Chicken Littles: Sky done fell! Draft Thread 2011

[theboomking]

At the Nike Hoops Summit in Spring, 2010, Kanter measured 6'10.5" in shoes with a 7'1" wingspan. At that time, was a month shy of his 18th birthday. That was only a quarter inch shy of Demarcous Cousins' height last year, but Cousins had a 7' 5.75" wingspan and 9'5" standing reach. I suppose Kanter could have grown some, and we'll find out at the draft combine in 2 months. In my mind, Kanter has ideal PF size, and can probably play some center in smaller lineups.

For comparison, Horford was 6' 9.75", with a 7' 0.75" wingspan and an 8' 11" standing reach. That is more in line with how I expect Kanter to measure up, although I doubt that Enes will be able to post the 35.5" max vert that Horford did.

[Ruzious]

The thing about Kanter vs Jonny Valentine - even though there's less video on Kanter, and JV has played against the top adult Euroleague competition - Kanter is so much easier to evaluate simply by watching him play. Some players - you can just tell what they'll be in the NBA by watching him - Kanter is one of those, and JV just isn't. The Ruland comp to Kanter is spot on.

Great read by Reina. I don't like either of his pix for the Zards. With no significant difference in talent, you gotta add some more talent up front to the Wiz roster. I'm not sure those 2 picks would add more than glorified jump shooters. You should always be able to find a jump shooter - San Antonio does, anyway. Speaking of which, that 6'10 3 point shooter from Richmond sounds interesting as a stretch 4 - perfect pick for Phoenix... if Nash stays there.

[nate33]

I'm wary of Horford comparisons. Horford (and Noah for that matter) had an oddly short standing reach measurements given his capability of playing center. It's highly unusual. Going by standing reach, Horford is actually a touch short to be a prototypical PF. Guys like Rudy Gay, David West, Ike Diogu, and Charlie Villaneuva have taller standing reaches than Horford.

[Ruzious]

At the Nike Hoops Summit in Spring, 2010, Kanter measured 6'10.5" in shoes with a 7'1" wingspan. At that time, was a month shy of his 18th birthday. That was only a quarter inch shy of Demarcous Cousins' height last year, but Cousins had a 7' 5.75" wingspan and 9'5" standing reach. I suppose Kanter could have grown some, and we'll find out at the draft combine in 2 months. In my mind, Kanter has ideal PF size, and can probably play some center in smaller lineups.

For comparison, Horford was 6' 9.75", with a 7' 0.75" wingspan and an 8' 11" standing reach. That is more in line with how I expect Kanter to measure up, although I doubt that Enes will be able to post the 35.5" max vert that Horford did.

Yeah, he's not going to be the longest player in the NBA, but think of it this way - at probably 6'11 265, skilled, and aggressive as hell with a scorer's mentality, who in the NBA is he not going to be able to get his shot off against? Maybe 3 centers could give him fits, but they'll be worried he'll get them in foul trouble.

[nate33]

Great read by Reina. I don't like either of his pix for the Zards. With no significant difference in talent, you gotta add some more talent up front to the Wiz roster. I'm not sure those 2 picks would add more than glorified jump shooters.

With Kanter and Williams off the board, who would you take at #4?

Given that scenario, I'd agree with Reina and go with Barnes - with the hope that he pans out to be a Paul Pierce/Danny Granger type, rather than merely a Calbert Cheaney. Barnes isn't a franchise player, but he's still potentially a legit star.

I just don't think we have the infrastructure to groom a flawed guy with upside like Perry Jones. I don't think you win with Sully, and nobody else seems like they're worth a #4 pick. I guess if we didn't like Barnes much, we could consider trying to trade up to #3. (Minnesota can't honestly want another burly PF like Kanter). Otherwise, we could trade down while hopefully adding a 2012 lotto pick.

[fishercob]

Great read by Reina. I don't like either of his pix for the Zards. With no significant difference in talent, you gotta add some more talent up front to the Wiz roster. I'm not sure those 2 picks would add more than glorified jump shooters.

With Kanter and Williams off the board, who would you take at #4?

Given that scenario, I'd agree with Reina and go with Barnes - with the hope that he pans out to be a Paul Pierce/Danny Granger type, rather than merely a Calbert Cheaney. Barnes isn't a franchise player, but he's still potentially a legit star.

I just don't think we have the infrastructure to groom a flawed guy with upside like Perry Jones. I don't think you win with Sully, and nobody else seems like they're worth a #4 pick. I guess if we didn't like Barnes much, we could consider trying to trade up to #3. (Minnesota can't honestly want another burly PF like Kanter). Otherwise, we could trade down while hopefully adding a 2012 lotto pick.

How come? Ohio State is the #1 team in the entire country, and while I don't follow college stats extremely closely, I remember hearing that he was putting up Love/Blair type numbers. Ohio State seems to win with him a lot.

[Ruzious]

Great read by Reina. I don't like either of his pix for the Zards. With no significant difference in talent, you gotta add some more talent up front to the Wiz roster. I'm not sure those 2 picks would add more than glorified jump shooters.

With Kanter and Williams off the board, who would you take at #4?

Given that scenario, I'd agree with Reina and go with Barnes - with the hope that he pans out to be a Paul Pierce/Danny Granger type, rather than merely a Calbert Cheaney. Barnes isn't a franchise player, but he's still potentially a legit star.

I just don't think we have the infrastructure to groom a flawed guy with upside like Perry Jones. I don't think you win with Sully, and nobody else seems like they're worth a #4 pick. I guess if we didn't like Barnes much, we could consider trying to trade up to #3. (Minnesota can't honestly want another burly PF like Kanter). Otherwise, we could trade down while hopefully adding a 2012 lotto pick.

I don't think any of them are going to be difference makers in the long run. I take a close look at JV - realizing he's a hard player to evaluate. Otherwise, I go Sullinger. There's no great answer.

[nate33]

I just don't think we have the infrastructure to groom a flawed guy with upside like Perry Jones. I don't think you win with Sully, and nobody else seems like they're worth a #4 pick. I guess if we didn't like Barnes much, we could consider trying to trade up to #3. (Minnesota can't honestly want another burly PF like Kanter). Otherwise, we could trade down while hopefully adding a 2012 lotto pick.

How come? Ohio State is the #1 team in the entire country, and while I don't follow college stats extremely closely, I remember hearing that he was putting up Love/Blair type numbers. Ohio State seems to win with him a lot.

I watch Ohio State all the time. I absolutely love Sullinger as a college player, but I question his ability to translate that production in the pros. He's not tall enough or athletic enough. Already, Sullinger has real problems scoring when matched up with legit big men in size. He just gets his shot blocked over and over again. He tends to wear opponents down with his neverending desire to establish deep post position, but that's not going to work as well in the pros where everybody has better lower body strength. For now, he's kind of a one-trick pony whose one trick won't be all that effective in the NBA.

Guys like Brand and Boozer who had his build were able to adapt to the NBA because they were longer, more athletic, and developed a money midrange shot. Sullinger might be okay if he slims down a bit and also develops that midrange shot, but it's certainly not a given. I wouldn't gamble the #4 pick in the draft on it. And no matter what happens, Sullinger will never be even an average player defensively. Don't get me wrong. I love Sullinger's intangibles. He's got a great motor. He's smart. He hustles. He makes few mistakes. He'd certainly help our team.

Basically, Sullinger's absolute ceiling is Carlos Boozer, and it's almost surely a bit lower. I'd take the next Paul Pierce over the next Boozer, and I think Barnes has a better shot at being Paul Pierce than Sullinger has at being the next Boozer.

[tontoz]

Great read by Reina. I don't like either of his pix for the Zards. With no significant difference in talent, you gotta add some more talent up front to the Wiz roster. I'm not sure those 2 picks would add more than glorified jump shooters.

With Kanter and Williams off the board, who would you take at #4?

Given that scenario, I'd agree with Reina and go with Barnes - with the hope that he pans out to be a Paul Pierce/Danny Granger type, rather than merely a Calbert Cheaney. Barnes isn't a franchise player, but he's still potentially a legit star.

I just don't think we have the infrastructure to groom a flawed guy with upside like Perry Jones. I don't think you win with Sully, and nobody else seems like they're worth a #4 pick. I guess if we didn't like Barnes much, we could consider trying to trade up to #3. (Minnesota can't honestly want another burly PF like Kanter). Otherwise, we could trade down while hopefully adding a 2012 lotto pick.

I would be willing to trade both our picks to move up and get Kanter if it comes to that, based on what i know now. I think he can spend time at both the 4 and 5 and his scoring ability would make it easy to play him with either Booker or Seraphin.

There certainly is a risk that Barnes turns out to be too quick to settle for jumpers. He takes a lot of 3s.

[fishercob]

Thanks nate, I appreciate your analysis.

[sashae]

I think the divide between the Sullinger fans (like myself) and folks that want to draft those they haven't seen (Vesely, Valenciunas, Kanter) or those that they have seen (Barnes, Jones) that have 'huge upside' is fascinating. I like Sullinger, regardless of his overall ceiling (and I agree that he's unlikely to end up being Tim Duncan/Karl Malone in their primes good) but he does have several immediately obvious skills (rebounding, passing, post moves, purportedly a perimeter game from HS, court sense) and one obvious negative (defense) and one arguable negative (height.)

Barnes and Jones both are 'questionably motivated' and have shown flashes of talent, but haven't we gotten enough of high-upside numbskulls? Wouldn't we rather end up with Carlos Boozer than a rich man's Calbert Cheaney (I mean, dear god! The guy had a max PER of 14.2 in his 2nd year, and SUCKED the rest!) Barnes has had ONE really-good game thus far, and a whole lot of 'what the hell is going on.'

Jones has had multiple articles written about his questionable motivation and ability to be a star, physical talents aside. Who NEEDS it?

Vesely, Valenciunas, Kanter -- other than some grainy video from Europe (or one tourney game) who the hell knows how good they'll be? I'd rather have the known quantity in an area we DESPERATELY need the help (rebounding/smarts) than hope and pray that one of these kids ends up being good.

Sullinger averages 17.3pts, 10.1rebs on 53.6% shooting. I remain wholly convinced that he's going to be a very good NBA player. I'd rather stake my hopes on production than non (Barnes - 15pts, 5rebs, 42% shooting -- Jones, 13.9pts, 7.3rebs, 54% shooting)

[RT31]

I like taking Barnes with our 1st pick. He started off slow, but has been playing a lot better lately. I think a lot of it has to do with the PG switch from Drew to Marshall. Marshall is a much better floor leader/setup man in my opinion. I think playing along side Wall will do the same. I'm interested to see how he truly measures out. Some pictures of him make him look like a long neck/big head kinda guy. be interesting to see his standing reach.

[nate33]

Barnes and Jones both are 'questionably motivated' and have shown flashes of talent, but haven't we gotten enough of high-upside numbskulls? Wouldn't we rather end up with Carlos Boozer than a rich man's Calbert Cheaney (I mean, dear god! The guy had a max PER of 14.2 in his 2nd year, and SUCKED the rest!) Barnes has had ONE really-good game thus far, and a whole lot of 'what the hell is going on.'

I think you are being unfairly harsh on Barnes. He was an 18-year-old freshman. He merely started slow.

In his first 17 games (against mostly non-conference competition), Barnes was indeed disappointing. He averaged 11.8 points, 5.2 boards and 1.4 assists with a .428 eFG% and a .475 TS% in 27.2 minutes per game.

But in his last 14 games, against nothing but conference competition, he averaged 19.4 points, 6.0 boards and 1.3 assists, with a .547 eFG% and a .581 TS%. He scored at least 16 points in 12 of those 14 games.

[fishercob]

I like taking Barnes with our 1st pick. He started off slow, but has been playing a lot better lately. I think a lot of it has to do with the PG switch from Drew to Marshall. Marshall is a much better floor leader/setup man in my opinion. I think playing along side Wall will do the same. I'm interested to see how he truly measures out. Some pictures of him make him look like a long neck/big head kinda guy. be interesting to see his standing reach.

Yes, Givony or someone was tweeting about the difference in Barnes' splits since the switch from Drew to Marshall. Given that we're building around Wall, I found it encouraging in Barnes ends up being the pick. We do have to remind ourselves that he's only 18.

[sashae]

Sullinger profile from Rivals. Compare his background and the commentary against the NYTimes article on Jones.

[Ruzious]

Sash, I agree with some of your observations there, but I did post links to an entire Valentine game and I think there's enough non-grainy youtubes of Kanter and Vaseline so that you can get a decent picture of them - though I agree - it ain't perfect.

I ment to mention on Reina's mock - With the Atl pick, it'd be a mistake to take the Duke guard over Jordan Hamilton, Tristan Thompson, and Markeiff Morris. Heck, I'd take Singler over him. I'm not a huge Hamilton fan, but I think he's clearly a better prospect.

[The Consiglieri]

At the Nike Hoops Summit in Spring, 2010, Kanter measured 6'10.5" in shoes with a 7'1" wingspan. At that time, was a month shy of his 18th birthday. That was only a quarter inch shy of Demarcous Cousins' height last year, but Cousins had a 7' 5.75" wingspan and 9'5" standing reach. I suppose Kanter could have grown some, and we'll find out at the draft combine in 2 months. In my mind, Kanter has ideal PF size, and can probably play some center in smaller lineups.

For comparison, Horford was 6' 9.75", with a 7' 0.75" wingspan and an 8' 11" standing reach. That is more in line with how I expect Kanter to measure up, although I doubt that Enes will be able to post the 35.5" max vert that Horford did.

Yeah, he's not going to be the longest player in the NBA, but think of it this way - at probably 6'11 265, skilled, and aggressive as hell with a scorer's mentality, who in the NBA is he not going to be able to get his shot off against? Maybe 3 centers could give him fits, but they'll be worried he'll get them in foul trouble.

From my own perspective, I'm kind of happy he didnt play at Kentucky this year, if he had, i have a sinking suspicion he'd be beyond our reach barring more lottery luck. The one thing I know for sure is that I definitively do not want our draft pick used on a player with ho-hum upside. If Barnes well and truly does not have the mentality to be a stud at the next level-pass. I'll just be happy that he's likely pushing more talent to us if he's having a good tourney. I want the guys most likely to be capable of becoming elite at the next level, unfortunately I really can't tell who that is. I'd say Irving, Kanter and Jones are probably the most likely to have a capacity for that level. I can't comment on the majority of the foreign players as I don't know squat. I have major issues w/the upside of Barnes, D. Williams, and Sully scare me the most, Barnes due to mentality and athleticism, Sully due to size/length issues, and D. Williams is alarming to me because I am concerned that he's a college dominant player, that he's raced up the boards so suddenly that I wonder if people are paying enough attention to how he'll be able to accomplish this at the next level. I suppose he just screams "potential bust" the loudest of these guys to me along with Perry Jones, but unlike Jones, who has a huge ceiling and bust potential (kind of a poor man's version of last year's Cousins), while at least Barnes and Sully strike me as guys that could be productive if not terribly impressive.

Kantner is becoming a guy i just feel a hunch about. Don't know why exactly, just feel like he'll be a good one for sure, if he can stay healthy. Irving should be good to very good, and Jones is either going to be a star, or a total migraine for teams.

[pcbothwel]

I understand your sentiments, but i dont think there should be any question about the mentality of Barnes. Everyone looks at OKC or CHI about how to build teams, and I think another good team to look at is the Celtics. While they are set up with older, former superstars, you have to look at their mentality. Garnett, Pierce, and Ray Allen all have the focus to beat you play after play, game after game. And when the game is on the line, they dont blink.

Obtaining players with this mentality matched with ability is rare to find. That is why Barnes and Valanciunas are at the top of my board. They constantly improve their games and show an appreciation for improving and playing defense.
The McGee/Blatche kind of players are a cancer to teams from a funtionality standpoint, that doesnt mean there bad people. But they simply breed inefficiency and low IQ play.

[closg00]

10 potential breakout stars in this year's NCAA tournament field

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball ... aab-333796
1 or 2 familiar faces....at least for me.

[dangermouse]

Ive cooled on Sullinger, after seeing some and reading about him. And ive warmed to Barnes. I wasnt big on Barnes earlier because he seems sort of quiet and detatched, but i guess we dont need a vocal leader or anything, someone who is all business would be a change, let Wall be the alphadog and Barnes follow, and hopefully the rest of the team takes notes.

My top 3 now is Williams, Kanter, Barnes.