2022 NBA Draft - Prospects Discussion

[emunney]

All this obsession with "going small" and "switching everything" continues to ignore the things that you sacrifice if you don't have the perfect personnel equipped to do it (rim protection, rebounding). Would've thought we learned that after the disastrous Semi Ojeleye experiment where the front office just assumed they could replace PJ with any 6'6 guy with a pulse who's also built like a fire hydrant.

That's not even a defense for drafting Kessler (I wouldn't), but using that same rationale to dismiss any non-floor spacing 5 next to Giannis is exactly how you draft a bust or mediocre end-of-bench guy because he fits "a role" and are blindly focused on a specific player archetype. That's why I wouldn't hesitate to move up and draft a dude like Mark Williams if the opportunity presents itself. Brook regressing to a 31-32% 3PT shooter since his first season under Bud hasn't had a detrimental effect on spacing and the overall offense at all.

Also, the game changes and a little imagination goes a long way. It's not like switching everything is the terminal point of basketball evolution. There will be a response.

[skbucks1985]

KOC's latest mock has the Bucks going McGowens.

McGowens has to me one of the biggest gaps between his ceiling and his floor. He played on a god-awful team with god-awful coaching and took so many bad shots. But there's definitely a world where had he not decommitted from FSU and played under a much better coach in Leonard Hamilton and they made a Sweet 16 run and McGowens is a top 10 pick, because he has that type of talent.

[SirChurros]

All this obsession with "going small" and "switching everything" continues to ignore the things that you sacrifice if you don't have the perfect personnel equipped to do it (rim protection, rebounding). Would've thought we learned that after the disastrous Semi Ojeleye experiment where the front office just assumed they could replace PJ with any 6'6 guy with a pulse who's also built like a fire hydrant.

That's not even a defense for drafting Kessler (I wouldn't), but using that same rationale to dismiss any non-floor spacing 5 next to Giannis is exactly how you draft a bust or mediocre end-of-bench guy because he fits "a role" and are blindly focused on a specific player archetype. That's why I wouldn't hesitate to move up and draft a dude like Mark Williams if the opportunity presents itself. Brook regressing to a 31-32% 3PT shooter since his first season under Bud hasn't had a detrimental effect on spacing and the overall offense at all.

I also think Mark Williams could become a decent three shooter in a pinch. He hit like 5 of 7 jumpers last (obviously a tiny sample size) season at Duke and his shot doesn’t look awful. Also improved a lot at the line.

[MickeyDavis]

Read on Twitter

[CharityStripe34]

All this obsession with "going small" and "switching everything" continues to ignore the things that you sacrifice if you don't have the perfect personnel equipped to do it (rim protection, rebounding). Would've thought we learned that after the disastrous Semi Ojeleye experiment where the front office just assumed they could replace PJ with any 6'6 guy with a pulse who's also built like a fire hydrant.

That's not even a defense for drafting Kessler (I wouldn't), but using that same rationale to dismiss any non-floor spacing 5 next to Giannis is exactly how you draft a bust or mediocre end-of-bench guy because he fits "a role" and are blindly focused on a specific player archetype. That's why I wouldn't hesitate to move up and draft a dude like Mark Williams if the opportunity presents itself. Brook regressing to a 31-32% 3PT shooter since his first season under Bud hasn't had a detrimental effect on spacing and the overall offense at all.

Also, the game changes and a little imagination goes a long way. It's not like switching everything is the terminal point of basketball evolution. There will be a response.

I've always wondered why a team doesn't go the other way and bludgeon other teams with size. Refs can't protect smaller post defenders ALL the time, can they? There has to be a scenario where guys can actually take advantage of mismatches on the wings/block (after a switch especially) without the refs and Hubie Brown ready to faint at some contact...right??

[James1980]

It would be nice to pick up another pick at the end of the first round or beginning of the second.

[BucksFanSD]

All this obsession with "going small" and "switching everything" continues to ignore the things that you sacrifice if you don't have the perfect personnel equipped to do it (rim protection, rebounding). Would've thought we learned that after the disastrous Semi Ojeleye experiment where the front office just assumed they could replace PJ with any 6'6 guy with a pulse who's also built like a fire hydrant.

That's not even a defense for drafting Kessler (I wouldn't), but using that same rationale to dismiss any non-floor spacing 5 next to Giannis is exactly how you draft a bust or mediocre end-of-bench guy because he fits "a role" and are blindly focused on a specific player archetype. That's why I wouldn't hesitate to move up and draft a dude like Mark Williams if the opportunity presents itself. Brook regressing to a 31-32% 3PT shooter since his first season under Bud hasn't had a detrimental effect on spacing and the overall offense at all.

I also think Mark Williams could become a decent three shooter in a pinch. He hit like 5 of 7 jumpers last (obviously a tiny sample size) season at Duke and his shot doesn’t look awful. Also improved a lot at the line.

Mark Williams' PER is off the chart. For guys like him, you wonder if being on a good team like Duke held him back, and if so, he might be the steal of the draft.

[Licensed to Il]

All this obsession with "going small" and "switching everything" continues to ignore the things that you sacrifice if you don't have the perfect personnel equipped to do it (rim protection, rebounding). Would've thought we learned that after the disastrous Semi Ojeleye experiment where the front office just assumed they could replace PJ with any 6'6 guy with a pulse who's also built like a fire hydrant.

That's not even a defense for drafting Kessler (I wouldn't), but using that same rationale to dismiss any non-floor spacing 5 next to Giannis is exactly how you draft a bust or mediocre end-of-bench guy because he fits "a role" and are blindly focused on a specific player archetype. That's why I wouldn't hesitate to move up and draft a dude like Mark Williams if the opportunity presents itself. Brook regressing to a 31-32% 3PT shooter since his first season under Bud hasn't had a detrimental effect on spacing and the overall offense at all.

Also, the game changes and a little imagination goes a long way. It's not like switching everything is the terminal point of basketball evolution. There will be a response.

I've always wondered why a team doesn't go the other way and bludgeon other teams with size. Refs can't protect smaller post defenders ALL the time, can they? There has to be a scenario where guys can actually take advantage of mismatches on the wings/block (after a switch especially) without the refs and Hubie Brown ready to faint at some contact...right??

I think in a vacuum what you are saying is very true. Its an argument I've made for two years as to the importance of keeping Brook on the roster. But the two things that really work against "going big" are pace and refereeing. Even if you are patient on offense, find mismatches, and really good at converting normal field goals that takes a lot more time and thus you get fewer opportunities than the team jacking up a three in the first 10 seconds. You are getting less of something that is less valuable, while your opponent is getting more of something that is more valuable. The other reason, refereeing, I mean how many times in the last two playoffs have we anticipated a major advantage with Brook going against some 6'8 scrub and then the refs just whistle him with two junk fouls in the first quarter and now that's off the table? I do think the league is intentionally doing everything in its power to get teams to go small, fast, and chasing >115 points a game.

But I'm with you and Ron, basketball always evolves, and there is going to be a counter swing. The days of a center getting 15 post touches a game and your power forward getting 15+ on the block are gone. But it will never not be an advantage to be tall.

[CharityStripe34]

Per the Mark Williams discussion, I'd personally be fine going all in on a super-athletic Twin Towers approach if the kid has the potential for versatility on both sides. I'd die on that hill of zagging when everyone's zigging for a full roster of 6'7" wing players.

[tydett]

KOC's latest mock has the Bucks going McGowens.

McGowens has to me one of the biggest gaps between his ceiling and his floor. He played on a god-awful team with god-awful coaching and took so many bad shots. But there's definitely a world where had he not decommitted from FSU and played under a much better coach in Leonard Hamilton and they made a Sweet 16 run and McGowens is a top 10 pick, because he has that type of talent.

Man, forget Bryce, dude made his bed to go chuck at Nebraska with his brother.

(Definitely not bitter)

[CharityStripe34]

Also, the game changes and a little imagination goes a long way. It's not like switching everything is the terminal point of basketball evolution. There will be a response.

I've always wondered why a team doesn't go the other way and bludgeon other teams with size. Refs can't protect smaller post defenders ALL the time, can they? There has to be a scenario where guys can actually take advantage of mismatches on the wings/block (after a switch especially) without the refs and Hubie Brown ready to faint at some contact...right??

I think in a vacuum what you are saying is very true. Its an argument I've made for two years as to the importance of keeping Brook on the roster. But the two things that really work against "going big" are pace and refereeing. Even if you are patient on offense, find mismatches, and really good at converting normal field goals that takes a lot more time and thus you get fewer opportunities than the team jacking up a three in the first 10 seconds. You are getting less of something that is less valuable, while your opponent is getting more of something that is more valuable. The other reason, refereeing, I mean how many times in the last two playoffs have we anticipated a major advantage with Brook going against some 6'8 scrub and then the refs just whistle him with two junk fouls in the first quarter and now that's off the table? I do think the league is intentionally doing everything in its power to get teams to go small, fast, and chasing >115 points a game.

But I'm with you and Ron, basketball always evolves, and there is going to be a counter swing. The days of a center getting 15 post touches a game and your power forward getting 15+ on the block are gone. But it will never not be an advantage to be tall.

I'm not even thinking of Brook specifically, who's too "old" and slow to really punish smaller defenders (he's also not necessarily super strong). But pairing the Best Player Alive with a younger, mobile 6'10-11" ish big who has some versatility could potentially punish a lot of these cute tiny teams. Especially if said big is athletic and can run the floor. Obviously easier said than done but the Bucks could potentially be the team to push in that direction philosophically.

[emunney]

KOC's latest mock has the Bucks going McGowens.

McGowens has to me one of the biggest gaps between his ceiling and his floor. He played on a god-awful team with god-awful coaching and took so many bad shots. But there's definitely a world where had he not decommitted from FSU and played under a much better coach in Leonard Hamilton and they made a Sweet 16 run and McGowens is a top 10 pick, because he has that type of talent.

Man, forget Bryce, dude made his bed to go chuck at Nebraska with his brother.

(Definitely not bitter)

Of all the guys I've seen, I think McGowens is the most creative finisher. For as skinny as he is, he's also extremely aggressive and not contact shy in the slightest, plus he's got really good body control. At the same time, he looks like he's playing hustle/21 out there instead of 5s. Wouldn't even say he's necessarily an unskilled passer, just massive tunnel vision a lot of the time -- I think Spinella diagnosed it as he's playing too fast off the dribble but I'm not sure it's that simple. And the defense is far too often atrocious. He is really a gifted scorer, though, and it'll be fun to root for him in the SL when he's putting up Jerryd Bayless numbers.

[machu46]

Once again, he’s not one of the guys I’m hoping for, but I remember someone had mentioned how bad Kessler looked against Miami, a team that went small and he struggled immensely, going 0/6 from the field and getting benched after like 13 minutes or something.

On the flipside, LSU also often went small last year, putting Tari Eason at C. Kessler absolutely dominated the game against LSU with a triple double, including blocking Eason alone 3 times.

https://youtu.be/zYETdW7q2JM


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[German Athens]

I think in a vacuum what you are saying is very true. Its an argument I've made for two years as to the importance of keeping Brook on the roster. But the two things that really work against "going big" are pace and refereeing. Even if you are patient on offense, find mismatches, and really good at converting normal field goals that takes a lot more time and thus you get fewer opportunities than the team jacking up a three in the first 10 seconds. You are getting less of something that is less valuable, while your opponent is getting more of something that is more valuable. The other reason, refereeing, I mean how many times in the last two playoffs have we anticipated a major advantage with Brook going against some 6'8 scrub and then the refs just whistle him with two junk fouls in the first quarter and now that's off the table? I do think the league is intentionally doing everything in its power to get teams to go small, fast, and chasing >115 points a game.

But I'm with you and Ron, basketball always evolves, and there is going to be a counter swing. The days of a center getting 15 post touches a game and your power forward getting 15+ on the block are gone. But it will never not be an advantage to be tall.

Head to head, though, the opponent playing at a faster pace doesn’t get more possessions than you. If you take over 20 seconds to get a shot and they take 10, it’s still going to be about the same by the end of the game.

I think pace matters in that you can generate good looks in transition and early offense that aren’t always there once the defense is properly set.

The refereeing part I agree with, and it frustrates me quite a bit at times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BucksFanSD]

Per the Mark Williams discussion, I'd personally be fine going all in on a super-athletic Twin Towers approach if the kid has the potential for versatility on both sides. I'd die on that hill of zagging when everyone's zigging for a full roster of 6'7" wing players.

Cavs looked great last year with their twin towers. They were blowing teams out when healthy.

[emunney]

Per the Mark Williams discussion, I'd personally be fine going all in on a super-athletic Twin Towers approach if the kid has the potential for versatility on both sides. I'd die on that hill of zagging when everyone's zigging for a full roster of 6'7" wing players.

Cavs looked great last year with their twin towers. They were blowing teams out when healthy.

If both bigs are mobile, like the Cavs guys, there's really no reason to expect it to not work defensively. The problem then is potentially not getting enough shooting on the court, and it's just a question of whether you can offset that elsewhere (offensive rebounding most likely).

[Ruben Quevedo]

Also, the game changes and a little imagination goes a long way. It's not like switching everything is the terminal point of basketball evolution. There will be a response.

I've always wondered why a team doesn't go the other way and bludgeon other teams with size. Refs can't protect smaller post defenders ALL the time, can they? There has to be a scenario where guys can actually take advantage of mismatches on the wings/block (after a switch especially) without the refs and Hubie Brown ready to faint at some contact...right??

I think in a vacuum what you are saying is very true. Its an argument I've made for two years as to the importance of keeping Brook on the roster. But the two things that really work against "going big" are pace and refereeing. Even if you are patient on offense, find mismatches, and really good at converting normal field goals that takes a lot more time and thus you get fewer opportunities than the team jacking up a three in the first 10 seconds. You are getting less of something that is less valuable, while your opponent is getting more of something that is more valuable. The other reason, refereeing, I mean how many times in the last two playoffs have we anticipated a major advantage with Brook going against some 6'8 scrub and then the refs just whistle him with two junk fouls in the first quarter and now that's off the table? I do think the league is intentionally doing everything in its power to get teams to go small, fast, and chasing >115 points a game.

But I'm with you and Ron, basketball always evolves, and there is going to be a counter swing. The days of a center getting 15 post touches a game and your power forward getting 15+ on the block are gone. But it will never not be an advantage to be tall.

Turnovers and transition D is a big part of it. Entry passes take time and are not easy to execute...then you have defenses swarming and the shot clock winding down, it seems to lead to a lot of turnovers....and now your slower bigs are underneath the basket while the opponent is racing the other way 5 on 3.

I too like the idea of going bigger, but you need smart guys who take care of the ball and will bust a gut to get back on defense.

[CharityStripe34]

Per the Mark Williams discussion, I'd personally be fine going all in on a super-athletic Twin Towers approach if the kid has the potential for versatility on both sides. I'd die on that hill of zagging when everyone's zigging for a full roster of 6'7" wing players.

Cavs looked great last year with their twin towers. They were blowing teams out when healthy.

If both bigs are mobile, like the Cavs guys, there's really no reason to expect it to not work defensively. The problem then is potentially not getting enough shooting on the court, and it's just a question of whether you can offset that elsewhere (offensive rebounding most likely).

Warriors also had lineups with Draymond and Looney on the floor, flanked by Curry/Klay/Poole. Something like a three-guard(ish) lineup around Gianni and another athletic big could work.

[Ruben Quevedo]

Also, "good" size is very good. "Bad" size is very very bad.

[MVP2110]

I'll say NBADraft.net nails our pick again but I'll guess it's a trade down. 24 & George Hill to Indiana for 31, 58, and a future 2nd.