and with the #1 pick in the 2009 NBA draft the Kings select...
- Thread starter RiffRaff
- Start date
I'm a little behind on this whole discussion, but just to jump in on the Rubio thing -- I think the John Stockton comparison is an interesting one. I've been trying to think of pass-first point guards who aren't particularly athletic and rely more on basketball IQ to play the position. Late career Jason Kidd comes up a lot, and I can see that one. Both have pretty good size for their position and Jason Kidd has never been known as a good shooter. He was still very effective late in his career though (up until Dallas I suppose, which may be more a result of personnel and style of play than a dramatic fall off in Kidd's performance). As recently as 2007 he was still putting up triple doubles with regularity.
John Stockton is a name I haven't thought about in awhile though, which is funny because he's obviously up there with the greatest PGs of all time. I wasn't really watching a lot of basketball when Stockton was in his prime, so I'm not familiar with the nuances of his game. Basically I just know that he worked the pick and roll to death with Karl Malone and those two guys alone were enough to win on most nights. So I guess my question is, with all this talk about the NBA getting more athletic, point guards getting quicker, etc -- would John Stockton thrive in the NBA today or is his style of play incompatible? From one point of view I would say that PG is one position where I'd be willing to sacrifice athleticism for basketball IQ. You want a leader out there who knows how to run the plays and get the ball where it's supposed to be. But from another point of view, can you live with Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Rajon Rondo, Russell Westbrook, or whoever torching you every other night because your PG can't stay in front of them?
I don't know. It's possible Rubio's height advantage would even the odds a bit on defense and make up for some of his lack of speed on offense. And I don't think there's any question with him that he can play the PG position from a purely tactical basketball IQ perspective.
Which leads me to Brandon Jennings. Somebody back there said that there aren't any athletic PGs in this draft except maybe Collison. It's easy to forget about Jennings because he isn't getting big minutes and Euroleague games aren't regularly broadcast here anyway. The general perception seems to be that going to Europe was a mistake and his stock is slipping. Which means it can be forgotten that Jennings was at the top of his high school class, dished out 14 assists and won MVP of the Jordan Brand All Star game, had 9 assists in the McDonald's All Star Game, and is possibly the best PG in Oak Hill history. Some people have been complaining about how weak the freshman class is this season, and Jennings' decision to go to Europe is a big reason why. Look at his high school numbers and then slot him into Arizona this season, and we could be talking about him as the best PG in the nation right now. That's all conjecture of course, and it's just a really long-winding way of saying -- don't forget about Brandon Jennings. He's quite possibly the most gifted PG in this class and there's no question, he will be in the draft this year.
John Stockton is a name I haven't thought about in awhile though, which is funny because he's obviously up there with the greatest PGs of all time. I wasn't really watching a lot of basketball when Stockton was in his prime, so I'm not familiar with the nuances of his game. Basically I just know that he worked the pick and roll to death with Karl Malone and those two guys alone were enough to win on most nights. So I guess my question is, with all this talk about the NBA getting more athletic, point guards getting quicker, etc -- would John Stockton thrive in the NBA today or is his style of play incompatible? From one point of view I would say that PG is one position where I'd be willing to sacrifice athleticism for basketball IQ. You want a leader out there who knows how to run the plays and get the ball where it's supposed to be. But from another point of view, can you live with Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Rajon Rondo, Russell Westbrook, or whoever torching you every other night because your PG can't stay in front of them?
I don't know. It's possible Rubio's height advantage would even the odds a bit on defense and make up for some of his lack of speed on offense. And I don't think there's any question with him that he can play the PG position from a purely tactical basketball IQ perspective.
Which leads me to Brandon Jennings. Somebody back there said that there aren't any athletic PGs in this draft except maybe Collison. It's easy to forget about Jennings because he isn't getting big minutes and Euroleague games aren't regularly broadcast here anyway. The general perception seems to be that going to Europe was a mistake and his stock is slipping. Which means it can be forgotten that Jennings was at the top of his high school class, dished out 14 assists and won MVP of the Jordan Brand All Star game, had 9 assists in the McDonald's All Star Game, and is possibly the best PG in Oak Hill history. Some people have been complaining about how weak the freshman class is this season, and Jennings' decision to go to Europe is a big reason why. Look at his high school numbers and then slot him into Arizona this season, and we could be talking about him as the best PG in the nation right now. That's all conjecture of course, and it's just a really long-winding way of saying -- don't forget about Brandon Jennings. He's quite possibly the most gifted PG in this class and there's no question, he will be in the draft this year.
Last edited:
With all due respect, I never said that I don't value athleticism. As I said show me a player with athletic ability and good basketball skills and I'm with you. But if I have to choose between a player with only average athleticism and very good basketball skills or a player with great athleticism and poor skills, I'll take the skilled player almost every time. It depends on the circumstance. If I'm picking 15th or 16th, I'll take Thabeet. But to take him as high as 5 or above is a huge risk. I just don't think the Kings can afford a major mistake right now.
That makes sense, and normally I'd right there with you on the raw/risk thing (which is why I'm also scared to death of Jrue Holiday). I do think Thabeet is skilled (shotblocking is a skill), but definitely understand that he's not without risk.
I'm just for hitting a home run in this draft, and you don't hit a home run with the average athleticism guys, which is why I'm looking squarely at the special athletes.
I'm just for hitting a home run in this draft, and you don't hit a home run with the average athleticism guys, which is why I'm looking squarely at the special athletes.
For NBA point guards, if you're not athletic, you better be skilled and be able to shoot. Guys like Nash, Stockton, Mark Price were all excellent shooters. What concerns me about Rubio is that he is not very athletic AND he can't shoot. He still has some time to correct his shot, so we'll see. He is an excellent passer however.
In the case of Jrue Holiday I know he's out of position and although you did make a good point about Westbrook last year a lot of the padded stats came when Collison was injured. Bottom line though is Jrue is out of position which might actually keep him in school an extra year which is probably fine by UCLA. I still think Jrue has a load of talent, and can still play pure PG just fine.
Same happened to DeAndre Jordan last year which REALLY hurt his draft position. Most draft sites had him at 8-15. He was not in the right situation last year. Who knows.. If Jrue came out this year I would be happy as hell if he fell to Houstons pick.. I hope Petrie would feel the same.
If Rubio isn't entering the draft and we had #2 or #3 pick I would definitely pick up Jennings.
Same happened to DeAndre Jordan last year which REALLY hurt his draft position. Most draft sites had him at 8-15. He was not in the right situation last year. Who knows.. If Jrue came out this year I would be happy as hell if he fell to Houstons pick.. I hope Petrie would feel the same.
If Rubio isn't entering the draft and we had #2 or #3 pick I would definitely pick up Jennings.
I'm knew the name would come up but I'd not compare Rubio to John Stockton. for one, Stockton is not slow. He plays methodically and he almost never crosses a guy so there's a persception that he's slow. He's not as fast as KJ but when he needs to, he can kick it in a higher gear. The key is while he wouldn't win any sprint, his first few steps are very quick. I saw him blew by Spud Webb a few times, and you can't do that unless you're quick.
Stockton is also a much better shooter than advertised. I always get the feeling that he can drop 20+ pts anytime he wants to. His FG% is outstanding and when he shoots he usually makes, unlike most guards nowadays. He is a very good 3-pt shooter, especially in the clutch. He's a player I love to hate, but I gotta give him props.
Stockton is also a very good defender. He doesn't look like it, in fact, he looks more like your real estate agent than a professional athlete, but he can d it up.
Compare to Stockton, Rubio has a long, long way to go.
Interesting analysis. I would question how height can offset the lack of speed against a quick PG. Yes, it makes shooting over you difficult, but staying in front of a PG takes him out of the game and eliminates some of the most devestating passes. Give me a quick athletic PG that plays great man defensive, and I'll live with aver. shooting.
BB is quick & athletic and can shot well from outside, but he's just starting to play PG after one year in Europe. Someone with great ball handling and quickness, who could run the offense and defend is all we need. He doesn't have to be so athletic that he can drive to the rim and dunk. So, if Jennings has improved his defense by playing in Europe, your point is well made.
BB is quick & athletic and can shot well from outside, but he's just starting to play PG after one year in Europe. Someone with great ball handling and quickness, who could run the offense and defend is all we need. He doesn't have to be so athletic that he can drive to the rim and dunk. So, if Jennings has improved his defense by playing in Europe, your point is well made.
Finally able to watch UConn/Notre Dame-
In the first half Notre Dame packed it in on a zone to stop Thabeet and guard penetration. And I mean packed it in -- the two guys down low didn't leave the blocks. They just let UConn live or die by their shooting and fast breaks. (They lived.)
Also, I thought Thabeet's defense on Harangody was pretty awesome, partcularly considering the size difference. Early on he didn't have his hands up ready to block the quick shot, and Harongody snuck one by him. A few plays later though he came back to help on the helpside and had a great block, which seemed to get into Notre Dame's heads. They were extremely hesitant going to the rim afterwards, and Harangody basically reduced himself to a semi-accurate fadeaway jump shooter. Thabeet's quick enough to step out on pick and rolls and still recover. He guarded Harangody out to the three point line and was easily able to keep up with him when he put the ball on the floor. Harangody got his points, but some of those came when Thabeet was on the bench, other times he was cherry picking, and he didn't end up shooting a high percentage when Thabeet was guarding him. They showed a stat late in the game -- he contested 13 shots, blocked 5, and Notre Dame shot 5-14 against him. There you have it.
Also, I thought he looked reasonably intense in this game, getting pumped up and hustling and running the floor. I do think he's extremely careful about not getting into foul trouble.
Offensively... good hands. He catches passes that most bigs wouldn't catch. Rest of his offensive game: yikes. This was an especailly bad showing. He brings the ball down when he should keep it up, dribbles to gether himself when he should just go up strong, and kept getting stripped. Someone teach this man a drop step! He did have a really, really sweet alley-oop by running the floor and catching a nice pass on a fast break.
I also think I saw Thabeet's first two assists ever.
Harangody... gotta love what he can do as a slow 6'7" dude.
In the first half Notre Dame packed it in on a zone to stop Thabeet and guard penetration. And I mean packed it in -- the two guys down low didn't leave the blocks. They just let UConn live or die by their shooting and fast breaks. (They lived.)
Also, I thought Thabeet's defense on Harangody was pretty awesome, partcularly considering the size difference. Early on he didn't have his hands up ready to block the quick shot, and Harongody snuck one by him. A few plays later though he came back to help on the helpside and had a great block, which seemed to get into Notre Dame's heads. They were extremely hesitant going to the rim afterwards, and Harangody basically reduced himself to a semi-accurate fadeaway jump shooter. Thabeet's quick enough to step out on pick and rolls and still recover. He guarded Harangody out to the three point line and was easily able to keep up with him when he put the ball on the floor. Harangody got his points, but some of those came when Thabeet was on the bench, other times he was cherry picking, and he didn't end up shooting a high percentage when Thabeet was guarding him. They showed a stat late in the game -- he contested 13 shots, blocked 5, and Notre Dame shot 5-14 against him. There you have it.
Also, I thought he looked reasonably intense in this game, getting pumped up and hustling and running the floor. I do think he's extremely careful about not getting into foul trouble.
Offensively... good hands. He catches passes that most bigs wouldn't catch. Rest of his offensive game: yikes. This was an especailly bad showing. He brings the ball down when he should keep it up, dribbles to gether himself when he should just go up strong, and kept getting stripped. Someone teach this man a drop step! He did have a really, really sweet alley-oop by running the floor and catching a nice pass on a fast break.
I also think I saw Thabeet's first two assists ever.
Harangody... gotta love what he can do as a slow 6'7" dude.
Kansas/Iowa St.-
Interesting matchup with Brackins vs. Aldrich, although they weren't guarding each other the whole time. Brackins finished with an insane line of 42/14 in the loss.
Brackins looks closer to 6'9" to me, and very skinny. He's built like a small forward and his game is along the lines of Odom and Granger. He's got great, great ball-handling skills, he can put the ball on the floor and pull up for jumpers or back his guy down and fade away. He's got great post moves and can really elevate for either a jumper or a jump hook, which makes his shots hard to block. Can shoot threes and looked comfortable doing so. Also looked really, really comfortable passing out of double-teams.
Nothing to write home about defensively though. Not at all a shotblocker, and never really had any great plays, didn't expend too much effort, although he's got quick feet and the few times he played help defense he was able to stay in front of Kansas' guards. He's a good rebounder, with good hands and anticipation.
Overall I like this guy -- he's versatile, athletic, and skilled, and even though he plays a tweener game I think he'd be a really tough cover at either the 3 or the 4 -- like Odom he's the rare player who could slide between both forward positions depending on the matchup and beat smallws with his height and bigs with his quickness. He can do it all offensively. Kansas' guys aren't slouches, so it wasn't like he was doing all of this against terribly inferior competition. Could be a definitely late 1st/2nd round sleeper, and because of his versatility, a possible Petrie pick.
And holy crap! Carlos Boozer has a brother! He's not very good, but he's like a 6'3" mini-me verison. That family isn't winning any beauty contests.
Interesting matchup with Brackins vs. Aldrich, although they weren't guarding each other the whole time. Brackins finished with an insane line of 42/14 in the loss.
Brackins looks closer to 6'9" to me, and very skinny. He's built like a small forward and his game is along the lines of Odom and Granger. He's got great, great ball-handling skills, he can put the ball on the floor and pull up for jumpers or back his guy down and fade away. He's got great post moves and can really elevate for either a jumper or a jump hook, which makes his shots hard to block. Can shoot threes and looked comfortable doing so. Also looked really, really comfortable passing out of double-teams.
Nothing to write home about defensively though. Not at all a shotblocker, and never really had any great plays, didn't expend too much effort, although he's got quick feet and the few times he played help defense he was able to stay in front of Kansas' guards. He's a good rebounder, with good hands and anticipation.
Overall I like this guy -- he's versatile, athletic, and skilled, and even though he plays a tweener game I think he'd be a really tough cover at either the 3 or the 4 -- like Odom he's the rare player who could slide between both forward positions depending on the matchup and beat smallws with his height and bigs with his quickness. He can do it all offensively. Kansas' guys aren't slouches, so it wasn't like he was doing all of this against terribly inferior competition. Could be a definitely late 1st/2nd round sleeper, and because of his versatility, a possible Petrie pick.
And holy crap! Carlos Boozer has a brother! He's not very good, but he's like a 6'3" mini-me verison. That family isn't winning any beauty contests.
Ohio St./Michigan St.
Mullens keeps looking better and better. He's got a decent jumper and is always active, but still not always coordinated with the ball. I'd still like to see more shotblocking, and I'm starting to feel like he's the next Jeff Foster. Which isn't a bad thing.
Don't know why Chad Ford likes Evan Turner so much. He's just not that good of an athlete (a Chad Ford specialty!). He's got a good all-around college game, he's a very good passer, he's ok pulling up off the dribble, and he's got good size for a SG, but I don't see anything that's going to stand out at the next level. Finished with 19 points, but whatevs. Not impressed.
Mullens keeps looking better and better. He's got a decent jumper and is always active, but still not always coordinated with the ball. I'd still like to see more shotblocking, and I'm starting to feel like he's the next Jeff Foster. Which isn't a bad thing.
Don't know why Chad Ford likes Evan Turner so much. He's just not that good of an athlete (a Chad Ford specialty!). He's got a good all-around college game, he's a very good passer, he's ok pulling up off the dribble, and he's got good size for a SG, but I don't see anything that's going to stand out at the next level. Finished with 19 points, but whatevs. Not impressed.
Seeing as we're now the 2nd-linningest team in the NBA, and (from the looks of the schedule) in line for a 16-18 win season, we might not want to think only about the two first-round picks. One of the first few picks of the second round might not be bad at all... if Petrie breaks his habit of treating our second rounder as a throwaway. And the lottery can't make the second round pick drop, like it can with the first rounder.
32nd pick, anyone?
32nd pick, anyone?
I'm thinking: we get #1. Don Nelson falls in love with Griffin. We trade him the #1 for the #6 and Brandan Wright. We get Jeff Teague #6. Draft Craig Brackens #21 and Dionte Christmas #32.
Teague, Christmas, Brackens, Wright.
Team of the future:
PG: Teague, Beno
SG: Martin, Christmas
SF: Garcia, Greene, Brackens
PF: Thompson, Wright, Brackens
C: Hawes, Wright
Teague, Christmas, Brackens, Wright.
Team of the future:
PG: Teague, Beno
SG: Martin, Christmas
SF: Garcia, Greene, Brackens
PF: Thompson, Wright, Brackens
C: Hawes, Wright
Oklahoma/Oklahoma St.-
Disagree about the passing in this one. He had 7 turnovers, and he always dribbles away from the double-teams rather than recognizing them and making a quick pass. I don't think he's a really smart player. This was yet another game where Griffin dominated because he was the biggest guy on the floor. Most of the time he was being guarded by a guy who was 6'6" and skinny. Despite the stats I don't think it was one of his more impressive efforts.
Disagree about the passing in this one. He had 7 turnovers, and he always dribbles away from the double-teams rather than recognizing them and making a quick pass. I don't think he's a really smart player. This was yet another game where Griffin dominated because he was the biggest guy on the floor. Most of the time he was being guarded by a guy who was 6'6" and skinny. Despite the stats I don't think it was one of his more impressive efforts.
Let's keep in mind there are ways to get creative defensively. If you believe that Rubio can be a star, but your one concern is that he will get burned by quicker PGs, you can always get a SG with better lateral quickness who can guard PGs. Rubio is 6'4'' so he could guard a number of wing players. Whoever was the worst 1/2/3 the other team had on the floor.
Similarly, you can get more dominant defensive bigs behind him to help control to paint.
In other words, you don't have to turn away a star because other team's have quick PGs.
Similarly, you can get more dominant defensive bigs behind him to help control to paint.
In other words, you don't have to turn away a star because other team's have quick PGs.
Well, we need the best players possible and then we can worry about fit. If we ultimatley need to trade Kevin Martin, because Rubio is a true star player but needs to be teamed with a SG who can guard PGs, then so be it. Kind of the same way traded for Webber even though we had Corliss and then eventually traded him for Christie, because Corliss did not fit well next to Webber and Vlade.
I worry about this "superstar" tag Rubio has been getting. He is not, nor will be, a superstar. He will not be a franchise player. And I'm his biggest fan.
The guy is a great PG (IMO). However, I do share some of Nbrans worries. Is he athletic enough (I think he is, but NOT to be a superstar). He is good at getting into the lane, but NOT elite. He has strange form on his shot.
Despite the fact that I think he will be an All-Star level player in his prime, that does not equal superstar. He will not be the cornerstone of a franchise. What I think he will do, is give you your starting PG for the next ten years. As well as bringing excitement, fun and smarts.
People that are expecting him to be a superstar without ever really having seen him play are the ones that are going to be disappointed and call him a bust after two years in the League (kind of like Bargnani, he's still young and has his best years to come, can't believe he's already dubbed a bust in what was a weak class!).
I do worry about some parts of his game. But as I've said throughout the thread (I know some of you are probably sick of me!), I think he is good enough to overcome his weaknesses and thrive.
There is no wrong or right. Nbrans could turn out to be fully justified in his scepticism. At this point no one knows who will turn out to be good.
The guy is a great PG (IMO). However, I do share some of Nbrans worries. Is he athletic enough (I think he is, but NOT to be a superstar). He is good at getting into the lane, but NOT elite. He has strange form on his shot.
Despite the fact that I think he will be an All-Star level player in his prime, that does not equal superstar. He will not be the cornerstone of a franchise. What I think he will do, is give you your starting PG for the next ten years. As well as bringing excitement, fun and smarts.
People that are expecting him to be a superstar without ever really having seen him play are the ones that are going to be disappointed and call him a bust after two years in the League (kind of like Bargnani, he's still young and has his best years to come, can't believe he's already dubbed a bust in what was a weak class!).
I do worry about some parts of his game. But as I've said throughout the thread (I know some of you are probably sick of me!), I think he is good enough to overcome his weaknesses and thrive.
There is no wrong or right. Nbrans could turn out to be fully justified in his scepticism. At this point no one knows who will turn out to be good.
I think Rubio has star qualities, but I don't think that necessarily equals a superstar PG; he'd have to overcome quite a bit, like gain strength without losing quickness and overhaul his jumpshot. It's easy to get in the habit of calling him a potential superstar because he has that kind of drive and flair about him. I definitely think his passing/vision is up there with the elite PG's in NBA history, but the problem is whether he has the athleticism and scoring ability to fully utilize it in the NBA.
You make a good point-- if Rubio is a competent defender and all-around star player who just isn't quite quick enough to guard the faster PGs in the league, we can probably find someone else to do it. And I certainly agree that getting the best player we can has to be the priority. I'm a little wary of Harden because we already have Martin signed longterm (not to mention Garcia, Salmons, and Greene) but if he's the next Brandon Roy, and no one else in this draft comes close, than you have to do it regardless. But everybody in the draft at this point has question marks, so we're really just debating which of their strengths/weaknesses is the best fit for our team right now as well as which we think is most likely to be that star player.
So then, the only part where I disagree is that I tend to side more with the Rubio skeptics in that I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that he will be a star in the NBA. The scouts drool over him, and they watch a lot more international ball than I do, but I haven't been that impressed with anything I've seen from him. At least not enough to call him a star. And I also think his lack of athleticism might be a problem. I was just as impressed with Sergio Rodriguez' playmaking skills before he was drafted, and he hasn't done much in the league yet because he's not a good defender, he doesn't have the speed to blow by anyone, and he doesn't have a consistent jump shot. If defense is going to be a problem for Rubio too, that might be enough reasons to look somewhere else.
I'm still leaning towards Jennings as the PG pick, even though he has just as many question marks, because I think players like Jennings have a better track record of making it in the NBA.
So then, the only part where I disagree is that I tend to side more with the Rubio skeptics in that I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that he will be a star in the NBA. The scouts drool over him, and they watch a lot more international ball than I do, but I haven't been that impressed with anything I've seen from him. At least not enough to call him a star. And I also think his lack of athleticism might be a problem. I was just as impressed with Sergio Rodriguez' playmaking skills before he was drafted, and he hasn't done much in the league yet because he's not a good defender, he doesn't have the speed to blow by anyone, and he doesn't have a consistent jump shot. If defense is going to be a problem for Rubio too, that might be enough reasons to look somewhere else.
I'm still leaning towards Jennings as the PG pick, even though he has just as many question marks, because I think players like Jennings have a better track record of making it in the NBA.
I dont understand the double standard with Griffin, people say that the only reason he is successful in college is b/c he is the biggest guy on the floor, then go on to say that he wont be successful in the NBA because he isn't big enough. 
Furthermore, did you see that play where he broke ahead of the pack and Johnson threw him the pass over the wrong shoulder. Blake made the proper adjustment and quickly layed the ball in. To me, that is an incredible showcase of athleticism/coordination/grace, half of NFL WR's couldnt have made that grab.
and i guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree about his passing/IQ b/c I was impressed w/ what I saw/have seen.
Furthermore, did you see that play where he broke ahead of the pack and Johnson threw him the pass over the wrong shoulder. Blake made the proper adjustment and quickly layed the ball in. To me, that is an incredible showcase of athleticism/coordination/grace, half of NFL WR's couldnt have made that grab.and i guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree about his passing/IQ b/c I was impressed w/ what I saw/have seen.
I dont understand the double standard with Griffin, people say that the only reason he is successful in college is b/c he is the biggest guy on the floor, then go on to say that he wont be successful in the NBA because he isn't big enough. Furthermore, did you see that play where he broke ahead of the pack and Johnson threw him the pass over the wrong shoulder. Blake made the proper adjustment and quickly layed the ball in. To me, that is an incredible showcase of athleticism/coordination/grace, half of NFL WR's couldnt have made that grab.
and i guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree about his passing/IQ b/c I was impressed w/ what I saw/have seen.
Furthermore, did you see that play where he broke ahead of the pack and Johnson threw him the pass over the wrong shoulder. Blake made the proper adjustment and quickly layed the ball in. To me, that is an incredible showcase of athleticism/coordination/grace, half of NFL WR's couldnt have made that grab.and i guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree about his passing/IQ b/c I was impressed w/ what I saw/have seen.
But here's what I mean on the size thing. Griffin was going up against guys who were 6'6" and skinny. They would be shooting guards in the NBA, only they're not that athletic. Of course Griffin is going to dominate offensively in that scenario. He's bigger and stronger, and still quick. He wasn't getting his points through many crafty moves -- for the most part they were garbage points. He was able to pass out of doubles by dribbling away, but he never made the defense pay, and he had 7 turnovers.
In the NBA he's going to be going up against 6'10" and 6'11" guys. Put him out there against NBA power forwards and suddenly he can't get those garbage points as easily, and he's going to have to rely on his skills, which are still relatively raw. It's going to be a major adjustment. If he's 6'9" he'll probably be able to adjust. 6'8" and below? He'll still probably be good, but I don't think good enough to justify a #1 pick.