Joel Embiid

[CBB_Fan]

An 18/10 Joakim Noah isn't worth the #1 pick in this draft. I don't understand why you keep bringing up this injury thing with Wiggins, it's a completely flawed thought process. What if Embiid can't handle extra weight and it takes a toll on his knees? He wouldn't be effective now would he?

That actually was the argument for Embiid. Even if for whatever reason his physical advantage disappears he could still be a fairly high level center if he developed his skillset and gains experience. At center average or below average athleticism can be offset with skills or size, which Embiid possesses. Cannot say the same thing about SG, or SF, or PF. The idea isn't that Wiggins (or the other two) are bad because they could have injuries, but that Embiid could remain a high level player.

I know that any 18/10 player going #1 overall in the this draft class would seem like a disappointment, but I think that an 18/10 Noah is the best center in the NBA. If Embiid can become the best player at his position I think it is worth taking him fairly high, as it will be very hard for any of the current top three to reach those heights.

Remember that Wiggins (and/or Parker) will be fighting against aging Lebron, aging Carmelo, prime Durant, and prime Paul George. At PF they'll catch the last years of Garnett, Duncan, and Dirk and hit the prime of Monroe, Davis, Millsap, Ibaka, Aldridge, Griffin, and Love.

By Embiid's 25th birthday, the NBA's center will include:

Andre Drummond (26 years old)
DeMarcus Cousins (29 years old)
Larry Sanders (31 years old)
Omer Asik (33 years old)
Nikola Pekovic (33 years old)
Brook Lopez (31 years old)
Roy Hibbert (32 years old)
Al Horford (33 years old)
Joakim Noah (34 years old)
Marc Gasol (34 years old)
Dwight Howard (33 years old)

That is a ton of aging players, and none of them averaged 20 points a game in 2012-2013. Only 5 averaged more the 10 rebounds a game. And worst yet, only three proven players will be in their prime, making that top center spotwide open compared to every other position. That hypothetical 18/10 with great passing and defense (and no boneheaded stupidity) is definitely going to be one of the top centers in the NBA. Hell, Noah is one of the top 3-5 centers in the NBA averaged just 11 points a game.

So a lot of the Embiid hype comes from how weak the center position is. So few teams have a strong center that it becomes a tremendous advantage. Every team competing for a title is going has a star SF right now and many have star PFs, but getting that type of production from the center spot is rare and unique. Rookie Olajuwon, for instance, would probably be the best center today (#1 in PPG, #2 in RPG, #6 in BPG).

Now let's say Embiid really is Olajuwon reincarnated instead of a player that will end up worse than Olajuwon as a rookie. There would not be a center in the NBA that even comes close. If each top player reaches their ceiling the SFs and PFs will still at least have competition, but you can't really look at that center crop and say they'd even come close to Olajuwon's peak.

The point isn't to push Embiid as Olajuwon's reincarnation, but to show that how easily he could be a dominant center. If his ceiling is that high above every center in the NBA he doesn't have to reach it to become an All-Star level player, whereas every other star player in this draft has to at approach their potential to get to that level.

[SlowPaced]

I think saying Parker's ceiling is Carmelo Anthony is pretty insulting.

Having Melo as a ceiling is pretty good. All in all the reason why Melo isn't a dominant player is his low basketball IQ, lacking the virtue of being a good teammate and weak effort on defense. Jabari doesn't have any of that. If he can be a Melo that capitalizes on his skills, that's pretty damn good.

[Bubstubbler]

I can't believe you guys are seriously considering taking him over Randle, Wiggins, or Parker. The GM would get slammed if Embiid wasn't producing right away and those guys looked like all-stars early on, this would also shatter Embiid's confidence.

GM's don't draft based on who will have the best rookie season, they pick who they think will best help them win titles in the long run.

You want to see a GM get slammed, imagine one giving this interview late on draft night:

Reporter: "Some people thought Embiid would go #1. Tell us your reasoning for choosing player B instead."

GM with #1 pick: "Well, I think Embiid is going to be the better and more important player in the long run, but I decided to draft player B because I think player B will look better right away as a rookie."

Reporter: "You only won 20 games last year. Shouldn't you have drafted the player who you thought would be best in the long run?"

GM: "No, I felt it was more important to just focus on the near-term. I think player B will probably help us win more games next year than Embiid would have. With player B, I think we have a chance to get up around .500 and battle for the 8th seed."

Reporter: "But if you think Embiid will be better and more important, wouldn't Embiid give your team a better chance of winning titles in the long run?"

GM: "Of course. But like I said, my primary goal isn't winning titles, it's trying to maximize our win total in the near-term. I think player B will look like an all-star right away, so even though I think Embiid will be better down the road and would give our team better odds of winning titles down the road, I chose player B."

Reporter: "So you're not trying to maximize your odds of winning titles?"

GM: "Correct. That's a secondary concern."


Can you imagine that? I think media and fans would utterly destroy a GM for adhering to such reasoning. If a GM thinks Embiid is the player whose addition maximizes the odds of that franchise winning titles, then the GM is obligated to draft him. It's one thing to skip him if you don't think he'll maximize your odds of winning titles, but it's a bad move if you do think he'll maximize those odds and you skip him to get a lesser player because you think the lesser player will put up better rookie scoring stats.

Also, one of Embiid's strengths is his strong mind. He doesn't strike me at all as someone with a frail mind who would have his confidence destroyed if a fellow draftee started playing at an all-star level before he did. All the evidence points to the opposite: look at the great attitude he's displaying at Kansas this year. It's not destroying his confidence that Parker and Randle are getting more minutes and putting up bigger numbers this year in college, and I don't see any indication that his confidence would be destroyed if Parker and Randle put up bigger numbers as NBA rookies, either.

[HeartBreakKid]

I think saying Parker's ceiling is Carmelo Anthony is pretty insulting.

Having Melo as a ceiling is pretty good. All in all the reason why Melo isn't a dominant player is his low basketball IQ, lacking the virtue of being a good teammate and weak effort on defense. Jabari doesn't have any of that. If he can be a Melo that capitalizes on his skills, that's pretty damn good.

So that means that Melo isn't his ceiling then.

[Bubstubbler]

Wiggins isn't going to add skill throughout his professional career, he also doesn't rely on only athleticism. He is a great slasher and defender, and his ball-handling skills are very under-rated right now. He is clearly the #1 pick, and it IS NOT close. I promise.

You don't sound like someone who has closely watched every second (or even any at all?) of KU this year. I have, and I promise you Wiggins has disappointing ball-handling skills and relies almost entirely on athleticism.

Embiid is intriguing and all, but he is not in the same tier as these three guys and there isn't a GM in the league that would risk his job by picking Embiid over any of these 3 blue chip prospects who are guaranteed to be all-stars. Let's not jump the gun on Embiid just yet, he hasn't done anything to warrant this much hype and the Olajuwon comparison is flat out unfair.

Virtually everything you said there is false. And we're not jumping the gun, you're missing the boat.


When I say Embiid should/will go #1, that's not a slight to any of the other guys. I'm a HUGE fan of Randle/Parker/Smart/Wiggins. I think Randle will put up 25/10, and I think Parker may also put up 25+ ppg as a Melo/Diaw mix (with a dash of Kobe). Smart may be the best guard in the NBA in 4 years, and Wiggins may be the best sf. I think there are 5 or 6 guys who are highly likely to be superstars (I hedge on Exum because I haven't watched him yet). It has been totally shocking to me as I've watched Embiid and become convinced that he'll be even more important than the other guys. I wasn't expecting it at all. As I've closely watched him, I've gone from assuming he'd be a 3-year project at KU to thinking that he should be the #1 pick. I think it's highly likely that he'll become a HOF-caliber 2-way center and go down as the most important player in this draft class.

[Bubstubbler]

An 18/10 Joakim Noah isn't worth the #1 pick in this draft.

But a Noah with the offensive game of Hakeem IS MOST DEFINITELY worth the #1 pick in this draft.

CBB didn't offer that comparison as being Embiid's top-end, he was saying that even if Embiid failed to reach his top-end, his failed fall back position may still be that of an 18/10 Noah.

Sort of like if someone were to say, "Randle may still be a 19/9 Z-Bo even if he doesn't become a true superstar," you could say, "A 19/9 Z-Bo isn't worth the #1 pick in this draft." This holds for any player: if we consider a scenario where that player fails to develop his superstar potential, then in that scenario the player isn't worth the #1 pick in this draft. If Parker disappoints, he isn't worth the #1 pick, if Randle disappoints, he isn't worth the #1 pick, etc, etc.

I think the Noah comparison is limiting because I think Embiid will become a highly skilled, 1st-option caliber scorer, but I like the comparison in terms of winning impact, especially on defense and with passing.

[SlowPaced]

I think saying Parker's ceiling is Carmelo Anthony is pretty insulting.

Having Melo as a ceiling is pretty good. All in all the reason why Melo isn't a dominant player is his low basketball IQ, lacking the virtue of being a good teammate and weak effort on defense. Jabari doesn't have any of that. If he can be a Melo that capitalizes on his skills, that's pretty damn good.

So that means that Melo isn't his ceiling then.

It doesn't. Who are you going to compare him with then? If a player plays nothing like MJ but has the potential to be on the same level with MJ, does that mean his ceiling is MJ?

[HeartBreakKid]

Having Melo as a ceiling is pretty good. All in all the reason why Melo isn't a dominant player is his low basketball IQ, lacking the virtue of being a good teammate and weak effort on defense. Jabari doesn't have any of that. If he can be a Melo that capitalizes on his skills, that's pretty damn good.

So that means that Melo isn't his ceiling then.

It doesn't. Who are you going to compare him with then? If a player plays nothing like MJ but has the potential to be on the same level with MJ, does that mean his ceiling is MJ?

It is one thing to say a player is like another, it's a totally different implication to say that that is their ceiling.

And aside from that, I've seen comparisons with Pierce who is a better player than Anthony, so I'm still not sure why Carmelo Anthony is this kids ceiling. By your own words, you already said that Parker has high IQ which is a pretty big negative to Anthony's game that limits his upside.

[CBB_Fan]

And aside from that, I've seen comparisons with Pierce who is a better player than Anthony, so I'm still not sure why Carmelo Anthony is this kids ceiling. By your own words, you already said that Parker has high IQ which is a pretty big negative to Anthony's game that limits his upside.

I used Carmelo because Parker's game is similar to what Carmelo's was as a freshmen at Syracuse. Parker is a smarter player to be sure, but like Carmelo he hasn't shown himself to be a plus defender. Neither player has elite vertical athleticism but both are quick, coordinated, and fairly strong for a SF.

Paul Pierce is another good fit playstyle wise, but he was also known as a relaxed defender at the college level. At the NBA level he became a better defender and all-around player, while Carmelo has stayed basically the same. Ideally Parker would have Carmelo's pure scoring ability and Pierce's attitude and all-around play but for a one person comparison I think Carmelo fits better as a ceiling because we know Parker can score but haven't seen him display all of the facets of the game that Pierce developed.

For an Embiid comparison, I could say that his ceiling is Hakeem with a better outside shot because he has shown decent form and a fair willingness to shoot the 3 in high school. But the 3 isn't a big enough part of his game for me to tack that onto the ceiling, just like defense and team play aren't a big enough part of Parker's game to stack that on top of Carmelo type scoring as a ceiling.

[nicnac215]

And aside from that, I've seen comparisons with Pierce who is a better player than Anthony, so I'm still not sure why Carmelo Anthony is this kids ceiling. By your own words, you already said that Parker has high IQ which is a pretty big negative to Anthony's game that limits his upside.

I used Carmelo because Parker's game is similar to what Carmelo's was as a freshmen at Syracuse. Parker is a smarter player to be sure, but like Carmelo he hasn't shown himself to be a plus defender. Neither player has elite vertical athleticism but both are quick, coordinated, and fairly strong for a SF.

Paul Pierce is another good fit playstyle wise, but he was also known as a relaxed defender at the college level. At the NBA level he became a better defender and all-around player, while Carmelo has stayed basically the same. Ideally Parker would have Carmelo's pure scoring ability and Pierce's attitude and all-around play but for a one person comparison I think Carmelo fits better as a ceiling because we know Parker can score but haven't seen him display all of the facets of the game that Pierce developed.

For an Embiid comparison, I could say that his ceiling is Hakeem with a better outside shot because he has shown decent form and a fair willingness to shoot the 3 in high school. But the 3 isn't a big enough part of his game for me to tack that onto the ceiling, just like defense and team play aren't a big enough part of Parker's game to stack that on top of Carmelo type scoring as a ceiling.

Parker is playing center on defense for Duke a lot of the time, so his defense will look suspect. If he has a true big man starting his defense would look much better IMO.

[CBB_Fan]

Here's my favorite move from Embiid yet. I think it is does as good a job as possible of showing a player's potential in a single gif.



In this move, Embiid first fakes out a defender that positioned himself away from the baseline. He spins around the smaller defender after making them move just slightly with the fake and puts the ball on the floor instead of taking the open hook shot.

Then the defender on KU's power forward (Perry Ellis) lunges to try to strip the ball from the center. For most big men in their first game the play ends there in a turnover. Embiid is quick enough to bring the ball up and shoot over his right shoulder at the basket before another defender can collapse on him. The shot he shoots is not in a good position to use the backboard so he lays it just over the rim.

And most impressive of all, he clearly establishes rebounding position in a split second to stop the third defender from having any shot at getting the ball. The instant his feet his the ground after the shot he rotates so that his body is directly between the defender and the board, before sprinting off to the other end.

How many big men in the NBA could make that shot? How many make the shot and get in great rebounding position afterwards? How many could do that in their first month of playing college basketball?

[Tave]

^^^^ That's a nice spin move, into what should have been an easy dunk, but became a desperation over-the-shoulder heave when he couldn't power to the rim. Nice touch but c'mon.

For an Embiid comparison, I could say that his ceiling is Hakeem with a better outside shot because he has shown decent form and a fair willingness to shoot the 3 in high school. But the 3 isn't a big enough part of his game for me to tack that onto the ceiling, just like defense and team play aren't a big enough part of Parker's game to stack that on top of Carmelo type scoring as a ceiling.

Hakeem was a far better athlete than Embiid.

[CBB_Fan]

^^^^ That's a nice spin move, into what should have been an easy dunk, but became a desperation over-the-shoulder heave when he couldn't power to the rim. Nice touch but c'mon.

Hakeem was a far better athlete than Embiid.

There was no way that play was turning into a dunk. Right before he started to gather the momentum to jump the second player jumped in front of him. He didn't have the space to dunk; trying would have been either a TO or a charge. He dunked several times in that game.

While I think Hakeem was more explosive, I don't think he was a far better athlete and I don't think you could tell from one gif that happened not to end with a dunk.

[Tave]

^^^^ That's a nice spin move, into what should have been an easy dunk, but became a desperation over-the-shoulder heave when he couldn't power to the rim. Nice touch but c'mon.

Hakeem was a far better athlete than Embiid.

There was no way that play was turning into a dunk. Right before he started to gather the momentum to jump the second player jumped in front of him. He didn't have the space to dunk; trying would have been either a TO or a charge. He dunked several times in that game.

A charge? Huh? The help defender is standing within the restricted circle almost directly under the basket. Joel had a pretty clear lane to the rim. If he had risen up and dunked there's no way that was a charge.

While I think Hakeem was more explosive, I don't think he was a far better athlete and I don't think you could tell from one gif that happened not to end with a dunk.

The two comments were independent of one another. I combined them so I didn't have to make 2 posts.

Hakeem was faster, quicker, stronger, more explosive, quicker laterally, and a better leaper. He was clearly the superior athlete by all objective members. There's a reason why Hakeem is the only NBA center on the top-10 all-time steals list and the only NBA player ever to record 200 blocks and 200 steals in a season. He was a phenomenal athlete who would routinely and effectively guard opposing players all the way out to the 3-point line. Embiid isn't in the same ballpark as him athletically. Embiid's greatest physical asset is probably his lateral quickness, but even there he falls well short of Hakeem.

But more to your point, Hakeem would have thrown that down with ease.

[Ruzious]

I think Tim Duncan is a better comp as far as tools are concerned - than Olajuwon. Duncan's body control is amazing for someone his size, and Embiid's got that great attribute. And if Embiid really hadn't started playing basketball until less than 3 years ago, his skills potential is tremendous. It'll be interesting to see how he develops this season - he's got the advantage of having a good coach and what seems to be a good head on his shoulders. The key in evaluating him is focusing on what he can do; not so much on what he can't do.

[Tave]

I see a weaker, lankier, less-developed Vlade Divac without the passing aptitude. That can change, he's a young 7-footer who could conceivably get a lot stronger, but he's a huge question mark at this point. I can't think of any current starting NBA center who is both as slow as Joel and as weak. Usually it's one or the other (a slow bruiser or a skinny freak). There are plenty of college centers with nice touch and footwork who lack the athleticism to succeed in the league.

Duncan is/was an underrated athlete. He was an extremely powerful player in his youth and physically dominated every other center in the game not named Shaq. Embiid plays soft and slow. Duncan was disciples but aggressive and strong.

Just as an aside, not every intriguing college freshman deserves to be compared to a top-10 player of all time. That's setting Embiid up for failure.

[CBB_Fan]

A charge? Huh? The help defender is standing within the restricted circle almost directly under the basket. Joel had a pretty clear lane to the rim. If he had risen up and dunked there's no way that was a charge.

Again, that play was not dunkable. Not by Hakeem, not by Shaq. Unless you are 7'8" and can dunk flat-footed you need space to jump and Embiid did not have that space after the second defender rushed him. You are right about being unable to get a charge play in the restricted zone, but I still maintain that even trying to dunk would have resulted in at best two fouls and more likely a TO.

The two comments were independent of one another. I combined them so I didn't have to make 2 posts.

Hakeem was faster, quicker, stronger, more explosive, quicker laterally, and a better leaper. He was clearly the superior athlete by all objective members. \Embiid's greatest physical asset is probably his lateral quickness, but even there he falls well short of Hakeem.

But more to your point, Hakeem would have thrown that down with ease.

You can make whatever superlatives you want, but they don't prove your point. You continue to believe that the play failed because Embiid couldn't jump high enough or wasn't quick enough, but the truth is that as soon as Embiid was pointed towards the basket he was forced to change direction and Embiid's quick change of direction is only reason why that play ended with a basket.

See this video (all 12 pixels of it):

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oi2kDwW-e4[/youtube]

Sure, Hakeem dunks off his spin move occasionally. But when he doesn't have clear access to the rim either because he gets knocked off course or a help defender gets in his way he is forced to convert with a layup, much like Embiid did. And before you say that he is still much faster, explosive, quicker, awesomer, etc. remember that this is Hakeem as a fully developed athlete. He developed significantly after entering the NBA, just as Embiid is projected to.

[CBB_Fan]

Testing out some stuff to make gifs:

Dunk at 18:59 2nd half against Iona

Spoiler:

Block at 15:21 2nd half against Iona

Spoiler:

Dunk at 8:17 2nd half against Iona

Spoiler:

Dunk at 5:36 2nd half against Iona

Spoiler:

Dunk against Towson

Spoiler:

Outlet pass against Towson

Spoiler:

[sikma42]

^^^^ That's a nice spin move, into what should have been an easy dunk, but became a desperation over-the-shoulder heave when he couldn't power to the rim. Nice touch but c'mon.

Hakeem was a far better athlete than Embiid.

There was no way that play was turning into a dunk. Right before he started to gather the momentum to jump the second player jumped in front of him. He didn't have the space to dunk; trying would have been either a TO or a charge. He dunked several times in that game.

While I think Hakeem was more explosive, I don't think he was a far better athlete and I don't think you could tell from one gif that happened not to end with a dunk.

Hakeem was a much better athlete. Calling him Hakeem with a jumper was actually very insulting. Bynum had a great feel for the post as well and could make that move at a similar age. Didn't mean he was Hakeem.

[Ruzious]

I see a weaker, lankier, less-developed Vlade Divac without the passing aptitude. That can change, he's a young 7-footer who could conceivably get a lot stronger, but he's a huge question mark at this point. I can't think of any current starting NBA center who is both as slow as Joel and as weak. Usually it's one or the other (a slow bruiser or a skinny freak). There are plenty of college centers with nice touch and footwork who lack the athleticism to succeed in the league.

Duncan is/was an underrated athlete. He was an extremely powerful player in his youth and physically dominated every other center in the game not named Shaq. Embiid plays soft and slow. Duncan was disciples but aggressive and strong.

Just as an aside, not every intriguing college freshman deserves to be compared to a top-10 player of all time. That's setting Embiid up for failure.

Duncan was very skilled, but he was all of 6'10 and maybe 220 when he got to Wake Forest. He didn't become a big 7 footer until he got to the NBA, and he was never a great run jump athlete. His body control has been off the charts - which is what Embiid has. I think it's pretty silly to question whether or not Embiid's going to be strong enough to succeed in the NBA. He has a huge frame. All he needs is natural physical maturation and hard work to become one of the strongest players in the NBA.

What does "Duncan was disciples" mean?