The Devin Booker Thread

[DY_nasty]

You guys are really undervaluing JJ Reddick right now.

[JDR720]

Bookers ceiling should be JJ Redick with size/passable defense, maybe Kyle Korver? that said i still wouldn't take him over the more well-rounded wings. still top 5 on my list though

[ball teacher]

JJ was afraid to dribble coming out of Duke. He spent years there and could not play defense or dribble when he left. I remember him trying to drive the lane his rookie year and air balling a layup. Let's not overhype these guys to much based on what they are now to what they were then. These "overall" abilities everyone is speaking of were not shown in college by most of these guys. Klay was slow footed and people questioned if he would ever take anyone off the dribble in the NBA. People feared Redick would be the next Langdan because he could not handle the ball well. Beal was a "shooter " who did not shoot all that well. They all had flaws coming out very similar to the ones Oubre, Booker, Hezonja and Johnson have now but they improved them and that is what we are going to have to hope for with whoever we pick at 9.

I agree with everything you stated, and that's exactly why I have apprehension with Booker. Everything you say about JJ struggling when he first got to the league is true, but the thing is, JJ was more prepared to leave college than Booker cause JJ had a bigger role offensively and more experience. We are wondering if Booker can develop to the point where JJ, Beal or Klay is now, and only Klay is really all star caliber as JJ is just now finding his niche and Beal wont really be much better than he is now, and again, these guys were more complete players than Booker has shown in college.

I see what you are saying but I would argue than none other than maybe Klay were more complete. JJ had a bigger role in terms of numbers of shots but still did nothing that Booker did not do in his role. He was just a lot more experienced and only doing what Booker can do. Beal on a much weaker team shot worse from three and the FT line. He was really a huge gamble because his form looked good but had been very ineffective. Klay was more complete due to his time spent and growing role at WSU but he was not better going in. He also adjusted to the NBA fast than the other two due to his more expanded college role. No matter how long these guys stay in school they still have to improve in the league to be effective and I don't think that is any different for any of the guys we will pick. With his form we know Booker will be able to shoot and with his intelligence he is more likely to get time early on because he won't do stupid stuff that cost our team games.

You may be right about only Klay having been more complete cause I didnt see much of Beal in college, and I'm basing my opinion on the fact that Beal and JJ were starters who were the better scoring options on their respective teams, so I'm assuming that they had a bigger roles. I know JJ set records at Duke with his shooting and he was a upper classmen so I'm counting his experience and scoring history as advantages Booker didn't have. Booker is taller and a better athlete than JJ, I just wanted to see more of a offensive package from Booker for him to be considered a lottery pick, but with all that being said, I think he will have a long career as he does have a skill that all teams can use. If we do draft him I would like to see him made into the 3rd option offensively so he can get accustomed to scoring at this level, I say throw him to the wolves now so that by year 3 he knows the ropes.

[BeesWax]

I agree with everything you stated, and that's exactly why I have apprehension with Booker. Everything you say about JJ struggling when he first got to the league is true, but the thing is, JJ was more prepared to leave college than Booker cause JJ had a bigger role offensively and more experience. We are wondering if Booker can develop to the point where JJ, Beal or Klay is now, and only Klay is really all star caliber as JJ is just now finding his niche and Beal wont really be much better than he is now, and again, these guys were more complete players than Booker has shown in college.

I see what you are saying but I would argue than none other than maybe Klay were more complete. JJ had a bigger role in terms of numbers of shots but still did nothing that Booker did not do in his role. He was just a lot more experienced and only doing what Booker can do. Beal on a much weaker team shot worse from three and the FT line. He was really a huge gamble because his form looked good but had been very ineffective. Klay was more complete due to his time spent and growing role at WSU but he was not better going in. He also adjusted to the NBA fast than the other two due to his more expanded college role. No matter how long these guys stay in school they still have to improve in the league to be effective and I don't think that is any different for any of the guys we will pick. With his form we know Booker will be able to shoot and with his intelligence he is more likely to get time early on because he won't do stupid stuff that cost our team games.

You may be right about only Klay having been more complete cause I didnt see much of Beal in college, and I'm basing my opinion on the fact that Beal and JJ were starters who were the better scoring options on their respective teams, so I'm assuming that they had a bigger roles. I know JJ set records at Duke with his shooting and he was a upper classmen so I'm counting his experience and scoring history as advantages Booker didn't have. Booker is taller and a better athlete than JJ, I just wanted to see more of a offensive package from Booker for him to be considered a lottery pick, but with all that being said, I think he will have a long career as he does have a skill that all teams can use. If we do draft him I would like to see him made into the 3rd option offensively so he can get accustomed to scoring at this level, I say throw him to the wolves now so that by year 3 he knows the ropes.

I agree with the throw him to the wolves to an extent. Get him at least 15 a game for the start of the season off the bench with the idea of pushing him to improve quickly. He seems like a guy who would thrive in that role and not wilt. You are right that JJ had a bigger role but the skills they brought into the league are the same with Booker being bigger and a better athlete. It should be interesting as we move forward to see what happens with all these guys.

[yosemiteben]

You guys are really undervaluing JJ Reddick right now.

Completely agree. JJ carried Duke's entire offense for a couple years. He and Shelden Williams were pretty much it. His role and Booker's were polar opposites.

[Braggins]

I still dont know how we can assume his ceiling is anything better than Anthony Morrow. Seems like a pretty big leap of faith to compare him to Klay or even Redick at this point. There are like 10 Redicks and 5 Klays in every draft if this kid meets that criteria. I just dont see how we can justify a top ten pick on a project whose ceiling is possibly fringe starter/role player.

Im with Dynasty, I think he is benefitting from being so vanilla that it is easy to project on him what you want to see.

[catch20two]

I just dont see how we can justify a top ten pick on a project whose ceiling is possibly fringe starter/role player.

That might just be Cho's specialty and that would be the justification until he's fired if he take Booker.

[catch20two]

You guys are really undervaluing JJ Reddick right now.

Redick would be a good addition to any team but he's not what's gonna put this team over a hump. We could get the actual Redick instead or the potential to be Redick and I would be hesitant to say that we'd make the playoffs as a #8 seed. We need a player with upside to be a star. That's the only thing that's gonna help us. It don't have to happen right away but gradually.

[BigSlam]

I still dont know how we can assume his ceiling is anything better than Anthony Morrow. Seems like a pretty big leap of faith to compare him to Klay or even Redick at this point. There are like 10 Redicks and 5 Klays in every draft if this kid meets that criteria. I just dont see how we can justify a top ten pick on a project whose ceiling is possibly fringe starter/role player.

Im with Dynasty, I think he is benefitting from being so vanilla that it is easy to project on him what you want to see.

How is that any different to saying about Russell "how we can assume his ceiling is anything better than Larry Hughes" or about Towns "how we can assume his ceiling is anything better than Patrick O'Brien" or Okafor "how we can assume his ceiling is anything better than Sheldon Williams" or Hezonja "how we can assume his ceiling is anything better than James White" and so on and so on?

Not saying that Booker is a lock to be good, heck 20 pages and over a month ago I was questioning how he would succeed with us considering the make up of our current roster, but my point is you can play devils advocate to all of the prospects.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Eoghan]

I like that jdm keeps beating home the message that "they all have flaws". I think its something that gets lost from time to time. Find a player that works hard, is coachable and has talent and hope it all comes together.

Anyway, it seems like Booker's floor should be Anthony Morrow or Martell Webster.

That's not really working out for us so far. We seem to have a knack for drafting players that work hard, are coachable, have talent and hope they realize it but also have some big, critical flaw that mires the roster in limbo.

I really don't want to draft this kid and be like, welp, he can really shoot it but he dribbles worse than Hendo, yippie.

[Braggins]

I still dont know how we can assume his ceiling is anything better than Anthony Morrow. Seems like a pretty big leap of faith to compare him to Klay or even Redick at this point. There are like 10 Redicks and 5 Klays in every draft if this kid meets that criteria. I just dont see how we can justify a top ten pick on a project whose ceiling is possibly fringe starter/role player.

Im with Dynasty, I think he is benefitting from being so vanilla that it is easy to project on him what you want to see.

How is that any different to saying about Russell "how we can assume his ceiling is anything better than Larry Hughes" or about Towns "how we can assume his ceiling is anything better than Patrick O'Brien" or Okafor "how we can assume his ceiling is anything better than Sheldon Williams" or Hezonja "how we can assume his ceiling is anything better than James White" and so on and so on?

Not saying that Booker is a lock to be good, heck 20 pages and over a month ago I was questioning how he would succeed with us considering the make up of our current roster, but my point is you can play devils advocate to all of the prospects.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

All those guys were high impact players and focal points of their teams and in some cases were borderline dominant. Booker was a backup role player. He didnt look like the guys hes being compared to playing against college players and wasnt definitively better than the Harrison twins.

[Liver_Pooty]

This thread is going to be interesting 5 years from now. Some will look incredibly smart, some stupid.

I was die hard Gary Harris last year so I've had my fair share of stupid.

[amcoolio]

I just don't see anything but situational role player out of Booker. If PJ Hairston can fix his shot, wouldn't he be better by default than Booker? Doesn't PJ do pretty much everything else better than Booker?

[catch20two]

I just don't see anything but situational role player out of Booker. If PJ Hairston can fix his shot, wouldn't he be better by default than Booker? Doesn't PJ do pretty much everything else better than Booker?

I agree that I see Booker as not much more than a situational role player. Prolly the only thing Booker has on PJ is what's between the ears. But that can go a long way.

[Liver_Pooty]

I just don't see anything but situational role player out of Booker. If PJ Hairston can fix his shot, wouldn't he be better by default than Booker? Doesn't PJ do pretty much everything else better than Booker?

I agree that I see Booker as not much more than a situational role player. Prolly the only thing Booker has on PJ is what's between the ears. But that can go a long way.

Can go a VERY long way.

[driveandkick]

I just don't see anything but situational role player out of Booker. If PJ Hairston can fix his shot, wouldn't he be better by default than Booker? Doesn't PJ do pretty much everything else better than Booker?

Yup and it's not even close.

[Eoghan]

Guy on Hornets Planet says this is the guy according to his "insider sources" that he always leaves vague enough to change his prediction like Nostradamus.

I'm not gonna be mad if we draft this dude but the FO better be seeing something I don't b/c he doesn't really scream top 10 pick to me. So hard to judge one dimensional role players on stacked teams.

[DY_nasty]

I still dont know how we can assume his ceiling is anything better than Anthony Morrow. Seems like a pretty big leap of faith to compare him to Klay or even Redick at this point. There are like 10 Redicks and 5 Klays in every draft if this kid meets that criteria. I just dont see how we can justify a top ten pick on a project whose ceiling is possibly fringe starter/role player.

Im with Dynasty, I think he is benefitting from being so vanilla that it is easy to project on him what you want to see.

How is that any different to saying about Russell "how we can assume his ceiling is anything better than Larry Hughes" or about Towns "how we can assume his ceiling is anything better than Patrick O'Brien" or Okafor "how we can assume his ceiling is anything better than Sheldon Williams" or Hezonja "how we can assume his ceiling is anything better than James White" and so on and so on?

Not saying that Booker is a lock to be good, heck 20 pages and over a month ago I was questioning how he would succeed with us considering the make up of our current roster, but my point is you can play devils advocate to all of the prospects.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

All of those guys have actual skillsets though. Something to rely on individually. They have a bare minimum to fall back on. Booker?

Would he even show out in the D League? Honest question.

Booker is the most one-dimensional player projected in the lottery by far. That one dimension is also put into an incredible perspective when you also show that he's got one of the highest assisted fg% in the country.

[BigSlam]

I still dont know how we can assume his ceiling is anything better than Anthony Morrow. Seems like a pretty big leap of faith to compare him to Klay or even Redick at this point. There are like 10 Redicks and 5 Klays in every draft if this kid meets that criteria. I just dont see how we can justify a top ten pick on a project whose ceiling is possibly fringe starter/role player.

Im with Dynasty, I think he is benefitting from being so vanilla that it is easy to project on him what you want to see.

How is that any different to saying about Russell "how we can assume his ceiling is anything better than Larry Hughes" or about Towns "how we can assume his ceiling is anything better than Patrick O'Brien" or Okafor "how we can assume his ceiling is anything better than Sheldon Williams" or Hezonja "how we can assume his ceiling is anything better than James White" and so on and so on?

Not saying that Booker is a lock to be good, heck 20 pages and over a month ago I was questioning how he would succeed with us considering the make up of our current roster, but my point is you can play devils advocate to all of the prospects.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

All of those guys have actual skillsets though. Something to rely on individually. They have a bare minimum to fall back on. Booker?

Would he even show out in the D League? Honest question.

Booker is the most one-dimensional player projected in the lottery by far. That one dimension is also put into an incredible perspective when you also show that he's got one of the highest assisted fg% in the country.

Hey man, you are preaching to the choir.

I've been saying for the best part of 10 years that nothing scares me more than a player (not just a prospect, any player) who is a one trick pony - ESPECIALLY when that one trick is shooting the ball because there will always be nights, stretches of games or series (see: Curry, Steph) where no matter what they do their shot just wont drop and when that happens they need to bring something else to the table other wise all they do is take up space and provide a negative net value (during the period they are "off".

It's why I've always loved SG's like Joe Johnson and James Harden and DeAngelo Russell and Jerian Grant I wanted to love guys like Mayo and Terrence Williams etc.

The Booker that we saw at Kentucky does worry me a little because of that perception that all he can do is shoot. That said, the workout video that I posted the other day also got me pretty excited as his possibilities as well.

I'm not totally sold on the kid, wouldn't freak out if we drafted him (that Kaminisky arse wipe is probably the only selection that would do that to me) but I'm sure as heck not about to bash Booker as much as some have here. I just can't justify that.

[Liver_Pooty]

I'm going to laugh and giggle when Grant, who I've loved since the beginning, not nearly as much as Slam, but I like him ends up as the best player in the draft.