Johnny Furphy - Kansas

[Colbinii]

A more athletic Cameron Johnson?

[The-Power]

A more athletic Cameron Johnson?

I think it makes sense to define what characterizes him as a prospect – what are his most defining traits that make him the player we see on the floor – and then think about comparisons.

Furphy has good wing size, a good jump shot, moves fluidly, understands how to move off the ball, and he hustles hard on both ends. What he lacks is bulk (strength) and a projectable on-ball game. I think Cam Johnson isn't a bad comparison per se but I never saw him as a high-energy kind of player and I think that's essential to who Furphy is as a player. Meanwhile Cam Johnson had the frame to eventually develop into some who can play the 4 in the NBA and I don't really see that for Furphy yet. And are we sure Furphy is really more athletic and it's not that just him looking better athletically because of his effort level?

[BlazersBroncos]

Ariza w/ better shot selection? (And a faster career arc - IE Houston era Ariza by 21 or so whereas Trevor wasnt a reliable player until like age 24)

[clyde21]

surprised there havent been any Joe Ingles comps

[Colbinii]

surprised there havent been any Joe Ingles comps

Ingles was a super good passer. He was a mid-20% AST% in his prime.

But, I like the comp other than that and a player who can move well, possesses seemingly high IQ and feel can and should, theoretically, develop a good playmaking/passing game.

[Hal14]

Not every prospect needs a comp. Prospects are so unique, with so many characteristics (passing, basketball IQ, age, competition level, athleticism, shooting efficiency, shooting volume, shooting mechanics, on ball defense, off ball defense, motor, poise, ball handling, ability to run PnR, ability to defend PnR, ability to set screen, catch lobs, operate as a roll man, make passes out of short roll, finish around the rim, create separation off the dribble, hit shots off the dribble, screen navigation, work ethic, coachability, discipline to play D without fouling, athleticism, explosiveness, injury history of a player, etc.

With so many factors, it's lazy analysis to rely too much on player comps and base so much of our draft discourse on player comps. Like, what are the odds that out of all those factors i just mentioned (there's way more too) that a prospect has most of them in common with a player in the NBA?

And even then, there's no guarantee that prospect will end up just like that NBA player you're comparing him to because there's so many factors that influence the prospect's development when they get to the NBA (who their teammates are, who their coach is, what injuries they have, how hard they work after getting drafted, what systems their NBA team runs, what pace do they play at, how much playing time do they get. Does their coach develop them well but he gets fired after the player's rookie year? Does the player play well as rookie but then the team brings in a veteran who plays the same position? Does the league's style of play shift after their 2nd season in the league so now that player isn't as effective?

[The Moose]

surprised there havent been any Joe Ingles comps

No joke this was my comp when he was over here as a junior player, but the Ingles comp gets made a lot in AUS because so many of our wings are taught the same brand of basketball

Though I had only watched him play in the NBL1, which I’m not sure how to describe that competition level. I guess it’s like the G-League of the NBL. He stood out there, at least in the NBL1 East comp games.

Watch on YouTube

I think the Trey Murphy comp is probably the most interesting though

[FarBeyondDriven]

Not every prospect needs a comp. Prospects are so unique, with so many characteristics (passing, basketball IQ, age, competition level, athleticism, shooting efficiency, shooting volume, shooting mechanics, on ball defense, off ball defense, motor, poise, ball handling, ability to run PnR, ability to defend PnR, ability to set screen, catch lobs, operate as a roll man, make passes out of short roll, finish around the rim, create separation off the dribble, hit shots off the dribble, screen navigation, work ethic, coachability, discipline to play D without fouling, athleticism, explosiveness, injury history of a player, etc.

With so many factors, it's lazy analysis to rely too much on player comps and base so much of our draft discourse on player comps. Like, what are the odds that out of all those factors i just mentioned (there's way more too) that a prospect has most of them in common with a player in the NBA?

And even then, there's no guarantee that prospect will end up just like that NBA player you're comparing him to because there's so many factors that influence the prospect's development when they get to the NBA (who their teammates are, who their coach is, what injuries they have, how hard they work after getting drafted, what systems their NBA team runs, what pace do they play at, how much playing time do they get. Does their coach develop them well but he gets fired after the player's rookie year? Does the player play well as rookie but then the team brings in a veteran who plays the same position? Does the league's style of play shift after their 2nd season in the league so now that player isn't as effective?

Why are comps bothersome to you? I assume we won't be seeing you comparing players from now on then? Hopefully because it'd be kinda hypocritical if you were to now go on to compare prospects to pros or former prospects in any of your future posts. Because I know you will, this rant is completely unnecessary. People use comps because there's decades of defined roles and archetypes filled by similarly skilled and sized athletes. So it can provide a baseline when trying to project them forward. If two prospects (current and former) have a lot of similarities, it aids us in establishing what they MAY someday develop into.

You say "draft discourse" as if that's a bad thing. Isn't that why we're here? To discuss prospects? Nobody I've seen is even half-way claiming to guarantee the prospect will end up like the comp. And who is supposedly relying too much on player comps? Feels like manufactured concern and outrage over a nothingburger. Besides, comps are fun.

[Hal14]

Not every prospect needs a comp. Prospects are so unique, with so many characteristics (passing, basketball IQ, age, competition level, athleticism, shooting efficiency, shooting volume, shooting mechanics, on ball defense, off ball defense, motor, poise, ball handling, ability to run PnR, ability to defend PnR, ability to set screen, catch lobs, operate as a roll man, make passes out of short roll, finish around the rim, create separation off the dribble, hit shots off the dribble, screen navigation, work ethic, coachability, discipline to play D without fouling, athleticism, explosiveness, injury history of a player, etc.

With so many factors, it's lazy analysis to rely too much on player comps and base so much of our draft discourse on player comps. Like, what are the odds that out of all those factors i just mentioned (there's way more too) that a prospect has most of them in common with a player in the NBA?

And even then, there's no guarantee that prospect will end up just like that NBA player you're comparing him to because there's so many factors that influence the prospect's development when they get to the NBA (who their teammates are, who their coach is, what injuries they have, how hard they work after getting drafted, what systems their NBA team runs, what pace do they play at, how much playing time do they get. Does their coach develop them well but he gets fired after the player's rookie year? Does the player play well as rookie but then the team brings in a veteran who plays the same position? Does the league's style of play shift after their 2nd season in the league so now that player isn't as effective?

Why are comps bothersome to you? I assume we won't be seeing you comparing players from now on then? Hopefully because it'd be kinda hypocritical if you were to now go on to compare prospects to pros or former prospects in any of your future posts. Because I know you will, this rant is completely unnecessary. People use comps because there's decades of defined roles and archetypes filled by similarly skilled and sized athletes. So it can provide a baseline when trying to project them forward. If two prospects (current and former) have a lot of similarities, it aids us in establishing what they MAY someday develop into.

You say "draft discourse" as if that's a bad thing. Isn't that why we're here? To discuss prospects? Nobody I've seen is even half-way claiming to guarantee the prospect will end up like the comp. And who is supposedly relying too much on player comps? Feels like manufactured concern and outrage over a nothingburger. Besides, comps are fun.

Good grief. You are so freaking argumentative.

Nothing wrong with comps. It's the over-reliance on them that is getting really out of hand.

Let's discuss the prospects, analyze them, compare them, project how they might do in the NBA. We can make comps but it makes for really lazy, amateur discourse if 90% of the content being posted here is just player comps (since players are so unique, take very different development paths after being drafted and for all the other reasons I mentioned in my post).

I come here for more intelligent discussion than that.

Lastly, I've already told you multiple times now to stop replying to my posts because of how petty, argumentative, condescending, combative and antagonistic you are when engaging with me (and others) on here. I've already got you on my foe list so take a hint, buddy. If a girl breaks up with you, you don't keep calling her up everyday. And yes, I'm talking to you right now but only to tell you to back off.

[ItsDanger]

Like Furphy a lot but does he declare? Really needs that extra year for strength training. But league isn't that physical these days anyway.

[TheSuzerain]

I do think he has more "return to school" upside from a draft stock perspective than is typical.

He comes back improved physically, he could jump to top 8 caliber pretty easily.

[BlazersBroncos]

I do think he has more "return to school" upside from a draft stock perspective than is typical.

He comes back improved physically, he could jump to top 8 caliber pretty easily.

I really cant list 8 guys I would take before him this draft. I guess the international class is ramping up a bit.

[FarBeyondDriven]

Not every prospect needs a comp. Prospects are so unique, with so many characteristics (passing, basketball IQ, age, competition level, athleticism, shooting efficiency, shooting volume, shooting mechanics, on ball defense, off ball defense, motor, poise, ball handling, ability to run PnR, ability to defend PnR, ability to set screen, catch lobs, operate as a roll man, make passes out of short roll, finish around the rim, create separation off the dribble, hit shots off the dribble, screen navigation, work ethic, coachability, discipline to play D without fouling, athleticism, explosiveness, injury history of a player, etc.

With so many factors, it's lazy analysis to rely too much on player comps and base so much of our draft discourse on player comps. Like, what are the odds that out of all those factors i just mentioned (there's way more too) that a prospect has most of them in common with a player in the NBA?

And even then, there's no guarantee that prospect will end up just like that NBA player you're comparing him to because there's so many factors that influence the prospect's development when they get to the NBA (who their teammates are, who their coach is, what injuries they have, how hard they work after getting drafted, what systems their NBA team runs, what pace do they play at, how much playing time do they get. Does their coach develop them well but he gets fired after the player's rookie year? Does the player play well as rookie but then the team brings in a veteran who plays the same position? Does the league's style of play shift after their 2nd season in the league so now that player isn't as effective?

Why are comps bothersome to you? I assume we won't be seeing you comparing players from now on then? Hopefully because it'd be kinda hypocritical if you were to now go on to compare prospects to pros or former prospects in any of your future posts. Because I know you will, this rant is completely unnecessary. People use comps because there's decades of defined roles and archetypes filled by similarly skilled and sized athletes. So it can provide a baseline when trying to project them forward. If two prospects (current and former) have a lot of similarities, it aids us in establishing what they MAY someday develop into.

You say "draft discourse" as if that's a bad thing. Isn't that why we're here? To discuss prospects? Nobody I've seen is even half-way claiming to guarantee the prospect will end up like the comp. And who is supposedly relying too much on player comps? Feels like manufactured concern and outrage over a nothingburger. Besides, comps are fun.

Good grief. You are so freaking argumentative.

Nothing wrong with comps. It's the over-reliance on them that is getting really out of hand.

Let's discuss the prospects, analyze them, compare them, project how they might do in the NBA. We can make comps but it makes for really lazy, amateur discourse if 90% of the content being posted here is just player comps (since players are so unique, take very different development paths after being drafted and for all the other reasons I mentioned in my post).

I come here for more intelligent discussion than that.

Lastly, I've already told you multiple times now to stop replying to my posts because of how petty, argumentative, condescending, combative and antagonistic you are when engaging with me (and others) on here. I've already got you on my foe list so take a hint, buddy. If a girl breaks up with you, you don't keep calling her up everyday. And yes, I'm talking to you right now but only to tell you to back off.

your lack of self-awareness is staggering. If you have me on your foe list, then just ignore me. Why are you even responding or seeing this? You can't just admonish people for doing things you yourself do and expect nobody to call you on it especially when you yourself call people out constantly. Everything you just claimed I am is actually you. You're projecting hard core.

[FarBeyondDriven]

I do think he has more "return to school" upside from a draft stock perspective than is typical.

He comes back improved physically, he could jump to top 8 caliber pretty easily.

I really cant list 8 guys I would take before him this draft. I guess the international class is ramping up a bit.

I'm not sure where to put him but I think lottery for sure. I think he might actually be a legit 6'8" too. I thought he looked shorter. If Gradey Dick is a lottery pick, certainly a better version of him, which Furphy is, should be as well no?

[BlazersBroncos]

I do think he has more "return to school" upside from a draft stock perspective than is typical.

He comes back improved physically, he could jump to top 8 caliber pretty easily.

I really cant list 8 guys I would take before him this draft. I guess the international class is ramping up a bit.

I'm not sure where to put him but I think lottery for sure. I think he might actually be a legit 6'8" too. I thought he looked shorter. If Gradey Dick is a lottery pick, certainly a better version of him, which Furphy is, should be as well no?

Yep - albeit I never bought into Dick as a LP. Throught he was more in that 20-25 range.

I think Johnny is a much better prospect than Dick. Far better rebounder, better hustle guy, can impact the game still when the shot isnt falling (Big issue to me w/ Dick last draft). Think he moves the ball better and 'flows' in the offense better. Higher defensive upside (Gradey was always a red flag laterally IMO). I also actually like Furphy's shot mechanics more than Dick - albeit I understand the %'s dont show this ATM.

[The Moose]

14 pts (5-5 fg) at the half against arguably the best defense in the NCAA

[azcatz11]

This kid is a baller. He moves really well without the ball. I do wonder about the Dick comparisons however

[EvanZ]

I love the people using recency bias to claim Furthy is a better prospect than Dick. Gradey was clearly a better prospect.

You guys are absolutely clueless.

[MemphisX]

I love the people using recency bias to claim Furthy is a better prospect than Dick. Gradey was clearly a better prospect.

You guys are absolutely clueless.

Seriously, why does everyone have to be clueless if they don’t agree with you? Why is that your constant?

[EvanZ]

I love the people using recency bias to claim Furthy is a better prospect than Dick. Gradey was clearly a better prospect.

You guys are absolutely clueless.

Seriously, why does everyone have to be clueless if they don’t agree with you? Why is that your constant?

I don't make the rules. Sorry, I meant I make the rules.