Draft Thread 2: The Electric Draftaloo

[thebuzzardman]

Potentially but he can also gain some matchup advantages as a result. IMO Barrett is better suited for the NBA game. He's more explosive, he's got a much better all around offensive NBA game (he doesn't have to be an elite 3 point shooter) and I think his demeanor is better suited for being an alpha in the area of what he's best at in the NBA than Culver. Culver imo has to have the ball in his hands for longer periods of time and with his kinda shaky handles I just don't see Frontline star.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

I do think that Barrett is more explosive. I don't think Barrett is an elite athlete though. Not functionally, in the halfcourt. Open court is a different story. RJ is a killer there.

I think they were put into similar roles in their respective schools, and Culver showed much better IQ, footwork/craftiness, and defense.

RJ has better scoring instincts, more physicality, and a better raw athletic profile, but I don't see a very large gap between them as prospects.

RJ was pretty limited by his jumper and his absence of a right hand. He came by his stats on volume. Those things can improve, but they can improve for Culver as well.

I do think RJ has more of an alpha mentality than Culver, but I'm not sure that matters much if we are potentially slotting them behind 2 all stars.

This is a good article that I found about why Culver should NOT be the guy to take at 3. Found this after I had already determined Barrett is the guy to take. But it explains it pretty much with the same reasons as me.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/clutchpoints.com/3-reasons-drafting-jarrett-culver-at-no-3-would-be-a-mistake-for-the-knicks/amp/

As far as Barrett with KD and Kyrie...IF the Knicks are really confident that they will land the two it still really doesn't change things one bit. Barrett is still without question the better asset to have in a trade.

IF KD and Kyrie gave Perry and Mills their commitment then neither Barrett nor Culver would be a fit. From a pure fit standpoint in this scenario, DeAndre Hunter would be the best fit...if we want to draft for fit.

But if the Knicks land KD and Kyrie they should be putting all the cards on the table and looking to deal for AD. And by all indications Barrett would be the most desirable piece of any trade for Davis.

If the goal is to move down from 3 Barrett still is the better option as Barrett is the more desirable asset for the teams following the Knicks in the draft. The Lakers would immediately look to include Barrett in a trade for AD themselves (which in and if itself would be reason enough to draft Barrett at 3). Barrett would be the perfect player for the Cavs. Barrett and Trae Young would be a potentially scary and exciting duo in Atlanta.

From a style of play standpoint, it's pretty clear that Fizdale wants to play uptempo. If they don't land KD, Barrett is the better player for uptempo compared to the less athletic, slower footed Culver. If they do land KD and Kyrie they would still logically want to play uptempo considering that it'll be even more difficult to defend KD if you're pushing the ball. And Kyrie? You unleash him in an uptempo system and he can be truly scary. So again, Barrett would be a better fit as both a finisher as well as shot creator than Culver.

I just don't see any scenario where Culver makes sense over Barrett for the Knicks at 3.

Folks are getting carried away with his wingspan measurement at the combine. You still have to be able to create your shots in the NBA and I'm dubious Culver can do that (poor handles, not explosive). His showing against DeAndre Hunter in the title game imo is a foreshadowing of what he'll be able to go in the NBA against NBA defenders.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

Agreed. The things that made Culver seem attractive, back when a lot of folks were consigning themselves to getting the 5th pick, was that at that spot, Culver was big guard, with some ability to run the offense and also a good court sense. Good all around offensive game, handle needed some work, played within a great college defense.

RJ has a lot of the positive attributes of Culver and some of the negative, in a clearly more explosive and athletic player. Tall SG capable of running the paint, can make good decisions on offense? Check. Crafty scoring? Check. Now, Culver I think shows some more variety in his scoring, a little more inventiveness, but it's not like RJ can't do that. Obviously RJ has some issues being so left hand dominant. Both have jumpers that could use some work. Both have handles that could use some work.

Culver is sort of an odd choice to want over RJ as, to me - and I could be wrong here - but they are similar ENOUGH - not the same, games aren't alike - that it's weird to pick Culver.

Also agree with your trade scenarios. Just take the best guy and if that's a player other teams want a few picks down, THEN trade him, get a player back the team views as just as good AND extract a pick/player etc from them in the process.

[Juco24]

From a long time Duke fan:

Watch on YouTube

That was a good video. thanks for sharing. There were some things that I disagreed with but all in all it was very solid

[F N 11]

Mechanically they’re all better. Barrett was also a bad free throw shooter which is usually not a good sign as well.

Luka and Trae were just flat out more skilled prospects.

agreed but we are talking about a specific skill. Shooting.

[DowNY]

I’m curious, where would y’all rank Michael Porter Jr. in this draft had he never been injured?

[3toheadmelo]

Wow

Read on Twitter

[moocow007]

I’m curious, where would y’all rank Michael Porter Jr. in this draft had he never been injured?

I'd put an injury free Porter probably anywhere in the 2-5 range depending on how he actually looked playing in college.

Not top 1 obviously since the chances Porter would have been able to replicate what Zion did at Duke had Porter actually played a game at Missouri is probably in the negatives lol. Williamson is a potential generational talent and it's not hard to argue Zion may have had the most impressive college season ever (or at least in a long, long, long time, a couple decades?).

I've never honestly bought into the Porter hype (for those that think I'm focused on superficial athleticism or how a player was sold coming out of HS, I'm not...was never a fan of Aaron Gordon either). You can check my posts on Porter well in advance of him agreeing to play at Missouri.

That said, if he didn't already have 2 back surgeries and now drop foot, he did have the look and feel of a prototypical modern NBA 'forward'.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

[GONYK]

Mechanically they’re all better. Barrett was also a bad free throw shooter which is usually not a good sign as well.

Luka and Trae were just flat out more skilled prospects.

agreed but we are talking about a specific skill. Shooting.

But they were already better shooters coming in, and didn't need the prospect of shooting to unlock the rest of their games. Their skillbase was so much more developed. That is why people are high on them.

As far as RJ improving, he can. His issues are with his footwork, not so much his form. I don't think he'll ever be anything more than above average though.

[Jeff Van Gully]

Wow

Read on Twitter

it's going to keep happening until we have a proper minor league transition option for young prospects. g-league is getting there. one-and-done is almost done. but in the meantime, i get it for some of these kids. cash is cash.

[Jeff Van Gully]

I do think that Barrett is more explosive. I don't think Barrett is an elite athlete though. Not functionally, in the halfcourt. Open court is a different story. RJ is a killer there.

I think they were put into similar roles in their respective schools, and Culver showed much better IQ, footwork/craftiness, and defense.

RJ has better scoring instincts, more physicality, and a better raw athletic profile, but I don't see a very large gap between them as prospects.

RJ was pretty limited by his jumper and his absence of a right hand. He came by his stats on volume. Those things can improve, but they can improve for Culver as well.

I do think RJ has more of an alpha mentality than Culver, but I'm not sure that matters much if we are potentially slotting them behind 2 all stars.

This is a good article that I found about why Culver should NOT be the guy to take at 3. Found this after I had already determined Barrett is the guy to take. But it explains it pretty much with the same reasons as me.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/clutchpoints.com/3-reasons-drafting-jarrett-culver-at-no-3-would-be-a-mistake-for-the-knicks/amp/

As far as Barrett with KD and Kyrie...IF the Knicks are really confident that they will land the two it still really doesn't change things one bit. Barrett is still without question the better asset to have in a trade.

IF KD and Kyrie gave Perry and Mills their commitment then neither Barrett nor Culver would be a fit. From a pure fit standpoint in this scenario, DeAndre Hunter would be the best fit...if we want to draft for fit.

But if the Knicks land KD and Kyrie they should be putting all the cards on the table and looking to deal for AD. And by all indications Barrett would be the most desirable piece of any trade for Davis.

If the goal is to move down from 3 Barrett still is the better option as Barrett is the more desirable asset for the teams following the Knicks in the draft. The Lakers would immediately look to include Barrett in a trade for AD themselves (which in and if itself would be reason enough to draft Barrett at 3). Barrett would be the perfect player for the Cavs. Barrett and Trae Young would be a potentially scary and exciting duo in Atlanta.

From a style of play standpoint, it's pretty clear that Fizdale wants to play uptempo. If they don't land KD, Barrett is the better player for uptempo compared to the less athletic, slower footed Culver. If they do land KD and Kyrie they would still logically want to play uptempo considering that it'll be even more difficult to defend KD if you're pushing the ball. And Kyrie? You unleash him in an uptempo system and he can be truly scary. So again, Barrett would be a better fit as both a finisher as well as shot creator than Culver.

I just don't see any scenario where Culver makes sense over Barrett for the Knicks at 3.

Folks are getting carried away with his wingspan measurement at the combine. You still have to be able to create your shots in the NBA and I'm dubious Culver can do that (poor handles, not explosive). His showing against DeAndre Hunter in the title game imo is a foreshadowing of what he'll be able to go in the NBA against NBA defenders.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

Agreed. The things that made Culver seem attractive, back when a lot of folks were consigning themselves to getting the 5th pick, was that at that spot, Culver was big guard, with some ability to run the offense and also a good court sense. Good all around offensive game, handle needed some work, played within a great college defense.

RJ has a lot of the positive attributes of Culver and some of the negative, in a clearly more explosive and athletic player. Tall SG capable of running the paint, can make good decisions on offense? Check. Crafty scoring? Check. Now, Culver I think shows some more variety in his scoring, a little more inventiveness, but it's not like RJ can't do that. Obviously RJ has some issues being so left hand dominant. Both have jumpers that could use some work. Both have handles that could use some work.

Culver is sort of an odd choice to want over RJ as, to me - and I could be wrong here - but they are similar ENOUGH - not the same, games aren't alike - that it's weird to pick Culver.

Also agree with your trade scenarios. Just take the best guy and if that's a player other teams want a few picks down, THEN trade him, get a player back the team views as just as good AND extract a pick/player etc from them in the process.

i've been big on culver since very early in the season. but i'm not taking him over RJ. barrett's upside intrigues me more. i do think culver is being underrated and will be one of this year's pleasant surprises. though he shouldn't surprise anyone, really.

[GONYK]

I do think that Barrett is more explosive. I don't think Barrett is an elite athlete though. Not functionally, in the halfcourt. Open court is a different story. RJ is a killer there.

I think they were put into similar roles in their respective schools, and Culver showed much better IQ, footwork/craftiness, and defense.

RJ has better scoring instincts, more physicality, and a better raw athletic profile, but I don't see a very large gap between them as prospects.

RJ was pretty limited by his jumper and his absence of a right hand. He came by his stats on volume. Those things can improve, but they can improve for Culver as well.

I do think RJ has more of an alpha mentality than Culver, but I'm not sure that matters much if we are potentially slotting them behind 2 all stars.

This is a good article that I found about why Culver should NOT be the guy to take at 3. Found this after I had already determined Barrett is the guy to take. But it explains it pretty much with the same reasons as me.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/clutchpoints.com/3-reasons-drafting-jarrett-culver-at-no-3-would-be-a-mistake-for-the-knicks/amp/

As far as Barrett with KD and Kyrie...IF the Knicks are really confident that they will land the two it still really doesn't change things one bit. Barrett is still without question the better asset to have in a trade.

IF KD and Kyrie gave Perry and Mills their commitment then neither Barrett nor Culver would be a fit. From a pure fit standpoint in this scenario, DeAndre Hunter would be the best fit...if we want to draft for fit.

But if the Knicks land KD and Kyrie they should be putting all the cards on the table and looking to deal for AD. And by all indications Barrett would be the most desirable piece of any trade for Davis.

If the goal is to move down from 3 Barrett still is the better option as Barrett is the more desirable asset for the teams following the Knicks in the draft. The Lakers would immediately look to include Barrett in a trade for AD themselves (which in and if itself would be reason enough to draft Barrett at 3). Barrett would be the perfect player for the Cavs. Barrett and Trae Young would be a potentially scary and exciting duo in Atlanta.

From a style of play standpoint, it's pretty clear that Fizdale wants to play uptempo. If they don't land KD, Barrett is the better player for uptempo compared to the less athletic, slower footed Culver. If they do land KD and Kyrie they would still logically want to play uptempo considering that it'll be even more difficult to defend KD if you're pushing the ball. And Kyrie? You unleash him in an uptempo system and he can be truly scary. So again, Barrett would be a better fit as both a finisher as well as shot creator than Culver.

I just don't see any scenario where Culver makes sense over Barrett for the Knicks at 3.

Folks are getting carried away with his wingspan measurement at the combine. You still have to be able to create your shots in the NBA and I'm dubious Culver can do that (poor handles, not explosive). His showing against DeAndre Hunter in the title game imo is a foreshadowing of what he'll be able to go in the NBA against NBA defenders.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

Agreed. The things that made Culver seem attractive, back when a lot of folks were consigning themselves to getting the 5th pick, was that at that spot, Culver was big guard, with some ability to run the offense and also a good court sense. Good all around offensive game, handle needed some work, played within a great college defense.

RJ has a lot of the positive attributes of Culver and some of the negative, in a clearly more explosive and athletic player. Tall SG capable of running the paint, can make good decisions on offense? Check. Crafty scoring? Check. Now, Culver I think shows some more variety in his scoring, a little more inventiveness, but it's not like RJ can't do that. Obviously RJ has some issues being so left hand dominant. Both have jumpers that could use some work. Both have handles that could use some work.

Culver is sort of an odd choice to want over RJ as, to me - and I could be wrong here - but they are similar ENOUGH - not the same, games aren't alike - that it's weird to pick Culver.

Also agree with your trade scenarios. Just take the best guy and if that's a player other teams want a few picks down, THEN trade him, get a player back the team views as just as good AND extract a pick/player etc from them in the process.

This is where the comparison falls apart a bit for me. RJ is not capable of running the point. He didn't make great decisions with the ball consistently. Moo doesn't even see RJ as a SG, and I think he loses all his physical advantages at SF. RJ isn't explosive enough or big enough to really take advantage of the swingmen in this league.

As far as playmaking, Culver was the smarter player with the ball in his hands last season. If you want an aggressive scorer, the go with RJ. But he's not a pure scorer, he's a volume player with more of a scorer's mentality.

With Culver, I see more of a balanced two-way player. He may not have the potential ceiling that RJ has, but I don't think RJ will ever really reach the levels that people are placing him at.

I don't think Pills would be wrong going with RJ over Culver, but I don't think the debate is silly or that Culver would be such a reach.

[Worst_to_First]

Windhorst knows nothing about the draft but even he was talking about how many GMs are intrigued by Culver.

Maybe he just meant CLE b/c he might still have a sauce with that franchise?

He's probably trying to help the Cavs who, above any other team drafting in the lottery, really need Barrett most..by throwing shade. The notion that Culver is their guy above all is just silly. The Cavs are looking for relevance. They are looking for an alpha. They are looking for a top tier offensive talent. They are looking for someone they can make the face of their franchise and eject energy, explosiveness and excitement into their grossly dull roster. And someone that they can dress up as the Batman to their Robin (Colin Sexton). Other than Zion Williamson, RJ Barrett is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY the next best thing for that organization (one that can't attract top tier free agents and who lack the assets to trade for what they need most).

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

Am very curious to see how desperate the Cavs will be in trying to move up from 5 to 3 in order to draft RJ.

[waya]

3rd + DSJ for 4th + Lonzo

Grab Culver at 4

Lonzo/Culver/KD/Kawhi/Mitch

A man can dream

I threw up a little and I'm not even a fan of DSJ

[Worst_to_First]

Culver for me is my least favorite in that Tier 3 group of prospects with Garland, Hunter and even Reddish. That lack of burst and inconsistent shooting could be a problem.

[Jeff Van Gully]

Culver for me is my least favorite in that Tier 3 group of prospects with Garland, Hunter and even Reddish. That lack of burst and inconsistent shooting could be a problem.

i get how all three of those players are more exciting than culver.

[thebuzzardman]

This is a good article that I found about why Culver should NOT be the guy to take at 3. Found this after I had already determined Barrett is the guy to take. But it explains it pretty much with the same reasons as me.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/clutchpoints.com/3-reasons-drafting-jarrett-culver-at-no-3-would-be-a-mistake-for-the-knicks/amp/

As far as Barrett with KD and Kyrie...IF the Knicks are really confident that they will land the two it still really doesn't change things one bit. Barrett is still without question the better asset to have in a trade.

IF KD and Kyrie gave Perry and Mills their commitment then neither Barrett nor Culver would be a fit. From a pure fit standpoint in this scenario, DeAndre Hunter would be the best fit...if we want to draft for fit.

But if the Knicks land KD and Kyrie they should be putting all the cards on the table and looking to deal for AD. And by all indications Barrett would be the most desirable piece of any trade for Davis.

If the goal is to move down from 3 Barrett still is the better option as Barrett is the more desirable asset for the teams following the Knicks in the draft. The Lakers would immediately look to include Barrett in a trade for AD themselves (which in and if itself would be reason enough to draft Barrett at 3). Barrett would be the perfect player for the Cavs. Barrett and Trae Young would be a potentially scary and exciting duo in Atlanta.

From a style of play standpoint, it's pretty clear that Fizdale wants to play uptempo. If they don't land KD, Barrett is the better player for uptempo compared to the less athletic, slower footed Culver. If they do land KD and Kyrie they would still logically want to play uptempo considering that it'll be even more difficult to defend KD if you're pushing the ball. And Kyrie? You unleash him in an uptempo system and he can be truly scary. So again, Barrett would be a better fit as both a finisher as well as shot creator than Culver.

I just don't see any scenario where Culver makes sense over Barrett for the Knicks at 3.

Folks are getting carried away with his wingspan measurement at the combine. You still have to be able to create your shots in the NBA and I'm dubious Culver can do that (poor handles, not explosive). His showing against DeAndre Hunter in the title game imo is a foreshadowing of what he'll be able to go in the NBA against NBA defenders.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

Agreed. The things that made Culver seem attractive, back when a lot of folks were consigning themselves to getting the 5th pick, was that at that spot, Culver was big guard, with some ability to run the offense and also a good court sense. Good all around offensive game, handle needed some work, played within a great college defense.

RJ has a lot of the positive attributes of Culver and some of the negative, in a clearly more explosive and athletic player. Tall SG capable of running the paint, can make good decisions on offense? Check. Crafty scoring? Check. Now, Culver I think shows some more variety in his scoring, a little more inventiveness, but it's not like RJ can't do that. Obviously RJ has some issues being so left hand dominant. Both have jumpers that could use some work. Both have handles that could use some work.

Culver is sort of an odd choice to want over RJ as, to me - and I could be wrong here - but they are similar ENOUGH - not the same, games aren't alike - that it's weird to pick Culver.

Also agree with your trade scenarios. Just take the best guy and if that's a player other teams want a few picks down, THEN trade him, get a player back the team views as just as good AND extract a pick/player etc from them in the process.

This is where the comparison falls apart a bit for me. RJ is not capable of running the point. He didn't make great decisions with the ball consistently. Moo doesn't even see RJ as a SG, and I think he loses all his physical advantages at SF. RJ isn't explosive enough or big enough to really take advantage of the swingmen in this league.

As far as playmaking, Culver was the smarter player with the ball in his hands last season. If you want an aggressive scorer, the go with RJ. But he's not a pure scorer, he's a volume player with more of a scorer's mentality.

With Culver, I see more of a balanced two-way player. He may not have the potential ceiling that RJ has, but I don't think RJ will ever really reach the levels that people are placing him at.

I don't think Pills would be wrong going with RJ over Culver, but I don't think the debate is silly or that Culver would be such a reach.

I guess it's a reasonable enough debate. Also, I shouldn't use the term "function as a PG" for RJ, and maybe not for Culver either. It's that RJ shows some plus ability as a secondary facilitator, same as Culver. Edge Culver with decision making, so I guess that puts him ahead, but it seems like RJ could turn out to match his ability there. Maybe. But the judgement is where they are now.

I like them both. If they Knicks were picking 4th, especially if you believe Kyrie rumors, I'd probably go Culver. 3rd? I'd go with RJ based on upside and aggression.

[GONYK]

Agreed. The things that made Culver seem attractive, back when a lot of folks were consigning themselves to getting the 5th pick, was that at that spot, Culver was big guard, with some ability to run the offense and also a good court sense. Good all around offensive game, handle needed some work, played within a great college defense.

RJ has a lot of the positive attributes of Culver and some of the negative, in a clearly more explosive and athletic player. Tall SG capable of running the paint, can make good decisions on offense? Check. Crafty scoring? Check. Now, Culver I think shows some more variety in his scoring, a little more inventiveness, but it's not like RJ can't do that. Obviously RJ has some issues being so left hand dominant. Both have jumpers that could use some work. Both have handles that could use some work.

Culver is sort of an odd choice to want over RJ as, to me - and I could be wrong here - but they are similar ENOUGH - not the same, games aren't alike - that it's weird to pick Culver.

Also agree with your trade scenarios. Just take the best guy and if that's a player other teams want a few picks down, THEN trade him, get a player back the team views as just as good AND extract a pick/player etc from them in the process.

This is where the comparison falls apart a bit for me. RJ is not capable of running the point. He didn't make great decisions with the ball consistently. Moo doesn't even see RJ as a SG, and I think he loses all his physical advantages at SF. RJ isn't explosive enough or big enough to really take advantage of the swingmen in this league.

As far as playmaking, Culver was the smarter player with the ball in his hands last season. If you want an aggressive scorer, the go with RJ. But he's not a pure scorer, he's a volume player with more of a scorer's mentality.

With Culver, I see more of a balanced two-way player. He may not have the potential ceiling that RJ has, but I don't think RJ will ever really reach the levels that people are placing him at.

I don't think Pills would be wrong going with RJ over Culver, but I don't think the debate is silly or that Culver would be such a reach.

I guess it's a reasonable enough debate. Also, I shouldn't use the term "function as a PG" for RJ, and maybe not for Culver either. It's that RJ shows some plus ability as a secondary facilitator, same as Culver. Edge Culver with decision making, so I guess that puts him ahead, but it seems like RJ could turn out to match his ability there. Maybe. But the judgement is where they are now.

I like them both. If they Knicks were picking 4th, especially if you believe Kyrie rumors, I'd probably go Culver. 3rd? I'd go with RJ based on upside and aggression.

Fair enough. Gun to my head, I probably take RJ as well, just because of the potential ceiling and the trade value.

There is a lot to correct though with him.

[dakomish23]

Windhorst knows nothing about the draft but even he was talking about how many GMs are intrigued by Culver.

Maybe he just meant CLE b/c he might still have a sauce with that franchise?

He's probably trying to help the Cavs who, above any other team drafting in the lottery, really need Barrett most..by throwing shade. The notion that Culver is their guy above all is just silly. The Cavs are looking for relevance. They are looking for an alpha. They are looking for a top tier offensive talent. They are looking for someone they can make the face of their franchise and eject energy, explosiveness and excitement into their grossly dull roster. And someone that they can dress up as the Batman to their Robin (Colin Sexton). Other than Zion Williamson, RJ Barrett is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY the next best thing for that organization (one that can't attract top tier free agents and who lack the assets to trade for what they need most).

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

Am very curious to see how desperate the Cavs will be in trying to move up from 5 to 3 in order to draft RJ.

What would you want from them (assuming they approached us)? Maybe we can charge the same cost as last year’s 5-3 swap (top 5 protected till unprotected)?

Who would we pick in this scenario, Assuming LAL takes RJ? Probably Hunter Garland.

[sol537]

1) Sign KD and Kawhi
2) Trade down to #5 to get Hunter and a future 1st
3) Don't trade for AD; Start Mitch, Hunter, KD, Kawhi, Frank-> epic defensive squad
4) Profit

[taj2133]

But first, he must answer the top question on the minds of those general managers who might draft him in the lottery: Why was he so overshadowed by Williamson and Barrett in their one season together? “I’m kind of reserved, just like my personality is kind of reserved, so people might take that as lazy or too laid back,” Reddish said last week at the NBA Draft Combine in Chicago. “But that’s just not who I am. Just naturally a reserved, calm guy.” –

These are Reddish’s answers in public. He accepted a role on Duke as a No. 3 guy, acknowledges that he was overshadowed and is obviously aware of the perception that developed because of it. The Knicks, who will draft third, are considering him. The Hawks love him. They have the eighth and 10th picks. The Cavs will consider him. But all have questions.
https://theathletic.com/994355/2019/05/28/cam-reddish-to-nba-lottery-teams-im-reserved-not-lazy/

[DOT]

This is a good article that I found about why Culver should NOT be the guy to take at 3. Found this after I had already determined Barrett is the guy to take. But it explains it pretty much with the same reasons as me.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/clutchpoints.com/3-reasons-drafting-jarrett-culver-at-no-3-would-be-a-mistake-for-the-knicks/amp/

As far as Barrett with KD and Kyrie...IF the Knicks are really confident that they will land the two it still really doesn't change things one bit. Barrett is still without question the better asset to have in a trade.

IF KD and Kyrie gave Perry and Mills their commitment then neither Barrett nor Culver would be a fit. From a pure fit standpoint in this scenario, DeAndre Hunter would be the best fit...if we want to draft for fit.

But if the Knicks land KD and Kyrie they should be putting all the cards on the table and looking to deal for AD. And by all indications Barrett would be the most desirable piece of any trade for Davis.

If the goal is to move down from 3 Barrett still is the better option as Barrett is the more desirable asset for the teams following the Knicks in the draft. The Lakers would immediately look to include Barrett in a trade for AD themselves (which in and if itself would be reason enough to draft Barrett at 3). Barrett would be the perfect player for the Cavs. Barrett and Trae Young would be a potentially scary and exciting duo in Atlanta.

From a style of play standpoint, it's pretty clear that Fizdale wants to play uptempo. If they don't land KD, Barrett is the better player for uptempo compared to the less athletic, slower footed Culver. If they do land KD and Kyrie they would still logically want to play uptempo considering that it'll be even more difficult to defend KD if you're pushing the ball. And Kyrie? You unleash him in an uptempo system and he can be truly scary. So again, Barrett would be a better fit as both a finisher as well as shot creator than Culver.

I just don't see any scenario where Culver makes sense over Barrett for the Knicks at 3.

Folks are getting carried away with his wingspan measurement at the combine. You still have to be able to create your shots in the NBA and I'm dubious Culver can do that (poor handles, not explosive). His showing against DeAndre Hunter in the title game imo is a foreshadowing of what he'll be able to go in the NBA against NBA defenders.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

Agreed. The things that made Culver seem attractive, back when a lot of folks were consigning themselves to getting the 5th pick, was that at that spot, Culver was big guard, with some ability to run the offense and also a good court sense. Good all around offensive game, handle needed some work, played within a great college defense.

RJ has a lot of the positive attributes of Culver and some of the negative, in a clearly more explosive and athletic player. Tall SG capable of running the paint, can make good decisions on offense? Check. Crafty scoring? Check. Now, Culver I think shows some more variety in his scoring, a little more inventiveness, but it's not like RJ can't do that. Obviously RJ has some issues being so left hand dominant. Both have jumpers that could use some work. Both have handles that could use some work.

Culver is sort of an odd choice to want over RJ as, to me - and I could be wrong here - but they are similar ENOUGH - not the same, games aren't alike - that it's weird to pick Culver.

Also agree with your trade scenarios. Just take the best guy and if that's a player other teams want a few picks down, THEN trade him, get a player back the team views as just as good AND extract a pick/player etc from them in the process.

i've been big on culver since very early in the season. but i'm not taking him over RJ. barrett's upside intrigues me more. i do think culver is being underrated and will be one of this year's pleasant surprises. though he shouldn't surprise anyone, really.

Yeah, I like Culver and I'm not the biggest RJ fan, but you gotta swing for the fences at 3rd overall

I do think if the draft was after free agency and we signed KD and Kyrie, then Culver would be the much better fit and much safer option plus we wouldn't need high upside with two stars, but you can't assume they're both coming