2024 Draft Thread - Part II

[SUPERBALLMAN]

Meh, sounds like once he started playing basketball, he loved it. Remember, that’s a 19 year old kid being interviewed on ESPN for the first time, he’s nervous.

Watch on YouTube

My read on Buzelis is that he’s an irrational confidence guy. On JJ Redick’s podcast he cited JR Smith as a player he loved watching and modeled his game after.

Ok, on 2nd watch maybe I overreacted.

[SUPERBALLMAN]

I'm liking this guy Jaylen Wells as a possibility at 51. He can shoot it.

Bleacher Report:

School/team: Washington State

Position: SF

Size: 6'7", 206 lbs

Age: 20, Junior

Nationality: American

Pro comparison: Duncan Robinson

From Division II to Washington State and the NBA combine, Jaylen Wells has become a second-round name for teams to consider. Scouts have started to picture a shotmaking specialist with his wing size and outstanding spot-up and pull-up shooting accuracy.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[J-Ves]

My guess at the Wiz big board:

1. Sarr
2. Topic
3. Castle
4. Holland
5. Buzelis

The wiz FO wants good positional size and ball creation

Dillingham and Sheppard get dinged for size concerns

Clingan and Risacher get dinged for lack of creation skills

If Sarr isn’t available at 2 I expect us to try to trade down dangling Clingan and Risacher to entice perspective buyers. Any reports that suggest we will take Risacher or Clingan at 2 will likely be smokescreens to up their value(at least that’s my guess until the moment of the pick)

[SUPERBALLMAN]

Film breakdown with Alex Sarr

Watch on YouTube

[SUPERBALLMAN]

I'm personally not overly impressed with Rissacher's measurements. A 6'10 wingspan is not that great compared to his height, and I'm assuming his standing reach isn't impressive either. I also noticed that he isn't particularly athletic in the open court, and doesn't get great elevation on his jumpshot. He also gets those struggle dunks where the ball grazes the rim, which I counted way too many times for a player his height.

I'm just not seeing what the scouts are seeing. WizardsKev basically said the same thing. Such a stark contrast from Bilal, who's freakish physical tools stood out immediately.

I would do the trade down with Portland.

At 7, Castle, Holland, Salaun could still be available. And at 14, could be looking at Ware, Missi, Tyler Smith, Filipowski.

We'd have 3 bites at the apple. We could come away with something like Castle, Ware, Dunn. Or Salaun, Missi, Carrington. Or Holland, T.Smith, Christie. Or Cody Williams, Filipowski, Dadiet. Or Buzelis, Collier, George...

It's a no-brainer -- but they aren't going to give us 7 & 14 for 2.
It's too rich an offer -- for all the reasons you point out!

What would be more likely is for us to trade our 3 picks (2, 26, & 51) for their 4 picks (7, 14, 34 & 40).

I would LOVE that !!

[closg00]

Continuing the Rob Dillingham conversation, he has the same height/weight measurements currently as HOFer Allen Iverson, an inch taller actually. It’s funny how grace is granted to Zach and Sarr for their upside potential while not granting the same to Rob. If Rob had been UK’s starter and a smidgen taller, he would be in discussions as a Top pick. Top UK players usually do quite well in the NBA and are a good bet.

[gesa2]

Continuing the Rob Dillingham conversation, he has the same height/weight measurements currently as HOFer Allen Iverson, an inch taller actually. It’s funny how grace is granted to Zach and Sarr for their upside potential while not granting the same to Rob. If Rob had been UK’s starter and a smidgen taller, he would be in discussions as a Top pick. Top UK players usually do quite well in the NBA and are a good bet.

It’s a good debate to have. But players that size have a smaller margin to succeed. When they do succeed the entire team has to be built around their defensive limitations. I’m at least as worried about a 170 pound player on D as I am a 30% 3 point shooter at PG.

[prime1time]

Continuing the Rob Dillingham conversation, he has the same height/weight measurements currently as HOFer Allen Iverson, an inch taller actually. It’s funny how grace is granted to Zach and Sarr for their upside potential while not granting the same to Rob. If Rob had been UK’s starter and a smidgen taller, he would be in discussions as a Top pick. Top UK players usually do quite well in the NBA and are a good bet.

But he's not taller. 6-1 without shoes, 6-3 wingspan and 164.2 pounds. For comparison purposes Maxey is 6'3 has a 6'6 wingspan and weight close to 200 pounds. The issue with Dillingham is that he's just smaller than most small pg's. Offensively isn't the worry for me but defensively, I wonder if his lack of size limits how often he can be on the floor. The NBA is moving to positionless basketball. And bigger guards in general. Some teams (Mavs w/ Doncic and Celtics w/ Brown and Tatum) trot out lineups with significant amounts of size. Where does Dillingham fit defensively into this situation?

Do you envision Dillingham playing 30+ minutes a game on a contender? What role will he play defensively in his prime in the NBA? Can teams switch with Dillingham on the floor? If Dillingham gets cross matched onto a wing that knows how to attack, is that an automatic double team situation? How will Dillingham fair against NBA defenses? Yes other players have questions, but those questions surround things that can be improved. And they also have very favorable measurements. Dillingham, on the other hand, struggles at measurements. And there's an underlying assumption that those measurements won't significantly change.

[closg00]

Rob is 1 inch taller than HOFer Allen Iverson (same weight), 1 inch shorter than Kyrie, I’m just saying that Rob is too-easily hand waved for serious consideration as a top pic IMO, his possible ceiling should be equally considered alongside the others.

[Dat2U]

Continuing the Rob Dillingham conversation, he has the same height/weight measurements currently as HOFer Allen Iverson, an inch taller actually. It’s funny how grace is granted to Zach and Sarr for their upside potential while not granting the same to Rob. If Rob had been UK’s starter and a smidgen taller, he would be in discussions as a Top pick. Top UK players usually do quite well in the NBA and are a good bet.

It’s a good debate to have. But players that size have a smaller margin to succeed. When they do succeed the entire team has to be built around their defensive limitations. I’m at least as worried about a 170 pound player on D as I am a 30% 3 point shooter at PG.

To me defensive value is mostly position based. A good defending PG holds limited value if he's a meh scorer/shooter. These guys tend to become off-the-ball SGs in limited roles. Just like a offensive C holds limited value if he can't defend the position.

Vice versa, a defensive C for the most part is going to have more value than a defensive guard because the C is the last line of defense and responsible for significantly more than the guard.

Also there's plenty examples of small scoring, light defending guards having postseason success.

Hardly any examples of non-shooting, defense first guards having postseason success.

People point to Marcus Smart as an example of what these non-shooting guards can become. Has anyone looked at how bad an offensive player Marcus really is compared to other starting PGs? While he might be arguably the best defending PG, he's also clearly one of the worst big minute guards offensively looking solely at his position. He's typically needed a playmaker beside him because he's not a high level creator. He has a role because he's in the 99% percentile of perimeter defenders even if he's in the 10% percentile among staters in terms of offensive impact.

[nate33]

Continuing the Rob Dillingham conversation, he has the same height/weight measurements currently as HOFer Allen Iverson, an inch taller actually. It’s funny how grace is granted to Zach and Sarr for their upside potential while not granting the same to Rob. If Rob had been UK’s starter and a smidgen taller, he would be in discussions as a Top pick. Top UK players usually do quite well in the NBA and are a good bet.

It’s a good debate to have. But players that size have a smaller margin to succeed. When they do succeed the entire team has to be built around their defensive limitations. I’m at least as worried about a 170 pound player on D as I am a 30% 3 point shooter at PG.

Iverson got out of the second round of the playoffs once in his entire career. (And that was against perhaps the weakest Eastern Conference competition of all time.) It's the same thing as Trae Young. These diminutive guys can win you regular season games, but it doesn't matter because good teams with a scouting report can exploit them relentlessly on defense in the playoffs. And they do it even more now because the 4-out and 5-out sets are easier utilized to force mismatches and exploit matchup advantages.

I just don't want to build my team around a player with a fatal flaw. I'd rather add a high quality #3 or #4 starter now and take another year of rebuilding to find a better star who lacks a fatal flaw.

[NatP4]

Is that a reflection on Trae Young? Or the incompetent Hawks organization that totally missed on the Deandre Hunter/Cam Reddish/Taurean Prince/Deandre Bembry/Omari Spellman picks?

The best picks they made to surround Young have been John Collins and Kevin Huerter. Also tried to pair Young with another awful defender in the backcourt in Dejounte Murray.

How would Young look if you put him in Brunson’s situation in NY, with Hartenstein, Anunoby, Divencenzo, Hart, and Robinson?

[nate33]

Is that a reflection on Trae Young? Or the incompetent Hawks organization that totally missed on the Deandre Hunter/Cam Reddish/Taurean Prince/Deandre Bembry/Omari Spellman picks?

The best picks they made to surround Young have been John Collins and Kevin Huerter. Also tried to pair Young with another awful defender in the backcourt in Dejounte Murray.

How would Young look if you put him in Brunson’s situation in NY, with Hartenstein, Anunoby, Divencenzo, Hart, and Robinson?

I don't disagree that Atlanta has made some mistakes. With better teammates, Atlanta could be consistent 45-50 win team instead of the disappointing sub-.500 team they've been. But I still don't think Atlanta gets out of the 2nd round and certainly doesn't get past the conference finals so long as they are built around Trae.

I think the Knicks situation with Brunson is entirely different because Brunson is stout. Those short but strong fire hydrant guys like Brunson, Lowry and VanVleet hold up in switches much better. They can at least push post up players off their spots long enough to get some double team help. If you put Trae in Brunson's spot, he gets immediately pushed under the rim in a switch.

[NatP4]

Good points. Keep forgetting that Dillingham is <170 lbs.

Also nowhere near the level of prospect that Trae Young was at Oklahoma. Seems like Dillingham is on a Lou Williams-Darius Garland scale, but even Garland measured with noticeably more length/standing reach and strength.

[tontoz]

Iverson was a football player, an athletic freak of nature. I don't see that in Dill.

[payitforward]

Like Iverson, Dillingham is small....

That's a point in his favor now?

[nate33]

I just took a good look at Isaiah Collier and I find myself intrigued. He seems like a real boom/bust prospect. I'm a sucker for guys who can get to the rim at will, and he is definitely one of them. A skill like that can make you an All-Star if you can put everything else together.

The problem, of course, is that he is kind a bad at everything else. His catch-and-shoot 3-ball is okay (shoots in the mid 30's) but his off-the-dribble 3-ball is a train wreck (23% IIRC). Teams will obviously go under screens and dare him to shoot. And his 67% FT% doesn't give one much hope that his 3-ball will improve in the near future. As a playmaker, he's okay, showing some nice vision and awareness, but he is way too turnover prone. Part of it is because there is no spacing around him. I think, the superior spacing at the NBA level will not only open up his penetration game even more, but it will give him easier angles for his playmaking. But he also has rather poor hands for a PG, with the ball slipping out, or him making errant passes more than one expects from a PG.

His defense is atrocious. He clearly has the strength and athleticism to be a good defender, but he is just not locked in. He carelessly rushes out on closeouts, and he doesn't get low in a stance when on-ball so people blow by him too much. He seems okay in passing lanes so I think he has a decent enough defensive feel, but it really looks like he was never coached how to play defense. It might take time, but I think his defensive issues are correctable.

Overall, he has too many issues for me to take him with a pick in the 10-15 range (that we might conceivably obtain in a Kuzma trade), but I am fascinated enough with his physical profile and penetration ability that I would love to take a risk on him with a lower pick and hope the development staff can fix his deficiencies. I see him mocked at 17, 19 and 14 at Tankathon, Ringer and CBS Sports respectively, which is probably a bit high. But if he falls into the low 20's so that we can move up from #26 to get him at a low cost, I might consider it. There is a possibility that he evolves into a Baron Davis type of player.

[doclinkin]

Continuing the Rob Dillingham conversation, he has the same height/weight measurements currently as HOFer Allen Iverson, an inch taller actually. It’s funny how grace is granted to Zach and Sarr for their upside potential while not granting the same to Rob. If Rob had been UK’s starter and a smidgen taller, he would be in discussions as a Top pick. Top UK players usually do quite well in the NBA and are a good bet.

It’s a good debate to have. But players that size have a smaller margin to succeed. When they do succeed the entire team has to be built around their defensive limitations. I’m at least as worried about a 170 pound player on D as I am a 30% 3 point shooter at PG.

Iverson got out of the second round of the playoffs once in his entire career. (And that was against perhaps the weakest Eastern Conference competition of all time.) It's the same thing as Trae Young. These diminutive guys can win you regular season games, but it doesn't matter because good teams with a scouting report can exploit them relentlessly on defense in the playoffs. And they do it even more now because the 4-out and 5-out sets are easier utilized to force mismatches and exploit matchup advantages.

I just don't want to build my team around a player with a fatal flaw. I'd rather add a high quality #3 or #4 starter now and take another year of rebuilding to find a better star who lacks a fatal flaw.

If Kyrie Irving wins it this year, I expect teams will re-think if the formula for wins can include a smallish ballhandler, next to a big wing scorer, with a deep rotation of rim running bigs up front.

We may be getting back to this model. 6' Mike Conley with Antman+ KAT + Rudy. With the NBA ratcheting up defensive emphasis on offensive fouls, only the true ballhandling magicians can create their own space and get free. You can't rely on refs to bail you out with handcheck calls. No more combo guards getting a free pass to the line. Teams who have a maestro at PG can still get a pass in to the bigs for the high percentage finish in traffic. A true floor general who can play both his guys and opponents as chess pieces in his own game. Other teams rely on tall outside passers and longball shooters posted all around to create the space, but a wizard ballhandler knows how to work it regardless. Make space for himself and his teammates alike.

Personally I'd love it if we saw a renaissance in ballhandling in traffic as opposed to outside gunnery. Kyrie is too much fun to watch. Same way I like the giants, I loved watching cats like Andre Miller outsmart opponents with his slow-motion mastery of angles. Or tiny guys like Earl Boykins maneuver among the giants. They will still be a liability on offense, but if you have a guy who can maximize the efficiency of his teammates then his own stats are not as important. And a ballhandler can improve the utility of the underskilled Bigs who lack the ability to make their own buckets. When it works it is great. If the teams are tipping towards the paint scorers again then there is an opportunity there. You get the 2pts plus the foul from teams scrambling to stop the dominant interior scorer. Stop the clock, soften up the defense, control the possession game.

We saw Wemby dominate when his teammates were able to get him the ball in good position, but starve for touches when his teammates could not find him. Dillingham with Wemby would be fun.

I don't hate the idea of DIllingham. I just seriously doubt the front office takes him. They tend to like the positional length as one of their measures of top end potential.

[nate33]

It’s a good debate to have. But players that size have a smaller margin to succeed. When they do succeed the entire team has to be built around their defensive limitations. I’m at least as worried about a 170 pound player on D as I am a 30% 3 point shooter at PG.

Iverson got out of the second round of the playoffs once in his entire career. (And that was against perhaps the weakest Eastern Conference competition of all time.) It's the same thing as Trae Young. These diminutive guys can win you regular season games, but it doesn't matter because good teams with a scouting report can exploit them relentlessly on defense in the playoffs. And they do it even more now because the 4-out and 5-out sets are easier utilized to force mismatches and exploit matchup advantages.

I just don't want to build my team around a player with a fatal flaw. I'd rather add a high quality #3 or #4 starter now and take another year of rebuilding to find a better star who lacks a fatal flaw.

If Kyrie Irving wins it this year, I expect teams will re-think if the formula for wins can include a smallish ballhandler, next to a big wing scorer, with a deep rotation of rim running bigs up front.

We may be getting back to this model. 6' Mike Conley with Antman+ KAT + Rudy. With the NBA ratcheting up defensive emphasis on offensive fouls, only the true ballhandling magicians can create their own space and get free. You can't rely on refs to bail you out with handcheck calls. No more combo guards getting a free pass to the line. Teams who have a maestro at PG can still get a pass in to the bigs for the high percentage finish in traffic. A true floor general who can play both his guys and opponents as chess pieces in his own game. Other teams rely on tall outside passers and longball shooters posted all around to create the space, but a wizard ballhandler knows how to work it regardless. Make space for himself and his teammates alike.

Personally I'd love it if we saw a renaissance in ballhandling in traffic as opposed to outside gunnery. Kyrie is too much fun to watch. Same way I like the giants, I loved watching cats like Andre Miller outsmart opponents with his slow-motion mastery of angles. Or tiny guys like Earl Boykins maneuver among the giants. They will still be a liability on offense, but if you have a guy who can maximize the efficiency of his teammates then his own stats are not as important. And a ballhandler can improve the utility of the underskilled Bigs who lack the ability to make their own buckets. When it works it is great. If the teams are tipping towards the paint scorers again then there is an opportunity there. You get the 2pts plus the foul from teams scrambling to stop the dominant interior scorer. Stop the clock, soften up the defense, control the possession game.

We saw Wemby dominate when his teammates were able to get him the ball in good position, but starve for touches when his teammates could not find him. Dillingham with Wemby would be fun.

I don't hate the idea of DIllingham. I just seriously doubt the front office takes him. They tend to like the positional length as one of their measures of top end potential.

Kyrie was 27 pounds heavier than Dillingham. He was also .75-inches taller and had 1-inch superior wingspan. Kyrie also happens to be perhaps the most skilled basketball player of all time. I don't think Kyrie's success means that Dillingham will be successful.

[DCZards]

Yeah…both Iverson and Kyrie are freaks. AI with his athleticism, speed and toughness and Irving with his ballhandling and dexterity. Little inaccurate—and unfair—to compare Dillingham with either one of them.

I do agree with the Trae Young comparison, although Trae looks to be a better passer while Dilly, as crazy as it sounds, may actually turn out to be a better all-around scorer than Young.