PDA

View Full Version : Duke would be a 3/4/5 seed in the east



Pages : [1] 2

Farty Farts
11-07-2018, 01:26 AM
barret, reddish, williamson had 83 the entire uk team had 84

FlashBolt
11-07-2018, 01:27 AM
Lmao, stop it. The lowest quality team would destroy these college teams.

CityofTreez
11-07-2018, 01:35 AM
OP is blowing mad farts with this take lol

tredigs
11-07-2018, 02:04 AM
Lmao, stop it. The lowest quality team would destroy these college teams.
I mean if this Duke team was in the NBA right now, they would definitely win games, and they would absolutely fight for a playoff spot in the East in year 2. There are multiple VERY special players on this team (they absolutely have the #1 and #2 pick, and another clear top 5 pick). Kids these days come in polished. Donovan Mitchell was easily the best offensive player on a top 8 team in the league last year as a rookie. And Zion + Barrett are both better than Mitchell right now.

tredigs
11-07-2018, 02:26 AM
This is not an Anthony Bennett draft ladies and gentlemen.

ewing
11-07-2018, 07:04 AM
Zion kid is built like Bo Jackson. What a freak


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TheDish87
11-07-2018, 09:52 AM
no they wouldnt. thyed win like 5 games. i say that as a massive Duke fan.

warfelg
11-07-2018, 09:53 AM
No. Just no.

Rivera
11-07-2018, 10:30 AM
they would win some games for sure that i wouldnt bet against. as tre said you have the clear #1 and #2 picks in the draft and another top 5 pick, not to mention a PG that probably would go in the first round. that team looked so loaded and scary, I dont remember watching a college team since Wall/Bledsoe/Cousins UK Team that I was just blown away by the overall talent by a team

tredigs
11-07-2018, 10:40 AM
no they wouldnt. thyed win like 5 games. i say that as a massive Duke fan.

As a non Duke fan who largely avoids NCAA ball because it is auch an inferior product, I would say that they would need an off season to prepare for the NBA game, plus 2-3 NBA role players to help them out and teach them the ropes. I'm talking Jared Dudley, J.J. Barea and Serge Ibaka. Zion and Barrett would be the teams best players - by a country mile - and Barresh looks like an NBA ready contributor as well.

I'll just say that I have never walked away from a college basketball game as awe struck as I was by that team. We have teams led by Trey Young winning games in the NBA right now fellas. These guys are on a WHOLE different level from Trey Young. Zion is going to walk into a gym on day 1 of training camp for a team like New York or Chicago and will immediately be one of the top 10 athletes in league history. Think about that. And this is a guy with a clear feel for the game at that. Some of his passes last night were phenomenal.

Again, as a forever hater of college ball, this team is different.

Scoots
11-07-2018, 10:44 AM
They don't have the depth, and they wouldn't be able to physically handle the grind, but in top talent? It would be interesting to see what would happen in a few years if Duke just became an NBA franchise.

ewing
11-07-2018, 11:18 AM
I'd trade KP for Zion right now. What would you give up for him?

Scoots
11-07-2018, 11:26 AM
I'd trade KP for Zion right now. What would you give up for him?

I'll trade KD for him.

IndyRealist
11-07-2018, 11:39 AM
Almost every rookie gets their arse kicked year 1. The NBA is bigger, stronger, faster, more experienced, and used to a longer season. An NCAA all star team wouldn't get 10 wins, let alone challenge for a playoff spot.

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 11:47 AM
I mean if this Duke team was in the NBA right now, they would definitely win games, and they would absolutely fight for a playoff spot in the East in year 2. There are multiple VERY special players on this team (they absolutely have the #1 and #2 pick, and another clear top 5 pick). Kids these days come in polished. Donovan Mitchell was easily the best offensive player on a top 8 team in the league last year as a rookie. And Zion + Barrett are both better than Mitchell right now.

that has zero to do with this. NCAA is kids, and kids would be demolished by men.

These threads are so stupid. Duke would go 0-82 with an average margin of 40+ points loss. Every single player in the NBA is...............and NBA player. Duke has what, 3-4 players who will be in the NBA?

They may win 1-2 games from pure luck, but cmon. Boys versus men. The Laettner Duke teams would destroy this current team, and that team had how many NBA players on it? 3?

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 11:49 AM
As a non Duke fan who largely avoids NCAA ball because it is auch an inferior product, I would say that they would need an off season to prepare for the NBA game, plus 2-3 NBA role players to help them out and teach them the ropes. I'm talking Jared Dudley, J.J. Barea and Serge Ibaka. Zion and Barrett would be the teams best players - by a country mile - and Barresh looks like an NBA ready contributor as well.

I'll just say that I have never walked away from a college basketball game as awe struck as I was by that team. We have teams led by Trey Young winning games in the NBA right now fellas. These guys are on a WHOLE different level from Trey Young. Zion is going to walk into a gym on day 1 of training camp for a team like New York or Chicago and will immediately be one of the top 10 athletes in league history. Think about that. And this is a guy with a clear feel for the game at that. Some of his passes last night were phenomenal.

Again, as a forever hater of college ball, this team is different.

no offense, but how old are you? The UNLV Running Rebels in the early 90's was basically a childs NBA team, overwhelming everything in site. They would have been blasted by my Timberwolves teams from that time period.

The talent level in the NCAA's is a joke. Of course a team loaded with young, real talent, will appear godly. 25 years ago, the Fab 5 showed up and did this exact same thing Tre, and kicked out some really good NBA players. They would have been smoked by the worst team in the NBA at the time. Smoked.

TheDish87
11-07-2018, 11:54 AM
As a non Duke fan who largely avoids NCAA ball because it is auch an inferior product, I would say that they would need an off season to prepare for the NBA game, plus 2-3 NBA role players to help them out and teach them the ropes. I'm talking Jared Dudley, J.J. Barea and Serge Ibaka. Zion and Barrett would be the teams best players - by a country mile - and Barresh looks like an NBA ready contributor as well.

I'll just say that I have never walked away from a college basketball game as awe struck as I was by that team. We have teams led by Trey Young winning games in the NBA right now fellas. These guys are on a WHOLE different level from Trey Young. Zion is going to walk into a gym on day 1 of training camp for a team like New York or Chicago and will immediately be one of the top 10 athletes in league history. Think about that. And this is a guy with a clear feel for the game at that. Some of his passes last night were phenomenal.

Again, as a forever hater of college ball, this team is different.

man its one game. what is your reaction gonna be if they lose to a mid major?

Rivera
11-07-2018, 12:17 PM
tre jones
cam riddick
RJ Barrett
Zion Williamson
Marques Bolden

vs

George Hill
Rodney Hood
Cedi Osman
Sam Deckker
Tristan Thompson

Im sorry, I got Duke. Duke has the top 3 players in this matchup

or

tre jones
cam riddick
RJ Barrett
Zion Williamson
Marques Bolden

vs

Trae Young
Kevin Huerter
Kent Bazemore
Omari Spellman
Alex Len

Duke has 3 out of the top 4 in this matchup as well

Dukes starting 5 is scary

IndyRealist
11-07-2018, 12:33 PM
tre jones
cam riddick
RJ Barrett
Zion Williamson
Marques Bolden

vs

George Hill
Rodney Hood
Cedi Osman
Sam Deckker
Tristan Thompson

Im sorry, I got Duke. Duke has the top 3 players in this matchup

or

tre jones
cam riddick
RJ Barrett
Zion Williamson
Marques Bolden

vs

Trae Young
Kevin Huerter
Kent Bazemore
Omari Spellman
Alex Len

Duke has 3 out of the top 4 in this matchup as well

Dukes starting 5 is scary
Even IF their starting 5 could keep up with an NBA starting 5, the Duke bench would get annihilated. Those guys are destined for the D-League and/or China. You could run up the score +30 just attacking the Duke bench players.

tredigs
11-07-2018, 12:36 PM
that has zero to do with this. NCAA is kids, and kids would be demolished by men.

These threads are so stupid. Duke would go 0-82 with an average margin of 40+ points loss. Every single player in the NBA is...............and NBA player. Duke has what, 3-4 players who will be in the NBA?

They may win 1-2 games from pure luck, but cmon. Boys versus men. The Laettner Duke teams would destroy this current team, and that team had how many NBA players on it? 3?

There is a reason why I had to put qualifiers in for them in needing 2-3 vets to supplement their stars in order to actually be relevant (I never co-signed with OP), but you're off the rails in thinking this is some kids versus men situation. These 3 stars on Duke are not only refined, but they are very clearly men. Three ultra talented + refined 6'7"-6'8" guys. Zion is a ****ing TANK dude, the moment he first steps on an NBA court is the moment the NBA has a new strongest, most explosive player in the NBA. That comment is 0% hyperbole, and you want to call that guy a "boy"?? Brother, the best player on the Hawks is Trae Young. The best player on the Mavs is probably already Luka Doncic. Jayson Tatum was the best offensive player on a conference Finals team as a 19 year old rookie. Donovan Mitchell was the best offensive player on a conference semi finals team in the West as a rookie.

Are you starting to see the trend here? These boys are NBA ready out of the gate now, and the Duke "boys" will be forces out of the gate. This team will be remembered for generations to come. And to answer your question I'm old enough to have watched and remembered C Webb's timeout for the Fab Five.

tredigs
11-07-2018, 12:42 PM
Even IF their starting 5 could keep up with an NBA starting 5, the Duke bench would get annihilated. Those guys are destined for the D-League and/or China. You could run up the score +30 just attacking the Duke bench players.

It's not an if, there are multiple starting 5's they could keep up with an outright beat when they are in advantageous situations (at home against a team missing their best plater, at home against middling or weaker teams on a road b2b after playing 3 prior games on the road, etc). IE, the same way all lower end teams win games. Just run an 8 man rotation with 2 of the 3 stars in at all times and they'd get it done on more than a few nights. Now give them a year of play, an off-season + some NBA vets and again, it's a team fighting for playoff contention in the East in year 2, and that 3-5 seed as an Eastern Conference team in year 3.

Get on the bandwagon while you still can boys.

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 12:45 PM
I won't even entertain this. The NCAA was far more talented years ago, when guys stayed around, and even then the talent disparity was obscene.

The worst NBA team would crush the best NCAA team. I mean destroy. There isn't even an argument to be made. Every NBA team has NBA players on it. Even the best NCAA teams in history are littered with guys who had zip chance. So the moment a starter sits from an NCAA team, the gap becomes even larger.

NCAA games are shorter, seasons are shorter, everything is compacted, the players aren't as developed, etc. I don't even get how this is a discussion.

What Duke has is nothing we haven't seen before (Fab 5). In a watered down NCAA, where the talent doesn't stick around, literally no team achievements hold anything impressive.

Tre, the reason these guys are "NBA ready", is because all the talent is gone after 1 year. If this was 25 years ago, Zion would be getting his clock cleaned by the same ****ing guys talent wise, but 2-3 years older.

tredigs
11-07-2018, 12:46 PM
man its one game. what is your reaction gonna be if they lose to a mid major?

Every team can lose a one-off game if they don't show up. Somewhat of an ironic comment given this thread by the way. NBA teams regularly don't show up or are simply exhausted and/or undermanned, and it's why they lose games to other bad NBA teams. Those are games these Duke phenom could steal, even with a rat bench by NBA standards (which they have some pretty damn impressive players on their bench too, just saying. Not your average college benxh).

tredigs
11-07-2018, 01:02 PM
@hawk, I refuse to believe a smart basketball mind can watch those 3 play and come away with anything other than the understanding that they are very clearly NBA ready impact players, right now. And that Zion would be one of the most physically imposing players in the game, right now.

I'll just leave his highlight reel from last night here (against a top ranked Kentucky team with some incredible athletes and 6'11", 7'0" foot players who were supposed to beat Duke last night), in case you missed it and leave it at that. You can quibble over the competition all you want, but those are 3 players ready to SERIOUSLY compete at the NBA level.

https://youtu.be/r_uqYRwjEc8

ewing
11-07-2018, 01:23 PM
I'll trade KD for him.

you dont get to play

Rivera
11-07-2018, 01:29 PM
6'3 185 (Trae Young is listed at 6'2 180)
6'7 202
6'8 218
6'7 280

cant handle an NBA Grind?? yea not buying that

they would need the depth for sure, but that starting 5 can compete and out play some nba teams today. these kids are NBA ready now and I know it was one game but they just jumped off the screen it was super impressive how gifted and athletic they looked.

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 01:34 PM
@hawk, I refuse to believe a smart basketball mind can watch those 3 play and come away with anything other than the understanding that they are very clearly NBA ready impact players, right now. And that Zion would be one of the most physically imposing players in the game, right now.

I'll just leave his highlight reel from last night here (against a top ranked Kentucky team with some incredible athletes and 6'11", 7'0" foot players who were supposed to beat Duke last night), in case you missed it and leave it at that. You can quibble over the competition all you want, but those are 3 players ready to SERIOUSLY compete at the NBA level.

https://youtu.be/r_uqYRwjEc8

cool. A rookie LeBron barely added to the win column. Even the most touted rookies barely contribute in positive ways (most don't at all, in fact negative). Now those guys also play with a bunch of guys who will never sniff the NBA, how do you cover up the massive gap there? The bench?

I am sorry man, but this stupid argument comes up every few years, and it's laughable. So they have 3 sure fire guys, right? That means 1-2 of them will end up really good, after being in the NBA. How about the other 3-5 contributors they have?

Having 3 guys who could maybe play NBA minutes now, means nothing. The sheer talent discrepency up and down, the speed, the length of game, the physical maturity, etc, cmon man. Zion can't shoot outside 3 feet, is small, and would be eaten alive trying to guard an NBA 3-4. Maybe in 3-4 years, through development and refining, he will be a really good NBA player. But asking an 18 year old kid to guard men, is too much.

Duke would be be blown off the floor by the worst NBA team.

Even the better comparison, in football, is Alabama against the Browns (at least college football players are FORCED to stay till around 21). Browns win by 3 TD's or more.

IndyRealist
11-07-2018, 01:45 PM
6'3 185 (Trae Young is listed at 6'2 180)
6'7 202
6'8 218
6'7 280

cant handle an NBA Grind?? yea not buying that

they would need the depth for sure, but that starting 5 can compete and out play some nba teams today. these kids are NBA ready now and I know it was one game but they just jumped off the screen it was super impressive how gifted and athletic they looked.

Trae Young has played all of 10 NBA games and has been good...wait for it.....for a rookie. As an NBA player he's well below average. Now consider where he'll be at after game 70 when he's never played more than 40 in a year.

tredigs
11-07-2018, 01:52 PM
cool. A rookie LeBron barely added to the win column. Even the most touted rookies barely contribute in positive ways (most don't at all, in fact negative). Now those guys also play with a bunch of guys who will never sniff the NBA, how do you cover up the massive gap there? The bench?

I am sorry man, but this stupid argument comes up every few years, and it's laughable. So they have 3 sure fire guys, right? That means 1-2 of them will end up really good, after being in the NBA. How about the other 3-5 contributors they have?

Having 3 guys who could maybe play NBA minutes now, means nothing. The sheer talent discrepency up and down, the speed, the length of game, the physical maturity, etc, cmon man. Zion can't shoot outside 3 feet, is small, and would be eaten alive trying to guard an NBA 3-4. Maybe in 3-4 years, through development and refining, he will be a really good NBA player. But asking an 18 year old kid to guard men, is too much.

Duke would be be blown off the floor by the worst NBA team.

Even the better comparison, in football, is Alabama against the Browns (at least college football players are FORCED to stay till around 21). Browns win by 3 TD's or more.


If you think it's going to take Zion four years to be a really good NBA player, you are going to seriously hate the next 11 months of hype for him before you realize that he's already ready to be a good NBA player. And in 2 years will be All Star level. His talent is oozing dude. Can't shoot outside of 3 feet? His first shot of college was a swished 3. He put up 27 on a 90% TS with 1 turnover in 23 minutes (would have broke the Duke all time record for points by a Freshman had his teammate not also broke it last night). That block + running of the floor to an entry pass for the flush? That's not a play the majority of NBA players can make, and he made it look easy as hell. His size + athleticism alone would already land him as a force for teams to deal with out of the gate, but it is abundantly clear that this is a player with a massive/growing skill set.

tredigs
11-07-2018, 01:53 PM
Trae Young has played all of 10 NBA games and has been good...wait for it.....for a rookie. As an NBA player he's well below average. Now consider where he'll be at after game 70 when he's never played more than 40 in a year.

Trae Young is good... for his NBA team. Arguably their best player. And Trae Young is not **** compared to Barrett or Zion.

tredigs
11-07-2018, 01:57 PM
I really want Dallas to get Zion. Doncic + Zion would be magic.

Scoots
11-07-2018, 01:59 PM
Even IF their starting 5 could keep up with an NBA starting 5, the Duke bench would get annihilated. Those guys are destined for the D-League and/or China. You could run up the score +30 just attacking the Duke bench players.

This. Even with 3 stars, it's a BIG step up to the NBA, and the 15th guy on an NBA roster is probably better than the #4 guy on Duke. And, longer game, faster, stronger players, longer 3, MUCH better defensive schemes. NBA teams would dominate. Still those Duke players are impressive.

Rivera
11-07-2018, 01:59 PM
Trae Young is good... for his NBA team. Arguably their best player. And Trae Young is not **** compared to Barrett or Zion.

yes!

Rivera
11-07-2018, 02:01 PM
i dont understand the comparsion when it comes to NCAAF teams vs NFL teams and NCAAM vs NBA Teams

two completley different sports. NCAAF teams dont stand a chance because of schemes and they are still filling out their bodies. Football overall is a more complex game than basketball. Football is also more physcial than basketball.

RJ Barett and Zion would be #1s on a lot of bottom teams today and could play today

as tre said, Zion might be the most physically gifted athlete in the NBA when he plays his first game, dude is a physical freak

i think they said during the game yesterday the only person that would weight more than Zion in the NBA is Boban

tredigs
11-07-2018, 02:04 PM
yes!

Very little difference between Trae Young's numbers right now and his numbers the last 2/3rds of the season for Oklahoma after his hot start mind you. I'd take Reddish over Young also.

Rivera
11-07-2018, 02:05 PM
This. Even with 3 stars, it's a BIG step up to the NBA, and the 15th guy on an NBA roster is probably better than the #4 guy on Duke. And, longer game, faster, stronger players, longer 3, MUCH better defensive schemes. NBA teams would dominate. Still those Duke players are impressive.

Tre Jones at the very worst looks like the first PG off the bench. His brother as you know plays in the NBA. I guarantee Tre gets NBA type of practices and workouts just playing and practicing with his brother alone.

so i have to challange that claim the 4th best player Tre Jones would be the 15th guy on an NBA roster, thats an exaggeration

Rivera
11-07-2018, 02:07 PM
the only thing I cant dispute as an argument against Duke being able to beat the bottom NBA Teams is depth. Thats legit the only great argument ive seen. I think schemes would be overrated because Duke has an NBA Caliber head coach who many NBA players and coaches respect. That top 3 is scary good that 4th is really good after that, yes their is a drop off. That starting 5 is better than some NBA Starting 5s and I provided 2 examples

IndyRealist
11-07-2018, 02:10 PM
Trae Young is good... for his NBA team. Arguably their best player. And Trae Young is not **** compared to Barrett or Zion.

No, he's just the most recognizable name. This is Donovan Mitchell all over again. He's a rookie, and with very few exceptions rookies are not good players compared to vets. Potential =/= production.

tredigs
11-07-2018, 02:10 PM
the only thing I cant dispute as an argument against Duke being able to beat the bottom NBA Teams is depth. Thats legit the only great argument ive seen. I think schemes would be overrated because Duke has an NBA Caliber head coach who many NBA players and coaches respect. That top 3 is scary good that 4th is really good after that, yes their is a drop off. That starting 5 is better than some NBA Starting 5s and I provided 2 examples

Which is why I think they'd need 3 vets like the ones I listed to actually win a respectable amount of games (say over 20), but the underlying point that I care about is just recognizing that this is a team with some of the most fun, dominant prospects I can remember. I am as hyped to watch them play as any team in the league this year. And I can't stand watching college basketball haha.

tredigs
11-07-2018, 02:15 PM
No, he's just the most recognizable name. This is Donovan Mitchell all over again. He's a rookie, and with very few exceptions rookies are not good players compared to vets. Potential =/= production.

Quibble all you want, he's the leader of their offense and was THE best player on the court (for either team) in 20% of their games thus far (2 of their wins). Averaging an efficient 35/11 and 24/6/15 in those games. Again, a player who is currently inferior to both of the college players we're touting here and a player who struggled mightily his last half of the season in college as a freshman.

IndyRealist
11-07-2018, 02:19 PM
Quibble all you want, he's the leader of their offense and was THE best player on the court (for either team) in 20% of their games thus far (2 of their wins). Averaging an efficient 35/11 and 24/6/15 in those games. Again, a player who is currently inferior to both of the college players we're touting here and a player who struggled mightily his last half of the season in college as a freshman.

So how was he in the other 8 games? Seems like 8 games matter more than 2 do.

tredigs
11-07-2018, 02:21 PM
So how was he in the other 8 games? Seems like 8 games matter more than 2 do.

Lol what are you missing? He's playing just like he did in college. Bad most nights, and losing games as the leader of his offense most nights (he led them to 8-10 in their conference). Yet, still good enough to be the best player on the floor in a game with 20 NBA players in 20% of his games thus far. I expect that trend to continue.

Edit:

Trae is averaging 19/3/8 +4.0 turnovers on 44/29/77 for the Hawks (3-7 record) in 31 mpg

In his last 2/3rds of the college season for Oklahoma Trae averaged 23/3/7 +5.7 turnovers on 39/33/86 (6-13 record) in 37 mpg

Both as the clear leader of his offense. NBA defense does not seem to be effecting him much in the early going. And this is a guy who we had serious question marks about concerning his diminutive nature. Zion? Zion is going to physically overpower and beat the **** out of 99% of his NBA opponents as a 19 year old. Barrett and Reddish are both elite NBA wing size right now as well.

Rivera
11-07-2018, 02:22 PM
No, he's just the most recognizable name. This is Donovan Mitchell all over again. He's a rookie, and with very few exceptions rookies are not good players compared to vets. Potential =/= production.

hes the #1 player on his team, Trae is the leader of the Hawks and their biggest producer.

Trae was amazing in college and he had a terrible 2nd half of his collegate career. And I would take either RJ Or Zion right now over Trae and I love Trae!

valade16
11-07-2018, 02:33 PM
that has zero to do with this. NCAA is kids, and kids would be demolished by men.

These threads are so stupid. Duke would go 0-82 with an average margin of 40+ points loss. Every single player in the NBA is...............and NBA player. Duke has what, 3-4 players who will be in the NBA?

They may win 1-2 games from pure luck, but cmon. Boys versus men. The Laettner Duke teams would destroy this current team, and that team had how many NBA players on it? 3?

I think this take would hold up more for football than the NBA but how can you say it's "boys vs men" like freaking High School talent hasn't walked into the NBA and competed at a high level?

I think they'd lose a lot of games due to depth and inexperience, but their top talent would be enough to have them win some games, certainly be competitive in a lot of games.

Imagine if a team had Doncic, Ayton and Trae Young right now, that team isn't going 0-82.

warfelg
11-07-2018, 02:34 PM
IIRC they used to do an exhibition of an NCAA all star team vs an NBA team. They stopped doing it. Why?

The NCAA all stars got destroyed.

tredigs
11-07-2018, 02:39 PM
IIRC they used to do an exhibition of an NCAA all star team vs an NBA team. They stopped doing it. Why?

The NCAA all stars got destroyed.

Don't remember this, but it's not surprising if so.
A) Players now come into college far more NBA ready than in the past. The camps + AAU circuit is a breeding ground for the professional game and they come in ready to go more than ever. Hence Tatum, Mitchell, etc.
B) A rag tag bunch with no cohesion not beating a well oiled NBA team is not exactly surprising.
C) These are not your average recruits and this is not you average dominant college team, and that is the point here.

I've never talked highly about a college team like this before.

FlashBolt
11-07-2018, 02:47 PM
Lmao, I am sorry but why is this being entertained? Anyone who thinks Duke stands a chance clearly have no idea how different the game is. A 3rd-4th seed would be roughly 46 wins at the minimum. Jordan couldn't even get that many wins in his rookie season. Michael Jordan. What Zion is doing is amazing but it's at the collegiate level. That transition into the NBA doesn't always work out regardless of how good you were. This is just a joke. The worst NBA team in the league would smoke them and that's just the fact. That Duke team would be lucky to have 3-4 players in the NBA. As bad as some teams are, they're at the PROFESSIONAL level. All of them are in the NBA for a reason.

valade16
11-07-2018, 02:49 PM
IIRC they used to do an exhibition of an NCAA all star team vs an NBA team. They stopped doing it. Why?

The NCAA all stars got destroyed.

When was this? I know they did NFL vs College All-Stars.

I'm also leery of anyone using definitive statements when it comes to basketball and how "kids" can't play against pros. How many times have we seen the opposite?

Kareem's freshman team beat the UCLA defending champions team.
The Dream Team was beat by a bunch of college kids
NBA teams are frequently beat by Euro teams

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 02:56 PM
I think this take would hold up more for football than the NBA but how can you say it's "boys vs men" like freaking High School talent hasn't walked into the NBA and competed at a high level?

I think they'd lose a lot of games due to depth and inexperience, but their top talent would be enough to have them win some games, certainly be competitive in a lot of games.

Imagine if a team had Doncic, Ayton and Trae Young right now, that team isn't going 0-82.

For every rookie that has contributed to winning, there are countless that didn't, no matter their "potential". How is Zion guarding an NBA caliber player right now?

They would lose a lot of games because of talent disparity, and lose a lot of them by a massive margin because of it.

Playing with better players makes you better. Playing with 80% of a team filled with guys that have zero chance at the NBA hurts you.

Again, the Fab 5 came along and we all know many of their guys went on to great NBA careers. They would have been pasted by any NBA team at the time.

I honestly think this argument is laughable.

tredigs
11-07-2018, 02:58 PM
Lmao, I am sorry but why is this being entertained? Anyone who thinks Duke stands a chance clearly have no idea how different the game is. A 3rd-4th seed would be roughly 46 wins at the minimum. Jordan couldn't even get that many wins in his rookie season. Michael Jordan. What Zion is doing is amazing but it's at the collegiate level. That transition into the NBA doesn't always work out regardless of how good you were. This is just a joke. The worst NBA team in the league would smoke them and that's just the fact. That Duke team would be lucky to have 3-4 players in the NBA. As bad as some teams are, they're at the PROFESSIONAL level. All of them are in the NBA for a reason.
You're clearly not following anything in this thread if you think anyone is on the OP's side that they would be a 3-5 seed. You're also ignorant AF if you think they would be "lucky to have 3-4 NBA Players". If the draft was today their top 3 have a strong chance to go 1, 2 and 3 (with an EXTREMELY strong 1 and 2). The only question is how good Tre Jones will be (very likely NBA player as a backup PG out of the gate) and if they have any other surprises on the bench who are going overlooked with all the starpower up top.

valade16
11-07-2018, 03:00 PM
For every rookie that has contributed to winning, there are countless that didn't, no matter their "potential". How is Zion guarding an NBA caliber player right now?

They would lose a lot of games because of talent disparity, and lose a lot of them by a massive margin because of it.

Playing with better players makes you better. Playing with 80% of a team filled with guys that have zero chance at the NBA hurts you.

Again, the Fab 5 came along and we all know many of their guys went on to great NBA careers. They would have been pasted by any NBA team at the time.

I honestly think this argument is laughable.

The Fab 5 were a completely different era, nobody on the Fab 5 was walking into Michigan remotely as ready for the NBA as the top stars of today are.

I think it's laughable to say they'd make the playoffs. But could they win say 10 games? Maybe, they have a chance.

Do you think if Duke swapped out their top 3 players for Ayton, Donkic and Trae Young they'd have a better chance? Because I'm struggling to figure out why Zion or the top prospects in the draft have zero chance against NBA players and these guys can not only play against them but do well after only 10 games.

valade16
11-07-2018, 03:03 PM
You're clearly not following anything in this thread if you think anyone is on the OP's side that they would be a 3-5 seed. You're also ignorant AF if you think they would be "lucky to have 3-4 NBA Players". If the draft was today their top 3 have a strong chance to go 1, 2 and 3 (with an EXTREMELY strong 1 and 2). The only question is how good Tre Jones will be (very likely NBA player as a backup PG out of the gate) and if they have any other surprises on the bench who are going overlooked with all the starpower up top.

Yeah, their top 3 players are currently predicated as 1, 2, and 4 for Mock drafts and I checked the 2020 Mock drafts and they have 3 players that have a possibility of being drafted there too. I think it's safe to say this Duke team will have at least 5 NBA players on it by the time all is said and done, with a chance at more.

And really how many actual NBA caliber players are in Cleveland's rotation now that Smith and Korver are out and Love is hurt? 5? 6?

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 03:07 PM
The Fab 5 were a completely different era, nobody on the Fab 5 was walking into Michigan remotely as ready for the NBA as the top stars of today are.

I think it's laughable to say they'd make the playoffs. But could they win say 10 games? Maybe, they have a chance.

Do you think if Duke swapped out their top 3 players for Ayton, Donkic and Trae Young they'd have a better chance? Because I'm struggling to figure out why Zion or the top prospects in the draft have zero chance against NBA players and these guys can not only play against them but do well after only 10 games.

Rookies that succeed are generally either generational, or able to be sheltered, weakness wise. Duke's 3 stars may very well all be future stars, but they would get crushed being the feature player(s) right now man. This isn't 1994, when 22/23 year old rookies are coming in, polished and ready. Zion is what, 6'4", with a PF body, right? How is he guarding anyone?

Take their 3, cool. What about the rest of the gang, that would be so overwhelmingly overmatched and attacked each possession, they couldn't possibly keep up?

I just think its absolutely laughable dude. I won't go 1-15, because nobody plays 15 guys, but 1-8, Duke against any NBA team, and even if you want to pretend Duke's 3 negate the NBA teams top 3, the disparity between 4-8 is so huge.

Talent, is not JUST talent. Refined talent, and experience, mean something.

I disagree on your very first statement. Chris Webber was a better prospect than anything Duke has. He also played against far superior competition than any of these kids do today. MUCH better.

tredigs
11-07-2018, 03:12 PM
For every rookie that has contributed to winning, there are countless that didn't, no matter their "potential". How is Zion guarding an NBA caliber player right now?

They would lose a lot of games because of talent disparity, and lose a lot of them by a massive margin because of it.

Playing with better players makes you better. Playing with 80% of a team filled with guys that have zero chance at the NBA hurts you.

Again, the Fab 5 came along and we all know many of their guys went on to great NBA careers. They would have been pasted by any NBA team at the time.

I honestly think this argument is laughable.

How is Zion guarding an NBA player? Lmfao WHAT IS GOING ON HERE! He's thicker than Lebron, quicker than Draymond, has a 7 foot wing span and a 40+ inch vertical with a defensive highlight reel of blocks that makes the gaudiest of defenders blush. I thiiiink he'll figure it out.


Edit: Just for more clarity. Take Draymond Green as the prototype: Now, ratchet up his size, strength, quickness and explosiveness. That's Zion.

valade16
11-07-2018, 03:15 PM
Rookies that succeed are generally either generational, or able to be sheltered, weakness wise. Duke's 3 stars may very well all be future stars, but they would get crushed being the feature player(s) right now man. This isn't 1994, when 22/23 year old rookies are coming in, polished and ready. Zion is what, 6'4", with a PF body, right? How is he guarding anyone?

Take their 3, cool. What about the rest of the gang, that would be so overwhelmingly overmatched and attacked each possession, they couldn't possibly keep up?

I just think its absolutely laughable dude. I won't go 1-15, because nobody plays 15 guys, but 1-8, Duke against any NBA team, and even if you want to pretend Duke's 3 negate the NBA teams top 3, the disparity between 4-8 is so huge.

Talent, is not JUST talent. Refined talent, and experience, mean something.

I disagree on your very first statement. Chris Webber was a better prospect than anything Duke has. He also played against far superior competition than any of these kids do today. MUCH better.

I don't think you know much about Zion Williamson at this point. He's 6'7", not 6'4". And he has a PF body with the athleticism of a high end Guard. It's not like he's some lumbering dude, he is on the shortlist of most athletic prospects in NBA history.

And even if C-Webb was a better prospect, Duke has 3 players on that caliber.

As for him playing against much better competition, maybe on the whole, but Duke has played one game... vs Kentucky, perhaps the only other team that has as much NBA talent as Duke.


Do you think Cleveland right now could beat a team whose best players were Ayton, Trae Young and Doncic if the rest of the team were end of the bench NBA players?

tredigs
11-07-2018, 03:15 PM
Rookies that succeed are generally either generational, or able to be sheltered, weakness wise. Duke's 3 stars may very well all be future stars, but they would get crushed being the feature player(s) right now man. This isn't 1994, when 22/23 year old rookies are coming in, polished and ready. Zion is what, 6'4", with a PF body, right? How is he guarding anyone?

Take their 3, cool. What about the rest of the gang, that would be so overwhelmingly overmatched and attacked each possession, they couldn't possibly keep up?

I just think its absolutely laughable dude. I won't go 1-15, because nobody plays 15 guys, but 1-8, Duke against any NBA team, and even if you want to pretend Duke's 3 negate the NBA teams top 3, the disparity between 4-8 is so huge.

Talent, is not JUST talent. Refined talent, and experience, mean something.

I disagree on your very first statement. Chris Webber was a better prospect than anything Duke has. He also played against far superior competition than any of these kids do today. MUCH better.

Zion is 6'7" dude. Runs the floor with poise+speed (plus great vision and playmaking ability), can EASILY dunk from the free throw line and weighs 5 less pounds than Boban (the heaviest player in the NBA). Now, you can wonder whether or not that players body will last a full decade+ in the NBA, but there is no question that this is a superstar in the making. Former NBA players have said they were shook just standing next to him due to his size. Now imagine that player SMASHING over you from the free throw line. You clearly have no idea what level of talent/specimen this guy is Hawk.

valade16
11-07-2018, 03:17 PM
How is Zion guarding an NBA player? Lmfao WHAT IS GOING ON HERE! He's thicker than Lebron, quicker than Draymond, has a 7 foot wing span and a 40+ inch vertical with a defensive highlight reel of blocks that makes the gaudiest of defenders blush. I thiiiink he'll figure it out.

It's bizarre that people are talking about their best 3 players like they couldn't hold an NBA players jock strap when they are projected to go 1-3 in the draft and every team in the league would be swooning and trading a ton just to draft them.

Like how much do people think players learn in one summer before the NBA lol? Like they go from couldn't hang to scoring 20 PPG because of what they learned in those 3 months?

tredigs
11-07-2018, 03:18 PM
It's bizarre that people are talking about their best 3 players like they couldn't hold an NBA players jock strap when they are projected to go 1-3 in the draft and every team in the league would be swooning and trading a ton just to draft them.

Like how much do people think players learn in one summer before the NBA lol? Like they go from couldn't hang to scoring 20 PPG because of what they learned in those 3 months?

It's shocking to me. That said, I was reserving all of my gush for the team before I got to see all three against a top college team with elite length+athleticism and future NBA players. Well, we saw that last night, and let's just say they made their point. They're all ready for the league right now.

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 03:25 PM
well, I will expecting Barkley prime numbers from Zion year 1 from your tales guys...

stupid argument. Always has been. Let me know when they are going up against Glen Robinson, Calbert Cheaney, Chris Webber, Grant Hill, Larry Johnson, and all the other studs college has to offer. Oh wait, all the talent leaves after 3 mins, so there is nothing left to play against.

Sorry I come off as a dick in this argument, its just shocking that anyone still brings this up

valade16
11-07-2018, 03:27 PM
It's shocking to me. That said, I was reserving all of my gush for the team before I got to see all three against a top college team with elite length+athleticism and future NBA players. Well, we saw that last night, and let's just say they made their point. They're all ready for the league right now.

Yep, I just checked again and Mock Drafts have 7 of the Kentucky Wildcats being drafted in the next 2 years.

This was the closest thing to an NBA team in college destroying the next closest thing to an NBA team in college.

FlashBolt
11-07-2018, 03:31 PM
It's one thing to be destroying guys who are 2/3rd your size and lack REAL basketball fundamentals. The guys in college today are brought up very raw. Zion will be great but he won't be the strongest, quickest, or biggest player in the NBA. He won't be going up against a possible 5th or 6th pick. He'll be going up against Giannis, Kawhi, Embiid, Anthony Davis, KD, etc., There is no competition or debate here regarding them being able to compete on the NBA level right now.

tredigs
11-07-2018, 03:34 PM
well, I will expecting Barkley prime numbers from Zion year 1 from your tales guys...

stupid argument. Always has been. Let me know when they are going up against Glen Robinson, Calbert Cheaney, Chris Webber, Grant Hill, Larry Johnson, and all the other studs college has to offer. Oh wait, all the talent leaves after 3 mins, so there is nothing left to play against.

Sorry I come off as a dick in this argument, its just shocking that anyone still brings this up

It will depend on the system and whether he's running his team or not, but I see his floor stat line as 20/8/3 on 55% eFG + 1 stl, 1.5 blk as a 19 year old rookie. It could easily be better than that. 25/10/5 +2.5 blocks in year two or three would not shock me in the least.

valade16
11-07-2018, 03:35 PM
well, I will expecting Barkley prime numbers from Zion year 1 from your tales guys...

stupid argument. Always has been. Let me know when they are going up against Glen Robinson, Calbert Cheaney, Chris Webber, Grant Hill, Larry Johnson, and all the other studs college has to offer. Oh wait, all the talent leaves after 3 mins, so there is nothing left to play against.

Sorry I come off as a dick in this argument, its just shocking that anyone still brings this up

But what little talent there is goes to a few teams. Those teams are Duke and Kentucky.

Last year Duke signed the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 15th and 33rd best prospects

Kentucky signed the 9th, 12th, 13th, 22nd and 37th best prospects

The year before Duke signed the 1st, 6th, 7th, and 17th best prospects

Kentucky signed the 10th, 11th, 12th, 15th, 18th, 26th and 31st best prospects


Collectively those 2 teams have signed 14 of the top 30 players the last 2 years. They were going up against a stacked team.

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 03:37 PM
To be clear, I am not saying some of these guys won't end up great NBA players. The odds are against them, but even LeBron freakin' James barely mattered in the win column. Blake Griffin had a rookie season for the ages, and he helped his team get 3 more wins..

The days of KAJ, or Timmy coming in at age 22 and wrecking shop are long gone. These young stars are kids, 19 years old most of the time. It's just too much to ask them to physically dominate NBA players. Successful rookies, as I stated, are either generational talents (sorry I don't buy college kids until they prove it against NBA players nowadays with how bad the talent is in NCAA), or they are guys who can be hidden on their teams to start their careers to hide weaknesses as they develop.

If Duke could win 30 games against NBA competition, we can lock in a few HOF spots right now for their top 3 players is all. I am not betting on that...

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 03:44 PM
"Larry Bird helped the Celtics win 80 more games his rookie year!"

dude was 23 as a rookie

tredigs
11-07-2018, 03:44 PM
To be clear, I am not saying some of these guys won't end up great NBA players. The odds are against them, but even LeBron freakin' James barely mattered in the win column. Blake Griffin had a rookie season for the ages, and he helped his team get 3 more wins..

The days of KAJ, or Timmy coming in at age 22 and wrecking shop are long gone. These young stars are kids, 19 years old most of the time. It's just too much to ask them to physically dominate NBA players. Successful rookies, as I stated, are either generational talents (sorry I don't buy college kids until they prove it against NBA players nowadays with how bad the talent is in NCAA), or they are guys who can be hidden on their teams to start their careers to hide weaknesses as they develop.

If Duke could win 30 games against NBA competition, we can lock in a few HOF spots right now for their top 3 players is all. I am not betting on that...
Eh - the Cavs got nearly 20 games better with Lebron - who had 0 college mind you. I could see Zion having a similar impact out of the gate. I think he's a generational prospect, and again, many still have his teammate as going #1 ahead of him. And his other teammate at #3 right behind him. We've never seen anything like this in college history.

FlashBolt
11-07-2018, 03:44 PM
To be clear, I am not saying some of these guys won't end up great NBA players. The odds are against them, but even LeBron freakin' James barely mattered in the win column. Blake Griffin had a rookie season for the ages, and he helped his team get 3 more wins..

The days of KAJ, or Timmy coming in at age 22 and wrecking shop are long gone. These young stars are kids, 19 years old most of the time. It's just too much to ask them to physically dominate NBA players. Successful rookies, as I stated, are either generational talents (sorry I don't buy college kids until they prove it against NBA players nowadays with how bad the talent is in NCAA), or they are guys who can be hidden on their teams to start their careers to hide weaknesses as they develop.

If Duke could win 30 games against NBA competition, we can lock in a few HOF spots right now for their top 3 players is all. I am not betting on that...

By comparison, imagine if lets say even the Nets were a college basketball team. We would be touting them as the greatest college team ever. There's just a steep learning curve for most rookies and I don't think slipping an entire college roster into the NBA would help them. A bench player in the NBA level would be a starter in the collegiate level.

ewing
11-07-2018, 03:45 PM
It will depend on the system and whether he's running his team or not, but I see his floor stat line as 20/8/3 on 55% eFG + 1 stl, 1.5 blk as a 19 year old rookie. It could easily be better than that. 25/10/5 +2.5 blocks in year two or three would not shock me in the least.

He will be a superstar the day he enters the league.

ewing
11-07-2018, 03:46 PM
well, I will expecting Barkley prime numbers from Zion year 1 from your tales guys...

stupid argument. Always has been. Let me know when they are going up against Glen Robinson, Calbert Cheaney, Chris Webber, Grant Hill, Larry Johnson, and all the other studs college has to offer. Oh wait, all the talent leaves after 3 mins, so there is nothing left to play against.

Sorry I come off as a dick in this argument, its just shocking that anyone still brings this up


I think you are going to get them

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 03:48 PM
By comparison, imagine if lets say even the Nets were a college basketball team. We would be touting them as the greatest college team ever. There's just a steep learning curve for most rookies and I don't think slipping an entire college roster into the NBA would help them. A bench player in the NBA level would be a starter in the collegiate level.

even more so, the worst player an NBA team would trot out there is just SO much better than the majority of all NCAA players. So even if by some measure a couple of the Duke guys could hold their own, the rest of the team would just get destroyed. Even the NBA ready guys don't win their first year in most cases. The NBA is just different, and simply MUCH better.

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 03:49 PM
Eh - the Cavs got nearly 20 games better with Lebron - who had 0 college mind you. I could see Zion having a similar impact out of the gate. I think he's a generational prospect, and again, many still have his teammate as going #1 ahead of him. And his other teammate at #3 right behind him. We've never seen anything like this in college history.

because the NCAA sucks. Talent doesn't stick around. Teams can easily load up (well 2-3 teams as usual). Seriously, does nobody get how ridiculously bad the NCAA is today? If you have any talent, and don't leave after year 1, something must be wrong with you now. it's why I can't take anything a college player does seriously today. They play against nobody.

Rivera
11-07-2018, 03:49 PM
It's bizarre that people are talking about their best 3 players like they couldn't hold an NBA players jock strap when they are projected to go 1-3 in the draft and every team in the league would be swooning and trading a ton just to draft them.

Like how much do people think players learn in one summer before the NBA lol? Like they go from couldn't hang to scoring 20 PPG because of what they learned in those 3 months?

this! I dont get it!

no one besides the OP is saying they would make the playoffs, they sure as heck would win 10-20 games

valade16
11-07-2018, 03:51 PM
To be clear, I am not saying some of these guys won't end up great NBA players. The odds are against them, but even LeBron freakin' James barely mattered in the win column. Blake Griffin had a rookie season for the ages, and he helped his team get 3 more wins..

The days of KAJ, or Timmy coming in at age 22 and wrecking shop are long gone. These young stars are kids, 19 years old most of the time. It's just too much to ask them to physically dominate NBA players. Successful rookies, as I stated, are either generational talents (sorry I don't buy college kids until they prove it against NBA players nowadays with how bad the talent is in NCAA), or they are guys who can be hidden on their teams to start their careers to hide weaknesses as they develop.

If Duke could win 30 games against NBA competition, we can lock in a few HOF spots right now for their top 3 players is all. I am not betting on that...

I think 30 games is a pipe dream, but 10 games? Yeah I think they'd have a shot at it.

The 2015 76ers won 10 games and they had exactly 3 players on their team with more than 3 years experience, 1 of which who barely played.

Of their youngsters only 3 are starting currently (Robert Covington, Isaiah Canaan, Jerami Grant), with another 2-3 who are rotation pieces. The rest are at the end of the bench or out of the league.

If that team of garbage youngsters could win 10 games, I think this Duke team has a shot at it. I think it's a safe bet that collectively Duke's trio will be better than Okafor, Covington and Noel.

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 03:51 PM
this! I dont get it!

no one besides the OP is saying they would make the playoffs, they sure as heck would win 10-20 games

even if your boys could hold down the fort, the bench would show the worst minus numbers in professional sports history haha

Rivera
11-07-2018, 03:52 PM
To be clear, I am not saying some of these guys won't end up great NBA players. The odds are against them, but even LeBron freakin' James barely mattered in the win column. Blake Griffin had a rookie season for the ages, and he helped his team get 3 more wins..

The days of KAJ, or Timmy coming in at age 22 and wrecking shop are long gone. These young stars are kids, 19 years old most of the time. It's just too much to ask them to physically dominate NBA players. Successful rookies, as I stated, are either generational talents (sorry I don't buy college kids until they prove it against NBA players nowadays with how bad the talent is in NCAA), or they are guys who can be hidden on their teams to start their careers to hide weaknesses as they develop.

If Duke could win 30 games against NBA competition, we can lock in a few HOF spots right now for their top 3 players is all. I am not betting on that...

Cavs got 18 games better when they added Lebron. They still had Big Z, Drew Gooden, and Ricky Davis from the previous season. Add high school Lebron to that Cavs team, they went from 18 wins to 35 wins

I wouldnt say he barely made a difference in the win column

FlashBolt
11-07-2018, 03:53 PM
this! I dont get it!

no one besides the OP is saying they would make the playoffs, they sure as heck would win 10-20 games

I don't think you get it. Do you think these three could score 100 points per game collectively? Because that is what they will have to do because their bench is NOT going to be producing for them. It's not about Zion, R.J. and Cam. It's the fact that their overall roster would be such a huge drop-off that it would be a complete massacre.

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 03:53 PM
I think 30 games is a pipe dream, but 10 games? Yeah I think they'd have a shot at it.

The 2015 76ers won 10 games and they had exactly 3 players on their team with more than 3 years experience, 1 of which who barely played.

Of their youngsters only 3 are starting currently (Robert Covington, Isaiah Canaan, Jerami Grant), with another 2-3 who are rotation pieces. The rest are at the end of the bench or out of the league.

If that team of garbage youngsters could win 10 games, I think this Duke team has a shot at it. I think it's a safe bet that collectively Duke's trio will be better than Okafor, Covington and Noel.

only reason I could buy it, is as the season progresses, plenty of NBA teams kick in the towel and start playing D-league players.

Anyways, I am glad there is new talent as always, I just can't take anything done in the NCAA's all that seriously. The competition is so bad man.

Done shaking my stick. I just miss the days of stacked college teams led by players who stuck around dominating. I can't be convinced teams today could even play with teams from 20 years ago, let alone an NBA team.

Better thread-Could today's Duke team beat the 1992 Duke team...cause this thread is bs

Rivera
11-07-2018, 03:56 PM
even if your boys could hold down the fort, the bench would show the worst minus numbers in professional sports history haha

absolutely 10000% the bench would be the only thing holding them back from being a legit nba team. But with that starting 5 and how hot and cold NBA Teams get, how the game is evolved and how better prepared they would be due to the AAU circuit and playing more basketball across the country, they could win 10-20 games. That Duke starting 5 is better than a few NBA starting 5s

I feel dirty defending Duke, but I know what I saw last night. I know it was 1 game, but that was not an ordianry college team. That team was jumping off the screen ooozing with NBA Talent.

Rivera
11-07-2018, 03:59 PM
I don't think you get it. Do you think these three could score 100 points per game collectively? Because that is what they will have to do because their bench is NOT going to be producing for them. It's not about Zion, R.J. and Cam. It's the fact that their overall roster would be such a huge drop-off that it would be a complete massacre.

They scored 83 last night between the 3 and 89 if you add Tre. Thats in a game that has 2 halfs and a clock that keeps running for the most part. Stretch that out to 4 quarters and stoppage in play, they would have embarrassed Kentucky even more and Kentucky had at least 2 pros on that team. These kids can ball man.

this team has NBA Star power. Your telling me with that starting 5 alone, they couldnt win 10-20 games?

Your telling me the top 3 picks from the most recent draft (Ayton/Bagley/Doncic) if they played together couldnt win 10-20 games?

FlashBolt
11-07-2018, 04:06 PM
They scored 83 last night between the 3 and 89 if you add Tre. Thats in a game that has 2 halfs and a clock that keeps running for the most part. Stretch that out to 4 quarters and stoppage in play, they would have embarrassed Kentucky even more and Kentucky had at least 2 pros on that team. These kids can ball man.

this team has NBA Star power. Your telling me with that starting 5 alone, they couldnt win 10-20 games?

Your telling me the top 3 picks from the most recent draft (Ayton/Bagley/Doncic) if they played together couldnt win 10-20 games?

The problem is you're thinking about those top three on an NBA roster. They're not on an NBA roster. They're in the collegiate level where many of the players on their roster will end up becoming anything but a professional NBA player. Scoring 84 points against Kentucky is not the same as doing it in the NBA. By your logic, Zion and R.J. would be top ten scorers in the NBA THIS SEASON. No, I am not buying that. They will be top players in the league for many years to come but if you think they can simply replicate that in the NBA because they are "oozing of talent", I'm not sure what else could convince you otherwise. We've seen plenty of hyped up college players end up with a poor transition into the league.

Rivera
11-07-2018, 04:11 PM
The problem is you're thinking about those top three on an NBA roster. They're not on an NBA roster. They're in the collegiate level where many of the players on their roster will end up becoming anything but a professional NBA player. Scoring 84 points against Kentucky is not the same as doing it in the NBA. By your logic, Zion and R.J. would be top ten scorers in the NBA THIS SEASON. No, I am not buying that. They will be top players in the league for many years to come but if you think they can simply replicate that in the NBA because they are "oozing of talent", I'm not sure what else could convince you otherwise. We've seen plenty of hyped up college players end up with a poor transition into the league.

i never said they would lead the leauge in scoring, you said they need to score x amount of points and i can only use college as my reference at the moment cause thats all I have, they would have to score a lot but all have the capability because they have everything, they can get to the rim, they can shoot, they are not small, they all have superstar attributes. im saying this duke team can win 10-20 games because of that top 3 the same way if Doncic/Ayton/Bagley were on the same team in the NBA they can win 10-20 games

Barrett and Zion have higher ceilings than anyone from last years draft
so you dont think a team of Ayton/Bagley/Doncic the top 3 picks could win 10-20 games in the NBA?

We have seen players come straight from high school and make immediate impacts, yes it was a select few, but these 3 from Duke are also a select few

IndyRealist
11-07-2018, 04:11 PM
Rivera said 10-20 wins.
Tre said 20 wins IF they replace their bench rotation with NBA players.
I said less than 10 wins because the bench would get mauled.

I don't see why there's anyone arguing here. Everybody's estimating within 10 wins. It's really ,really silly.

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 04:12 PM
absolutely 10000% the bench would be the only thing holding them back from being a legit nba team. But with that starting 5 and how hot and cold NBA Teams get, how the game is evolved and how better prepared they would be due to the AAU circuit and playing more basketball across the country, they could win 10-20 games. That Duke starting 5 is better than a few NBA starting 5s

I feel dirty defending Duke, but I know what I saw last night. I know it was 1 game, but that was not an ordianry college team. That team was jumping off the screen ooozing with NBA Talent.

that, and they would be going against, you know, NBA players.

Again, and this is the last time I repeat it-today's NCAA is terrible. Years ago, when players of this talent came in, they stayed for 3-4 years. Guys who are now in the NBA HOF were just typical great college players back then. Today, we just pump up any talent that is head and shoulders above the rest, when 25 years ago, Zion would be going against players exponentially better, and more refined, than he is right now. I can't state this enough. Zion isn't going to see Tim Duncan when he plays Wake Forest.

If this Duke team played the Suns 100 times, I would be shocked if they won more than 5 times.

tredigs
11-07-2018, 04:13 PM
The problem is you're thinking about those top three on an NBA roster. They're not on an NBA roster. They're in the collegiate level where many of the players on their roster will end up becoming anything but a professional NBA player. Scoring 84 points against Kentucky is not the same as doing it in the NBA. By your logic, Zion and R.J. would be top ten scorers in the NBA THIS SEASON. No, I am not buying that. They will be top players in the league for many years to come but if you think they can simply replicate that in the NBA because they are "oozing of talent", I'm not sure what else could convince you otherwise. We've seen plenty of hyped up college players end up with a poor transition into the league.

trae young is maintaining his college production in the NBA (just a slightly lower volume). Donovan Mitchell out-produced his college production as the #1 in the NBA as a rookie. Tatum maintained his production and was more efficient in the NBA as a rookie. Simmons production was better as a rookie in the NBA then it was in college. Ayton is maintaining his same college production as a rookie. Do I need to go on? It's far from impossible, and frankly with the lack of minutes + shots these Duke players are going to get in all the blowouts they have, I expect all 3 to have more impressive per game stats as rookies than they do in college. And Zion + Barrett are better than all of those guys imo. Right now. Ben being the one question mark to me, but until he find sa semblance of a shot, he's not all THAT scary. Yet, still a borderline All Star in the NBA as a 1 and done.

tredigs
11-07-2018, 04:16 PM
Rivera said 10-20 wins.
Tre said 20 wins IF they replace their bench rotation with NBA players.
I said less than 10 wins because the bench would get mauled.

I don't see why there's anyone arguing here. Everybody's estimating within 10 wins. It's really ,really silly.
Yeah but that's right now if they just transplanted them. With an off-season to gel, that's a borderline playoff team out of the gate in the East. Agreed though, most people have them pegged around the same range. I just think many are discounting just how special this team is. I think it will absolutely go down at bare minimum as the best of this generation.

Rivera
11-07-2018, 04:17 PM
that, and they would be going against, you know, NBA players.

Again, and this is the last time I repeat it-today's NCAA is terrible. Years ago, when players of this talent came in, they stayed for 3-4 years. Guys who are now in the NBA HOF were just typical great college players back then. Today, we just pump up any talent that is head and shoulders above the rest, when 25 years ago, Zion would be going against players exponentially better, and more refined, than he is right now. I can't state this enough. Zion isn't going to see Tim Duncan when he plays Wake Forest.

If this Duke team played the Suns 100 times, I would be shocked if they won more than 5 times.

so you agree, they would win games in the NBA because they have real NBA talent, because thats what we said. We never agreed with the OP as far as a 3/4 seed. I said 10-20 wins, Tre said 20 with 3 NBA vets off the bench

I think they could beat the suns more tbh, I could argue that RJ/Zion is better than anyone on the Suns

I honestly dont know if thats true, but I could make an argument based off these kids gifts

Scoots
11-07-2018, 04:19 PM
Tre Jones at the very worst looks like the first PG off the bench. His brother as you know plays in the NBA. I guarantee Tre gets NBA type of practices and workouts just playing and practicing with his brother alone.

so i have to challange that claim the 4th best player Tre Jones would be the 15th guy on an NBA roster, thats an exaggeration

To be fair, Tre may not be the #4 guy on Duke, but I did just say "probably" not certainly.

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 04:22 PM
so you agree, they would win games in the NBA because they have real NBA talent, because thats what we said. We never agreed with the OP as far as a 3/4 seed. I said 10-20 wins, Tre said 20 with 3 NBA vets off the bench

I think they could beat the suns more tbh, I could argue that RJ/Zion is better than anyone on the Suns

I honestly dont know if thats true, but I could make an argument based off these kids gifts

I am not into hypotheticals in sports, they are simply exercise for the fingers to type. THIS Duke team, wouldn't win 5 games in an NBA season. Sure, litter it with..........duh duh duh............NBA players, and they probably win some games. Cause they have.........NBA players.

We can only assume their guys develop into great NBA players. I have watched basketball since the mid 80's, and I have seen sure fire talent turn into nothing enough to not bet on these 3 becoming NBA stars.

valade16
11-07-2018, 04:25 PM
that, and they would be going against, you know, NBA players.

Again, and this is the last time I repeat it-today's NCAA is terrible. Years ago, when players of this talent came in, they stayed for 3-4 years. Guys who are now in the NBA HOF were just typical great college players back then. Today, we just pump up any talent that is head and shoulders above the rest, when 25 years ago, Zion would be going against players exponentially better, and more refined, than he is right now. I can't state this enough. Zion isn't going to see Tim Duncan when he plays Wake Forest.

If this Duke team played the Suns 100 times, I would be shocked if they won more than 5 times.

But you're talking about the NCAA as a whole, this was 1 game of Duke vs Kentucky. That is not an accurate representation of how good the NCAA is because both those teams are better than 99.9% of the NCAA.

They have collectively recruited 50% of the top 30 players the last 2 years. This wasn't Duke beating up on some hapless NCAA team. This was a team with 7 potential NBA players handedly beating a team with 7 potential NBA players on it.

valade16
11-07-2018, 04:28 PM
I am not into hypotheticals in sports, they are simply exercise for the fingers to type. THIS Duke team, wouldn't win 5 games in an NBA season. Sure, litter it with..........duh duh duh............NBA players, and they probably win some games. Cause they have.........NBA players.

We can only assume their guys develop into great NBA players. I have watched basketball since the mid 80's, and I have seen sure fire talent turn into nothing enough to not bet on these 3 becoming NBA stars.

I think you are vastly overrating what it means to be an NBA player if you think that every NBA player is head and shoulders above all the players on that Duke team. There's a reason Duke's top 3 guys will be drafted so highly, and it's because they have more talent than a lot of NBA players.

tredigs
11-07-2018, 04:33 PM
I am not into hypotheticals in sports, they are simply exercise for the fingers to type. THIS Duke team, wouldn't win 5 games in an NBA season. Sure, litter it with..........duh duh duh............NBA players, and they probably win some games. Cause they have.........NBA players.

We can only assume their guys develop into great NBA players. I have watched basketball since the mid 80's, and I have seen sure fire talent turn into nothing enough to not bet on these 3 becoming NBA stars.

Yeah, they very likely would dude. I think they would win more than 10 games without question, and closer to 20. Would a team with rookie Blake Griffin, rookie Luka Doncic, and rookie Jayson Tatum with a backup PG (starting for them) and a roster of G-leaguers (some with high promise) win more than 5 games? You ****ing better believe it man. And that's essentially what you're dealing with here.

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 04:52 PM
I just noticed, Duke has played 1 game. 1 game is what we are basing this off of?


hahahahahahahaha

**** this

CityofTreez
11-07-2018, 04:57 PM
1 game against an overrated freshmen machine as well in Kentucky

tredigs
11-07-2018, 04:58 PM
I just noticed, Duke has played 1 game. 1 game is what we are basing this off of?


hahahahahahahaha

**** this

Lol, clearly you missed the game though. It's based off a lot more than one game, it was simply finally seeing this unprecedented recruiting class of a team play against a team with future NBA players (who were favored over Duke, who were blown off the floor in 3 minutes).

You don't want to die on this hill Hawk. As a long time hater of college ball and college hype, I am telling you, this team is going down in history. It was the most dominant game of college basketball I have ever seen, and simply the culmination of what many expected could happen.

tredigs
11-07-2018, 05:02 PM
1 game against an overrated freshmen machine as well in Kentucky
Define overrated? Kentucky was the 2nd ranked team in the nation and have multiple future NBA players on their roster. They have elite size + athleticism and will absolutely tear through 95% of the teams they face this year. They just happened to run into a team we will be mentioning for a long time.

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 05:18 PM
Lol, clearly you missed the game though. It's based off a lot more than one game, it was simply finally seeing this unprecedented recruiting class of a team play against a team with future NBA players (who were favored over Duke, who were blown off the floor in 3 minutes).

You don't want to die on this hill Hawk. As a long time hater of college ball and college hype, I am telling you, this team is going down in history. It was the most dominant game of college basketball I have ever seen, and simply the culmination of what many expected could happen.

why would I?

how old are you? Again, no offense, its a real question. The most dominant game you ever saw in college?
Cmon. College ball is a joke. The talent is barely even there. I aint being an old man saying, "it was a ton better in my day". Because it was, when talent stayed around, matured, and great teams were littered with NBA players.

1 game dude. 1 freaking game. The UNLV Running Rebels, Fab 5, early 90s Duke teams, the Bruins led by KAJ, and so many more teams, would kill these teams. Imagine if Duke's guys stuck around 2-3 more years, and they kept adding McDonald All Americans to help them. That was the 80-90's...

tredigs
11-07-2018, 05:32 PM
why would I?

how old are you? Again, no offense, its a real question. The most dominant game you ever saw in college?
Cmon. College ball is a joke. The talent is barely even there. I aint being an old man saying, "it was a ton better in my day". Because it was, when talent stayed around, matured, and great teams were littered with NBA players.

1 game dude. 1 freaking game. The UNLV Running Rebels, Fab 5, early 90s Duke teams, the Bruins led by KAJ, and so many more teams, would kill these teams. Imagine if Duke's guys stuck around 2-3 more years, and they kept adding McDonald All Americans to help them. That was the 80-90's...

I think I told you I'm old enough to have seen/remembered Webber's timeout for the Fab 5. That was 26 years ago in 92 I believe. I've seen plenty of college ball. Recognize that I'm not saying this is the best college team ever, that's all relative (it's the one and done era), but it is definitely the most talented team I have ever seen. That should be pretty clear as no other team has ever flirted with having the 1/2/3 in an NBA draft.

valade16
11-07-2018, 05:33 PM
why would I?

how old are you? Again, no offense, its a real question. The most dominant game you ever saw in college?
Cmon. College ball is a joke. The talent is barely even there. I aint being an old man saying, "it was a ton better in my day". Because it was, when talent stayed around, matured, and great teams were littered with NBA players.

1 game dude. 1 freaking game. The UNLV Running Rebels, Fab 5, early 90s Duke teams, the Bruins led by KAJ, and so many more teams, would kill these teams. Imagine if Duke's guys stuck around 2-3 more years, and they kept adding McDonald All Americans to help them. That was the 80-90's...

You really do sound like an old man though lol. "back in my day college players were talented, nowadays they all suck" meanwhile the 2 teams you're talking about are going to have collectively 14 players on their teams in the NBA in 2 years.

There was no college that monopolized talent back then like Duke and Kentucky (and UNC/Kansas) do now.

You're saying the talent level sucks because all the best players go 1 and done, but you're talking about 2 teams that have all players that will go 1 (or 2) and done. They are the very talent you are lamenting is gone from college hoops lol.

And in the next draft you'll be wishing to God that Minnesota could draft any of Duke's big 3 despite in here saying they are tantamount to grade schoolers dribbling around and ****ing their pants if they played pros.

ewing
11-07-2018, 05:45 PM
I just noticed, Duke has played 1 game. 1 game is what we are basing this off of?


hahahahahahahaha

**** this

I know. I donít how they would be against an NBA team but Iím telling you Iíd trade KP for this kid Zion in a heart beat. It was that impressive. I cant get over how big he is and how quick he jumps. Heís like LJ was with an extra 30 pounds of muscle and a much better vertical


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 05:48 PM
You really do sound like an old man though lol. "back in my day college players were talented, nowadays they all suck" meanwhile the 2 teams you're talking about are going to have collectively 14 players on their teams in the NBA in 2 years.

There was no college that monopolized talent back then like Duke and Kentucky (and UNC/Kansas) do now.

You're saying the talent level sucks because all the best players go 1 and done, but you're talking about 2 teams that have all players that will go 1 (or 2) and done. They are the very talent you are lamenting is gone from college hoops lol.

And in the next draft you'll be wishing to God that Minnesota could draft any of Duke's big 3 despite in here saying they are tantamount to grade schoolers dribbling around and ****ing their pants if they played pros.

But I am right...

before the 1 and done era, guys like Zion would stick around for 2-3 years, and more and more talent would come to teams like Duke. Teams were much better, top to bottom, years ago. The teams back then, had guys with the same potential they do now, but they stuck around, and more and more talent was incoming, making teams across the land simply better. Go back to those years, and look up and down the rosters, and players were just as talented, and teams had more of them. So a bunch of inexperienced 18 year olds, in game 1, doesn't do anything for me.

I am not really sure where you are getting there weren't teams that constantly recruited and spit out talent years ago man. That simply isn't true.

Of course I want talent for my team, that has nothing to do with my recognition of how weak the NCAA is overall. The top end guys are the same, but they don't stick around, while more top end guys join them. So each year, we get what, a handful of future stars in the game, where back in the day the NCAA was littered with them. You guys are clearly missing my message-in 1990, Duke's 3 studs are still at Duke 2 years from now, only they have a bunch of other studs along with them. And they get to play teams with similar makeups. Today, not so much.

Lastly, it's 1 game. 1.

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 05:50 PM
I think I told you I'm old enough to have seen/remembered Webber's timeout for the Fab 5. That was 26 years ago in 92 I believe. I've seen plenty of college ball. Recognize that I'm not saying this is the best college team ever, that's all relative (it's the one and done era), but it is definitely the most talented team I have ever seen. That should be pretty clear as no other team has ever flirted with having the 1/2/3 in an NBA draft.

and I have listed the reasons why. When the top end talent turns over every single year, this is bound to happen.

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 05:50 PM
I know. I donít how they would be against an NBA team but Iím telling you Iíd trade KP for this kid Zion in a heart beat. It was that impressive. I cant get over how big he is and how quick he jumps. Heís like LJ was with an extra 30 pounds of muscle and a much better vertical


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I will try and catch him. I just know at this stage not to get worked up over a prospect.

CityofTreez
11-07-2018, 05:53 PM
Define overrated? Kentucky was the 2nd ranked team in the nation and have multiple future NBA players on their roster. They have elite size + athleticism and will absolutely tear through 95% of the teams they face this year. They just happened to run into a team we will be mentioning for a long time.

Basically summed up Calipariís Kentucky annual preseason take, but they never do tear through 95% of their competition and normally lose 4-5 games leading up to March. They were over ranked last year, the year before that, and this year is no different.

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 05:56 PM
Basically summed up Calipariís Kentucky annual preseason take, but they never do tear through 95% of their competition and normally lose 4-5 games leading up to March. They were over ranked last year, the year before that, and this year is no different.

I mean, I try to imagine all the years I watched, and just get rid of any obvious NBA talent over the age of 19. Because that is essentially today's NCAA. It's just not impressive to me, and I don't deny these freshman are for real, I am stating, their wins/stats against THIS competition don't mean much to me.

They lose because they are inconsistent kids.

tredigs
11-07-2018, 05:58 PM
Basically summed up Calipariís Kentucky annual preseason take, but they never do tear through 95% of their competition and normally lose 4-5 games leading up to March. They were over ranked last year, the year before that, and this year is no different.

Yeah, well, you will never catch me agreeing with any hot take about these teams in any other year. They are very, VERY clearly different. I'm done with this discussion though. I can revisit as the season wears on.

valade16
11-07-2018, 06:11 PM
But I am right...

before the 1 and done era, guys like Zion would stick around for 2-3 years, and more and more talent would come to teams like Duke. Teams were much better, top to bottom, years ago. The teams back then, had guys with the same potential they do now, but they stuck around, and more and more talent was incoming, making teams across the land simply better. Go back to those years, and look up and down the rosters, and players were just as talented, and teams had more of them. So a bunch of inexperienced 18 year olds, in game 1, doesn't do anything for me.

I am not really sure where you are getting there weren't teams that constantly recruited and spit out talent years ago man. That simply isn't true.

Of course I want talent for my team, that has nothing to do with my recognition of how weak the NCAA is overall. The top end guys are the same, but they don't stick around, while more top end guys join them. So each year, we get what, a handful of future stars in the game, where back in the day the NCAA was littered with them. You guys are clearly missing my message-in 1990, Duke's 3 studs are still at Duke 2 years from now, only they have a bunch of other studs along with them. And they get to play teams with similar makeups. Today, not so much.

Lastly, it's 1 game. 1.

They were not recruiting talent like the top 3-4 teams of today. Heck, let's look at the Fab 5, here were their prospect ranks:

#1 Chris Webber
#3 Juwan Howard
#5 Jalen Rose
#9 Jimmy King
#84 Austin Ray Jackson

Here are Duke's prospect Ranks the past few years:

2018:
#1
#2
#5
#15
#33

2017:
#1
#6
#7
#17

2016:
#2
#4
#13
#14
#39


The Fab 5 were a once in a lifetime recruiting class and Duke has literally recruited at that caliber the past 3 years straight.

Not to mention the Fab 5 completely disprove your argument. You're saying college teams were better back then because they were all experienced a group of Freshman couldn't come in and beat them and yet the Fab 5 Freshman came in and dominated college basketball and were a Chris Webber mental lapse from winning the Championship as Freshman lol

If a bunch of 1 and done Freshman couldn't come in and dominate then how come a starting 5 of all Freshman dominated 25 years ago lol?

Hawkeye15
11-07-2018, 06:23 PM
They were not recruiting talent like the top 3-4 teams of today. Heck, let's look at the Fab 5, here were their prospect ranks:

#1 Chris Webber
#3 Juwan Howard
#5 Jalen Rose
#9 Jimmy King
#84 Austin Ray Jackson

Here are Duke's prospect Ranks the past few years:

2018:
#1
#2
#5
#15
#33

2017:
#1
#6
#7
#17

2016:
#2
#4
#13
#14
#39


The Fab 5 were a once in a lifetime recruiting class and Duke has literally recruited at that caliber the past 3 years straight.

Not to mention the Fab 5 completely disprove your argument. You're saying college teams were better back then because they were all experienced a group of Freshman couldn't come in and beat them and yet the Fab 5 Freshman came in and dominated college basketball and were a Chris Webber mental lapse from winning the Championship as Freshman lol

If a bunch of 1 and done Freshman couldn't come in and dominate then how come a starting 5 of all Freshman dominated 25 years ago lol?

dude, you are still not getting my message. Take all those rankings you are showing, and mix/match them with the 2017, and 2018 drafts. Now you get the NCAA prior to the 1 and done era.

It's 1 game. 1. The Michigan starting 5 ended up with 3 long term NBA players, 1 of which was a superstar.

The Fab 5 didn't win a chip remember. They got beat by a............more experienced team with eventual NBA players on it.

The days of elite college basketball died with the 1 and done driving forward man. The talent level will never be the same again. Not under these draft rules.

Also, careful on prospect ranks. Should we dig up all the crappy players ranked super high? Felipe Lopez, what is he up to nowadays? He and Kenny Anderson were the gems back then...

valade16
11-07-2018, 06:40 PM
dude, you are still not getting my message. Take all those rankings you are showing, and mix/match them with the 2017, and 2018 drafts. Now you get the NCAA prior to the 1 and done era.

It's 1 game. 1. The Michigan starting 5 ended up with 3 long term NBA players, 1 of which was a superstar.

The Fab 5 didn't win a chip remember. They got beat by a............more experienced team with eventual NBA players on it.

The days of elite college basketball died with the 1 and done driving forward man. The talent level will never be the same again. Not under these draft rules.

Also, careful on prospect ranks. Should we dig up all the crappy players ranked super high? Felipe Lopez, what is he up to nowadays? He and Kenny Anderson were the gems back then...

No, you're not getting it. Teams back then were not recruiting such stacked classes consistently, it's why the Fab 5 was so special. Amassing that much talent in a single class simply wasn't done back then. It would take 1990's Duke 4 years to amass the top end prospects that current Duke does in a year or two.

And if your example is stacked Freshman squads today would get destroyed by College teams back then because the stacked Freshman squad of back then only managed to lose in the Championship game you're not making a very good point. I think it's safe to say that team of all Freshman competed at a high level lol


I agree, rankings could be illusory, and highly ranked prospects may not pan out. But against top level college competition all 3 certainly looked the part thus far. I'm not even talking about this team, I'm more so against the idea that a stacked college squad couldn't win 5-10 games in the NBA. The 2016 76ers won 10 games and they were dog****. Most of the team were Rookies and Sophomores and half of them are out of the league and aside from 3 players still starting, the rest are on the end of the bench now. They were the worst of the worst professionally and they managed to win 10 games.

tredigs
11-07-2018, 07:24 PM
I will say this thread is going to look hilarious when Duke loses to some zone team like Syracuse (which they will), but I am not getting off this hill.

ewing
11-07-2018, 07:42 PM
I will say this thread is going to look hilarious when Duke loses to some zone team like Syracuse (which they will), but I am not getting off this hill.

St John's

CityofTreez
11-07-2018, 07:59 PM
I mean, I try to imagine all the years I watched, and just get rid of any obvious NBA talent over the age of 19. Because that is essentially today's NCAA. It's just not impressive to me, and I don't deny these freshman are for real, I am stating, their wins/stats against THIS competition don't mean much to me.

They lose because they are inconsistent kids.


Yeah. I donít want to rant about ncaa in this forum, but the ncaa is sleazy period

Scoots
11-07-2018, 10:15 PM
I will say this thread is going to look hilarious when Duke loses to some zone team like Syracuse (which they will), but I am not getting off this hill.

A team lead by kids is always waiting for a game with a bad 5 minutes to start just cascades into disaster.

Tg11
11-08-2018, 09:12 AM
Duke is stacked this year I think they may just win Final Four this year

Hawkeye15
11-08-2018, 10:25 AM
No, you're not getting it. Teams back then were not recruiting such stacked classes consistently, it's why the Fab 5 was so special. Amassing that much talent in a single class simply wasn't done back then. It would take 1990's Duke 4 years to amass the top end prospects that current Duke does in a year or two.

And if your example is stacked Freshman squads today would get destroyed by College teams back then because the stacked Freshman squad of back then only managed to lose in the Championship game you're not making a very good point. I think it's safe to say that team of all Freshman competed at a high level lol


I agree, rankings could be illusory, and highly ranked prospects may not pan out. But against top level college competition all 3 certainly looked the part thus far. I'm not even talking about this team, I'm more so against the idea that a stacked college squad couldn't win 5-10 games in the NBA. The 2016 76ers won 10 games and they were dog****. Most of the team were Rookies and Sophomores and half of them are out of the league and aside from 3 players still starting, the rest are on the end of the bench now. They were the worst of the worst professionally and they managed to win 10 games.

I will spell it out one last time

The talent in today's NCAA is vastly less than it was years ago. Therefore, I could care less what these kids do against the competition. The pro game is far more refined and mature, and these kids would be exposed for their weaknesses, and even if a few of these 18 year old kids could play with NBA starters, the depth/bench/other 5-6 rotation players would get eaten alive.

The reason Duke today would get beat by Duke in 1992, is because that team ALSO had multiple NBA players on it, and they had matured talent, not 18 year olds. What is being lost here, is sometimes guys are great college players, not pros. Nobody on this team is stopping Christian Laettner, who was mature, refined, and smart. What happens when Zion sees a zone, and is forced to shoot the ball? The guy was airballing in warmups, are you really buying he is all of a sudden Dirk because he shot ok in 1 ****ing game?

Imagine if Zion and the crew joined a team with Tatum, Bagley, and Carter on it (instead of them leaving for the draft). This presents the reality of the days I am speaking of. Talent doesn't mature in the NCAA anymore, it leaves, therefore weakening the competition across the board.

The top end talent will always be there. But, it doesn't mature, or stick around anymore. So as additional top end talent comes into the NCAA, it isn't joining its peers, its joining less talent, because the top end guys already left.

Also, comparing any team to an NBA team whose sole intention was to tank, is kinda meh. Because the lottery promotes tanking, it's why I said a few wins might happen, they will run into NBA teams trying not to be NBA teams.

This argument comes up all the time, its ludicrous, a pro team is killing an NCAA team. 100/100 times? Maybe not. But pretty close.

Hawkeye15
11-08-2018, 10:27 AM
its sad a couple of posters I think understand the game even entertain a college team could compete with an NBA team. Like, are you serious? These kids today beat up on other 18 year olds, or guys who won't sniff the NBA. Its like you have a disease if you can't declare by 20, the talent just sucks today.

TheDish87
11-08-2018, 10:51 AM
at least the discussion got away from the OP topic that Duke could be a 3-5 seed in the East. that was just absurd. i really wanna know what the reaction would be by those who think they could make the playoffs, let alone win more than a few lucky games be if/when they lose to a much inferior team?

tredigs
11-08-2018, 10:53 AM
Kerr said he thought Lebron was a one-off type deal until he saw Zion on Tuesday. He was not being sarcastic.

Tg11
11-08-2018, 12:30 PM
Zion could be that transcendent player that transcends the game like how LeBron was when he came in in 2003...Zion has potential to be Bron or at least be at that level that LeBron was when he was a teenager but can Zion be a superstar in this league as the years go by once he does come in? I say he can be

tredigs
11-08-2018, 12:49 PM
Zion could be that transcendent player that transcends the game like how LeBron was when he came in in 2003...Zion has potential to be Bron or at least be at that level that LeBron was when he was a teenager but can Zion be a superstar in this league as the years go by once he does come in? I say he can be
He won't be Bron but I do think he's potentially generational and could be in the best player mix from 2020-2030.

WaDe03
11-08-2018, 12:57 PM
Zion getting all the hype but Barrett is better. Both will be superstars. Teams would be smart to rank for those 2 and even reddish. Idk if Kentucky was just bad the other night or if duke is really that much better than everyone else. Theyíll have the 2 best players on the court every night, 3 most nights.

WaDe03
11-08-2018, 12:58 PM
But as for this thread, hell no lmao!

valade16
11-08-2018, 01:22 PM
its sad a couple of posters I think understand the game even entertain a college team could compete with an NBA team. Like, are you serious? These kids today beat up on other 18 year olds, or guys who won't sniff the NBA. Its like you have a disease if you can't declare by 20, the talent just sucks today.

You are speaking in generalities of college overall. Stop it. Starting talking about the actual situation.

This idea that "they're kids, they'd get demolished by men" is ****ing stupid. Ayton is not getting demolished by men. Doncic is not getting demolished by men. Trae Young is not getting demolished by men. How many rookies come in and don't get demolished by men. I can't for the life of me understand why smart people think that there's some butterfly like transformation that happens from a year in college to their rookie year. How much better do you think they got in that one summer? Because apparently they go from scrubs to guys averaging 19 PPG because of it...

They did not beat up on kids who won't sniff the NBA. 7 of the Kentucky Wildcats are predicted to be drafted in the next 2 years. They beat up on a team chalk full of potential NBA talent.

For the life of me I don't know why draft picks are so valuable if these kids suck so freaking bad. Why would anybody want to draft these guys if they would get run off the floor by Tony Wroten.

Tg11
11-08-2018, 02:08 PM
Duke are like the college equivalent of Golden State right now with the talent they have and you have 3 bonafide stars in Zion, Barrett and Reddish who can be great stars in the NBA and all being coached by Coach K...it don't get any better than that

tredigs
11-08-2018, 02:55 PM
Zion getting all the hype but Barrett is better. Both will be superstars. Teams would be smart to rank for those 2 and even reddish. Idk if Kentucky was just bad the other night or if duke is really that much better than everyone else. Theyíll have the 2 best players on the court every night, 3 most nights.

Barrett is more polished right now but I like Zion much more as a prospect. He has a ridiculous feel for the game to accompany the generational athleticism + size.

Hawkeye15
11-08-2018, 02:57 PM
You are speaking in generalities of college overall. Stop it. Starting talking about the actual situation.

This idea that "they're kids, they'd get demolished by men" is ****ing stupid. Ayton is not getting demolished by men. Doncic is not getting demolished by men. Trae Young is not getting demolished by men. How many rookies come in and don't get demolished by men. I can't for the life of me understand why smart people think that there's some butterfly like transformation that happens from a year in college to their rookie year. How much better do you think they got in that one summer? Because apparently they go from scrubs to guys averaging 19 PPG because of it...

They did not beat up on kids who won't sniff the NBA. 7 of the Kentucky Wildcats are predicted to be drafted in the next 2 years. They beat up on a team chalk full of potential NBA talent.

For the life of me I don't know why draft picks are so valuable if these kids suck so freaking bad. Why would anybody want to draft these guys if they would get run off the floor by Tony Wroten.

I don't believe these kids are any different than years ago. Just because a couple of programs now hoard the top recruits doesn't change the fact the quality talent in college is so down now, nothing they do against the competition matters to me.

My Fab 5 point, all along, was we have seen a recruiting class heralded as the greatest ever, with future NBA littered across it, and they didn't win **** back then, against real talent strewn across the nation.

If whatever point you guys are trying to make it 1 to 2 teams now load up on all the talent, it still means nothing to me.

Being a projected NBA player means just that-projected. How many of those 7 do you really think will last?

Top end talent is always there, it never matures, the talent overall in the NCAA is a joke.

It's 1 game. 1.

Trae Young is leading a rebuilding team to a terrible record with stats that add up to a negative VORP. That is what rookies do. They don't lead real teams to real wins. For every exception you bring me, I can present you with countless examples going my way. The Duke guys are likely no different. There IS a gap between being a college player and an NBA player when it comes to positive production for nearly every one of them.

Anyways, spoken my peace. College teams aint beating NBA teams.

Hawkeye15
11-08-2018, 03:00 PM
and what actual situation Valade? The fact that the talent is so bad that 2 programs can kick out multiple draft picks every year? That doesn't do anything to help your point. in fact it assists mine.

when Duke and/or Kentucky lose to a crappy team, will this stop? Every year this **** comes up. It's ridiculous.

WaDe03
11-08-2018, 03:05 PM
Barrett is more polished right now but I like Zion much more as a prospect. He has a ridiculous feel for the game to accompany the generational athleticism + size.

I have no doubt theyíll both be great.

likemystylez
11-08-2018, 03:06 PM
its funny that nobody bashes star players in highschool for not making the NCAA even and all going to the top teams... but they get mad at guys like kd and cousins for joining a powerhouse in the nba

tredigs
11-08-2018, 03:11 PM
I have no doubt theyíll both be great.
I agree. That much is plain as day. These are not "prospects", they're two guys who would be battling each other for ROY along with Doncic and co (though with far better physical tools) who happen to be in college right now. Doncic being a 20/7/5 guy on a 60%, even in a fairly poor situation for him. Not liking how mitigated he is on Dallas.

IKnowHoops
11-08-2018, 03:28 PM
Barrett is more polished right now but I like Zion much more as a prospect. He has a ridiculous feel for the game to accompany the generational athleticism + size.

This.

Melo was more polished than Bron as rookies too

FlashBolt
11-08-2018, 03:32 PM
This.

Melo was more polished than Bron as rookies too

Maybe as a scorer but everyone knew Bron was more of a complete player

AllBall
11-08-2018, 03:34 PM
This is downright ignorant. Any Pro NBA team would mop the floor with them. This is like when guys think they could beat a retired NBA player 1 on 1. Even if it was a retired 15th man it ain't happening, lol, no, just no...

Heediot
11-08-2018, 03:41 PM
duke would get beat by 30 teams in europe let alone the nba lmao.

Wrigheyes4MVP
11-08-2018, 03:44 PM
Duke would get smoked... let's get real.

It's like saying Alabama would beat an NFL team. It's insane.

tredigs
11-08-2018, 03:49 PM
This is downright ignorant. Any Pro NBA team would mop the floor with them. This is like when guys think they could beat a retired NBA player 1 on 1. Even if it was a retired 15th man it ain't happening, lol, no, just no...
As said earlier, would a team with say Doncic, Ayton and Trae Young + Trey Burke and D leaguers go 0-82? No, of course not. You would have to be a complete fool to think so. Duke is essentially that team, except I like Zion + Barrett more than Ayton and Doncic. As in today, not as prospects

Wrigheyes4MVP
11-08-2018, 03:55 PM
As said earlier, would a team with say Doncic, Ayton and Trae Young + Trey Burke and D leaguers go 0-82? No, of course not. You would have to be a complete fool to think so. Duke is essentially that team, except I like Zion + Barrett more than Ayton and Doncic. As in today, not as prospects

They wouldn't go 0-82, but they certainly would be one of the worst teams in the East, if not the worst. They' probably win 15 games or so if I had to guess. And I think I'm being pretty generous.

I also think Doncic has proven to be more NBA ready than any of the college prospects than come out. He was the Euroleague MVP. That is a huge accomplishment and shows that he's more NBA ready than most prospects.

tredigs
11-08-2018, 03:59 PM
They wouldn't go 0-82, but they certainly would be one of the worst teams in the East, if not the worst. They' probably win 15 games or so if I had to guess. And I think I'm being pretty generous.

I also think Doncic has proven to be more NBA ready than any of the college prospects than come out. He was the Euroleague MVP. That is a huge accomplishment and shows that he's more NBA ready than most prospects.
I agree with all of this and I think that is the most common sentiment being said here.

AllBall
11-08-2018, 04:02 PM
As said earlier, would a team with say Doncic, Ayton and Trae Young + Trey Burke and D leaguers go 0-82? No, of course not. You would have to be a complete fool to think so. Duke is essentially that team, except I like Zion + Barrett more than Ayton and Doncic. As in today, not as prospects

For a college team to keep up the pace of NBA conditioning, stamina, drills, length of season, travel, back-to-backs, etc would be impossible. They wouldn't be able to handle that if all else remains the same. Also, Doncic has been playing professional basketball for 3 years.

ewing
11-08-2018, 04:05 PM
Barrett is more polished right now but I like Zion much more as a prospect. He has a ridiculous feel for the game to accompany the generational athleticism + size.

I heard the kid has a 45 in vertical. Heís 285 thatís insane. Is he going to fill out more? Shaq did. Bron did. At 22 is he going to be this athletic and 310?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FlashBolt
11-08-2018, 04:38 PM
If teams don't try to tank, I don't think they win ten games. It's so obvious some teams are trying to tank. Cleveland doesn't give a rats *** if they lose.

tredigs
11-08-2018, 04:38 PM
For a college team to keep up the pace of NBA conditioning, stamina, drills, length of season, travel, back-to-backs, etc would be impossible. They wouldn't be able to handle that if all else remains the same. Also, Doncic has been playing professional basketball for 3 years.

Lol wwhat are you talking about? They're 19 year olds in peak condition. Do you think all the straight to pro from high school players just fell off a cliff and gave up after January? These guys are only in college because they have to be. Barrett has been playing international competitions for years.

Rivera
11-08-2018, 05:03 PM
Duke would get smoked... let's get real.

It's like saying Alabama would beat an NFL team. It's insane.

i hate this comparison and your not the only one to make it. Football and basketball are 2 different sports with 2 different skill sets. Football is a collision sport Basketball is a skill sport. You can be 190 in the NBA and be a great player because the game just isnt as physical anymore. You have to prepare your body so much different for either sport, not to mention all the gameplanning and tactics football involved that NFL teams could give to Alabama that would get them smoked. NFL Teams would give Tua looks he has never seen before. NBA isnt all that complex, its a skill sport. Yes you need a high bball iq of course but the xs and os are no where near as complex in bball as in football. in bball 1 player can play both ends and make a huge impact in deciding the game. in football for the most part, you are regulated to your position on one side of the football. i always hate this comparison its apples to oranges

but as you said later, you would think at most the would win probably 15 games which is what most of the posters have been saying in this thread (forget the OP)

Heediot
11-08-2018, 05:08 PM
with the squad as is and no teams tanking they would win 5 games max imo.

the bench itself would be a huge negative.

valade16
11-08-2018, 05:21 PM
I don't believe these kids are any different than years ago. Just because a couple of programs now hoard the top recruits doesn't change the fact the quality talent in college is so down now, nothing they do against the competition matters to me.

My Fab 5 point, all along, was we have seen a recruiting class heralded as the greatest ever, with future NBA littered across it, and they didn't win **** back then, against real talent strewn across the nation.

If whatever point you guys are trying to make it 1 to 2 teams now load up on all the talent, it still means nothing to me.

Being a projected NBA player means just that-projected. How many of those 7 do you really think will last?

Top end talent is always there, it never matures, the talent overall in the NCAA is a joke.

It's 1 game. 1.

Trae Young is leading a rebuilding team to a terrible record with stats that add up to a negative VORP. That is what rookies do. They don't lead real teams to real wins. For every exception you bring me, I can present you with countless examples going my way. The Duke guys are likely no different. There IS a gap between being a college player and an NBA player when it comes to positive production for nearly every one of them.

Anyways, spoken my peace. College teams aint beating NBA teams.

If by didn't win **** you mean went 30-10 and lose in the National Championship game lol. They had the 3rd toughest schedule in all of College Basketball that year and as Freshman dominated. So again, how could a stacked college team today (like say Duke or Kentucky) not do well against the veteran laden teams of yesteryear when a stacked Freshman class was the 2nd best team in the entire country back then?

There's no way around it, the idea that this Duke team couldn't compete with college teams of old is "get off my lawn" old man nonsense.

And again, I don't think anyone would consider 5-15 wins "real wins". Nobody outside the OP is saying they'd go to the playoffs, but winning close to double digit games is certainly possible.

For instance, how would a team of all rookies do in the NBA this year? According to you the answer is none. An all-rookie team shouldn't win a single game because they can't play with the men of the NBA, or some other such old man nonsense.

valade16
11-08-2018, 05:23 PM
Lol wwhat are you talking about? They're 19 year olds in peak condition. Do you think all the straight to pro from high school players just fell off a cliff and gave up after January? These guys are only in college because they have to be. Barrett has been playing international competitions for years.

Yeah it's funny that people are trying to claim these guys can't play with NBA players considering the only reason they currently aren't playing against NBA players is a rule saying they have to play in college. All 3 of Duke's top guys would be in the NBA today if they didn't have to spend a year in college. Yet they couldn't possibly measure up to NBA players lol.

Hawkeye15
11-08-2018, 05:41 PM
If by didn't win **** you mean went 30-10 and lose in the National Championship game lol. They had the 3rd toughest schedule in all of College Basketball that year and as Freshman dominated. So again, how could a stacked college team today (like say Duke or Kentucky) not do well against the veteran laden teams of yesteryear when a stacked Freshman class was the 2nd best team in the entire country back then?

There's no way around it, the idea that this Duke team couldn't compete with college teams of old is "get off my lawn" old man nonsense.

And again, I don't think anyone would consider 5-15 wins "real wins". Nobody outside the OP is saying they'd go to the playoffs, but winning close to double digit games is certainly possible.

For instance, how would a team of all rookies do in the NBA this year? According to you the answer is none. An all-rookie team shouldn't win a single game because they can't play with the men of the NBA, or some other such old man nonsense.

The most heralded recruting class ever didn't win a championship. Do we really expect a team that can't win a college chip to compete in the NBA? No, we don't.

Duke's current team wouldn't beat a top team 25 years ago the majority of the time. No. That is my opinion. And I won't waver from it. Now, if they also had the top 3 guys from the last 2 years that went in the lottery, along with their 3 studs this year? Yes. Why? Because that is exactly how teams worked 25 years ago. High end talent joined existing high end talent, that just isn't the case anymore.

Where is this debate settling? Could Duke, if given NBA contract players outside their top 3, win 10 games? Sure. For reasons we don't need to dive into (tanking namely).

A team of all rookies, even if they had 1-2 of the best ones, wouldn't sniff 20 wins.

Tg11
11-08-2018, 05:43 PM
6'8 285 lbs...freak of nature but to think people compared him to a young Shawn Kemp or Charles Barkley in terms of his size and his explosiveness...can I see it? Yeah sure but does he have as much talent as LeBron did at 18? Not as much but Zion is explosive nonetheless and the hype behind this kid is similar to Lebron coming out of high school

Hawkeye15
11-08-2018, 05:44 PM
6'8 285 lbs...freak of nature but to think people compared him to a young Shawn Kemp or Charles Barkley in terms of his size and his explosiveness...can I see it? Yeah sure but does he have as much talent as LeBron did at 18? Not as much but Zion is explosive nonetheless and the hype behind this kid is similar to Lebron coming out of high school

first comparison I saw was Rodney Rogers haha

looking at the guy, he better pull a Kevin Love and line up a nutritionist day 1.

Hawkeye15
11-08-2018, 05:46 PM
Yeah it's funny that people are trying to claim these guys can't play with NBA players considering the only reason they currently aren't playing against NBA players is a rule saying they have to play in college. All 3 of Duke's top guys would be in the NBA today if they didn't have to spend a year in college. Yet they couldn't possibly measure up to NBA players lol.

Sure they can measure up. As rookies. How about the rest of the Duke roster that plays and won't make it to the pro's? How are they covered up going against NBA talent? Again, even the BEST 19 year old rookies barely move the needle in the win column.

Hawkeye15
11-08-2018, 05:47 PM
this entire thread turned into a debate on HOW terrible a team led by right out of college players would be.

Like, if 5 wins versus 15 is worth fighting over, keep on keeping on..

Tg11
11-08-2018, 05:47 PM
first comparison I saw was Rodney Rogers haha

looking at the guy, he better pull a Kevin Love and line up a nutritionist day 1.

That is even what sports analysts are saying because if he doesn't stay in shape and puts on more weight it will take away his explosiveness but with a trim Zion like maybe he loses like 20 or 25 pounds he will be even more scary as an offensive player

Hawkeye15
11-08-2018, 05:50 PM
That is even what sports analysts are saying because if he doesn't stay in shape and puts on more weight it will take away his explosiveness but with a trim Zion like maybe he loses like 20 or 25 pounds he will be even more scary as an offensive player

that and being nearly 300 isn't ideal to knees/ankles/back/feet. So he can go a few different ways, depending on what he wants.

WaDe03
11-08-2018, 05:52 PM
581286275996626945

Tg11
11-08-2018, 05:55 PM
that and being nearly 300 isn't ideal to knees/ankles/back/feet. So he can go a few different ways, depending on what he wants.

Yeah exactly the point he will be out the league if he keeps putting on weight and if he puts on muscle but loses the weight though and is cut down then he will have a LeBron type body but at the same time a trim and fit Zion would be more scary especially when he goes up against NBA competition

If he stays with that nutrition just think of what more can he accomplish in this league?

Does Zion have a jump shot? If he can develop that more than he's golden

Hawkeye15
11-08-2018, 06:04 PM
Yeah exactly the point he will be out the league if he keeps putting on weight and if he puts on muscle but loses the weight though and is cut down then he will have a LeBron type body but at the same time a trim and fit Zion would be more scary especially when he goes up against NBA competition

If he stays with that nutrition just think of what more can he accomplish in this league?

Does Zion have a jump shot? If he can develop that more than he's golden

not at all. His scouting report says he struggles in the half court. basically he has just overwhelmed everyone with his size/strength/jumping to this point of his life. But, so did LeBron...though young LeBron's ball handling/passing skills and speed/fitness level shat on Zion.

AllBall
11-08-2018, 06:08 PM
Lol wwhat are you talking about? They're 19 year olds in peak condition. Do you think all the straight to pro from high school players just fell off a cliff and gave up after January? These guys are only in college because they have to be. Barrett has been playing international competitions for years.

This is why it's pointless to argue hypothetical scenarios past a certain point. Much less when no one bothers to read. I wrote all things remaining the same. Straight to pro players are not going through same process that one does at the college level.

I find it a bit insulting to the NBA as well. It's not the Chinese league.

JAZZNC
11-08-2018, 06:16 PM
not at all. His scouting report says he struggles in the half court. basically he has just overwhelmed everyone with his size/strength/jumping to this point of his life. But, so did LeBron...though young LeBron's ball handling/passing skills and speed/fitness level shat on Zion.

Something that nobody ever talks about either is how these guys handle adversity. They've literally never had any. Nobody has blocker their shot or dunked on them or D'd them up I any way. It's just something you can't predict. I'm sure a couple of them will be really good but I remember how great that one Kentucky class was supposed to be and Cousins is probably the best player in the NBA from that class and he's don't exactly Jack **** in the NBA other than put up some numbers and lose...a lot.

Tg11
11-08-2018, 06:25 PM
not at all. His scouting report says he struggles in the half court. basically he has just overwhelmed everyone with his size/strength/jumping to this point of his life. But, so did LeBron...though young LeBron's ball handling/passing skills and speed/fitness level shat on Zion.

If he can develop a jump shot or even shoot mid range or long range from 3 somehow then if he can utilize all of that by further developing all of that then I think he'll be fine

Hawkeye15
11-08-2018, 06:26 PM
Something that nobody ever talks about either is how these guys handle adversity. They've literally never had any. Nobody has blocker their shot or dunked on them or D'd them up I any way. It's just something you can't predict. I'm sure a couple of them will be really good but I remember how great that one Kentucky class was supposed to be and Cousins is probably the best player in the NBA from that class and he's don't exactly Jack **** in the NBA other than put up some numbers and lose...a lot.

I brought it up a page or 2 ago, but using prospect rankings is trivial to me. Felipe Lopez was the next MJ.

Again, boys to men. When a boy has men around him to help, sure, he may not be broken down. When he has boys around him, night night.

Hawkeye15
11-08-2018, 06:26 PM
If he can develop a jump shot or even shoot mid range or long range from 3 somehow then if he can utilize all of that by further developing all of that then I think he'll be fine

Same can be said for Giannis.

valade16
11-08-2018, 06:42 PM
The most heralded recruting class ever didn't win a championship. Do we really expect a team that can't win a college chip to compete in the NBA? No, we don't.

Duke's current team wouldn't beat a top team 25 years ago the majority of the time. No. That is my opinion. And I won't waver from it. Now, if they also had the top 3 guys from the last 2 years that went in the lottery, along with their 3 studs this year? Yes. Why? Because that is exactly how teams worked 25 years ago. High end talent joined existing high end talent, that just isn't the case anymore.

Where is this debate settling? Could Duke, if given NBA contract players outside their top 3, win 10 games? Sure. For reasons we don't need to dive into (tanking namely).

A team of all rookies, even if they had 1-2 of the best ones, wouldn't sniff 20 wins.

The Duke 1991 National Championship team you keep bringing up that was so stacked they had 6 future NBA players on it. Duke is projected to have 3 in the top 5 next year and 7 overall. This Duke team has more potential NBAers than that Championship, veteran laden Duke team did.

Here's the Duke Championship guys draft positions:

3rd overall pick in 1992 (Christian Laettner)
2nd Rd 48th pick in 1992 (Brian Davis)

7th overall pick in 1993 (Bobby Hurley)
2nd Rd 39th pick in 1993 (Thomas Hill)

3rd overall pick in 1994 (Grant Hill)
29th overall pick in 1994 (Antonio Lang)


So your stacked Duke team had 3 eventual Top 10 picks. This Duke team has 3 picks projected in the Top 5, which would be just as many as that stacked Duke team. They also have multiple other players who may be drafted (up to 7). So when you say they just had a ton more talent, where? Duke has as many NBA draft picks now as that team that won the Championship did.

I just don't think you are keeping up with College Basketball and how it's changed (I agree, in general college basketball has suffered from the 1 and done rule and it's not as good, but there are a few teams that get so many one and dones they are top level).


Which Basketball team from back then had more than 3 Top 5 picks on its roster at any one point? Because this Duke team does. So yes those teams may have more experience or be deeper, but in terms of talent, this Duke team can stand toe to toe with just about anyone.

valade16
11-08-2018, 06:52 PM
Something that nobody ever talks about either is how these guys handle adversity. They've literally never had any. Nobody has blocker their shot or dunked on them or D'd them up I any way. It's just something you can't predict. I'm sure a couple of them will be really good but I remember how great that one Kentucky class was supposed to be and Cousins is probably the best player in the NBA from that class and he's don't exactly Jack **** in the NBA other than put up some numbers and lose...a lot.

That 2010 Kentucky Wildcats team had:

John Wall
DeMarcus Cousins
Eric Bledsoe
Patrick Patterson

and 4 other players that were drafted to the NBA (Darius Miller, Daniel Orton, DeAndre Liggins, Josh Harrellson)


Now consider that classes top 3 guys was not projected to be as good as this year's class is. Wall went #1, Boogie #5, Patterson #14, and Bledsoe #18

It was a good class, but this Duke one is projected to be better.

Chronz
11-08-2018, 07:33 PM
Haven't scrolled enough but in today's ***** nba, they may win 50 games given tank teams like the 76ers win that much with a few kids n shooters.

WaDe03
11-08-2018, 07:45 PM
This is why it's pointless to argue hypothetical scenarios past a certain point. Much less when no one bothers to read. I wrote all things remaining the same. Straight to pro players are not going through same process that one does at the college level.

I find it a bit insulting to the NBA as well. It's not the Chinese league.

Nice profile picture brother! Those New jerseys and the court to go with it are sick as ****!

FlashBolt
11-08-2018, 07:46 PM
Haven't scrolled enough but in today's ***** nba, they may win 50 games given tank teams like the 76ers win that much with a few kids n shooters.
Lol yeah pretty much. some teams really don't care about winning. coaches who try to win (lue) get fired and replaced. That's the impact of having the Warriors where teams just give up and pray for the picks.

tredigs
11-08-2018, 09:09 PM
Lol yeah pretty much. some teams really don't care about winning. coaches who try to win (lue) get fired and replaced. That's the impact of having the Warriors where teams just give up and pray for the picks.

100% Because if the Warriors were not there those Sixers would've been plowing through the competition! Those pesky Warriors inventing the tank for top prospects! Makes me sick.

Raps18-19 Champ
11-08-2018, 09:17 PM
Lol. 3-5 of those guys will crack the NBA. At best, 2 will be stars but they'd be at least a year away.

They're not going to overtake the likes of Dipo, Kyrie, Lowry, Embiid, Giannis, etc for the 3/4/5 spots. Most of those guys wouldn't even be better than the 2nd or 3rd options on that team like Turner, Ibaka, Middleton, Tatum, Convington, type players.

A team like the Wolves had Wiggins, Towns and Lavine, who were supposed to be the next big things and were easily comparable to the Duke trio and they couldn't do **** in the NBA in their 1st year together and that's taking into consideation Wiggins and Lavine were in their 2nd year and had legit role players like Rubio or veteran mentors like Garnett.

AllBall
11-08-2018, 09:31 PM
Nice profile picture brother! Those New jerseys and the court to go with it are sick as ****!

Thanks, Vice midnight reveal is tonight! 😎

QBAwayBroncos
11-08-2018, 10:25 PM
Smh

Cal827
11-08-2018, 11:37 PM
Top 5 in the East:

Boston
Philly
Toronto
Milwaukee
Pacers


... They won't beat any of them

Mid to borderline playoff teams

Detroit
Miami
Charlotte
Pretty much everyone else not Cleveland..

:laugh2: They probably won't beat any of them either have fun with their systems

zookman65
11-09-2018, 01:06 AM
That undefeated little league team would beat that high school varsity team. bla bla bla....

Wrigheyes4MVP
11-09-2018, 11:29 AM
Having thought about this more, they'd probably be lucky to win even 10 games. I'd take the under on that.

Wrigheyes4MVP
11-09-2018, 11:33 AM
i hate this comparison and your not the only one to make it. Football and basketball are 2 different sports with 2 different skill sets. Football is a collision sport Basketball is a skill sport. You can be 190 in the NBA and be a great player because the game just isnt as physical anymore. You have to prepare your body so much different for either sport, not to mention all the gameplanning and tactics football involved that NFL teams could give to Alabama that would get them smoked. NFL Teams would give Tua looks he has never seen before. NBA isnt all that complex, its a skill sport. Yes you need a high bball iq of course but the xs and os are no where near as complex in bball as in football. in bball 1 player can play both ends and make a huge impact in deciding the game. in football for the most part, you are regulated to your position on one side of the football. i always hate this comparison its apples to oranges

but as you said later, you would think at most the would win probably 15 games which is what most of the posters have been saying in this thread (forget the OP)

Rookies in the NBA usually struggle. Saying Duke could do well is insanity. They'd get steamrolled.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
11-09-2018, 11:38 AM
Rookies in the NBA usually struggle. Saying Duke could do well is insanity. They'd get steamrolled.

Giannis would be dunking over all 5 DUKE players. Would make for a great poster.

Heediot
11-09-2018, 11:40 AM
Lol. 3-5 of those guys will crack the NBA. At best, 2 will be stars but they'd be at least a year away.

They're not going to overtake the likes of Dipo, Kyrie, Lowry, Embiid, Giannis, etc for the 3/4/5 spots. Most of those guys wouldn't even be better than the 2nd or 3rd options on that team like Turner, Ibaka, Middleton, Tatum, Convington, type players.

A team like the Wolves had Wiggins, Towns and Lavine, who were supposed to be the next big things and were easily comparable to the Duke trio and they couldn't do **** in the NBA in their 1st year together and that's taking into consideation Wiggins and Lavine were in their 2nd year and had legit role players like Rubio or veteran mentors like Garnett.

bingo.

Vinylman
11-09-2018, 11:41 AM
Even IF their starting 5 could keep up with an NBA starting 5, the Duke bench would get annihilated. Those guys are destined for the D-League and/or China. You could run up the score +30 just attacking the Duke bench players.

The correct answer

Hawkeye15
11-09-2018, 11:43 AM
Haven't scrolled enough but in today's ***** nba, they may win 50 games given tank teams like the 76ers win that much with a few kids n shooters.

that is literally where I agreed they could get some wins. Against even the worst motivated NBA team, they would lose.

Hawkeye15
11-09-2018, 11:45 AM
The Duke 1991 National Championship team you keep bringing up that was so stacked they had 6 future NBA players on it. Duke is projected to have 3 in the top 5 next year and 7 overall. This Duke team has more potential NBAers than that Championship, veteran laden Duke team did.

Here's the Duke Championship guys draft positions:

3rd overall pick in 1992 (Christian Laettner)
2nd Rd 48th pick in 1992 (Brian Davis)

7th overall pick in 1993 (Bobby Hurley)
2nd Rd 39th pick in 1993 (Thomas Hill)

3rd overall pick in 1994 (Grant Hill)
29th overall pick in 1994 (Antonio Lang)


So your stacked Duke team had 3 eventual Top 10 picks. This Duke team has 3 picks projected in the Top 5, which would be just as many as that stacked Duke team. They also have multiple other players who may be drafted (up to 7). So when you say they just had a ton more talent, where? Duke has as many NBA draft picks now as that team that won the Championship did.

I just don't think you are keeping up with College Basketball and how it's changed (I agree, in general college basketball has suffered from the 1 and done rule and it's not as good, but there are a few teams that get so many one and dones they are top level).


Which Basketball team from back then had more than 3 Top 5 picks on its roster at any one point? Because this Duke team does. So yes those teams may have more experience or be deeper, but in terms of talent, this Duke team can stand toe to toe with just about anyone.

tired of it man. We don't agree, never will. College ball is a ****ing joke. I take nothing done against college talent seriously.

Extrapolating the success of a 19 year old playing alongside NBA vets doesn't work when that 19 year old is side by side with other kids. Especially when some of those kids who play minutes are so far below pro level talent they would be consumed and destroyed. So even if your high end guys stuck with pros, the rest of their roster would get them killed.

My view, sticking to it.

Hawkeye15
11-09-2018, 11:49 AM
Lol. 3-5 of those guys will crack the NBA. At best, 2 will be stars but they'd be at least a year away.

They're not going to overtake the likes of Dipo, Kyrie, Lowry, Embiid, Giannis, etc for the 3/4/5 spots. Most of those guys wouldn't even be better than the 2nd or 3rd options on that team like Turner, Ibaka, Middleton, Tatum, Convington, type players.

A team like the Wolves had Wiggins, Towns and Lavine, who were supposed to be the next big things and were easily comparable to the Duke trio and they couldn't do **** in the NBA in their 1st year together and that's taking into consideation Wiggins and Lavine were in their 2nd year and had legit role players like Rubio or veteran mentors like Garnett.

I didn't feel like bringing up my own team cause I am annoyed enough with them, but this is exactly my response. And before anyone jumps at the fact that Wiggins sucks, we have no idea what any of these college kids will end up in the pros. We constantly see high end picks turn to nothing.

This whole argument is laughable. Their only hope is a team tanking marches out G-Leaguers and Duke is hitting on every cylinder and sneaks out a couple wins here and there. A motivated NBA team would destroy any college team ever.

AllBall
11-09-2018, 11:52 AM
that is literally where I agreed they could get some wins. Against even the worst motivated NBA team, they would lose.

Pride would be on the line, the NBA players would get up to put in work.


tired of it man. We don't agree, never will. College ball is a ****ing joke. I take nothing done against college talent seriously.

Extrapolating the success of a 19 year old playing alongside NBA vets doesn't work when that 19 year old is side by side with other kids. Especially when some of those kids who play minutes are so far below pro level talent they would be consumed and destroyed. So even if your high end guys stuck with pros, the rest of their roster would get them killed.

My view, sticking to it.

I'm with you. I can't stand watching College basketball, it's too amateur for me. I get frustrated watching the Pro's mess up, putting up with watching at an even lower level of basketball is worse. I'll catch the highlights instead.

Hawkeye15
11-09-2018, 12:07 PM
Pride would be on the line, the NBA players would get up to put in work.



I'm with you. I can't stand watching College basketball, it's too amateur for me. I get frustrated watching the Pro's mess up, putting up with watching at an even lower level of basketball is worse. I'll catch the highlights instead.

college basketball was awesome when I was younger (prior to 1 and done). The talent stayed around, it felt dispersed mostly because a ton of teams had really good players, mostly because guys just didn't leave after 1 year. Just so much more talent back in the 80-90's, which is why I find it incredible anyone would even fathom a team of 18 year old high recruits who have proven nothing, teamed with guys who will never make it anywhere, could hang with an NBA team. Like cmon, what are you smoking?

College bball sucks. Has since 1 and done. Just the way it is. Zion isn't facing matured players of his caliber. He is facing 18 year old guys there for a quick stop, and guys who will never sniff the NBA.

valade16
11-09-2018, 01:20 PM
college basketball was awesome when I was younger (prior to 1 and done). The talent stayed around, it felt dispersed mostly because a ton of teams had really good players, mostly because guys just didn't leave after 1 year. Just so much more talent back in the 80-90's, which is why I find it incredible anyone would even fathom a team of 18 year old high recruits who have proven nothing, teamed with guys who will never make it anywhere, could hang with an NBA team. Like cmon, what are you smoking?

College bball sucks. Has since 1 and done. Just the way it is. Zion isn't facing matured players of his caliber. He is facing 18 year old guys there for a quick stop, and guys who will never sniff the NBA.

For the love of God stop speaking in generalities. They played 1 team, the Kentucky Wildcats, who have 7 players projected to go to the NBA. You are talking as if he played the SCLSU Muddogs.

It's hard to take any of your argument seriously when it is not specific at all to the actual facts of the situation.

valade16
11-09-2018, 01:22 PM
This thread has taught me there are a lot of yards with a lot of kids who need to get off them.

Hawkeye15
11-09-2018, 02:47 PM
For the love of God stop speaking in generalities. They played 1 team, the Kentucky Wildcats, who have 7 players projected to go to the NBA. You are talking as if he played the SCLSU Muddogs.

It's hard to take any of your argument seriously when it is not specific at all to the actual facts of the situation.

One team, with a bunch of kids. Cool. When they lose to a nobody do I get to revisit this thread and bring it up?

This isn't get off my yard. If you don't understand the quality of talent in the NCAA is pathetic compared to prior to the 1 and done, can't help you.

We can be done with this, anytime dude.

College ball sucks. End of story. The reason Kentucky has 7 dudes who might be drafted is somebody has to have them today, and we all know when you hit 21, something is wrong with you, and you fall down/off the draft boards. The entire system is flawed and ****ed.

Hawkeye15
11-09-2018, 02:48 PM
This thread has taught me there are a lot of yards with a lot of kids who need to get off them.

this thread has taught me a few people I thought understood the game don't quite as well as I had perceived.

valade16
11-09-2018, 02:54 PM
One team, with a bunch of kids. Cool. When they lose to a nobody do I get to revisit this thread and bring it up?

This isn't get off my yard. If you don't understand the quality of talent in the NCAA is pathetic compared to prior to the 1 and done, can't help you.

We can be done with this, anytime dude. I rarely enter a discussion with you, because you absolutely can't admit any single portion of anything you type might not be true.

College ball sucks. End of story. The reason Kentucky has 7 dudes who might be drafted is somebody has to have them today, and we all know when you hit 21, something is wrong with you, and you fall down/off the draft boards. The entire system is flawed and ****ed.

Again stop talking in generalities. Yes, the NCAA quality is really low for 99.9% of the teams, the big reason for that is the 1 and done rule and that all the talent generally goes to 3-4 top level teams. Duke and Kentucky are those top level teams. So again, what you're saying is completely irrelevant. If I were talking about the quality of the NCAA in general, you'd be absolutely right. But I'm not, I agree the NCAA in general sucks (which really blows a hole in your anything I type might not be true personal attack). But again, we're talking about 2 of the exceptions to that rule, because they are 2 of the 3-4 teams that hoard all the top level talent year after year.


I'm sorry that you are personally attacking me, I thought better of you. I will refrain from talking to you in the future, because even though I think you're smart and know basketball, you have the same problem of not admitting anything you type may be wrong (case in point, you literally said you don't follow college now and that you don't care what anyone says because you're going to believe as you do no matter what, and then personally attack me by accusing me of doing what you are in this very thread doing).

I agree, we should be done with this. And any future conversations.

Vinylman
11-09-2018, 02:59 PM
who ****ing cares... honestly... it is all conjecture Ö the premise of the thread was ****ing idiotic... the later anal retentive constructs aren't worth pondering...

Anyone making the case that Duke playing 82 games in the NBA would be anything other than a ****ing joke just enjoys beating their meat.


the original "hot take" deserves derision...

Would the Duke team win 5 games , 10 games in a NBA season? who knows Ö and more importantly who cares

Hawkeye15
11-09-2018, 03:02 PM
who ****ing cares... honestly... it is all conjecture Ö the premise of the thread was ****ing idiotic... the later anal retentive constructs aren't worth pondering...

Anyone making the case that Duke playing 82 games in the NBA would be anything other than a ****ing joke just enjoys beating their meat.


the original "hot take" deserves derision...

Would the Duke team win 5 games , 10 games in a NBA season? who knows Ö and more importantly who cares

yeah but that could be said of around 90% of the threads in the NBA forum the last 5 years

Hawkeye15
11-09-2018, 03:05 PM
Again stop talking in generalities. Yes, the NCAA quality is really low for 99.9% of the teams, the big reason for that is the 1 and done rule and that all the talent generally goes to 3-4 top level teams. Duke and Kentucky are those top level teams. So again, what you're saying is completely irrelevant. If I were talking about the quality of the NCAA in general, you'd be absolutely right. But I'm not, I agree the NCAA in general sucks (which really blows a hole in your anything I type might not be true personal attack). But again, we're talking about 2 of the exceptions to that rule, because they are 2 of the 3-4 teams that hoard all the top level talent year after year.


I'm sorry that you are personally attacking me, I thought better of you. I will refrain from talking to you in the future, because even though I think you're smart and know basketball, you have the same problem of not admitting anything you type may be wrong (case in point, you literally said you don't follow college now and that you don't care what anyone says because you're going to believe as you do no matter what, and then personally attack me by accusing me of doing what you are in this very thread doing).

I agree, we should be done with this. And any future conversations.

You responded prior to my edit (removed the attack cause it's unjustified), but man, I rarely enter a discussion with you. You always have to be right. Always. meh

Every single time I watch college basketball, I shake my head at how terrible it is. Which is why I watch the NBA. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it, I wish to god kids stuck around longer so the quality would rise. but, the NBA created their own little farm system, so it is what it is.

I am not sure why I have become so short here. My apologies, it shouldn't be directed at you, that's for sure.

peace

Vinylman
11-09-2018, 03:06 PM
yeah but that could be said of around 90% of the threads in the NBA forum the last 5 years

this thread is another typical tredigs goal post moving thread... reread his first post Ö it is asinine and has nothing to do with how he later qualified it by add vets, etc.

He literally said that Duke team would be competing for a playoff spot the second year in the NBA... that is ****ing ignorant and was the impetus for 90% of the back and forth

valade16
11-09-2018, 03:12 PM
this thread is another typical tredigs goal post moving thread... reread his first post Ö it is asinine and has nothing to do with how he later qualified it by add vets, etc.

He literally said that Duke team would be competing for a playoff spot the second year in the NBA... that is ****ing ignorant and was the impetus for 90% of the back and forth

Well at least he's a year less ridiculous than the OP, who said they'd be competing this year lol.

valade16
11-09-2018, 03:18 PM
You responded prior to my edit (removed the attack cause it's unjustified), but man, I rarely enter a discussion with you. You always have to be right. Always. meh

Every single time I watch college basketball, I shake my head at how terrible it is. Which is why I watch the NBA. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it, I wish to god kids stuck around longer so the quality would rise. but, the NBA created their own little farm system, so it is what it is.

I am not sure why I have become so short here. My apologies, it shouldn't be directed at you, that's for sure.

peace

It's not that I have to be right, I very well could be wrong here (though considering I've said that the Duke team would win around 5-10 games I'm not exactly setting a high expectation). It's that I hate when anyone uses bad logic or nonsensical arguments. Saying the NCAA in general sucks because there is no talent when discussing a game of Duke vs Kentucky which has 50% of the top talent to come into college basketball the past 2 years is like saying that the Warriors beating the Celtics is irrelevant because so many teams in the NBA tank and are trying to lose. While that is a true point, it doesn't have anything to do with GS beating Boston.


I agree, college basketball really sucks. It is a lot like College Football in that there's no reason to watch 99% of the teams because it's only the top few ones that have all the talent (like Alabama). In College basketball unless you're watching Duke/Kentucky/Kansas you're watching crap.

But I'm sorry that you don't wish to engage with me. I'm stubborn, I'll fully admit that. I'll make it easier on you and just not engage you in the future, save you the trouble.

Hawkeye15
11-09-2018, 03:26 PM
It's not that I have to be right, I very well could be wrong here (though considering I've said that the Duke team would win around 5-10 games I'm not exactly setting a high expectation). It's that I hate when anyone uses bad logic or nonsensical arguments. Saying the NCAA in general sucks because there is no talent when discussing a game of Duke vs Kentucky which has 50% of the top talent to come into college basketball the past 2 years is like saying that the Warriors beating the Celtics is irrelevant because so many teams in the NBA tank and are trying to lose. While that is a true point, it doesn't have anything to do with GS beating Boston.


I agree, college basketball really sucks. It is a lot like College Football in that there's no reason to watch 99% of the teams because it's only the top few ones that have all the talent (like Alabama). In College basketball unless you're watching Duke/Kentucky/Kansas you're watching crap.

But I'm sorry that you don't wish to engage with me. I'm stubborn, I'll fully admit that. I'll make it easier on you and just not engage you in the future, save you the trouble.

I think we were having 2 different conversations.

Would a team full of future NBA players win games at the NBA level? Sure, a few, due to reasons I have brought up (tanking mostly). But, I also can't read into what a prospect is doing against college competition, because it's just so poor.

In regards to the count of NBA prospects between the 2 teams, again, that just doesn't mean anything to me. Not when all those prospects are just such young kids, playing with kids. Putting a 19 year old alongside pros is one thing, putting a group of kids, no matter their perceived talent level, with other kids, just won't propel them to do any damage against a pro team with mature players. NBA rookies, even the most talented ones, rarely mean anything in the win column. Now you are asking them to exceed expectations, while also dragging players that won't ever be anything with them. Just too much to ask.

I don't think the matured, just as talented teams of the early 90's could compete with the NBA teams, and I sure don't think the teams now could. The logic isn't ALL that older teams were better, but as we saw with the Fab 5, we have seen incredible classes come in, and do well, but still get beat. If you were to put the worst NBA team into the NCAA's for a season, how many times out of 10 will they win it all? 9? 10?

I miss college bball dude. So much. Plus my Hawkeyes blow

Vinylman
11-09-2018, 03:49 PM
Well at least he's a year less ridiculous than the OP, who said they'd be competing this year lol.

agreed...

The rabbit holes people try to get others down is ridiculous. it is why I waited so long to say anything in here...

Both Hawkeye and You need to just let it go... you guys are both good posters and there is no point arguing over this **** lol

valade16
11-09-2018, 04:03 PM
I think we were having 2 different conversations.

Would a team full of future NBA players win games at the NBA level? Sure, a few, due to reasons I have brought up (tanking mostly). But, I also can't read into what a prospect is doing against college competition, because it's just so poor.

In regards to the count of NBA prospects between the 2 teams, again, that just doesn't mean anything to me. Not when all those prospects are just such young kids, playing with kids. Putting a 19 year old alongside pros is one thing, putting a group of kids, no matter their perceived talent level, with other kids, just won't propel them to do any damage against a pro team with mature players. NBA rookies, even the most talented ones, rarely mean anything in the win column. Now you are asking them to exceed expectations, while also dragging players that won't ever be anything with them. Just too much to ask.

I don't think the matured, just as talented teams of the early 90's could compete with the NBA teams, and I sure don't think the teams now could. The logic isn't ALL that older teams were better, but as we saw with the Fab 5, we have seen incredible classes come in, and do well, but still get beat. If you were to put the worst NBA team into the NCAA's for a season, how many times out of 10 will they win it all? 9? 10?

I miss college bball dude. So much. Plus my Hawkeyes blow

The worst of all time? The 2016 76ers won 10 games and they were comprised almost exclusively of 3rd and under players, many of whom weren't anything special in college.

Nerlens Noel averaged 10 PPG and was clearly taken based on potential (though he was a defensive force in the minutes he played). Hollis Thompson, Jerami Grant and TJ McConnell also averaged around 10 PPG and didn't sniff college accolades. Okafor did very well his one year in college and earned 1st Team All-American team honors. Then Canaan and Stauskas earned 2nd team All-American.

But that team wasn't even chalked full of All-American players who dominated college ball (now a big part of that is that the team was in complete tank mode and sought out such garbage lineups). I agree, non-tanking teams or teams that try to win would crush college competition. But that team? I think it's very possible they lose in to a college team over a full season and the 1 and done nature of the NCAA tournament.

And that team managed to win 10 games in the pros.

I also remember (I forget what year) but Dallas after Dirk got hurt maybe trotted out some of the least talented lineups ever seen on an NBA floor lol.

TheDish87
11-09-2018, 04:06 PM
One team, with a bunch of kids. Cool. When they lose to a nobody do I get to revisit this thread and bring it up?

This isn't get off my yard. If you don't understand the quality of talent in the NCAA is pathetic compared to prior to the 1 and done, can't help you.

We can be done with this, anytime dude.

College ball sucks. End of story. The reason Kentucky has 7 dudes who might be drafted is somebody has to have them today, and we all know when you hit 21, something is wrong with you, and you fall down/off the draft boards. The entire system is flawed and ****ed.

college bball definitely doesnt suck. its the best sport there is.

Hawkeye15
11-09-2018, 04:09 PM
college bball definitely doesnt suck. its the best sport there is.

Not to me. The talent level being garbage can't be denied, that is for certain. To each their own

Hawkeye15
11-09-2018, 04:11 PM
The worst of all time? The 2016 76ers won 10 games and they were comprised almost exclusively of 3rd and under players, many of whom weren't anything special in college.

Nerlens Noel averaged 10 PPG and was clearly taken based on potential (though he was a defensive force in the minutes he played). Hollis Thompson, Jerami Grant and TJ McConnell also averaged around 10 PPG and didn't sniff college accolades. Okafor did very well his one year in college and earned 1st Team All-American team honors. Then Canaan and Stauskas earned 2nd team All-American.

But that team wasn't even chalked full of All-American players who dominated college ball (now a big part of that is that the team was in complete tank mode and sought out such garbage lineups). I agree, non-tanking teams or teams that try to win would crush college competition. But that team? I think it's very possible they lose in to a college team over a full season and the 1 and done nature of the NCAA tournament.

And that team managed to win 10 games in the pros.

I also remember (I forget what year) but Dallas after Dirk got hurt maybe trotted out some of the least talented lineups ever seen on an NBA floor lol.

Well, now we are reaching for teams that are clearly not even trying to be NBA teams haha. Do they count? I guess they have to, but you get my point. Reverse this, and the worst team in the NBA would trounce the NCAA's. Funny you mention Philly, who had 2 super high lottery picks playing on that 10 win team. As it's best players...

TheDish87
11-09-2018, 04:13 PM
you make it sound like the NBA doesnt have a ton of bums and poor officiating that caters to stars. i watch less and less NBA outside of the Sixers or gambling bcuz its hard to watch most of the time. Every college game matters, upsets are common and existing. Nothing in sports tops March Madness.

it also sounds like your expectations for college hoops is way too high. There are over 300 D1 programs in the nation made up of mostly teenagers, of course youre not getting some insane level of play, yet you got UMBC blowing out Virginia as a 16 seed.

Hawkeye15
11-09-2018, 04:15 PM
you make it sound like the NBA doesnt have a ton of bums and poor officiating that caters to stars. i watch less and less NBA outside of the Sixers or gambling bcuz its hard to watch most of the time. Every college game matters, upsets are common and existing. Nothing in sports tops March Madness.

I can disagree with you though...

I don't watch the NBA like I used to, with GS basically a wrap to win it and my team annoying the **** out of me. But college ball is a drag to me man. Just so talentless for the most part, the 1 and done era killed it. Like killed it.

Did you go to a school that has a team? I find that is usually a constant in college sports fans. It brings up nostalgic reasons for them to keep caring..its why girls like football for example.

I just miss the days of watching the Big Ten and seeing it littered with Big Dog, Calbert Cheaney, Bobby Jackson, Kendall Gill, Glen Rice, BJ Armstrong, Roy marble, Chris Webber, Steve Smith, etc. Now we get dudes who if they are any good are gone after 1 year. Yippee

valade16
11-09-2018, 04:24 PM
Well, now we are reaching for teams that are clearly not even trying to be NBA teams haha. Do they count? I guess they have to, but you get my point. Reverse this, and the worst team in the NBA would trounce the NCAA's. Funny you mention Philly, who had 2 super high lottery picks playing on that 10 win team. As it's best players...

They count only so far as even they manage to win 10 games or more. But they are not "real" NBA teams IMO.

Yes, that Philly team had 2 super high lottery picks, still one short of Duke and neither of which was as hyped a prospect as any of Duke's 3 top guys. But yes, I think everyone agrees that Duke or a similar College team would win very, very few games in the NBA.

valade16
11-09-2018, 04:25 PM
I can disagree with you though...

I don't watch the NBA like I used to, with GS basically a wrap to win it and my team annoying the **** out of me. But college ball is a drag to me man. Just so talentless for the most part, the 1 and done era killed it. Like killed it.

Did you go to a school that has a team? I find that is usually a constant in college sports fans. It brings up nostalgic reasons for them to keep caring..its why girls like football for example.

I just miss the days of watching the Big Ten and seeing it littered with Big Dog, Calbert Cheaney, Bobby Jackson, Kendall Gill, Glen Rice, BJ Armstrong, Roy marble, Chris Webber, Steve Smith, etc. Now we get dudes who if they are any good are gone after 1 year. Yippee

I'm a huge Oregon Ducks fan, though that was mostly for Football, but recently the Ducks have done well in Basketball and are currently recruiting very well (They got the #3 recruit in the country and Manute Bol's son Bol Bol [yes that's his real name]), so I support them for that and I'll watch the occasional game, but man it is hard. The games are just not fun to watch lol.

Hawkeye15
11-09-2018, 04:28 PM
I'm a huge Oregon Ducks fan, though that was mostly for Football, but recently the Ducks have done well in Basketball and are currently recruiting very well (They got the #3 recruit in the country and Manute Bol's son Bol Bol [yes that's his real name]), so I support them for that and I'll watch the occasional game, but man it is hard. The games are just not fun to watch lol.

I miss Manute. That dude was a god in Sudan, and rightly so for the things he did for them.

Wrigheyes4MVP
11-09-2018, 04:28 PM
I'm a huge Oregon Ducks fan, though that was mostly for Football, but recently the Ducks have done well in Basketball and are currently recruiting very well (They got the #3 recruit in the country and Manute Bol's son Bol Bol [yes that's his real name]), so I support them for that and I'll watch the occasional game, but man it is hard. The games are just not fun to watch lol.

Thoughts on Justin Herbert? He the real deal? Better than Mariota?

valade16
11-09-2018, 04:33 PM
Thoughts on Justin Herbert? He the real deal? Better than Mariota?

I think his arm is definitely better than Mariotta's. He has unreal accuracy (watch the Stanford loss first half, some of his throws were in lockdown coverage and he threw absolute dimes). I think he's very good. The only problem he's going to have to work on is that he knows his accuracy and arm as so good so he'll try to force the ball to clearly covered guys (watch the overtime vs Stanford where he forced the ball to his receiver in impossible coverage).

But I think he's worthy of the top pick and one of the better prospects to come out (though not a can't miss guy like Luck or Peyton).

But in short, I think his arm is better than Mariotta's, but Mariotta was such a dual threat that even a good arm like his was going to wreck college.

TheDish87
11-09-2018, 04:46 PM
I can disagree with you though...

I don't watch the NBA like I used to, with GS basically a wrap to win it and my team annoying the **** out of me. But college ball is a drag to me man. Just so talentless for the most part, the 1 and done era killed it. Like killed it.

Did you go to a school that has a team? I find that is usually a constant in college sports fans. It brings up nostalgic reasons for them to keep caring..its why girls like football for example.

I just miss the days of watching the Big Ten and seeing it littered with Big Dog, Calbert Cheaney, Bobby Jackson, Kendall Gill, Glen Rice, BJ Armstrong, Roy marble, Chris Webber, Steve Smith, etc. Now we get dudes who if they are any good are gone after 1 year. Yippee

i dont get why more 1 and dones matters? not every star needed to stay in school. I went to a D3 school so no i dont have a team like that, like i said massive Dukie since i was like 9. You cant fault 1 and done players, if any of those guys you mentioned had the exposure and opportunities that exist now they would have done the same thing. you keep using single player examples too, the product on the floor in the NCAA is plenty enjoyable to watch. they arent crying and lobbying for fouls every other play, traveling all the time, etc.

tredigs
11-09-2018, 04:47 PM
A garbage NBA team would beat the top ranked college team by like 40 if they played so I don't even know what this thread is about.

Hawkeye15
11-09-2018, 04:57 PM
i dont get why more 1 and dones matters? not every star needed to stay in school. I went to a D3 school so no i dont have a team like that, like i said massive Dukie since i was like 9. You cant fault 1 and done players, if any of those guys you mentioned had the exposure and opportunities that exist now they would have done the same thing. you keep using single player examples too, the product on the floor in the NCAA is plenty enjoyable to watch. they arent crying and lobbying for fouls every other play, traveling all the time, etc.

I don't fault anyone, I am not pinning blame. The results, however, are lesser talent across NCAA D1 basketball. That's just the harsh reality. Lesser talent equals lesser quality to me.

The appeal of college sports has never been the talent per say (the pros have the best), its the whole experience, the passion, etc. I get that. I didn't go to a school that had a team, so I didn't spend my time in college rooting for my school's team, so perhaps some of college sports is lost on me because of it. But I appreciate the top talent, and the NBA has it. NCAA used to have a LOT more of it, which made it more enjoyable to me. There are other reasons I care less now (distance emotionally from my Dad, I have a young kid now, etc), but a huge part, is I can't identify with it anymore. I don't know the players, when I watch its boring, and the talent is lacking. Oh well?

I hate softball. Someone telling me they like it won't change my mind.

TheDish87
11-09-2018, 05:27 PM
what results are lesser? Like i said there are 347 D1 programs which im sure is a lot more than existed in the early 90's so of course there are more lesser players around but again i dont see the relevance? im not trying to change your mind, i dont care what you watch but i dont think i ever met a bball fan who didnt enjoy college hoops. The NBA regular season is extremely boring most nights and there are plenty of **** players in the league no different than college. Where do you think all of these stand out NBA players came from? Excluding the handful of Euros

Hawkeye15
11-09-2018, 05:30 PM
what results are lesser? Like i said there are 347 D1 programs which im sure is a lot more than existed in the early 90's so of course there are more lesser players around but again i dont see the relevance? im not trying to change your mind, i dont care what you watch but i dont think i ever met a bball fan who didnt enjoy college hoops. The NBA regular season is extremely boring most nights and there are plenty of **** players in the league no different than college. Where do you think all of these stand out NBA players came from? Excluding the handful of Euros

from a talent standpoint, there aren't as many good players in college basketball today. Lesser...

The top end talent leaves after 1 year. It didn't used to be that way. Imagine these 3 Duke kids joining Tatum, and Ingram this year. That is what it was back in the 90's. Remember? That is what I am getting at.

TheDish87
11-09-2018, 05:40 PM
from a talent standpoint, there aren't as many good players in college basketball today. Lesser...

The top end talent leaves after 1 year. It didn't used to be that way. Imagine these 3 Duke kids joining Tatum, and Ingram this year. That is what it was back in the 90's. Remember? That is what I am getting at.

like i said more programs now leads to lesser players overall but lesser players today are much better then lesser players then. Not every 90s team was stacked like that, not even close. Like why would Tatum stay in school? he was very clearly NBA ready which he has proved

Hawkeye15
11-09-2018, 05:46 PM
like i said more programs now leads to lesser players overall but lesser players today are much better then lesser players then. Not every 90s team was stacked like that, not even close. Like why would Tatum stay in school? he was very clearly NBA ready which he has proved

it was the culture back then, to stay for a few years usually. Look, it simply kept talent around longer, which meant incoming high end talent was joining existing high end talent. I really can't explain it any easier. St Mary's Catholic Girls School isn't taking top end talent away, so the additional programs have nothing to do with it. 1 and done is the sole culprit.

We can go down the list of players who had NBA talent that stuck around forever back then, it would be a very long list.

valade16
11-09-2018, 06:57 PM
I just want to point out that in the 90's (and earlier) teams were not signing 4-5 studs every year. They were signing 1-2 every year. So at the end of 3 years you'd have 3-6 studs. Nowadays the top programs (think Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, UNC) are signing 3-5 studs every single year. Sure most of them leave, but they are still as stacked as most good college teams of yesteryear (perhaps not the greats). As I mentioned Duke's standout Christian Laettner squad was assembled like this:

1989 Added:
Christian Laettner
Brian Davis

1990 Added:
Bobby Hurley

1991:
Grant Hill
Antonio Lang


That's 1-2 studs added per year. And this makes sense. Back when everybody stayed in college for 3-4 years you didn't need to recruit as many new players because there were less graduates or draftees so you had less roster spots to replace. Nowadays with the stud programs who have 4-5 players leave for the NBA they need to recruit 4-5 guys every year, and them being Duke or Kentucky, they recruit 4-5 studs every year.

So it took Duke 3 years to assemble as many lottery picks in 1991 as Duke simply signed as Freshman this year. Obviously the older teams will be more fundamentally sound and experienced because they are filled with Juniors and Seniors rather than Freshman. But in terms of raw talent, the top few teams are hoarding it at a level teams simply couldn't do back then. Duke couldn't sign 4 of the top 15 prospects back then because they only had 2 open roster spots, so they signed 2 of the top 15 and added them and added them, etc. Teams nowadays are simply adding them all at one time.

As I brought up earlier in this thread, for a team to recruit 5 studs like the Fab 5 did that year was unheard of back then and Duke has done that the past 3 years straight. Yes, imagining this year's Duke team if all of them stayed in school would be a ridiculously good team, but it also would have been filled with triple the studs of the 91 Duke team.

Heediot
11-09-2018, 07:06 PM
Experience matters a lot.

There were 2 one and done classes that won the title. The AD UK Class and the Jahlil Duke class. The latter had some solid vet help to boot and the former had Darius Miller.

I think the stud teams of the past would win more times vs. not because they were more mature and refined to go along with the talent.

If you weren't a top 1-2 maybe 3 pick you were staying 3 -4 years in the mid 90's and before. A guy like Duncan stayed 4 years.

those Pitino UK teams, the fab five, UNLV, Duke, Kansas even Wooden UCLA teams were sick. Glen Rice's Michigan was nice too.

ewing
11-09-2018, 07:48 PM
Grant Hill stayed fours. So did Tim Duncan, These kids get better. Plus good teammates got to play together for years at a time. So they got better at playing together. When more kids stayed there were more good players and the best players were better because they werenít freshmen anymore. There might be more freshmen studs playing together and this Duke team might be truly special but generally speaking college basketball has declined even at the top programs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Heediot
11-09-2018, 09:46 PM
Grant Hill stayed fours. So did Tim Duncan, These kids get better. Plus good teammates got to play together for years at a time. So they got better at playing together. When more kids stayed there were more good players and the best players were better because they werenít freshmen anymore. There might be more freshmen studs playing together and this Duke team might be truly special but generally speaking college basketball has declined even at the top programs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah building and developing chemistry is huge. You could get lucky and assemble the right cast of freshmen, but those old school teams were refined and well built.

IndyRealist
11-10-2018, 07:17 AM
I'd like to point out that this year, there are 5-10 rookies that are performing above average for an NBA player. As they hit the rookie wall, the number that play significant minutes and still perform above average will drop to 3-5 historically.

Most of those are not the top 5 picks, who are generally picked on potential. They are guys middle to late in the first who came into the league with NBA ready bodies. Guys like Josh Hart, John Collins, and Jarret Allen. Not saying anything about those Duke boys, that's just historically what happens. If we go back to the vaunted 2003 draft, they ended the season with 6 players > 1000 minutes who played at least average for an NBA player. None of those 6 players were Lebron James.

Tg11
11-10-2018, 10:39 AM
Zion will probably be the most NBA ready when he comes into the league out of the 3 of them as far as being a star right away but RJ and Cam probably won't hit their ceilings until Year 2 or 3 or 4 once they enter the NBA

MILLERHIGHLIFE
11-10-2018, 01:02 PM
One and done rule needs to be fixed.

Scoots
11-11-2018, 12:34 PM
I'd like to point out that this year, there are 5-10 rookies that are performing above average for an NBA player. As they hit the rookie wall, the number that play significant minutes and still perform above average will drop to 3-5 historically.

Most of those are not the top 5 picks, who are generally picked on potential. They are guys middle to late in the first who came into the league with NBA ready bodies. Guys like Josh Hart, John Collins, and Jarret Allen. Not saying anything about those Duke boys, that's just historically what happens. If we go back to the vaunted 2003 draft, they ended the season with 6 players > 1000 minutes who played at least average for an NBA player. None of those 6 players were Lebron James.

My concern is not with the exceptional rookies in the NBA or the one and dones, but that NBA fans are so quick to give up on players, and to continue to judge players based on how they came in to the league. Not all players are ready as rookies and not all players are going to peak by year 3. I think fans being impatient makes coaches and GMs impatient too as bizarre as that is. Even today the g-league is seen as proof that a player is bad rather than as a chance to improve and nothing more.

IndyRealist
11-11-2018, 01:39 PM
My concern is not with the exceptional rookies in the NBA or the one and dones, but that NBA fans are so quick to give up on players, and to continue to judge players based on how they came in to the league. Not all players are ready as rookies and not all players are going to peak by year 3. I think fans being impatient makes coaches and GMs impatient too as bizarre as that is. Even today the g-league is seen as proof that a player is bad rather than as a chance to improve and nothing more.

A lot of player development is opportunity. The issue is cost. After year 4, player cost jumps exponentially. It's not in a team's best interests to continue to dump money into an underperforming, or underdeveloped if you want, player. Especially when that player is taking cap space from another productive player. Giving a 2nd contract to an underperforming player because you think they'll make the jump is how you get Andrew Wiggins. Optimally, you recognize the sunk cost and walk away.

tredigs
11-11-2018, 03:08 PM
They're on ESPN right now for anyone interested. 2nd half is about to start. Zion with 21/6/3/1/1 on 9-10 FG in the 1st half. He is 18-21 on the season.

tredigs
11-11-2018, 03:15 PM
He's also constantly contesting/effecting shots and all over the floor gathering loose balls. Such a good ****ing sign.

tredigs
11-11-2018, 03:29 PM
Zion with 3 blocks in a 20 second stretch on one Army possession. Help block from behind to prevent the layup. Blocked the corner 3 off of the subsequent inbounds, then destroyed his man trying to shoot over him in the post. Superstar. Can't say enough about this dude.

tredigs
11-11-2018, 04:05 PM
Final line: ~25 minutes: 27/16/4 + 1 steal, 6 blocks and 1 turnover on 11-14 FG (5-8 FT). 6 Orebounds.

A solid Army team came to play on Veterans day, but Duke wins by 22.

By far their best player, by the way. And will reshape all boards to be the consensus #1 pick as of today (Barrett was thought to be the #1, and he will be very good as a pro, but the gap is huge between them as players).

Vinylman
11-11-2018, 06:08 PM
A lot of player development is opportunity. The issue is cost. After year 4, player cost jumps exponentially. It's not in a team's best interests to continue to dump money into an underperforming, or underdeveloped if you want, player. Especially when that player is taking cap space from another productive player. Giving a 2nd contract to an underperforming player because you think they'll make the jump is how you get Andrew Wiggins. Optimally, you recognize the sunk cost and walk away.

Dude, you have been killing it lately

This is the whole issue because players want to come in as early as possible to get through the rookie contracts. In terms of readiness most of these guys should be in college a minimum of 2-3 years.

Vinylman
11-11-2018, 06:11 PM
Final line: ~25 minutes: 27/16/4 + 1 steal, 6 blocks and 1 turnover on 11-14 FG (5-8 FT). 6 Orebounds.

A solid Army team came to play on Veterans day, but Duke wins by 22.

By far their best player, by the way. And will reshape all boards to be the consensus #1 pick as of today (Barrett was thought to be the #1, and he will be very good as a pro, but the gap is huge between them as players).

LMFAO... they might as well have been playing the Washington Generals....

tredigs
11-11-2018, 07:37 PM
LMFAO... they might as well have been playing the Washington Generals....

They played a lot tighter game than I was expecting actually. It helped that Duke was not focused on exploiting the hilarious mismatch that Zion presented in the post.

I can tell you that regardless of who they play this season, Zion is going to look like a man amongst kids, and Reddish is also clearly NBA ready as a 3/D guy. Barrett comes in as the highest touted prospect, and while he will be a star, I actually think he needs to reel in his game a bit to have early success at the next level. Zion - today - looks like a borderline All Star level NBA talent.

Tg11
11-12-2018, 06:51 PM
Hence why the Cleveland Cavaliers and Atlanta Hawks are purposely tanking to get Zion Williamson because he is the undisputed #1 overall pick this summer in the 2019 NBA Draft which he should be. Zion will be a superstar and by him going to either the Cavs or Hawks he basically would make them a much better team well a team worth watching that's for sure. If he were to go to Cleveland he would essentially be the new King of Cleveland post-LeBron. However, if he goes to the Hawks and you pair him up with Trae Young they would be a team worth watching that's for sure.

FlashBolt
11-12-2018, 08:29 PM
cleveland isn't tanking. They really do suck. how do they tank? Not a single person thought they would be good....

Hawkeye15
11-13-2018, 10:26 AM
I'd like to point out that this year, there are 5-10 rookies that are performing above average for an NBA player. As they hit the rookie wall, the number that play significant minutes and still perform above average will drop to 3-5 historically.

Most of those are not the top 5 picks, who are generally picked on potential. They are guys middle to late in the first who came into the league with NBA ready bodies. Guys like Josh Hart, John Collins, and Jarret Allen. Not saying anything about those Duke boys, that's just historically what happens. If we go back to the vaunted 2003 draft, they ended the season with 6 players > 1000 minutes who played at least average for an NBA player. None of those 6 players were Lebron James.

right back to my man versus boys argument. It means something to be a mature man in a contact sport. College kids would just get consumed for the most part. 25 years ago, the top end talent stayed around and matured, and even then I couldn't buy a college team beating an NBA team, not even close.

Hawkeye15
11-13-2018, 10:28 AM
Dude, you have been killing it lately

This is the whole issue because players want to come in as early as possible to get through the rookie contracts. In terms of readiness most of these guys should be in college a minimum of 2-3 years.

to add to this, there is like some stigma now, that if you don't come out right away, you don't have potential. Like its a bad thing to play in college for 3-4 years. It has costed guys draft spots..and money. The NBA promotes it, which doesn't make a ton of sense to me, because if you would let that talent mature in college for a few years, they will be so much more ready to contribute day 1.

Tg11
11-13-2018, 10:30 AM
to add to this, there is like some stigma now, that if you don't come out right away, you don't have potential. Like its a bad thing to play in college for 3-4 years. It has costed guys draft spots..and money. The NBA promotes it, which doesn't make a ton of sense to me, because if you would let that talent mature in college for a few years, they will be so much more ready to contribute day 1.

So you are suggesting Zion and company stay in college

Hawkeye15
11-13-2018, 10:48 AM
So you are suggesting Zion and company stay in college

there are generational talents that make up the small amount of outliers. I haven't watched Zion play, but from what I understand his game is unrefined and its entirely based off him being way bigger, stronger, and more explosive than any of his peers. If that is the case, yes, it would help him. That being said, in today's draft process, he will never go higher than if he went after this year. So players are and aren't doing what is best for them.

My continued point is, 25 years ago, leaving after a year was unheard of for the most part, so Zion would be joining studs already in place that left, and would have more studs inbound next year. Teams were simply way better years ago because of this.

R. Johnson#3
11-13-2018, 10:48 AM
This thread is funny. A team full of kids where 75% of them or more wonít ever put on an NBA jersey wonít even finish better than the Cavs. Also 82 games against pros is a lot more than 31 against kids.

Tg11
11-13-2018, 10:53 AM
there are generational talents that make up the small amount of outliers. I haven't watched Zion play, but from what I understand his game is unrefined and its entirely based off him being way bigger, stronger, and more explosive than any of his peers. If that is the case, yes, it would help him. That being said, in today's draft process, he will never go higher than if he went after this year. So players are and aren't doing what is best for them.

My continued point is, 25 years ago, leaving after a year was unheard of for the most part, so Zion would be joining studs already in place that left, and would have more studs inbound next year. Teams were simply way better years ago because of this.

Yeah I understand your stance but Zion is already a superstar in the making anyway so what difference does it really make? I mean the kid already declared for the Draft

Hawkeye15
11-13-2018, 10:57 AM
Yeah I understand your stance but Zion is already a superstar in the making anyway so what difference does it really make? I mean the kid already declared for the Draft

I am not disputing how it works. Simply explaining why what these "star" kids do against college kids means literally nothing to me. Even if some of those kids are also kid prospects..

If Zion doesn't have any refined skills, he will face a nice learning curve in the NBA. Again, haven't watched much, and probably won't. Don't care what they do against college kids. And it's Duke. I loathe Coach K

Tg11
11-13-2018, 11:11 AM
I am not disputing how it works. Simply explaining why what these "star" kids do against college kids means literally nothing to me. Even if some of those kids are also kid prospects..

If Zion doesn't have any refined skills, he will face a nice learning curve in the NBA. Again, haven't watched much, and probably won't. Don't care what they do against college kids. And it's Duke. I loathe Coach K

Fair enough but if you have watched highlights of Zion or seen clips of him on YouTube you can see why they are heavily hyping this kid

Hawkeye15
11-13-2018, 11:15 AM
Fair enough but if you have watched highlights of Zion or seen clips of him on YouTube you can see why they are heavily hyping this kid

I get it. He has a gigantic body and can explode. Very Barkley-esque.

Tg11
11-13-2018, 11:32 AM
I get it. He has a gigantic body and can explode. Very Barkley-esque.

Exactly they not only compared him to Barkley but also compared him body wise and explosive style of play wise to Shawn Kemp

ewing
11-13-2018, 12:10 PM
I get it. He has a gigantic body and can explode. Very Barkley-esque.

He takes people off the bounce with ease, finishes softy with both hands, resds the floor and makes good passes. Dude is more then an athlete. Iím on your side in this debate, heís just an exception.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tg11
11-13-2018, 12:15 PM
If he goes #1 and he goes to Cleveland then Zion can at least make them a team worth watching again...especially because he can be the "Next Great One" or at least give Clevelanders a chance to hope again

However, if he goes to Atlanta he and Trae Young together as a dynamic duo they would be fun to watch

tredigs
11-13-2018, 01:10 PM
He takes people off the bounce with ease, finishes softy with both hands, resds the floor and makes good passes. Dude is more then an athlete. Iím on your side in this debate, heís just an exception.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. The last time I was this excited for a prospect was Lebron actually. Doesn't hurt that they also have the #2 and #3 in this years draft.

Tg11
11-13-2018, 01:29 PM
Exactly. The last time I was this excited for a prospect was Lebron actually. Doesn't hurt that they also have the #2 and #3 in this years draft.

Cleveland can actually hope again with Zion

R. Johnson#3
11-13-2018, 04:16 PM
I am not disputing how it works. Simply explaining why what these "star" kids do against college kids means literally nothing to me. Even if some of those kids are also kid prospects..

If Zion doesn't have any refined skills, he will face a nice learning curve in the NBA. Again, haven't watched much, and probably won't. Don't care what they do against college kids. And it's Duke. I loathe Coach K

I'm with you in the overall argument but not with Zion. He's special. I'm usually in the same boat seeing as most college players aren't even close to NBA talent but his game looks pretty refined through 2. It's not just all power. He's fast, has finesse, soft hands and he even rifled off some nasty passes. The power aspect of his game is insane though and that will be tested at a higher level in the NBA. Right now he literally forces his way into position on the OFFENSIVE glass and has been going straight at guys and just putting the ball up over them. I think he'll adjust to the bigger guys in the NBA and will become a generational talent.

Tg11
11-13-2018, 04:35 PM
I'm with you in the overall argument but not with Zion. He's special. I'm usually in the same boat seeing as most college players aren't even close to NBA talent but his game looks pretty refined through 2. It's not just all power. He's fast, has finesse, soft hands and he even rifled off some nasty passes. The power aspect of his game is insane though and that will be tested at a higher level in the NBA. Right now he literally forces his way into position on the OFFENSIVE glass and has been going straight at guys and just putting the ball up over them. I think he'll adjust to the bigger guys in the NBA and will become a generational talent.

Me too not only does he have his NBA man body already but he plays the right way

Bostonjorge
11-14-2018, 10:56 PM
You plug in Dukeís big 3 into a east team and that team makes the playoffs.

Hawkeye15
11-15-2018, 10:37 AM
You plug in Dukeís big 3 into a east team and that team makes the playoffs.

that is an entirely different argument. East is meh, and now you are giving them 12 NBA players, not college kids who mostly won't sniff pro ball. Even then, if 3 rookies are your best players, your team will not be a playoff team. But 20-25 wins? Perhaps

Vinylman
11-15-2018, 10:54 AM
Does someone have a shot chart for Zion? Not being negative but all I see this dude doing is dunking. Did he even make anything other than a dunk yesterday?

Hawkeye15
11-15-2018, 11:32 AM
Does someone have a shot chart for Zion? Not being negative but all I see this dude doing is dunking. Did he even make anything other than a dunk yesterday?

I would imagine any prodigy would get pretty easy looks in college, especially against today's weak *** competition. But yeah, his scouting report negative is straight up that he relies on his gifts, and struggles fundamentally. But that isn't uncommon in an 18 year old who just overwhelms with athleticism.