Official 2013 Draft Thread - Part VI

[stevemcqueen1]

I totally get people wanting Porter over Bennett, or even Olapido (although I really don't see why we would want to draft backups with the #3 pick, but that just may be me), but this whole business about Bennett not being a viable pick is silly. If the top scouts across the board are listing him in the top 5, he's certainly worthy of a lottery pick. You can make the case for drafting someone other than Bennett without going rediculously overboard.

Top scouts listed Hasheem Thabeet as a top 5 pick. Jan Vesely was a conscensous top 10 pick even if this board hated him. Scouts get it wrong. And they get it wrong alot.

I think it's wise to question whether Bennett is a viable pick at #3. I certaintly have my doubts.

It's not even about Bennett personally, it's the fact he's likely a tweener with a questionable motor & IQ. Damn right I'm going to question the validity of a top 3 selection.

Re: Thabeet, it seems personnel people overvalue size. Kind of a planet theory thing--only so many people this big that can move like this on the planet--although the guy doesn't always even have to be a great athlete to get over valued if he's huge.

I think they operate on the assumption that they can develop all of the skills later, and so they devalue extant skills.

I think it's a bad assumption. I think significant skill development only comes when the player is a self starter who puts in the work on his own during the summer because the NBA in general does a really poor job of teaching new skills and totally actualizing their talent. If you draft a low skill player because of his athleticism and upside, you had better be sure he's a fantastic learner and worker who will spend his summers in the gym with coaches he pays for on his own dime. Or else he's not going to magically develop. Most players are not like that, especially not early in their careers.

I would sacrifice a little athletic upside for a guy who already has a solid base of skills so that he can get on the court early in his career and develop an identity as a player and gain some confidence. Especially if he's a worker too. If they've got the right kind of personality, the players who have long careers often tend to change pretty drastically from start to finish. They get more or less athletic. They get whole different skill sets and play styles. Chauncey Billups comes to mind. Good creator off the bounce, great post game for most of his career. Then he loses his role as the primary point guard and ball handler late in his career and morphs himself into a spot up shooter.

So it's entirely within the realm of possibility that you could take Porter today and think his athleticism will limit him but then he'll grow craftier and more explosive and then making a living scoring off the dribble in a variety of ways. Or you can take Zeller thinking he can't score over top of people and then he gets so much stronger and more skilled that he becomes a beast inside the paint. Or that he can't shoot and he gets so good from range that it becomes his bread and butter.

[sfam]

I totally get people wanting Porter over Bennett, or even Olapido (although I really don't see why we would want to draft backups with the #3 pick, but that just may be me), but this whole business about Bennett not being a viable pick is silly. If the top scouts across the board are listing him in the top 5, he's certainly worthy of a lottery pick. You can make the case for drafting someone other than Bennett without going rediculously overboard.

Top scouts listed Hasheem Thabeet as a top 5 pick. Jan Vesely was a conscensous top 10 pick even if this board hated him. Scouts get it wrong. And they get it wrong alot.

I think it's wise to question whether Bennett is a viable pick at #3. I certaintly have my doubts.

It's not even about Bennett personally, it's the fact he's likely a tweener with a questionable motor & IQ. Damn right I'm going to question the validity of a top 3 selection.

Again, questioning whether he's a valid pick at #3 makes perfect sense. In this draft, I think anyone can be questioned for the #3.

[sfam]

I totally get people wanting Porter over Bennett, or even Olapido (although I really don't see why we would want to draft backups with the #3 pick, but that just may be me), but this whole business about Bennett not being a viable pick is silly. If the top scouts across the board are listing him in the top 5, he's certainly worthy of a lottery pick. You can make the case for drafting someone other than Bennett without going rediculously overboard.

Top scouts listed Hasheem Thabeet as a top 5 pick. Jan Vesely was a conscensous top 10 pick even if this board hated him. Scouts get it wrong. And they get it wrong alot.

I think it's wise to question whether Bennett is a viable pick at #3. I certaintly have my doubts.

It's not even about Bennett personally, it's the fact he's likely a tweener with a questionable motor & IQ. Damn right I'm going to question the validity of a top 3 selection.

Re: Thabeet, it seems personnel people overvalue size. Kind of a planet theory thing--only so many people this big that can move like this on the planet--although the guy doesn't always even have to be a great athlete to get over valued if he's huge.

I think they operate on the assumption that they can develop all of the skills later, and so they devalue extant skills.

I think it's a bad assumption. I think significant skill development only comes when the player is a self starter who puts in the work on his own during the summer because the NBA in general does a really poor job of teaching new skills and totally actualizing their talent. If you draft a low skill player because of his athleticism and upside, you had better be sure he's a fantastic learner and worker who will spend his summers in the gym with coaches he pays for on his own dime. Or else he's not going to magically develop. Most players are not like that, especially not early in their careers.

I would sacrifice a little athletic upside for a guy who already has a solid base of skills so that he can get on the court early in his career and develop an identity as a player and gain some confidence. Especially if he's a worker too. If they've got the right kind of personality, the players who have long careers often tend to change pretty drastically from start to finish. They get more or less athletic. They get whole different skill sets and play styles. Chauncey Billups comes to mind. Good creator off the bounce, great post game for most of his career. Then he loses his role as the primary point guard and ball handler late in his career and morphs himself into a spot up shooter.

So it's entirely within the realm of possibility that you could take Porter today and think his athleticism will limit him but then he'll grow craftier and more explosive and then making a living scoring off the dribble in a variety of ways. Or you can take Zeller thinking he can't score over top of people and then he gets so much stronger and more skilled that he becomes a beast inside the paint. Or that he can't shoot and he gets so good from range that it becomes his bread and butter.

Paul George is a great example of a person with elite athletics, who was able to put in the time to improve his skillset. So this is certainly possible. The upside problem with Porter is he already has an advanced skillset, but doesn't have the elite athletics. Perhaps with a pro workout regimen, he gets better at that, but probably this will limit his potential upside (but it also keeps his floor fairly high). The difference between Thabeet or Vesely and Bennett is Bennett already has both elite athletics and a very high offensive skillset. His floor is only so deep. Nothing like Thomas Robinson, for instance (then again, Robinson really hasn't been given much of a chance).

[sfam]

I totally get people wanting Porter over Bennett, or even Olapido (although I really don't see why we would want to draft backups with the #3 pick, but that just may be me), but this whole business about Bennett not being a viable pick is silly. If the top scouts across the board are listing him in the top 5, he's certainly worthy of a lottery pick. You can make the case for drafting someone other than Bennett without going rediculously overboard.

I think Bennett shows the value of position even in this draft. I don't like him at 3, however I think he would have been a great pick if he slid down to 8th. I think even those who aren't terribly sold on him will agree that he will be able to score in the NBA. He should be able to rebound at least a respectable rate. The big question mark on him is can he play defense and the minor ones with his health.

Not everyone here agrees he will be able to score in the NBA, but again, I agree with you that that's a silly position. Bennett is a dynamic scorer who can drive, shoot outside, and power inside (whether his power games works as well in the pros is an unknown). Questioning his defense and health are totally valid concerns, and are strong reasons for not taking him at the #3.

[stevemcqueen1]

They're using DA as a vehicle for disinformation. I think NBA personnel people currently working for a team are probably some of the worst sources to go to for information right before a draft. They have an agenda. I bet you could operate on the assumption that, if a guy says he likes a player, it actually means he doesn't like him that much and will pass on him for other options on draft day. And if he's bagging on the guy or trying to damn him with faint praise, it means he's desperately hoping that kid falls to their pick.

It would be nice to know if the personnel people Aldridge were talking to were guys with lotto picks. A team like the Spurs might be completely honest about the prospects of Bennett or Noel because he knows he can't acquire them. But you can be damn sure that Orlando's GM is going to lie as much as possible to downgrade Noel's value.

Yeah it would be nice. I wonder if some FO guys can read an article like that and recognize who is saying what from the word choice and the evaluation style represented in the quotes. "Atlantic division FO guy said that? Gotta be so and so from the 76ers."

I think you're probably right about getting an honest assessment of guys outside the draft range of the people picking late. Unless they have plans of moving up. But I think it's safe to assume that everyone talking has a reason they are leaking parts of their evaluations and you will have a hard time sorting the truths from the strategic lies.

[jivelikenice]

Porter is not an elite athlete, but I think people are really shortchanging his upside. He is 19 years old and made a huge jump between his freshman and sophmore season, particulary with his shot. Why are we assuming he's not capable of making similar leaps focused on other aspects of his game like ball handling? Also look at the school he's coming from. They now have a track record of putting good playerfs who have a professional mindset into the NBA. Monroe, Hibbert, and Green aren't elite athletes, but they have well rounded games and have a professional approach which allows them to maximize their abilities. Look at the results! Hibbert is one of the best big men in the NBA, Monroe is an all start caliber player, and the only thing holding Jeff Green back is his lack of a killer instinct, which doesn't seem to be a problem for Otto. I'll take a "B" athlete with a well rounded game who I think will maximize his potential every day of the week.

[The Consiglieri]

Someone needs to inform DA what a sucky pick Bennet is. DA even quoted vet scouts as saying Bennett is one of the "safest picks in the draft". Jeeze, talk about amateur hour. The dude's rep as an expert is taking a big hit here...

That's really funny. I've been hearing the same "high ceiling, low floor" argument for the past week, and it's left me befuddled. Why exactly is Bennett's floor low? Why is he boom or bust? It's hard to imagine his offense failing at the next level, hell it's damn near impossible to imagine that. The defense I can cede, but "bust,"? Almost impossible for me to imagine. People just seem to think, "High Ceiling" and "Boom", must also thusly include, "low floor," "Bust," and "high risk".

huh

Guys have showcased far more prolific offensive abilities in college than Bennett without it translating in the pros.

And Bennetts skillset isn't even that versatile. He's either shooting a set jumpshot, a face up to take a guy off the dribble or shoot, or he's driving in the lane. Just a traditional face up PF skillset. It's not like he's Kelly Olynyk. He doesn't have a skilled post game.

It's not hard at all to see Bennett not being effective if his defense doesn't improve and his shooting percentages go down in the NBA. He'd be a backup at best just like every other tweener.

Every single aspect of his offensive game is plus plus except for his back to the basket game which still needs work. Yeah his defense is attrocious for now, though we have no idea why that is, and if it would be easy or difficult to coach up. no rumors of attitude issues, no rumors of deliberately not caring, and how many elite scorers are even average defenders, let alone good one's? Some, but not many, and in Bennet's case, he doesn't share the attitude issues , so it should be improvable.

The only way he fails, and is a bust is if he can't produce on the offensive end, and it's very diffciult to imagine that happening, indeed it is far easier to see that happening with Porter than with Bennett. Both your ceiling and your floor with Bennett honestly struck me as absolute worst case scenarios, not just the floor but also the ceiling which is odd to me, to be kind your ceiling might be basically his average expected outcome if he doesn't live up to the high end expectations, but it's definitely not his ceiling. It just seems as if you are pointing to the highest possible result with Porter in terms of floor and ceiling and the lowest possible in each case with Bennett.

Honestly I don't feel I'm doing that with Porter, I think hiss floor is a league average starter, and he could be a borderline all star consistently. I like Porter, I really like Bennett too.

Guess this is agree to disagree territory.

[doclinkin]

Porter is not an elite athlete, but I think people are really shortchanging his upside. He is 19 years old and made a huge jump between his freshman and sophmore season, particulary with his shot. Why are we assuming he's not capable of making similar leaps focused on other aspects of his game like ball handling? Also look at the school he's coming from. They now have a track record of putting good playerfs who have a professional mindset into the NBA. Monroe, Hibbert, and Green aren't elite athletes, but they have well rounded games and have a professional approach which allows them to maximize their abilities. Look at the results! Hibbert is one of the best big men in the NBA, Monroe is an all start caliber player, and the only thing holding Jeff Green back is his lack of a killer instinct, which doesn't seem to be a problem for Otto. I'll take a "B" athlete with a well rounded game who I think will maximize his potential every day of the week.

There is also a fraternity in the Gtown NBA alumni who encourage and foster growth in each other over the summer. All return to put in time and talk and hang out with Big John. These cats improve, and they come here to do it. We'd be more likely to have our young guns spending all summer in town working together and developing chemistry. The fact that Beal already is familiar and friendly with Otto helps, I see synergy in this crew working together and maximize the talents of all three.

[sfam]

That's really funny. I've been hearing the same "high ceiling, low floor" argument for the past week, and it's left me befuddled. Why exactly is Bennett's floor low? Why is he boom or bust? It's hard to imagine his offense failing at the next level, hell it's damn near impossible to imagine that. The defense I can cede, but "bust,"? Almost impossible for me to imagine. People just seem to think, "High Ceiling" and "Boom", must also thusly include, "low floor," "Bust," and "high risk".

huh

Guys have showcased far more prolific offensive abilities in college than Bennett without it translating in the pros.

And Bennetts skillset isn't even that versatile. He's either shooting a set jumpshot, a face up to take a guy off the dribble or shoot, or he's driving in the lane. Just a traditional face up PF skillset. It's not like he's Kelly Olynyk. He doesn't have a skilled post game.

It's not hard at all to see Bennett not being effective if his defense doesn't improve and his shooting percentages go down in the NBA. He'd be a backup at best just like every other tweener.

Every single aspect of his offensive game is plus plus except for his back to the basket game which still needs work. Yeah his defense is attrocious for now, though we have no idea why that is, and if it would be easy or difficult to coach up. no rumors of attitude issues, no rumors of deliberately not caring, and how many elite scorers are even average defenders, let alone good one's? Some, but not many, and in Bennet's case, he doesn't share the attitude issues , so it should be improvable.

The only way he fails, and is a bust is if he can't produce on the offensive end, and it's very diffciult to imagine that happening, indeed it is far easier to see that happening with Porter than with Bennett. Both your ceiling and your floor with Bennett honestly struck me as absolute worst case scenarios, not just the floor but also the ceiling which is odd to me, to be kind your ceiling might be basically his average expected outcome if he doesn't live up to the high end expectations, but it's definitely not his ceiling. It just seems as if you are pointing to the highest possible result with Porter in terms of floor and ceiling and the lowest possible in each case with Bennett.

Honestly I don't feel I'm doing that with Porter, I think hiss floor is a league average starter, and he could be a borderline all star consistently. I like Porter, I really like Bennett too.

Guess this is agree to disagree territory.

+1
That's where I'm at.

[sfam]

Porter is not an elite athlete, but I think people are really shortchanging his upside. He is 19 years old and made a huge jump between his freshman and sophmore season, particulary with his shot. Why are we assuming he's not capable of making similar leaps focused on other aspects of his game like ball handling? Also look at the school he's coming from. They now have a track record of putting good playerfs who have a professional mindset into the NBA. Monroe, Hibbert, and Green aren't elite athletes, but they have well rounded games and have a professional approach which allows them to maximize their abilities. Look at the results! Hibbert is one of the best big men in the NBA, Monroe is an all start caliber player, and the only thing holding Jeff Green back is his lack of a killer instinct, which doesn't seem to be a problem for Otto. I'll take a "B" athlete with a well rounded game who I think will maximize his potential every day of the week.

There is also a fraternity in the Gtown NBA alumni who encourage and foster growth in each other over the summer. All return to put in time and talk and hang out with Big John. These cats improve, and they come here to do it. We'd be more likely to have our young guns spending all summer in town working together and developing chemistry. The fact that Beal already is familiar and friendly with Otto helps, I see synergy in this crew working together and maximize the talents of all three.

This is a great point. There aren't many universities who seem to have the support structure that Gtown does. This further emphasizes the point that Porter will most likely maximize his skills, however they may translate to the NBA.

[WizarDynasty]

Porter is not an elite athlete, but I think people are really shortchanging his upside. He is 19 years old and made a huge jump between his freshman and sophmore season, particulary with his shot. Why are we assuming he's not capable of making similar leaps focused on other aspects of his game like ball handling? Also look at the school he's coming from. They now have a track record of putting good playerfs who have a professional mindset into the NBA. Monroe, Hibbert, and Green aren't elite athletes, but they have well rounded games and have a professional approach which allows them to maximize their abilities. Look at the results! Hibbert is one of the best big men in the NBA, Monroe is an all start caliber player, and the only thing holding Jeff Green back is his lack of a killer instinct, which doesn't seem to be a problem for Otto. I'll take a "B" athlete with a well rounded game who I think will maximize his potential every day of the week.

i think hibbert is an excellent example. He isn't an explosive athlete but he shows exceptional body control with the basketball in his hands and he demonstrated the ability to consistently finish through contact.
I definitely don't see explosiveness from porter but did he consistently show the ability to finish through contact?

Green isn't explosive, maybe someone could show me some explosive clips. He has pretty average body control and I don't think he finishes through contact but he did have heart surgery so that clearly is going to change your game.
Monroe is definitely not explosive. Is he excellent body control with the basketball. I think so. Did he finish through contact consistently? If yes, then you are allowed to move forward and evaluated the other skills he has.
the problem with porter is that i don't think he consistently showed the ability to finish through body contact..and ability to finish means....from a stand still position outside the paint and a defender perfectly position...how well does a player finish with body contact.

Finishing from an alley hoop or with no one between you and the basketball means JACK. I consistently see hibbert catch the ball with a defender between him and the basket and consistently finish through contact.

and he definitely fails the explosiveness test. There is no point talking about his ability to improve his dribble since we already know he will never be explosive. the question now is did he demonstrate exceptional body control to draw contact and consistently finish? If the answer is no, then his basketball IQ is irrelevant. I would need some evidence from statistics or visual evidence that shows he regularly finished with contact. I haven't really looked at monroe and green and in college but I just watched hibbert and he definitely showed ability to finish through contact consistently and outstanding body control with the basketball.
If only mcgee if only we had accurately gauged mcgee's ability to consistently finish in college....the team would have been much much further along. If we had performed this careful analysis with all of the last 6 years of draft picks, must of the bust would have been avoided....blatche, mcgee, young, seraphin, booker, vesely, finish through contact, we have been so much further along.
the key word is consistently showed in college this ability..not occassionally showed it.
I think i will ask our genius stats guru Nivek if there is a stat that shows a high correlation with ability to consistently finish through contact. He might be able to market Yoda for some serious cheese if he is able to get an objective handle on this all important raw attribute that all wizard candidates should possess.

[jivelikenice]

Comparing last year's draft to this year; what makes MKG a better prospect than Otto?:

Height w/o shoes:
Otto: 6' 7.5" MKG: 6' 5.75" Advantage: Otto

Height w/ shoes:
Otto: 6' 8.5" MKG: 6' 7.5" Advantage: Otto

Weight:
Otto: 198 lbs MKG: 233 lbs Advantage: MKG

Wingspan:
Otto: 7' 1.5" MKG: 7' 0" Advantage: Otto

Standing Reach:
Otto: 8' 9.5' MKG: 8' 8.5" Advantage: Otto

Standing Vertical:
Otto: 27" MKG: 32" Advantage: MKG

Max Vertical:
Otto: 36" MKG: 35.5" Advantage: Otto

Bench Press:
Otto: 9 reps MKG: 6 reps Advantage: Otto

Lane agility:
Otto: 11.25 MKG: 11.77 Advantage: Otto

3/4 court sprint
Otto: 3.40 MKG: 3.18 Advantage: MKG

Most importantly- Jumpshot!!! Advantage Otto BIGTIME.

The concern with MKG was the jumpshot, but nobody question his athletic upside. Considering how he tested versus Otto, why are people concerned about Otto? To me he is clearly the better prospect.

[AFM]

Porter is not an elite athlete, but I think people are really shortchanging his upside. He is 19 years old and made a huge jump between his freshman and sophmore season, particulary with his shot. Why are we assuming he's not capable of making similar leaps focused on other aspects of his game like ball handling? Also look at the school he's coming from. They now have a track record of putting good playerfs who have a professional mindset into the NBA. Monroe, Hibbert, and Green aren't elite athletes, but they have well rounded games and have a professional approach which allows them to maximize their abilities. Look at the results! Hibbert is one of the best big men in the NBA, Monroe is an all start caliber player, and the only thing holding Jeff Green back is his lack of a killer instinct, which doesn't seem to be a problem for Otto. I'll take a "B" athlete with a well rounded game who I think will maximize his potential every day of the week.

i think hibbert is an excellent example. He isn't an explosive athlete but he shows exceptional body control with the basketball in his hands and he demonstrated the ability to consistently finish through contact.
I definitely don't see explosiveness from porter but did he consistently show the ability to finish through contact?

Green isn't explosive, maybe someone could show me some explosive clips. He has pretty average body control and I don't think he finishes through contact but he did have heart surgery so that clearly is going to change your game.
Monroe is definitely not explosive. Is he excellent body control with the basketball. I think so. Did he finish through contact consistently? If yes, then you are allowed to move forward and evaluated the other skills he has.
the problem with porter is that i don't think he consistently showed the ability to finish through body contact..and ability to finish means....from a stand still position outside the paint and a defender perfectly position...how well does a player finish with body contact.

Finishing from an alley hoop or with no one between you and the basketball means JACK. I consistently see hibbert catch the ball with a defender between him and the basket and consistently finish through contact.

and he definitely fails the explosiveness test. There is no point talking about his ability to improve his dribble since we already know he will never be explosive. the question now is did he demonstrate exceptional body control to draw contact and consistently finish? If the answer is no, then his basketball IQ is irrelevant. I would need some evidence from statistics or visual evidence that shows he regularly finished with contact. I haven't really looked at monroe and green and in college but I just watched hibbert and he definitely showed ability to finish through contact consistently and outstanding body control with the basketball.
If only mcgee if only we had accurately gauged mcgee's ability to consistently finish in college....the team would have been much much further along. If we had performed this careful analysis with all of the last 6 years of draft picks, must of the bust would have been avoided....blatche, mcgee, young, seraphin, booker, vesely, finish through contact, we have been so much further along.
the key word is consistently showed in college this ability..not occassionally showed it.
I think i will ask our genius stats guru Nivek if there is a stat that shows a high correlation with ability to consistently finish through contact. He might be able to market Yoda for some serious cheese if he is able to get an objective handle on this all important raw attribute that all wizard candidates should possess.

How about FTA? (Free throw attempts). Shows the ability to get to the rim and draw contact.

[BruceO]

shabbazz's dad according to hoopshype has been indicted on fraud charges, using some money to buy several homes or something like that.
Really feel bad for that kid. I hope this gives him an opportunity to get out of his fathers shadow. Do you know his dad married an all american athlete and had babies by her with an idea in mind he can also sire all americans and he named all his kids names that he felt were most marketable?
Thats why with things like those i respect shabazz for making it with that weight on his shoulder

[MDStar]

I totally get people wanting Porter over Bennett, or even Olapido (although I really don't see why we would want to draft backups with the #3 pick, but that just may be me), but this whole business about Bennett not being a viable pick is silly. If the top scouts across the board are listing him in the top 5, he's certainly worthy of a lottery pick. You can make the case for drafting someone other than Bennett without going rediculously overboard.

I think Bennett shows the value of position even in this draft. I don't like him at 3, however I think he would have been a great pick if he slid down to 8th. I think even those who aren't terribly sold on him will agree that he will be able to score in the NBA. He should be able to rebound at least a respectable rate. The big question mark on him is can he play defense and the minor ones with his health.

Not everyone here agrees he will be able to score in the NBA, but again, I agree with you that that's a silly position. Bennett is a dynamic scorer who can drive, shoot outside, and power inside (whether his power games works as well in the pros is an unknown). Questioning his defense and health are totally valid concerns, and are strong reasons for not taking him at the #3.

I guess I’ve never really understood the thinking of not taking a guy at #3 but would take him at #8. We see every year that teams select kids all over the board and you never really know who the studs are until after they get into the NBA.

This board brings up Leonard vs. Vesley all the time. Of course in hindsight, the better player is unquestioned, however I’m sure that many people on this board liked Leonard as a player but "not comfortable with taking him at #6". It's that type of thinking that allows a good player to fall based on potential. In my opinion, most potential is unrealized because there are so many variables.

The NBA draft should be done like the NFL draft. Create your own draft board and select the top guy, once you pick becomes available. If the evaluation determines that a guy like Len, Porter, or Bennett will become better players, you take them at the spot in which you are slotted. It may seem like a reach now by so-called experts but that’s not what really matters. What matters is when the redo of a previous draft happens, everyone says that the player we selected should have went at #3 or higher. One example of this would be Paul George. If the draft was redone I'm sure he would go a lot higher than 10 and at the same time, I’m sure that there are people out there who probably thought his skills would translate but weren't comfortable picking him higher because of a lack of perceived potential.

We're not talking about 30 year old men, we're talking about 19-22 year olds. While under the right circumstances, a certain player may in fact have more potential but as Kev has pointed out a million times it seems, with the right effort, coaching and commitment, anyone can improve their game. My opinion, let's pick the kid who can play basketball now. You have a better chance at getting a contributor/good player that way, then you do of picking the potential guy.

[Deeptu McPullup]

In before the collective "we're trading the @#*$&% second round picks!" meltdown.

[tontoz]

From Ford's draft blog regarding Zeller:

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/blog/_/n ... eff-withey

Zeller, however, decided to enter the draft and he's spent the past month in Santa Monica doing what scouts have asked -- he's honing his jump shot and ball-handling skills to make the leap from center to forward.

Zeller, for his part, claims that he's always had these skills. As a high school player, he regularly played on the perimeter and took 3s. He said he made three 3-pointers during one game his senior season. However, at Indiana, head coach Tom Crean wanted Zeller in the post and that's where he stayed. As a freshman he took just 27 percent of his shots outside the basket area. As a sophomore he upped it slightly to 34 percent.

What makes him think he can do it differently now?

Zeller told us at the NBA Draft combine we'd be surprised by his shooting and he backed up that claim on Thursday. I tracked his NBA 3-point shots and he shot 72 percent for the workout. That's terrific, especially for a 7-footer. His mid-range jumper was even better. Zeller showed the ability to shoot off the bounce and with his feet set. He was especially effective in the corners where he shot 80 percent from the field for the day.

Combine that small sample with other known qualities of Zeller -- he's the fastest big man in the draft (both laterally and in sprints), has the highest standing vertical (35.5") of any player 6-foot-9 or taller in our database, great hands and a high basketball IQ -- and the question is: did Zeller go from being overrated to underrated?

[AFM]

shabbazz's dad according to hoopshype has been indicted on fraud charges, using some money to buy several homes or something like that.
Really feel bad for that kid. I hope this gives him an opportunity to get out of his fathers shadow. Do you know his dad married an all american athlete and had babies by her with an idea in mind he can also sire all americans and he named all his kids names that he felt were most marketable?
Thats why with things like those i respect shabazz for making it with that weight on his shoulder

Wow. Feel bad for Shabazz.

[jivelikenice]

WizDynasty- A couple of points that you have me confused on:
1. Playing through contact can improve as you gain strength. Otto did 9 reps which isn't bad at all considering his frame and shows he is likely stronger than he looks. Considering he's 19, I'm not worried about his ability to improve in this area.

2. Ball Handling. You mentioned it doesn't matter because he's not an explosive athlete? What are you saying; that you can only be an effecitve ball handler is your an explosive athlete?

Edit...A lot of examples of his finishing through contact in these highlight packages. Obviously these are highlights so they don't show when he struggles with it, but it shows the ability is there and he can improve.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0CwehqX-n0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0CwehqX-n0

[GhostsOfGil]

Comparing last year's draft to this year; what makes MKG a better prospect than Otto?:

Spoiler:

Height w/o shoes:
Otto: 6' 7.5" MKG: 6' 5.75" Advantage: Otto

Height w/ shoes:
Otto: 6' 8.5" MKG: 6' 7.5" Advantage: Otto

Weight:
Otto: 198 lbs MKG: 233 lbs Advantage: MKG

Wingspan:
Otto: 7' 1.5" MKG: 7' 0" Advantage: Otto

Standing Reach:
Otto: 8' 9.5' MKG: 8' 8.5" Advantage: Otto

Standing Vertical:
Otto: 27" MKG: 32" Advantage: MKG

Max Vertical:
Otto: 36" MKG: 35.5" Advantage: Otto

Bench Press:
Otto: 9 reps MKG: 6 reps Advantage: Otto

Lane agility:
Otto: 11.25 MKG: 11.77 Advantage: Otto

3/4 court sprint
Otto: 3.40 MKG: 3.18 Advantage: MKG

Most importantly- Jumpshot!!! Advantage Otto BIGTIME.

The concern with MKG was the jumpshot, but nobody question his athletic upside. Considering how he tested versus Otto, why are people concerned about Otto? To me he is clearly the better prospect.

The one thing that people loved about MKG was his competitive fire. I vaguely remember Bill Simmons saying that he had the strongest competitive intensity, he had ever seen from a prospect. There were a ton of scouts who put him on a pedestal because of this.