Prospect watch 2011
- Thread starter asakkings
- Start date
Excellent? Really? I guess I missed that one. I haven't seen any excellent ballhandling from him. Certainly haven't seen a lot of drives and finishes or drives and kicks. Haven't seen him do very well at creating his own shot either.
By the way, Thompson played guard also before he had a growth spurt. Do you think Thompson is an excellent ballhandler? He's terrible from my vantage point.
By the way, Thompson played guard also before he had a growth spurt. Do you think Thompson is an excellent ballhandler? He's terrible from my vantage point.
Well, I watched Kentucky play over 20 plus times this year. And, I know what I saw and didn't see. But lets keep it simple. I said he's an excellent ballhandler for a 6'8" player. With emphasis on the 6'8". Are we clear on that. I didn't say he could handle the ball like a PG or a SG. But that for a SF or a PF, he handles the ball just fine. Is he perfect? No! But he's also just 18 years old. Were you perfect at 18 years of age? Now you may not have seen him drive to the basket, but that doesn't mean he can't do it. Here's a suggestion. Try watching more games. If you had watched Thornton in just his last two games, you'd have the opinion that he couldn't shoot from the outside. And you'd be wrong!!!!
Your right about one thing. You probably never saw him create his own shot off the dribble. Thats because he doesn't have a shot, for which to create, which we talked about at length. He has a very slow developing, and semi-accurate jumpshot. Its his biggest weakness. But it has little to do with his ballhandling ability to create shots. As I said, first you have to have a shot for which to create. Which he doesn't.
I'll say this again, and I got this from Bill Walsh of the 49er"s. He said, when scouting a player, look for the things he can do, and not the things he can't do. Because the world is full of players that can't do things.
Your right about one thing. You probably never saw him create his own shot off the dribble. Thats because he doesn't have a shot, for which to create, which we talked about at length. He has a very slow developing, and semi-accurate jumpshot. Its his biggest weakness. But it has little to do with his ballhandling ability to create shots. As I said, first you have to have a shot for which to create. Which he doesn't.
I'll say this again, and I got this from Bill Walsh of the 49er"s. He said, when scouting a player, look for the things he can do, and not the things he can't do. Because the world is full of players that can't do things.
We were talking about whether he's suited for SF vs. PF. Not about whether he's a good 6'8" ballhandler. We were not talking about the PG or SG position. Are we clear on that? Just want to reiterate: we are not talking about PG or SG for Jones; we're talking about SF vs. PF. Clear? Now that you have that down: So, is he a SF or a PF? Based on what you're telling me above about his shooting that gives even more check marks in the PF column, no?
By the way, I've probably seen five or six games of Jones. That's plenty in my book. He's not going to - voila! - show himself to be a ballhandling dribble driving outside shooting creating small forward in one of the games that I've missed.
By the way, I've probably seen five or six games of Jones. That's plenty in my book. He's not going to - voila! - show himself to be a ballhandling dribble driving outside shooting creating small forward in one of the games that I've missed.
Kingster, I keep hearing Lamar Odom comparisons with T-Jones. Would it really be such a bad thing to have a player like that on this team. Who would you rather we pick if we are in the 6-7 range? Let's pretend Barnes and Sully don't declare. 1, 2, 3, and 4 are pretty much a lock for Irving, Williams, Valinciunas/P-Jones/Kanter (after the top 2 things kind of get comPlicated IMO)
So then we get into our range, and barring some big changes (which we will probably see soon, but hey, this is one of the most fun things to speculate about) any combination of Vesley, Kemba, Knight, Motiejunas, and our boy Terrance will be on the board. Who do you guys take? I have been watching some taped games (been trying to follow UConn and Kentucky for obvious reasons this year) and I am really liking Kemba and T-Jones. Kemba because there is just something about him that screams out "winner" to me (see: Tournament, NCAA). And Jones because I love his athleticism, and hold out hope he can developed into a great SF/PF a la Odom. Who do you like Kingster?
So then we get into our range, and barring some big changes (which we will probably see soon, but hey, this is one of the most fun things to speculate about) any combination of Vesley, Kemba, Knight, Motiejunas, and our boy Terrance will be on the board. Who do you guys take? I have been watching some taped games (been trying to follow UConn and Kentucky for obvious reasons this year) and I am really liking Kemba and T-Jones. Kemba because there is just something about him that screams out "winner" to me (see: Tournament, NCAA). And Jones because I love his athleticism, and hold out hope he can developed into a great SF/PF a la Odom. Who do you like Kingster?
Last edited:
First, I'm not against drafting Jones if he falls to five or below. There's Williams, Irving, Kemba, Knight. After that I've seen nobody that I would take over Jones, although I haven't seen every player in the NCAA, so maybe there's a gem out there... I dunno. Barnes is overated vanilla in my opinion. Sullinger I don't like either. P. Jones is terrible. I haven't seen Valinciunas or Kanter (If we get stuck in the 5-7 area, hopefully those guys are good).
Second, I don't see Jones in the Odom class. I don't believe he has the athleticism of an Odom that can translate to a 3. That doesn't mean Jones can't be an effective 4, however, if he improves his game, especially his shooting. T. Jones is a project, but at least he has the defensive talent and rebounding ability to build upon. I've ragged on him as another Greene, but at least with T. Jones he's going to rebound the ball (I've never quite understood why Greene can't/doesn't).
As far as Kemba is concerned, I've been on his bandwagon since the beginning of the season. Some people got down on him when he had his mid-season slump, but I had a hunch that once the NCAAs started he'd play very well. I agree - he is a winner. The guy has brains and mega-quickness, which is exactly what this team needs. I think his game is going to translate very well to the NBA. He can work with the ball or off the ball, a very nice complement to Tyreke or Thornton. By all accounts, he's a great leader. Heck, after the Syracuse game he was given a standing ovation in the lockeroom - by his teamates. You don't hear about that everyday. If you can get a great athlete with his leadership ability, that's a potent combination.
Lastly, I still like Knight. Sometimes you just have to go with your gut instead of the numbers. You look at Knights' numbers and it's a big, "whatever." But after watching him play, I think he could eventually be a very good NBA player. Just like Kemba, I think he's a winner. And like Kemba, he has the IQ that I want and this team desperately needs. When you have a 4.3 gpa in high school and so far a 4.0 in college and and muti-lingual, you get points in my book.
Second, I don't see Jones in the Odom class. I don't believe he has the athleticism of an Odom that can translate to a 3. That doesn't mean Jones can't be an effective 4, however, if he improves his game, especially his shooting. T. Jones is a project, but at least he has the defensive talent and rebounding ability to build upon. I've ragged on him as another Greene, but at least with T. Jones he's going to rebound the ball (I've never quite understood why Greene can't/doesn't).
As far as Kemba is concerned, I've been on his bandwagon since the beginning of the season. Some people got down on him when he had his mid-season slump, but I had a hunch that once the NCAAs started he'd play very well. I agree - he is a winner. The guy has brains and mega-quickness, which is exactly what this team needs. I think his game is going to translate very well to the NBA. He can work with the ball or off the ball, a very nice complement to Tyreke or Thornton. By all accounts, he's a great leader. Heck, after the Syracuse game he was given a standing ovation in the lockeroom - by his teamates. You don't hear about that everyday. If you can get a great athlete with his leadership ability, that's a potent combination.
Lastly, I still like Knight. Sometimes you just have to go with your gut instead of the numbers. You look at Knights' numbers and it's a big, "whatever." But after watching him play, I think he could eventually be a very good NBA player. Just like Kemba, I think he's a winner. And like Kemba, he has the IQ that I want and this team desperately needs. When you have a 4.3 gpa in high school and so far a 4.0 in college and and muti-lingual, you get points in my book.
I am curious as to the rest of the folks feel about drafting a great point guard. I brought it up before and got a big yawn - perhaps rightly so. Anyway, we have two young guards named Reke and Marcus. We have another solid guard in Beno who has been a starter yet I believe isn't going to cause a rucus if he doesn't get a lot of minutes. How do you fit an up and coming PG stud into this mix?
I am concerned about overall team chemistry as the team seems fine as it is. Trading Beno might not be the biggest move in the world but on a team with almost no veterans, he is a veteran and we will have just gotten more inexperienced with little liklihood that this so-far mythical PG can replace Marcus or Reke for the next decade.
I'm at a point where I'm not sure what we need other than experience. We won't get experience in the draft.
I am concerned about overall team chemistry as the team seems fine as it is. Trading Beno might not be the biggest move in the world but on a team with almost no veterans, he is a veteran and we will have just gotten more inexperienced with little liklihood that this so-far mythical PG can replace Marcus or Reke for the next decade.
I'm at a point where I'm not sure what we need other than experience. We won't get experience in the draft.
What really impresses me about Walkers game is, that he is brilliant on the ball, but also off the ball. He is one of the best coming off screens and knocking down the jumper. I don't think that he has to be as ball dominant as he was in UConn. It was just his role on the team, and Coach Calhoun told him to take more shots and responisibility. In the end it paid off very well. IMO he leads all the other prospects in hustling, leadership and quickness. He obviously made his teammates better during the Big East and NCAA tournament. But the big question is, is he able to make his teammates better on an NBA team?
The jury's sort of out on OKC and them acquiring Kendrick for Jeff Green. But in my opinion it's a great example of going BPA and how it can benefit you. We can't know for sure, but it could very well be OKC never ends up with Perkins had they not drafted Green. I guess what I am saying is I prescribe to the BPA over need philosophy, unless the players who you are choosing between seem to be equal in talent and one fits a need better. (where have we heard that before?)
Last edited:
I'm sorry my friend, I meant to be heard last time you posed this question, just was too busy. I heard a post from Baja a week or so ago, and he mentioned any time you move a starter on your team to the bench, and a bench player off the team completely, you are only improving on the team. Now of course there is chemistry to worry about, but wording about team chemistry is like worrying about the Sun exploding.
What I am trying to say is, if I was GM, and I thought Kemba, or Knight could supplant Beno in the near future, and they were on the board, I would take one of them. A team cannot have too many talented PG's. Reke (yes I want him to be our PG, but I want him to get serious about improving his game this TDOS) Beno, and Kemba/Knight is solid, especially if an injury occured. How long will Beno even be on the team? We just don't know. And trust me, I love Beno, but I look at OKC and I just have to believe you cannot have too much young talent. Experience and chemistry is important, but they are a lot less easily attainable then talent and smarts IMO.
He wasn't that clear, that's why I asked him how he felt about all the prospects in our draft range. Thanks for the response BTW Kingster, you made a lot of good points, and I have been very intirgued by Knight, even moreso when you revealed his awesome academic performance. I can really appreciate GPA like those, and it defintiely shows he is special in that regard.
I think the problem here is how critical Kingter is of prospects, not in a bad way, but just in an almost overly critical way. A way that gets so critical that it causes Baja do disagree with assessments like "Jones is not that good of a ballhandler". You guys need to treat each other with more respect, you are two of the most brilliant, knowledgeable folk in the forum, and in IMO some of the best I have ever conversed with, over the Internet or otherwise.
I respect both your opiniOns so much, and I hate to see you guys get like this 2 years in a row. Demarcus was the topic last year, and now Jones this year. If we combined you guys we would have one heck of a scout. The perfect amount of criticism, coupled with the perfect amount of realism and being able to look at the positives of things. Ahhhhhh, you know it wouldn't be draft time without Kingster and Baja going at it over the player we are most assuredly goin to draft. I got love for you guys! Take it easy on each other!
It seems like Baja wants everybody to agree with him on every last thing. We are probably incredibly close, maybe identical, on where T. Jones should be drafted. Yet Baja wants me to agree in every aspect of his assessment from which he determines his draft position. He thinks T. Jones is a good ball handler; I don't. Big whoop. We still end up with virtually (or maybe identically) the same draft position for him. It's not like I'm saying he's a second rounder and Baja thinks he's a top 5. But Baja wants total agreement on every aspect of his evaluation. That ain't going to happen, unless he finds his clone somewhere. I have no probem with people disagreeing with me. I really don't. As long as they don't resort to rhetorical tricks like using red herrings or strawmen. If we didn't disagree, how boring would that be? The condescension thing and the rhetorical slights of hand get old, however. My patience on that does not extend to forever. After a while, I have to bare my teeth a little on that stuff.
It seems like Baja wants everybody to agree with him on every last thing. We are probably incredibly close, maybe identical, on where T. Jones should be drafted. Yet Baja wants me to agree in every aspect of his assessment from which he determines his draft position. He thinks T. Jones is a good ball handler; I don't. Big whoop. We still end up with virtually (or maybe identically) the same draft position for him. It's not like I'm saying he's a second rounder and Baja thinks he's a top 5. But Baja wants total agreement on every aspect of his evaluation. That ain't going to happen, unless he finds his clone somewhere. I have no probem with people disagreeing with me. I really don't. As long as they don't resort to rhetorical tricks like using red herrings or strawmen. If we didn't disagree, how boring would that be? The condescension thing and the rhetorical slights of hand get old, however. My patience on that does not extend to forever. After a while, I have to bare my teeth a little on that stuff.
I don't think that's true at all. Baja can handle people disagreeing with him. Don't want to speak for him, but I'm guessing it's your overall attitude and arrogance that gets on his nerves. Certainly gets on mine. Your sense of importance (and knowledge of basketball) is hugely inflated in your mind, or at least that's the impression given from the tone of your posts.
You "bare your teeth" in pretty much every post you make, mostly without reason.
It seems like Baja wants everybody to agree with him on every last thing. We are probably incredibly close, maybe identical, on where T. Jones should be drafted. Yet Baja wants me to agree in every aspect of his assessment from which he determines his draft position. He thinks T. Jones is a good ball handler; I don't. Big whoop. We still end up with virtually (or maybe identically) the same draft position for him. It's not like I'm saying he's a second rounder and Baja thinks he's a top 5. But Baja wants total agreement on every aspect of his evaluation. That ain't going to happen, unless he finds his clone somewhere. I have no probem with people disagreeing with me. I really don't. As long as they don't resort to rhetorical tricks like using red herrings or strawmen. If we didn't disagree, how boring would that be? The condescension thing and the rhetorical slights of hand get old, however. My patience on that does not extend to forever. After a while, I have to bare my teeth a little on that stuff.
It was not my intent to be condesending in my last post to Kingster, but after re-reading it, I can see how he could take it that way. If so, I apologize. That doesn't change my opinion. In his last post to me, he said it wasn't about his ballhandling but about whether he was better suited for PF or SF, not about being a SG or PG. I never once inferred that I thought he could play PG or SG. I said that before he grew 5 or 6 inches, he had played those positions. I stated that as a reference to how he aquired his ballhandling skills. I also never said he had to be a SF in the NBA. I was simply leaving that position as an option, because I thought he had the athleticism and enough other skills to play that position. That doesn't mean he couldn't end up being a PF.
No matter what you might think about a player, its still a crap shoot. I thought Hawes would be better than he's turned out. I also thought Thompson would be better. One could say that the jury is still out on both of them to some extent, but for most part, I think the die is cast. I was right about Tyreke, and so was Kingster by the way. I was right about Griffin and also Cousins. At least so far. I thought Thabeet would be a bust, and so far I'm right about that one. The truth is, all you can do is look at the skill level, natural instincts for the game, add in the athleticism, or vice/versa if you will, and make a judgement on what the players ceiling is. But after that, there's a lot of luck involved.
Now I'm going to add something thats selfserving, and Kingster probably won't agree with. I watch more college basketball than any man in his right mind should watch. Nothing would please my wife more, than if I were to give up this fourm and watching as many games as I do. Frankly, its very time consuming, and to some extent, interfere's with the rest of my life. Obviously I love doing it or I wouldn't. I illegally belong to two different scouting organizations, which gives me something to bounce my impressions off of. Having said all that, after a while, there are givens about players. The givens are the things the player is excellent at. good at, fair at, and bad at.
So when I state a given about a player, whether it be good or bad, I guess I just assume that everyone see's it that way. So when someone not only disagree's with me, but strongly disagree's with me about something that I, and almost every scout in the country thinks, is a given, it irritates me. It irritates me because I don't understand why were even arguing about it.
Two years ago, there were those that said that Griffin wasn't athletic. Anyone that had spent any time watching him play had to either blind, or they were lying about how many times they actually watched him if they felt that way. His athleticism was a given. His outside jumpshot wasn't. I was also told that Harden wasn't athletic. Another given. I was told that Fredette had no left hand and didn't handle the ball well, when it happens to be one of his strengths. Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of things to be concerned about at the next level for Fredette, but shooting and ballhandling aren't amongst those things.
And just for the record, I never said that T. Jones was a top five pick. I believe I had him at number 6 in my last listing. And my top 10 changes throughout the year. I've had Barnes all the way down to 12 or 13 at one point, and all the way back up to 5 in my last listing. But until we've had the combine, and know the results, like the true height of players etc, and then actually know who is in the draft for sure, its hard to have a top ten. I will give credit to Kingster on his opinion of Sullinger. Sullinger never blew my socks off, but it was hard to argue with results, and game after game he simply put up the numbers. A lot of the scouts that I respect really liked him. So I went along for the ride. A ride I refused to take with Perry Jones by the way. But when I watched Harrellson outplay Sullinger in his final game, that was enough for me.
I'll close by saying that in my opinion, P. Jones is the most talented player in the draft. And he may well end up being a superstar. But I don't think I'd take a gamble on him. He scares me to death, and he's the type of player that five years from now, your kickiing yourself for not drafting him when you had the chance.
No matter what you might think about a player, its still a crap shoot. I thought Hawes would be better than he's turned out. I also thought Thompson would be better. One could say that the jury is still out on both of them to some extent, but for most part, I think the die is cast. I was right about Tyreke, and so was Kingster by the way. I was right about Griffin and also Cousins. At least so far. I thought Thabeet would be a bust, and so far I'm right about that one. The truth is, all you can do is look at the skill level, natural instincts for the game, add in the athleticism, or vice/versa if you will, and make a judgement on what the players ceiling is. But after that, there's a lot of luck involved.
Now I'm going to add something thats selfserving, and Kingster probably won't agree with. I watch more college basketball than any man in his right mind should watch. Nothing would please my wife more, than if I were to give up this fourm and watching as many games as I do. Frankly, its very time consuming, and to some extent, interfere's with the rest of my life. Obviously I love doing it or I wouldn't. I illegally belong to two different scouting organizations, which gives me something to bounce my impressions off of. Having said all that, after a while, there are givens about players. The givens are the things the player is excellent at. good at, fair at, and bad at.
So when I state a given about a player, whether it be good or bad, I guess I just assume that everyone see's it that way. So when someone not only disagree's with me, but strongly disagree's with me about something that I, and almost every scout in the country thinks, is a given, it irritates me. It irritates me because I don't understand why were even arguing about it.
Two years ago, there were those that said that Griffin wasn't athletic. Anyone that had spent any time watching him play had to either blind, or they were lying about how many times they actually watched him if they felt that way. His athleticism was a given. His outside jumpshot wasn't. I was also told that Harden wasn't athletic. Another given. I was told that Fredette had no left hand and didn't handle the ball well, when it happens to be one of his strengths. Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of things to be concerned about at the next level for Fredette, but shooting and ballhandling aren't amongst those things.
And just for the record, I never said that T. Jones was a top five pick. I believe I had him at number 6 in my last listing. And my top 10 changes throughout the year. I've had Barnes all the way down to 12 or 13 at one point, and all the way back up to 5 in my last listing. But until we've had the combine, and know the results, like the true height of players etc, and then actually know who is in the draft for sure, its hard to have a top ten. I will give credit to Kingster on his opinion of Sullinger. Sullinger never blew my socks off, but it was hard to argue with results, and game after game he simply put up the numbers. A lot of the scouts that I respect really liked him. So I went along for the ride. A ride I refused to take with Perry Jones by the way. But when I watched Harrellson outplay Sullinger in his final game, that was enough for me.
I'll close by saying that in my opinion, P. Jones is the most talented player in the draft. And he may well end up being a superstar. But I don't think I'd take a gamble on him. He scares me to death, and he's the type of player that five years from now, your kickiing yourself for not drafting him when you had the chance.
I'll stay out of the Terrence Jones discussion because I don't think I watched him play enough to have an informed opinion one way or another. But with regards to Perry Jones, who I'm equally afraid of for the same reason (his college season was...disappointing), if we end up slipping in the lottery like we seem to every year and we're picking 6th or 7th and Perry Jones is still available, is there a point at which the potential reward is worth the risk? We do have a hole to fill at SF.
I'm mainly posing the question as a hypothetical. Even as I ask I'm leaning towards no because our team historically hasn't been the best environment for developing talented but enigmatic young SFs. On the other hand, we are in ideal position to take a shot at the home run pick right now with two potential star players already on the roster (maybe 3 with Thornton). He's not going to be asked to do a lot right away. It could end up being a Darko situation where he's buried on the bench for years, except that I think Perry Jones is legitimately talented -- not just size and athleticism but significant ball skills as well. He must have some kind of a work ethic just to have gotten where he is now.
I'm mainly posing the question as a hypothetical. Even as I ask I'm leaning towards no because our team historically hasn't been the best environment for developing talented but enigmatic young SFs. On the other hand, we are in ideal position to take a shot at the home run pick right now with two potential star players already on the roster (maybe 3 with Thornton). He's not going to be asked to do a lot right away. It could end up being a Darko situation where he's buried on the bench for years, except that I think Perry Jones is legitimately talented -- not just size and athleticism but significant ball skills as well. He must have some kind of a work ethic just to have gotten where he is now.
I pray I am missing sarcasm. Baja, you are a freaking treasure of info for this forum. If you are "too old" for anything, it's to disappear because some teenager shows too much bravado on a message board. If you do, then start a freaking blog. I actually trust your take on college players more than some of the so called ESPN, Draftexpress, nbadraft.com experts.
Hate replying to myself with a quote, but glad to see Baja posting again, although:
1 - If you are doing something illegal, please delete it in your first post. You may be old enough to not care, but don't self-incriminate. We need you. Especially do not self-incriminate when you don't have to - proving yourself to someone not worthy of your time.
2 - I remember your Griffin predictions. I just turned 30 and feel I am still constantly learning. If there was anything I learned from that draft, it was "don't get too caught up in the 'hype' or ''anti-hype.'" Everyone said it was a terrible draft. They said Griffin was #1, but wasn't very athletic and wasn't a franchise player. It would be the worst draft in the last decade. Well, we've gotten Griffin, Evans, and Curry out of the draft. Also, Holliday, Ibaka, Collison, Derozan, Blair, etc. And have not even seen Rubio play. So I already joked with friends that analysts didn't know what they were talking about with the draft. Now I don't listen to the "weak draft" v "strong draft" at all. It's normally code for there's an obvious superstar or not.
1 - If you are doing something illegal, please delete it in your first post. You may be old enough to not care, but don't self-incriminate. We need you. Especially do not self-incriminate when you don't have to - proving yourself to someone not worthy of your time.
2 - I remember your Griffin predictions. I just turned 30 and feel I am still constantly learning. If there was anything I learned from that draft, it was "don't get too caught up in the 'hype' or ''anti-hype.'" Everyone said it was a terrible draft. They said Griffin was #1, but wasn't very athletic and wasn't a franchise player. It would be the worst draft in the last decade. Well, we've gotten Griffin, Evans, and Curry out of the draft. Also, Holliday, Ibaka, Collison, Derozan, Blair, etc. And have not even seen Rubio play. So I already joked with friends that analysts didn't know what they were talking about with the draft. Now I don't listen to the "weak draft" v "strong draft" at all. It's normally code for there's an obvious superstar or not.
Perry can without a doubt play the 3, and I'd say it's likely that it will end up his primary position within a few years. Especially since he's not a very good rebounder. He has the speed, quickness, athleticism, ball-handling etc. to play the 3 easily, and still be better at those things than most 3s in the NBA. That's what's so intriguing about him.
If we pick in the 5-7 range, I'd be happy with P Jones. He has so much talent. It's a mystery why he wasn't more impressive during his freshman season. He really does have all the tools. But he's too passive. And it worries people, including myself. Still, if you can get him to be more assertive and to believe in his abilities, you might end up having a legit star, or at least an upgraded version of Odom. That would be huge.
His demeanour is worrying though. And I'm not sure about his smarts or charisma off the court (which is usually what your star players have).
I remember last year (or 2 years ago) someone trying to tell me that Griffin wasn't an elite athlete on the level of a guy like Stoudemire. I was astounded, and insisted that he was. He was always a freak. Might be harder to see it in college, but it was evident if you had seen him play. Baja and myself were two of the main posters back then adamant that Griffin was a freak athlete.