Best shooting guard prospects the Kings should look at

[206Fan]

Not to quibble but Moultrie was a junior wasn't he? Zeller was a senior in that draft and I'd say he's carved out a role. And, I certainly wanted CJ McCollum more than I wanted the significantly younger and more potential filled Ben McLemore. Of course that was when I thought the Kings would resign Evans and CJ was a better fit, but I digress.

Yes, I definitely agree that a freshman or sophomore has more potential for growth than a senior, but I think sometimes people (not pointing at you in particular) go overboard in thinking that means a 22 or 23 year old won't continue to improve. And I think the perception is skewed a bit by the fact that very few guys with the talent to leave early stick around.

Outside of rare cases like Tim Duncan who would've been the #1 pick after his junior year and probably after his sophomore year too, guys leave school as soon as they think they have a chance to be drafted high enough. Going back to school is seen as a risk. Just look at Michael Finley who would have gone much higher had he come out as a junior. So while a guy like Brandon Ingram would probably be a much better player if he stayed another two years at Duke, he won't because he's already a top 2 draft pick and there's no reason to jeopardize that.

So if any of this rambling is making sense I guess what I'm getting at is that it isn't being a senior necessarily that leads to a lower upside etc but the fact that those players didn't have enough physical tools or and advanced enough game to allow them to leave early. Sometimes it's late bloomers (Scottie Pippen) and/or lightly recruited guys who don't get enough shine because they play for smaller schools against lesser competition which forces them to stay in school longer and prove themselves more/develop enough skills that they can be seen as NBA caliber guys.

I don't think Hield has star potential but I like that he's worked on his weaknesses and added to his game each year. I'd put money on him having a better pro career than the last two SGs drafted by the Kings.

If I remember correctly, I think Moultrie had to sit out a year due to BS transferring rrules.

I agree with you on a lot of what you've said.

I personally think Hield has star potential. I think in a guards league today, he can dominate. I see his ceiling somewhere between McCollum and Harden. I think he can be a franchise player, but that's a huge amount of pressure to put on Hield.

Just like Grayson Allen, Hield has improved in almost every aspect of his game that was asked by scouts. Not a good enough ball handler? No problem Not good enough attacking? No problem. He's done it all. The only thing he can't change is his age. However, if he were 2 years younger, he'd probably be the #1 overall pick.

I think he will be better than Nik. Ben? It depends on which team we trade Ben to... Ben is all upside at this point.

 

[bajaden]

When did I say Hield's game didn't count? I was responding to whether or not I've watched him dominate against good defenses, and yes I did. In his last game, I watched him have a terrible 1st half, then come back with a dominant performance in the 2nd half. I watched him step up to the plate and completely take over the game. He took whatever the defense gave to him, and threw it in the trash. That's how good he can be.

I did not compare Hield to Jimmer.

I'm saying we've seen Jimmer make tough shot after tough shot in March. I'm not comparing the two players, I'm saying both were very dominant against elite college defenses. We've seen Jimmer shine in hostile environments. We've seen lots of players shine.

But, I want to see how Hield responds to that same defense in the NBA.

Edit: Jimmer is no Hield... that is so insulting in so many ways! Hell, I hate the Stauskas=Jimmer comparison, but that's 100x closer than Hield to Jimmer.

Perhaps I took your fun fact about Jimmer to seriously. Sorry! I grant you that we never know how anyone's game will translate from college to the NBA until it happens. It just appeared to me that you were specifically pointing that out about Hield, and not everyone, so perhaps I misunderstood you. I should point out that when I scout players, the only stats I'm interested in at the end of the game are his shooting percentages, rebounds and turnovers. Unless the player is a PG, I'm not that interested in how many assists he has, unless he appears to be gifted in that area. Mostly I go on the eye test. As you well know, a player can put up points in a game, and still not play that well. Stats can be deceptive in the short term. There is no replacement for actually watching the player play.

You can have two players score 20 points in a game and stat wise, assume that they're equal, but one might have worked harder to score that 20 points while the other one did it easily. For instance, right now, I think Cousins could go into just about any game and score 20 points and grab 10 boards without a lot of effort on his part. He's just that good. When he figures that out, he'll become an even better player.

By the way, Nik has been playing better of late. I watched the game where he scored 23 points, and the hitch in shot was gone. Through the last six games he's averaging 12.6 ppg, while shooting 49% overall and 37% from the three. He's also averaging 3.6 rebounds a game as well. Not perfect, but maybe he's turned the corner.

 

[hrdboild]

There will be 30 players drafted in the first round and not all of them are going to be stars. Many of them won't make it past their rookie contracts. Maybe 5 of them will be stars but some years there are only 1 or 2 and they're as likely as not to come outside the lottery. So if we're trying to figure out who we should be drafting with our pick, it makes sense I think to look at every position and to point out the pros and cons of every prospect. Even Ben Simmons and Brandon Ingram have negatives. Simmons is the consensus #1 pick and he couldn't even make a 2.0 GPA in one semester to qualify for the Wooden Award. He was hyped as the best wing prospect since Lebron yet he didn't help LSU win very much this year and his all-around game is notably lacking a three point shot. Brandon Ingram is a 6'10" smooth shooting SF who may challenge Simmons for the #1 pick but he's even skinnier than Kevin Durant was as a freshman at Texas and he might have trouble staying in front of quicker NBA wings on defense.

Point being, I can find negatives on everybody in the draft. That doesn't mean they aren't terrific prospects, it means I'm looking at all the angles. Is there a Hasheem Thabeet in the mix? A Wesley Johnson? Is there somebody that everybody likes who's going to wash out because we all ignored a significant flaw? This is meant to be a discussion right? If I read nothing but glowing reviews of the top 10 prospects on the board I know something is wrong. I think Simmons and Ingram are huge talents who go top 5 in any of the last 10 drafts. After that, it's the same uncertainty we deal with every year. I'll play devil's advocate if I have to for the sake of discussion. Sure it's easy to say now "I never liked Thomas Robinson anyway" or "I knew Jimmer Fredette wouldn't be able to adjust" but it's what you think at the time of the draft that counts. Find me an explanation for why Nik Stauskas' 44% three point shooting as a Freshman at Michigan (backed up by an equally good Sophomore year) has so far translated to 33% in the NBA. On paper he's as sure of a thing as you can get as a shooter. What did the stats miss in that case and what might they be missing this year? Nik was supposed to replace Ben last year as early as pre-season and instead got traded for cap space. Why is this year going to be different?

 

[bajaden]

Not to quibble but Moultrie was a junior wasn't he? Zeller was a senior in that draft and I'd say he's carved out a role. And, I certainly wanted CJ McCollum more than I wanted the significantly younger and more potential filled Ben McLemore. Of course that was when I thought the Kings would resign Evans and CJ was a better fit, but I digress.

Yes, I definitely agree that a freshman or sophomore has more potential for growth than a senior, but I think sometimes people (not pointing at you in particular) go overboard in thinking that means a 22 or 23 year old won't continue to improve. And I think the perception is skewed a bit by the fact that very few guys with the talent to leave early stick around.

Outside of rare cases like Tim Duncan who would've been the #1 pick after his junior year and probably after his sophomore year too, guys leave school as soon as they think they have a chance to be drafted high enough. Going back to school is seen as a risk. Just look at Michael Finley who would have gone much higher had he come out as a junior. So while a guy like Brandon Ingram would probably be a much better player if he stayed another two years at Duke, he won't because he's already a top 2 draft pick and there's no reason to jeopardize that.

So if any of this rambling is making sense I guess what I'm getting at is that it isn't being a senior necessarily that leads to a lower upside etc but the fact that those players didn't have enough physical tools or and advanced enough game to allow them to leave early. Sometimes it's late bloomers (Scottie Pippen) and/or lightly recruited guys who don't get enough shine because they play for smaller schools against lesser competition which forces them to stay in school longer and prove themselves more/develop enough skills that they can be seen as NBA caliber guys.

I don't think Hield has star potential but I like that he's worked on his weaknesses and added to his game each year. I'd put money on him having a better pro career than the last two SGs drafted by the Kings.

You make some good points. If I was king of the draft, everyone would have to stay in school four years. While that might be bad for some players, it would be better for others. But most of all, it would much better for the teams doing the drafting. As you said, some players are better coming out earlier because they have nothing to gain by staying, other than experience. From a teams point of view, it's the experience that's valuable. Or in some cases, not. Brandon Ingram would certainly benefit from another year at school, but right now he's likely to go second in the draft, maybe number one. But that's probably not the case next year when the draft is more loaded with top players.

Hield is the perfect example of what your looking for. A four year player that's gotten better every single year. Then you have the opposite example in James McAdoo, who stayed in school, and didn't really improve very much. He went from a projected lottery pick, to being undrafted. So it works both ways, but both ways are good for the team doing the drafting. With a senior, you have a much better idea of what your getting, or what your passing on. While the potential for growth is greater with a freshman, it's just a matter of where he gets that growth. If it happens to be in college, it may or may not be more beneficial than getting it in the NBA. Depends on what NBA organization a player goes to. One thing is for sure, it's more financially beneficial to an NBA team to draft a player that needs less development.

 

[bajaden]

There will be 30 players drafted in the first round and not all of them are going to be stars. Many of them won't make it past their rookie contracts. Maybe 5 of them will be stars but some years there are only 1 or 2 and they're as likely as not to come outside the lottery. So if we're trying to figure out who we should be drafting with our pick, it makes sense I think to look at every position and to point out the pros and cons of every prospect. Even Ben Simmons and Brandon Ingram have negatives. Simmons is the consensus #1 pick and he couldn't even make a 2.0 GPA in one semester to qualify for the Wooden Award. He was hyped as the best wing prospect since Lebron yet he didn't help LSU win very much this year and his all-around game is notably lacking a three point shot. Brandon Ingram is a 6'10" smooth shooting SF who may challenge Simmons for the #1 pick but he's even skinnier than Kevin Durant was as a freshman at Texas and he might have trouble staying in front of quicker NBA wings on defense.

Point being, I can find negatives on everybody in the draft. That doesn't mean they aren't terrific prospects, it means I'm looking at all the angles. Is there a Hasheem Thabeet in the mix? A Wesley Johnson? Is there somebody that everybody likes who's going to wash out because we all ignored a significant flaw? This is meant to be a discussion right? If I read nothing but glowing reviews of the top 10 prospects on the board I know something is wrong. I think Simmons and Ingram are huge talents who go top 5 in any of the last 10 drafts. After that, it's the same uncertainty we deal with every year. I'll play devil's advocate if I have to for the sake of discussion. Sure it's easy to say now "I never liked Thomas Robinson anyway" or "I knew Jimmer Fredette wouldn't be able to adjust" but it's what you think at the time of the draft that counts. Find me an explanation for why Nik Stauskas' 44% three point shooting as a Freshman at Michigan (backed up by an equally good Sophomore year) has so far translated to 33% in the NBA. On paper he's as sure of a thing as you can get as a shooter. What did the stats miss in that case and what might they be missing this year? Nik was supposed to replace Ben last year as early as pre-season and instead got traded for cap space. Why is this year going to be different?

Well to answer your last question, it may not be. Hopefully it will be, but every draft is somewhat a crap shoot. Everyone makes mistakes, you just hope it isn't you. I think Thabeet was an easy call if you spent any time watching him play. On the other hand, anyone that watched Drummond play would have been hesitant to draft him. Thabeet turned out to be a bust and Drummond turned out to be a very good player. It's hard to measure a players heart. I still think Stauskas will turn out to be a good player. McLemore I'm not sure about. The potential was and is still there, but so far, it's just not happening. Jimmer certainly wasn't my first choice, but in my worse nightmare did I think he would turn out the way he did. He forgot how to do the one great thing he could do.

I tried hard to talk myself into liking Thomas Robinson. I should have listened to Uncia03 when we watched him play. Last time I go against my gut. Last year I was a big Willie Cauley-Stein fan, and I think Miles Turner was your guy. I preferred Willie, but I like Turner and could have lived with him. Willie is a better athlete and can defend on the perimeter, and that was the deciding factor for me. Your right about every player having negatives. It's a matter of whether the positives outweigh the negatives, and how well the positives fit into your system. If all the players positives are on the offensive side of the ball, and your team is a poor defensive team, do you take that into consideration? If a player is a poor defensive player in college, does that mean he'll be a poor defensive player in the NBA? Probably, but the opposite has happened as well. Fun stuff!

 

[hrdboild]

Well to answer your last question, it may not be. Hopefully it will be, but every draft is somewhat a crap shoot. Everyone makes mistakes, you just hope it isn't you. I think Thabeet was an easy call if you spent any time watching him play. On the other hand, anyone that watched Drummond play would have been hesitant to draft him. Thabeet turned out to be a bust and Drummond turned out to be a very good player. It's hard to measure a players heart. I still think Stauskas will turn out to be a good player. McLemore I'm not sure about. The potential was and is still there, but so far, it's just not happening. Jimmer certainly wasn't my first choice, but in my worse nightmare did I think he would turn out the way he did. He forgot how to do the one great thing he could do.

I tried hard to talk myself into liking Thomas Robinson. I should have listened to Uncia03 when we watched him play. Last time I go against my gut. Last year I was a big Willie Cauley-Stein fan, and I think Miles Turner was your guy. I preferred Willie, but I like Turner and could have lived with him. Willie is a better athlete and can defend on the perimeter, and that was the deciding factor for me. Your right about every player having negatives. It's a matter of whether the positives outweigh the negatives, and how well the positives fit into your system. If all the players positives are on the offensive side of the ball, and your team is a poor defensive team, do you take that into consideration? If a player is a poor defensive player in college, does that mean he'll be a poor defensive player in the NBA? Probably, but the opposite has happened as well. Fun stuff!

I'm still trying to figure out how I missed so badly on Derrick Williams. I thought he was a definite star and obviously Minnesota did too. I wasn't particularly high on Thomas Robinson, but I was impressed with his 18 point 17 rebound performance against Kentucky in the title game. That was a punishing defensive lineup for Kentucky that year and while I liked how he kept grinding his way to 18 points in a losing effort, in retrospect the 6 for 17 shooting should have raised a bigger red flag. Especially after he already posted 2 for 12, 7 for 17, and 6 for 16 games in the early rounds of the tournament. I didn't like him because I thought he had a low ceiling, but I also didn't think he would bust completely. You could point to size but then how do you explain Draymond Green making the All-Star team as a 6'7" center for GS? Team situation? Attitude? Ball skills? All of the above?

For us this year, I'm tempted to say we need to focus on getting a defensive star who's got at least one offensive skill. But then there's the possibility we tear the whole roster down at which point you're looking for another scorer alongside DeMarcus or maybe even a new franchise player. So really what I'm looking for isn't an offensive star or a defensive star or a two-way player or a specialist -- I'm just looking for the player left on the board who I think will have the best NBA career period. And for me that almost always means physical attributes and age will be important factors. The most difficult balancing act I run up against every year is the production vs. potential dilemma. I tend to like Freshmen and Sophomores more than upperclassmen because it seems to me based on past drafts that you've got a better chance at drafting a star player if you get one of the elite players from each year's high school class. But there are no hard and fast rules and there are enough exceptions to undo any magic formula.

So in other words, I know nothing. It's ultimately a gut feeling which sways me to one prospect over the next. But the real difficulty is figuring out how widely to cast your net to begin with. You can't look at everybody in-depth unless scouting is your full-time job, but you also want to make sure you don't miss out on guys like Jimmy Butler who was taken 30th overall but should have been top 5.

One of the tricks I've used in the past is to compare performances from past High School All Star games to see who stands out year by year and then track those players though their entire careers. It helps that these games are usually still available on Youtube for years so you can compare the stats and the tape and the impressions you get from high school prospects vs. the players they became in the NBA. Cheick Diallo was the most consistent All Star game performer from this year's class though and he was a complete dud at Kansas this year. Does that mean he's the next Andre Drummond or the next Renardo Sidney?

 

[kingjatt]

Buddy would be a great fit for this team, having someone who can shoot off the bounce is sorely missing on this team. He has the physical tools to defend at the NBA level and has that alpha dog trait. I think his stock will raise in the coming months and we'll be lucky if he drops to us.

 

[Dime Dropper]

I'm weary of seniors generally, and will admit I haven't seen too much of Hield. He does look good from what I've seen though. He's probably not top of my list, but I do like him.

That said, if we're going for a SG, at this point I am convinced that Luwawu is the best SG prospect in the draft. Seriously, there is very little he can't do, and he is already a very good defender with the potential and attributes to be an elite one. He is an elite athlete and has excellent size and length for a SG. He's also rapidly improving and has the type of personality and confidence that you see from great players.

Someone has already posted links to full Leks games in this thread (thank you for that), but for those that don't have the time to invest, here are a couple short clips. The first, which happened just last week, shows how explosive he is:

Westbrook-esque explosiveness.

Here he takes off almost from the free-throw line in traffic.

And some all-around highlights:

The guy's first step, and general quickness, is elite for a guy of his size. He's not just an athlete either, he can really pass the ball and has a good handle (which can get better for sure, but he's already light years ahead of someone like Ben). His shooting form is good and he has a quick release, and he is shooting the ball extremely well this year. And of course if you're looking for a perimeter defender, you're not going to do much better in this draft with the exception of someone like Dunn.

Here's one last clip, as it has almost entirely different highlights than the above video, including more of his defense/passing:

 

[206Fan]

I'm weary of seniors generally, and will admit I haven't seen too much of Hield. He does look good from what I've seen though. He's probably not top of my list, but I do like him.

That said, if we're going for a SG, at this point I am convinced that Luwawu is the best SG prospect in the draft. Seriously, there is very little he can't do, and he is already a very good defender with the potential and attributes to be an elite one. He is an elite athlete and has excellent size and length for a SG. He's also rapidly improving and has the type of personality and confidence that you see from great players.

Someone has already posted links to full Leks games in this thread (thank you for that), but for those that don't have the time to invest, here are a couple short clips. The first, which happened just last week, shows how explosive he is:

Westbrook-esque explosiveness.

Here he takes off almost from the free-throw line in traffic.

And some all-around highlights:

The guy's first step, and general quickness, is elite for a guy of his size. He's not just an athlete either, he can really pass the ball and has a good handle (which can get better for sure, but he's already light years ahead of someone like Ben). His shooting form is good and he has a quick release, and he is shooting the ball extremely well this year. And of course if you're looking for a perimeter defender, you're not going to do much better in this draft with the exception of someone like Dunn.

Here's one last clip, as it has almost entirely different highlights than the above video, including more of his defense/passing:

Good overall write up!

I watched him quite a bit last year in Pro B, and watched a few games earlier this year. He's really hard to evaluate imo...mostly because he's inconsistent.

He has good length and size for a wing player. He's a solid ball handler with lots of room for growth(TO prone). He's very athletic and quick which helps him beat his defender. Despite all of his tools, right now, I don't think he's a good defender yet. He's too undisciplined and lacks awareness at times.

I think he has questions around his shooting consistencies. Prior to this season, his shooting was poor. Last season he shot around 29% from 3pt and 76% from FT. This season, he's shooting 37% from 3pt and 69% from FT. Is this sustainable?

I think he has all of the tools to become a very good 3&D player.

I think he's a better project to take on than Jaylen Brown.

 

[Dime Dropper]

Good overall write up!

I watched him quite a bit last year in Pro B, and watched a few games earlier this year. He's really hard to evaluate imo...mostly because he's inconsistent.

He has good length and size for a wing player. He's a solid ball handler with lots of room for growth(TO prone). He's very athletic and quick which helps him beat his defender. Despite all of his tools, right now, I don't think he's a good defender yet. He's too undisciplined and lacks awareness at times.

I think he has questions around his shooting consistencies. Prior to this season, his shooting was poor. Last season he shot around 29% from 3pt and 76% from FT. This season, he's shooting 37% from 3pt and 69% from FT. Is this sustainable?

I think he has all of the tools to become a very good 3&D player.

I think he's a better project to take on than Jaylen Brown.

Yes, "very good" defender right now was an overstatement. But at times he shows great ability to stay in front of his man. He's a smart player, so his awareness defensively will get better. He's still a positive defensively at the moment and is doing a great job being aggressive in Lek's full-court press.

Agreed on the shooting, but it's promising that his percentages have gone up while shooting much more shots. The poor shooting took place when he was on a very tight leash. He's probably never going to be prolific, but with his form and release he can definitely be a good shooter.

I think he has the tools to become much more than just a 3&D player to be honest.

Jaylen Brown is another guy I haven't seen enough of, so really can't comment on him.

 

[206Fan]

Yes, "very good" defender right now was an overstatement. But at times he shows great ability to stay in front of his man. He's a smart player, so his awareness defensively will get better. He's still a positive defensively at the moment and is doing a great job being aggressive in Lek's full-court press.

Agreed on the shooting, but it's promising that his percentages have gone up while shooting much more shots. The poor shooting took place when he was on a very tight leash. He's probably never going to be prolific, but with his form and release he can definitely be a good shooter.

I think he has the tools to become much more than just a 3&D player to be honest.

Jaylen Brown is another guy I haven't seen enough of, so really can't comment on him.

Ooops, I meant that he could be an elite 3&D player like Klay Thompson. More of a 2-way player is what I was trying to say lol.

If the Kings can properly develop him, I see no reason why he can't end up as the best SG in this class. He has more potential than Murray+Hield. Would you draft him with our pick in the top 10?

 

[Dime Dropper]

Ooops, I meant that he could be an elite 3&D player like Klay Thompson. More of a 2-way player is what I was trying to say lol.

If the Kings can properly develop him, I see no reason why he can't end up as the best SG in this class. He has more potential than Murray+Hield. Would you draft him with our pick in the top 10?

Well, it would depend on who else is on the board, but yes. I don't think it's a reach at all. Then again I'm limited this year as I haven't watched as much college ball as usual due to work. But right now, I prefer Luwawu to the other SG prospects around our range. Drafting another SG would pretty much spell the end for Ben. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

 

[The_Jamal]

I'm weary of seniors generally, and will admit I haven't seen too much of Hield. He does look good from what I've seen though. He's probably not top of my list, but I do like him.

That said, if we're going for a SG, at this point I am convinced that Luwawu is the best SG prospect in the draft. Seriously, there is very little he can't do, and he is already a very good defender with the potential and attributes to be an elite one. He is an elite athlete and has excellent size and length for a SG. He's also rapidly improving and has the type of personality and confidence that you see from great players.

Someone has already posted links to full Leks games in this thread (thank you for that), but for those that don't have the time to invest, here are a couple short clips. The first, which happened just last week, shows how explosive he is:

Westbrook-esque explosiveness.

Here he takes off almost from the free-throw line in traffic.

And some all-around highlights:

The guy's first step, and general quickness, is elite for a guy of his size. He's not just an athlete either, he can really pass the ball and has a good handle (which can get better for sure, but he's already light years ahead of someone like Ben). His shooting form is good and he has a quick release, and he is shooting the ball extremely well this year. And of course if you're looking for a perimeter defender, you're not going to do much better in this draft with the exception of someone like Dunn.

Here's one last clip, as it has almost entirely different highlights than the above video, including more of his defense/passing:

I like Luwawu a lot. Reminds me of an almost carbon copy of Zach Lavine. Fantastic athleticism, great skills for an off-guard, very fluid and in-control with how he moves on the floor and at least tries on the defensive end.

The issue I have is there's no way I'm taking him over Hield, Dunn, Murray or Brown where at least one of whom will be there in our 7-8 range. His floor is significantly lower than all of those guys and I'm not sure his ceiling is that much higher either There's also just no reason to take him that high too when basically everywhere has him projected a 15-20 pick.

 

[funkykingston]

I like Luwawu a lot. Reminds me of an almost carbon copy of Zach Lavine. Fantastic athleticism, great skills for an off-guard, very fluid and in-control with how he moves on the floor and at least tries on the defensive end.

The issue I have is there's no way I'm taking him over Hield, Dunn, Murray or Brown where at least one of whom will be there in our 7-8 range. His floor is significantly lower than all of those guys and I'm not sure his ceiling is that much higher either There's also just no reason to take him that high too when basically everywhere has him projected a 15-20 pick.

We won't be in the 7-8 range. The Kings will finally have ping pong balls bounce their way and land the #2 pick behind Philly who will take Simmons #1.

Of course the team will still need a SG after they draft Ingram so it could be Hield or Luwawu depending on how high a pick they can get for trading Rudy . . .

 

[206Fan]

Grayson Allen doesn't get brought up a lot around here. If he declares, I think he'll get drafted mid 1st-early 2nd.

He's 6'5 205lbs 6'6.5?wingspan.

Other than being an elite shooter, he's a good ball handler for a SG. Does a good job finding teammates and creating for others. He likes picking his spots on the floor. He uses his quickness to beat defenders and attack the rim. He does a very good job at both finishing and drawing fouls. He has shown great body control finishing around the rim. However, finishing against length is a problem for him. On defense, his lack of length and defensive experience is going to give him trouble. While he has the quickness and strength to be a good defender, he'll need better fundamentals. Even with this being said, he's shown that he can be a very good on-ball defender who can fight over screens. A lot of his defense right now involves around his quickness and effort. With the right coaching, he can be a good defender.

He plays with 100% intensity and motor.

Here in this play, he quickly takes advantage of the mismatch with Dekker on him. He uses a very quick first step and takes it all the way to the rim and finishes for an and one.

In this play, he shows the ability to penetrate, and kick out.

While he has been Duke's main ball handler, he's shown good capabilities as an off-ball player. 42% of his total shots are 3pters. 83% of his 3s are assisted. Here in this play, he uses the Plumlee screen to get open for a 3.

High intensity and motor in full display

Grayson Allen highlights

Recap, he's a 6'5 SG with great athleticism. He can shoot lights out, and he has good handles for a SG. He does a good job driving to the rim, while finishing, or drawing fouls. The main downside is that he does struggle finishing against length. On defense, he has all of the tools to become a good defender, but he's currently below average due to his average length and defensive IQ. He plays with high effort every game. He's a very confident and cocky player who opposing teams love to hate. In the NBA, I think he projects into his own type of player. He has a very unique skillset of athleticism+shooting+handling. If I were to make a comparison, I think his game will be limited into an off-ball player. He's a mix of JJ Reddick+Tyler Johnson+Ben McLemore. Athletcism of Johnson and Ben. Shooting ability like Reddick. Handling ability like Johnson. Rawness on defense like Ben.

 

[kingsboi]

No way Grayson Allen goes late 1st...he is a mid lottery pick at worst. Is he another Gordon Hayward?

 

[206Fan]

No way Grayson Allen goes late 1st...he is a mid lottery pick at worst. Is he another Gordon Hayward?

Draftexpress has him at 31. Chad Ford has him around 20-30. NBAdraft has him at 25.

He doesn't play like Gordon Hayward at all. He's a good handler for a SG, but it's league average compared to the rest of the NBA. I think his role in the NBA will mostly be an off-ball player who will occasionally get handling stints.

The biggest reason why he's not considered a lotto pick by some is because of his size.

In 2014, he measured at 6'4.5(in shoes) at 185 with a 6'6.5wingspan. Currently, Duke lists him at 6'5 205lbs. It really comes down to his wingspan at this point. ESPN currently lists his wingspan at 6'7, but I don't know how accurate that is.

People want to see him convert into a PG, but that's not happening. He doesn't handle the ball well enough to be a PG, nor does he create at a high enough level to be a PG. It's weird to see people use these things against him well knowing that he's going to be a SG at the next level.

I guess there is a huge question or not if he'll be able to adjust to the NBA. I don't know why he wouldn't since he's one of the most athletic players in college..and he's a great shooter. If his shooting stinks like Ben and Nik, he still falls back on his effort and hustle. Something neither Ben nor Nik has.

He compares a lot to Tyler Johnson. Both are extremely similar, but I think his NBA career path will fall in-line to prime JJ Reddick.

I know a few compared him to Jimmer, but I think that comp makes no sense. He's a much much much much much much much much better athlete than Jimmer, and he actually has a quick release.

 

[biltalent]

I like Luwawu a lot. Reminds me of an almost carbon copy of Zach Lavine. Fantastic athleticism, great skills for an off-guard, very fluid and in-control with how he moves on the floor and at least tries on the defensive end.

The issue I have is there's no way I'm taking him over Hield, Dunn, Murray or Brown where at least one of whom will be there in our 7-8 range. His floor is significantly lower than all of those guys and I'm not sure his ceiling is that much higher either There's also just no reason to take him that high too when basically everywhere has him projected a 15-20 pick.

Can you elaborate on why you think that Luwawus floor is lower and ceiling not higher? I'm curious because this is why I like him so much. In my mind he is one of the rare high floor / high upside players (these players are mostly characterised by great physical tools, good defense, improving offense)

For example, I think his floor is way higher than Murray because even if he does not improve you get a good wing defender with elite size/good athleticism that is also a good passer. In contrast Murray could be another shooter that is overwhelmed by the size, strength and speed of the NBA if he does not improve and therefore a liability on D that has to work really hard for his shots. I'm not saying this is whats going to happen but it could if both don't improve.
Moreover I think his ceiling is higher than Hield when you factor in his physical tools/ explosiveness, his speed/first step, defense and that he has only played professional basketball for 1-2 years and really developed over the summer on offense (handle, shooting of the dribble) now that he was exposed to a pro coaching stuff. But of course he has a lot work to do, especially as a finisher and decision-maker.
Don't get me wrong I like Murray and Hield as prospects. But personally I probably take Luwawu over them.

 

[The_Jamal]

Can you elaborate on why you think that Luwawus floor is lower and ceiling not higher? I'm curious because this is why I like him so much. In my mind he is one of the rare high floor / high upside players (these players are mostly characterised by great physical tools, good defense, improving offense)

For example, I think his floor is way higher than Murray because even if he does not improve you get a good wing defender with elite size/good athleticism that is also a good passer. In contrast Murray could be another shooter that is overwhelmed by the size, strength and speed of the NBA if he does not improve and therefore a liability on D that has to work really hard for his shots. I'm not saying this is whats going to happen but it could if both don't improve.
Moreover I think his ceiling is higher than Hield when you factor in his physical tools/ explosiveness, his speed/first step, defense and that he has only played professional basketball for 1-2 years and really developed over the summer on offense (handle, shooting of the dribble) now that he was exposed to a pro coaching stuff. But of course he has a lot work to do, especially as a finisher and decision-maker.
Don't get me wrong I like Murray and Hield as prospects. But personally I probably take Luwawu over them.

Well Murray is someone I still have to watch some film on, so just going on draft projections and what others have told me with him. So you might very well be right on that front.

But in general, I'm a lot more weary of int'l prospects because of the giant athleticism gap to the NBA and even from pro leagues and college ball. There has to be more there to draw me than a guy just dominating because of his size or athleticism. Luwawu certainly has the skill-set to be a "do it all" player, but it just hasn't shown up yet, at least not on a consistent basis. He's very much a project player who I wouldn't expect any real contribution from for a couple seasons.

I should say that Hield is probably my favorite player in this draft. I would take him at 3 at this point. His game is just so well-suited to transition into today's NBA and he reminds me so much of how Harden, Steph and Lillard play. The lightening quick release, he can get to and score from anywhere on the floor, fantastic in transition, turned himself into a combo guard more than a pure SG. He's an incredibly smart player and he's a guy who just doesn't takes games off. He's a leader in every definition of the word and takes it right at a defense. He's certainly further ahead defensively than those guys were in school too.

 

[kingsboi]

Draftexpress has him at 31. Chad Ford has him around 20-30. NBAdraft has him at 25.

He doesn't play like Gordon Hayward at all. He's a good handler for a SG, but it's league average compared to the rest of the NBA. I think his role in the NBA will mostly be an off-ball player who will occasionally get handling stints.

The biggest reason why he's not considered a lotto pick by some is because of his size.

In 2014, he measured at 6'4.5(in shoes) at 185 with a 6'6.5wingspan. Currently, Duke lists him at 6'5 205lbs. It really comes down to his wingspan at this point. ESPN currently lists his wingspan at 6'7, but I don't know how accurate that is.

People want to see him convert into a PG, but that's not happening. He doesn't handle the ball well enough to be a PG, nor does he create at a high enough level to be a PG. It's weird to see people use these things against him well knowing that he's going to be a SG at the next level.

I guess there is a huge question or not if he'll be able to adjust to the NBA. I don't know why he wouldn't since he's one of the most athletic players in college..and he's a great shooter. If his shooting stinks like Ben and Nik, he still falls back on his effort and hustle. Something neither Ben nor Nik has.

He compares a lot to Tyler Johnson. Both are extremely similar, but I think his NBA career path will fall in-line to prime JJ Reddick.

I know a few compared him to Jimmer, but I think that comp makes no sense. He's a much much much much much much much much better athlete than Jimmer, and he actually has a quick release.

Two things of note; one, I never thought of him as a PG, he has some ability, sure, but he is strictly a SG. Two; let's remember Reddick was drafted 9th overall so it's not out of the question that if Grayson continues to play well in this tournament that it will boost his draft status.

 

[funkykingston]

Two things of note; one, I never thought of him as a PG, he has some ability, sure, but he is strictly a SG. Two; let's remember Reddick was drafted 9th overall so it's not out of the question that if Grayson continues to play well in this tournament that it will boost his draft status.

Grayson's stats compare pretty favorably with Redick's junior & senior year stats. But Redick also had four full years of game tape since he started his whole time at Duke, playing 30 mpg. Allen put up 4.4 ppg in 9 mpg his freshman year. So I think there will be a bit of a question of whether this year was a true showing of what he can do. Especially since Redick had defenses keying on him much more his senior year (even with a freshman Shelden Williams) and still managed to elevate his stats.

Seeing him perform well in the tournament might help some teams feel he can contribute on the next level. His shot was off in that first game (15 of his 23 came from the FT line and he missed all his threes) but he had a great shooting game against Yale.

For a team looking for a guy to groom into that Korver/Redick type roleplayer he has some appeal.

Don't know if he loses any points for being a knob.

 

[biltalent]

Well Murray is someone I still have to watch some film on, so just going on draft projections and what others have told me with him. So you might very well be right on that front.

But in general, I'm a lot more weary of int'l prospects because of the giant athleticism gap to the NBA and even from pro leagues and college ball. There has to be more there to draw me than a guy just dominating because of his size or athleticism. Luwawu certainly has the skill-set to be a "do it all" player, but it just hasn't shown up yet, at least not on a consistent basis. He's very much a project player who I wouldn't expect any real contribution from for a couple seasons.

I should say that Hield is probably my favorite player in this draft. I would take him at 3 at this point. His game is just so well-suited to transition into today's NBA and he reminds me so much of how Harden, Steph and Lillard play. The lightening quick release, he can get to and score from anywhere on the floor, fantastic in transition, turned himself into a combo guard more than a pure SG. He's an incredibly smart player and he's a guy who just doesn't takes games off. He's a leader in every definition of the word and takes it right at a defense. He's certainly further ahead defensively than those guys were in school too.

I agree with you on the consistency part. This (and finishing) are aspects that Luwawu has to improve on. I also agree that he is not going to come in and tear it up but after 2 or 3 years of development I can see him becoming really good.
To Hield and your comparisons, I like him as well, but I don't think he will and should go top 3. Maybe #5 if he has a really great tournament. But just from a numbers standpoint I think he doesn't get enough assists for GMs to take him that high, because that indicates that he is a good finisher but not a good enough playmaker. Now, maybe this is will change when he is not the best and efficient player on the floor anymore in the NBA, but it's something you have to monitor.

 

[Dime Dropper]

But in general, I'm a lot more weary of int'l prospects because of the giant athleticism gap to the NBA and even from pro leagues and college ball. There has to be more there to draw me than a guy just dominating because of his size or athleticism. Luwawu certainly has the skill-set to be a "do it all" player, but it just hasn't shown up yet, at least not on a consistent basis. He's very much a project player who I wouldn't expect any real contribution from for a couple seasons.

No offense Jamal, but your views on International ball are about 15 years outdated. International competition is better than college ball and it's not really a debate. Obviously you have the very top college teams that would match most Euro teams, but they are the exception, not the rule. There really isn't much of a size/athleticism difference between international and college ball either, in fact I would say international teams are bigger and stronger. These are grown men who do it for a living, not fresh out of high-school walk-ons. On Luwawu - he's certainly not dominating due to his size/athleticism, that's unfair and untrue. I mean it's an advantage in so far as it is for any athletic player, as in the NBA. If you're just athletic, you don't get minutes in Europe. Europe is all about skills/fundamentals, which is why 90% of the best white NBA players are European. I won't continue down that path... My point is, if you're not skilled, you won't be playing, no matter how athletic you are.

I feel like you're making the same mistake a lot of people do when evaluating international players - looking at stats and saying "meh, that's not impressive." You just said Luwawu has the skill-set to be a do it all type player but it hasn't shown up yet. That's strange, because it has shown up. In spades. 15/5/3/2 are big numbers to put up in Europe. People had the same questions about Porzingis/Rubio/countless others because of underwhelming stats. European ball just doesn't work like that. It's apples and oranges compared to the NBA. It's built on team philosophy, not superstar philosophy. I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm saying that's why you don't generally see the elite European players put up big numbers, and then they come overseas and surprise everyone.

Anyway, I digress. I do agree with you somewhat, he's a little raw and probably a couple years away from hitting his stride. And he definitely has weaknesses like all young players. But I don't think he's near as much of a project as you do. I wasn't trying to be abrasive or insulting in that post, apologies if it came across that way.

EDIT: Upon reading your post again, I may have misinterpreted your first line? I think I have, in which case most of my first paragraph is moot!

 

[The_Jamal]

No offense Jamal, but your views on International ball are about 15 years outdated. International competition is better than college ball and it's not really a debate. Obviously you have the very top college teams that would match most Euro teams, but they are the exception, not the rule. There really isn't much of a size/athleticism difference between international and college ball either, in fact I would say international teams are bigger and stronger. These are grown men who do it for a living, not fresh out of high-school walk-ons. On Luwawu - he's certainly not dominating due to his size/athleticism, that's unfair and untrue. I mean it's an advantage in so far as it is for any athletic player, as in the NBA. If you're just athletic, you don't get minutes in Europe. Europe is all about skills/fundamentals, which is why 90% of the best white NBA players are European. I won't continue down that path... My point is, if you're not skilled, you won't be playing, no matter how athletic you are.

I feel like you're making the same mistake a lot of people do when evaluating international players - looking at stats and saying "meh, that's not impressive." You just said Luwawu has the skill-set to be a do it all type player but it hasn't shown up yet. That's strange, because it has shown up. In spades. 15/5/3/2 are big numbers to put up in Europe. People had the same questions about Porzingis/Rubio/countless others because of underwhelming stats. European ball just doesn't work like that. It's apples and oranges compared to the NBA. It's built on team philosophy, not superstar philosophy. I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm saying that's why you don't generally see the elite European players put up big numbers, and then they come overseas and surprise everyone.

Anyway, I digress. I do agree with you somewhat, he's a little raw and probably a couple years away from hitting his stride. And he definitely has weaknesses like all young players. But I don't think he's near as much of a project as you do. I wasn't trying to be abrasive or insulting in that post, apologies if it came across that way.

EDIT: Upon reading your post again, I may have misinterpreted your first line? I think I have, in which case most of my first paragraph is moot!

Yea, I think so. I'm not challenging the skill level of Euro ball at all; in which I think a good chunk are better developed and better taught than American prospects heading into the NBA. The barrier that's kept a majority of the top talent out of the NBA is the tremendous speed and athleticism gap. It's a big reason why guys like Hezonja and Porzingis were so highly touted; rarely are their Euro prospects with their tremendous skill-set and athleticism to back it up.

Back to Luwawu, I see all to the tools there for him to be a complete player. I see great athleticism, decent ball-handling, good potential on the defensive end and an improved shooting stroke. I just don't see the same tantalizing skill-set that a Hezonja, Porzingis or even a Giannis brought over that would want me to pass on Brown, Hield, or Murray in the top 10. Basically, I have more confidence in those guys floors to be productive players and I don't think Luwawu's ceiling is high enough to risk taking him over them.

If we had the opportunity to trade back into the first around 14 or 15, absolutely. That's the perfect spot for him and would love to put him in a role where he could just focus on development for a couple years.

 

[The_Jamal]

I agree with you on the consistency part. This (and finishing) are aspects that Luwawu has to improve on. I also agree that he is not going to come in and tear it up but after 2 or 3 years of development I can see him becoming really good.
To Hield and your comparisons, I like him as well, but I don't think he will and should go top 3. Maybe #5 if he has a really great tournament. But just from a numbers standpoint I think he doesn't get enough assists for GMs to take him that high, because that indicates that he is a good finisher but not a good enough playmaker. Now, maybe this is will change when he is not the best and efficient player on the floor anymore in the NBA, but it's something you have to monitor.

But he' a willing and capable playmaker, which is an important distinction. If I were coaching that team, I wouldn't want him focusing on playmaking more either; the dude is putting the ball in the hoop better than anyone else in the country.

 

[funkykingston]

Yea, I think so. I'm not challenging the skill level of Euro ball at all; in which I think a good chunk are better developed and better taught than American prospects heading into the NBA. The barrier that's kept a majority of the top talent out of the NBA is the tremendous speed and athleticism gap. It's a big reason why guys like Hezonja and Porzingis were so highly touted; rarely are their Euro prospects with their tremendous skill-set and athleticism to back it up.

Back to Luwawu, I see all to the tools there for him to be a complete player. I see great athleticism, decent ball-handling, good potential on the defensive end and an improved shooting stroke. I just don't see the same tantalizing skill-set that a Hezonja, Porzingis or even a Giannis brought over that would want me to pass on Brown, Hield, or Murray in the top 10. Basically, I have more confidence in those guys floors to be productive players and I don't think Luwawu's ceiling is high enough to risk taking him over them.

If we had the opportunity to trade back into the first around 14 or 15, absolutely. That's the perfect spot for him and would love to put him in a role where he could just focus on development for a couple years.

Agree on all counts. I have only watched YouTube clips and one game of Luwawu but he looks like a very good potential 3&D guy. He's a good athlete. An NBA level athlete for sure. But not a freak athlete. I saw the comparison in this thread to Zach Lavine and while it looks like Luwawu is a little less raw than Lavine was coming out and he's definitely got a better developed and more consistent jump shot, but he's not in the same ballpark as Lavine in terms of straight line speed and explosiveness going to the rim.

And that's the big adjustment. It's really no different than the 6'8" college kid who is a bruiser in the post against NCAA competition only to realize he can't bully NBA bigs. Even the international players with good athleticism have to get used to pretty much everyone in the NBA being faster, quicker, more explosive etc than they are used to.

 

[funkykingston]

Draftexpress has him at 31. Chad Ford has him around 20-30. NBAdraft has him at 25.

He doesn't play like Gordon Hayward at all. He's a good handler for a SG, but it's league average compared to the rest of the NBA. I think his role in the NBA will mostly be an off-ball player who will occasionally get handling stints.

The biggest reason why he's not considered a lotto pick by some is because of his size.

In 2014, he measured at 6'4.5(in shoes) at 185 with a 6'6.5wingspan. Currently, Duke lists him at 6'5 205lbs. It really comes down to his wingspan at this point. ESPN currently lists his wingspan at 6'7, but I don't know how accurate that is.

People want to see him convert into a PG, but that's not happening. He doesn't handle the ball well enough to be a PG, nor does he create at a high enough level to be a PG. It's weird to see people use these things against him well knowing that he's going to be a SG at the next level.

I guess there is a huge question or not if he'll be able to adjust to the NBA. I don't know why he wouldn't since he's one of the most athletic players in college..and he's a great shooter. If his shooting stinks like Ben and Nik, he still falls back on his effort and hustle. Something neither Ben nor Nik has.

He compares a lot to Tyler Johnson. Both are extremely similar, but I think his NBA career path will fall in-line to prime JJ Reddick.

I know a few compared him to Jimmer, but I think that comp makes no sense. He's a much much much much much much much much better athlete than Jimmer, and he actually has a quick release.

If Redick can go #9 then in a weak draft I can see Allen creeping up to the mid first. But in order for him to play a significant role on the next level I think he needs to do two things. First, and most important, he needs to get MUCH better defensively. For a Duke kid he has poor fundamentals on defense and he doesn't move laterally very well at all. Coach K will even try to hide him on defense at times. He's not quick with his feet and he's not long (at least to my eyes, I don't think those wingspan numbers are accurate) so guys tend to just go right by him. Secondly, he needs to tighten up his handle which is pretty loose right now.

He's a good but not great athlete, even on the college level and his handle and lack of lateral quickness relegates him to just straight line drives. He also really struggled to finish inside this year against better defenses something that I think will continue in the pros. I like his fight and I think if he can really focus on improving defensively and with his dribbling I think he could be a Jeff Hornacek type

 

[Dime Dropper]

Agree on all counts. I have only watched YouTube clips and one game of Luwawu but he looks like a very good potential 3&D guy. He's a good athlete. An NBA level athlete for sure. But not a freak athlete. I saw the comparison in this thread to Zach Lavine and while it looks like Luwawu is a little less raw than Lavine was coming out and he's definitely got a better developed and more consistent jump shot, but he's not in the same ballpark as Lavine in terms of straight line speed and explosiveness going to the rim.

And that's the big adjustment. It's really no different than the 6'8" college kid who is a bruiser in the post against NCAA competition only to realize he can't bully NBA bigs. Even the international players with good athleticism have to get used to pretty much everyone in the NBA being faster, quicker, more explosive etc than they are used to.

It's the exact same transition for college players too. Apart from the very elite college teams, the difference in athleticism is negligible, if anything. And international teams are bigger/more professional.

It's definitely an adjustment, don't get me wrong. It's just a vastly overstated one.

I would say Luwawu athletically is similar to someone like Jimmy Butler (who isn't a bad comparison). Very good athlete, but a level below the likes of Lavine in terms of explosiveness.

 

[hrdboild]

It's the exact same transition for college players too. Apart from the very elite college teams, the difference in athleticism is negligible, if anything. And international teams are bigger/more professional.

It's definitely an adjustment, don't get me wrong. It's just a vastly overstated one.

I would say Luwawu athletically is similar to someone like Jimmy Butler (who isn't a bad comparison). Very good athlete, but a level below the likes of Lavine in terms of explosiveness.

Yeah, I agree with the Jimmy Butler comparison. That's the first name that came to mind for me as well. Luwawu sometimes loses control of the ball when he's trying to weave through traffic but he looks really impressive handling the ball on fast breaks or off pick and roll action. Give him some space and he'll get to the basket quicker than you expect. It should also be noted that Zach LaVine is probably the most explosive athlete in the NBA in terms of running and leaping ability, so it's no faint praise to call someone a step below.

 

[King Baller]

Yeah, I agree with the Jimmy Butler comparison. That's the first name that came to mind for me as well. Luwawu sometimes loses control of the ball when he's trying to weave through traffic but he looks really impressive handling the ball on fast breaks or off pick and roll action. Give him some space and he'll get to the basket quicker than you expect. It should also be noted that Zach LaVine is probably the most explosive athlete in the NBA in terms of running and leaping ability, so it's no faint praise to call someone a step below.

Interesting convo I don't watch enough College Ball to interject but I'm loving the March Madness Games I have watched. Just IMO Westbrook is the most explosive in game NBA player. Though LaVine is close and the difference is minimal