RealGM

He’s our guy now.

YODA had him as the 12th rated prospect, so maybe it’s not as bad a pick as we all think it is.

TGW wrote:YODA had him as the 12th rated prospect, so maybe it’s not as bad a pick as we all think it is.

It's not a bad pick per se, it's just that I prefer going with the player with the biggest upside.

Now maybe Davis has more upside than I believe.

Time will tell....

TGW wrote:YODA had him as the 12th rated prospect, so maybe it’s not as bad a pick as we all think it is.

I don’t think it’s a bad pick. I’ve warmed up to him. Carrying a subpar Wisconsin squad in the B1G is impressive and his performance in big games gives me some hope.

He is a dog on defense

It’s all about the shot and if he can develop into a playmaker.

I think he'll be a solid rotation player. Not a bad pick.

Halcyon wrote:I think he'll be a solid rotation player. Not a bad pick.

The Washington Wizards. Bradley Beal + 14 guys who should be the 9th best player in an NBA rotation.

First Wizard with a national TV ad since …. when?

In a vacuum, not a bad pick at all. Maybe a great pick, who knows.

It's just more of the same. All that's left to do is wait for Beal to get his bag and have Terd declare victory. Or maybe he'll push Tommy out there to do it for him. We've seen this movie before. It's a terrible movie. We're like Howard the Duck.

All that said, good luck Johnny Davis. Welcome to At Least We're Not Sacramento.

I'm mostly mad that we couldn't figure out a way to acquire Daniels or Ivey. But given the options available at #10, Davis doesn't seem all that bad. I liked Griffin more, but his slide all the way to #16 suggests medical issues. I guess Eason might have been intriguing, but it would have required other trades to free minutes for him.

Our real failing was not committing to tanking early enough to land the #8 pick.

https://streamable.com/l3yd9o

Stephen A wanted Davis for the Knicks

Davis is the kind of player who doesn't attract a ton of adulation throughout the draft process because he's not (1) an obvious luminary who compels attention and grand expectations nor (2) a player with a particularly intriguing set of strengths that may belie a lower consensus assessment - someone you can get excited about having perceived a deeper allure in. He was a pretty good player who played to a lot of national attention, whom no one really seems to have felt much more or less of than the wider mean, and who was always going to represent close to par value because it seemed impossible that he was going to stray very far from where he did ultimately get drafted.

The biggest qualm I have with him (and one that continues something of a trend for recent Wizards picks - save maybe Deni) is that almost no one seems to be a Johnny Davis Partisan - no one who outputs draft product wanted to ride or die on his star.

Did I mention that Davis is ambidextrous?

[url]?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw[/url]

Johnny Davis = Calbert Cheaney ii

How does he compare with Matisse Thybulle?

We got a gritty competitor who will probably be able to steal whatever minutes Kispert was getting, we added another non-athlete though.

closg00 wrote:We got a gritty competitor who will probably be able to steal whatever minutes Kispert was getting, we added another non-athlete though.

Not sure where this “non-athlete” narrative comes from. Not being a high-flying, dunking machine does not make you a “non-athlete.”

?s=20&t=RO-5vni6bRH3oP5u9VxgmQ
?s=20&t=bchVzTUwhbOcUHsFs_V8Uw

TGW wrote:How does he compare with Matisse Thybulle?

Both exceptionally good at breaking through screens and fighting on the defensive end. Thybulle probably a level above and reads passing lanes as good as anyone in the NBA.

Davis was the number one offensive option on his college team and I don’t think that’s something thybulle would have even been able to do.

Hopefully as good as the lasts John this franchise drafted.