Jackie Carmichael

Draft talk all year round

Moderators: Marcus, Ruzious

User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 45,763
And1: 10,415
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Jackie Carmichael 

Post#1 » by Dr Positivity » Fri May 31, 2013 5:29 pm

I didn't really watch him this year admittedly, but after seeing the Draftexpress video I'm very intrigued. Looks like he has explosiveness, strength, feel, a good post/mid-post game and is a tough SOB. Length isn't a problem as long as he plays PF.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M96Dt5swZq8[/youtube]

Anybody here have an opinion about whether he has starting potential, or why not?
1. Using a team's play in games their star is injured should send you to SSS jail
2. ORTG/DRTG ranks are connected in back and forth play and energy expenditure
3. RAPM/RPM is proven measuring regular season value, but not postseason
DeBlazerRiddem
Forum Mod - Blazers
Forum Mod - Blazers
Posts: 11,904
And1: 3,055
Joined: Mar 11, 2010

Re: Jackie Carmichael 

Post#2 » by DeBlazerRiddem » Fri May 31, 2013 7:39 pm

I have had him as the second round target for the Blazers. However, I did the same thing with Bullock who has since moved out of that range, so I guess I wouldn't be surprised if Carmichael goes late 1st. Starter only a bad team or a team with 4 other very good non-PF players.
dorkestra
General Manager
Posts: 9,475
And1: 11,257
Joined: Mar 03, 2013
       

Re: Jackie Carmichael 

Post#3 » by dorkestra » Fri May 31, 2013 7:43 pm

He has a good role player seventh man career ahead of him
folks who quote what I wrote get choked
reapaman
Analyst
Posts: 3,735
And1: 1,185
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
       

Re: Jackie Carmichael 

Post#4 » by reapaman » Fri May 31, 2013 11:36 pm

He's the not quite Carlos Boozer but close enough (that includes the yelling after most plays). He's really close to boozer physically and althetic wise, he's got good solid post moves, good rebounder, he plays hard, and has a high iq. From what I seen, he looks like he's a more willing defender than boozer ever was which will make up for some of the difference between the two offensively.

He's gotta keep working on his jumpshot and it would be very helpful if he can bulk up some more to make up from some height he will be give up even though he's pretty big now. Improving both of those may be a concern due to his age, but I wouldn't be too worried about it. With that said, he's likely a 15 and 10 guy on a good team.
BRING JAMAAL FRANKLIN TO UTAH!!!!!
Winglish
Analyst
Posts: 3,613
And1: 1,285
Joined: Feb 17, 2013
     

Re: Jackie Carmichael 

Post#5 » by Winglish » Sat Jun 1, 2013 12:24 am

He's no Boozer and I think that's a bad comparison offensively. Boozer has range to spare. His jumper is killer. Carmichael has zero range. He gets his points around the rim. Shooting 18.2% from the collegiate three point line is not going to make me believe that this guy can play outside, and the ability to knock down the jumper or take a guy off the dribble is what separates Boozer from other too-short-to-play-power-forward PF's. Carmichael will set good picks and grab boards on both ends of the court. These two skills get him into the NBA. He is a rotation guy at best.

Here comes the spin.
CBB_Fan
Senior
Posts: 591
And1: 138
Joined: Jul 15, 2012

Re: Jackie Carmichael 

Post#6 » by CBB_Fan » Sat Jun 1, 2013 2:47 am

From what I've seen of him in person, he plays big and has a decent combination of post moves and athleticism. Not incredible measurements (6' 7.25" barefoot, 6'9" in shoes, 241 lbs, 7' 1.25" wingspan, 8'11" standing reach), but probably okay for a late-first, early second round prospect.

For those questioning his jumper (which I feel is decent, but not great), Boozer shot 39.6% away from the rim this season, along with 73.1% from the line. Carmichael shot 39% on his 2PT jumpers and 68% from the FT line. While Boozer is certainly more skilled in that regard, I think Carmichael has the fundamentals that could make him a decent to good mid-range shooter with enough time and effort. I think it is also fair to note that Boozer isn't exactly a great 3PT shooter either; he's shot a career 8% from the 3PT line (Carmichael shot around 20%).

The downsides to Carmichael are pretty obvious. He's maxed out his body at about 241 pounds, judging by his build and fat%, and he has fairly small measurements. Has athleticism is good but not great, and he doesn't do anything at a superstar level. Still, he has the potential to be a serviceable rotation player and potentially a low-level starter, which is worthy of a pick in the 25-35 range IMHO.
Winglish
Analyst
Posts: 3,613
And1: 1,285
Joined: Feb 17, 2013
     

Re: Jackie Carmichael 

Post#7 » by Winglish » Sat Jun 1, 2013 3:07 am

CBB, you are comparing college stats to NBA stats. Go apples to apples. Boozer shot 0% from three point land because he never took a three point shot. The only threes he takes in the NBA are desperation fullcourt attempts at the end of the half. Boozer has that 17 footer down and he plays the game there. He did shoot 66.5% from the field overall and had a 2 pt. FG percentage of 72.1% at Duke. Granted, it's only a 20% difference between Booze and Jackie... :wink:

I do agree with your final sentence. Carmichael will be a low level NBA guy. He is worth a pick. Boozer should have gone in the lottery.
CBB_Fan
Senior
Posts: 591
And1: 138
Joined: Jul 15, 2012

Re: Jackie Carmichael 

Post#8 » by CBB_Fan » Sat Jun 1, 2013 3:50 am

Winglish wrote:CBB, you are comparing college stats to NBA stats. Go apples to apples. Boozer shot 0% from three point land because he never took a three point shot. The only threes he takes in the NBA are desperation fullcourt attempts at the end of the half. Boozer has that 17 footer down and he plays the game there. He did shoot 66.5% from the field overall and had a 2 pt. FG percentage of 72.1% at Duke. Granted, it's only a 20% difference between Booze and Jackie... :wink:

I do agree with your final sentence. Carmichael will be a low level NBA guy. He is worth a pick. Boozer should have gone in the lottery.


I think you cannot aptly compare Boozer at Duke to Carmichael at Illinois State. Different era (Duke scored 89 PPG that year; Iona led this year with 80.4), different level of play, different team roles. I couldn't use college stats to say that Carmichael is a better 3PT shooter, a better rebounder, or a better blocker for similar reasons (he has decent stat leads in all of those).

The whole point of using Boozer is to show that Carmichael has at least some aspects of a serviceable jump shot, not to say that he is abjectly better than Boozer. I think the rest of his game is fairly easy to evaluate, so I wanted to show that he is capable, if not incredible at shooting jump shots.
reapaman
Analyst
Posts: 3,735
And1: 1,185
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
       

Re: Jackie Carmichael 

Post#9 » by reapaman » Sat Jun 1, 2013 4:22 am

Winglish wrote:He's no Boozer and I think that's a bad comparison offensively. Boozer has range to spare. His jumper is killer. Carmichael has zero range. He gets his points around the rim. Shooting 18.2% from the collegiate three point line is not going to make me believe that this guy can play outside, and the ability to knock down the jumper or take a guy off the dribble is what separates Boozer from other too-short-to-play-power-forward PF's. Carmichael will set good picks and grab boards on both ends of the court. These two skills get him into the NBA. He is a rotation guy at best.

Here comes the spin.

What? Carmichael is very good at taking guys off the dribble and looks more explosive than Boozer. Carmichael has nice form just needs a few adjustments and his range was going out to 18 feet by the end of the season which is better than most PF's. Your talking like he can't jumpshoot at all which is purely false. When you can shoot well past 10 feet (which he can), you usually don't have too much trouble extending your shot if you work hard.

Sure Boozer's jumper may have been further along than Carmichael's but he was far from killer coming out of college. I mean if carmichael can become a little better shooter than getting bigger won't matter much because not like Boozer really uses his size anymore anyway. You also didn't mention Carmichael is a more willing defender which makes up for some of the offensive gap. BTW also be careful of comparing guys stats when their in different schools and in different situations. I know your gonna always get flamed for comparing a not popular prospect to an allstar but hey sometimes theres something to it. He won't be as good as boozer but they have similar playing styles.
BRING JAMAAL FRANKLIN TO UTAH!!!!!
Winglish
Analyst
Posts: 3,613
And1: 1,285
Joined: Feb 17, 2013
     

Re: Jackie Carmichael 

Post#10 » by Winglish » Sat Jun 1, 2013 5:10 am

What? Carmichael is very good at taking guys off the dribble and looks more explosive than Boozer. Carmichael has nice form just needs a few adjustments and his range was going out to 18 feet by the end of the season which is better than most PF's. Your talking like he can't jumpshoot at all which is purely false. When you can shoot well past 10 feet (which he can), you usually don't have too much trouble extending your shot if you work hard.


Just watch the DraftExpress scouting video above. Dude shot 32.3% on jumpshots out to 18 feet. Forget Boozer, remove the blinders for a second, and recognize that crappy percentage for what it is. Carmichael's first weakness listed in the scouting video is shooting. Second weakness is ball handling. I'm not saying the guy won't make it. Jackie's a bench player. He's a second round guy, IMO.

To be fair to the man, Carmichael did wind up over 50% from the floor. He's getting work done around the rim to make up for his bad jumpshooting performances.
TheToothFairy
Banned User
Posts: 6,090
And1: 294
Joined: Jun 27, 2011
Location: Under Your Pillow

Re: Jackie Carmichael 

Post#11 » by TheToothFairy » Sat Jun 1, 2013 9:19 am

Reminds me of Kenyon Martin
User avatar
Kate Winslow
Head Coach
Posts: 6,429
And1: 2,272
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
 

Re: Jackie Carmichael 

Post#12 » by Kate Winslow » Sat Jun 1, 2013 1:05 pm

Big, strong, athletic, good rebounder, willing defender in the post, physical player who doesn't shy away from contact, actually likes setting screens/picks, a great finisher inside the paint, finishes well after contact and likes to dunk the ball every chance he gets.

People are pointing at his (or any other draft prospect) weaknesses as if he's a finished product. These guys are college players. They will develop their games in the NBA, that's why they get here and get paid millions of dollars. I'm sure he can develop his shot. His strengths are much harder things to learn to a player that doesn't possess those. (defense, physicality, intangibles)



Tell me why this guy can't be a starter on a team with high level scorers.
"Shoutout to everyone doubting me" - Anthony Bennett July 12, 2019
reapaman
Analyst
Posts: 3,735
And1: 1,185
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
       

Re: Jackie Carmichael 

Post#13 » by reapaman » Sat Jun 1, 2013 1:24 pm

Winglish wrote:Just watch the DraftExpress scouting video above. Dude shot 32.3% on jumpshots out to 18 feet. Forget Boozer, remove the blinders for a second, and recognize that crappy percentage for what it is. Carmichael's first weakness listed in the scouting video is shooting. Second weakness is ball handling. I'm not saying the guy won't make it. Jackie's a bench player. He's a second round guy, IMO.

To be fair to the man, Carmichael did wind up over 50% from the floor. He's getting work done around the rim to make up for his bad jumpshooting performances.

So ... who cares what his percentage was? I actually thought he shot worst than that up to 18 feet before I saw the video because he just started expanding to it late in the season. All I care about is how easy your form/shooting motions are to improve (just need a few tweaks from a professional), whether the player knows that shooting is their main weakness (he has said it many times) and that he's a hard worker (which he is). Nothing else matters. Kawhi Leonard is prime example, look at his shooting percentages in college which were horrible and look at him the next year with the spurs. Look at how people kept devauling him because of his shooting ability in college. I said the same thing about him and look what happened. Stats are a horrible indication on a players potential in most cases. Thats why NBA talent evaluators are called scouts and not stat watchers.

BTW the first weakness was shooting range, not shooting because he's alot better from 10 - 14 feet because his 15 -18 foot percentage is what what made his up to 18 foot jumper percentage so low (plus 32% up to 18 feet in his situation is not as bad as you made it sound). DX shouldve mentioned in the same breath that he didn't have a jumper inside 15 fett at all last season and quickly improved that so what makes you think he couldn't quickly improve past 15 feet by next season like Leonard did?
BRING JAMAAL FRANKLIN TO UTAH!!!!!
CBB_Fan
Senior
Posts: 591
And1: 138
Joined: Jul 15, 2012

Re: Jackie Carmichael 

Post#14 » by CBB_Fan » Sat Jun 1, 2013 3:09 pm

Winglish wrote:Just watch the DraftExpress scouting video above. Dude shot 32.3% on jumpshots out to 18 feet. Forget Boozer, remove the blinders for a second, and recognize that crappy percentage for what it is.


Here's the thing: that is not a crappy shooting percentage. The 15+ range is the least efficient shooting range under normal circumstances, because it requires all of the touch of 3PT shooting but also forces the player to shoot through contact or against closer defense. For example, see Doug McDermott, another MVC player that is likely to be drafted in the late first, early second round. He shot considerably worse on his 2PT jumpers than he did on 3PT shots (39% to 49%).

If anything, the percentage shows that he has some potential in that range but that he has not perfected it. Great mid-range shooters in the NBA usually shoot in the 40-50% range from that distance, and a 30% percentage in college could become a serviceable 35-40% shooter in the NBA with enough work (usually shooting percentages rise until a little after the player reaches their prime, though a lot of factors can affect that). Boozer has shot 41.5% over the last seven seasons.

The caveat is the Carmichael's FT shooting is not incredible, which shows that his technical shot still is not perfected. He'll need to work a lot to extend his range and improve his form, but his shooting percentages don't lead me to believe that is an impossibility.
Winglish
Analyst
Posts: 3,613
And1: 1,285
Joined: Feb 17, 2013
     

Re: Jackie Carmichael 

Post#15 » by Winglish » Sat Jun 1, 2013 3:22 pm

OK OK, the guy's probably a future HOF player.


(But please, God, don't let him get drafted to my Jazz. We need shooters!)
User avatar
RipCity71252
Pro Prospect
Posts: 779
And1: 184
Joined: Jul 19, 2008
Location: Just South of Rip City

Re: Jackie Carmichael 

Post#16 » by RipCity71252 » Sat Jun 1, 2013 3:37 pm

Moves like a center to me when I watch him. If he can't keep up with 4s, he projects as a jack of all trades, undersized center. Likely a 10th-12th man if that's true.
teamjosh04
Senior
Posts: 678
And1: 17
Joined: Jun 08, 2008

Re: Jackie Carmichael 

Post#17 » by teamjosh04 » Sat Jun 1, 2013 4:38 pm

Winglish wrote:He's no Boozer and I think that's a bad comparison offensively. Boozer has range to spare. His jumper is killer. Carmichael has zero range. He gets his points around the rim. Shooting 18.2% from the collegiate three point line is not going to make me believe that this guy can play outside, and the ability to knock down the jumper or take a guy off the dribble is what separates Boozer from other too-short-to-play-power-forward PF's. Carmichael will set good picks and grab boards on both ends of the court. These two skills get him into the NBA. He is a rotation guy at best.

Here comes the spin.


Carlos Boozer never made a college 3-pter so youre argument is invalid. Carmichael is a good shooter who showed range from 15-18 feet this year. He also has a back to the basket game. He doesnt get all his points at the rim. Sounds like youve hardly seen him play.
CBB_Fan
Senior
Posts: 591
And1: 138
Joined: Jul 15, 2012

Re: Jackie Carmichael 

Post#18 » by CBB_Fan » Sat Jun 1, 2013 4:55 pm

Winglish wrote:OK OK, the guy's probably a future HOF player.


No, he's still a late first, early second round player. Without elite size, athleticism, or skill that is where he should be drafted. But you cannot claim that he is a horrible shooter when he is at least mediocre on that regard.
Winglish
Analyst
Posts: 3,613
And1: 1,285
Joined: Feb 17, 2013
     

Re: Jackie Carmichael 

Post#19 » by Winglish » Sat Jun 1, 2013 6:07 pm

We'll agree to disagree on this one. I think he has a weak shooting stroke beyond ten feet and is an undersized low post player. Synergy Sports says that only 34% of his points came from shots away from the rim. A full 40% of his points came from back-to-the basket low post play. RipCity is spot on, IMO.

Josh, when a player gets 66% of his points at the rim, you are correct that it's not "all at the rim". Just 2/3 of his total point production at the rim.

I'm not trying to knock the guy, fellers. I'm a realist. I still don't see the Boozer comparison other than the size and screaming. That ceiling is too high, IMO.
Bubstubbler
Starter
Posts: 2,326
And1: 753
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Re: Jackie Carmichael 

Post#20 » by Bubstubbler » Sat Jun 1, 2013 10:09 pm

Winglish wrote:I think he has a weak shooting stroke beyond ten feet and is an undersized low post player. Synergy Sports says that only 34% of his points came from shots away from the rim. A full 40% of his points came from back-to-the basket low post play. RipCity is spot on, IMO.

Josh, when a player gets 66% of his points at the rim, you are correct that it's not "all at the rim". Just 2/3 of his total point production at the rim.


Those numbers support the notion that he's a smart player who tries to take the most efficient shots possible, not that he has a weak shooting stroke beyond ten feet. A player can be a good shooter from beyond 10 feet, yet still take the vast majority of his shots inside 10 feet, since those closer shots would yield even higher points-per-shot (from higher fg% and higher likelihood of drawing free throws), generate opponent foul trouble, and help minimize opponent fast-breaks.

Also, citing JC's 18.2% 3pt% in an earlier post doesn't serve as evidence that he's a poor mid-range shooter. Missing a high percentage of 20ft shots (especially over an extremely small sample size) does not imply that he's bad at 10-15ft shots. For example, Chris Bosh and Udonis Haslem are two of the very best mid-range shooters in the league, yet on their careers, Bosh is a paltry 28.8% on 3's while Haslem is sitting at 0% having NEVER made a 3. Those two quick examples undermine the notion that low 3pt% implies bad mid-range shooting.

Return to NBA Draft