Moderators: HomoSapien, AshyLarrysDiaper, coldfish, Payt10, Ice Man, dougthonus, Michael Jackson, Tommy Udo 6 , kulaz3000, fleet, DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat, RedBulls23
Axolotl wrote:For the life of me, I just can't wrap my head around Cam Reddish. When he does basketball things, he looks like someone decided to build a great basketball player, and came up with Cam. But when he plays basketball, it looks like whoever built Cam didn't know what a basketball player is supposed to actually do. Like a carpenter, who builds a violin with only a picture of a violin to guide him. The end result is gorgeous but unplayable.
KevinPandawong wrote:cjbulls wrote:KevinPandawong wrote:
I don't presume to know, I'm not in his camp. My guess would be, his agent felt confident in their ability to land workouts with teams in the 2nd half of the lotto. Why is the suspicion solely on NAW when mostly none of his peers participated either?
I cited two above-average athletes that have nothing to hide that are nowhere near top-8 projections, outliers to the 2 groups you defined that skipped measurements. Of the 58 combine participants, I'd be surprised if 1/5 of them end up drafted in the 1st round.
I'll help you. It's because he wasn't going to test well. It's weird for you to argue the point vehemently when you say you don't presume to know why he wouldn't test.
It seems you don't understand what point I'm contending then. You asserted that NAW didn't participate because he's afraid of the results; I counter-claimed that he isn't hiding, that it's not a red-flag choosing to skip those measurements much like his other peers projected in the top half of the 1st round. Literally go ask anyone if they find it concerning that NAW wasn't measured, I'm pretty sure most would agree its status-quo for prospects in his range.
I don't presume to know his camps' reasons, because I am not the one that advised him to skip those measurements. How are you so certain that he skipped because he wasn't going to test well? Were you in the room when that was decided? Do you have a report of someone close to NAW or his agency stating that? More than likely, that's a presumption you made of your own and without any grounding other than your 'eye-test'. I offered a guess, one I find most probable, but I'm not going to spout off my opinion as fact. So thanks but no thanks on the "help".
coldfish wrote:DanTown8587 wrote:kodo wrote:While not really endorsing White myself, I'm surprised by the negativity around him.
Per minute, which is the only type of stat I think should be used for comparison of players, has White performing well along with other freshmen PGs recently.
Per 36 minutes
White: 20.3 ppg 5.2 apg 3.0 3PM 1.4 SPG 3.4 TO
D.Fox: 20.3 ppg 5.6 apg 0.5 3PM 1.8 SPG 2.0 TO
J.Murray: 20.5 ppg 2.2 apg 3.1 3PM 1.0 SPG 2.4 TO
D.Russell: 20.5 ppg 5.3 apg 2.7 3PM 1.7 SPG 3.1 TO
Logical question - why is per minute analysis a good measure? Wouldn't per possession be a better metric to compare since a guy playing in a significantly faster or slower paced system is going to look way better/worse?
Per 100
White: 29.6 points / 7.5 assists / 4.3 3s on .353% / 2.0 steals / 4.9 TO
Fox: 30.4 points / 8.3 assists / 0.9 3s on .252% / 2.7 steals / 4.4 TO
Murray (we calling him a PG now? On a team that started Tyler Ullis?): 33.3 points / 3.7 assists / 5.2 3s on .408% / 1.6 steals / 3.9 TO
Russell: 34.4 points / 8.9 assists (10.8 rebounds as well) / 4.8 3s on .411% / 2.8 steals / 5.2 TO
So here's the thing about those guys: Murray is wildly inconsistent and showed a pretty decent advantage on scoring (let's not forgot was a good defender + excellent rebounder); Russell was a #2 pick who flashed a little bit of everything in a way that I don't see how anyone could compare Russell's time at OSU to whatever White was at UNC; and Fox was a guy who wanted to score downhill (either it be the drive or the fast break) which is most similar to White's best playing and would be the most logical comp of these three but Fox also had massive improvement to his game.
My main problem with comps in terms of outcomes (besides the obvious survivor bias) is that player development at the NBA level is a random thing. In two of these cases (Russell and Fox) you would argue there was quite significant player development that occurred for them to become contributors as pros. That's impossible to put on anyone in the evaluation process.
Good post but I would disagree about the development thing. Some players want to be great and are willing to put the work in while taking advice. Others aren't. While I would argue that its hard for us to identify which people are going to develop and which ones aren't, NBA front offices have access to a lot more information than us. Its obviously not a perfect process, you can learn about the kids' character and work ethic and form a guess.
Its not easy to do though because everyone is going to want to sell you on the kid. Interviewing is a difficult skill but for those who are good at it, you stand a fair chance of weeding out the people you don't want. The Bulls seem to be generally good at weeding out the guys who aren't going to put in the effort. Its to the point where their draft decisions have pissed a lot of people off because they go for the try hard types so much.
JohnnyTapwater wrote:Michael Redd shot 31% from 3 in college.
Shot 38% from 3 in the NBA.
He's a virgo.
This is a case for the, 19 year old virgo, Cam Reddish.
I don't see why it's not plausible that he would improve with that repeatable stroke. He's going to mature mentally and work on it. I can guarantee that.
DanTown8587 wrote:
NBA teams can but unless someone here is truly sourced or we get a one off indicator, it’s nearly impossible for any of us to predict future work ethic. Didn’t mean NBA evaluations when I said it but rather our evaluations.
Red Larrivee wrote:JohnnyTapwater wrote:Michael Redd shot 31% from 3 in college.
Shot 38% from 3 in the NBA.
He's a virgo.
This is a case for the, 19 year old virgo, Cam Reddish.
I don't see why it's not plausible that he would improve with that repeatable stroke. He's going to mature mentally and work on it. I can guarantee that.
Michael Redd was drafted in the second round. He's one of the all-time second round steals. Cam Reddish is going to be selected in the lottery.
Every selling point about Cam seems to rely on hoping he becomes an anomaly. That just isn't a good thought process. There's a long list of talented players who had ideal physical tools, but were poor at actually playing basketball. We traded LaMarcus Aldridge for one of them.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
coldfish wrote:DanTown8587 wrote:
NBA teams can but unless someone here is truly sourced or we get a one off indicator, it’s nearly impossible for any of us to predict future work ethic. Didn’t mean NBA evaluations when I said it but rather our evaluations.
Agreed there. We should almost couch all of our posts on the draft with a qualifier: "If his background and interviews indicate he will work on the flaws of his game."
I've never really seen a draft like this. Virtually every prospect has some pretty big holes in his game all the way up to Zion. After Ja, they become rather significant. OTOH, there are a lot of players that have interesting physical profiles or backgrounds. I suspect that there will be a lot of gems in this draft 3-4 years from now and busts too. The guys that do well will be the ones that put in the work.
I sure hope that Pax doesn't put blinders on. Don't take a player just because he looks like he might fit with the current team. Its almost to the point where I wouldn't take BPA. I would go for the guy who looks like the one who is going to bust his rear to improve the most as long as his physical profile is NBA capable. The Jimmy Butler of the group.
cjbulls wrote:Red Larrivee wrote:JohnnyTapwater wrote:Michael Redd shot 31% from 3 in college.
Shot 38% from 3 in the NBA.
He's a virgo.
This is a case for the, 19 year old virgo, Cam Reddish.
I don't see why it's not plausible that he would improve with that repeatable stroke. He's going to mature mentally and work on it. I can guarantee that.
Michael Redd was drafted in the second round. He's one of the all-time second round steals. Cam Reddish is going to be selected in the lottery.
Every selling point about Cam seems to rely on hoping he becomes an anomaly. That just isn't a good thought process. There's a long list of talented players who had ideal physical tools, but were poor at actually playing basketball. We traded LaMarcus Aldridge for one of them.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Why does the fact he's projected to be drafted high change his comp? So if Milwaukee took him 14th that year you'd stop making this silly point? Perhaps teams have learned from past mistakes and can ignore freshman year stats as such a large factor in an evaluation.
Tyrus Thomas failed because of his attitude, not because of his talents.
No one is relying on an anomaly. There's a vast history of players taken because they possessed NBA traits and not having anything to do with their numbers.
panthermark wrote:cjbulls wrote:Red Larrivee wrote:
Michael Redd was drafted in the second round. He's one of the all-time second round steals. Cam Reddish is going to be selected in the lottery.
Every selling point about Cam seems to rely on hoping he becomes an anomaly. That just isn't a good thought process. There's a long list of talented players who had ideal physical tools, but were poor at actually playing basketball. We traded LaMarcus Aldridge for one of them.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Why does the fact he's projected to be drafted high change his comp? So if Milwaukee took him 14th that year you'd stop making this silly point? Perhaps teams have learned from past mistakes and can ignore freshman year stats as such a large factor in an evaluation.
Tyrus Thomas failed because of his attitude, not because of his talents.
No one is relying on an anomaly. There's a vast history of players taken because they possessed NBA traits and not having anything to do with their numbers.
It matters because we are picking 7th.
I would be perfectly fine taking Reddish at #38....or even #18....but he won't be there.
MeloRoseNoah wrote:Jvaughn wrote:taj2133 wrote:
Honestly that's who his game style reminds me of much. Obviously not as good a shooter yet, but a better athlete and is willing to play defense. Not a bad get for mid to late lottery.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2815563-kevin-porter-jr-suspended-indefinitely-by-usc-due-to-personal-conduct-issues
Except that Kevin Porter Jr is a head case, who doesn't get to the free throw lines and only shoots free throws at 50%. Those are huge differences.
He's more like Lance Stephenson than James Harden.
spearsy23 wrote:Kobe is a low percentage chucker just like Jennings, he's just better at it.
teamCHItown wrote:Now we have threads on what violent felons think of our Bulls. Great. Next up, OJ Simpson's take on a possible Taj Gibson extension.
cjbulls wrote:Why does the fact he's projected to be drafted high change his comp? So if Milwaukee took him 14th that year you'd stop making this silly point? Perhaps teams have learned from past mistakes and can ignore freshman year stats as such a large factor in an evaluation.
Tyrus Thomas failed because of his attitude, not because of his talents.
No one is relying on an anomaly. There's a vast history of players taken because they possessed NBA traits and not having anything to do with their numbers.
Axolotl wrote:For the life of me, I just can't wrap my head around Cam Reddish. When he does basketball things, he looks like someone decided to build a great basketball player, and came up with Cam. But when he plays basketball, it looks like whoever built Cam didn't know what a basketball player is supposed to actually do. Like a carpenter, who builds a violin with only a picture of a violin to guide him. The end result is gorgeous but unplayable.
cjbulls wrote:Red Larrivee wrote:JohnnyTapwater wrote:Michael Redd shot 31% from 3 in college.
Shot 38% from 3 in the NBA.
He's a virgo.
This is a case for the, 19 year old virgo, Cam Reddish.
I don't see why it's not plausible that he would improve with that repeatable stroke. He's going to mature mentally and work on it. I can guarantee that.
Michael Redd was drafted in the second round. He's one of the all-time second round steals. Cam Reddish is going to be selected in the lottery.
Every selling point about Cam seems to rely on hoping he becomes an anomaly. That just isn't a good thought process. There's a long list of talented players who had ideal physical tools, but were poor at actually playing basketball. We traded LaMarcus Aldridge for one of them.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Why does the fact he's projected to be drafted high change his comp? So if Milwaukee took him 14th that year you'd stop making this silly point? Perhaps teams have learned from past mistakes and can ignore freshman year stats as such a large factor in an evaluation.
Tyrus Thomas failed because of his attitude, not because of his talents.
No one is relying on an anomaly. There's a vast history of players taken because they possessed NBA traits and not having anything to do with their numbers.
Red Larrivee wrote:cjbulls wrote:Why does the fact he's projected to be drafted high change his comp? So if Milwaukee took him 14th that year you'd stop making this silly point? Perhaps teams have learned from past mistakes and can ignore freshman year stats as such a large factor in an evaluation.
Tyrus Thomas failed because of his attitude, not because of his talents.
No one is relying on an anomaly. There's a vast history of players taken because they possessed NBA traits and not having anything to do with their numbers.
There isn't a vast number of players who bombed in college like Reddish and went on to become really good NBA players. Reddish has the statistical profile of a player who should barely be drafted.
The problem with ignoring college tape is that it's a dumb process. Should you ignore every other players tape as well? This is the highest level of competition any of these players have faced. It's a meaningful sample size.
Thomas failed not only because of attitude, but because of motor, work ethic, basketball IQ, decision-making and feel for the game. Some of these were factors that were apparent during college for him. The Bulls hoped it would improve and it didn't. There is a long, long list of players who fit this description.
Your stance seems to be that physical traits are the most important aspects of creating NBA stars, which couldn't be further from the truth. This earlier reply is a spot-on analogy of Reddish:Axolotl wrote:For the life of me, I just can't wrap my head around Cam Reddish. When he does basketball things, he looks like someone decided to build a great basketball player, and came up with Cam. But when he plays basketball, it looks like whoever built Cam didn't know what a basketball player is supposed to actually do. Like a carpenter, who builds a violin with only a picture of a violin to guide him. The end result is gorgeous but unplayable.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
CoreyVillains wrote:
Culver really is a tough prospect to gauge. On one hand, he has every tool you’d want a player of his size to have. He has that secondary creator ability. Very good in the p&r. I almost like him for a lot of the reasons I like Garland. On the other hand, his shot is super broke. Really really broke. To me though he has a lot of Iggy potential as a guy who can do a little bit of everything on both sides of the ball but won’t ever lead your team as a number one option.
coldfish wrote:DanTown8587 wrote:
NBA teams can but unless someone here is truly sourced or we get a one off indicator, it’s nearly impossible for any of us to predict future work ethic. Didn’t mean NBA evaluations when I said it but rather our evaluations.
Agreed there. We should almost couch all of our posts on the draft with a qualifier: "If his background and interviews indicate he will work on the flaws of his game."
I've never really seen a draft like this. Virtually every prospect has some pretty big holes in his game all the way up to Zion. After Ja, they become rather significant. OTOH, there are a lot of players that have interesting physical profiles or backgrounds. I suspect that there will be a lot of gems in this draft 3-4 years from now and busts too. The guys that do well will be the ones that put in the work.
I sure hope that Pax doesn't put blinders on. Don't take a player just because he looks like he might fit with the current team. Its almost to the point where I wouldn't take BPA. I would go for the guy who looks like the one who is going to bust his rear to improve the most as long as his physical profile is NBA capable. The Jimmy Butler of the group.
Jcool0 wrote:aguifs wrote:Do we have a friggin plan?
If the Bulls do, you would be complaining to much to ever hear it.
sh0ck wrote:CoreyVillains wrote:
Culver really is a tough prospect to gauge. On one hand, he has every tool you’d want a player of his size to have. He has that secondary creator ability. Very good in the p&r. I almost like him for a lot of the reasons I like Garland. On the other hand, his shot is super broke. Really really broke. To me though he has a lot of Iggy potential as a guy who can do a little bit of everything on both sides of the ball but won’t ever lead your team as a number one option.
Absolutely see this as well! The more I see clips of him play the more I see him as Andre Iguodala (which would be an amazing career for him).
One leg up I would say Culver has is his touch around the rim coming out of college. Although Iggy was a monster dunker early in his career, one of his weaknesses (still to this day) was his lack of touch. But he was so physically gifted that it didn't really prevent him from being a positive offensive player throughout his career (along with above average passing ability). Culver's ability to finish with either hand and ability to draw fouls could add another element to his game that would offset his streaky three point shooting.
Andre's had quite a great career (1x All-Star, 2x All-Defense, 1x Finals MVP), I would absolutely take that at #7 in this year's draft. He's the perfect complementary player to what the Bulls currently have in place too. If Culver is there at #7, man, that would be a blessing.
Hangtime84 wrote:coldfish wrote:DanTown8587 wrote:
NBA teams can but unless someone here is truly sourced or we get a one off indicator, it’s nearly impossible for any of us to predict future work ethic. Didn’t mean NBA evaluations when I said it but rather our evaluations.
Agreed there. We should almost couch all of our posts on the draft with a qualifier: "If his background and interviews indicate he will work on the flaws of his game."
I've never really seen a draft like this. Virtually every prospect has some pretty big holes in his game all the way up to Zion. After Ja, they become rather significant. OTOH, there are a lot of players that have interesting physical profiles or backgrounds. I suspect that there will be a lot of gems in this draft 3-4 years from now and busts too. The guys that do well will be the ones that put in the work.
I sure hope that Pax doesn't put blinders on. Don't take a player just because he looks like he might fit with the current team. Its almost to the point where I wouldn't take BPA. I would go for the guy who looks like the one who is going to bust his rear to improve the most as long as his physical profile is NBA capable. The Jimmy Butler of the group.
That’s exactly where I’m at too. So many guys with holes I would pay attention to players past improvement paths and personality work ethics for me I’m high on Rui