Moderators: Duke4life831, Marcus
crows2 wrote:What are people's thoughts on Ryan Dunn from Virginia? Averaging a ridiculous 3 steals and 3 blocks per game this year. He'll be the best defender in the draft, but does he have the ability to develop enough of an offensive game to be effective?
Some random troll wrote:Not to sound negative, but this team is owned by an arrogant cheapskate, managed by a moron and coached by an idiot. Recipe for disaster.
FarBeyondDriven wrote:Hal14 wrote:FarBeyondDriven wrote:Holland just turned 18 in July. He's so young and he's improved so dramatically in the last 12 months. You seriously claiming Holland wouldn't go top 5 to end of lottery in every draft since 2020? Similar wings that went in or around the lottery since 2020:
Williams #4
Okoro #5
Kuminga #7
Thompson #4
Thompson #5
Murray #4
Coulibaly #7
Howard #11
Dick #13
C'mon now, most of these guys are nothing like Ron Holland. Gradey Dick? Are you kidding me? The best shooter in the draft, why would you compare him to Holland who can't shoot?
Same with Jett Howard. Knock down shooter - nothing like Holland. Sane with Keegan Murray - knock down shooter who had some of the best production we've seen from a high major player in the past decade - nothing like Holland.
It's a stretch to say Holland is similar to the Thompson twins. Both of the twins proved time and time again they could run the point, be a floor general, facilitator, they were arguably the 2 beast passers in their draft class, with some of the best ball handling in their class too. Holland isn't any of that.
Patrick Williams is much bigger than Holland.
The only guys on your list who are remotely similar to Holland are Okoro, Coulibaliy and *maybe* Kuminga. Kuminga though is bigger and so far has kind of been a bust - not really a guy you want to take in the top 5 since he has been such a project, so raw.
Holland is most similar to Okoro and Coulibaly. But Coulibaly was not considered a lottery pick until later in the season, once he was showing some solid production in the LNB league. Let's see if Holland can match that type of production, if he can show better decision making and get his 3 pt % up (like Coulibaly did)..
Okoro has pretty much been a bust, considering how high he was drafted..
These are some other guys who Holland kind of reminds me of when looking at each player's physical attributes and skills prior to being drafted:
Josh Minott
Matthew Cleveland (looking at his freshman/sophomore year)
Kendall Brown
Peyton Watson
Jordan Walsh
Rayan Rupert
Julian Phillips
similar tier of prospect in that they're clearly SF with similar (6'6" to 6'8") size and projectable traits not necessarily in the way they play. Each has their strengths and weaknesses but at the end of the day how are they rated as prospects? They were just provided to show that similarly rated wings (better or worse) are routinely drafted in the lottery these past several drafts meaning Holland clearly belongs as a lottery pick as well.
Holland isn't the shooter Dick was in college but he is a better athlete, defender and finisher and clearly a better prospect since he's also a year younger than Dick was last season and will actually play in the NBA. Dick can't even get on the floor due to defense which was the obvious outcome considering how bad he is on that end. He's shooting 24% from three. So what exactly did all that great college shooting against bad defenses do for him? He can't put in on the floor either. He's essentially unplayable like I figured he'd be. None of those players you mentioned are remotely close to Holland as prospects. You just took random SF out of thin air. None of them were considered lottery talents or anywhere close to that, at least by anyone serious.
Gun to my head Coulibaly and Holland are in the same tier but I have Coulibaly slightly higher and I am/was higher on him than most. I was praying he'd somehow magically fall to the Kings at one point but the scouts caught on late and he went where he belonged. Okoro didn't have the handle or smarts and despite his present shooting showing otherwise, Holland has the much better stroke. Holland is definitely a better prospect and the chances of him busting like Okoro are very slim.
FarBeyondDriven wrote:clyde21 wrote:FarBeyondDriven wrote:Holland, Castle, Walter, Collier, Buzelis, Bradshaw and Carrington would all be top 5 to end of lottery picks in every draft since 2020. Combined with an excellent international class it's far from a weak class. Of course, people wont' change their minds until the YT video they got their opinion from changes theirs first. For everyone like me sick of this narrative being pushed, just be patient
you're exaggerating for the sake of exaggerating.
Bradshaw hasn't even played a single minute...how are you even going to say he'd be top 5 in most drafts? based on what? Carrington also was a relatively unknown guy up until a couple of weeks ago...doubt he was even on your radar at that point...now all the sudden he's a top 5 or 10 guy in every draft?
also people keep talking about this "excellent international class" still have yet to see proof of this. Mara was supposed to be the lynchpin of the international group but he's been a disaster so far at UCLA. Almansa has been OK in GLI but we'll see. Risacher had a terrible summer even tho he's playing a bit better recently. Sarr is intriguing from a profile standpoint but so far in the NBL he himself hasn't been productive at all. what are we talking about here?
I guess when you watch as much film as I do you don't need college tape for certain prospects though it certainly helps.
Collier is no stranger to the top prospect conversation, having earned the No. 1 Men's Recruiting Services Consensus Index (RSCI) ranking in the 2023 high school class and entering the season at No. 2 in our mock. Through his first six games with USC, Collier has been a bit of a mixed bag -- some pronounced highs and lows -- but his overall production has been up to snuff.
The good: He's averaging an efficient 18.2 points per game, shooting 56% on 2s, 41% from 3 and 76% from the line.
The bad: He's turning the ball over 5.3 times per game -- to just four assists -- an alarming turnover clip for any prospect, much less a player who figures into the discussion at No. 1. While it's a tiny sample size, it's safe to say there's much for Collier to improve on to shore up his place atop draft boards.
There's quite a lot to like about Collier, who USC lists at 6-foot-5 and 210 pounds -- which, if accurate, gives him outstanding size for a lead guard (for comparison, he measured at 6-3¼ in shoes earlier this year at the Hoop Summit). He possesses an excellent combination of strength and speed at his size, making him a terror in the open floor and a threat to get downhill and finish going in all directions. He's at his best playing in space, where his excellent handle allows him to change direction effectively and beat defenders to spots.
Collier has always seen the floor quite well and is already a positive pick-and-roll player, where he figures to do quite a bit of his damage as a pro. He can utilize the extra half-step to help get into the paint, and is comfortable throwing all types of passes to open teammates using both hands. There's room for him to become even more technical in these situations, but his current level of comfort and skill as a playmaker bodes well for his NBA transition, giving him the framework to become a potential franchise-level point guard if things break right.
Another fair critique at this point has been Collier's approach to the game, with some scouts expressing concerns over his body language and occasionally casual moments this early in the season. When focused, he can be an excellent defender, and a joy to watch when scoring and making plays for teammates.
It's perhaps a little early in the season for him to look disengaged, and his unusually poor turnover rate would seem to have more to do with approach than any lack of talent or ability as a passer. While USC wants to play uptempo and gives its guards a lot of freedom, teams will hope to see Collier rein in the mistakes a bit, and aggressive turnovers are always easier to forgive than careless ones.
He's comparing this class to 2000 and 2013 
You know you've lost the plot when you agree with a guy that gets it wrong as a professionSeattleJazzFan wrote:ESPN now following my lead on Isaiah Collier - i had him #1 when nobody else did. not saying i'm right, but it never sucks to have ESPN hop on the bandwagon. He's been ridiculously turnover prone - like embarrassingly bad - but taking care of the ball is something that can be learned and tends to fix itself with experience.
Jamaaliver wrote:Spoiler:
clyde21 wrote:FarBeyondDriven wrote:clyde21 wrote:
you're exaggerating for the sake of exaggerating.
Bradshaw hasn't even played a single minute...how are you even going to say he'd be top 5 in most drafts? based on what? Carrington also was a relatively unknown guy up until a couple of weeks ago...doubt he was even on your radar at that point...now all the sudden he's a top 5 or 10 guy in every draft?
also people keep talking about this "excellent international class" still have yet to see proof of this. Mara was supposed to be the lynchpin of the international group but he's been a disaster so far at UCLA. Almansa has been OK in GLI but we'll see. Risacher had a terrible summer even tho he's playing a bit better recently. Sarr is intriguing from a profile standpoint but so far in the NBL he himself hasn't been productive at all. what are we talking about here?
I guess when you watch as much film as I do you don't need college tape for certain prospects though it certainly helps.
what does this even mean? sounds like a contradiction. either you watch the tape or don't, unless you talking about HS tape which should only be treated as a prior data point and nothing else once these guys get to the NCAA.
if you feel comfortable taking a guy like Bradshaw top 10 based on his HS tape that's fine, just don't be surprised if a lot of people disagree with that.
re: the rest of your post...you're just reverse engineering back from the idea that this is a good class, without actually having any real proof that this is a good class, you're overexaggerating players, even players that have yet to step foot on the court, even players that have played (like Mara) and have been largely bad.
on the international point, still don't see the evidence that this is a great intl class...Mara has been bad, Sarr has been mediocre in the NBL so far, Almansa just had a good game recently in GLI but otherwise he hasn't been good, Risacher had a brutal summer and just starting to play a bit better...you talk about these guys being studs but there is still not much proof that this is actually the case.
i am open to this class being good, i want it to be good, just don't see anything behind the claim right now. who's the best player in the class? no one even knows. take that best player, how high would he go in last year's class? #4 or #5 at best if that? if the best player in this class is the 5th best player in another class...it's not a good class.
Which means there's really no hope for you and I should stop caring about your "weak draft" assertions. 
Hal14 wrote:HadAnEffectHere wrote:Mara is playing 5 minutes a game and plays the worst archetype in the NBA (the non-shooting center who can't move).
He is uhhhhh
Probably never being drafted into the NBA.
Yeah that archetype is just the worst! lol
Jokic (31% from 3 the season prior to being drafted)
Sengun (30% from 3 the season prior to being drafted)
Domantas Sabonis (barely took any 3's at all the season before being drafted)
Zubac
Mason Plumlee
Mitchell Robinson
Steven Adams
I could go on...
clyde21 wrote:if Collier is "really bad at dribbling" and he's a 6-2 PG prospect what are we doing here?
HadAnEffectHere wrote:Collier is clearly #1, but USC's 6'5" measurement is incredibly funny. He's 6'2".
Collier is Deron Williams except really bad at dribbling. Most of his points are based around punking kids with underdeveloped frames and none of this will work in the NBA, but he could still be a star if he learns how to dribble.
Pretty similar to Scoot Henderson with bad handles as a prospect. Not athletic, but huge, an interesting jumper, good passer, etc.
HadAnEffectHere wrote:Collier is clearly #1, but USC's 6'5" measurement is incredibly funny. He's 6'2".
Collier is Deron Williams except really bad at dribbling. Most of his points are based around punking kids with underdeveloped frames and none of this will work in the NBA, but he could still be a star if he learns how to dribble.
Pretty similar to Scoot Henderson with bad handles as a prospect. Not athletic, but huge, an interesting jumper, good passer, etc.
FarBeyondDriven wrote:clyde21 wrote:FarBeyondDriven wrote:
I guess when you watch as much film as I do you don't need college tape for certain prospects though it certainly helps.
what does this even mean? sounds like a contradiction. either you watch the tape or don't, unless you talking about HS tape which should only be treated as a prior data point and nothing else once these guys get to the NCAA.
if you feel comfortable taking a guy like Bradshaw top 10 based on his HS tape that's fine, just don't be surprised if a lot of people disagree with that.
re: the rest of your post...you're just reverse engineering back from the idea that this is a good class, without actually having any real proof that this is a good class, you're overexaggerating players, even players that have yet to step foot on the court, even players that have played (like Mara) and have been largely bad.
on the international point, still don't see the evidence that this is a great intl class...Mara has been bad, Sarr has been mediocre in the NBL so far, Almansa just had a good game recently in GLI but otherwise he hasn't been good, Risacher had a brutal summer and just starting to play a bit better...you talk about these guys being studs but there is still not much proof that this is actually the case.
i am open to this class being good, i want it to be good, just don't see anything behind the claim right now. who's the best player in the class? no one even knows. take that best player, how high would he go in last year's class? #4 or #5 at best if that? if the best player in this class is the 5th best player in another class...it's not a good class.
no you don't. You and your ilk say this but that would mean you're wrong and you're getting your opinions from terrible sources. I'm more fighting the narrative that it's a weak class rather than it's necessary good. You and your ilk are the ones who have been claiming it's weak for over a year now based on bad takes from guys like Sam Vecenie and there not being an elite domestic player that has separated himself at the top.
The burden is on you to back that up and all I've seen are attempts to paint bad statistics as proof that they're not good prospects. Conveniently forgetting the flashes of huge games/performances these guys have had over the last year. There's no substance to your argument beyond that. No actual discussions about physical traits, athleticism, skill levels, age or international/all-star performances against and in comparison to their peers.
Let's take Sarr for instance. The kid absolutely dominated international play against his peers winning Player of the Tournament. Why are his NBL numbers more important than those? Was this G-League performance not enough to educate you on his game?
Here's his U19 highlights
he's pretty much Mobley 2.0. How is this lost on someone who evaluates NBA prospects as a hobby?
If the best NBA prospect in this class (it's obviously Sarr btw) goes #4 in most drafts, and then another 5-6 guys from this class (Castle, Holland, Collier, Walter, Almansa, Carrington, etc) would go anywhere from 5-14 in most drafts since 2020, doesn't that mean it's stronger than you think? Or are you laughably claiming none of those players would go 5-14 in those draft classes? I'm actually guessing you are
"over exaggerating" wtf does this even mean? So, I'm capable of seeing physical/athletic traits and skills that translate to the NBA without needing to worry about how they perform in the G-League, NBL or competing for minutes on all-star squads at Kentucky or Duke? The horror. I should put all the emphasis on stats based on inconsistent usage, poorly constructed rosters like you and bonafide AAU scrimmages. Surely that will paint a better picture
Filipowski and Edey are putting up monster stats. Does that make either better pro prospects than Embiid who didn't?
FarBeyondDriven wrote:clyde21 wrote:FarBeyondDriven wrote:
I guess when you watch as much film as I do you don't need college tape for certain prospects though it certainly helps.
what does this even mean? sounds like a contradiction. either you watch the tape or don't, unless you talking about HS tape which should only be treated as a prior data point and nothing else once these guys get to the NCAA.
if you feel comfortable taking a guy like Bradshaw top 10 based on his HS tape that's fine, just don't be surprised if a lot of people disagree with that.
re: the rest of your post...you're just reverse engineering back from the idea that this is a good class, without actually having any real proof that this is a good class, you're overexaggerating players, even players that have yet to step foot on the court, even players that have played (like Mara) and have been largely bad.
on the international point, still don't see the evidence that this is a great intl class...Mara has been bad, Sarr has been mediocre in the NBL so far, Almansa just had a good game recently in GLI but otherwise he hasn't been good, Risacher had a brutal summer and just starting to play a bit better...you talk about these guys being studs but there is still not much proof that this is actually the case.
i am open to this class being good, i want it to be good, just don't see anything behind the claim right now. who's the best player in the class? no one even knows. take that best player, how high would he go in last year's class? #4 or #5 at best if that? if the best player in this class is the 5th best player in another class...it's not a good class.
no you don't. You and your ilk say this but that would mean you're wrong and you're getting your opinions from terrible sources. I'm more fighting the narrative that it's a weak class rather than it's necessary good. You and your ilk are the ones who have been claiming it's weak for over a year now based on bad takes from guys like Sam Vecenie and there not being an elite domestic player that has separated himself at the top.
The burden is on you to back that up and all I've seen are attempts to paint bad statistics as proof that they're not good prospects. Conveniently forgetting the flashes of huge games/performances these guys have had over the last year. There's no substance to your argument beyond that. No actual discussions about physical traits, athleticism, skill levels, age or international/all-star performances against and in comparison to their peers.
Let's take Sarr for instance. The kid absolutely dominated international play against his peers winning Player of the Tournament. Why are his NBL numbers more important than those? Was this G-League performance not enough to educate you on his game?
Here's his U19 highlights
he's pretty much Mobley 2.0. How is this lost on someone who evaluates NBA prospects as a hobby?
If the best NBA prospect in this class (it's obviously Sarr btw) goes #4 in most drafts, and then another 5-6 guys from this class (Castle, Holland, Collier, Walter, Almansa, Carrington, etc) would go anywhere from 5-14 in most drafts since 2020, doesn't that mean it's stronger than you think? Or are you laughably claiming none of those players would go 5-14 in those draft classes? I'm actually guessing you are
"over exaggerating" wtf does this even mean? So, I'm capable of seeing physical/athletic traits and skills that translate to the NBA without needing to worry about how they perform in the G-League, NBL or competing for minutes on all-star squads at Kentucky or Duke? The horror. I should put all the emphasis on stats based on inconsistent usage, poorly constructed rosters like you and bonafide AAU scrimmages. Surely that will paint a better picture
Filipowski and Edey are putting up monster stats. Does that make either better pro prospects than Embiid who didn't?
Hal14 wrote:HadAnEffectHere wrote:Mara is playing 5 minutes a game and plays the worst archetype in the NBA (the non-shooting center who can't move).
He is uhhhhh
Probably never being drafted into the NBA.
Yeah that archetype is just the worst! lol
Jokic (31% from 3 the season prior to being drafted)
Sengun (30% from 3 the season prior to being drafted)
Domantas Sabonis (barely took any 3's at all the season before being drafted)
Zubac
Mason Plumlee
Mitchell Robinson
Steven Adams
I could go on...