awy wrote:as tantalizing as lamelo's potential is, he needs to shoot it better to unlock that upside. it's not a sure thing but he's around a .700 ft shooter and has good touch, so there's some reason for hope.
last year culver and rj were guys with shooting red flags. culver's high school shooting stats were extremely bad, but he's improved on that a bit. but it's still a reason i thought he had more risk than his all around game indicated. it was just a trade down draft.
this year it's about the same. killian hayes is pretty beast and has the same offensive hub upside as lamelo. he only lacks explosive athleticism, but is a good shooter. if given the choice of lamelo at 2/3 or hayes and another pick i'd go with hayes.
Culver is a prototypical example of a fine but overrated college basketball player that his coach leveraged real well that people shouldn't have projected near as high as they did. Not only could Culver not shoot, he also had loose handles that limited his shot creation ability. If you can't shoot and can't create your own shot you are not going to do well in the NBA nowadays as a SG. And yet people still kept licking his balls leading up to the draft. Same thing is happening again. Folks see college stats, add in some cliches and project guys way too high that have no purpose being so high. But it's not about trading down or up in and of itself, it's about identifying those guys whose game and temperament can actually translate to the NBA. There's always guys all throughout the draft that turn out to be fine NBA players and others that simply could not make the cut because their games don't translate or they don't have the mentality for it.
