2014 NBA Draft Thread (No Spoilers You Clowns)
- Thread starter ZMart100
- Start date
With it seeming likely that the Magic will go with Exum, that leaves Gordon, Randle and Vonleh as the most obvious choices for the Jazz. With Kanter and Favors there already, and Gobert as a long term project, I could see them looking at the more NBA-ready Randle., Or Gordon, who could play with Favors and Kanter, with Hayward at SG.
JakeRae said:
1) I said "could", not "is likely." 2) Embiid's upside is even higher: he could be Mutumbo with 3 point range.
FelixMantilla said:
Embiid has most of those same weaknesses. None of them scare me off of Vonleh if he makes it to us at 6.
southshoresoxfan said:
He is pretty much a perfect fit for the rest of the roster, and finding a franchise center is really, really tough. After drawing a short straw in the lottery if he is still available at 6 it would be a huge stroke of good fortune.
lineup construction should have literally zero impact on who ainge picks. it's all about finding the best possible player possible regardless of position. There aren't that many all stars available in each draft and we need to maximize of chances of getting one. we don't need a rim protector next season because we're not trying to win the championship next year (or probably the year after that).
ALiveH said:
I understand why people say this, but I disagree.
Big men who can play both solid help defense and post defense as well as spread the floor are super valuable and incredibly hard to find. They make everyone around them better. We may not have Rondo long term, but there are a lot of point guards who are not good shooters and like having a mobile big man who can set screens for them at the top of the key and then shoot from there are well.
Conversely players with huge weaknesses either with shooting or defense create problems for the other players on the court and roster building. If we are thinking about drafting Aaron Gordon, then we should already be worrying about how his free throw shooting will affect fourth quarter lineups. If we are looking at Randle we should already be considering how to cover the floor spacing and defensive problems we would have with him as a starter.
moly99 said:
I think those people expecting Vonleh to be a full time center and rim protector are going to be very disappointed. Does he have a better chance to do that that than Sullinger, Olynyk, and Bass? Sure. That's not a very high bar. But Vonleh looks a lot better on paper than he does in games when it comes to defensive ability in my opinion.
He really lacks explosiveness and athleticism inside, even if his combine numbers are solid. Watching him play many times this year, I never got the sense he was much of a defensive presence at all. And he was routinely completely lost on D (though of course he is young and can get better). His wingspan should be an asset for him, but I don't think it will be enough to overcome his other deficiencies to be a full time center.
In short, I don't think he fits the roster as well as some people think. In my opinion, he is going to be more of a PF who can shift over to C if needed as opposed to a defensive anchor who can make up for Sully/Olynyk. Embiid and Vonleh are not remotely close to each other when it comes to D.
A really bad one at that. Vonleh was an avg 4 for a mediorce college team. Bustville.DannyDarwinism said:
southshoresoxfan said:
I'm afraid you might be right, which is why I'd prefer Gordon. In Vonleh's defense though, he is an 18 year old with some projectable physical tools. The fact that he was not a dominant college player and didn't make his team very good isn't exactly a good sign, but it's certainly possible he has a lot of improvement left.
He is the perfect player to leave college early. He is getting top 6 consideration because no one really knows what he is capable of. If he has a similar sophomore season to his freshman year, he would plummet down draft boards. Teams are intrigued by the wingspan, outside shooting (in a small sample), and the fact that he is still just 18.
Personally, I wasn't very impressed watching him this year, so I hope Danny goes in a different direction.
As an 18-year old Andre Drummond was an avg 5 for a mediocre college team as well. Steven Adams same at Pitt. The college game is extremely restrictive to bigs and especially bigs who have yet to learn how to utilize their massive physical gifts in relation to the other college players.southshoresoxfan said:
If you are selecting 18-year olds based on production you are not focusing on the skills that translate to the NBA game which is far different. This applies two-fold for bigs.
I'm not a super duper Vonleh fan either but you are correct in that he is making a tremendous decision to get paid following his freshman season similar to Ed Davis when he left UNC......and what James Michael McAdoo and Patric Young failed to do following their freshmand year.radsoxfan said:
Not that you're wrong, but did you look at their combine numbers:southshoresoxfan said:
Height:
Vonleh- 6'9.5"
Adams 7'
Weight:
Vonleh- 247lbs
Adams- 250
Wingspan:
Vonleh: 7'4.25"
Adams: 7'4.5"
Standing Reach:
Vonleh: 9'
Adams:9'1.5". W
Vertical:
Vonleh: 37"
Adams: 33"
I didn't think so before I looked, but they aren't that different in terms of physical atttibutes.
radsoxfan said:
Except for the occasional Tim Duncan type guy, almost all good centers and PF/C's enter the league as projects. It's like quarterbacks in the NFL. Unless you manage to snag Tom Brady late in the draft or get the #1 pick in a draft with Andrew Luck or Peyton Manning, you have to take a gamble on a QB.
Is there a chance Vonleh will be a bust? Absolutely. But at some point we have to find a starting center, and Vonleh is a very good prospect. It's very unlikely we will have a chance to draft at a better center in the next couple of years.
southshoresoxfan said:
Dwight Howard is listed at 6'11", but is really 6'10". I don't think being 6'9.5" should disqualify consideration of a player as a center if they have the long arms and leaping ability to make up for it.
moly99 said:
Is it impossible for Vonleh to be a good center at 6'9"? No. Do I think he has some upside? Sure. But I'm skeptical that he is the defensive presence and center of the future that some people seem intent on shoehorning him into. He didn't play anything like that last season.
Comparing him to Dwight Howard is laughable. Howard is one of the most athletic guys in the league. Vonleh is nothing like Howard. One of his major weaknesses is athleticism and explosiveness. You might want to watch some of his highlights.
radsoxfan said:
I'm not comparing him to Dwight Howard. Their games are very different. I am saying that the best center in the league is a half inch taller than him, so I don't think his height is a red flag.
Venleh's quickness isn't great, but he is a good enough leaper and athlete to be our rim protector. He doesn't need to be as good as Dwight, Larry Sanders or Serge Ibaka to be a solid defensive center.
moly99 said:
But you're saying Howard is proof that a 6'9" - 6'10 guy can be a great defensive center. So it's probably worth noting that Howard and Vonleh are COMPLETELY different players. Of course I'm not saying that a 6'9" guy is out of consideration for being a good defensive center if they have Howard's kind of athleticism.
Vonleh is much more of a plodder than I think you realize. His vertical at the combine was good, but he was neither quick nor good good leaper at Indiana. He had essentially the same max vertical as Doug McDermott at the combine, so let's not get too crazy about that 37 inch vertical just yet.
Yup. Godsend Vonleh wont be a franchise changer. Neither will be my binky gordon but he has a higher chance than vonleh to be a long lasting nba playerKliq said:
Vonleh isn't a small 4 he played the 4 and 5 last year. He faced the same obstacles as Drummond and Adams did in that zone defenses can be packed into the paint to effectively eliminate any low post offense. Production numbers in college by an 18-year old frontcourt player playing against defenses that aren't allowed in the NBA are not a good reflection of a players potential.southshoresoxfan said:
The DX video of Embiid is scary. Only playing basketball since 2011?!?!?
The weaknesses are very minor.
The weaknesses are very minor.
of those likely available where we pick I like Vonleh the best. He could play 3, 4 or 5 depending on matchups. But, if he's not available, I wouldn't use present roster construction or our lack of a rim protector as a reason not to draft the BPA if that happened to be Randle or whoever.
Gordon's 44% FT terrifies me. Major late game and offensive liability.
Gordon's 44% FT terrifies me. Major late game and offensive liability.
moly99 said:
I'll take the over on 50-55% after a few years in the league.
Among qualified players, 5 players in the NBA were below 55% this year. Drummond, Jordan, Howard, J. Smith, and Hickson. Only Drummond, Jordan and Howard are consistently below that level, and I doubt any of them are shooting 36% from 3 in any league.
Gordon's FT shooting is certainly a concern, and I don't know if it will ever be average, But I wouldn't overly punish him for it, since it was just one season. FT shooting overall is not that critical of a factor in how you should be judging a player anyway (though certainly in late game situations it's importance increases). It's a very minor component in someone's overall value.
Gordon shot 1.2 3's per game. He shot 4.7 FT. It's far more likely that he isn't that good a 3 point shooter than that he isn't that bad at shooting free throws.radsoxfan said:
JakeRae said:
Oh I don't think he is a good 3 PT shooter, but he has a decent enough stroke to be OK in a small sample. I don't think Howard, Jordan, or Drummond could do that.
I won't argue that Gordon is a good FT shooter, or that I even expect he will become very good. But below 55% is very terrible for an NBA regular. I'll take the over on that one, especially for a non-center whose form doesn't look completely broken.
On the "Vonleh is a project/unknown" type concerns, I want to note that various purely statistical models like him quite a lot. His combine measurements were a largely unexpected bonus for him, though the tweener concerns remain.
With respect to Gordon's FT%, I don't know why people think it's bound to improve because of the three point shooting. He took relatively few three point attempts, and shot .176 from three once conference play began. I agree 55% is terrible for a NBA regular, but that's a red flag on Gordon, not a reason to think he won't be among that terrible group. Free throw percentage translates pretty well to the NBA overall.
With respect to Gordon's FT%, I don't know why people think it's bound to improve because of the three point shooting. He took relatively few three point attempts, and shot .176 from three once conference play began. I agree 55% is terrible for a NBA regular, but that's a red flag on Gordon, not a reason to think he won't be among that terrible group. Free throw percentage translates pretty well to the NBA overall.
bowiac said:
The reason to think he will be better than 55% is that its very uncommon for someone to consistently be that bad in the NBA. And the 3 regulars in the NBA that are consistently that bad are 7 footers who cannot shoot at all under any circumstances.
I think the chances that Gordon, after a few years in the league, is a sub 55% FT shooter is significantly less than 50%. And I also think FT shooting in general, should only be a minor factor in the decision to draft someone.
It's annoying to watch someone suck at FT shooting to be sure, but the different between a 50 or 60% FT shooter vs. a 70% FT shooter isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. An extra point or two every 10 FT attempts, though certainly one could argue it changes the way players are defended, especially late game. Even so, if Gordon turns out to be really good, I'm happy to live with his FT shooting.
1) Gordon can't shoot. This is a giant red flag and to expect he'll magically learn to shoot is a bad bet.
2) He can't really dribble either which means he won't be able to use his first step much to his advantage.
3) Despite this great reputation as being a shut down defender, Gordon couldn't defend against size last year. Just go back and watch the Wisconsin game and you'd see Kaminsky do whatever he wanted against him.
Guys like Gordon bust all the time. When you're a tweener who can't shoot and don't bring a single offensive skill to the court, your ceiling is severely limited. Someone is going to take Gordon high because he's young and runs & jumps well; I just hope it isn't the Celtics (unless they're making the pick for someone else as part of a trade.)
2) He can't really dribble either which means he won't be able to use his first step much to his advantage.
3) Despite this great reputation as being a shut down defender, Gordon couldn't defend against size last year. Just go back and watch the Wisconsin game and you'd see Kaminsky do whatever he wanted against him.
Guys like Gordon bust all the time. When you're a tweener who can't shoot and don't bring a single offensive skill to the court, your ceiling is severely limited. Someone is going to take Gordon high because he's young and runs & jumps well; I just hope it isn't the Celtics (unless they're making the pick for someone else as part of a trade.)
EL Jeffe said:
1) His shot is very much a question mark, agreed. If he was a good shooter, he would be a top 3 pick.
2) His ball handling is above average for a player his size
3) Gordon will not be asked to guard 7 footers in the NBA. He has the makings of an above average "big wing" defender.
BigSoxFan said:
Oh of course not. MKG is awful, but I would use the #6 pick on Shawn Marion. Not all big athletic wings with questionable shots are created equal. Some turn out to be busts, some don't. Gordon is bigger and more athletic than MKG though. Plus I think he has more offensive potential.
Obviously if Ainge thinks Gordon is just like MKG, he won't be picking him. But just because they share some of the same strengths and weaknesses, that doesn't mean they are destined to have the same career. I think Gordon's strengths are significantly stronger than MKG, and I think he's got a better chance to be a useful offensive player and improve on his weaknesses. Just because MKG is a bust, that does't affect my opinion of Gordon.
bowiac said:
Interesting, thanks for posting. Though perhaps unsurprising with respect to Vonleh- if I recall correctly, steals, blocks and rebounding translate from college to NBA with relatively high confidence, is that accurate?
That chart certainly feeds my Vonleh/Gordon at 6, Elfrid Payton at 17 fantasy. And what the hell's going on with Kyle Anderson? I'll have to take another look at him.
DannyDarwinism said:
Anderson is the slowest and least athletic college basketball player I have seen in quite some time. Really fun to watch, hugely skilled for a 6'8" guy, and has a big wingspan.
I hope he makes it, but honestly have no idea how he can keep up with guys in the NBA. Best case scenario would seem to be Boris Diaw with the opposite kind of weight problem. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets eaten alive by NBA athletes and ends up in Europe/China.
I get that he's an elite athlete and seems to be a plus defender with decent passing and basketball IQ. That's pretty nice for a role player but I don't really see how he projects to a future star or even above average offensive player in the NBA. At #6 in a stacked draft I'm looking for someone who's going to be an above-average offensive player and a star (btw, Marion was a 73% FT shooter and scored 19 PPG as a freshman so not the best example to prove your point).
Btw, if you could predict that future as well as you claim you'd be one of the best GMs in the NBA.
For one thing, I don't know how you can be so certain that Gordon will improve his FT shooting in the NBA. There's lots of players who entered the league as pretty terrible FT shooters and failed to improve despite lots of effort & not all of them are 7-footers (Rondo, Josh Smith). I know you want to point towards the discrepancy between 3% and FT%, but that doesn't tell you a whole heck of a lot statistically unless there's somebody you can point to that had similar %s in college and ended up improving in the NBA. Also Rondo & Smith might not be all that different in FT% versus 3% if adjusting the 3% from the NBA to college game.
"never" is a long time and I said "depending on matchups". Vonleh was stepping back and hitting the NBA 3 in workouts. I guarantee that at some point in his NBA career Vonleh will be on the floor as a 3.
Agree on Anderson. Athleticism is a huge red flag & he didn't help himself at all by not participating in the agility & athletic parts of the combine.
Btw, if you could predict that future as well as you claim you'd be one of the best GMs in the NBA.
For one thing, I don't know how you can be so certain that Gordon will improve his FT shooting in the NBA. There's lots of players who entered the league as pretty terrible FT shooters and failed to improve despite lots of effort & not all of them are 7-footers (Rondo, Josh Smith). I know you want to point towards the discrepancy between 3% and FT%, but that doesn't tell you a whole heck of a lot statistically unless there's somebody you can point to that had similar %s in college and ended up improving in the NBA. Also Rondo & Smith might not be all that different in FT% versus 3% if adjusting the 3% from the NBA to college game.
"never" is a long time and I said "depending on matchups". Vonleh was stepping back and hitting the NBA 3 in workouts. I guarantee that at some point in his NBA career Vonleh will be on the floor as a 3.
Agree on Anderson. Athleticism is a huge red flag & he didn't help himself at all by not participating in the agility & athletic parts of the combine.
The difference between 70% and 90% isn't a game changer, but the difference between 50% and 70% really could be. Having someone near 50% creates real problems in late game situations, and sometimes early in the 4th quarter if he's below 45%.radsoxfan said:
Unrelatedly, I think Michael Kidd-Gilchrist will have a pretty decent NBA career. I'd take him over Gordon.
bowiac said:
Wow, definitely disagree. MKG is a smaller, less athletic Gordon who we know (or should be very concerned) will never learn to shoot. I know he is just 20, but his first 2 years in the league he hasn't improved at all. Plus his shot looks much more broken than Gordon's. I'd MUCH rather gamble on Gordon and be stuck with MKG.
MKG is one of the worst outcomes for Gordon to me. If Gordon shrinks, becomes less athletic, and his shot never develops, he'll be Kidd-Gilchrist.
bowiac said:
Also, even this is a bit overrated. A point per possession really isn't that bad of an outcome (sadly, better than Boston's offensive efficiency this past season in fact), so making 50% of your FTs isn't really devastating to an offense. Plus if you miss the second FT, you can still get the rebound. So an intentional foul is going end up getting you more than a point per possession.
An intentional foul of a 50% FT shooter isn't a great strategy most of the time, especially when you add in the foul trouble. And as I said, I really don't think Gordon is going to shoot 45% from the line for his entire career.
If you are winning and its late in the 4th quarter, then sure, take him out so the other team has to foul a better FT shooter. But you have control over that.
radsoxfan said:
Wow, you ain't kidding. It's impressive that a guy that is that unathletic is that fun to watch. He's crafty and skilled enough to be a legit offensive player, and the high release on his jumper helps. A skinny-fat Boris Diaw is a good comp- he has great vision and uses his height well. But he's clearly more aggressive creating his own shot than Diaw. Honestly, I see some Paul Pierce in his offensive game. Unfortunately, it's a 36 year old Pierce without the strength and first step, but the savviness is there. His problem is defense. That is some of the worst lateral quickness I have ever seen in a SF prospect. He and whatever interior defender is on the floor with him will end up in foul trouble quick. I don't think that's fixable. Incidentally, lack of sufficient lateral quickness is why I agree that Vonleh will never play the 3 in the NBA.
And ALiveH, I can't imagine he hurt himself by not participating in the agility drills. There are some things that are best left unknown.
ALiveH said:
I didn't come up with the Marion comp. That's the one I've seen others thrown around on other sites by far the most. PPG is not very useful to compare players. Different competition, teammates, roles, etc. Certainly Marion shot FTs better as a freshman, no doubt about that.
As to the FT shooting, Rondo and Josh Smith both suck at FT shooting, I agree. They are at 62% and 64% for their careers respectively. Gordon could be much worse than them, and still be better than I am predicting. It's not that I think that Gordon will be good or even average, it's just that I think he has a better than 50% chance not to be Howard/Jordan/Drummond-level bad.
To your second point, I'm sharing my opinion, same as you. If you think my opinion is incorrect, that's fine. Aren't we all trying to predict the future here?
That's why I said 45% for the intentional foul situation. At that point, it's worth it even with the extra fouls. The free throws create issues throughout however in the last minute, even if he improves to 60%, as bleeding clock is more important than the extra 0.2 points per possession. You're gonna allow a lot of big comebacks that way.radsoxfan said:
Rondo is at 62% for his career, and I don't think the Celtics have particularly susceptible to big comebacks because of him. Certainly 60% is not good, and you will want to sub him out at times with the lead if you can. But overall, I think it's a pretty minor consideration compared to the rest of a players skillset when considering drafting someone.
Scoring 1.2 points per possession (and it would be more when you factor missed 2nd FTs and offensive rebounds) in late game scenarios, even if it allows for extra possessions for both teams, isn't going to lead to lots of comebacks. There are plenty of times the past few years the Celtics would kill for a 120+ offensive efficiency in the last few minutes of a game, regardless of the desire to bleed the clock.
Scoring 1.2 points per possession (and it would be more when you factor missed 2nd FTs and offensive rebounds) in late game scenarios, even if it allows for extra possessions for both teams, isn't going to lead to lots of comebacks. There are plenty of times the past few years the Celtics would kill for a 120+ offensive efficiency in the last few minutes of a game, regardless of the desire to bleed the clock.
You keep saying that but there's a hidden tautological assumption in there. May be he won't stick in the league precisely because he doesn't improve his FT%. And may be there's a ton of guys like him who didn't stick in the league for the same reason thus skewing the stats you mention.
The reality is that Dario Saric is vastly superior to either Gordon or Vonleh as an offensive player. For starters, Saric may be the best passer in the draft, and that includes the point guards. And when you look at video of Saric, you have to realize that he's a 19 year old playing against men in the Adriatic league, not against college boys. He's been playing professionally since age 16.
The knock on Saric, of course, is the same as the one on McDermott: can he defend in the NBA? But I'd rather hide Saric in a zone than have to watch Gordon or Vonleh play offense.
According to his agent' Saric will come over if he is picked in the top 10. If he doesn't pull out, it probably means he has a promise.
The knock on Saric, of course, is the same as the one on McDermott: can he defend in the NBA? But I'd rather hide Saric in a zone than have to watch Gordon or Vonleh play offense.
According to his agent' Saric will come over if he is picked in the top 10. If he doesn't pull out, it probably means he has a promise.
Nick Kaufman said:
No good players are out of the league because they suck at free throws. It's simply not that important.
A borderline rotation guy who sucks at FT would get replaced with a similar player who is a 70% shooter. But FT% just isn't important enough to turn a starting caliber player, or even a good bench guy, into someone who gets cut or doesn't play.
Vonleh has the potential shooting and size (length) to be a very big benefit in both stretching the opponents' defense and making the Celtics' rim protection better.
He can be a power forward that does part of the job of the 3 and the 5 while he learns if he can be a solid post player or merely a shooting and defense presence. You can't teach his length and shot blocking ability. Combined with his shooting, he can be a very valuable player.
I hope he lasts until the Celtics' pick.
He can be a power forward that does part of the job of the 3 and the 5 while he learns if he can be a solid post player or merely a shooting and defense presence. You can't teach his length and shot blocking ability. Combined with his shooting, he can be a very valuable player.
I hope he lasts until the Celtics' pick.