2024 NBA Draft Thread

[Chi town]

Why can’t Reeves be a Duncan Robinson like shooter in the league?

[Chuck Everett]

Why can’t Reeves be a Duncan Robinson like shooter in the league?

Size perhaps? He's probably going to measure 6'5. Robinson is 6'8. He's also going to be 23.5 years old at draft time. He's gonna have to grind his way into an NBA contract.

[FarBeyondDriven]

is this where we're pretending the guy who led the league in FG% and was in the DPOY conversation last season is bad? The guy averaging a double double and over 2 blocks a game? Cool I guess.

Yes it is. It's a really bad draft when a guy who is considered consensus top 5 is getting Claxton comparables. This is a perimeter scoring league now. Centers that can defend well and do little else are becoming less and less valuable.
Could every team use a guy like Claxton? Absolutely, but I'm not taking a guy like that with a high lottery pick. If Sarr can improve his shooting to a reasonable level then we're talking about a different ballgame now. I think teams are banking on him being that guy that can stretch a defense potentially if they're taking him that high, not as a Claxton level player at best.

As a Pistons fan, I love Duren for what he brings but if he never expands his game beyond what it is now (in other words, if he never becomes a Bam Adebayo type) I wouldn't take him with a top 5 pick in a redraft of any reasonably good draft maybe not even top 10.

defense matters. I don't know why people just dismiss its importance and prefer empty stats that don't help teams win games. There are so few great defenders and every single team needs them. With all the rules favoring offense it's more important now than ever to have defenders that can switch 1-5. Guys like Claxton and Allen might not have the offensive stats but they effect winning more than most guys that do, with their defense and the pressure they put on teams with their ability to run the PnR which collapses defenses leaving shooters wide open.

Sarr, like Mobley, are much better prospects and players than Claxton. If Sarr's floor is Claxton he's well worth taking high in the lottery.

[FarBeyondDriven]

It's objectively a bad class by almost every metric. not sure how or why we're still talking about this.

it's fine, it happens, not all classes are gonna be equally talented, and it doesn't mean there won't be good players to come out of it or some late bloomers.

you and everyone that upvoted you don't seem to know what objectively means. As for why we're still talking about it. It's because we're only half-way through the college season We're already seeing guys making major improvements in their games thus improving their draft stock. And they'll continue to do so even years into their careers. And because it's actually SUBJECTIVE, these are the exact type of fun discussions we should be having in this draft thread.

[FarBeyondDriven]

Why can’t Reeves be a Duncan Robinson like shooter in the league?

Size perhaps? He's probably going to measure 6'5. Robinson is 6'8. He's also going to be 23.5 years old at draft time. He's gonna have to grind his way into an NBA contract.

Reeves is like 6'3", barely taller than both Sheppard and Wagner. Assuming he makes it to the NBA he could have a Hield or Bane type role. He's improved quite a bit. He's a pretty bad defender but that doesn't seem to stop Hield from getting minutes.

[Chuck Everett]

Why can’t Reeves be a Duncan Robinson like shooter in the league?

Size perhaps? He's probably going to measure 6'5. Robinson is 6'8. He's also going to be 23.5 years old at draft time. He's gonna have to grind his way into an NBA contract.

Reeves is like 6'3", barely taller than both Sheppard and Wagner. Assuming he makes it to the NBA he could have a Hield or Bane type role. He's improved quite a bit. He's a pretty bad defender but that doesn't seem to stop Hield from getting minutes.

When you say barely 6'3", do you mean with or without shoes? Because if it's the former at his age, he's probably only got one shot to make it. Remember we didn't know Hield was two years older until was already on the Kings.

[FarBeyondDriven]

Size perhaps? He's probably going to measure 6'5. Robinson is 6'8. He's also going to be 23.5 years old at draft time. He's gonna have to grind his way into an NBA contract.

Reeves is like 6'3", barely taller than both Sheppard and Wagner. Assuming he makes it to the NBA he could have a Hield or Bane type role. He's improved quite a bit. He's a pretty bad defender but that doesn't seem to stop Hield from getting minutes.

When you say barely 6'3", do you mean with or without shoes? Because if it's the former at his age, he's probably only got one shot to make it. Remember we didn't know Hield was two years older until was already on the Kings.

Reeves is a shooting guard and whether he's 6'3" in sneakers or barefoot it's not great size for the position. Combine measurements will be huge for these guys. But even then, like others have mentioned in other threads, time of day, hairstyle, posture, the person measuring (how strict or lenient they are) and the fact they seem to round up, won't give us exact measurements despite them being "official". But they'll be within a 1/2 inch I imagine and that's all we really need. I think wingspan and standing reach is more important tbh.

[FarBeyondDriven]

Carrington and Castle both with great games. Carrington looks and plays so similar to SGA. Prettiest pull up in college basketball. This was my first time seeing Hunter Sallis live since he transferred from Gonzaga. Wow, this kid can play and he's got moxie. He'll play in the league. Not sure what went wrong at Gonzaga but their loss. Can't believe Carrington is just 18 y/o.

Castle hit a couple of threes. He really is reluctant to shoot though. He shoots better when he doesn't have time to think about it. His FT struggles look to be due to his set up and routines. He has great rotation on his ball but timing and mechanics seem off. He's such a pest on defense. Great prospect.

[HadAnEffectHere]

Can we talk about how embarrassing the Ivisic lottery hype was two weeks ago.

He doesn't play at all.

[BlazersBroncos]

Can we talk about how embarrassing the Ivisic lottery hype was two weeks ago.

He doesn't play at all.

He absolutely should be playing more. No idea why he isnt. I suppose its hard to join a team mid-season after not playing, not generating on court chemistry, etc. But the guy has massive talent.

Still believe he is a lotto pick. Will die on this hill.

[NYPiston]

defense matters. I don't know why people just dismiss its importance and prefer empty stats that don't help teams win games. There are so few great defenders and every single team needs them. With all the rules favoring offense it's more important now than ever to have defenders that can switch 1-5. Guys like Claxton and Allen might not have the offensive stats but they effect winning more than most guys that do, with their defense and the pressure they put on teams with their ability to run the PnR which collapses defenses leaving shooters wide open.

Sarr, like Mobley, are much better prospects and players than Claxton. If Sarr's floor is Claxton he's well worth taking high in the lottery.

I literally said this in my previous post "Could every team use a guy like Claxton? Absolutely, but I'm not taking a guy like that with a high lottery pick"

I agree that defense first players have value and every team can use one but I personally would not take one with a top 10 or especially top 5 pick unless there was some offensive potential to unlock, in particular the ability to hit perimeter shots.
As far as Sarr is concerned, if a team is taking him in the top 5 they're banking on him expanding his offensive game and especially the ability to stretch a defense with the 3.

If he tops out as a Claxton type that would be a disappointment for a top 5 pick IMO but if his floor is Claxton then that's a hell of a prospect. My original reply in this thread was to a poster who compared him to Claxton, not as a worst case scenario but as that being what Sarr is.

[BlazersBroncos]

Top-5 for a Claxton level guy is a bit high but if you end up w/ Nic Claxton in that 6-12 range your doing well. Maybe 25% of guys in that range end up better than Claxton - 25% around the same level and 50% worse. Its a decent return on a 6-12 pick IMO.

[MemphisX]

defense matters. I don't know why people just dismiss its importance and prefer empty stats that don't help teams win games. There are so few great defenders and every single team needs them. With all the rules favoring offense it's more important now than ever to have defenders that can switch 1-5. Guys like Claxton and Allen might not have the offensive stats but they effect winning more than most guys that do, with their defense and the pressure they put on teams with their ability to run the PnR which collapses defenses leaving shooters wide open.

Sarr, like Mobley, are much better prospects and players than Claxton. If Sarr's floor is Claxton he's well worth taking high in the lottery.

I literally said this in my previous post "Could every team use a guy like Claxton? Absolutely, but I'm not taking a guy like that with a high lottery pick"

I agree that defense first players have value and every team can use one but I personally would not take one with a top 10 or especially top 5 pick unless there was some offensive potential to unlock, in particular the ability to hit perimeter shots.
As far as Sarr is concerned, if a team is taking him in the top 5 they're banking on him expanding his offensive game and especially the ability to stretch a defense with the 3.

If he tops out as a Claxton type that would be a disappointment for a top 5 pick IMO but if his floor is Claxton then that's a hell of a prospect. My original reply in this thread was to a poster who compared him to Claxton, not as a worst case scenario but as that being what Sarr is.

This philosophy is why so many teams blow lottery picks. Instead of getting a starter, they get someone who probably can't crack a rotation on a good team.

[Duke4life831]

defense matters. I don't know why people just dismiss its importance and prefer empty stats that don't help teams win games. There are so few great defenders and every single team needs them. With all the rules favoring offense it's more important now than ever to have defenders that can switch 1-5. Guys like Claxton and Allen might not have the offensive stats but they effect winning more than most guys that do, with their defense and the pressure they put on teams with their ability to run the PnR which collapses defenses leaving shooters wide open.

Sarr, like Mobley, are much better prospects and players than Claxton. If Sarr's floor is Claxton he's well worth taking high in the lottery.

I literally said this in my previous post "Could every team use a guy like Claxton? Absolutely, but I'm not taking a guy like that with a high lottery pick"

I agree that defense first players have value and every team can use one but I personally would not take one with a top 10 or especially top 5 pick unless there was some offensive potential to unlock, in particular the ability to hit perimeter shots.
As far as Sarr is concerned, if a team is taking him in the top 5 they're banking on him expanding his offensive game and especially the ability to stretch a defense with the 3.

If he tops out as a Claxton type that would be a disappointment for a top 5 pick IMO but if his floor is Claxton then that's a hell of a prospect. My original reply in this thread was to a poster who compared him to Claxton, not as a worst case scenario but as that being what Sarr is.

This philosophy is why so many teams blow lottery picks. Instead of getting a starter, they get someone who probably can't crack a rotation on a good team.

Sure but on the flip side to this argument, you have plenty of teams spend lotto picks on similar players like this in say Duren and Hayes. While lots of teams later in the draft end up drafting very similar players.

Claxton, Robert Williams, Mitchell Robinson, Jarett Allen, Daniel Gafford and Walker Kessler were all pick 22 or later in the last 5-6 drafts. Good defensive athletic big men can be found later in most drafts.

This is like the RB situation in the NFL draft. The overall difference in impact by RBs is pretty low, which means you can find a RB for cheap late in the draft and many times get 95% of the impact as the higher rated prospects. Dont get me wrong, when there is a freak prospect, then he is worth the early 1st round pick. But if not, we tend not to see those guys go 1st round in the draft anymore in the NFL. And why so many teams are willing to not pay their star RB (not superstar) and let him walk and replace him with a late round pick.

I dont know much about Sarr, but if he is projecting to be one of those really athletic defensive bigs. Then I can see the point NYPiston is making. Is it really worth taking Sarr top 5-10 if there is a solid chance you can find a guy late 1st to early 2nd who might be able to give you 90-95% of the same impact?

[clyde21]

defense matters. I don't know why people just dismiss its importance and prefer empty stats that don't help teams win games. There are so few great defenders and every single team needs them. With all the rules favoring offense it's more important now than ever to have defenders that can switch 1-5. Guys like Claxton and Allen might not have the offensive stats but they effect winning more than most guys that do, with their defense and the pressure they put on teams with their ability to run the PnR which collapses defenses leaving shooters wide open.

Sarr, like Mobley, are much better prospects and players than Claxton. If Sarr's floor is Claxton he's well worth taking high in the lottery.

I literally said this in my previous post "Could every team use a guy like Claxton? Absolutely, but I'm not taking a guy like that with a high lottery pick"

I agree that defense first players have value and every team can use one but I personally would not take one with a top 10 or especially top 5 pick unless there was some offensive potential to unlock, in particular the ability to hit perimeter shots.
As far as Sarr is concerned, if a team is taking him in the top 5 they're banking on him expanding his offensive game and especially the ability to stretch a defense with the 3.

If he tops out as a Claxton type that would be a disappointment for a top 5 pick IMO but if his floor is Claxton then that's a hell of a prospect. My original reply in this thread was to a poster who compared him to Claxton, not as a worst case scenario but as that being what Sarr is.

This philosophy is why so many teams blow lottery picks. Instead of getting a starter, they get someone who probably can't crack a rotation on a good team.

b/c if you're a lotto team you need to be aiming for needle movers. Claxton is a nice player and can be a long term starter but what is he doing for Brooklyn now? he's more valuable to them as a trade asset they can parlay into another lotto pick where they'll want a needle mover.

[NYPiston]

This philosophy is why so many teams blow lottery picks. Instead of getting a starter, they get someone who probably can't crack a rotation on a good team.

You're aiming for upside with a top 5 pick, a potential franchise player or at least a #2 option on a good team. Yes, there's also the risk of a prospect not panning out if you're shooting for upside but you're not drafting in the top 5 hoping to get the next Nic Claxton at least not in a good draft. You can get guys like Claxton in the mid to late 1st round.

[JustBuzzin]

So who's the #1 pick?

Seems like nobody has been the clear cut #1 prospect.

[MemphisX]

So who's the #1 pick?

Seems like nobody has been the clear cut #1 prospect.

For me. Dillingham.

[JustBuzzin]

So who's the #1 pick?

Seems like nobody has been the clear cut #1 prospect.

For me. Dillingham.

Thoughts on Cody Williams?

[HadAnEffectHere]

Cody Williams is the #1 prospect, but he has the unfortunate combo of:

-Needs to put on a lot of weight
-Not explosive
-Not quick
-Only a functional handle as of now
-Probably just a mediocre shooter

He's scoring solely because he's so tall and can dribble and can make the easy reads... But that can get you pretty far.

His rebound/block/steal numbers are just extremely bad for someone with his size and length and suggest he doesn't have much athleticism... And then you watch and yeah, he's just really slow.

He has star upside if he gets a lot more athletic after putting on the weight like Giannis and Markkanen and some others did. If he loses athleticism after putting on the weight, he may never be a relevant starter in the league.