2015 Draft Thread - Part 1

[pcbothwel]

Lots of love for Bobby Portis - haven't seen him play - so why would he help and when?

He would help immediately. Ill start with the negatives and why he would fall to us.
1) He is not very explosive
2) He doesn't have great post game(lack of 1st step and counter moves like Nene)
3) Low ceiling (will probably never make an All-Star Game)

But why he will succeed is very apparent and could go on and on:

1) Great size as a PF at 6'11 and 7'1 wingspan and 235lbs
2) Very efficient and hardworking in transition as well as at the rim
3) Great Offensive Rebounder due to motor and size
4) While not explosive or that great in Post D, he is quick footed laterally and can guard 3's and stretch 4's on perimeter.
5) Jump shot that easily goes out to 18ft and will continue to expand as his comfort/ consistency improve.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

How different is Portis from Andray Blatche?

[krii]

Draft Mateusz Ponitka in the second round and both PG/SG would be filled

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Mat ... itka-6130/

The nicest thing I can think of to say is... he'll definitely be available.

":-)" stands for a joke I don't know if he is the best fit for Wizards. He better fits SAS even if some mocks list him for ... Cavs. Anyway he is about 45th-55th position 2nd round on mocks.

Don't treat him like a bust - he will be here for a summer games and I'm pretty sure he will play his position in draft

[pcbothwel]

How different is Portis from Andray Blatche?

Blatche had better ball handling and broader variety of offensive skills, but wasnt as quick, hardworking, successful in transition or at the rim.
But they are somewhat similar

[Ruzious]

Portis should become basically a rich man's Drew Gooden - and he's nearly 15 years younger.

[stevemcqueen1]

One big thing I like about Lyles is he can shoot after taking a dribble or two. That gives him the potential for a much more expansive mid range game than we get from Humphries, Nene, or Gortat.

I think he could develop an NBA three ball in a couple years of work. He's already got range to 19 or 20 feet. And I can see him having the ability to pump fake the close out defender, step inside the line for a dribble or two and nail the open jumper. More than your typical big that just catches and shoots the 18 footer.

He actually reminds me a lot of Otto in a PF's body.

He didn't even make college 3's - and he played mostly small forward at KY - he had the chance, so it's a huge stretch to project him to ever be a 3 point threat in the NBA. There's just nothing special about him - he doesn't have any special skill, and he's only a decent athlete. I also question whether he plays physically enough for the NBA. I think his ceiling is a poor man's Juwan Howard.

Would you have projected Patrick Patterson to be a three point shooter after his first season at Kentucky? Or his second for that matter. Same for Kawhi Leonard and Otto Porter. Increases to shooting range is one of the safest projections you can make in prospects and Lyles was already hitting shots with his heels on the line. He's got the skills of a combo forward, I don't think it's a stretch to see him shooting threes in the NBA.

I don't see the physicality complaint either. He's tough on the glass.

I don't really see anything that Bobby Portis can do that Lyles doesn't do just as well or better. He's longer and more skilled.

[pcbothwel]

One big thing I like about Lyles is he can shoot after taking a dribble or two. That gives him the potential for a much more expansive mid range game than we get from Humphries, Nene, or Gortat.

I think he could develop an NBA three ball in a couple years of work. He's already got range to 19 or 20 feet. And I can see him having the ability to pump fake the close out defender, step inside the line for a dribble or two and nail the open jumper. More than your typical big that just catches and shoots the 18 footer.

He actually reminds me a lot of Otto in a PF's body.

He didn't even make college 3's - and he played mostly small forward at KY - he had the chance, so it's a huge stretch to project him to ever be a 3 point threat in the NBA. There's just nothing special about him - he doesn't have any special skill, and he's only a decent athlete. I also question whether he plays physically enough for the NBA. I think his ceiling is a poor man's Juwan Howard.

Would you have projected Patrick Patterson to be a three point shooter after his first season at Kentucky? Or his second for that matter. Same for Kawhi Leonard and Otto Porter. Increases to shooting range is one of the safest projections you can make in prospects and Lyles was already hitting shots with his heels on the line. He's got the skills of a combo forward, I don't think it's a stretch to see him shooting threes in the NBA.

I don't see the physicality complaint either. He's tough on the glass.

I don't really see anything that Bobby Portis can do that Lyles doesn't do just as well or better. He's longer and more skilled.

I agree that Lyles will be a fine shooter at the next level, but i disagree with you about him being simply equal to or better than Portis.
They are both clearly stretch 4's who are more smooth than explosive and they both hustle on the Offensive boards.

Lyles is a better ball handler with more polished footwork in the post, whereas Portis is a little more efficient in transition and has better lateral agility defensively on the perimeter.

I like both, but you have to weigh out if you prefer the benefits of Portis and his lateral quickness or Lyles and the play-making edge. For this team, Ill say Portis. But Portis, Lyles, and Wood are great prospects to mull over in the later half of the first round.

[J-Ves]

How is a guy like Looney being projected all the way to 18th by DX? His wingspan and standing reach is outstanding, so much so he will be able to play some minutes at center. And his ability to stretch the floor seems ideal for todays NBA. Even if he has zero ball skills, the guy has enough tools to be a plus defender/rebounder and solid offensive player and is still very young at 19.

[pcbothwel]

How is a guy like Looney being projected all the way to 18th by DX? His wingspan and standing reach is outstanding, so much so he will be able to play some minutes at center. And his ability to stretch the floor seems ideal for todays NBA. Even if he has zero ball skills, the guy has enough tools to be a plus defender/rebounder and solid offensive player and is still very young at 19.

I like him, but average athlete with poor ball handling and zero post game. Plays high and with limited strength which causes him problems at the rim both finishing offensively and defensively. Also, i wouldnt call him lazy, but only average motor. So thats how he could drop.

But at least 1 if not 2 out of the 4 (Looney, Wood, Lyles, and Portis) will make it to 19 and we need to take whoever drops. No question.

[Ruzious]

One big thing I like about Lyles is he can shoot after taking a dribble or two. That gives him the potential for a much more expansive mid range game than we get from Humphries, Nene, or Gortat.

I think he could develop an NBA three ball in a couple years of work. He's already got range to 19 or 20 feet. And I can see him having the ability to pump fake the close out defender, step inside the line for a dribble or two and nail the open jumper. More than your typical big that just catches and shoots the 18 footer.

He actually reminds me a lot of Otto in a PF's body.

He didn't even make college 3's - and he played mostly small forward at KY - he had the chance, so it's a huge stretch to project him to ever be a 3 point threat in the NBA. There's just nothing special about him - he doesn't have any special skill, and he's only a decent athlete. I also question whether he plays physically enough for the NBA. I think his ceiling is a poor man's Juwan Howard.

Would you have projected Patrick Patterson to be a three point shooter after his first season at Kentucky? Or his second for that matter. Same for Kawhi Leonard and Otto Porter. Increases to shooting range is one of the safest projections you can make in prospects and Lyles was already hitting shots with his heels on the line. He's got the skills of a combo forward, I don't think it's a stretch to see him shooting threes in the NBA.

I don't see the physicality complaint either. He's tough on the glass.

I don't really see anything that Bobby Portis can do that Lyles doesn't do just as well or better. He's longer and more skilled.

That kind of logic makes no sense to me. For every player you mentioned, there's several hundred that haven't made that kind of jump, so how are your examples relevant? He played the 3 in college - so if he had range out to 19 feet, he would have been taking 3's, but he didn't. So, assuming he'll have range out to 22 feet is nothing more than a gigantic leap of faith at this point. Portis actually made college 3's - and did it a high percentage - and he's got a beautiful stroke. He rebounded like a big in college.

Lyles' rebounding numbers were solid for a 3 and poor for a 4, and he hasn't shown that he's tough on the glass - other than when he battled 6'5 small forwards in college. He was the last recruit at KY and knew they had to move him to the 3 to get him any PT. He wouldn't have done that if he didn't want to be a 3. And he does not have the NBA skills to play the 3, imo. That doesn't lead me to believe he wants to play physically.

[stevemcqueen1]

He didn't even make college 3's - and he played mostly small forward at KY - he had the chance, so it's a huge stretch to project him to ever be a 3 point threat in the NBA. There's just nothing special about him - he doesn't have any special skill, and he's only a decent athlete. I also question whether he plays physically enough for the NBA. I think his ceiling is a poor man's Juwan Howard.

Would you have projected Patrick Patterson to be a three point shooter after his first season at Kentucky? Or his second for that matter. Same for Kawhi Leonard and Otto Porter. Increases to shooting range is one of the safest projections you can make in prospects and Lyles was already hitting shots with his heels on the line. He's got the skills of a combo forward, I don't think it's a stretch to see him shooting threes in the NBA.

I don't see the physicality complaint either. He's tough on the glass.

I don't really see anything that Bobby Portis can do that Lyles doesn't do just as well or better. He's longer and more skilled.

That kind of logic makes no sense to me. For every player you mentioned, there's several hundred that haven't made that kind of jump, so how are your examples relevant? He played the 3 in college - so if he had range out to 19 feet, he would have been taking 3's, but he didn't. So, assuming he'll have range out to 22 feet is nothing more than a gigantic leap of faith at this point. Portis actually made college 3's - and did it a high percentage - and he's got a beautiful stroke. He rebounded like a big in college.

Lyles' rebounding numbers were solid for a 3 and poor for a 4, and he hasn't shown that he's tough on the glass - other than when he battled 6'5 small forwards in college. He was the last recruit at KY and knew they had to move him to the 3 to get him any PT. He wouldn't have done that if he didn't want to be a 3. And he does not have the NBA skills to play the 3, imo. That doesn't lead me to believe he wants to play physically.

The claim that young players don't improve their shooting range in the NBA doesn't make sense to you? Really?

Yeah, you've used this reasoning before for the young players you don't really want to expect to get better for whatever reason. But let's extend it to its natural conclusion: For every young player that eventually pans out or meets their potential, there are a hundred that don't. So then why should we expect anyone to work out? It's a generic complaint about the difficulty of developing any young player.

Bobby Portis made 23 threes in his college career. Nine as a freshman and 14 this season. Saying he's got a three ball and Lyles doesn't based on that tiny sample size is silly. He's got a nice stroke. So does Lyles, and Lyles can also shoot on the move.

And I think you're reaching when you say Lyles went to Kentucky because he didn't want to have to play inside because he's not physical enough. I think it's probably a lot better bet that Lyles chose Kentucky because he wanted to win and was willing to play the three because that was the only way he could get on the court. As for the rebounds, what do you expect? He was playing SF on a team with two lottery pick seven footers. There were only so many rebounds to go around. What he did show was a knack for getting offensive rebounds. He didn't play with a lack of physicality. He was a fiery competitor.

[gambitx777]

Lots of love for Bobby Portis - haven't seen him play - so why would he help and when?

He has range, he rebound well, and he plays good solid D. He has craft hands and he blocks well. He has a good NBA body and he can probably come in and play right away.

Christian Wood, is about the same type of player, a bit less potent offensively and better on the boards and on D.

If we could work some magic and get both, That would be huge!

[Ruzious]

Would you have projected Patrick Patterson to be a three point shooter after his first season at Kentucky? Or his second for that matter. Same for Kawhi Leonard and Otto Porter. Increases to shooting range is one of the safest projections you can make in prospects and Lyles was already hitting shots with his heels on the line. He's got the skills of a combo forward, I don't think it's a stretch to see him shooting threes in the NBA.

I don't see the physicality complaint either. He's tough on the glass.

I don't really see anything that Bobby Portis can do that Lyles doesn't do just as well or better. He's longer and more skilled.

That kind of logic makes no sense to me. For every player you mentioned, there's several hundred that haven't made that kind of jump, so how are your examples relevant? He played the 3 in college - so if he had range out to 19 feet, he would have been taking 3's, but he didn't. So, assuming he'll have range out to 22 feet is nothing more than a gigantic leap of faith at this point. Portis actually made college 3's - and did it a high percentage - and he's got a beautiful stroke. He rebounded like a big in college.

Lyles' rebounding numbers were solid for a 3 and poor for a 4, and he hasn't shown that he's tough on the glass - other than when he battled 6'5 small forwards in college. He was the last recruit at KY and knew they had to move him to the 3 to get him any PT. He wouldn't have done that if he didn't want to be a 3. And he does not have the NBA skills to play the 3, imo. That doesn't lead me to believe he wants to play physically.

The claim that young players don't improve their shooting range in the NBA doesn't make sense to you? Really?

What I actually said was it doesn't make sense to ASSUME that a player who clearly couldn't hit college 3's will be able to hit pro 3's. Again - for every player you give as an example that do, there are hundreds that don't.

[stevemcqueen1]

That kind of logic makes no sense to me. For every player you mentioned, there's several hundred that haven't made that kind of jump, so how are your examples relevant? He played the 3 in college - so if he had range out to 19 feet, he would have been taking 3's, but he didn't. So, assuming he'll have range out to 22 feet is nothing more than a gigantic leap of faith at this point. Portis actually made college 3's - and did it a high percentage - and he's got a beautiful stroke. He rebounded like a big in college.

Lyles' rebounding numbers were solid for a 3 and poor for a 4, and he hasn't shown that he's tough on the glass - other than when he battled 6'5 small forwards in college. He was the last recruit at KY and knew they had to move him to the 3 to get him any PT. He wouldn't have done that if he didn't want to be a 3. And he does not have the NBA skills to play the 3, imo. That doesn't lead me to believe he wants to play physically.

The claim that young players don't improve their shooting range in the NBA doesn't make sense to you? Really?

What I actually said was it doesn't make sense to ASSUME that a player who clearly couldn't hit college 3's will be able to hit pro 3's. Again - for every player you give as an example that do, there are hundreds that don't.

Ok and once again, using that rationale, why would you expect any young player to ever improve or add new things to their game?

[Ruzious]

The claim that young players don't improve their shooting range in the NBA doesn't make sense to you? Really?

What I actually said was it doesn't make sense to ASSUME that a player who clearly couldn't hit college 3's will be able to hit pro 3's. Again - for every player you give as an example that do, there are hundreds that don't.

Ok and once again, using that rationale, why would you expect any young player to ever improve or add new things to their game?

Why do you think I put the word assume in all caps?

The problem with your logic with a lot of players is you pick a couple of examples of players who made it big and assume that because they made it big, the players you like will do the same thing - even when there are many more players who didn't make the leaps that you're anticipating.

I think it's time to move on.

[stevemcqueen1]

What I actually said was it doesn't make sense to ASSUME that a player who clearly couldn't hit college 3's will be able to hit pro 3's. Again - for every player you give as an example that do, there are hundreds that don't.

Ok and once again, using that rationale, why would you expect any young player to ever improve or add new things to their game?

Why do you think I put the word assume in all caps?

The problem with your logic with a lot of players is you pick a couple of examples of players who made it big and assume that because they made it big, the players you like will do the same thing - even when there are many more players who didn't make the leaps that you're anticipating.

I think it's time to move on.

And the problem with your logic is that it's a general complaint against development from ANY young player that you are using to try and stifle discussion about young players that, for whatever reason, you don't want to project improvement from in particular.

Yes, let's move on. Because what the hell are we even doing in a thread about nothing but projecting improvement and future success in young players if we aren't allowed to accept that, because many more fail and/or never improve, some young players do in fact improve and eventually succeed?

[stevemcqueen1]

Or maybe Trey Lyles should have just made five or ten more threes this year so we could be safe in projecting him to have NBA 3 pt range like Bobby Portis.

[payitforward]

Or maybe Trey Lyles should have just made five or ten more threes this year so we could be safe in projecting him to have NBA 3 pt range like Bobby Portis.

Ruzious is a patient fellow. I'm not as patient as he is, and you are writing a load of BS, Stevie....

You can't just assume improvement of the kind you do assume. It might happen, but it also might not happen. Patterson developed a 3, you bet. How long a list do you want of guys who didn't?

You better draft a guy because of what he *does* do well -- not what he might do well. And, then, of course, if he can add more to his game that's good too. Like Patrick Patterson.

[Ruzious]

Steve, one last try because you continue to misrepresent what I said. I said I am not going to ASSUME Lyles is going to be a good NBA 3 point shooter, because he played the 3 in college - a position where you generally have plenty of opportunities to shoot 19 foot 3's - and he showed no ability to make them - and the NBA 3 is 3 feet farther. Could he become a good 3 point shooter? Of course, he could. But based on the above, I think the odds are against it - so I don't ASSUME he will. Fair enough?

[No-Man]

How different is Portis from Andray Blatche?

he is a professional without off the field issues
he has a brain