All Things 2017 Draft

Post #361 » by **Darth Celtic** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:57 pm

4 turnovers are his teammates fault?

Or the fact the opposing guards scored like 195 points combined on like 113% shooting?

rmal8852 · Post #362 » by **rmal8852** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:01 pm

If Danny isn't a Ball fan,I am convinced we will get one of of Jackson/Fultz/Tatum, wherever we pick 1-4, and that makes me very happy.

The Fakers will take Ball if given the chance.

pasfru · Post #363 » by **pasfru** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:01 pm

Darth Celtic wrote:4 turnovers are his teammates fault?

Or the fact the opposing guards scored like 195 points combined on like 113% shooting?

4 turnovers on 8 assists is not bad. One of those turnovers was a rare travel from him and the other was a fumbled pass by Anibogu.

Lonzo's usual freakish AST:TO ratio shouldn't make people hold him to a much higher standard. He had a fine passing night.

You think Fultz would've done better? DSJ? The fact that you're blaming Lonzo for Fox and Monk, two ELITE prospects, going off is like blaming IT, Jaylen or Smart last night for letting Booker score 70.

Gant · Post #364 » by **Gant** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:02 pm

rmal8852 wrote:If Danny isn't a Ball fan,I am convinced we will get one of of Jackson/Fultz/Tatum, wherever we pick 1-4, and that makes me very happy.

The Fakers will take Ball if given the chance.

That could well be true and if it is the Celtics would get Fultz at #1, or #2 in that scenario.

greenroom31 · Post #365 » by **greenroom31** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:03 pm

Imagine if every NBA player was evaluated on the basis of 1 game's worth of data. Booker would be considered the best player in like a decade. Oh wait, some people on this board actually do that... :oops:

pasfru · Post #366 » by **pasfru** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:05 pm

greenroom31 wrote:Imagine if every NBA player was evaluated on the basis of 1 game's worth of data. Booker would be considered the best player in like a decade. Oh wait, some people on this board actually do that...

It's the same logic that made GMs think Jimmer was a lottery talent a few years back.

Look how that turned out.

Post #367 » by **Darth Celtic** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:08 pm

I hated Ball when he had amazing games and stats, this doesn't make it any better. And by hate, i mean he's not in my top 2 prospects, maybe 3. I've been on the fence on Tatum for a bit now. Don't love him, but I'm beginning to like him over Ball.

And I claimed Booker was awesome in the summer, and last nights game just continues my thought he'd be an amazing player in 2-3 years.

robdog_5 · Post #368 » by **robdog_5** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:09 pm

The thing that bothered me most about Lonzo last night was his lack of fight. He was getting owned by Fox. Instead of answering the bell, he began to fade and pretend he was hurting. He wasn't hurting but his ego was hurt and he was trying to minimize the damage of how things looked. That wasn't lost on Kentucky G's either who were talking to each other about it.

Oddly, he couldn't defend Fox who was just too quick for him. He did however defend Fox well. His length bothered Monk's shooting. So I think he can defend 2's well but may struggle with quicker Gs.

pasfru · Post #369 » by **pasfru** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:09 pm

Jackson's good, but I don't think he's a guy who can just go and get you a bucket either. If Jackson didn't have a Frank Mason on his team (and Lonzo did), I think we'd all be talking a lot differently right now.

Banks2Pierce · Post #370 » by **Banks2Pierce** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:10 pm

Darth Celtic wrote:4 turnovers are his teammates fault?

2 of them were drops by teammates Leaf and Anigbogu so it's partially true. The Leaf one was a low pass, but I think most guys catch it. The Anigbogu one should've been a dunk. The pick 6 to Fox and the travel where he was scared off by Adebayo were real TOs.

UCLA's bigs were basically no help on pick and rolls with Fox. Ball did a decent job of fighting through screens with a rewatch, but Welsh was in foul trouble and the other bigs just looked like they were playing different sports than Fox.

Homerclease · Post #371 » by **Homerclease** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:12 pm

robdog_5 wrote:The thing that bothered me most about Lonzo last night was his lack of fight. He was getting owned by Fox. Instead of answering the bell, he began to fade and pretend he was hurting. He wasn't hurting but his ego was hurt and he was trying to minimize the damage of how things looked. That wasn't lost on Kentucky G's either who were talking to each other about it.

Oddly, he couldn't defend Fox who was just too quick for him. He did however defend Fox well. His length bothered Monk's shooting. So I think he can defend 2's well but may struggle with quicker Gs.

He'd fit right in here then

pasfru · Post #372 » by **pasfru** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:15 pm

robdog_5 wrote:The thing that bothered me most about Lonzo last night was his lack of fight. He was getting owned by Fox. Instead of answering the bell, he began to fade and pretend he was hurting. He wasn't hurting but his ego was hurt and he was trying to minimize the damage of how things looked. That wasn't lost on Kentucky G's either who were talking to each other about it.

Oddly, he couldn't defend Fox who was just too quick for him. He did however defend Fox well. His length bothered Monk's shooting. So I think he can defend 2's well but may struggle with quicker Gs.

His shot wasn't falling, and that's usually a heat check for him, something to get his team going. Since it wasn't falling, he tried to create for others. He drove into the paint to get others open (if he couldn't penetrate as some have been saying, how the hell do you think he'd be getting all these assists?), got the ball down low to Leaf, let guys like Alford and Hamilton shoot more, etc., but the team as a whole just didn't really show up, everyone's kind of blame to here, putting the responsibility solely on a 19-year-old's back is unfair.

robdog_5 · Post #373 » by **robdog_5** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:33 pm

Fruit Pastilles wrote:
robdog_5 wrote:The thing that bothered me most about Lonzo last night was his lack of fight. He was getting owned by Fox. Instead of answering the bell, he began to fade and pretend he was hurting. He wasn't hurting but his ego was hurt and he was trying to minimize the damage of how things looked. That wasn't lost on Kentucky G's either who were talking to each other about it.

Oddly, he couldn't defend Fox who was just too quick for him. He did however defend Fox well. His length bothered Monk's shooting. So I think he can defend 2's well but may struggle with quicker Gs.

His shot wasn't falling, and that's usually a heat check for him, something to get his team going. Since it wasn't falling, he tried to create for others. He drove into the paint to get others open (if he couldn't penetrate as some have been saying, how the hell do you think he'd be getting all these assists?), got the ball down low to Leaf, let guys like Alford and Hamilton shoot more, etc., but the team as a whole just didn't really show up, everyone's kind of blame to here, putting the responsibility solely on a 19-year-old's back is unfair.

I'm not blaming Lonzo for the loss. Kentucky out played UCLA. Even Calapari seemed to coach with more energy than Alford. It was a team effort. However, I was bummed I didn't see more from Lonzo when the team needed it. He was resigned to the fact it wasn't going to happen, when he started to pretend to limp that bothered me, he wasn't hurt but he wanted to act hurt to minimize the fact he was dominated in the key matchup.

I like him as player and if we have the 3/4th pick I would hope the C's would snag him or trade pick but he has some holes, like Jackson and Tatum. Fultz is the only guy I don't see a noticeable hole in his game.

Not just because of last night but I like Fultz the most and the gap is widening for me not narrowing. After that Jackson and Ball are close. Tatum would be next. Depends on what your team needs. Tatum has best scoring potential of 3. Jackson has best defense/athleticism to me, Ball is a guy who helps everyone on offense in a unique way.

London2Boston · Post #374 » by **London2Boston** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:46 pm

Read on Twitter

pasfru · Post #375 » by **pasfru** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:51 pm

robdog_5 wrote:
Fruit Pastilles wrote:
robdog_5 wrote:The thing that bothered me most about Lonzo last night was his lack of fight. He was getting owned by Fox. Instead of answering the bell, he began to fade and pretend he was hurting. He wasn't hurting but his ego was hurt and he was trying to minimize the damage of how things looked. That wasn't lost on Kentucky G's either who were talking to each other about it.

Oddly, he couldn't defend Fox who was just too quick for him. He did however defend Fox well. His length bothered Monk's shooting. So I think he can defend 2's well but may struggle with quicker Gs.

His shot wasn't falling, and that's usually a heat check for him, something to get his team going. Since it wasn't falling, he tried to create for others. He drove into the paint to get others open (if he couldn't penetrate as some have been saying, how the hell do you think he'd be getting all these assists?), got the ball down low to Leaf, let guys like Alford and Hamilton shoot more, etc., but the team as a whole just didn't really show up, everyone's kind of blame to here, putting the responsibility solely on a 19-year-old's back is unfair.

He was resigned to the fact it wasn't going to happen, when he started to pretend to limp that bothered me, he wasn't hurt but he wanted to act hurt to minimize the fact he was dominated in the key matchup.

This was looking like a fair, rational post until I read up to here.

At least it was funny!

bucknersrevenge · Post #376 » by **bucknersrevenge** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:54 pm

Fruit Pastilles wrote:
Darth Celtic wrote:Every thread i've posted in i've said I don't like Ball. I'm ok taking him at 4 if he's best player available, but i don't want him at 1 or 2. Fultz and Jackson for me.

The fact he played terrible on offense and defense last doesn't make my opinion, just reinforces it.

10 and 8 isn't a terrible performance. It's funny that no one here can see how bad UCLA as a team played. All of the focus is on Ball. People falling all over the place, rebounds slipping out of Alford's hands, Leaf running into his own teammates.

When Lonzo's playing good, they say he's got much better teammates than Fultz. When Lonzo's playing bad, they say he's overrated and overhyped. True mark of a star player there.

Not that I disagree with you FP, but if Ball gets a ton of credit when they win, shouldn't he get a ton of credit when they lose too? That's how being a star works.

Bar Fight · Post #377 » by **Bar Fight** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:59 pm

return2glory wrote:
Bar Fight wrote:
return2glory wrote:
It's not like Ball is having a bad game. It's more like he is getting exposed for being slow, especially against someone lightening quick as Fox.

Ball is not Magic. He isn't Jason Kidd either. He will be good, but I don't think he has star potential. His shot and defense are questionable.

He didn't get exposed at all. These guys have been watching him all year. Do you not think they are already aware of his weaknesses? Especially considering he got outplayed by Fox earlier in the year already. The book is out on most of these guys and a tournament game is not drastically changing anything.

I disagree. Ball is being called a top 3 prospect in this draft by many, and he showed he didn't belong in the same class as Fox. It wasn't even close.

A few more GMs will be thinking about taking Fox over Ball a little more than they had two days ago.

Again Ball is still a good player, but being dominated in his head to head match up against Fox should bring up some questions.

I get the fact that it's one game and someone like Andrew Wiggins didn't have a good game in his last college game. But Wiggins didn't didn't dominated by the oppositing SF either like Ball did against the opposing PG.

If you think this game was a revelation then you must not have watched Ball that much. He's had plenty of games like this. One against that very same Kentucky team, and another against Arizona. Ball was being called a top 3-4 prospect (I've always had him at 4) for his entire body of work, one game isn't changing that. Fox probably did raise his stock, I'm not arguing against that. But even that isn't just based solely on this one game, because he's been rising lately anyway with his recent play.

I think the combine and pre-draft workouts will play a much bigger role on teams big boards than a single tournament game. Overreacting to one game is how you make stupid draft decisions.

pasfru · Post #378 » by **pasfru** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:00 pm

bucknersrevenge wrote:
Fruit Pastilles wrote:
Darth Celtic wrote:Every thread i've posted in i've said I don't like Ball. I'm ok taking him at 4 if he's best player available, but i don't want him at 1 or 2. Fultz and Jackson for me.

The fact he played terrible on offense and defense last doesn't make my opinion, just reinforces it.

10 and 8 isn't a terrible performance. It's funny that no one here can see how bad UCLA as a team played. All of the focus is on Ball. People falling all over the place, rebounds slipping out of Alford's hands, Leaf running into his own teammates.

When Lonzo's playing good, they say he's got much better teammates than Fultz. When Lonzo's playing bad, they say he's overrated and overhyped. True mark of a star player there.

Not that I disagree with you FP, but if Ball gets a ton of credit when they win, shouldn't he get a ton of credit when they lose too? That's how being a star works.

For sure, he does deserve some blame. To the point where some are changing their prospect rankings though? Where some are saying he's a bust or will fall in the draft? All because of one game where he didn't even play that bad? I think that's a bit much.

Bar Fight · Post #379 » by **Bar Fight** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:03 pm

Fruit Pastilles wrote:
Darth Celtic wrote:Every thread i've posted in i've said I don't like Ball. I'm ok taking him at 4 if he's best player available, but i don't want him at 1 or 2. Fultz and Jackson for me.

The fact he played terrible on offense and defense last doesn't make my opinion, just reinforces it.

10 and 8 isn't a terrible performance. It's funny that no one here can see how bad UCLA as a team played. All of the focus is on Ball. People falling all over the place, rebounds slipping out of Alford's hands, Leaf running into his own teammates.

When Lonzo's playing good, they say he's got much better teammates than Fultz. When Lonzo's playing bad, they say he's overrated and overhyped. True mark of a star player there.

I mean, this isn't even remotely debatable. :lol:

Not sure why you're saying "they say" as if it isn't 100% definitively the case.

Bar Fight · Post #380 » by **Bar Fight** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:06 pm

Fruit Pastilles wrote:Oh boy... this thread. I'm glad I don't read the live reactions here often because you guys ride these prospects like a wave.

I have nothing bad to say about Lonzo. He managed to fool Indiana into thinking Alford was a good coach, that's all there is to say. It's pretty disrespectful that so many people are acting like Lonzo didn't give a **** out there. He played just like he always has, stop acting like this is a serious problem or anything new.

If you really want to sell prospect stock over attitude flaws, sell Fultz. If you want to sell prospect stock over lack of defensive effort, sell Fultz. People acting like Ball's gonna fall in the Draft are being ridiculous. Fultz and Ball are 1a/1b. I think it'll really come down to whether you want the gifted scorer or gifted passer, both are in the same tier, one game doesn't change that for me.

Not sure what you're talking about here. Please enlighten me on this.