2016-2017 College Basketball / '17 NBA Draft Thread

[Ericb5]

lets say Celtics are picking 1 and you guys are picking 4 and 8. Let's also assume that Fultz, Ball and Smith are going to go 1, 2 and 3.

Would you trade 4 and 8 for 1? You get the pg you need and we can take Tatum (better fit for our team) and either Issac or Markkanen? Or would you guys rather take Tatum or Jackson (don't think he's a fit next to Simmons) and hope Monk falls down to 8.

Jackson is my number 1 still so this scenario would be great from my perspective.

At 8 we would get someone like Fox, or Ntilikina and I'd be thrilled.

If Simmons were in this draft then I might consider that trade though, but not for Fultz.

The love Fultz, but I am still inherently skeptical about him in the sense that I was skeptical about Murray and Russell. I realize that he is the best of those three , but I still have him behind Jackson and Ball.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ericb5]

I think Ball is a legit 3 point shooter with unlimited range. He could be elite in that area. I wouldn't touch his mechanics tbh.

He actually is limited in his range. He can only shoot from beyond the three point line. He's currently shooting 11% from 2pt jumpers. It might be because he shoots them so seldomly (5.3% of his shots are 2pt jumpers). So should anyone ever be concerned that a pumpfake is going to turn into an uncontested midrange shot? Monk has make a season out of doing that (27.4% of his shots are 2pt jumpers and he's hitting 48.5%). Then again, Monk has an actual shot to fake. Ball has a stroke that is kinda launched out of him.

my bad, I meant from 3 and beyond. Ball has no midrange game and that is a definitely a concern. I'm looking at him from other Ball fans perspective where, we want to surround Simmons with shooters, and if Ball's camping out behind the 3 line, he's gonna get plenty of oppurtunities to take wide open shots. I haven't seen Ball create for himself much ( inside the 3 line ), but when he does, it looks tragic.

I'm well aware of Monk and his offensive arsenal. Main thing is, we need talent in the back court and most of these players would look nice next to Simmons and Embiid

I think the one area where Ball's funky delivery will hurt him in the NBA is in his pull up game, which is mostly likely in the midrange. However, does he really need that to be great?

Not sure that he does. He can hit open shots from anywhere I think, but he tends to find himself open mostly beyond the 3 point line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jmr07019]

Posted this on the Celtics board and didn't get many responses, maybe you guys can weigh in.

Rank the top players in this draft against the top guys in the last 3 drafts. Obviously hindsight distorts this a bit but still fun to do.

Josh Jackson, Tatum vs. Ingram, Brown, Hezonja, Stan Johnson, Winslow, Wiggins, Parker and Gordon

Smith, Fultz, Monk, Ball vs. Exum, Smart, Russell, Mudiay, Booker, Murray, Hield,

Issac, Markkanen vs. Embiid, Towns, Okafor, Porzingis, WCS, Kaminsky, Turner, Simmons, Randle, Bender, Chriss

[Negrodamus]

He actually is limited in his range. He can only shoot from beyond the three point line. He's currently shooting 11% from 2pt jumpers. It might be because he shoots them so seldomly (5.3% of his shots are 2pt jumpers). So should anyone ever be concerned that a pumpfake is going to turn into an uncontested midrange shot? Monk has make a season out of doing that (27.4% of his shots are 2pt jumpers and he's hitting 48.5%). Then again, Monk has an actual shot to fake. Ball has a stroke that is kinda launched out of him.

my bad, I meant from 3 and beyond. Ball has no midrange game and that is a definitely a concern. I'm looking at him from other Ball fans perspective where, we want to surround Simmons with shooters, and if Ball's camping out behind the 3 line, he's gonna get plenty of oppurtunities to take wide open shots. I haven't seen Ball create for himself much ( inside the 3 line ), but when he does, it looks tragic.

I'm well aware of Monk and his offensive arsenal. Main thing is, we need talent in the back court and most of these players would look nice next to Simmons and Embiid

I think the one area where Ball's funky delivery will hurt him in the NBA is in his pull up game, which is mostly likely in the midrange. However, does he really need that to be great?

Not sure that he does. He can hit open shots from anywhere I think, but he tends to find himself open mostly beyond the 3 point line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think he's going to find it much harder to get off threes when his pull up game is non existent. Additionally, if scouts are anticipating Fox bouncing off defenders at the next level, then what the hell is going to happen to Ball?

I find him to be fascinating as a prospect, but I'm deathly afraid of taking a flyer on him. It's another Simmons situation where he has some serious issues, but his feel for the game and passing is undeniable (Simmons being a far more sure thing though; I'd never take Ball #1 overall.)

At this point, im not willing to take a chance on a guy who is strictly 3 or layup/dunk with a horrific looking shot. I'd rather take a guy like Monk who has shown flashes of brilliant vision, but has been consistently incredible as shooting from everywhere and doesn't need the ball in his hands to make it happen. and his form is perfect to boot.

[SelfishPlayer]

Ball passes entirely too accurately to not take him over Monk. He makes your entire team shoot/finish better and has a true NBA position.

[ET Da Gawd]

#2 Malik Monk, #7 Miles Bridges....anything other than that is uncivilized

[ET Da Gawd]

Ball passes entirely too accurately to not take him over Monk. He makes your entire team shoot/finish better and has a true NBA position.

No need for Ball when we have simmons in my opinion

[Negrodamus]

Ball shoots too poorly from literally everywhere except 3 to be taken ahead of Monk, especially since we have Simmons.

[HankTheTank]

Posted this on the Celtics board and didn't get many responses, maybe you guys can weigh in.

Rank the top players in this draft against the top guys in the last 3 drafts. Obviously hindsight distorts this a bit but still fun to do.

Josh Jackson, Tatum vs. Ingram, Brown, Hezonja, Stan Johnson, Winslow, Wiggins, Parker and Gordon

Smith, Fultz, Monk, Ball vs. Exum, Smart, Russell, Mudiay, Booker, Murray, Hield,

Issac, Markkanen vs. Embiid, Towns, Okafor, Porzingis, WCS, Kaminsky, Turner, Simmons, Randle, Bender, Chriss

I will play. This is totally based on what I thought going into the draft, without the benefit of seeing them in the NBA-- as if they were in the same draft:

Wiggins (thought he'd be more like McGrady but he's more Rudy Gay), Ingram, Jackson, Parker, Brown, Hezonja, Gordon, Winslow, Tatum, Stan

Ball, Fultz (could change), Russell (liked him more than what he's been so far), Exum, Mudiay, Murray, Smith, Smart (has been exactly what I thought but looks like he's eating his way onto the Patriots), Monk, Booker, Hield

Embiid, Towns, Simmons, Okafor (thought he was a terrible fit for Sixers but that Hinkie would flip him for major value), Porzingis, Bender, Randle, etc..

Markannen-- haven't seen enough of him but anyone his size who doesn't block shots in college concerns me.

[SelfishPlayer]

Ball passes entirely too accurately to not take him over Monk. He makes your entire team shoot/finish better and has a true NBA position.

No need for Ball when we have simmons in my opinion

I think that they can play together because Lonzo Ball is actually a guard with speed and not some kind of point wing like Evan Turner. Monk is currently just a short shooting guard. He's not considered a PG by anyone. That traditionally means a lower valued player. A short SG is worth less than a true PG with size.

[BigSleep333]

I think Ball is a legit 3 point shooter with unlimited range. He could be elite in that area. I wouldn't touch his mechanics tbh.

He actually is limited in his range. He can only shoot from beyond the three point line. He's currently shooting 11% from 2pt jumpers. It might be because he shoots them so seldomly (5.3% of his shots are 2pt jumpers). So should anyone ever be concerned that a pumpfake is going to turn into an uncontested midrange shot? Monk has make a season out of doing that (27.4% of his shots are 2pt jumpers and he's hitting 48.5%). Then again, Monk has an actual shot to fake. Ball has a stroke that is kinda launched out of him.

just because he takes no midrange jumpshots, means, he cant hit a midranger? wow. its actually the most efficient way to play the game. he also has one of the best ast/to ratio in this pg-class. if you can hit a free throw at 68 % (yeah its not good, but still), you can hit a midrange jumper.

[BigSleep333]

Ball passes entirely too accurately to not take him over Monk. He makes your entire team shoot/finish better and has a true NBA position.

No need for Ball when we have simmons in my opinion

I think that they can play together because Lonzo Ball is actually a guard with speed and not some kind of point wing like Evan Turner. Monk is currently just a short shooting guard. He's not considered a PG by anyone. That traditionally means a lower valued player. A short SG is worth less than a true PG with size.

well, monk is still a perfect fit with simmons playing pg on offense. but i agree with you, ball should be valued more than monk.

[Negrodamus]

I think Ball is a legit 3 point shooter with unlimited range. He could be elite in that area. I wouldn't touch his mechanics tbh.

He actually is limited in his range. He can only shoot from beyond the three point line. He's currently shooting 11% from 2pt jumpers. It might be because he shoots them so seldomly (5.3% of his shots are 2pt jumpers). So should anyone ever be concerned that a pumpfake is going to turn into an uncontested midrange shot? Monk has make a season out of doing that (27.4% of his shots are 2pt jumpers and he's hitting 48.5%). Then again, Monk has an actual shot to fake. Ball has a stroke that is kinda launched out of him.

just because he takes no midrange jumpshots, means, he cant hit a midranger? wow. its actually the most efficient way to play the game. he also has one of the best ast/to ratio in this pg-class. if you can hit a free throw at 68 % (yeah its not good, but still), you can hit a midrange jumper.

There's a difference between hitting a stand still shot (which he's not even good at) and being able to pull up off the dribble after beating your man off a pump fake. Lonzo isn't going to be taking shots at the rim against (insert random Pac-12 big man here) in the NBA. He'll be taking it to Embiid, Noel, Gobert, Whiteside, etc,etc. it's promising that he can finish well, but the guy has to be able to hit a 15 ft shot or he's going to get tossed more times than not.

[BigSleep333]

He actually is limited in his range. He can only shoot from beyond the three point line. He's currently shooting 11% from 2pt jumpers. It might be because he shoots them so seldomly (5.3% of his shots are 2pt jumpers). So should anyone ever be concerned that a pumpfake is going to turn into an uncontested midrange shot? Monk has make a season out of doing that (27.4% of his shots are 2pt jumpers and he's hitting 48.5%). Then again, Monk has an actual shot to fake. Ball has a stroke that is kinda launched out of him.

just because he takes no midrange jumpshots, means, he cant hit a midranger? wow. its actually the most efficient way to play the game. he also has one of the best ast/to ratio in this pg-class. if you can hit a free throw at 68 % (yeah its not good, but still), you can hit a midrange jumper.

There's a difference between hitting a stand still shot (which he's not even good at) and being able to pull up off the dribble after beating your man off a pump fake. Lonzo isn't going to be taking shots at the rim against (insert random Pac-12 big man here) in the NBA. He'll be taking it to Embiid, Noel, Gobert, Whiteside, etc,etc. it's promising that he can finish well, but the guy has to be able to hit a 15 ft shot or he's going to get tossed more times than not.

i dont know what gives you the impression that he cant. as you mentioned, he only takes 5,3 % 2pt jumpers. hitting 11 % on those VERY few attempts mean nothing. whats the totals numbers of it? 1 of 9? lol.

[Negrodamus]

just because he takes no midrange jumpshots, means, he cant hit a midranger? wow. its actually the most efficient way to play the game. he also has one of the best ast/to ratio in this pg-class. if you can hit a free throw at 68 % (yeah its not good, but still), you can hit a midrange jumper.

There's a difference between hitting a stand still shot (which he's not even good at) and being able to pull up off the dribble after beating your man off a pump fake. Lonzo isn't going to be taking shots at the rim against (insert random Pac-12 big man here) in the NBA. He'll be taking it to Embiid, Noel, Gobert, Whiteside, etc,etc. it's promising that he can finish well, but the guy has to be able to hit a 15 ft shot or he's going to get tossed more times than not.

i dont know what gives you the impression that he cant. as you mentioned, he only takes 5,3 % 2pt jumpers. hitting 11 % on those VERY few attempts mean nothing. whats the totals numbers of it? 1 of 9? lol.

The same reason Simmons was 1-3 on three pointers last year. Maybe he didn't take too many of those because he's not a good 3pt shooter.

Oh maybe he's secretly a phenomenal three point shooter and didn't want to show it off. I'll take the former.

EDIT: obligatory "lol" just to add random, annoying smugness to my post: lol.

[BigSleep333]

There's a difference between hitting a stand still shot (which he's not even good at) and being able to pull up off the dribble after beating your man off a pump fake. Lonzo isn't going to be taking shots at the rim against (insert random Pac-12 big man here) in the NBA. He'll be taking it to Embiid, Noel, Gobert, Whiteside, etc,etc. it's promising that he can finish well, but the guy has to be able to hit a 15 ft shot or he's going to get tossed more times than not.

i dont know what gives you the impression that he cant. as you mentioned, he only takes 5,3 % 2pt jumpers. hitting 11 % on those VERY few attempts mean nothing. whats the totals numbers of it? 1 of 9? lol.

The same reason Simmons was 1-3 on three pointers last year. Maybe he didn't take too many of those because he's not a good 3pt shooter.

Oh maybe he's secretly a phenomenal three point shooter and didn't want to show it off. I'll take the former.

EDIT: obligatory "lol" just to add random, annoying smugness to my post: lol.

im sry you annoyed by logic. you cant agree with that sentence: "the closer you are to the basket, the better are the chances you make a bucket"???

i will take the "more efficient" argument, as the reason why he is taking that few shots in that range, as any rationalist would

[Negrodamus]

i dont know what gives you the impression that he cant. as you mentioned, he only takes 5,3 % 2pt jumpers. hitting 11 % on those VERY few attempts mean nothing. whats the totals numbers of it? 1 of 9? lol.

The same reason Simmons was 1-3 on three pointers last year. Maybe he didn't take too many of those because he's not a good 3pt shooter.

Oh maybe he's secretly a phenomenal three point shooter and didn't want to show it off. I'll take the former.

EDIT: obligatory "lol" just to add random, annoying smugness to my post: lol.

im sry you annoyed by logic. you cant agree with that sentence: "the closer you are to the basket, the better are the chances you make a bucket"???

i will take the "more efficient" argument, as the reason why he is taking that few shots in that range, as any rationalist would

What suggests I'm annoyed by logic? The only time I used that word was when I highlighted the unnecessary "lol" at the end of your post which you're using as an all too frequent mechanism on here (much like the emojis) to make other posters be perceived as less informed and is completely disrespectful in civil discourse.

That aside, I'm missing the aforementioned logic. 60% his shots are from 3 and some well beyond. Those aren't "more efficient" but rather shows he's willing to take a harder shot than to pull up or he's wide open. The other 35% are at the rim. If anything, he's going to need to lean heavy on that passing ability in the pros because he's not going to be the finisher he is at the next level and he will not be able to get these 3pters off as easily, especially with that stroke.

[cksdayoff]

i guess CoreyGallagher and i are the only ones on the Frank the Tank bandwagon. Not as quick as DSJ or Fox, but has a build, once filled out will be a tank with elite defensive potential, and looks like he could have an advanced midrange and 3 ball. Could play the 1 or the 2 depending on the rotation

[BigSleep333]

The same reason Simmons was 1-3 on three pointers last year. Maybe he didn't take too many of those because he's not a good 3pt shooter.

Oh maybe he's secretly a phenomenal three point shooter and didn't want to show it off. I'll take the former.

EDIT: obligatory "lol" just to add random, annoying smugness to my post: lol.

im sry you annoyed by logic. you cant agree with that sentence: "the closer you are to the basket, the better are the chances you make a bucket"???

i will take the "more efficient" argument, as the reason why he is taking that few shots in that range, as any rationalist would

What suggests I'm annoyed by logic? The only time I used that word was when I highlighted the unnecessary "lol" at the end of your post which you're using as an all too frequent mechanism on here (much like the emojis) to make other posters be perceived as less informed and is completely disrespectful in civil discourse.

That aside, I'm missing the aforementioned logic. 60% his shots are from 3 and some well beyond. Those aren't "more efficient" but rather shows he's willing to take a harder shot than to pull up or he's wide open. The other 35% are at the rim. If anything, he's going to need to lean heavy on that passing ability in the pros because he's not going to be the finisher he is at the next level and he will not be able to get these 3pters off as easily, especially with that stroke.

3's are more efficient than long 2's. shouldnt be too hard to do the math...to even have to mention that, gave me the suggestion..

i agree with you with the rest of your post. im not even a big lonzo ball fan, im just questioning your conclusions out of a 5,3 % 2p jump attempt stat.

[SelfishPlayer]

Some of Lonzo Ball's college 3 point shots are midrange/long 2's in the NBA...