Big Man Prospects in Today's Game

[Colbinii]

Walker Kessler has a lot of potential and a high ceiling [All-Defensive level defense]. Depends how his offense develops.

[BlazersBroncos]

Walker Kessler has a lot of potential and a high ceiling [All-Defensive level defense]. Depends how his offense develops.

Ya, he is going to be such a great lunch pail guy. Knows his role / limitations on offense (Putbacks, lobs, rolling), great rim protector, good rebounder, mobile enough to not be totally eaten in the PNR, smart on both ends. Wish PDX could have snatched him up somehow.

[SeattleJazzFan]

For me the best comparison is RBs in football. I’m not making the argument that RBs are no longer valuable in the NFL. But is there the value anymore to take them with a high pick? There used to be a day not too long ago we’d see multiple RBs going top 10. Taking a RB with a top 10 pick wasn’t viewed any differently than taking any other position. It took awhile, but NFL GMs realized the value just wasn’t there anymore. RBs still had value in the game but the level of difference between RBs you could get in the 2nd and 3rd rounds vs top 10 pick was pretty minimal. You still have a freak prospect like Saquon Barkley come around, but that’s it. The combination of a passing heavier era and little value difference between early picks and 2nd and 3rd round picks has lead to RBs no longer even being looked at as early draft picks.

I just think with each passing year we are getting closer and closer to that with big men in the NBA. The value difference between big men taken early vs later is getting smaller and smaller. With the game turning more and more perimeter oriented every year, we’re seeing less and less teams having teams built around players that don’t have skill sets based around perimeter play.

i understand and agree for the most part with your comments. based on how they are used, you can get a guy who can do almost as much in the 2nd round or late first rather than using a lottery pick on them. the RB comparison is spot on. sure, you can get a Saquon early on, but you can get a ton of guys - Aaron Jones, Tony Pollard, Miles Sanders, etc without using that high pick - are they as good as Saquon - maybe not, but close enough that you have to question the value of using your high pick on that guy.

[clyde21]

For me the best comparison is RBs in football. I’m not making the argument that RBs are no longer valuable in the NFL. But is there the value anymore to take them with a high pick? There used to be a day not too long ago we’d see multiple RBs going top 10. Taking a RB with a top 10 pick wasn’t viewed any differently than taking any other position. It took awhile, but NFL GMs realized the value just wasn’t there anymore. RBs still had value in the game but the level of difference between RBs you could get in the 2nd and 3rd rounds vs top 10 pick was pretty minimal. You still have a freak prospect like Saquon Barkley come around, but that’s it. The combination of a passing heavier era and little value difference between early picks and 2nd and 3rd round picks has lead to RBs no longer even being looked at as early draft picks.

I just think with each passing year we are getting closer and closer to that with big men in the NBA. The value difference between big men taken early vs later is getting smaller and smaller. With the game turning more and more perimeter oriented every year, we’re seeing less and less teams having teams built around players that don’t have skill sets based around perimeter play.

i understand and agree for the most part with your comments. based on how they are used, you can get a guy who can do almost as much in the 2nd round or late first rather than using a lottery pick on them. the RB comparison is spot on. sure, you can get a Saquon early on, but you can get a ton of guys - Aaron Jones, Tony Pollard, Miles Sanders, etc without using that high pick - are they as good as Saquon - maybe not, but close enough that you have to question the value of using your high pick on that guy.

even Saquon was probably drafted too high

unless you're guaranteeing yourself an Adrian Peterson, there is no point.

[SeattleJazzFan]

For me the best comparison is RBs in football. I’m not making the argument that RBs are no longer valuable in the NFL. But is there the value anymore to take them with a high pick? There used to be a day not too long ago we’d see multiple RBs going top 10. Taking a RB with a top 10 pick wasn’t viewed any differently than taking any other position. It took awhile, but NFL GMs realized the value just wasn’t there anymore. RBs still had value in the game but the level of difference between RBs you could get in the 2nd and 3rd rounds vs top 10 pick was pretty minimal. You still have a freak prospect like Saquon Barkley come around, but that’s it. The combination of a passing heavier era and little value difference between early picks and 2nd and 3rd round picks has lead to RBs no longer even being looked at as early draft picks.

I just think with each passing year we are getting closer and closer to that with big men in the NBA. The value difference between big men taken early vs later is getting smaller and smaller. With the game turning more and more perimeter oriented every year, we’re seeing less and less teams having teams built around players that don’t have skill sets based around perimeter play.

i understand and agree for the most part with your comments. based on how they are used, you can get a guy who can do almost as much in the 2nd round or late first rather than using a lottery pick on them. the RB comparison is spot on. sure, you can get a Saquon early on, but you can get a ton of guys - Aaron Jones, Tony Pollard, Miles Sanders, etc without using that high pick - are they as good as Saquon - maybe not, but close enough that you have to question the value of using your high pick on that guy.

even Saquon was probably drafted too high

unless you're guaranteeing yourself an Adrian Peterson, there is no point.

that was my point. as good as Saquon is, you can get pretty close to value by drafting 5 rounds later (or UFA)

[Duke4life831]

For me the best comparison is RBs in football. I’m not making the argument that RBs are no longer valuable in the NFL. But is there the value anymore to take them with a high pick? There used to be a day not too long ago we’d see multiple RBs going top 10. Taking a RB with a top 10 pick wasn’t viewed any differently than taking any other position. It took awhile, but NFL GMs realized the value just wasn’t there anymore. RBs still had value in the game but the level of difference between RBs you could get in the 2nd and 3rd rounds vs top 10 pick was pretty minimal. You still have a freak prospect like Saquon Barkley come around, but that’s it. The combination of a passing heavier era and little value difference between early picks and 2nd and 3rd round picks has lead to RBs no longer even being looked at as early draft picks.

I just think with each passing year we are getting closer and closer to that with big men in the NBA. The value difference between big men taken early vs later is getting smaller and smaller. With the game turning more and more perimeter oriented every year, we’re seeing less and less teams having teams built around players that don’t have skill sets based around perimeter play.

i understand and agree for the most part with your comments. based on how they are used, you can get a guy who can do almost as much in the 2nd round or late first rather than using a lottery pick on them. the RB comparison is spot on. sure, you can get a Saquon early on, but you can get a ton of guys - Aaron Jones, Tony Pollard, Miles Sanders, etc without using that high pick - are they as good as Saquon - maybe not, but close enough that you have to question the value of using your high pick on that guy.

Yup. Again for everyone else they didn’t get the point I was making. I’m not saying that big men don’t have value in the league, I’m strictly talking draft value.

And with the way that the game has gone and continues to go. Unless you are a freak talent as a big man, your role is most likely going to be minimized to the point where what you’re asked to do and overall impact isn’t that much greater than the guys you can get late 1st/2nd.

[BostonCouchGM]

You have two completely different types of bigs lumped in together.

One group is the 4 who often plays like a 3 (likely sees themselves as one tbh) but capable of playing small ball 5:

Siakam
Isaac
Mobley
JJJ
Bagley
AD
Bol
Stewart
Markkanen
Porzingis
Banchero
Smith, Jr.

One group that are strictly 5s:

Wiseman
Duren
Williams
TimeLord
Ayton
Bam
Embiid
Jokic
Sabonis
Poeltl

There's a place for both in today's NBA and so much of their impact is predicated on how they're utilized and what system they're in. The group that is strictly 5s takes longer to develop and with how impatient NBA front offices are, and how reluctant teams are to trust them to run offenses through, they "bust" more.

The first group is what I'm looking for right after a PG if I'm building a team. With so many teams going small ball, or two big lineups it's imperative you have a guy who can stay on the floor for either because they become THE matchup nightmare in either scenario. You go small ball and this guy will dominate the boards and defend the block. You go big and he can take bigs off the dribble and provide help defense. The first group rarely busts for this reason. I think the stats aren't necessarily going to be there for this position a lot of the times so it seems like they're not as impactful but they are.

I think Wiseman drives these types of discussions. He's ridiculously talented but he has dealt with injuries and was drafted by just about the worst team as for as catering to his skillset that you'll find. The Warriors needed a 4/5 type not a 5. I love the talent but hate the fit and until he goes to a team that will use him like the Sixers use Embiid you'll never see him reach his potential or justify being taken #2. But since he can't stay healthy and the system he's in won't allow him to play that way he'll continue to be considered a reach if not laughably, a bust.

So basically, if you have a Wiseman or Embiid type talent, you need to run your team a certain way. Embiid was sitting on the sidelines until he was 22 y/o. Wiseman is still just 21 y/o. The difference is from day one Embiid was allowed to play the center position and everything ran through him. Wiseman is an afterthought decoy.

Anyway, I'll keep taking very talented "bigs" from either group high in the draft. A great talent will produce no matter what the position and besides PG no position in the NBA is more important than the other.

[clyde21]

ur right about Wiseman being drafted into the wrong scheme/system, said that the minute the Warriors turned their card in on draft night, it was a stupid fit from the get go and it (along with some injuries) certainly haven't helped him

that said, he's not 'ridiculously talented'...there was a reason I had him ranked 10th in that class and not top 3 like everyone had him...the physical tools are obviously all there but there so much more that goes into being a center, a lot of the connective tissue was missing. his BBIQ overall is well below average, defensively he's not good which is devastating if you're a bad defender as a center in the NBA, has bad hands, not overly coordinated, functional strength is still missing, and while he has some ball skills it's not really scalable in any way and that's what created a facade around him that he could've been anything more than just an Andre Drummond or something.

what really limits his ceiling on today's NBA and SPECIFICALLY with the Warriors is that at the end of the day he's positionally locked at the 5, which is a kiss of death unless your name is Embiid or you're a freak defender (Gobert) or you can be the offensive engine (Jokic). Wiseman is none of these so his best case scenario is probably a Deandre Ayton type and that's probably the high end outcome at this point on the right team.

[Duke4life831]

You have two completely different types of bigs lumped in together.

One group is the 4 who often plays like a 3 (likely sees themselves as one tbh) but capable of playing small ball 5:

Siakam
Isaac
Mobley
JJJ
Bagley
AD
Bol
Stewart
Markkanen
Porzingis
Banchero
Smith, Jr.

One group that are strictly 5s:

Wiseman
Duren
Williams
TimeLord
Ayton
Bam
Embiid
Jokic
Sabonis
Poeltl

There's a place for both in today's NBA and so much of their impact is predicated on how they're utilized and what system they're in. The group that is strictly 5s takes longer to develop and with how impatient NBA front offices are, and how reluctant teams are to trust them to run offenses through, they "bust" more.

The first group is what I'm looking for right after a PG if I'm building a team. With so many teams going small ball, or two big lineups it's imperative you have a guy who can stay on the floor for either because they become THE matchup nightmare in either scenario. You go small ball and this guy will dominate the boards and defend the block. You go big and he can take bigs off the dribble and provide help defense. The first group rarely busts for this reason. I think the stats aren't necessarily going to be there for this position a lot of the times so it seems like they're not as impactful but they are.

I think Wiseman drives these types of discussions. He's ridiculously talented but he has dealt with injuries and was drafted by just about the worst team as for as catering to his skillset that you'll find. The Warriors needed a 4/5 type not a 5. I love the talent but hate the fit and until he goes to a team that will use him like the Sixers use Embiid you'll never see him reach his potential or justify being taken #2. But since he can't stay healthy and the system he's in won't allow him to play that way he'll continue to be considered a reach if not laughably, a bust.

So basically, if you have a Wiseman or Embiid type talent, you need to run your team a certain way. Embiid was sitting on the sidelines until he was 22 y/o. Wiseman is still just 21 y/o. The difference is from day one Embiid was allowed to play the center position and everything ran through him. Wiseman is an afterthought decoy.

Anyway, I'll keep taking very talented "bigs" from either group high in the draft. A great talent will produce no matter what the position and besides PG no position in the NBA is more important than the other.

Again to be crystal clear here, nowhere am I making the argument that bigs dont have a place in the NBA or can be impactful in today's NBA. Im strictly talking about draft value.

The next thing is Im talking about bigs who dont have a perimeter first skill set. So guys like Paolo or Siakam dont fit into what Im talking about.

What Im talking about is for a big you either have to have point forward skill set (like a Paolo) or just be a freak offensive talent (you can throw KAT into this category). Either than that, it seems like it doesnt matter if youre completely raw on the offensive end or pretty skilled (like Mobley). Youre going to get put into a very similar role.

How many teams are built around their big men? Philly and Embiid are probably the only team that is built around a big that doesnt have some kind of point forward skill set.

Denver: Jokic is a freak talent and essentially a 7 foot PG
Minny: KAT is one of the best perimeter shooting bigs of all time
Bucks: Giannis is essentially their PG and is used like a point forward

Any other teams? And if they are, Im sure that big is used like a point forward or just are giant perimeter wings (KD, Tatum, Siakam). My point is, if youre not a freak talent or you cant be used like a point forward, you basically get asked to do the lob/dunker spot role. There really isnt much of a inbetween role for bigs in today's NBA. Now ya you got guys like JJJ and Mobley who can defend 4s and 5s, but their offensive roles are still pretty limited. Even though a guy like Mobley has more advanced skills than your basic lob/dunker spot big. He is rarely asked to show off those skills.

Basically my point is, again has nothing to do with bigs no longer having value in today's NBA. My point is if youre using a top 5 pick to draft a big, he better have a legit point forward skill set, or he is a freak prospect. If not, there is a good chance the role he will be asked to do, will be very similar to what you would ask from a big you can get late in the draft.

[BAMAFREAK]

For me the best comparison is RBs in football. I’m not making the argument that RBs are no longer valuable in the NFL. But is there the value anymore to take them with a high pick? There used to be a day not too long ago we’d see multiple RBs going top 10. Taking a RB with a top 10 pick wasn’t viewed any differently than taking any other position. It took awhile, but NFL GMs realized the value just wasn’t there anymore. RBs still had value in the game but the level of difference between RBs you could get in the 2nd and 3rd rounds vs top 10 pick was pretty minimal. You still have a freak prospect like Saquon Barkley come around, but that’s it. The combination of a passing heavier era and little value difference between early picks and 2nd and 3rd round picks has lead to RBs no longer even being looked at as early draft picks.

I just think with each passing year we are getting closer and closer to that with big men in the NBA. The value difference between big men taken early vs later is getting smaller and smaller. With the game turning more and more perimeter oriented every year, we’re seeing less and less teams having teams built around players that don’t have skill sets based around perimeter play.

Agree with this. It’s going to take an outlier like Shaq to make it worth it. Then you would want to build a team around him. Like Derrick Henry in football.
Enough of these 7 footers weighing under 200 pounds. Problem is, there’s legit only been 1 Shaq and a handful of guys like Tim Duncan.