2016-2017 College Basketball / '17 NBA Draft Thread

[Unbreakable99]

The only thing Fultz has going against him being the top pick is the same thing Simmons did. If he's doing this stuff at Duke or on a "winning" team, then it's not really a doubt. His numbers are insane for a freshman PG tasked with doing it all. Or if he's just in a weaker class, it's easier to just say "well duh he's the first pick" like it was with Simmons. This class is dope.

He's the only player right now who has shown both via numbers and scouting that he has a crystal clear path to being a two-way star. He's the first guard to be the projected first pick in many years. It's hard to compare him to other first picks because guys like Towns and Davis are locks, and they're bigs. Either way, he's easily above any other guard that has come out in the last 5 drafts. He's maybe the first top pick at guard that seems like a given since maybe Derrick Rose? Kyrie was a top pick, but there wasn't a body of work, and that draft was a perceived mess at the top. John Wall is another maybe but again easy to make some arguments there. Could even be AI in some universe. Regardless, he's the most complete PG prospect to come out in at least 5 years, and it's probably even longer than that.

-Amazing numbers with high usage
-Good shooting numbers from deep and mid range.
-Adjusted numbers of over 2 steals a game, over a block a game, and almost 8 FTs a game.
-All the hype goes to his offense (as it should) but he already looks like the best defender at PG not named Frank the Frenchman. He can be a clear plus at that position and has good size for the PG spot.
-Can play both with and without the ball and excel at both
-He is a perfectly good athlete: the FT numbers, usage, assist numbers, finishing numbers all support it.

He has zero of the questions that Jackson and Tatum have (or Giles), and he certainly has none of the same sort of questions Ball and Smith have -- there is a chasm of difference between Fultz's main weaknesses and those guys' weaknesses at this point. Smith and Ball, while I like both, have HUGE qualifiers to them. If you're going to hold Jackson's shooting against him, both Smith and Ball have things that can potentially hold them back just as much.

I agree that things can change and someone else could step up, but I think it sort of belittles what Fultz is doing to say he's not clearly in his own tier based on the body of work in the past and present, especially factoring in the scouting aspect of how quick his learning curve has been along the way.

PS, don't forget Fultz is young for his class and only turned 18 in May, hence why he got to run with the U18 team again.

I wouldn't be so quick to call him a two way star. I'm not sure he will be great on defense. He may but I don't think so. I don't see him being a liability on D though. Jackson is old for the class but he is a two way player. I don't. Like that he can't shoot either but he's a clear cut two way player. I don't think Fultz is he clear cut number one. There are a few on his level.

[LloydFree]

The only thing Fultz has going against him being the top pick is the same thing Simmons did. If he's doing this stuff at Duke or on a "winning" team, then it's not really a doubt. His numbers are insane for a freshman PG tasked with doing it all. Or if he's just in a weaker class, it's easier to just say "well duh he's the first pick" like it was with Simmons. This class is dope.

He's the only player right now who has shown both via numbers and scouting that he has a crystal clear path to being a two-way star. He's the first guard to be the projected first pick in many years. It's hard to compare him to other first picks because guys like Towns and Davis are locks, and they're bigs. Either way, he's easily above any other guard that has come out in the last 5 drafts. He's maybe the first top pick at guard that seems like a given since maybe Derrick Rose? Kyrie was a top pick, but there wasn't a body of work, and that draft was a perceived mess at the top. John Wall is another maybe but again easy to make some arguments there. Could even be AI in some universe. Regardless, he's the most complete PG prospect to come out in at least 5 years, and it's probably even longer than that.

-Amazing numbers with high usage
-Good shooting numbers from deep and mid range.
-Adjusted numbers of over 2 steals a game, over a block a game, and almost 8 FTs a game.
-All the hype goes to his offense (as it should) but he already looks like the best defender at PG not named Frank the Frenchman. He can be a clear plus at that position and has good size for the PG spot.
-Can play both with and without the ball and excel at both
-He is a perfectly good athlete: the FT numbers, usage, assist numbers, finishing numbers all support it.

He has zero of the questions that Jackson and Tatum have (or Giles), and he certainly has none of the same sort of questions Ball and Smith have -- there is a chasm of difference between Fultz's main weaknesses and those guys' weaknesses at this point. Smith and Ball, while I like both, have HUGE qualifiers to them. If you're going to hold Jackson's shooting against him, both Smith and Ball have things that can potentially hold them back just as much.

I agree that things can change and someone else could step up, but I think it sort of belittles what Fultz is doing to say he's not clearly in his own tier based on the body of work in the past and present, especially factoring in the scouting aspect of how quick his learning curve has been along the way.

PS, don't forget Fultz is young for his class and only turned 18 in May, hence why he got to run with the U18 team again.

No it's not the same thing. Simmons played against higher level of competition over the course of the college season and physically dominated his peers in HS. Fultz has not done that yet. More importantly it's not really about the numbers when projecting prospects, IMO. It's about the skills, athleticism and body control they show. The only numbers I really check on prospects are Rebounds, Steals, Blocks and FT℅. Those are the predictive stats, and I only look at those after I've seen the player play against other NBA prospects. Declaring a prospect as can't miss because he hit some 3's against Cal-Poly or the U of Hawaii, is not something that I'd do generally.

[Slizeezyc]

The only thing Fultz has going against him being the top pick is the same thing Simmons did. If he's doing this stuff at Duke or on a "winning" team, then it's not really a doubt. His numbers are insane for a freshman PG tasked with doing it all. Or if he's just in a weaker class, it's easier to just say "well duh he's the first pick" like it was with Simmons. This class is dope.

He's the only player right now who has shown both via numbers and scouting that he has a crystal clear path to being a two-way star. He's the first guard to be the projected first pick in many years. It's hard to compare him to other first picks because guys like Towns and Davis are locks, and they're bigs. Either way, he's easily above any other guard that has come out in the last 5 drafts. He's maybe the first top pick at guard that seems like a given since maybe Derrick Rose? Kyrie was a top pick, but there wasn't a body of work, and that draft was a perceived mess at the top. John Wall is another maybe but again easy to make some arguments there. Could even be AI in some universe. Regardless, he's the most complete PG prospect to come out in at least 5 years, and it's probably even longer than that.

-Amazing numbers with high usage
-Good shooting numbers from deep and mid range.
-Adjusted numbers of over 2 steals a game, over a block a game, and almost 8 FTs a game.
-All the hype goes to his offense (as it should) but he already looks like the best defender at PG not named Frank the Frenchman. He can be a clear plus at that position and has good size for the PG spot.
-Can play both with and without the ball and excel at both
-He is a perfectly good athlete: the FT numbers, usage, assist numbers, finishing numbers all support it.

He has zero of the questions that Jackson and Tatum have (or Giles), and he certainly has none of the same sort of questions Ball and Smith have -- there is a chasm of difference between Fultz's main weaknesses and those guys' weaknesses at this point. Smith and Ball, while I like both, have HUGE qualifiers to them. If you're going to hold Jackson's shooting against him, both Smith and Ball have things that can potentially hold them back just as much.

I agree that things can change and someone else could step up, but I think it sort of belittles what Fultz is doing to say he's not clearly in his own tier based on the body of work in the past and present, especially factoring in the scouting aspect of how quick his learning curve has been along the way.

PS, don't forget Fultz is young for his class and only turned 18 in May, hence why he got to run with the U18 team again.

No it's not the same thing. Simmons played against higher level of competition over the course of the college season and physically dominated his peers in HS. Fultz has not done that yet. More importantly it's not really about the numbers when projecting prospects, IMO. It's about the skills, athleticism and body control they show. The only numbers I really check on prospects are Rebounds, Steals, Blocks and FT℅. Those are the predictive stats, and I only look at those after I've seen the player play against other NBA prospects. Declaring a prospect as can't miss because he hit some 3's against Cal-Poly or the U of Hawaii, is not something that I'd do generally.

Shooting is shooting, you're not going to get really solid contested numbers via college either way. It's both scouting and stats, one doesn't get to take precedence at this point. Rebounds are the most predictive, yes, but to say only X stats are predictive is sort of folly. Either way, luckily for Fultz, he has both aspects working in his favor so far and he grades out well in the stats you do care about.

I also don't expect Fultz to dominate like a 6-9, ball-dominant Ben Simmons as Fultz is 6-4. He dominated his competition at U18, he's getting to the line like a physically dominant force. His body control around the rim is hard not to be impressed with. It sounds like you're talking yourself out of him purely because he's at Washington.

[Slizeezyc]

The only thing Fultz has going against him being the top pick is the same thing Simmons did. If he's doing this stuff at Duke or on a "winning" team, then it's not really a doubt. His numbers are insane for a freshman PG tasked with doing it all. Or if he's just in a weaker class, it's easier to just say "well duh he's the first pick" like it was with Simmons. This class is dope.

He's the only player right now who has shown both via numbers and scouting that he has a crystal clear path to being a two-way star. He's the first guard to be the projected first pick in many years. It's hard to compare him to other first picks because guys like Towns and Davis are locks, and they're bigs. Either way, he's easily above any other guard that has come out in the last 5 drafts. He's maybe the first top pick at guard that seems like a given since maybe Derrick Rose? Kyrie was a top pick, but there wasn't a body of work, and that draft was a perceived mess at the top. John Wall is another maybe but again easy to make some arguments there. Could even be AI in some universe. Regardless, he's the most complete PG prospect to come out in at least 5 years, and it's probably even longer than that.

-Amazing numbers with high usage
-Good shooting numbers from deep and mid range.
-Adjusted numbers of over 2 steals a game, over a block a game, and almost 8 FTs a game.
-All the hype goes to his offense (as it should) but he already looks like the best defender at PG not named Frank the Frenchman. He can be a clear plus at that position and has good size for the PG spot.
-Can play both with and without the ball and excel at both
-He is a perfectly good athlete: the FT numbers, usage, assist numbers, finishing numbers all support it.

He has zero of the questions that Jackson and Tatum have (or Giles), and he certainly has none of the same sort of questions Ball and Smith have -- there is a chasm of difference between Fultz's main weaknesses and those guys' weaknesses at this point. Smith and Ball, while I like both, have HUGE qualifiers to them. If you're going to hold Jackson's shooting against him, both Smith and Ball have things that can potentially hold them back just as much.

I agree that things can change and someone else could step up, but I think it sort of belittles what Fultz is doing to say he's not clearly in his own tier based on the body of work in the past and present, especially factoring in the scouting aspect of how quick his learning curve has been along the way.

PS, don't forget Fultz is young for his class and only turned 18 in May, hence why he got to run with the U18 team again.

I wouldn't be so quick to call him a two way star. I'm not sure he will be great on defense. He may but I don't think so. I don't see him being a liability on D though. Jackson is old for the class but he is a two way player. I don't. Like that he can't shoot either but he's a clear cut two way player. I don't think Fultz is he clear cut number one. There are a few on his level.

What I simply mean is he's the only guy who can clearly reach that level on both sides without a ton of projection at this point. He's shown the potential to switch on defense, and the block and steal rates are very good at this juncture. He's tall enough and long enough to switch, and he's got/going to have an NBA body.

On offense, it's already pretty apparent he can get there.

And he's 18.

[LloydFree]

The only thing Fultz has going against him being the top pick is the same thing Simmons did. If he's doing this stuff at Duke or on a "winning" team, then it's not really a doubt. His numbers are insane for a freshman PG tasked with doing it all. Or if he's just in a weaker class, it's easier to just say "well duh he's the first pick" like it was with Simmons. This class is dope.

He's the only player right now who has shown both via numbers and scouting that he has a crystal clear path to being a two-way star. He's the first guard to be the projected first pick in many years. It's hard to compare him to other first picks because guys like Towns and Davis are locks, and they're bigs. Either way, he's easily above any other guard that has come out in the last 5 drafts. He's maybe the first top pick at guard that seems like a given since maybe Derrick Rose? Kyrie was a top pick, but there wasn't a body of work, and that draft was a perceived mess at the top. John Wall is another maybe but again easy to make some arguments there. Could even be AI in some universe. Regardless, he's the most complete PG prospect to come out in at least 5 years, and it's probably even longer than that.

-Amazing numbers with high usage
-Good shooting numbers from deep and mid range.
-Adjusted numbers of over 2 steals a game, over a block a game, and almost 8 FTs a game.
-All the hype goes to his offense (as it should) but he already looks like the best defender at PG not named Frank the Frenchman. He can be a clear plus at that position and has good size for the PG spot.
-Can play both with and without the ball and excel at both
-He is a perfectly good athlete: the FT numbers, usage, assist numbers, finishing numbers all support it.

He has zero of the questions that Jackson and Tatum have (or Giles), and he certainly has none of the same sort of questions Ball and Smith have -- there is a chasm of difference between Fultz's main weaknesses and those guys' weaknesses at this point. Smith and Ball, while I like both, have HUGE qualifiers to them. If you're going to hold Jackson's shooting against him, both Smith and Ball have things that can potentially hold them back just as much.

I agree that things can change and someone else could step up, but I think it sort of belittles what Fultz is doing to say he's not clearly in his own tier based on the body of work in the past and present, especially factoring in the scouting aspect of how quick his learning curve has been along the way.

PS, don't forget Fultz is young for his class and only turned 18 in May, hence why he got to run with the U18 team again.

No it's not the same thing. Simmons played against higher level of competition over the course of the college season and physically dominated his peers in HS. Fultz has not done that yet. More importantly it's not really about the numbers when projecting prospects, IMO. It's about the skills, athleticism and body control they show. The only numbers I really check on prospects are Rebounds, Steals, Blocks and FT℅. Those are the predictive stats, and I only look at those after I've seen the player play against other NBA prospects. Declaring a prospect as can't miss because he hit some 3's against Cal-Poly or the U of Hawaii, is not something that I'd do generally.

Shooting is shooting, you're not going to get really solid contested numbers via college either way. It's both scouting and stats, one doesn't get to take precedence at this point. Rebounds are the most predictive, yes, but to say only X stats are predictive is sort of folly. Either way, luckily for Fultz, he has both aspects working in his favor so far and he grades out well in the stats you do care about.

I also don't expect Fultz to dominate like a 6-9, ball-dominant Ben Simmons as Fultz is 6-4. He dominated his competition at U18, he's getting to the line like a physically dominant force. His body control around the rim is hard not to be impressed with. It sounds like you're talking yourself out of him purely because he's at Washington.

Shooting isn't shooting. That's why a guy like Nik Stauskas, or Frank Kaminsky can shoot all day and never miss in college, then never make a shot in the pros. You have to have the athletic ability to get your shot off against the best athletes in the world without making yourself feel rushed. Every year some great college 3 point shooter comes in and busts. 3 point shooting is not a predictive stat. For guards, rebounds and steals are better predictors of projection to the next level than 3 point shooting. What Fultz or Ball or D Smith shoot against Cal Poly has no bearing on what they are projected to do at the next level. And this is not to say I'm definitely against Fultz as the best player, just that when I saw him against good competition, he looked very average. I may see him next month against a pro prospect and he may look unstoppable. Again, I haven't seen it.

[Slizeezyc]

No it's not the same thing. Simmons played against higher level of competition over the course of the college season and physically dominated his peers in HS. Fultz has not done that yet. More importantly it's not really about the numbers when projecting prospects, IMO. It's about the skills, athleticism and body control they show. The only numbers I really check on prospects are Rebounds, Steals, Blocks and FT℅. Those are the predictive stats, and I only look at those after I've seen the player play against other NBA prospects. Declaring a prospect as can't miss because he hit some 3's against Cal-Poly or the U of Hawaii, is not something that I'd do generally.

Shooting is shooting, you're not going to get really solid contested numbers via college either way. It's both scouting and stats, one doesn't get to take precedence at this point. Rebounds are the most predictive, yes, but to say only X stats are predictive is sort of folly. Either way, luckily for Fultz, he has both aspects working in his favor so far and he grades out well in the stats you do care about.

I also don't expect Fultz to dominate like a 6-9, ball-dominant Ben Simmons as Fultz is 6-4. He dominated his competition at U18, he's getting to the line like a physically dominant force. His body control around the rim is hard not to be impressed with. It sounds like you're talking yourself out of him purely because he's at Washington.

Shooting isn't shooting. That's why a guy like Nik Stauskas, or Frank Kaminsky can shoot all day and never miss in college, then never make a shot in the pros. You have to have the athletic ability to get your shot off against the best athletes in the world without making yourself feel rushed. Every year some great college 3 point shooter comes in and busts. 3 point shooting is not a predictive stat. For guards, rebounds and steals are better predictors of projection to the next level than 3 point shooting. What Fultz or Ball or D Smith shoot against Cal Poly has no bearing on what they are projected to do at the next level. And this is not to say I'm definitely against Fultz as the best player, just that when I saw him against good competition, he looked very average. I may see him next month against a pro prospect and he may look unstoppable. Again, I haven't seen it.

You're still complicating it in the wrong ways to some extent I think. The difference between Hield and Kaminsky etc. shooting well is that they're older and there's a progression there. (Side note: it's why I like someone like Hart more than a Hield as he's not doing this as an outlier, he's been good like this for Nova every season.)

Stauskas forgetting how to shoot is something, but he couldn't even shoot wide-open shots, which is hard to predict happening. Trey Burke had complications that I think you could see coming. I also think you shouldn't look past Michigan running a pro-style offense, which will generally flourish because so few teams run it and have some talent to do it -- so being careful about college systems is a thing to an extent.

Three-point shooting can and does translate, there's just layers to it in terms of contested vs. uncontested etc. and sample sizes. It takes a long time to get good sample sizes on 3s (it's why Winslow shooting well for one year in college shouldn't have removed concerns etc.) Someone like Kaminsky had 1.5 years of shooting above average in college from deep (when he was older) and 2.5 years of being below average when he was younger (Hield fits a similar mold). Stauskas had two years of shooting 44% and then fell off a cliff in the pros before recovering this season to 39%, that's more surprising -- confidence seems to be an issue with him more than the looks quite honestly.

It's confusing that you keep bringing it up like Fultz can't get his shot off. He's shown a variety of off the dribble moves, and also has no problem pulling up or finishing at a high rate in the lane (plus getting to the line). He's not like Jamal Murray where every shot is a struggle to get off, or he has to run off screens to get shots off. He's shown at every level so far he can get a shot when he wants it. It's been the consistency of his stroke that's been the issue.

Again, it sounds a lot like you just want to ping him for the level of college competition and seeing him one time in person. Which is fine, but it sort of ignores the things he was already good at heading into the season and tries to chalk up the shooting advancements as luck of playing against lower competition.

One other thing I would say is that either way, my general point has been there's nothing like Ball's lack of caring on defense (he's at least trying at times on UCLA, which is progress from everything before this) or complete inability to penetrate, or Smith's lack of motor and up and down overall play that has stuck out like a Fultz weakness. I do think that matters.

In terms of scouting, one thing I also care a lot about is motor and defense (I think they both get overlooked), which is why I put Jackson and Fultz so high as well. Jackson is just a straight up competitor and goes hard every second like Saric. Fultz is a bit of a weird dude off the court, but he lives in the gym.

PS, this has been fun chatting, thanks dudes!

[phifans]

Any thoughts on Ntilikina ?
Seems like a guard version of Antetokounmpo.
Long, crazy wingspan, play defense and shoot really well. Still raw but with huge potential and have a hard pronounced weird name ...

[2 Clutch]

I like him and he and Monk are my recent targets with the lakers pick. His 2 way potential is what intrigues me the most. I think he would fill our backcourt out something nice, esp if we could land Fultz somehow. Frank would be a 3 and D type and we wouldn't need him to be a superstar just be solid and play your role. He has potential to be more but he could ease into that with the playmakers we could surround him with. His length would allow him to switch and get by with it. He's one I'll continue to monitor as I hope our backcourt can be drafted this year with all the depth there in this draft.

[Slizeezyc]

Any thoughts on Ntilikina ?
Seems like a guard version of Antetokounmpo.
Long, crazy wingspan, play defense and shoot really well. Still raw but with huge potential and have a hard pronounced weird name ...

I watched the semifinal and finals of the Euro tourney he just played in, and he flat out dominated. Those are the first two full games I've seen of him this year. I watched some of his U18 stuff last year, and he's really evolved since then if those games are any indication.

The shooting this season is SSS, but he's shooting better as well. I like him a lot, and I like him even more on the Sixers than in other situations because he doesn't need to be a full-time playmaker on this team if Simmons is legit. I would honestly put him in my top 6 if the draft were today, and second in PGs behind Fultz for this team.

He also won't turn 19 until after the Draft.

[phifans]

Any thoughts on Ntilikina ?
Seems like a guard version of Antetokounmpo.
Long, crazy wingspan, play defense and shoot really well. Still raw but with huge potential and have a hard pronounced weird name ...

I watched the semifinal and finals of the Euro tourney he just played in, and he flat out dominated. Those are the first two full games I've seen of him this year. I watched some of his U18 stuff last year, and he's really evolved since then if those games are any indication.

The shooting this season is SSS, but he's shooting better as well. I like him a lot, and I like him even more on the Sixers than in other situations because he doesn't need to be a full-time playmaker on this team if Simmons is legit. I would honestly put him in my top 6 if the draft were today, and second in PGs behind Fultz for this team.

He also won't turn 19 until after the Draft.

I think I would put him over Fox and Smith. A backcourt of Fultz/Ball - Ntilikina would be dynamic in the next decade.

[OleSchool]

Zero offensive production from Simmons? I expect he is going to score over 20 points a game once he gets going.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I meant to say zero shooting from the 3 & 4

Even that will probably only be true of Simmons for his first year or two. A player at that level will eventually develop a jump shot.

His shot already looks good. He just needs to keep forcing himself to take jump shots to build up his confidence and muscle memory.

And until Simmons learns to shoot (if he ever does) Embiid gets doubled by Simmons guy. Which makes it harder for Embiid to work

[SelfishPlayer]

I meant to say zero shooting from the 3 & 4

Even that will probably only be true of Simmons for his first year or two. A player at that level will eventually develop a jump shot.

His shot already looks good. He just needs to keep forcing himself to take jump shots to build up his confidence and muscle memory.

And until Simmons learns to shoot (if he ever does) Embiid gets doubled by Simmons guy. Which makes it harder for Embiid to work

If Embiid is doubled by Simmons' guy, then Simmons is now totally unguarded and able to create pure havoc. Doubling off of a nonshooter is good, but when that nonshooter can create and finish at the rim then it's a recipe for disaster.

[PhilasFinest]

Even that will probably only be true of Simmons for his first year or two. A player at that level will eventually develop a jump shot.

His shot already looks good. He just needs to keep forcing himself to take jump shots to build up his confidence and muscle memory.

And until Simmons learns to shoot (if he ever does) Embiid gets doubled by Simmons guy. Which makes it harder for Embiid to work

If Embiid is doubled by Simmons' guy, then Simmons is now totally unguarded and able to create pure havoc. Doubling off of a nonshooter is good, but when that nonshooter can create and finish at the rim then it's a recipe for disaster.

Agreed. Simmons is not some bozo on offense. Its not like your leaving Jerami Grant or some incompetent offensive player to double Embiid. Simmons will drive and finish,get contact or find an open teammate for a shot.

[Kolkmania]

Any thoughts on Ntilikina ?
Seems like a guard version of Antetokounmpo.
Long, crazy wingspan, play defense and shoot really well. Still raw but with huge potential and have a hard pronounced weird name ...

I watched the semifinal and finals of the Euro tourney he just played in, and he flat out dominated. Those are the first two full games I've seen of him this year. I watched some of his U18 stuff last year, and he's really evolved since then if those games are any indication.

The shooting this season is SSS, but he's shooting better as well. I like him a lot, and I like him even more on the Sixers than in other situations because he doesn't need to be a full-time playmaker on this team if Simmons is legit. I would honestly put him in my top 6 if the draft were today, and second in PGs behind Fultz for this team.

He also won't turn 19 until after the Draft.

I like him, but not sold on his quickness yet. It's extremely important for a PG that you're able to penetrate the defense and he hasn't done much of that against solid competition. So far he's looking like a SG with some playmaking abilities to me.

[phiphan]

Yeah, I like Ntilikina's upside, but he's not extremely athletic and is also pretty raw -- ball handling needs a lot of work for example. He'd need a good couple years to develop, and is well behind Simmons and Embiid development-wise (which is totally fair given he's much younger and less experienced than them). I'm not sure he'd be the best pick if Simmons also shows the ability to compete immediately in the NBA like Embiid has -- might be better go with higher floor than upside.

[Arsenal]

Yeah, I like Ntilikina's upside, but he's not extremely athletic and is also pretty raw -- ball handling needs a lot of work for example. He'd need a good couple years to develop, and is well behind Simmons and Embiid development-wise (which is totally fair given he's much younger and less experienced than them). I'm not sure he'd be the best pick if Simmons also shows the ability to compete immediately in the NBA like Embiid has -- might be better go with lower floor than upside.

Prioritizing a high floor instead of high upside is usually a mistake in the draft.

See Okafor over Porzingis.

We need to take the highest ceiling prospects with both our picks. Frank could easily be the best prospect available for us with the Lakers pick.

[PhilasFinest]

Yeah, I like Ntilikina's upside, but he's not extremely athletic and is also pretty raw -- ball handling needs a lot of work for example. He'd need a good couple years to develop, and is well behind Simmons and Embiid development-wise (which is totally fair given he's much younger and less experienced than them). I'm not sure he'd be the best pick if Simmons also shows the ability to compete immediately in the NBA like Embiid has -- might be better go with lower floor than upside.

Prioritizing a high floor instead of high upside is usually a mistake in the draft.

See Okafor over Porzingis.

We need to take the highest ceiling prospects with both our picks. Frank could easily be the best prospect available for us with the Lakers pick.

I guess it all depends on who is on the board and where that Laker pick is.

[Ericb5]

People are sleeping on Dennis Smith jr.

Monk probably fits our team better at the Lakers pick, depending on who we get with our pick, but I still think that Dennis Smith is a tier above him talent wise. Best athlete of all of the top players

He is definitely healthy again.

[Arsenal]

Smith is performing better and better as the season goes on. Would love to get him with 1 of our picks. Hopefully he's still available at the LAL pick.

[phiphan]

Yeah, I like Ntilikina's upside, but he's not extremely athletic and is also pretty raw -- ball handling needs a lot of work for example. He'd need a good couple years to develop, and is well behind Simmons and Embiid development-wise (which is totally fair given he's much younger and less experienced than them). I'm not sure he'd be the best pick if Simmons also shows the ability to compete immediately in the NBA like Embiid has -- might be better go with lower floor than upside.

Prioritizing a high floor instead of high upside is usually a mistake in the draft.

See Okafor over Porzingis.

We need to take the highest ceiling prospects with both our picks. Frank could easily be the best prospect available for us with the Lakers pick.

Well Isaac may have a higher ceiling than Jackson, but do you take him over Jackson? It's not so cut & dried. There have been plenty of instances where perceived higher ceiling worked out for the worse. Maybe I shouldn't have spoken in generalities -- I guess my point is that I'm not sold that Ntilikina's upside is worth passing on guys who already look pretty good and can hit the ground running.