Moderators: HomoSapien, Ice Man, dougthonus, Michael Jackson, Tommy Udo 6 , kulaz3000, fleet, DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat, RedBulls23, AshyLarrysDiaper, coldfish, Payt10
cjbulls wrote:Ok glad to see you moved the goal posts to cover yourself now that #1 picks aren’t franchise changing. It’s a wonder to think tanking was ever an issue!
Red Larrivee wrote:cjbulls wrote:Ok glad to see you moved the goal posts to cover yourself now that #1 picks aren’t franchise changing. It’s a wonder to think tanking was ever an issue!
Not all #1 picks are considered franchise changing prospects. There's plenty of examples of this.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Jcool0 wrote:Most #1 overall picks are looked as franchise changers.
bigworld2017 wrote:ChicagoSportsFan21 wrote:It looks like Hunter will be the Bulls pick if they keep the pick assuming LA takes Garland, Cavs take Culver, and Suns take White which I think likely is going to happen (unless there are trades). Hunter would be my 4th choice in this group (ideally prefer one of the point guards and then Culver). Hunter is a good overall player who should be a great supporting cast kind of player but that’s it as he is not able to create his own shot at this point. You can take your chances on a Reddish who has more potential but had a rough season in college. I’ll go with the safer pick in Hunter personally.
Thoughts?
Give me Hunter without hesitation. Proven player. Great defensive fundamentals. Good length. Can defend 1-4. Can hit open shots. Not a creator but a high BBIQ glue guy. Makes his teammates better. A lot like Porter in that sense. Almost no bust potential. Ready to contribute in Year 1. If he develops it allows us to shop Porter to free up money next summer when we have to extend Lauri. Hunter would be a strong pick at #7 if he's still on the board.
BigUps wrote:I'm talking myself into thinking Reddish has to be in consideration for us at 7. This is a good video breaking him down. It full of optimism, but still a solid review of what Reddish could turn into.
Jcool0 wrote:BigUps wrote:I'm talking myself into thinking Reddish has to be in consideration for us at 7. This is a good video breaking him down. It full of optimism, but still a solid review of what Reddish could turn into.
"After getting off to a slow start in his college career Reddish is finally started to hit his stride, currently averaging 14 points, shooting over 34% from 3."
After this video was posted he averaged 11.7 ppg & 32% from 3 in 8 games.
DanTown8587 wrote:Can someone define what "upside" is, how you can say that Cam Reddish (or any prospect) has it over another player and then explain your process for how you see upside on an annual basis?
When you say "upside", define the word.
bearadonisdna wrote:DanTown8587 wrote:Can someone define what "upside" is, how you can say that Cam Reddish (or any prospect) has it over another player and then explain your process for how you see upside on an annual basis?
When you say "upside", define the word.
Upside-
The positive or favorable aspect of something
Regarding Cam-
Pros-
Size,athleticism, palatable skill set.
Cons- inefficiency.
Trae young was inefficient. Reddish's volume was not high and was relegated to being a 3pt threat.
If he really is a 6'9/6'8 guard then you have to compare him to the other guys available.
His name keeps popping up because maybe the comparisons resonate.
GimmeDat wrote:bearadonisdna wrote:DanTown8587 wrote:Can someone define what "upside" is, how you can say that Cam Reddish (or any prospect) has it over another player and then explain your process for how you see upside on an annual basis?
When you say "upside", define the word.
Upside-
The positive or favorable aspect of something
Regarding Cam-
Pros-
Size,athleticism, palatable skill set.
Cons- inefficiency.
Trae young was inefficient. Reddish's volume was not high and was relegated to being a 3pt threat.
If he really is a 6'9/6'8 guard then you have to compare him to the other guys available.
His name keeps popping up because maybe the comparisons resonate.
Reddish isn't even athletic.. it's part of the reason he can't finish to save his life. At best he could be described as smooth. And what do you mean by palatable skillset? How do you identify anything as a skill of his after his freshman season other than defense? He didn't do anything else at a high level.
I'm not 'out' on Reddish, but the 'potential' label has more to do with HS hype and advanced move flashes rather than anything he actually did at a serviceable level in college.
bearadonisdna wrote:GimmeDat wrote:bearadonisdna wrote:
Upside-
The positive or favorable aspect of something
Regarding Cam-
Pros-
Size,athleticism, palatable skill set.
Cons- inefficiency.
Trae young was inefficient. Reddish's volume was not high and was relegated to being a 3pt threat.
If he really is a 6'9/6'8 guard then you have to compare him to the other guys available.
His name keeps popping up because maybe the comparisons resonate.
Reddish isn't even athletic.. it's part of the reason he can't finish to save his life. At best he could be described as smooth. And what do you mean by palatable skillset? How do you identify anything as a skill of his after his freshman season other than defense? He didn't do anything else at a high level.
I'm not 'out' on Reddish, but the 'potential' label has more to do with HS hype and advanced move flashes rather than anything he actually did at a serviceable level in college.
This seems like an abrasive response.
Reddish' s burst shows up on tape, if it's not considered athleticism then it would be speed.
Palatable skill set would be a collection of skill serviceable and satisfactory for basketball development.
Like:
The ability to score at all 3 levels
Experience playing on a high level team.
GimmeDat wrote:I really like Talen Horton-Tucker.
- Only turns 19 in November - absolute baby.
- Super versatile defender - SG size but ridiculously long and strong, can guard multiple spots, big time STL/BLK guy.
- Legitimate initiator upside - has handle, quickness and vision as a passer.
- Shot looks projectable enough, don't mind the mechanics despite the percentages, looks comfortable making moves off the dribble
- Elite scorer at the rim, great touch and creativity, uses his body to get there (70% at the rim with only 20% assisted)
- Bit pudgey, he uses his size, but considerable athletic upside if he gets in better shape
The guy gets the game, has some advanced skill flashes, and impacts the game in so many areas. Probably a bit of a reach at 7, but if we're trading back at all I'd be all over him. Think he's a late lottery (10-14) guy.
NDave79 wrote:While nbadraft.net doesn't always have the best reputation, they seem to be good at getting information after teams make decisions. Now there is a lot of time till the draft so a lot of things might change, but they have the following top 10 mock.
https://www.nbadraft.net/
NO-Zion
Memphis-Morant
NY-Barrett
LA-Hunter
CL-White
Phoenix-Garland
Bulls-Culver
Atl-Reddish
Wash-Hayes
Atl-Rui
They seem to think that the promises are Cleveland to White and Phoenix to Garland and they have been good at this sort of thing in the past.
There seems to be a lot of speculation that LA promised Garland, but IMO, (and which has already been pointed out by others) it doesn't make sense for LA to promise Garland when they can draft him if they want without promising. Why lose the flexibility of trading?
Also, I agree with those that have pointed out the potentially good fit with Sexton and White so I could see that.
Now, I actually think that LA will draft Garland (although Hunter makes sense as well with his shooting and all around game) if they don't make a trade, but it just doesn't make sense to make a promise imo.
GimmeDat wrote:bearadonisdna wrote:GimmeDat wrote:
Reddish isn't even athletic.. it's part of the reason he can't finish to save his life. At best he could be described as smooth. And what do you mean by palatable skillset? How do you identify anything as a skill of his after his freshman season other than defense? He didn't do anything else at a high level.
I'm not 'out' on Reddish, but the 'potential' label has more to do with HS hype and advanced move flashes rather than anything he actually did at a serviceable level in college.
This seems like an abrasive response.
Reddish' s burst shows up on tape, if it's not considered athleticism then it would be speed.
Palatable skill set would be a collection of skill serviceable and satisfactory for basketball development.
Like:
The ability to score at all 3 levels
Experience playing on a high level team.
My intention wasn't to be abrasive, I just don't think there's merit to these points. As I said, there's some element of quickness for his size but overall he is severely lacking as an athlete.
And how can we say he scores at all 3 levels when he shot 51% at the rim and 33% from college 3? If scoring inefficiently at all 3 levels counts, then sure, but then any player could shoot from all 3 levels and be considered a 3 level scorer.
And I'm not sure what 'experience playing on a high level team' really counts for. Okay, so he went to Duke. I'm not sure how that helps him as a prospect. He certainly didn't thrive playing with a lot of talent around him.