consensus big board -- who is #27?

[azcatz11]

Mannion or LaMelo?

Not sure if you're asking which of these two I'd take higher but Lamelo. I was saying this is a bit below where I'd consider Jones (I started voting for him early/mid 20s).

Oh, okay. You didn't state a player so I thought you were just jumping in on the Mannion v. Conley conversation that somehow turned into a LaMelo discussion.

I'm not going to pretend like I know anything about scouting but I feel like Sean Miller doesn't help when it comes to defense...I feel like he preaches a pack line model but doesn't care if guys are out of position constantly.

[getrichordie]

...

Just admit you can't handle the heat, man.

You resort to incorrectly stating that LaMelo is #1 on my big board. The fact that you even brought him up at all just tells me you don't have a good rebuttal for my Mannion criticisms.

Just admit it. Your Conley v. Mannion take was really bad.

i think you're confused tbh but have at it

LMAO

Man you really resort to anything when the discussion isn't going your way.

[getrichordie]

Not sure if you're asking which of these two I'd take higher but Lamelo. I was saying this is a bit below where I'd consider Jones (I started voting for him early/mid 20s).

Oh, okay. You didn't state a player so I thought you were just jumping in on the Mannion v. Conley conversation that somehow turned into a LaMelo discussion.

I'm not going to pretend like I know anything about scouting but I feel like Sean Miller doesn't help when it comes to defense...I feel like he preaches a pack line model but doesn't care if guys are out of position constantly.

Even if that is the case, there's enough evidence to show Mannion is a bad defender.

[clyde21]

Just admit you can't handle the heat, man.

You resort to incorrectly stating that LaMelo is #1 on my big board. The fact that you even brought him up at all just tells me you don't have a good rebuttal for my Mannion criticisms.

Just admit it. Your Conley v. Mannion take was really bad.

i think you're confused tbh but have at it

LMAO

Man you really resort to anything when the discussion isn't going your way.

why would a continue a discussion with a dude that has no idea what the discussion is about?

[Catchall]

At this point in the draft, I'm starting to get interested in Tyrell Terry.

Honestly haven't watched Terry in a while... but what does he do better than Crutcher?

He had a dramatically more productive freshman season. Kudos to Crutcher for breaking out this year as a junior though.

[getrichordie]

At this point in the draft, I'm starting to get interested in Tyrell Terry.

Honestly haven't watched Terry in a while... but what does he do better than Crutcher?

He had a dramatically more productive freshman season. Kudos to Crutcher for breaking out this year as a junior though.

Oh, no doubt. I just meant in a vacuum. Where Crutcher is at v. where Terry is at right now, what does Terry do better?

[getrichordie]

i think you're confused tbh but have at it

LMAO

Man you really resort to anything when the discussion isn't going your way.

why would a continue a discussion with a dude that has no idea what the discussion is about?

Pretty certain it's the other way around.

You don't understand the difference between my Butler take and my Mannion take? Maybe you have forgotten what I said about Butler. IDK. I can't speak to what you are thinking, only what you are posting. I have absolutely nothing against 6'3 guards. What I do have a problem is people catapulting prospects because they are 6'3 with questionable skill sets as it pertains to how well they will translate to the NBA.

Somehow, during this discussion about Mannion, you've singled out that I pointed out Mannion is 6'3" when it was more about his translatable skill set only having vision + IQ. You've also managed to compare Mannion to Conley when it had ZERO relation to the question I asked and when I pointed out the difference between the prospects, you pivoted and ducked my counterargument. After that, or maybe somewhere in between, you also managed to falsely state that Ball was on my #1 board.

So I'm well aware of the discussion being had. Are you? Because you keep bringing up stuff that isn't pertinent at all in an effort to change the topic or fluff up your theory that I have something against 6'3" guards when I'm clearly higher on Crutcher and Flynn than most, but you choose to ignore that for some strange reason.

Lastly, dude -- it's okay to be wrong. Just accept it and move on.

[clyde21]

LMAO

Man you really resort to anything when the discussion isn't going your way.

why would a continue a discussion with a dude that has no idea what the discussion is about?

Pretty certain it's the other way around.

You don't understand the difference between my Butler take and my Mannion take? Maybe you have forgotten what I said about Butler. IDK. I can't speak to what you are thinking, only what you are posting. I have absolutely nothing against 6'3 guards. What I do have a problem is people catapulting prospects because they are 6'3 with questionable skill sets as it pertains to how well they will translate to the NBA.

Somehow, during this discussion about Mannion, you've singled out that I pointed out Mannion is 6'3" when it was more about his translatable skill set only having vision + IQ. You've also managed to compare Mannion to Conley when it had ZERO relation to the question I asked and when I pointed out the difference between the prospects, you pivoted and ducked my counterargument. After that, or maybe somewhere in between, you also managed to falsely state that Ball was on my #1 board.

So I'm well aware of the discussion being had. Are you? Because you keep bringing up stuff that isn't pertinent at all in an effort to change the topic or fluff up your theory that I have something against 6'3" guards when I'm clearly higher on Crutcher and Flynn than most, but you choose to ignore that for some strange reason.

Lastly, dude -- it's okay to be wrong. Just accept it and move on.

you're coming up with a random, arbitrary threshold, as if 6'3 is some type of make or break threshold for PGs...it's completely untrue, i just gave you huge list of PGs just TODAY that top of their position and are 6'3 and under, and have become stars based on their own skill sets regardless of their height...you're not making any sense.

and the part that you CLEARLY don't understand and I already explained to you but chose to ignore, I was NOT comparing Mannion to Conley, I was giving you a list of PGs that are successful who happened to be 6'3 and under...the fact that your response was the elementary CaNt BeLieVe U CoMpArEd NiCo to CoNLeY is why you're not understanding this conversation.

also...what am I wrong about? i just disputed your stupid 6'3 threshold, haven't even made a claim to be 'wrong'

[getrichordie]

Spoiler:

why would a continue a discussion with a dude that has no idea what the discussion is about?

Pretty certain it's the other way around.

You don't understand the difference between my Butler take and my Mannion take? Maybe you have forgotten what I said about Butler. IDK. I can't speak to what you are thinking, only what you are posting. I have absolutely nothing against 6'3 guards. What I do have a problem is people catapulting prospects because they are 6'3 with questionable skill sets as it pertains to how well they will translate to the NBA.

Somehow, during this discussion about Mannion, you've singled out that I pointed out Mannion is 6'3" when it was more about his translatable skill set only having vision + IQ. You've also managed to compare Mannion to Conley when it had ZERO relation to the question I asked and when I pointed out the difference between the prospects, you pivoted and ducked my counterargument. After that, or maybe somewhere in between, you also managed to falsely state that Ball was on my #1 board.

So I'm well aware of the discussion being had. Are you? Because you keep bringing up stuff that isn't pertinent at all in an effort to change the topic or fluff up your theory that I have something against 6'3" guards when I'm clearly higher on Crutcher and Flynn than most, but you choose to ignore that for some strange reason.

Lastly, dude -- it's okay to be wrong. Just accept it and move on.

you're coming up with a random, arbitrary threshold, as if 6'3 is some type of make or break threshold for PGs...it's completely untrue, i just gave you huge list of PGs just TODAY that top of their position and are 6'3 and under, and have become stars based on their own skill sets regardless of their height...you're not making any sense.

and the part that you CLEARLY don't understand and I already explained to you but chose to ignore, I was NOT comparing Mannion to Conley, I was giving you a list of PGs that are successful who happened to be 6'3 and under...the fact that your response was the elementary CaNt BeLieVe U CoMpArEd NiCo to CoNLeY is why you're not understanding this conversation.

also...what am I wrong about? i just disputed your stupid 6'3 threshold, haven't even made a claim to be 'wrong'

It's like talking to a brick wall.

Your question (below) is a textbook definition of a comparative question.

what does/did Conley have that Nico doesn't?

And I have never ever stated that 6'3" is a threshold. Somehow, you've got that ingrained in your brain and now it's some talking point that you have invented. I have stated that I don't think Butler is 6'3" and that I don't think his skillset translates all that well to the NBA. But keep chewing on that bone if it tastes good, dawg.

You are latching on to my one note that I made about him not being 6'3" and blowing it out of proportion.

[hugepatsfan]

Cool. Mannion has vision. When has 6'3 vision ever been enough to be a starter?

If his shooting skill set improves a good bit, he could be a fine backup.

But what else does he bring to the table?

lol if you have to ask...
not sure if you were watching reruns of scooby when Zona played or what but it's clear he is one of the highest iq true point guard prospects in the entire class top to bottom. Only knocks I see are he needs to get stronger like most one and done guards to handle bigger NBA defenders and to be able to defend on switches. I think he is probably an offensive guard at best for a couple of seasons so for that reason it's fair to lower his stock to the late lottery to early 20 range because he is not starter material at any one thing yet besides his first step and reading defenses but those 2 things alone are enough to start on a lottery team while he gets stronger.
I would not think most orgs have him ranked that much behind the lottery projected points in this class tbh.

So, he's got a good first step and good vision/IQ. So-so shooter and so-so defensively? Do I have that right?

From what I've seen/read about him I'd say he's more of a good shooter than so-so. Seems to be one of those guys who would benefit from NBA spacing and shoot better in the pros than in college.

Defensively though he projects to be very bad. Not athletic enough and not long enough.

I actually think he's a good Boston guy with one of our 3 picks. We need a backup PG. Stevens has always schemed for bad defensive PGs. I think he projets well here.

[No-Man]

Jones and Bolmaro again

[Stillwater]

lol if you have to ask...
not sure if you were watching reruns of scooby when Zona played or what but it's clear he is one of the highest iq true point guard prospects in the entire class top to bottom. Only knocks I see are he needs to get stronger like most one and done guards to handle bigger NBA defenders and to be able to defend on switches. I think he is probably an offensive guard at best for a couple of seasons so for that reason it's fair to lower his stock to the late lottery to early 20 range because he is not starter material at any one thing yet besides his first step and reading defenses but those 2 things alone are enough to start on a lottery team while he gets stronger.
I would not think most orgs have him ranked that much behind the lottery projected points in this class tbh.

So, he's got a good first step and good vision/IQ. So-so shooter and so-so defensively? Do I have that right?

From what I've seen/read about him I'd say he's more of a good shooter than so-so. Seems to be one of those guys who would benefit from NBA spacing and shoot better in the pros than in college.

Defensively though he projects to be very bad. Not athletic enough and not long enough.

I actually think he's a good Boston guy with one of our 3 picks. We need a backup PG. Stevens has always schemed for bad defensive PGs. I think he projets well here.

the pre back spasm issue shooting numners were actually elite. only somone predetermined to undervalue him would say otherwise.
I agree he is not the type of prospect from a physical standpoint that projects to be a great defender, but despite the avg length the lateral speed is fine the IQ is high enough already for him to play good help defense when he wants to etc.
I think it's shortsighted by some of the posters to assume he is a finished product without enoug ceiling to justify a higher ranking.
The level of IQ and passing ability is as good or better than 90% of the guards in the draft, that alone IS enough of a reason to buy into his future, add the shooting %'s before the spasms and the biggest hurdle for him is getting a clean medical report out to orgs before the draft , without that he could fall significantly or worse of the report is not promising... but I am guessing he will be fine and prove a lot of people wrong in a few years. Not a beleiver in any of these guards being great defenders not Ball,not Hayes not Anthony, so I really doubt it will matter much

[Stillwater]

lol if you have to ask... not sure if you were watching reruns of scooby when Zona played or what but it's clear he is one of the highest iq true point guard prospects in the entire class top to bottom. Only knocks I see are he needs to get stronger like most one and done guards to handle bigger NBA defenders and to be able to defend on switches. I think he is probably an offensive guard at best for a couple of seasons so for that reason it's fair to lower his stock to the late lottery to early 20 range because he is not starter material at any one thing yet besides his first step and reading defenses but those 2 things alone are enough to start on a lottery team while he gets stronger. I would not think most orgs have him ranked that much behind the lottery projected points in this class tbh.

So, he's got a good first step and good vision/IQ. So-so shooter and so-so defensively? Do I have that right?

Haven't seen that much of him but he definitely doesn't have a first step that's going to do anything for him at the next level, not getting where that idea comes from. And he doesn't just 'need to get stronger'--he'll be outright small for a point that isn't a plus athlete at all. He also doesn't have any particular way to score, isn't a good driver (and seems to sorta suck as a finisher) and doesn't have a money stepback or pull-up or anything else.

Wrong wrong wrong and wrong again buddy...try hitting rewind iand learn from this little sample before the back spasm issue.

Watch on YouTube