Reply With Quote
Sounds a lot like Derrick White (in a good way)
The biggest problem I have with Sheppard is his passing is so mechanical. I don't think I have seen him throw a one-handed pass off the dribble. To me, his passing just doesn't look smooth. I think he does fine on the obvious passes, but there is really no creativity involved in that part of his game.
Sounds a lot like Derrick White (in a good way)
Agree. I don't see much of a primary facilitator with him, and I watched a lot of Kentucky. He's not Derrick White level, either. He did get 5.6 assists per 36, so can move the ball around, but to me it was as a secondary facilitator.
Now, the nice thing is that under Pop's system secondary facilitation is the name of the game. If there's going to be a primary facilitator it's going to be Wembanyama.
Small guards who don’t pass or shoot well have a very narrow path to success.
He’s also doing random lottery draws. That would affect who is picked when.
Another interesting thing about Collier is that bulk and strength gives him defensive potential a lot of other guard prospects don't have. I see him as similar to Murry and Anderson in that he could be a much better NBA defender than college because he'll be in a smaller role and his versatility would be more valued. We'll have to see how he actually measures at the combine, but currently, he's thought to be of comparable size to Marcus Smart and Derrick White. There are many ways the team could go for PG obviously, but having a guy with bulk and athleticism opens up options for a few different team configuration in a way someone like Sheppard or Dillingham wouldn't while also not sacrificing offensive potential like Castle would.
On May 12th we get to see where the ping pong balls land.
This is the weirdest draft class in recent memory.
I'm wondering if the Spurs are content with winning some games because they are targeting a player outside of the common list.
As far as the 3 American guards, Sheppard, Dillingham and Castle, I could see each serving a needed role on the team. None of them stands out enough to make me choose one over another.
i mean yeah, Collier has always been enticing due to his size/frame/athleticism and its why he came into the season as one of the main guys vying for a top 2-3 draft spot. but his performance didnt live up, particularly defensively
i also saw a guy with tunnel vision on drives... but im much more confident that he can become a good point guard than castle. think with castle you just accept he's a SG/SF and his aspiration offensively is to become an iguodala type playmaker
This is the trap of equating size and any athleticism to defensive potential. Nothing about Collier suggests interest or instinct to guard people. He's the classic loafer on that end, waiting to get the ball back, inattentive, lazy, no feel even when he tries.
The other issue with Collier that highlights don't show is that he doesn't really have great touch on his shots or his passes. His passing shows good, even potentially great vision, and sometimes he places those passes. Just as often he'll blow a basic lob in a way that makes you question humanity. And it happens a lot. Maybe he plays too fast. But it's the same with his shot, how they'll fly off the rim. There's little touch.
The ultimate thing is, though, nothing about him suggests a Spurs player. Not even play style. If the Spurs like a guard threatening the rim, they've historically liked a circulatory Tony Parker probing and shifting the defense, forcing reactions, or an opportunistic driver, like where Keldon (not a guard) or Tre will attack if the defense is out of place. They don't seem to want a player who just attacks the rim regardless of what's going on. It's inefficient, doesn't test the defense, doesn't bring any of the team into play. It's very predictable.
As someone who doesn't a watch college basketball, I can't speak to Collier's heart. That is something teams will have to determine through scouting and interviews. It's not a "trap" to see tools a player has. That's not the same thing as saying, "We need a defender, so let's go get Collier." When you make a business of drafting 19-year-olds, you have to be willing to project them changing, both physically and mentally. Collier, like Anderson and Murray, may find defense more his calling when he's just a guy on the NBA court and no longer a top recruit sharing a team with Lebron's son. If the main thing holding him back is that he didn't want to do so in college, well, that can change.
And the coaches will have to look at that and determine how much of that can be fixed, how easily and how quickly. They don't need him to be his best self immediately, but they shouldn't fall into the trap of saying, "There's X percent chance that he pans out, but if he does, he will be great." They should be making plans, not gambling.The other issue with Collier that highlights don't show is that he doesn't really have great touch on his shots or his passes. His passing shows good, even potentially great vision, and sometimes he places those passes. Just as often he'll blow a basic lob in a way that makes you question humanity. And it happens a lot. Maybe he plays too fast. But it's the same with his shot, how they'll fly off the rim. There's little touch.
I don't think this matters at all. The Spurs have historically created systems to take advantage of their talent, and they can accommodate a guy who likes to bull through and quick-post if they thing the talent is there. Some of what he does may work in plays Pop drew up for Parker, just like with DeRozan. Some plays that weren't available to Parker might open up as they did for guys like Westbrook. More importantly, whatever role Collier or any PG has will change as Wemby and the other players develop. Parker wasn't Parker for years, even after he became a strong starting PG. It's okay that the PG will grow in dialectic with the roster at its star.The ultimate thing is, though, nothing about him suggests a Spurs player. Not even play style. If the Spurs like a guard threatening the rim, they've historically liked a circulatory Tony Parker probing and shifting the defense, forcing reactions, or an opportunistic driver, like where Keldon (not a guard) or Tre will attack if the defense is out of place. They don't seem to want a player who just attacks the rim regardless of what's going on. It's inefficient, doesn't test the defense, doesn't bring any of the team into play. It's very predictable.
Parker worked because he was constantly shifting the defense and probing, not going hammerlock toward the rim. He was under control, would pass through the paint. He'd take his moments if the defense wasn't wary or pop a midrange. All of this, of course, once he was established as the core of the offense.
Collier isn't a player you want to be taking a large portion of the offensive possessions. He does draw fouls, but only shoots about 67% from the stripe. He gets a ton of turnovers. Some of those are offensive fouls. Certainly some of that can be improved, but he's not the quick, probing guard that Parker was, he's a bowling ball with one destination.
That's not a player I want to completely change my offense to support. Those are possessions and areas of the floor I want to keep open for Wemanybama. With a high draft pick, I wouldn't put my faith in changing Collier. I'd rather look somewhere else.
This draft is an ungodly mess. I've never seen such a jumbled board. Folks can't even agree on talent tiers.
I'm increasingly coming around to the opinion that they should ignore position, need, and fit altogether, and just draft BPA who has the strongest mental eval. They all are flawed in one way or another. Find the one who is going to work the hardest and be a good teammate and let the chips fall where they may.
Dink Pate is becoming an intriguing possibility. I hope he gets the waiver to enter the draft this year.
6'8" point guard, went pro at 17, from TX. Might be something to work with there if we want to develop him.
Nor to consider they'll be the starters/main contributors of the future.
A lottery mock that doesn't regurgitate received wisdom, Derek Parker is one of the better one-guy YT analysts. Warning, I believe he's a Thunder fan, but unlike most Thunder fans isn't overly needy and emotional. Here, some of his picks might not be what everyone would do, but he gives good reasons for who he's picking for each team and why.
Sheppard's passing is more than fine, his reads are excellent and his delivery is always on point, some of his transition passes are Jokic like. The problem with him has to do with his inability to create in the halfcourt, and that has a lot to do with his lack of explosiveness and an elite handle, both of which Dillingham does possess.
I tend to think alike in regards to Collier, one possible exception would be if the FO traded for a vet, or traded down. In both cases Portland makes for an interesting partner: they have vets that could be available (Simons, Brogdon), and 2 picks in the lottery (or close): their own and GSW's. Washington (Avdija, Kispert, Tyus Jones) and Detroit (Ivey) are also interesting potential trade partners. I wouldn't be mad if the Spurs used their high picks to get a young vet + a later pick, getting both the basis of a compe ive team + still going for a swing in the late lottery / mid teens (Collier, Salaun, Kyshawn George, etc).
Gonna repeat what I think will happen:
the Spurs will go for a player who is able to showcase their talent early. Meaning, their talent will standout above the rest when on the floor with Spurs players who have been here for years. While many have the opinion that a lot of our current rotation players are trash, there is still a system to learn and sometimes players adapt to that system fast and sometimes slow. Talented players adapt fast.
But that statement can be misconstrued to mean that the players they should go for should have skills that fit well with others— like having the ability to shoot when paired with Wemby. While that’s nice, that’s not the type of talent that exactly stands out. There has to be something different about next year if they don’t plan to make any major trades. There also has to be a sense of progression. Having a guy like Zaccharie make open shots and nothing but open shots won’t increase our win total over the next few years. His development in shot creation would. However, that is increasingly unlikely for him to attain as highlighted in recent videos his unimpressive scoring outside of his 3 pt shooting. It looks like Sochan redux out there watching him get his points by simple cutting and finishing.
Another type of talent that won’t stand out on this team is Sarr. His game is so unpolished that he is likely to make boneheaded play after boneheaded play. That sets a bad precedent when you play a guy like that.
Yes, a lot of other guys have flaws and question marks. But quite a few of them have a path to be good contributors from day 1. I was iffy on Sheppard but his well rounded game backed by his IQ would make him an instant contributor. Dilly is also someone I think who would be a game changer.
To further add,
the Spurs players this year took time, as we all know, to recognize Wemby as the undisputed #1 guy on the team. It also took Spurs players four years to see that Vassell as the guy who should be number 2 behind Wemby. This is basketball. Players naturally rally around guys who are truly talented. That’s what we have to ask ourselves when we look at a guy like Zaccharie and actually think that this is a guy who would step in and show other folks he’s better than them. I think absolutely not. He might have a good game here and there where he’s shooting lights out, but the acknowledgement that he should eventually have the ball when it’s down to the wire… down the road in his career? Doubt it.
Shot creation is key in this league for s om. Some players have it, some don’t. There’s some promising players in this draft that could take the ball and make something out of nothing. I hope the Spurs find that player. My opinion on who fits that profile? Dilly, Matas, Collier. My bet is that the Spurs draft one of these guys. If not, then I hope the Spurs see something I don’t (they usually do) in other players.
2 games to go, tied with Charlotte for 3rd, and Toronto is in 6th place, 2 games apart from 7th (Brooklyn). Spurs face Denver and Detroit, Charlotte faces Boston and Cleveland, so they both likely lose the next game and it will come down to the last game. Detroit should have #1 secured by then, Pop should rest Wemby and play these same guys that lost to OKC today. If that;s the case, we likely end up tied for 3rd. which is fine,...not much difference.
2nd rounder watch:
Jonathan Mogbo, San Francisco
28.9 mpg
14.2pts
10.1 rbs
3.6 assist
0.8 blocks
1.6 steals
6-8 big, different college all 4 years, great athlete, great passer (for a big)
Basically he's Faried or Harrell if they could really pass but still couldn't shoot. Arguably not expected to be a consistent defender at the NBA level without some development, but that's how second round picks are. Weak compe ion, 2 years JUCO + 2 years scrub conferences
im ready to move on from branham and wesley.Ive seen enough to know they are not good.Time to draft other young guys
to develop,Cause alot of these young guys on this roster are gonna be a waste of time when they got no potential.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions