Miles Bridges...what is his ceiling?

[shakes0]

My favorite player in the draft. Reasons here: https://www.sactownroyalty.com/2018/5/5/17322820/donovan-mitchell-2-0

lol, no offense but I stopped reading that at #1 when you said that Bridges can beat his man off the dribble. I knew I could disregard the whole piece as being written by someone who had probably seen Bridges play 2x this year. Anyone who watched Bridges play could see he had awful handles. I could count on one hand the amount of times I saw him beat someone off the dribble and I saw him play at least 15x this year.

The fact that you think he'll be a bust tells me all I need to know about your ability to project a player. His floor is not even a question.

There are different ways to beat an on the ball defender. He's going to bully his way to the rim, similar to the way Milsap does it now and how Ron Artest did it in his prime. With his ability to hit from range, players can't just lay off of him. He'll have a half a step, turn his shoulder into the defender, and then ride the player to the rim. That's actually the easiest part of his game to project--his ability to play bully ball.

Miles has two underrated skills--his balance and his ability to finish off of either hand. On offense, those attributes are going to enable him to transition and player much bigger (in terms of length) then most give him credit for.

and the fact that you think he's gonna be great tells me all I need to know about your ability to project a player. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[Stillwater]

I'm pro Miles. Think he would be a perfect fit for Philly if he reaches his ceiling and his floor is probably better then most who will be around that spot.

with the way he changed his game significantly to show how versatile he is in year 2, I think he could become an all-star in the league but at worst is a high level starter longterm

You all have to explain this. I'm not anti-Bridges and think he's being rated about right by most people (in that #11-17 range), but I have no idea how he's a 'high level starter' at worst. There are only about 80 'high-level starters' at any given time, so you're saying you think Miles Bridges will absolutely be one of the best 80 basketball players in the world soon--I'm not getting how the tape tells you that.

Here was my end of season write-up on him: 'he's a good versatile bball player, strong frame with solid hops too; he could definitely be a nice starter who can do a bit of everything if things work out well...but the baseline expectation should be that he's not quick or big enough to impose his will in the NBA and that as a result he'll probably never be more than a meh 3rd option. He just looks like he's in that in-between as a NCAA player and pro prospect: as we saw in college, he can create but in the NBA you'd pretty much always want someone else creating and have better options, he can shoot alright but you'd rather have someone else shoot most times, etc. He seems like a gamble to be that sort of versatile fill-in-gaps starter--he'd need to learn how to play very quickly and always make the right decision to get there--and it's tough to squint and see how he makes a leap above that.'

Tell me what I'm missing?

I don't know , I see somebody who changed forward positions because he could despite being better at the 4. I also see somebody who has sneaky elite athleticism etc. The skillset looks on par with Jabari Parker. So, unless you don't believe that...I don't expect anyone drafting him sees anything less than a high level rotation player with the odds being strong he will develop into a high level starter at minimum. Of course not every player with that capability reaches that status so it's easily to be negative.

[HotelVitale]

I don't know , 1) I see somebody who changed forward positions because he could despite being better at the 4. 2) I also see somebody who has sneaky elite athleticism etc. 3) The skillset looks on par with Jabari Parker

1) I don't see why he gets prospect points for that--he clearly wouldn't be able to play the 4 regularly in the NBA, so there's no point in judging him as a 4. He knew that too and that's why he switched to the 3 full time.
2) His athleticism is pretty good but you can't build a game around his type of athleticism, it's not special or even notable at the NBA level, especially given his lack of elite burst (the most important thing for a NBA wing).
3) I'm not a fan of this type of analysis: his game sort of looks like Jabari Parker, but he's not a clone and each player is completely different; without having to think about it much, I recall Parker looking a lot more fluid and easy as a shooter and scorer in college, Bridges is mostly limited to bullying/taking contact in the lane and shooting that sort of set-shot he has to score.

In any case, Parker himself is not 'a high level starter' 4 years into his career, and you're claiming that's Bridges' bare minimum.

Like I said, I like Bridges well enough and think he could be a solid versatile player, but I think he'll need a pretty good development to be a good starter.

[Showtime:Part2]

I see Rick fox in him but w better hops/finishing ability

[DryPaint]

i cant help myself but to see wesley johnson written all over him

[kb02]

I'm pro Miles. Think he would be a perfect fit for Philly if he reaches his ceiling and his floor is probably better then most who will be around that spot.

with the way he changed his game significantly to show how versatile he is in year 2, I think he could become an all-star in the league but at worst is a high level starter longterm

You all have to explain this. I'm not anti-Bridges and think he's being rated about right by most people (in that #11-17 range), but I have no idea how he's a 'high level starter' at worst. There are only about 80 'high-level starters' at any given time, so you're saying you think Miles Bridges will absolutely be one of the best 80 basketball players in the world soon--I'm not getting how the tape tells you that.

Here was my end of season write-up on him: 'he's a good versatile bball player, strong frame with solid hops too; he could definitely be a nice starter who can do a bit of everything if things work out well...but the baseline expectation should be that he's not quick or big enough to impose his will in the NBA and that as a result he'll probably never be more than a meh 3rd option. He just looks like he's in that in-between as a NCAA player and pro prospect: as we saw in college, he can create but in the NBA you'd pretty much always want someone else creating and have better options, he can shoot alright but you'd rather have someone else shoot most times, etc. He seems like a gamble to be that sort of versatile fill-in-gaps starter--he'd need to learn how to play very quickly and always make the right decision to get there--and it's tough to squint and see how he makes a leap above that.'

Tell me what I'm missing?

He's never going to be a point forward, but I do see him carving out a role like the current version of Paul Millsap or a prime version of Ron Artest. His floor is a 3/4 version of a prime Bonzi Wells (who was a damn good player for a few years).

I understand the burst argument. It was one of the main reasons why I thought Fultz was overrated last year (and why I'm very high on Musa). Fultz lacked burst. Fultz would often spin, zigzag, contort and wriggle his way to the rim. I questioned whether that would work in the league and even if it did, that style is just killer on the body (especially the feet and knees over the long term). The reason why it's not as big an issue for Miles is because of his position, the role that I see him playing, balance, and ambidexterity. The assumption, of course, is that he'll become, at a minimum, a league average 3 point shooter. Defenders are going to need to close out on him (similar to Milsap today), which will give him a half a step to drive. Because he can score on either hand (extremely underrated), loves contact, and is comfortable shooting off either foot, he won't need a ton of space to score (negating the burst argument).

Balance and ambidexterity are underrated traits. There are (were) a handful of players, who truly had both balance and ambidexterity over the last few years (Steve Nash and Jrue Holiday). Bridges, I think, can end up in that category (albeit with a different set of skills). An in prime Steve Nash, with his ability to dribble off of either hand and pass off of either hand was amazing to see in person--he would dribble, drive, and shift hands just to open up passing lanes. Jrue Holiday, when you watch him closely, can pass off of either hand as well. Have always loved that aspect of his game.

Where I think he is more of a question mark is on the defensive side of the ball. I think he'll be able to translate into an Artest type of defender. The kind that physically beats up opposing players, controls the hip, and just makes life miserable. But I don't know if he has the feet to do so on the perimeter.

[HotelVitale]

There are (were) a handful of players, who truly had both balance and ambidexterity over the last few years (Steve Nash and Jrue Holiday). Bridges, I think, can end up in that category (albeit with a different set of skills). An in prime Steve Nash, with his ability to dribble off of either hand and pass off of either hand was amazing to see in person--he would dribble, drive, and shift hands just to open up passing lanes. Jrue Holiday, when you watch him closely, can pass off of either hand as well. Have always loved that aspect of his game.

Thanks for the response. I'd be really nervous counting on Bridges developing what you think he will, seems like you might be wanting to like him more than better judgment dictates. I say that because you're comparing him to people who are legitimate geniuses as far as coordination and balance go, have the sort of coordination at full speed that only a handful of athletes in the world do despite every athlete deeply desiring to have it. That's THE big reason those two have greatly out performed expected draft position. I don't see anything in Bridges game to suggest that he's likely going to reach that level--or anything close to it--and I think it's always safest to say a player won't approach that. (If he does, that's amazing but there's just no way to know it's there at this pt and we've all outsmarted ourselves thinking different dudes have it.)

Similar story with the Millsap comp--Millsap is one of the greatest outperformers in recent history because he just developed everything beautifully. He came in as an all-time great college rebounder and then worked on his mid-range and defense, then his passing, then his iso game and stepbacks/fadeaways, etc. And each time he managed to pick up everything extremely well and at full NBA speed. I see how you can squint and see Millsap in Bridges, but it's not about basic skills so much as being able to implement them at full speed and efficiently. If 70% of the guys taken in the 1st rd develop like Millsap then they're stars, and I don't see any reason to think Bridges is more likely to be that guy than others (The Artest comp seems way out of bounds, Artest was a completely different type and level of athlete).

NBA players are so unbelievably good at all sorts of things--and so so so much better than college players--that I think we often overstate some basic abilities in college players. Remember how Marcus Smart bullied and shook guys in college all day? In the NBA he barely ever gets to the line or plows into the lane effectively. I don't see anything special about Bridges to be confident he'll be able to do everything he did in college and heap up a bunch of new skills. Seems like maybe you do?

[Stillwater]

I don't know , 1) I see somebody who changed forward positions because he could despite being better at the 4. 2) I also see somebody who has sneaky elite athleticism etc. 3) The skillset looks on par with Jabari Parker

1) I don't see why he gets prospect points for that--he clearly wouldn't be able to play the 4 regularly in the NBA, so there's no point in judging him as a 4. He knew that too and that's why he switched to the 3 full time.
2) His athleticism is pretty good but you can't build a game around his type of athleticism, it's not special or even notable at the NBA level, especially given his lack of elite burst (the most important thing for a NBA wing).
3) I'm not a fan of this type of analysis: his game sort of looks like Jabari Parker, but he's not a clone and each player is completely different; without having to think about it much, I recall Parker looking a lot more fluid and easy as a shooter and scorer in college, Bridges is mostly limited to bullying/taking contact in the lane and shooting that sort of set-shot he has to score.

In any case, Parker himself is not 'a high level starter' 4 years into his career, and you're claiming that's Bridges' bare minimum.

Like I said, I like Bridges well enough and think he could be a solid versatile player, but I think he'll need a pretty good development to be a good starter.

All fair points , but Parker had 2 major injuries.
The criticism on Bridges changing positions because he can't play the 4 in the NBA is false. He did that among other things to prove his first step is elite and that he can play both forward spots where he is very explosive, not because he cannot make an impact in the league at the 4 at least not offensively. I don't think with his pedestrian wingspan he is going to be recruited as a high level defender at the 4, but his shot blocking numbers were better than another former MSU player in Draymond Green who is longer.

[GiggitySmalls]

I want him on the Hornets I feel he can replace MKG and Marvin eventually and will be a better player then both. If hes there at 11 and we get him I'm gonna be one happy camper. I wanted him last year but, he stayed in college

Sent from my SM-G955U using RealGM mobile app

[HotelVitale]

The criticism on Bridges changing positions because he can't play the 4 in the NBA is false. He did that among other things to prove his first step is elite and that he can play both forward spots where he is very explosive, not because he cannot make an impact in the league at the 4 at least not offensively. I don't think with his pedestrian wingspan he is going to be recruited as a high level defender at the 4, but his shot blocking numbers were better than another former MSU player in Draymond Green who is longer.

Those weren't criticisms, just things that didn't make sense to me as arguments that he'll be a great player. He's not going to play the 4 in the NBA, or at least not a traditional four, so it seems irrelevant to projecting him and certainly not something to list as a major reason to choose him. And his first step is really far from 'elite,' no idea what you're seeing there. His iso driving game is pretty good for the NCAA and he'll be able to get to the rim sometimes in the NBA, but he really really does not have go-to all-day NBA quickness. (If he did he'd be a top-5 choice.)

As for the Draymond reference--why go there? Seems like the worst way to project a guy is to find a few exceptions and say 'yeah, my guy is like that!' Draymond is a brilliant defensive mind and nothing about Bridges seems like he'll be that, not to mention his length and agility. Just look at Bridges and imagine him in a NBA game, don't go looking for other reasons and other players to do the projecting for you.

[Stillwater]

The criticism on Bridges changing positions because he can't play the 4 in the NBA is false. He did that among other things to prove his first step is elite and that he can play both forward spots where he is very explosive, not because he cannot make an impact in the league at the 4 at least not offensively. I don't think with his pedestrian wingspan he is going to be recruited as a high level defender at the 4, but his shot blocking numbers were better than another former MSU player in Draymond Green who is longer.

Those weren't criticisms, just things that didn't make sense to me as arguments that he'll be a great player. He's not going to play the 4 in the NBA, or at least not a traditional four, so it seems irrelevant to projecting him and certainly not something to list as a major reason to choose him. And his first step is really far from 'elite,' no idea what you're seeing there. His iso driving game is pretty good for the NCAA and he'll be able to get to the rim sometimes in the NBA, but he really really does not have go-to all-day NBA quickness. (If he did he'd be a top-5 choice.)

As for the Draymond reference--why go there? Seems like the worst way to project a guy is to find a few exceptions and say 'yeah, my guy is like that!' Draymond is a brilliant defensive mind and nothing about Bridges seems like he'll be that, not to mention his length and agility. Just look at Bridges and imagine him in a NBA game, don't go looking for other reasons and other players to do the projecting for you.

I like Bridges in the 8-14 range in this draft with the expectation that his game as versatile as it is will be highly appealing to gm's in the modern era.

[Nazrmohamed]

I'm pro Miles. Think he would be a perfect fit for Philly if he reaches his ceiling and his floor is probably better then most who will be around that spot.

with the way he changed his game significantly to show how versatile he is in year 2, I think he could become an all-star in the league but at worst is a high level starter longterm

You all have to explain this. I'm not anti-Bridges and think he's being rated about right by most people (in that #11-17 range), but I have no idea how he's a 'high level starter' at worst. There are only about 80 'high-level starters' at any given time, so you're saying you think Miles Bridges will absolutely be one of the best 80 basketball players in the world soon--I'm not getting how the tape tells you that.

Here was my end of season write-up on him: 'he's a good versatile bball player, strong frame with solid hops too; he could definitely be a nice starter who can do a bit of everything if things work out well...but the baseline expectation should be that he's not quick or big enough to impose his will in the NBA and that as a result he'll probably never be more than a meh 3rd option. He just looks like he's in that in-between as a NCAA player and pro prospect: as we saw in college, he can create but in the NBA you'd pretty much always want someone else creating and have better options, he can shoot alright but you'd rather have someone else shoot most times, etc. He seems like a gamble to be that sort of versatile fill-in-gaps starter--he'd need to learn how to play very quickly and always make the right decision to get there--and it's tough to squint and see how he makes a leap above that.'

Tell me what I'm missing?

I don't know , I see somebody who changed forward positions because he could despite being better at the 4. I also see somebody who has sneaky elite athleticism etc. The skillset looks on par with Jabari Parker. So, unless you don't believe that...I don't expect anyone drafting him sees anything less than a high level rotation player with the odds being strong he will develop into a high level starter at minimum. Of course not every player with that capability reaches that status so it's easily to be negative.

I like him ALOT myself but I think you're being generous. I think Parker was and is more fluid of an offensive player. But that doesn't have to discourage you fully. Miles is a great rebounder for his size, he has vastly improved his three point shot and what isn't talked about is that he's a decent(not elite but decent) defender who hustles and he's a great passer.

People are saying barely third option, I'd say solid 3rd option and ya know, from pick 9 and beyond nobody can really garauntee much more from any of the picks. Maybe Knox has the raw potential to be more with a way high bust potential. You said something about Arrest and hey, I'd be very happy if that came true.

[Stillwater]

You all have to explain this. I'm not anti-Bridges and think he's being rated about right by most people (in that #11-17 range), but I have no idea how he's a 'high level starter' at worst. There are only about 80 'high-level starters' at any given time, so you're saying you think Miles Bridges will absolutely be one of the best 80 basketball players in the world soon--I'm not getting how the tape tells you that.

Here was my end of season write-up on him: 'he's a good versatile bball player, strong frame with solid hops too; he could definitely be a nice starter who can do a bit of everything if things work out well...but the baseline expectation should be that he's not quick or big enough to impose his will in the NBA and that as a result he'll probably never be more than a meh 3rd option. He just looks like he's in that in-between as a NCAA player and pro prospect: as we saw in college, he can create but in the NBA you'd pretty much always want someone else creating and have better options, he can shoot alright but you'd rather have someone else shoot most times, etc. He seems like a gamble to be that sort of versatile fill-in-gaps starter--he'd need to learn how to play very quickly and always make the right decision to get there--and it's tough to squint and see how he makes a leap above that.'

Tell me what I'm missing?

I don't know , I see somebody who changed forward positions because he could despite being better at the 4. I also see somebody who has sneaky elite athleticism etc. The skillset looks on par with Jabari Parker. So, unless you don't believe that...I don't expect anyone drafting him sees anything less than a high level rotation player with the odds being strong he will develop into a high level starter at minimum. Of course not every player with that capability reaches that status so it's easily to be negative.

I like him ALOT myself but I think you're being generous. I think Parker was and is more fluid of an offensive player. But that doesn't have to discourage you fully. Miles is a great rebounder for his size, he has vastly improved his three point shot and what isn't talked about is that he's a decent(not elite but decent) defender who hustles and he's a great passer.

People are saying barely third option, I'd say solid 3rd option and ya know, from pick 9 and beyond nobody can really garauntee much more from any of the picks. Maybe Knox has the raw potential to be more with a way high bust potential. You said something about Arrest and hey, I'd be very happy if that came true.

Yeah the biggest knock on Miles playing the 3 is his handle. He will likely start off playing at the 4 until that improves and if he is able to get it done at the 4, will likely stay there.
Maybe I have used the term elite to the point it has been taken the wrong way...My impression is he has shown the development playing 2 different positions that most prospects don't do that fast.

[Nazrmohamed]

I don't know , I see somebody who changed forward positions because he could despite being better at the 4. I also see somebody who has sneaky elite athleticism etc. The skillset looks on par with Jabari Parker. So, unless you don't believe that...I don't expect anyone drafting him sees anything less than a high level rotation player with the odds being strong he will develop into a high level starter at minimum. Of course not every player with that capability reaches that status so it's easily to be negative.

I like him ALOT myself but I think you're being generous. I think Parker was and is more fluid of an offensive player. But that doesn't have to discourage you fully. Miles is a great rebounder for his size, he has vastly improved his three point shot and what isn't talked about is that he's a decent(not elite but decent) defender who hustles and he's a great passer.

People are saying barely third option, I'd say solid 3rd option and ya know, from pick 9 and beyond nobody can really garauntee much more from any of the picks. Maybe Knox has the raw potential to be more with a way high bust potential. You said something about Arrest and hey, I'd be very happy if that came true.

Yeah the biggest knock on Miles playing the 3 is his handle. He will likely start off playing at the 4 until that improves and if he is able to get it done at the 4, will likely stay there.
Maybe I have used the term elite to the point it has been taken the wrong way...My impression is he has shown the development playing 2 different positions that most prospects don't do that fast.

And he should CONTINUE to develop. People often talk about development in the nba but then talk about draftees as if it's thier last day on earth. Miles is 20yrs old. Compare that for instance to Mikal whose 22 yrs old and was a nobody his first yr, a low usage role player his second year and just broke out this year in a season where his PG won the POY honors.

But we love Mikaal. ( I actually really do and would draft him over Miles but just trying to show a point) Meanwhile Miles comes in rookie year and is awesome statistically. Then he comes back next season and is awesome statistically. And what do we do? We pick it apart. Now scouting for the nba is more than stats or else Adam Morrison would be an all-star right now, it's about measurements, athleticism, potentiasl with nba skills. But I also wouldn't discount certain things about Miles.

- while his peers will spend 2 years in physical development alone, forget other development, we got 200lbs SFs and 180lbs SGs being highly touted. But while it takes some 2 yrs to fill out Miles on his very first day will walk into practice bullying nba veterans at 230lbs. There will be no physical learning curve for Miles
- he did indeed get better in college, playing on a top tier team so I expect him to continue to get better. Obviously, handle is something that could change his life. Get busy.

But in any case my argument is that once you get past pick 8 really, there's no reason to assume any players are a sure thing to become anything more than a starter. I'm sure some will, but I think Miles is a good a prospect as any from 9 and beyond. I got others but I'm just saying, this is the "based on team needs" section of the draft. Not the BPA portion.

[Foreva21]

I think a good comparison is Marvin Williams....

[Kolkmania]

I don't know , 1) I see somebody who changed forward positions because he could despite being better at the 4. 2) I also see somebody who has sneaky elite athleticism etc. 3) The skillset looks on par with Jabari Parker

1) I don't see why he gets prospect points for that--he clearly wouldn't be able to play the 4 regularly in the NBA, so there's no point in judging him as a 4. He knew that too and that's why he switched to the 3 full time.
2) His athleticism is pretty good but you can't build a game around his type of athleticism, it's not special or even notable at the NBA level, especially given his lack of elite burst (the most important thing for a NBA wing).
3) I'm not a fan of this type of analysis: his game sort of looks like Jabari Parker, but he's not a clone and each player is completely different; without having to think about it much, I recall Parker looking a lot more fluid and easy as a shooter and scorer in college, Bridges is mostly limited to bullying/taking contact in the lane and shooting that sort of set-shot he has to score.

In any case, Parker himself is not 'a high level starter' 4 years into his career, and you're claiming that's Bridges' bare minimum.

Like I said, I like Bridges well enough and think he could be a solid versatile player, but I think he'll need a pretty good development to be a good starter.

Is it the most important thing for a NBA wing? George, Butler and Hayward are three All Star wings who have okay, but certainly not elite burst imo.

[PLO]

His burst is excellent, even for the NBA level, I'm not sure how anyone could argue differently. You can nit-pick other parts of his profile, but its obtuse to pick that part of it.

[Lwcasu]

I don't know , I see somebody who changed forward positions because he could despite being better at the 4. I also see somebody who has sneaky elite athleticism etc. The skillset looks on par with Jabari Parker. So, unless you don't believe that...I don't expect anyone drafting him sees anything less than a high level rotation player with the odds being strong he will develop into a high level starter at minimum. Of course not every player with that capability reaches that status so it's easily to be negative.

I like him ALOT myself but I think you're being generous. I think Parker was and is more fluid of an offensive player. But that doesn't have to discourage you fully. Miles is a great rebounder for his size, he has vastly improved his three point shot and what isn't talked about is that he's a decent(not elite but decent) defender who hustles and he's a great passer.

People are saying barely third option, I'd say solid 3rd option and ya know, from pick 9 and beyond nobody can really garauntee much more from any of the picks. Maybe Knox has the raw potential to be more with a way high bust potential. You said something about Arrest and hey, I'd be very happy if that came true.

Yeah the biggest knock on Miles playing the 3 is his handle. He will likely start off playing at the 4 until that improves and if he is able to get it done at the 4, will likely stay there.
Maybe I have used the term elite to the point it has been taken the wrong way...My impression is he has shown the development playing 2 different positions that most prospects don't do that fast.

There is no doubt his handle isn't as good as a guy like Tatum, but I do think he'll be able to play the 3 from day one, and I think he'll play some at the 4 based on line ups. He may have short arms, but the guy is built well.

Watch on YouTube

;t=126s (4:10, 6:07 is a good example of him being crafty). He's really good from the baseline. He likes to pump fake and attack with his right, and he's explosive at that position. He can finish in traffic, and people will have to respect his range, as long as he can develop NBA 3 point range. I think hes got above average athleticism, but more importantly for his size he's got really good strength. Defensively, I think he'll be a plus help defender, but he may have difficult hanging with other teams 3s and moving his feet. Knox, I'd be much more worried as a prospect, because he lacks that aggressiveness you just can't teach. As a Hornets fan, I've a lot of guys on our board, don't like Bridges and would probably commit suicide if he was our pick, but I'd be content with it, if SGA was off the board, and the team didn't really feel high on Sexton.

[Lwcasu]

It'll be interesting to see what his wing-span comes in at the combine. I've heard anywhere from 6'9' to 6'11. Regardless, it's quite short for the 3/4, but then again, Jimmy Buttler has a 6'7' wingspan and is pretty good.

[GiggitySmalls]

If he had a 6'11 hes basically in the same tier as Blake or Aaron Gordon

Sent from my SM-G955U using RealGM mobile app