2017 NBA DRAFT Part 3

Ron Swanson · Post #601 » by **Ron Swanson** » Tue Jun 6, 2017 3:47 pm

i like Jackson but I can't shake this feeling that we'd be picking him for need rather than BPA at #17.

M-C-G · Post #602 » by **M-C-G** » Tue Jun 6, 2017 3:50 pm

Ron Swanson wrote:i like Jackson but I can't shake this feeling that we'd be picking him for need rather than BPA at #17.

I'm still on the Ike and Donovan Mitchell wagon, but would feel pretty good about Jackson at 17 if those other guys are gone. Yeah he is somewhat of a need pick, but feels like a big upside pick too. I mean, let's say you add him at 17, Dorsey at 48 and Vaughn develops into a rotation guy this year, it means you added a ton of shooting to this team and that is our biggest need in my mind.

skones · Post #603 » by **skones** » Tue Jun 6, 2017 3:54 pm

skones wrote:
RiotPunch wrote:
skones wrote:I don't want to trade down, at all.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using RealGM mobile app

Who's your guy at 17?

I don't have one guy yet, but I do think I will come draft time and I think it'll be narrowed down to 2 or 3 guys.

FWIW I think my short list at 17 (in no particular order) would be:
Ike Anigbogu
Jawun Evans
Harry Giles
Josh Hart
Isaiah Hartenstein

machu46 · Post #604 » by **machu46** » Tue Jun 6, 2017 3:56 pm

Considering the other players likely to be there at 17, I don't really see Jackson as a reach in terms of talent level at all. I mean, the mocks have us currently taking a guy that averaged like 4/4 in college right now lol.

skones · Post #605 » by **skones** » Tue Jun 6, 2017 3:56 pm

M-C-G wrote:
Ron Swanson wrote:i like Jackson but I can't shake this feeling that we'd be picking him for need rather than BPA at #17.

I'm still on the Ike and Donovan Mitchell wagon, but would feel pretty good about Jackson at 17 if those other guys are gone. Yeah he is somewhat of a need pick, but feels like a big upside pick too. I mean, let's say you add him at 17, Dorsey at 48 and Vaughn develops into a rotation guy this year, it means you added a ton of shooting to this team and that is our biggest need in my mind.

His lack of hustle numbers really worry me as it pertains to him being any more than a microwave scorer off the bench. Elite physical traits and he comes away with 2.5 boards, .6 steals, and .1 blocks? That's worrisome with regards to his defensive translation. I think it shows a lack of anticipation. If he's going to be that scorer, I think he's a couple of years away from that given his inconsistencies this past season at Duke.

emunney · Post #606 » by **emunney** » Tue Jun 6, 2017 4:00 pm

SupremeHustle wrote:
weezybaby856 wrote:Anyone see Fords new mock? Curious to know who he has us taking. It's getting close to crunch time where Ford starts locking in on legit picks...

He's usually more accurate after the draft.

M-C-G · Post #607 » by **M-C-G** » Tue Jun 6, 2017 4:04 pm

skones wrote:
M-C-G wrote:
Ron Swanson wrote:i like Jackson but I can't shake this feeling that we'd be picking him for need rather than BPA at #17.

I'm still on the Ike and Donovan Mitchell wagon, but would feel pretty good about Jackson at 17 if those other guys are gone. Yeah he is somewhat of a need pick, but feels like a big upside pick too. I mean, let's say you add him at 17, Dorsey at 48 and Vaughn develops into a rotation guy this year, it means you added a ton of shooting to this team and that is our biggest need in my mind.

His lack of hustle numbers really worry me as it pertains to him being any more than a microwave scorer off the bench. Elite physical traits and he comes away with 2.5 boards, .6 steals, and .1 blocks? That's worrisome with regards to his defensive translation. I think it shows a lack of anticipation. If he's going to be that scorer, I think he's a couple of years away from that given his inconsistencies this past season at Duke.

Yeah, I won't pretend to know much about him other than what I saw on DX and some other scouting sites. My thought with Jackson is that day 1, he should be able to play that "Bayless" role as the offball PG, which should give him time to develop the other parts of his game. Obviously if you draft him, its for the upside to be a better player than Bayless, but I think he looks better and craftier than Bayless at the rim, so that potential is certainly there if that 3pt translates

Matches Malone · Post #608 » by **Matches Malone** » Tue Jun 6, 2017 4:06 pm

Could someone post the entire first round? Pleeeeease and thank you.

skones · Post #609 » by **skones** » Tue Jun 6, 2017 4:14 pm

M-C-G wrote:
skones wrote:
M-C-G wrote:
I'm still on the Ike and Donovan Mitchell wagon, but would feel pretty good about Jackson at 17 if those other guys are gone. Yeah he is somewhat of a need pick, but feels like a big upside pick too. I mean, let's say you add him at 17, Dorsey at 48 and Vaughn develops into a rotation guy this year, it means you added a ton of shooting to this team and that is our biggest need in my mind.

His lack of hustle numbers really worry me as it pertains to him being any more than a microwave scorer off the bench. Elite physical traits and he comes away with 2.5 boards, .6 steals, and .1 blocks? That's worrisome with regards to his defensive translation. I think it shows a lack of anticipation. If he's going to be that scorer, I think he's a couple of years away from that given his inconsistencies this past season at Duke.

Yeah, I won't pretend to know much about him other than what I saw on DX and some other scouting sites. My thought with Jackson is that day 1, he should be able to play that "Bayless" role as the offball PG, which should give him time to develop the other parts of his game. Obviously if you draft him, its for the upside to be a better player than Bayless, but I think he looks better and craftier than Bayless at the rim, so that potential is certainly there if that 3pt translates

There's is no way he's ready for that type of role on Day 1. As much as people hate Bayless's game. He played pretty well for us (given the expectations for him) his last season here. It's like having that same expectation for a guy like Rashad Vaughn. There's a pretty large gap in overall talent levels and he was inconsistent playing that "Bayless role" for Duke.

M-C-G · Post #610 » by **M-C-G** » Tue Jun 6, 2017 4:14 pm

What do you guys think about Jordan Bell at 17? I was having a discussion on the trade board, and with his testing, I think he can be a 3/4 guy that can give you some time at the 5. For those that watch more college bball than I do, what do you think?

skones · Post #611 » by **skones** » Tue Jun 6, 2017 4:17 pm

M-C-G wrote:What do you guys think about Jordan Bell at 17? I was having a discussion on the trade board, and with his testing, I think he can be a 3/4 guy that can give you some time at the 5. For those that watch more college bball than I do, what do you think?

I think that if Draymond Green doesn't exist, Jordan Bell is a bonafide second rounder and a "tweener." Draymond Green is a bit of a unicorn himself. Drafting a guy like Bell who fits that mold is unwise. Most don't pan out.

M-C-G · Post #612 » by **M-C-G** » Tue Jun 6, 2017 4:18 pm

skones wrote:
M-C-G wrote:
skones wrote:
His lack of hustle numbers really worry me as it pertains to him being any more than a microwave scorer off the bench. Elite physical traits and he comes away with 2.5 boards, .6 steals, and .1 blocks? That's worrisome with regards to his defensive translation. I think it shows a lack of anticipation. If he's going to be that scorer, I think he's a couple of years away from that given his inconsistencies this past season at Duke.

Yeah, I won't pretend to know much about him other than what I saw on DX and some other scouting sites. My thought with Jackson is that day 1, he should be able to play that "Bayless" role as the offball PG, which should give him time to develop the other parts of his game. Obviously if you draft him, its for the upside to be a better player than Bayless, but I think he looks better and craftier than Bayless at the rim, so that potential is certainly there if that 3pt translates

There's is no way he's ready for that type of role on Day 1. As much as people hate Bayless's game. He played pretty well for is his last season here. It's like having that same expectation for a guy like Rashad Vaughn. There's a pretty large gap in overall talent levels.

You don't think he can be ready to play off ball PG and potentially take 3-5 3pt shots a game? I'm not sure if he will be as good as Bayless was, because I agree that last season here, he was very useful, but I certainly think that is a role Jackson can play. Again, comes down to the three point shooting and how long it takes to translate (assuming it does)

Ron Swanson · Post #613 » by **Ron Swanson** » Tue Jun 6, 2017 4:18 pm

Eric Bledsoe is gonna be very available if the draft shakes out where PHX takes Fox at #4. As much as it'd pain me, something based around Jabari for Bledsoe + #32 shouldn't be outright dismissed...

skones · Post #614 » by **skones** » Tue Jun 6, 2017 4:20 pm

M-C-G wrote:
skones wrote:
M-C-G wrote:
Yeah, I won't pretend to know much about him other than what I saw on DX and some other scouting sites. My thought with Jackson is that day 1, he should be able to play that "Bayless" role as the offball PG, which should give him time to develop the other parts of his game. Obviously if you draft him, its for the upside to be a better player than Bayless, but I think he looks better and craftier than Bayless at the rim, so that potential is certainly there if that 3pt translates

There's is no way he's ready for that type of role on Day 1. As much as people hate Bayless's game. He played pretty well for is his last season here. It's like having that same expectation for a guy like Rashad Vaughn. There's a pretty large gap in overall talent levels.

You don't think he can be ready to play off ball PG and potentially take 3-5 3pt shots a game? I'm not sure if he will be as good as Bayless was, because I agree that last season here, he was very useful, but I certainly think that is a role Jackson can play. Again, comes down to the three point shooting and how long it takes to translate (assuming it does)

How many rookies in this league come in and jack up 3-5 threes a game and do it at a league average clip? In the grand scope of things, your expectations are unrealistic. That's even before you consider that the guy you're slotting in is only 19 years old.

machu46 · Post #615 » by **machu46** » Tue Jun 6, 2017 4:20 pm

Matches Malone wrote:Could someone post the entire first round? Pleeeeease and thank you.

1. Fultz
2. Lonzo
3. Josh Jackson
4. DeAaron Fox
5. Jayson Tatum
6. Isaac
7. Markkanen
8. Monk
9. Dennis Smith
10. Ntilkina
11. Mitchell
12. Kennard
13. Onunoby
14. Zach Collins
15. Harry Giles
16. John Collins
17. Ike
18. Leaf
19. Jarrett Allen
20. BAM
21. Justin Jackson
22. Patton
23. Jonathan Jeanne
24. Pasecniks
25. Frank Jackson
26. Hartenstein
27. Ferguson
28. DJ Wilson
29. Tony Bradley
30. Kurucs

M-C-G · Post #616 » by **M-C-G** » Tue Jun 6, 2017 4:21 pm

skones wrote:
M-C-G wrote:What do you guys think about Jordan Bell at 17? I was having a discussion on the trade board, and with his testing, I think he can be a 3/4 guy that can give you some time at the 5. For those that watch more college bball than I do, what do you think?

I think that if Draymond Green doesn't exist, Jordan Bell is a bonafide second rounder and a "tweener." Draymond Green is a bit of a unicorn himself. Drafting a guy like Bell who fits that mold is unwise. Most don't pan out.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Goal should be to find the next version of Draymond Green advantage, as opposed to chasing the next Draymond Green. But there is something to like with having a Roberson type defender out there that can fit your position-less defensive scheme. I just know if you can play him and Giannis at the same time offensively unless Giannis is hitting that jumper, but defensively, a Giannis, Bell, Thon combo is pretty enticing.

machu46 · Post #617 » by **machu46** » Tue Jun 6, 2017 4:22 pm

M-C-G wrote:What do you guys think about Jordan Bell at 17? I was having a discussion on the trade board, and with his testing, I think he can be a 3/4 guy that can give you some time at the 5. For those that watch more college bball than I do, what do you think?

I've said it before, and I try not to let one game ruin a guy as a prospect for me, but watching him in the Final Four makes me question if his rebounding will translate to the NBA. He just doesn't box out. He simply relies on being able to jump higher than everyone else and that won't fly in the NBA.

If his rebounding doesn't translate, I just don't see him as a 1st round prospect. The defensive versatility is intriguing though.

fansinceforever · Post #618 » by **fansinceforever** » Tue Jun 6, 2017 4:23 pm

I'd take a flyer on Bledsoe but not sure how we get him here.

yoshii8 · Post #619 » by **yoshii8** » Tue Jun 6, 2017 4:25 pm

I would be very disappointed if we drafted Ike. He doesn't seem like he does anything special, but I guess those guys know more than I do.

M-C-G · Post #620 » by **M-C-G** » Tue Jun 6, 2017 4:27 pm

skones wrote:
M-C-G wrote:
skones wrote:
There's is no way he's ready for that type of role on Day 1. As much as people hate Bayless's game. He played pretty well for is his last season here. It's like having that same expectation for a guy like Rashad Vaughn. There's a pretty large gap in overall talent levels.

You don't think he can be ready to play off ball PG and potentially take 3-5 3pt shots a game? I'm not sure if he will be as good as Bayless was, because I agree that last season here, he was very useful, but I certainly think that is a role Jackson can play. Again, comes down to the three point shooting and how long it takes to translate (assuming it does)

How many rookies in this league come in and jack up 3-5 threes a game and do it at a league average clip? In the grand scope of things, your expectations are unrealistic. That's even before you consider that the guy you're slotting in is only 19 years old.

22 rookies since 2010 have shot 35% on at least 3 attempts. But when I do look at the number of 19 year olds, your certainly right, the answer is 3. Fair enough