Kon Knueppel

[greg4012]

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.

Are you not tired of hiding from his physical limitations and talking around it by saying how strong he is and other fantasies?

Unplayable? No.

A weak point that will regularly be targeted in playoff basketball and will need to do A LOT on the other end to neutralize that issue? Yes.

Do I think he has the dynamic athleticism and handle to ramp up his onball work to a degree that ever makes him a top offensive option? Absolutely not.

Do I think his likely ceiling is a 3rd scoring option with "worst defender in starting lineup" defense? Yes. That results in net impact of like 5th best player on a quality team.

It's always so funny to get into an argument about Kon's upside. Bc I have done nothing but praise his floor as a prospect. But, when I highlight all of the ceiling limitations and weaknesses that will be major issues in the NBA, the Konheads highlight all the things that give him the high floor and try to act like that is the key to a high ceiling. It's not. Then, it's just magical vibes and "feel" that will propel Kon to the highest levels. Ok buddy.

[CPops57]

Thank you for your thoughts. Basically, I somewhat disagree with your assessment, but we'll see what situation he gets drafted in and how he develops.

[JMAC3]

It’s funny that as Kon has risen up draft boards people are now getting sold on him.

[tmorgan]

Still entirely unsold.

Seems like a good kid, enjoyed his BS interview last week, but I still don’t see it, at least not as a lottery pick. High floor I agree with, but I just don’t see a ceiling that justifies taking him so early.

[Klomp]

Still entirely unsold.

Seems like a good kid, enjoyed his BS interview last week, but I still don’t see it, at least not as a lottery pick. High floor I agree with, but I just don’t see a ceiling that justifies taking him so early.

Why do high picks need to have a high ceiling if they are unlikely to reach it?

Kon Knueppel has a B upside, but only reaches a B- career
Ace Bailey has an A upside, but only reaches a B- career

Who was the better pick?

[tmorgan]

Still entirely unsold.

Seems like a good kid, enjoyed his BS interview last week, but I still don’t see it, at least not as a lottery pick. High floor I agree with, but I just don’t see a ceiling that justifies taking him so early.

Why do high picks need to have a high ceiling if they are unlikely to reach it?

Kon Knueppel has a B upside, but only reaches a B- career
Ace Bailey has an A upside, but only reaches a B- career

Who was the better pick?

Uhhhhhh, Bailey? You make the better pick at the time. Sometimes it doesn’t work out.

Also, Bailey is a complete numbnuts. Wouldn’t take either top 5.

[mattg]

Baffling that people are projecting on-ball creation from a player who has NEVER created on-ball even as a HS player when he had a massive size and talent advantage. Like outright refusal to create on ball even in desperate circumstances. Factor in the complete inability to shoot off the dribble, and that he doesn't use the threat of shooting off the dribble to set anything up and it's like how are so many people convinced that is going to develop?

It's akin to projecting every single player with a 7 foot wingspan and 9 foot reach as an elite defender.

[Wingy]

Still entirely unsold.

Seems like a good kid, enjoyed his BS interview last week, but I still don’t see it, at least not as a lottery pick. High floor I agree with, but I just don’t see a ceiling that justifies taking him so early.

Group think is real even in NBA FO circles. I see the same as you and it baffles me. Why not just sign a cheap vet and take a real swing with your lottery pick?

[tmorgan]

Of note in the BS interview:

He’s currently working on his shooting off movement and off the dribble. He himself describes his shot as “fundamentally sound through tons of practice”, “but it took work”. His brother is/was apparently a more natural shooter.

How does that sound good? Once he was no longer more skilled and larger than his competition, he learned to shoot threes off the catch. It took him time and effort, but clearly he succeeded. Ok, that’s nice. Now this self-proclaimed ‘non-natural’ shooter who literally stated “my form needs to be perfect through repetition” needs to become proficient at a pro level at a WHOLE BUNCH of other kinds of shots, with moving feet, off the bounce, etc. if he wants to be a good pro. At the very least, it’s gonna take some time. At worst, he won’t ever get there.

On reflection, that interview he gave, while well-spoken and insightful, would scare the isht out of me as an executive thinking about drafting him. Hard worker is great, but that degree of work needed to get someplace he clearly is not right now means a risky investment.

[ReggiesKnicks]

Still entirely unsold.

Seems like a good kid, enjoyed his BS interview last week, but I still don’t see it, at least not as a lottery pick. High floor I agree with, but I just don’t see a ceiling that justifies taking him so early.

Why do high picks need to have a high ceiling if they are unlikely to reach it?

Kon Knueppel has a B upside, but only reaches a B- career
Ace Bailey has an A upside, but only reaches a B- career

Who was the better pick?

Clearly Bailey.

The draft can't be broken down this easily, as there are key factors like the likelihood of reaching potential, the realistic floor, and the realistic outcomes, as well as positional supply/demand.

Darius Garland having a similar career as Ja Morant, or even if Garland ends up having a better career than Ja Morant, doesn't make Ja being picked at #2 over Garland the wrong pick.

[Klomp]

Still entirely unsold.

Seems like a good kid, enjoyed his BS interview last week, but I still don’t see it, at least not as a lottery pick. High floor I agree with, but I just don’t see a ceiling that justifies taking him so early.

Why do high picks need to have a high ceiling if they are unlikely to reach it?

Kon Knueppel has a B upside, but only reaches a B- career
Ace Bailey has an A upside, but only reaches a B- career

Who was the better pick?

Clearly Bailey.

The draft can't be broken down this easily, as there are key factors like the likelihood of reaching potential, the realistic floor, and the realistic outcomes, as well as positional supply/demand.

Darius Garland having a similar career as Ja Morant, or even if Garland ends up having a better career than Ja Morant, doesn't make Ja being picked at #2 over Garland the wrong pick.

No, but flip that around.....I'm sure consensus on draft night was that Paul George had more potential than Gordon Hayward, so did Utah make a wrong/bad pick between the two?

[tmorgan]

Why do high picks need to have a high ceiling if they are unlikely to reach it?

Kon Knueppel has a B upside, but only reaches a B- career
Ace Bailey has an A upside, but only reaches a B- career

Who was the better pick?

Clearly Bailey.

The draft can't be broken down this easily, as there are key factors like the likelihood of reaching potential, the realistic floor, and the realistic outcomes, as well as positional supply/demand.

Darius Garland having a similar career as Ja Morant, or even if Garland ends up having a better career than Ja Morant, doesn't make Ja being picked at #2 over Garland the wrong pick.

No, but flip that around.....I'm sure consensus on draft night was that Paul George had more potential than Gordon Hayward, so did Utah make a wrong/bad pick between the two?

Yes, I’d say so. I’m guessing Butler vs. Fresno State was part of that decision, though. Both were sophomores that were better on lower volume as freshmen. Both had good stocks, tho PG13 had more. Both had more turnovers than assists. George was seen as the better athlete, though Gordon was no slouch.

George has had the better career, wouldn’t you say? Just seems like a weird example. Hayward was great for Utah. Both turned out well. Am I missing the point here? Explain.

[Klomp]

Clearly Bailey.

The draft can't be broken down this easily, as there are key factors like the likelihood of reaching potential, the realistic floor, and the realistic outcomes, as well as positional supply/demand.

Darius Garland having a similar career as Ja Morant, or even if Garland ends up having a better career than Ja Morant, doesn't make Ja being picked at #2 over Garland the wrong pick.

No, but flip that around.....I'm sure consensus on draft night was that Paul George had more potential than Gordon Hayward, so did Utah make a wrong/bad pick between the two?

Yes, I’d say so. I’m guessing Butler vs. Fresno State was part of that decision, though. Both were sophomores that were better on lower volume as freshmen. Both had good stocks, tho PG13 had more. Both had more turnovers than assists. George was seen as the better athlete, though Gordon was no slouch.

George has had the better career, wouldn’t you say? Just seems like a weird example. Hayward was great for Utah. Both turned out well. Am I missing the point here? Explain.

It seems like people want to say "other players will be better than Knueppel" as a way to discredit him. I don't think that seeing players later in the draft having a "better" career means you made a bad pick necessarily. Houston didn't make a bad pick at No. 1 in 1984, for example.

[tmorgan]

No, but flip that around.....I'm sure consensus on draft night was that Paul George had more potential than Gordon Hayward, so did Utah make a wrong/bad pick between the two?

Yes, I’d say so. I’m guessing Butler vs. Fresno State was part of that decision, though. Both were sophomores that were better on lower volume as freshmen. Both had good stocks, tho PG13 had more. Both had more turnovers than assists. George was seen as the better athlete, though Gordon was no slouch.

George has had the better career, wouldn’t you say? Just seems like a weird example. Hayward was great for Utah. Both turned out well. Am I missing the point here? Explain.

It seems like people want to say "other players will be better than Knueppel" as a way to discredit him. I don't think that seeing players later in the draft having a "better" career means you made a bad pick necessarily. Houston didn't make a bad pick at No. 1 in 1984, for example.

I’m saying “other players have a decent chance to be better than Knueppel” as a reason to pick them before Kon. Drafting for floor in the early first round is very questionable in all but the most extreme circumstances.

Utah, Charlotte, New Orleans, Washington or Brooklyn drafting what I perceive as a high floor, relatively low ceiling player makes no sense. Philly, if you were sure Embiid is gonna play and Paul George has his act together, gets closer to reasonable, but picking Kon 3rd is just awful. Trade down if you can, then take him.

[FarBeyondDriven]

this would be a fireable offense to take him in the top half of the lottery. Which G.M. is that secure in their job?

[BigGargamel]

this would be a fireable offense to take him in the top half of the lottery. Which G.M. is that secure in their job?

I think he's the last player in that tier 3 of wings (Bailey, Fears, Johnson, Edgecombe), so I'd be comfortable taking him at 7 or 8. But I am 95% convinced Charlotte is going to take him at four, because they're the Charlotte Hornets.

[tmorgan]

this would be a fireable offense to take him in the top half of the lottery. Which G.M. is that secure in their job?

I think he's the last player in that tier 3 of wings (Bailey, Fears, Johnson, Edgecombe), so I'd be comfortable taking him at 7 or 8. But I am 95% convinced Charlotte is going to take him at four, because they're the Charlotte Hornets.

I’m going further than that. I’d also prefer Maluach, Essengue, and Coward for sure, and maybe a couple others. I def wouldn’t take Kon top 10, and probably not lottery at all. Mid first, where he was before the ACC tourney that short-sample blew him up for not enough of a reason, sure.

[GiggitySmalls]

this would be a fireable offense to take him in the top half of the lottery. Which G.M. is that secure in their job?

I think he's the last player in that tier 3 of wings (Bailey, Fears, Johnson, Edgecombe), so I'd be comfortable taking him at 7 or 8. But I am 95% convinced Charlotte is going to take him at four, because they're the Charlotte Hornets.

yeah we will take him and it will suck. especially after drafting slauan

[ReggiesKnicks]

this would be a fireable offense to take him in the top half of the lottery. Which G.M. is that secure in their job?

I think he's the last player in that tier 3 of wings (Bailey, Fears, Johnson, Edgecombe), so I'd be comfortable taking him at 7 or 8. But I am 95% convinced Charlotte is going to take him at four, because they're the Charlotte Hornets.

yeah we will take him and it will suck. especially after drafting slauan

Kon will look like an all-star next to Salaun.

[The Golden Fang]

Kon has probably the highest floor in the 4-8 range. I don’t see him as an all star, but definitely a high end starter who impacts winning. He can compliment just about any star player and can fit in any system.