Michael Porter Jr
- Thread starter funkykingston
- Start date
Video Breakdown: Focusing on the Strengths and Weaknesses of Michael Porter Jr. @Adrian Wojnarowski has him falling to #15 on #ESPN latest Mock Draft @NBA_YouTubers #NBA #MichaelPorterJr Watch Now: youtube.com/watch?v=reRscc… pic.twitter.com/ofK4XjYN4U
So should we trade back to pick 15? LOL
So should we trade back to pick 15? LOL
I am not excluding Porter from consideration simply because he has no college pedigree. I am not impressed by his physique, handles or false bravado declaring himself the best player against players with actual statistical achievement. I don't like his reliance on the hesi-dribble shot. Contorting your body from fake dribble drive into shot in one motion is not a high percentage attempt. We have two beautiful shooters in Boggy and Buddy. We don't need his weak sauce. He will launch shots indiscriminately since he has the height to get shots freely but not the talent to make them.
Add the surgery and the risk profile is ridiculously high. KG, Kobe and LeBron raised none of these concerns. They were exemplary in their physical profile and fundamentals. ESPN has us taking Bagley #2 in their latest mock. Thats what I forecast the night we were awarded the #2 pick. I never adhered to the top-two consensus of Doncic Ayton wildly espoused. I never saw Porter as a legitimate candidate when we were projected 7th. ESPN dropped Porter to 8th. That's still a little high for my taste with Miles and Sexton on the board but more sensible than going #2. All bets are off with Vlade at the helm, but I hope Givony knows something this time around.
Add the surgery and the risk profile is ridiculously high. KG, Kobe and LeBron raised none of these concerns. They were exemplary in their physical profile and fundamentals. ESPN has us taking Bagley #2 in their latest mock. Thats what I forecast the night we were awarded the #2 pick. I never adhered to the top-two consensus of Doncic Ayton wildly espoused. I never saw Porter as a legitimate candidate when we were projected 7th. ESPN dropped Porter to 8th. That's still a little high for my taste with Miles and Sexton on the board but more sensible than going #2. All bets are off with Vlade at the helm, but I hope Givony knows something this time around.
And NBA owners were near unanimous in agreeing that was a bad idea which is why we have the one and done rule. There are some players that are talented enough to jump to the NBA out of high school and Porter might be one of them but that also meant teams were drafting players on the basis of who they might be 3 or 4 years from now and that's incredibly risky. Even with the current rule it's a gamble but it's less of a gamble than it used to be. Unless of course the player skips college (Brandon Jennings, Emmanuel Mudiay) or even worse, misses the entire season due to injury like Porter just did. Kyrie Irving only got 11 games before he got injured but that was enough to see how he matched up with college competition. Porter is going to be a throw-back to the time when guys like Monta Ellis and Sebastian Telfair got drafted on the strength of their high school ranking.
You just threw out two random bad names though. Plenty of studs came straight out of hs too. I have no idea the success rate of guys taken near the top of the draft out of hs vs college vs Europe. But I can think of plenty examples both good and bad. LeBron, kg, Howard, Kobe all came straight out of hs as you know. So why only mention monta and telfair? I mean Thomas Robinson played three years of college and that didn't help us. Neither did jimmers college career. Would have been better for us if we didn't have those guys misleading college production leading us to believe they could be good pros.
Monta Ellis had a pretty good career. I just mentioned the first two names that came to mind -- I guess because they were both hotly debated at the time. LeBron was an anomaly. Everyone who watched that kid play knew he was going to be an all-time great. There were a lot of high profile successes and a lot of long forgotten failures. The only point I was trying to make is that not every hyped high school prospect becomes a star. Overall the success rate of players coming straight of HS was not very good. And once the teams realized that they forced through a rule to discourage players from skipping college.
Last edited:
I watched that n TV yesterday......they took turns picking.....Woj and Mike that is. They had us at Doncic and thought he was the most ready guy in the draft and a no brainer as was Ayton at 1. Basically the draft started after 2. I thought the Mike picks were off. Skewed the draft. Then again, could be accurate but Woj had good insight and Mike went with more unusual pick order based on some of the mocks that have been posted.
Regarding MPJ, he dropped like a rock to 15 and they stated the usual about back and then if he was capable of getting along with teammates but both agreed that he could absolutely be picked starting around 6
Regarding MPJ, he dropped like a rock to 15 and they stated the usual about back and then if he was capable of getting along with teammates but both agreed that he could absolutely be picked starting around 6
Draft IS a risk in general. That is what people don't seem to get. Unless you get a can't miss prospect, whoever you pick is going to be a risk. It is all about drafting for the upside.
Ayton is considered #1 because his floor is high but his ceiling is really high. Doncic has question marks of how high his ceiling is but everyone will say his floor is high. Neither of these guys will end up being busts in the NBA. At worst they will be good NBA players. Starters on NBA team, hence the high floor.
The whole idea of the draft for a small market team is to get their superstar in the draft. Unless you get a can't miss prospect like AD, LeBron, Duncan etc...it is going to be a risky pick.
Ayton is considered #1 because his floor is high but his ceiling is really high. Doncic has question marks of how high his ceiling is but everyone will say his floor is high. Neither of these guys will end up being busts in the NBA. At worst they will be good NBA players. Starters on NBA team, hence the high floor.
The whole idea of the draft for a small market team is to get their superstar in the draft. Unless you get a can't miss prospect like AD, LeBron, Duncan etc...it is going to be a risky pick.
Right but there's a point at which you're deciding between a 5% chance at $1,000,000 or a 55% chance at $250,000 and one of those choices is a lot smarter than the other. I'm not saying we shouldn't draft Michael Porter, I'm just saying that nobody knows yet how he would have looked if he'd been able to play at Missouri. I totally understand if you look at all the tape available and the pre-draft workouts and interviews and come to the conclusion that he's a risk worth taking. That's up to the front office to decide. What I don't understand is when people say he should be the pick because he has a higher ceiling than everyone else because "he was ranked as the #1 prospect a year ago". So was Skal a year before the draft and he ended up lasting until the end of the first round because a year in college provided more information on his potential and that new information lowered the expectation considerably.
The danger with drafting high school players is higher because you don't have a reliable means of evaluating their talent. Those high school class rankings always have some huge mistakes when you look back at them with the benefit of hindsight. At least with college players we have a decent enough sample to start to project some patterns correlating college production to NBA production. I know that if a player plays at a major college program and looks phenomenal, there's a very good chance he'll be a productive NBA player barring injury. I wouldn't say the same about high school players because there's too many counter-examples.
The danger with drafting high school players is higher because you don't have a reliable means of evaluating their talent. Those high school class rankings always have some huge mistakes when you look back at them with the benefit of hindsight. At least with college players we have a decent enough sample to start to project some patterns correlating college production to NBA production. I know that if a player plays at a major college program and looks phenomenal, there's a very good chance he'll be a productive NBA player barring injury. I wouldn't say the same about high school players because there's too many counter-examples.
I don't think this is a revelation or shocking. Just makes sense that the longer you can watch players play and grow, the better judgement you can make. Just out of highschool is the minumum and four years of college is the max. Its a catch 22 in a way. With a four year player you have a very good idea of what your going to have, but the major question then is, is what you see now, all that your going to get, or is there more growth left? Thing is though, your probably sure of where the floor is.
So how do you make a rational judgement on a player out of highschool. Well, if you saw Lebron play in highschool, he looked like a 26 year old man playing with a bunch of 8th graders. Except, they weren't 8th graders, they were what was left of the best highschoolers in the nation. The first time I saw him play, I didn't have a doubt that the was likely to be a very very good NBA player someday, it not a star. So in his case, it wasn't that hard. I'll say this, I think the competition in the top basketball highschools is far better today than it was 20 years ago, and if a player can dominate that competition, then its probably a fair bet your looking at a potential good NBA player.
By the way, some people have discarded some of the so called all star highschool games as not being truly competitive. In a few cases that's true, but in some, where it's the USA against the rest of the world, such as the under 16/17 games, the competition is quite good. When the competition becomes nationalistic, the fire starts to burn bright.
So how do you make a rational judgement on a player out of highschool. Well, if you saw Lebron play in highschool, he looked like a 26 year old man playing with a bunch of 8th graders. Except, they weren't 8th graders, they were what was left of the best highschoolers in the nation. The first time I saw him play, I didn't have a doubt that the was likely to be a very very good NBA player someday, it not a star. So in his case, it wasn't that hard. I'll say this, I think the competition in the top basketball highschools is far better today than it was 20 years ago, and if a player can dominate that competition, then its probably a fair bet your looking at a potential good NBA player.
By the way, some people have discarded some of the so called all star highschool games as not being truly competitive. In a few cases that's true, but in some, where it's the USA against the rest of the world, such as the under 16/17 games, the competition is quite good. When the competition becomes nationalistic, the fire starts to burn bright.
Right now nbadraft.net has him 6th.
http://www.nbadraft.net/2018mock_draft
Are you looking at a different site maybe?
http://www.nbadraft.net/2018mock_draft
Are you looking at a different site maybe?
Sorry, top 100 big board: http://www.nbadraft.net/ranking/bigboard
I agree with this to a point but that would have to be one phenomenal workout for me to value him over the real-game star power I've already seen from Doncic and Ayton. Remember Geoff Petrie brought Steph Curry and Tyreke Evans in for a workout at the same time and picked Tyreke. A work-out is never going to be a game. Which makes it sound like my mind is already made up about Porter and there's nothing he can do.... which is sortof true. For me personally he would have to blow me away not just with his skill and competitiveness but also his personality and how he answers questions. It's really hard to sell yourself as a basketball player when you haven't had the opportunity to play basketball for most of the year.
I like the All Star games too. These players know it's the biggest stage they'll get to impress scouts by going head-to-head against the top prospects in their draft class. It's such a free for all that it's up to them to decide they're going to force the issue and try to take over the game. It tells you something about a player that they choose to show out in that context and it also tells you something if they're capable of standing out against the best of the best. I'm a big proponent of scouting those games. Sometimes it steers me wrong (I still can't figure out why I missed so badly on Mudiay... I thought he was a guaranteed star) but that was also how I was introduced to DeMarcus Cousins and Harrison Barnes and Kevin Love and Kevin Durant and so many others. If nothing else it's the first glimpse of what type of player they're going to be at the next level -- ie. Are they a chucker, a game manager, a set-up man, an aggressive defender, a physical mismatch in the paint, etc.
I like the All Star games too. These players know it's the biggest stage they'll get to impress scouts by going head-to-head against the top prospects in their draft class. It's such a free for all that it's up to them to decide they're going to force the issue and try to take over the game. It tells you something about a player that they choose to show out in that context and it also tells you something if they're capable of standing out against the best of the best. I'm a big proponent of scouting those games. Sometimes it steers me wrong (I still can't figure out why I missed so badly on Mudiay... I thought he was a guaranteed star) but that was also how I was introduced to DeMarcus Cousins and Harrison Barnes and Kevin Love and Kevin Durant and so many others. If nothing else it's the first glimpse of what type of player they're going to be at the next level -- ie. Are they a chucker, a game manager, a set-up man, an aggressive defender, a physical mismatch in the paint, etc.
I don't listen to Grant a ton but it sure feels like whenever I do and the draft is the topic, he's talking about Porter. Am I just happening to always turn on the radio at those times or is he really spending an inordinate amount of time discussing MPJ?
I went back and watched a bunch of tape with an open mind and came back with the same conclusion I had a month or two ago - some definite potential as a scorer, good fit for the modern NBA, better rebounder than he's usually credited for but often doesn't give effort on defense, is sloppy with the ball, plays too upright on both ends and struggles to get by guys and with the injury isn't worth risking a pick among the top 6 or 7 prospects.
But all the radio chatter makes me think Porter is who the Kings are fixated on and Grant is trying to sell him as a player to his audience. Please tell me I'm wrong.
I went back and watched a bunch of tape with an open mind and came back with the same conclusion I had a month or two ago - some definite potential as a scorer, good fit for the modern NBA, better rebounder than he's usually credited for but often doesn't give effort on defense, is sloppy with the ball, plays too upright on both ends and struggles to get by guys and with the injury isn't worth risking a pick among the top 6 or 7 prospects.
But all the radio chatter makes me think Porter is who the Kings are fixated on and Grant is trying to sell him as a player to his audience. Please tell me I'm wrong.
Shades of the Jimmer draft with all the Porter chatter and rumors.
All the rumors had us taking Jimmer that draft, and it seemed like half of us tried to convince ourselves that it was all smokescreens and half of us tried to convince ourselves Jimmer didn't suck and us picking him wasn't the end of the world.
Hopefully Porter Jr has a helluva better career than Jimmer, because I'm starting to think he's going to be the pick.
Ps: I'm not comparing them as players, that would be stupid, I'm just comparing them both as prospects who our FO is reportedly enamored with, in contrast with the lukewarm popularity they receive on this site.
All the rumors had us taking Jimmer that draft, and it seemed like half of us tried to convince ourselves that it was all smokescreens and half of us tried to convince ourselves Jimmer didn't suck and us picking him wasn't the end of the world.
Hopefully Porter Jr has a helluva better career than Jimmer, because I'm starting to think he's going to be the pick.
Ps: I'm not comparing them as players, that would be stupid, I'm just comparing them both as prospects who our FO is reportedly enamored with, in contrast with the lukewarm popularity they receive on this site.
