What's new
By:

Following Potential 2025 Draftees

HermanG said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not implying MVP level outcomes, just unique players who don't fit into ready made archetypes, weird players, so to speak. Some examples might be guys like Brandon Clarke or Sengun. A player I am intrigued by who doesn't fit into a ready archetype or more specifically fits into a bad archetype is someone like Jase Richardson. The scoring touch and shooting are undeniable but the size and the one handedness makes everyone pause.

What is Jase Richardson's actual role in the NBA? Not enough playmaking and passing for a point, not enough size for the 2. Ultimately an undersized combo guard. Not valuable at all. Stamped and labeled.

Should we be hesitant in his evaluation since he doesn't fit a valuable role? Its a sliding scale of judging players wholly on their own skillsets vs wholly on how they can fit into a specific role.

In general, are teams more geared towards fitting players into systems or fitting systems to players. What are the Jazz more geared towards?
 
Basketball Novice said:
Not implying MVP level outcomes, just unique players who don't fit into ready made archetypes, weird players, so to speak. Some examples might be guys like Brandon Clarke or Sengun. A player I am intrigued by who doesn't fit into a ready archetype or more specifically fits into a bad archetype is someone like Jase Richardson. The scoring touch and shooting are undeniable but the size and the one handedness makes everyone pause.

What is Jase Richardson's actual role in the NBA? Not enough playmaking and passing for a point, not enough size for the 2. Ultimately an undersized combo guard. Not valuable at all. Stamped and labeled.

Should we be hesitant in his evaluation since he doesn't fit a valuable role? Its a sliding scale of judging players wholly on their own skillsets vs wholly on how they can fit into a specific role.

In general, are teams more geared towards fitting players into systems or fitting systems to players. What are the Jazz more geared towards?
Click to expand...

Jase actually fits into an archetype that has been really successful. As much as we don't love the idea of a small guard, small guards have a really high rate of being all star+.

I've become extremely high on Jase, but it is taking a leap of faith and believing that he was held back at Michigan St. There were 3 small, upperclassman guards that were ahead of him at Michigan St. Wouldn't be the first time a college coach prioritized the wrong guy (or best NBA guy).
 
KqWIN said:
Jase actually fits into an archetype that has been really successful. As much as we don't love the idea of a small guard, small guards have a really high rate of being all star+.

I've become extremely high on Jase, but it is taking a leap of faith and believing that he was held back at Michigan St. There were 3 small, upperclassman guards that were ahead of him at Michigan St. Wouldn't be the first time a college coach prioritized the wrong guy (or best NBA guy).
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, I'm intrigued to hear more on your Jase take. Sure, there are small guards that do become all stars but high rate? I will have to look into this, crunch the numbers, so to speak. Also, do you think the overly left handedness of his matters?
 
stitches said:
We don't need just a scorer. We need offensive initiator, someone who can not just score for himself but create efficient offense for the whole team. Tre Johnson can barely create below average to average efficiency offense for himself. And gives you pretty much nothing else at average or above average level on the floor. He's below average creator for others, he's below average rebounder(this is one of my favorite hidden basic stats for guards that show you something about a player), he's below average defender too... You have to project a ton with him to be honest and a lot of the things he needs serious improvement with are not easy to project.
Click to expand...
And all of that kinda goes out the window if he’s an elite (game breaking) shooter (on and off the ball, which his metrics suggest are a real possibility).
 
Tre has a bonafide, elite skill (shooting) and the tools to develop other skills as well (isolation scoring, playmaking). Outside of Flagg and Harper, he probably has the best combination of solid floor and high ceiling. It makes him a very solid pick and probably the right pick for the Jazz in this situation if he's available at #5. If Tre is not available, then I think that's when Fears enters the conversation vis a vis Edgecombe and maybe Bailey. The positional value of a primary initiator who can beat and manipulate guys off the dribble is very high in today's league. With Fears, the hope would be that he can become an very solid and efficient scorer to go with it.
 
Basketball Novice said:
Not implying MVP level outcomes, just unique players who don't fit into ready made archetypes, weird players, so to speak. Some examples might be guys like Brandon Clarke or Sengun. A player I am intrigued by who doesn't fit into a ready archetype or more specifically fits into a bad archetype is someone like Jase Richardson. The scoring touch and shooting are undeniable but the size and the one handedness makes everyone pause.

What is Jase Richardson's actual role in the NBA? Not enough playmaking and passing for a point, not enough size for the 2. Ultimately an undersized combo guard. Not valuable at all. Stamped and labeled.

Should we be hesitant in his evaluation since he doesn't fit a valuable role? Its a sliding scale of judging players wholly on their own skillsets vs wholly on how they can fit into a specific role.

In general, are teams more geared towards fitting players into systems or fitting systems to players. What are the Jazz more geared towards?
Click to expand...
I think small guards are avoided since they are almost automatic liabilities on defense.

Also apart from Steph who is "uncomparable" they havent been successful as #1 guys.

Right now Jalen Brunson is showing why. Indy is hunting him on defense and scoring on him succesfully b3cause of their size advantage against him... and that negates much of what he does on offense. Don another great example. Dame. Kyrie needed Lebron.
 
Elizah Huge said:
Also, I openly admit I’m chasing a potential offensive engine with our pick. VJ and Kon are the safer higher floor guys. I want Tre or Ace.
Click to expand...
The question for me is if there is enough evidence to believe that they will be those guys. I think letting hopes (moreso than good evidence) lead our decision making is a trap.

If the evidence isn’t strong enough then I think building infrastructure for a star by trading down (and up) is worth considering
 
NUMBERICA said:
The question for me is if there is enough evidence to believe that they will be those guys. I think letting hopes (moreso than good evidence) lead our decision making is a trap.

If the evidence isn’t strong enough then I think building infrastructure for a star by trading down (and up) is worth considering
Click to expand...
Simplifying further, order of priority:

1. Offensive engines (players that generate open shots with the ball in their hands and/or elite gravity)
2. infrastructure pieces (+ secondary playmakers, defensive pieces, and/or shooters)
3. pure scorers (empty-ish calories)
 
Last edited:
Basketball Novice said:
Hmmmm, I'm intrigued to hear more on your Jase take. Sure, there are small guards that do become all stars but high rate? I will have to look into this, crunch the numbers, so to speak. Also, do you think the overly left handedness of his matters?
Click to expand...

I did a lot of this last draft cycle, so maybe I can find it, but small guards are overrepresented in all star games than pretty much any other group when you consider their draft position. I think they fall in the draft because of the obvious issues with small guards, but there are lots of them that turn into good players. Just this year in the all star game we had Dame, Mitchell, Trae, Maxey, Brunson, and Steph. If you're looking for the MVP type guy I think this falls apart. But if you're just looking for a really good player, I think small guard is not a huge deterrent because there are just so many of them that are.

For Jase, I think he's at the intersection of two things that we underrate. One we be the small guard thing I just mentioned. I think the fact that they are an undesirable archetype makes them underrated to some extent. The other thing would be lower usage players and their star potential. When you exclude the obvious elite prospect (this year would be Flagg and Harper), lower usage guys turn into stars at about the same rate as high usage players. It's almost 50/50, but I'm not sure people view it is a 50/50. When you're trying to find a star, I think the ability to scale up is something we should think about more.

I did notice that he was very left hand dominant and yes it does worry me a bit. But I guess I'm a little biased because I saw how successful Mitchell was despite being so right hand dominant.
 
If the Sixers stay at 3, it's kind of hard to see them passing on Tre given his skillset fits their team now and gives them upside if they move on from the Embiid era.
 
KqWIN said:
I did a lot of this last draft cycle, so maybe I can find it, but small guards are overrepresented in all star games than pretty much any other group when you consider their draft position. I think they fall in the draft because of the obvious issues with small guards, but there are lots of them that turn into good players. Just this year in the all star game we had Dame, Mitchell, Trae, Maxey, Brunson, and Steph. If you're looking for the MVP type guy I think this falls apart. But if you're just looking for a really good player, I think small guard is not a huge deterrent because there are just so many of them that are.

For Jase, I think he's at the intersection of two things that we underrate. One we be the small guard thing I just mentioned. I think the fact that they are an undesirable archetype makes them underrated to some extent. The other thing would be lower usage players and their star potential. When you exclude the obvious elite prospect (this year would be Flagg and Harper), lower usage guys turn into stars at about the same rate as high usage players. It's almost 50/50, but I'm not sure people view it is a 50/50. When you're trying to find a star, I think the ability to scale up is something we should think about more.

I did notice that he was very left hand dominant and yes it does worry me a bit. But I guess I'm a little biased because I saw how successful Mitchell was despite being so right hand dominant.
Click to expand...

I'd add to this that while it is not a 100%, there are a lot of examples of lower usage guys becoming higher usage guys in the NBA. College teams aren't always constructed well. Even in this NIL+transfer portal era we have a lot of team with rosters that don't make sense and have players with overlapping skillsets. It seems crazy now that a guy like Jared McCain would have to take step back in favor of guys like Roach and Proctor, but that happens all the time. When I look at Michigan St's roster I see a roster that didn't allow for Jase to take on a large role. When I watch his film and look at his numbers I see a guy who has a really good chance of performing in an expanded role. His role expanded a little once he became the starter and his efficiency was still great. I think he can push it even further. The top 4 minute getters on his team were all smaller guards who want to play with the ball/shoot a lot. It seems criminal that they didn't feature him more, but that's just how this goes in the NCAA sometimes. Upperclassmen get the priority.

1748121894443.png
 
The fact that none of the Utah media have been talking about Ace Bailey the last couple of weeks is a bit odd, considering there's a real chance he gets to #5.
 
Pettiford is the late first player I think has the most star upside. Hard to predict because small guards will usually fail, but he's super electric and tries on defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top