Doug McDermott

[Bernman]

I just can't see anything more than a backup big off the bench for scoring. That's actually his ceiling to me.

You're just setting yourself up for ridicule. That is a ridiculously low ceiling for a prospect, not hard to exceed, and if he does you just basically made a guarantee that was proven incorrect. It'd be hard to take you seriously on anything else if you were even wrong about something you guaranteed. It might be wise to leave yourself leeway in situations, especially one like prospect projections where there are virtually no guarantees. Late 2nd rounders have been all-stars, and undrafted free agents solid starters. Let alone late lotto picks, even the polarizing ones. There are plenty seeing all-stars or borderline all-star players as possibilities. You might want to take note of that when you consider his ceiling is a backup. Your average projection is one thing, ceiling something entirely different.

[Tave]

I don't understand why people keep pushing this idea of him as a big either, it's like they look at his rebound numbers and just assume he'll have to play power forward.

Creighton plays 1 guy taller than McDermott for more that 10 mpg: Will Artino. And he barely sees the court.

McDermott and Wragge are the only 2 players on the team listed over 6'6" getting any minutes. Doug is in the front-court by default, not because that is his ideal position.

[Bernman]

Such is the dynamic on a former mid major. Big wings have to play out of position usually.

He might be able to play some power forward, but I think ideally he's a 3. Getting leaner might help to maximize his potential at that position. Having excess heft on his body could be something he's doing to adapt to playing pf/c for his dad. Once he sheds that he could gain a little quickness and lift to at least guard adequately and get somewhat of a dribble drive game. Although that might sacrifice some of his post game. But I think it'd be worth it from a cost-benefit perspective. His biggest asset is his outside shooting, and the dribble drive game would supplement that more, getting players to back off him, and stepping inside the line when opponents run at him off the catch.

[DashGlobal]

He can't hold a candle to Love's athleticism

when did love become athletic?

Love has amazing strength. There's no one in the NBA that can move Love out of position.

If Doug was 6'10'' or 6'11'', he could be a starter along side a defensive center. But if he was that, he would have left college after one or two years.

I just can't see anything more than a backup big off the bench for scoring. That's actually his ceiling to me.

strength doesnt really have any thing to do with athleticism. i know plenty of strong guys who are slow, short, with a 10 inch vert.

athletic guys are usually dudes who are quick and can guard multiple positions and or play above the rim.

[JrueHK]

i dont see anything more than a better korver with less shooting

Seriously he's nothing like Korver.

Doug is more like Love than he is like to Korver.

He can't hold a candle to Love's athleticism

He plays more like Love than Korver. Doug can play inside and out. Fantastic post moves.

[ManualRam]

when did love become athletic?

Love has amazing strength. There's no one in the NBA that can move Love out of position.

If Doug was 6'10'' or 6'11'', he could be a starter along side a defensive center. But if he was that, he would have left college after one or two years.

I just can't see anything more than a backup big off the bench for scoring. That's actually his ceiling to me.

strength doesnt really have any thing to do with athleticism. i know plenty of strong guys who are slow, short, with a 10 inch vert.

athletic guys are usually dudes who are quick and can guard multiple positions and or play above the rim.

strength is a part of athleticism.

[DashGlobal]

Love has amazing strength. There's no one in the NBA that can move Love out of position.

If Doug was 6'10'' or 6'11'', he could be a starter along side a defensive center. But if he was that, he would have left college after one or two years.

I just can't see anything more than a backup big off the bench for scoring. That's actually his ceiling to me.

strength doesnt really have any thing to do with athleticism. i know plenty of strong guys who are slow, short, with a 10 inch vert.

athletic guys are usually dudes who are quick and can guard multiple positions and or play above the rim.

strength is a part of athleticism.

To an extent yes, but it is well below the other factors I mentioned. Just because someone is strong, your not gonna automatically label them as athletic. When people say athletic with regards to basketball they are usually referring to guys who are good defenders / guard multiple positions, high verticals ie above the rim players, quick / fast, etc etc.

[ManualRam]

strength doesnt really have any thing to do with athleticism. i know plenty of strong guys who are slow, short, with a 10 inch vert.

athletic guys are usually dudes who are quick and can guard multiple positions and or play above the rim.

strength is a part of athleticism.

To an extent yes, but it is well below the other factors I mentioned. Just because someone is strong, your not gonna automatically label them as athletic. When people say athletic with regards to basketball they are usually referring to guys who are good defenders / guard multiple positions, high verticals ie above the rim players, quick / fast, etc etc.

doesn't matter. it's still a component of athleticism and an important one too. strength is leverage, leverage is a major reason why some players are effective. like, it doesn't matter if a big is quick for his size if he doesn't have the strength to maintain his position, play through contact and maintain his balance. strength can also accentuate the other facets of athleticism. a quick, powerful player is likely to be more effective than a quick player who doesn't have strength.

[Dr Positivity]

Isn't Ryan Anderson the obvious comparison to make for his ceiling

As for Luke Babbitt. He's 24 and has 1600 minutes in the NBA, less than some rookies have already this year. And IIRC Portland considered him a power forward for a pretty small portion of that. I want to see where Babbitt is when he's played 5000 minutes if he gets there. Not saying he'll be worth a lottery pick but he may be a 20 minute player and positive contributor consistently

[reignfire]

Isn't Ryan Anderson the obvious comparison to make for his ceiling

As for Luke Babbitt. He's 24 and has 1600 minutes in the NBA, less than some rookies have already this year. And IIRC Portland considered him a power forward for a pretty small portion of that. I want to see where Babbitt is when he's played 5000 minutes if he gets there. Not saying he'll be worth a lottery pick but he may be a 20 minute player and positive contributor consistently

Anderson is 6'10'', good rebounder, could he hid on defense because he had Dwight next to him.

[karkinos]

i think love surpassed expectations at the combine
http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Ent ... ased-2911/

[DashGlobal]

I look at Anderson as more of a spot up stretch PF. I look at Doug as a more versatile SF/PF hybrid who can beat you with a larger range of moves from all over the court.

[shangrila]

Basically some people are just seeing another white American in the first round, assuming he'll bust because many others with that trait have in the past, then trying to rationalize that those players compare in a more significant way rather than that trivial one.

Ugh, no. My comparison had nothing to do with race. They have, as I said, similar numbers in college. I'll admit that's about as far as I looked, since I never really cared about Babbitt, but I wouldn't have really cared what "colour" they were. Two prospects known for shooting high percentages, rebounding well but lacking NBA athleticism? Well, crap, must be their race that makes them similar!

[Worm Guts]

McDermott's shooting percentages seem pretty absurd to me. Over 50 percent every year from the field, over 40 percent every year from 3 pt range. I have to think there's a spot in the NBA for him, even if it's only for his shooting.

[Bernman]

Ugh, no. My comparison had nothing to do with race. They have, as I said, similar numbers in college. I'll admit that's about as far as I looked, since I never really cared about Babbitt, but I wouldn't have really cared what "colour" they were. Two prospects known for shooting high percentages, rebounding well but lacking NBA athleticism? Well, crap, must be their race that makes them similar!

Ugh, and then I went on to point out that their numbers weren't that similar (McDermott considerably higher volume and efficiency), and achieved against different competition, thus that was probably primarily a racial comparison. You can take solace in the fact that you're far from alone in making superficial, physical comparisons to players.

[Tave]

Ryan Anderson, seriously? I've never seen Anderson display half of McDermott's versatility. Dougie might not ever become as valuable a player as Anderson if he fails to transition well, but they are nothing alike in terms of style.

[Johnlac1]

Ryan Anderson, seriously? I've never seen Anderson display half of McDermott's versatility. Dougie might not ever become as valuable a player as Anderson if he fails to transition well, but they are nothing alike in terms of style.

Maybe, but Anderson is bigger and a better athlete. McDermott has a wider variety of scoring moves, but I have seen Anderson score close to the basket. If McDermott can carve out a career similar to Anderson's, he'll be very fortunate.

[Tave]

Ryan Anderson, seriously? I've never seen Anderson display half of McDermott's versatility. Dougie might not ever become as valuable a player as Anderson if he fails to transition well, but they are nothing alike in terms of style.

Maybe, but Anderson is bigger and a better athlete. McDermott has a wider variety of scoring moves, but I have seen Anderson score close to the basket. If McDermott can carve out a career similar to Anderson's, he'll be very fortunate.

He's definitely bigger, I don't know about better, although if their athletic profiles are similar enough, bigger is generally better by default. McDermott appears much more agile, whether that is a function of natural ability, or simple skill (footwork), I'm not sure, but regardless it allows him to move around the court w/ or w/o the ball in ways that Anderson cannot. Anderson's height is probably more inherently valuable given their threshold skill levels, but Doug could always pull a Stephan Curry on us.

Anderson has been slowly adding pieces to his game, I agree.

[E-Balla]

Doug on SI's reimagining of the classic Bird cover.

Sorry I don't see any way he's not at least a 7th man within 2 seasons. He's too good a shooter to bust (we've never seen someone that shot as well as him in college not become a starter).

[E-Balla]

Basically some people are just seeing another white American in the first round, assuming he'll bust because many others with that trait have in the past, then trying to rationalize that those players compare in a more significant way rather than that trivial one.

Ugh, no. My comparison had nothing to do with race. They have, as I said, similar numbers in college. I'll admit that's about as far as I looked, since I never really cared about Babbitt, but I wouldn't have really cared what "colour" they were. Two prospects known for shooting high percentages, rebounding well but lacking NBA athleticism? Well, crap, must be their race that makes them similar!

Babbitt was 6-9, 218 with a 6-11 wingspan and a 38 inch vertical. Athletically he tested pretty good. Sure it has nothing to do with race?

Also at Nevada he played nowhere near as good as Doug.