Following Potential 2025 Draftees
- Thread starter Elizah Huge
- Start date
Tre is a much different player than Key or Collier. If we think Fears is the best by all means take him but I have a hard time seeing that in any fashion.
jom2003
Well-Known Member
Long story short. A good gamble to take at #21. But #5? Hell no
Say No to Fears.
#NoFears
#NoFears
There's nothing to fix. It's just about getting reps and getting good shots.
You take him cuz you think he's BPA and he's one of the youngest players in the draft.
seattlejazzfan
Well-Known Member
i guess i disagree with this to an extent. if the jazz had a bunch of 6'6"-6'7" shooters, taking a risk on a short guy who can't shoot might be less painful. but when you NEED length and shooting, it's probably more prudent to take a chance on a longer player with better projection as a shooter.
Last edited:
seattlejazzfan
Well-Known Member
but it's not bad logic to say - our players are crappy because they are short and can't shoot, so lets keep drafting short guys who can't shoot and hope something changes.
as they say, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
yes, fears could be different, but at this point in the game there are a couple major similarities - and one can argue it's simply not a wise risk to just keep drafting short dudes who couldn't shoot in college and hoping they get better. if you're banking on a guy improving his shooting, why not bank on the guy you already have who showed a ton of improvement over the course of the season at the NBA level, and draft a guy who can already shoot?
So what is it, we can’t take Fears because these guys are good or bad? Saying that we don’t need a player implies 1) that we already have that player who fills a need or 2) the prospect isn’t good enough to fill any need. If it’s #1, you’re implying that Key or Collier is good enough which I disagree with. If it’s #2, Key and Collier are mostly irrelevant as you’re talking about an entire archetype of a player and not just the players we drafted.
Both Collier and Key outperformed their draft position btw, so I don’t know what mistake we’re learning from. If you’re unsure about those two, I say there’s nothing wrong with more bites at the apple.
I’m not unsure about Collier and Key because of the types of players they are, I’m unsure because they are not good enough. Plenty of players like them who are better and I’d love to have on the team.
But that logic exists no matter what the roster situation is. If you’re saying you don’t want Fears because he can’t shoot, that exists with or without Collier being on the roster. Nobody is drafting Fears because they don’t think he can shoot. I feel like your argument for drafting or passing on a player should stand on its own. Players you don’t think are good on the roster should have no effect that on that.
I get what you’re saying. You don’t want to make the same gamble over and over. But I don’t think it’s relevant to only look at how that gamble played out with the few players on your roster. Like we’re literally talking about an N of 2-3 players. If I’m trying to determine the likelihood of a gamble, I’m not just going to take a look internally.
I don’t think we should look at Tre, Fears, or any other prospect differently because we have Collier and Key on roster.
What you’re alluding to is having certain players or skill sets you can count on. I don’t disagree with that effecting your draft position at all. For example, I think our decision to draft a C is different with or without Kessler is different. He’s both good enough and rigid enough as a player to change that.
I just don’t think we have anyone else good enough (and has a certain future) to impact the decision making at #5. The further you get down the draft the more you can start to consider lesser players.
It's semantics, for sure, but in this case I think it's important. A scout is someone who is qualified to evaluate talent. How they are qualified can come in many ways, but is typically by playing at a high level and/or working with other scouts. I don't think you can just watch YouTube videos and call yourself a scout. Most of us in here are draft enthusiasts, but I doubt many of us would qualify as a scout.
Not a big deal if the semantics aren't important to you, but for me if someone says they are a scout, I assume they have some qualifications.
Handlogten's Heros
Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
2025 Prediction Contest Winner
Its partly this but its also partly... how many guys in this player type are you going to swing on? I also just am not a fan at 5. If you want to swing on him I'd try and move back and get him later.
Fears is more dynamic off the dribble than Keyonte, but Keyonte is the better shooter off the catch. They're somewhat different players, but maybe similar value.
I somewhat agree with this thinking. Next year the Jazz are planning to tank again, and they're likely to draft a primary frontcourt player--Dybantsa, Boozer, Cenac, Lopez, Quaintance. So there might be some value in looking at the drafts more holistically. At a minimum, the Jazz want to draft someone who will be willing to share the ball.
IMO, that number is mostly unrelated to the amount of guys we've already taken a chance on. Your decision to take another guard should be based on the success rate of all guards, not just the one you have on roster (and both could be considered hits btw). Maybe it becomes an issue if you're lacking the development time, but #5 pick has way more priority than any of the guards we have on roster. If you think Tre or Fears is the guy, I'm definitely moving Key or Collier to create space for my #5 pick and not the other way around.
If you're absolutely deadlocked between two players, that's when you can bring it in.
I don't have Fears in the same tier as Bailey and Johnson. However, if those two guys are gone, I could see Fears entering the discussion along with Edgecombe because on-ball creation is at such a high premium in the playoffs. Fears could be a major table setter.
Jazz could also be considering trade-back scenarios. For example, if I'm Washington I'd offer the Jazz 6 + 18 for 5 + 21. Jazz could then draft someone like Traore or Sorber at 18.
Jazz could also be considering trade-back scenarios. For example, if I'm Washington I'd offer the Jazz 6 + 18 for 5 + 21. Jazz could then draft someone like Traore or Sorber at 18.
All three of those players are very different from each other, so their ideal running mates would be very different.
I think Kon is a very maleable player and would work well with anyone really which is why I said that.