Nets PG: I don't know what I expected

[F N 11]

JPP said he didnt sign hmmmmmm

[Sprewell4Three]

Yeah this is false. In any other draft Tatum and Jackson would be vying for the top slot. We are in no position to be nit picky. We take the BPA. Luckily, BPA in this draft at our slot is almost always SF, SG, PG, the positions we need help at the most. If Tatum and/or JJ is available at our slot, along with say, Smith, Frank, and Monk, and it's clear Tatum and JJ are the better prospects, you nab one of them and don't hesitate.

I'd be weary picking a player from Duke. Besides Kyrie , what other Duke player has been a perennial all-star.

Elton Brand, Grant Hill, Kyrie, Boozer. Plus, there are other very very solid players who played on winning teams like Deng, Redick. Also, just because a player is from Duke doesn't mean he will be like past players from Duke. Kyrie, your example, is a perfect example of that.

Redick? Is a solid NBA player but he's no all-star. Deng has a had a solid career as well but when has anybody considered him to be a top 10 player ?

Since Kyrie, you've had Parker, okafor and Ingram. Okafor looks like would be better served in the 90s bball era. Ingram is weak. Parker has been mired with injuries. And even at his best he was basically a Rudy Gay type of player.

[KnicksGod]

I'm not really sure the Duke thing is real. Melo is one of the few players to stand out from Syracuse, plenty of busts from there. If anything it just speaks to the fact that they don't get the pick of the litter anymore.

[Sprewell4Three]

I never trust players from Duke. How's Brandon Ingram doing? How about Jahlil Okafor? Historically so many of their players end up as busts. Even Grant Hill, for as great as he was, still was somewhat of a let down with the Pistons. He never had that drive that they needed in the post Isiah era. Laettner, Hurley, etc. The list goes on and on.

Is there a top 50 player all time that played at Duke? Is Hill considered top 50?

In theory, he slots nicely into Melo's spot. Plus I have a little problem using a top 5 pick on a PG. I am sticking to the idea that you can get good PG's in creative, low-cost ways. Lots of examples, whereas really good wing scorers, much harder to come by.

However if the BPA is a PG, then go for it. Lots of things worse than that.

The majority of the top teams all drafted their point guards though.

[Sprewell4Three]

Kawhi Leonard is good and possibly great but people dismiss the organization he plays in. The guy that coaches him etc. You think Josh Jackson is going to have that same opportunity in the NBA ? Unmm no. The bad team that drafts him will not help him grow into a Kawhi Leonard player. Could he be Andre Iguodala though? Possibly. But being the next Kawhi Leonard is a long shot.

[shtolky]

I'd be weary picking a player from Duke. Besides Kyrie , what other Duke player has been a perennial all-star.

Elton Brand, Grant Hill, Kyrie, Boozer. Plus, there are other very very solid players who played on winning teams like Deng, Redick. Also, just because a player is from Duke doesn't mean he will be like past players from Duke. Kyrie, your example, is a perfect example of that.

Redick? Is a solid NBA player but he's no all-star. Deng has a had a solid career as well but when has anybody considered him to be a top 10 player ?

Since Kyrie, you've had Parker, okafor and Ingram. Okafor looks like would be better served in the 90s bball era. Ingram is weak. Parker has been mired with injuries. And even at his best he was basically a Rudy Gay type of player.

I mean you can say that about most schools (except maybe Kentucky). The reason why there are a lot of guys who never became all-stars is because tons of Duke guys get drafted, but a lot of them have very nice careers. Parker before his injury was looking like a stud. Kyrie is a stud. Grant Hill was a hall of famer before his injuries. Elton Brand played a gazillion years and was an all-star. I take Tatum so fast if he's available and I'm very happy about it.

[shtolky]

Kawhi Leonard is good and possibly great but people dismiss the organization he plays in. The guy that coaches him etc. You think Josh Jackson is going to have that same opportunity in the NBA ? Unmm no. The bad team that drafts him will not help him grow into a Kawhi Leonard player. Could he be Andre Iguodala though? Possibly. But being the next Kawhi Leonard is a long shot.

No, no. Kawhi is not good, he is great. This is a fact. A good system can only take you so far. Curry would be Curry with GS, Philly, wherever. Do I think Jackson will have the same opportunity? How should I know? I do know that he is supremely talented.

As I said with Kawhi himself, I guarantee you if someone said, wow Kawhi we need to take him, you would have said, "but being the next Scottie Pippen is a long shot." We don't know how these guys will turn out, and we can only go by what we see now, and JJ is a supremely gifted player.

[KnicksGod]

I never trust players from Duke. How's Brandon Ingram doing? How about Jahlil Okafor? Historically so many of their players end up as busts. Even Grant Hill, for as great as he was, still was somewhat of a let down with the Pistons. He never had that drive that they needed in the post Isiah era. Laettner, Hurley, etc. The list goes on and on.

Is there a top 50 player all time that played at Duke? Is Hill considered top 50?

In theory, he slots nicely into Melo's spot. Plus I have a little problem using a top 5 pick on a PG. I am sticking to the idea that you can get good PG's in creative, low-cost ways. Lots of examples, whereas really good wing scorers, much harder to come by.

However if the BPA is a PG, then go for it. Lots of things worse than that.

The majority of the top teams all drafted their point guards though.

Thomas 30. But there are many others like this. Far less likely for the best PGs to track with lottery, let alone high lottery. If Tatum is a good scorer who can take some of that burden off of KP, you won't find that after 20 in all likelihood. You can but it does seem much rarer.

I think we could go pretty far with a 2nd round player like Ulis, for example. I don't think it's ideal that your PG is your leading scorer, anyway. It's not the best structure of a team.

Yes, finding a Ulis is easier said than done. No doubt. But PG seems really random in terms of how/where they're found.

[Sprewell4Three]

Elton Brand, Grant Hill, Kyrie, Boozer. Plus, there are other very very solid players who played on winning teams like Deng, Redick. Also, just because a player is from Duke doesn't mean he will be like past players from Duke. Kyrie, your example, is a perfect example of that.

Redick? Is a solid NBA player but he's no all-star. Deng has a had a solid career as well but when has anybody considered him to be a top 10 player ?

Since Kyrie, you've had Parker, okafor and Ingram. Okafor looks like would be better served in the 90s bball era. Ingram is weak. Parker has been mired with injuries. And even at his best he was basically a Rudy Gay type of player.

I mean you can say that about most schools (except maybe Kentucky). The reason why there are a lot of guys who never became all-stars is because tons of Duke guys get drafted, but a lot of them have very nice careers. Parker before his injury was looking like a stud. Kyrie is a stud. Grant Hill was a hall of famer before his injuries. Elton Brand played a gazillion years and was an all-star. I take Tatum so fast if he's available and I'm very happy about it.

I'm talking about the most RECENT Duke players. I know Grant and Brand were good to great players. But I'm taking about recently and Besides Kyrie, you haven't had an all star level Duke player.

[Jay10]

Did anyone actually watch this one? If you answer yes, then you should probably get help.

there was nothing else on.

Now i'm going to watch the warriors beat down the magic.

The first round outcomes are too predictable.

[EchelonNYK]

Read on Twitter

Old man defense.

[Sprewell4Three]

Kawhi Leonard is good and possibly great but people dismiss the organization he plays in. The guy that coaches him etc. You think Josh Jackson is going to have that same opportunity in the NBA ? Unmm no. The bad team that drafts him will not help him grow into a Kawhi Leonard player. Could he be Andre Iguodala though? Possibly. But being the next Kawhi Leonard is a long shot.

No, no. Kawhi is not good, he is great. This is a fact. A good system can only take you so far. Curry would be Curry with GS, Philly, wherever. Do I think Jackson will have the same opportunity? How should I know? I do know that he is supremely talented.

As I said with Kawhi himself, I guarantee you if someone said, wow Kawhi we need to take him, you would have said, "but being the next Scottie Pippen is a long shot." We don't know how these guys will turn out, and we can only go by what we see now, and JJ is a supremely gifted player.

You have to have the system in place dude. I don't know how hard is it to understand? JJ could eventually be a great player some day but to say pretty much is a guarantee and compare him to Kawhi is ridiculous.

[KnicksGod]

Duke or whatever school isn't a puppy mill lol. These are all individual human beings with different parents and backgrounds. I don't really buy it. Duke may teach these guys XYZ but it's for what, 1 single year of their playing lives and their lives in general?

For whatever reason, they do seem to have a kind of boring and unspectacular player. Eh. That's just one factor. We could use a guy who can get 18-22 PPG for sure. Duncan was boring as hell too.

Duke wouldn't stop me from taking Tatum.

[shtolky]

Kawhi Leonard is good and possibly great but people dismiss the organization he plays in. The guy that coaches him etc. You think Josh Jackson is going to have that same opportunity in the NBA ? Unmm no. The bad team that drafts him will not help him grow into a Kawhi Leonard player. Could he be Andre Iguodala though? Possibly. But being the next Kawhi Leonard is a long shot.

No, no. Kawhi is not good, he is great. This is a fact. A good system can only take you so far. Curry would be Curry with GS, Philly, wherever. Do I think Jackson will have the same opportunity? How should I know? I do know that he is supremely talented.

As I said with Kawhi himself, I guarantee you if someone said, wow Kawhi we need to take him, you would have said, "but being the next Scottie Pippen is a long shot." We don't know how these guys will turn out, and we can only go by what we see now, and JJ is a supremely gifted player.

You have to have the system in place dude. I don't know how hard is it to understand? JJ could eventually be a great player some day but to say pretty much is a guarantee and compare him to Kawhi is ridiculous.

So you are saying every great player was great because of the system they played in, and not their talent? Also, I am not comparing him to Leonard, I was using Leonard as an example...an example...of how you can't possibly know how a player will turn out, you can only look at the player's talent level and how they hopefully will project in the NBA. You saying he will never be Kawhi is precisely WHY I am using Kawhi as an example, as I am sure 99% of this board didn't see him becoming the player he became. I don't understand people talking about the draft as if they know FOR SURE who will project well and who won't project well. I don't buy for a second that Kawhi is mostly a product of Pop's system. Was Duncan a product of Pop's system? What system was Durant a product of in OKC? Lebron has been on three different teams, all were successful. Is this because of the system he played in, or because he's a top 3 all time player?

[Sprewell4Three]

Duke or whatever school isn't a puppy mill lol. These are all individual human beings with different parents and backgrounds. I don't really buy it. Duke may teach these guys XYZ but it's for what, 1 single year of their playing lives and their lives in general?

For whatever reason, they do seem to have a kind of boring and unspectacular player. Eh. That's just one factor. We could use a guy who can get 18-22 PPG for sure. Duncan was boring as hell too.

Duke wouldn't stop me from taking Tatum.

I would take Ball and Fultz over both those guys. We need a player that can put pressure on defenses.. meaning grab a defensive board and dribble down the court and either create for others or himself. Tatum looks Just like a pure scorer to me. Didn't we have that with Carmelo already?

[Sprewell4Three]

No, no. Kawhi is not good, he is great. This is a fact. A good system can only take you so far. Curry would be Curry with GS, Philly, wherever. Do I think Jackson will have the same opportunity? How should I know? I do know that he is supremely talented.

As I said with Kawhi himself, I guarantee you if someone said, wow Kawhi we need to take him, you would have said, "but being the next Scottie Pippen is a long shot." We don't know how these guys will turn out, and we can only go by what we see now, and JJ is a supremely gifted player.

You have to have the system in place dude. I don't know how hard is it to understand? JJ could eventually be a great player some day but to say pretty much is a guarantee and compare him to Kawhi is ridiculous.

So you are saying every great player was great because of the system they played in, and not their talent? Also, I am not comparing him to Leonard, I was using Leonard as an example...an example...of how you can't possibly know how a player will turn out, you can only look at the player's talent level and how they hopefully will project in the NBA. You saying he will never be Kawhi is precisely WHY I am using Kawhi as an example, as I am sure 99% of this board didn't see him becoming the player he became. I don't understand people talking about the draft as if they know FOR SURE who will project well and who won't project well. I don't buy for a second that Kawhi is mostly a product of Pop's system. Was Duncan a product of Pop's system? What system was Durant a product of in OKC? Lebron has been on three different teams, all were successful. Is this because of the system he played in, or because he's a top 3 all time player?

Nobody saw that Kawhi would become this level of player but you can understand why when you consider who coaches hi m. Of course his talent has a lot to do with it. But he goes from just a good player to a great player with Pop as his head coach.

[Sprewell4Three]

Lebron , Duncan, Durant were TOP picks. Kawhi wasn't. His talent and hard work elevated his game but pop and the Spurs organization cultivated an environment where Kawhi can just play and get better and not worry about distractions.

[KnicksGod]

Duke or whatever school isn't a puppy mill lol. These are all individual human beings with different parents and backgrounds. I don't really buy it. Duke may teach these guys XYZ but it's for what, 1 single year of their playing lives and their lives in general?

For whatever reason, they do seem to have a kind of boring and unspectacular player. Eh. That's just one factor. We could use a guy who can get 18-22 PPG for sure. Duncan was boring as hell too.

Duke wouldn't stop me from taking Tatum.

I would take Ball and Fultz over both those guys. We need a player that can put pressure on defenses.. meaning grab a defensive board and dribble down the court and either create for others or himself. Tatum looks Just like a pure scorer to me. Didn't we have that with Carmelo already?

Fair enough but I think we need both. A younger Melo with some better feel for the game, and showing up at least in the effort areas of the game, is a pretty great player.

[kane2021]

Not going to bother talking about fultz or ball seeing as we got no realistic shot.

Tatum and monk climbing could drop smith right in our lap if we ended up 6th.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[EchelonNYK]

Not going to bother talking about fultz or ball seeing as we got no realistic shot.

Tatum and monk climbing could drop smith right in our lap if we ended up 6th.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

LaVar's big mouth might Kill Lonzo's stock. The quotes from NBA players and coaches are starting to surface.