Trae Young

[The-Power]

Lonzo was able to find the open players on his team without having to dominate the ball like Young does and did it without making nearly as many mistakes as Young does.

Ball made less mistakes because he was playing it safe for the most part. Nothing wrong with that per se but Ball's situation is clearly not comparable to Young's. Young has less talent around him, and him being the primary scorer and playmaker by far while running a lot of PnRs will naturally lead to more mistakes and more turnovers – but the reward is also greater.

I understand why you'd have much more faith in Conference play even though I don't quite see why we'd disregard games against Oregon, Wichita State and USC. Be it as it may, if you're completely ignoring all non-Conference games then you're literally looking at an 8 game sample and that's just not enough. At least give him time to adjust to Conference play a bit more. It's seems unfair to completely disregard the huge success he had with his approach before Conference play and then not give him a a couple more games to try and figure out how to react to decreasing success. How many players whose approach worked great are able to adapt within just 8 games of less success? And this is not even mentioning that Oklahoma's offense remains good – albeit not great – even in Conference play despite the limited offensive talent on that roster. So Young still clearly makes an impact there.

I agree that his current approach won't fly in the NBA. But to say that he'll have to decide to become either a gunner or a Tyus Jones-type PG seems really premature. Why wouldn't there be some middle ground? Why wouldn't he, in theory, be able to still control much of the offense but to a much lesser degree than in college with increasing efficiency as a result? I mean, what is Steph? What is Lillard? What is Harden next to Paul? Those are all guys with a lot of freedom offensively who, however, play within a system and let other guys contribute as playmakers and scorers as well. I don't see any reason why Young couldn't model his game after someone like Curry and, if he has a lot of success in that role, play more like 2017 Harden on a team less talented than the Warriors. He doesn't have to completely change who he is as there are certainly screws to adjust.

I, for one, realize that Young has a relatively high bust factor. But at the same time, I realize that his offensive upside is only matched by Doncic in this draft. I understand if there's a team not willing to take the risk with some other great prospects still on the board but it's without a doubt premature to consider him either nothing but a gunner or someone who has to completely change who he is to have success. I don't see any solid foundation for that argument.

PS: Unrelated to Young, but considering how you only look at Conference play I'm even more surprised by your assessment of Jackson who has been absolutely killing it in Conference play (especially since you're arguing a lot with numbers in Young's case at thatƒ).

[kb02]

These are flat out lies

A flat out lie is to say Young is the best passer since Chris Paul as a freshman when all you had to do was go back a few months to find a better Freshman passer.

Young's going to be solid, but the second you start stretching his "elite" abilities to his passing, it's probably time to realize that dude may not be as generational as you think.

lol I don't think the dude is generational whatsoever, LeBron is generational, Durant, Curry, Davis, that's about it

The moment you state that he only passes when he is forced too you are lying out of your ass and deserve to be called out for either purposely misinforming or just been an ignorant that hasn't bothered watching any tape on the guy.

Lol. The moment you start throwing out insults is when you've lost.

Keep on holding to the best passer since CP3 thing, because that's totally believable.

And I've watched every one of his game's since conference play. 12 turnovers in one game and taking nearly 50% of the team's shots is certainly not an indication of a player who's holding onto the ball right? I mean, CP3, who was the best freshman passer before Young came along, had 12 turnover games n took 50% of his team's shots, right?!?

[Duke4life831]

Lonzo was able to find the open players on his team without having to dominate the ball like Young does and did it without making nearly as many mistakes as Young does.

Ball made less mistakes because he was playing it safe for the most part. Nothing wrong with that per se but Ball's situation is clearly not comparable to Young's. Young has less talent around him, and him being the primary scorer and playmaker by far while running a lot of PnRs will naturally lead to more mistakes and more turnovers – but the reward is also greater.

I understand why you'd have much more faith in Conference play even though I don't quite see why we'd disregard games against Oregon, Wichita State and USC. Be it as it may, if you're completely ignoring all non-Conference games then you're literally looking at an 8 game sample and that's just not enough. At least give him time to adjust to Conference play a bit more. It's seems unfair to completely disregard the huge success he had with his approach before Conference play and then not give him a a couple more games to try and figure out how to react to decreasing success. How many players whose approach worked great are able to adapt within just 8 games of less success? And this is not even mentioning that Oklahoma's offense remains good – albeit not great – even in Conference play despite the limited offensive talent on that roster. So Young still clearly makes an impact there.

I agree that his current approach won't fly in the NBA. But to say that he'll have to decide to become either a gunner or a Tyus Jones-type PG seems really premature. Why wouldn't there be some middle ground? Why wouldn't he, in theory, be able to still control much of the offense but to a much lesser degree than in college with increasing efficiency as a result? I mean, what is Steph? What is Lillard? What is Harden next to Paul? Those are all guys with a lot of freedom offensively who, however, play within a system and let other guys contribute as playmakers and scorers as well. I don't see any reason why Young couldn't model his game after someone like Curry and, if he has a lot of success in that role, play more like 2017 Harden on a team less talented than the Warriors. He doesn't have to completely change who he is as there are certainly screws to adjust.

I, for one, realize that Young has a relatively high bust factor. But at the same time, I realize that his offensive upside is only matched by Doncic in this draft. I understand if there's a team not willing to take the risk with some other great prospects still on the board but it's without a doubt premature to consider him either nothing but a gunner or someone who has to completely change who he is to have success. I don't see any solid foundation for that argument.

PS: Unrelated to Young, but considering how you only look at Conference play I'm even more surprised by your assessment of Jackson who has been absolutely killing it in Conference play (especially since you're arguing a lot with numbers in Young's case at thatƒ).

I dont think Oregon or USC are all that good of teams, but fine throw them in there. The main point I have is I dont like his play style because it wont work against NBA quality opponents. Its easy to gameplan against especially when he is his size. If Young played a lot more games like he did against Kansas then I would be all aboard the Young hype train. I loved the way he played that game. If he continues to play more and more like that, I will like him a lot more as a prospect. But again going back to his high school days and his international play, hes always been a gunner with poor shot selection and questionable passing decisions. Im currently catching up on his game today right now and I think its another solid game for him. Its not a game littered with bad forced shots like many of his other games. He is struggling to finish inside the arc which is a concern for me but Im liking his shot selection a lot more the last 2 games.

Here is my bottom line with Young, I look at Young as a boom or bust player (high bust, high reward). So I get why people like him and his potential, I just think hes more likely to bust than boom is all. I also dont see him as this once in a decade type passer either. So I get what many people see in him, I just think his game is going to struggle to translate.

When it comes to Jackson, I like Jackson. I think Im pretty high on him. Right now I have Jackson 6th, I had Wendell Carter much higher than him to start the year but I think Jackson has surpassed him. I think Jackson can be a stronger more durable Myles Turner. A really good shot blocker and a good pick and pop big. I dont see the potential offensively where I think he can be a good #1 or #2 option offensively. Which is why I have bigs like Bagley and Ayton ahead of them because I think they have higher ceilings offensively. I still have Bamba over him because Bamba is the much better rebounder and I think Bamba doesnt just have a chance to be a really good defender, I think he has a chance to be multiple DPOY type defender. But again Ive been impressed with Jackson and thinks hes going to be a real good pro.

[No-Man]

A flat out lie is to say Young is the best passer since Chris Paul as a freshman when all you had to do was go back a few months to find a better Freshman passer.

Young's going to be solid, but the second you start stretching his "elite" abilities to his passing, it's probably time to realize that dude may not be as generational as you think.

lol I don't think the dude is generational whatsoever, LeBron is generational, Durant, Curry, Davis, that's about it

The moment you state that he only passes when he is forced too you are lying out of your ass and deserve to be called out for either purposely misinforming or just been an ignorant that hasn't bothered watching any tape on the guy.

Lol. The moment you start throwing out insults is when you've lost.

Keep on holding to the best passer since CP3 thing, because that's totally believable.

And I've watched every one of his game's since conference play. 12 turnovers in one game and taking nearly 50% of the team's shots is certainly not an indication of a player who's holding onto the ball right? I mean, CP3, who was the best freshman passer before Young came along, had 12 turnover games n took 50% of his team's shots, right?!?

Insults? which ones? I called your statements lies, sorry if that would offend you, it's just that either you are lying or you need new eyes because yours are tricking you, I mean, you said that Young doesn't pass unless he is forced too and well, sorry again but that's a big fat lie, he hits people with go-ahead passes (yeah the same ones that Lonzo got so much rep about) multiple times per game, he makes quick reads out of the PnR all the time, he makes passes, quick hitters, pocket-passes, with both hands, he has as advanced as a technique as you can hope for a PG his age, but hey, apparently you checked some stats for one game, and the fact that he had 12 turnovers and that he takes a lot of shots, then convinced you that he must be a ball-hog.

[No-Man]

Its easy to gameplan against especially when he is his size.

It's easy to game-plan against cause they have 0 players that can even run a freaking short-roll, like Lattin tries and he is comically slow at making reads

With NBA talent it ain't easy to game plan against, it's basically what works to shred defenses all around the league.

As for the schedule, again, if you aren't counting USC, Oregon and likes like that... and giving the fact that Young is playing in the Big12 that this year is the strongest conference in college ball, what do you wanna count? like Bagley has dominated crappy teams as well and his production in conference play has gone down, are you taking that into account as well? what about Ayton? what about Bamba basically putting up numbers against teams that have 6'7 or 6'8 tall bigs?

Seriously

I don't get the boom/bust scenario with Young honestly, if anything I get it with Bagley for example, Young is pretty safe with the instincts and advanced play he has shown with a solid athletic profile, no he is not a super athlete, but has burst, change of directions, really good handles and keeps his head up all the freaking time, he might not be Curry or Nash obviously, but his floor is pretty high, him been close to a top15 PG in the league and a real good starter is much closer to his floor than people seem to believe.

[Duke4life831]

Its easy to gameplan against especially when he is his size.

It's easy to game-plan against cause they have 0 players that can even run a freaking short-roll, like Lattin tries and he is comically slow at making reads

With NBA talent it ain't easy to game plan against, it's basically what works to shred defenses all around the league.

As for the schedule, again, if you aren't counting USC, Oregon and likes like that... and giving the fact that Young is playing in the Big12 that this year is the strongest conference in college ball, what do you wanna count? like Bagley has dominated crappy teams as well and his production in conference play has gone down, are you taking that into account as well? what about Ayton? what about Bamba basically putting up numbers against teams that have 6'7 or 6'8 tall bigs?

Seriously

Ya I take it into account for all the players. I put little stock into out of conference play because of the average quality opponent is poor and usually there is very little to 0 scouting done for those games. I havent been impressed with Wendell Carter at all whenever he has gone up against legit size, that is one of the reasons Jackson over took him in my opinion. Ayton has begun to float a lot more in conference play and that was one of my biggest fears for him coming into the year and he hasnt impressed me as of late, I literally just posted about this on the Chicago board 3 minutes ago.

To me Bagley has been the most consistent freshmen this season. His year stats are very similar to his conference stats.

Year:
21/11/1 on 60/31/62 shooting (63 TS%). 1 stl, 1 blk and 2.4 TOs

Conference (after todays game):
22/12/1 on 60/30/63 shooting. 1 stl, 1 blk and 3.5 TOs

So his production hasnt really gone down and hes had some of his best games against his best competition like Bamba or today against UVA's defense.

So ya Im higher on Bagley because to me hes the best prospect and without a doubt I have a Duke bias. But statistically speaking, his production hasnt fallen off in conference play and he tends to bring it against his toughest competition.

To me Bagley, Jackson and Bamba have been the 3 players that continue to be very consistent. All 3 havent had any drop off in production since conference play and seem to bring it in big games. It will be hard for Jackson to creep into my top 5 because of potential reasons in my opinion. But yes those 3 have been very consistent.

[The-Power]

The main point I have is I dont like his play style because it wont work against NBA quality opponents.

If by ‘his play‘ you mean the way he plays in college (insane usage with a lot of forced shots and passes while dominating the ball to this extent) then I absolutely agree. But I'm of the opinion that we can't really say that this will be his style of play in the NBA because a lot of this is born from the circumstances at Oklahoma.

I understand why you'd be skeptical of his playing style: I've never been a huge fan of Young prior to college myself partly due to those issues. But he's shown me a lot of advanced skills in college that I wasn't really aware of, and that should to him being able to play a big role on offense in the NBA without doing as much crazy stuff as he does now.

Will he ever ‘get it‘? I don't know, and there's one of the risks with Young. But he has the skills to play a little differently and be effective at it and that's his appeal. He's not the only high-ranked prospect this year who will have to approach the game differently at the next level in order to be a high-impact player. The risk might be higher than for anybody else but he's not an exception, and the potential reward is also incredibly high.

Its easy to gameplan against especially when he is his size.

It might be ‘easy‘ (not sure I'd use this word but let's roll with it) to limit his effectiveness with certain game plans at the college level. But the very fact that he has to be gameplanned against means a lot. Which other player shifts defenses as much as Young this year? I don't see anyone. Yes, he struggles against those strategies recently. But he can improve his decision-making in those situations – and having a secondary creator next to him would already help a lot – and this gives him an upside that players who are less prone to make mistakes but never really shift defenses simply don't have.

In other words: he has shown, like nobody else in college over the past two years, that he has the potential to be one of the players who require to be schemed against. This is the first step to become an elite offensive player in the NBA. Whether or not he can go the second one remains to be seen – and only then he could reach his potential – but the chances are definitely there.

Here is my bottom line with Young, I look at Young as a boom or bust player (high bust, high reward).

Agreed. That's why I understand if someone takes him outside the top 5, for example. If you're high on Bagley and Ayton – especially when it comes to the combination of floor and ceiling – then it might not be worth the risk with Young this early. If you, however, believe that Young has a considerably higher ceiling than Bagley or Ayton, or is more likely to reach his ceiling even if his median outcome in a simulation might be worse, then it might be worth taking him pretty early.

In other words: where you rank Young has at least as much to do with how you rank the other top prospects and how risk averse/affine you are as it has to do with how you perceive Young himself.

[Duke4life831]

The main point I have is I dont like his play style because it wont work against NBA quality opponents.

If by ‘his play‘ you mean the way he plays in college (insane usage with a lot of forced shots and passes while dominating the ball to this extent) then I absolutely agree. But I'm of the opinion that we can't really say that this will be his style of play in the NBA because a lot of this is born from the circumstances at Oklahoma.

I understand why you'd be skeptical of his playing style: I've never been a huge fan of Young prior to college myself partly due to those issues. But he's shown me a lot of advanced skills in college that I wasn't really aware of, and that should to him being able to play a big role on offense in the NBA without doing as much crazy stuff as he does now.

Will he ever ‘get it‘? I don't know, and there's one of the risks with Young. But he has the skills to play a little differently and be effective at it and that's his appeal. He's not the only high-ranked prospect this year who will have to approach the game differently at the next level in order to be a high-impact player. The risk might be higher than for anybody else but he's not an exception, and the potential reward is also incredibly high.

Its easy to gameplan against especially when he is his size.

It might be ‘easy‘ (not sure I'd use this word but let's roll with it) to limit his effectiveness with certain game plans at the college level. But the very fact that he has to be gameplanned against means a lot. Which other player shifts defenses as much as Young this year? I don't see anyone. Yes, he struggles against those strategies recently. But he can improve his decision-making in those situations – and having a secondary creator next to him would already help a lot – and this gives him an upside that players who are less prone to make mistakes but never really shift defenses simply don't have.

In other words: he has shown, like nobody else in college over the past two years, that he has the potential to be one of the players who require to be schemed against. This is the first step to become an elite offensive player in the NBA. Whether or not he can go the second one remains to be seen – and only then he could reach his potential – but the chances are definitely there.

Here is my bottom line with Young, I look at Young as a boom or bust player (high bust, high reward).

Agreed. That's why I understand if someone takes him outside the top 5, for example. If you're high on Bagley and Ayton – especially when it comes to the combination of floor and ceiling – then it might not be worth the risk with Young this early. If you, however, believe that Young has a considerably higher ceiling than Bagley or Ayton, or is more likely to reach his ceiling even if his median outcome in a simulation might be worse, then it might be worth taking him pretty early.

In other words: where you rank Young has at least as much to do with how you rank the other top prospects and how risk averse/affine you are as it has to do with how you perceive Young himself.

For me there is a solid top 7 with Doncic/Bagley/Ayton/Porter/Bamba/Jackson/Carter. Carter is the weakest in that group for me but I still have him there, you can call it a top 6 and not include him and Id get that. But right now I dont really see anyone cracking that top 7 for me from what Ive seen so far. I think the top 5 in that group has a great mix of high floor and high ceiling. I think Jackson and Carter have a high floor with great physical profiles as well, I just dont see star potential with them is all. After that I can totally see a team taking Young at 8 and I wouldnt say it would be a bad pick. I think you have solid guys like a Mikal Bridges but if a team wanted to try and swing for the fences more so than a safer pick like Bridges, Id get that 100%.

When I say his play style, its not just his USG even though I think his USG is a huge reason why he has as much hype as he does right now, that insane USG leads to usually high raw stats. Its the shot selection and passing selection that I question. Hes always been that way and its one of the reasons Ive never been high on him. Again I loved his game against Kansas because his shot selection was phenomenal, he just doesnt have enough games like that in my opinion.

So to me there are just so many questions about him compared to the other guys. How will his game translate and what kind of impact will he have with a low to mid 20s USG instead of a high 30s. Will he ever improve his shot selection, will he cut down on the dumb passes. How easily will he be able to create space on the next level, whats his finishing ability and ability to score inside the arc going to be like on the next level because right now he really struggles to finish against size. So there are just too many big question marks with him for me to consider him in that top 6-7. Again after that I get it, I think its a weak draft after that top group and I totally get a team taking a swing on a big boom or bust player.

Ive also said this before, I wasnt on here back in the Curry days coming out of college, but I wouldve said I didnt think Curry would be a star. I do think Curry had the higher ceiling coming out, liked his decisions with the ball better and I like his shooting form better. But I thought Curry was a boom or bust type of player and he boomed.

[MalonesElbows]

The main point I have is I dont like his play style because it wont work against NBA quality opponents.

If by ‘his play‘ you mean the way he plays in college (insane usage with a lot of forced shots and passes while dominating the ball to this extent) then I absolutely agree. But I'm of the opinion that we can't really say that this will be his style of play in the NBA because a lot of this is born from the circumstances at Oklahoma.

I understand why you'd be skeptical of his playing style: I've never been a huge fan of Young prior to college myself partly due to those issues. But he's shown me a lot of advanced skills in college that I wasn't really aware of, and that should to him being able to play a big role on offense in the NBA without doing as much crazy stuff as he does now.

Will he ever ‘get it‘? I don't know, and there's one of the risks with Young. But he has the skills to play a little differently and be effective at it and that's his appeal. He's not the only high-ranked prospect this year who will have to approach the game differently at the next level in order to be a high-impact player. The risk might be higher than for anybody else but he's not an exception, and the potential reward is also incredibly high.

Its easy to gameplan against especially when he is his size.

It might be ‘easy‘ (not sure I'd use this word but let's roll with it) to limit his effectiveness with certain game plans at the college level. But the very fact that he has to be gameplanned against means a lot. Which other player shifts defenses as much as Young this year? I don't see anyone. Yes, he struggles against those strategies recently. But he can improve his decision-making in those situations – and having a secondary creator next to him would already help a lot – and this gives him an upside that players who are less prone to make mistakes but never really shift defenses simply don't have.

In other words: he has shown, like nobody else in college over the past two years, that he has the potential to be one of the players who require to be schemed against. This is the first step to become an elite offensive player in the NBA. Whether or not he can go the second one remains to be seen – and only then he could reach his potential – but the chances are definitely there.

Here is my bottom line with Young, I look at Young as a boom or bust player (high bust, high reward).

Agreed. That's why I understand if someone takes him outside the top 5, for example. If you're high on Bagley and Ayton – especially when it comes to the combination of floor and ceiling – then it might not be worth the risk with Young this early. If you, however, believe that Young has a considerably higher ceiling than Bagley or Ayton, or is more likely to reach his ceiling even if his median outcome in a simulation might be worse, then it might be worth taking him pretty early.

In other words: where you rank Young has at least as much to do with how you rank the other top prospects and how risk averse/affine you are as it has to do with how you perceive Young himself.

For me there is a solid top 7 with Doncic/Bagley/Ayton/Porter/Bamba/Jackson/Carter. Carter is the weakest in that group for me but I still have him there, you can call it a top 6 and not include him and Id get that. But right now I dont really see anyone cracking that top 7 for me from what Ive seen so far. I think the top 5 in that group has a great mix of high floor and high ceiling. I think Jackson and Carter have a high floor with great physical profiles as well, I just dont see star potential with them is all. After that I can totally see a team taking Young at 8 and I wouldnt say it would be a bad pick. I think you have solid guys like a Mikal Bridges but if a team wanted to try and swing for the fences more so than a safer pick like Bridges, Id get that 100%.

When I say his play style, its not just his USG even though I think his USG is a huge reason why he has as much hype as he does right now, that insane USG leads to usually high raw stats. Its the shot selection and passing selection that I question. Hes always been that way and its one of the reasons Ive never been high on him. Again I loved his game against Kansas because his shot selection was phenomenal, he just doesnt have enough games like that in my opinion.

So to me there are just so many questions about him compared to the other guys. How will his game translate and what kind of impact will he have with a low to mid 20s USG instead of a high 30s. Will he ever improve his shot selection, will he cut down on the dumb passes. How easily will he be able to create space on the next level, whats his finishing ability and ability to score inside the arc going to be like on the next level because right now he really struggles to finish against size. So there are just too many big question marks with him for me to consider him in that top 6-7. Again after that I get it, I think its a weak draft after that top group and I totally get a team taking a swing on a big boom or bust player.

Ive also said this before, I wasnt on here back in the Curry days coming out of college, but I wouldve said I didnt think Curry would be a star. I do think Curry had the higher ceiling coming out, liked his decisions with the ball better and I like his shooting form better. But I thought Curry was a boom or bust type of player and he boomed.

In the NBA, good shots will become average shots for him. Bad shots will be prayers. Easy passes become average difficulty passes, risky passes become guaranteed turnovers. This is the effect NBA defenders have on tiny, unathletic players. It can only be countered by having insane speed, like IT has. Trae Young does not have that gear.

Now sure you can turn him into a low usage player, one that stands in the corner a lot and can hit 3s. What is that worth though? He'll be a negative on the defensive end, so I don't think its worth much. Late lottery'ish.

[babyjax13]

Trae Young looked very human against Alabama (roll tide!). I'd definitely take Sexton over him. He's going to struggle at the NBA level to create space and get his shot off. I don't think he translates as a bad player, but not as a transcendent one, either. If a player is just going to be an average starting point guard at best, he's not worth a lottery pick, and I think that's where Young is at.

[PLO]

Trae Young looked very human against Alabama (roll tide!). I'd definitely take Sexton over him. He's going to struggle at the NBA level to create space and get his shot off. I don't think he translates as a bad player, but not as a transcendent one, either. If a player is just going to be an average starting point guard at best, he's not worth a lottery pick, and I think that's where Young is at.

The odds of Sexton going ahead of him are basically nil, injury aside.

[babyjax13]

Trae Young looked very human against Alabama (roll tide!). I'd definitely take Sexton over him. He's going to struggle at the NBA level to create space and get his shot off. I don't think he translates as a bad player, but not as a transcendent one, either. If a player is just going to be an average starting point guard at best, he's not worth a lottery pick, and I think that's where Young is at.

The odds of Sexton going ahead of him are basically nil, injury aside.

IDK, Sexton does just about everything pretty well. Reminds me a bit of George Hill; needs to improve his A/TO but I think that will come with time.

[PLO]

Trae Young looked very human against Alabama (roll tide!). I'd definitely take Sexton over him. He's going to struggle at the NBA level to create space and get his shot off. I don't think he translates as a bad player, but not as a transcendent one, either. If a player is just going to be an average starting point guard at best, he's not worth a lottery pick, and I think that's where Young is at.

The odds of Sexton going ahead of him are basically nil, injury aside.

IDK, Sexton does just about everything pretty well. Reminds me a bit of George Hill; needs to improve his A/TO but I think that will come with time.

For a primary ball-handler Sexton's a pretty bad passer, as you allude to. Young is a almost complete floor general, he's a long way ahead of Sexton in a lot of areas, game IQ being one of them.

[babyjax13]

The odds of Sexton going ahead of him are basically nil, injury aside.

IDK, Sexton does just about everything pretty well. Reminds me a bit of George Hill; needs to improve his A/TO but I think that will come with time.

For a primary ball-handler Sexton's a pretty bad passer, as you allude to. Young is a almost complete floor general, he's a long way ahead of Sexton in a lot of areas, game IQ being one of them.

I don't know that I would say he's a bad passer. I think Alabama's offense is really good when it's rolling, but it necessitates a lot of interior penetration by the point guard. Young just gets swallowed up by consistent on-ball pressure. We will see, though. I'd assume Sexton's game benefits from the transition to a more spaced out floor more than Young's, and Young will suffer from NBA level defenders. But he could also be more talented than I'm perceiving.

[PLO]

IDK, Sexton does just about everything pretty well. Reminds me a bit of George Hill; needs to improve his A/TO but I think that will come with time.

For a primary ball-handler Sexton's a pretty bad passer, as you allude to. Young is a almost complete floor general, he's a long way ahead of Sexton in a lot of areas, game IQ being one of them.

I don't know that I would say he's a bad passer. I think Alabama's offense is really good when it's rolling, but it necessitates a lot of interior penetration by the point guard. Young just gets swallowed up by consistent on-ball pressure. We will see, though. I'd assume Sexton's game benefits from the transition to a more spaced out floor more than Young's, and Young will suffer from NBA level defenders. But he could also be more talented than I'm perceiving.

TBH I would have said the opposite, NBA spacing will open up a world of possibilities for Young compared to Sexton. Re Sexton's passing, he's bad in terms of being a primary ball-handler, namely he can't make the passes required right now, but its not as if he won't improve there, he just won't be on the same level as Young, who is an incredible passer and uses his scoring gravity in this regard extremely well.

[No-Man]

liked his decisions with the ball better and I like his shooting form better.

Sure you did, as a Junior! like this is not comparing apples to apples uh

I just don't understand how anybody can write that guys like Young with his profile in the current basketball we are at are boom or bust and you are fine having 5 freaking bigs in your top7 like it's nothing.

Drafting a random big high is a death sentence for a rebuilding process ah, and overpaying/overcommitting resources in bigs is freaking stupid.

I like Carter and Bamba fine, they lack the type of upside (all downs type players if you let me use NFL lingo), to be drafted that high, Carter struggles a ton defending in space and is far from a deterrent at the rim, he is gonna have to be Kevin Love levels of good on offense to be played at the end of games or a ton of minutes for a good team, he reminds me of David West, but like prime David West played the PF, nobody is playing Carter at the 4 next to another C these days.

He is gonna be a pro, and a solid player, but I don't understand going with him that high at all, esp in a class like this where bigs are all over and you can even get guys with similar profiles labeit more flawed later on in Robert Williams or Jontay Porter, to name only two.

As for Bamba, he just lacks quickness off the floor and pop, he is long as **** so at times doesnt matter, but with his lack of strength in his lower body, he is gonna have a hard time finishing through people, people see long and slim and think that he is gotta be athletic, he is fluid, but he is not DeAndre, been a good dive-man isn't automatic for every big, and Bamba is gonna struggle there, that gimmicky shot he has isnt gonna do nothing at the next level either, he is way closer to a total 0 on offense than people realize (i like his passing at times though), and what he does on D is just not useful enough (nothing is really), you are at a competitive disadvantage in the league if you are paying your bigs +20m$ to be only defensive presences, that end-game doesn't work anymore, it can to be solid, respectful, but if you wanna be a contender you gotta go in a different direction there.

Jaren Jackson looks to be at the very least the ideal 3&D big, he is quicker off the floor than Bamba, can put it on the floor and drive at times, and he is gonna shoot it, maybe not pull-ups, but he will open the floor, that gives him a clear edge.

People overrate defense like crazy, esp from one-way guys, I think Bamba is fine eventually as a developmental guy, but I sure as hell would not touch him in the top10, he is more of a specialist than anything at the next level.

[No-Man]

If a player is just going to be an average starting point guard at best, he's not worth a lottery pick, and I think that's where Young is at.

Well you just defined Collin Sexton, who apparently you'd take ahead of Young so....

[PLO]

liked his decisions with the ball better and I like his shooting form better.

Sure you did, as a Junior! like this is not comparing apples to apples uh

I just don't understand how anybody can write that guys like Young with his profile in the current basketball we are at are boom or bust and you are fine having 5 freaking bigs in your top7 like it's nothing.

Drafting a random big high is a death sentence for a rebuilding process ah, and overpaying/overcommitting resources in bigs is freaking stupid.

I like Carter and Bamba fine, they lack the type of upside (all downs type players if you let me use NFL lingo), to be drafted that high, Carter struggles a ton defending in space and is far from a deterrent at the rim, he is gonna have to be Kevin Love levels of good on offense to be played at the end of games or a ton of minutes for a good team, he reminds me of David West, but like prime David West played the PF, nobody is playing Carter at the 4 next to another C these days.

He is gonna be a pro, and a solid player, but I don't understand going with him that high at all, esp in a class like this where bigs are all over and you can even get guys with similar profiles labeit more flawed later on in Robert Williams or Jontay Porter, to name only two.

As for Bamba, he just lacks quickness off the floor and pop, he is long as **** so at times doesnt matter, but with his lack of strength in his lower body, he is gonna have a hard time finishing through people, people see long and slim and think that he is gotta be athletic, he is fluid, but he is not DeAndre, been a good dive-man isn't automatic for every big, and Bamba is gonna struggle there, that gimmicky shot he has isnt gonna do nothing at the next level either, he is way closer to a total 0 on offense than people realize (i like his passing at times though), and what he does on D is just not useful enough (nothing is really), you are at a competitive disadvantage in the league if you are paying your bigs +20m$ to be only defensive presences, that end-game doesn't work anymore, it can to be solid, respectful, but if you wanna be a contender you gotta go in a different direction there.

Jaren Jackson looks to be at the very least the ideal 3&D big, he is quicker off the floor than Bamba, can put it on the floor and drive at times, and he is gonna shoot it, maybe not pull-ups, but he will open the floor, that gives him a clear edge.

People overrate defense like crazy, esp from one-way guys, I think Bamba is fine eventually as a developmental guy, but I sure as hell would not touch him in the top10, he is more of a specialist than anything at the next level.

This, a thousand times this.

[EricAnderson]

Trae Young looked very human against Alabama (roll tide!). I'd definitely take Sexton over him. He's going to struggle at the NBA level to create space and get his shot off. I don't think he translates as a bad player, but not as a transcendent one, either. If a player is just going to be an average starting point guard at best, he's not worth a lottery pick, and I think that's where Young is at.

That's not happening..

Young has his flaws that could be an issue at the next level but let's also keep in mind he's basically surrounded by 2 and 3 star players..imagine if he had elite talent to finish his passes and guys who can create their own shot so the defense cant totally collapse in him?

Alabama has 3 or 4 legit nba prospects on the team and a bunch of big long athletes..Sextons surrounded by much more talent

[kb02]

Trae Young looked very human against Alabama (roll tide!). I'd definitely take Sexton over him. He's going to struggle at the NBA level to create space and get his shot off. I don't think he translates as a bad player, but not as a transcendent one, either. If a player is just going to be an average starting point guard at best, he's not worth a lottery pick, and I think that's where Young is at.

That's not happening..

Young has his flaws that could be an issue at the next level but let's also keep in mind he's basically surrounded by 2 and 3 star players..imagine if he had elite talent to finish his passes and guys who can create their own shot so the defense cant totally collapse in him?

Alabama has 3 or 4 legit nba prospects on the team and a bunch of big long athletes..Sextons surrounded by much more talent

I hate this argument. Alabama has two future NBA players in Sexton and Jones. And even Jones might be only a solid NBA role player--potentially more if he develops his offensive game. It's not like Young was going against a typical Kentucky squad with 5 lottery picks on the squad.