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

[SupremeHustle]

Am I the only one who would not take Exum in the top 4?

I'm sure you're not, but who is your 4th guy? Let's say you can't trade it.

Zach LaVine.

Good shooter. Good size for a SG. Athletic as a muggafugga. And my favorite (and the thing that keeps him from being Swaggy P) he can handle, so initiating offense should be a strength eventually. And he just turned 19.

Watching his DX video, his decision making seems pretty horrible right now, but all of his weaknesses should improve with age.

Could also make a case for Fat Harden.

[Ron Swanson]

Exum and Nurkic are 4a and 4b for me.

I'm admittedly not very knowledgeable of Nurkic as a prospect. He seems like a good blend of size and touch for the C position, but beyond that what does he project as in the NBA? A shorter Marc Gasol?

[Newz]

Exum and Nurkic are 4a and 4b for me.

I'm admittedly not very knowledgeable of Nurkic as a prospect. He seems like a good blend of size and touch for the C position, but beyond that what does he project as in the NBA? A shorter Marc Gasol?

From what I have read he's very similar to Pekovic.

[White+Purple]

Exum and Nurkic are 4a and 4b for me.

I'm admittedly not very knowledgeable of Nurkic as a prospect. He seems like a good blend of size and touch for the C position, but beyond that what does he project as in the NBA? A shorter Marc Gasol?

Rich man's Pekovic. The 'rich man's' pertains to defense (hopefully).
On the downside he's a whiny bitch who fouls around 9000 times a game

[Nowak008]

I think people overlook that there are more elusive physical characteristics that contribute to skill development that aren't reflected by things like footspeed, vertical leap, strength, whatever. Things like hand-eye coordination, for instance.

Then of course there's the mental aspect, not only how motivated the guy is on and off the court, but also whether or not he's training and drilling in a way that will cause improvement, and how well he plays the chess game -- can he anticipate? -- these are the things that allow players to continue improving, and what we're really looking for is the guy who's going to improve the most.

Like the article says, we just put way too much weight on physical measurables when it comes to trying to project potential. They should be considered in concert with all these other factors.

I think these factors are the reason why I'm so high on Smart. He is always around the ball and just seems like he has great basketball instincts.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Baddy Chuck]

I'm curious. Where do you justify giving Parker an 8 when it comes to his individual offense because of his ability to take guys off the dribble or his mid range post game but give Wiggins a 9? Wiggins individual offense is probably the least developed part of his game as it pertains to the NBA.

And like always, I think you look at certain things he does and blow them out of proportion. I think he translates fine in the NBA. I think his first step is elite and his jumper is respectable enough that teams have to play him for it. I think he's shown an extremely quick turnaround mid range jumper that he can work on. I think Parker is rather slow and deliberate in those regards, I don't think he's surprising anyone with anything he's going to do on offense. So as it relates to an individual, yeah I do think Wiggins is going to be the better offensive player. I do think Parker has a pretty good advantage off the ball with his jumper though. I think a lot of this season he relied on two things, his jumper and beating people up in the post. When his jumper went midway through the season, he got stopped at a screeching halt. Then he started going down on the block more, grabbing a ton of offensive rebounds and beating people up inside and he found his game again. I don't think that second part translates much at all to the NBA.

And I mean I could pull out the unassisted numbers again as well, Wiggins surely doesn't look like a slouch next to Parker there.

[crkone]

I wouldn't worry about too much with Exum's shooting. His first step and basketball IQ are off the charts, and he can be taught to be an acceptable shooter. One concern I have is we don't really know what he has been up to, as in hard stat data since last year.

[skones]

I'm curious. Where do you justify giving Parker an 8 when it comes to his individual offense because of his ability to take guys off the dribble or his mid range post game but give Wiggins a 9? Wiggins individual offense is probably the least developed part of his game as it pertains to the NBA.

And like always, I think you look at certain things he does and blow them out of proportion. I think he translates fine in the NBA. I think his first step is elite and his jumper is respectable enough that teams have to play him for it. I think he's shown an extremely quick turnaround mid range jumper that he can work on. I think Parker is rather slow and deliberate in those regards, I don't think he's surprising anyone with anything he's going to do on offense. So as it relates to an individual, yeah I do think Wiggins is going to be the better offensive player. I do think Parker has a pretty good advantage off the ball with his jumper though. I think a lot of this season he relied on two things, his jumper and beating people up in the post. When his jumper went midway through the season, he got stopped at a screeching halt. Then he started going down on the block more, grabbing a ton of offensive rebounds and beating people up inside and he found his game again. I don't think that second part translates much at all to the NBA.

And I mean I could pull out the unassisted numbers again as well, Wiggins surely doesn't look like a slouch next to Parker there.

The biggest thing here, is that while his first step is elite from a physical standpoint, his second step is far from it. The ball slows him down quite a bit when he puts it on the floor, and it's going to be far more noticeable against more athletic defenders at the NBA level. A guy doesn't need to be dribbling the ball off of his foot (as you like to put it from time to time) to severely hinder a players effectiveness going to the rim. Once that's taken away, he's going to have a lot of trouble scoring at the NBA level.

Parkers versatility on the offensive end makes him a better individual offensive player by a pretty wide margin at this point, and I'm not sure that's really debatable. You're putting far too much stock in that rating for "potential" when there's an entirely separate category created for "ceiling."

[paulpressey25]

Then he started going down on the block more, grabbing a ton of offensive rebounds and beating people up inside and he found his game again. I don't think that second part translates much at all to the NBA.

I'd draft Wiggins before Jabari, but would take some exception with your thought above on Jabari's game on the blocks translating. I think he's going to be a beast down low in the NBA. He's got a lot of moves and quickness that will work well in the NBA IMO. Frankly that's why I'd have Jabari ranked third overall. He's shown an ability to create his own shot in the post that Wiggins has not yet.

[Bucksfan28]

I'm curious. Where do you justify giving Parker an 8 when it comes to his individual offense because of his ability to take guys off the dribble or his mid range post game but give Wiggins a 9? Wiggins individual offense is probably the least developed part of his game as it pertains to the NBA.

And like always, I think you look at certain things he does and blow them out of proportion. I think he translates fine in the NBA. I think his first step is elite and his jumper is respectable enough that teams have to play him for it. I think he's shown an extremely quick turnaround mid range jumper that he can work on. I think Parker is rather slow and deliberate in those regards, I don't think he's surprising anyone with anything he's going to do on offense. So as it relates to an individual, yeah I do think Wiggins is going to be the better offensive player. I do think Parker has a pretty good advantage off the ball with his jumper though. I think a lot of this season he relied on two things, his jumper and beating people up in the post. When his jumper went midway through the season, he got stopped at a screeching halt. Then he started going down on the block more, grabbing a ton of offensive rebounds and beating people up inside and he found his game again. I don't think that second part translates much at all to the NBA.

And I mean I could pull out the unassisted numbers again as well, Wiggins surely doesn't look like a slouch next to Parker there.

I'm also a Wiggins guy. Would be curious to see these.

[theFireBlanket]

I wouldn't worry about too much with Exum's shooting. His first step and basketball IQ are off the charts, and he can be taught to be an acceptable shooter. One concern I have is we don't really know what he has been up to, as in hard stat data since last year.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AZ_btHgIes[/youtube] Agreed.

[smauss]

I think people overlook that there are more elusive physical characteristics that contribute to skill development that aren't reflected by things like footspeed, vertical leap, strength, whatever. Things like hand-eye coordination, for instance.

Then of course there's the mental aspect, not only how motivated the guy is on and off the court, but also whether or not he's training and drilling in a way that will cause improvement, and how well he plays the chess game -- can he anticipate? -- these are the things that allow players to continue improving, and what we're really looking for is the guy who's going to improve the most.

Like the article says, we just put way too much weight on physical measurables when it comes to trying to project potential. They should be considered in concert with all these other factors.

I couldn't agree with you more emunney. We get so very caught-up in measurables that we forget about the tools required to be basketball players. I see so many younger kids that have gotten by on pure athletic prowess that they never truly developed fundamental skills. At some point the athletic prowess isn't enough anymore and there are very limited, if any, fundamentals instilled in their game to allow them to flourish. Some drop off in H.S., some in college, and some make it the NBA but, lets face it, at this level everyone has athletic prowess to some degree and a player, to make an impact, really needs fundamental skills to further hone. Having to teach a young man at age 18 or 20 "how to shoot", or how to play smart defense is IMHO laughable. That's what elementary school is for.........

[Baddy Chuck]

And I mean I could pull out the unassisted numbers again as well, Wiggins surely doesn't look like a slouch next to Parker there.

I'm also a Wiggins guy. Would be curious to see these.

Unassisted in half court

Wiggins at the rim: 52% on 41 makes
Parker at the rim: 44% on 42 makes

Wiggins from mid range: 28% on 33 makes
Parker from mid range: 25% on 38 makes

[mattg]

I don't think wings are any less important than PGs if they are hypothetically the same talent level. The same standard that people use for big men(value bigs over smalls) applies to wings vs. PGs as well.

I'm glad PP is here to make my arguments for me:

To add more color to the PG/C v wing debate, I guess I look at recent Bucks history.

Robinson and Allen never went anywhere until we got Brandon/Cassell in there at PG. Then the only other times we did ok were rookie TJ Ford. Good point guard play seemed to make or break this team.

At center, Bogut and last years version of Larry Sanders made this team .500 but in games they didn't play, we were awful.

The Center keys your defense. The PG keys your offense. The only exceptions are the top 25 all-time wings like mentioned (Jordan, LeBron, Kobe class players) who IMO really are PG's in most senses.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums mobile app

I think achieving superstar status at the PG position is even more difficult to achieve than other positions because of the responsibilities of the position and because of the size of the players. i tend to agree with barkley when he says that on a championship contending team, the most dominant player on the team shouldn't be the PG. it's too difficult of a task to manage the responsibilities of a PG, being physically dominant at that size and carrying the scoring load. we've seen this in recent yrs in the playoffs to good effect, but opposing teams can and do go bigger on really good scoring PGs, lowering their effectiveness as scorers.

Basically, with the debate we're having here you guys are dead set on PG keying the offense, which I don't disagree with at all. My point is that compared to finding a playmaking wing, finding a good floor general is easy. Look how much better the bucks were with Nate wolters this year. Your PG doesn't have to be one of your best players, he just has to manage the game. And it's tough to find PGs who can do a great job mixing that responsibility with scoring and everything else. If I have the choice of an elite wing or PG, I'm taking the wing every single time and it's an easy call. Like has been mentioned, elite wings are going to be able to create and set other guys up, being able to act as a de facto PG at times. I can't imagine either of you would take a 6ft PG over 6'6 one all things being considered equal would you?

As for the bucks examples, I don't find their relevance. The bucks never had a playmaking wing in either situation mentioned. Of course they improved a bunch when you add a capable playmaker to a roster that doesn't have any playmakers. That's obvious.

[MiltownHawkeye]

Am I the only one who would not take Exum in the top 4?

I'm sure you're not, but who is your 4th guy? Let's say you can't trade it.

Zach LaVine.

Good shooter. Good size for a SG. Athletic as a muggafugga. And my favorite (and the thing that keeps him from being Swaggy P) he can handle, so initiating offense should be a strength eventually. And he just turned 19.

Watching his DX video, his decision making seems pretty horrible right now, but all of his weaknesses should improve with age.

Could also make a case for Fat Harden.

You'd get fired so fast if either of them busted.

[Bucksfan28]

And I mean I could pull out the unassisted numbers again as well, Wiggins surely doesn't look like a slouch next to Parker there.

I'm also a Wiggins guy. Would be curious to see these.

Unassisted in half court

Wiggins at the rim: 52% on 41 makes
Parker at the rim: 44% on 42 makes

Wiggins from mid range: 28% on 33 makes
Parker from mid range: 25% on 38 makes

Thanks. Even more comfortable in going Wiggins over Parker than before.

[mattg]

Yeah I'm a staunch Adams supporter here but I couldn't take him that high. Back end of the top 10 sure, 7-10 range I think is justify able.

[Bucksfan28]

If Payton, Adams, Lavine all fall to 25 (as per the new DX mock) and we don't trade up I'd be extremely disappointed.

[Baddy Chuck]

Then he started going down on the block more, grabbing a ton of offensive rebounds and beating people up inside and he found his game again. I don't think that second part translates much at all to the NBA.

I'd draft Wiggins before Jabari, but would take some exception with your thought above on Jabari's game on the blocks translating. I think he's going to be a beast down low in the NBA. He's got a lot of moves and quickness that will work well in the NBA IMO. Frankly that's why I'd have Jabari ranked third overall. He's shown an ability to create his own shot in the post that Wiggins has not yet.

See, I don't think it does translate well. For one, he's going to be going against the long, athletic defenders hes shown to struggle with more often in the NBA. Then he's going to have Dwight Howard and Larry Sanders as the second line of defense, not Kaleb Tarczewski. Also, I think a lot of his success in the post has been his aggressiveness rather then quickness and moves you talk about. He was a very good offensive rebounder and got a lot of opportunities off of putbacks and getting fouled off those second shots. Those rebounds and shots are going to be much fewer and far between in the NBA. I think there will certain matchups he can definitely take advantage of, but not near as many as there were for him at Duke.

[ChuckBros4Life]

Question.

Why can't LaVine be an NBA point guard?

He's got a terrific handle and quickness/athleticism to really penetrate and create passing possibilities. He seemed to have tunnel vision at UCLA but his court vision would improve with a mindset change