DeAndre Ayton

[anthony00]

He is just so freaking static with the ball, NBA spacing could help and whatever you want, but the guy is quite archaic in terms of what he does well, he is a classic big, low-post, high post type, range is pretty meh, jumper is certainly shaky, and he has very little face-up game.

Add that up with his D, and I am just not there, he can be a really good big, an All Star, I am just not buying the generational tag.

not everyone is going to shoo threes all game he can improve

[doordoor123]

Yeah, if DeAndre Jordan developed a handle he could be Shaq, what are we talking about here?

Well DeAndre Jordan had no skill, Ayton has skill and handles the ball well in the post. Apples and Oranges. Jordan literally was only an athlete coming into the NBA. Ayton at 19 is much more advanced. Ayton also has better hip mobility than Jordan. Jordan physically can’t handle the ball. Ayton has the fluidity for it. Not saying he needs to cross people over, just needs to be able to dribble in the lane and finish strong (like Dwight Howard has been doing recently).

[doordoor123]

Yeah, if DeAndre Jordan developed a handle he could be Shaq, what are we talking about here?

I have a question. Say if Ayton were to be drafted as a senior, where would he go? What would he improve? Do you think he wouldn’t improve? Do you think if he didn’t improve it would affect his stock? What if he did improve? Would that change how you see him?

[King Ken]

He is just so freaking static with the ball, NBA spacing could help and whatever you want, but the guy is quite archaic in terms of what he does well, he is a classic big, low-post, high post type, range is pretty meh, jumper is certainly shaky, and he has very little face-up game.

Add that up with his D, and I am just not there, he can be a really good big, an All Star, I am just not buying the generational tag.

He's an athlete freak. His body is insane like Shaq. Some people got it in college. I remember Blake Griffin at OU. He had it. Ayton has it. But he's kinda raw to me. He's gonna be a star but he's going to have to put in a lot of work to become a superstar.

But he's gonna be a star. That's unquestionable.

[crazy_me_87]

He is just so freaking static with the ball, NBA spacing could help and whatever you want, but the guy is quite archaic in terms of what he does well, he is a classic big, low-post, high post type, range is pretty meh, jumper is certainly shaky, and he has very little face-up game.

Add that up with his D, and I am just not there, he can be a really good big, an All Star, I am just not buying the generational tag.

He's an athlete freak. His body is insane like Shaq. Some people got it in college. I remember Blake Griffin at OU. He had it. Ayton has it. But he's kinda raw to me. He's gonna be a star but he's going to have to put in a lot of work to become a superstar.

But he's gonna be a star. That's unquestionable.

Yeah he has a really high floor. Cant see him below 15/10/2 with 1.5 Blocks in the NBA as Career average. Would mean at least a few All Star Teams. Ceiling is insane. He has all the tools to be an insane defender and with the right Coaching he can become a great defender. Its the same stuff now in every Thread about a Kid... its baffling... like no one ever did improve at something...

[King Ken]

He is just so freaking static with the ball, NBA spacing could help and whatever you want, but the guy is quite archaic in terms of what he does well, he is a classic big, low-post, high post type, range is pretty meh, jumper is certainly shaky, and he has very little face-up game.

Add that up with his D, and I am just not there, he can be a really good big, an All Star, I am just not buying the generational tag.

He's an athlete freak. His body is insane like Shaq. Some people got it in college. I remember Blake Griffin at OU. He had it. Ayton has it. But he's kinda raw to me. He's gonna be a star but he's going to have to put in a lot of work to become a superstar.

But he's gonna be a star. That's unquestionable.

Yeah he has a really high floor. Cant see him below 15/10/2 with 1.5 Blocks in the NBA as Career average. Would mean at least a few All Star Teams. Ceiling is insane. He has all the tools to be an insane defender and with the right Coaching he can become a great defender. Its the same stuff now in every Thread about a Kid... its baffling... like no one ever did improve at something...

He has it all like AD. But like AD, you see so much that's unpolished. It's insane. Even AD right now is still unpolished but he's more skilled than Ayton was but Ayton has a way better tool kit and size.

Ayton is a once in a lifetime prospect but generational doesn't happen anymore. I didn't even think LeBron was that and he developed so much out of HS. To me, Shaq was the last generational prospect. That's a prospect who out of college is a top 20 NBA player. Players leave too soon for that to happen these days.

[SeattleJazzFan]

if Ayton were born 30 years earlier, he's an absolute lock. if ever there were a throw back to those great 7 footers who entered the league in the 80s, its Ayton. he may still be great, but i do wonder a bit in today's NBA. either way, that dude is a special talent.

[CptCrunch]

Ayton's main weakness is not playstyle, body, passiveness, born in wrong era, etc.

His main weakness is lack of basketball IQ. He has a very bad feel for the game.

[Just_Bullz]

I still believe centres are not that relevant in the current era where perimeter and wing players dominate.

Look at AD, Boogie and Drummond. It's not like they can lead their team to contend.

[thr3ep01nte4]

It has been really difficult to dump the ball down low and ask the center to make a play at the end of a close game. The fronting and physical play in the post just make it too turnover prone.

[anthony00]

lol people think people are useless because they don't shoot threes basketball is starting to get boring and predictable

[anthony00]

I still believe centres are not that relevant in the current era where perimeter and wing players dominate.

Look at AD, Boogie and Drummond. It's not like they can lead their team to contend.

just naming random player because you can

[Just_Bullz]

I still believe centres are not that relevant in the current era where perimeter and wing players dominate.

Look at AD, Boogie and Drummond. It's not like they can lead their team to contend.

just naming random player because you can

The players I named are legit centres on their team.

[anthony00]

I still believe centres are not that relevant in the current era where perimeter and wing players dominate.

Look at AD, Boogie and Drummond. It's not like they can lead their team to contend.

just naming random player because you can

The players I named are legit centres on their team.

i know

[anthony00]

http://www.tankathon.com/players/compare?players=deandre-ayton--marvin-bagley

[Just_Bullz]

just naming random player because you can

The players I named are legit centres on their team.

i know

K

[GimmeDat]

I still believe centres are not that relevant in the current era where perimeter and wing players dominate.

Look at AD, Boogie and Drummond. It's not like they can lead their team to contend.

I don't agree with this. You can point to dozens of the most elite players in the league from a variety of positions and use the 'they're not on a contender' argument.

How many 'contenders' are there?

GSW - Steph and KD, who have an array of star supporting pieces who could arguably be considered stars in their own right (Green, Klay).

CLE - LeBron. Best player in the league and of this era.

HOU - Harden and CP3, the latter of which was supposedly not a winner because he'd never gotten past X-round in the playoffs and because you 'can't win with a PG as your best player', apparently.

They're the only 3 teams I would consider contenders right now, though I should mention Boston because they have the 2nd best record right now, and if you want to point to that route, they're only all-star caliber player is a PG, which again goes against the so often heard 'can't win with a PG as your best player' mantra.

So unless your bar is Durant, Curry, Harden or LeBron, I don't see why you can criticise guys like AD, Boogie or Drummond for not being on a contending team.

Is Wall not conducive to winning because his team is below Detroit's, yet Kyrie, a similar caliber player at the same position, is a player conducive to winning? Ditto Lillard in Portland? Or isn't the argument in OKC, a team filled with elite perimeter talent, that there isn't enough ball to go around?

Having good wings is definitely important in todays league, and traditional big man post play is minimised as a high volume option in todays league, but I would argue that there isn't any conclusive correlation between high level big men and a lack of team success. Each situation is unique and you need to take in to account a variety of factors, such as supporting cast, as a primary example. (For example, Drummond has Bradley, Harris, Jackson and not much depth beyond that. Paul George has Westbrook, Melo, Adams and more. Are star wings not conducive to winning?).

The one and only really disadvantage I see is that it's harder to count on them as a 'go-to' offensive option down the stretch, and in particular, if you have 2nd tier star big men like Gobert or Drummond that do not have much of an offensive skill-set, you still need top scoring options, in the same way that if you have a #1 option guard, you probably still need a defensive anchor or overall high level defense.

With the Bulls for instance, I would suggest this - maybe Ayton, or whatever other big man option you pick (in the scenario that we somehow were back in the top 5 again), may not be your bona fide go-to #1 scoring option, but they will have a massive impact on the floor and a guy like Lavine can be the primary perimeter option when go-to shot making is needed, even though Lavine isn't a star player himself.

I think the most important thing is that you have enough talent and that it's well balanced to off-set the limitations of your star player, whatever position they play. But I don't think there's anything inherently limiting about having a stud big man. Any team would take a AD/Boogie/Drummond any day of the week, they have a transformative impact on any team and their success.

[Just_Bullz]

I still believe centres are not that relevant in the current era where perimeter and wing players dominate.

Look at AD, Boogie and Drummond. It's not like they can lead their team to contend.

I don't agree with this. You can point to dozens of the most elite players in the league from a variety of positions and use the 'they're not on a contender' argument.

How many 'contenders' are there?

GSW - Steph and KD, who have an array of star supporting pieces who could arguably be considered stars in their own right (Green, Klay).

CLE - LeBron. Best player in the league and of this era.

HOU - Harden and CP3, the latter of which was supposedly not a winner because he'd never gotten past X-round in the playoffs and because you 'can't win with a PG as your best player', apparently.

They're the only 3 teams I would consider contenders right now, though I should mention Boston because they have the 2nd best record right now, and if you want to point to that route, they're only all-star caliber player is a PG, which again goes against the so often heard 'can't win with a PG as your best player' mantra.

So unless your bar is Durant, Curry, Harden or LeBron, I don't see why you can criticise guys like AD, Boogie or Drummond for not being on a contending team.

Is Wall not conducive to winning because his team is below Detroit's, yet Kyrie, a similar caliber player at the same position, is a player conducive to winning? Ditto Lillard in Portland? Or isn't the argument in OKC, a team filled with elite perimeter talent, that there isn't enough ball to go around?

Having good wings is definitely important in todays league, and traditional big man post play is minimised as a high volume option in todays league, but I would argue that there isn't any conclusive correlation between high level big men and a lack of team success. Each situation is unique and you need to take in to account a variety of factors, such as supporting cast, as a primary example. (For example, Drummond has Bradley, Harris, Jackson and not much depth beyond that. Paul George has Westbrook, Melo, Adams and more. Are star wings not conducive to winning?).

The one and only really disadvantage I see is that it's harder to count on them as a 'go-to' offensive option down the stretch, and in particular, if you have 2nd tier star big men like Gobert or Drummond that do not have much of an offensive skill-set, you still need top scoring options, in the same way that if you have a #1 option guard, you probably still need a defensive anchor or overall high level defense.

With the Bulls for instance, I would suggest this - maybe Ayton, or whatever other big man option you pick (in the scenario that we somehow were back in the top 5 again), may not be your bona fide go-to #1 scoring option, but they will have a massive impact on the floor and a guy like Lavine can be the primary perimeter option when go-to shot making is needed, even though Lavine isn't a star player himself.

I think the most important thing is that you have enough talent and that it's well balanced to off-set the limitations of your star player, whatever position they play. But I don't think there's anything inherently limiting about having a stud big man. Any team would take a AD/Boogie/Drummond any day of the week, they have a transformative impact on any team and their success.

Strong argument and fair point but with that in mind, neither AD/Boogie/Drummond made any transformative impact to their team. They struggled to make the playoffs. You mentioned Damien/Wall and they all made the playoffs with their teams.

Building a team with talent to contend is the obvious goal of every organization and not the exception. The centre position is less of a relevance in my opinion. If we use the past ten years as reference, not many centres on championship teams are the cornerstone of the franchise or a finals mvp.

Its not Ayton is not top calibre but the era is different now where perimeter play is key and the role of centres have been diminished.

[doordoor123]

I just realized who Ayton reminds me of — Nene. Same kind of fluidity, rebounding, post game. Ayton isn’t as big and shoots more.

[thr3ep01nte4]

I just realized who Ayton reminds me of — Nene. Same kind of fluidity, rebounding, post game. Ayton isn’t as big and shoots more.

That comparison is quite on. Nene’s career was derailed by injuries. He was picked before Stoudemire for a reason. When healthy, Nene was very effective and a beast. He was a very good midrange shooter with great footwork in the post. Nene was also physically gifted. He led the Wizards to the second round in 2014 after destroying the Bulls and DPOY Joakim Noah 4-1.

Ayton is a bit taller and rebounds better. You could also argue that Ayton is a little bit more mobile on the perimeter.