Kon Knueppel

[Klomp]

Kon is an onball initiator in the league. Everyone thought Shai didnt have the athleticism, Luka, Giddey, Cade, Franz is also very ball dominant.. and so on and so on. He's a great passer with a solid handle, fantastic footwork and a strong body. He's smart, knows to use defenders leverage against them and makes extremely quick reads.

He is also a lights out shooter that will be tough to guard in a 2 man with another big guard or rolling big.

He's the 2nd best prospect in the draft after his teammate and Milwaukee should be bringing him back in a Giannis trade vs Harper imo.

You keep saying he's an onball initiator but he didn't do any of that at Duke. It's the same thing as saying Carter Bryant will be a good PNR player. We just don't know because they weren't asked to do it...

I'm still taking Ace over him because I want upside.

Karl-Anthony Towns didn't shoot 3-pointers at Kentucky. Does that mean he was incapable of doing that in the NBA?

[zero rings]

Not hard to reach for more turnovers than assists to not be a great indicator for an expanded onball role in nba

For reference, I don't have the play-by-play and know exactly how many of the assists or turnovers were done with Flagg on the court, but he had a total of 14 assists to 8 turnovers in that tournament. To me, that is pretty good college production for a non point guard in the circumstances he was in. And let's remember the most important part of the equation: he did enough to help them win.

when paired with league worst positional athleticism and bad pull up 3 pt shooting. But OK

I think we all agree that Kneuppel's athleticism will be in the lower tier of the NBA. As far as his creation ability goes, I don't expect him to consistently beat many guys with a quick first step and explode over the opposing team.

But he does have some advantages.

* He's a good enough shooter that teams will have to aggressively closeout on him. That's a big advantage.

* His body frame is thick and heavy and he's very willing to mix it up physically and finish through contact. That's rare for a great shooter

* He's a high-iq player with a good feel for the game. Guys like that use crafty tricks to create space, like bumping the defender at the right time and getting them a bit off balance so they have space.

* He was running Duke's offense and most of what he was supposed to run were either outside shots or get to the rim. He's said in interviews he knows a pull-up jumper and a floater is a great shot for him and he said he's working on that. Is it an unreasonable aspiration for a great shooter who is self-aware and coachable to refine that aspect of his game? To me, that looks like one of the safer bets in this draft.

Anyway, beyond this 3 game sample size, another poster provided some interesting data about his overall season long production without Flagg.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2450188&start=140#p118675676

In lineups without Flagg (lineup B), Kon's AST% rose to 23.7%, got to the rim a bit more, and didn't have a big drop in efficiency.

Good numbers with Flagg (lineup A) and without (lineup B) against top 60 competition. His ability to get to the rim and finish didn't drop against good teams, and his AST% stayed at a respectable number.

Nobody can predict the future with certainty, but food for thought.

I've definitely already digested all of that and formed my opinions with all of that in mind. Which is why I've posted at least 5 times throughout this thread that Kon has one of the best floors in this draft class.

What i question and push back on is when people try to make a case for Kon having superstar upside or being a lead ballhandler. Which I see a crazy amount of i draft dialogue. To me, he's right around the 10-12 range as a prospect. Lotto talent. He has a safer floor than many I have above him, but less ceiling IMO

You don’t need to be a superstar to be worthy of a top 5 pick. Most drafts don’t even have one superstar, let alone multiple.

If Kon projects to have a long career as a good starter on a playoff team, then he should probably go top 5, because there likely won’t be 5 players from this draft with a better outcome than that.

And if a team decides to take a “high ceiling”
player over Kon, they should have some degree of confidence that the player is going to hit that ceiling.

Teams should be drafting based on expected value, not pie-in-the-sky best case scenarios.

[CptCrunch]

Kon's ceiling is plenty high. Most guards drafted out of the top 5 were considered as low ceiling.

The Haliburton, Shai, Brunson were all low ceiling prospects.

If we evaluated Kon as what he has done, as opposed to what he cannot due to inherant preconceived biases, Kon should really be the #3 pick.

Kon at good strech of the games looked better than Cooper on Duke.

[greg4012]

For reference, I don't have the play-by-play and know exactly how many of the assists or turnovers were done with Flagg on the court, but he had a total of 14 assists to 8 turnovers in that tournament. To me, that is pretty good college production for a non point guard in the circumstances he was in. And let's remember the most important part of the equation: he did enough to help them win.



I think we all agree that Kneuppel's athleticism will be in the lower tier of the NBA. As far as his creation ability goes, I don't expect him to consistently beat many guys with a quick first step and explode over the opposing team.

But he does have some advantages.

* He's a good enough shooter that teams will have to aggressively closeout on him. That's a big advantage.

* His body frame is thick and heavy and he's very willing to mix it up physically and finish through contact. That's rare for a great shooter

* He's a high-iq player with a good feel for the game. Guys like that use crafty tricks to create space, like bumping the defender at the right time and getting them a bit off balance so they have space.

* He was running Duke's offense and most of what he was supposed to run were either outside shots or get to the rim. He's said in interviews he knows a pull-up jumper and a floater is a great shot for him and he said he's working on that. Is it an unreasonable aspiration for a great shooter who is self-aware and coachable to refine that aspect of his game? To me, that looks like one of the safer bets in this draft.

Anyway, beyond this 3 game sample size, another poster provided some interesting data about his overall season long production without Flagg.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2450188&start=140#p118675676





Nobody can predict the future with certainty, but food for thought.

I've definitely already digested all of that and formed my opinions with all of that in mind. Which is why I've posted at least 5 times throughout this thread that Kon has one of the best floors in this draft class.

What i question and push back on is when people try to make a case for Kon having superstar upside or being a lead ballhandler. Which I see a crazy amount of i draft dialogue. To me, he's right around the 10-12 range as a prospect. Lotto talent. He has a safer floor than many I have above him, but less ceiling IMO

You don’t need to be a superstar to be worthy of a top 5 pick. Most drafts don’t even have one superstar, let alone multiple.

If Kon projects to have a long career as a good starter on a playoff team, then he should probably go top 5, because there likely won’t be 5 players from this draft with a better outcome than that.

And if a team decides to take a “high ceiling”
player over Kon, they should have some degree of confidence that the player is going to hit that ceiling.

Teams should be drafting based on expected value, not pie-in-the-sky best case scenarios.

that's one way to warp words to rationalize the case for Kon.

Here's a counter: if Kon goes top 5, will he be the worst positional athlete drafted top 5 in 20 years?

[greg4012]

Kon is an onball initiator in the league. Everyone thought Shai didnt have the athleticism, Luka, Giddey, Cade, Franz is also very ball dominant.. and so on and so on. He's a great passer with a solid handle, fantastic footwork and a strong body. He's smart, knows to use defenders leverage against them and makes extremely quick reads.

He is also a lights out shooter that will be tough to guard in a 2 man with another big guard or rolling big.

He's the 2nd best prospect in the draft after his teammate and Milwaukee should be bringing him back in a Giannis trade vs Harper imo.

You keep saying he's an onball initiator but he didn't do any of that at Duke. It's the same thing as saying Carter Bryant will be a good PNR player. We just don't know because they weren't asked to do it...

I'm still taking Ace over him because I want upside.

Karl-Anthony Towns didn't shoot 3-pointers at Kentucky. Does that mean he was incapable of doing that in the NBA?

yikes false equivalencies

[Upperclass]

Kon is an onball initiator in the league. Everyone thought Shai didnt have the athleticism, Luka, Giddey, Cade, Franz is also very ball dominant.. and so on and so on. He's a great passer with a solid handle, fantastic footwork and a strong body. He's smart, knows to use defenders leverage against them and makes extremely quick reads.

He is also a lights out shooter that will be tough to guard in a 2 man with another big guard or rolling big.

He's the 2nd best prospect in the draft after his teammate and Milwaukee should be bringing him back in a Giannis trade vs Harper imo.

You keep saying he's an onball initiator but he didn't do any of that at Duke. It's the same thing as saying Carter Bryant will be a good PNR player. We just don't know because they weren't asked to do it...

I'm still taking Ace over him because I want upside.

The 3rd best prospect in the draft..

[Klomp]

You keep saying he's an onball initiator but he didn't do any of that at Duke. It's the same thing as saying Carter Bryant will be a good PNR player. We just don't know because they weren't asked to do it...

I'm still taking Ace over him because I want upside.

Karl-Anthony Towns didn't shoot 3-pointers at Kentucky. Does that mean he was incapable of doing that in the NBA?

yikes false equivalencies

No, it's about understanding the difference between a player's ability and what he is asked to do. There are countless examples over the years where pundits assume a prospect can't do something because he wasn't asked to do it in college.

[greg4012]

Karl-Anthony Towns didn't shoot 3-pointers at Kentucky. Does that mean he was incapable of doing that in the NBA?

yikes false equivalencies

No, it's about understanding the difference between a player's ability and what he is asked to do. There are countless examples over the years where pundits assume a prospect can't do something because he wasn't asked to do it in college.

No comment.

[azcatz11]

Karl-Anthony Towns didn't shoot 3-pointers at Kentucky. Does that mean he was incapable of doing that in the NBA?

yikes false equivalencies

No, it's about understanding the difference between a player's ability and what he is asked to do. There are countless examples over the years where pundits assume a prospect can't do something because he wasn't asked to do it in college.

I’ll wait until I see it. That’s a special skill different than learning how to shoot 3s. You’re right though - we don’t know. Luke kennard actually displayed a ton of that at Duke

[Klomp]

yikes false equivalencies

No, it's about understanding the difference between a player's ability and what he is asked to do. There are countless examples over the years where pundits assume a prospect can't do something because he wasn't asked to do it in college.

I’ll wait until I see it. That’s a special skill different than learning how to shoot 3s. You’re right though - we don’t know. Luke kennard actually displayed a ton of that at Duke

Maybe "on-ball initiator" is the wrong way for people to frame it, but Knueppel had 107 assists to 53 turnovers as a true freshman. As a sophomore and playing 125 more minutes, Kennard had 91 assists to 59 turnovers.

[tontoz]

I have two big problems with Kon. His shooting off the dribble sucked, and I don't think he has the foot speed to guard wings.

[CPops57]

Here's a counter: if Kon goes top 5, will he be the worst positional athlete drafted top 5 in 20 years?

Shouldn't we be more interested in evaluating these prospects as complete basketball players rather than how they rate as track and field athletes?

Regarding your specific question. It's hard to evaluate how Kon compares to 100 different guys without looking through all of their metrics, though I think it's fair to assume that Kon being the worst pure athlete in the Top 5 in the last 20 years is a possibility.

However, some of his combine athletic testing was actually good: he had a better shuttle run than VJ Edgecombe for instance, who is mainly being considered in the top 5 for his supernatural athletic ability. He had better vertical jumping tests than Cooper Flagg for instance. The main issue he had was the lane agility test. I think he's going to be fine in the NBA for the most part, I only see him struggling to string together 2 or 3 athletic moves in rapid succession: but that's never been his game.

[tmorgan]

One thing this draft really has going for it is a bunch of divisive prospects. It’ll make for an interesting draft day, and interesting rookie seasons. Sounds good to me.

[FarBeyondDriven]

I think people didn't learn their lesson after Reed Sheppard and are making the same mistake when evaluating Kon. Just because a prospect is a good college basketball player does not mean it translates. They seem to know this when it comes to bigs but not for guards apparently.

[williambh3]

Kon's ceiling is plenty high. Most guards drafted out of the top 5 were considered as low ceiling.

The Haliburton, Shai, Brunson were all low ceiling prospects.

If we evaluated Kon as what he has done, as opposed to what he cannot due to inherant preconceived biases, Kon should really be the #3 pick.

Kon at good strech of the games looked better than Cooper on Duke.

Those three were not low ceiling. They had questions / perceived limitations, but I don’t think they were considered low ceiling. They had great numbers and very good tape as on-ball players, but questions about defense (too skinny or small) and their shot (tyrese had a “lonzo” shot and shai didnt have enough of a sample to believe in for some). An on-ball player without a shot or defense is scary because they don’t have a role.

Kon has great numbers and a great shot but no tape beyond role player stuff. It’s all catch and shoot, straight line drives, swing passes, jump stop pivot finishes. He was so effective as a freshman so maybe it’s there / hidden or can be developed. Since he’s consensus top 10, I’d say development there is baked in. But IMO he is not similar to any of those three as a prospect in terms of their on-ball tape.

Unless they asked him to not show talent with the ball like they asked Towns to not shoot threes? Possible I guess.

[greg4012]

Here's a counter: if Kon goes top 5, will he be the worst positional athlete drafted top 5 in 20 years?

Shouldn't we be more interested in evaluating these prospects as complete basketball players rather than how they rate as track and field athletes?

Regarding your specific question. It's hard to evaluate how Kon compares to 100 different guys without looking through all of their metrics, though I think it's fair to assume that Kon being the worst pure athlete in the Top 5 in the last 20 years is a possibility.

However, some of his combine athletic testing was actually good: he had a better shuttle run than VJ Edgecombe for instance, who is mainly being considered in the top 5 for his supernatural athletic ability. He had better vertical jumping tests than Cooper Flagg for instance. The main issue he had was the lane agility test. I think he's going to be fine in the NBA for the most part, I only see him struggling to string together 2 or 3 athletic moves in rapid succession: but that's never been his game.

1) We should be interested in evaluating these prospects as complete basketball players--meaning including their athleticism. Ignoring that tells me all I need to know about your evaluation.

2) Your reference to "only see him struggling to string together 2 or 3 athletic moves in rapid succession is funny to me on 2 fronts: (i) that's almost certainly a direct reference to something I highlighted about Kon in this very thread and (ii) stringing together 2 or 3 athletic moves in succession is literally the game of basketball at the highest level. That's why the shuttle time is meaningless in isolation.

Time will do its job in making these weaknesses obvious.

[greg4012]

I have two big problems with Kon. His shooting off the dribble sucked, and I don't think he has the foot speed to guard wings.

that footspeed is even more of an issue against guards

[CPops57]

1) We should be interested in evaluating these prospects as complete basketball players--meaning including their athleticism. Ignoring that tells me all I need to know about your evaluation.

2) Your reference to "only see him struggling to string together 2 or 3 athletic moves in rapid succession is funny to me on 2 fronts: (i) that's almost certainly a direct reference to something I highlighted about Kon in this very thread and (ii) stringing together 2 or 3 athletic moves in succession is literally the game of basketball at the highest level. That's why the shuttle time is meaningless in isolation.

Time will do its job in making these weaknesses obvious.

1) It seems like you're deliberately making a straw man argument. Who is ignoring athleticism as a component of Kon's evaluation? I think literally everybody here is in agreement that Kon's lower tier NBA athleticism is a weakness. It's just that basketball is a skill and mental game as well as a physical contest. Players do need a certain baseline level of athletic ability to function in the NBA. But at some point, as long as they meet that baseline and can survive, great skill and other attributes can trump athleticism. The main thing that matters is that Kon is not unathletic enough that he's run out of the league.

2) Every player has a different playing style and way they use their collection of athletic gifts, body, brain, and skills. Kon does not have to be like a Giannis and use a lightning first step to blow by multiple guys and explode over the opponents for the dunk. To start with, he just needs to be a very good shooter and put teams in a position where they have to closeout hard on him. Even a slow player can take advantage of this.

[greg4012]

1) It seems like you're deliberately making a straw man argument. Who is ignoring athleticism as a component of Kon's evaluation?

Everyone who assumes continued skill progression for Kon at the NBA level commensurate with that seen by prospects that have plus-level athletic and physical tools to leverage in the NBA.

Everyone who assumes Kon can meet the baseline NBA athleticism when he will be a position-worst athlete.

[CPops57]

Everyone who assumes continued skill progression for Kon at the NBA level commensurate with that seen by prospects that have plus-level athletic and physical tools to leverage in the NBA.

Again, basketball is a physical contest as well as a mental game and skills challenge.

While Kon cannot take advantage of most players with speed, he can still use other attributes like his strength, skills, and smarts.

Everyone who assumes Kon can meet the baseline NBA athleticism when he will be a position-worst athlete.

Do you think he will be run off the floor and is unplayable? Yes or no.