The OFFICIAL don't draft Joel Embiid thread

[8]

I still like Wiggins #1. I don't really know who between Parker and Embiid I'd want at this point. If Thabeet was coming out this year I'd def take him #1 tho.

 

[UGLI baby]

Beantown gonna Beantown tbh.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Wanna bet?
Troll better.

Betting is against my religion

 

[Dr. Jones]

Funny.. "I can't bet on sports but I can blow people to bits."

Do you get bonus virgins for blowing up bookies??

Sent from the JazzFanz app

 

[Deleted member 848]

Funny.. "I can't bet on sports but I can blow people to bits."

Do you get bonus virgins for blowing up bookies??

Sent from the JazzFanz app

I'd have to talk to homie upstairs about that one. Seems like it would make sense doe

 

[b_line]

One thing about beanloafs threads is that they have the power to unite all of jazzfanz into agreement on one thing: that bean clown has no clue what he is talking about.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Wow, Beantown is taking a beating for bucking conventional wisdom in this thread. The tyranny of group think is alive and evident here.

As a general rule, I am skeptical of drafting based on potential, particularly if the draft pick is in the #1-3 range, or thereabouts. I wonder (but do not care to take the time to investigate) how many, what % players drafted on the basis of potential have later reached this potential, let alone even panned out, both overall and for big men (for whom the term 'potential' seems most often applied). I'm guessing (again absent any actual proof) that the % is south of 50%.

While I understand the argument of 'swinging for the fence,' in this case, (were I the Jazz FO), given where the franchise finds itself, I'd be much more inclined toward a 'sure thing' (to the extent this is possible) than taking the risk and drafting on potential. It's a personal choice, but count me as someone who's more inclined toward Beantown's take on this (as far as riskiness goes at least).

 

[cowhide]

Wow, Beantown is taking a beating for bucking conventional wisdom in this thread. The tyranny of group think is alive and evident here.

As a general rule, I am skeptical of drafting based on potential, particularly if the draft pick is in the #1-3 range, or thereabouts. I wonder (but do not care to take the time to investigate) how many, what % players drafted on the basis of potential have later reached this potential, let alone even panned out, both overall and for big men (for whom the term 'potential' seems most often applied). I'm guessing (again absent any actual proof) that the % is south of 50%.

While I understand the argument of 'swinging for the fence,' in this case, (were I the Jazz FO), given where the franchise finds itself, I'd be much more inclined toward a 'sure thing' (to the extent this is possible) than taking the risk and drafting on potential. It's a personal choice, but count me as someone who's more inclined toward Beantown's take on this (as far as riskiness goes at least).

The draft is risky. Guys get hurt and they are never the same. Wiggins could be a bust. Parker could decide to go on a mission and come home and not want to play basketball. All the guys have potential and none of them have proven a thing. Derrick Williams and Michael Beasley were beast in NCAA but they were tweeners in the NBA and have been marginal players. What is Parker? Is he a PF or a SF? Will Wiggins ever become aggressive or is he just not an alpha dog? So Beantown's thinking is way off base if he simply doesn't want to take him because other African big man have busted. Embiid might be the next Hakeem or he might be the next Habeet but the signs point more to Hakeem. Besides, Wiggins and Parker have just as big question marks if you look at their game objectively. All the players do, despite all the hype none of these players are the next MJ, Lebron, Pierce or Hakeem. They are all still far away from becoming those type of players.

 

[BTP]

It's not about being African or not being African. I'm wary of anyone who started playing basketball 17.

he started at 15, moved to the states at 17.

Every year there is the super raw African big men that never pans out. Now I understand that Embiid is playing college ball but he fits this exact same mold. He is super raw, super skinny and all he really offers is potential. So here are my three reasons to not draft him:

#2-Embiid doesn't do anything ELITE. He is raw offensively, he only averages 7 rebounds and he ranks 28th in the NCAA in blocked shots.

#3-He's as a big of a project as they come. The Jazz are not in the position for a project. They need someone in this draft to come in and contribute from day 1. Plus you factor in the Jazz already have Favors, Kanter and Gobert and at this point he would see no playing time. We are already developing three big men.


Embiid just screams to me Hasheem Thabeet. Thabeet also had AMAZING college numbers in his junior year and was much more developed. In fact looking back at the draft history the only similar guy I can see like this working out is Serge Ibaka.

I'm not saying Embiid will never be a good player but he is the riskiest pick in the top 5. With this type of draft this is a risk that the Jazz should not gamble on.

stop reading espn AND Embiid has a work ethic, likes the game and the reason he's projected that high is not for his performance but the speed at which he improves.

Give me a break. Don't try and throw race into this. Its a fact, we have seen plenty of big men from African nations come and go. They rarely ever stick in the league. They have only played basketball for a few years, they are raw and then they never develop.

Look at Thabeet, he didn't start playing basketball until he was 15. He had REALLY impressive college numbers and then in the NBA he couldn't do anything. His skinny frame was unable to compete in the NBA.

How many skinny NBA centers in the league are dominating right now? Doesn't matter if they are black, white, blue or red. A really thin framed NBA center will never succeed in the league. Unless they have elite length.

The only guy that goes against this is Joakim Noah. But he is from NY and has played basketball his entire life and he still struggles against bigger centers.

You know how many African-American centers bust each year? There's a couple thousand in the NCAA.
You know for example Bismarck Biyombo who has 0 feel for the game is quite a good rim protector. And Embiid even if can't alter shots or block shots that often will be league leader in drawing charges once he has figured it all out. He's so quick at helping and he's missing not that many rotations at that point. If he does he still tries, is late and getts the blocking foul. #
Plus his frame can carry more strength and he's not really skinny even now.

 

[UGLI baby]

Wow, Beantown is taking a beating for bucking conventional wisdom in this thread. The tyranny of group think is alive and evident here.

He compared Embiid to two players he is nothing like and it is obvious that Bean has watched Embiid play very little or not at all.

If group think means common sense, then yeah, maybe.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

The draft is risky. Guys get hurt and they are never the same. Wiggins could be a bust. Parker could decide to go on a mission and come home and not want to play basketball. All the guys have potential and none of them have proven a thing. Derrick Williams and Michael Beasley were beast in NCAA but they were tweeners in the NBA and have been marginal players. What is Parker? Is he a PF or a SF? Will Wiggins ever become aggressive or is he just not an alpha dog? So Beantown's thinking is way off base if he simply doesn't want to take him because other African big man have busted. Embiid might be the next Hakeem or he might be the next Habeet but the signs point more to Hakeem. Besides, Wiggins and Parker have just as big question marks if you look at their game objectively. All the players do, despite all the hype none of these players are the next MJ, Lebron, Pierce or Hakeem. They are all still far away from becoming those type of players.

To put things in perspective, since 2005 there have been 2 and possibly 3 top 5 lottery picks that have 'transformed' a franchise, meaning that the pick put the franchise on a potential championship track: Durant and Rose and arguably Westbrook. Of these, however, none have won a championship yet. If we count legit stars (e.g., 1st or 2nd team all NBA), we add Dwill, CP3, Aldridge, Love, Griffin, and possibly Kyrie Irving. (I went to 2005 cause I was lazy and didn't want to spend more time on this.) If we go back further we can easily add LeBron, Wade, Howard and much, much further back Shaq and Kobe. We have to go all the way back to 2003 before we find a high lottery pick that has won an NBA Championship: LeBron and Wade.

While high lottery picks are much more likely to be rotation players and all stars than non-lottery picks, the odds that a high lottery pick this year will put the Jazz on a championship trajectory are actually rather remote, at least historically. The lottery is indeed fraught with risk. I realize that the conventional wisdom is that this year is going to be an anomaly, but, as with all conventional wisdom, I'm skeptical.

 

[fgcamel]

To put things in perspective, since 2005 there have been 2 and possibly 3 top 5 lottery picks that have 'transformed' a franchise, meaning that the pick put the franchise on a potential championship track: Durant and Rose and arguably Westbrook. Of these, however, none have won a championship yet. If we count legit stars (e.g., 1st or 2nd team all NBA), we add Dwill, CP3, Aldridge, Love, Griffin, and possibly Kyrie Irving. (I went to 2005 cause I was lazy and didn't want to spend more time on this.) If we go back further we can easily add LeBron, Wade, Howard and much, much further back Shaq and Kobe. We have to go all the way back to 2003 before we find a high lottery pick that has won an NBA Championship: LeBron and Wade.

While high lottery picks are much more likely to be rotation players and all stars than non-lottery picks, the odds that a high lottery pick this year will put the Jazz on a championship trajectory are actually rather remote, at least historically. The lottery is indeed fraught with risk. I realize that the conventional wisdom is that this year is going to be an anomaly, but, as with all conventional wisdom, I'm skeptical.

I don't see what your point is, regardless of the frequency of great picks it doesn't change the fact that we just want to get the best player we can.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

He compared Embiid to two players he is nothing like and it is obvious that Bean has watched Embiid play very little or not at all.

If group think means common sense, then yeah, maybe.

Conventional wisdom is often confused with common sense.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I don't see what your point is, regardless of the frequency of great picks it doesn't change the fact that we just want to get the best player we can.

I was replying to the point made above about how risky the lottery inherently is. This was my roundabout and long winded way of agreeing.

 

[Stoked]

Conventional wisdom is often confused with common sense.

Cluelessness is often confused with "bucking conventional wisdom".

 

[UGLI baby]

Conventional wisdom is often confused with common sense.

We aren't talking about some abstract thing here. We are talking about a basketball player you can watch with your eyeballs and evaluate with your brain.

All Beantown knows about the dude is that he is from Africa and very tall.


on the app. square bizness.

 

[addictionary]

Could Sene do this in college?

Looks like a couple of plays from Kanter if he played in Kentucky.

 

[Fabtrey]

what i want from Embiid is pretty simple.

alpha dog mentality - i still want him to want the ball more. i want him to have at least few jaw dropping stat lines. i don't mind 13pts 8reb 5blocks. but i want him to break out and give me that 30pts/18reb/7block type of game at least 2 times. give me a shaq line. just once or twice.

 

[fishonjazz]

Wow, Beantown is taking a beating for bucking conventional wisdom in this thread. The tyranny of group think is alive and evident here.

As a general rule, I am skeptical of drafting based on potential, particularly if the draft pick is in the #1-3 range, or thereabouts. I wonder (but do not care to take the time to investigate) how many, what % players drafted on the basis of potential have later reached this potential, let alone even panned out, both overall and for big men (for whom the term 'potential' seems most often applied). I'm guessing (again absent any actual proof) that the % is south of 50%.

While I understand the argument of 'swinging for the fence,' in this case, (were I the Jazz FO), given where the franchise finds itself, I'd be much more inclined toward a 'sure thing' (to the extent this is possible) than taking the risk and drafting on potential. It's a personal choice, but count me as someone who's more inclined toward Beantown's take on this (as far as riskiness goes at least).

Problem is that all the top picks are freshman which leaves pretty much no choice but to draft based on potential.
Also, these guys are in college so you have no idea how the "sure thing" will play in the nba.

 

[fishonjazz]

While high lottery picks are much more likely to be rotation players and all stars than non-lottery picks, the odds that a high lottery pick this year will put the Jazz on a championship trajectory are actually rather remote, at least historically.

Ok
What are the odds that a late lottery pick or late first rounder or second rounder put us on the path to a championship?