Haliburton

[The-Power]

Just watched this lengthy video of Haliburton running P&Rs which is going to be a huge part of his offensive game at the next level, and I have to say, I came away very unimpressed.

That's the thing, though: you don't draft Haliburton to be a PnR-heavy Guard at the next level. Does it limit his ceiling? Yes, I believe so, too. Is it a big problem that he's limited in PnRs? No, as long as you're not asking of him to play like a player he's not. I don't see a reason why this would necessary be a ‘huge part of his offensive game’, as you claim.

Well where does his offense come from at the next level? Just spot ups, backdoor cuts, and transition finishes? That's basically what his offense is relegated to if he's not running P&Rs. If that's the case, there are guys I'd rather have that can do those things and defend at a high level.

In a motion-based offense like GSW there are lots of offensive plays that do not involve the PnR. What you imply here is that you either run the PnR or you can't do anything on the ball, and that's not something I agree with at all.

[getrichordie]

That's the thing, though: you don't draft Haliburton to be a PnR-heavy Guard at the next level. Does it limit his ceiling? Yes, I believe so, too. Is it a big problem that he's limited in PnRs? No, as long as you're not asking of him to play like a player he's not. I don't see a reason why this would necessary be a ‘huge part of his offensive game’, as you claim.

Well where does his offense come from at the next level? Just spot ups, backdoor cuts, and transition finishes? That's basically what his offense is relegated to if he's not running P&Rs. If that's the case, there are guys I'd rather have that can do those things and defend at a high level.

In a motion-based offense like GSW there are lots of offensive plays that do not involve the PnR. What you imply here is that you either run the PnR or you can't do anything on the ball, and that's not something I agree with at all.

That's not what I'm implying at all. I understand what a motion offense entails. Most of your points are going to come off of screen actions, DHOs, etc. Anything to create separation really, but the issue is that Haliburton doesn't have the burst to create that kind of separation himself and isn't particularly fast or quick to the basket and he's certainly not running off screens for pull-up 3s.

[The-Power]

I'm not most interested in how Haliburton gets his points but how he can create for others (his real calling-card), and that he could do easily in a motion-based offense. Haliburton himself is going to be more of an opportunistic scorer and not someone you expect to constantly create for himself in one-on-one or two-on-two situations.

[No-Man]

Just watched this lengthy video of Haliburton running P&Rs which is going to be a huge part of his offensive game at the next level, and I have to say, I came away very unimpressed.

That's the thing, though: you don't draft Haliburton to be a PnR-heavy Guard at the next level. Does it limit his ceiling? Yes, I believe so, too. Is it a big problem that he's limited in PnRs? No, as long as you're not asking of him to play like a player he's not. I don't see a reason why this would necessary be a ‘huge part of his offensive game’, as you claim.

Well the reality is that you just don't draft a dude like him that high, period, the value proposition is straight up garbage

[getrichordie]

I'm not most interested in how Haliburton gets his points but how he can create for others (his real calling-card), and that he could do easily in a motion-based offense. Haliburton himself is going to be more of an opportunistic scorer and not someone you expect to constantly create for himself in one-on-one or two-on-two situations.

Well, I'm not sure how much creation happens for others when the person who has the ball can't bend the defense. Even coming off screens, I think he struggles to turn the corner and get into the paint and create separation. You'd basically be relying on the real creation to come off-ball at that point and I'm not sure why you wouldn't take Hayes before Haliburton at that point.

[No-Man]

tertiary creation and C&S is valuable to a degree, if you add defensive versatility or whatever even more (dubious that's Hali with his frame/strength)

it's just not that valuable in terms of the draft though, esp as a guard, if you think Hali is a wing, maybe, but dunno

Still really don't get it, the reasonable outcomes for him are very much not a player you want to pay a lot for, and is def one that you can replace somewhat easily

Depends on system and personnel, but the easiest way to build a winner si through stars, not motion

[The-Power]

Depends on system and personnel, but the easiest way to build a winner si through stars, not motion

Yeah, and if I was confident a player projects to be this kind of star then I'd draft him ahead of Haliburton. The problem is that on average a draft maybe has two of them and once you don't believe this type of prospect is available any longer, you draft to complement your current star player(s) unless you're a team desperate for upside players no matter the odds. And as a complementary piece to another wing creator, Haliburton is as good as it gets in this draft.

[getrichordie]

Depends on system and personnel, but the easiest way to build a winner si through stars, not motion

Yeah, and if I was confident a player projects to be this kind of star then I'd draft him ahead of Haliburton. The problem is that on average a draft maybe has two of them and once you don't believe this type of prospect is available any longer, you draft to complement your current star player(s) unless you're a team desperate for upside players no matter the odds. And as a complementary piece to another wing creator, Haliburton is as good as it gets in this draft.

You have Haliburton as better than Hayes who ran motion offense at Ratiopharm Ulm?

[No-Man]

Depends on system and personnel, but the easiest way to build a winner si through stars, not motion

Yeah, and if I was confident a player projects to be this kind of star then I'd draft him ahead of Haliburton. The problem is that on average a draft maybe has two of them and once you don't believe this type of prospect is available any longer, you draft to complement your current star player(s) unless you're a team desperate for upside players no matter the odds. And as a complementary piece to another wing creator, Haliburton is as good as it gets in this draft.

Nah, there are 1-2 legit stars, there are on average 3-4 more secondary stars, that on production and trade value alone have more upside than Hali, and then, of the secondary types there are plenty of other guys whose skillsets are harder to find out there than Haliburton's

I would be fine with Tyrese around late top10 (highest), in this class, there is an argument for him there, I just don't see how he has a case for tier II

Drafting to complement your star players when you are bad enough to net a top10 is generally a terrible idea

The replacement value isn't there imo, you can get pretty close to what Haliburtno offers generally cheap-ish, when you actually might need that

If you can sign the guy, as a competitive team, for the MLE or so, you shouldn't be investing a high end draft asset (top10-lotto) on that prospect

[No-Man]

Depends on system and personnel, but the easiest way to build a winner si through stars, not motion

Yeah, and if I was confident a player projects to be this kind of star then I'd draft him ahead of Haliburton. The problem is that on average a draft maybe has two of them and once you don't believe this type of prospect is available any longer, you draft to complement your current star player(s) unless you're a team desperate for upside players no matter the odds. And as a complementary piece to another wing creator, Haliburton is as good as it gets in this draft.

You have Haliburton as better than Hayes who ran motion offense at Ratiopharm Ulm?

Every euro team runs motion to a degree but Hayes was a ball dominant guard at Ulm, he is not good off ball

[getrichordie]

Yeah, and if I was confident a player projects to be this kind of star then I'd draft him ahead of Haliburton. The problem is that on average a draft maybe has two of them and once you don't believe this type of prospect is available any longer, you draft to complement your current star player(s) unless you're a team desperate for upside players no matter the odds. And as a complementary piece to another wing creator, Haliburton is as good as it gets in this draft.

You have Haliburton as better than Hayes who ran motion offense at Ratiopharm Ulm?

Every euro team runs motion to a degree but Hayes was a ball dominant guard at Ulm, he is not good off ball

I think he will be fine off-ball. He's smart enough to figure it out. I believe in his shooting more-so than Haliburton's. His off-dribble jumpers look good. I think he has the strength to be a consistent C&S guy who can attack closeouts and make advantageous cuts.

[The-Power]

You have Haliburton as better than Hayes who ran motion offense at Ratiopharm Ulm?

I have Hayes higher than Haliburton but Haliburton is easily the better off ball player and I think he can contribute much quicker to a motion offense without dominating the ball. Hayes' catch-and-shoot ability needs to improve quite considerably and Haliburton makes quicker reads. I have Hayes higher because of his on-ball potential.

[No-Man]

His pull-up is good, he has been downright clueless off ball, he may figure out or may not but he is def a guy who wants the ball at heart

he is very different from Hali

[WargamesX]

Depends on system and personnel, but the easiest way to build a winner si through stars, not motion

Yeah, and if I was confident a player projects to be this kind of star then I'd draft him ahead of Haliburton. The problem is that on average a draft maybe has two of them and once you don't believe this type of prospect is available any longer, you draft to complement your current star player(s) unless you're a team desperate for upside players no matter the odds. And as a complementary piece to another wing creator, Haliburton is as good as it gets in this draft.

I agree, if this was a stronger draft class (or even just better scouted) I could see there being players with more upside rising and Haliburton falling to the late lottery range. However, this draft was considered weak, before the early end and all anyone has is tapes and stats.

So there are three teams that are higher in the lottery I could see being interested in Haliburton. I don’t think he would be any of these teams first choices but if they end up in the 5-10 range I think they would take him if their first or second choices were gone.

1) Atlanta to pair with Young at SG
2) NY to pair up with RJ at PG
3) Phoenix to pair up with Booker at PG (Rubio eventual replacement)

His ability to be both ball dominant and play off ball and stretch the floor as needed would work with all those teams and for next to those ball dominant guards. I honestly don’t think all three teams will pass on him unless the all move up in the lottery. If they do I think he falls into the 10-15 range.

[SNPA]

Depends on system and personnel, but the easiest way to build a winner si through stars, not motion

Yeah, and if I was confident a player projects to be this kind of star then I'd draft him ahead of Haliburton. The problem is that on average a draft maybe has two of them and once you don't believe this type of prospect is available any longer, you draft to complement your current star player(s) unless you're a team desperate for upside players no matter the odds. And as a complementary piece to another wing creator, Haliburton is as good as it gets in this draft.

I agree, if this was a stronger draft class (or even just better scouted) I could see there being players with more upside rising and Haliburton falling to the late lottery range. However, this draft was considered weak, before the early end and all anyone has is tapes and stats.

So there are three teams that are higher in the lottery I could see being interested in Haliburton. I don’t think he would be any of these teams first choices but if they end up in the 5-10 range I think they would take him if their first or second choices were gone.

1) Atlanta to pair with Young at SG
2) NY to pair up with RJ at PG
3) Phoenix to pair up with Booker at PG (Rubio eventual replacement)

His ability to be both ball dominant and play off ball and stretch the floor as needed would work with all those teams and for next to those ball dominant guards. I honestly don’t think all three teams will pass on him unless the all move up in the lottery. If they do I think he falls into the 10-15 range.

He fits with all those. He also works great with Fox. There are things he doesn’t do, but what he does he is really good at. Just put him next to a ball dominant scorer and let him C&S or be the secondary initiator. He’ll be good in the open court too.

[WargamesX]

Yeah, and if I was confident a player projects to be this kind of star then I'd draft him ahead of Haliburton. The problem is that on average a draft maybe has two of them and once you don't believe this type of prospect is available any longer, you draft to complement your current star player(s) unless you're a team desperate for upside players no matter the odds. And as a complementary piece to another wing creator, Haliburton is as good as it gets in this draft.

I agree, if this was a stronger draft class (or even just better scouted) I could see there being players with more upside rising and Haliburton falling to the late lottery range. However, this draft was considered weak, before the early end and all anyone has is tapes and stats.

So there are three teams that are higher in the lottery I could see being interested in Haliburton. I don’t think he would be any of these teams first choices but if they end up in the 5-10 range I think they would take him if their first or second choices were gone.

1) Atlanta to pair with Young at SG
2) NY to pair up with RJ at PG
3) Phoenix to pair up with Booker at PG (Rubio eventual replacement)

His ability to be both ball dominant and play off ball and stretch the floor as needed would work with all those teams and for next to those ball dominant guards. I honestly don’t think all three teams will pass on him unless the all move up in the lottery. If they do I think he falls into the 10-15 range.

He fits with all those. He also works great with Fox. There are things he doesn’t do, but what he does he is really good at. Just put him next to a ball dominant scorer and let him C&S or be the secondary initiator. He’ll be good in the open court too.

You’re right if the Kings plan to move on from Hield. I think Haliburton would be a really good fit because he doesn’t require a lot of shots to be effective.

[The-Power]

So there are three teams that are higher in the lottery I could see being interested in Haliburton. I don’t think he would be any of these teams first choices but if they end up in the 5-10 range I think they would take him if their first or second choices were gone.

1) Atlanta to pair with Young at SG
2) NY to pair up with RJ at PG
3) Phoenix to pair up with Booker at PG (Rubio eventual replacement)

If the Warriors fall or trade down, I'd also think (and hope) that Haliburton is near or at the top of their big board in that mid-lottery range.

[SNPA]

I agree, if this was a stronger draft class (or even just better scouted) I could see there being players with more upside rising and Haliburton falling to the late lottery range. However, this draft was considered weak, before the early end and all anyone has is tapes and stats.

So there are three teams that are higher in the lottery I could see being interested in Haliburton. I don’t think he would be any of these teams first choices but if they end up in the 5-10 range I think they would take him if their first or second choices were gone.

1) Atlanta to pair with Young at SG
2) NY to pair up with RJ at PG
3) Phoenix to pair up with Booker at PG (Rubio eventual replacement)

His ability to be both ball dominant and play off ball and stretch the floor as needed would work with all those teams and for next to those ball dominant guards. I honestly don’t think all three teams will pass on him unless the all move up in the lottery. If they do I think he falls into the 10-15 range.

He fits with all those. He also works great with Fox. There are things he doesn’t do, but what he does he is really good at. Just put him next to a ball dominant scorer and let him C&S or be the secondary initiator. He’ll be good in the open court too.

You’re right if the Kings plan to move on from Hield. I think Haliburton would be a really good fit because he doesn’t require a lot of shots to be effective.

Long term I think he is a better fit with Fox both because of age and his game. For the short term, he would provide another ball handler the Kings need and by sliding Bogi up to SF for 10-15 mins per game there is room for all four guys. Odd man out is Joseph but he isn’t in the plans past next year anyhow.

[Senor Chang]

I think Haliburton would be great for the bulls. Initially they can play him off the bench as the 3rd guard behind Coby White and Lavine. Eventually if he proves better(or a better fit) than either of those two then you start him with the other guy. Both Coby White and Zach are ball dominant but don't have the playmaking or decision making that the bulls really lack in the backcourt.

[Nazrmohamed]

I'm not most interested in how Haliburton gets his points but how he can create for others (his real calling-card), and that he could do easily in a motion-based offense. Haliburton himself is going to be more of an opportunistic scorer and not someone you expect to constantly create for himself in one-on-one or two-on-two situations.

Well, I'm not sure how much creation happens for others when the person who has the ball can't bend the defense. Even coming off screens, I think he struggles to turn the corner and get into the paint and create separation. You'd basically be relying on the real creation to come off-ball at that point and I'm not sure why you wouldn't take Hayes before Haliburton at that point.

Hayes is definitely better at turning the corner but there are flaws he has too. He shoots under 30% from 3. Pretty good from 2 though and he can hit FTs so it'll most likely improve but on day 1 he's a better shot creator who isn't the best shooter himself so what happens when defenses force you to shoot. Whereas what you say is true about Haliburton but stop his penetration and he'll light you up from deep. And in today's NBA (well I appreciate the skills of both players and think fans have this single way to be good mentality.) if you had to pick between the two flaws I think teams take the better long range shooter.