RealGM

Which prototype scares you the most in prospective NBA players?

1.)The 1/2 who is too small to play the SG position, but doesn't have the required ability to play the PG position.

This is the guy who is an asset to most college squads because he can create his own offense and score in bunches. The guy whose considerable flaws have been over-looked by high school and college coaches alike because he scores so well.
This years prototype(s): Eric Gordon, J. Bayless, OJ Mayo.

2.) The big man whose measurables/exteriors are not impressive by NBA standards, but who college coaches and analysts tend to love because he "knows how to play the game". This is the guy who is not going to wow you with any of his athletic ability, but whose game is predicated mostly on guile, an intimate understanding of his own game, and an advanced basketball IQ, or perception thereof.
This year's prototype: Kevin Love
past prototypes may include college players like Nick Collison.


3.) The undersized 3pt shooter. This guy is pretty self explanitory, as we've seen several examples over the years. He's not particularly big, he's not particularly quick, and he's not known as a creator. He would have the requisite size to play the PG position, but his main ( and in some cases only) marketable skill is his ability to shoot the ball from distance.
This year's prototype(s): Chris Lofton, Stephen Curry (I don't expect Curry to declare)

4.) The big man with EXCELLENT measurables and great run-jump ability, but limited basketball skills. This is the type of guy who could be an asset to an NBA team because he's an NBA level athlete, but his skill-set is so shallow his potential is totally feast or famine. This is the opposite of prototype number two, essentially. This years prototype: Hasheem Thabeet, Serge Ibaka.

5.) The 3/4 tweener. No explination warranted. If you're a draft-junkie, you've seen many, many of these prospects.

6.) The young, raw athlete with great natural ability, but almost zero refined skills. This is the quintessential "if" guy. If his frame ever fills out, if his jumper was just a little more consistent, if he ever "gets it" his natural ability is such that he has the appropriate combination of athletic ability and basketball skill to DOMINATE, but you'll have to wait 3 or more years.
This year's prototype: Anthony Randolph.
Recent prototypes: Tyrus Thomas.

7.) The guy who has every skill you need from a player at his position, but does not approach the game the right way. This is the, "I wonder if he has the fire/passion to excel in the NBA" guy. The full physical package, but lacks the heart, brain, or worth ethic to convince people that he'll ever be as great as his phyical package suggests.

8.) The guy who has all the talent to play in the NBA, but has considerable injury risks.

Which type of prospect do you have the least faith in, as a general rule? Of course some of these things depend on the individual in question, but in cases where your favourite team has a chance to draft one of these type of prospect, which red flag are you absolutely unwilling to compromise on?

All of those guys scare me, but the unathletic big man who knows how to play the game scares me most. That guy rarely pans out. Sean May, Marcus Fizer...

ill go with 4......with #1 scaring me the least.

My vote: #2

NUNBETTA wrote:Which prototype scares you the most in prospective NBA players?

1.)The 1/2 who is too small to play the SG position, but doesn't have the required ability to play the PG position.

This is the guy who is an asset to most college squads because he can create his own offense and score in bunches. The guy whose considerable flaws have been over-looked by high school and college coaches alike because he scores so well.
This years prototype(s): Eric Gordon, J. Bayless, OJ Mayo.

Mayo's like 6'5, he's tall enough to be a 2 unless there's a big surprise at the Combine.

In general though, these guys are usually off-putting, yes. I must admit that Monta Ellis seems to be a gigantic "F*** YOU!" to this truism, however.

2.) The big man whose measurables/exteriors are not impressive by NBA standards, but who college coaches and analysts tend to love because he "knows how to play the game". This is the guy who is not going to wow you with any of his athletic ability, but whose game is predicated mostly on guile, an intimate understanding of his own game, and an advanced basketball IQ, or perception thereof.
This year's prototype: Kevin Love
past prototypes may include college players like Nick Collison.

These guys are often really good, I mean, Nick Collison is a very talented guy, he's just not a huge scorer. If you know what you're getting into, then yeah, these guys are fine. Love is, I think, going to be well worth a pick in the bottom half of the top-10.

3.) The undersized 3pt shooter. This guy is pretty self explanitory, as we've seen several examples over the years. He's not particularly big, he's not particularly quick, and he's not known as a creator. He would have the requisite size to play the PG position, but his main ( and in some cases only) marketable skill is his ability to shoot the ball from distance.
This year's prototype(s): Chris Lofton, Stephen Curry (I don't expect Curry to declare)

These guys are my least favorite, I have to say. Salim Stoudamire, anyone? Curry might be an exception, though, there are exceptions to all of these categories.

4.) The big man with EXCELLENT measurables and great run-jump ability, but limited basketball skills. This is the type of guy who could be an asset to an NBA team because he's an NBA level athlete, but his skill-set is so shallow his potential is totally feast or famine. This is the opposite of prototype number two, essentially. This years prototype: Hasheem Thabeet, Serge Ibaka.

Depends on the measurables; if he's skinny, then I'm generally put off but if he's athletic and he's got some size to him, then there's a lot you can do with them and you often end up with at least a serviceable shot-blocker and rebounder. Sometimes they bloom late like Dalembert, though.

5.) The 3/4 tweener. No explination warranted. If you're a draft-junkie, you've seen many, many of these prospects.

Yeah, these guys are awkward.

6.) The young, raw athlete with great natural ability, but almost zero refined skills. This is the quintessential "if" guy. If his frame ever fills out, if his jumper was just a little more consistent, if he ever "gets it" his natural ability is such that he has the appropriate combination of athletic ability and basketball skill to DOMINATE, but you'll have to wait 3 or more years.
This year's prototype: Anthony Randolph.
Recent prototypes: Tyrus Thomas.

Nah, these guys are very often worth the wait.

7.) The guy who has every skill you need from a player at his position, but does not approach the game the right way. This is the, "I wonder if he has the fire/passion to excel in the NBA" guy. The full physical package, but lacks the heart, brain, or worth ethic to convince people that he'll ever be as great as his phyical package suggests.

These guys are much more valuable than some of the other prospects, generally speaking. The "lack of fire" comment is tossed around too much, especially of college players because their disposition can often change a lot in the NBA>

I'm most scared of #7 - see Pietrus, Mickael. He's got all the skills needed to be a Ron Artest-type SG/SF and the body to match but he's so f**king stupid that he can't even make it into the starting lineup.

#3 and #4 also tend to put me off.

8 bothers me the most. You only have to look at guys like Bender and even Jay Williams. 1-7 there are, at the very least, work arounds but if someone is banged up and can't even take the court, you are screwed.

And yes, I'm looking at you Sean May!!

BigSlam wrote:8 bothers me the most. You only have to look at guys like Bender and even Jay Williams. 1-7 there are, at the very least, work arounds but if someone is banged up and can't even take the court, you are screwed.

And yes, I'm looking at you Sean May!!

Jay Williams didn't have an injury risk, he was horrifically injured in a stupid motorcycling accident, that's different.

1. They may not be the worst, but I'm just sick of seeing 6'1-6'2 SG's.

tsherkin wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Jay Williams didn't have an injury risk, he was horrifically injured in a stupid motorcycling accident, that's different.

True, but he tried to make a few come back attempts and has worked out hard with teams the last two summers so I would consider him a prospective NBA player with significant injury risk - all be it due to a stupid decision.

He doesn't have significant injury risk now, though, he's just much-reduced physically.

Big difference, again.

6

#3 easily. I would absolutely stay the hell away from guys like Chris Lofton. I don't think Curry really qualifies in this group, since you say "he's not particularly quick," and Curry is pretty quick, and seems like a decent slasher. I hardly think Curry is a future star, but he has more game than just the 3, and playing beside the right 2-guard (a play making 2 like Roy, Kobe, Wade, etc.), I think he has NBA starter potential. Absolutely needs to be on the right team though.

Where is the seven footer with 3p range but no rebounding skills and post moves?

Toxicity wrote:Where is the seven footer with 3p range but no rebounding skills and post moves?

Toronto?

I was going to put him in there, but I didn't want this thread to be derailed by jokes/references to the ineptness of Andrea's interior skills.

Plus, there have been less of those throughout history; those prospects have only recently become en vouge, really.

We've had Dirk, who, being the first of his kind, was something of an unknown quantity, as far as projections. Reaf was perimetre oriented, but he wasn't/isn't as guard oriented as Dirk was when he first came into the league, and I don't feel like a balance between his perimetre game and interior game were seen as huge red flags at the time. Van Horn is another one, but he had a successful career. The only complete flame-out from the prototype you mention is Skita ( if we attribute Raef's lackluster career mostly to injuries). It's too early to say Bargs can't be a viable/productive NBA player; it's just that given his teams specific weaknesses, Bargs' flaws are especially alarming and frustrating.

NUNBETTA wrote:
4.) The big man with EXCELLENT measurables and great run-jump ability, but limited basketball skills. This is the type of guy who could be an asset to an NBA team because he's an NBA level athlete, but his skill-set is so shallow his potential is totally feast or famine. This is the opposite of prototype number two, essentially. This years prototype: Hasheem Thabeet, Serge Ibaka.

Saer Sene, Diop...

How often does a guy with hardly any skill get drafted, then develops into a decent player?

I would make this a more general category though, the type of player that scares me the most is the one that hasn't proven he can really play. That includes the players mentioned above, but also guys like Darko, Podkolzine and perhaps even Gerald Green.

I don't watch college ball, so I'm not qualified to judge, but what I've read about DeAndre Jordan and Thabeet has me quite worried.

I hate #7 more than all the others. Its usually b/c they also feel the need to flaunt that they aren't playing hard.

NUNBETTA wrote:I was going to put him in there, but I didn't want this thread to be derailed by jokes/references to the ineptness of Andrea's interior skills.

Plus, there have been less of those throughout history; those prospects have only recently become en vouge, really.

We've had Dirk, who, being the first of his kind, was something of an unknown quantity, as far as projections. Reaf was perimetre oriented, but he wasn't/isn't as guard oriented as Dirk was when he first came into the league, and I don't feel like a balance between his perimetre game and interior game were seen as huge red flags at the time. Van Horn is another one, but he had a successful career. The only complete flame-out from the prototype you mention is Skita ( if we attribute Raef's lackluster career mostly to injuries). It's too early to say Bargs can't be a viable/productive NBA player; it's just that given his teams specific weaknesses, Bargs' flaws are especially alarming and frustrating.

Where would you classify Tim Thomas and Eddie Griffin.... a cross between a few groups obviously but those are outside oriented big men who did not use there atleticism and there size.

Guys that scare me are low % shooters in the NCAA.... if they don't have the atletic skills to create easy enough looks for there skills in the college game, there screwed come the NBA, and will be inefficient scorers there.