Official 2013 Draft Thread - Part IV

[nuposse04]

I'll be pretty happy with Zeller at this point.

Provided he can shoot the mid range game well...I wouldn't be upset anymore. He's still not as long as I'd want, but he has the athleticism to compensate enough where he could find some degree of offensive success.

[Upper Decker]

As long as Zeller doesn't lose his athletic ability by putting on 15-20 pounds, he might be a good choice.

My question with Zeller is could a team run their offense through him like Washington does with Nene?

[Dat2U]

So Zeller's standing reach measured out as 8'10", contrary to others that doesn't make me warm up to him. 8'10" is the bare minimum for a PF. Zeller is a C IMO. His skillset is that of a C. He lacks two key attributes to make a move to PF. A reliable jumper and the ability to defend the perimeter. Zeller really struggles the further away from the basket he gets. So if his standing reach is not acceptable for a C, and it's not, then what???

Rudy Gobert's numbers are a game changer. If he has any real basketball ability, he might be worth the gamble. I gotta find some video on him.

I jumped off the Steven Adams bandwagon last week after a more thorough review of him. He showed no offensive skill whatsoever on tape. If he showed some actual skill at the NBA predraft camp, then it's the first time. Also his height/length/weight numbers aren't off the charts, he's average for your typical C.

The real red flags for me on Adams are the bad hands and lack of any polish to his game. He's got great defensive tools but I question his work ethic considering how incredibly raw he is. I think he's gotten by on athletic talent & size thus far. He may just be the next Kwame Brown.

[fishercob]

I'll be pretty happy with Zeller at this point.

Provided he can shoot the mid range game well...I wouldn't be upset anymore. He's still not as long as I'd want, but he has the athleticism to compensate enough where he could find some degree of offensive success.

Zeller took two three pointers in his two years in college. I'm sure part of that was that he was sol efficient around the basket that Crean didnt want him shooting jumpers. I wonder what kind of precedent there is for bigs who played almost exclusively inside in college becoming good outside shooters and 3 point threats in the pro's. I know this came up a bit in our pre-draft discussions of Sullinger.

[hands11]

I agree with Nate, although I think the proper question is not whether the player has potential or if he is worth risk but, Is our current front office/coaching staff situation ideal for a multi-year developmental project. Ves is not good example because he just sucks. Regardless of what you think of the wiz org's ability to develop players or not. There is a good possibility that we could have an entirely new front office and coaching staff next off-season. which could complicate things even more. In my mind that increases the risk a bit more. IMO we need more stability before I'll feel more comfortable taking more risks/upside picks on draft day that have long term implications that could continue to cripple us once the current regime is gone.

Exactly. What they do strategically will be determined by Ted. He will set the perimeters. He is the only front office person that will be here long term. It all depends on how he wants the team developed. What are the goals. What is the time horizon.

I think Ted wants solid character players. They started something in the locker room that I think he wants to continue to develop. That means there will be no Shabazz pick for the Wizards. I feel confident of that much.

Would they take a Gobert ? Maybe. Ted would have to sign off on it and he would have to really impress them.

Adams ? I think less likely. I saw him interviewed and something seemed off about his personality. Not sure he fits here. That will play a factor.

I expect the player(s) they take to be solid players and solid character/IQ people. In my book that pushes Bennett and Shabazz down the charts. To many better options for them that fit better. They will learn that when they do interviews. Look who they took last year. Beal was perfect on all fronts.

[stevemcqueen1]

So wait, Cody Zeller doesn't have a 6'8 wingspan? But the internet told me he did!

I'd like to take a moment to crow about being right that that number was fishy.

The Zeller bandwagon is open for new passengers.

[nuposse04]

I'll be pretty happy with Zeller at this point.

Provided he can shoot the mid range game well...I wouldn't be upset anymore. He's still not as long as I'd want, but he has the athleticism to compensate enough where he could find some degree of offensive success.

Zeller took two three pointers in his two years in college. I'm sure part of that was that he was sol efficient around the basket that Crean didnt want him shooting jumpers. I wonder what kind of precedent there is for bigs who played almost exclusively inside in college becoming good outside shooters and 3 point threats in the pro's. I know this came up a bit in our pre-draft discussions of Sullinger.

I remember Zeller saying that the coaching staff wanted him to stay in the paint to be more effective...I find an excuse like that to be full of bull ****. If your guy CAN shoot and stretch the D, you take advantage of it. I find it hard to believe his coach wouldn't utilize a supposed strength. I doubt Zeller becomes the shooter LMA or Love are, but he has the ability to improve. If he does, than he can be a 3rd option on a decent team I think. I still think he's going to be a bad defender though, I don't see him as a "winning" player on a contender. Maybe a role player. Blake griffin struggles in the playoffs and Zellers game is too much like Griffins. Pretty regular season, but he'll be a liability in the post season.

[stevemcqueen1]

As long as Zeller doesn't lose his athletic ability by putting on 15-20 pounds, he might be a good choice.

My question with Zeller is could a team run their offense through him like Washington does with Nene?

Indiana ran offense through him from the top of the key and out of the low post. He's a good passing big man.

[tontoz]

I'll be pretty happy with Zeller at this point.

Provided he can shoot the mid range game well...I wouldn't be upset anymore. He's still not as long as I'd want, but he has the athleticism to compensate enough where he could find some degree of offensive success.

Zeller took two three pointers in his two years in college. I'm sure part of that was that he was sol efficient around the basket that Crean didnt want him shooting jumpers. I wonder what kind of precedent there is for bigs who played almost exclusively inside in college becoming good outside shooters and 3 point threats in the pro's. I know this came up a bit in our pre-draft discussions of Sullinger.

I never knew Ewing had a jumper until the pros. Horford was a lousy shooter when he first came came to the Hawks but became a very good one.

I don't think it is unusual for a big man to shoot very few jumpers in college and become a respectable shooter in the pros. Zeller shoots 75% from the foul line.

[nuposse04]

So wait, Cody Zeller doesn't have a 6'8 wingspan? But the internet told me he did!

I'd like to take a moment to crow about being right that that number was fishy.

The Zeller bandwagon is open for new passengers.

Lets not act like a 8'10 standing reach is impressive for a 7 footer though.

His standing vertical is the only surprising thing here...But again, he won't survive in the NBA playing at 230. But if he can maintain a standing vertical around 30-32 while adding 15-20 lbs, things may get more convincing.

[hands11]

How much does reach really matter for a back up PG or SG 6th man type ? I don't think those roles really demand reach as a top priority. Production, handles, passing, rebounding outside their area, IQ/personality, shooting, team and man defense, etc are more important.

Example. You pick Pierre Jackson because he can ball. Not for his reach. Same with Burke.

Burke actually measured out very well. His 6'-5.5" wingspan should compensate just fine for his slightly undersized 6'-1" stature. I don't see his height being an issue whatsoever. It won't be an asset for sure, but it's not going to be a liability either.

Pierre Jackson worries me now. He's really small, and he's alligator-armed too. Defensively, he's not going to have the reach to get steals or the height to challenge shots. Offensively, he won't be able to finish or get his shot off. To put it in perspective, Nate Robinson has a standing reaching 1.5" greater than Jackson. And the only reason Robinson succeeds is that he is perhaps the best athlete in the past 10 years. (Robinson ranks 1st in the entire database in both max vertical leap and full court sprint.) After seeing these measurements, I would not take Jackson. He just doesn't meet the minimum threshold necessary to compete at the NBA level.

Nah. Don't worry about his measurements. That changes nothing. Watch him play.

Short arms ? He is already close the the ground. He doesn't need to reach as far.
Get his shot off ? He knows how to bump and create space. I was amazed when I saw him actually drive against the trees and still find an angle to get his shot off.

Jackson also has great leaps.

He is just one of those players that knows how to get it done. Great handles and knows how to move around. Go back and watch some video. You will find you faith again.

[Nivek]

Provided he can shoot the mid range game well...I wouldn't be upset anymore. He's still not as long as I'd want, but he has the athleticism to compensate enough where he could find some degree of offensive success.

Zeller took two three pointers in his two years in college. I'm sure part of that was that he was sol efficient around the basket that Crean didnt want him shooting jumpers. I wonder what kind of precedent there is for bigs who played almost exclusively inside in college becoming good outside shooters and 3 point threats in the pro's. I know this came up a bit in our pre-draft discussions of Sullinger.

I remember Zeller saying that the coaching staff wanted him to stay in the paint to be more effective...I find an excuse like that to be full of bull ****. If your guy CAN shoot and stretch the D, you take advantage of it. I find it hard to believe his coach wouldn't utilize a supposed strength. I doubt Zeller becomes the shooter LMA or Love are, but he has the ability to improve. If he does, than he can be a 3rd option on a decent team I think. I still think he's going to be a bad defender though, I don't see him as a "winning" player on a contender. Maybe a role player. Blake griffin struggles in the playoffs and Zellers game is too much like Griffins. Pretty regular season, but he'll be a liability in the post season.

What? Coaches do this all the time. John Thompson did it with Patrick Ewing -- the story was that Ewing had a much better offensive game than he showed in college, which turned out to be true when he hit the NBA. The old joke was that the only person who could hold Jordan under 20 points per game was Dean Smith. Denny Crum -- one of the great college coaches -- never had the same success once the 3pt shot came in because he wouldn't let his players shoot it.

Coaches ask players to take on roles that the coaches believe give their teams the best chance to win, not necessarily to showcase a player's skill set for NBA scouts.

I'm NOT saying Crean is correct. I'm not even saying that Crean did tell Zeller to stay in the paint and not shoot jumpers. I'm just saying it's entirely believable that any coach would ask a player to not do certain things he's capable of doing because he wants that player to focus on other things that other guys on the team can't do. In this case, having Zeller control the paint while his teammates did work on the perimeter.

[WizarDynasty]

i just don't see how you can compare a man who has a high probability of being the best rebounder in nba, actually thrives off contact in the post, and actually defends the rim.... i don't understand how a 7 footer with those attributes could ever be compared to kwame brown, just to even compare their physical dimensions is a joke. Now my boy doesn't have the highest basketball IQ but its not below average like Kwame Brown.

[Dark Faze]

Shabazz not at the combine today?

lol

[DCZards]

I expect the player(s) they take to be solid players and solid character/IQ people. In my book that pushes Bennett and Shabazz down the charts. To many better options for them that fit better. They will learn that when they do interviews. Look who they took last year. Beal was perfect on all fronts.

Hands, you keep disparaging Bennett's, Shabazz's and McLemore's smarts and IQ but have yet to present one iota of evidence that they are not just as smart as Zeller, Burke, Olynyk, McLemore, etc. I might be a one-note Johnny on this but it's for one very good reason---there's a racial history to that kind of thinking. (Yes, I said it.) Back up your words with some evidence, please.

[closg00]

All this talk about drafting bigs at 8/9, shows that we are desperate to replace Jan Vesely with someone that can actually play basketball a little. Let the auditions begin.

[tontoz]

I expect the player(s) they take to be solid players and solid character/IQ people. In my book that pushes Bennett and Shabazz down the charts. To many better options for them that fit better. They will learn that when they do interviews. Look who they took last year. Beal was perfect on all fronts.

Hands, you keep disparaging Bennett's, Shabazz's and McLemore's smarts and IQ but have yet to present one iota of evidence that they are not just as smart as Zeller, Burke, Olynyk, McLemore, etc. I might be a one-note Johnny on this but it's for one very good reason---there's a racial history to that kind of thinking. (Yes, I said it.) Back up your words with some evidence, please.

The irony is that hands is criticizing the intelligence of players while failing to understand the differences between loss/lose/loose no matter how often it is explained.

[nuposse04]

What? Coaches do this all the time. John Thompson did it with Patrick Ewing -- the story was that Ewing had a much better offensive game than he showed in college, which turned out to be true when he hit the NBA. The old joke was that the only person who could hold Jordan under 20 points per game was Dean Smith. Denny Crum -- one of the great college coaches -- never had the same success once the 3pt shot came in because he wouldn't let his players shoot it.

Coaches ask players to take on roles that the coaches believe give their teams the best chance to win, not necessarily to showcase a player's skill set for NBA scouts.

I'm NOT saying Crean is correct. I'm not even saying that Crean did tell Zeller to stay in the paint and not shoot jumpers. I'm just saying it's entirely believable that any coach would ask a player to not do certain things he's capable of doing because he wants that player to focus on other things that other guys on the team can't do. In this case, having Zeller control the paint while his teammates did work on the perimeter.

Ewing is a far different pedigree of a player then Zeller. Good coaches maximize a players strength. The perimeter is not a strength of Zeller's, that doesn't mean he cannot improve and show he could be at least as good as say...Nene? from the mid range. I however will not give him the benefit of the doubt until he puts in a full season of it. I've seen plenty of bricks from him in the mid range from him to not believe he's been a decent shooter. The fact he does shoot FTs well is encouraging going forward.

[TGW]

Gobert could be Javale with a brain. He's on my draft list, although I'm not impressed by his defensive rebounding numbers. 3 defensive boards in 22 mpg in the French League is not good. We already have a Cholet disciple who doesn't rebound...I'm not sure I want to deal with that again. But those measurements are ridiculous...

I still haven't changed my stance on Zeller. Like Dat said, he's underskilled to play power forward, and not quite lengthy/strong enough to play center. Also, his defensive abilities at center are lacking.

[Nivek]

What? Coaches do this all the time. John Thompson did it with Patrick Ewing -- the story was that Ewing had a much better offensive game than he showed in college, which turned out to be true when he hit the NBA. The old joke was that the only person who could hold Jordan under 20 points per game was Dean Smith. Denny Crum -- one of the great college coaches -- never had the same success once the 3pt shot came in because he wouldn't let his players shoot it.

Coaches ask players to take on roles that the coaches believe give their teams the best chance to win, not necessarily to showcase a player's skill set for NBA scouts.

I'm NOT saying Crean is correct. I'm not even saying that Crean did tell Zeller to stay in the paint and not shoot jumpers. I'm just saying it's entirely believable that any coach would ask a player to not do certain things he's capable of doing because he wants that player to focus on other things that other guys on the team can't do. In this case, having Zeller control the paint while his teammates did work on the perimeter.

Ewing is a far different pedigree of a player then Zeller. Good coaches maximize a players strength. The perimeter is not a strength of Zeller's, that doesn't mean he cannot improve and show he could be at least as good as say...Nene? from the mid range. I however will not give him the benefit of the doubt until he puts in a full season of it. I've seen plenty of bricks from him in the mid range from him to not believe he's been a decent shooter. The fact he does shoot FTs well is encouraging going forward.

Ewing was an example, not a comparison. Just like Jordan was an example, not a comparison. The point was (and remains) that coaches often ask players to do some things and not others because they think it's what's best for the team -- and sometimes the player.

I'm not giving Zeller the benefit of the doubt on having a mid-range game either. He was productive enough playing the style he played to warrant being picked fairly high in the draft. His physical tests indicate that he's an NBA-caliber athlete. Neither college production nor athleticism is a guarantee of NBA success, but they at least suggest he has a decent chance of being a good pro.