required for that position including setting hard picks, grabbing rebounds, basic post moves and protecting the rim.
IMHO, everything Bol does can be had by taking a SF. Nothing he does in the post will keep him on the floor or make him a starter in the next 3 years on most teams.
Now, can a player like Bol end up in the perfect situation and succeed? Sure. That doesn't mean others missed on him. If a team decides to build around him or has a great UTILITY type BIG who does all of the other things, doesn't require a lot of touches and can play next to Bol, sure, Bol'd have a chance. That's not the same thing as evaluating Bol in a normal situation where his only useful skill in the NBA, until he bulks up or gets stronger, is shooting.
Could I be wrong? Sure. Is that likely in this situation? Nope. We are here evaluating players in a vacuum. I can't predict all of the variables that would lead to certainty of his future nor do I claim that ability.
What I do say is if I were building a team, I'd bank on Hayes, Bruno, Clarke, Gafford learning how to shoot as well as Bol does now before I'd bank on Bol becoming a reliable post option, rim protector or post defender at the NBA level.
I value Athleticism because it provides a base for development. An un-athletic person has to be MUCH more skilled than a freak athlete to create the same shot at the NBA Level - see D'Angelo Russell vs Zach LaVine:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/russeda01.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lavinza01.html
If Russell had LaVine's athleticism, we're talking about a future top 10 player...but he doesn't and there's nothing he can do to change that. It's perfectly Ok to acknowledge that LaVine easily has more potential and a higher ceiling because he's more athletic.
Same with Bol here. I'm not saying he's un-athletic. I'm saying his physical limitations are a concern that training and development aren't likely to solve. So picking him and him turning out good would be more guessing than actually analysis.
I'm sorry you disagree. I've watched some film on Bol on youtube (games, not highlights) and he looks intriguing but not "can't miss". Add in the injury concern and it's a hard pass for me at #11. |
My main argument isn't so much that Bol is not a project but that the gurus here are so negative about the draft to begin with... that instead of us signing another Tariq Black, Nance... even Ed Davis type player... that maybe we try to develop the unicorn instead.
If you all were excited about Hayes, Gafford, Fernando... then sure... it all makes sense about signing the future potential starter over the wild card who Bol clearly is.
But since many on the board are saying stuff like trade down... no one is surefire other than the top 5... then in that context I wonder why not try Bol. |
I haven't consider the Lakers trading down so maybe that's where the disconnect is.
At 11, there are likely to be 1 of Hayes/Bruno/Clarke available.
Hayes is raw but a definite rim protecting prospect.
Bruno has the tools to be a 2-way BIG in the NBA but again, he's still raw.
Clarke is likely the best defensive player of that group, able to defend 1-4 no problem and has the best nose for the ball of the 3.
All 3 should be lotto picks, no question in my mind. You'd have to pass up all 3 of those guys who project to have no less than "Starter on a great team potential" to take Bol Bol who has a floor that's out of the NBA, IMHO.
But I can see the appeal. He has skills and he has length. If he were 4 inches shorter at the same weight/length (6'11/235), he'd be a top 5 pick, most likely. At 7'3/235? And average to slightly above average athleticism? With foot problems? That's a lot to dismiss.
Consider Mohamed Bamba last year. 7'0/225. He was fairly skinny too. Difference? Bamba looks stronger, more athletic, stronger/better base, better balance and the potential to grow into his height. If Mo Bamba gains even 15 pounds of muscle, he's a potential NIGHTMARE on both ends of the court. I thought Bamba was mocked right where he needed to be in a deeper draft last year at 5. If Bamba had come out this year? He'd be a consensus #3 pick right behind Zion and Ja.
I can't say the same for Bol. I'd like to. If you have a point that could change my mind, I'm willing to listen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GameCock-MD wrote: |
I haven't consider the Lakers trading down so maybe that's where the disconnect is.
At 11, there are likely to be 1 of Hayes/Bruno/Clarke available.
Hayes is raw but a definite rim protecting prospect.
Bruno has the tools to be a 2-way BIG in the NBA but again, he's still raw.
Clarke is likely the best defensive player of that group, able to defend 1-4 no problem and has the best nose for the ball of the 3.
All 3 should be lotto picks, no question in my mind. You'd have to pass up all 3 of those guys who project to have no less than "Starter on a great team potential" to take Bol Bol who has a floor that's out of the NBA, IMHO.
But I can see the appeal. He has skills and he has length. If he were 4 inches shorter at the same weight/length (6'11/235), he'd be a top 5 pick, most likely. At 7'3/235? And average to slightly above average athleticism? With foot problems? That's a lot to dismiss.
Consider Mohamed Bamba last year. 7'0/225. He was fairly skinny too. Difference? Bamba looks stronger, more athletic, stronger/better base, better balance and the potential to grow into his height. If Mo Bamba gains even 15 pounds of muscle, he's a potential NIGHTMARE on both ends of the court. I thought Bamba was mocked right where he needed to be in a deeper draft last year at 5. If Bamba had come out this year? He'd be a consensus #3 pick right behind Zion and Ja.
I can't say the same for Bol. I'd like to. If you have a point that could change my mind, I'm willing to listen. |
I haven't seen Hayes play much so all I know from reading posts here is that people think he's weak for a center. So although obviously he's more functional than Bol... if you are choosing between a weak player of more normal size and a weak player of rare size with an unusual shooting skill set then it makes me more interested. Seems like Hayes would only be a worse version of McGee. Same with Bruno who looks okay, and I like how he can shoot free throws, but I haven't seen him impact a game in the few games I've watched him.
Clarke looks good but he's undersized... a shot blocking Larry Nance.
Would he help the team... sure. But then you have two interior players who don't spread the floor. At least Bol could serve the Brook role though I can see how he'd be a huge liability on defense. Again as I said in a previous post... maybe you can mask his defense because we have a great defensive point guard who can't shoot... essentially trading their traditional roles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GameCock-MD wrote: | Dylan Windler is moving up my draft board.
The past couple of years, guys like Kevin Huerter, DiVincenzo, Shamet, J Robinson and Derrick White have been players that I thought were being mocked lower than they would be taken.
I think Windler will move up and if he falls to the 2nd round, someone will get a steal.
I know it was Belmont in the Ohio Valley Conference but when someone scores 21.3ppg, grabs 10.8rpg while shooting over 42% from 3 and 84% from the FT? At 6'7 as a SF?
One of the things that stands out to me is he doesn't try to do too much with the ball. He moves well without the ball and is good at creating separation with stepbacks. Obviously has a good nose for the ball, which can't be taught, IMHO.
He's the type of player that GSW or SAS picks up and makes everyone look stupid for chasing a bigger name earlier in the draft. |
I have been trying to tell them since last fall.....Windler is not just a shooter, he is a baller. He has good size, almost always able to create the little space he needs to get a clean shot off, is a great rebounder for a perimeter player, and has shown the ability to be a playmaker when needed. He is not a stiff on defense either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
€H£M£$TR¥
Star Player
Joined: 03 Apr 2017
Posts: 3782
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AFireInside619 wrote: | | €H£M£$TR¥ wrote: | Gonna keep spamming this thread until draft day...
DRAFT THE BEST SHOOTER AVAILABLE AT THE SLOTS WE PICK |
BPA.
We did best shooter available last year. Terrible. |
Svi? And we traded him just as he was gaining confidence his rookie year. Or are we talking Bonga... Mo? There are much better 3 and D guys this year.
_________________
DEAR BASKETBALL
Last edited by €H£M£$TR¥ on Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:04 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LakersMD wrote: | | Luminous8 wrote: | | KeepItRealOrElse wrote: | | LakersMD wrote: | | I’m slowly talking myself out of taking a big at 11. Outside of Hayes and Clarke I’m not confident the available bigs can defend in space well enough to stay on the floor come playoff time. |
Yeup. |
Have neither of you watched Fernando? That dude guards thenpick and roll like he’s Kwame Brown. Dude can seriously switch onto guards. Also seems to me to be a more functional defender overall than Hayes despite Hayes having possibly more upside. |
Yes I’ve seen him play. Don’t think he’s worth considering at 11. |
what if he was getting mocked at #6 or #7? It is not really a question directed at you, just something that I find interesting.....are our thoughts/opinions led and to what degree by popular mocks and draft experts?
Zion is easy at #1, but what if Jaxson Hayes was mostly mocked in the late 1st round, and articles continued to point out his slight frame and limited production. Would we be calling him a Top 10 pick? If Cole Zwicker and Givony were out there saying Carson Edwards was a lottery pick....how many of us would include him in out lottery? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KeepItRealOrElse
Retired Number
Joined: 11 Oct 2012
Posts: 32767
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2019 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sentient Meat wrote: | | KeepItRealOrElse wrote: | I liked WCS at a point in that college season but eventually cooled on him before the draft.. was like my 2nd season looking at prospects too
With Bol it is really about more “physical limitations” than pure athleticism in the sense you’re referencing it Sentiant Meat |
I wasn't referring to you specifically or trying to call anyone out. (which is why I mentioned no names) I simply noticed a pattern of many posters advocating for athletes... like how many pundits had Nassir Little really high at the beginning of the season... only to see those athletes fade in the NBA.
I make regrettable comments all the time and I'm sure if one were inclined to go through my posts that I'd have my share of bad calls.
What I'm looking for is not to prove anyone wrong... which we've all done many times... but rather to find the gems... someone who saw something that no one else did.
So I was looking for a Jokic advocate in 2015... nothing more.
As I said, I learn a lot from all of you who post in the draft threads and respect most of the information even if I challenge it often. |
Na I knew it wasn’t a shot my man ha. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
