College players thread/ Draft Related thread

Post #1081 » by **Worm Guts** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:10 pm

90% of being a good NBA center is being big, athletic and having good hands. Mullens has all of those things in excess.

Devilzsidewalk · Post #1082 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:46 pm

Worm Guts wrote:90% of being a good NBA center is being big, athletic and having good hands. Mullens has all of those things in excess.

excessively good hands - put that on the scouting report

PeeDee · Post #1083 » by **PeeDee** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:00 pm

Devilzsidewalk wrote:
deeney0 wrote:I haven't looked at his stats, but he looked horrible in all of the Big 10 tournament games. He doesn't have any insticts as a rebounder. I don't think he's a good defender. I wouldn't trust him to score anything more than 2 ft away from the basket. All he's got going for him is his body.

think of the trade bait aspect too though, even if he never plays, teams are still going to ask for him in every trade scenario just because of what he is

That's true. I never thought of that. Add Mullens to Miller and Cards expirings and see what you get. Not a bad idea.

Devilzsidewalk · Post #1084 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:31 pm

PeeDee wrote:That's true. I never thought of that. Add Mullens to Miller and Cards expirings and see what you get. Not a bad idea.

(Joe Johnson.....don't tell anyone though)

Krapinsky · Post #1085 » by **Krapinsky** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:42 pm

DSW-

What do you think of a Sprewell/Evans comparison? If you look at Sprewell's college numbers from his sophomore year at 'Bama- they are are very close. Obviously, Evans will have a few more assists from being in a point role, and altogether may have a better handle, but when I think of Evans overall game, i think of a young Sprewell.

Jonathan Watters · Post #1086 » by **Jonathan Watters** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:56 pm

deeney0 wrote:I haven't looked at his stats, but he looked horrible in all of the Big 10 tournament games. He doesn't have any insticts as a rebounder. I don't think he's a good defender. I wouldn't trust him to score anything more than 2 ft away from the basket. All he's got going for him is his body.

He isn't a great rebounder. But he's a fantastic finisher around the rim and his footwork is frighteningly polished. His defensive awareness wanes at times (a lot of the time), but he shows me enough in that area to think it isn't a huge concern. He moves extremely well for his size.

I just don't think you can pass on a guy with his physical package who already has as much of the game down as Mullens does.

I'll bring up Zach Randolph as a comparison. Now I realize that Randolph is a total douche, but he had a very similar freshman season to Mullens. His team was better, but he also spent way too much time on the bench for being the most talented post player on the team.

Randolph put up efficient stats, nothing overwhelming though, so he fell to 18 or something like that. Obviously you like picking up a Zach Randolph-type talent at 18.

If Mullens is there outside of the top 10, he's one of the biggest no-brainers in the history of the draft. Anybody outside the top 2 has to give him some consideration, IMO.

deeney0 · Post #1087 » by **deeney0** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:18 pm

I'm a Thad Matta fan. He's showed a willingness to play freshmen if they're ready. If Mullins didn't have huge holes in his game, I think he'd see the floor more.

If the value is there in a trade, of course the Wolves should pull the trigger. But I don't think he does much to the current Wolves roster.

Devilzsidewalk · Post #1088 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:18 pm

Dr.Krapinsky wrote:DSW-

What do you think of a Sprewell/Evans comparison? If you look at Sprewell's college numbers from his sophomore year at 'Bama- they are are very close. Obviously, Evans will have a few more assists from being in a point role, and altogether may have a better handle, but when I think of Evans overall game, i think of a young Sprewell.

That'd be great if he could have that level of impact. If I were to compare the two down to the button, I'd say Sprewell was a dangerous outside shooter and possibly the fastest person in the NBA with the dribble in his GS heyday, while I think Evans is gonna develop into a half court guy who's going to measure his drives and be looking to finish inside w/ body control and size. Evans will never have the speed and shooting of Spree, but I like Evans' potential better because I think he's going to be a stronger finisher in traffic and his jumper will improve. Defensively, Spree was pretty good, but like Doug Christie good, not Gary Payton good, so it's not like an insurmountable task for Evans to be as good or better.

All in all, I think Evans is going to become more of power guard in his prime, while Spree was an energetic straight line speed guy who could also hit threes in bunches.

But thats why I like Evans so much for the Wolves, when games are down to 1 possession, Love and Jefferson are pretty much off limits as options, Foye will just shoot a 3, so we need a guy that can create off the dribble, get inside and have the size to make something happen, and Evans is really the only guy in the draft with that kind of potential. Maybe Harden could do that, but he's not quite the physical presence vertically despite being a thick strong guy. A guard with that kinda size and ball handling is pretty rare, so I can't help but salivate at the thought of it all.

karch34 · Post #1089 » by **karch34** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:28 pm

Jonathan Watters wrote:
If Mullens is there outside of the top 10, he's one of the biggest no-brainers in the history of the draft. Anybody outside the top 2 has to give him some consideration, IMO.

I agree. He leaves a lot to be desired right now as a finished product, but he does have considerable upside. Right now with us looking for a 3rd big to combo with Al and Love upfront I definitely roll the dice on this kid, rather than overpay for some 7 footer that might not bring much in FA or trade. Working with McHale, Al (who is a very good post player) and Love (who is an incredibly smart player) would probably help Mullens development considerably.

In short after our lottery pick I'd roll the dice on an athletic 7 footer as much as anyone else out there.

horaceworthy · Post #1090 » by **horaceworthy** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:38 pm

Jonathan Watters wrote:If Mullens is there outside of the top 10, he's one of the biggest no-brainers in the history of the draft. Anybody outside the top 2 has to give him some consideration, IMO.

Really, anybody outside the top two? I can see why, since that combination of height, frame and athleticism is pretty rare, and he was billed as fairly skilled during the leadup to him attending Ohio State. I'm just surprised to hear that, even though I probably shouldn't be with the weakness of this draft, particularly in terms of big men.

What do you think of Devin Ebanks? I haven't seen any of the draft sites talking about him, but he's picked up his game lately. I'm surprised that I haven't really seen anything out there about him considering he's 6'9", athletic (although not an explosive leaper), got a decent handle and a good enough feel for the game that he's playing some point forward for West Virginia. The frailty, headband, and aspects of his game that still need development do give off a bit of a spooky Corey Brewer vibe at times, but I'm just wondering why I haven't seen more out there about him.

Jonathan Watters · Post #1091 » by **Jonathan Watters** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:05 am

horaceworthy wrote:What do you think of Devin Ebanks? I haven't seen any of the draft sites talking about him, but he's picked up his game lately. I'm surprised that I haven't really seen anything out there about him considering he's 6'9", athletic (although not an explosive leaper), got a decent handle and a good enough feel for the game that he's playing some point forward for West Virginia. The frailty, headband, and aspects of his game that still need development do give off a bit of a spooky Corey Brewer vibe at times, but I'm just wondering why I haven't seen more out there about him.

Ebanks is having a decent freshman season. More minutes than Mullins, less productive. Less unique of a talent as well. Definitely an upper tier NBA athlete, and Huggins has gotten him to play inside a bit more than his reputation claimed he would. I think he's more skilled on the perimeter than he's showed as well. Probably a good late first rounder this year if he were to declare, but probably a lottery pick next season. Hopefully he'll go back to school.

FairDinkum · Post #1092 » by **FairDinkum** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:45 am

From what I have seen of Ebanks in the past 10 games he looks to be lottery quality, although he needs to produce those numbers for a consistent full year for me to be convinced. His rebounding ability is impressive, and although he seems rather passive on offense I think he has the tools to progress that part of his game in leaps and bounds next season. I also liked his composure when stepping up to the line in crunch time to hit those clutch FT's against Syracuse to force OT, he approached that moment like a seasoned vet.

I think he will definitely stay another year and will lead the mountaineers to greatest heights next season. Definately one to watch

Rakocevicftw · Post #1093 » by **Rakocevicftw** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:08 am

The problem with comparing Zach Randolph to BJ Mullens is that Zach Randolph is one of the most skilled post players of his generation, and Mullens is a project.

Jonathan Watters · Post #1094 » by **Jonathan Watters** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:13 am

So Zach Randolph was known as one of the most skilled post players of his generation 10 years ago when he was playing 20 mpg for Michigan State?

big3_8_19_21 · Post #1095 » by **big3_8_19_21** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:39 am

Having only seen Mullens play once and really only seeing dunks out of him (so in other words, asking out of my own ignorance)...does Mullens have range like Randolph? I understand Randolph didn't used to have the range he does now, but does he show some kind of stroke outside of 2 feet or at least potential to do so?

big3_8_19_21 · Post #1096 » by **big3_8_19_21** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:50 am

What picks do we exactly have in the 2nd round?

off the top of my head:

Our pick goes to Detroit (Dupree trade)
we get Miami's and Philly's (Chalmers trade)

is that it?

What guys do you guys like in the 2nd?
My list of 2nd round guys (a bunch will probably be gone when we pick):
Jerel McNeal
Jack McClinton
Lester Hudson
Tyrese Rice
Danny Green
Dionte Christmas
Josh Heytvelt

Anyone else you guys are looking at in the 2nd?

Jonathan Watters · Post #1097 » by **Jonathan Watters** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:34 am

big3_8_19_21 wrote:Having only seen Mullens play once and really only seeing dunks out of him (so in other words, asking out of my own ignorance)...does Mullens have range like Randolph? I understand Randolph didn't used to have the range he does now, but does he show some kind of stroke outside of 2 feet or at least potential to do so?

I'm not comparing him to Randolph, just their situations. Their overall talent level is similarly unique, with Randolph having a natural skill level on offense that can't be taught, and Mullens having that combination of size, strength and mobility that only comes along every so often. Both players didn't get starting minutes their freshman seasons, and both are likely one and done.

Mullens certainly isn't as skilled as Randolph is/was. But his raw tools make up for it.

Steve_Holiday · Post #1098 » by **Steve_Holiday** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:05 am

My list of 2nd round guys (a bunch will probably be gone when we pick):
Jerel McNeal
Jack McClinton
Lester Hudson
Tyrese Rice
Danny Green
Dionte Christmas
Josh Heytvelt

Rice is an interesting prospect. He's a great scorer. This past season, his scoring average dropped as he was not expected to carry the team by himself. Great shooter. Assist-to-Turnover ratio not so great. Tyrese looks more like a 2 in a point guard's body than a true point guard. As an BC grad, I wish him well, but I don't think he fits with what the Wolves are looking for at the position.

AQuintus · Post #1099 » by **AQuintus** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:05 am

Jonathan Watters wrote:He's a much better prospect than DeAndre Jordan, who apparently wasn't good enough for us to pick in the 2nd round last year.

Are you honestly going to use the fact that Kevin McHale, the draft genius that you routinely lambast, didn't draft Jordan as some kind of proof that he wasn't a good prospect?

Using that logic, Brook Lopez apparently wasn't good enough for us to pick, either.

Jonathan Watters · Post #1100 » by **Jonathan Watters** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:09 am

AQuintus wrote:
Jonathan Watters wrote:He's a much better prospect than DeAndre Jordan, who apparently wasn't good enough for us to pick in the 2nd round last year.

Are you honestly going to use the fact that Kevin McHale, the draft genius that you routinely lambast, didn't draft Jordan as some kind of proof that he wasn't a good prospect?

Using that logic, Brook Lopez apparently wasn't good enough for us to pick, either.

No, McHale should have picked him. No doubt about that. Just pointing out the irony of passing on a guy in the 2nd round that isn't as good as a guy who should probably be taken in the top 10 this year...