165bows wrote:I think the Celtics, along with maybe 3-5 other teams, can integrate a 4 that doesn't shoot into the rotation as well as anyone. So it's nice to be able to take advantage of the value presented by a good player who's maybe a tougher fit for most teams.
I'm not sure I fully agree with that.
a) I'm assuming you're saying that because we typically have a 5 on the floor who can shoot (KP, al) but keep in mind KP is injured *a lot* and Al will be 38 next season which means he will likely have reduced mins, sit out more games. And whoever we draft..chances are they won't see meaningful mins until the 25-26 season at the earliest - by that time, there; a good chance Al will be retired..and who knows, KP could be playing elsewhere by then..he only has 1 more year left on his contract.
b) Regardless of who else is on the team, or who else in on the floor, players in the modern NBA often have trouble seeing the floor if they can't shoot. They could end up being a liability on offense if they get the ball and will not shoot it. Sure, there might be some exceptions but you don't have to worry about hoping a guy you draft can be the exception to the rule if you draft a guy who can shoot.
165bows wrote:But also they've been pretty explicit that they draft or sign guys with the goal of developing skills, and shooting is as easy to improve as anything else (a guy is much more likely to go up a couple levels shooting-wise than in size or athleticism for example).
Case in point is Yam Madar, guy was a sub 30% 3 point shooter when they drafted him and he's hit 40%+ from three for like three years in a row now.
Sure, the Celtics have shown over the past few yrs that they don't mind drafting guys with suspect shooting (romeo, grant, Madar, Davison, Begarin, Walsh).
But each of those suspect shooters at least showed the ability to shoot *a little bit* before being drafted by Boston. Whether they made 30% from 3 or 26% or 28% or whatever, it was a low % but it was at least *something* and the volume was at least decent. Mogbo on the other hand is a complete non-shooter. Doesn't even shoot a little bit. Played 2 yrs of D-I college ball and made *zero* threes..only attempted 2 shots from deep. Not 2 attempts per game. 2 attempts total..in 2 seasons.
Plus those guys Boston drafted who were suspect shooters were all 18, 19 or 20 yrs old so were earlier in their development (meaning there was more of a chance they would improve their shooting)..Mogbo will be like 22 and a half on draft night.
With that being said, I think some people are misinterpreting my post about Mogbo. I like Mogbo as a prospect. I think there's some intriguing things he brings to the table. I never said to not draft Mogbo.
I'm just saying that due to being a non-shooter on a team that shoots more 3's than anyone in the league..and since we already have a bunch of other non-shooters or suspect shooters (Walsh, Tillman, Queta, Springer, Brissett, KOrnet) and when you also factor in Mogbo is an undersized big, an older prospect who played vs weaker competition in a mid-major conference, I would not use a high draft pick on him.
Mid to late 2nd round, sure - I'd take a flier on him. But not higher than that. If we use a pick in the top 40, I think we can do better - that's all..
