2016-2017 College Basketball / '17 NBA Draft Thread IV

[Sixerscan]

The spurs won a title 3 years ago without anyone averaging 17 ppg.

[Kobblehead]

Joel Embiid is an established 20 ppg scorer and Ben Simmons was dropping over 19 a game at LSU as a freshman. We need a great 2-way basketball player at #3. If he happens to develop into a high volume scorer, all the better, but that shouldn't be the sole emphasis.

[LloydFree]

I'm still locked into either Josh Jackson or Lonzo Ball at #3. If Markelle Fultz is the guy on the board, I'd lean towards taking him, but I'd bring all of the ancillary prospects onto the table and I'd be on the phone seeing if someone was desperate to move up.

But if Ball or Jackson is on the board, things get real easy for me.

I'd definitely look to trade back if both Ball and Jackson are off the board. I still think it's a good chance Fultz is on the board at#3. I've seen too many NBA types say Josh Jackson is their favorite player in the draft. If there was a weak GM sitting in the #1 spot, I'd feel more secure that Fultz would go #1. Can't picture Ainge doing it.

Ainge is great at fleecing incompetent GMs but his draft record is suspect and he is not that good at drafting. I think based on Ainge's draft record he has a better chance of getting the number 1 pick wrong thus he may draft Fultz.

If it was just about the number of hits and misses he's had, I'd agree. But it's more about the type of player he drafts and his security in his position to not care about the pressure from the casual fanbase to draft the top name on a website list. Ainge likes tough athletic players and has built up enough clout to do what he wants. Fultz doesn't fit the type, but I'll be happily surprised if Ainge takes Fultz off the board for himself and not for trade.

[LongLiveHinkie]

Get me Greg Popovich and maybe I'll reconsider. Otherwise, that's the exception, not the rule. Especially going forward with super teams it'll be less and less common.

[LongLiveHinkie]

Joel Embiid is an established 20 ppg scorer and Ben Simmons was dropping over 19 a game at LSU as a freshman. We need a great 2-way basketball player at #3. If he happens to develop into a high volume scorer, all the better, but that shouldn't be the sole emphasis.

I have concerns about Simmons' scoring in the NBA. If he doesn't at least develop a mid-ranged jumper I think his scoring will be pretty limited. At least early in the going. We need a stud perimeter scorer, or at least a stud scorer at one of the wing positions. I really don't care much if they play defense, but if they can I'll take it. I think Jackson can be that, because he can get to the rim. Not buying it with Ball and Isaac though.

[Kobblehead]

Maybe, maybe not. Giannis has no mid-range jumper and he can't hit a three whatsoever and he's now a 22+ ppg scorer off the strength of transition buckets, drives to the rim and free throws. Ben's scoring trajectory should be similar.

[HotelVitale]

So I'd lean on the side of him being a very good defender in the league over not. He also did all of this while being the primary scorer, so he wasn't taking plays off to catch his breath. On top of all of that, he was 54.5 on unguarded catch and shoot 3s. I think that's the definition of 3 and D.

So to respond to the last post by quoting your earlier post: you said we should expect him to be 'very good,' now you're saying we should expect him to be 'elite' in the NBA. And the number that's convincing you about his 3s (54.4 on 'unguarded' shots) is probably a pretty small sample--vs a larger sample of him being bricky--and in any case most decent volume 3 pt shooters in the league can't just shoot wide open shots. I'm not going to try to convince not to like Mitchell, just pointing out that you seem to be ignoring the various points where an objective person steps back and says 'yeah, that could potentially go wrong at the next level.' Seems like dude's got you mesmerized.

If you're convinced he'll be an instant elite defender and great 3D shooter I have to ask--that means you'd take him with #3 without hesitation right?

[Unbreakable99]

Get me Greg Popovich and maybe I'll reconsider. Otherwise, that's the exception, not the rule. Especially going forward with super teams it'll be less and less common.

Can Popovich do this?

Read on Twitter

[Sixerscan]

Get me Greg Popovich and maybe I'll reconsider. Otherwise, that's the exception, not the rule. Especially going forward with super teams it'll be less and less common.

The spurs beat a super team, three years ago.

Agreed they are an exception, but every team that wins a championship is an exception in one way or another, and, to the extent there is precedent, most championship teams only had 1/2 guys averaging above 18 anyway. I wouldn't pass on a better player because of some artificial construct like that. It's hard enough to worry about different positions and fit without going to that next level.

[LongLiveHinkie]

I just can't try to build my team like the Spurs, they are so rare. It's like saying a team shouldn't worry about having a single superstar because the mid 2000's Pistons won without a true superstar. It's just rare and hard to do.

The Spurs are kinda like the Patriots. Never try to model yourself after them, they are a unique entity, you'll never be them. In today's NBA generally you need 3 big-time scorers to win titles, and it may be evolving to 4. I'm 100% certain Embiid will be one if healthy. Simmons I think can be if he develops a jumper, but not 100% sold on him. So IMO we need another. If Simmons doesn't develop into a good scorer, then we definitely need one, but even if he does, having 3 top level scorers would make us really tough to beat.

[JojoSlimbiid]

Read on Twitter

Big Ballers don't need to stay in shape. Isn't Fultz the one with the motor issues? Must be more smokescreens though.

Dennis Smith 48 inch vert

[cksdayoff]

Lavar Ball says basketball is just entertainment for him and his family, while Fultz says he wants to be the best ever.

[JojoSlimbiid]

The parallels between this draft and 2015 are becoming striking. Welp

[Sixerscan]

I just can't try to build my team like the Spurs, they are so rare. It's like saying a team shouldn't worry about having a single superstar because the mid 2000's Pistons won without a true superstar. It's just rare and hard to do.

The Spurs are kinda like the Patriots. Never try to model yourself after them, they are a unique entity, you'll never be them. In today's NBA generally you need 3 big-time scorers to win titles, and it may be evolving to 4. I'm 100% certain Embiid will be one if healthy. Simmons I think can be if he develops a jumper, but not 100% sold on him. So IMO we need another. If Simmons doesn't develop into a good scorer, then we definitely need one, but even if he does, having 3 top level scorers would make us really tough to beat.

I'm not saying model yourself off of the spurs. They were an obvious recent example of how this idea that you need 3 top level scorers to win is wrong. The Warriors two years ago only had 2 people averaging over 12 points a game, and won 73 games and probably should have won last year with their 3rd option averaging 14 a game. Heck with the 2nd Lebron Heat team, a notoriously top heavy team, Bosh only averaged 16 a night.

The current Warriors and Cavs are as much unique entities as the Spurs were. If the Sixers win they will probably be a unique entity in some ways themselves. (Embiid alone makes that likely). The great teams don't fill the mold, they break it and make their own.

I don't see a likely high level scorer available at #3 anyway, can't just force yourself to believe. There will be other better opportunities to add that to this roster if needed.

[AdotSmoove]

Yeah but Allen Iverson was drafted as a PG and played PG at an All Star level. Monk didn't play PG at all in college and doesn't look capable. PG is a more valuable position than short shooting guard. You do not draft a short shooting guard high in the draft. Besides when you start comparing the former #1 pick in the draft and hall of famer to someone that may not go top 5, you are traveling down the wrong road. Lou Williams, Jamal Murray, Shawn Respert, and Tony Delk are some short shooting guards that deserve to be in conversation with Monk more than Iverson.

But BS is the PG. The argument is that Monk can guard the PGs so Simmons won't have to which also happens to mitigate Monk's size issue. Two inches won't stop Monk from getting his shot off on the other end.

Also everyone compares Monk to LouWill. It took sweet Lou a long time to reach the level he is at and partially because LouWill is not athletic. Sweet Lou was also not a prolific jump shooter coming in, he was just a shot creator from mid range in - very much like AI.

Monk isn't that type of player. He may still be best suited for 6th man, but he certainly has the athletic potential to become a very good perimeter defender. Like JJ Reddick is 1 inch taller, has an average wingspan and is just barely athletic enough to make a living in the NBA as a starter. And you mean to tell me Monk can't start and is doomed to 6th man status because he's 6'3?

What Monk is is a mix of LouWill for swag, Jamal Murray for the stroke and Nate Robinson for the hops. He may not put it all together but he has a natural touch and the athleticism to be as good as he wants to be. The only reason I don't take Monk at 3 is because we have the kings trade lined up: #3 + Okafor + Furkan for 5+10. (Furkan is just a sweetener)


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Ben Simmons is a point forward, and Lou Williams isn't athletic? He has one of the best first steps in the business.

Watch on YouTube

if the Sixers draft Monk at #3 and do not make any more additions, what would be your prefered starting lineup next season?

A lightning quick first step doesn't get you above the rim and being a below the rim player has limitations. Those limitations IMO really hurt in the context of being an off ball scorer utilizing Backdoor cuts. Someone like LouWill can be guarded by smaller players because there's no risk he will go over them so you only need to put a solid on ball defender on him and issue solved. TJ can guard LouWill just fine. I do not think TJ could guard Monk because all Monk has to do is play above the rim.

BS for better or worse will be PG next season. Whether that works out or not remains to be seen but for purposes of lineup construction it doesn't make a difference to me. If we take Monk at three and do nothing else, my starting five would be:

Bayless/TJ
Monk/Sauce
Cov/Luwawu
Simmons/Saric
Embiid/Holmes

Simmons and Embiid run PnR while the other three use off ball screens to free each other up much the way of GSWs weakside offensive action.

Embiid mitigates a lot of the penetration concerns you have with a Bayless Monk backcourt. I think our lineups will be fine inserting Monk. The problem I see with our lineup constructions is that we keep trying to shoehorn Dario into that role when he should just run the second unit.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Unbreakable99]

The parallels between this draft and 2015 are becoming striking. Welp

Actually the 2015 draft is looking nothing like this draft. We are drafting 3rd. There's a good chance omen of Ball or Jackson will be there. Both of them fit a need and seem to be like they will be very good player. We also don't have a quality PG or SG at this time unlike in 2015 when we already had a glut of centers and drafted a 3rs one anyway. So I have no idea how 2015 and 2017 seem parallel. We will be very lucky to get one of Ball or Jackson. That wasn't the case with Okafor.

[Negrodamus]

So I'd lean on the side of him being a very good defender in the league over not. He also did all of this while being the primary scorer, so he wasn't taking plays off to catch his breath. On top of all of that, he was 54.5 on unguarded catch and shoot 3s. I think that's the definition of 3 and D.

So to respond to the last post by quoting your earlier post: you said we should expect him to be 'very good,' now you're saying we should expect him to be 'elite' in the NBA. And the number that's convincing you about his 3s (54.4 on 'unguarded' shots) is probably a pretty small sample--vs a larger sample of him being bricky--and in any case most decent volume 3 pt shooters in the league can't just shoot wide open shots. I'm not going to try to convince not to like Mitchell, just pointing out that you seem to be ignoring the various points where an objective person steps back and says 'yeah, that could potentially go wrong at the next level.' Seems like dude's got you mesmerized.

If you're convinced he'll be an instant elite defender and great 3D shooter I have to ask--that means you'd take him with #3 without hesitation right?

Well first, I wouldn't say mesmerized by him. I'm finding less fatal flaws from him in comparison to other top prospects.

Would I take him #3 without hesitation? Absolutely not. If Colangelo is deciding between Fultz, Ball, Monk, or Mitchell, would I suggest Mitchell? Yes.

I'm still on team Tatum till the end. I posted the players that I'm high on in the last page of this thread.

[JojoSlimbiid]

The parallels between this draft and 2015 are becoming striking. Welp

Actually the 2015 draft is looking nothing like this draft. We are drafting 3rd. There's a good chance omen of Ball or Jackson will be there. Both of them fit a need and seem to be like they will be very good player. We also don't have a quality PG or SG at this time unlike in 2015 when we already had a glute of centers and drafted a 3rs one anyway. So I have no idea how 2015 and 2017 seem parallel. We will be very lucky to ge one of Ball or Jackson. That wasn't the case with Okafor.

We drafted 3rd in 2015 and LA drafted 2nd and yes it is extremely similar to that draft.

One player Towns(Fultz) is the modern style NBA player(stretch big/offensively inclined guard) that was thought to be close to the #2 prospect who plays an older style(pass 1st PG/post big). Eventually people's brains started to turn on and Towns clearly distanced himself from Okafor just like it has in this draft. Eventually the #2 prospect and the questions about their games both got them passed on by LA. Leaving us stuck with the garbage. So yes there are some potential parallels I see here.

[LongLiveHinkie]

I just can't try to build my team like the Spurs, they are so rare. It's like saying a team shouldn't worry about having a single superstar because the mid 2000's Pistons won without a true superstar. It's just rare and hard to do.

The Spurs are kinda like the Patriots. Never try to model yourself after them, they are a unique entity, you'll never be them. In today's NBA generally you need 3 big-time scorers to win titles, and it may be evolving to 4. I'm 100% certain Embiid will be one if healthy. Simmons I think can be if he develops a jumper, but not 100% sold on him. So IMO we need another. If Simmons doesn't develop into a good scorer, then we definitely need one, but even if he does, having 3 top level scorers would make us really tough to beat.

I'm not saying model yourself off of the spurs. They were an obvious recent example of how this idea that you need 3 top level scorers to win is wrong. The Warriors two years ago only had 2 people averaging over 12 points a game, and won 73 games and probably should have won last year with their 3rd option averaging 14 a game. Heck with the 2nd Lebron Heat team, a notoriously top heavy team, Bosh only averaged 16 a night.

The current Warriors and Cavs are as much unique entities as the Spurs were. If the Sixers win they will probably be a unique entity in some ways themselves. (Embiid alone makes that likely). The great teams don't fill the mold, they break it and make their own.

I don't see a likely high level scorer available at #3 anyway, can't just force yourself to believe. There will be other better opportunities to add that to this roster if needed.

I don't think you "need" it, but I think it is optimal and preferable. I think Jackson, Smith, Fultz, and Tatum have the potential to be good scorers. Don't see it from Ball though.

The only major difference between me and others is I don't want Lonzo Ball. That's all it boils down to really in a nutshell. I just don't think he's a good prospect or as good as people make him out to be. I think his point production in the NBA is going to be limited.

[Unbreakable99]

The parallels between this draft and 2015 are becoming striking. Welp

Actually the 2015 draft is looking nothing like this draft. We are drafting 3rd. There's a good chance omen of Ball or Jackson will be there. Both of them fit a need and seem to be like they will be very good player. We also don't have a quality PG or SG at this time unlike in 2015 when we already had a glute of centers and drafted a 3rs one anyway. So I have no idea how 2015 and 2017 seem parallel. We will be very lucky to ge one of Ball or Jackson. That wasn't the case with Okafor.

We drafted 3rd in 2015 and LA drafted 2nd and yes it is extremely similar to that draft.

One player Towns(Fultz) is the modern style NBA player(stretch big/offensively inclined guard) that was thought to be close to the #2 prospect who plays an older style(pass 1st PG/post big). Eventually people's brains started to turn on and Towns clearly distanced himself from Okafor just like it has in this draft. Eventually the #2 prospect and the questions about their games both got them passed on by LA. Leaving us stuck with the garbage. So yes there are some potential parallels I see here.

But it's not a parallel since we woukd be lucky to have Ball or Jackson. Since Ball and Jackson are the top two prospects we wouldn't be stuck with garbage. We would get a great prospect.