AFM wrote:The Consiglieri wrote:AFM wrote:CCJ and I are waging a war of attrition against Dairy Queen doubters. Gonna have this entire board trying to draft him second come June.
There's no such thing as a Queen doubter on this board. There are a giant pile of, "Queen's ability to defend" doubters. I've yet to find anyone on the board that doubt's he'd be a genuine weapon on the offensive side of things for us, but the general consensus that he's a huge to consistent liability as a defender as a prospect now, and most scouts and GM's quoted on him appear to agree with that concern which is why a guy with his skill set on the offensive side is so damn low in a 3-4 blue chip draft. If he had the defensive side of the game down, he'd be consistently projected 3rd-6th, instead, the huge general skepticism, has him 6th-12th everywhere I look.
We all get it AFM, if all we had was the ball, Queen would dominate and he'd be an absolute steal. But we have to defend, and right now, based on what I've read, he's a huge negative in that arena, which makes him a non-starter for me as a pick, period, w/our first overall. Trading up from 18? Now that I'd consider (though I think I'd probably prefer Sorber, particularly considering cost in draft capital to acquire).
All of these guys have holes in their game, they're teenagers. Queen reminds me of Sengun. They have a top 5 defense in the league this year. I think you can absolutely play Sarr and Queen together especially if we're projecting Sarr to be a beast on D (pause).
I also don't buy that he's some sort of terrible defender. He's just not a shot blocker. Here's an NBA scout:
An NBA scout on Derik Queen: “In the NBA, he’ll likely be a small center – undersized but effective. He’s around 6-foot-10 with a big frame, probably 260 pounds already, so he’s built to hold his own physically. As for his game, he’s a monster rebounder, a great screener, and a solid rim-runner. He’s not much of a shot-blocker, though. Sure, he’s had a couple of games with blocks, for a big guy in college, you’d expect more in that department. Do I buy the shot? I’m not sure yet. His defensive numbers actually grade out better than I’d expect. He’s a decent defender, especially in the pick-and-roll, but he doesn’t block a lot of shots, which can make it harder for a big man to stand out defensively. That said, he’s not going to get picked apart defensively. He holds his own well enough, and I wouldn’t worry about him getting cooked out there. He’s solid – just not elite on that end.”
The question about holes is how costly they are if they remain present going forward, and if its possible or likely the player can improve in the particular area. There are things you can improve with practice and repetitions, and there are things that simply are you, like in the NFL, Vertical, and Broad Jump combined for Burst or Explosion Score are generally speaking set in stone. You can improve at the edges with proper training, but you can't turn someone with 12 inches of vertical leap into a 38 inch vert stud. You can't turn a 4.72 40 running RB, into a 4.44 running RB with training. The reality is the reality. If a guys got a broken shot, maybe you can fix it, maybe you can't, I loved Kidd-Gilchrist after all, but even if you fix it to some degree, is he ever going to be known for his jumper, or his 3 ball? 99 times out of 100 no.
It seems like Queen's issues are largely about athleticism, frame, and where he puts his energy (which is into the offensive half of his game). I think he could improve on defense but I think it would weaken his offensive game if he did it primarily through energy and effort. I also think his physical limitations in terms of athleticism will always place a ceiling on how much he can improve.
That's why for me anyway, when I look at guys, I'm trying to figure out, what are they giving us, how much are they costing us from their liabilities, and how much can they grow in area's of weakness, and refine and improve strengths. I think Queen's close to max capacity as an offensive weapon and a good one, I don't think Queen's ever going to be a good or even above average defender, and I'm doubtful he'll be even adequate. I'm not gonna waive away that concern.
With a Tre Johnson I can waive away some concerns because I know his length will make up for some liabilities in one side of his game. Whatever happens, his reach etc is going to be an asset, and his shot making and offensive skill will help on that end, so no matter what he'll give us strengths to some degree on both sides of the ball. In my experience, its rare (though it happens) that guys who are liabilities on one side of the ball, end up being genuine assets. They are guys your opponents simply take advantage of, always. Can his offense make up for it? Maybe, but knowing what I'd know, yeah, I'd rather have Tre's game if we land 1.05 or 1.06, or Maluach's ceiling, than Queen's offensive game. I'm willing to take the risk that I miss out on him because over the years, I've just seen too many of these guys become overwhelmed by their limitations. I reserve the right to be totally wrong here though, this isn't a case where I'm positive I'm right (which sometimes happens), this is a case where my bet would be on a guy with higher ceiling/freakyness, or a guy with a more complete and ready NBA game in Tre.
All this being said, I'd also just prefer we land 1.01 or 1.02 and not have to worry about anything. That would be so much easier, 1.03 or 1.04 starts some headaches, and 1.05-1.06 will start a 5 week message board rock fight, that will continue years into the future depending upon career trajectories, a la the Deni trade.
Let me also add, if we take our guy, it isn't Queen, and Queen follows to 1.10-1.12, as some mocks suggest might happen, I'd absolutely consider trying to move up for him, at that point, my concerns about risk start to fall off due to the decline in draft capital cost (there are other guys I'd still prefer, like Sorber, and some of the French dudes, but I wouldn't be frustrated about a Queen selection at that point).
