What's new
By:

Following Potential 2025 Draftees

Saint Cy of JFC said:
Only thing on here I strongly disagree with is Saraf at 6.

Maybe he is someone I would like if I watched more closely. Havent seen a ton, but what I've seen I'm not super high on.
Click to expand...

He’s really high on his burst and frame. Says he’s not like RWB in terms of first step, but he has good burst and deceleration. Combining that with his good frame+body control gives him potential on both ends. Admits that the shooting is a big question mark.

I haven’t watched much Saraf film, but the disagreement I see with his statements vs consensus is that he really values his frame and burst whereas the consensus doesn’t think he’s very athletic. Will have to look at the film myself. I’ve watched very little, but the potential for this being a white guy situation is there.
 
stitches said:
Room for expanded role?

I'm liking Kon more and more the more we approach the draft.


...

AST% even lower = the only other guy who can put the ball in the basket gone.

I'm very hesitant about Edgecombe. On one hand I do think he's a winning player. I think he's the type of player we need the most right now... the type that does the right things, defends, makes winning plays(kind of like Castle was last year). On the other hand... I was a bit concerned with what I saw of him as a primary or even secondary initiator.

Still haven't watched them seriously. I hope I won't have to rush to watch them after today.
Click to expand...

Flagg - He is an elite number one type prospect, he just happens to be so good at everything else and has a team mentality. Better than Paolo at scoring and passing, for example, but Paolo was nowhere near as complete of a prospect.

Kon - So many signs point to Kon being able to expand. Tre plays the most like Booker, but Kon would have the most similar story to Booker as more of a role player on a stacked team. Film surprised me with how much he initiates. HS numbers suggest he can do a lot more. I had to pull back my excitement on him because I was probably going too far.

Edgecombe - I’d agree with you, but two things. 1) You’re obviously drafting prospects for the player they become. It would have to be one of those extraordinary development stories, but I don’t think he’s so far away that it prohibits him from being a star. 2) As a counterpoint, most guys his size are elite skill guys. There are lots of smaller stars, but it’s usually not because of their elite athleticism. Big wing sized athletes can get away with some skill deficiencies, not really the case for 6’4 guys.
 
KqWIN said:
This is Jerry Engleman's board. If you don't know he is, he's a stats guy whose worked for the Mavs, Suns, and created ESPN's RPM back in the day. I'm only bringing up his board 1) it's different and I think we suffer from too much group think and 2) he's not making his board to be edgy like a random poster might. I've been following his draft reports, and while he's a stats guy, he's also done a lot of film watching. He has some weird takes, but I value some opinions that are different from the norm.

1. Cooper Flagg
2. Dylan Harper
3. Ace Bailey
4. Collin Murray-Boyles
5. Kon Knueppel
6. Ben Saraf
7. Rasheer Fleming
8. VJ Edgecombe
9. Walter Clayton Jr.
10. Nolan Traoré
11. Kasparas Jakučionis
12. Tyrese Proctor
13. Jeremiah Fears
14. Jase Richardson
15. Asa Newell
16. Derik Queen
17. Danny Wolf
18. Carter Bryant
19. Khaman Maluach
20. Egor Demin
21. Tre Johnson
22. Nique Clifford
23. Miles Byrd
24. Alex Condon
25. Noa Essengue
26. Joan Beringer
27. Thomas Sorber
28. Labaron Philon
29. Will Riley
30. Liam McNeeley
Click to expand...
if he's basing this on stats/production, i'm confused at why Bailey and Tre are so far apart. they are very similar players in the sense that they are both scorers (Tre scored more), who struggled in most other areas. efficiency wasn't great (Tre more efficient), passing wasn't great (Tre assisted more). as a bigger player, bailey showed more rebounding chops and some shot blocking, but ultimately these guys are wing scorers and Tre did it better. Granted i still have bailey one spot higher on my board because he's bigger and younger so i view his upside as better, but it's one spot. to have one at 3 and the other at 21 doesn't seem to make a lot of sense if your thing is stats.
 
seattlejazzfan said:
if he's basing this on stats/production, i'm confused at why Bailey and Tre are so far apart. they are very similar players in the sense that they are both scorers (Tre scored more), who struggled in most other areas. efficiency wasn't great (Tre more efficient), passing wasn't great (Tre assisted more). as a bigger player, bailey showed more rebounding chops and some shot blocking, but ultimately these guys are wing scorers and Tre did it better. Granted i still have bailey one spot higher on my board because he's bigger and younger so i view his upside as better, but it's one spot. to have one at 3 and the other at 21 doesn't seem to make a lot of sense if your thing is stats.
Click to expand...

So first I'd clarify that these aren't the outputs of a model, it's his personal rankings. He knows what the indicators are, but being a stats guy isn't just about reading the stat sheet or model results. He uses film and approaches things with a healthy amount of skepticism, whenever he mentions the numbers he's usually also talking about how much it aligns with what he sees on film.

I understand what you're saying about Tre and Ace. They're scorers, and they seem to be about the same level of scorer so that's what should matter. But another part of being a "stats guy" is taking a more holistic view. These other differences that you mention, especially the rebounds and stocks, aren't just an after thought. They matter in a big way. Speaking of scoring, that's not what he likes about Ace and says he may have the worst shot selection in the sport. The big difference in ranking comes from their attributes. Ace has way better physical tools which gives him much more defensive potential and also instills some belief/hope that he can play differently in the future. He specifically notes that Ace will need ~years to entirely rework his game, so you're really betting on the tools not the production. JE doesn't have the same belief in Tre. He doesn't love the production of either, but thinks the production represents Tre more than it does with Ace. He hates Tre's footwork and thinks he travels every play and needs a lot of steps to go a short distance....which tbh is something I didn't notice but is starting to be something I cannot unsee.

It's also worth mentioning that a big reason why he has Ace 3 is in the name of swinging for the fences. Thinks that if you're drafting high and planning on tanking for awhile you should go for the riskier prospect because he either works out or he helps you continue the tank. I get the impression that he'd bet on CMB and Kon being better players, but they are less likely to be stars and more likely to worsen your tanking chances in the next 1-2 years.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
Could you post the analysis for CMB, Walter Clayton Jr, Fleming, and Tre Johnson?
Click to expand...
These are summaries by the way....he talks about a lot of these guys more in depth in other articles.

CMB:

There is no doubt in my mind that CMB will end up being a top-3 defender in this draft. I also wouldn't be surprised if his combine measurements are on the positive side — both wingspan and hand size. On offense, he can bully his way to the basket thanks to a strong frame, and he's a good passer. If he ever gets his 3 to fall, he could easily become a top-20 player in the impact metrics.

Best fit: A team with a stretch-5 that needs defense (e.g. BOS, NY, CHI, SAS).

Clayton:

If you're looking for a shot at getting the next Jalen Brunson, Clayton might be your guy. Both are about the same height, with a sturdy frame and an NCAA championship under their belts. Clayton gets by people with ease and possesses good footwork around the basket, allowing for creative finishes. He also plays a very modern brand of basketball, with a 3-point attempt rate above 50% — and he made 39% on more than 800 college attempts in four seasons.

Best fit: Playoff teams that need a guard (DEN, ORL, HOU, MIN, DAL).

Fleming:

Going with the theme of potential two-way impact players, Fleming is a high-energy big with, apparently, a huge wingspan. That should allow him to defend up to four different positions in the NBA.Watching Fleming’s tape, I saw what appears to be the best rebounding hands in the class. On top of that, Fleming made 39% of his 160 3-point attempts this season.

Best fit: Playoff teams that need a versatile, defense-oriented forward (MIL, ATL, LAL, SAC, PHX).

Tre:

The player I'm lowest on — compared to consensus — is Tre Johnson. Shooting guards generally have had a horrid success rate in recent drafts, and Johnson doesn't stand out enough to break that trend. Quite the contrary: I think his tiny step size will make it extremely hard to get by defenders in the NBA. He couldn't in college, despite committing a giant number of traveling violations, called and uncalled.

Best fit: A team with a giant hole at shooting guard and good team culture.
 
KqWIN said:
These are summaries by the way....he talks about a lot of these guys more in depth in other articles.

CMB:

There is no doubt in my mind that CMB will end up being a top-3 defender in this draft. I also wouldn't be surprised if his combine measurements are on the positive side — both wingspan and hand size. On offense, he can bully his way to the basket thanks to a strong frame, and he's a good passer. If he ever gets his 3 to fall, he could easily become a top-20 player in the impact metrics.

Best fit: A team with a stretch-5 that needs defense (e.g. BOS, NY, CHI, SAS).

Clayton:

If you're looking for a shot at getting the next Jalen Brunson, Clayton might be your guy. Both are about the same height, with a sturdy frame and an NCAA championship under their belts. Clayton gets by people with ease and possesses good footwork around the basket, allowing for creative finishes. He also plays a very modern brand of basketball, with a 3-point attempt rate above 50% — and he made 39% on more than 800 college attempts in four seasons.

Best fit: Playoff teams that need a guard (DEN, ORL, HOU, MIN, DAL).

Fleming:

Going with the theme of potential two-way impact players, Fleming is a high-energy big with, apparently, a huge wingspan. That should allow him to defend up to four different positions in the NBA.Watching Fleming’s tape, I saw what appears to be the best rebounding hands in the class. On top of that, Fleming made 39% of his 160 3-point attempts this season.

Best fit: Playoff teams that need a versatile, defense-oriented forward (MIL, ATL, LAL, SAC, PHX).

Tre:

The player I'm lowest on — compared to consensus — is Tre Johnson. Shooting guards generally have had a horrid success rate in recent drafts, and Johnson doesn't stand out enough to break that trend. Quite the contrary: I think his tiny step size will make it extremely hard to get by defenders in the NBA. He couldn't in college, despite committing a giant number of traveling violations, called and uncalled.

Best fit: A team with a giant hole at shooting guard and good team culture.
Click to expand...

Step size is a new term for me as far as prospect analysis. Interesting.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
Step size is a new term for me as far as prospect analysis. Interesting.
Click to expand...

I like to look at stride length, which I guess is the same thing....and it's given mixed results like most things. Tre does seem to have some happy feet that's somewhat unique to him. It doesn't bother me as much as it does JE, but I see what he's saying after he mentioned it.
 
KqWIN said:
So first I'd clarify that these aren't the outputs of a model, it's his personal rankings. He knows what the indicators are, but being a stats guy isn't just about reading the stat sheet or model results. He uses film and approaches things with a healthy amount of skepticism, whenever he mentions the numbers he's usually also talking about how much it aligns with what he sees on film.

I understand what you're saying about Tre and Ace. They're scorers, and they seem to be about the same level of scorer so that's what should matter. But another part of being a "stats guy" is taking a more holistic view. These other differences that you mention, especially the rebounds and stocks, aren't just an after thought. They matter in a big way. Speaking of scoring, that's not what he likes about Ace and says he may have the worst shot selection in the sport. The big difference in ranking comes from their attributes. Ace has way better physical tools which gives him much more defensive potential and also instills some belief/hope that he can play differently in the future. He specifically notes that Ace will need ~years to entirely rework his game, so you're really betting on the tools not the production. JE doesn't have the same belief in Tre. He doesn't love the production of either, but thinks the production represents Tre more than it does with Ace. He hates Tre's footwork and thinks he travels every play and needs a lot of steps to go a short distance....which tbh is something I didn't notice but is starting to be something I cannot unsee.

It's also worth mentioning that a big reason why he has Ace 3 is in the name of swinging for the fences. Thinks that if you're drafting high and planning on tanking for awhile you should go for the riskier prospect because he either works out or he helps you continue the tank. I get the impression that he'd bet on CMB and Kon being better players, but they are less likely to be stars and more likely to worsen your tanking chances in the next 1-2 years.
Click to expand...
thanks for that. makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top