Kevin Love

Post #21 » by **PhilipNelsonFan** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:01 am

bill curley II wrote::lol:
Having Sean May's going to prevent you from drafting a big guy?

indeed. Sean May is a huge bust.

re: Chase Budinger, why do people keep saying he's a SF? He's a SG through and through.

GJense4181 · Post #22 » by **GJense4181** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:41 am

LOL@somebody saying he's undersized for a PF.

old rem · Post #23 » by **old rem** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:11 am

longfellow44 wrote:I have seen several times today on ESPN that many of the hosts and analysts seem to think love is for sure a top 5 pick and possibly a top 3 pick just behind Beasley and Rose.

I'm not sure if it's pure hype or if nobody thinks his physical stature is an issue. he's a little undersized for a pf and he's a little overweight for the NBA game.

I think love is a great player and will do some great things but just not sure if he deserves as much hype as I heard today.

I do think he could and should go as high as 5, I can't see the bobcats passing on him.

Love is solid. His weakness-relatively-is he isn't too quick and his lateral mobility will hurt him on D. Size? POWER F is the game and having some beef and knowing what to do with it is a plus. Love is as big as Karl Malone was. He's a lot bigger than Rodman. Thjere are several young PF's 6-8 or less who do just fine...and some guys 6-11 that suck.

vincecarter4pres · Post #24 » by **vincecarter4pres** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:01 am

_BBIB_ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

There is no way Kevin Love gets top 3 consideration. He doensn't have the upside to warrant a pick that high.

It's doubtful he'll be a top 5 pick.

I love this comment.
We hear this all the time about guys like Love.
But a guy like Jordan or Batum has so much potential.
And I'll be the 1st one to come out and say it, most people think he won't be succesful because he is a white PF wwith an old school post game.
I'm telling you, this guy might be hyped too much, but watch out.

Anyway back to this upside idiocy.

Why doesn't he have upside to warrant a high pick?

Because he is 19?
Because he is a beast at the college level?
Because he seems a little overweight and isn't an athletic freak? I would figure that would give him more poential, because if he id dedicated he will get into better shape and hit the weight room as well, becoming even stronger.
Because he already has NBA size?
Because he has a high B Ball IQ he can get no smarter with experience and good coaching?
Because he was puttin up these #'s as a college Freshman?
Because he is white?

What reason makes this guy have no reason for growth?

I remember the same things being said about Brandon Roy when he declared. Something along the lines of the most NBA ready player/guard. Will be an impact player immediately but will not get much better. Blasphemy. This is just complete BS.

Everytime a guy has tremendous skills in college it automatically means he has no more upside beyond the abilities he already posseses.
When a guy is undersized, underweight, has a huge list of issues that won't allow him to succeed for years if at all and a low B Ball IQ he is listed as a guy with unlimited potential and huge upside.

Then this waste becomes a very high pick.

It's like if a guy is an athletic freak with height that has no real position and/or a deep understanding for the game, who has almost no real skill set, he is labeled the next big thing, and hyped up with those 2 words,
Potential and Upside

Absurd.

bigballa3jj · Post #25 » by **bigballa3jj** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:24 am

lol he never said kevin love shouldnt be a high pick, just that he shouldn't be a top 3 pick over beasley, rose, mayo, and lopez.

Post #26 » by **Paydro70** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:28 pm

Hm, quite a post. People question Love's upside because he is overweight (which is not a good thing for his potential... it suggests a lack of concern about diet/conditioning which could limit his development, ala Sean May), unathletic, and might be only 6'8" or 6'9". If he's that short, he's going to have to play power forward, at which point his lack of athleticism is going to be an even bigger problem.

"Everytime a guy has tremendous skills in college," people consider how those skills will translate to the NBA. Beasley has tremendous skills, but nobody worries about his upside because he's athletically gifted as well. Love has tremendous skills, but is rather unathletic, and therefore it's questionable whether he'll be able to do the same things at the next level.

Brandon Roy was knocked for maybe not having anything really special about him; he was good or very good at everything, but didn't seem to have anything in particular that he would hang his hat on. It turned out to be something that the scouts recognized, his passing ability, but the knock was never on his athletic ability. NBADraft.net, Draft Express, and both ESPN analysts agreed he had at least adequate, maybe good athleticism, which they do NOT say about Love.

I think Love is almost sure to be a very good rebounder at the next level; he was incredible in college, and that's one of the traits that best translates to the NBA. Past that, I need to know how tall he is. The difference between 6'8" and 6'10" is essentially whether he can be an undersized center, or an undersized power forward. If the former, his athleticism is much less of a concern, and I think he's certainly among the 3-8 group of prospects in this draft. He'll be an interesting player, perhaps similar to Brad Miller in terms of his skillset and impact. If he's an undersized PF.... well, then we just have to hope he's not a complete dud on the defensive end, and that he can find a way to score on guys who will be faster, taller, and longer than him.

He's almost certain to "stick," assuming he doesn't go down the Sean May route and have knee/conditioning problems. He's a smart player, and has a lot of s

bill curley II · Post #27 » by **bill curley II** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:25 pm

The height thing is just a small piece. That positive is that he did play against 7 foot NBA prospects like the Lopezs and Deandre Jordan and had success against them.

The weight and conditioning is the biggest issue. If he can get into NBA shape, I think he's a top 3 player from this draft. If not, he's useless. Even Shaq, the most physically dominant and one of the most skilled centers in the history of the legaue, is pretty ineffective when he's out of shape like he was earlier this year. And I do think its as simple as that. Guy has all the skills, IQ, instincts to be a very good PF.

Post #28 » by **BigSlam** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:25 pm

PhilipNelsonFan wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
indeed. Sean May is a huge bust.

Insinuating that he is a bust would mean that we have had enough opportunity to watch him play in the NBA to assess what he can and can't do. Fat Boy can't even stay on the court long enough for us to do that!!

Brandon Roy was knocked for maybe not having anything really special about him; he was good or very good at everything, but didn't seem to have anything in particular that he would hang his hat on. It turned out to be something that the scouts recognized, his passing ability, but the knock was never on his athletic ability. NBADraft.net, Draft Express, and both ESPN analysts agreed he had at least adequate, maybe good athleticism, which they do NOT say about Love.

Roy tested precamp with a 40.5" max vert and a 34" no step vert - both as good or better than Tyrus Thomas. His lane agility and 3/4 sprint were as good as Gay. He disproved the "not athletic" tag compressively.

The only thing that Love might disprove will be height, reach, span and body fat - although I sort of think that what you see is what you get.

Like I have been saying all year, if he can do what Boozer did and get his body in shape, he'll be a huge stud and a hulking man.

It's a pretty big "if" though.

vincecarter4pres · Post #29 » by **vincecarter4pres** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:04 pm

Not for nothing, but he is not nearly as fat as Sean May.
He just really doesnt have much visible tone.
Neither does Kaman, Okur or Zach Randolph.

CableKC · Post #30 » by **CableKC** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:04 pm

I just hope that he would fall to the Pacers at 11. Although the need is at the PG/SG spots......it appears that the Pacers FO may be leaning towards going for a Big rather then a PG/SG. The only Guard that I think that they may go for ( assuming that Love won't be there ) would be Westbrook.

Abyss Impact · Post #31 » by **Abyss Impact** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:52 pm

No, why not get Kidd. Trade draft pick for Kidd and you are set to go win a championship ring.

_BBIB_ · Post #32 » by **_BBIB_** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:06 am

[quote="vincecarter4pres"][/quote]

The reverse race card. So common.

Did I say he doesn't deserve to play in the NBA? Of course not. But the NBA is about length and athleticism which is why BLACK guys like Sean May and Shelden Williams aren't ideal prospects but a WHITE guy like BJ Mullens is

If anything his race may HELP him.

See where Redick and Morrison went in the draft

Black guys with the same skillset and lack of size/athleticism/ability to play defense may not have been drafted AT ALL.

emunney · Post #33 » by **emunney** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:16 am

Raise your hand if you think Love is less athletic than Zach Randolph.

There's no question that Love gets off the ground significantly better than Z-Bo. When you're as big as Zach and Love, you can use your body to shield the ball from your defender. You don't have to go over the top. Randolph is great around the basket in the NBA; he just isn't a very good passer and over-relies on a sub-mediocre jumpshot.

All you need to score around the basket is the ability to use your body and good touch. Love and Randolph have both... the difference is that Love also has a huge bball IQ and superb passing ability.

Conditioning/joint issues should be the only flag with Love. It's nice if you're freakishly vertically athletic as a big in the NBA, but it's far from a necessity. You definitely need to be strong, though, and Love is that.

GSW2K4 · Post #34 » by **GSW2K4** » Fri May 2, 2008 2:47 pm

I don't know why people always seem to overlook this when talking about potential -- but if you watched Roy consistently in college the thing that just stood out about him is that he just seemed to be 3-4 plays ahead of every other player on the court and just took over the game when his team needed it.

Love plays a different position that Roy, but he had the capacity to make his presence felt... as a freshman on a very good team. That's impressive. And to me, just having that kind of presence on the court is an intangible that facilitates unlimited upside. Will he be a perennial all-star? Maybe not. But he will be a better version of Sean May and a solid starter for a large part of his career.

Every year people pass on guys that have the mentality and ability to dominate at the college level and lead their teams deep in the tournament for guys that tantalize our imaginations with athletic ability. To me, this is why people draft Marvin Williams over Chris Paul (which made no sense, Atl's playoff appearance this year notwithstanding). Or Nene, Wilcox, Ely, Haislip, and Humphrey ahead of Boozer who was a force on a good team. In fact, you look at who the Jazz have drafted from consistently low positions -- Boozer, Kirilenko, and Milsap -- and you have the frontcourt of a top team in the league.

Of course it's exciting to find that Kevin Garnett or Amare Stoudemire gem... but Love is a surefire player in this league. If we can't see an outstanding college player who has demonstrated the ability to adjust to higher levels of competition of play quickly and will likely be a career starter as "upside" then something is wrong...

Serpo · Post #35 » by **Serpo** » Fri May 2, 2008 6:43 pm

Boozer was a Cleveland pick nevertheless i like Kevin Love and would appreciate to pick him for the Nets at #10 if he's available .

Devilzsidewalk · Post #36 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Fri May 2, 2008 7:24 pm

The way I figure it, the Lopez twins are an NBA quality frontcourt from a talent standpoint and bigger than most from a size standpoint. Love still got it done. And he's a youngun, he'll get better.

His biggest trait is that he seems to be immune to pressure

I'll be floored if Love isn't a star

Post #37 » by **moocow007** » Fri May 2, 2008 7:38 pm

emunney wrote:Raise your hand if you think Love is less athletic than Zach Randolph.

There's no question that Love gets off the ground significantly better than Z-Bo. When you're as big as Zach and Love, you can use your body to shield the ball from your defender. You don't have to go over the top. Randolph is great around the basket in the NBA; he just isn't a very good passer and over-relies on a sub-mediocre jumpshot.

All you need to score around the basket is the ability to use your body and good touch. Love and Randolph have both... the difference is that Love also has a huge bball IQ and superb passing ability.

Conditioning/joint issues should be the only flag with Love. It's nice if you're freakishly vertically athletic as a big in the NBA, but it's far from a necessity. You definitely need to be strong, though, and Love is that.

Zach Randolph has perhaps the worst vertical in the NBA but conditioning really isn't the reason. Randolph is actually known for being a hard worker in the weight room. But Randolph is noticeably faster than Love getting up and down the court and that might be due to conditioning on Love's part.

wilt · Post #38 » by **wilt** » Sat May 3, 2008 1:32 pm

then again Love is noticeably more willing to get up and (especially) down the court than Randolph

Seriously, at least with Love you get effort and smarts which is more than you can say about a lot of players, so that along with his skills will give him a shot at a good career since it

GoBobcats · Post #39 » by **GoBobcats** » Sat May 3, 2008 8:17 pm

DrugBust wrote:When all is said and done I wouldn't be surprised to see Love go #5. Not a snowball's chance in hell he lasts to #13.

Agreed

Ballings7 · Post #40 » by **Ballings7** » Mon May 5, 2008 8:44 am

Does anybody think Love would be a relevant/good pick for the Kings? In the intention to pair him with Hawes for the future, which would be a good possibility in drafting him. Specifically, would that tandem be enough defensively to legitimately contend?

I really don't myself (maybe for obvious reasons...), but am curious to see what others think about that scenario for the Kings.

I'm thinking he may well not even be around for the Kings, also. So would all be avoided.