Romeo Langford - Pick #14

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,635
Santa Monica
As for Bol Bol, it has to be something with his foot/medicals that aren't for public consumption, since so many in the media and outside draft experts were off. Denver seems to be fine taking complex medical risks (as they did with Micheal Porter Jr last yr). Felt awful for the kid during draft night.

Goga was the only one drafted after that I would have liked more than Langford at 14. And I would have been slightly disappointed with Herro or Cam Johnson at 14. The Celtics probably had Romeo in their top 10 leading up to the draft.

Romeo was the #5 HS recruit last year, played w/wrist injury, played a good schedule, and led IU in ppg. According to ESPN "Celtics coach Brad Stevens had told colleagues in the lead-up to the draft that he was enamored with Romeo Langford".
Brad has closely followed him for years. So have to believe they really know this kid well and love his potential in spite of a bad shooting year at IU.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,736
As for Bol Bol, it has to be something with his foot/medicals that aren't for public consumption, since so many in the media and outside draft experts were off. Denver seems to be fine taking complex medical risks (as they did with Micheal Porter Jr last yr). Felt awful for the kid during draft night.

Goga was the only one drafted after that I would have liked more than Langford at 14. And I would have been slightly disappointed with Herro or Cam Johnson at 14. The Celtics probably had Romeo in their top 10 leading up to the draft.

Romeo was the #5 HS recruit last year, played w/wrist injury, played a good schedule, and led IU in ppg. According to ESPN "Celtics coach Brad Stevens had told colleagues in the lead-up to the draft that he was enamored with Romeo Langford".
Brad has closely followed him for years. So have to believe they really know this kid well and love his potential in spite of a bad shooting year at IU.
RL was ESPN #1 SG recruit I believe. But yes, he fits right in with other top HS recruits who slipped: Jabari Bird, Bradley,
Giddens, Orien Greene, Ojeleye, Justin Reed (parade all-American; RIP), Sullinger, Gerald Green, and James Young.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,635
Santa Monica
Guys I would have drafted ahead of Langford who were available: Doumboya, Okeke, Goga, Clarke, Kabengele, Bol, Porter. Odds are good Ainge is right and I'm wrong, but we'll see.
You must have been a little miffed, I'll take it you didn't like the Celtics draft.
The Celtics had 2 shots at Clarke (21) and 3 shots at Kabengale (27), Porter (30), Bol (44)

I thought KPJ was the most overhyped prospect going into the draft. But figured somebody would gamble on him before 30. Cleveland is a great spot for him, he'll get an immediate look/chance there.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,635
Santa Monica
RL was ESPN #1 SG recruit I believe. But yes, he fits right in with other top HS recruits who slipped: Jabari Bird, Bradley,
Giddens, Orien Greene, Ojeleye, Justin Reed (parade all-American; RIP), Sullinger, Gerald Green, and James Young.
Top 10 (in order): RJ, Zion, Cam, Bol, RL, Little, Keldon, Grimes, Simons, Jalen Smith

#40 Kevin Porter Jr

 

maufman

Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Top 10 (in order): RJ, Zion, Cam, Bol, RL, Little, Keldon, Grimes, Simons, Jalen Smith

#40 Kevin Porter Jr

Crazy how Darius Garland skyrocketed from #16 based on five games before he got hurt. (Though perhaps ESPN was more bearish than the conventional wisdom — Garland had a legendary high-school career.)
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
1,472
You must have been a little miffed, I'll take it you didn't like the Celtics draft.
The Celtics had 2 shots at Clarke (21) and 3 shots at Kabengale (27), Porter (30), Bol (44)

I thought KPJ was the most overhyped prospect going into the draft. But figured somebody would gamble on him before 30. Cleveland is a great spot for him, he'll get an immediate look/chance there.
I liked the draft outside of Langford. Just seeing a guy with average upside and a low floor. Rooting for him to prove me wrong.

A little disappointed we didn't draft a big, that seems like our glaring need. Surprised you don't feel the same.
 
Last edited:

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,736
Didn't see this posted (sorry if I missed it) but 3 minutes on RL's shooting mechanics from last year:
.

Compared to what posted on twitter in January (posted below), his mechanics seemed much better last year - though I'm not sure about the "thumbflick". Maybe he was overcompensating because of injuries?

 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,540
Kiev, Ukraine
I liked the draft outside of Langford. Just seeing a guy with average upside and a low floor. Rooting for him to prove me wrong.

A little disappointed we didn't draft a big, that seems like our glaring need. Surprised you don't feel the same.
I think the team feels that outside of top-end guys, bigs are easier to acquire in FA or low-level trades than most positions are. Which I think is about right in the current NBA.

If you think a big is a glaring need, you probably DON'T want to draft for that, since they take awhile to develop.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,635
Santa Monica
I liked the draft outside of Langford. Just seeing a guy with average upside and a low floor. Rooting for him to prove me wrong.

A little disappointed we didn't draft a big, that seems like our glaring need. Surprised you don't feel the same.
agreed, my (realistic) wants at 14 were PJ and Goga, which would have helped up front.

Frontcourt help definitely is a need for the C's, but plenty available in FA. On defense the C's need their BIG (Center, 5) to be experienced and vocal. With the League changing, experienced NBA BIGs are pretty cheap to sign. We have to develop TL, so the Celtics probably don't want too many young Centers on the roster? but I would have gambled on Goga at 14 also.

I think if they whiff on the Vucevic rumors they could find value at the 4/5 and allocate $$$ towards a PG.

Trust in Danny, Brad & Co
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,635
Santa Monica
Crazy how Darius Garland skyrocketed from #16 based on five games before he got hurt. (Though perhaps ESPN was more bearish than the conventional wisdom — Garland had a legendary high-school career.)
Ha, I got salty about Garland a few days before the draft. Didn't understand the skyrocket either...Garland mocked at #14 a year ago, those 2 games against Liberty and Winthrop made him some serious dosh;)


 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,858
Santa Monica, CA
I think the team feels that outside of top-end guys, bigs are easier to acquire in FA or low-level trades than most positions are. Which I think is about right in the current NBA.

If you think a big is a glaring need, you probably DON'T want to draft for that, since they take awhile to develop.
When people are talking "need" here, my sense (maybe I'm wrong?) is that they mean "need" relative to the core roster pieces moving forward, not need for 2019-20.

The C's have Tatum, Brown, Hayward, and Smart as the core pieces, so they "need" a couple of bigs and a PG between now and when they compete again (likely 20-21 at the earliest).

That timeline would have worked with a big from the draft. Danny must not have been in love with the big guys this year. Also, he's probably got a big as FA target
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
14,670
When people are talking "need" here, my sense (maybe I'm wrong?) is that they mean "need" relative to the core roster pieces moving forward, not need for 2019-20.

The C's have Tatum, Brown, Hayward, and Smart as the core pieces, so they "need" a couple of bigs and a PG between now and when they compete again (likely 20-21 at the earliest).

That timeline would have worked with a big from the draft. Danny must not have been in love with the big guys this year. Also, he's probably got a big as FA target
The thing is, in long term planning you're best off just to grab the best player. You can always trade from stocked positions. Especially when drafting after 10 so few of these guys are going to be major pieces anyway that you grab the ones you think can be regardless of position.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,858
Santa Monica, CA
I don't see the logic in looking at high school/AAU recruiting rankings and putting any value on it at all in evaluating NBA prospects after a year in the NCAA. If that's really what Ainge is doing, that's nuts.

Has he ever actually said anything to indicate that he actively seeks these types of guys out, or is this just something people have deduced based on him drafting Avery Bradley and James Young and so forth?
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,858
Santa Monica, CA
The thing is, in long term planning you're best off just to grab the best player. You can always trade from stocked positions. Especially when drafting after 10 so few of these guys are going to be major pieces anyway that you grab the ones you think can be regardless of position.
Agreed. I am just pointing out the disconnect.

I certainly would not let Jaylen Brown or Marcus Smart stand in the way of me drafting a SG who looks like a future stud in 2019.
 

bowiac

I've been living a lie.
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,324
New York, NY
This is an old study, but is on point: once you account for college performance, recruiting ranking aren't really giving you much useful information. Very few productive NBA pros were as unproductive in college as Langford was, and those who do succeed in the pros despite poor metrics aren't especially likely to be high recruits.

That said, probably the biggest exception here in recent years has been Jaylen Brown, so in Ainge we trust I guess. I don't like the pick, but I was aggressively wrong with Brown, so what do I do know.
 

bowiac

I've been living a lie.
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,324
New York, NY
I don't see the logic in looking at high school/AAU recruiting rankings and putting any value on it at all in evaluating NBA prospects after a year in the NCAA. If that's really what Ainge is doing, that's nuts.

Has he ever actually said anything to indicate that he actively seeks these types of guys out, or is this just something people have deduced based on him drafting Avery Bradley and James Young and so forth?
I think it's just anecdotal based on Bradley, Young, Brown, etc... I tend to doubt he's looking at recruiting rankings per se here, but he does seem to be less scared off by unproductive college careers than most, which leaves him drafting based on athleticism more, which in turn is probably similar to recruiting rankings.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,916
around the way
This is an old study, but is on point: once you account for college performance, recruiting ranking aren't really giving you much useful information. Very few productive NBA pros were as unproductive in college as Langford was, and those who do succeed in the pros despite poor metrics aren't especially likely to be high recruits.

That said, probably the biggest exception here in recent years has been Jaylen Brown, so in Ainge we trust I guess. I don't like the pick, but I was aggressively wrong with Brown, so what do I do know.
I'm not trying to quibble with your point, as it is a good one. But isn't this another case where we have to adjust for the league basically going the one and done route. Historical comps for guys as "unproductive in college" as Langford was just don't have a huge sample set. How many guys in history have been one and done and played injured for most of their one year. I'm just not sure that the list is significant enough to draw a ton of conclusions off. In the old days, that guy would have played another year at least (maybe three more).

I have no strong opinion about RL. Just wanted to point out another case where it seems that we don't have enough data. I defer to you if that's not the case.
 

bowiac

I've been living a lie.
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,324
New York, NY
At this point, we've been in the one-and-done era for like 15 years. Not sure there's that little data really (and the quality of data we do have is much higher than before).

There's no adjustment in these studies for playing with an injury, so that does give some hope here.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,858
Santa Monica, CA
I think it's just anecdotal based on Bradley, Young, Brown, etc... I tend to doubt he's looking at recruiting rankings per se here, but he does seem to be less scared off by unproductive college careers than most, which leaves him drafting based on athleticism more, which in turn is probably similar to recruiting rankings.
That part makes sense to me, there are so many coaches in the NCAA that have no concept of player development and are really just recruiters. There's a lot of guys being misused and having their development stunted at that level, especially when you get past the UNC's and Kentuckys.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,736
I don't see the logic in looking at high school/AAU recruiting rankings and putting any value on it at all in evaluating NBA prospects after a year in the NCAA. If that's really what Ainge is doing, that's nuts.

Has he ever actually said anything to indicate that he actively seeks these types of guys out, or is this just something people have deduced based on him drafting Avery Bradley and James Young and so forth?
i don't think they look at rankings but DA - and now Brad -- say that they follow guys for a long time so they take camps and international play and AaU ball into account, which obviously has at least a slight correlation to rankings.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
9,839
After watching some tape on Langford this morning, I’m a little bit more optimistic. I like his strengths; NBA body, explosive athlete, can create his own shot, great length. ESPN had his most accurate physical comp as Jason Richardson, which would be great.

Some of the things he struggled with, such as defensive IQ and forcing too many shots, can be ironed out as he matures and gains more experience playing at a high level. He’s a bit of a gamble but I could see him turning into a steal.
 
May 14, 2015
114
After watching some tape on Langford this morning, I’m a little bit more optimistic. I like his strengths; NBA body, explosive athlete, can create his own shot, great length. ESPN had his most accurate physical comp as Jason Richardson, which would be great.

Some of the things he struggled with, such as defensive IQ and forcing too many shots, can be ironed out as he matures and gains more experience playing at a high level. He’s a bit of a gamble but I could see him turning into a steal.
This is why I'm not sure why people think it's a low-upside pick. His upside is tremendous due to his physical tools, shot creation skills, and finishing. The Celtics are lucky in that they don't need him to contribute right away and they can force him to earn PT through defensive effort and improved ball movement. If he was picked by a team like the Suns, he'd flame out quickly.

I don't watch a lot of college ball - can anyone speak to the Indiana team around him? It seems like they were not very good, so I'm curious how much his teammates played into his poor shot selection and defensive tendencies.
 

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
3,889
After watching some tape on Langford this morning, I’m a little bit more optimistic. I like his strengths; NBA body, explosive athlete, can create his own shot, great length. ESPN had his most accurate physical comp as Jason Richardson, which would be great.

Some of the things he struggled with, such as defensive IQ and forcing too many shots, can be ironed out as he matures and gains more experience playing at a high level. He’s a bit of a gamble but I could see him turning into a steal.
Is this the one that you watched?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FnZrEmorIw

Because I watched that this morning too, and walked away feeling the same as you. The points Schmitz makes about his PnR game, low center of gravity when handling, long strides in the open court, and ability to absorb contact look pretty promising. He has a good stop-and-go, and creates a ton of space on that step-back. He’s also really adept at attacking his defenders’ feet out of the triple threat, but he needs to work on his off hand to maximize his advantage. If he becomes a decent shooter, he has a pretty clear path to being an offensive weapon.
 
Last edited:

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
9,782
Somewhere
This is an old study, but is on point: once you account for college performance, recruiting ranking aren't really giving you much useful information. Very few productive NBA pros were as unproductive in college as Langford was, and those who do succeed in the pros despite poor metrics aren't especially likely to be high recruits.

That said, probably the biggest exception here in recent years has been Jaylen Brown, so in Ainge we trust I guess. I don't like the pick, but I was aggressively wrong with Brown, so what do I do know.
I basically assume most midrange draft picks are scrubs. Sure there are exceptions like the recent NBA champs but there’s a reason why they stand out.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,756
Is that true? It seems like he's been a real middle-of-the-road drafter, but maybe that's a misconception.
It depends, here have been articles posted here before about Boston’s scouting and their emphasis on long term evaluation (i.e. they spend a lot more time on the U16 prospects than most) and Ainge seems to value length/athleticism in a pinch, but not necessarily. For example in 2017 there were more athletic Fs than Tatum, but his actual scoring ability was more important. Another example would be Grant Williams this year, there were some longer/more athletic Fs available in the spot that had much higher upside. But he went with the high floor pick anyway.

So it might be accurate to say that once you’re in the crapshoot section of a draft that Ainge values physical attributes that he thinks will translate, because players can become more skilled while it’s difficult for them to become longer/more athletic. And the guys whose games didn’t translate at the college level probably flame out at a higher rate, but due to his nature Ainge is willing to take a gamble that he’ll find a gem.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
9,839
Is this the one that you watched?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FnZrEmorIw

Because I watched that this morning too, and walked away feeling the same as you. The points Schmitz makes about his PnR game, low center of gravity when handling, long strides in the open court, and ability to absorb contact look pretty promising. He has a good stop-and-go, and creates a ton of space on that step-back. If he becomes a decent shooter, he has a pretty clear path to being an offensive weapon.
Yeah I saw that; shooting is obviously going to make or break him, but he isn’t the dud that some people seem to think he is going to be. He has some flaws, but everyone at #14 is going to have some. I think his problems can be corrected by better coaching/more experience.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,718
Yeah I saw that; shooting is obviously going to make or break him, but he isn’t the dud that some people seem to think he is going to be. He has some flaws, but everyone at #14 is going to have some. I think his problems can be corrected by better coaching/more experience.
Yep. I mean, if he was a 43% three point shooter in addition to everything else, he'd likely be a top 5 pick. Nobody drafted at 14 is going to be flawless. Even Giannis and Kawhi - both taken at 15 - had huge holes when they were drafted. Kawhi was like a 23% three point shooter. NOT saying that Langford is the next Kawhi. Just pointing out that even guys who turn into studs, if they aren't picked til the mid-teens, are going to have, going into the draft anyway, some significant holes.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
1,923
At worst, he's a SG with no outside shot, who stands around when he doesn't dominate the ball, and likes to launch difficult shots at the basket. He is not engaged on defense, either.

At best, he's a great shotmaker off the bounce, whose three point shooting will come around when his wrist is healed. His step back three will become a go to weapon, and he will be Harden-esque, drawing fouls, getting to the rim, and opening up shots for others.

We need him closer to the at best scenario.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,540
Kiev, Ukraine
At worst, he's a SG with no outside shot, who stands around when he doesn't dominate the ball, and likes to launch difficult shots at the basket. He is not engaged on defense, either.

At best, he's a great shotmaker off the bounce, whose three point shooting will come around when his wrist is healed. His step back three will become a go to weapon, and he will be Harden-esque, drawing fouls, getting to the rim, and opening up shots for others.

We need him closer to the at best scenario.
Yeah, this is the risk you take with a #14, as others have mentioned. If he works out, everyone will be slapping themselves for not realizing that his 3% was a product of injury, and if he doesn’t, everyone will wonder how they drafted a non-shooting space cadet who peaked in HS.

It’s hard to predict this stuff: Brown is a plus defender now, but even through his rookie year he was lost with team defensive concepts.

Hopefully he’s healthy for summer league.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,718
I'd like to think that if you are a terrific athlete that has good size for your position, and you work hard at defense and are actually a really good defender, that there's always a place in the NBA for you, even if your offense doesn't work out (Tony Allen for example). And if your offense DOES develop, holy smokes now we're talking.
 

bowiac

I've been living a lie.
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,324
New York, NY

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,635
Santa Monica
I don't know if it's true but every so often we have the "Does DA draft well?" thread and IIRC, DA is above-average. YMMV.

See, e.g., https://www.celticsblog.com/2016/8/18/12516892/the-truth-about-dannys-drafts
Gosh, after reading that article Danny was pretty damn good up until Rozier.

Rozier was a solid pick

Brown was a very good pick.

And then there is the Fultz heist. Tatum is an awesome pick & Langford TBD

Off the top of my head it seems San Antonio, Milwaukee, Toronto, GSW and Denver have done really well over the last 10yrs
.
 
Last edited:

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,736
Gosh, after reading that article Danny was pretty damn good up until Rozier.

Rozier was a solid pick

Brown was a very good pick.

And then there is the Fultz heist. Tatum is an awesome pick & Langford TBD

Off the top of my head it seems San Antonio, Milwaukee, Toronto, GSW and Denver have done really well over the last 10yrs
.
Article didn't even include E'Twaun Moore, who is now a 0.7 VORP guy at pick 55, which helps.

The reason we all think DA is an above-average drafter is because of one reason and one reason only: he's found a bunch of NBA players but the best player he "drafted" is Rajon Rondo. I.e., he's never picked a superstar, well at least not as of this moment.

OTOH, he's only had about 40-45 draft picks (depending on how you count trades, etc.) and not a lot of high draft picks so it's probably not surprising that he's never drafted a superstar just because of the odds.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,540
Kiev, Ukraine
Gosh, after reading that article Danny was pretty damn good up until Rozier.

Rozier was a solid pick

Brown was a very good pick.

And then there is the Fultz heist. Tatum is an awesome pick & Langford TBD

Off the top of my head it seems San Antonio, Milwaukee, Toronto, GSW and Denver have done really well over the last 10yrs
.
Also Utah—getting Gobert at 27 and Mitchell at 13 completely changed the direction of the franchise.
 

bowiac

I've been living a lie.
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,324
New York, NY
Article didn't even include E'Twaun Moore, who is now a 0.7 VORP guy at pick 55, which helps.

The reason we all think DA is an above-average drafter is because of one reason and one reason only: he's found a bunch of NBA players but the best player he "drafted" is Rajon Rondo. I.e., he's never picked a superstar, well at least not as of this moment.

OTOH, he's only had about 40-45 draft picks (depending on how you count trades, etc.) and not a lot of high draft picks so it's probably not surprising that he's never drafted a superstar just because of the odds.
I think that's right perspective really. Drafting Terry Rozier instead of getting an absolute bust at 16 is nice I guess, but ultimately doesn't matter for deciding a franchise's fortunes.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,167
Drafting Terry Rozier instead of getting an absolute bust at 16 is nice I guess, but ultimately doesn't matter for deciding a franchise's fortunes.
Sure it does. Or, at least, it could. There is a parallel universe where things broke differently and the Celtics won a championship this year that they otherwise would not have because of Rozier. Either due to the minutes he gave them off the bench that would have been more expensive to replace on the open market, or because he was a valuable chip in a deal for Kawhi Leonard.
 

Big John

lurker
Dec 9, 2016
1,751
Of the 14 GMs who passed on Giannis in 2013, only Ainge and two others still have NBA jobs: Sam Presti, who took Stephen Adams, and Dennis Lindsey (since kicked upstairs by the Jazz) who redeemed himself somewhat by snatching Gobert at #27.

The other 11 have all been fired.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,470
I think that's right perspective really. Drafting Terry Rozier instead of getting an absolute bust at 16 is nice I guess, but ultimately doesn't matter for deciding a franchise's fortunes.
So far, no-one drafted after Rozier has stood out all that much either. Harrell was a throw in for the Chris Paul deal, but doesn't seem to be much more than a bench 4/5. Josh Richardson is not a bad player, but a lot of teams passed on him. None of them are truly decisive when it comes to a franchise's fortunes.
 

bowiac

I've been living a lie.
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,324
New York, NY
Sure it does. Or, at least, it could. There is a parallel universe where things broke differently and the Celtics won a championship this year that they otherwise would not have because of Rozier. Either due to the minutes he gave them off the bench that would have been more expensive to replace on the open market, or because he was a valuable chip in a deal for Kawhi Leonard.
You and I have very different perspectives about how good Rozier is, and whether he had material trade value around the time Kawhi was traded. I think of him a back of the rotation guy, but honestly not someone you even want as your backup point guard. The parallel universe where the Celtics win the championship because of Rozier is one where Rozier is a much better player. Your mileage may vary.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,218
Maine
So it seems like we have this discussion every once in ahwile (Smart for instance).
But what are the easiest traits to improve?
Ball Handling?
Shooting? (FT/LR/MR)
Defense?
BB IQ?
Passing?

the consensus seems to be that if he shot 46% and 35% from 3 he would be a steal.

I would feel alot better if he had a "top 1%" skill. Like Thybulles defense.
(is his slashing and driving ability that standout skill?)

but as you guys post I feel a bit better. Especially seeing as I cant recall very many players whose shooting didnt improve at all . While the leagues history is littered with guys who didnt shoot well enough....everyone improves. Sometimes just not enough.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,756
He's a good slasher, albeit with his right hand. He really needs to work on that left-handed dribble or defenders are going to just shade left him to death. Shooting mechanics can be tough to change, as we saw with Smart and how long it took him to completely rebuild his shot. That being said Langford's shot isn't as broken as Smart's was. Assuming his head's on right he should be able to do it. But it's probably best to have realistic expectations and not expect his big performance leap until his third or fourth year.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
20,510
Saskatoon Canada
Terry was awesome in the playoffs last year.
My take, is he was a lot like JBJ being a playoff MVP. Both guys are streaky and Terry was in a situation where he was needed to do what he always want to do, which is let it fly, and he went off. His D, other parts of his game were great, but he was one guy I expected wasn't as good as he looked last Spring.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,375
New York, NY
So it seems like we have this discussion every once in ahwile (Smart for instance).
But what are the easiest traits to improve?
Ball Handling?
Shooting? (FT/LR/MR)
Defense?
BB IQ?
Passing?

the consensus seems to be that if he shot 46% and 35% from 3 he would be a steal.

I would feel alot better if he had a "top 1%" skill. Like Thybulles defense.
(is his slashing and driving ability that standout skill?)

but as you guys post I feel a bit better. Especially seeing as I cant recall very many players whose shooting didnt improve at all . While the leagues history is littered with guys who didnt shoot well enough....everyone improves. Sometimes just not enough.
Shooting is probably the easiest skill to improve. That said, I am increasingly of the mindset that the thing to look for in the draft is guys who are already really skilled in at least one area. This is how you find the Jokic’s of the world.

In brief, improving poor skills to average is something most NBA players can do with most skills if they work at it. Harden’s defense or Rondo’s shooting are examples of this (hopefully Smart’s shooting is another example but it’s a little too earlier to be certain). There are obviously exceptions, Shaq worked hard at shooting and became any good at it and IT’s defensive problems can’t be fixed through skill or practice, but generally getting to average is the easy way to improve. Developing an elite skill is really hard and very unlikely. There are exceptions like Kawhi and Dray, but they are the exceptions.

With a Romeo, then, I think the question is how close to elite is his slashing ability. Is he skilled enough at getting to the rim that it translates. If it does, he has a decent chance to build the other pieces of his game around that strength. If it doesn’t, he’s going to struggle.

In other words, I think the present barometer of how you feel about Romeo as a pick is less about how good a shooter he is and more about how good you think he is at creating offense off the dribble, because the latter is what will determine his future while the former is something he should be able to learn to do at least adequately over time.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
9,839
With a Romeo, then, I think the question is how close to elite is his slashing ability. Is he skilled enough at getting to the rim that it translates. If it does, he has a decent chance to build the other pieces of his game around that strength. If it doesn’t, he’s going to struggle.

In other words, I think the present barometer of how you feel about Romeo as a pick is less about how good a shooter he is and more about how good you think he is at creating offense off the dribble, because the latter is what will determine his future while the former is something he should be able to learn to do at least adequately over time.
I can't seem to find the statistics, but in the Mike Schmitz video posted above, he said that Langford shot 66 percent at the rim last season, and that was on a poor-shooting Indiana team were teams could pack the paint against him. That seems like it could be an elite skill for him.