If Okafor is traded for the 3rd pick, who do you want most?

[CoreyGallagher]

The problem is that this draft sucks after the first 2. Is Murray someone that is really worth a top 5 pick? Hield? Maybe Dunn, and maybe Bender, but the rest are not guys that a traditionally worth a top 5 pick.

I edited my post to mention about Murray. Most know that I don't like Murray either, but I'd prefer him to Hield - to put into context just how much I don't like Buddy Hield.

[LongLiveHinkie]

I think the anti-Hield stuff is a little overboard. Do I like him as much as a few other players that could be taken at 3? No. But I'm not going to ignore the fact that he certainly could be a very good NBA player, can shoot the lights out for well beyond NBA 3 point range, and I do think he has the potential in the NBA to create his own shot, although I am a bit skeptical, but he definitely could.

[eagereyez]

It's a shooters league. Why draft a poor shooter at the 1 with a potential front court of Simmons/Okafor? Makes no sense at all.

[LloydFree]

The GM that selects Buddy Hield in the top 5 should be fired on the spot.

[ProcessDoctor]

I've been torn on Murray/Dunn for a while now, but ended up voting Murray because he is a better fit with Simmons and more versatile. I think Murray's versatility is being overlooked. We could draft him with the intent of playing him at PG this year, but if a PG is BPA in next year's draft (which is very possible since 4-5 of the top 10 prospects are PGs), we can slide him over to the two or play him off the bench ala OKC Harden. However, if we draft Dunn, we are committing to him as the PG for the near future. That's what I'm afraid of. Wouldn't be upset with drafting him, but we're married to him as our PG if we do.

[Winejk]

With GSW's success, I think people are getting carried away with shooting. Sure it is important, but what I take out of GSW's success more than the shooting is you want a whole team of two way players. OKC has two of the best offensive players on the planet, but the rest of the team is only good at one or two things. None of them are two way threats. Look at the Cavs, same thing. Somewhere on the court GSW creates a mismatch because none of its players are getting exposed on defense while still providing use on offense. And if all else breaks down, they let Curry do his thing.

There are plenty of shooters that looked like sure things out of college - e.g. Reddick, Fredette and Stauskas. Their shooting would translate, but it really didn't. If they aren't providing shooting, then what good are they? What makes people positive that Hield or Murray won't turn out to be like Fredette or Stauskas? Then add that Hield and Murray are not two way players, why are they so highly coveted?

2 way players > just shooters. For that reason alone, I wouldn't be so anxious to get Hield or Murray.

[eagereyez]

Shooting from your backcourt is more important than defense. Perimeter defenders have been neutered in this league. Russell Westbrook can't stay in front of Russell Westbrook. The best thing a perimeter defender can do is consistently funnel his player into the help defense. This is why CP3 is a better defender than Westbrook despite being shorter, less athletic, and having a smaller wingspan. As long as your perimeter guys are coached right and put in consistent effort, their defense will be fine. Offensively, they can exploit the current NBA rules by shooting lights out from the perimeter. This is why Lillard/McCollum are such a deadly combination, despite both being below average defenders. Their team has the perfect blend of players in the correct positions needed to succeed. GSW just takes that to another level. It is easier for players to shoot from the perimeter and harder for them to defend. Building a team against this fact will get you nowhere.

[HotelVitale]

There are plenty of shooters that looked like sure things out of college - e.g. Reddick, Fredette and Stauskas. Their shooting would translate, but it really didn't. If they aren't providing shooting, then what good are they? What makes people positive that Hield or Murray won't turn out to be like Fredette or Stauskas? Then add that Hield and Murray are not two way players, why are they so highly coveted? 2 way players > just shooters.

Two way players are just as likely to bust as shooters, and the fact that Stauskas/Fredette were good shooters who busted has nothing to do with Hield. No more useful than saying 'Curry and Ray Allen were great shooters who succeeded, therefore Hield will.' To fix your equation:

Good shooter > meh two-way player
Good two-way player> meh shooter

In the top 5, you're not picking players based on their basic descriptions but on their individual games. Take Hield as a player, not an abstract idea of who and what succeeds or not.

[Winejk]

In the top 5, you're not picking players based on their basic descriptions but on their individual games. Take Hield as a player, not an abstract idea of who and what succeeds or not.

OK this is what I see of Hield. He has one definable skill, shooting. While he shot 3P at an amazing rate of .457 as a senior, he was at .359 and .386 the previous two years. Still .359 and .386 are good numbers, but what if .457 is an outlier? What if he's more like a .380 shooter in the pros. Still in love with him as much? Hollis Thompson is a 40% shooter from 3p. Just saying.

He's older than most other people in a draft. He's average at best in defense, size and athleticism. Where is the upside on Hield? To me he is near maxed out. Besides shooting what else can he realistically improve upon? If his shooting goes south, what else can he do good?

To me he had a meteoric rise his senior year and made a big impression in the tournament. He no doubt was one of the best college players last season, but it doesn't always translate. He could be useful. I certainly don't see a star in him.

[eagereyez]

In the top 5, you're not picking players based on their basic descriptions but on their individual games. Take Hield as a player, not an abstract idea of who and what succeeds or not.

OK this is what I see of Hield. He has one definable skill, shooting. While he shot 3P at an amazing rate of .457 as a senior, he was at .359 and .386 the previous two years. Still .359 and .386 are good numbers, but what if .457 is an outlier? What if he's more like a .380 shooter in the pros. Still in love with him as much? Hollis Thompson is a 40% shooter from 3p. Just saying.

He's older than most other people in a draft. He's average at best in defense, size and athleticism. Where is the upside on Hield? To me he is near maxed out. Besides shooting what else can he realistically improve upon? If his shooting goes south, what else can he do good?

To me he had a meteoric rise his senior year and made a big impression in the tournament. He no doubt was one of the best college players last season, but it doesn't always translate. He could be useful. I certainly don't see a star in him.

Hield didn't just become a better 3 pt. shooter his senior year. He improved a lot on his handle, his off the dribble shooting, his step back, finishing at the rim, everything. It's something that you won't see unless you watch him play, which is why he's mocked to go anywhere from 4-7. It's not the same as a guy like Jodie Meeks, who rode a hot shooting stretch his final college season but still went in the second round.

I'm actually more skeptical that Dunn "improved" his 3 pt. shooting, which went up by what, 2%? His TS% and FT% remained the same. At 22 years old, he just looks like a poor shooter through and through. A miserable fit alongside Simmons/Okafor.

[Ericb5]

In the top 5, you're not picking players based on their basic descriptions but on their individual games. Take Hield as a player, not an abstract idea of who and what succeeds or not.

OK this is what I see of Hield. He has one definable skill, shooting. While he shot 3P at an amazing rate of .457 as a senior, he was at .359 and .386 the previous two years. Still .359 and .386 are good numbers, but what if .457 is an outlier? What if he's more like a .380 shooter in the pros. Still in love with him as much? Hollis Thompson is a 40% shooter from 3p. Just saying.

He's older than most other people in a draft. He's average at best in defense, size and athleticism. Where is the upside on Hield? To me he is near maxed out. Besides shooting what else can he realistically improve upon? If his shooting goes south, what else can he do good?

To me he had a meteoric rise his senior year and made a big impression in the tournament. He no doubt was one of the best college players last season, but it doesn't always translate. He could be useful. I certainly don't see a star in him.

Hield didn't just become a better 3 pt. shooter his senior year. He improved a lot on his handle, his off the dribble shooting, his step back, finishing at the rim, everything. It's something that you won't see unless you watch him play, which is why he's mocked to go anywhere from 4-7. It's not the same as a guy like Jodie Meeks, who rode a hot shooting stretch his final college season but still went in the second round.

I'm actually more skeptical that Dunn "improved" his 3 pt. shooting, which went up by what, 2%? His TS% and FT% remained the same. At 22 years old, he just looks like a poor shooter through and through. A miserable fit alongside Simmons/Okafor.

I only watched him play once or twice, but is he really any better of a prospect than Stauskus was?

I mean Stauskus looked pretty good coming out of Michigan, and has really disappointed.

Hield may NOT disappoint, but I don't think that he is any better than Stauskus coming out.

Ever since Trajen Langdon(sp?) busted I am very skeptical of college shooters. Langdon was an amazing college shooter, and he didn't survive.

I would draft Hield if we were sitting at 7-8 in this draft, but I wouldn't trade Noel or Okafor for him for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[eagereyez]

OK this is what I see of Hield. He has one definable skill, shooting. While he shot 3P at an amazing rate of .457 as a senior, he was at .359 and .386 the previous two years. Still .359 and .386 are good numbers, but what if .457 is an outlier? What if he's more like a .380 shooter in the pros. Still in love with him as much? Hollis Thompson is a 40% shooter from 3p. Just saying.

He's older than most other people in a draft. He's average at best in defense, size and athleticism. Where is the upside on Hield? To me he is near maxed out. Besides shooting what else can he realistically improve upon? If his shooting goes south, what else can he do good?

To me he had a meteoric rise his senior year and made a big impression in the tournament. He no doubt was one of the best college players last season, but it doesn't always translate. He could be useful. I certainly don't see a star in him.

Hield didn't just become a better 3 pt. shooter his senior year. He improved a lot on his handle, his off the dribble shooting, his step back, finishing at the rim, everything. It's something that you won't see unless you watch him play, which is why he's mocked to go anywhere from 4-7. It's not the same as a guy like Jodie Meeks, who rode a hot shooting stretch his final college season but still went in the second round.

I'm actually more skeptical that Dunn "improved" his 3 pt. shooting, which went up by what, 2%? His TS% and FT% remained the same. At 22 years old, he just looks like a poor shooter through and through. A miserable fit alongside Simmons/Okafor.

I only watched him play once or twice, but is he really any better of a prospect than Stauskus was?

I mean Stauskus looked pretty good coming out of Michigan, and has really disappointed.

Hield may NOT disappoint, but I don't think that he is any better than Stauskus coming out.

Ever since Trajen Langdon(sp?) busted I am very skeptical of college shooters. Langdon was an amazing college shooter, and he didn't survive.

I would draft Hield if we were sitting at 7-8 in this draft, but I wouldn't trade Noel or Okafor for him for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think he is a better prospect than Stauskas, yes. He shows some craftiness and change of speed that I never saw from Stauskas. He shoots better off the dribble and isn't bothered by a hand in his face. He's not a playmaker and will be limited defensively. Not going to get to the line a ton. Here's a good video which shows you the improvements Hield made.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w_DVvCmYAQ[/youtube]

[Easymoney]

Trading for Hield is a gamble I am willing to take with Noel because our team upside would just be so much better if Hield is even 75% of the shooter he was in college. As many here already know, I am a huge advocate for building this team from the inside out. I feel that incredible talent and depth down low will open up the 3pt shot for us to get efficient looks from the behind the line. A guy like Hield could make teams pay for doubling us inside and on Simmons drives.

He will be getting 5-7 open looks a night from us that he didn't get in college. If he could continue to shoot around the 44% range for us, we'd really be able to make teams pay. I also like his ability to shoot off the dribble and I think it can used off screens from our big bodies like Embiid, Okafor, and Simmons in a similar way GSW do for Curry. I imagine a screen from Embiid on these smaller guys will be devastating and give Buddy great open looks.

[ET Da Gawd]

Y'all MFers are crazyyyyy...Buddy Hield is trash? The best shooter in the past cpl years since steph & klay is buns in a league where everyone shoots 3s??? Lmfaoo...he's too old? I guess steph and klay were too when they stayed till atleast their jr. years. Hield is strong, good finisher & is a great player off the ball. WE ABSOLUTELY NEED HIM WITH SIMMONS/EMBIID/OKAFOR

[ET Da Gawd]

OK this is what I see of Hield. He has one definable skill, shooting. While he shot 3P at an amazing rate of .457 as a senior, he was at .359 and .386 the previous two years. Still .359 and .386 are good numbers, but what if .457 is an outlier? What if he's more like a .380 shooter in the pros. Still in love with him as much? Hollis Thompson is a 40% shooter from 3p. Just saying.

He's older than most other people in a draft. He's average at best in defense, size and athleticism. Where is the upside on Hield? To me he is near maxed out. Besides shooting what else can he realistically improve upon? If his shooting goes south, what else can he do good?

To me he had a meteoric rise his senior year and made a big impression in the tournament. He no doubt was one of the best college players last season, but it doesn't always translate. He could be useful. I certainly don't see a star in him.

Hield didn't just become a better 3 pt. shooter his senior year. He improved a lot on his handle, his off the dribble shooting, his step back, finishing at the rim, everything. It's something that you won't see unless you watch him play, which is why he's mocked to go anywhere from 4-7. It's not the same as a guy like Jodie Meeks, who rode a hot shooting stretch his final college season but still went in the second round.

I'm actually more skeptical that Dunn "improved" his 3 pt. shooting, which went up by what, 2%? His TS% and FT% remained the same. At 22 years old, he just looks like a poor shooter through and through. A miserable fit alongside Simmons/Okafor.

I only watched him play once or twice, but is he really any better of a prospect than Stauskus was?

I mean Stauskus looked pretty good coming out of Michigan, and has really disappointed.

Hield may NOT disappoint, but I don't think that he is any better than Stauskus coming out.

Ever since Trajen Langdon(sp?) busted I am very skeptical of college shooters. Langdon was an amazing college shooter, and he didn't survive.

I would draft Hield if we were sitting at 7-8 in this draft, but I wouldn't trade Noel or Okafor for him for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Boi, Big10 players are trash, they play nobodies all year and get mad hype. Spike Albrecht showed balls in the championship game against my cards, Nik was nowhere to be found, he has a poor handle & his jumper isn't as good as you think. Hield on the other hand is a much more complete SG, strength, size (muscle wise fools) & a much quicker trigger. He was destroying any and everyone....he is the SG we need...people brag about bum ass brad beal,I coulda told you he wasn't all that, he was draggin cats in the SEC, when he saw my cards, his 1 dimensional game was exposed. Hield would be a godsend for our big 3.

[Winejk]

Trading for Hield is a gamble I am willing to take with Noel because our team upside would just be so much better if Hield is even 75% of the shooter he was in college. As many here already know, I am a huge advocate for building this team from the inside out. I feel that incredible talent and depth down low will open up the 3pt shot for us to get efficient looks from the behind the line. A guy like Hield could make teams pay for doubling us inside and on Simmons drives.

He will be getting 5-7 open looks a night from us that he didn't get in college. If he could continue to shoot around the 44% range for us, we'd really be able to make teams pay. I also like his ability to shoot off the dribble and I think it can used off screens from our big bodies like Embiid, Okafor, and Simmons in a similar way GSW do for Curry. I imagine a screen from Embiid on these smaller guys will be devastating and give Buddy great open looks.

I understand the fit Hield would provide with the Sixers taking kick out 3 pointers. I get that. But what makes him better than other shooters? We have Hollis Thompson who shoots 40% from 3 and everyone thinks Thompson is a bum. He doesn't play defense. He can't drive to the basket. He can't make a play.

If Hield is 75% of the shooter he was in college, he would shoot .343 from the 3 point line. Pedestrian by NBA standards. If he shot around the 44% range as you suggest that would make him on Stephen Curry's level, basically the best shooter in the game. Are you going to assume Hield is going to turn into one of the top shooters in the league? That's a big leap of faith IMO.

But people say Hield has developed his dribbling and driving. Yeah well he's going to be playing against better - faster, stronger, bigger - players in the NBA. Will he be able to drive and finish on them?

I'm not saying Hield couldn't turn into what you think he can, but it is not like it is a no brainer that he will. There are enough doubts and mitigating factors that make me wonder what the big deal is.He is not such a lock to be great for me to give up Noel.

[HotelVitale]

I'm actually more skeptical that Dunn "improved" his 3 pt. shooting, which went up by what, 2%? His TS% and FT% remained the same. At 22 years old, he just looks like a poor shooter through and through. A miserable fit alongside Simmons/Okafor.

It's an overstatement to say Dunn is a 'poor' shooter; he's head and shoulders above guys like Rondo that you really don't have to guard at all beyond 15 ft. His %s were fine the last two years, they just weren't great and show that shooting isn't going to be one of his main weapons. (His mechanics are fine, too.) Sort of like saying that Okafor's passing is terrible now--he wasn't very good at it this year but he seems capable of making it a decent tool that will help round out the rest of his game (not the best example but you get the point). You shouldn't expect a deadeye guy but you shouldn't disqualify him by creating a caricature of a totally broken shooter.

OK this is what I see of Hield. He has one definable skill, shooting. While he shot 3P at an amazing rate of .457 as a senior, he was at .359 and .386 the previous two years. Still .359 and .386 are good numbers, but what if .457 is an outlier? What if he's more like a .380 shooter in the pros. Still in love with him as much? Hollis Thompson is a 40% shooter from 3p. Just saying..

I mean, Hollis can't do anything but catch and shoot and dribble awkwardly (and often off his foot), and there's no reason to think that's what you're getting with Hield. He has a very quick trigger, he's tremendous shooting off screens and off the bounce, and he was great in transition and on drives this year. I'm not 'in love' with him (that's really condescending, by the way) and I like other prospects better, but you're not really talking about 'Buddy Hield' so much as some idea of him.

I only watched him play once or twice, but is he really any better of a prospect than Stauskus was?...Ever since Trajen Langdon(sp?) busted I am very skeptical of college shooters. Langdon was an amazing college shooter, and he didn't survive.

Not trying to be glib or nothing, but y'all really shouldn't rely so much on comparisons. Stauskas or Jimmer or Curry or Ray Allen were totally different players from Hield. Go to youtube and look at 15 minutes of tape on Hield alongside 15 minutes of tape of NBA games and see what you think might translate. I guarantee that, if you do that, you'll add to the discussion more and feel a lot more confident about your opinions than with this 'he might be Klay, or he might be Jimmer' stuff.

[Arsenal]

This is a hard decision. I really like Dunn. However if I was convinced that he can play PG, then I might go for Murray. He's just such a sick shooter as an 18 year old freshman that it can't be overlooked. Imagine how good he can be in 5 years assuming he keeps working hard and improving (no reason to think he won't)? At SG he is undersized, however at PG he has good size and should be at least adequate on defense.

His freshman year stats are very similar to Stephen Curry. Even if he is a poor man's Curry for us, that could be an epic pairing with Simmons and Embiid.

He didn't show much in terms of PG skills this year, however they had Tyler Ulis at PG. Has anyone watched him before Kentucky - can he play PG?

I have no interest in Buddy HIeld. He might be a very good player, but I think Murray has much more upside if we want a "shooter".

[Worm122]

I would prefer to draft or a SG or a SF, Murray or Brown, because the next year draft (2017) is stacked of great PGs and SFs

[Worm122]

How much is a difference between the 3 point line from NCAA for the NBA?