2014 Draft Prospects:
- Thread starter bajaden
- Start date
Gary Harris having a very good game right now. I'll be curious to see his validated height at the combine. He's a very good player, and is one of those players that's more ready to play in the NBA right now. He's also doing a good job of denying Stauskas the ball. Stauskas is playing well, but Mich. St. is playing very good D on Mich so far.
Parker's shot was a little off today, but otherwise he had a very good game in another loss. Duke is sort of a mystery team going into the tournament. Their good enough to beat anyone, but they've been very inconsistent this year. Both Hood and Parker have to have great games for them to win. Not getting any consistent help from anyone else on the team. Sulaimon isn't ready for the NBA yet.
I've said it before, but Cal is doing Cauley-Stein a disservice jerking him around in the lineup/rotation all the time. He's better than Dakari Johnson, and having a better game right now. Kentucky doesn't look good at the moment, but he makes them look like they have a fighting chance against Florida.
I like Sulaimon, and thought he was ready to have a break out year this year. But he got off to a terrible start for some reason, then started to play better, and then went into being very inconsistent. In the games he plays well, Duke usually wins, or at least is very competitive. I agree on Cauley-Stein. Not sure what's going on there. There's no doubt that Kentucky's defense today is far superior when Stein is on the floor. Not only because of his shotblocking, but because he's just smarter in his rotations. He also recovers better when someone blows an assignment. Kentucky's biggest problem today, and has been all year is their lack of good outside shooting. Teams are just packing the middle against them and daring them to shoot from outside.
So, Kentucky just lost a close game to (probably) the best team in the nation, and I thought Cauley-Stein was incredible. It felt like he was responsible for 80% of the defensive stops Kentucky got in the second half. He's such a good helper inside and on the perimeter. And he only committed two fouls in 33 minutes. That's right, Cal actually played him 30+ minutes, proving for at least one game that he can handle it.
If PDA, Malone, and CO. are serious about improving the Kings defense, I don't know that there is a gamechanger in college basketball on that end like Cauley-Stien has the potential to be.
If PDA, Malone, and CO. are serious about improving the Kings defense, I don't know that there is a gamechanger in college basketball on that end like Cauley-Stien has the potential to be.
Well, Florida is kinda perfect opponent for WCS: no real size offensively, rely more on speed than power and play inside out. I don't think there's an impact inside defender in college basketball other than Embiid this year.
P.S. Europe offers two intriguing guys in Capela and Tavares, but their impact will likely be minimal for a couple of years.
P.S. Europe offers two intriguing guys in Capela and Tavares, but their impact will likely be minimal for a couple of years.
I think Cauley-Stein will be a good defensive player. But he'll I doubt he'll ever amount to much of an offensive player. I think he's a little quicker laterally than Embiid, he runs the floor extremely well, and obviously, has more experience than Embiid. That said, I'd take Embiid a hundred times out of hundred over Stein. But if I'm picking at 8 or later, and Vonleh is already gone, then I'd have to consider Stein. He's had a rough year, and a lot of it has to do with how he's being used. Calapari seems to like Dakari Johnson for his offensive ability, and he's not bad at defense. But against a team like Florida, that has a lot of quickness, Johnson is just too slow to react. When I watch Dieng block five shots against us, I think there's no reason that Cauley-Stein couldn't do the same thing.
The question of course is, is he the best player available at that time? Probably not! And if so, then you don't take him. Capela is an interesting prospect, but from all the info I can get about him, having never seen him play, he's very raw. But then so was Ebaka. So you never know.
The question of course is, is he the best player available at that time? Probably not! And if so, then you don't take him. Capela is an interesting prospect, but from all the info I can get about him, having never seen him play, he's very raw. But then so was Ebaka. So you never know.
I think SMU got screwed by the NCAA tournament committee. They deserved to be in the tournament. Oklahoma St. made it in, which surprised me. They had a poor record, and they got eliminated from their conference championship right at the beginning. The only thing I can think of that might have saved them was their schedule. They did play a tough schedule. Problem is, they lost a lot of the games on that tough schedule. However, I'm glad Oklahoma St. made it. I get a at least one more chance to watch Smart in action when it matters. Maybe he can still win me over.
I spent the week-end watching four Syracuse games back to back. Ennis is going to be a solid, but unspectacular PG. He has good court vision, and gets the ball into play quickly. He almost always makes the right pass, and makes it look simple to do. I think that's why some aren't that impressed with him. I think defensively, he's going to struggle. How much I don't know. But he gets beat off the dribble fairly easily. He's just an average athlete, and as good as his instincts are offensively, they appear to be equally as bad defensively. He just seems to be instinctively a step slow. Perhaps on a team that plays good team defense, he'd be OK. His outside shot isn't as bad as Smarts, but he's inconsistent with it. His form doesn't look that bad, so it looks fixable. I'd still take him over Smart, but to be honest, I don't want either of them.
I might add, that some of the same defensive opinions were said about other NBA players before they entered the NBA. How many of you would want Klay Thompson on their team. Well here's a quote from draftexpress.
"Thompson's effort level on the defensive end has improved during his time in college, and he shows solid awareness and makes good rotations off the ball, but his lack of quickness is certainly something that can be exploited. His problems can be hid somewhat on good defensive teams, and his apparent effort level and capacity for playing good team defense will certainly be useful, though he'd have a lot of work to do to even become an average NBA defender overall.
Thompson's defensive problems should be equally pronounced at either the shooting guard or small forward positions, and the questions for teams will be how much can they coach him up and whether his offensive strengths do enough to outweigh his defensive shortcomings. His progress as a junior and strong season overall definitely quell those concerns, at least somewhat.
With his highly developed perimeter skill set and feel for the game, Thompson could contribute early in his career, and probably doesn't have a significant upside beyond what he is now due to his physical limitations. There's no guarantee he seamlessly makes the role to being a lesser scoring option, however, and he will need to stay away from the bad habits he had earlier in his college career, something being drafted onto a winning team with strong coaching would definitely help."
From DraftExpress.comhttp://www.draftexpress.com#ixzz2wFRHMYE5
http://www.draftexpress.com
I could post similar concerns about Stephen Curry, although Curry wasn't a bad defender in college. A lot is based on a players athletic ability. While having good or great athletic ability is certainly a plus, there are very good defenders that only have average NBA athletic ability. I think its important to distinguish between NBA average, and just plain average. What they do have is great instincts, high BBIQ, and they spend a lot of time doing their homework. Defense is hard work, but just putting out the effort alone isn't enough, which watching McLemore validates.
My point is that both Curry and Thompson had question marks about their defensive abilitys, and yet both play on the same winning team, a team that's known to play good team defense. So while I think you have to take a player's defensive liabilities into consideration, I don't think it should necessarily be the deciding factor.
I spent the week-end watching four Syracuse games back to back. Ennis is going to be a solid, but unspectacular PG. He has good court vision, and gets the ball into play quickly. He almost always makes the right pass, and makes it look simple to do. I think that's why some aren't that impressed with him. I think defensively, he's going to struggle. How much I don't know. But he gets beat off the dribble fairly easily. He's just an average athlete, and as good as his instincts are offensively, they appear to be equally as bad defensively. He just seems to be instinctively a step slow. Perhaps on a team that plays good team defense, he'd be OK. His outside shot isn't as bad as Smarts, but he's inconsistent with it. His form doesn't look that bad, so it looks fixable. I'd still take him over Smart, but to be honest, I don't want either of them.
I might add, that some of the same defensive opinions were said about other NBA players before they entered the NBA. How many of you would want Klay Thompson on their team. Well here's a quote from draftexpress.
"Thompson's effort level on the defensive end has improved during his time in college, and he shows solid awareness and makes good rotations off the ball, but his lack of quickness is certainly something that can be exploited. His problems can be hid somewhat on good defensive teams, and his apparent effort level and capacity for playing good team defense will certainly be useful, though he'd have a lot of work to do to even become an average NBA defender overall.
Thompson's defensive problems should be equally pronounced at either the shooting guard or small forward positions, and the questions for teams will be how much can they coach him up and whether his offensive strengths do enough to outweigh his defensive shortcomings. His progress as a junior and strong season overall definitely quell those concerns, at least somewhat.
With his highly developed perimeter skill set and feel for the game, Thompson could contribute early in his career, and probably doesn't have a significant upside beyond what he is now due to his physical limitations. There's no guarantee he seamlessly makes the role to being a lesser scoring option, however, and he will need to stay away from the bad habits he had earlier in his college career, something being drafted onto a winning team with strong coaching would definitely help."
From DraftExpress.comhttp://www.draftexpress.com#ixzz2wFRHMYE5
http://www.draftexpress.com
I could post similar concerns about Stephen Curry, although Curry wasn't a bad defender in college. A lot is based on a players athletic ability. While having good or great athletic ability is certainly a plus, there are very good defenders that only have average NBA athletic ability. I think its important to distinguish between NBA average, and just plain average. What they do have is great instincts, high BBIQ, and they spend a lot of time doing their homework. Defense is hard work, but just putting out the effort alone isn't enough, which watching McLemore validates.
My point is that both Curry and Thompson had question marks about their defensive abilitys, and yet both play on the same winning team, a team that's known to play good team defense. So while I think you have to take a player's defensive liabilities into consideration, I don't think it should necessarily be the deciding factor.
Thompson is an underrated defender and often guard the other teams best guard. Has his flaws but the effort and technique is there for the most part.
Smart is in a weird mix of players on OK St. His coach asked a lot of him playing out of position this season, and their offense is very me-based. I think he'll be more unselfish in the pro's. You make a good point about having him or Tyreke, similar players overall but I like Smart's instincts a little better.
Hopefully another team will draft him or the Kings will win a top 3 pick, so we can stop talking about him.
Smart is in a weird mix of players on OK St. His coach asked a lot of him playing out of position this season, and their offense is very me-based. I think he'll be more unselfish in the pro's. You make a good point about having him or Tyreke, similar players overall but I like Smart's instincts a little better.
Hopefully another team will draft him or the Kings will win a top 3 pick, so we can stop talking about him.
Yep, I did a post on him. It's been a while though. And a lot of the post was based on last season, and I think he's improved quite a bit from last year. The one thing he can't improve on is his athleticism, or lack there of. But aside from that, he's a very talented kid. As of now he's basically a SF that plays like a PG. His shot has improved and he's good rebounder at the college level. He definitely needs to get stronger. Offensively there's no doubt that he can play in the NBA. The question is whether he can defend in the NBA. Thus Kingster's comparison to Thompson, although I think Thompson is a little better athlete than Anderson. However, I think Anderson is a better ballhandler than Thompson. Klay Thompson that is!
The Oklahoma St/Gonzaga game is mercifully over. Every ref in that game should be banned from College basketball. I believe there were 61 fouls called. That's an NCAA tournament record. The last 4 minutes of that game took almost an hour to play. It was just downright painful to watch. The result was what I thought it would be, with Gonzaga winning and moving on. Smart did nothing to convince me that he's going to be a good player in the NBA. I guess I'm blind, but one thing I still know. He can't shoot the ball. And I'm not sure he'll get the calls in the NBA with his flair for the dramatic that he gets in college. I also don't think he's going to get to the basket as easily in the NBA either. He's no Tyreke Evans, who has the ability to weave his way to the basket. Smart just tries to go through people. I saw no spectacular creativity or passing. Hey, I'll be the first to eat crow if I'm wrong.
You also expect a PG to lead the team although with 61 fouls, I'm not sure how any kind of flow could be established. I have several reasons for not wanting him and they all are taller.
He's played both SF and PF at Creighton, but in the NBA I think he'll have to play the SF position. He doesn't have the size for the PF position. However, he's a pretty good post player and guys shorter than him have made a living in the post. I watch him play, and I think he can't miss. He's just too talented. And then afterwards I start to question myself about his athleticism and whether he'll be able to defend. He doesn't have the quickness of some of the NBA SF's, but he's a very smart player, and if guile, high IQ, and hard work can make you a good defender, then he'll be a good defender, or at least won't be a liability.
I have to disagreee with you on this one. I've watched McDermott play a ton, and he's not a bad defender. He works hard on the defensive end, and I'd hardly call him a liability. Having said that, I'm not about to tell you he'll be a good defender in the NBA. My gut tells me no, but he wouldn't be the first average athlete to be a good defender. One thing I would note, is that he was one of the college players invited to last summer's olympic try outs, and it was reported that he more than held his own against the NBA players that were there. Frankly, he's a mystery man to me. I love watching him play. The dude can score from anywhere on the floor. But I'm just not sure how good overall he'll be.
I always go back many years ago when I heard an NBA scout on KNBR talking about the Warriors coming draft and who they might pick. A caller asked about a player named Larry Bird. The scout said that Bird was a terrific shooter, but that he was slow, couldn't jump, and wouldn't be able to defend in the NBA. Never ever say never!
I always go back many years ago when I heard an NBA scout on KNBR talking about the Warriors coming draft and who they might pick. A caller asked about a player named Larry Bird. The scout said that Bird was a terrific shooter, but that he was slow, couldn't jump, and wouldn't be able to defend in the NBA. Never ever say never!
I honestly haven't watched a lot of Wiggins this year, but his size as a potential SF doesn't do much for me. I know he's listed as 6-8 on some sites, and will fill out some with more training, but he doesn't look that big next to Stanford's Josh Huestis at SF. I think I'd try to play Wiggins at SG.