RealGM

Solid Snake wrote:damn....it's so close, damn near snuck up on me

IKR. Feel the same way.

Sent from my VS501 using RealGM mobile app

You have to take the player with the highest upside. Be that Porter, Langford, or Johnson. You can't take a specialist like Herro or a low ceiling, high floor like NAW when the team doesn't have a superstar. You gotta go for the fences and hope to god we find the next Mitchell, SGA, etc.

Def Swami wrote:

MartinsIzAfraud wrote:Decent friends with a couple VT basketball dudes and one buddy said if NAW is there at 16 NAW feels good he would be the pick.

Also worth noting Justin Robinson and Ahmed Hill both worked out for Magic on Friday. NAW was with them but didn’t work out.

DSJ wept.

I also wept that night. We'll see feel like it's different picking at 16 vs 6. Draft gets interesting starting at 12 that is where the guards could start to roll off the board.

Ducklett wrote:You have to take the player with the highest upside. Be that Porter, Langford, or Johnson. You can't take a specialist like Herro or a low ceiling, high floor like NAW when the team doesn't have a superstar. You gotta go for the fences and hope to god we find the next Mitchell, SGA, etc.

I don't see it that way. I think you take the perimeter player with the best skill-set available. I don't want to hear about his measurements, length, etc. I want skill, draft a skilled player please. Its why we've seen other teams pass on players who have skill but may not be top notch athletes and they become some pretty good players.

Givony's Last Mock is interesting and I'll throw picks 1-17 down below.

1 Zion - Pelicans
2 Ja - Memphis
3 RJ - Knicks
4 Culver - Pelicans
5 Garland - Cavs
6 White - Suns
7 Hunter - Bulls
8 Reddish - Hawks
9 Doumbouya - Wizards
10 Hayes - Atlanta
11 Little- T-WOlves
12 Rui - Hornets
13 Washington - Heat
14 Herro - Celtics
15 Langford - Pistons
16 NAW - Magic
17 Clarke - Atlanta

Ducklett wrote:You have to take the player with the highest upside. Be that Porter, Langford, or Johnson. You can't take a specialist like Herro or a low ceiling, high floor like NAW when the team doesn't have a superstar. You gotta go for the fences and hope to god we find the next Mitchell, SGA, etc.

Agree, give me Langford

I think athleticism is starting to become proven as less important than length and the potential to fit/improve in the NBA game. I look at NAW who has good length, and good fit for the NBA, I see the cousin of a player who already made a big stamp in the league as a rookie (SGA), who was also a "late 11th" pick. Sure, maybe SGA and NAW are capped at not being 1st Team All-NBA'ers because of athleticism, but to reach the impact of someone like Donovan Mitchell, or a next 3x All Star, who says why not?!

If you're not taking a BPA with franchise cornerstone potential/ceiling, then you gotta value what "system drafters" like SAS and DEN have done, taking players who fit into their system of offense/culture. This is the kind of drafting that has a way of breaking the "ceilings" of players, anyways. All of a sudden, the "low ceiling/good fit" player averaging 16 ppg and 3 apg ended up as the better BPA than the "BPA with star potential".. debate over, son

*Honest note: I haven't seen basically anything on NAW, or anyone, this draft. It's more of a conceptual argument dating back to my OP on GM philosophies and theories

Viper1500 wrote:

Ducklett wrote:You have to take the player with the highest upside. Be that Porter, Langford, or Johnson. You can't take a specialist like Herro or a low ceiling, high floor like NAW when the team doesn't have a superstar. You gotta go for the fences and hope to god we find the next Mitchell, SGA, etc.

Agree, give me Langford

Langford’s the next Lance Stephenson who also got tons of hype.

What heighest ceiling are we talking about? Those kind of guys went dozen picks ahead.

In teens you pick most skilled player you can find, give him room and patience and hope for the best.

p0peye wrote:What heighest ceiling are we talking about? Those kind of guys went dozen picks ahead.

In teens you pick most skilled player you can find, give him room and patience and hope for the best.

Guys like Kevin Porter Jr. Oozes athleticism, explosion, flashes scoring skillset of go to scorers....yet possesses an unrefined game. Can be a better decision maker, improve shot selection, become more consistent... love that despite all that he still shot 40% from 3.

Blue_and_Whte wrote:

Viper1500 wrote:

Ducklett wrote:You have to take the player with the highest upside. Be that Porter, Langford, or Johnson. You can't take a specialist like Herro or a low ceiling, high floor like NAW when the team doesn't have a superstar. You gotta go for the fences and hope to god we find the next Mitchell, SGA, etc.

Agree, give me Langford

Langford’s the next Lance Stephenson who also got tons of hype.

if that shot doesn't turn out Stephenson is a damn good comparison

Skin wrote:

p0peye wrote:What heighest ceiling are we talking about? Those kind of guys went dozen picks ahead.

In teens you pick most skilled player you can find, give him room and patience and hope for the best.

Guys like Kevin Porter Jr. Oozes athleticism, explosion, flashes scoring skillset of go to scorers....yet possesses an unrefined game. Can be a better decision maker, improve shot selection, become more consistent... love that despite all that he still shot 40% from 3.

Watch on YouTube

But also only 50% from the FT line

NotACat wrote:

Skin wrote:

p0peye wrote:What heighest ceiling are we talking about? Those kind of guys went dozen picks ahead.

In teens you pick most skilled player you can find, give him room and patience and hope for the best.

Guys like Kevin Porter Jr. Oozes athleticism, explosion, flashes scoring skillset of go to scorers....yet possesses an unrefined game. Can be a better decision maker, improve shot selection, become more consistent... love that despite all that he still shot 40% from 3.

Watch on YouTube

But also only 50% from the FT line

Yeah, not a great indicator, but that is a reason why we're talking about him being available at 16. Shades of Jaylen Brown as a draft prospect.

dsg2021 wrote:I think athleticism is starting to become proven as less important than length and the potential to fit/improve in the NBA game. I look at NAW who has good length, and good fit for the NBA, I see the cousin of a player who already made a big stamp in the league as a rookie (SGA), who was also a "late 11th" pick. Sure, maybe SGA and NAW are capped at not being 1st Team All-NBA'ers because of athleticism, but to reach the impact of someone like Donovan Mitchell, or a next 3x All Star, who says why not?!

If you're not taking a BPA with franchise cornerstone potential/ceiling, then you gotta value what "system drafters" like SAS and DEN have done, taking players who fit into their system of offense/culture. This is the kind of drafting that has a way of breaking the "ceilings" of players, anyways. All of a sudden, the "low ceiling/good fit" player averaging 16 ppg and 3 apg ended up as the better BPA than the "BPA with star potential".. debate over, son

*Honest note: I haven't seen basically anything on NAW, or anyone, this draft. It's more of a conceptual argument dating back to my OP on GM philosophies and theories

anyone think VanVleet was super athletic? and yet he gave Curry fits and was balling out on offense. he doesnt really have length either

tiderulz wrote:

dsg2021 wrote:I think athleticism is starting to become proven as less important than length and the potential to fit/improve in the NBA game. I look at NAW who has good length, and good fit for the NBA, I see the cousin of a player who already made a big stamp in the league as a rookie (SGA), who was also a "late 11th" pick. Sure, maybe SGA and NAW are capped at not being 1st Team All-NBA'ers because of athleticism, but to reach the impact of someone like Donovan Mitchell, or a next 3x All Star, who says why not?!

If you're not taking a BPA with franchise cornerstone potential/ceiling, then you gotta value what "system drafters" like SAS and DEN have done, taking players who fit into their system of offense/culture. This is the kind of drafting that has a way of breaking the "ceilings" of players, anyways. All of a sudden, the "low ceiling/good fit" player averaging 16 ppg and 3 apg ended up as the better BPA than the "BPA with star potential".. debate over, son

*Honest note: I haven't seen basically anything on NAW, or anyone, this draft. It's more of a conceptual argument dating back to my OP on GM philosophies and theories

anyone think VanVleet was super athletic? and yet he gave Curry fits and was balling out on offense. he doesnt really have length either

VanVleet was just enough of a good shooter in that series to keep Curry accountable on defense. Dude shot 39% from 3 making 16 of 40. That an VanVleet's job was pretty much to face guard curry the second he crossed mid court.

tiderulz wrote:

dsg2021 wrote:I think athleticism is starting to become proven as less important than length and the potential to fit/improve in the NBA game. I look at NAW who has good length, and good fit for the NBA, I see the cousin of a player who already made a big stamp in the league as a rookie (SGA), who was also a "late 11th" pick. Sure, maybe SGA and NAW are capped at not being 1st Team All-NBA'ers because of athleticism, but to reach the impact of someone like Donovan Mitchell, or a next 3x All Star, who says why not?!

If you're not taking a BPA with franchise cornerstone potential/ceiling, then you gotta value what "system drafters" like SAS and DEN have done, taking players who fit into their system of offense/culture. This is the kind of drafting that has a way of breaking the "ceilings" of players, anyways. All of a sudden, the "low ceiling/good fit" player averaging 16 ppg and 3 apg ended up as the better BPA than the "BPA with star potential".. debate over, son

*Honest note: I haven't seen basically anything on NAW, or anyone, this draft. It's more of a conceptual argument dating back to my OP on GM philosophies and theories

anyone think VanVleet was super athletic? and yet he gave Curry fits and was balling out on offense. he doesnt really have length either

VanVleet had success vs Curry because of his foot speed and lateral quickness. You don't have be super athletic against him. You're not racing Curry, you are staying glued to him.

OrlandoNed wrote:

tiderulz wrote:

dsg2021 wrote:I think athleticism is starting to become proven as less important than length and the potential to fit/improve in the NBA game. I look at NAW who has good length, and good fit for the NBA, I see the cousin of a player who already made a big stamp in the league as a rookie (SGA), who was also a "late 11th" pick. Sure, maybe SGA and NAW are capped at not being 1st Team All-NBA'ers because of athleticism, but to reach the impact of someone like Donovan Mitchell, or a next 3x All Star, who says why not?!

If you're not taking a BPA with franchise cornerstone potential/ceiling, then you gotta value what "system drafters" like SAS and DEN have done, taking players who fit into their system of offense/culture. This is the kind of drafting that has a way of breaking the "ceilings" of players, anyways. All of a sudden, the "low ceiling/good fit" player averaging 16 ppg and 3 apg ended up as the better BPA than the "BPA with star potential".. debate over, son

*Honest note: I haven't seen basically anything on NAW, or anyone, this draft. It's more of a conceptual argument dating back to my OP on GM philosophies and theories

anyone think VanVleet was super athletic? and yet he gave Curry fits and was balling out on offense. he doesnt really have length either

VanVleet had success vs Curry because of his foot speed and lateral quickness. You don't have be super athletic against him. You're not racing Curry, you are staying glued to him.

then why do so many other teams have problems guarding him?

tiderulz wrote:

OrlandoNed wrote:

tiderulz wrote:anyone think VanVleet was super athletic? and yet he gave Curry fits and was balling out on offense. he doesnt really have length either

VanVleet had success vs Curry because of his foot speed and lateral quickness. You don't have be super athletic against him. You're not racing Curry, you are staying glued to him.

then why do so many other teams have problems guarding him?

Not every teams has that kind of lateral quickness on the perimeter and the matchup gets easier when you play the same team 4-7 games in a row. And he was still really effective, Steph averaged 30.5ppg with a 2:1 turnover ratio. Its his shooting percentage that suffered, but he still shot 35% from 3pt range.

Ducklett wrote:You have to take the player with the highest upside. Be that Porter, Langford, or Johnson. You can't take a specialist like Herro or a low ceiling, high floor like NAW when the team doesn't have a superstar. You gotta go for the fences and hope to god we find the next Mitchell, SGA, etc.

Agree for the most, Thats why i have Bol Bol so high on my list
I feel he has the highest potential of being a superstar

Like if i had to make a best case scenario for my top 4 guys, hes by far the highest

best case
Herro - JJ Redick
Bol - Embiid
Cam Johnson - Kevin huerter
NAW - Courtney Lee

With that said, I think he has the lowest floor as well. He can just as easily be the next thon maker as he can be the next Embiid. But thats a risk im willing to take at 16


Only part i disagree with its, i still see the value of a specialist as we need SOMEONE who can make a jumper and score some points, cause right now .....TRoss is the only legit option and hes probably gone