The Jarrett Culver Thread

[old school 34]

My 2 cents worth. Culver is being written off here too soon. I'm seeing trade offers where we would give 17 and Culver to move up to pick 10 in this years draft. No way in hell.

I agree in that I would rather see Okoge go than Culver. However,you mean if Okongwu is there at 10, and all it would take is Culver and 17 to go get him, you wouldn't do it?

I don't think that could happen. However, if it did, I would have to reconsider my stand on Okongwu. If 9 straight teams passed him by maybe he isn't as good as I think.

Because 14 teams passed on Giannis and Kawai...then they must not have been good as well ?

I agree, I definitely would predict he's gone by then...but man this is a real 'eye of the beholder' draft...so I think even by early to mid lotto...there could be guys sliding & jumping up all over in this one.

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

[WolfAddict]

My 2 cents worth. Culver is being written off here too soon. I'm seeing trade offers where we would give 17 and Culver to move up to pick 10 in this years draft. No way in hell.

Ya ... some cultures think this way now days

Call me silly, but what on God's green earth does culture have to do with this opinion?

[Norseman79]

My 2 cents worth. Culver is being written off here too soon. I'm seeing trade offers where we would give 17 and Culver to move up to pick 10 in this years draft. No way in hell.

I agree in that I would rather see Okoge go than Culver. However,you mean if Okongwu is there at 10, and all it would take is Culver and 17 to go get him, you wouldn't do it?

I don't think that could happen. However, if it did, I would have to reconsider my stand on Okongwu. If 9 straight teams passed him by maybe he isn't as good as I think.

There is also just the possibility that teams 5-9 are set at pf.

[Norseman79]

I think Culver is best as a two guard next to Russell, not as a forward. Now if we can't resign Beas, then I am all for starting Culver at the 2. It changes the dynamic of what we need at the 3 though. Would anyone consider throwing huge money at Ingram and forcing Pels to match?

Russell
Culver
Ingram
????
Towns

Now we are getting somewhere.

[Jedzz]

I can't believe I waisted two minutes reading any of this.

[Norseman79]

I can't believe I waisted two minutes reading any of this.

Lol seriously though, I have seen sooo much worse posted here

[Jedzz]

I can't believe I waisted two minutes reading any of this.

Lol seriously though, I have seen sooo much worse posted here

I agree, maybe even from me! But when I start reading someone say they might change their mind if 10 teams pass on a player in a draft, or if this or that happens. The hive belief syndrome. Every draft a whole set of teams pass over some of what becomes the best talents coming out of that draft year. It's either unobtainable knowledge at that moment, or it's a system frought with overhyped bums too aften at the top and teams copying other teams decisions before them with like minded thoughts as I was reading here.

The worst however, is reading this part about welcoming the replacement of Beasley with Culver at the 2. Come on man. It's fine to want to give Culver time, as in years, to develop a lot more. But to say that he's ready for that now after what we saw? No I'm not alright with that right now.

[Norseman79]

I can't believe I waisted two minutes reading any of this.

Lol seriously though, I have seen sooo much worse posted here

I agree, maybe even from me! But when I start reading someone say they might change their mind if 10 teams pass on a player in a draft, or if this or that happens. The hive belief syndrome. Every draft a whole set of teams pass over some of what becomes the best talents coming out of that draft year. It's either unobtainable knowledge at that moment, or it's a system frought with overhyped bums too aften at the top and teams copying other teams decisions before them with like minded thoughts as I was reading here.

The worst however, is reading this part about welcoming the replacement of Beasley with Culver at the 2. Come on man. It's fine to want to give Culver time, as in years, to develop a lot more. But to say that he's ready for that now after what we saw? No I'm not alright with that right now.

Oh, Culver cannot replace Beasley. I am just saying Culver slots in next to Russell well if we lose Beas. Replacing Beasley would have to be done at the 3 in that scenario - which is why I brought up the unrealistic option of going after Ingram. How much did we actually get to see Culver play with Russell and a legit 3? The all for starting Culver was in reference to what we have on the roster currently and how he was playing before Covid. I pick Culver over Okoge all day.

[KGdaBom]

I agree in that I would rather see Okoge go than Culver. However,you mean if Okongwu is there at 10, and all it would take is Culver and 17 to go get him, you wouldn't do it?

I don't think that could happen. However, if it did, I would have to reconsider my stand on Okongwu. If 9 straight teams passed him by maybe he isn't as good as I think.

There is also just the possibility that teams 5-9 are set at pf.

I didn't say that I would change my mind about OK, but it would give me some pause to reconsider. I'm not so arrogant to believe that my opinion is better than everybody else's.

[minimus]

I think Culver is best as a two guard next to Russell, not as a forward. Now if we can't resign Beas, then I am all for starting Culver at the 2. It changes the dynamic of what we need at the 3 though. Would anyone consider throwing huge money at Ingram and forcing Pels to match?

Russell
Culver
Ingram
????
Towns

Now we are getting somewhere.

It seems weird but at the 2 his position will be shooting guard, while he is non shooting guard. It might work if non shooting guard is an athletic freak like Westbrook, but we can say now that Culver is not dynamic enough in offense. If he gets bigger and plays at the 2 he still can find ways to score by using size advantage for instance in post up situations, but it would completely opposite of our free flow offense.

[Norseman79]

I think Culver is best as a two guard next to Russell, not as a forward. Now if we can't resign Beas, then I am all for starting Culver at the 2. It changes the dynamic of what we need at the 3 though. Would anyone consider throwing huge money at Ingram and forcing Pels to match?

Russell
Culver
Ingram
????
Towns

Now we are getting somewhere.

It seems weird but at the 2 his position will be shooting guard, while he is non shooting guard. It might work if non shooting guard is an athletic freak like Westbrook, but we can say now that Culver is not dynamic enough in offense. If he gets bigger and plays at the 2 he still can find ways to score by using size advantage for instance in post up situations, but it would completely opposite of our free flow offense.

In a traditional sense yes, and part of me is basing off how he was shooting at end of season, but really, DLo's shooting frees Culver up to facilitate a bit more. Again, looking at Culver like a 2 guard as in Michael Jordan/Kobe Bryant will never, ever happen. Just isn't his mental makeup to be a dominant scorer. I am hoping more for a Danny Green type of 2, with a little less shooting, but little better handle and passing. Again, all centers around Culver hitting 35+% from three. February Culver hit 34.5% and was 42% in March.

Also, Westbrook is a PG Harden is the SG.

[Norseman79]

Again, I have no issue keeping Culver if they have an actual plan to play him where and the way he should.

[KGdaBom]

I think Culver is best as a two guard next to Russell, not as a forward. Now if we can't resign Beas, then I am all for starting Culver at the 2. It changes the dynamic of what we need at the 3 though. Would anyone consider throwing huge money at Ingram and forcing Pels to match?

Russell
Culver
Ingram
????
Towns

Now we are getting somewhere.

It seems weird but at the 2 his position will be shooting guard, while he is non shooting guard. It might work if non shooting guard is an athletic freak like Westbrook, but we can say now that Culver is not dynamic enough in offense. If he gets bigger and plays at the 2 he still can find ways to score by using size advantage for instance in post up situations, but it would completely opposite of our free flow offense.

In a traditional sense yes, and part of me is basing off how he was shooting at end of season, but really, DLo's shooting frees Culver up to facilitate a bit more. Again, looking at Culver like a 2 guard as in Michael Jordan/Kobe Bryant will never, ever happen. Just isn't his mental makeup to be a dominant scorer. I am hoping more for a Danny Green type of 2, with a little less shooting, but little better handle and passing. Again, all centers around Culver hitting 35+% from three. February Culver hit 34.5% and was 42% in March.

Also, Westbrook is a PG Harden is the SG.

I didn't realize that Culver got his 3 point shot working in Feb and March. This gives me way more hope for him and reinforces my thinking that we shouldn't trade him for a cart of basketballs.

[Norseman79]

It seems weird but at the 2 his position will be shooting guard, while he is non shooting guard. It might work if non shooting guard is an athletic freak like Westbrook, but we can say now that Culver is not dynamic enough in offense. If he gets bigger and plays at the 2 he still can find ways to score by using size advantage for instance in post up situations, but it would completely opposite of our free flow offense.

In a traditional sense yes, and part of me is basing off how he was shooting at end of season, but really, DLo's shooting frees Culver up to facilitate a bit more. Again, looking at Culver like a 2 guard as in Michael Jordan/Kobe Bryant will never, ever happen. Just isn't his mental makeup to be a dominant scorer. I am hoping more for a Danny Green type of 2, with a little less shooting, but little better handle and passing. Again, all centers around Culver hitting 35+% from three. February Culver hit 34.5% and was 42% in March.

Also, Westbrook is a PG Harden is the SG.

I didn't realize that Culver got his 3 point shot working in Feb and March. This gives me way more hope for him and reinforces my thinking that we shouldn't trade him for a cart of basketballs.

Yeah, it makes me want to be sure if we are trading him it is for a key piece. It also gives me concern about signing Beasley and Culver's minutes being pushed to the forward position. He isn't as effective defensively if he is guarding bigger players and it truly takes away some of his post-game as well.

Someone said I was crazy for stating that if they decide to let Beas go because he is too expensive, I am ok with Culver stepping in...IF AND ONLY IF, there is a plan to bring in a starting quality 3 or 4 to replace Beasley's production at the 2.

[old school 34]

In a traditional sense yes, and part of me is basing off how he was shooting at end of season, but really, DLo's shooting frees Culver up to facilitate a bit more. Again, looking at Culver like a 2 guard as in Michael Jordan/Kobe Bryant will never, ever happen. Just isn't his mental makeup to be a dominant scorer. I am hoping more for a Danny Green type of 2, with a little less shooting, but little better handle and passing. Again, all centers around Culver hitting 35+% from three. February Culver hit 34.5% and was 42% in March.

Also, Westbrook is a PG Harden is the SG.

I didn't realize that Culver got his 3 point shot working in Feb and March. This gives me way more hope for him and reinforces my thinking that we shouldn't trade him for a cart of basketballs.

Yeah, it makes me want to be sure if we are trading him it is for a key piece. It also gives me concern about signing Beasley and Culver's minutes being pushed to the forward position. He isn't as effective defensively if he is guarding bigger players and it truly takes away some of his post-game as well.

Someone said I was crazy for stating that if they decide to let Beas go because he is too expensive, I am ok with Culver stepping in...IF AND ONLY IF, there is a plan to bring in a starting quality 3 or 4 to replace Beasley's production at the 2.

Yes...in the sense that if we could get Beasley's production in a 3's body (at the 3 obviously)....it's better for Culver & Okogie for that matter. I'd still probably want my 4 to be at least avg @ shooting the 3 as well...& then just my 1 defensive guy out there is Okogie/Culver rotation @ the 2. Gives them their best position & buys them most time to figure it out/develop. At the end ideally they can flip 1 of those 3 for a 3/4 that fits the system...leaving the other two to be your 2's. I know they played some 3 this year, but don't see that as a strong play long term with playing smaller @ the 4....you can compensate for some of those rebounding #'s if you're a little longer @ the 3?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

[Norseman79]

I didn't realize that Culver got his 3 point shot working in Feb and March. This gives me way more hope for him and reinforces my thinking that we shouldn't trade him for a cart of basketballs.

Yeah, it makes me want to be sure if we are trading him it is for a key piece. It also gives me concern about signing Beasley and Culver's minutes being pushed to the forward position. He isn't as effective defensively if he is guarding bigger players and it truly takes away some of his post-game as well.

Someone said I was crazy for stating that if they decide to let Beas go because he is too expensive, I am ok with Culver stepping in...IF AND ONLY IF, there is a plan to bring in a starting quality 3 or 4 to replace Beasley's production at the 2.

Yes...in the sense that if we could get Beasley's production in a 3's body (at the 3 obviously)....it's better for Culver & Okogie for that matter. I'd still probably want my 4 to be at least avg @ shooting the 3 as well...& then just my 1 defensive guy out there is Okogie/Culver rotation @ the 2. Gives them their best position & buys them most time to figure it out/develop. At the end ideally they can flip 1 of those 3 for a 3/4 that fits the system...leaving the other two to be your 2's. I know they played some 3 this year, but don't see that as a strong play long term with playing smaller @ the 4....you can compensate for some of those rebounding #'s if you're a little longer @ the 3?

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

Thus I give you, Jerami Grant at the 3 with 39 and 38% 3pt shooting the last two years. He provides better defense than Bea's, though not the marksman. He also gives us a 3/4 for small ball time if we want it. He and Culver could make up for Juancho's defense, but Hernangomez shot 42% on 3s for the wolves last year.

Russell, JMac
Culver, Okoge
Grant, Layman,Vanderbilt
Hernangomez, Johnson
Towns, Reid

With 2 1rsts and another potential free agent.

With DLo and Kat's contracts we are going to need to hit on a young player or players at some point.

THIS IS BASED ON NOT BEING ABLE TO RE-SIGN BEASLEY!!!! I AM NOT SAYING THEY SHOULDN'T IF THEY COULD.

[Klomp]

In a traditional sense yes, and part of me is basing off how he was shooting at end of season, but really, DLo's shooting frees Culver up to facilitate a bit more. Again, looking at Culver like a 2 guard as in Michael Jordan/Kobe Bryant will never, ever happen. Just isn't his mental makeup to be a dominant scorer. I am hoping more for a Danny Green type of 2, with a little less shooting, but little better handle and passing. Again, all centers around Culver hitting 35+% from three. February Culver hit 34.5% and was 42% in March.

Also, Westbrook is a PG Harden is the SG.

I didn't realize that Culver got his 3 point shot working in Feb and March. This gives me way more hope for him and reinforces my thinking that we shouldn't trade him for a cart of basketballs.

Yeah, it makes me want to be sure if we are trading him it is for a key piece. It also gives me concern about signing Beasley and Culver's minutes being pushed to the forward position. He isn't as effective defensively if he is guarding bigger players and it truly takes away some of his post-game as well.

Keep in mind Culver was getting much of his minutes at SF when he had his improved shooting numbers

[Norseman79]

I didn't realize that Culver got his 3 point shot working in Feb and March. This gives me way more hope for him and reinforces my thinking that we shouldn't trade him for a cart of basketballs.

Yeah, it makes me want to be sure if we are trading him it is for a key piece. It also gives me concern about signing Beasley and Culver's minutes being pushed to the forward position. He isn't as effective defensively if he is guarding bigger players and it truly takes away some of his post-game as well.

Keep in mind Culver was getting much of his minutes at SF when he had his improved shooting numbers

That is true, but I would point to the fact that he was free to play at that point as well. He wasn't trying to be a point guard. He was able to play off ball and focus on defense. It isn't that he couldn't handle playing the 3, it's that his natural position is a 2. Let us also keep in mind that was about the time Russell got here as well, and JMac started playing out of his mind.

[minimus]

Also, Westbrook is a PG Harden is the SG.

Well, they are both playing leading ballhandler role. But Westbrook definitely is playing more off the ball as a slasher.

[Jedzz]

Should there be any comparison of the draft prospect Devin Vassel to Culver at least in regard to both being described as more of a sure thing, however some saying higher floor/lower ceiling? I've read one article saying as much about Vassell and I'm wondering if this comes from people seeing them with lower burst or lower extreme athletics and thus thinking their top end might have a cap? I think people were claiming the BPA and most sure thing about Culver at #6 at the time. Correct me if wrong. Obviously they have a difference in college proven shooting levels and possibly even defense. But I wonder about this low ceiling talk.