ImageImageImage

Garland or Culver

Moderator: jbk1234

NatiboyB
Senior
Posts: 712
And1: 208
Joined: Jun 15, 2013

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#21 » by NatiboyB » Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:51 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
NatiboyB wrote:I still think we should of went with Culver...But I will do some more research on Garland I just didn't even consider him an option.
I hadn't realized how bad Culver's shooting was. If he can improve from that end, he'll be a great two way guard. If he can't, you just took Nwaba at No. 5.

Really the Wolves blew it by not trading for 4. They were in talks with the Pelicans and had to know they were other teams bidding on the pick. People were only offering value to trade up for one of two players and either way they weren't getting Garland at No. 6.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app



I'm sorry for the very late reply...So I was thinking Culvers percentages aren't great but he should be hitting at a decent clip....But I was really thinking at the time that the T-wolves were planning on doing something involving Culver for Garland..But now that I have just settled in on having Garland I just moved on. But Culver was a great fit 2 way player who like you said if he had a deeper more consistent shot he would be outstanding.
JonFromVA
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,848
And1: 1,507
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#22 » by JonFromVA » Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:16 pm

NatiboyB wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
NatiboyB wrote:I still think we should of went with Culver...But I will do some more research on Garland I just didn't even consider him an option.
I hadn't realized how bad Culver's shooting was. If he can improve from that end, he'll be a great two way guard. If he can't, you just took Nwaba at No. 5.

Really the Wolves blew it by not trading for 4. They were in talks with the Pelicans and had to know they were other teams bidding on the pick. People were only offering value to trade up for one of two players and either way they weren't getting Garland at No. 6.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app



I'm sorry for the very late reply...So I was thinking Culvers percentages aren't great but he should be hitting at a decent clip....But I was really thinking at the time that the T-wolves were planning on doing something involving Culver for Garland..But now that I have just settled in on having Garland I just moved on. But Culver was a great fit 2 way player who like you said if he had a deeper more consistent shot he would be outstanding.


Meh, if the Cavs had taken Culver we'd all be talking about his potential as a shooter, and how he was taking steps to transition from a spot-up shooter to a off-the-dribble shooter. We'd write off his struggles in the NCAA championship game as inexperience and how lots of freshman struggle in the tourney. We'd talk up his fit on the team. etc. etc.

The issue here is that Darius Garland has the potential to be great at something the NBA highly values (long range, off the dribble shooting ala Curry/Lillard/Irving). It's not clear that Culver has a high-level skill like that. He may develop one, or his upside may just be that of a solid all-around player.

We're just going to have to see ... but it's what's made this draft pretty tricky. Lots of interesting prospects, but not much in the way of sure things. And the surest thing in the draft (Zion) may just be too big for the stress he puts on his body.
Stillwater
General Manager
Posts: 9,249
And1: 2,377
Joined: Jun 15, 2017
   

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#23 » by Stillwater » Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:33 pm

JonFromVA wrote:
NatiboyB wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:I hadn't realized how bad Culver's shooting was. If he can improve from that end, he'll be a great two way guard. If he can't, you just took Nwaba at No. 5.

Really the Wolves blew it by not trading for 4. They were in talks with the Pelicans and had to know they were other teams bidding on the pick. People were only offering value to trade up for one of two players and either way they weren't getting Garland at No. 6.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app



I'm sorry for the very late reply...So I was thinking Culvers percentages aren't great but he should be hitting at a decent clip....But I was really thinking at the time that the T-wolves were planning on doing something involving Culver for Garland..But now that I have just settled in on having Garland I just moved on. But Culver was a great fit 2 way player who like you said if he had a deeper more consistent shot he would be outstanding.


Meh, if the Cavs had taken Culver we'd all be talking about his potential as a shooter, and how he was taking steps to transition from a spot-up shooter to a off-the-dribble shooter. We'd write off his struggles in the NCAA championship game as inexperience and how lots of freshman struggle in the tourney. We'd talk up his fit on the team. etc. etc.

The issue here is that Darius Garland has the potential to be great at something the NBA highly values (long range, off the dribble shooting ala Curry/Lillard/Irving). It's not clear that Culver has a high-level skill like that. He may develop one, or his upside may just be that of a solid all-around player.

We're just going to have to see ... but it's what's made this draft pretty tricky. Lots of interesting prospects, but not much in the way of sure things. And the surest thing in the draft (Zion) may just be too big for the stress he puts on his body.

Culver was a sophomore who lead his team to and through the tournament only to eventually get basically shut down on the biggest stage by the best role playing ceiling defender in the draft who got severely overrated to the point of ATL trading up for him.
Garland was definitiely the best prospect at 4 let alone 5 when it comes to shooting abilty, but overall this draft class came down to many other factors in decision process' such as ATL absolutely valuing defense because Young is a terrible defender.
I think Minnesota traded up for the wrong guy and should have taken Coby White who I think has better overall abilty offensively and only a small drop off in defense.
That being said I would have been fine with Culver for CLE, but like I said before the draft was higher on Sekou & didn't see us taking Garland if there because of Sexton
water aint the mirror unless you steal it
2019 REALGM draft contest winner
Revenged25
Rookie
Posts: 1,122
And1: 336
Joined: Jun 05, 2018
   

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#24 » by Revenged25 » Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:56 pm

Stillwater wrote: Culver was a sophomore who lead his team to and through the tournament only to eventually get basically shut down on the biggest stage by the best role playing ceiling defender in the draft who got severely overrated to the point of ATL trading up for him.
Garland was definitiely the best prospect at 4 let alone 5 when it comes to shooting abilty, but overall this draft class came down to many other factors in decision process' such as ATL absolutely valuing defense because Young is a terrible defender.
I think Minnesota traded up for the wrong guy and should have taken Coby White who I think has better overall abilty offensively and only a small drop off in defense.
That being said I would have been fine with Culver for CLE, but like I said before the draft was higher on Sekou & didn't see us taking Garland if there because of Sexton


I think Atlanta thought they were going to be getting a better version of Ariza which is why they traded up to get him. Hunter won't need to be the 1st or even 2nd option for them so he can just be there and do all the other things that's asked of him, primarily defense, to help the team win. 4th might be a little high for that but they got the higher potential version at #10 in Reddish so they were able to temper their risk/safety between the two picks.
JonFromVA
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,848
And1: 1,507
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#25 » by JonFromVA » Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:35 pm

Stillwater wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
NatiboyB wrote:

I'm sorry for the very late reply...So I was thinking Culvers percentages aren't great but he should be hitting at a decent clip....But I was really thinking at the time that the T-wolves were planning on doing something involving Culver for Garland..But now that I have just settled in on having Garland I just moved on. But Culver was a great fit 2 way player who like you said if he had a deeper more consistent shot he would be outstanding.


Meh, if the Cavs had taken Culver we'd all be talking about his potential as a shooter, and how he was taking steps to transition from a spot-up shooter to a off-the-dribble shooter. We'd write off his struggles in the NCAA championship game as inexperience and how lots of freshman struggle in the tourney. We'd talk up his fit on the team. etc. etc.

The issue here is that Darius Garland has the potential to be great at something the NBA highly values (long range, off the dribble shooting ala Curry/Lillard/Irving). It's not clear that Culver has a high-level skill like that. He may develop one, or his upside may just be that of a solid all-around player.

We're just going to have to see ... but it's what's made this draft pretty tricky. Lots of interesting prospects, but not much in the way of sure things. And the surest thing in the draft (Zion) may just be too big for the stress he puts on his body.

Culver was a sophomore who lead his team to and through the tournament only to eventually get basically shut down on the biggest stage by the best role playing ceiling defender in the draft who got severely overrated to the point of ATL trading up for him.
Garland was definitiely the best prospect at 4 let alone 5 when it comes to shooting abilty, but overall this draft class came down to many other factors in decision process' such as ATL absolutely valuing defense because Young is a terrible defender.
I think Minnesota traded up for the wrong guy and should have taken Coby White who I think has better overall abilty offensively and only a small drop off in defense.
That being said I would have been fine with Culver for CLE, but like I said before the draft was higher on Sekou & didn't see us taking Garland if there because of Sexton


Thanks for the correction, but hey, Hunter (a year older than Culver) struggled in the early rounds - but came up big in the championship, Culver was terrific in the early rounds, but struggled in the championship.

My point is just that there are always ways to look at this stuff if you want to focus on the positive. Unlike some who for whatever reason seem to take a stake in all of this during the pre-draft process, I admittedly prefer to take the optimistic approach, try to figure out what our GM/scouts were thinking, and cross my fingers they got it right until proven otherwise.

As for Sekou, the reports say he's a pretty raw prospect, very athletic, and potential defensive standout. Obviously there's a potential pay off if a player like that can be developed, but I don't mind that our FO seemed to focus on players with what they believe to be NBA-level skills. They took some pretty big risks as it were, but at least these guys should have a defined skill they can lean on while developing the rest of their game and avoid being labelled an outright bust.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 35,999
And1: 20,509
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#26 » by jbk1234 » Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:48 pm

Stillwater wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
NatiboyB wrote:

I'm sorry for the very late reply...So I was thinking Culvers percentages aren't great but he should be hitting at a decent clip....But I was really thinking at the time that the T-wolves were planning on doing something involving Culver for Garland..But now that I have just settled in on having Garland I just moved on. But Culver was a great fit 2 way player who like you said if he had a deeper more consistent shot he would be outstanding.


Meh, if the Cavs had taken Culver we'd all be talking about his potential as a shooter, and how he was taking steps to transition from a spot-up shooter to a off-the-dribble shooter. We'd write off his struggles in the NCAA championship game as inexperience and how lots of freshman struggle in the tourney. We'd talk up his fit on the team. etc. etc.

The issue here is that Darius Garland has the potential to be great at something the NBA highly values (long range, off the dribble shooting ala Curry/Lillard/Irving). It's not clear that Culver has a high-level skill like that. He may develop one, or his upside may just be that of a solid all-around player.

We're just going to have to see ... but it's what's made this draft pretty tricky. Lots of interesting prospects, but not much in the way of sure things. And the surest thing in the draft (Zion) may just be too big for the stress he puts on his body.

Culver was a sophomore who lead his team to and through the tournament only to eventually get basically shut down on the biggest stage by the best role playing ceiling defender in the draft who got severely overrated to the point of ATL trading up for him.
Garland was definitiely the best prospect at 4 let alone 5 when it comes to shooting abilty, but overall this draft class came down to many other factors in decision process' such as ATL absolutely valuing defense because Young is a terrible defender.
I think Minnesota traded up for the wrong guy and should have taken Coby White who I think has better overall abilty offensively and only a small drop off in defense.
That being said I would have been fine with Culver for CLE, but like I said before the draft was higher on Sekou & didn't see us taking Garland if there because of Sexton
I don't think Hunter is overrated at all. I still wish he was there at No. 5.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
JonFromVA
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,848
And1: 1,507
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#27 » by JonFromVA » Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:10 am

jbk1234 wrote:
Stillwater wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
Meh, if the Cavs had taken Culver we'd all be talking about his potential as a shooter, and how he was taking steps to transition from a spot-up shooter to a off-the-dribble shooter. We'd write off his struggles in the NCAA championship game as inexperience and how lots of freshman struggle in the tourney. We'd talk up his fit on the team. etc. etc.

The issue here is that Darius Garland has the potential to be great at something the NBA highly values (long range, off the dribble shooting ala Curry/Lillard/Irving). It's not clear that Culver has a high-level skill like that. He may develop one, or his upside may just be that of a solid all-around player.

We're just going to have to see ... but it's what's made this draft pretty tricky. Lots of interesting prospects, but not much in the way of sure things. And the surest thing in the draft (Zion) may just be too big for the stress he puts on his body.

Culver was a sophomore who lead his team to and through the tournament only to eventually get basically shut down on the biggest stage by the best role playing ceiling defender in the draft who got severely overrated to the point of ATL trading up for him.
Garland was definitiely the best prospect at 4 let alone 5 when it comes to shooting abilty, but overall this draft class came down to many other factors in decision process' such as ATL absolutely valuing defense because Young is a terrible defender.
I think Minnesota traded up for the wrong guy and should have taken Coby White who I think has better overall abilty offensively and only a small drop off in defense.
That being said I would have been fine with Culver for CLE, but like I said before the draft was higher on Sekou & didn't see us taking Garland if there because of Sexton
I don't think Hunter is overrated at all. I still wish he was there at No. 5.


Hunter is a good prospect, but how much better of a prospect is he than oh for example Dylan Windler who as a Senior is only 14 months older because Hunter was red-shirted at UVA? Hunter went to a higher-level school with a much stronger schedule and has shown that he will likely be a very strong defender. He's got all that going for him, but offensively are they so different? And we might even give Windler the advantage in rebounding and passing.

NBADraft.net's appraisal of their skills is interesting. They rated Windler as a guard, and Hunter as a forward, so they didn't even rank them in all the same categories; but clearly the main difference between Hunter's 94 and Windler's 90 rating is Hunter's strength and defense.

Not saying those things aren't important, but we may be talking the difference between Trevor Ariza and Kyle Korver.
jbk1234
Forum Mod - Cavs
Forum Mod - Cavs
Posts: 35,999
And1: 20,509
Joined: Dec 22, 2010
   

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#28 » by jbk1234 » Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:20 am

JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:
Stillwater wrote: Culver was a sophomore who lead his team to and through the tournament only to eventually get basically shut down on the biggest stage by the best role playing ceiling defender in the draft who got severely overrated to the point of ATL trading up for him.
Garland was definitiely the best prospect at 4 let alone 5 when it comes to shooting abilty, but overall this draft class came down to many other factors in decision process' such as ATL absolutely valuing defense because Young is a terrible defender.
I think Minnesota traded up for the wrong guy and should have taken Coby White who I think has better overall abilty offensively and only a small drop off in defense.
That being said I would have been fine with Culver for CLE, but like I said before the draft was higher on Sekou & didn't see us taking Garland if there because of Sexton
I don't think Hunter is overrated at all. I still wish he was there at No. 5.


Hunter is a good prospect, but how much better of a prospect is he than oh for example Dylan Windler who as a Senior is only 14 months older because Hunter was red-shirted at UVA? Hunter went to a higher-level school with a much stronger schedule and has shown that he will likely be a very strong defender. He's got all that going for him, but offensively are they so different? And we might even give Windler the advantage in rebounding and passing.

NBADraft.net's appraisal of their skills is interesting. They rated Windler as a guard, and Hunter as a forward, so they didn't even rank them in all the same categories; but clearly the main difference between Hunter's 94 and Windler's 90 rating is Hunter's strength and defense.

Not saying those things aren't important, but we may be talking the difference between Trevor Ariza and Kyle Korver.
Let's just say I'll be thrilled if Windler is 70% if the defender Hunter is in the NBA.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app
It is highly unlikely that the Cavs will agree with your Kevin Love evaluation for the purpose of a trade.
Stillwater
General Manager
Posts: 9,249
And1: 2,377
Joined: Jun 15, 2017
   

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#29 » by Stillwater » Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:27 am

I would not have been happy with a high floor older prospect in the high lottery,but thats not a knock on Hunter who as is right now a top 3 defender from the draft and has elite role player written all over him... my biggest concern with him is he has ltd ability to handle the ball or initiate offense which was a high priority as evident in who they brought in.
water aint the mirror unless you steal it
2019 REALGM draft contest winner
JonFromVA
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,848
And1: 1,507
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#30 » by JonFromVA » Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:46 pm

jbk1234 wrote:
JonFromVA wrote:
jbk1234 wrote:I don't think Hunter is overrated at all. I still wish he was there at No. 5.


Hunter is a good prospect, but how much better of a prospect is he than oh for example Dylan Windler who as a Senior is only 14 months older because Hunter was red-shirted at UVA? Hunter went to a higher-level school with a much stronger schedule and has shown that he will likely be a very strong defender. He's got all that going for him, but offensively are they so different? And we might even give Windler the advantage in rebounding and passing.

NBADraft.net's appraisal of their skills is interesting. They rated Windler as a guard, and Hunter as a forward, so they didn't even rank them in all the same categories; but clearly the main difference between Hunter's 94 and Windler's 90 rating is Hunter's strength and defense.

Not saying those things aren't important, but we may be talking the difference between Trevor Ariza and Kyle Korver.
Let's just say I'll be thrilled if Windler is 70% if the defender Hunter is in the NBA.


Oh, sure, all those things are part of why Windler went 24 and Hunter went 4; but Korver and Ariza were both 2nd round picks. There was some hope that Ariza would develop in to more than just a 3&D player, but he couldn't handle being "the man". Taken at #4, the expectations are going to be even higher for Hunter, but like Ariza, that may just be a step he's unable to take.

The trade-offs in this draft were pretty crazy, and I think the Cavs took a risky but correct approach with Garland and Porter Jr by trying to guess how their skills would translate if they had played more games/seasons in the NCAA like Morant, Hunter, Culver, etc, all did.

Taking a high-upside freshman is a good approach, the big question is whether they took the right ones given the draft was sprinkled with interesting frosh prospects most with fewer question marks like White, Reddish, Hayes, Little, Johnson, Herro, Langford, Bol, etc, and some young foreign prospects like Doumbaya and Samanic.
User avatar
Jamaaliver
RealGM 2018 NCAA Tourney Challenge Champ
Posts: 21,566
And1: 7,347
Joined: Sep 22, 2005
Location: Officially a citizen of the World...
Contact:
     

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#31 » by Jamaaliver » Fri Aug 2, 2019 2:39 pm

NBA Rookies Who Could Shock Us This Season

Darius Garland, Cleveland Cavaliers

Image

Four full games from Darius Garland at Vanderbilt were enough for the Cleveland Cavaliers to draft him fifth overall. And despite seeing limited action over the past year due to a knee injury, he's in position to surprise as one of the league's most productive rookies.

Sharing the ball with Collin Sexton, Garland won't match Ja Morant's numbers with the Memphis Grizzlies. But he is a dark horse to finish as the third-highest scorer in the class.

An advanced ball-handler and versatile shot-maker, Garland looks ready to create offense from the point or catch-and-shoot from the wing next to Sexton. He's distinguished for his off-the-dribble footwork and jumper. While efficiently finishing at the rim will be challenging, Garland should be ready to punish defenses with his pull-up, step-back and spot-up shooting.

His decision-making needs work, but he's also shifty and skilled enough to generate offense as a driver and passer off ball screens.

Expected to land in the 2020 lottery, the Cavaliers' front office will use the year to assess the development and projected value of their previous two lottery picks. Garland should receive plenty of touches and chances to play through mistakes, which will lead to a poor field-goal percentage, a weak assist-to-turnover ratio and some high-scoring outputs.
Bleacher Report
JonFromVA
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,848
And1: 1,507
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
     

Re: Garland or Culver 

Post#32 » by JonFromVA » Fri Aug 2, 2019 3:50 pm

We'll see how Beilein decides to manage things, but in theory Garland and Sexton's minutes could be staggered so one of them is on the floor at all times. So, that could mean something like playing 16 minutes together and 16 minutes apart.

Sexton had the ball in his hands a lot last season, but didn't generate a lot of assists (just 3 per game). It would make sense to use him offensively like a SG, which means his ISO opportunities should come after they'd already run the offense for a while.

So perhaps Garland will get the touches he needs to generate a significant number of assists? That is ... if he can create, see the floor, and involve teammates significantly better than Collin as we anticipate.

Return to Cleveland Cavaliers