Who's your pick? (Poll included)

[Jsindto]

You had me until you mentioned trading Bey to move up one spot in a draft that falls off after the third pick.

I think he means trading Bey to get #4, to have in addition to #5. Could be mistaken though. But if he means Grant PLUS Bey to get #4, that's crazy IMO. Way too much unless you're getting back something more than just #4.

[El Chivo]

Are we sleeping on Johnny Davis?

[MotownMadness]

Are we sleeping on Johnny Davis?

Not at 5, if he plays anything like he did in college then hes a high USG chucker

[Kalamazoo317]

You had me until you mentioned trading Bey to move up one spot in a draft that falls off after the third pick.

I think he means trading Bey to get #4, to have in addition to #5. Could be mistaken though. But if he means Grant PLUS Bey to get #4, that's crazy IMO. Way too much unless you're getting back something more than just #4.

I imagine we'd have to take salary filler back at the very least as well.

Not really interested in giving up on Bey, though. He's at least a dependable starter, IMO, with further upside. At his age, I'm not looking to move that unless it's for a superstar.

[Manocad]

Are we sleeping on Johnny Davis?

Not at 5, if he plays anything like he did in college then hes a high USG chucker

GOOD GOD, NO. There is NO WAY I'd take Johnny Davis at 5.

[Manocad]

Just because hes really productive does not mean he cant be a bust. 24 and 8 amazing Garza did 24 and 10 as a junior and senior. Iowa runs a system that makes him look good similar to Garza. Many of the prospects this season are in systems making them look worse Keegan has the system working with him.

40% 3pt but only 75%from the line. 75% from the line makes me question how good the 3pter. That 75% isnt much over average shooting. For Murray to pay off pick five hes going to have to be elite shooting with his skill set. That means were betting on a 75% ft% shooter to be elite its possible but far from a sure thing.

Of course everyone questions the lateral quickness. Hes going to be 22 in August i believe. I question how well he is gomna score when hes not bigger and stronger then everyone.

Not saying hes likely a bust just its for sure possible. He has warts just like everyone were choosing from.

The massive difference with Garza and Murray is that Garza is unplayably slow on defense, while Murray projects to be at least a solid defender. If it weren't for Garza's cement shoes he'd have been a lotto pick. There is no comparison there.

Of course Garza is slow I'm just saying college production doesnt always mean lock good NBA player hes just a good example because its the same team and right before him.

I'm not predicting a straight bust but I wouldnt be shocked either like others. I really think hes going to be a letdown at pick 5. At this point in the process I'm not taking him until pick 8.

Garza didn't bust; he just hasn't been used the way he's best used. He's a back to the basket, traditional post up center and did well the very few times he was fed the ball in the post. Usually he was setting a pick then rolling to the 3 point line to do...nothing.

[buzzkilloton]

The massive difference with Garza and Murray is that Garza is unplayably slow on defense, while Murray projects to be at least a solid

Ofc he was pick 52 how can a pick 52 be a bust?

My point was elite college production doesnt mean decent NBA player. I used him because hes from the same team and system. A system that had Garza look like the best player in college basketball he was a player of the year. Suddenly the system is built around another guy and Murray is one of the best guys in college basketball.

The greatest player from IOWA in the NBA history is....checks....BJ Armstrong EDIT-nevermind Murray might top Armstrong i was gonna say i would bet Murray wont top Armstrong to be the best player from Iowa but looking back at stats he should. He might be the best from Iowa ever but Iowa doesnt produce nba players clearly.

[Manocad]

Ofc he was pick 52 how can a pick 52 be a bust?

My point was elite college production doesnt mean decent NBA player. I used him because hes from the same team and system. A system that had Garza look like the best player in college basketball he was a player of the year. Suddenly the system is built around another guy and Murray is one of the best guys in college basketball.

The greatest player from IOWA in the NBA history is....checks....BJ Armstrong EDIT-nevermind Murray might top Armstrong i was gonna say i would bet Murray wont top Armstrong to be the best player from Iowa but looking back at stats he should. He might be the best from Iowa ever but Iowa doesnt produce nba players clearly.

I can't argue with that. Even Roy Marble was a bust in the NBA and he was a STUD at Iowa.

[buzzkilloton]

Ofc he was pick 52 how can a pick 52 be a bust?

My point was elite college production doesnt mean decent NBA player. I used him because hes from the same team and system. A system that had Garza look like the best player in college basketball he was a player of the year. Suddenly the system is built around another guy and Murray is one of the best guys in college basketball.

The greatest player from IOWA in the NBA history is....checks....BJ Armstrong EDIT-nevermind Murray might top Armstrong i was gonna say i would bet Murray wont top Armstrong to be the best player from Iowa but looking back at stats he should. He might be the best from Iowa ever but Iowa doesnt produce nba players clearly.

I can't argue with that. Even Roy Marble was a bust in the NBA and he was a STUD at Iowa.

Amazing we can agree on something(i know its just the part of what i said not all of it) without going back and forth lol

Until next time that is!

[Manocad]

Ofc he was pick 52 how can a pick 52 be a bust?

My point was elite college production doesnt mean decent NBA player. I used him because hes from the same team and system. A system that had Garza look like the best player in college basketball he was a player of the year. Suddenly the system is built around another guy and Murray is one of the best guys in college basketball.

The greatest player from IOWA in the NBA history is....checks....BJ Armstrong EDIT-nevermind Murray might top Armstrong i was gonna say i would bet Murray wont top Armstrong to be the best player from Iowa but looking back at stats he should. He might be the best from Iowa ever but Iowa doesnt produce nba players clearly.

I can't argue with that. Even Roy Marble was a bust in the NBA and he was a STUD at Iowa.

Amazing we can agree on something(i know its just the part of what i said not all of it) without going back and forth lol

Until next time that is!

I graduated from high school in Flint and Marble, Glen Rice, and Jeff Grayer were in high school in Flint the same time I was (different schools though) so I kept a pretty good eye on them. Especially Rice since he went to Michigan and I did too. I went to see Iowa play Michigan State at the old Jenison Field House specifically to see Roy Marble play and he was Jordan-esque; an absolute beast. But us old school Flint guys have a saying--you can take the man out of Flint but you can't take Flint out of the man, and that was Roy Marble. It was a shame to see his NBA career fizzle so quickly because he was REALLY effing good.

[zeebneeb]

You had me until you mentioned trading Bey to move up one spot in a draft that falls off after the third pick.

I think he means trading Bey to get #4, to have in addition to #5. Could be mistaken though. But if he means Grant PLUS Bey to get #4, that's crazy IMO. Way too much unless you're getting back something more than just #4.

I'm trying to build around Cade by any means necessary. He to me, is the only non-expendable, and if Weaver believes that losing Grant and Bey, for the 4th pick is the way to go because he has identified a player he believes is better, then so be it.

Just an option, or more like a thought. I really like Bey as well.

[buzzkilloton]

Ugh.

I am imagining two elite level floor surveyors though. How the hell does the opposing team build a defense around two floor raising ball handlers like that?

If he really does have an elite 3-point shot(as stated in the last 10 games)he seems like a no-brainer then, which is suspect that its all of a sudden "hey here's this guy!"

Two 6'7 ball wizards in the backcourt? Sheesh...

Yeah I do like what I see out of Daniels. I watched that video you posted in the draft forum that mentioned how well he was shooting his last 10 games with the new form. Also mentioned hes shooting well at workouts causing him to rise.

I'm thinking of him like a Lonzo Ball. He gives us the size, playmaking, good defense, if that 3 is legit thats a really nice players.Its still tough for me to take him over Sharpe/Ivey because I think they have more star potential but Daniels might be a all star type guy himself depending on how he develops. Just turned 19 in March to so low of room to grow still.

[Pharaoh]

Ugh.

I am imagining two elite level floor surveyors though. How the hell does the opposing team build a defense around two floor raising ball handlers like that?

If he really does have an elite 3-point shot(as stated in the last 10 games)he seems like a no-brainer then, which is suspect that its all of a sudden "hey here's this guy!"

Two 6'7 ball wizards in the backcourt? Sheesh...

Yeah I do like what I see out of Daniels. I watched that video you posted in the draft forum that mentioned how well he was shooting his last 10 games with the new form. Also mentioned hes shooting well at workouts causing him to rise.

I'm thinking of him like a Lonzo Ball. He gives us the size, playmaking, good defense, if that 3 is legit thats a really nice players.Its still tough for me to take him over Sharpe/Ivey because I think they have more star potential but Daniels might be a all star type guy himself depending on how he develops. Just turned 19 in March to so low of room to grow still.

I'm leaning more towards Daniels now than Ivey, Sharpe or Murray.

I think a playmaker with his size and tools could become anything. Teaming him with Cade is tantalising

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

[buzzkilloton]

Ugh.

I am imagining two elite level floor surveyors though. How the hell does the opposing team build a defense around two floor raising ball handlers like that?

If he really does have an elite 3-point shot(as stated in the last 10 games)he seems like a no-brainer then, which is suspect that its all of a sudden "hey here's this guy!"

Two 6'7 ball wizards in the backcourt? Sheesh...

Yeah I do like what I see out of Daniels. I watched that video you posted in the draft forum that mentioned how well he was shooting his last 10 games with the new form. Also mentioned hes shooting well at workouts causing him to rise.

I'm thinking of him like a Lonzo Ball. He gives us the size, playmaking, good defense, if that 3 is legit thats a really nice players.Its still tough for me to take him over Sharpe/Ivey because I think they have more star potential but Daniels might be a all star type guy himself depending on how he develops. Just turned 19 in March to so low of room to grow still.

I'm leaning more towards Daniels now than Ivey, Sharpe or Murray.

I think a playmaker with his size and tools could become anything. Teaming him with Cade is tantalising

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

I can dig it. Now that were hearing he might actually be a good shooter due to new mechanics hes a much more enticing prospect. I think Sam V mentioned Middleton as a upside comp on a pod. If hes actually killing these worksouts shooting and that last 10 games is legit yeah he might be the way to go.

[Pharaoh]

Yeah I do like what I see out of Daniels. I watched that video you posted in the draft forum that mentioned how well he was shooting his last 10 games with the new form. Also mentioned hes shooting well at workouts causing him to rise.

I'm thinking of him like a Lonzo Ball. He gives us the size, playmaking, good defense, if that 3 is legit thats a really nice players.Its still tough for me to take him over Sharpe/Ivey because I think they have more star potential but Daniels might be a all star type guy himself depending on how he develops. Just turned 19 in March to so low of room to grow still.

I'm leaning more towards Daniels now than Ivey, Sharpe or Murray.

I think a playmaker with his size and tools could become anything. Teaming him with Cade is tantalising

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

I can dig it. Now that were hearing he might actually be a good shooter due to new mechanics hes a much more enticing prospect. I think Sam V mentioned Middleton as a upside comp on a pod. If hes actually killing these worksouts shooting and that last 10 games is legit yeah he might be the way to go.

Well imagine if he comes close to Middleton

Think he's not the scorer Middleton is but he could be a much better playmaker

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

[buzzkilloton]

I'm leaning more towards Daniels now than Ivey, Sharpe or Murray.

I think a playmaker with his size and tools could become anything. Teaming him with Cade is tantalising

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

I can dig it. Now that were hearing he might actually be a good shooter due to new mechanics hes a much more enticing prospect. I think Sam V mentioned Middleton as a upside comp on a pod. If hes actually killing these worksouts shooting and that last 10 games is legit yeah he might be the way to go.

Well imagine if he comes close to Middleton

Think he's not the scorer Middleton is but he could be a much better playmaker

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

I would think with the right development curve he could get to that Middleton level of scoring like 20ppg maybe not as efficient though. He just turned 19 so hes got alot of room to grow. I'm actually really liking the idea of him with Cade but I need to research more before changing my big board.

[Pharaoh]

I can dig it. Now that were hearing he might actually be a good shooter due to new mechanics hes a much more enticing prospect. I think Sam V mentioned Middleton as a upside comp on a pod. If hes actually killing these worksouts shooting and that last 10 games is legit yeah he might be the way to go.

Well imagine if he comes close to Middleton

Think he's not the scorer Middleton is but he could be a much better playmaker

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

I would think with the right development curve he could get to that Middleton level of scoring like 20ppg maybe not as efficient though. He just turned 19 so hes got alot of room to grow. I'm actually really liking the idea of him with Cade but I need to research more before changing my big board.

All good. I think I've watch so much film of the other guys - except Sharpe obviously - that I've picked them apart.

Ivey & Murray have obvious flaws but so does every kid. I'm essentially picking Daniels over Ivey due to size and the fit with Cade is more seamless to me and is more along the lines of how I want us to play.

I want more player movement, more high IQ guys, more passing. I believe Daniels shows a lot of the traits that make us love Cade so much.

Draft Daniels
Sign Jalen Smith/Mitch Robinson/Ayton
Retain Bags on a reasonable deal

Cade - Hayes (CoJo)
Daniels - Diallo (FJ)
Bey - Livers (Pickett)
Grant - Bags (KO)
FA - Stewart (Garza)

I actually like that roster and can see how the pieces fit in a system that would make it difficult for opposing defenses to key in on guys for long stretches of a shot clock.

Now how WE as a organisation wants to play might be completely different and might mean someone else is a better fit but I'm not privy to all that kind of stuff

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

[7r5ur]

Keegan has flaws outside of being 22 in August.

Again 75% FT doesnt indicate a elite outside shooter. His lateral movement is lackluster which means struggling switching on defense. Keegan has NO mid range game whatsoever he was awful there. He shot a really high % at the rim and watching alot of his film he bullied down there quite a bit scoring inside. In the NCAA hes bigger and stronger but in the NBA 6'8 215 isnt going to have such a easy time anymore down there.

Honestly only guy on the board I dont want at 5. Just has role player written all over him. Role player doesnt mean hes as good as J.Grant either. We need stars not role players.

My whole post was referring to FATAL flaws. AKA something that makes them unplayable (like Garza's foot speed). Sorry, but being a 75% FT shooter is not one of those. Otto Porter was a 75% FT shooter in college (and similar now) who shoots 40% from three in the NBA. There are many examples of this. He projects to be at least a solid outside shooter.

No one ever said Murray was a flawless player. Just that he doesn't have many glaring weaknesses in his game.

As for "needing stars", sure, that's obvious. All I'm saying is if Weaver works with these guys and doesn't see a superstar in Sharpe, Ivey, or whoever, I'm fine with Murray. There are no guarantees that any of these guys become stars, in fact most feel quite unlikely this year. If Weaver saw a 5% chance that a guy like Sharpe pops and becomes a star, would you take that risk over a 75% chance that Murray becomes a legit core starting NBA player? These numbers are obviously made up, but there has to be a point where someone so "high risk" just becomes a bad gamble.

[buzzkilloton]

Keegan has flaws outside of being 22 in August.

Again 75% FT doesnt indicate a elite outside shooter. His lateral movement is lackluster which means struggling switching on defense. Keegan has NO mid range game whatsoever he was awful there. He shot a really high % at the rim and watching alot of his film he bullied down there quite a bit scoring inside. In the NCAA hes bigger and stronger but in the NBA 6'8 215 isnt going to have such a easy time anymore down there.

Honestly only guy on the board I dont want at 5. Just has role player written all over him. Role player doesnt mean hes as good as J.Grant either. We need stars not role players.

My whole post was referring to FATAL flaws. AKA something that makes them unplayable (like Garza's foot speed). Sorry, but being a 75% FT shooter is not one of those. Otto Porter was a 75% FT shooter in college (and similar now) who shoots 40% from three in the NBA. There are many examples of this. He projects to be at least a solid outside shooter.

No one ever said Murray was a flawless player. Just that he doesn't have many glaring weaknesses in his game.

Yeah if hes just a "solid outside shooter" hes not going to be worth a 5 pick. Like to be worth pick 5 he needs to be a really good 3pt shooter with the skillset he has. There is a world where he is only solid and then suddenly its not hard to see him a bust for me.

Not sure why you're even making the Porter point like of course its not every single time its just more likely. The free throw thing is a fact tons of stuff on google by the way. This has been beaten to death over the past 10 years of scouting.

https://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2020/10/scouting-nba-three-point-shooting/

"In conclusion, we found that in predicting the quality of a 3-point shooter, the player’s college free throw percentage was more important than college 3-point percentage or attempts. For future work, one could compare the model to scouting projections to see where the model adds value to the existing perceptions."

[7r5ur]

Keegan has flaws outside of being 22 in August.

Again 75% FT doesnt indicate a elite outside shooter. His lateral movement is lackluster which means struggling switching on defense. Keegan has NO mid range game whatsoever he was awful there. He shot a really high % at the rim and watching alot of his film he bullied down there quite a bit scoring inside. In the NCAA hes bigger and stronger but in the NBA 6'8 215 isnt going to have such a easy time anymore down there.

Honestly only guy on the board I dont want at 5. Just has role player written all over him. Role player doesnt mean hes as good as J.Grant either. We need stars not role players.

My whole post was referring to FATAL flaws. AKA something that makes them unplayable (like Garza's foot speed). Sorry, but being a 75% FT shooter is not one of those. Otto Porter was a 75% FT shooter in college (and similar now) who shoots 40% from three in the NBA. There are many examples of this. He projects to be at least a solid outside shooter.

No one ever said Murray was a flawless player. Just that he doesn't have many glaring weaknesses in his game.

Yeah if hes just a "solid outside shooter" hes not going to be worth a 5 pick. Like to be worth pick 5 he needs to be a really good 3pt shooter with the skillset he has. There is a world where he is only solid and then suddenly its not hard to see him a bust for me.

Not sure why you're even making the Porter point like of course its not every single time its just more likely. The free throw thing is a fact tons of stuff on google by the way. This has been beaten to death over the past 10 years of scouting.

https://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2020/10/scouting-nba-three-point-shooting/

"In conclusion, we found that in predicting the quality of a 3-point shooter, the player’s college free throw percentage was more important than college 3-point percentage or attempts. For future work, one could compare the model to scouting projections to see where the model adds value to the existing perceptions."

Also no one called Murray an "Elite" outside shooter like you mentioned in the previous post. All of these arguments seem to be based around things no one was actually arguing in the first place. Like Murray is "Flawless" or an "Elite" shooter. It just so happens that he might be the BPA at #5 because while the other players have more of an enticing "mystery box" quality, Weaver could decide their risk/reward ratio makes them very unlikely to be better than Keegan.

It's one thing to miss on a high risk pick at #10-15, it's another to miss on that kind of risky prospect at #5. Especially after Killian. Since then weaver took Cade (safe pick), Bey (older player, safe pick), Stewart (seen as lower upside/energy guy). Keegan just seems like his type of player.