Is Flagg really better than Harper?

[One_and_Done]

I haven't watched much film on either yet, but I'm wondering why it is that Flagg is so clearly rated over him. Given their player types, it seems like there's a very good chance Harper is the better player. Is it being swayed too much by the marketability factor?

[EMG518]

Why even make this post if you haven't watched much of either yet.

Truly doesn't make sense to me.

[One_and_Done]

Why even make this post if you haven't watched much of either yet.

Truly doesn't make sense to me.

I've watched enough to ask the question.

[BigGargamel]

I had to check the date of this thread to see if it was made in November.

Yes...yes he is.

I mean..there's a giant Flagg thread you can check out if you're interested on opinions. Making another thread without any real information or point to it doesn't do a whole lot.

[mattg]

This is one of those, "if you seriously have to even ask the question, you flat out don't understand what you are watching when you observe basketball being played".

[SeattleJazzFan]

not only is flagg better than harper, put him at lead guard (forward? whatever you want to call the guy with the ball in his hands) which is the position Harper plays, he'd do it better than Harper.

forget about being bigger and everything else he does better than Harper. and that's no knock on Harper - he's my clear cut #2.

[EvanZ]

I haven't watched much film on either yet, but I'm wondering why it is that Flagg is so clearly rated over him. Given their player types, it seems like there's a very good chance Harper is the better player. Is it being swayed too much by the marketability factor?

oof

[azcatz11]

I haven't watched much film on either yet, but I'm wondering why it is that Flagg is so clearly rated over him. Given their player types, it seems like there's a very good chance Harper is the better player. Is it being swayed too much by the marketability factor?

oof

What is the oof? Appears to be a legitimate question

[clyde21]

nothing to do w/ "marketability" whatever that means, Flagg is just a more rare prospect, the most sought-after archetype in the NBA. it's that simple.

[EvanZ]

I haven't watched much film on either yet, but I'm wondering why it is that Flagg is so clearly rated over him. Given their player types, it seems like there's a very good chance Harper is the better player. Is it being swayed too much by the marketability factor?

oof

What is the oof? Appears to be a legitimate question

oof again lol

[JMAC3]

Even if the argument is Harper is as good offensively, which I don't think he is. Flagg is significantly better on the defensive side of the ball, that is not even close.

[One_and_Done]

Even if the argument is Harper is as good offensively, which I don't think he is. Flagg is significantly better on the defensive side of the ball, that is not even close.

Or Harper could be much better offensively. It's really easy to see Harper being the better player to be honest.

[JMAC3]

Even if the argument is Harper is as good offensively, which I don't think he is. Flagg is significantly better on the defensive side of the ball, that is not even close.

Or Harper could be much better offensively. It's really easy to see Harper being the better player to be honest.

Maybe eventually, hard to predict guys careers 8+ years from now, but Flagg already showed how much impact he has on a team at Duke vs Harper at Rutgers. I still like Harper, but I also think it is unlikely he enters the league and is just a superstar a year later. Flagg is already getting labeled one of the best prospects of the decade, Harper has too many concerns right now to realistically have him over Flagg.

[One_and_Done]

Even if the argument is Harper is as good offensively, which I don't think he is. Flagg is significantly better on the defensive side of the ball, that is not even close.

Or Harper could be much better offensively. It's really easy to see Harper being the better player to be honest.

Maybe eventually, hard to predict guys careers 8+ years from now, but Flagg already showed how much impact he has on a team at Duke vs Harper at Rutgers. I still like Harper, but I also think it is unlikely he enters the league and is just a superstar a year later. Flagg is already getting labeled one of the best prospects of the decade, Harper has too many concerns right now to realistically have him over Flagg.

That's just hyperbole though. Flagg isn't nearly as hyped as Wemby, Zion, Towns, etc, and they all came out in the last decade. He's clearly a good prospect, but you can see how he maybe levels off as a really good role player, and you can also see how maybe Harper makes it as a big star. Which will happen? I don't know, teams have alot more resources and info invested into this than us.

[Marvin Martian]

Even if the argument is Harper is as good offensively, which I don't think he is. Flagg is significantly better on the defensive side of the ball, that is not even close.

Or Harper could be much better offensively. It's really easy to see Harper being the better player to be honest.

No it isn't. Harper has one of the most common NBA archetypes; score first combo guard, no defense, high usage volume scorer.

Players like Harper do not become stars unless they are averaging 25-5-5 with insane efficiency.
And even then, their impact on winning can still be questioned (e.g Booker, Spida)

[One_and_Done]

Even if the argument is Harper is as good offensively, which I don't think he is. Flagg is significantly better on the defensive side of the ball, that is not even close.

Or Harper could be much better offensively. It's really easy to see Harper being the better player to be honest.

No it isn't. Harper has one of the most common NBA archetypes; score first combo guard, no defense, high usage volume scorer.

Players like Harper do not become stars unless they are averaging 25-5-5 with insane efficiency.
And even then, their impact on winning can still be questioned (e.g Booker, Spida)

If Flagg and Harper turn into Gordon Hayward and Devin Booker, then it's pretty obvious Harper would be the better player.

[clyde21]

Or Harper could be much better offensively. It's really easy to see Harper being the better player to be honest.

No it isn't. Harper has one of the most common NBA archetypes; score first combo guard, no defense, high usage volume scorer.

Players like Harper do not become stars unless they are averaging 25-5-5 with insane efficiency.
And even then, their impact on winning can still be questioned (e.g Booker, Spida)

If Flagg and Harper turn into Gordon Hayward and Devin Booker, then it's pretty obvious Harper would be the better player.

no, that's not how any of this works. the outcome doesn't retroactively change the scouting process or why each player is ranked where they are.

if you think Harper is a better prospect then make the case now, you don't make it AFTER they're in the NBA.

[One_and_Done]

No it isn't. Harper has one of the most common NBA archetypes; score first combo guard, no defense, high usage volume scorer.

Players like Harper do not become stars unless they are averaging 25-5-5 with insane efficiency.
And even then, their impact on winning can still be questioned (e.g Booker, Spida)

If Flagg and Harper turn into Gordon Hayward and Devin Booker, then it's pretty obvious Harper would be the better player.

no, that's not how any of this works. the outcome doesn't retroactively change the scouting process or why each player is ranked where they are.

if you think Harper is a better prospect then make the case now, you don't make it AFTER they're in the NBA.

Actually, you can only rate draft picks in hindsight. Like, what would the point of having a GM even be, if they’re just supposed to do what the consensus is on mock drafts? Good GMs are the ones who make picks that look good after the fact, and bad GMs are the ones who made bad picks. Of course you can mitigate bad picks if injuries, etc, come into it, but for the most part the evaluation process is pretty simple.

If you had the 4th pick, and the guy you got was arguably the 4th best player in the draft, then you met expectations. If you got the best guy in the draft with the 4th pick then you had a perfect selection. If you drafted the 10th best guy then you had a miserable draft. As I said, there are some mitigating factors like injuries (if you couldn’t see them coming), or maybe you drafted the 5th best player with the 4th pick but they’re pretty similar players and the guy you took fits better, but for the most part that is the formula for assessing this.

[tmorgan]

If Flagg and Harper turn into Gordon Hayward and Devin Booker, then it's pretty obvious Harper would be the better player.

no, that's not how any of this works. the outcome doesn't retroactively change the scouting process or why each player is ranked where they are.

if you think Harper is a better prospect then make the case now, you don't make it AFTER they're in the NBA.

Actually, you can only rate draft picks in hindsight. Like, what would the point of having a GM even be, if they’re just supposed to do what the consensus is on mock drafts? Good GMs are the ones who make picks that look good after the fact, and bad GMs are the ones who made bad picks. Of course you can mitigate bad picks if injuries, etc, come into it, but for the most part the evaluation process is pretty simple.

If you had the 4th pick, and the guy you got was arguably the 4th best player in the draft, then you met expectations. If you got the best guy in the draft with the 4th pick then you had a perfect selection. If you drafted the 10th best guy then you had a miserable draft. As I said, there are some mitigating factors like injuries (if you couldn’t see them coming), or maybe you drafted the 5th best player with the 4th pick but they’re pretty similar players and the guy you took fits better, but for the most part that is the formula for assessing this.

Ok, but what exactly makes you think Harper will be better than Flagg, then? What specifically?

So far all I’m seeing is “if Harper ends up better, he was a better pick”, which means nothing beyond “if I’m right, I”m right”.

It’s not size, leadership, athletic ability, shooting ability, passing ability, or any kind of defensive ability. Is it just handle? Is that why? Explain.

[EMG518]

no, that's not how any of this works. the outcome doesn't retroactively change the scouting process or why each player is ranked where they are.

if you think Harper is a better prospect then make the case now, you don't make it AFTER they're in the NBA.

Actually, you can only rate draft picks in hindsight. Like, what would the point of having a GM even be, if they’re just supposed to do what the consensus is on mock drafts? Good GMs are the ones who make picks that look good after the fact, and bad GMs are the ones who made bad picks. Of course you can mitigate bad picks if injuries, etc, come into it, but for the most part the evaluation process is pretty simple.

If you had the 4th pick, and the guy you got was arguably the 4th best player in the draft, then you met expectations. If you got the best guy in the draft with the 4th pick then you had a perfect selection. If you drafted the 10th best guy then you had a miserable draft. As I said, there are some mitigating factors like injuries (if you couldn’t see them coming), or maybe you drafted the 5th best player with the 4th pick but they’re pretty similar players and the guy you took fits better, but for the most part that is the formula for assessing this.

Ok, but what exactly makes you think Harper will be better than Flagg, then? What specifically?

So far all I’m seeing is “if Harper ends up better, he was a better pick”, which means nothing beyond “if I’m right, I”m right”.

It’s not size, leadership, athletic ability, shooting ability, passing ability, or any kind of defensive ability. Is it just handle? Is that why? Explain.

He hasn't watched much of either yet