Reply With Quote
I think I acknowledged that in my initial post when I said Risacher can end up somewhere in between the two.
More like in before how are you going to compare Ariza with Lewis who was at least one tier above in his prime, if not two.
I think I acknowledged that in my initial post when I said Risacher can end up somewhere in between the two.
I'm not saying he might slide because of a poor combine but it might be a factor. The main reason why he could slide is that he isn't a that great fit with the top3 teams and that they view him as a player with a limited ceiling.
I agree with you on the combine having little value most of the time but NBA teams will look at it. They have statistic people with analytic models that try to link combine results with NBA impact of prospects. These people will be one of the voice, that the GM, or whoever has the final say, will listen to.
Europe still values basketball, just being able to play. Meanwhile an industry has built up around the combines and measurements in American sports. Football might be more specialized as a game, but it's still ridiculous. I'm the NBA those measurements are still obsessed over. Like, you'll hear someone say a player will drop because their arms are slightly shorter. Bruh, no. They're still the same player. Are they good at basketball?
Eh, I'd be disappointed with Ariza at #4, but Lewis would be perfect.
In a dream scenario, he's definitely my pick at #4 if he's on the board. No question, even over Sarr I'd say now. He makes this team loads better, even if he spends the season bounce passing to nobody and dribbling off his foot on his drives post-kickout+hard close out. He WILL improve. Durant? I doubt it, but he's just the kind of "project" who will only get better at making defenses pay for collapsing on Wemby or Vassell.
In this draft or most of them, if you told me the 4th pick was going to yield a Lewis or even Ariza caliber player, I'd take it and run.
Like I said before, each of us have our own philosophies when it comes to drafting. To me, it’s a waste.
So you expect to draft superstars with every top10 pick or what?
If we were to trade for a 20ppg, 40% high volume 3pt, long wing, we'd be looking at trading like 3 FRPs.
For me the only wasted picks are the ones that made no sense, like Samanic and Primo.
Reasonable drafting always wins out long term over taking random swings just for the sake of it.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt because you’re not normally like this but today you’ve been taking my posts wildly out of context and responding with hyperbole.
No, not even close. I want the Spurs to try to put a star next to Wemby. People want the Spurs to be active when it comes to trades and free agency all for the sake of appeasing him and ensuring he doesn’t get tired of losing and leave in three years… I say that line of thinking shouldn’t be limited to trades and free agency, but their approach to drafting the sort of player that has an upside to be more than a freaking Ariza or Rashard Lewis. That’s aiming very low, and the kind of strategy that would continue the trend of losing.
And this would get any GM fired. The closest All Star that meets this archetype in recent years is Lauri Markkanen (and that’s giving too much credit to Risacher), and any team that gives up three first round picks for Lauri is going to be a treadmill team and deserves to be one for such a stupid move.
There’s a reason why players of this archetype rarely stay as All Stars past a year or two.
It was out of context because your takes about this specific draft class are out of context.
We'd all love to draft the next generational playmaker and the next superstar wing, but you got to work with what you have in this draft.
For most drafts my take is that NBA media space gets way too doomer about it.
But this class looks really poor if we talk players with star potential.
Not just star potential, but solid starter potential.
Shooters can't defend, defenders can't shoot, guards are undersized and can't playmake.
The only player with actual superstar skillset that would just have to translate to the NBA is Dillingham.
But he's really undersized and even with his skillset it's a question mark if he'll actually stay in the league beyond his rookie contract.
For every superstar with his size, a thousand of them don't make it.
Risacher might not have star potential, but as I said many times, Spurs need at least one high volume wing shooter.
Getting a great defender who can shoot 40% on 8 attempts would be a jackpot. Invaluable in today's league.
(I'm not saying I think Risacher can get there, I just think that getting such player is almost mandatory.)
And he's the only wing who's not a theoretical player, but actually has a skillset and isn't two years away.
Holland, Buzelis, Salaun are theoretical players. They need to develop a skillset and then translate it.
Topic has no NBA skills except great passing vision.
Sheppard is undersized SG.
Castle doesn't have star potential.
Even taking a wild swing seems impossible in this draft.
As we get closer to the draft day, my personal opinion is that one of these picks needs to be packaged for a proven player.
Whether it be DJ, Garland, Markkanen or someone else, I don't really care.
If PATFO does make both selections, I really hope Risacher is there at #4.
As for #8, just take a swing with Dillingham.
I’m not going to go in-depth about this right now, but maybe if I’m motivated enough later. It’s not hard to look down the list of current and past All Stars and see that a lot of them consist of “theoretical players” at the time that they were drafted. I’d even go as far as to say that each year All Stars are comprised of 50% “sure thing prospects at the time of the draft like Doncic, Durant, Davis” and 50% “theoretical types” like:
Haliburton - if only he could shoot and had a more explosive first step
Barnes - if only he could shoot
Adebayo - if only he was good at offense
SGA scouting report had this to say about him:
Gilgeous-Alexander can't be counted on for offensive firepower as a rookie. Just like he needed time in college, it could take his whole rookie season to adjust to a faster NBA, particularly if he can't consistently make outside shots. He'll come off the bench, handle the ball, pass and take what the defense gives him, but Gilgeous-Alexander shouldn't be projected to finish on either of the All-Rookie Teams.
So as you can see, the perception of players can be incredibly wrong and the way that these players don’t have anything going for them as far as upside goes is way overstated.
The list of All Stars barely consist of play-it-safe types and like I said, going after a mid ceiling player like Risacher is lazy and would be a sign the Spurs aren’t really trying.
I meant to post this snippet about SGA:
Projected role: Low-end starter
Without the speed, athleticism or reliable three-ball, Gilgeous-Alexander projects as more of a role player than a star. He could start one day if given enough support, but low-end starter, like Payton, is his likeliest ceiling. Gilgeous-Alexander checks boxes for a guard—he just doesn't own any.
Taking a swing at#19 is not senseless in my book, especially not with two firsts.
It was senseless because RC went to Slovenia a handful of times and didn't evaluate him properly.
Samanic was an unknown to everyone and noone expected him to be picked that high.
Both those swings were players noone else was actually going to pick in that range, just Spurs attempting masterstrokes.
Obviously the list of bad talent evaluation is very long, but trying to go for masterstrokes for the sake of it is something I don't like.
Just look at those players you listed.
They had a guaranteed skill going for them and then it was about developing another one.
In this draft, that would be something like Castle developing a jumpshot.
Or Risacher developing self-creation skills.
It's not something like hoping Buzelis will exponentially improve every aspect of the game.
Topic is already written off because of bad wingspan, but Buzelis also has neutral wingspan in a position where it matters way more.
Buzelis is projected as an all-round wing that does everything well, but he has negative assistrnover ratio and was really inefficent while playing against way worse opposition than Risacher.
Same goes for Holland who's completely useless in half-court. Not just because of his lack of shot.
Obviously if someone blows them away in workouts and they see something we don't, then take him.
But let's not pretend that for example Buzelis can be a Lamar Odom or even SlowMo level playmaker just because he dribbled around a bit. So did Jeremy and look how that turned out.
Who's to say Risacher wouldn't have handled the ball in G-league?
We’re kind of talking past each other here. You’re focusing on who was picked, and I don’t care who it wound up being,just that they took a swing at 19. I want them to rake swings where there aren’t any blatantly obvious picks.
I’m not sure why you’re going on about Matas having a neutral wingspan when Risacher graded worse.It was senseless because RC went to Slovenia a handful of times and didn't evaluate him properly.
Samanic was an unknown to everyone and noone expected him to be picked that high.
Both those swings were players noone else was actually going to pick in that range, just Spurs attempting masterstrokes.
Obviously the list of bad talent evaluation is very long, but trying to go for masterstrokes for the sake of it is something I don't like.
Just look at those players you listed.
They had a guaranteed skill going for them and then it was about developing another one.
In this draft, that would be something like Castle developing a jumpshot.
Or Risacher developing self-creation skills.
It's not something like hoping Buzelis will exponentially improve every aspect of the game.
Topic is already written off because of bad wingspan, but Buzelis also has neutral wingspan in a position where it matters way more.
Buzelis is projected as an all-round wing that does everything well, but he has negative assist
Same goes for Holland who's completely useless in half-court. Not just because of his lack of shot.
Obviously if someone blows them away in workouts and they see something we don't, then take him.
But let's not pretend that for example Buzelis can be a Lamar Odom or even SlowMo level playmaker just because he dribbled around a bit. So did Jeremy and look how that turned out.
Who's to say Risacher wouldn't have handled the ball in G-league?
It is my belief that having no self-creation skills puts a player at a much larger deficit than a player being weak at something else, like shooting or passing. The way Risacher handles the ball so poorly right now it would take a monumental leap/ miracle for him to be even average at it.
I know a lot of you are traumatized by the team having poor shooting overall, but using a top 10 pick to fix that with a player who does nothing but that is overcompensating for something that could be solved through other means.
Investing in shooter only types will only make the need for a star stand out even more. And if the Spurs invest in a type like that to only increase the win total by a few wins, the Spurs will miss out on a chance to add a talented player. The Spurs need to swing for a player they believe in (and the key thing here is seeing it in workouts like you mentioned) every chance they get.
Not impressed. Prefer Knecht.
He white.
Fair point.
I'm not traumatized by the lack of shooting as much as by the lack of players on our roster who actually excel at something, let alone excel at multiple things.
This roster is horrible in every possible way. Playmaking, shooting and defense. We need everything and not just on average level.
As I said, for me Risacher isn't a shooter only type.
Combination of elite shooting, good defense and size is really hard to find in today's league and that's why I rate him.
I'll admit that I'm heavily biased against G-league Ignite players, but that failed experiment has given us every reason to not take it seriously.
Maybe you're right and I'm wrong, maybe it's the other way. We won't know until the draft and then a couple of years down the road.
I just hope PATFO gets the picks right, even if they draft players I'm not a fan of.
I get your logic, I hope you get mine.
6'9" 3&D wing lacking self creation skills -> screw it, he's doomed
6'2" point guard lacking self creation skills -> omg let's take him
color me confused.
I think the difference here is that I can easily point out tape where Reed shows ability to gets to his spots with more than adequate ball handling skills whereas Zaccharie’s tape consists of poor offensive awareness when he has the ball in his hands leading to possessions where he’s unsure of himself and throws up a discombobulated shot because he’s run out of options. Combine that with a poor first step that can’t get by anybody and poor ballhandling skills where opponents can easily poke out of his hands… and you have an bleak outlook of ever being anything more than a 3rd option on offense. But I acknowledge that me showing that tape is meaningless to people who are already convinced who Reed is. Meanwhile, I’ve watched nearly everything on the web on Zaccharie and have tried to keep an open mind but all roads lead to the same conclusion. It’s not purposeless for me to watch Zaccharie’s tape as I’ve shown that I can change my mind on a prospect: see Castle.
Are we talking about Sheppard? He does have self-creation skills.
He can move the ball around, he can make good passes. Maybe won't be a primary ball-handler or initiator, but he has those skills.
Risacher has none. None skills.
I could be totally wrong, but I think Ariel was referring to Carter..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions