Officlal Prospect thread

hotshotschamp · Post #661 » by **hotshotschamp** » Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:58 pm

I would bet at least 2 bigs go in the top 5.

Whether it's favors, davis, aldrich, donatas or whoever.....

Bigs always tend to go early, even if they aren't as polished.

There will be a good wing player there for us.

hotshotschamp · Post #662 » by **hotshotschamp** » Sat Jan 16, 2010 10:01 pm

Foye wrote:
DaKidKG wrote:Would anyone be opposed to us taking Ed Davis if Wall, Turner, Johnson, and Henry are gone? We'll most likely have the 2nd worst record this year which means the worst we would pick is 5th. We don't need another power forward but Davis and Favors would be the best players available at that point.

At this point I doubt Turner, Johnson and Henry go 2,3 and 4. Someone has to pick a big namely Favors or Davis.

I have no doubt we'll get Wall, Turner, Johnson or Henry. The question is whether we get the right one of those 4. The one who pans out and becomes a stud.

Looking at the current needs of the 5 worst teams (MN excluded)

NJ: a SG, SF or PF stud
GS: a big man stud
WSH: a stud, no matter which position
DET: a stud - (they would probably prefer it to be a big man)
PHILLY: Wall or Center

I think it is save to say that at least one of these teams will pick a PF or even C (Aldrich) if we slide to #5. We'll be in position to draft Wall, Turner, Johnson or Henry if all these guys declare I promise you (I have a little doubt that Henry might want to increase his draft spot by staying one more season if he slips down to like 7-9 in a few months)

I really think the pistons, warriors, philly and Jersey will all be targeting BIGS, unless Wall is their of course.

Post #663 » by **Worm Guts** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 5:20 am

Turnover_21 wrote:
DaKidKG wrote:Would anyone be opposed to us taking Ed Davis if Wall, Turner, Johnson, and Henry are gone? We'll most likely have the 2nd worst record this year which means the worst we would pick is 5th. We don't need another power forward but Davis and Favors would be the best players available at that point.

I'd rather reach for Aldrich in this case, no more power forwards for me, and then try to trade Big Al for Turner. Henry and Johnson are not worth it, Wall is a pipe dream

Davis is long, athletic and can play defense. It's not ideal, but I think we could roll with either Favors or Davis if we thought they were the best player on the board.

hotshotschamp · Post #664 » by **hotshotschamp** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 5:41 am

I sure hope we aren't picking in a spot where we think davis or favors are the BPA .....we would have to be picking in the 4-8 range for that to happen.

skorff26 · Post #665 » by **skorff26** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:05 am

DaKidKG wrote:Would anyone be opposed to us taking Ed Davis if Wall, Turner, Johnson, and Henry are gone? We'll most likely have the 2nd worst record this year which means the worst we would pick is 5th. We don't need another power forward but Davis and Favors would be the best players available at that point.

I'd still take Favors over Davis; also we'd likely pick Aldrich over Davis as well.

hotshotschamp · Post #666 » by **hotshotschamp** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:31 pm

God I hope we aren't in a position where Favors/Aldrich or Davis are the best options....

Foye · Post #667 » by **Foye** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:28 pm

Aldrich certainly wouldn't be the worst option. His game reminds a bit of Brook Lopez. The one who we all hated on before the draft lol. I'd prefer Turner or Henry, though.

Esohny · Post #668 » by **Esohny** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:04 pm

Foye wrote:Aldrich certainly wouldn't be the worst option. His game reminds a bit of Brook Lopez. The one who we all hated on before the draft lol. I'd prefer Turner or Henry, though.

I can't see a scenario where we wouldn't be able to draft one of Turner, Johnson, or Henry with our first pick. Wall, Favors, and Davis are very likely going to be drafted in the top 5-6. Even with our terrible history of dropping in draft position, we would have to go on a 2nd half run and pick up a bunch of wins, AND get pretty unlucky in the lottery.

Foye · Post #669 » by **Foye** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 3:32 pm

Esohny wrote:
Foye wrote:Aldrich certainly wouldn't be the worst option. His game reminds a bit of Brook Lopez. The one who we all hated on before the draft lol. I'd prefer Turner or Henry, though.

I can't see a scenario where we wouldn't be able to draft one of Turner, Johnson, or Henry with our first pick. Wall, Favors, and Davis are very likely going to be drafted in the top 5-6. Even with our terrible history of dropping in draft position, we would have to go on a 2nd half run and pick up a bunch of wins, AND get pretty unlucky in the lottery.

Yeah, we will be able to draft Turner, Johnson or Henry.
Just saying that drafting Aldrich is not necessarily worse than drafting one of these guys.
I have serious doubts that Johnson will be better than Aldrich as a pro.

hotshotschamp · Post #670 » by **hotshotschamp** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:49 pm

I love Johnson, and think he will be a better pro than college player, just like Granger was.

Henry is the one I have doubts about.

To me Aldrich, wouldn't be a horrible option. But Kahn would have to do some moving and shaking in the off-season then. God forbid I don't want to spend a 5-6th pick on a bench player. Aldrich should be pretty good, I can see 12 pt player, with 9-10 rebs and 2-3 blocks.

horaceworthy · Post #671 » by **horaceworthy** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:28 pm

I'm not a big fan of Johnson. He reminds me a bit of Al Thornton. Athletic guy that worked on his J and didn't put it all together until he was older than most of his competition. I don't really see the Granger comparison, Granger was better at creating off the bounce.

Krapinsky · Post #672 » by **Krapinsky** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:38 pm

I'm coming around on Aminu. Two big games in a row against quality competition. My concern is his team is much better with him at the 4, but the same could be said about every SF prospect in the draft, Johnson, Harris, James, George, Robinson, Singler, etc.

Foye · Post #673 » by **Foye** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:41 pm

horaceworthy wrote:I'm not a big fan of Johnson. He reminds me a bit of Al Thornton. Athletic guy that worked on his J and didn't put it all together until he was older than most of his competition. I don't really see the Granger comparison, Granger was better at creating off the bounce.

+1

Krapinsky · Post #674 » by **Krapinsky** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:07 pm

Foye wrote:
horaceworthy wrote:I'm not a big fan of Johnson. He reminds me a bit of Al Thornton. Athletic guy that worked on his J and didn't put it all together until he was older than most of his competition. I don't really see the Granger comparison, Granger was better at creating off the bounce.

+1

I do not see the Thornton/Johnson comparison at all. Thornton was a ball hog. Johnson excels playing off the ball and being unselfish.

hotshotschamp · Post #675 » by **hotshotschamp** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:26 pm

yup he's almost the exact opposite of thornton as a player, as far away as you can get.

horaceworthy · Post #676 » by **horaceworthy** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:36 pm

They're both athletic 6'7" guys who started off collegiately playing in the paint, then evolved their games to become perimeter players. Both started to really stand out once they were older than most of their competition. The arsenal of both players revolves around a nice jumper and jab series. The defensive ability of both is/was unclear due to the zones employed by their college teams. Creating off the bounce is/was a problem for both, leading to the inevitable Shawn Marion comparisons.

I'm not saying it's perfect, just that it's there and it's a better comparison than Danny Granger.

hotshotschamp · Post #677 » by **hotshotschamp** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:50 pm

I look at Danny grangers senior year at new mexico and Wes Johnsons year at Cuse ( they were similar in age ) and they have almost IDENTICAL #'s across the board in just about every category even in FG%'s.

Granger didn't come into the league with the ability to get his shot up whenever he wanted, he really/ struggled his rookie year, took him a little time to develop that handle, and ability to get his shot up with good percentage.

Both players have great athleticism, can shoot mid and long range, and Wes Johnson I would say is even a better defender.

He will be a better NBA player than College player much like Granger. Syracuse plays a very team oriented game. They just don't force it to Johnson over and over like some college teams do to their guys. They have a very well rounded starting 5. Johnson may have a 13 pt game like last game I believe, but he only took 7 shots to get it.

I see him somewhere between a Marion and Granger. He's a much better basketball player than Al thornton.

Casperkid23 · Post #678 » by **Casperkid23** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:03 pm

hotshotschamp wrote:I look at Danny grangers senior year at new mexico and Wes Johnsons year at Cuse ( they were similar in age ) and they have almost IDENTICAL #'s across the board in just about every category even in FG%'s.

Quit saying that dude. Look at DX's per40 pace adjusted stats and Granger's numbers are considerably better across the board. Not to mention if you remember Granger is college he was far more aggressive than Johnson who more often than not takes what the defense gives him or works off the weakside for hustle buckets.

Yes, Thornton comparison is awful, but saying he is identical or nearly identical to Granger is far from truthful. As is your assumption that he'll be a better pro than he is college player - what exactly leads you to believe this? Because he plays in a zone defense which doesn't translate well to the NBA? Because he isn't a great handler/playmaker for his position and/or relies on his jumper more than other players?

Johnson is a solid prospect, but he doesn't have as high of upside because he is what he likely will always be because of the style he plays - which isn't like Granger but more like Marion. Granger had the potential to be a #1, but people were wary how he'd translate going from the talent level that New Mexico regularly faced to the NBA. Marion isn't like that, but rather he's a role-player who does his job very well thanks to athleticism. Hopefully Johnson can become like that, though I have doubts about his defensive potential as you should know.

hotshotschamp · Post #679 » by **hotshotschamp** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:08 pm

Wes Johnson will be a mix of marion and granger, he's that good. Much better than your boy Henry.

Even if he is more like Marion so what? Marion in his better years was a 19 and 9 type with steals and blocks. I'd take that all day long. Marion even topped out at 21 and 11.5. In many regards he's better than Granger, except for pure scoring. Not to mention he's a much higher FG% shooter than Granger, much higher..... Granger is shooting around 40% this year too.

So if he's more like Marion I could care less, Marion was a great player for a long time, and thrived in a offense with Nash, much like Johnson would with Rubio, as Johnson can run, and is athletic.

Wesly Johnson is a great defender, you can see that by watching him, and everyone who watches him and writes about him notes that's one of his biggest attributes, I'm not sure what you're watching.

Casperkid23 · Post #680 » by **Casperkid23** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:35 pm

hotshotschamp wrote:Wes Johnson will be a mix of marion and granger, he's that good. Much better than your boy Henry.

Even if he is more like Marion so what? Marion in his better years was a 19 and 9 type with steals and blocks. I'd take that all day long.

So if he's more like Marion I could care less, Marion was a great player for a long time, and thrived in a offense with Nash, much like Johnson would with Rubio, as Johnson can run, and is athletic.

Wesly Johnson is a great defender, you can see that by watching him, and everyone who watches him and writes about him notes that's one of his biggest attributes, I'm not sure what you're watching.

"My Boy"? Do you pay attention to what I say or just what picture is in my avatar? I have Johnson higher than Henry because Johnson is safer and currently possesses a much better NBA skillset. I am fans of players, but I have no "boys" who I back because I have some sort of loyalty to them.

Yeah, I'd take Marion production for sure. It's no guarantee however, especially considering how good of an overall defender Marion was in the NBA and the slight edge he possesses on Johnson athletically and size-wise. Offensively, yes, I think he's got a pretty good chance at reaching that kind of level and possibly higher. Johnson can create for himself better than Marion has shown in the NBA, and likely could be nearly as efficient as Marion was next to Nash if Johnson gets Rubio.

Defensively, I have no clue what "everyone" is watching if they are going to call him a great defender. Weakside? Sure, he's great because of his gambling nature going for steals and blocks. Man-to-man? I don't know if it's because he plays within a zone and has the two Syracuse bigs behind him or what, but he allows his man to go by him on drives and makes swiping motions too often for my tastes, as well as being quick off his feet for blocks in others - to be compared to Marion who was one of the best Forward defenders of the past decade. I don't see him doing things Marion used to do on the court where he could lock a guy down and suffocate him into taking tough shots. He's kind of a softie on defense where Marion is/was more physical.

So yeah, the weakside things, yes, I see those. Within the awful zone scheme, he looks like a pretty average defensive prospect looking at the microcosms of man-to-man defense. If you want to attach great defender to Johnson, knock yourself out. You're fooling yourself to think he'll have Marion-like impact on that end however. I have no clue why you like to make definitive bold predictions when you don't have to, however. How's that Garcia thing looking? You know, the guy who you backed as a lotto prospect, better than Ebanks -- without ever seeing him play and knowing he was going against soft competition?