2019 Draft Thread Volume #6 - Post Lottery

[Repeat 3-peat]

If I had to guess 4-7

4. Garland 5. Culver 6. White 7. Reddish.

[Bulls Fan 23]

If I had to guess 4-7

4. Garland 5. Culver 6. White 7. Reddish.

Swap out Reddish and put in Hunter

[bearadonisdna]

Good thing about culver is that he is a good offensive initiator. He would help the bulls and would help with running a positionless backcourt. Maybe less reliance on his offense can help his efficiency.
Basically I'm a little less concerned if he is the pick.


Hunter is probably the best dunker and 3 point shooter.
He is also highly skilled , but i don't think he flashes it unless necessary.
Wondering how he would fare if he had to be a secondary ball handler.

[johnnyvann840]

This is the mock draft before the start of the college season. It’s funny how so much can change in 1 year. 7 of the top 9 pojected picks will be available for the Bulls at 7. In my opinion getting rid of the one and done rule is a big mistake. If anything it should be raised to 2 years. Expect a lot of projects and busts once high school kids can jump straight to the NBA.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2789663-way-too-soon-2019-nba-mock-draft-rj-barrett-early-favorite-to-go-no-1.amp.html

The most remarkable thing about this, IMO, is Darius Garland. How on earth does a kid go from 14 to top 5 after getting hurt bad enough to miss almost his entire freshman season? He only plays in 5 games, mostly against pretty weak opponents (the majority if his highlights are from games against Winthrop, Alcorn St., Liberty and Kent St.) Is this a case of benefiting from NOT playing? What could cause this kind of ascension from just 5 games in just a few months. He was good in those games but not great. I mean here's a point guard who averaged just 2.6 assists per game, got fairly seriously injured enough to miss the rest of the season, which you would think would hurt somebody's stock, yet somehow he rises up to high lottery. Is just because of all the guys who did play the whole season and didn't meet expectations, falling?

Don't get me wrong, I like what I've seen from him. Like his handle and he sure looks like he can shoot, but he wasn't just dominating or anything. I mean he had an impressive 3 pt FG%, but he only took a TOTAL of 23 three pointers in his entire collegiate career, had a total of 13 assists, and he did turn the ball over at an alarming rate with more turnovers than assists. So, how did these 5 measly games against weak comp where he was really just "OK", take him from being mocked at 14 to 20 preseason, all the way to the top? It's baffling to me.

Then on the other end of the spectrum is a kid like Sekou Doumbouya who jumps up to the Pro A League in Europe and shows tremendous progression as an 18 year old playing against grown men in Euro Cup. Last week he scored 34 pts in a game and had 9 rebounds. Yet he plummets in the mocks for whatever reason from 6th preseason. You would think this kid would have gained value but he seems to have dropped like a rock. Does anybody know why?

Or Jarrett Culver, who went from shooting .382 from 3 pt to just barely cracking .300 ( just .247 in conference play) this season on higher volume. Another guard with a really bad A/TO ratio yet he shoots up the boards and is even being talked about as high as 3rd.

Oh, and then we have Cam Reddish who absolutely sucked balls at Duke with some piss poor efficiency and really lackadaisical attitude (no dog in this kid). But he is still being talked about in the top ten. Still living off his high school reputation despite an entire college season of less than mediocre play that people just dismiss.

I don't understand a lot of what happens in the minds of so many NBA execs around draft time. Strange things happen that go against all logic and reason. It's mind boggling really.

[Repeat 3-peat]

If I had to guess 4-7

4. Garland 5. Culver 6. White 7. Reddish.

Swap out Reddish and put in Hunter

I hope for Hunter also but Reddish keeps being talked about by the beat writers. Have to think he'll be the guy unless they can get one of Garland or White.

[CoreyVillains]

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."

BR:

In a draft filled with questionable prospects, Culver's high upside combined with low risk makes him an exciting prospect.

Stepien:

At the end of the day, I fully believe Culver is worth the #2 pick in the draft.

I mean there are also reports of the Knicks considering him at 3. A lot of people feel he has high upside. It's ok if you don't, but other people do.

[NDave79]

I find what Rui did to team Australia (who are grown men and have a couple NBA players) last year incredibly impressive for a 20 year that is still relatively new to the game.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[Axolotl]

This is the mock draft before the start of the college season. It’s funny how so much can change in 1 year. 7 of the top 9 pojected picks will be available for the Bulls at 7. In my opinion getting rid of the one and done rule is a big mistake. If anything it should be raised to 2 years. Expect a lot of projects and busts once high school kids can jump straight to the NBA.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2789663-way-too-soon-2019-nba-mock-draft-rj-barrett-early-favorite-to-go-no-1.amp.html

The most remarkable thing about this, IMO, is Darius Garland. How on earth does a kid go from 14 to top 5 after getting hurt bad enough to miss almost his entire freshman season?

It's like a staircase. Garland is sitting on a step with 14 guys higher than him on the stairs, all trying to get higher still. Ten guys slip and fall down the stairs, and they all end up below Garland. Garland shrugs and leaves to hang out with GmBron.

[johnnyvann840]

This is the mock draft before the start of the college season. It’s funny how so much can change in 1 year. 7 of the top 9 pojected picks will be available for the Bulls at 7. In my opinion getting rid of the one and done rule is a big mistake. If anything it should be raised to 2 years. Expect a lot of projects and busts once high school kids can jump straight to the NBA.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2789663-way-too-soon-2019-nba-mock-draft-rj-barrett-early-favorite-to-go-no-1.amp.html

The most remarkable thing about this, IMO, is Darius Garland. How on earth does a kid go from 14 to top 5 after getting hurt bad enough to miss almost his entire freshman season?

It's like a staircase. Garland is sitting on a step with 14 guys higher than him on the stairs, all trying to get higher still. Ten guys slip and fall down the stairs, and they all end up below Garland. Garland shrugs and leaves to hang out with GmBron.

These days it seems like if you are regarded highly (top half of 1st round status) coming out of high school you're almost better off getting seriously hurt and not playing..... If Cam Reddish tore a meniscus he would probably be the 2nd or 3rd pick in the draft. Oh well, he will still go top 8 even after a less than mediocre season. But the truth is he probably cost himself $6-7 million by playing a full season at Duke. lol. It's a crazy World.

[NewEra21]

This is the mock draft before the start of the college season. It’s funny how so much can change in 1 year. 7 of the top 9 pojected picks will be available for the Bulls at 7. In my opinion getting rid of the one and done rule is a big mistake. If anything it should be raised to 2 years. Expect a lot of projects and busts once high school kids can jump straight to the NBA.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2789663-way-too-soon-2019-nba-mock-draft-rj-barrett-early-favorite-to-go-no-1.amp.html

The most remarkable thing about this, IMO, is Darius Garland. How on earth does a kid go from 14 to top 5 after getting hurt bad enough to miss almost his entire freshman season? He only plays in 5 games, mostly against pretty weak opponents (the majority if his highlights are from games against Winthrop, Alcorn St., Liberty and Kent St.) Is this a case of benefiting from NOT playing? What could cause this kind of ascension from just 5 games in just a few months. He was good in those games but not great. I mean here's a point guard who averaged just 2.6 assists per game, got fairly seriously injured enough to miss the rest of the season, which you would think would hurt somebody's stock, yet somehow he rises up to high lottery. Is just because of all the guys who did play the whole season and didn't meet expectations, falling?

Don't get me wrong, I like what I've seen from him. Like his handle and he sure looks like he can shoot, but he wasn't just dominating or anything. I mean he had an impressive 3 pt FG%, but he only took a TOTAL of 23 three pointers in his entire collegiate career, had a total of 13 assists, and he did turn the ball over at an alarming rate with more turnovers than assists. So, how did these 5 measly games against weak comp where he was really just "OK", take him from being mocked at 14 to 20 preseason, all the way to the top? It's baffling to me.

I think it's because how he was scoring and the plays we was able to make are easily translatable to the NBA game. The way he plays is similar to what the lead All Star guards of today play like (Lillard/Curry/Irving/Kemba). He is a legitimate threat to pull up from 25-30 ft. His shot is all one smooth motion and looks the same whether its from 15 or 30. He is able to create separation with a multitude of hesitation moves, dribble pull ups, step backs. Splits double teams fairly well. Can score from all three levels as his dribbling and quickness allow him to get to the rim and finish creatively around the basket. He is slight and probably will look to avoid heavy contact at the NBA level, and he needs to get stronger, but what Freshman doesn't need to get stronger. And he looks to be equally effective with creating his own shot off the dribble or off a catch a shoot. Sports are copycat leagues. As mentioned before when you look at the guards who are making All Star teams, All NBA teams, and are the go to guys for their teams in playoffs the first names that come to mind are the ones mentioned above. Garland has that type of game.

[johnnyvann840]

I find what Rui did to team Australia (who are grown men and have a couple NBA players) last year incredibly impressive for a 20 year that is still relatively new to the game.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

I find him to be a very impressive young man.

I'm trying to imagine growing up in Japan and being a baseball player, then changing sports when you're 13-14 years old and picking up a basketball for the first time.... then a few years later having to take the SAT 5 times, because of translation issues, and actually scoring high enough to fulfill a basketball scholarship to Gonzaga, ....then arriving in Spokane, WA still not being able to speak hardly any English and needing a translator just to get coaching instruction. Becoming fluent in English in a couple of years time.

Then, leading your team to a 33-4 record and the Elite 8 giving Texas Tech all they could handle. I watch him play and I love his motor and attitude (and his feel for the game despite contrary opinions on that). I read that BS article in Fansided about how he doesn't have any feel for the game and I had to shake my head. I've been watching a lot of him and it sure looks to me like he has a pretty solid feel for the game. He does get lost on D sometimes, but he also makes some really good defensive plays and shows a LOT of potential on that end. Has good timing. He moves his feet extremely well. Great shooting touch. Uses his body and strength really well against opponents. Has a real knack for scoring. I just think he is being underrated by a lot of people.

Anyway, I'm rooting for the kid to prove his doubters wrong and I'm also betting he is going to do just that. I wouldn't be at all upset if the Bulls surprised us and picked him early. He is going to be a cash cow too. Whatever team he winds up on is going to sell a lot of jerseys in Japan.

[johnnyvann840]

This is the mock draft before the start of the college season. It’s funny how so much can change in 1 year. 7 of the top 9 pojected picks will be available for the Bulls at 7. In my opinion getting rid of the one and done rule is a big mistake. If anything it should be raised to 2 years. Expect a lot of projects and busts once high school kids can jump straight to the NBA.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2789663-way-too-soon-2019-nba-mock-draft-rj-barrett-early-favorite-to-go-no-1.amp.html

The most remarkable thing about this, IMO, is Darius Garland. How on earth does a kid go from 14 to top 5 after getting hurt bad enough to miss almost his entire freshman season? He only plays in 5 games, mostly against pretty weak opponents (the majority if his highlights are from games against Winthrop, Alcorn St., Liberty and Kent St.) Is this a case of benefiting from NOT playing? What could cause this kind of ascension from just 5 games in just a few months. He was good in those games but not great. I mean here's a point guard who averaged just 2.6 assists per game, got fairly seriously injured enough to miss the rest of the season, which you would think would hurt somebody's stock, yet somehow he rises up to high lottery. Is just because of all the guys who did play the whole season and didn't meet expectations, falling?

Don't get me wrong, I like what I've seen from him. Like his handle and he sure looks like he can shoot, but he wasn't just dominating or anything. I mean he had an impressive 3 pt FG%, but he only took a TOTAL of 23 three pointers in his entire collegiate career, had a total of 13 assists, and he did turn the ball over at an alarming rate with more turnovers than assists. So, how did these 5 measly games against weak comp where he was really just "OK", take him from being mocked at 14 to 20 preseason, all the way to the top? It's baffling to me.

I think it's because how he was scoring and the plays we was able to make are easily translatable to the NBA game. The way he plays is similar to what the lead All Star guards of today play like (Lillard/Curry/Irving/Kemba). He is a legitimate threat to pull up from 25-30 ft. His shot is all one smooth motion and looks the same whether its from 15 or 30. He is able to create separation with a multitude of hesitation moves, dribble pull ups, step backs. Splits double teams fairly well. Can score from all three levels as his dribbling and quickness allow him to get to the rim and finish creatively around the basket. He is slight and probably will look to avoid heavy contact at the NBA level, and he needs to get stronger, but what Freshman doesn't need to get stronger. And he looks to be equally effective with creating his own shot off the dribble or off a catch a shoot. Sports are copycat leagues. As mentioned before when you look at the guards who are making All Star teams, All NBA teams, and are the go to guys for their teams in playoffs the first names that come to mind are the ones mentioned above. Garland has that type of game.

Wow. That is a hell of a lot to learn about a player from 5 games, 4 being against small schools. Is that your analysis or did you read that somewhere? Just curious. What about the fact that he averaged 4.3 TO's per 40 to just 3.7 assists? I know he's a scoring guard but he only averaged 16 PPG. Steph Curry averaged like 30 at Davidson and didn't have a negative ATO ratio. Dame averaged almost 30 PPG and 7 assists also in college with a solid ATO. Those guys also played for 3 and 4 years in college and were much more finished products. With Garland you're just assuming not just this "translation" but a whole lot of things that he has to become. He might turn out great but I still think he's a pretty big gamble. Then we have the fact that he tore up his knee after just 5 games in college. I know, it could happen to anyone. But, it is a concern.

Just playing devils advocate here. I just think he's a riskier pick than a lot people seem to think. But, hey, he's already in bed with LeGM, so the Lakers will likely be the team taking that risk which is OK with me. I'll be happy if that happens and we get Hunter. I won't be upset if we get Garland, it will certainly be fun to watch him play. He's got some swag.

[cjbulls]

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."

BR:

In a draft filled with questionable prospects, Culver's high upside combined with low risk makes him an exciting prospect.

Stepien:

At the end of the day, I fully believe Culver is worth the #2 pick in the draft.

I mean there are also reports of the Knicks considering him at 3. A lot of people feel he has high upside. It's ok if you don't, but other people do.

The point I was making about your statement is that you were ascribing a consensus view when it doesn't exist. On the consensus mock draft, Hunter is above Culver, including Bleacher Report, whose quote you cited. And your Stepien quote came from an article that made multiple efforts to say Culver isn't a great prospect, this draft class is just poor. The consensus is that they are relatively similar on floor/ceiling which is why their projections fall so close together.

[NewEra21]

The most remarkable thing about this, IMO, is Darius Garland. How on earth does a kid go from 14 to top 5 after getting hurt bad enough to miss almost his entire freshman season? He only plays in 5 games, mostly against pretty weak opponents (the majority if his highlights are from games against Winthrop, Alcorn St., Liberty and Kent St.) Is this a case of benefiting from NOT playing? What could cause this kind of ascension from just 5 games in just a few months. He was good in those games but not great. I mean here's a point guard who averaged just 2.6 assists per game, got fairly seriously injured enough to miss the rest of the season, which you would think would hurt somebody's stock, yet somehow he rises up to high lottery. Is just because of all the guys who did play the whole season and didn't meet expectations, falling?

Don't get me wrong, I like what I've seen from him. Like his handle and he sure looks like he can shoot, but he wasn't just dominating or anything. I mean he had an impressive 3 pt FG%, but he only took a TOTAL of 23 three pointers in his entire collegiate career, had a total of 13 assists, and he did turn the ball over at an alarming rate with more turnovers than assists. So, how did these 5 measly games against weak comp where he was really just "OK", take him from being mocked at 14 to 20 preseason, all the way to the top? It's baffling to me.

I think it's because how he was scoring and the plays we was able to make are easily translatable to the NBA game. The way he plays is similar to what the lead All Star guards of today play like (Lillard/Curry/Irving/Kemba). He is a legitimate threat to pull up from 25-30 ft. His shot is all one smooth motion and looks the same whether its from 15 or 30. He is able to create separation with a multitude of hesitation moves, dribble pull ups, step backs. Splits double teams fairly well. Can score from all three levels as his dribbling and quickness allow him to get to the rim and finish creatively around the basket. He is slight and probably will look to avoid heavy contact at the NBA level, and he needs to get stronger, but what Freshman doesn't need to get stronger. And he looks to be equally effective with creating his own shot off the dribble or off a catch a shoot. Sports are copycat leagues. As mentioned before when you look at the guards who are making All Star teams, All NBA teams, and are the go to guys for their teams in playoffs the first names that come to mind are the ones mentioned above. Garland has that type of game.

Wow. That is a hell of a lot to learn about a player from 5 games, 4 being against small schools. Is that your analysis or did you read that somewhere? Just curious. What about the fact that he averaged 4.3 TO's per 40 to just 3.7 assists? I know he's a scoring guard but he only averaged 16 PPG. Steph Curry averaged like 30 at Davidson and didn't have a negative ATO ratio. Dame averaged almost 30 PPG and 7 assists also in college with a solid ATO. Those guys also played for 3 and 4 years in college and were much more finished products. With Garland you're just assuming not just this "translation" but a whole lot of things that he has to become. He might turn out great but I still think he's a pretty big gamble. Then we have the fact that he tore up his knee after just 5 games in college. I know, it could happen to anyone. But, it is a concern.

Just playing devils advocate here. I just think he's a riskier pick than a lot people seem to think. But, hey, he's already in bed with LeGM, so the Lakers will likely be the team taking that risk which is OK with me. I'll be happy if that happens and we get Hunter. I won't be upset if we get Garland, it will certainly be fun to watch him play. He's got some swag.

Yea man, it is a hell of a lot to learn. The fact that I was able to see it all from 5 games maybe should say something. Using the small school thing excuse is pretty funny too considering you then mention Steph Curry and Dame Lillard who went to freaking Davidson and Weber State. Were they just padding their stats against small schools too? Curry and Lillard were also upper class men who had developed their games. Curry ATO ratio was just 1:1 or barely over his first two years. Albeit not negative, but not that much better. When Lillard was a senior he eventually was able to put up 24.5 ppg and 4 assists pg. Very impressive, but not close the #s you threw out there. When Lillard was a junior he averaged 17.7 ppg and 3.3 assists pg. But Garland can't be as good because he only put up a measly 16 as a freshman?

The draft is all about projection. Its all about what you think a guy can accomplish once he gets to the NBA. Obviously Garland has to make better decisions with the ball, but he's only 19 years old. The flashes of skill and traits that he showed project him have similar games that of Lillard and Curry. That is why he is projected to go so high and the Bulls would be lucky to have him.

Edit: I actually dont want to even mention Curry because he is too unreal of a player and people will take that comparison and run with it. Realistically I could very well see Garland having a Kemba Walker like impact. The gold standard being Irving/Lillard if he reaches full potential. We could do a lot worse.

[johnnyvann840]

Yea man, it is a hell of a lot to learn. The fact that I was able to see it all from 5 games maybe should say something. Using the small school thing excuse is pretty funny too considering you then mention Steph Curry and Dame Lillard who went to freaking Davidson and Weber State. Were they just padding their stats against small schools too? Curry and Lillard were also upper class men who had developed their games. Curry ATO ratio was just 1:1 or barely over his first two years. Albeit not negative, but not that much better. When Lillard was a senior he eventually was able to put up 24.5 ppg and 4 assists pg. Very impressive, but not close the #s you threw out there. When Lillard was a junior he averaged 17.7 ppg and 3.3 assists pg. But Garland can't be as good because he only put up a measly 16 as a freshman?

The draft is all about projection. Its all about what you think a guy can accomplish once he gets to the NBA. Obviously Garland has to make better decisions with the ball, but he's only 19 years old. The flashes of skill and traits that he showed project him have similar games that of Lillard and Curry. That is why he is projected to go so high and the Bulls would be lucky to have him.

Where do I say that Garland can't be as good as anybody? I'm just saying he's a lot riskier than what Curry or Lillard were after being upperclassmen at their respective schools. We saw their progression. With Garland you're just betting on the come. Which might very well happen... it's just not apples to apples with Curry or Lillard. And sorry, I was mistaken about Dames dimes. I was looking at Curry's per 40 assists.

Look, I'm not down on Garland, I'm just not as sure about him as a lot of people are. Saying a player is a bigger risk than some others (like even Coby White, who I'm not that high on- not as down as some are- but he's coming off of an impressive season at UNC) He's definitely got skills. He's got a motor and a handle and seems to be one of the best shooters in the draft. But, again it's a really small sample in games. A lot of guys can shoot lights out for 5 games, or in a workout. Now, if he did that over a few seasons it would be a little more convincing.

Of course the draft is about projections, Cap'n obvious. I'm simply saying that we are projecting an awful lot on a kid that hasn't really proven much up to this point. I will admit I am impressed watching some of his game footage. He moves and changes speeds and directions really well and like you pointed out seems to be a versatile scorer. He is really slight of build and he's going to have to get a lot stronger to be effective in the NBA on all three levels.

Garland is that home run swing that everybody talks about. But, not as sure a thing as some are making him out to be. It sure seems like the Lakers are locking in on him though, so it's doubtful he falls to the Bulls, anyway.

[NDave79]

This video is kind of cool, imo.

It shows highlights and gives recaps of Rui last year in Fiba basically dominating grown men.

Then after he is being celebrated at mid court, he points to his family and gets the entire crowd to sing happy birthday to his little sister, lol.

Watch on YouTube

[Chi town]

Hunter Garland or White will be there at 7.

Lakers take Culver then Suns have their pick of PGs. We take who they don’t.

Think Suns have White over Garland. If Lakers don’t pick him then he falls to us.

Think Cavs have Culver as their guy.

I think Hunter will be our pick with Garland going 4 and White 6.

Hunter is a immediate impact player and he alleviates our need for a vet big man. He immediately backs up Otto and Lauri and IMO he pushes Lauri to all the backup C mins. Hunter is a really good defender and he’d be an even better fit defensively at PF. Otto is good at PF but I question his body holding up there.

I see Hunter getting 28mpg with 10 at SF and 18 at PF.

[logical_art]

Of course the Bulls are picking 7th in a draft where the top 6 prospects are clearly a notch above rest for me.

Hopefully the rest of the league doesn't see it that way.

[TheSuzerain]

We should trade down with a team that needs to consolidate like the Celtics.

[NewEra21]

Yea man, it is a hell of a lot to learn. The fact that I was able to see it all from 5 games maybe should say something. Using the small school thing excuse is pretty funny too considering you then mention Steph Curry and Dame Lillard who went to freaking Davidson and Weber State. Were they just padding their stats against small schools too? Curry and Lillard were also upper class men who had developed their games. Curry ATO ratio was just 1:1 or barely over his first two years. Albeit not negative, but not that much better. When Lillard was a senior he eventually was able to put up 24.5 ppg and 4 assists pg. Very impressive, but not close the #s you threw out there. When Lillard was a junior he averaged 17.7 ppg and 3.3 assists pg. But Garland can't be as good because he only put up a measly 16 as a freshman?

The draft is all about projection. Its all about what you think a guy can accomplish once he gets to the NBA. Obviously Garland has to make better decisions with the ball, but he's only 19 years old. The flashes of skill and traits that he showed project him have similar games that of Lillard and Curry. That is why he is projected to go so high and the Bulls would be lucky to have him.

Where do I say that Garland can't be as good as anybody? I'm just saying he's a lot riskier than what Curry or Lillard were after being upperclassmen at their respective schools. We saw their progression. With Garland you're just betting on the come. Which might very well happen... it's just not apples to apples with Curry or Lillard. And sorry, I was mistaken about Dames dimes. I was looking at Curry's per 40 assists.

Look, I'm not down on Garland, I'm just not as sure about him as a lot of people are. Saying a player is a bigger risk than some others (like even Coby White, who I'm not that high on- not as down as some are- but he's coming off of an impressive season at UNC) He's definitely got skills. He's got a motor and a handle and seems to be one of the best shooters in the draft. But, again it's a really small sample in games. A lot of guys can shoot lights out for 5 games, or in a workout. Now, if he did that over a few seasons it would be a little more convincing.

Of course the draft is about projections, Cap'n obvious. I'm simply saying that we are projecting an awful lot on a kid that hasn't really proven much up to this point. I will admit I am impressed watching some of his game footage. He moves and changes speeds and directions really well and like you pointed out seems to be a versatile scorer. He is really slight of build and he's going to have to get a lot stronger to be effective in the NBA on all three levels.

Garland is that home run swing that everybody talks about. But, not as sure a thing as some are making him out to be. It sure seems like the Lakers are locking in on him though, so it's doubtful he falls to the Bulls, anyway.

Come on man, no one is making Garland out to be a sure thing. The only sure thing in this draft is Zion. 99% of draft picks are a risk for a myriad of reasons. By your logic we should be looking at every junior and senior that put up big #s.