cl2117 wrote:This guy was on the board at #54 for a reason, so while I'm also excited about his potential, we should probably reign it in a bit.
I mean yeah, we all know he was the 54th pick and that guys drafted that late have less of a a shot to make it.
With that being said, you seem to be putting a bit too much weight on Watson's draft slot. Plenty of players over the years have gotten drafted high and then flopped..while players who got drafted low have significantly out-performed their draft position, as we see here:
Your draft slot matters, but not nearly as much as you seem to be implying.
cl2117 wrote:None of them were as old as Watson who is a 5th year Senior. As a 24 year old rookie he'll be a lot closer to being his final product than he will be to the start of his developmental curve.
Watson was 23 when he was drafted.
These are just some of the active NBA players who were 22 or 23 on draft night:
Derrick white - 23
Fred VanVleet - 22
Austin Reaves - 23
Herb Jones - 22
Alex Caruso - 22
Sam Hauser - 23
Kenrich Williams - 23
Malcolm Brogdon - 23
Caleb Martin - 23
Jaime Jaquez - 22
Max Strus - 23
Payton Pritchard - 22
Duncan Robinson - 24
Cam Johnson - 22
Pascal Siakam - 22
Andrew Nembhard - 22
Buddy Hield - 23
Brad said after the draft that outside of the top 5 or 10 picks, age is less of a factor for him when drafting players. He also said that with NIL (and other factors like college kids getting an extra year of eligibility due to COVID) guys are staying in college longer than they used to - unless they're a guaranteed lottery pick.
cl2117 wrote:He isn't a rim protector.
Not an elite rim protector but I would say he's an opportunistic one, as we see here:
This vid has a combination of rim protection, taking charges, switching and poking the ball away as the offensive player tries passing it to Watson's man in the high post:
Also, a lot of times guys who are high volume shot blockers are really just hunting blocks - all of that "blocks hunting" often can leave that player out of position defensively, they could be slow to rotate, slow to close out (since they want to stay close to the basket to hunt blocks) or they tend to be more foul-prone players since if they don't time their block just right (or if they bite on a fake) they smack the offensive player's arm for a foul..
Good shot blockers is nice but a smart, sound positional defender who knows where to be on the floor, can read an offense, knows where the ball is going before it gets there, is quick to rotate, doesn't bite on fakes, can take charges is better imo.
cl2117 wrote:He's not a good free throw shooter, which doesn't bode well for him in that area.
The low volume from 3, low FT% and only 1 of his 5 college season with a good 3 FG% are obviously reasons to be skeptical about his shooting. I don't see anybody on here saying that he is guaranteed to be an elite shooter in the NBA.
We're simply saying that there's upside/potential. He was a comparable or better shooter in college than Horford, Tillman, Grant Williams, Larry Nance Jr, Aaron Gordon, Paul Millsap were. Kyle Anderson was a slightly better shooter in college but he's got the ugliest form and slowest release in the league.
FT% can often be an indicator for future 3 pt shooting projection. But it's not a be all end all stat. It's typically just an indicator to project which players will develop into elite shooters. So like, if you have Player A and Player B. both shot 30% from 3 as a freshman but player A shot 82% FT and Player B shot 68% FT, the one with the better chance to develop into an elite shooter would be player A. However, Player B still could end up being a respectable shooter in the NBA. Jaylen Brown was not a good FT shooter in college for example - neither was Brandon Ingram - there's many other examples. And many other factors that go into shooting performance/projection than simply looking at FT% in college.
cl2117 wrote:His offensive game is based around finishing at the rim, which will be harder in the NBA.
I mean, he shot 76% at the rim this season, which is an insanely high number. Idk about you, but I'd rather have a guy who shot 76% at the rim n college, rather than 62%..
Also, I think Watson has more to his offensive game than you're giving him credit for. He's a good passer/playmaker. Good cutter. Good offensive rebounder. Good screener, roll man. Can finish out of dunker's spot. Plays unselfishly, doesn't force shots/drives, doesn't make mistakes, makes the right basketball play.
It's nice if a guy is 19 yrs old and a freak athlete. But what if that guy can't make any of the right reads - on ball or off ball? Watson is a very cerebral player, 5 yrs under 1 of the best college coaches of all time (Mark Few) and you watch Watson play and it's like having another coach on the floor. He makes the right read (on ball and off ball) basically every time.
Can shoot from 3 (and Brad has said he has confidence in Watson's shooting, is encouraging him to let it fly)..he can handle the ball well for a big, can take his man off the dribble, create his own shot a bit..has a "bag" with moves, counters, up and unders, floaters in the mid range, spin moves, up fakes, etc.
Is by no means an elite shooter or shot creator. But is a guy who *could* thrive offensively on a team like Boston that has a bunch of star talent (Tatum, Brown, Jrue, KP, White) and elite shooters (Al, Pritchard, Hauser) who will be getting all the defensive attention. Watson will likely be left open *a lot*, he'll likely have tons of space and likely have the opposing team's worst defender on him. Opposing defenses will load up on the strong side of the floor (the side of the floor with Tatum/Brown/Jrue/KP) so if the ball gets swung over to Watson on the weak side he could really thrive with al of that space. Especially if the 3 ball is falling for him.
cl2117 wrote:Defensively he's probably too small to play small ball C
Eh, Idk about that. He's 6'8.5" in shoes, 233 lbs. 7'0" wingspan. Good rebounder, good at finishing near the basket. Good screener. Sounds like someone who *could* play some small ball 5 to me.
cl2117 wrote:might not be able to keep up with NBA level guard play either so his match-up range might not be as wide as you'd think.
He was guarding 1-5 in college. And defended the opposing team's best offensive player. Sure, there were a few rare cases here and there where an extra speedy/shifty guard was able to get by him. But that can happen to any defender. When looking objectively at his college tape, there's really no reason to think he can't defend most guards in the NBA out on the perimeter.
I posted this earlier in the thread, but I think Brad possibly sees Watson having a similar role defensively to what Grant did..and Watson played in a switch-heavy defense in college so is coming in prepared..
;t=27s
cl2117 wrote:I think he spends all his time in Maine.
Sure, that's obviously a possibility with any draft pick - especially one picked 54th overall.I think he has a *chance* to be a bit better than that.
You basically wrote a post that outlined all of his drawbacks/weaknesses without including any of his strengths/positive attributes. Sure, any prospect who goes that late in the draft is a long shot - especially on a team like BOS that has depth/talent at every position so mins are very hard to come by.
With that being said, if Watson was as bad of a prospect as you are implying, Brad wouldn't have taken him. I trust Brad and his eye for talent.
Also, while all prospects coming out of college have strengths and weaknesses. But BPM is a pretty good stat to measure how much players contribute to winning basketball.
-Watson had a 9.8 BPM last season
-His BPM was 8.6 or higher during each of his last 4 college seasons
-His BPM was 7.4 or higher in all 5 of his college seasons
That's pretty nuts. Not sure what the list of players looks like who had those type of BPM numbers (especially the consistency and for that many seasons) but I'm pretty sure most of them ended up being decent NBA players.
Lastly, if we simplify it a bit and ask "could he be playable on defense or would he be a defensive liability?" and "can he be playable on offense or would he be an offensive liability?"
Defense: It might take a year of development in Maine first, but I think it would be pretty surprising if he ends up being a defensive liability. In college, he was one of the best defensive players in the country, he defended the opposing team's best offensive player and he defended 1-5. He has size, he has strength, he has quick feet, he is a very smart, fundamentally sound defender.
Offense: there is a chance he becomes unplayable on offense - if he ends up being a really bad shooter. But he shot well from 3 last season (albeit on low volume) and Brad has said he believes in Watson's shooting and encourages him to let it fly. Again, it might take a year in Maine first, but he can develop into at least being a league average shooter from 3, there's a good chance of him sticking in the rotation. Even if he doesn't shoot very well, there's still a chance you're looking at like Kyle Anderson, Nuggets Aaron Gordon, Xavier Tillman, Brandon Clarke type of guy..it would be an uphill battle for him though if the shooting ends up being really bad. The defense and other stuff (shot creation, finishing near basket and in mid range, passing, rebounding, screening, etc.) would have to be really good..
We'll see..
Oh and 1 other thing. Hauser was UDFA and Watson was the 54th pick. Hauser (on draft night) was an elite shooter but a bad defender. Watson (on draft night) was a very good defender but a suspect shooter. If I look at both of them before either of them ever played a SL game, and you were to ask me, what has a higher chance of happening, Hauser becoming a good defender or Watson becoming a good offensive player, I would have said Watson..
