2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery

[cjbulls]

I'm trying to work out why such a mediocre ceiling is being placed on Deandre Hunter.

He scored 19pp/40 on one of the slowest paced teams in basketball, on 62% TS, hes functionally a pretty good athlete, he can pull up OTD, he has a mid-post creation game, solid feel/makes the right passes, can handle decently, gets to the line at a solid rate. Obviously a talented defender. Low stl/blks scare me a little bit but Virginia play a conservative scheme.

What's the catch? I get he's not a flashy player and he's on the older side, but from everything I can tell, he was a strong scorer in college at all 3 levels. He can only stand to up the 3 point volume, which seems inevitable given the super efficient % on a medium volume, and he the tools to further develop his on-ball game.

Even guys that like him in this draft are calling him a plug and play Hawks - Demarre Carroll type, which seems like a major undersell.

In the NBA you need some elite-level traits to reach a high ceiling. What you just described is a guy who’s decent at a lot of things and shows no elite traits. And now we’re three years into college already, so what is his elite talent going to be?

[JimmyJammer]

I have not been on the DeAndre Hunter's bandwagon, but I'd be ok with the pick. At this point, there is no one that we are going to select at number 7 that's going to make a difference right way, unless guys like Zion, Ja or Barrett miraculously drop. So, the best strategy now is to accumulate young assets for a potential blockbuster move, when and if it comes.

[DuckIII]

This is going to be a really interesting thread to revisit a year from now.

I was just reading last years draft thread from around this time a year ago. It's a gas.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1715795&start=140

FYI, anything I wrote about Trey Young, it wasn’t me. I was hacked. But only for those posts. Weird.

God forbid Coby White ends up a star next year - we'll both be eating crow.

It’s possible the Coby White posts attributed to me were also the result of a nefarious hacking scheme.

[Red Larrivee]

I'm trying to work out why such a mediocre ceiling is being placed on Deandre Hunter.

He scored 19pp/40 on one of the slowest paced teams in basketball, on 62% TS, hes functionally a pretty good athlete, he can pull up OTD, he has a mid-post creation game, solid feel/makes the right passes, can handle decently, gets to the line at a solid rate. Obviously a talented defender. Low stl/blks scare me a little bit but Virginia play a conservative scheme.

What's the catch? I get he's not a flashy player and he's on the older side, but from everything I can tell, he was a strong scorer in college at all 3 levels. He can only stand to up the 3 point volume, which seems inevitable given the super efficient % on a medium volume, and he the tools to further develop his on-ball game.

Even guys that like him in this draft are calling him a plug and play Hawks - Demarre Carroll type, which seems like a major undersell.

Sometimes lazy narratives are built around older prospects.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Or people can have other opinions. The reply from the SI article that JCool posted is obviously thoughtful analysis.

They absolutely can. Whether those opinions are rational or not, is another story. Hunter having a mediocre ceiling is one that isn't.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[drosereturn]

Sometimes lazy narratives are built around older prospects.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Or people can have other opinions. The reply from the SI article that JCool posted is obviously thoughtful analysis.

They absolutely can. Whether those opinions are rational or not, is another story. Hunter having a mediocre ceiling is one that isn't.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

110% agree. This notion that somehow Culver and Reddish have infinitely better ceiling than Hunter is just absurd.
The fans that want former 2 are just bringing up excuses to draft them over a prospect who is very a similar prospect to college Kawhi.

[SfBull]

How would Bulls fans feel about Dennis Smith Jr. for #7? Garland is likely gone before #7, and IMO DSJ is a better prospect than Coby White (and more of a true PG than White). I love DSJ and I think he'll be a future all-star caliber PG, but if Kyrie is coming to the Knicks, DSJ would be expendable

Plus, this is the 3rd year in a row of having the #7 pick, and IMO Lauri and Wendell (who I wanted for the Knicks) were better prospects than what will be available at #7 this year

I pass.

[SfBull]

I think the Bulls will sit at 7 and take whoever falls to them among Garland, White, Culver or Hunter. I still think that they are the one who has a promise with Garland.

But if the Bulls end up with a wing at 7, I would like to trade up from 38 to draft Carsen Edwards. I went to the Stepien to read about Garland and White, and ran headlong into their total man crush on Edwards. And I have to say, I think they convinced me.

Can shoot threes like Trae and Steph, and can get to the rack. Not a big assist guy historically, but as the Stepien points out, his long distance shooting can open the court for others.

On defense, he’s 6’0.5” and 199 pounds with a 6’6” wingspan. He tested off the charts on agility at the Combine. With that strength, quickness and wingspan, he has the tools to develop into a plus defender.

Agreed on us going BPA from that group of four. As of now, it sounds like Hunter and Culver will be gone before 7. Word has been that Hunter to the Lakers is a very real possibility at 4. And if the rumor about White receiving a top-6 promise is true, good chance Garland falls to us at 7.

Garland is the ultimate boom or bust pick in that draft and that’s exactly why he’s the perfect fit for us. We need to swing for the fences with our pick, whatever position it may be. Take the chance on Garland becoming a Lillard type player. White is more proven at the college level and has a higher floor then Garland.[size=200] But anyone who watched UNC this year knows he does not have star potential in the NBA.

[/size]

The truth is NO ONE knows. Not me. Not you. No one here in RealGM. Not even the mods. No one on ESPN. No one at the Stepien/Youtube podcasts/whatever column.

No one knew that Gilbert Arenas was going to be a Agent Zero Superstar before he was drafted. No one knew that Jokic had superstar potential back when he was drafted. No one knew that Dennis Rodman had Hall of Fame stud defensive player potential before he was drafted.

This is the same board who, overwhelmingly with enthusiasm, wanted Michael Porter Jr.

Couldn't myself post better words about that .

[sco]

How would Bulls fans feel about Dennis Smith Jr. for #7? Garland is likely gone before #7, and IMO DSJ is a better prospect than Coby White (and more of a true PG than White). I love DSJ and I think he'll be a future all-star caliber PG, but if Kyrie is coming to the Knicks, DSJ would be expendable

Plus, this is the 3rd year in a row of having the #7 pick, and IMO Lauri and Wendell (who I wanted for the Knicks) were better prospects than what will be available at #7 this year

What about trading DSJ to LA for Ball? Win-win (for us Bulls fans)!

[SfBull]

We should get a poll going.

I think if the Knicks pass on RJ at 3, they are going to be sorry. I have him at #2 ahead of Ja. I just can't get over Ja's utter lack of effort on defense. He plays so upright. RJ played in Zion's shadow, which I think really hurt his stock. I would still take Ja in the top 5.

My board top 15. I know it deviates greatly from most mocks but... it's who I like not anybody else.

Zion
RJ
Ja
Culver
Hunter
Garland
Rui Hachimura
Coby White
Sekou D.
Goga Bitazde
Nassir Little
Bruno Fernando
Reddish
Hayes
Brandon Clarke


Check out the poll from last year about 5 days before the draft.. it's interesting.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1715795&start=140

Actually NBA Draft Net mocked the Bulls drafting Hachimura with #7.

[CoreyVillains]

I'm trying to work out why such a mediocre ceiling is being placed on Deandre Hunter.

He scored 19pp/40 on one of the slowest paced teams in basketball, on 62% TS, hes functionally a pretty good athlete, he can pull up OTD, he has a mid-post creation game, solid feel/makes the right passes, can handle decently, gets to the line at a solid rate. Obviously a talented defender. Low stl/blks scare me a little bit but Virginia play a conservative scheme.

What's the catch? I get he's not a flashy player and he's on the older side, but from everything I can tell, he was a strong scorer in college at all 3 levels. He can only stand to up the 3 point volume, which seems inevitable given the super efficient % on a medium volume, and he the tools to further develop his on-ball game.

Even guys that like him in this draft are calling him a plug and play Hawks - Demarre Carroll type, which seems like a major undersell.

I think this breakdown sums it up well:

After evaluating Hunter multiple times in person over the past two seasons and picking the brains of NBA scouts over that period of time, I’m not convinced his skill set portends the type of upside that would warrant taking him over a younger, more skilled player at most junctures of the top 10. A lot of the discussion with him tends to center on the quality of his floor (loosely defined as a reasonable, projected average-to-worst-case scenario). This makes sense: he’s physically ready for the NBA, he can defend bigger wings and smaller forwards at 6’7”, he can switch on the perimeter if need be and hold his own, and he’s shown improvement as a set shooter from the outside. But when you’re a team picking near the top of the draft and trying to reverse your fortunes, the safe choice isn’t always the best choice. And the most mature player isn’t always the safest option, either.

At his age and given his visible physical stiffness playing off the dribble, I think there’s reason to be skeptical as to how much that element of his game can evolve. He’s not going to blow by people or shake them in space. Considering the skill level at his age, and his later stage of development as an athlete, it’s become fairly clear to me that the optimistic projection here is that of a useful role player, not someone you build a team around.

Hunter has relied more on being bigger and stronger than his opponents, and derived much of his offense from triple-threat catches that put him in position to do damage with one or two dribbles. He likes to face up, rather than turn his back to the basket, and that helped him take advantage of athletic mismatches. Hunter three-point shooting profile isn’t completely convincing, and he’s yet to exude a consistent amount of confidence in that part of of his game. I think he’ll lose some of the physical edge within the speed and flow of the NBA game. I worry on some level about the jump shot translating. And if he can’t score efficiently around the basket or make enough threes to space the floor, you have to start questioning the utility of whatever his offensive functionality might end up being. There’s no one offensive skill that inspires enough confidence to rate him as a top-five pick.

https://www.si.com/nba/2019/05/28/nba-draft-2019-lottery-prospects-deandre-hunter-romeo-langford?xid=socialflow_twitter_si&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thecrossover

I think it could be a mistake to judge his offensive ceiling based on his lack of shiftiness though. I get it, he's got a pretty cerebral game, there's no clear stand-out skill as you said, and some of that mid-post/1 dribble stuff often struggles to translate. However I think there's something to be said for the fact that he's efficient at all three levels, I do think his shot is a bit cumbersome but the form's good and at 44% from 3 he could easily take more.

But just even the floor doesn't seem to me as being as low as is being suggested. It's almost like he's being described as a 3/D guy with no other wrinkles.

It is strange that he is perceived to be low ceiling while Culver is considered to have a high ceiling. Hunter plays within himself and the team concept but the skeleton is there for a player who can one day do more. I think he’ll have no issue upping his volume. What he needs to fix is his footwork on his shot, it can be a little clumsy, but his upper body form is really good so it should be easier to get his feet right with more reps. If he can do that I think it’ll open up his off the dribble game more as well. Defensively I’m interested in seeing if his lack of stocks was due to the scheme Virginia played or if he has to learn to be more aggressive off ball. He was typically in the right spots just didn’t make the effort you’d think someone with his measurements would make to contest the rim and play the passing lanes. But those two issues, which I believe are pretty fixable, would make him a really great get at pick 7.

[BigJimFinn]

It will be interesting to compare the guys who spent 2/3/4 years in college, became good NBA players against 1 and done players, became good NBA players(assume decent health). I see all these guys like Igoudala, Gasol, Taj all being productive at late ages while similarly talented guys are out earlier than them. And, it's not like these 1 and done guys are usually productive from Day 1. They spend the first 3/4 years in the NBA being bad while also getting beat up physically unlike the 4 year college guys.

It irritates me to see the age comments about Jimmy or Taj. Those guys have less mileage or less years in the NBA which means they can grow more compared to the same age guys who were 1 and done. It shows in the way these guys developed their game late in their 20s by adding something to their game compared to the guys who had 4/5 years experience and were 23/24 years old.

I mostly agree with your argument, but which Gasol brother are you using as an example of playing several years in college? Which NCAA conference does Barcelona play in?

[GimmeDat]

I'm trying to work out why such a mediocre ceiling is being placed on Deandre Hunter.

He scored 19pp/40 on one of the slowest paced teams in basketball, on 62% TS, hes functionally a pretty good athlete, he can pull up OTD, he has a mid-post creation game, solid feel/makes the right passes, can handle decently, gets to the line at a solid rate. Obviously a talented defender. Low stl/blks scare me a little bit but Virginia play a conservative scheme.

What's the catch? I get he's not a flashy player and he's on the older side, but from everything I can tell, he was a strong scorer in college at all 3 levels. He can only stand to up the 3 point volume, which seems inevitable given the super efficient % on a medium volume, and he the tools to further develop his on-ball game.

Even guys that like him in this draft are calling him a plug and play Hawks - Demarre Carroll type, which seems like a major undersell.

In the NBA you need some elite-level traits to reach a high ceiling. What you just described is a guy who’s decent at a lot of things and shows no elite traits. And now we’re three years into college already, so what is his elite talent going to be?

I think he does have elite traits - elite on ball defense, and elite efficiency.

Now, by all means, if we're talking star/superstar territory, maybe he doesn't have the dynamism to reach that ceiling unless he has top %tile further development, like a Butler/Leonard case, but beyond the top 15 players or so in the league, there's a ton of guys who make incredible levels of impact simply through good efficiency, high IQ play, and strong defensive output.

I just grabbed the first list I came across on google, so you can dispute some rankings here or there (and it's also a year old), but this gives a largely fair reflection of top player rankings, roughly -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/sports/nba-top-100-players-2018/?utm_term=.9ad0ed89f3c3

Al Horford (19), Jrue Holiday (30), Kyle Lowry (33), Kris Middleton (36), Paul Millsap (38), Gary Harris (39), Otto Porter (49), Joe Ingles (50), etc., are all guys who are just super fundamentally sound, well rounded, and smart players. I don't think they have particularly outlier athleticism or were pegged as having star-like offensive games out of college. Even of the top 15 guys, your Jimmy Butler, Kawhi Leonard, Draymond Green types were considered jack-of-all trade, defensive first guys.

None of those are perfect comparisons to Hunter's strength's and weaknesses, I understand that, but my point is that high end role players can turn out to be top 50 players in the league, and quite often going for these types, while maybe less appealing, is often a way surer bet at what is not just dime a dozen play, but like top 3 or 4 player on a playoff team level, and in saying that I'm not completely dismissing his chance to be more, either.

Like for instance, Garland, a big favourite on this board, would have to be like a top %tile dynamic off the dribble shooter to reach the ceiling comparisons of a Lillard, Kemba, etc... and the threshold for undersized PG's who can't play defense making positive contributions as lead ball handlers on teams is super high, and that chance is compounded down further by the fact that he's not an outstanding play-maker. It's playing devil's advocate a little bit here, but whose to say Garland being an absolutely insane OTD shooter is a bigger bet than Hunter breaking out of his perceived ceiling and adding a more elite offensive skill-set? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but when you weigh out the two's floor's or moderate outcomes, I'm tempted to give the edge to Hunter.

I'm still going through this whole thought process right up to the draft, so this is me thinking out loud here and arguing different viewpoints a bit. I haven't definitively decided Hunter > Garland, but I can see the argument for it. All I know right now is that I want one of Culver, Hunter or Garland at 7 (realistically), and guys like White and Reddish less so.

[Chi town]

In theory Coby White should be a good fit...

- really good catch and shoot off ball threat
- deep range on his 3 ball
- size to defend 1s and 2s
- can get his own shot at all 3 levels including step back 3s off the dribble
- Really good in PnR
- showed progressive playmaking for a SG playing PG for the first time at a historic program


All these point to a player that could be a great fit and could learn the nuances of playing PG in time.

If you are a believer in the above I would sign a pure PG like Collison to show White how to play PG. We all know Brogdon is the best fit though. Brogdon and White seem redundant.

I think the Suns will take White anyway. Don’t think Pax will trade up for White either.

Deandre Hunter come on down. Hutch will never see the floor. Wasted pick.

[MeloRoseNoah]

In my opinion, outside of Zion Williamson and Morant, DeAndre Hunter has the next highest chance of being a star in this league. The reason is very simple. He's above average in all aspects of being a good NBA player outside of his mediocre ball handling skills. Above average physical tool for sf. Above average shooting at close, midrange, and three point line. Above average efficiency. Above defense. Above average bball IQ.

If order to be a star in the NBA, you need to be above average in a lot of things while being elite at two things. If Hunter has an excellent work ethic, I could see him turning his shooting, defense, and efficiency into elite categories, while pushing his ball handling skills to being average. A 6'8 sf with 7'3 wingspan with those traits will be a top 3-8 sf in the NBA.

I'm not going to ding a dude age especially when he's going to be 21 years old upon entering the NBA. That's ridiculous. I'm also not seeing the hype on Garland. Outside of his shooting and ball handling skills, he's legitimately below average in every other categories, including his old man athleticism.

[cjbulls]

Sometimes lazy narratives are built around older prospects.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Or people can have other opinions. The reply from the SI article that JCool posted is obviously thoughtful analysis.

They absolutely can. Whether those opinions are rational or not, is another story. Hunter having a mediocre ceiling is one that isn't.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Read on Twitter

[cjbulls]

Or people can have other opinions. The reply from the SI article that JCool posted is obviously thoughtful analysis.

They absolutely can. Whether those opinions are rational or not, is another story. Hunter having a mediocre ceiling is one that isn't.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

110% agree. This notion that somehow Culver and Reddish have infinitely better ceiling than Hunter is just absurd.
The fans that want former 2 are just bringing up excuses to draft them over a prospect who is very a similar prospect to college Kawhi.

I don't think anyone is saying Culver and Reddish have an "infinitely better ceiling". Kawhi was the #15 pick who had an highly unusual, borderline unprecedented growth path, so a similar prospect probably should be around #15 again.

[cjbulls]

I think this breakdown sums it up well:

After evaluating Hunter multiple times in person over the past two seasons and picking the brains of NBA scouts over that period of time, I’m not convinced his skill set portends the type of upside that would warrant taking him over a younger, more skilled player at most junctures of the top 10. A lot of the discussion with him tends to center on the quality of his floor (loosely defined as a reasonable, projected average-to-worst-case scenario). This makes sense: he’s physically ready for the NBA, he can defend bigger wings and smaller forwards at 6’7”, he can switch on the perimeter if need be and hold his own, and he’s shown improvement as a set shooter from the outside. But when you’re a team picking near the top of the draft and trying to reverse your fortunes, the safe choice isn’t always the best choice. And the most mature player isn’t always the safest option, either.

At his age and given his visible physical stiffness playing off the dribble, I think there’s reason to be skeptical as to how much that element of his game can evolve. He’s not going to blow by people or shake them in space. Considering the skill level at his age, and his later stage of development as an athlete, it’s become fairly clear to me that the optimistic projection here is that of a useful role player, not someone you build a team around.

Hunter has relied more on being bigger and stronger than his opponents, and derived much of his offense from triple-threat catches that put him in position to do damage with one or two dribbles. He likes to face up, rather than turn his back to the basket, and that helped him take advantage of athletic mismatches. Hunter three-point shooting profile isn’t completely convincing, and he’s yet to exude a consistent amount of confidence in that part of of his game. I think he’ll lose some of the physical edge within the speed and flow of the NBA game. I worry on some level about the jump shot translating. And if he can’t score efficiently around the basket or make enough threes to space the floor, you have to start questioning the utility of whatever his offensive functionality might end up being. There’s no one offensive skill that inspires enough confidence to rate him as a top-five pick.

https://www.si.com/nba/2019/05/28/nba-draft-2019-lottery-prospects-deandre-hunter-romeo-langford?xid=socialflow_twitter_si&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thecrossover

I think it could be a mistake to judge his offensive ceiling based on his lack of shiftiness though. I get it, he's got a pretty cerebral game, there's no clear stand-out skill as you said, and some of that mid-post/1 dribble stuff often struggles to translate. However I think there's something to be said for the fact that he's efficient at all three levels, I do think his shot is a bit cumbersome but the form's good and at 44% from 3 he could easily take more.

But just even the floor doesn't seem to me as being as low as is being suggested. It's almost like he's being described as a 3/D guy with no other wrinkles.

It is strange that he is perceived to be low ceiling while Culver is considered to have a high ceiling. Hunter plays within himself and the team concept but the skeleton is there for a player who can one day do more. I think he’ll have no issue upping his volume. What he needs to fix is his footwork on his shot, it can be a little clumsy, but his upper body form is really good so it should be easier to get his feet right with more reps. If he can do that I think it’ll open up his off the dribble game more as well. Defensively I’m interested in seeing if his lack of stocks was due to the scheme Virginia played or if he has to learn to be more aggressive off ball. He was typically in the right spots just didn’t make the effort you’d think someone with his measurements would make to contest the rim and play the passing lanes. But those two issues, which I believe are pretty fixable, would make him a really great get at pick 7.

Where is Culver considered high ceiling?

SI: "There are a few bad habits here, and while he may not be a star, he offers more untapped ability than he gets credit for."

ESPN: "Culver is the exact type of ultra-productive, high-floor prospect teams will feel comfortable betting on." "Projected role: Secondary creator"

The Athletic: "The fit here is too strong to pass up (Lakers), but I will note that there continues to be some ambivalence to Culver among NBA executives, who question his athleticism and ability to become a true difference maker."

[3noD]

On or off ball, with LeBron on the floor or not, Garland makes a heap of sense for the Lakers roster.

Garland’s ball handling would be wasted with the Lakers. Sure, he can shoot, but so can Hunter


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

I think that's a gross misrepresentation of those 2 guys shooting abilities. A low volume spot up guy versus a deep range/high volume/elite off the dribble shooter.

The point was more about drafting a dynamic ball handler not known for his defense to then leave him in a corner. Doesn’t help Lakers that much if they’re in a win now mode.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[cjbulls]

I'm trying to work out why such a mediocre ceiling is being placed on Deandre Hunter.

He scored 19pp/40 on one of the slowest paced teams in basketball, on 62% TS, hes functionally a pretty good athlete, he can pull up OTD, he has a mid-post creation game, solid feel/makes the right passes, can handle decently, gets to the line at a solid rate. Obviously a talented defender. Low stl/blks scare me a little bit but Virginia play a conservative scheme.

What's the catch? I get he's not a flashy player and he's on the older side, but from everything I can tell, he was a strong scorer in college at all 3 levels. He can only stand to up the 3 point volume, which seems inevitable given the super efficient % on a medium volume, and he the tools to further develop his on-ball game.

Even guys that like him in this draft are calling him a plug and play Hawks - Demarre Carroll type, which seems like a major undersell.

In the NBA you need some elite-level traits to reach a high ceiling. What you just described is a guy who’s decent at a lot of things and shows no elite traits. And now we’re three years into college already, so what is his elite talent going to be?

I think he does have elite traits - elite on ball defense, and elite efficiency.

Now, by all means, if we're talking star/superstar territory, maybe he doesn't have the dynamism to reach that ceiling unless he has top %tile further development, like a Butler/Leonard case, but beyond the top 15 players or so in the league, there's a ton of guys who make incredible levels of impact simply through good efficiency, high IQ play, and strong defensive output.

I just grabbed the first list I came across on google, so you can dispute some rankings here or there (and it's also a year old), but this gives a largely fair reflection of top player rankings, roughly -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/sports/nba-top-100-players-2018/?utm_term=.9ad0ed89f3c3

Al Horford (19), Jrue Holiday (30), Kyle Lowry (33), Kris Middleton (36), Paul Millsap (38), Gary Harris (39), Otto Porter (49), Joe Ingles (50), etc., are all guys who are just super fundamentally sound, well rounded, and smart players. I don't think they have particularly outlier athleticism or were pegged as having star-like offensive games out of college. Even of the top 15 guys, your Jimmy Butler, Kawhi Leonard, Draymond Green types were considered jack-of-all trade, defensive first guys.

None of those are perfect comparisons to Hunter's strength's and weaknesses, I understand that, but my point is that high end role players can turn out to be top 50 players in the league, and quite often going for these types, while maybe less appealing, is often a way surer bet at what is not just dime a dozen play, but like top 3 or 4 player on a playoff team level, and in saying that I'm not completely dismissing his chance to be more, either.

Like for instance, Garland, a big favourite on this board, would have to be like a top %tile dynamic off the dribble shooter to reach the ceiling comparisons of a Lillard, Kemba, etc... and the threshold for undersized PG's who can't play defense making positive contributions as lead ball handlers on teams is super high, and that chance is compounded down further by the fact that he's not an outstanding play-maker. It's playing devil's advocate a little bit here, but whose to say Garland being an absolutely insane OTD shooter is a bigger bet than Hunter breaking out of his perceived ceiling and adding a more elite offensive skill-set? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but when you weigh out the two's floor's or moderate outcomes, I'm tempted to give the edge to Hunter.

I'm still going through this whole thought process right up to the draft, so this is me thinking out loud here and arguing different viewpoints a bit. I haven't definitively decided Hunter > Garland, but I can see the argument for it. All I know right now is that I want one of Culver, Hunter or Garland at 7 (realistically), and guys like White and Reddish less so.

I don't think we are very far off, probably just the semantics of our descriptions. I'm more down on Hunter's ceiling than most, and I'd still take him over Reddish/Culver (Culver's ceiling is similar, Reddish has a clear higher ceiling but unlikely to hit) who I both think are a tier below Hunter. His max ceiling seems to be just what you described, borderline all-star for a few years but mostly just solid player [Al Horford (19), Jrue Holiday (30), Kyle Lowry (33), Kris Middleton (36), Paul Millsap (38), Gary Harris (39), Otto Porter (49), Joe Ingles (50)]. The guy who no one wants to actually watch play in the all-star game, lol.

I have to dispute the elite efficiency and defense. Hunter is efficient because he is good at knowing his limitations. I think he'll have a hard time expanding his usage in the NBA . Plus, his efficiency numbers right now are good, but I wouldn't call them elite. They are great by NBA standards, but not by three years into college standards.

The defense is a closer call, his herky-jerky style probably keeps him from being a DPOY and first team all-defense, but he will be very good. The blocks and steals portends some of his limitations.

Anyone could convince me of anything with Garland. Hurting his knee is probably the best thing that could have happened to him.

[JohnnyKILLroy]

Garland’s ball handling would be wasted with the Lakers. Sure, he can shoot, but so can Hunter


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

I think that's a gross misrepresentation of those 2 guys shooting abilities. A low volume spot up guy versus a deep range/high volume/elite off the dribble shooter.

The point was more about drafting a dynamic ball handler not known for his defense to then leave him in a corner. Doesn’t help Lakers that much if they’re in a win now mode.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

I don’t think he’s relegated to the corner.

Some of the concerns with his PG game get negated next to Lebron, he now becomes a very good secondary decision maker. The pressure to execute has changed.

I think it’s likely the Lakers are the only team that really has the lowdown on Garland.