How Would Cousins Game Fit?

[bajaden]

I dont think so. It seems that the people that prefer Cousins over Favors would still be very pleased if we drafted Favors. I know i would.

I think your absolutely dead on. For most of us this isn't a, it has to be Cousins, or it has to be Favors type of thing. Its just more about preference of one over the other. But as you said, as much as I might perfer Cousins, I'd be happy as a clam with Favors.

In some ways, Favors might be the safer pick. Not because of the headcase thing, although it enters into it, but because I think the expectations for Cousins would be higher. Those that like him would expect him to be an impact player. And those that don't like him, would hold him to a higher standard while looking for failure. I would hope thats not true, but it is human nature. It could all be avoided by picking Favors.

 

[bajaden]

I think most people use "skill" to describe acquired attributes that are gained through learning, and "talent" to describe traits that a person is born with and can't really be developed (or at least are very hard to develop) by working at it. Talents, to me, are things like athleticism (which includes coordination and body control), vision, size, height, length, etc.

As I said, were talking semantics. My explanation was simply for clarity. To me Talent and skill level are the same thing. But thats me. I don't expect everyone to adhere to my way of looking at it. But I do want people to understand what I'm talking about when I refer to talent.

Personally the word talent can be used many ways I suspect. My point is, that I have heard people use the term, he's a very talented piano player. or he's a very talented actor. And I don't think they were talking about his athleticism. So its a very versatile verb.

 

[FakeInjury]

Favors is favored. While Cousins has the length and the size, Favors has the athleticism and length. You can always put Favors in the weight room. Also, Favors is the BPA next to Wall and Turner.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Favors is favored. While Cousins has the length and the size, Favors has the athleticism and length. You can always put Favors in the weight room. Also, Favors is the BPA next to Wall and Turner.

Favors looks to be at a pretty optimal weight for his size. I think the obsession in the NBA with bulking up has gone too far, and has led to many injuries.

 

[Kingster]

You may be right. The way his college team played really hurt him this year. It will likely make his team workouts that much more important for him and how GMs view him this draft.

Yes, and when I say "high school", I also include all the Nike games and McDonalds game in which he played against the cream of the crop high school competition. I agree totally about the workouts being even more important for him than for others.

 

[Spike]

Size has no bearing on the music a talented guitarist produces. I'm with bajaden on this one.

That being said, you can certainly look at something like physical attributes and athletic ability to assess a player, but I think that a player's skill would rely more on shooting/rebounding, etc.

It certainly gets gray when you talk about something like rebounding - is it their physical attributes that make them a good rebounder? Is it athletic ability? Or is it that they study the game well, and have learned proper positioning in order to be in the right place at the right time?
With the higher picks, it's easy to see the confluence of athletic ability/skills, but it starts to get a little tricky after the top 2 or 3 players.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Size has no bearing on the music a talented guitarist produces. I'm with bajaden on this one.

That being said, you can certainly look at something like physical attributes and athletic ability to assess a player, but I think that a player's skill would rely more on shooting/rebounding, etc.

It certainly gets gray when you talk about something like rebounding - is it their physical attributes that make them a good rebounder? Is it athletic ability? Or is it that they study the game well, and have learned proper positioning in order to be in the right place at the right time? With the higher picks, it's easy to see the confluence of athletic ability/skills, but it starts to get a little tricky after the top 2 or 3 players.

Why does it have to be either/or?

There are other talents like mental acumen for certain things. I think capacity for learning different types of skills is an innate talent. I just chose to list things that were more applicable to basketball players and athletes in general since that's what we're talking.

 

[FakeInjury]

Size has no bearing on the music a talented guitarist produces. I'm with bajaden on this one.

That being said, you can certainly look at something like physical attributes and athletic ability to assess a player, but I think that a player's skill would rely more on shooting/rebounding, etc.

It certainly gets gray when you talk about something like rebounding - is it their physical attributes that make them a good rebounder? Is it athletic ability? Or is it that they study the game well, and have learned proper positioning in order to be in the right place at the right time?
With the higher picks, it's easy to see the confluence of athletic ability/skills, but it starts to get a little tricky after the top 2 or 3 players.

Spike, Spike, Spike, you are a smart BB fan for just thinking about things like this. It is certainly NOT grey when you talk about rebounding. I appreciate you bringing up the finer points of rebounding. But, it is one thing to know how to rebound and it is an entirely other thing to put them into practice and actually evolve you game around the newly acquired skill. 1st, physical attributes cannot be understated when it comes to rebounds, you can have great position all you want, but nothing I MEAN NOTHING beats great position and great size. Position is like a PIE CHART, you just want to be in the position to receive the greatest piece of the pie. Now, boxing out is crucial, and some people have it and some don't. And you are right about the intangibles within the genre of rebounding, but if you have the size and length and athletic ability, GM's assume their coaches can teach you how to do things proper. And sometimes, it is better to have a player who is a blank slate rather than a player already set in their ways. Some skills are learned, some require time. Size and length and Athletic ability are things you can't improve much on. I like where you are going Spike, it carries weight with me too, if a player knows already these important skills, it makes you feel he is somehow superior. But, when drafting, you have to assume that the guy can learn and be taught once it is his full time job. After he learns the skill, then it is easier to judge a player. Until then, you draft on overall ability, physical attributes, then skill.

 

[Spike]

But, when drafting, you have to assume that the guy can learn and be taught once it is his full time job. After he learns the skill, then it is easier to judge a player. Until then, you draft on overall ability, physical attributes, then skill.

Many a GM has lost his job on assuming that someone can be taught. That's the dreaded "potential."

Why does it have to be either/or?

It really doesn't have to be either/or. In the top 3, usually you get both, which is why there are easy picks to be made. As you go further down the draft, that's where you end up getting a mixture of some physical attributes, mental acuity, and skill. Bringing this back to Cousins, which I really didn't do in the first post - I think he has the physical attributes, and skill. Red flags come up in the mental aspect. Not glaring ones, but enough to make people here question whether or not Favors is the better pick. Favors I think falls into the "potential" category. Will he project out as many think he will? Hell, I don't know. I didn't see enough of Favors to get a good read on him. Cousins is a legitimate post player. I'd pick Cousins at this time based on our team needs, but maybe a guy like Favors would complement Evans better because he'd be able to shoot on the perimeter.

 

[Gary]

I dont think so. It seems that the people that prefer Cousins over Favors would still be very pleased if we drafted Favors. I know i would.

Yah, while I prefer Cousins the sky wouldn't be falling if we picked Favors. Kind of like the whole Randolph, Thompson deal. Either or, although one is preferred.

 

[bench_blob]

You may be right. The way his college team played really hurt him this year. It will likely make his team workouts that much more important for him and how GMs view him this draft.

I can go along with the whole Georgia Tech was a bad fit argument, to an extent....

But special players let it be known on the court. They step up. They do not blend in, or accept a secondary role. They stand out. Their talent and force of will is undeniable. They instill confidence in their teammates to involve them, and they demand the ball to the thrown their way, and they are frequently around the ball to make plays.

Favors didn't display any of this ability or skill until the end of the year, and it was only sporadically. For a guy worthy of a #3 or #4 pick, I would like to see a lot more stretches of dominance.

But we'll see...he definitely seems to have all the tools.

 

[Telemachus]

I can go along with the whole Georgia Tech was a bad fit argument, to an extent....

But special players let it be known on the court. They step up. They do not blend in, or accept a secondary role. They stand out. Their talent and force of will is undeniable. They instill confidence in their teammates to involve them, and they demand the ball to the thrown their way, and they are frequently around the ball to make plays.

Favors didn't display any of this ability or skill until the end of the year, and it was only sporadically. For a guy worthy of a #3 or #4 pick, I would like to see a lot more stretches of dominance.

But we'll see...he definitely seems to have all the tools.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but have to say that it is harder to do this as a post player in college. Favors' problem wasn't that he wasn't demanding the ball, it was that their guard play was so bad they had trouble getting him the ball much of the time. Other teams knew to clog the paint, which would force a difficult pass into Favors (or Lawal) or beat them from the perimeter. They had trouble with either option. It is very hard to assert your will on a game when you rarely touch the ball on offense.

 

[bajaden]

Size has no bearing on the music a talented guitarist produces. I'm with bajaden on this one.

That being said, you can certainly look at something like physical attributes and athletic ability to assess a player, but I think that a player's skill would rely more on shooting/rebounding, etc.

It certainly gets gray when you talk about something like rebounding - is it their physical attributes that make them a good rebounder? Is it athletic ability? Or is it that they study the game well, and have learned proper positioning in order to be in the right place at the right time?
With the higher picks, it's easy to see the confluence of athletic ability/skills, but it starts to get a little tricky after the top 2 or 3 players.

When it comes to rebounding, I guess you could say all of the above. There's no doubt that being 6'11" and having a 7'6" wingspan certainly doesn't hurt you when it comes to rebounding. Having good hops doesn't hurt either. But we all know that you can have all those attributes (another verb for Vlade), and still not be a good rebounder. And, you can lack all those attributes and be a good rebounder.

I think some players just have a natural ability, or a nose for the ball if you will, and some don't. Some players just naturally see which way the ball is going to deflect, while others have no clue and are just reactionary.

Just look no further than Jon Brockman. Only 6'7" and endowed with an average wingspan. But still a very good rebounder. I don't think its an accident that Jon always happens to be where the ball is coming down. Lastly, I think the players that are willing to get in and work for position and fight and scrap for the ball, tend to be good to great rebounders, depending on all the other traits they may have.

 

[bajaden]

I can go along with the whole Georgia Tech was a bad fit argument, to an extent....

But special players let it be known on the court. They step up. They do not blend in, or accept a secondary role. They stand out. Their talent and force of will is undeniable. They instill confidence in their teammates to involve them, and they demand the ball to the thrown their way, and they are frequently around the ball to make plays.

Favors didn't display any of this ability or skill until the end of the year, and it was only sporadically. For a guy worthy of a #3 or #4 pick, I would like to see a lot more stretches of dominance.

But we'll see...he definitely seems to have all the tools.

I will agree that getting a read on Favors is a lot harder than getting a read on Cousins. It would have been interesting to have them switch teams halfway through the season and let Favor's play with Wall and company. For myself, I saw enough in flashes here and there to become convinced that Favors is the real deal, as far as potential goes. But it would be fair to say that there's an element of risk. Talent wise, I think there's less risk with Cousins. But you have the other risk factor of immaturity. Which doesn't concern me as much as others, but might concern GM's.

I think if Favors had been a guard or a SF, he would have had more opportunites to assert himself. But he was stuck in the post, and most of the time the only way he could touch the ball was to rebound it. And it wasn't even that his guards wern't capable of getting him the ball, they didn't even try most of the time.