Can't complain its a weak draft anyway. These 2 give shooting/offense and they are not negative on defense.
Don't get it at all. He's not big. He's not fast. He's not that athletic. He doesn't have any court vision. He doesn't have that good a handle. He can't shoot. About all he does is miss a lot of threes. And yet he's been like #8 in every mock for months.
Unfortunately both Knecht and Sheppard are not good defenders.
So perfect pick for B. Wrong at the TOR 8 slot.
Who is? Aye said not negative. Meaning not so bad defensive win share or DBPM
He’s not a PG,he's a 6’3” downhill scorer who is a scattergun passer and can’t shoot.Chinook is really enamored with that USC guy who can’t shoot, can’t finish left, and turns the ball over all the time
Collier isn’t going to be good.
Not saying Sheppard is Curry redux, but it's a lot of the same nonsense (measurables, position and let's face it the fact that they both looked about 12) that is going to probably lead to him going lower than he should.
Hopefully the Spurs are the ones who recognize this and don't make the mistake others will.
Filipowski appears to have some Grayson Allen in him.
Duke and Carolina take this way too seriously. Duke players try to hurt Carolina players. Carolina runs fake classes to pass their idiot players.
would be a upgrade over tre and branham...
That damn Knecht is the real deal…..I love his skill of course but his will to win is elite!
Well, at the time the Spurs didn't recognize Curry's talents. RC called Jack McClinton the best shooter in the draft. He did shoot better from 3 their draft year
Now I don't worry about that because Wright is the GM now, hopefully RC leaves him alone
Geez, why didn't the Spurs draft Curry in the late second round instead of McClinton?
BPA seems completely subjective like everything else. I agree with the idea in theory for a young team needing talent. But it's not like there's a universal standard everyone is using to evaluate these players. Finding the BPA is a composite of many factors and the Spurs FO prioritize character highly where other teams don't as much. Anyway. It's a slippery slope. I imagine the discussions on these prospects will be especially hard.
Last edited by The Truth #6; 03-10-2024 at 08:06 AM.
Wow, you can really see how challenging this draft is going to be just by how many diverse takes there are on this thread. I have almost no idea who would be best for the spurs possible two picks right now and I usually have favorites at this point. I just keep thinking, shooting. Let’s keep it simple and surround Wemby with shooters. He seems talented enough that he can eventually be the Jokic / LeBron center of the universe offensively. He’s already top 5 in the league defensively. I say it just give him the keys to the offense and run every single halfcourt play right through him. It might take him two years to master it but when he does he’ll be a championship winning machine.
Sheppard is definitely a good defender. How that defense will translate to the NBA is a different story.
He has great hands and can make big plays as a team defender, but overall he's pretty limited in my mind, even in college. He's not a shut-down defender by any means. His blocks for position and steals are excellent, though.
Of course the Spurs are going to draft BPA, per however they set their board. What Chinook is saying shouldn't be controversial or ground breaking by any means. That's what they've always done. I doubt the team would ever admit to taking a player they have rated lower on their board in the first round because it fits a need, unless someone can correct me? Some of the factors they use to set their board, however, aren't always the ones we, or other teams, would use... but until such time as someone else is making the decisions, that's what they'll do.
And of course, none of our opinions matter, but that doesn't mean we can't share and discuss them here, on this discussion board.
Last edited by scott; 03-10-2024 at 03:10 AM.
Collier is whatever. He's going to either be good or he won't. I'm not married to any pick, just like every year. We don't get to vote on who the Spurs will take, so I don't see a reason to worry too much about it. I just think the discussion turning away from Collier, Topic, Sarr and Buzelis should be pushed back against. I think some of the reasoning behind that side has some flaws. Because there are zero consequences to our discussions, I am taking the opportunity to speak for that side. I have zero issues with the Spurs taking Dillingham, Risacher, Sheppard or anyone else. I just hope they're able to snag two guys they really like, even if it's some off-the-walls like Castle and Dunn. It doesn't have to line up with any expectations I have -- it just needs to work.Chinook is really enamored with that USC guy who can’t shoot, can’t finish left, and turns the ball over all the time
Collier isn’t going to be good.
That's not really what BPA means. I guess its all semantics, but there's a lot of confusion or fundamental disagreement of what's being talked about.
This is a draft where there are no 'best player available' at any selection through pick 10 or so. You cannot objectively rank them, you can only subjectively rank them. Of course the team will have tiers of who they want. Those will be pretty different than other teams. Last year, there was a clear BPA at spot 1, two BPAs at 2-3, and two more BPAs with the Thompson twins. No such thing exists this year.
Also, there is no sense in picking a position that you don't need when there's another player that fulfills a need within the same tier. Fit is as important as anything and 1) no, there is no clear BPA as we tick down the draft in the lottery and 2) fit is important. Selecting some dumb or asshole because he's 'BPA' is nonsensical, as is, say, picking a shooting guard when there are small forwards available.
So, on every level of what we can mean by BPA, I disagree.
The "consensus BPA" never actually matters because the consensus never has to turn in a draft card. Yes, there are obvious "BPAs" at pick 1 like Wemby, but it's because the players are so far ahead of the others that the "consensus" translates to 30 teams' subjective draft boards. There are rarely ever any "objective" BPAs, there are only consensus, but again - the consensus doesn't make picks. Every team convinces themselves that their board is the correct one, right up until the moment that they screw it up one too many times and get the axe.
I hear what you are saying, Mr. Body, but the Spurs FO will set their board based what they feel are the best players. The Lonnie Walker pick is a good example of their penchant for this, a 6'4" shooting guard seemed like probably not the the top priority in 2018, but that's who they picked, undoubted because they felt that was the best player on the board (in hindsight, Jalen Brunson would have been the best pick, though that probably would have just led to a bunch of "why doesn't Brunson play more" threads before he eventually goes on to play elsewhere). I think the fact there is no consensus ranking this year just further backs up this idea. I'm sure if the tags are touching on two players, and one is a SF and the other is a SG, they'd certainly take the SF. But if there is a considerable gap, then they'll probably take the SG.
Yep. The Spurs will have their board, and it'll be broken down into tiers. Fit will only come into it if they have a couple of guys rated equally within the same tier. Pretty common sense stuff...
The bigger question to me is what criteria do they use collectively to determine BPA. That's where the debate exists. What determines upside et cetera.
BPA only works when there's a player that clearly separetes from the pack. There are none on this draft, so between a center that I don't know how good he will be, and a PG that I don't know how good he will be, I'm taking the PG, tbh.
There are currently 120 users browsing this thread. (35 members and 85 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
