Daniel Gafford

doordoor123 · Post #21 » by **doordoor123** » Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:24 pm

RedIndian wrote:Get a very John Henson vibe from him.

What? Lol what does that mean? Henson can’t roll to the basket well, he really even can’t run well. That’s Gafford’s whole game — rolling and running. He’s also a better wing defender.

toussaud · Post #22 » by **toussaud** » Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:53 pm

lol dude literally just thought of the first light skinned tall dude he could think of

Post #23 » by **GimmeDat** » Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:58 am

They're different players but physically Henson was the very first guy I thought of when I saw him as well.

thr3ep01nte4 · Post #24 » by **thr3ep01nte4** » Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:28 pm

Mitchell Robinson is better, 7-0 w/o shoe, 7-4 wingspan, 9-3 standing reach.

doordoor123 · Post #25 » by **doordoor123** » Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:39 pm

thr3ep01nte4 wrote:Mitchell Robinson is better, 7-0 w/o shoe, 7-4 wingspan, 9-3 standing reach.

They’re close. Both projects.

RipCity71252 · Post #26 » by **RipCity71252** » Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:56 pm

Not a fan. Looks pretty bad guarding space/pnr, isn't very versatile offensively and undersized minus the length. He has some intrguing traits but just not sure how much value he brings at the next level.

Nazrmohamed · Post #27 » by **Nazrmohamed** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:12 am

He reminds me of Kenyon Martin.

thamadkant · Post #28 » by **thamadkant** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:52 am

Duke4life831 wrote:I'm not too high on him. We saw a very similar situation with Marques Chriss two years ago. A draft that lacked depth, then late in the year a raw athletic forward shot up the draft boards and someone took him top ten. I actually think Chriss was a better prospect coming out over Gafford, Chriss had a much more offense potential because he had potential with his jumper. I also thought Chriss was there better overall athlete as well. I thought Chriss was a reach in his draft and I think Gafford would be a reach in the lotto in this draft.

Chriss has small forward measures with a long neck which pushed his height to 6'9... in actually closer to 6'7 in reach and length

toussaud · Post #29 » by **toussaud** » Tue Mar 20, 2018 1:24 am

I don't think anyone will argue against the notion that he needs another year of seasoning. He does. But he's going to be a good one either way

RebeliousKing19 · Post #30 » by **RebeliousKing19** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:21 am

I played against the guy last 2 years ago on AAU circuits in Arkansas and he was listed at 6'10 or 6'11 every time we played against him.

RebeliousKing19 · Post #31 » by **RebeliousKing19** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:23 am

Also he dunks EVERYTHING that he has even a chance at, there was a clip from the Minnesota game this year where he went for a ridiculous putback and missed but it shows what is going through his head when he plays.

toussaud · Post #32 » by **toussaud** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:01 am

He's grown about a half an inch this year. he's a legit 6'11.

SBM · Post #33 » by **SBM** » Wed Mar 21, 2018 11:30 pm

I watch a lot o SEC ball and I am torn on the guy, but you could do worse picking in the late teens 20's, I would take him around there. Sometimes it seems his motor isn't there He does produce well for a freshman though. He should leave IMO because they are losing too much talent.

nolang1 · Post #34 » by **nolang1** » Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:03 pm

It seems like he'll be back next year. He could very well be the first big drafted in 2019 if Bol Bol is a disappointment.

No-Man · Post #35 » by **No-Man** » Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:09 pm

Simi Shittu is more interesting to me, but yeah

doordoor123 · Post #36 » by **doordoor123** » Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:46 pm

nolang1 wrote:It seems like he'll be back next year. He could very well be the first big drafted in 2019 if Bol Bol is a disappointment.

I don’t know about that. Really depends on how much he improves. I had him as a late first/early second. I can’t imagine anyone had him much higher. Isn’t elite at anything and needs a lot of work all over. His stock might even go down with his guards leaving.

logical_art · Post #37 » by **logical_art** » Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:44 am

Bump.

Not sure why this guy is getting mocked as low as he is. He's got excellent size (weight a surprising 237 at the combine and still had elite athletic testing), is one of the most athletic and fluid bigs I've seen, and has had good college production.

Why isn't he viewed as a top half of the first round prospect?

clyde21 · Post #38 » by **clyde21** » Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:53 am

logical_art wrote:Bump.

Not sure why this guy is getting mocked as low as he is. He's got excellent size (weight a surprising 237 at the combine and still had elite athletic testing), is one of the most athletic and fluid bigs I've seen, and has had good college production.

Why isn't he viewed as a top half of the first round prospect?

just not a very valuable archetype at this point, more of a 2nd unit C.

logical_art · Post #39 » by **logical_art** » Mon Jun 17, 2019 3:09 am

clyde21 wrote:
logical_art wrote:Bump.

Not sure why this guy is getting mocked as low as he is. He's got excellent size (weight a surprising 237 at the combine and still had elite athletic testing), is one of the most athletic and fluid bigs I've seen, and has had good college production.

Why isn't he viewed as a top half of the first round prospect?

just not a very valuable archetype at this point, more of a 2nd unit C.

Then why is Hayes being mocked in the lottery?

clyde21 · Post #40 » by **clyde21** » Mon Jun 17, 2019 3:19 am

logical_art wrote:
clyde21 wrote:
logical_art wrote:Bump.

Not sure why this guy is getting mocked as low as he is. He's got excellent size (weight a surprising 237 at the combine and still had elite athletic testing), is one of the most athletic and fluid bigs I've seen, and has had good college production.

Why isn't he viewed as a top half of the first round prospect?

just not a very valuable archetype at this point, more of a 2nd unit C.

Then why is Hayes being mocked in the lottery?

almost 2 years younger, better FT shooter, better finisher, more potential as a roll man, more potential as a spot up guy down the line from the mid-range/baseline area, etc.

but u can certainly make an argument that Hayes doesn't belong in the lotto do to his archetype as well