Smith, Ivey, and Mathurin ahead of Chet and Paolo for me.My money would be on Jabari Smith
If nothing else Mathurin is probably ten pounds heavier than Holmgren.Benedict Matthurin is going to be the best player in the class. Would have said before tonights game, but a good reminder.
Ben > Chet. Not close.
Ben is listed as 20 lbs heavier (210 to 190).If nothing else Mathurin is probably ten pounds heavier than Holmgren.
I’d hate to be the GM who chooses Chet over Jabari. Exposure can elevate players and it can also expose them. Paulo could have done an ACL after his first game or two and still been picked higher than he may now that we see his athletic limitations and defensive limitations/indifferences.My money would be on Jabari Smith
I like Ivey too, could see him eventually best in class.My money is still on Ivey.
I can't really say for certainty if this is really the case, but I've heard several draft people (Kevin O'Connor, Mike Schmitz) say that he has a lot more offensive skill that isn't always on display at Gonzaga because he plays with such a good, experienced team. He is a great roll-guy, but doesn't do that a ton because Timme is such a great role guy, and he has post game but doesn't get a ton of touches because Timme gets a ton of post touches and they need Chet to spread the floor.Holmgren is tough because he's a player archetype we haven't seen. What was the archetype for Jokic before Jokic? James Harden before James Harden?
Can you imagine Holmgren playing the weakside help role in a two big lineup like Rob Williams? He's a better passer than Rob. He's a better outside shooter than Rob. He'll be worse as a shot blocker/rim protector presumably (Holmgren can't cover ground like Rob -- but then nobody covers ground like Rob at that size except for Giannis), but imagine the Celtics offense if Rob Williams was a 38% 3 point shooter.
Holmgren is a guy you have to build a team around, but I don't think it's that hard to do. He's not Ben Simmons.
So basically, I agree with Kliq.
As someone who made a drive-by reference to Chet comparing him to Shawn Bradley, I did want to note that that wasn't entirely shade - Bradley was a great defender at the rim, even if he was notoriously posterized from time to time (and Chet will be also, I think). (Bradley also wasn't a complete stiff, offensively - he had pretty nice touch).The comparisons to Shawn Bradley are so lazy. Yeah he's tall, white and super skinny. He is so much more advanced offensively than Bradley ever was, to the point that it's not even comparable. The other thing is that even if you want to compare him to Bradley, defensively Bradley was a very good player for a number of years, and while there are plenty of posters of Bradley over the years, the fact was that he was an elite rim-protector in his prime, just like Chet can be.
The Bradley situation is also complicated by the fact that he wasn't as aggressive or hardened as someone like Chet when he comes into the league. Bradley played high school basketball in rural Utah, a year in college, and then two years not playing basketball because he was on a mission. Chet grew up playing elite prep basketball and on the AAU circuit, with guys challenging him all the time.As someone who made a drive-by reference to Chet comparing him to Shawn Bradley, I did want to note that that wasn't entirely shade - Bradley was a great defender at the rim, even if he was notoriously posterized from time to time (and Chet will be also, I think). (Bradley also wasn't a complete stiff, offensively - he had pretty nice touch).
But I also agree that the comparison is lazy and that Chet's offensive skills are light years ahead of Bradley. I do think his frame is problematic and I would not be comfortable drafting him in the top 4. I think the team that drafts him is going to have to be patient for him to fill out.
But an offensively advanced Shawn Bradley is a really valuable piece.
Yeah I’d counter with anyone feeling having some Bradley is their game is a shade is making a lazy assessment of Chet’s game. I was referring to primarily defensive presence, physical frame, and some passivity on offense. That’s not a shade as Bradley was an effective piece on several teams…..it’s an assessment. Both positive and negative.As someone who made a drive-by reference to Chet comparing him to Shawn Bradley, I did want to note that that wasn't entirely shade - Bradley was a great defender at the rim, even if he was notoriously posterized from time to time (and Chet will be also, I think). (Bradley also wasn't a complete stiff, offensively - he had pretty nice touch).
But I also agree that the comparison is lazy and that Chet's offensive skills are light years ahead of Bradley. I do think his frame is problematic and I would not be comfortable drafting him in the top 4. I think the team that drafts him is going to have to be patient for him to fill out.
But an offensively advanced Shawn Bradley is a really valuable piece.
It's really dumb to say that he can't guard anyone (He was WCC DPOY) and that we won't be able to rebound (he led the WCC in rebounding and was 19th in the NCAA) and that he would be entirely unplayable in NBA. That is really based on nothing outside of the fact that you don't like his body type and frame. It's totally understandable to be skeptical about his frame holding up in the NBA, but we don't need to be saying these kinds of baseless declarations that he doesn't have any ready-now NBA skills.I do think it’s relevant that the current version of him is entirely unplayable in the NBA. He can’t guard anyone and he can’t get by anyone at the next level. This version of him won’t be able to rebound or do anything inside the 3 point line. He gets pushed around by every college team, even if he’s still doing useful things.
He was implying Cade was a bust after his first NBA game and is already writing Jalen Green off. It's his thing.It's really dumb to say that he can't guard anyone (He was WCC DPOY) and that we won't be able to rebound (he led the WCC in rebounding and was 19th in the NCAA) and that he would be entirely unplayable in NBA. That is really based on nothing outside of the fact that you don't like his body type and frame. It's totally understandable to be skeptical about his frame holding up in the NBA, but we don't need to be saying these kinds of baseless declarations that he doesn't have any ready-now NBA skills.
Green has had a disappointing year 1. I didn’t write him off but tend to think early results can have some meaning. Lots of variables of course.He was implying Cade was a bust after his first NBA game and is already writing Jalen Green off. It's his thing.
Defensive rebounding in general is a weird skill to kind of understand in the modern NBA. Between guys shooting way more threes (meaning longer rebounds), centers being forced to guard on the perimeter, more small-ball lineups, etc. I don't know how valuable being a really good defensive rebounder has in the NBA. I know most front-offices in the NBA kind of disregard individual rebounding totals (which is why Andre Drummond has been perennially available for years) and view team rebounding as more important statistic.Body type doesn't have a whole ton to do with rebounding, to the extent it does, height matter more than weight. Poku, who has a similar body and way less talent or athleticism than Holmgren is currently sitting on around the same rebound rate as John Collins ahead of guys like Mobley, Noel, Turner, etc.
Michael Sam was the DPOY in his conference in college. That doesn’t mean his skills translate to the pro level. Adam Morrison could score on anyone in college…..that doesn’t mean his offensive skillset translates to the pro level as he couldn’t create any separation against more advanced athletes. Two examples…..there are hundreds more. College results doesn’t necessarily translate to pro success.It's really dumb to say that he can't guard anyone (He was WCC DPOY) and that we won't be able to rebound (he led the WCC in rebounding and was 19th in the NCAA) and that he would be entirely unplayable in NBA. That is really based on nothing outside of the fact that you don't like his body type and frame. It's totally understandable to be skeptical about his frame holding up in the NBA, but we don't need to be saying these kinds of baseless declarations that he doesn't have any ready-now NBA skills.
Great point about how the value of a defensive rebounder has decreased over the years between 3-pt shooting and analytics valuing defensive transition and avoiding getting into the bonus early more than the rare offensive rebound.Defensive rebounding in general is a weird skill to kind of understand in the modern NBA. Between guys shooting way more threes (meaning longer rebounds), centers being forced to guard on the perimeter, more small-ball lineups, etc. I don't know how valuable being a really good defensive rebounder has in the NBA. I know most front-offices in the NBA kind of disregard individual rebounding totals (which is why Andre Drummond has been perennially available for years) and view team rebounding as more important statistic.
I was surprised to see how much rebounding Holmgren did in college, given that he shared the floor with Timme and spent a lot of time on the perimeter.
My kid played against him when he was 17. At the time I was coaching in the cebl pro league, where 4-5 guys got NBA deals eventually. Lots of G League guys in that league. It was impossible for me to compare Matthurin to any of the pros I was seeing all summer, even in their mid-20s they did not approach his athleticism.Benedict Matthurin is going to be the best player in the class. Would have said before tonights game, but a good reminder.
Ben > Chet. Not close.
Banchero always looked like an offensive roleplayer to me and his arms have always soured me on his upside. It's like with Holmgren, I look at these guys and I see sixth man, but do you really want to draft someone like that with a top three pick?I’d hate to be the GM who chooses Chet over Jabari. Exposure can elevate players and it can also expose them. Paulo could have done an ACL after his first game or two and still been picked higher than he may now that we see his athletic limitations and defensive limitations/indifferences.
Gonzaga played fast and their opponents missed a lot of shots.Defensive rebounding in general is a weird skill to kind of understand in the modern NBA. Between guys shooting way more threes (meaning longer rebounds), centers being forced to guard on the perimeter, more small-ball lineups, etc. I don't know how valuable being a really good defensive rebounder has in the NBA. I know most front-offices in the NBA kind of disregard individual rebounding totals (which is why Andre Drummond has been perennially available for years) and view team rebounding as more important statistic.
I was surprised to see how much rebounding Holmgren did in college, given that he shared the floor with Timme and spent a lot of time on the perimeter.
To your point, this is from Hollinger's latest piece for The Athletic:Michael Sam was the DPOY in his conference in college. That doesn’t mean his skills translate to the pro level. Adam Morrison could score on anyone in college…..that doesn’t mean his offensive skillset translates to the pro level as he couldn’t create any separation against more advanced athletes. Two examples…..there are hundreds more. College results don’t necessarily translate to pro success.
Those guys will be of interest to the Cs late in the 2nd though. Tshiebwe especially has the look of a guy who could have a career based on work rate.To your point, this is from Hollinger's latest piece for The Athletic:
Two big men were massively important in the games I attended: Kentucky’s Oscar Tshiebwe and Michigan’s Hunter Dickinson. Tshiebwe had 30 points and 16 boards in the loss to Saint Peter’s; Dickinson had 27 and 11 in Michigan’s upset win over Tennessee after scoring 21 on just 10 shots in a first-round win over Colorado State.
Neither of these players will get more than passing interest from the pros, however – similar to how last year’s national player of the year, Luka Garza of Iowa, was just a late second-round pick in the NBA.
The point of deviation between the NBA and college is at the defensive end. If you can’t defend a spread pick-and-roll, you can’t play; in the eyes of pro evaluators, dominant but plodding college bigs like Tshiebwe and Dickinson (and Purdue’s gigantic Zach Edey, for that matter) are just too flammable defensively to justify much of an investment in draft capital.
I can’t imagine the Celtics having any interest in Dickinson. He’s the antithesis of everything we are looking for in Ime’s system.Those guys will be of interest to the Cs late in the 2nd though. Tshiebwe especially has the look of a guy who could have a career based on work rate.
I think Brad will look for a guy who specifically fits Ime’s unique system. It’s kinda weird in that I’ll be shocked if he took a low-ceiling guy even though someone who can contribute right away would be what a contender would typically look for……but your traditional low ceiling guy wouldn’t be a fit for what we do. Butler from FSU would be an interesting flier if he comes out and is around. So would that wing they have I can’t think of his name right now but he may be a better pro than college player.I don't see any way that Brad doesn't go straight lottery ticket, high ceiling with the second rounder. Wouldn't complain if he bought one to stash too.
This team has a bunch of competent guys. Be nice to have another Begarin to wish on.
I think that all of the interesting wings will be gone before he picks, unless he buys a much better pick. If a kid like Butler is still around, that's definitely a high upside pick that fits. I wouldn't be surprised if it's one of the international combo guards, although they might go too high too (and aren't ready).I think Brad will look for a guy who specifically fits Ime’s unique system. It’s kinda weird in that I’ll be shocked if he took a low-ceiling guy even though someone who can contribute right away would be what a contender would typically look for……but your traditional low ceiling guy wouldn’t be a fit for what we do. Butler from FSU would be an interesting flier if he comes out and is around. So would that wing they have I can’t think of his name right now but he may be a better pro than college player.
Yeah I haven’t done all the work but I don’t have anyone close to Jabari at #1.I think that JSJ is likely the best player from this pool, but there’s no way he’s a tier above the competition. Much less the famine survivor. I know Pokusevski is thin, but he’s obese compared to Holmgren.
CHET is just such a fun basketball player who really gets basketball. I think his floor is a useful 25 minute guy on a playoff team.I think that JSJ is likely the best player from this pool, but there’s no way he’s a tier above the competition. Much less the famine survivor. I know Pokusevski is thin, but he’s obese compared to Holmgren.
That’s how it is in todays game. The high upside guys are most certainly going to have holes bc you aren’t good to find long, athletic freaks to be developed as basketball players at 18-19. Think of the flaws that Durant, Embiid, Giannis, Morant, Adebayo, etc had in their games at that age? The draft is about future projection not about current production.I just see way too many holes in everyone else's games. I mean my 3rd guy has never even played college basketball.
I just don't see a lot of guys I would consider to have the upside to overcome their limitations. In fact, lack of upside is one of the primary holes in a lot of them.That’s how it is in todays game. The high upside guys are most certainly going to have holes bc you aren’t good to find long, athletic freaks to be developed as basketball players at 18-19. Think of the flaws that Durant, Embiid, Giannis, Morant, Adebayo, etc had in their games at that age? The draft is about future projection not about current production.
Sure. I think Chet's floor & ceiling are both high. Barring health stuff, & I don't think he's been particularly injured in the past.Problem isn't just upside though. If you have a top 5 pick and think that Chet's floor is "gets broken in half", then you might not want to fuck that one up.
Just about all of the top prospects have flaws. You're assessing risk too, not just ceiling.
I think I'm much higher than consensus on both Duren & Sharpe & about average to slightly higher on Ivey.There are a ton of freakish athletes projected at the top half of the 1st round. Off top of my head….Ivey, Duren, and Sharpe have greater upside than Chet imo as well as others later in the round (who also have much lower floors) but I understand how volatile different people may view his skillset translating. He’s unique for sure. I’m not a huge fan not not willing to put my Kidd-Gilchrist or Dragan Bender tag on him yet. It may come as I lean that way but I think he’ll be a decent serviceable pro.
I feel strongly that Ivey will end up a much much better defender than Chet. It isn’t only about weight but his lower base is very week almost like a Bol Bol weak.I think I'm much higher than consensus on both Duren & Sharpe & about average to slightly higher on Ivey.
Ivey & Sharpe don't have the defensive upside Chet does, & Duren doesn't have the offensive upside, though.
I think that we maybe have different estimates of Chet's floor, not a different idea about taking safe picks in the top 5.Sure. I think Chet's floor & ceiling are both high. Barring health stuff, & I don't think he's been particularly injured in the past.
& if I have a top 5 pick I want to take a swing on a franchise altering player - in the world where I'm creating a big board & don't have some perverse financial incentive for Kings-style mediocrity.