Seismic Shift in the East: Thomas Bryant a Wizard

[nate33]

So, Brooks has proven that he can at least get a team with 3 future Hall of Fame players to the finals. I figure with 5 or so future HOF players the Wizards might have a shot at a title with Scott at the helm.

So, Dwight Howard is certainly future HOF. Maybe now they have another with Bryant. If they sign Durant in free agency they just need two or three more.

Were not getting durant,Maybe when he's old and washed up.

Durant for the vet minimum. It could happen! Better not fire EG just in case.

[AFM]

EG thought he was signing Kobe when he got Bryant but it's all working out anyway.

[payitforward]

i was wondering what Thomas Bryant ceiling can be? He's young and still developing him. Lakers are so dumb to give up on him already.

A starting Center on a contender...
Running the court, playing good defense, setting picks, and hitting the occasional 3 is all I would ever need from a 5.
I love his game and his energy. When him, Sato, and Brown are playing, you feel a different energy.

That seems right.

The Lakers weren't "dumb to give up on him." They didn't give up on him. They just weren't able to keep him, at which point they wanted him to go to the Eastern Conference.

How it went down was that Rob Pelinka called Ernie & told him he should pick up Bryant.

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

[payitforward]

This is what I wrote on July 3:

I disagree. Thomas Bryant is a talent.

Compare him to Jarrett Allen & Tony Bradley -- 2 other very young bigs who came into the league via the '17 draft. His physical tools are comparable to either of them.

Bradley is the closest match. If you look at the 2017 Combine measurements, they are virtually identical in size. Bryant is actually a little longer & has slightly bigger hands. Most important: Bradley's standing & max verticals are slightly worse than Bryant's.

I've been watching Bradley in the Summer League the last day or so -- over his year w/ the Jazz & the off-season so far, he's trimmed his body fat substantially & gotten a lot stronger. He is looking great in the games so far.

Just b/c Tony Bradley did it doesn't mean Thomas Bryant can. But the potential is there.

Jarrett Allen came in w/ a lower % of body fat & weighing 16 lbs less. His verticals were better than either Bradley or Bryant. But, the agility drills were about the same across the 3 of them.

In short, Bryant has all the athleticism, size & length needed. Watch his G League highlights, & you see that he plays with intensity & a good feel for the game.

No one can predict this kid's future, his development path or his ceiling. But he's got serious upside IMO. Lets hope our FO doesn't jettison him the way we did Khem Birch -- now an established & very productive but inexpensive player for the Magic.

This was in response to:

If he couldn't find any minutes for the Lakers last year, I'm not all that encouraged. Watching his scouting video, the guy has no lift whatsoever. It looks like he can barely dunk despite his 9'-5" standing reach. ...we need a guy who can at least beat out Jason Smith as our 3rd big.

Imagine how spry he'll look once he takes those ankle weights off.

Thomas Bryant is irrelevant.

So this is what Ernie has been saving his precious roster spots for. Good thing we didn't end up with Keita or we might have missed out.

The issue with Thomas Bryant is... He just doesn't see the game fast enough and isn't skilled enough by NBA standards. ...even if he does turn out, we're talking maybe 10th man or something.

Looking at his highlights... it looks like he's running in clay. But he actually gets up and down the court pretty well - even though he looks stiff doing it. I like the pickup - even if he never becomes more than a 9th or 10th man. Kindofa poor man's Randle - who he played behind... actually sat behind. Randle's a better athlete, but Bryant's longer. He's going to have to show some improvement on defense if he's going to earn some PT.

...The point here is that the speed of the game matters and that's where Bryant has had problems. ...Bryant ... doesn't have the elite level read/react that is basically mandatory in the modern NBA.

... Bryant having some decent offensive tools means basically zero to me. If he doesn't have decent defensive upside then his value is already capped.

and (more to come)
Aside from me, only Nat got it right:

...it’s the type of move we would be applauding if another team made it.

A few others (Zards, for example) counseled patience: let see what he can do. But, most of you, not only those I quote above, dismissed him or had criticisms of him that were based on... nothing.

I quote I like Dirt 3 times above, b/c he really asked for it. He was going to *insist* that Bryant was a bad player, not near nba level, had no future, was slow, didn't see the game, etc. -- repeatedly.

This post has nothing to do with my having been right -- though in this case I was: from the beginning -- I've been wrong too.

This post is about being oh so ready to dismiss a young player. & I'm sure that everyone of you I quote above now remembers how excited he was about Thomas Bryant -- has, in other words, substituted a different version in his memory.

[FAH1223]

This is what I wrote on July 3:

I disagree. Thomas Bryant is a talent.

Compare him to Jarrett Allen & Tony Bradley -- 2 other very young bigs who came into the league via the '17 draft. His physical tools are comparable to either of them.

Bradley is the closest match. If you look at the 2017 Combine measurements, they are virtually identical in size. Bryant is actually a little longer & has slightly bigger hands. Most important: Bradley's standing & max verticals are slightly worse than Bryant's.

I've been watching Bradley in the Summer League the last day or so -- over his year w/ the Jazz & the off-season so far, he's trimmed his body fat substantially & gotten a lot stronger. He is looking great in the games so far.

Just b/c Tony Bradley did it doesn't mean Thomas Bryant can. But the potential is there.

Jarrett Allen came in w/ a lower % of body fat & weighing 16 lbs less. His verticals were better than either Bradley or Bryant. But, the agility drills were about the same across the 3 of them.

In short, Bryant has all the athleticism, size & length needed. Watch his G League highlights, & you see that he plays with intensity & a good feel for the game.

No one can predict this kid's future, his development path or his ceiling. But he's got serious upside IMO. Lets hope our FO doesn't jettison him the way we did Khem Birch -- now an established & very productive but inexpensive player for the Magic.

This was in response to:

If he couldn't find any minutes for the Lakers last year, I'm not all that encouraged. Watching his scouting video, the guy has no lift whatsoever. It looks like he can barely dunk despite his 9'-5" standing reach. ...we need a guy who can at least beat out Jason Smith as our 3rd big.

Imagine how spry he'll look once he takes those ankle weights off.

Thomas Bryant is irrelevant.

So this is what Ernie has been saving his precious roster spots for. Good thing we didn't end up with Keita or we might have missed out.

and (more to come)
Aside from me, only Nat got it right:

...it’s the type of move we would be applauding if another team made it.

PIF for Wizards GM

[payitforward]

They couldn't pay me enough!!

I'm not going to go back & resurrect the Austin Rivers posts by the vast majority of you who thought we'd made a good pick up. In that case, I think I might actually have been the only one who understood how ridiculous a trade it was.

OTOH, I also didn't like the pick up of Jeff Green -- & he has been a pleasant surprise. As I say... I can be wrong.

edit: not to mention how many of you applauded our signing Andrew Nicholson, when I said he was a useless stiff. Ditto Jason Smith when I pointed out that he hadn't had a season even near to being good in his long career. Ditto Trey Burke. Ditto Bojan Bogdanovic about whom most of you were positively ga ga (& who has in fact developed a lot in the last 2 years!). Ditto trading a lottery pick for Kieff -- which most of you loved.

It's a long list....

[nate33]

In my defense, I had only watched a scouting video. Here's what I said after Summer League:

Watching in summer league, I'm not convinced that Brown and Robinson are ready for anything more than garbage time in the NBA. Brown has a lot of NBA potential, but must develop a shot and a left hand or he'll quickly be Scouting Reported out of any useful role. Robinson was pretty good, but he's 23 years old among a bunch of 20 and 21 year-olds yet still didn't rebound well.

Of the 3, I think Bryant looks the most capable of being useful in the league this season. I wouldn't want him starting or anything, but he might be able to handle the role of a backup center almost immediately. He'd surely make plenty of rookie mistakes, but he seems to have a fully developed set of tools (low post play, perimeter shot, size, length, mobility, willingness to defend) that would allow him to compete with NBA vets right away.

Mind you, that was assuming Dwight Howard was healthy.

[DCZards]

Yup, got to give PIF props for being the first--and pretty much the only one--to see Bryant's upside and immediately applaud the FO's picking him up. And that says a lot considering how much PIF hates to commend EG.

Happy Holidays All!

...and Go Zards!

[pcbothwel]

Yup, got to give PIF props for being the first--and pretty much the only one--to see Bryant's upside and immediately applaud the FO's picking him up. And that says a lot considering how much PIF hates to commend EG.

Happy Holidays All!

...and Go Zards!

I mentioned in the General Board back in July how Bryant was better than Zubac. I loved his shooting touch, size, and energy. I was a little worried about his quickness, but looks like I was wrong there.

I was also wrong about Rivers, but never thought he would be good. I simply thought he would be slightly better than he was last year and therefore a more valuable asset at the deadline than Gortat would of been...

[payitforward]

Dang! I've twisted my shoulder -- how'd I do that?

Patting myself on the back, you say? You think that was it? You may be right, but... it was worth it!

[Ruzious]

This is what I wrote on July 3:

I disagree. Thomas Bryant is a talent.

Compare him to Jarrett Allen & Tony Bradley -- 2 other very young bigs who came into the league via the '17 draft. His physical tools are comparable to either of them.

Bradley is the closest match. If you look at the 2017 Combine measurements, they are virtually identical in size. Bryant is actually a little longer & has slightly bigger hands. Most important: Bradley's standing & max verticals are slightly worse than Bryant's.

I've been watching Bradley in the Summer League the last day or so -- over his year w/ the Jazz & the off-season so far, he's trimmed his body fat substantially & gotten a lot stronger. He is looking great in the games so far.

Just b/c Tony Bradley did it doesn't mean Thomas Bryant can. But the potential is there.

Jarrett Allen came in w/ a lower % of body fat & weighing 16 lbs less. His verticals were better than either Bradley or Bryant. But, the agility drills were about the same across the 3 of them.

In short, Bryant has all the athleticism, size & length needed. Watch his G League highlights, & you see that he plays with intensity & a good feel for the game.

No one can predict this kid's future, his development path or his ceiling. But he's got serious upside IMO. Lets hope our FO doesn't jettison him the way we did Khem Birch -- now an established & very productive but inexpensive player for the Magic.

This was in response to:

If he couldn't find any minutes for the Lakers last year, I'm not all that encouraged. Watching his scouting video, the guy has no lift whatsoever. It looks like he can barely dunk despite his 9'-5" standing reach. ...we need a guy who can at least beat out Jason Smith as our 3rd big.

Imagine how spry he'll look once he takes those ankle weights off.

Thomas Bryant is irrelevant.

So this is what Ernie has been saving his precious roster spots for. Good thing we didn't end up with Keita or we might have missed out.

The issue with Thomas Bryant is... He just doesn't see the game fast enough and isn't skilled enough by NBA standards. ...even if he does turn out, we're talking maybe 10th man or something.

Looking at his highlights... it looks like he's running in clay. But he actually gets up and down the court pretty well - even though he looks stiff doing it. I like the pickup - even if he never becomes more than a 9th or 10th man. Kindofa poor man's Randle - who he played behind... actually sat behind. Randle's a better athlete, but Bryant's longer. He's going to have to show some improvement on defense if he's going to earn some PT.

...The point here is that the speed of the game matters and that's where Bryant has had problems. ...Bryant ... doesn't have the elite level read/react that is basically mandatory in the modern NBA.

... Bryant having some decent offensive tools means basically zero to me. If he doesn't have decent defensive upside then his value is already capped.

and (more to come)
Aside from me, only Nat got it right:

...it’s the type of move we would be applauding if another team made it.

A few others (Zards, for example) counseled patience: let see what he can do. But, most of you, not only those I quote above, dismissed him or had criticisms of him that were based on... nothing.

I quote I like Dirt 3 times above, b/c he really asked for it. He was going to *insist* that Bryant was a bad player, not near nba level, had no future, was slow, didn't see the game, etc. -- repeatedly.

This post has nothing to do with my having been right -- though in this case I was: from the beginning -- I've been wrong too.

This post is about being oh so ready to dismiss a young player. & I'm sure that everyone of you I quote above now remembers how excited he was about Thomas Bryant -- has, in other words, substituted a different version in his memory.

I think I was awfully close for supposedly getting it wrong - unless you think he's as good as Randle and if I should have predicted Howard would get injured. Seems like you did more talking up of Tony Bradley, and what is it that Bradley's done?

[payitforward]

I think I was awfully close for supposedly getting it wrong...

Ruz... first off, I meant no offense. But... aren't you being just a little touchy?

Is it really unacceptable to be wrong about something occasionally? You're right about stuff often enough.

In my case, as I've said several times, I was wrong about Jeff Green last off-season. Been wrong about plenty other stuff too.

If you thought that Thomas Bryant "looks like he's running clay," or "looks stiff," & saw him as someone who might justify having been picked up "if he never never becomes more than a 9th or 10th man"... is that really "awfully close?" You can't own having been mistaken in that?

Seems like you did more talking up of Tony Bradley, and what is it that Bradley's done?

Sigh... Tony Bradley, who is still 20 years old btw, was a R1 pick, as was Jarrett Allen. I wrote about them, b/c Thomas matched up to them physically & in his Freshman year in college. Period. Viz.

Thomas Bryant ...Compare him to Jarrett Allen & Tony Bradley.... Bradley is the closest match. If you look at the 2017 Combine measurements, they are virtually identical in size....

I've been watching Bradley in the Summer League the last day or so -- over his year w/ the Jazz & the off-season so far, he's trimmed his body fat substantially & gotten a lot stronger. He is looking great in the games so far.

That's what he'd done. & of course I wrote that to set up the following points:

Just b/c Tony Bradley did it doesn't mean Thomas Bryant can. But the potential is there. .... Bryant has all the athleticism, size & length needed. Watch his G League highlights, & you see that he plays with intensity & a good feel for the game.

About this...

... - unless you think he's as good as Randle and if I should have predicted Howard would get injured.

What has Howard got to do with it? I didn't know he'd be injured, but I could see what kind of prospect Thomas Bryant was.

As to Randle, he's even less relevant than Howard. He's a 6'9" PF who is almost 3 years older than Thomas Bryant. Like Bryant, he didn't play as a rookie. But, he played almost 2300 minutes his 2d year (when he was the age Bryant is now) & was terrible (TS% = 48.2%).

Thomas Bryant is a far better player than Randle was at the same age. Now... Randle has improved every year & has become a terrific young player. & "Just b/c Tony Bradley Julius Randle did it doesn't mean Thomas Bryant can. But the potential is there."

I also wrote

Aside from me, only Nat got it right...

Nat takes a lot of crap around here (& he often deserves it! ). But he was exactly right. & that was my point.

And

"...This post is about being oh so ready to dismiss a young player...."

Unlike some others, you were not claiming Bryant had no chance to be an NBA player, & you did "like the pickup." But... you were certainly not high on Bryant. Not in the slightest.

I'm sure that every one of you I quote above now ...has ...substituted a different version in his memory.

Up to you whether you put yourself on that list... Not that it matters. Just like being "wrong," this too is something all human beings engage in.

[payitforward]

Obviously, it was I Like Dirt who was most adamant & utterly certain about how bad Thomas Bryant is, was & would always be.

He hasn't checked in yet to claim that... he was just joshing!

[trast66]

It’s premature to claim this guy is going to be anything more than an end of bench guy. He has severe limitations defensively. The league will get a book on him as he plays more minutes. There is hope, but still less than 50% he sticks around.

[BigA]

Dang! I've twisted my shoulder -- how'd I do that?

Patting myself on the back, you say? You think that was it? You may be right, but... it was worth it!

At least you came on here with the documentation. I miss hands11 coming on to claim he predicted something years back without any proof from the way back machine.

[nate33]

Dang! I've twisted my shoulder -- how'd I do that?

Patting myself on the back, you say? You think that was it? You may be right, but... it was worth it!

At least you came on here with the documentation. I miss hands11 coming on to claim he predicted something years back without any proof from the way back machine.

It's not so much that Hands11 lacked proof. It's that he made conflicting predictions. If you predict both outcomes, and one of the outcomes comes true, you can say you predicted it!

[payitforward]

Dang! I've twisted my shoulder -- how'd I do that?

Patting myself on the back, you say? You think that was it? You may be right, but... it was worth it!

At least you came on here with the documentation. I miss hands11 coming on to claim he predicted something years back without any proof from the way back machine.

It's not so much that Hands11 lacked proof. It's that he made conflicting predictions. If you predict both outcomes, and one of the outcomes comes true, you can say you predicted it!

Yep. & that too is something we all do. Go back in memory & find the trail of random thoughts we had that can be arranged to reach the current outcome!

I plead guilty. Even in this case.

Did I think Thomas Bryant was going to show the way he has? No, of course not!

[Ruzious]

I think I was awfully close for supposedly getting it wrong...

Ruz... first off, I meant no offense. But... aren't you being just a little touchy?

Is it really unacceptable to be wrong about something occasionally? You're right about stuff often enough.

In my case, as I've said several times, I was wrong about Jeff Green last off-season. Been wrong about plenty other stuff too.

If you thought that Thomas Bryant "looks like he's running clay," or "looks stiff," & saw him as someone who might justify having been picked up "if he never never becomes more than a 9th or 10th man"... is that really "awfully close?" You can't own having been mistaken in that?

Seems like you did more talking up of Tony Bradley, and what is it that Bradley's done?

Sigh... Tony Bradley, who is still 20 years old btw, was a R1 pick, as was Jarrett Allen. I wrote about them, b/c Thomas matched up to them physically & in his Freshman year in college. Period. Viz.

Thomas Bryant ...Compare him to Jarrett Allen & Tony Bradley.... Bradley is the closest match. If you look at the 2017 Combine measurements, they are virtually identical in size....

I've been watching Bradley in the Summer League the last day or so -- over his year w/ the Jazz & the off-season so far, he's trimmed his body fat substantially & gotten a lot stronger. He is looking great in the games so far.

That's what he'd done. & of course I wrote that to set up the following points:

Just b/c Tony Bradley did it doesn't mean Thomas Bryant can. But the potential is there. .... Bryant has all the athleticism, size & length needed. Watch his G League highlights, & you see that he plays with intensity & a good feel for the game.

About this...

... - unless you think he's as good as Randle and if I should have predicted Howard would get injured.

What has Howard got to do with it? I didn't know he'd be injured, but I could see what kind of prospect Thomas Bryant was.

As to Randle, he's even less relevant than Howard. He's a 6'9" PF who is almost 3 years older than Thomas Bryant. Like Bryant, he didn't play as a rookie. But, he played almost 2300 minutes his 2d year (when he was the age Bryant is now) & was terrible (TS% = 48.2%).

Thomas Bryant is a far better player than Randle was at the same age. Now... Randle has improved every year & has become a terrific young player. & "Just b/c Tony Bradley Julius Randle did it doesn't mean Thomas Bryant can. But the potential is there."

I also wrote

Aside from me, only Nat got it right...

Nat takes a lot of crap around here (& he often deserves it! ). But he was exactly right. & that was my point.

And

"...This post is about being oh so ready to dismiss a young player...."

Unlike some others, you were not claiming Bryant had no chance to be an NBA player, & you did "like the pickup." But... you were certainly not high on Bryant. Not in the slightest.

I'm sure that every one of you I quote above now ...has ...substituted a different version in his memory.

Up to you whether you put yourself on that list... Not that it matters. Just like being "wrong," this too is something all human beings engage in.

LOL. I wrote a 2 line post defending myself from criticism on a post that I still believe is correct, and you're actually criticising me for standing up for it? I don't have time for this garbage. You're better than that. Happy holidays.

[doclinkin]

Speaking of being better than that:

So just throwing this out there. Would giving Kyle O'Quinn the same deal we gave Dwight Howard have been the safer and smarter move?

Yes and no. I think the optics of the move from the perspective of Wall and around the league are that we did get the athletic big that John wanted. KOQ is more of a savvy floor bound positionally smart player, he is not the above the rim lob target that will make highlight plays. Raises our profile, even if it doesn't show up in the win column. Granted wins are what we care about, but we would like a motivated energetic happy team. Too, Dwight CAN BE a mismatch in our favor, O'Quinn will be a good player throughout his career. This team has not been built on a foundation of fundamentally solid players quietly acquired on smart moves, if we succeed it is because our talent out-talents their talent. A motivated Howard, with synergy next to John, can do that. O'Quinn won't. He will quietly do the grunt work, but won't ever crush and dominate. With John and Howard, playing at their best you can make the argument that they are among the best at their position, in the NBA more often than not Talent wins deepest. The Chauncey/Larry Brown Pistons excepted.

Partly though one danger is that O'Quinn's reliable game would cast shade on a developing player in Bryant. I'm happy we landed him, he's a real talent, its understandable he might have to play behind Howard, no allstar pedigree and dunk champion hops, but his upside is pretty. If Howard goes down with an injury we have opportunity to let the young cat get some real run to develop on court. If Howard plays well we will still develop a young guy for his future with the team. If we had O'Quinn and Bryant there's less of a wide shadow to shade him while he develops. Bigs seem to develop slower in the league. Ok granted I'd rather he learn the fundamentals from O'Quinn's example, I'm just saying his upside looks higher, more potential to develop, and with O'Quinn being younger, if we kept him he'd likely be playing in front of Bryant longer. Coaches want results, don't have the patience for upside. I think we see Bryant sooner and better playing behind Howard, as Howard has a greater risk of flaming out.

F**k silver lining. Lets soak these storm clouds in arsenic and strip mine the gold out of them.

But yeah, while Howard looks like he might be fun to watch in highlights, and Jeff Green can put up an occasional flying dunk or a good offensive night on junkyard plays, this offseason I'm more intrigued by the acquisition upside and development of the two young cats we picked up.

Troy and Thomas look like they could grow together. I like the ready and pretty-looking outside shot on the young big, and the read/react targeting software of our point forward.

I would love to see some of this:

Troy jr
Beal
[wing out shooter -- maybe the first half version of Kelly Jr]
Otto jr
Thomas Bryant

Basically all the juniors plus Beal and Bryant. With outside shooting from every position but Troy, and him actually bringing the ball up the court at times to draw their forward out of position.