BostonCouchGM wrote:Bleeding Green wrote:BostonCouchGM wrote:always funny seeing Mocks with Stanley in the middle of the 2nd round. For a supposed weak draft there sure is a lot of talent to be had deep into the 2nd! He's so similar to Jaylen. He doesn't have as much length but he's a better athlete. He's a better shooter than Jaylen was in college both from three and the FT line. Same height. Same on ball defender. Jaylen was bigger and longer but that is mitigated somewhat by Stanley being quicker and a better leaper. I don't get how Jaylen could go #3 in a "better" draft but Stanley is a mid second rounder.
Cue pearl clutchers triggered by me comparing a 6'6" elite athlete Stanley who shot 36% from three to their Lord and savior Jaylen Brown
He probably went earlier due to five inches of wingspan, being a full year younger, showing ability to get to the rim, to the free throw line. Jaylen Brown was an elite freshman guard at getting to the rim and had a significantly higher usage rate than Cassius Stanley. And that ability to get to the rim and draw contact is Brown's best offensive attribute, though he has obviously shown great leaps in his shooting ability too, and really he's improved a **** ton every season across the board. I'm no scout, but it's hard to project a freshman guard with a 21 usg rate as being equivalent to Jaylen Brown without massive leaps in handle, strength, first step, finishing ability, etc. If Jaylen Brown had a poor work ethic he'd just be a JAG, but he's improved in all areas of his game since he was drafted so comparing freshman Brown to freshman Stanley I don't really get unless Stanely has the same work ethic that Brown appears to have (and maybe he does).
Stanley looks good, though, I wouldn't be upset at taking him at 30 if Bey, Tillman and Maledon are all gone by then. And at 47 he's an easy draft. I'd rather end up with Stanley than someone like Desmond Bane, Malachi Flynn or Tre Jones for sure.
Thanks for the measured response.
Jaylen Brown
14-5-2 with three turnovers a game because his handle, like now, was abysmal. He shot 29% from three on three attempts and 65% FT on six attempts. He had just .8 steals a game and .6 blocks per game and 3 fouls per. The reason he was high usage and got to the rim so much more is because he was a chucker on a terrible team playing for a terrible coach and head and shoulders more talented than the scrubs he played with. They essentially let him do whatever he wanted and he certainly did.
Cassius Stanley
13-5-1 with two turnovers a game. He shot 36% from three on 3 attempts and 73% FT on less than 4 attempts. He had .7 steals a game and a .7 blocks per game with 2 fouls per. So apparently those 4.5 less inches didn't hurt him much on the defensive end. I''m sure if he played for a bad program and coach he could have had a much higher usage rate and gotten to the line a couple more times per game but there were other mouths to feed at Duke.
Watching them both play in college, they're both exciting athletes who can play above the rim, have great on ball defense, and were elite in transition. I found Jaylen to be the typical low BBIQ athlete with tantalizing measurables with high upside and high floor. He was a smart pick although I wanted Jamal Murray who is clearly better. Jaylen has developed into a 3 and D and that's okay. I know people on here especially think he's so much more but they are objectively wrong. His handle is suspect and he'll never be the initiator on offense nor great shooting off the dribble with volume. It's just not who he is. And that's okay because Danny prudently didn't overpay for him. Stanley always struck me as being capable of more and held back by the aging and ever increasingly overrated Coach K. He always leaped off the screen due to his athleticism and I was always surprised, like I was with Tatum, that Coach K didn't showcase him more and let him go off. Like with Jaylen, I don't envision Stanley ever leading an offense but he's clearly going to be a good 3 and D.
So again, besides some size and length, we're looking at close to the same level of prospect except one went #3 overall and was mocked in the top 10 by all the "experts" despite his flaws on the court and one is projected in the middle of the second round seemingly because he lacks elite wingspan and wasn't allowed to be a chucker at Duke. I don't get it.
This is just more proof to me that this is an underrated draft if Stanley is considered a mid-second rounder. Danny has interviewed him though I can't see how he'd fit in with us since Jaylen is locked up for years and he just drafted Langford. But maybe there's a trade involving Langford so Stanley is someone they're thinking of should that happen. It's also more proof that these people making a living off of draft prognostication are hacks.
Your hardon for Jaylen is really interesting. He is a very efficient scorer on very good usage rate. How you have him pegged as strictly a 3 and D is a real **** take from my perspective. He's 23 and has improved so much in his time in the NBA. How many 23 year old 3+D players have a 58 TS% on 25 USG%? If there are a lot, the Celtics should be looking to acquiring them. And then we can stop calling them 3 and D players. You aren't a 3+D specialist if your usage rate is 25%. I don't even consider myself a Jaylen Brown fan but your takes on him are hilarious. Always gets a laugh.
Besides some size, length, strength, huge difference in FTA/FGA, usage rate, age, he had nothing on Cassius Stanley. And then he improved on all those things in the NBA. I hope Stanley follows the same path.
I agree this draft is very underrated with a lot of crap players being mocked higher than they should, while more interesting prospects are mocked late first or mid-second. I see Maledon mocked at 25+ in many mocks and I want to fall out of my chair. Paul Reed and Udoka Azubuike in the first makes me want to bust out laughing too.
. Obviously these are anecdotal but I'm convinced these do play a part in determining the likelihood a player will excel at certain things. Hard work can overcome some limitations but it's better to not have to. 
