'14 Draft Thread - Parker Declares. List your top 4

[Zeezprah]

Actually most people would entire disagree with this. If the raw ability is there defense is 90% effort and principle. With all the knocks Jabari gets defensively Lord Embiid is just as raw. Sure he blocks shots but his rotations and principles are very poor. He also might have just bit on another pump fake from someone in the stands from three months ago. All these guys are teenagers and will need work. Personally Ill go with Parker.

common misconception imo. people say the same things about QBs and accuracy. "well he's got the arm, he just needs work on the accuracy part". when that never happens.

i'm honestly struggling thinking of an NBA player who had defensive concerns coming in who became anything more than an adequate defender.

Football analogies really dont apply here. Its relatively common knowledge defense is 90% effort and coaching.

fine.. they don't apply.

i'm still racking my head for a name of any player

besides, there's quite a bit more to it than just effort and coaching. when do you think tweeners are such a bad thing? because they have trouble matching up physically with any one position.

believe what you want, but if you don't think there's any red flags with Jabari's defense.. i really don't know what to say

[skones]

Actually most people would entire disagree with this. If the raw ability is there defense is 90% effort and principle. With all the knocks Jabari gets defensively Lord Embiid is just as raw. Sure he blocks shots but his rotations and principles are very poor. He also might have just bit on another pump fake from someone in the stands from three months ago. All these guys are teenagers and will need work. Personally Ill go with Parker.

common misconception imo. people say the same things about QBs and accuracy. "well he's got the arm, he just needs work on the accuracy part". when that never happens.

i'm honestly struggling thinking of an NBA player who had defensive concerns coming in who became anything more than an adequate defender.

Bogut.......

[LUKE23]

Yeah, well, I definitely don't see him as point forward. I see him as a SG, and a guy that can guard any 2/3 and some 1, while giving you 20-22 ppg at around a .550-.560 TS in his prime.

[Newz]

I personally can't see Parker being anything more than an average defensive player... and that would be because he would be a good team defender. He just doesn't have the lateral quickness to stay with a lot of NBA 3s that can handle the ball and he's going to give up size at the 4.

I'm not saying it's wrong to want him first... he could potentially be an excellent offensive player and if you play him at the SF spot he should be a great rebounder. I think he can give more effort than anyone in the NBA on the defensive end and he still won't be all that great on that side of the ball.

[buckboy]

Thought this was interesting.

In an ESPN poll of 30 NBA executives, it was Duke's Jabari Parker who racked up more votes than both Wiggins and Embiid.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft201 ... executives

A few weeks ago I ranked Parker #1 but after allot of time spent on these forums I dropped him to #3. Seems like there is no clear #1 or we have three #1 picks in this draft.

See my sig. This board appears to be in love with Wiggins as the #1 overall pick. I've seen people point to Chad Ford. Well, Parker out-paces Wiggins by a WIDE margin when I poll individuals with a basketball pedigree outside of this forum. I'll be shocked if Wiggins comes off of the board before Parker. I wouldn't be surprised or disappointed if the Bucks took Parker #1 overall.

Your poll doesn't seem all that scientific tbh.

I am surprised by the ESPN poll of GMs though. I imagine when the bad GMs get fired and replaced by competent ones, the poll will swing in Wiggins' favor.

[Newz]

Yeah, well, I definitely don't see him as point forward. I see him as a SG, and a guy that can guard any 2/3 and some 1, while giving you 20-22 ppg at around a .550-.560 TS in his prime.

If you are taking Wiggins I agree with this.

I used to think Wiggins reminded me of Kobe, but I don't really anymore after continuing to watch him. He isn't that much of an isolation player. He isn't a Kobe, LeBron or Durant type of guy. If you are taking him I think you are hoping he's more of a James Worthy type of guy.

I think he could be really special if you paired him with a great shot creator. I also think he'd compliment Giannis well because I think with Wiggins shooting stroke he should be able to space the floor... and I really like Giannis' ability to handle and distribute (which is what I hope he continues to work on, I think he could be a great point forward') from the 3-spot.

[smauss]

Both the eye test and analytics have flaws but the reason the draft can be so very difficult is how the young man's game translates into the NBA. That is why it is very difficult, and in most years or at least many years the best player in a draft class turns out not to be the top pick but will usually be in the top 5 or so. Quite honestly, all of the top players that we all have are very good players with room to get better, and I'd be thrilled to get any of them, but personally, that is why I have Smart as my second best prospect, because I think both his and Embiid's games will translate well. With Parker, I'm just not sure where he plays. Wiggins, I'm nervous about his passivity (or what appears to be). Quite honestly, a year or two from now any of them could be the best player from this draft in the NBA.

[Baddy Chuck]

Wiggins was the worse player this year. He'd be drafted over Smart on potential (inexperience + size + athleticism).

But what Luke is saying is that Wiggins had an EXCEPTIONAL freshman season. People are acting like Wiggins put up stats like Giannis did this season and are basing it all on potential, Wiggins showed production. Very good production. Was he the next LeBron James people foolishly put on his shoulder early in the year? No. But he had statistically one of the better freshman seasons in a while, overall not a whole lot, or at all, worse then the supposedly much better, less flaws players like Parker, Randle and Smart.

Smart's better then him, great. Doug McDermott is better then Parker. Napier is better then Exum. You'd expect an older, higher class player to be better. The draft is almost always done on NBA potential. When Smart was considered a top 5 pick last season he wasn't better then most players after him, hell, he wasn't any better then Wiggins this season.

And the "star" call stuff, let's not act like Parker, Randle, Smart etc etc etc all aren't getting calls they likely shouldn't. A lot of those calls they shouldn't get are based on the fact that they do normally draw a lot of actual fouls.

[Chuck Diesel]

Wiggins. Embiid. Randle. Parker.

[driese0824]

Actually most people would entire disagree with this. If the raw ability is there defense is 90% effort and principle. With all the knocks Jabari gets defensively Lord Embiid is just as raw. Sure he blocks shots but his rotations and principles are very poor. He also might have just bit on another pump fake from someone in the stands from three months ago. All these guys are teenagers and will need work. Personally Ill go with Parker.

common misconception imo. people say the same things about QBs and accuracy. "well he's got the arm, he just needs work on the accuracy part". when that never happens.

i'm honestly struggling thinking of an NBA player who had defensive concerns coming in who became anything more than an adequate defender.

Whats wrong with being an adequate defender. If he lives up to his Offensive hype n can become adaquate defender ge very easily could be a multi year all star.
FWIW i would personally nuch rather have a great o adequate D guy than all D and very little o though i think wiggins will,be better than a guy like moute

[driese0824]

Both the eye test and analytics have flaws but the reason the draft can be so very difficult is how the young man's game translates into the NBA. That is why it is very difficult, and in most years or at least many years the best player in a draft class turns out not to be the top pick but will usually be in the top 5 or so. Quite honestly, all of the top players that we all have are very good players with room to gdet better, and I'd be thrilled to get any of them, but personally, that is why I have Smart as my second best prospect, because I think both his and Embiid's games will translate well. With Parker, I'm just not

sure where he plays. Wiggins, I'm nervous about his passivity (or what appears to be). Quite honestly, a year or two from now any of them could be the best player from this draft in the NBA.

Agree with you i think smarts game translates really well to the NBA also if he can find his stroke he could be a dynamite pg

[buckboy]

Ref bailouts now.

LMAO.

[Bernman]

But what Luke is saying is that Wiggins had an EXCEPTIONAL freshman season. People are acting like Wiggins put up stats like Giannis did this season and are basing it all on potential, Wiggins showed production. Very good production. Was he the next LeBron James people foolishly put on his shoulder early in the year? No. But he had statistically one of the better freshman seasons in a while, overall not a whole lot, or at all, worse then the supposedly much better, less flaws players like Parker, Randle and Smart.

Smart's better then him, great. Doug McDermott is better then Parker. Napier is better then Exum. You'd expect an older, higher class player to be better. The draft is almost always done on NBA potential. When Smart was considered a top 5 pick last season he wasn't better then most players after him, hell, he wasn't any better then Wiggins this season.

Smart did have a discernible advantage in PER his freshman year too.

And anyone would be remiss not to look at how the stats are achieved. Wiggins scoring over opponents on size is not going to happen nearly as much in the pros, and he's not going to get the star calls that he did in college until he's a star. If anything Smart got a raw deal from officials because of the flopping perception and histrionics. He was the Luis Suarez (flopper and biter in the EPL) of college basketball. He may carry that with him to the pros and have the same thing happen, or he could shed it tomorrow. One should also note that Smart was much more consistent. You're going to win more games if your players are steady over the course of an 82 game season, as opposed to very up and down, like Wiggins in reality was.

I'm more than fine with ranking Wiggins over Smart as a prospect right now. But let's just acknowledge what it's primarily for, and that's potential not relative production. I'll keep Wiggins ahead of Smart unless I see at the combine that Smart has shed the weight and is moving more fluidly and hitting jumpers efficiently. Then the skill/production gap would be too sizable in my eyes not to favor Smart over Wiggins, or maybe a couple more of the top 4 too. But we'll cross that bridge if/when we come to it.

[WiscoKing13]

My top 4

Exum
Wiggins
Parker
Embiid

[Bernman]

And the "star" call stuff, let's not act like Parker, Randle, Smart etc etc etc all aren't getting calls they likely shouldn't. A lot of those calls they shouldn't get are based on the fact that they do normally draw a lot of actual fouls.

Wiggins' luck with getting star calls was on another level. Like I said, the national commentators working on the game would reference it even. I don't recall that ever with Smart or Parker. I mean they would straight up call complete phantom fouls. I think those refs knew a lot of people were tuning in due to the Wiggins' hype, wanted to protect it, and keep him in games.

Smart was the opposite. If anything he got less calls than the average player because of his marred rep and attitude. If Sheed Wallace were in college right now, he'd be a star, but would he be getting star calls? Refs have the motivation of defending their pride too. Smart could rub refs the wrong way in the pros too and suffer a little drop in efficiency as a result like in college, or he could clean it up and add a few points to his total and percentage.

[Baddy Chuck]

And the "star" call stuff, let's not act like Parker, Randle, Smart etc etc etc all aren't getting calls they likely shouldn't. A lot of those calls they shouldn't get are based on the fact that they do normally draw a lot of actual fouls.

Wiggins' luck with getting star calls was on another level. Like I said, the national commentators working on the game would reference it even. I don't recall that ever with Smart or Parker. I mean they would straight up call complete phantom fouls. I think those refs knew a lot of people were tuning in due to the Wiggins' hype, wanted to protect it, and keep him in games.

Smart was the opposite. If anything he got less calls than the average player because of his marred rep and attitude. If Sheed Wallace were in college right now, he'd be a star, but would he be getting star calls? Refs have the motivation of defending their pride too.

Yeah I'm done, no bias in this clearly.

[Bernman]

Yeah I'm done, no bias in this clearly.

You're projecting. You're being biased to ignore national commentators would even remark on Wiggins' tendency to get favorable calls and Smart unfavorable (Fran would regularly talk about how it was a reaction to his flopping and outbursts). You have a stake in your claims. You could argue I do too, but they are the tiebreaker.

[machu46]

But what Luke is saying is that Wiggins had an EXCEPTIONAL freshman season. People are acting like Wiggins put up stats like Giannis did this season and are basing it all on potential, Wiggins showed production. Very good production. Was he the next LeBron James people foolishly put on his shoulder early in the year? No. But he had statistically one of the better freshman seasons in a while, overall not a whole lot, or at all, worse then the supposedly much better, less flaws players like Parker, Randle and Smart.

Smart's better then him, great. Doug McDermott is better then Parker. Napier is better then Exum. You'd expect an older, higher class player to be better. The draft is almost always done on NBA potential. When Smart was considered a top 5 pick last season he wasn't better then most players after him, hell, he wasn't any better then Wiggins this season.

Smart did have a discernible advantage in PER his freshman year too.

And anyone would be remiss not to look at how the stats are achieved. Wiggins scoring over opponents on size is not going to happen nearly as much in the pros, and he's not going to get the star calls that he did in college until he's a star. If anything Smart got a raw deal from officials because of the flopping perception and histrionics. He was the Luis Suarez (flopper and biter in the EPL) of college basketball. He may carry that with him to the pros and have the same thing happen, or he could shed it tomorrow. One should also note that Smart was much more consistent. You're going to win more games if your players are steady over the course of an 82 game season, as opposed to very up and down, like Wiggins in reality was.

I'm more than fine with ranking Wiggins over Smart as a prospect right now. But let's just acknowledge what it's primarily for, and that's potential not relative production. I'll keep Wiggins ahead of Smart unless I see at the combine that Smart has shed the weight and is moving more fluidly and hitting jumpers efficiently. Then the skill/production gap would be too sizable in my eyes not to favor Smart over Wiggins, or maybe a couple more of the top 4 too. But we'll cross that bridge if/when we come to it.

I gotta be honest; I don't really understand this argument. I agree that you have to look at how they're scoring, but it seems like you have how the prospects actually scored twisted.

Whenever I watched these guys play, it seemed that Wiggins generally scored on pull-up jumpers, catch-and-shoot opportunities, or fast break opportunities, with some tip-ins as well. None of that has anything to do with Wiggins abusing some size advantage that he has in college that he won't have in the NBA.

On the other hand, Smart and Jabari absolutely used their size to their advantage as they plowed through defenders on their way to the basket or pushed off their defender to set up a step-back jumper.

And yeah...using these "superstar" calls is just a ridiculous argument. All of these guys received the benefit of the whistle here and there, and the occasional phantom foul is such a small percentage of their plays that it really isn't worth bringing up at all. And I love that Smart's reputation as a flopper means that he didn't receive the benefit of the whistle while we ignore the fact that he got ridiculous calls in his favor BECAUSE of those flops.

[SupremeHustle]

Ability to get favorable calls should be a positive attribute.

[Baddy Chuck]

Smart probably led the NCAA the past 20 seasons in fouls based on contact that was 90% created by himself along with the flop and groan that followed.

Parker and Randle benefited greatly from the whole "wow did you see how he overpowered that guy?! Oh he missed the shot, must have been a foul".

They all got benefits from the refs, and no, Wiggins did not get any clear favors over any of them. I'm surely not going to cry for Smart because he didn't get a few fouls called for him when he was probably the one benefiting from reputation more than any of them.