College basketball and 2017 draft - One more poll after last game

[darealjuice]

I wouldn't sleep on Jonathan Isaac, he's had a very good stretch of games for FSU and is starting to find his groove. I'd like to see him be a bit more aggressive with the ball, but I do like how he plays within the offense and isn't forcing bad shots. There's a lot to like about him: great size and length, solid defender, hits the boards hard, and nice looking stroke. He needs more polish on his game, particularly consistency on defense and his ball handling/shot creation skills, but he's got a nice ceiling and the improvement he's shown through the season is definitely encouraging. I'm keeping an eye on him for sure.

Watching Washington and Markelle Fultz right now, and man that team stinks outside of him. So many stupid mistakes, bad shots, missed open shots, no defense. Not sure how Romar is able to get such good recruits to such a mediocre program. Fultz is the real deal though, it's obvious he's the best player on the court just about every time he plays.

He has a very good eye for talent, just not much in the way of developing them.

Yeah he's a great recruiter and an awful coach. It's basically AAU basketball at Washington, which probably isn't a bad place to show out your individual skills and build your draft stock, but isn't good for building a competitive college program.

[ATTL]

Jonathan Isaac with 23/10/7 blocks in a win against Notre dame. I could see him sneak into the top 5 by draft day.

[darealjuice]

Jonathan Isaac with 23/10/7 blocks in a win against Notre dame. I could see him sneak into the top 5 by draft day.

On great efficiency, going 7/9 from the field, 2/2 from 3, and 7/7 from FT. Another very impressive game on both ends from him against a ranked team. He fits the bill of a late riser on draft boards for sure, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if he thoroughly impresses teams during individual workouts and ends up in the top 5 either.

[Zelaznyrules]

I wouldn't sleep on Jonathan Isaac, he's had a very good stretch of games for FSU and is starting to find his groove. I'd like to see him be a bit more aggressive with the ball, but I do like how he plays within the offense and isn't forcing bad shots. There's a lot to like about him: great size and length, solid defender, hits the boards hard, and nice looking stroke. He needs more polish on his game, particularly consistency on defense and his ball handling/shot creation skills, but he's got a nice ceiling and the improvement he's shown through the season is definitely encouraging. I'm keeping an eye on him for sure.

Watching Washington and Markelle Fultz right now, and man that team stinks outside of him. So many stupid mistakes, bad shots, missed open shots, no defense. Not sure how Romar is able to get such good recruits to such a mediocre program. Fultz is the real deal though, it's obvious he's the best player on the court just about every time he plays.

He has a very good eye for talent, just not much in the way of developing them.

Yeah he's a great recruiter and an awful coach. It's basically AAU basketball at Washington, which probably isn't a bad place to show out your individual skills and build your draft stock, but isn't good for building a competitive college program.

He's not a good coach but I think it does him a bit of a disservice to just say he's a great recruiter. He has an eye for talent as he regularly finds guys that are better than their scouting reports suggest. That was one of Lute's strengths too with the difference being that Lute would then coach them into much better players. Fultz was a legit talent but Romar has recruited mostly players that weren't A list at the time. But you're right, it does appear that they play and practice more like they're an AAU team.

[MrMiyagi]

I'm still not really seeing Isaac as a top-tier talent. I mean, Notre Dame has a pretty short squad - I feel like he was just the tallest guy on the court. I'm not saying that he's not an NBA player or anything, but nothing about that game made me think "Wow, Jonathan Isaac is such a stud!"

[darealjuice]

He has a very good eye for talent, just not much in the way of developing them.

Yeah he's a great recruiter and an awful coach. It's basically AAU basketball at Washington, which probably isn't a bad place to show out your individual skills and build your draft stock, but isn't good for building a competitive college program.

He's not a good coach but I think it does him a bit of a disservice to just say he's a great recruiter. He has an eye for talent as he regularly finds guys that are better than their scouting reports suggest. That was one of Lute's strengths too with the difference being that Lute would then coach them into much better players. Fultz was a legit talent but Romar has recruited mostly players that weren't A list at the time. But you're right, it does appear that they play and practice more like they're an AAU team.

I don't mean that as in he is good at bringing in high-level prospects and don't doubt he consistently recruits players that end up better than expected, especially with guys like IT coming out of nowhere to become a very good player and Quese rising from bottom of the top 100 high school recruits to being a mid-lottery pick, but he puts together talented teams that routinely disappoint the expectations set for them. Last year they had 2 potential lottery prospects and couldn't even make the tournament, this year they have the likely #1 overall pick and are only floating around .500. I don't know who else to blame, the only times his teams have gotten to the tournament and been successful is when they are led by guys like Brandon Roy and IT.

[Zelaznyrules]

Yeah he's a great recruiter and an awful coach. It's basically AAU basketball at Washington, which probably isn't a bad place to show out your individual skills and build your draft stock, but isn't good for building a competitive college program.

He's not a good coach but I think it does him a bit of a disservice to just say he's a great recruiter. He has an eye for talent as he regularly finds guys that are better than their scouting reports suggest. That was one of Lute's strengths too with the difference being that Lute would then coach them into much better players. Fultz was a legit talent but Romar has recruited mostly players that weren't A list at the time. But you're right, it does appear that they play and practice more like they're an AAU team.

I don't mean that as in he is good at bringing in high-level prospects and don't doubt he consistently recruits players that end up better than expected, especially with guys like IT coming out of nowhere to become a very good player and Quese rising from bottom of the top 100 high school recruits to being a mid-lottery pick, but he puts together talented teams that routinely disappoint the expectations set for them. Last year they had 2 potential lottery prospects and couldn't even make the tournament, this year they have the likely #1 overall pick and are only floating around .500. I don't know who else to blame, the only times his teams have gotten to the tournament and been successful is when they are led by guys like Brandon Roy and IT.

No, I got your point and I agree, his teams don't live up to their talent level. But my point was, Fultz notwithstanding, most of his talent comes from players outside the top 100. I don't think he develops them very well at all, I think he has a good eye for the players that are better than their scouting report suggests.

Look at Chriss, he was a budding star 2 months into the season but he wasn't considered a top level recruit when they signed him. And he didn't improve all that much during the season either. So we have a very gifted but undeveloped player. Whereas a good college coach might actually have cost him his freshman year because he would have benched him every time the guy stood around and watched the game pass him by. And by his 2nd or 3 year he might have come out as a top 3 prospect, one that was ready to star in this league.

[darealjuice]

I'm still not really seeing Isaac as a top-tier talent. I mean, Notre Dame has a pretty short squad - I feel like he was just the tallest guy on the court. I'm not saying that he's not an NBA player or anything, but nothing about that game made me think "Wow, Jonathan Isaac is such a stud!"

What's not to like though? It's not like he was just standing in the key and only putting up layups and dunks? Almost all of his points were jump shots off the dribble or catch and shoot 3's/mid-range shots. The 7 blocks were probably helped by his height and length advantage, but I mean he is 6'10 with a 7'+ wingspan and very good mobility/athleticism, so it's not like he doesn't have great measurables even when compared to other NBA prospects.

He's put together a string of solid games in the best overall conference in college basketball against the likes of Duke, UNC, and Notre Dame. He's not a flashy player like Fultz, Ball, and DSJ, but he plays good basketball, hits the boards hard, moves the ball, and plays within himself. FSU also has him playing a lot of power forward when he's more of a small forward, and he's responded by accepting his role, banging on the boards, protecting the rim, and scoring when he's in the position to despite being a top recruit. I think his scoring and ball handling abilities are being underrated because it's not his role on the team to be a volume scorer with insane usage. I don't have him in the same tier as the typical top 4 guys, but he's got a lot of upside with his size, athleticism, and skill set and has a lot of the signs of a guy that will make a late rise in the draft.

edit: Take a look at Jonathan Tjarks piece on Isaac, it expands a lot more on what I'm saying with actual examples. That was even written before his recent stretch of games.

[MrMiyagi]

I'm still not really seeing Isaac as a top-tier talent. I mean, Notre Dame has a pretty short squad - I feel like he was just the tallest guy on the court. I'm not saying that he's not an NBA player or anything, but nothing about that game made me think "Wow, Jonathan Isaac is such a stud!"

What's not to like though? It's not like he was just standing in the key and only putting up layups and dunks? Almost all of his points were jump shots off the dribble or catch and shoot 3's/mid-range shots. The 7 blocks were probably helped by his height and length advantage, but I mean he is 6'10 with a 7'+ wingspan and very good mobility/athleticism, so it's not like he doesn't have great measurables even when compared to other NBA prospects.

He's put together a string of solid games in the best overall conference in college basketball against the likes of Duke, UNC, and Notre Dame. He's not a flashy player like Fultz, Ball, and DSJ, but he plays good basketball, hits the boards hard, moves the ball, and plays within himself. FSU also has him playing a lot of power forward when he's more of a small forward, and he's responded by accepting his role, banging on the boards, protecting the rim, and scoring when he's in the position to despite being a top recruit. I think his scoring and ball handling abilities are being underrated because it's not his role on the team to be a volume scorer with insane usage. I don't have him in the same tier as the typical top 4 guys, but he's got a lot of upside with his size, athleticism, and skill set and has a lot of the signs of a guy that will make a late rise in the draft.

I'm just asking where is the superstar? I feel like people are quick to say someone has superstar potential because they are tall and scrawny. I mean, we like to point to KD or Giannis but don't think about Earl Clark, Austin Daye, Bruno Caboclo, Anthony Randolph, Perry Jones, Quincy Miller (Thon Maker'll be here soon enough IMO)... Being tall and moving reasonably well does not constitute superstar potential.

[darealjuice]

I'm just asking where is the superstar? I feel like people are quick to say someone has superstar potential because they are tall and scrawny. I mean, we like to point to KD or Giannis but don't think about Earl Clark, Austin Daye, Bruno Caboclo, Anthony Randolph, Perry Jones, Quincy Miller (Thon Maker'll be here soon enough IMO)... Being tall and moving reasonably well does not constitute superstar potential.

I mean not every player in the draft is going to be a superstar? You can't just list off tall, lanky players that busted and say "see more tall and lanky players bust" when he plays nothing like any of those guys... Being tall, lanky, and very athletic doesn't constitute a superstar, but if you look at his entire game while considering he's got great measurements for the NBA you see the potential to be a very good player. The difference between Isaac and all the busts you listed is that he already has a nice jump shot that he can hit all over the court and a good feel for the game. Just about every player you listed as a bust had known basketball IQ issues and poor jump shots coming into the league that coaches hoped to mold (see: Bruno Caboclo 2 years from 2 years away comment from draft night, Anthony Randolph shooting 10% from 3 in college, Earl Clark having poor shooting efficiency from all levels all 3 years, etc.) while basketball IQ and unselfishness are some of the traits that stand out most for Isaac.

Again, I'm not saying he's in the Fultz, Jackson, DSJ, Ball tier of already very skilled players that should immediately impact their NBA team, but I don't see why he'd be looked at as a worse prospect than guys like Tatum, Ntilikina, Fox, Anouby, etc. when he's shown the full package of being able to defend multiple positions and protect the rim, has shot consistently from close, mid-range, 3, FT, and off the dribble with a nice high release, brings in a large volume of boards, handles the ball reasonably well, and plays unselfish, smart basketball. I personally think he's as good as if not a better prospect than what I saw from Brandon Ingram last year, and Ingram was the guy getting all the KD-lite comparisons from all of the pundits.

Ingram Per 40: 20 pts/7.8 rbds/2.3 asst/1.3 stl/1.6 blk on 44/41/68 on 6 3-pt attempts
Isaac Per 40: 21.1 pts/12.4 rbds/1.6 asst/2.2 stl/2.4 blk on 54/38/80 on 5 3-pt attempts

Obviously stats only tell you so much and you need to watch him play for context, but I'm really impressed with how Isaac has produced despite playing out of position and being the 3rd option on a very deep team.

[Phoenix-Sons]

I'm just asking where is the superstar? I feel like people are quick to say someone has superstar potential because they are tall and scrawny. I mean, we like to point to KD or Giannis but don't think about Earl Clark, Austin Daye, Bruno Caboclo, Anthony Randolph, Perry Jones, Quincy Miller (Thon Maker'll be here soon enough IMO)... Being tall and moving reasonably well does not constitute superstar potential.

I mean not every player in the draft is going to be a superstar? You can't just list off tall, lanky players that busted and say "see more tall and lanky players bust" when he plays nothing like any of those guys... Being tall, lanky, and very athletic doesn't constitute a superstar, but if you look at his entire game while considering he's got great measurements for the NBA you see the potential to be a very good player. The difference between Isaac and all the busts you listed is that he already has a nice jump shot that he can hit all over the court and a good feel for the game. Just about every player you listed as a bust had known basketball IQ issues and poor jump shots coming into the league that coaches hoped to mold (see: Bruno Caboclo 2 years from 2 years away comment from draft night, Anthony Randolph shooting 10% from 3 in college, Earl Clark having poor shooting efficiency from all levels all 3 years, etc.) while basketball IQ and unselfishness are some of the traits that stand out most for Isaac.

Again, I'm not saying he's in the Fultz, Jackson, DSJ, Ball tier of already very skilled players that should immediately impact their NBA team, but I don't see why he'd be looked at as a worse prospect than guys like Tatum, Ntilikina, Fox, Anouby, etc. when he's shown the full package of being able to defend multiple positions and protect the rim, has shot consistently from close, mid-range, 3, FT, and off the dribble with a nice high release, brings in a large volume of boards, handles the ball reasonably well, and plays unselfish, smart basketball. I personally think he's as good as if not a better prospect than what I saw from Brandon Ingram last year, and Ingram was the guy getting all the KD-lite comparisons from all of the pundits.

Ingram Per 40: 20 pts/7.8 rbds/2.3 asst/1.3 stl/1.6 blk on 44/41/68 on 6 3-pt attempts
Isaac Per 40: 21.1 pts/12.4 rbds/1.6 asst/2.2 stl/2.4 blk on 54/38/80 on 5 3-pt attempts

Obviously stats only tell you so much and you need to watch him play for context, but I'm really impressed with how Isaac has produced despite playing out of position and being the 3rd option on a very deep team.

FT% really stands out the most between the two.

Isaac has the chance to become the better shooter for sure.

[MrMiyagi]

Again, I am not saying that Isaac isn't an NBA player. I am saying I don't see any dilemma in Ball or Jackson vs. Isaac, which some posters believe Isaac has a higher ceiling than the other two. I don't see him having a monstrously high ceiling that should be tempting us with our likely top 5 pick.

I mean, in that FSU-Notre Dame game, people talk about him having seven blocked shots, two to win the game... That he endangered by throwing a terrible inbound pass... Against players who are much shorter than him...

I mean, he seems a little like a 6'11 Otto Porter - which ain't bad by any means, but I'm not exactly betting the farm on Otto.

Also, Ingram created way more for himself than Isaac does. Again, players who spot up/find open spots on the floor have value, but superstars are guys who can get their own shot. I'm not sure Isaac really has that skill.

If we had a second lottery pick, I'd be happy to take Isaac with it, but if we take him over Ball or Jackson or even Tatum, I'm going to be pretty pissed.

[darealjuice]

Again, I am not saying that Isaac isn't an NBA player. I am saying I don't see any dilemma in Ball or Jackson vs. Isaac, which some posters believe Isaac has a higher ceiling than the other two. I don't see him having a monstrously high ceiling that should be tempting us with our likely top 5 pick.

I mean, in that FSU-Notre Dame game, people talk about him having seven blocked shots, two to win the game... That he endangered by throwing a terrible inbound pass... Against players who are much shorter than him...

I mean, he seems a little like a 6'11 Otto Porter - which ain't bad by any means, but I'm not exactly betting the farm on Otto.

Also, Ingram created way more for himself than Isaac does. Again, players who spot up/find open spots on the floor have value, but superstars are guys who can get their own shot. I'm not sure Isaac really has that skill.

If we had a second lottery pick, I'd be happy to take Isaac with it, but if we take him over Ball or Jackson or even Tatum, I'm going to be pretty pissed.

I don't think anyone said anything about considering him over Ball or Jackson though, unless I missed something? There seems a consensus top 4: Fultz, Smith, Ball, and Jackson in some order, so it's not unthinkable that Isaac would work into a top 5 (i.e. #5) pick over Tatum, Monk, Fox, etc. I can see some Otto Porter in him, but I think he's a better shooter than Otto while presenting a lot of the same positives.

Ingram created more shots because that was his role, the only other person on that Duke team that could score was Grayson Allen. Jonathan Isaac has to compete with Dwayne Bacon and XRM for touches while playing out of position and getting significantly less minutes on a deeper team. He's shown the ability to create his own shot outside of college ball with Team USA, AAU, and high school basketball, but he plays how FSU needs him to play to win games because he has the size to play 4 and they don't have a lot of that. It's kind of like Booker in Kentucky, his role was to come off the bench and spot up for jump shots, and once he wasn't confined to that role his other skills started to come out. Obviously there's no guarantee the results are the same, but there's a lot more to his game than just spotting up for shots and moving the ball like he does for FSU.

I don't mind him over Tatum at all though, I haven't been very impressed with him since he started playing this year.

[MrMiyagi]

I don't think anyone said anything about considering him over Ball or Jackson though, unless I missed something? There seems a consensus top 4: Fultz, Smith, Ball, and Jackson in some order, so it's not unthinkable that Isaac would work into a top 5 (i.e. #5) pick over Tatum, Monk, Fox, etc. I can see some Otto Porter in him, but I think he's a better shooter than Otto while presenting a lot of the same positives.

Ingram created more shots because that was his role, the only other person on that Duke team that could score was Grayson Allen. Jonathan Isaac has to compete with Dwayne Bacon and XRM for touches while playing out of position and getting significantly less minutes on a deeper team. He's shown the ability to create his own shot outside of college ball with Team USA, AAU, and high school basketball, but he plays how FSU needs him to play to win games because he has the size to play 4 and they don't have a lot of that. It's kind of like Booker in Kentucky, his role was to come off the bench and spot up for jump shots, and once he wasn't confined to that role his other skills started to come out. Obviously there's no guarantee the results are the same, but there's a lot more to his game than just spotting up for shots and moving the ball like he does for FSU.

I don't mind him over Tatum at all though, I haven't been very impressed with him since he started playing this year.

That's what I've been discussing, Ball, Jackson, Tatum are safer, older, have all-round skills and college production on winning teams.

Then you have more boom-bust guys like Isaac, Ntilkina, Fox, Monk, Giles, knowing if any one of them reaches their ceiling they'll be spectacularly great, so which way does a GM go.

[darealjuice]

I don't think anyone said anything about considering him over Ball or Jackson though, unless I missed something? There seems a consensus top 4: Fultz, Smith, Ball, and Jackson in some order, so it's not unthinkable that Isaac would work into a top 5 (i.e. #5) pick over Tatum, Monk, Fox, etc. I can see some Otto Porter in him, but I think he's a better shooter than Otto while presenting a lot of the same positives.

Ingram created more shots because that was his role, the only other person on that Duke team that could score was Grayson Allen. Jonathan Isaac has to compete with Dwayne Bacon and XRM for touches while playing out of position and getting significantly less minutes on a deeper team. He's shown the ability to create his own shot outside of college ball with Team USA, AAU, and high school basketball, but he plays how FSU needs him to play to win games because he has the size to play 4 and they don't have a lot of that. It's kind of like Booker in Kentucky, his role was to come off the bench and spot up for jump shots, and once he wasn't confined to that role his other skills started to come out. Obviously there's no guarantee the results are the same, but there's a lot more to his game than just spotting up for shots and moving the ball like he does for FSU.

I don't mind him over Tatum at all though, I haven't been very impressed with him since he started playing this year.

That's what I've been discussing, Ball, Jackson, Tatum are safer, older, have all-round skills and college production on winning teams.

Then you have more boom-bust guys like Isaac, Ntilkina, Fox, Monk, Giles, knowing if any one of them reaches their ceiling they'll be spectacularly great, so which way does a GM go.

I guess I missed that post. I personally think that Fultz, Ball, Jackson, and Smith all should be taken before Isaac, so it seems like we're in agreement there. It seems like the only place we disagree is where Isaac's ceiling will be, which I think can be similar to the 4 I just mentioned with more risk of busting/only being an average starter or rotation player attached to it.

[darealjuice]

Watch on YouTube

Future Phoenix Sun Josh Jackson

[MrMiyagi]

Lauri Markkanen with 23 points, 8 rebounds, 1 steal and 1 block on 8/12 shooting, 5/6 from 3 and 2/2 from the line.

[Mulhollanddrive]

McDonough's top 10 picks averaged 9 points 5 rebounds the season before being drafted (Len, Bender, Chriss).

[MrMiyagi]

McDonough's top 10 picks averaged 9 points 5 rebounds the season before being drafted (Len, Bender, Chriss).

And a lot of people already hate Len. Chriss and Len being the two who played in the NCAA averaged 12 and 6 the season before they were drafted - it seems unfair to use Bender's numbers as he was in a different league all together. Booker was like 10, 2 and 1 before he was drafted, but then you have TJ Warren who was 25 and 7, Archie Goodwin who was 14, 6 and 2, Tyler Ennis who was 13, 3 and 5, and Ulis who was 17, 3 and 7.

McD is going to take who he thinks is best. Sure he's skewed towards youth and Kentucky, but it's not like those are the traits he fixates on, and neither is athleticism or body type or IQ or whatever else. To me there isn't really a "Typical McD Pick". He's got a pretty good spectrum on his resume here, so we'll see what he wants come draft day.

[Foliohattu]

Lauri Markkanen with 23 points, 8 rebounds, 1 steal and 1 block on 8/12 shooting, 5/6 from 3 and 2/2 from the line.

Read on Twitter

Even though Lauri has rather short wingspan, he´s going to get that shot off against everyone. Too bad we just drafted 2 pf´s.