2016-2017 College Basketball / '17 NBA Draft Thread IV

[GabeCerebro]

Jackson with that awful form still shot a better percentage than Fox, Tatum, Smith. That should say as much if not more about those prospects. It tells me at least Jackson has some type of touch and if he corrects his mechanics he could be a league average shooter from distance in the NBA.

However, Fox, Smith, Tatum's forms are pretty good, much better mechanics, but shot worse. That's scary. At least you can look at Jackson and find things to correct. If it's touch, sense of accuracy issues with Fox, Smith, Tatum then that's a bigger issue because that's an innate ability.

Exactly. And for this reason he's still my #1 other than Fultz.

No it does not say more on it's own. Scoring 34 out of 90 attempts is such a small sample size that the percentage isn't conclusive at all. I think that the combination of three point percentage, three point volume, free throw percentage, high school shooting, shooting form, footwork and consistency forms a more educated guess.

Josh Jackson has a terrible form, shooting in two motions, low release point, his footwork (especially off the catch) is atrocious and his volume, FT% and high school history is also really poor.

Fox, has historically bad 3PT% and 3PA and I'm not a fan of his form since he brings it too far back, but I like it better than Jackson's. That said, he's a far better FT shooter, shot nearly 34% out of ~500 attempts at high school from three (just one foot closer to the basket) and his footwork problems are heavily correlated to his lack of lower body strength.

Dennis Smith jr. and Jayson Tatum are overall far better bets on becoming an average three point shooter than Jackson and Fox imo, not even going to discuss their evaluations on the aforementioned points.

Note: I'm not saying that Jackson will become the worst shooter of the four prospects, just that I think the chance(!) him becoming the worst is the most significant.

You're looking way too deep into this... As does everybody. Josh makes his threes. As does Lonzo. The form of a player is as irrelevant and foolish as the crowd that says Iverson is overrated because of "efficiency" and "advanced stats". If a player gets it done, he gets it done. Period. I could care less about a good form on a player that is a worse shooter than a player with a "bad" one. That's ridiculous. Josh is fine already, as is, has room to improve, and he will.

[Kolkmania]

Exactly. And for this reason he's still my #1 other than Fultz.

No it does not say more on it's own. Scoring 34 out of 90 attempts is such a small sample size that the percentage isn't conclusive at all. I think that the combination of three point percentage, three point volume, free throw percentage, high school shooting, shooting form, footwork and consistency forms a more educated guess.

Josh Jackson has a terrible form, shooting in two motions, low release point, his footwork (especially off the catch) is atrocious and his volume, FT% and high school history is also really poor.

Fox, has historically bad 3PT% and 3PA and I'm not a fan of his form since he brings it too far back, but I like it better than Jackson's. That said, he's a far better FT shooter, shot nearly 34% out of ~500 attempts at high school from three (just one foot closer to the basket) and his footwork problems are heavily correlated to his lack of lower body strength.

Dennis Smith jr. and Jayson Tatum are overall far better bets on becoming an average three point shooter than Jackson and Fox imo, not even going to discuss their evaluations on the aforementioned points.

Note: I'm not saying that Jackson will become the worst shooter of the four prospects, just that I think the chance(!) him becoming the worst is the most significant.

You're looking way too deep into this... As does everybody. Josh makes his threes. As does Lonzo. The form of a player is as irrelevant and foolish as the crowd that says Iverson is overrated because of "efficiency" and "advanced stats". If a player gets it done, he gets it done. Period. I could care less about a good form on a player that is a worse shooter than a player with a "bad" one. That's ridiculous. Josh is fine already, as is, has room to improve, and he will.

Yeah why overthink something as complicated and important as the NBA Draft? It's just the future of the franchise depending on it.

Form isn't just about aesthetics, it's about repeatability, quickness and release point. Players with multiple motions have a larger margin of error to release the ball in a different way than the thousands of shots they practiced in the gym. Just like footwork ensures you to translate the right amount of energy to your upper body, so that your shot doesn't largely depend on your arms, making it vulnerable for fatigue.

I've been through hundreds of conversation like this and I'm fine with the kind of old fashioned way of thinking that some players "just get it done". It's just not my point of view. I like to combine the eye test with advanced stats that tells you stuff about players that we can't comprehend ourselves.

I just want to point out that a 3PT% based on 90 attempts doesn't have as much value as you think it has. It takes like 5 times that amount of shots to get a reliable indication of a player's capability to shoot the ball from three.

[PLO]

Exactly. And for this reason he's still my #1 other than Fultz.

No it does not say more on it's own. Scoring 34 out of 90 attempts is such a small sample size that the percentage isn't conclusive at all. I think that the combination of three point percentage, three point volume, free throw percentage, high school shooting, shooting form, footwork and consistency forms a more educated guess.

Josh Jackson has a terrible form, shooting in two motions, low release point, his footwork (especially off the catch) is atrocious and his volume, FT% and high school history is also really poor.

Fox, has historically bad 3PT% and 3PA and I'm not a fan of his form since he brings it too far back, but I like it better than Jackson's. That said, he's a far better FT shooter, shot nearly 34% out of ~500 attempts at high school from three (just one foot closer to the basket) and his footwork problems are heavily correlated to his lack of lower body strength.

Dennis Smith jr. and Jayson Tatum are overall far better bets on becoming an average three point shooter than Jackson and Fox imo, not even going to discuss their evaluations on the aforementioned points.

Note: I'm not saying that Jackson will become the worst shooter of the four prospects, just that I think the chance(!) him becoming the worst is the most significant.

You're looking way too deep into this... As does everybody. Josh makes his threes. As does Lonzo. The form of a player is as irrelevant and foolish as the crowd that says Iverson is overrated because of "efficiency" and "advanced stats". If a player gets it done, he gets it done. Period. I could care less about a good form on a player that is a worse shooter than a player with a "bad" one. That's ridiculous. Josh is fine already, as is, has room to improve, and he will.

So.....I'm assuming you're not a fan of the analytics then.

[freshie2]

Form/consistency is very important and Iverson is very overrated...two pretty easy ones to start the morning.

There's no reason jackson can't improve his shooting, but that is kind of a huge question going into the draft...what is above his shoulders in terms of willingness to work, be coached, and address his weaknesses???
He's been superior athletically his whole life, so does he have the desire to be great or will he not have that work ethic to make those difficult changes to take the next step?

[BoomBap]

Iverson is very overrated

For this, you will rot in hell, my friend!

[freshie2]

Iverson is very overrated

For this, you will rot in hell, my friend!

Haha...I'm sure I will!!

I actually was at his first summer league games and was so excited, but he turned into one of the worst team players ever. It's easy to point to the organization as the reason they didn't win, but I think there's a 50/50 share in responsibility between AI and ownership. Ownership during Barkley's run was much much worse in terms of bringing in talent.

[Kobblehead]

THat would be unwise imo. You csn the just keep drafting BPA and overlapping the players at the same position in the front court and not get any backcourt or wing players. That would be a misuse of resources. I would be ok with one front court player but not two. We need wings and guards. And then trying to trade Holmes and Saric might be tougher since teams know you're trying to dump them off. If you have no takers then you have two good players riding the bench.

I know we disagree on this because I think we had this conversation before.

When I think of unwise and misusing resources, I think of bypassing higher graded basketball players and reaching for roster needs. Why let an inherited, flawed collection of talent dictate what you do in the draft? I think you need to stay ahead of the curve by constantly upgrading and flipping. Achieve your roster balance through trades and free agency.

Richaun and Dario have 2 and 3 years left, respectively, on their entry level contracts. I don't envision an issue in trying to move either of those players.

[freshie2]

Read on Twitter

Whoa.

Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app

This is interesting...would you do it for Ingram and Russell if you had to take Deng and send back a lottery protected first? Would it make a difference if Ball is available at 3 or Jackson?

[LloydFree]

Read on Twitter

Whoa.

Well, for the fellas that want to pick for specific fit with Simmons, Covington and Embiid, this is a good deal. Russell is probably a better fit than either Ball or Jackson and he's a better talent than Monk. I probably don't do it because they've already used up two years of control, but it isn't an automatic no, IMO.

[timLH]

Read on Twitter

Whoa.

Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app

This is interesting...would you do it for Ingram and Russell if you had to take Deng and send back a lottery protected first? Would it make a difference if Ball is available at 3 or Jackson?

LAL won't do this, they want to end the tank asap, and Magic seems high on Ingram; and
I don't trade #3 for DLo.

[Kobblehead]

Dlo was a great prospect and has been a good young NBA player, but the Lakers want to move him because they don't like his approach, professionalism or maturity. Maybe those intangible elements keep him in the good starter lane and prevent him from being a needle mover?

So we'd basically be taking on a player they don't view as a longterm piece all while allowing them to get arguably the two best players in the draft? There's no give from them in this deal.

[SelfishPlayer]

DLo was never a great prospect IMO and has already been exposed in the NBA. Maybe he'll become a worthy player after he signs his extension and may be willing to come off of the bench for some team as a chucker. DLo, Kris Dunn, Markelle Fultz, and Marcus Smart as prospects all looked like hype jobs to me. Great For the college game, not built for the pros according to how people regarded them. De'aaron Fox on the other hand will clearly be an All Star type in the NBA at some point.

[snoopdogg88]

Colangelo is a wimp and we're going to end up with Jayson Tatum and it bums me out.

[Aussiepiston1]

If Fultz goes #1 then Lakers could send us DLO and #28 for the #3 pick which would secure them both Jackson and Ball. but If Celtics pick Jackson the I think Lakers grab Ball and Philly grab Fultz.

[freshie2]

Agree it can't be just DLo, and don't think they'd throw in Ingram.

A lot of this may come down to Furkan and how they view him. If he's a year away, take the BPA and assume he'll be on the roster next year. A 6'8" sharp shooter is a great fit on this roster, and if Jackson is the pick would help to open the floor for his slashing to the rim...would also give Ball another shooter for thw drive and distribute game. 1 week away...

[Kobblehead]

Colangelo is a wimp and we're going to end up with Jayson Tatum and it bums me out.

I've generally liked Tatum throughout the season for being a scoring talent that actually plays defense, but as the draft nears, I've been wavering on him bigtime. I never wanted him at #3, but now I'm not even sure if I'd take him at #5 if we happen to make that Sacramento trade.

[Unbreakable99]

Colangelo is a wimp and we're going to end up with Jayson Tatum and it bums me out.

I've generally liked Tatum throughout the season for being a scoring talent that actually plays defense, but as the draft nears, I've been wavering on him bigtime. I never wanted him at #3, but now I'm not even sure if I'd take him at #5 if we happen to make that Sacramento trade.

While I like Tatum and would not be angry if we drafted him at 5 if we traded back I would prefer we draft Isaac at 5. I know I'm in the minority but I think you can make a case for Isaac going 3rd. But if we trade to 5 it's to get Isaac. If we do draft Isaac I would immediately try to trade Saric to see if we can trade him and one or two 2nds to get to pick 7 or 9.

[eagereyez]

If we trade for 5 and 10 then I want DSJ and Collins.

[timLH]

Colangelo is a wimp and we're going to end up with Jayson Tatum and it bums me out.

I've generally liked Tatum throughout the season for being a scoring talent that actually plays defense, but as the draft nears, I've been wavering on him bigtime. I never wanted him at #3, but now I'm not even sure if I'd take him at #5 if we happen to make that Sacramento trade.

While I like Tatum and would not be angry if we drafted him at 5 if we traded back I would prefer we draft Isaac at 5. I know I'm in the minority but I think you can make a case for Isaac going 3rd. But if we trade to 5 it's to get Isaac. If we do draft Isaac I would immediately try to trade Saric to see if we can trade him and one or two 2nds to get to pick 7 or 9.

How about Jackson at 3; Saric and 2 2nds for Smith at 7?

[Chris76]

Colangelo is a wimp and we're going to end up with Jayson Tatum and it bums me out.

I've generally liked Tatum throughout the season for being a scoring talent that actually plays defense, but as the draft nears, I've been wavering on him bigtime. I never wanted him at #3, but now I'm not even sure if I'd take him at #5 if we happen to make that Sacramento trade.

While I like Tatum and would not be angry if we drafted him at 5 if we traded back I would prefer we draft Isaac at 5. I know I'm in the minority but I think you can make a case for Isaac going 3rd. But if we trade to 5 it's to get Isaac. If we do draft Isaac I would immediately try to trade Saric to see if we can trade him and one or two 2nds to get to pick 7 or 9.

I would pick Isaac at 3, Isaac + Embiid would be 2 elite rim protectors that shoot well. A deadly combination against small ball! Also, Dario is a versatile big that fits well with most players, not flashy, but gets the job done. Future starter or 6th man, he could be a great playmaker or leader for the 2nd unit.