2025 Draft Thread

[AFM]

You guys wanna know who has a higher BPM and TS% than both Johnson and Carrington?

[tontoz]

You guys wanna know who has a higher BPM and TS% than both Johnson and Carrington?

Let me guess.

D D Q

[AFM]

You guys wanna know who has a higher BPM and TS% than both Johnson and Carrington?

Let me guess.

D D Q

I don't know what DDQ means but I will say that the player I'm talking about has pockets fatter than Dairy Queen, and he'll turn the low post to a scary scene. #DDQ

[nate33]

Reminder that Queen is 20.5 years old, a full 2 years older than Cooper Flagg. Queen is 1.6 years older than Carrington when he was drafted, and 1.3 years older than Sarr when he was drafted. Heck, he is only 4 months younger than Bilal Coulibaly right now, and Bilal is going into his 3rd season as a pro.

And if we're going to compare Queen to Sengun, let's do that. Here are their respective per 36 numbers. Sengun was playing against grown ass men overseas, and he was 1.6 years younger than Queen while doing it:

[willbcocks]

Cherrypicking Nate's analysis, Dairy Queen is a defensive Stud with DRTG of 92.4. Maybe he challenges Flagg for #1?

[AFM]

Why's Queen's DRTG so low? I heard he was a complete turnstyle, BBQ chicken as one poster put it.

[tontoz]

Why's Queen's DRTG so low? I heard he was a complete turnstyle, BBQ chicken as one poster put it.

DRTG for a player is a completely different stat compared to DRTG for a team. Go look at the formula some time. It is a mess. I havent paid attention to it in years.

[nate33]

If you want to find honest comparisons to Queen, you should look for 20-year-old guys who are roughly 6'-10" and could score in the paint on high usage and solid efficiency, but were not notable as rim protectors. After a cursory scan through the Tankathon archives, I've put together the following guys:



Of this group, Jalen Smith was easily a more productive college player and went on to be an NBA journeyman. Reggie Perry's numbers are about as close to identical as Queen's as one could hope to find, and the guy was drafted 57th, rode the bench for 2 years and was cut.

Filipkowski was statistically just a bit worse than Queen in college. Interestingly, he was actually modestly productive as a rookie for a tanking Utah team, but had terrible +/- numbers and a negative on/off rating on a team that played a lot of garbage time. It's a little too soon to tell whether he will pan out as a useful pro, but I don't think anyone is expecting him to be a top tier starter worthy of a top 6 pick.

[nate33]

Why's Queen's DRTG so low? I heard he was a complete turnstyle, BBQ chicken as one poster put it.

DRTG for a player is a completely different stat compared to DRTG for a team. Go look at the formula some time. It is a mess. I havent paid attention to it in years.

Yeah, individual DRtg is basically team DRtg when the player is on the court, with a little extra weighting if the player gets a lot defensive boards. Basically, you will have an awesome defensive rating if you get defensive boards and play alongside teammates who defend well. You could suck on defense and it wouldn't matter.

For reference, take a look at Georges Niang's DRtg over his career. Notice how his DRtg was quite good when he played for Utah alongside Gobert, and was terrible otherwise:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/n/niangge01.html

[Dat2U]

The concerns for Johnson shouldn't just be waved off. He only shot 44.9% on 2 point fg's. Do we expect that to get better or worse in the NBA? He only averaged 2.7 assists. It's very tough to be a ball dominant guard/wing if you're not passing the ball. The 3-point shot is elite and the wingspan is good but is he going to be an 3 and D guy in the NBA or is he a guy that will be an efficient 3 level scorer? In the NBA Johnson will have to deal with bigger, longer, stronger and more athletic defenders. How good is his handle? Look at the playoffs. Look at how physical they are letting them play. If this trend continues I think teams might have to really rethink their love for skinny/small players.

I don’t worry too much about efficiency #s of top college players, especially guards like Johnson who are the focal points of their team’s offense.

They typically take more shots—and more contested shots— and pass less than you would ideally want them to. But there’s a good chance that will change at the next level.

It says something that the freshman Johnson is the top rated talent in college bball’s best conference.

With a top 6 pick, you take the BPA regardless of position.

Who's to say Tre Johnson won't be a more effective rookie than Dylan Harper?

Dylan is a walking paint touch. Tre can't turn the corner to get all the way to the rim. The difference between the two is Tre is almost exclusively perimeter oriented.

[doclinkin]

I am not interested in Maluach because i dont think he is that good. His stock and dreb numbers were low for his size. He wasn't playing many minutes so he didn't have to worry about fatigue or foul trouble. I don't see anything special about him other than size, and he plays smaller than his size. I dont see a high motor guy and motor is a big issue for centers.

Whereas I saw a kid who was thinking and trying to fit in instead of playing instinctively. His Africa play looked entirely different where he averaged 19 pts 14 boards & 3 blocks a game (and .6 steals) playing 30 minutes a game as the number one option against grown men. And even better at the NBA Academy where he also shot .375 from 3pt land.

https://basketball.realgm.com/player/Khaman-Maluach/International/185649/2024

At Duke he was no longer the star, deferring to the consensus best player in the country. The reason you draft him is the combination of size and youth. Potential over production. Same reason we drafted Bilal.

Draft evaluators tend to view the guy they see today and not where they might develop. That was a 17 year old kid we saw shooting over the top of Anthony Davis and Embiid in the Olympics last summer. For those on the DDQ train, I'd say ask yourself how you think Derik Queen might have performed in the Olympics at age 17, a few years ago. He looks better than Maluach right now, but he has a lot more experience under his belt than the kid who had never touched a basketball until 2019.

[Dat2U]

If you want to find honest comparisons to Queen, you should look for 20-year-old guys who are roughly 6'-10" and could score in the paint on high usage and solid efficiency, but were not notable as rim protectors. After a cursory scan through the Tankathon archives, I've put together the following guys:



Of this group, Jalen Smith was easily a more productive college player and went on to be an NBA journeyman. Reggie Perry's numbers are about as close to identical as Queen's as one could hope to find, and the guy was drafted 57th, rode the bench for 2 years and was cut.

Filipkowski was statistically just a bit worse than Queen in college. Interestingly, he was actually modestly productive as a rookie for a tanking Utah team, but had terrible +/- numbers and a negative on/off rating on a team that played a lot of garbage time. It's a little too soon to tell whether he will pan out as a useful pro, but I don't think anyone is expecting him to be a top tier starter worthy of a top 6 pick.

None of those guys have Queen's skillset. I think even I underestimated Queen's ball skills. He is literally a Wizard with the ball, his handle is tight and he can use it to manipulate defenders and create driving lanes even when they don't appear there. His body control is special for a 260 lbs. He's not twitchy but he's smooth, can decel and knows angles. I buy the shot coming along. His hands are elite and useful defensively.

I'm starting to buy in.

[prime1time]

I don't think Johnson was better than Bub as a freshman and I don't think Johnson is better than Bub right now.

Bub went 14 in a weak draft. Tre is projected 4-6 in a much stronger draft.

Tre was the leading scorer in the strongest conference in history as a freshman. His BPM was double Bub's. He is clearly a better prospect than Bub.

If is funny how primtime talks about Tre being inefficient given that he had a higher TS than Bub on greater volume against tougher competition.

It's impressive that he puts up so many points, but the how he does it really matters to me. I love that he can bomb threes but bombing threes doesn't make you a lead guard. The ability to score efficiently at all three levels does. As the post I quoted shows, Bub's season was much more nuanced than general stats say. And Bub showed the ability, not just to score but to play make. Meanwhile Tre Johnson has not shown the ability to playmake or the ability to score at all 3 levels. I believed in Bub's 3-point shot coming out of college so I had Bub ranked higher than when he was drafted.

This was my comments after we drafted Bub

I get the comparison but personally I don't like the comp. Quickley struggled his freshman year. Bub, on the other hand, took over a team from day one. Now we can say that Pitt is less talented than Kentucky but we should also be clear about what Bub achieved. No one projected him to come in and dominate. I was watching an interview where he said that he learned how to run PnR's just off of watching tape of other players during the season because it's something that he's never had to do. Also a couple years ago Bub was only 5'8.

So Bub starts off hot, cools down in the middle of the season and then takes off at the end of the season. This is key to understand my perspective because it taps into the question of what are we getting from this player. The first 5 games of the season Bub came out on fire. A true shooting percentage of 66.6%, 17.2 ppg, 6.4 ast and 5.2 rbs. This is impressive for any freshman but we do have to acknowledge the competition he was playing against.

For the next 23 games Bub is more down than up. He puts up a TS% of 47.4%, 12 ppg, 24.6% from 3, 3.7 ast and 5.3 rbs. These games came against the teeth of the schedule. It's safe to assume that Bub was near the top of opponents game plan and he was also playing good ACC competition on a team that hasn't had a player drafted in the first round since Steven Adams in 2014. All of this to say that if Bub doesn't finish the season strong we probably aren't drafting him. But he does finish the season strong.

His last 6 games Bub puts up a TS% of 62.4%, 19 ppg, 50% from 3 on 7 3's a game, 5.2 rbs and 3.8 ast. It's hard to understate just how impressive this stretch is. Pitt is a bubble team. They are giving everything they have to try to make the tourney. The coach has decided that the best way for the team to win is to run the offense through Bub. What we see in games is one thing. But to earn the complete and total trust of the coach is another.

[tontoz]

It's impressive that he puts up so many points, but the how he does it really matters to me. I love that he can bomb threes but bombing threes doesn't make you a lead guard. The ability to score efficiently at all three levels does. As the post I quoted shows, Bub's season was much more nuanced than general stats say. And Bub showed the ability, not just to score but to play make. Meanwhile Tre Johnson has not shown the ability to playmake or the ability to score at all 3 levels. I believed in Bub's 3-point shot coming out of college so I had Bub ranked higher than when he was drafted.

How many Texas games did you watch? I would guess not many if you are saying Tre lacks playmaking. I posted a no ceilings vid on here which highlited his playmaking skill but his teammates frequently blew the shots. Posting it again here.

I don't remember you posting about Tre at all during the season. I was posting about him throughout the season. Time and again Tre came up big in clutch time vs top teams.

Speaking of 3 level scoring let's not pretend that Bub showed that in college. He scored well from mid-range and that was it.

Competition in the ACC wasn't nearly as strong as the SEC this year.

Watch on YouTube

[prime1time]

I don't think Johnson was better than Bub as a freshman and I don't think Johnson is better than Bub right now.

Bub went 14 in a weak draft. Tre is projected 4-6 in a much stronger draft.

Tre was the leading scorer in the strongest conference in history as a freshman. His BPM was double Bub's. He is clearly a better prospect than Bub.

If is funny how primtime talks about Tre being inefficient given that he had a higher TS than Bub on greater volume against tougher competition.

It's impressive that he puts up so many points, but the how he does it really matters to me. I love that he can bomb threes but bombing threes doesn't make you a lead guard. The ability to score efficiently at all three levels does. As the post I quoted shows, Bub's season was much more nuanced than general stats say. And Bub showed the ability, not just to score but to play make. Meanwhile Tre Johnson has not shown the ability to playmake or the ability to score at all 3 levels. I believed in Bub's 3-point shot coming out of college so I had Bub ranked higher than when he was drafted.

This was my comments after we drafted Bub

I get the comparison but personally I don't like the comp. Quickley struggled his freshman year. Bub, on the other hand, took over a team from day one. Now we can say that Pitt is less talented than Kentucky but we should also be clear about what Bub achieved. No one projected him to come in and dominate. I was watching an interview where he said that he learned how to run PnR's just off of watching tape of other players during the season because it's something that he's never had to do. Also a couple years ago Bub was only 5'8.

So Bub starts off hot, cools down in the middle of the season and then takes off at the end of the season. This is key to understand my perspective because it taps into the question of what are we getting from this player. The first 5 games of the season Bub came out on fire. A true shooting percentage of 66.6%, 17.2 ppg, 6.4 ast and 5.2 rbs. This is impressive for any freshman but we do have to acknowledge the competition he was playing against.

For the next 23 games Bub is more down than up. He puts up a TS% of 47.4%, 12 ppg, 24.6% from 3, 3.7 ast and 5.3 rbs. These games came against the teeth of the schedule. It's safe to assume that Bub was near the top of opponents game plan and he was also playing good ACC competition on a team that hasn't had a player drafted in the first round since Steven Adams in 2014. All of this to say that if Bub doesn't finish the season strong we probably aren't drafting him. But he does finish the season strong.

His last 6 games Bub puts up a TS% of 62.4%, 19 ppg, 50% from 3 on 7 3's a game, 5.2 rbs and 3.8 ast. It's hard to understate just how impressive this stretch is. Pitt is a bubble team. They are giving everything they have to try to make the tourney. The coach has decided that the best way for the team to win is to run the offense through Bub. What we see in games is one thing. But to earn the complete and total trust of the coach is another.

To be a ball dominant guard in the NBA you need to be able to do 4 things. Be a 3 level scorer, create for others, draw fouls and by a high volume 3-point shooter. Tre Johnson does 2 of those things. And what he struggles with really hurts guards in the NBA.

A good example is Jordan Hawkins. Hawkins shot 44.5% on 2 point fgs his sophmore year. At the same time because he shot a lot of 3's his true shooting percentage was 58.4%. From 3 Hawkins 38% on 7.6 attempts. Fast forward to the NBA the efficiency tanks. First two seasons he's shot 37.2% and 37.6% from the field. I like when my guards can shoot 3's efficiently at high volume but when they are so inefficient operating inside the 2-point line that raises major red flags for me. Because in the NBA defenders are bigger, longer, quicker, and more athletic. The strength disparities will be wider. It's only going to get harder. So if you can't be efficient inside the paint in college, why should I expect you to be more efficient in the NBA. What ends up happening? they completely stop attacking the paint.

Tbh, you saw this from Bub to a degree this year but I believe that Bub has the ability (i.e. ball handling) to navigate inside the 3-point line but it's one of the things that I'll be watching for next season. The leap that Tre Johnson would need to make is a massive one. So yes, I'm higher on Bub than I am on Johnson. Imo, Johnson early on in his career will be a 3 and D guy. He's going to be so inefficient inside the paint that no coach could convicingly make an argument that the team should be playing that way. And this isn't just a knock on Johnson this is very common. Look at Jabari Smith. He's now a 3 and D guy.

Also Carrington is a natural playmaker. His first 9 games in college Bub averaged 6.3 assists. Unless you're a natural at playmaking it's hard to be ball dominant and attack (i.e. playing the same style that Tre Johnson did) because when teams help you're not as able to quickly and efficiently pass the ball and create easy scoring opportunities. I'm not trying to be negative on Tre Johnson, but he's a guy that I would try to avoid. Maybe at the end of the lottery but picking him at top 5 is a stretch.

[payitforward]

Here's where I disagree.

I only see one guy whom I'm reasonably confident will pan out to be an above-average starter: Bilal. Bub, Sarr George and AJ might pan out, but they might peak as 5th-8th man role players. It's too soon to tell.

But the real issue is that nobody on our roster is looking like they have more than a 10% chance of becoming a franchise-player. So if there's anybody in this draft at any position that has franchise-player potential, take him with absolutely no consideration given to anyone we already have on the roster. I'd only take Queen if I truly felt he was the best player on the board. I don't care at all that he is a center and not a wing.

I agree 1000% -- & it's independent of who's on the roster.

You ALWAYS take the best player available!

Use trades to balance your roster. & if you've done a good job drafting the bpa, why then you have plenty of player capital to make advantageous trades.

But never, absolutely never, choose whom to draft based on what position he plays.

Plus, I agree with nate that we don't have anyone who's a lock to be a terrific player. Not even Bilal does, to tell the truth....

So you'd be an advocate for a team drafting a PG 10 years in a row? Or a Center 10 years in a row?

Of course! If he was the best player on the board!

Now, obviously, that's unrealistic -- you're not going to find that the best player at your pick is a Center 10 years in a row!

Still, you're asking the right question. If the best player on the board is at a position where you are already deep, then either trade the pick for another pick plus whatever, or else trade one of the guys you already have at that spot. What you definitely should NOT do is pick a less good player for "fit" -- that's a non-stop highway to mediocrity.

The real problem in this discussion is that you are imagining all of this as a problem of some kind. A situation where you have to take action (& pay a cost) to resolve the conflict or contradiction.

No. Again, keep in mind that GMs talk to each other all the time. & every GM in the league knows what every other GM in the league needs for his team! It's his business to know that!

They're competitive, of course, but they also help each other out all the time. If A is competing with B to land someone, then C, D & E are trying to figure out how they can help one of them & get something back for doing it! If he can make out well on his end by supplying that need... well then he's all over it.

Come draft season & it's especially intense, because you have time to assess a big bunch of talent. Joe tells Harry that if Organz Falafel is on the board when it's your pick, I might be willing to give you Butch Tallsy & a R2 pick for him -- whaddyou think? Then he has the equivalent conversation with four other GMs.

That's what these guys do with their time. A lot of it anyway.

[prime1time]

Honest question, how do people see Tre Johnson playing in the NBA. Both as a rookie and in his prime? Are we thinking like Klay Thompson or Desmond Bane? I love Tre Johnson later in the draft. He can come in with less expectations and work on his game. He could a follow a Trey Murphy career arc. But drafting Tre Johnson super high is setting him up for failure because his game will not translate and he will not meet expectations. At least with a big people give them time to develop and improve.

[tontoz]

Honest question, how do people see Tre Johnson playing in the NBA. Both as a rookie and in his prime? Are we thinking like Klay Thompson or Desmond Bane? I love Tre Johnson later in the draft. He can come in with less expectations and work on his game. He could a follow a Trey Murphy career arc. But drafting Tre Johnson super high is setting him up for failure because his game will not translate and he will not meet expectations. At least with a big people give them time to develop and improve.

Tre's off ball scoring is similar to Klay. He can make movement 3s moving either direction. He can also score off the dribble. He can score on post ups (actually shot 60% on these).

A freshman who leads the strongest conference in history in scoring wont translate?

There were multiple telecasts that mentioned the coaching staff had to monitor his practice to keep him from working too hard.

You clearly didn't watch any of his games.

[The Consiglieri]

But never, absolutely never, choose whom to draft based on what position he plays.

This part I disagree with in some part. If you have players on your board you think are of equivalent talent you pick the guy who is going to get more minutes on the squad. That way you can develop him. Too many players stacked up at the same position stunts the growth of them both and lowers their trade value. A coach will generally be biased towards the guy who knows how to play already rather than the developmental prospect. If you have five players at forward who are all young and battling each other for PT it won't help the value of any of them if you select a 6th. Teams who see you have a logjam at a position will offer less in trade than if they think you aren't pressed to clear room.

So yeah, in general, draft best player available, but if two are in the same tier, then draft the guy you don't have to make room for.

I would disagree with that, that's why you build tiers. If the guys are in the same tier, and are ranked basically even, yeah, take the one that makes the most sense to your roster, but if you've got one ranked ahead of the other, I wouldn't worry about position, especially with our roster as bereft as it is the past several years.

[doclinkin]

So yeah, in general, draft best player available, but if two are in the same tier, then draft the guy you don't have to make room for.

I would disagree with that,

No you wouldn't.

Since you restated exactly what I was saying.