Following Potential 2025 Draftees

[SoberasHotRod]

Nobody is saying you can’t lol. I think it’s very skewed towards one player more than others.

I would like to see more Ace and VJ discussions as well.

Ace doesn't play smart basketball and VJ isn't an alpha scorer. It gets discussed a lot, but you could be right that Tre is more polarizing so he gets discussed more.

Honestly I'm internally conflicted about Tre. I think he's the 3rd best prospect in the draft, but I prefer prospects that are more well rounded.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jVcP3A2LCoo


I know he's much bigger than the player he rebounded over, but just look at how great Yang's hands are.

 

[Elizah Huge]

You guys say we talk about other players weaknesses but we really don’t enough. Like people saying they’re out on Tre… you’re going to be out on everyone with that outlook.

This is what I was trying to say. Basically I guess if you’re out on Tre idk how you aren’t gonna be out on almost everyone. That’s just my personal opinion tho.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

And I will honestly tell people they are wrong when they fade Tre.

That's so dumb. It's all opinion. Stop acting like you have the only right opinion

 

[KqWIN]

We’re doing the Spider-Man thing lmao. What we should really be talking about is how we project these strengths and weaknesses to go. And we need to do so not as fans of these players trying to defend their honor.

I hard disagree with the idea that “if you’re out on Tre, you’re out on everyone”. If you are high or low on Tre, it should be on the basis of how realistic you think it is that he makes those improvements. We should have the capability to discriminate between different strengths and weaknesses and be able to develop different opinions about different skills.

For example, a Tre vs Fears comparison is very simple. We know Tre needs to get to the rim and we know Fears needs to shoot it better. Whatever side you’re on here, the response can’t just be “well everyone has weaknesses it’s about projecting”. Ok….tell me why one player is more likely to improve on their weakness than the other.

If you are out on Tre, it could be because you don’t think rim pressure is something that improves in the NBA. That does not automatically mean that you must think that Fears cannot shoot it.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

That's so dumb. It's all opinion. Stop acting like you have the only right opinion

I mean, I'm not censoring anyone from having their opinion. I just think my opinion is the correct one.

I just dont agree with his perceived weakness all that much. Or at least I dont agree that his weaknesses are things that he can't do. I just think they are things he arent great at yet, but can easily improve on.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

You guys say we talk about other players weaknesses but we really don’t enough. Like people saying they’re out on Tre… you’re going to be out on everyone with that outlook.

FWIW, I'm not out on Tre, I just don't like some things about him.

 

[stitches]

You guys say we talk about other players weaknesses but we really don’t enough. Like people saying they’re out on Tre… you’re going to be out on everyone with that outlook.

For the record I'm not out on Tre. I would be perfectly fine with us picking him at 5. I just don't like the overly rosey projections I seem to be seeing here, especially when they rely on him improving things that are hard(not impossible) to improve.

 

[Elizah Huge]

People selectively apply things to prospects they like and unevenly to prospects they don't.

And honestly for a message board it's fine.

I really like Tre so you are right I might be subconsciously doing this.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

I mean, I'm not censoring anyone from having their opinion. I just think my opinion is the correct one.

I just dont agree with his perceived weakness all that much. Or at least I dont agree that his weaknesses are things that he can't do. I just think they are things he arent great at yet, but can easily improve on.

That's fair.

 

[Elizah Huge]

We’re doing the Spider-Man thing lmao. What we should really be talking about is how we project these strengths and weaknesses to go. And we need to do so not as fans of these players trying to defend their honor.

I hard disagree with the idea that “if you’re out on Tre, you’re out on everyone”. If you are high or low on Tre, it should be on the basis of how realistic you think it is that he makes those improvements. We should have the capability to discriminate between different strengths and weaknesses and be able to develop different opinions about different skills.

For example, a Tre vs Fears comparison is very simple. We know Tre needs to get to the rim and we know Fears needs to shoot it better. Whatever side you’re on here, the response can’t just be “well everyone has weaknesses it’s about projecting”. Ok….tell me why one player is more likely to improve on their weakness than the other.

If you are out on Tre, it could be because you don’t think rim pressure is something that improves in the NBA. That does not automatically mean that you must think that Fears cannot shoot it.

Besides the fact Tre is 3-4 inches taller with a 6’10 wingspan.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDNtFQ0y9WI


According to this video, Fleming's wingspan would make him the longest player in the NBA who isnt a "true" center. Kind of a debatable claim that Wemby is considered a "true" center, but still crazy nonetheless.

 

[KqWIN]

Besides the fact Tre is 3-4 inches taller with a 6’10 wingspan.

OK? This misses the point I was making. The point is that everyone can pick and choose what means most to them. If two players have different pros and cons, you don't have to treat them the same. So when someone says, "I worry about Tre's ability to attack the rim", the response can't be "if you’re out on Tre idk how you aren’t gonna be out on almost everyone". The can be in on someone else because they value other things more.

 

[fishonjazz]

If you applied Tre fan logic to every prospect then every prospect would look amazing. If every weakness was going to be solved by going to the NBA and isn't actually a weakness because they saw them do it well once, then basically every prospect is Cooper Flagg.

And vice versa

 

[HermanG]

We’re doing the Spider-Man thing lmao. What we should really be talking about is how we project these strengths and weaknesses to go. And we need to do so not as fans of these players trying to defend their honor.

I hard disagree with the idea that “if you’re out on Tre, you’re out on everyone”. If you are high or low on Tre, it should be on the basis of how realistic you think it is that he makes those improvements. We should have the capability to discriminate between different strengths and weaknesses and be able to develop different opinions about different skills.

For example, a Tre vs Fears comparison is very simple. We know Tre needs to get to the rim and we know Fears needs to shoot it better. Whatever side you’re on here, the response can’t just be “well everyone has weaknesses it’s about projecting”. Ok….tell me why one player is more likely to improve on their weakness than the other.

If you are out on Tre, it could be because you don’t think rim pressure is something that improves in the NBA. That does not automatically mean that you must think that Fears cannot shoot it.

Thats not how you should project development. Each player has multiple optional paths that lead to different results. To project you should take their bankable skills and attributes, and see what options exist.

If Fears doesnt develop his shooting then what paths are there left for him to become successful? How many 6'4 non shooter archtypes are there?

If Tre doesnt drastically improve his rim rate he will still have many paths to success. He can develop any combination of other skills like his defense, passing, handle and all of those lead to different outcomes but at the very bottom end of outcomes projecting Beasley+ or Monk+ feels pretty fair.

That is if their existing skills even translate and either one even cares about becoming anything after they get their first bag... but thats a different story.

 

[Basketball Novice]

Thats not how you should project development. Each player has multiple optional paths that lead to different results. To project you should take their bankable skills and attributes, and see what options exist.

If Fears doesnt develop his shooting then what paths are there left for him to become successful? How many 6'4 non shooter archtypes are there?

If Tre doesnt drastically improve his rim rate he will still have many paths to success. He can develop any combination of other skills like his defense, passing, handle and all of those lead to different outcomes but at the very bottom end of outcomes projecting Beasley+ or Monk+ feels pretty fair.

That is if their existing skills even translate and either one even cares about becoming anything after they get their first bag... but thats a different story.

You can factor in development paths in lesser roles but that feels like a hedging your bet approach to drafting. It's not a bad approach but, you might miss out on some unique players if you overly lean in on this.

 

[KqWIN]

Thats not how you should project development. Each player has multiple optional paths that lead to different results. To project you should take their bankable skills and attributes, and see what options exist.

If Fears doesnt develop his shooting then what paths are there left for him to become successful? How many 6'4 non shooter archtypes are there?

If Tre doesnt drastically improve his rim rate he will still have many paths to success. He can develop any combination of other skills like his defense, passing, handle and all of those lead to different outcomes but at the very bottom end of outcomes projecting Beasley+ or Monk+ feels pretty fair.

That is if their existing skills even translate and either one even cares about becoming anything after they get their first bag... but thats a different story.

I just brought up those examples because each player had a question mark that is very different from the other. It was said that if you don't like Tre, you can't like anyone. My point of that post was to say that when players have different weaknesses, you can develop different opinions on how those things play out. In other words, you can dislike Tre and like another player because you believe that the other player has weaknesses that he can overcome more easily. You can pick any two players and do this, I just don't like the idea that we must see all weaknesses and project them all the same. And FYI, we were talking about the potential to be a lead initiator specifically, so we were talking about the high end outcomes.

But to your larger point, yes absolutely. We should be thinking about all the scenarios and what development (or lack thereof) leads to what outcomes. I've have said this before, but a reason why I have a tendency towards VJ is that I like all the players that fit in his archetype from the bottom to the top. I like Oladipo, I also like Melton. For Tre, I really think something like Herro/Murray would be a great outcome for us at #5, but I don't like the Hield, Monk, Beasley types as those defensive combo guards. That's just my personal preference.

I have also mentioned Fears as the biggest boom or bust prospect in this range. I agree with you in the sense if he doesn't have the jumper, he could be out of the league.

 

[Basketball Novice]

Also, since the topic was brought up, I am planting my flag right now. Fears is my guy.

Fears > Tre

 

[KqWIN]

Also, since the topic was brought up, I am planting my flag right now. Fears is my guy.

Fears > Tre

I think his path to stardom might be more realistic than Tre's, but he's a little too risky for me. Still have Tre ahead personally.

 

[HermanG]

You can factor in development paths in lesser roles but that feels like a hedging your bet approach to drafting. It's not a bad approach but, you might miss out on some unique players if you overly lean in on this.

You cant realistically project MVP level outcomes. Jokic, SGA, Giannis... none of them was top 5 even.

Im not trying to project one specific outcome.. thats the whole point. You look at all the outcomes. I just gave the low end examples.. not the high end.