Mikal vs Porter

[PrimzyBulls81]

ATM -- No doubt,I would pick Mikal,he is best fit and Porter - Lavine combo is scary for me lol,not in a good way

[RedBulls23]

Yeah , i dont mind the hype label.
I for one think if Mpj’s combine checks out to pre-injury levels, then the Bulls will have to win the lottery to have a chance to draft him.

There seems to be real disconnect of what people are seeing. You say you dont see an elite athlete but that basketball evaluator described it as ‘freakish athleticism.’

There is no disconnect at all. Elite athletes have freakish athleticism.

I see nothing freakish in him.

He's a good athlete, but nothing eye popping. Freakish athletes have eye popping athleticism. That's generally how it is.

If he is a legit 3 he will be matchup nightmare. He can just shoot over most SF...just like Lauri doesn't need to be an elite athlete at his height because he has the skills. 3 out of the top 5 players in the NBA are not what I'd consider elite athletes by your definition...Curry, Harden and Durant.

No where did I say he needs to be an elite athlete.

If he's going to be a 3, he's going to have to show better handles.

Lauri plays at the 4, which requires different skill sets like not needing great handles.

Curry, harden and Durant all have great handles. MPJ right now has not shown that. The one game I saw of him in college before his injury, he didn't display a good/great ability to create his own offense, and I don't buy his tape of doing it against high school players.

Right now he projects to me as a 4, and I've seen some scouting reports that think thats what he will he as well.

[Rose2Boozer]

Bridges handle is worse than MPJ. I could see MPJ being able to attack defenses off the dribble more than I could see Bridges.

[dougthonus]

1. He’s a type of small forward, but not the ideal type. Too rigid.

2. Bridges is an elite shooting small forward, so that part is a wash.

3. Bridges is a defensive beast, Porter can dream of adequacy.

Bridges is by far the better fit when it comes to profile.

If Bridges is as good a shooter as Porter, and that remains true throughout their careers, then it seems likely that he's just a better player. Isn't that Porter's thing? From what I gather he's not an amazing creator off the dribble or anything.

[WindyCityBorn]

1. He’s a type of small forward, but not the ideal type. Too rigid.

2. Bridges is an elite shooting small forward, so that part is a wash.

3. Bridges is a defensive beast, Porter can dream of adequacy.

Bridges is by far the better fit when it comes to profile.

If Bridges is as good a shooter as Porter, and that remains true throughout their careers, then it seems likely that he's just a better player. Isn't that Porter's thing? From what I gather he's not an amazing creator off the dribble or anything.

That is way over-simplified. Bridges is the 21 year old who do doesn't do much on offense beside shoot threes.

[WindyCityBorn]

There is no disconnect at all. Elite athletes have freakish athleticism.

I see nothing freakish in him.

He's a good athlete, but nothing eye popping. Freakish athletes have eye popping athleticism. That's generally how it is.

If he is a legit 3 he will be matchup nightmare. He can just shoot over most SF...just like Lauri doesn't need to be an elite athlete at his height because he has the skills. 3 out of the top 5 players in the NBA are not what I'd consider elite athletes by your definition...Curry, Harden and Durant.

No where did I say he needs to be an elite athlete.

If he's going to be a 3, he's going to have to show better handles.

Lauri plays at the 4, which requires different skill sets like not needing great handles.

Curry, harden and Durant all have great handles. MPJ right now has not shown that. The one game I saw of him in college before his injury, he didn't display a good/great ability to create his own offense, and I don't buy his tape of doing it against high school players.

Right now he projects to me as a 4, and I've seen some scouting reports that think thats what he will he as well.

He is 19. He has plenty of time to develop ande didn't get a chance to develop much as a freshman at all. I think he is a three. Bulls will have to draft him strictly on potential which I am totally fine with.

[da pmp]

What’s funny is the kids in this board talking about how Elite athlete porter is . Umm no, he isn’t close to being a above average. McDermott 2.0 is going to be a journeyman. He has weak handles and medicore explosion =zero chance he will start in the nba. He’s the worst #1 HS player in history

[DuckIII]

1. He’s a type of small forward, but not the ideal type. Too rigid.

2. Bridges is an elite shooting small forward, so that part is a wash.

3. Bridges is a defensive beast, Porter can dream of adequacy.

Bridges is by far the better fit when it comes to profile.

If Bridges is as good a shooter as Porter, and that remains true throughout their careers, then it seems likely that he's just a better player. Isn't that Porter's thing? From what I gather he's not an amazing creator off the dribble or anything.

Again, its based purely on the fingers-crossed hope that his upside as a potential #1 scorer is real hype. Based on what I've seen of his HS and very minimal college tape, I have serious doubts. In which case, yes, Bridges is the much better prospect.

MPJ's injury, for me personally, is the most frustrating draft prospect development:

1. He was super-hyped.

2. When I went to look at the video I had absolutely no idea why he was receiving that much hype. He looked like a nice lottery pick type prospect, but not anything even remotely resembling a slam dunk top 2/franchise prospect in a loaded draft. The Kevin Durant comps are absolutely laughable and preposterous to my eyes and still are.

3. So more than any other prospect, I was looking forward to his collegiate season so that I could resolve what I actually saw with what the scouting hype told me I should see.

For people who bought the hype right off the bat, they didn't need to see his college career and are in love. For me, I did need to see that. But given his unique physical profile and shooting ability, and my attraction to draft risk, I'm still willing to accept that scouts saw things in much more extensive exposure to his game than I can see on video. So I'm still totally okay with the Bulls taking him. But I'm also totally okay with them taking Bridges instead.

[RememberLu]

What’s funny is the kids in this board talking about how Elite athlete porter is . Umm no, he isn’t close to being a above average. McDermott 2.0 is going to be a journeyman. He has weak handles and medicore explosion =zero chance he will start in the nba. He’s the worst #1 HS player in history

Seems more athletic than Bobby Portis to me. Bobby couldn't even dunk when he came in the league

[Red Larrivee]

You say you dont see an elite athlete but that basketball evaluator described it as ‘freakish athleticism.’

That is hilarious. Is that kid in 7th or 8th grade?

OK, maybe he's in high school. Sorry, but I'll trust my own opinion over his. Yeah, I'm old but as the saying goes.... "I've forgotten more about basketball.........

If this is how we form our opinions, it explains a lot.

Some have bought in purely because he was arguably the top HS player in the country. It happens every single year. Labeling Porter a freak athlete is comical. He's surely above average, but he isn't even Zach LaVine in that department.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[holv03]

What’s funny is the kids in this board talking about how Elite of an athlete porter is . Umm no, he isn’t close to being above average. McDermott 2.0 is going to be a journeyman. He has weak handles and medicore explosion =zero chance he will start in the nba. He’s the worst #1 HS player in history

Porter is a good athlete. He's not a McDermott 2.0 at all. He could end up being a superstar if he works on a few things. He's a wing forward at 6'10 with a 7'0 wingspan and 9'0 foot standing reach. He could create his own shot and i believe that as he gets stronger he will become a beast in the league. If he never got hurt we would be talking about him being the top pick in the draft.

[Red Larrivee]

1. He’s a type of small forward, but not the ideal type. Too rigid.

2. Bridges is an elite shooting small forward, so that part is a wash.

3. Bridges is a defensive beast, Porter can dream of adequacy.

Bridges is by far the better fit when it comes to profile.

If Bridges is as good a shooter as Porter, and that remains true throughout their careers, then it seems likely that he's just a better player. Isn't that Porter's thing? From what I gather he's not an amazing creator off the dribble or anything.

It's not even just the shot. It's that Bridges is super-efficient across the board on offense at everything except creating off the dribble. This is where he ranked on February 28th from an article:

97th percentile on spot-up shooting
96th percentile on cutting
95th percentile on screens
92nd percentile on catch/shoot
89th percentile on all jump shots
83rd percentile on transition
80th percentile on PNR as ball handler
72nd percentile on post-ups
41st percentile on isolation
*Finished the season with 67.8 FG% at the rim and a 65.5 TS%.

To me, a player that is this efficient across the board on offense has a lot more upside than just shooting an open three. He'll be able to create value for himself without pounding the ball through the shot clock. And to go back to the OP's question, it's not who has better value on paper at the pick, it's who fits best going forward with the current pieces. Another player who needs the ball at high volume doesn't do that unless they are a can't-miss player, who makes the fit irrelevant.

[Shill]

1. He’s a type of small forward, but not the ideal type. Too rigid.

2. Bridges is an elite shooting small forward, so that part is a wash.

3. Bridges is a defensive beast, Porter can dream of adequacy.

Bridges is by far the better fit when it comes to profile.

If Bridges is as good a shooter as Porter, and that remains true throughout their careers, then it seems likely that he's just a better player. Isn't that Porter's thing? From what I gather he's not an amazing creator off the dribble or anything.

It's not even just the shot. It's that Bridges is super-efficient across the board on offense at everything except creating off the dribble. This is where he ranked on February 28th from an article:

97th percentile on spot-up shooting
96th percentile on cutting
95th percentile on screens
92nd percentile on catch/shoot
89th percentile on all jump shots
83rd percentile on transition
80th percentile on PNR as ball handler
72nd percentile on post-ups
41st percentile on isolation
*Finished the season with 67.8 FG% at the rim and a 65.5 TS%.

To me, a player that is this efficient across the board on offense has a lot more upside than just shooting an open three. He'll be able to create value for himself without pounding the ball through the shot clock. And to go back to the OP's question, it's not who has better value on paper at the pick, it's who fits best going forward with the current pieces. Another player who needs the ball at high volume doesn't do that unless they are a can't-miss player, who makes the fit irrelevant.

This assumes we have our foundational pieces.

I’m not convinced we do.

[Red Larrivee]

This assumes we have our foundational pieces.

I’m not convinced we do.

We probably don't, but that doesn't matter. Chicago drafted Luol Deng and Joakim Noah before Derrick Rose. Regardless of who they select, Chicago may still be in the draft lottery for the next 2-3 years. This position isn't an irrepeatable moment in the rebuild.

[chrispatrick]

1. He’s a type of small forward, but not the ideal type. Too rigid.

2. Bridges is an elite shooting small forward, so that part is a wash.

3. Bridges is a defensive beast, Porter can dream of adequacy.

Bridges is by far the better fit when it comes to profile.

If Bridges is as good a shooter as Porter, and that remains true throughout their careers, then it seems likely that he's just a better player. Isn't that Porter's thing? From what I gather he's not an amazing creator off the dribble or anything.

It's not even just the shot. It's that Bridges is super-efficient across the board on offense at everything except creating off the dribble. This is where he ranked on February 28th from an article:

97th percentile on spot-up shooting
96th percentile on cutting
95th percentile on screens
92nd percentile on catch/shoot
89th percentile on all jump shots
83rd percentile on transition
80th percentile on PNR as ball handler
72nd percentile on post-ups
41st percentile on isolation
*Finished the season with 67.8 FG% at the rim and a 65.5 TS%.

To me, a player that is this efficient across the board on offense has a lot more upside than just shooting an open three. He'll be able to create value for himself without pounding the ball through the shot clock. And to go back to the OP's question, it's not who has better value on paper at the pick, it's who fits best going forward with the current pieces. Another player who needs the ball at high volume doesn't do that unless they are a can't-miss player, who makes the fit irrelevant.

I have a different approach but might get to the same conclusion. I don't think we should be worried about what pieces we have. Most of our pieces suck terribly and aside from Lauri, we probably shouldn't be trying to fit around any of the guys we have. That being said, Bridges may just simply be the better player.

Porter is a scorer, so if you draft him, you're hoping he has traits to be a star. We (should have) learned with LaVine that scorers are useless if they don't play defense and aren't more efficient than the guys they are taking shots from. So the question is, can Porter score in a variety of enough ways at a high efficency, and does he have the physical profile of a number one scorer? I don't know the answer to that question, but it sounds like a lot of people are skeptical.

If that's the case, a guy like Bridges who defends and scores efficiently without much usage is probably both the better fit AND better player. That being said, Porter fans can feel free to chime in and let me know why he can be a number one type option at a high efficiency in the NBA. (I'm asking because I haven't seen enough of him). I just think Porter has to be that to be that valuable from an efficiency perspective because he doesn't offer everything else that Bridges does.

[Dresden]

What’s funny is the kids in this board talking about how Elite athlete porter is . Umm no, he isn’t close to being a above average. McDermott 2.0 is going to be a journeyman. He has weak handles and medicore explosion =zero chance he will start in the nba. He’s the worst #1 HS player in history

There was a video posted here recently showing him getting his head above the rim. That translates into him having at least a 38" vertical.

[Dresden]

If Bridges is as good a shooter as Porter, and that remains true throughout their careers, then it seems likely that he's just a better player. Isn't that Porter's thing? From what I gather he's not an amazing creator off the dribble or anything.

It's not even just the shot. It's that Bridges is super-efficient across the board on offense at everything except creating off the dribble. This is where he ranked on February 28th from an article:

97th percentile on spot-up shooting
96th percentile on cutting
95th percentile on screens
92nd percentile on catch/shoot
89th percentile on all jump shots
83rd percentile on transition
80th percentile on PNR as ball handler
72nd percentile on post-ups
41st percentile on isolation
*Finished the season with 67.8 FG% at the rim and a 65.5 TS%.

To me, a player that is this efficient across the board on offense has a lot more upside than just shooting an open three. He'll be able to create value for himself without pounding the ball through the shot clock. And to go back to the OP's question, it's not who has better value on paper at the pick, it's who fits best going forward with the current pieces. Another player who needs the ball at high volume doesn't do that unless they are a can't-miss player, who makes the fit irrelevant.

I have a different approach but might get to the same conclusion. I don't think we should be worried about what pieces we have. Most of our pieces suck terribly and aside from Lauri, we probably shouldn't be trying to fit around any of the guys we have. That being said, Bridges may just simply be the better player.

Porter is a scorer, so if you draft him, you're hoping he has traits to be a star. We (should have) learned with LaVine that scorers are useless if they don't play defense and aren't more efficient than the guys they are taking shots from. So the question is, can Porter score in a variety of enough ways at a high efficency, and does he have the physical profile of a number one scorer? I don't know the answer to that question, but it sounds like a lot of people are skeptical.

If that's the case, a guy like Bridges who defends and scores efficiently without much usage is probably both the better fit AND better player. That being said, Porter fans can feel free to chime in and let me know why he can be a number one type option at a high efficiency in the NBA. (I'm asking because I haven't seen enough of him). I just think Porter has to be that to be that valuable from an efficiency perspective because he doesn't offer everything else that Bridges does.

Porter has shown the ability to be a #1 scoring option everywhere he's been. Plus he's 6'10" and can score at all three levels, and is a good athlete. He averaged 36 ppg in high school. Yes, that's high school, but it's still better than anyone else in his class. Jayson Tatum only scored 27 in high school, for comparison.

He's been watched by pro scouts for several years now, and many have said that he's a unique scoring talent. You don't find that too often in a guy who is 6'10".

[Dresden]

This assumes we have our foundational pieces.

I’m not convinced we do.

We probably don't, but that doesn't matter. Chicago drafted Luol Deng and Joakim Noah before Derrick Rose. Regardless of who they select, Chicago may still be in the draft lottery for the next 2-3 years. This position isn't an irrepeatable moment in the rebuild.

I think it probably is, if you're talking about drafting as high as 6. If we're healthy next year, there's a good chance we win at least in the low 30's.

[Dresden]

There is no disconnect at all. Elite athletes have freakish athleticism.

I see nothing freakish in him.

He's a good athlete, but nothing eye popping. Freakish athletes have eye popping athleticism. That's generally how it is.

If he is a legit 3 he will be matchup nightmare. He can just shoot over most SF...just like Lauri doesn't need to be an elite athlete at his height because he has the skills. 3 out of the top 5 players in the NBA are not what I'd consider elite athletes by your definition...Curry, Harden and Durant.

No where did I say he needs to be an elite athlete.

If he's going to be a 3, he's going to have to show better handles.

Lauri plays at the 4, which requires different skill sets like not needing great handles.

Curry, harden and Durant all have great handles. MPJ right now has not shown that. The one game I saw of him in college before his injury, he didn't display a good/great ability to create his own offense, and I don't buy his tape of doing it against high school players.

Right now he projects to me as a 4, and I've seen some scouting reports that think thats what he will he as well.

His handles are actually fine for a 3. He's not going to be dribbling as much as Lebron. He's got enough of a handle to get into the paint when he wants to and most of his game is based on either easy scoring chances inside, where he uses his height, or shooting from outside, where he also uses his height. He doesn't need to be able to constantly beat people off the dribble to be effective.

I think he'll be able to play either 3 or 4, but he seems like a more natural 3, the way he moves and how he scores.

[sco]

Whilst I don’t disagree, a LaVine and Bridges combo would be extremely lean. Would need to hit the weight room pretty hard.

This is a really underrated point.

I'm not quite sure SF is even Bridges's best position in the NBA. He seems to have elite length and size for a SG, but just normal to average size for a SF. And in a league where your best perimeter defender needs to match up with Giannis, LeBron, KD, PG13, Kawhi... length alone just isn't going to cut it. Considering that defense is going to be Mikal's biggest attribute, I'm wondering what the point is to draft a guy like that if he's not going to be able to guard guys on an island without having to bring help (on most plays at least). And maybe he is that guy where you can just trust him to lock down on a guy 1-on-1, but I'm not sure I can make that assessment based off of what I've seen so far.

Ill be honest, i think valuing perimeter defense might be an exercise in futility.

Perimeter defense is important but
the way the league is played, a guy can only be a 1st team defender 3-4 years tops. Lbj a former 1st team defender wont make that team for the rest of his career.
Its a skillset that most likely will not age gracefully.

This is an undermade point. Defense is a big need for us and Bridges seems to have that, but I think defense should be focus of non-lotto picks. Most of the great defenders in the NBA are later picks and can be gotten easier than elite scorers.

That said, I don't see elite offense in MPJ. I see hype and pre-injury athleticism that may not be there any more.