IKR. Feel the same way.Solid Snake wrote:damn....it's so close, damn near snuck up on me
Sent from my VS501 using RealGM mobile app
Moderators: Knightro, Howard Mass, UCFJayBird, Def Swami, ChosenSavior, SOUL, UCF
IKR. Feel the same way.Solid Snake wrote:damn....it's so close, damn near snuck up on me
Def Swami wrote:MartinsIzAfraud wrote:Decent friends with a couple VT basketball dudes and one buddy said if NAW is there at 16 NAW feels good he would be the pick.
Also worth noting Justin Robinson and Ahmed Hill both worked out for Magic on Friday. NAW was with them but didn’t work out.
DSJ wept.
Ducklett wrote:You have to take the player with the highest upside. Be that Porter, Langford, or Johnson. You can't take a specialist like Herro or a low ceiling, high floor like NAW when the team doesn't have a superstar. You gotta go for the fences and hope to god we find the next Mitchell, SGA, etc.
Ducklett wrote:You have to take the player with the highest upside. Be that Porter, Langford, or Johnson. You can't take a specialist like Herro or a low ceiling, high floor like NAW when the team doesn't have a superstar. You gotta go for the fences and hope to god we find the next Mitchell, SGA, etc.
Viper1500 wrote:Ducklett wrote:You have to take the player with the highest upside. Be that Porter, Langford, or Johnson. You can't take a specialist like Herro or a low ceiling, high floor like NAW when the team doesn't have a superstar. You gotta go for the fences and hope to god we find the next Mitchell, SGA, etc.
Agree, give me Langford
p0peye wrote:What heighest ceiling are we talking about? Those kind of guys went dozen picks ahead.
In teens you pick most skilled player you can find, give him room and patience and hope for the best.
Blue_and_Whte wrote:Viper1500 wrote:Ducklett wrote:You have to take the player with the highest upside. Be that Porter, Langford, or Johnson. You can't take a specialist like Herro or a low ceiling, high floor like NAW when the team doesn't have a superstar. You gotta go for the fences and hope to god we find the next Mitchell, SGA, etc.
Agree, give me Langford
Langford’s the next Lance Stephenson who also got tons of hype.
Skin wrote:p0peye wrote:What heighest ceiling are we talking about? Those kind of guys went dozen picks ahead.
In teens you pick most skilled player you can find, give him room and patience and hope for the best.
Guys like Kevin Porter Jr. Oozes athleticism, explosion, flashes scoring skillset of go to scorers....yet possesses an unrefined game. Can be a better decision maker, improve shot selection, become more consistent... love that despite all that he still shot 40% from 3.
NotACat wrote:Skin wrote:p0peye wrote:What heighest ceiling are we talking about? Those kind of guys went dozen picks ahead.
In teens you pick most skilled player you can find, give him room and patience and hope for the best.
Guys like Kevin Porter Jr. Oozes athleticism, explosion, flashes scoring skillset of go to scorers....yet possesses an unrefined game. Can be a better decision maker, improve shot selection, become more consistent... love that despite all that he still shot 40% from 3.
But also only 50% from the FT line
dsg2021 wrote:I think athleticism is starting to become proven as less important than length and the potential to fit/improve in the NBA game. I look at NAW who has good length, and good fit for the NBA, I see the cousin of a player who already made a big stamp in the league as a rookie (SGA), who was also a "late 11th" pick. Sure, maybe SGA and NAW are capped at not being 1st Team All-NBA'ers because of athleticism, but to reach the impact of someone like Donovan Mitchell, or a next 3x All Star, who says why not?!
If you're not taking a BPA with franchise cornerstone potential/ceiling, then you gotta value what "system drafters" like SAS and DEN have done, taking players who fit into their system of offense/culture. This is the kind of drafting that has a way of breaking the "ceilings" of players, anyways. All of a sudden, the "low ceiling/good fit" player averaging 16 ppg and 3 apg ended up as the better BPA than the "BPA with star potential".. debate over, son
*Honest note: I haven't seen basically anything on NAW, or anyone, this draft. It's more of a conceptual argument dating back to my OP on GM philosophies and theories
tiderulz wrote:dsg2021 wrote:I think athleticism is starting to become proven as less important than length and the potential to fit/improve in the NBA game. I look at NAW who has good length, and good fit for the NBA, I see the cousin of a player who already made a big stamp in the league as a rookie (SGA), who was also a "late 11th" pick. Sure, maybe SGA and NAW are capped at not being 1st Team All-NBA'ers because of athleticism, but to reach the impact of someone like Donovan Mitchell, or a next 3x All Star, who says why not?!
If you're not taking a BPA with franchise cornerstone potential/ceiling, then you gotta value what "system drafters" like SAS and DEN have done, taking players who fit into their system of offense/culture. This is the kind of drafting that has a way of breaking the "ceilings" of players, anyways. All of a sudden, the "low ceiling/good fit" player averaging 16 ppg and 3 apg ended up as the better BPA than the "BPA with star potential".. debate over, son
*Honest note: I haven't seen basically anything on NAW, or anyone, this draft. It's more of a conceptual argument dating back to my OP on GM philosophies and theories
anyone think VanVleet was super athletic? and yet he gave Curry fits and was balling out on offense. he doesnt really have length either
tiderulz wrote:dsg2021 wrote:I think athleticism is starting to become proven as less important than length and the potential to fit/improve in the NBA game. I look at NAW who has good length, and good fit for the NBA, I see the cousin of a player who already made a big stamp in the league as a rookie (SGA), who was also a "late 11th" pick. Sure, maybe SGA and NAW are capped at not being 1st Team All-NBA'ers because of athleticism, but to reach the impact of someone like Donovan Mitchell, or a next 3x All Star, who says why not?!
If you're not taking a BPA with franchise cornerstone potential/ceiling, then you gotta value what "system drafters" like SAS and DEN have done, taking players who fit into their system of offense/culture. This is the kind of drafting that has a way of breaking the "ceilings" of players, anyways. All of a sudden, the "low ceiling/good fit" player averaging 16 ppg and 3 apg ended up as the better BPA than the "BPA with star potential".. debate over, son
*Honest note: I haven't seen basically anything on NAW, or anyone, this draft. It's more of a conceptual argument dating back to my OP on GM philosophies and theories
anyone think VanVleet was super athletic? and yet he gave Curry fits and was balling out on offense. he doesnt really have length either
OrlandoNed wrote:tiderulz wrote:dsg2021 wrote:I think athleticism is starting to become proven as less important than length and the potential to fit/improve in the NBA game. I look at NAW who has good length, and good fit for the NBA, I see the cousin of a player who already made a big stamp in the league as a rookie (SGA), who was also a "late 11th" pick. Sure, maybe SGA and NAW are capped at not being 1st Team All-NBA'ers because of athleticism, but to reach the impact of someone like Donovan Mitchell, or a next 3x All Star, who says why not?!
If you're not taking a BPA with franchise cornerstone potential/ceiling, then you gotta value what "system drafters" like SAS and DEN have done, taking players who fit into their system of offense/culture. This is the kind of drafting that has a way of breaking the "ceilings" of players, anyways. All of a sudden, the "low ceiling/good fit" player averaging 16 ppg and 3 apg ended up as the better BPA than the "BPA with star potential".. debate over, son
*Honest note: I haven't seen basically anything on NAW, or anyone, this draft. It's more of a conceptual argument dating back to my OP on GM philosophies and theories
anyone think VanVleet was super athletic? and yet he gave Curry fits and was balling out on offense. he doesnt really have length either
VanVleet had success vs Curry because of his foot speed and lateral quickness. You don't have be super athletic against him. You're not racing Curry, you are staying glued to him.
tiderulz wrote:OrlandoNed wrote:tiderulz wrote:anyone think VanVleet was super athletic? and yet he gave Curry fits and was balling out on offense. he doesnt really have length either
VanVleet had success vs Curry because of his foot speed and lateral quickness. You don't have be super athletic against him. You're not racing Curry, you are staying glued to him.
then why do so many other teams have problems guarding him?
Ducklett wrote:You have to take the player with the highest upside. Be that Porter, Langford, or Johnson. You can't take a specialist like Herro or a low ceiling, high floor like NAW when the team doesn't have a superstar. You gotta go for the fences and hope to god we find the next Mitchell, SGA, etc.