Why did Jokic drop all the way to the 2nd round?

[ForeverTFC]

It has been shown time and time again analysts and scouts vastly overrate measurables and athleticism and vastly underrate basketball IQ, intangibles and feel for the game when assessing players.

That's why you see college bench sophomores that don't produce anything even at NCAA level regularly get drafted in the lottery and bust. Meanwhile guys that can't jump out of the gym and don't have plus hand width/wing span measurements but actually know how to play the game at a high level (Brunson, Jokic) get drafted in the second round and go on to be great players.

Jokic(besides many others)is the exact reason why scouts should have "game feel" "bball IQ" "Court awareness", whatever you want to call it, at the top of their list.

Not athleticism. When you get both combined you get players like LeBron/Kobe/MJ/KD, but it has become painfully obvious, that "bball IQ" should be A#1 when drafting.

I would bet that the success rate on raw prospects with top percentile physical attributes is higher than the success rate on high IQ guys without the physical gifts. The reason you can name Jokic and Brunson in the second archetype is because they are outliers. Raw top percentile athletes who become good NBA players are much more prevalent. The league has been getting taller, faster, and bigger and it's coinciding with the highest talent level we've ever seen in the sport. This isn't an accident.

Given this, we draft a lot more of the raw athletes and a lot less of the "plays the right way" guys. So of course there will be more busts amongst the first group and studies erroneously attribute that to the ability of scouts and analysts. If you took the top 50 athletes and the top 50 "IQ" guys every year, I'd bet you the athletes perform better over the long term.

[zeebneeb]

It has been shown time and time again analysts and scouts vastly overrate measurables and athleticism and vastly underrate basketball IQ, intangibles and feel for the game when assessing players.

That's why you see college bench sophomores that don't produce anything even at NCAA level regularly get drafted in the lottery and bust. Meanwhile guys that can't jump out of the gym and don't have plus hand width/wing span measurements but actually know how to play the game at a high level (Brunson, Jokic) get drafted in the second round and go on to be great players.

Jokic(besides many others)is the exact reason why scouts should have "game feel" "bball IQ" "Court awareness", whatever you want to call it, at the top of their list.

Not athleticism. When you get both combined you get players like LeBron/Kobe/MJ/KD, but it has become painfully obvious, that "bball IQ" should be A#1 when drafting.

I would bet that the success rate on raw prospects with top percentile physical attributes is higher than the success rate on high IQ guys without the physical gifts. The reason you can name Jokic and Brunson in the second archetype is because they are outliers. Raw top percentile athletes who become good NBA players are much more prevalent. The league has been getting taller, faster, and bigger and it's coinciding with the highest talent level we've ever seen in the sport. This isn't an accident.

Given this, we draft a lot more of the raw athletes and a lot less of the "plays the right way" guys. So of course there will be more busts amongst the first group and studies erroneously attribute that to the ability of scouts and analysts. If you took the top 50 athletes and the top 50 "IQ" guys every year, I'd bet you the athletes perform better over the long term.

Well, thats the argument. We don't know because the top picks are always "athletic freaks."

The only way to actually get some kind of numbers, is to go back, review every draft for snippets trying to find the "high bball IQ" guys.

The priority for a long damn time has been athleticism, period.

Another good example is Billups. He was scuttled pretty quick out of Boston, Minnesota, amd Denver, before Detroit gave him the reigns. Billups was never seen as an athletic freak, but he sees the game well, and has that bball IQ.

I also would like to see charts on this, but going about it, to collect that data seems really difficult.

[og15]

It has been shown time and time again analysts and scouts vastly overrate measurables and athleticism and vastly underrate basketball IQ, intangibles and feel for the game when assessing players.

That's why you see college bench sophomores that don't produce anything even at NCAA level regularly get drafted in the lottery and bust. Meanwhile guys that can't jump out of the gym and don't have plus hand width/wing span measurements but actually know how to play the game at a high level (Brunson, Jokic) get drafted in the second round and go on to be great players.

Jokic(besides many others)is the exact reason why scouts should have "game feel" "bball IQ" "Court awareness", whatever you want to call it, at the top of their list.

Not athleticism. When you get both combined you get players like LeBron/Kobe/MJ/KD, but it has become painfully obvious, that "bball IQ" should be A#1 when drafting.

I would bet that the success rate on raw prospects with top percentile physical attributes is higher than the success rate on high IQ guys without the physical gifts. The reason you can name Jokic and Brunson in the second archetype is because they are outliers. Raw top percentile athletes who become good NBA players are much more prevalent. The league has been getting taller, faster, and bigger and it's coinciding with the highest talent level we've ever seen in the sport. This isn't an accident.

Given this, we draft a lot more of the raw athletes and a lot less of the "plays the right way" guys. So of course there will be more busts amongst the first group and studies erroneously attribute that to the ability of scouts and analysts. If you took the top 50 athletes and the top 50 "IQ" guys every year, I'd bet you the athletes perform better over the long term.

I think sometimes we get a bit unfair with scouts and with drafting as if they aren't thinking of these things. The reality is that we just don't know how certain things will project.

The draft really is a crapshoot outside of the guys who show a lot of the tools and ability early. Many other guys, it's just doing a best guess.

There are definitely areas teams can improve, some of them, maybe agents also will try and protect guys draft stock and not let them get overanalyzed.

But a guy like Kennard didn't go in the lottery because of speed, quickness and jumping ability, but shooting, team play and IQ. He went over Mitchell and Bam who had better athletic tools for sure.

The Jokic draft had Stauskas go 8th and McDermott go 11th. DeAndre Jordan had height and athleticism and went in the 2nd round due to lack of skill and low basketball feel.

Jerami Grant had physical tools but went in the 2nd round due to lower skill. So it's kind of all over the place and part of that is also just what teams have to judge before players are drafted.

So I don't think we should make it seem like scouts and coaches and teams aren't looking at skill, IQ, etc, but definitely the ones who are the outliers will be remembered and we'll forget all the guys whose lack of athletic ability instead prevented them from being more than teams thought they could.

[JonFromVA]

It has been shown time and time again analysts and scouts vastly overrate measurables and athleticism and vastly underrate basketball IQ, intangibles and feel for the game when assessing players.

That's why you see college bench sophomores that don't produce anything even at NCAA level regularly get drafted in the lottery and bust. Meanwhile guys that can't jump out of the gym and don't have plus hand width/wing span measurements but actually know how to play the game at a high level (Brunson, Jokic) get drafted in the second round and go on to be great players.

Jokic(besides many others)is the exact reason why scouts should have "game feel" "bball IQ" "Court awareness", whatever you want to call it, at the top of their list.

Not athleticism. When you get both combined you get players like LeBron/Kobe/MJ/KD, but it has become painfully obvious, that "bball IQ" should be A#1 when drafting.

I would bet that the success rate on raw prospects with top percentile physical attributes is higher than the success rate on high IQ guys without the physical gifts. The reason you can name Jokic and Brunson in the second archetype is because they are outliers. Raw top percentile athletes who become good NBA players are much more prevalent. The league has been getting taller, faster, and bigger and it's coinciding with the highest talent level we've ever seen in the sport. This isn't an accident.

Given this, we draft a lot more of the raw athletes and a lot less of the "plays the right way" guys. So of course there will be more busts amongst the first group and studies erroneously attribute that to the ability of scouts and analysts. If you took the top 50 athletes and the top 50 "IQ" guys every year, I'd bet you the athletes perform better over the long term.

You also have to be careful how you look at BBIQ because it's not just knowledge of the game, it's really about the speed at which the player can process basketball information and react to it. It gets in to other aspects like the ability to read a specific opponent and in to court vision or the ability to read the entire floor.

We may call that an intangible, but we could devise ways to measure it.

[zero rings]

It has been shown time and time again analysts and scouts vastly overrate measurables and athleticism and vastly underrate basketball IQ, intangibles and feel for the game when assessing players.

That's why you see college bench sophomores that don't produce anything even at NCAA level regularly get drafted in the lottery and bust. Meanwhile guys that can't jump out of the gym and don't have plus hand width/wing span measurements but actually know how to play the game at a high level (Brunson, Jokic) get drafted in the second round and go on to be great players.

Jokic(besides many others)is the exact reason why scouts should have "game feel" "bball IQ" "Court awareness", whatever you want to call it, at the top of their list.

Not athleticism. When you get both combined you get players like LeBron/Kobe/MJ/KD, but it has become painfully obvious, that "bball IQ" should be A#1 when drafting.

I would bet that the success rate on raw prospects with top percentile physical attributes is higher than the success rate on high IQ guys without the physical gifts. The reason you can name Jokic and Brunson in the second archetype is because they are outliers. Raw top percentile athletes who become good NBA players are much more prevalent. The league has been getting taller, faster, and bigger and it's coinciding with the highest talent level we've ever seen in the sport. This isn't an accident.

Given this, we draft a lot more of the raw athletes and a lot less of the "plays the right way" guys. So of course there will be more busts amongst the first group and studies erroneously attribute that to the ability of scouts and analysts. If you took the top 50 athletes and the top 50 "IQ" guys every year, I'd bet you the athletes perform better over the long term.

What about high IQ guys who dominate at their respective levels? Brunson was an uber efficient guard in college and won two national championships. Jokic was the best player in a professional league as an 18 year old. Luka was the best player in an even better league at the same age.

I understand why teams prioritize athleticism. It just gets ridiculous when they pass up on highly skilled and productive players for guys who can jump really high but can't actually play.

NBA scouts seem to think that height, wingspan, and vertical leap are the only components of natural talent, and everything else can be taught. Clearly that is not the case.

[DCasey91]

He wasn’t even on the Euro radar initially. Mind you early Jokic is not the one we see now. Even his first All Star appearance is chalk and cheese to this one.

It’s funny to me their two best players, skill weren’t the question it was the conditioning aspect (Murray actually lost some puppy fat after the draft).

I mean Green, Gasol 2nd rounders who came from a way back and Pau was always the talent, Kawhi/Giannis as 1st rounders were considered projects.

Can measure everything besides the most important part and that’s what’s between the ears.

[MyTake_1]

Evaluating talent based just on vertical and athleticism is silly, that said, no way you can identify the next Jokic, no way in hell.

Denver won a jackpot, that boy multiplied the value of the franchise by a factor of 5.

[og15]

Evaluating talent based just on vertical and athleticism is silly, that said, no way you can identify the next Jokic, no way in hell.

Denver won a jackpot, that boy multiplied the value of the franchise by a factor of 5.

And realistically no one actually does that, tons of super athletic guys who go in the second round. Was Derrick Jones Jr even drafted for example?

[DCasey91]

Filip Petrusev - Nikola Jokic.

This is why drafts will never be an exact science. Mind you one wasn’t in shape …

One is a Multiple MVP championship unbelievable player

The other can’t get on a list for a time

Scouts have a hard job even on supposedly can’t miss prospects

Fwiw I do wholeheartedly believe Filip can play NBA lol.

For every diamond in the rough there’s what 3 that don’t make it and for every diamond it’s actually a brick

Watson I like and thought he needed another year.

My philosophy this will only get worse when high schoolers come in because the domestic development system is substandard.

[luciano-davidwesley]

It has been shown time and time again analysts and scouts vastly overrate measurables and athleticism and vastly underrate basketball IQ, intangibles and feel for the game when assessing players.

That's why you see college bench sophomores that don't produce anything even at NCAA level regularly get drafted in the lottery and bust. Meanwhile guys that can't jump out of the gym and don't have plus hand width/wing span measurements but actually know how to play the game at a high level (Brunson, Jokic) get drafted in the second round and go on to be great players.

Jokic(besides many others)is the exact reason why scouts should have "game feel" "bball IQ" "Court awareness", whatever you want to call it, at the top of their list.

Not athleticism. When you get both combined you get players like LeBron/Kobe/MJ/KD, but it has become painfully obvious, that "bball IQ" should be A#1 when drafting.

I would bet that the success rate on raw prospects with top percentile physical attributes is higher than the success rate on high IQ guys without the physical gifts. The reason you can name Jokic and Brunson in the second archetype is because they are outliers. Raw top percentile athletes who become good NBA players are much more prevalent. The league has been getting taller, faster, and bigger and it's coinciding with the highest talent level we've ever seen in the sport. This isn't an accident.

Given this, we draft a lot more of the raw athletes and a lot less of the "plays the right way" guys. So of course there will be more busts amongst the first group and studies erroneously attribute that to the ability of scouts and analysts. If you took the top 50 athletes and the top 50 "IQ" guys every year, I'd bet you the athletes perform better over the long term.

Still disagree with this. Most of the top picks have a combination of both high BBall IQ/intangibles and athletic prowess.

Some teams though reach, generally in the mid lottery plus for the guys that don't have a clue how to play but are similar athletic freaks.

I also forgot to mention this earlier but actual production as a player is also massively underappreciated by scouts. I remember everyone was super sceptical of Sengun because he was 6'9 and didn't move or jump like a gazelle despite insane production at 18-19 years old in the Adriatic League. Yet some tall, athletic guy that can barely get off the bench in college as a sophomore gets a pass mark for "not getting a chance to play", because his coach clearly hates putting his best players on the court.

Watch Brandin Podziemski last year. You could see he was a crafty player and could create both separation and also contact to draw fouls from defenders depending on the situation, to his advantage. He was clearly a smart player but not a plus athlete or huge with below average wingspan for his size. He was "reached" for at 19 by the Warriors in the late first but was mocked as an early-mid second rounder in most mocks.

He's tearing it up as a rookie so far because he has a legitimate basketball brain. He's the anti-Kai Jones. 6'11 with a plus wingspan and springs in his shoes but take him away from the dunkers spot and he is a hilariously clueless clown on the court (and off it too but that's another story).

Very few other teams would have picked Podziemski around the late first IMO if he was still available.

[ForeverTFC]

It has been shown time and time again analysts and scouts vastly overrate measurables and athleticism and vastly underrate basketball IQ, intangibles and feel for the game when assessing players.

That's why you see college bench sophomores that don't produce anything even at NCAA level regularly get drafted in the lottery and bust. Meanwhile guys that can't jump out of the gym and don't have plus hand width/wing span measurements but actually know how to play the game at a high level (Brunson, Jokic) get drafted in the second round and go on to be great players.

Jokic(besides many others)is the exact reason why scouts should have "game feel" "bball IQ" "Court awareness", whatever you want to call it, at the top of their list.

Not athleticism. When you get both combined you get players like LeBron/Kobe/MJ/KD, but it has become painfully obvious, that "bball IQ" should be A#1 when drafting.

I would bet that the success rate on raw prospects with top percentile physical attributes is higher than the success rate on high IQ guys without the physical gifts. The reason you can name Jokic and Brunson in the second archetype is because they are outliers. Raw top percentile athletes who become good NBA players are much more prevalent. The league has been getting taller, faster, and bigger and it's coinciding with the highest talent level we've ever seen in the sport. This isn't an accident.

Given this, we draft a lot more of the raw athletes and a lot less of the "plays the right way" guys. So of course there will be more busts amongst the first group and studies erroneously attribute that to the ability of scouts and analysts. If you took the top 50 athletes and the top 50 "IQ" guys every year, I'd bet you the athletes perform better over the long term.

Still disagree with this. Most of the top picks have a combination of both high BBall IQ/intangibles and athletic prowess.

Some teams though reach, generally in the mid lottery plus for the guys that don't have a clue how to play but are similar athletic freaks.

Watch Brandin Podziemski last year. You could see he was a crafty player and could create both separation and also contact to draw fouls from defenders depending on the situation, to his advantage. He was clearly a smart player but not a plus athlete or huge with below average wingspan for his size. He was "reached" for at 19 by the Warriors in the late first but was mocked as an early second rounder in most mocks.

He's tearing it up as a rookie so far because he has a legitimate basketball brain. He's the anti-Kai Jones. 6'11 with a plus wingspan and springs in his shoes but take him away from the dunkers spot and he is a hilariously clueless clown on the court (and off it too but that's another story).

Very few teams would have picked him around there IMO if he was still available.

But you're comparing hits with busts. Should CJ McCollum have been drafted ahead of Giannis? One had the physical gifts, the other the "IQ" as you call it. Even taking your Podz example, are you positive that he will be better than Whitmore - where IQ and attitude were the issues - who the Warriors passed on?

Additionally, I think skills can be developed, pattern recognition and processing speed can be tuned, but height and speed is what it is. It's simply the one trait you can't teach and it's an undeniable fact that as the league has become more athletic, it's talent level has risen.

[EmpireFalls]

It has been shown time and time again analysts and scouts vastly overrate measurables and athleticism and vastly underrate basketball IQ, intangibles and feel for the game when assessing players.

That's why you see college bench sophomores that don't produce anything even at NCAA level regularly get drafted in the lottery and bust. Meanwhile guys that can't jump out of the gym and don't have plus hand width/wing span measurements but actually know how to play the game at a high level (Brunson, Jokic) get drafted in the second round and go on to be great players.

Jokic(besides many others)is the exact reason why scouts should have "game feel" "bball IQ" "Court awareness", whatever you want to call it, at the top of their list.

Not athleticism. When you get both combined you get players like LeBron/Kobe/MJ/KD, but it has become painfully obvious, that "bball IQ" should be A#1 when drafting.

I would bet that the success rate on raw prospects with top percentile physical attributes is higher than the success rate on high IQ guys without the physical gifts. The reason you can name Jokic and Brunson in the second archetype is because they are outliers. Raw top percentile athletes who become good NBA players are much more prevalent. The league has been getting taller, faster, and bigger and it's coinciding with the highest talent level we've ever seen in the sport. This isn't an accident.

Given this, we draft a lot more of the raw athletes and a lot less of the "plays the right way" guys. So of course there will be more busts amongst the first group and studies erroneously attribute that to the ability of scouts and analysts. If you took the top 50 athletes and the top 50 "IQ" guys every year, I'd bet you the athletes perform better over the long term.

I think sometimes we get a bit unfair with scouts and with drafting as if they aren't thinking of these things. The reality is that we just don't know how certain things will project.

The draft really is a crapshoot outside of the guys who show a lot of the tools and ability early. Many other guys, it's just doing a best guess.

There are definitely areas teams can improve, some of them, maybe agents also will try and protect guys draft stock and not let them get overanalyzed.

But a guy like Kennard didn't go in the lottery because of speed, quickness and jumping ability, but shooting, team play and IQ. He went over Mitchell and Bam who had better athletic tools for sure.

The Jokic draft had Stauskas go 8th and McDermott go 11th. DeAndre Jordan had height and athleticism and went in the 2nd round due to lack of skill and low basketball feel.

Jerami Grant had physical tools but went in the 2nd round due to lower skill. So it's kind of all over the place and part of that is also just what teams have to judge before players are drafted.

So I don't think we should make it seem like scouts and coaches and teams aren't looking at skill, IQ, etc, but definitely the ones who are the outliers will be remembered and we'll forget all the guys whose lack of athletic ability instead prevented them from being more than teams thought they could.

Incredible post. GG Jackson is another where he had AWFUL “BBIQ and intangibles” at SC but he’s just so athletic and good at creating space that he’s looking like one of the best players in the class already.

Frank Kaminsky was one of those smart guys who just knows how to play the game and he’s honestly one of the worst bigs Charlotte has ever had. We took him over guys with traits like Myles Turner and Devin Booker and look how that worked out.

Every single time people think they have the draft figured out I can prove to them they’re wrong. No one is a draft savant without the benefit of hindsight.

[zero rings]

I would bet that the success rate on raw prospects with top percentile physical attributes is higher than the success rate on high IQ guys without the physical gifts. The reason you can name Jokic and Brunson in the second archetype is because they are outliers. Raw top percentile athletes who become good NBA players are much more prevalent. The league has been getting taller, faster, and bigger and it's coinciding with the highest talent level we've ever seen in the sport. This isn't an accident.

Given this, we draft a lot more of the raw athletes and a lot less of the "plays the right way" guys. So of course there will be more busts amongst the first group and studies erroneously attribute that to the ability of scouts and analysts. If you took the top 50 athletes and the top 50 "IQ" guys every year, I'd bet you the athletes perform better over the long term.

Still disagree with this. Most of the top picks have a combination of both high BBall IQ/intangibles and athletic prowess.

Some teams though reach, generally in the mid lottery plus for the guys that don't have a clue how to play but are similar athletic freaks.

Watch Brandin Podziemski last year. You could see he was a crafty player and could create both separation and also contact to draw fouls from defenders depending on the situation, to his advantage. He was clearly a smart player but not a plus athlete or huge with below average wingspan for his size. He was "reached" for at 19 by the Warriors in the late first but was mocked as an early second rounder in most mocks.

He's tearing it up as a rookie so far because he has a legitimate basketball brain. He's the anti-Kai Jones. 6'11 with a plus wingspan and springs in his shoes but take him away from the dunkers spot and he is a hilariously clueless clown on the court (and off it too but that's another story).

Very few teams would have picked him around there IMO if he was still available.

But you're comparing hits with busts. Should CJ McCollum have been drafted ahead of Giannis? One had the physical gifts, the other the "IQ" as you call it. Even taking your Podz example, are you positive that he will be better than Whitmore - where IQ and attitude were the issues - who the Warriors passed on?

Additionally, I think skills can be developed, pattern recognition and processing speed can be tuned, but height and speed is what it is. It's simply the one trait you can't teach and it's an undeniable fact that as the league has become more athletic, it's talent level has risen.

You can't teach just anyone to pass like Jokic, shoot like Curry, or dribble like Kyrie. Those are natural gifts. I promise you these guys were supremely skilled even in the pee-wee league.

Here's a video of Luka doing everything he does right now, but as a 12 year old.

Watch on YouTube

[ForeverTFC]

Still disagree with this. Most of the top picks have a combination of both high BBall IQ/intangibles and athletic prowess.

Some teams though reach, generally in the mid lottery plus for the guys that don't have a clue how to play but are similar athletic freaks.

Watch Brandin Podziemski last year. You could see he was a crafty player and could create both separation and also contact to draw fouls from defenders depending on the situation, to his advantage. He was clearly a smart player but not a plus athlete or huge with below average wingspan for his size. He was "reached" for at 19 by the Warriors in the late first but was mocked as an early second rounder in most mocks.

He's tearing it up as a rookie so far because he has a legitimate basketball brain. He's the anti-Kai Jones. 6'11 with a plus wingspan and springs in his shoes but take him away from the dunkers spot and he is a hilariously clueless clown on the court (and off it too but that's another story).

Very few teams would have picked him around there IMO if he was still available.

But you're comparing hits with busts. Should CJ McCollum have been drafted ahead of Giannis? One had the physical gifts, the other the "IQ" as you call it. Even taking your Podz example, are you positive that he will be better than Whitmore - where IQ and attitude were the issues - who the Warriors passed on?

Additionally, I think skills can be developed, pattern recognition and processing speed can be tuned, but height and speed is what it is. It's simply the one trait you can't teach and it's an undeniable fact that as the league has become more athletic, it's talent level has risen.

You can't teach just anyone to pass like Jokic, shoot like Curry, or dribble like Kyrie. Those are natural gifts. I promise you these guys were supremely skilled even in the pee-wee league.

Here's a video of Luka doing everything he does right now, but as a 12 year old.

Watch on YouTube

I never made the claim that you can teach someone to shoot like Curry or pass like Jokic. Just that you can teach them to shoot better and pass better than their own current baseline. You can't teach anyone to be taller. That's the difference.

[DaPessimist]

Where does he go if he comes out a year later? Top 20?

[Blazing_royale]

because we judge the book by it's cover

[zero rings]

But you're comparing hits with busts. Should CJ McCollum have been drafted ahead of Giannis? One had the physical gifts, the other the "IQ" as you call it. Even taking your Podz example, are you positive that he will be better than Whitmore - where IQ and attitude were the issues - who the Warriors passed on?

Additionally, I think skills can be developed, pattern recognition and processing speed can be tuned, but height and speed is what it is. It's simply the one trait you can't teach and it's an undeniable fact that as the league has become more athletic, it's talent level has risen.

You can't teach just anyone to pass like Jokic, shoot like Curry, or dribble like Kyrie. Those are natural gifts. I promise you these guys were supremely skilled even in the pee-wee league.

Here's a video of Luka doing everything he does right now, but as a 12 year old.

Watch on YouTube

I never made the claim that you can teach someone to shoot like Curry or pass like Jokic. Just that you can teach them to shoot better and pass better than their own current baseline. You can't teach anyone to be taller. That's the difference.

You can teach them up to a point, but everyone has their natural skill ceiling. How many coaches and professional trainers over the years have tried to get guys like Shaq and Dwight Howard to make free throws? It never happens, and you can't say it's because of lack of effort.

Things like shooting, passing, and ball handling are far more innate than most people think. If a guy is playing college ball and shows no aptitude for any of these skills, odds are he never will.

[Optimus_Steel]

Everyone has pretty said why but I think one last thing overlooked it’s his personality. He comes across as that chubby, shy kid that keeps to himself and it probably took him a long time to realize how skilled he really was and develop the confidence needed to become a top player.

[picko]

Him being stashed for a year after being drafted was something I either didn't know or had completely forgotten about. I remember watching his Summer League debut - years after the fact - and most of what Jokic currently is was already evident. There were great passes - many of which went unrewarded because Summer League was garbage - and his excellent touch. I was left wondering how recruiters didn't see that but it makes sense when he was drafted more than a year before his Summer League debut.

[disoblige]

Was he not expected to be good? and was a rare one that actually kept improving after being drafted? or what. Anyone have the details, as to why he was not like a top 10 pick.

Because noone thought his game would translate into the NBA game including himself. He was slow, out of shape and can't jump. But his IQ, rebounding, passing and shooting was able to overcome his deficiencies.