PDA

View Full Version : Cons > Pros



Mave1002
05-11-2017, 11:31 PM
We're counting days before the draft lottery.... Felt that this thread is necessary just so well have an idea in relation to the weak points (on and off the court) of the upcoming draft class or maybe at least the projected top 10.

Enough about the hype.

Fultz
Ball
Jackson
Tatum
Isaac

Monk
Smith
Fox
Ntilikina
Markkanen

Aside from LB having an *** of a dad, what else do you guys know about him (CONS) and the rest of the prospects?

SIDE NOTE: Also, as a Laker fan.. if we do retain our top 3 pick -- I strongly believe that Josh Jackson would be the best fit for the team especially if you pair him up with Brandon Ingram. Just my two cents. Do you guys agree?

hugepatsfan
05-12-2017, 12:40 PM
I think Jackson/Ingram would be a great pairing. Very complimentary players IMO.

My understanding is that Fultz is a cut above other guys. Even for the Lakers, I think you could run a 3 guard system of Russell, Fultz, Clarkson - seems like those guys could all play on or off ball and have the size to defend 2s if they work at it.

For BOS, my order of preference is

Fultz
Jackson
Tatum
Monk
Issac

I don't like Ball's game in the NBA as a ball dominant PG who can't shoot. Not a style of player I like.

Scoots
05-12-2017, 03:39 PM
As long as they are not allowed weapons, the cons will certainly lose to the pros.

Quinnsanity
05-12-2017, 10:00 PM
I've watched a lot of Fultz over the past week or two in preparation for the lottery and eventually the draft. Man, I've gotta say I don't see a real weakness. He's not there on defense yet but athletically he's more than good enough and he tries for the most part. He just has to learn the specifics. If he has the opportunity (doesn't end up in Boston, basically) I think he's like an efficient 18-20 point scorer with a good amount of assists in Year 1. He's phenomenal.

hugepatsfan
05-13-2017, 09:31 AM
I've watched a lot of Fultz over the past week or two in preparation for the lottery and eventually the draft. Man, I've gotta say I don't see a real weakness. He's not there on defense yet but athletically he's more than good enough and he tries for the most part. He just has to learn the specifics. If he has the opportunity (doesn't end up in Boston, basically) I think he's like an efficient 18-20 point scorer with a good amount of assists in Year 1. He's phenomenal.

He wouldn't get 18-20 but if he does end up in BOS he should get plenty of volume because he'd play on a second unit that is desperate for offense. Hopefully we get him at #1 and then can land Hayward (we'd have to renounce all our FAs and salary dump Rozier).

IT/Smart
Bradley/Fultz
Hayward/Brown
Crowder/Yabusele
Horford/Zizic

Yabusele and Zizic are first round picks from last year that spent the year overseas. Both really played well and improved their standing. Yabu is a 270 lb stretch four that's supposed to have freakishly quick feet (nickmaned the "Dancing Bear". Zizic is a traditional big man C. I don't have insider access so I can't speak to the specifics, but Chad Ford had them #4 and #5 in his rookie rankings:

http://hardwoodhoudini.com/2017/04/04/brown-zizic-and-yabusele-rank-in-top-7-of-espns-2016-draft-prospects-list/

At this point we'd have vet min deals and the room exception to add some more depth. The most glaring need is front court depth. Zizic/Yabu wil be rookies coming from overseas - not guys you want to depend on entirely. The room exception would likely be used on a big here. I like Aron Bynes from DET a lot for the role. )Willie Reed from MIA, Javele McGee from GS, Jeff Whitey from Utah are others.) We just need a guy that can throw his body around down low, grab rebounds, use his fouls, etc. for like 15ish minutes a night. I feel Zizic should be able to do the same thing and then you go small with Horford at C for the rest of the minutes. Re-shift the big man rotation to:

Horford/Crowder
Bynes/Zizic

(Yabu gets another developmental year)

I figure Gerald Green will be back on a vet min deal because he's close with IT and let's be honest, probably won't get more anywhere else. Jaylen Brown has shown flashes as a slasher, shooter and defender this year and the hope would be that he progresses in year 2 (remember he was a raw player) but Green as a vet min signing would provide some insurance like he did this year and at least give you a shooter to spread the floor if he has to be out there.

Anyway now, getting back to Fultz, the second unit he'd be playing on would be Smart/Fultz/Brown/Crowder/Zizic. If Brown's shooting is solid like it was this year then spacing should be alright. He'd be the primary ball handler and asked to create so while he might not play enough to get 18-20, you'd expect him to be very high usage on the plays he is out there for so he'd get his shots.

warfelg
05-13-2017, 09:48 AM
My take on all these players:
Fultz - he's the player of the draft. Lots of upside. Can play on ball or off ball. Good defender. Plus handle. Very little downside. Can be Kyrie like with better defense.

Ball - strong open court game. Makes very accurate passes. Half court skill exaggerated by great shooting at UCLA. Highly unorthodox shot that will need to be modified in the NBA.
Low release from opposite side as shooting hand. Only creates space with a step back. Isn't as aggressive going to the lane as you would like. Not as good as a defender as you would like at his length.

Jackson - tall and long with multipositional ability. Can shoot well but is streaky. Can get to the rim. Will be a plus defender. Needs to work on range and handle.

Tatum - can score, can defend ok. Isn't a super athlete but is good enough. Might be a bit of a tweeter a la Parker.

Isaac - some are billing him as a SF, I see PF as his NBA position. Needs to work on his shot and rebounding but will be at least a good defender.

Monk - he will be a bench scorer. Doesn't handle it well enough to be a full time 1, too small to be a full time 2. Defense is built on jumping passing lanes.

Smith - I think he's a poor mans Fultz. Does all the same things only not as well.

Fox - best pure PG in the draft IMO. Really needs to work on his shot though. Defense is inconsistent and dependent on effort.

Ntilikina - best euro in the draft. Has range speed and defense to be elite, but his passing isn't as great as it's pumped up to be. At worst you bane a 3 n D wing with some handles.

tp13baby
05-13-2017, 10:50 AM
Cons-

Fultz- didn't lead his team to a good season despite being the consensus number 1.

Lonzo- his dad is a distraction, I still have serious questions about his shot. It's ugly, but it goes in. Will better defense and more athletic competition reduce his overall effectiveness?

Jackson- defensively nothing to worry about. He has to improve his outside shot, and sort of an enigma, he gets fired up too easily sometimes, reminds me of Cousins or Dray one the court emotionally.

Tatum- doesn't have the athleticism to be a great defender or in my opinion an iso jump shooter, similar to Melo.

Isaac- The project. He is the least ready out of the top 10 to make an impact right away, pretty scrawny too.

Monk- I love this kid, but his measureables are super weak. Just really undersized for a 2 guard, which will probably lead to defensive struggles.

Smith- I think he gets way more hate than he should in most mock drafts I see. He played on a terrible team so its hard to exactly where he needs to improve. I question his leadership.

Fox- some people love him, I am not one of them. Shooting is bad, defense is off and on.

Ntilikina- no clue. Haven't watched enough of him.

Markannen- will never be a good defender. you draft for his offensive upside.

Rivera
05-13-2017, 11:21 AM
only going with what i know

Fultz - maybe to unselfish doesnt know how to take a game over yet

Ball - low release point in consistent jumper

Jackson - main concern is off the court , jump shot

Tatum - hes just solid. to me he doesnt do anything superstar but hes just solid all around

Monk - a much better version of monta ellis


Fox - All I see when I watch this kid play is Russel Westbrook. Dude is intense and plays hard every play

warfelg
05-13-2017, 12:17 PM
Cons-

Fultz- didn't lead his team to a good season despite being the consensus number 1.


Smith- I think he gets way more hate than he should in most mock drafts I see. He played on a terrible team so its hard to exactly where he needs to improve.

Both these guys went to teams where there was little help. Simmons didn't make the tournament either and in the end it didn't end up mattering to GMs. Won't for these guys either.

Heediot
05-13-2017, 12:27 PM
Yeah it's rare for freshmen to come into college and transform a program just as it's rare for really young guys in the nba to impact that game in subtle ways.

flea
05-13-2017, 03:59 PM
Only going to speak to guys I watched a decent amount.

Jackson: inconsistent when I saw him. No standout NBA skill to say he's a star but could develop based on athleticism. Could also be an empty stat NBA star that plays for .500 teams and maybe gets around to contributing to a winner when he's 30.

Ball: only saw him 3 times but he was not good in 2 of those. I think you'd need the right team around him but he'll be an NBA starter in all likelihood for 10 years. I didn't say that about Russell. But whether he's a star or not is definitely up for debate given his limitations as a scorer and defender.

Monk: 2nd best player in draft IMO. Had some inconsistent performances but that is mainly due to Calipari's system and playing with 2 PGs that needed the ball to be effective. When they made an effort to go to him he was great coming of screens. I could see him developing a post game like Klay, but he only flashed that on a few occasions. He's very crafty in the midrange and he's a good driver even if his handle could be tightened. Not worried at all about his size - he's not as lean as Durant was and he's got great length for a SG. He's better than Booker.

Fox: quick, competitor. Fits in the NBA. Inconsistent college shooter, merely a good floater game, and merely a good passer, mediocre scorer, thin frame. If this was the NBA of 10 years ago I'd worry more about those things. With how the NBA is for ballhandlers these days he'll be fine. Hell even a limited player like Derrick Rose play-acted as a superstar. I don't know that Fox is a superstar but he's a lead guard in the modern NBA - whether he's Eric Bledsoe or better all depends on the jumper and his IQ.

Tatum: best player in the draft. I think people overthink the athleticism of other players and the numbers that Pac 10 player put up but this kid is legitimate. He's a smart player that can play the 3 or 4 at the NBA level once he gains strength. His 3 point shot came around and he's got a Grant Hill or James Worthy type of post game. It's a throwback finesse game - he's a lot better than previous SF college scorers like Parker, Melo, Beasely, etc that relied on size to shoot and bully college defenders. He has a bouncy style and is already comfortable playing with his back to the basket or driving. Oh and he's a good passer. I don't know that he'll be a top-end defender but with a scorer and playmaker as promising as him you don't usually want him expending effort on D anyway. Floor is Harrison Barnes and ceiling is Grant Hill - and his ballhandling, finishing, and passing is already better than Barnes's.