Jarrett Culver

[Roddy B for 3]

Why is he going to be wide open in the NBA? He doesn't possess a good first step. Defenders won't be afraid if they play up on him that he could just blow by them. The second he shows he can knock down an open jumper with some consistency, where will his offense come from?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Culver is a bad prospect. I think he is a fine prospect, I've always gone with he's the 95 cent version of Levert. I think he can be a fine starter or solid rotation player off the bench. I just don't see how you said he had an incredible game last night, and now he's going to be getting wide open shots in the NBA.

He won't be seen as much as a threat to NBA defenses comapred to how college teams gameplan against him.

People like, Harden, Derozen, Stanley Johnson, Luka Doncic, Bruno Caboclo get caught ball watching every game and the guy they are covering gets open threes as a result.

That list is just 5 wing starters (the position Culver plays) in the Southwest division.

I don't want to make a list of all the NBA players who ball watch and the guy they are covering gets open threes as a result, but their are alot of them.

In the playoffs he would likely get covered intelligently and in clutch 4th quarter situations he will likely get covered intelligently. But as a high lottory pick he won't have to deal with much of either of those situation for awhile likley.

Then why isn't every average shooter that comes into the league lighting it up from 3 then? How come Stanley Johnson went from a 37% 3pt shooter in college to a 29% 3pt shooter in the NBA? Brandon Ingram was a 40+ 3pt shooter in college, 33% on low attempts in the NBA.

Again don't get me wrong, Im not saying Culver can't improve as a shooter in his career. But this idea that he's going to live off of just his man ball watching and that is how he is going to get his shots is not a ringing endorsement for Culver.

How would Stanley Johnson have done against that UVA team with DeAndre Hunter on him all game and every other UVA player (+Tony Bennett) having eyes on him at all times?

Do you think he shoots 37% from three?

[916fan]

people are oddly hating on a player who's a consistent jumper away from being an elite prospect.

btw, last season he actually shot 38% from 3 on even more attempts per game, and he's at almost 70% at the line for his career. all signs point to him being a respectable shooter at the NBA level, which is all what he needs to be combined with the rest of his skill set offensively.

as for his performance the last two games, yea he should've played better, but was still able to contribute across the board despite not shooting well at all. don't put too much emphasis on this. last year's #1 overall pick was was shut down and bounced from the tournament in the first round, the previous #1 overall pick didn't even get close to making the tournament.

This is a funny comment. It's like saying Markelle Fultz is a consistent jumper away from being an elite prospect. Or a less extreme example, Marcus Smart was a consistent jumper away from being an elite prospect.

He doesn't have that jumper. Learning to shoot is not an easy task in the NBA. His shooting has regressed from last season. His shooting % from a year ago means absolutely 0 when his mechanics are bad. Stanley Johnson had averaged 37% from 3pt at Arizona. He's a career 29.3% 3pt shooter in the NBA.

[916fan]

He reminds me of Troy Brown Jr from last year's draft who went 15th overall. I would say Culver moves better than him in space, and he's more of a SG than a SF. #4 is still too high in a weak draft.

I think Ben Rubin released a good piece about him. The title is Draft Notes: Being realistic about Jarrett Culver
https://www.thestepien.com/2019/02/06/draft-notes-realistic-jarrett-culver/

Looks like it was published 2 months ago where hype on him really picked up.

[Capn'O]

It seems like he's still growing. That might be messing with his shot?

He reminds me of Troy Brown Jr from last year's draft who went 15th overall. I would say Culver moves better than him in space, and he's more of a SG than a SF. #4 is still too high in a weak draft.

I think Ben Rubin released a good piece about him. The title is Draft Notes: Being realistic about Jarrett Culver
https://www.thestepien.com/2019/02/06/draft-notes-realistic-jarrett-culver/

Looks like it was published 2 months ago where hype on him really picked up.

First name on Rubin's list is Steve Smith, which is my comp.

[EvanZ]

I decided the last weekend of the tourney to start moving Culver down. Rubin brings up all the points I've been concerned about as well. It's not a good idea to fall in love too hard with a prospect, and I'm probably guilty of that with Culver for too long. But if you look realistically at him, there are some important concerns with athleticism and shooting that I think limit his upside in the long run.

[doordoor123]

I decided the last weekend of the tourney to start moving Culver down. Rubin brings up all the points I've been concerned about as well. It's not a good idea to fall in love too hard with a prospect, and I'm probably guilty of that with Culver for too long. But if you look realistically at him, there are some important concerns with athleticism and shooting that I think limit his upside in the long run.

Now? After other people have been saying what I’ve been saying all along? It seems some have selective hearing.

[Nazrmohamed]

people are oddly hating on a player who's a consistent jumper away from being an elite prospect.

btw, last season he actually shot 38% from 3 on even more attempts per game, and he's at almost 70% at the line for his career. all signs point to him being a respectable shooter at the NBA level, which is all what he needs to be combined with the rest of his skill set offensively.

as for his performance the last two games, yea he should've played better, but was still able to contribute across the board despite not shooting well at all. don't put too much emphasis on this. last year's #1 overall pick was was shut down and bounced from the tournament in the first round, the previous #1 overall pick didn't even get close to making the tournament.

This is a funny comment. It's like saying Markelle Fultz is a consistent jumper away from being an elite prospect. Or a less extreme example, Marcus Smart was a consistent jumper away from being an elite prospect.

He doesn't have that jumper. Learning to shoot is not an easy task in the NBA. His shooting has regressed from last season. His shooting % from a year ago means absolutely 0 when his mechanics are bad. Stanley Johnson had averaged 37% from 3pt at Arizona. He's a career 29.3% 3pt shooter in the NBA.

First of all I just want to say that the use of shooting percentages as the end all be all of every discussion about potential is way overblown. It's something to look at in your overall analysis for sure but it's literally all anyone talks about these days. Itll have you believe that Steve Kerr was better than Michael Jordan or that Kyle Korver is better than Iguodalla. It very rarely addresses things like shot creation or variety of scoring platforms. And yes, athleticism does matter. I get that recently the need for superstars to be the best athletes have gone down with the proliferation of the 3pt shot but it still provides more options than not.

Second to use Fultz as an example that elite athletic players who arent elite shooters wont succeed doesnt speak to his injury or the fact that even that even before that he was always a very lackadaisical player. Not making the tourney isnt a draft killer as Simmons has proved but it is sortve a red flag to me.

With that said Culver checks alot of boxes. Hes a great defender with an above average athletic level. I'd stop short of saying elite but its solid and hed not a poor shooter. Is he a great shooter? Probably not but he has no hitch and shows signs that he can and should improve. Considering where hes likely to be drafted at 4 or 5 that's Atlanta, a team with 2 other shooters so as the guy said above and more specifically to that team, he should get lots of looks in the confusion that will be thier open offense. I could see them overwhelming teams with thier overall range and I don't think what the guy you respond to said was all that crazy an expectation. A solid starter. It's a weak draft and the talent is the talent. I dont see a strong argument for anyone else becoming this star you missed out on later because you took Culver at 4 instead. Just a solid all around player.

[King Ken]

people are oddly hating on a player who's a consistent jumper away from being an elite prospect.

btw, last season he actually shot 38% from 3 on even more attempts per game, and he's at almost 70% at the line for his career. all signs point to him being a respectable shooter at the NBA level, which is all what he needs to be combined with the rest of his skill set offensively.

as for his performance the last two games, yea he should've played better, but was still able to contribute across the board despite not shooting well at all. don't put too much emphasis on this. last year's #1 overall pick was was shut down and bounced from the tournament in the first round, the previous #1 overall pick didn't even get close to making the tournament.

This is a funny comment. It's like saying Markelle Fultz is a consistent jumper away from being an elite prospect. Or a less extreme example, Marcus Smart was a consistent jumper away from being an elite prospect.

He doesn't have that jumper. Learning to shoot is not an easy task in the NBA. His shooting has regressed from last season. His shooting % from a year ago means absolutely 0 when his mechanics are bad. Stanley Johnson had averaged 37% from 3pt at Arizona. He's a career 29.3% 3pt shooter in the NBA.

First of all I just want to say that the use of shooting percentages as the end all be all of every discussion about potential is way overblown. It's something to look at in your overall analysis for sure but it's literally all anyone talks about these days. Itll have you believe that Steve Kerr was better than Michael Jordan or that Kyle Korver is better than Iguodalla. It very rarely addresses things like shot creation or variety of scoring platforms. And yes, athleticism does matter. I get that recently the need for superstars to be the best athletes have gone down with the proliferation of the 3pt shot but it still provides more options than not.

Second to use Fultz as an example that elite athletic players who arent elite shooters wont succeed doesnt speak to his injury or the fact that even that even before that he was always a very lackadaisical player. Not making the tourney isnt a draft killer as Simmons has proved but it is sortve a red flag to me.

With that said Culver checks alot of boxes. Hes a great defender with an above average athletic level. I'd stop short of saying elite but its solid and hed not a poor shooter. Is he a great shooter? Probably not but he has no hitch and shows signs that he can and should improve. Considering where hes likely to be drafted at 4 or 5 that's Atlanta, a team with 2 other shooters so as the guy said above and more specifically to that team, he should get lots of looks in the confusion that will be thier open offense. I could see them overwhelming teams with thier overall range and I don't think what the guy you respond to said was all that crazy an expectation. A solid starter. It's a weak draft and the talent is the talent. I dont see a strong argument for anyone else becoming this star you missed out on later because you took Culver at 4 instead. Just a solid all around player.

He doesn't fit what we are looking for. We have players like him on our bench like Bembry and Bazemore. Reddish is the target as he should be. Culver really shouldn't be a top 10 pick. He is the example of great college player doesn't equal great or even good NBA player.

[Stillwater]

Culver might not fit what the Hawks are looking for but suggesting a bum like Cam is,I find to be especially unlikely to be the mindset of those who actually scout nba prospects for that franchise. I mean I would think at 5 Bol or Hayes is the top priority for ATL with Hunter the target at 6 or 7

[Nazrmohamed]

This is a funny comment. It's like saying Markelle Fultz is a consistent jumper away from being an elite prospect. Or a less extreme example, Marcus Smart was a consistent jumper away from being an elite prospect.

He doesn't have that jumper. Learning to shoot is not an easy task in the NBA. His shooting has regressed from last season. His shooting % from a year ago means absolutely 0 when his mechanics are bad. Stanley Johnson had averaged 37% from 3pt at Arizona. He's a career 29.3% 3pt shooter in the NBA.

First of all I just want to say that the use of shooting percentages as the end all be all of every discussion about potential is way overblown. It's something to look at in your overall analysis for sure but it's literally all anyone talks about these days. Itll have you believe that Steve Kerr was better than Michael Jordan or that Kyle Korver is better than Iguodalla. It very rarely addresses things like shot creation or variety of scoring platforms. And yes, athleticism does matter. I get that recently the need for superstars to be the best athletes have gone down with the proliferation of the 3pt shot but it still provides more options than not.

Second to use Fultz as an example that elite athletic players who arent elite shooters wont succeed doesnt speak to his injury or the fact that even that even before that he was always a very lackadaisical player. Not making the tourney isnt a draft killer as Simmons has proved but it is sortve a red flag to me.

With that said Culver checks alot of boxes. Hes a great defender with an above average athletic level. I'd stop short of saying elite but its solid and hed not a poor shooter. Is he a great shooter? Probably not but he has no hitch and shows signs that he can and should improve. Considering where hes likely to be drafted at 4 or 5 that's Atlanta, a team with 2 other shooters so as the guy said above and more specifically to that team, he should get lots of looks in the confusion that will be thier open offense. I could see them overwhelming teams with thier overall range and I don't think what the guy you respond to said was all that crazy an expectation. A solid starter. It's a weak draft and the talent is the talent. I dont see a strong argument for anyone else becoming this star you missed out on later because you took Culver at 4 instead. Just a solid all around player.

He doesn't fit what we are looking for. We have players like him on our bench like Bembry and Bazemore. Reddish is the target as he should be. Culver really shouldn't be a top 10 pick. He is the example of great college player doesn't equal great or even good NBA player.

Wow Reddish at picks 4 or 5? You did see what he looked like this season right? I mean we just read everyone pick apart Culvers game and we go with Reddish of all names. I mean you could probably take Culver at 4 and then trade down to Boston with pick 5 for thier two best picks and Reddish be there if you like Reddish that much. Dude crapped the bed hard this year and I'm a Duke fan but he did nothing this year.

[EvanZ]

I decided the last weekend of the tourney to start moving Culver down. Rubin brings up all the points I've been concerned about as well. It's not a good idea to fall in love too hard with a prospect, and I'm probably guilty of that with Culver for too long. But if you look realistically at him, there are some important concerns with athleticism and shooting that I think limit his upside in the long run.

Now? After other people have been saying what I’ve been saying all along? It seems some have selective hearing.

lol, like I'm just listening to you 24/7? Might want to check that ego at the doordoor.

[King Ken]

First of all I just want to say that the use of shooting percentages as the end all be all of every discussion about potential is way overblown. It's something to look at in your overall analysis for sure but it's literally all anyone talks about these days. Itll have you believe that Steve Kerr was better than Michael Jordan or that Kyle Korver is better than Iguodalla. It very rarely addresses things like shot creation or variety of scoring platforms. And yes, athleticism does matter. I get that recently the need for superstars to be the best athletes have gone down with the proliferation of the 3pt shot but it still provides more options than not.

Second to use Fultz as an example that elite athletic players who arent elite shooters wont succeed doesnt speak to his injury or the fact that even that even before that he was always a very lackadaisical player. Not making the tourney isnt a draft killer as Simmons has proved but it is sortve a red flag to me.

With that said Culver checks alot of boxes. Hes a great defender with an above average athletic level. I'd stop short of saying elite but its solid and hed not a poor shooter. Is he a great shooter? Probably not but he has no hitch and shows signs that he can and should improve. Considering where hes likely to be drafted at 4 or 5 that's Atlanta, a team with 2 other shooters so as the guy said above and more specifically to that team, he should get lots of looks in the confusion that will be thier open offense. I could see them overwhelming teams with thier overall range and I don't think what the guy you respond to said was all that crazy an expectation. A solid starter. It's a weak draft and the talent is the talent. I dont see a strong argument for anyone else becoming this star you missed out on later because you took Culver at 4 instead. Just a solid all around player.

He doesn't fit what we are looking for. We have players like him on our bench like Bembry and Bazemore. Reddish is the target as he should be. Culver really shouldn't be a top 10 pick. He is the example of great college player doesn't equal great or even good NBA player.

Wow Reddish at picks 4 or 5? You did see what he looked like this season right? I mean we just read everyone pick apart Culvers game and we go with Reddish of all names. I mean you could probably take Culver at 4 and then trade down to Boston with pick 5 for thier two best picks and Reddish be there if you like Reddish that much. Dude crapped the bed hard this year and I'm a Duke fan but he did nothing this year.

I did, every game. Sometimes twice. Still feel the same way. I believe the process will play itself out. Teams are much smarter these days than 5 years ago.

[doordoor123]

I decided the last weekend of the tourney to start moving Culver down. Rubin brings up all the points I've been concerned about as well. It's not a good idea to fall in love too hard with a prospect, and I'm probably guilty of that with Culver for too long. But if you look realistically at him, there are some important concerns with athleticism and shooting that I think limit his upside in the long run.

Now? After other people have been saying what I’ve been saying all along? It seems some have selective hearing.

lol, like I'm just listening to you 24/7? Might want to check that ego at the doordoor.

[NYG]

Which lottery teams are the best fits for Culver even if they had to move up to be in a realistic range to draft him?

[MotownMadness]

Which lottery teams are the best fits for Culver even if they had to move up to be in a realistic range to draft him?

Cavs, Hawks, Lakers, Wolves, Heat, Grizz

[NYG]

Which lottery teams are the best fits for Culver even if they had to move up to be in a realistic range to draft him?

Cavs, Hawks, Lakers, Wolves, Heat, Grizz

Working on a mock draft after using tankathon lotto simulator

1. Cavs - Zion
2. Hawks - Barrett
3. Knicks - Morant
4. Wizards - Hunter
5. Suns - Garland
6. Bulls

I’m stumped here, would Chicago just take Culver on pure BPA?

[MotownMadness]

Which lottery teams are the best fits for Culver even if they had to move up to be in a realistic range to draft him?

Cavs, Hawks, Lakers, Wolves, Heat, Grizz

Working on a mock draft after using tankathon lotto simulator

1. Cavs - Zion
2. Hawks - Barrett
3. Knicks - Morant
4. Wizards - Hunter
5. Suns - Garland
6. Bulls

I’m stumped here, would Chicago just take Culver on pure BPA?

They are hard to go with anyone other than a PG so i guess someone like White? Is he worthy of a pick that high though? If not maybe they could work out a pick swap with the Grizz where they get back Conley or something.

[NYG]

Cavs, Hawks, Lakers, Wolves, Heat, Grizz

Working on a mock draft after using tankathon lotto simulator

1. Cavs - Zion
2. Hawks - Barrett
3. Knicks - Morant
4. Wizards - Hunter
5. Suns - Garland
6. Bulls

I’m stumped here, would Chicago just take Culver on pure BPA?

They are hard to go with anyone other than a PG so i guess someone like White? Is he worthy of a pick that high though? If not maybe they could work out a pick swap with the Grizz where they get back Conley or something.

Conley for Teague, Dieng and 10
Teague and 10 for Felicio, Dunn and 6?

[pelifan]

He reminds me of Troy Brown Jr from last year's draft who went 15th overall. I would say Culver moves better than him in space, and he's more of a SG than a SF. #4 is still too high in a weak draft.

I think Ben Rubin released a good piece about him. The title is Draft Notes: Being realistic about Jarrett Culver
https://www.thestepien.com/2019/02/06/draft-notes-realistic-jarrett-culver/

Looks like it was published 2 months ago where hype on him really picked up.

article list Brandon Roy and Paul Pierce as upper tier athleticism and I strongly disagree with that

One kind of annoying thing is people retroactively consider player better athletically because they were good players, even though guys like Roy struggled with athletic question marks predraft.

[SeattleJazzFan]

Roy and Pierce are both good comps. Good athlete, not great athlete.

Culver is damn good at basketball, its all about whether he can develop that consistent jumper.

And frankly, nobody knows. Draft him for his overall game and hope for the best. All prospects have their flaws.