seattlejazzfan
Well-Known Member
sure, i'd be interested in a couple examples where you think this happened.
Following Potential 2025 Draftees
- Thread starter Elizah Huge
- Start date
This was the first time I noticed and was very blatant. Coach pulled the starters with a lead and never subbed them back in to try to win. I believe the Raptors have done this several times now.
Raptors vs Magic, March 4, 2025 | Basketball-Reference.com
TOR (114) vs ORL (113). Get the box score, shot charts and play by play summary of the Raptors vs Magic, March 4, 2025.
www.basketball-reference.com
If you want an example of a rookie, look at the Wizards and what they did with Alex Sarr after having a good game with us. They benched him for the 4th.
Also, the post you replied to mentioned the most obvious example which is literally the hat the Blazers did last night. They benched Camara and Sharpe for OT. Coaches are not trying their best to win. I’m sure you can move the goalposts so that “not trying to win” doesn’t count as tanking, but this idea that coaches don’t tank is completely ridiculous imo when they are blatantly subbing out their best players with no intention to win.
Is this really what we think? I'd like to see more discussion on what we think the real difference between the 5th and 6th pick might mean for us instead of the seeming assumption (not necessarily by you) that there's a huge chasm between the value of picks 5 & 6 in this draft.
On average, we know that the difference in value is relatively minor.
But if anyone want to make the argument that the difference in this particular draft is large, I'm listening.
Here on Jazzfanz, we seem to have the sense that there's a Big-5: Flagg, Harper, Ace, VJ, Tre. Maybe Tony Jones shares this view. But I don't think it's the consensus view within the larger NBA draft community. I've seen Tre, for example, in many positions well after #5 on draft/big boards.
Maybe we also need to consider who the Wizards are likely to be valuing at 5, since the only way we're drafting at 6 is if the Wizards are at 5. If we expected their #5 player to be different from our #5 player, then maybe it makes no difference at all to get #6, compared to #5.
framer
Well-Known Member
Wizards could easily take a center at 5. We will not.
I know Sarr seems like a keeper, but don't know if they view him as the long-term 5. Maybe they'd rather have him, like he seemed to want, at least at one time, at the 4.
Maybe Queen, as a "local" product would be hard to pass on? I don't really know.
The Ringer's 2025 NBA Draft Guide
The no. 1 overall pick might be a layup this year, but the rest of the lottery is wide open. Join us as we rank the top prospects in this year’s class and prep for the 2025 NBA Draft..
nbadraft.theringer.com
I've been writing and deleting my own big board for the last few days. Alwys have Carter Bryant near the late lottery and feel kind of weird about it given he's pretty raw, but The Ringer decided to blow me out of the water and put him 6th.
framer
Well-Known Member
The Ringer's 2025 NBA Draft Guide
The no. 1 overall pick might be a layup this year, but the rest of the lottery is wide open. Join us as we rank the top prospects in this year’s class and prep for the 2025 NBA Draft..
I've been writing and deleting my own big board for the last few days. Alwys have Carter Bryant near the late lottery and feel kind of weird about it given he's pretty raw, but The Ringer decided to blow me out of the water and put him 6th.
I like them just throwing 4 Frenchmen in the first round for good measure.
Carter Bryant will likely kill the workouts, but I am a bit biased as I often go to U of A games. . .
Cody Williams showed more offensively in college than Carter Bryant. Bryant I think projects to be the more impactful defender, but you are going to have to be patient with him and hope for the best. Ilike Bryant, but from a Jazz perspective I wouldn't go there with a lottery pick.
I think I will probably land on Ace at #3, but it goes against a lot of what I typically believe in draft wise. Obviously, there are no perfect comparisons, but he kind of has bits and pieces of the different red flags. Have him really close with VJ and am really giving Ace the edge in the spirit of "don't over think it". The more I give thought to it, the more I don't like him....but we have to understand our own flaws in evaluation. At the end of the day it comes downs to having an elite frame and a guy who can probably (even if there's not great reason to believe he can) shoot. I have a feeling that the more into the 3-6 range the less enthusiastic I feel about each of the prospects.
What I believe in that's obvious:
Frame/Physical Ability + Potential - Maybe the best physical frame in the draft despite being so young. I think he will easily pack on size. He is a great vertical athlete, a little stiff and not the most agile, but still a great physical package.
Tough shot making ability - A lot of times when you have "bucket getter" guys they shoot a lot of tough shots but don't make them very often. It's often seen as an excuse for poor efficiency. While tougher shots are less efficient, Ace is actually legitimately good at making them so he deserves credit.
Stocks - His stocks are good, not amazing....but stocks are always a big indicator for me and in his case I think it reflects his overall athleticism and decent motor (though I think his motor is somewhat inconsistent).
What I believe in despite some hesitation:
Shooting - His overall shooting profile doesn't stand out in any way. He doesn't take a ton, makes them at a mediocre rate, and his FT% was bad (though we have reason to believe it is/will be better). But I do think he's than he is on paper. I wouldn't compare him to elite shooters as he often is (MPJ, Lauri, Cam, Murphy, etc), but I think he will be a plus shooter.
Defense - Very few players have a DBPM as low as Ace and become good defenders. The reality is that if he becomes a good defender he will become a statistical outlier. Having said that, when these outliers have come they have come from bad situations like Ace which makes it more believable. Like his shooting I don't expect it to be elite, but I think he will be a positive despite looking poor on paper and hit/miss on film.
What I don't believe in/concerns me:
BBIQ - I don't think his BBIQ is horrendous, but it is lower than most wings that succeed and I don't really have great reasoning to dismiss it like the shooting and defense. This is the main concern I have with him, and it may be responsible for much of the following concerns.
Low Rim Rate - He shoots an embarrassingly low amount of shots at the rim for how athletic and big he is. People will point to his bad teammates, it shouldn't be this bad under any circumstances.
Obsessed with Mid Range - Related to the last point. "Settle" is the word that comes to mind while watching him play offense the most. He is obsessed with bad mid range shots. This dates back to HS.
Low FT rate - Also related to previous point, he would be at the extreme end of players who succeed. Just in general, he's at the extreme end of prospects who score a lot and the terrible FT makes him an outlier by himself. The only other scoring wing that had such a bad FTr is Miles Bridges, but Miles Bridges at least shot a ton of 3's and got to the rim more
What I believe in that's obvious:
Frame/Physical Ability + Potential - Maybe the best physical frame in the draft despite being so young. I think he will easily pack on size. He is a great vertical athlete, a little stiff and not the most agile, but still a great physical package.
Tough shot making ability - A lot of times when you have "bucket getter" guys they shoot a lot of tough shots but don't make them very often. It's often seen as an excuse for poor efficiency. While tougher shots are less efficient, Ace is actually legitimately good at making them so he deserves credit.
Stocks - His stocks are good, not amazing....but stocks are always a big indicator for me and in his case I think it reflects his overall athleticism and decent motor (though I think his motor is somewhat inconsistent).
What I believe in despite some hesitation:
Shooting - His overall shooting profile doesn't stand out in any way. He doesn't take a ton, makes them at a mediocre rate, and his FT% was bad (though we have reason to believe it is/will be better). But I do think he's than he is on paper. I wouldn't compare him to elite shooters as he often is (MPJ, Lauri, Cam, Murphy, etc), but I think he will be a plus shooter.
Defense - Very few players have a DBPM as low as Ace and become good defenders. The reality is that if he becomes a good defender he will become a statistical outlier. Having said that, when these outliers have come they have come from bad situations like Ace which makes it more believable. Like his shooting I don't expect it to be elite, but I think he will be a positive despite looking poor on paper and hit/miss on film.
What I don't believe in/concerns me:
BBIQ - I don't think his BBIQ is horrendous, but it is lower than most wings that succeed and I don't really have great reasoning to dismiss it like the shooting and defense. This is the main concern I have with him, and it may be responsible for much of the following concerns.
Low Rim Rate - He shoots an embarrassingly low amount of shots at the rim for how athletic and big he is. People will point to his bad teammates, it shouldn't be this bad under any circumstances.
Obsessed with Mid Range - Related to the last point. "Settle" is the word that comes to mind while watching him play offense the most. He is obsessed with bad mid range shots. This dates back to HS.
Low FT rate - Also related to previous point, he would be at the extreme end of players who succeed. Just in general, he's at the extreme end of prospects who score a lot and the terrible FT makes him an outlier by himself. The only other scoring wing that had such a bad FTr is Miles Bridges, but Miles Bridges at least shot a ton of 3's and got to the rim more
Last edited:
Carter Bryant is probably a role player, but potentially an excellent one--e.g., Shane Battier or maybe Aaron Gordon. Hopefully, we won't need to debate who to take at #6.
Also, trying to project what someone will do in the NBA based on what they did in college is really tricky now. It's pretty much case-by-case. Cody's college games made it look like he could play off the dribble and make shots. Kyle Filipowki's college games, made it seem like he was a questionable shooter. They get to the pros, play on the same team, and now their prospects look reversed.
Cody could score in college, that you cannot take away from him. There was a discussion about this earlier, but I could not think of two more different wing prospects.
The only thing Cody could do in college was score. Bryant doesn't score, but he does the other things really well. So in terms of production, we quite literally have polar opposites. Physically, also very different. I think Bryant's frame and "NBA ready" body has to be one of the most appealing things about him. While I think Bryant has a lot to learn, he's more of the Hendricks mold where his body is much more mature and you can envision him doing the basics (3&D) earlier. It turned out that TH had more to learn than maybe we expected, but I think you get the idea of a prospect who is built to play a specific role and should be pretty good at the things required of that role even if it's not a big one. Even TH's biggest supporters did no envision an big role for him, but the ease of fitting into an important role was the appeal.
Cody's frame was the opposite. I would agree with the idea that they must become the same player in the NBA to succeed, but that's not because Cody was good at the things Bryant. It's because Cody can't deliver on the scoring potential he showed at Colorado. If we somehow ended up with a late lotto pick I wouldn't mind drafting Bryant. I don't think there are that many prospects I'm excited about and especially not that range. But if we tanked this whole year only to end up drafting Bryant at #6 that would truly be a depressing outcome.
The only point of my comparison is that Bryant would likely take time to be playable offensively and that I'm not in the mood to draft that too high this year. Taylor Hendricks is another good reason to not be too high on a guy like Bryant for the Jazz.
I like Bryant, I'm just impatient.
Think Toumani Camara is a decent comp for what Bryant could be
Eh...I don't know about that. His offensive game is not very expansive, but he can do the one thing (at least in theory) that will make him "playable". If Cody could stand still and make threes he would be playable in some sense and I think that's true for pretty much every wing. If Hendricks was actually making his shots I think he'd be just fine, for example, but his shooting is not what it was in college.
It's clear that the NBA has gone in a direction where the stand still shooter is being asked to do more with the ball, but I'd actually say that compared to Hendricks, Carter is a much smarter player and actually able to make decisions. I'm not saying Carter will deliver on his shooting and passing right away, but I'd say he's not that far away from being playable on offense. The drawback is that what he's capable of is a very small role. I don't think you need a lot of patience with Bryant, you just can't expect much. Difficult to imagine him doing a lot on offense at any point in his career.
Portland benched Shaedon Sharpe in OT last night against us and he had 37 lol.
Surprised Ace’s defensive stats are that bad. He doesn’t look that bad to me when I watch him. Even has some potential as a good weakside help defender.
I think the eye test is definitely more favorable to him. He does the things that catch your eye, and while I think his awareness/motor can be a little hit and miss I think it's not too bad. On the other hand, you have have to reconcile with the fact that Rutgers was horrible on defense and he played the most minutes on that team. And before anyone says it, I'm not "blaming" Ace for them being bad, but at the same time maybe it's a bit much to call him a great defensive player at the college level. Like I said in my post, I like him as a defensive prospect despite the so-so and/or bad indicators. But it's more along the lines of "potential" than his defense being a proven product. Generally, if you get a guy that athletic and he cares enough he will be a positive defender. I do worry that his BBIQ will limit his effectiveness, however.
I know this isn’t a good way to evaluate and there are so many more variables but compare Ace’s stats to Brandon Miller’s in college. Miller’s are so much better. Not exactly sure what that means but it’s a little eye-opening.
Miller was a lot older than Ace tbf. Having said that, I don’t think it’s always correct to just assume that a younger will make a giant leap and be as good as X player once they get to the same age.
For me, what stands out with that comparison is that I think both players faced some concern with their ability to get to the basket. Miller has been decent in the NBA so far, but I think it’s fair to say that ability to get to the basket and FT is standing in the way of being a star player. Ace has the same struggle, but he’s not an elite shooter like Miller was. I have optimism for Ace’s shooting, but it is kind of a red flag when we assume he is/will become an elite shooter.
I don’t even know if Ace wants to shoot threes. If he shot a high volume but missed a lot (like Ant) I would actually find that more encouraging.