Official Raptors 2012 NBA Draft Thread, Part 5

[gojoorange]

NBA Draft Insider posted a scouting report on Jeremy Lamb. Worth a read.

http://www.nbadraftinsider.com/2012/02/ ... mb-report/

[sweetcity]

I agree about WIll Barton. I think he has Marshon Brooks upside, will likely be a 2nd round steal by someone other then us

[redred9]

I havent watched enough college ball this season to know if this concern is at all justified, but I have to admit i'm a little turned off by Barnes "NBA ready, doesnt have the highest ceiling but has a high floor, good all around player etc' when you look at recent top 5 picks who were billed similarly in Wes Johnson, Evan Turner, Derick Williams. Is this at all justified?

In saying that if we get a Luol Deng level player for the ~4th pick, I would be pretty happy

Actually me too. I also admit I don't pay enough attention to college ball (where do you guys find the damn time??) but what I've seen of Barnes even when he's playing well doesn't blow me away if this really is one of the great drafts.

My problem is that he is SO polished in his game already- where is the upside? where is the rawness? what is he going to get significantly better at in the pros? ball handling? I don't see it.

Having said that I could be really off base just because I don't watch enough but we need to be careful with this BPA pick if we somehow end up top 4. Who's potentially better 3-4 years from now, not this second.

[DarkKnight]

I havent watched enough college ball this season to know if this concern is at all justified, but I have to admit i'm a little turned off by Barnes "NBA ready, doesnt have the highest ceiling but has a high floor, good all around player etc' when you look at recent top 5 picks who were billed similarly in Wes Johnson, Evan Turner, Derick Williams. Is this at all justified?

In saying that if we get a Luol Deng level player for the ~4th pick, I would be pretty happy

Having watched a lot of college ball this (and other) seasons, I can give you some insight into each of these players.

Derrick Williams has tweener issues - he played the small-4 type position in college. He has enough length and athleticism to guard the 4 in college and the can use that in the post against overmatched players. He also mastered the college 3-point line, where opposing 4's were unlikely to be able to come out and contest (think the NCAA version of Bargnani style). In the NBA he doesn't really have a position - too small to paly the 4 and doesn't yet have the handles/wuickness to play the 3. Wes has similar issues. A late bloomer with a decent outside shot and a good nose for rebounds, he didn't have the handles or the ability to really create a shot for himself, especially against NBA defenders. They also both had the misfortune of going to the T-Wolves, where their erratic PG play (pre-rubio), selfish SF, and rebound-hoover of a PF tend to limit their growth.

Turner is a bit of a different story. He was flat out dominating across the board for ohio state, but he did play 3 seasons in college and then got drafted to a Philly team that couldn't figure out how to use him - with Holiday, Williams, and Igoudala dominating the ball he became an off the ball shooter when his strength is as a do-everything wing in the Harden mold. He's only 1 full season in basically and I still think he'll be a very good pro.

It's amazing how much situation factors into growth and perception of prospects. Guys given ideal situations and the right amount of minutes usually look a lot better than the guys who guy put on selfish, crappy teams full of chuckers.

Contrasting those 3 to barnes. a) Barnes has a very defined position as a prototype NBA 3 in size, length, build, and athleticism. He won't be one of the 5 best run/jump guys at his position but he'll be well above average, and his build should allow him to adjust more easily to the stronger NBA defenders.

b) Not an out-of-nowhere type. He's been the best player in his age group for a long time now. HS all-star game MVP in both major games, #1 recruit in the country, preseason all-american before he ever touched a college floor. Sure, that stuff doesn't mean anything unless you back it up in games, but turner, williams, and johnson were all middling recruits or worse in their classes (turner #49, johnson unranked, willaims #95) so scouts obviously saw a lot more in Barnes than they saw int hose 3 in terms of skills (since none of the 3 was ranked on them being transcendent athletes).

c) Attention. UNC is the most closely followed team in college basketball (basically a tie with Duke and Kentucky), and while Ohio State, Syracuse, and Arizona are all major programs, none of them come with the history/pressure/coverage that UNC does. It's like guys that play for NY sports teams - some guys just can't handle it while others thrive on the attention.

These 3 are the non-skills-assessment side of things. From the skills side, there is really only 1 knock on Barnes' game - people feel that his handle/dribble-drive ability isn't at that star level that it would have to reach for him to be a perennial All-Star type in the NBA. Those concerns are actually reasonably well founded, but most supporters will point to some extraneous factors in explaining that he might be better than he gets credit for. First, his jumper is so good that at times he can settle. This is one of those glass half empty/full kind of things. NBA scouts/coaches/commentators often lament the lack of skilled mid-range players and how underutilized the pull-up jumper is, and Barnes excels in this area. So stopping and taking a reasonably high-percentage shot that also keeps the defense honest could be viewed very positively. Secondly, he plays on a team that de-emphasizes the dribble-drive from the wing and works outwards from the post. When Barnes does drive, he's got a packed paint area as Zeller and Henson are always going to be near the basket with their extra defenders. The Tar Heels have also been a reasonably poor 3-point team outside of Barnes for his couple of years there, so defenses will often sag, especially off his usual starting mates, Marshall and Strickland (injured currently). So at times he's driving into 5 defenders keying on the inside area. That can be tough.

[Dr Positivity]

I worry a little bit about the "Barnes will be an EPIC shooter" angle because he's at 72% FT. FT is usually a great indicator of your shooting talent. Elite NBA shooters usually are putting up mid 80%s or something. Now a lot of those great players were 10-15% lower in college than in the NBA like Granger, Allen, Miller, etc. But I think they actually got better as shooters period. As is the case with all skills, developing is never a lock. Barnes can be a guy who jumps to mid 80s and one of the best 3pt shooters in the league. Or he can stay where he is and be as good a shooter as Deng. I don't think he is a lock star shooter because of his 44% from 3 numbers. There have been a lot of NCAA players who put up 40% from 3 and failed more in the NBA. Barnes hit just under 35% from 3 last year despite a lot of wide open looks so he might not be the mega talented shooting prospect his present 3 numbers suggest. It seems the bigger you are physically the harder it is to be a vicious 3pt bomber, something about bigger hands and strength for 6'8+ 240 pd guys that makes it more rare than 6'3 guards I suppose

Lamb OTOH is at 83% FT, which together with how good his shot looks, make me think this guy could bomb if he entered the league tomorrow

[Marlo Stanfield]

If Barnes' shooting is as good as advertised, what about a comparison like "poor man's, taller Ray Allen"? I realize Ray is arguably the best shooter in NBA history, but it's not like he ever had a yo-yo handle or anything, teams just had the respect his shot which opened up lanes even for a guy without the best handle. You pretty much had/have to body up Ray Allen to get in his shooting pocket or he'll burn you.

[DarkKnight]

I worry a little bit about the "Barnes will be an EPIC shooter" angle because he's at 72% FT. FT is usually a great indicator of your shooting talent. Elite NBA shooters usually are putting up mid 80%s or something. Now a lot of those great players were 10-15% lower in college than in the NBA like Granger, Allen, Miller, etc. But as is the case with all skills, development is never a lock. Barnes can be a guy who jumps to mid 80s and one of the best 3pt shooters in the league. Or he can stay where he is and be as good a shooter as Deng. I don't think he is a lock star shooter because of his 44% from 3 numbers. There have been a lot of NCAA players who put up 40% from 3 and failed more in the NBA

Lamb OTOH is at 83% FT, which together with how good his shot looks, make me think this guy could bomb if he entered the league tomorrow

FT shooting is funny. Some of the best shooter are also terrific FT shooters, but others are surprisingly poor. The converse is also true - they are some terrif FT shooter who you would never let shoot a real jumper if you could avoid it. Shooting FTs is about focus and confidence more than anything, and as you said many shooter-type become significantly better in the NBA. Ray allen shot 72.7% as a soph. Reggie miller shot 80.4 as a soph. MJ shot 73.7. Dell Curry shot 75.9 as a soph and Paul Pierce was at 71.7 his second year at Kansas.

[DarkKnight]

If Barnes' shooting is as good as advertised, what about a comparison like "poor man's, taller Ray Allen"? I realize Ray is arguably the best shooter in NBA history, but it's not like he ever had a yo-yo handle or anything, teams just had the respect his shot which opened up lanes even for a guy without the best handle. You pretty much had/have to body up Ray Allen to get in his shooting pocket or he'll burn you.

Barnes is much more similar to Pierce than to Allen IMO. Similar one-two bounce pull up game, similar big-shot mentality, similar sneaky athleticism, same college coach, similar size/build in college, etc. Allen came into the league so long ago that people forget how good an athlete he was - we're talking dunk-contest good. And his stroke is so pure it's not fiar to any prospect to put them up against him, really.

[fredericklove]

I worry a little bit about the "Barnes will be an EPIC shooter" angle because he's at 72% FT. FT is usually a great indicator of your shooting talent. Elite NBA shooters usually are putting up mid 80%s or something. Now a lot of those great players were 10-15% lower in college than in the NBA like Granger, Allen, Miller, etc. But as is the case with all skills, development is never a lock. Barnes can be a guy who jumps to mid 80s and one of the best 3pt shooters in the league. Or he can stay where he is and be as good a shooter as Deng. I don't think he is a lock star shooter because of his 44% from 3 numbers. There have been a lot of NCAA players who put up 40% from 3 and failed more in the NBA

Lamb OTOH is at 83% FT, which together with how good his shot looks, make me think this guy could bomb if he entered the league tomorrow

FT shooting is funny. Some of the best shooter are also terrific FT shooters, but others are surprisingly poor. The converse is also true - they are some terrif FT shooter who you would never let shoot a real jumper if you could avoid it. Shooting FTs is about focus and confidence more than anything, and as you said many shooter-type become significantly better in the NBA. Ray allen shot 72.7% as a soph. Reggie miller shot 80.4 as a soph. MJ shot 73.7. Dell Curry shot 75.9 as a soph and Paul Pierce was at 71.7 his second year at Kansas.

I thought it was epic funny using the FT% as a sole evidence to argue that he doesn't have a good jump shot overall. No one claims he's an epic shooter, but Barnes has a very good shooting touch that compliments by a very highly praised shooting form (praised by scouts and broadcasters.

FT is usually a great indicator of your shooting talent

That is definitely not a strong statement, your shooting talent comes from shootings of all aspect - from mid-range, long-range, contested shots, spot up or off the dribble, even turnaround jumpers, clutch shots etc. So FT% cannot be the only indicator of your shooting talent.

[Marlo Stanfield]

If Barnes' shooting is as good as advertised, what about a comparison like "poor man's, taller Ray Allen"? I realize Ray is arguably the best shooter in NBA history, but it's not like he ever had a yo-yo handle or anything, teams just had the respect his shot which opened up lanes even for a guy without the best handle. You pretty much had/have to body up Ray Allen to get in his shooting pocket or he'll burn you.

Barnes is much more similar to Pierce than to Allen IMO. Similar one-two bounce pull up game, similar big-shot mentality, similar sneaky athleticism, same college coach, similar size/build in college, etc. Allen came into the league so long ago that people forget how good an athlete he was - we're talking dunk-contest good. And his stroke is so pure it's not fiar to any prospect to put them up against him, really.

My biggest things were the handle and the shot pretty much. Like I said, Allen is arguable the GOAT shooter in NBA history but it would be Barnes' biggest strength hence the comparison. I don't think people realize how good a handle Pierce has. Just because he's not Jamal Crawford with a basketball doesn't mean his handle is not solid as a rock and crafty as hell. Whereas Ray Allen is more of a guy who just dribbles out of necessity in an escape movement, or maybe a two-dribble pull-up move. Pierce can play around with the ball a bit more, as you can see when he is often given the ball above the 3-point line to take the defender and finish games off.

[gojoorange]

If Barnes' shooting is as good as advertised, what about a comparison like "poor man's, taller Ray Allen"? I realize Ray is arguably the best shooter in NBA history, but it's not like he ever had a yo-yo handle or anything, teams just had the respect his shot which opened up lanes even for a guy without the best handle. You pretty much had/have to body up Ray Allen to get in his shooting pocket or he'll burn you.

Barnes is much more similar to Pierce than to Allen IMO. Similar one-two bounce pull up game, similar big-shot mentality, similar sneaky athleticism, same college coach, similar size/build in college, etc. Allen came into the league so long ago that people forget how good an athlete he was - we're talking dunk-contest good. And his stroke is so pure it's not fiar to any prospect to put them up against him, really.

My biggest things were the handle and the shot pretty much. Like I said, Allen is arguable the GOAT shooter in NBA history but it would be Barnes' biggest strength hence the comparison. I don't think people realize how good a handle Pierce has. Just because he's not Jamal Crawford with a basketball doesn't mean his handle is not solid as a rock and crafty as hell. Whereas Ray Allen is more of a guy who just dribbles out of necessity in an escape movement, or maybe a two-dribble pull-up move. Pierce can play around with the ball a bit more, as you can see when he is often given the ball above the 3-point line to take the defender and finish games off.

Barnes is great in the triple threat though, more similar to Pierce in my opinion. Although he is a pretty unique player.

[Marlo Stanfield]

Maybe he's some type of Paul Pierce/Ray Allen hybrid

[DarkKnight]

If Barnes' shooting is as good as advertised, what about a comparison like "poor man's, taller Ray Allen"? I realize Ray is arguably the best shooter in NBA history, but it's not like he ever had a yo-yo handle or anything, teams just had the respect his shot which opened up lanes even for a guy without the best handle. You pretty much had/have to body up Ray Allen to get in his shooting pocket or he'll burn you.

Barnes is much more similar to Pierce than to Allen IMO. Similar one-two bounce pull up game, similar big-shot mentality, similar sneaky athleticism, same college coach, similar size/build in college, etc. Allen came into the league so long ago that people forget how good an athlete he was - we're talking dunk-contest good. And his stroke is so pure it's not fiar to any prospect to put them up against him, really.

My biggest things were the handle and the shot pretty much. Like I said, Allen is arguable the GOAT shooter in NBA history but it would be Barnes' biggest strength hence the comparison. I don't think people realize how good a handle Pierce has. Just because he's not Jamal Crawford with a basketball doesn't mean his handle is not solid as a rock and crafty as hell. Whereas Ray Allen is more of a guy who just dribbles out of necessity in an escape movement, or maybe a two-dribble pull-up move. Pierce can play around with the ball a bit more, as you can see when he is often given the ball above the 3-point line to take the defender and finish games off.

You're thinking of 10+ year NBA vet Paul Pierce, not incoming rookie Paul Pierce. The biggest knock on Pierce coming out of college was his handle - mostly described as "adequate" or "developing", similar to Barnes.

[SkywalkerAC]

It does look like Barnes patterned his jumper after Ray Ray's. there's a real dedication to the art of the consistent release. that said, Allen has real guard skills rather than triple threat/iso skills. i didn't get to watch Allen's first few years in the league but when he went to the sonics he was almost playing like a point gaurd.

[Marlo Stanfield]

I know Tony Wroten has lost some luster with certain posters in here, but I'd be so down for drafting him as a SG. Imagine his ball handling and vision at the 2. A 2-guard who can handle the ball as well as pass opens up so many opportunities. But obviously not with our pick, we would need to acquire a second 1st rounder.

[WalterCronkite]

Jared Sullinger, beast, nuff said.

[bongmarley]

Barnes is a Jamal Mashburn clone

[gojoorange]

Barnes is a Jamal Mashburn clone

Hopefully without the injuries.

[bongmarley]

20-5-5 guy

[SkywalkerAC]

Barnes is a Jamal Mashburn clone

With an even better jumpshot. Should be a pretty damn good player.