What's new
By:

Following Potential 2025 Draftees

KqWIN said:
Does size for initiator really matter? Like I know size can make it easier to initiate, but is it not more important to be a better initiator period instead of simply being a bigger one? In terms of size relativity, I would think that's most important to how he matches up on the defensive end.
Click to expand...
Yes... partly because of point number one... and a lot because of point number two.

SGA as a primary I think can hurt OKC's offense in some ways. At times I think they could use a pass first pg out there setting things up a bit but the size on defense is huge imo.

I also think sometimes the smaller guys can get swallowed up on the court. Maybe Fears doesn't have to be a heliocentric option but right now it seems like a very ball in hand option that will default to shooting first. IDK not my favorite player type and we seem to have a lot of that at home.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Yes... partly because of point number one... and a lot because of point number two.

SGA as a primary I think can hurt OKC's offense in some ways. At times I think they could use a pass first pg out there setting things up a bit but the size on defense is huge imo.

I also think sometimes the smaller guys can get swallowed up on the court. Maybe Fears doesn't have to be a heliocentric option but right now it seems like a very ball in hand option that will default to shooting first. IDK not my favorite player type and we seem to have a lot of that at home.
Click to expand...

I know you love that phrase, but the only thing we really have at home is Kessler. I would give every other player on the roster exactly zero impact on the 5th pick decision.
 
My process should point me to Fears > Tre. I typically value the ability to get easy shots over the ability to make difficult ones. But idk why I still have Tre > Fears. I don't think it's Tre stan propaganda bc that has only made me lower on Tre.

I'm kind of surprised that PPG FC is not as high on Fears. He scored at the same rate + efficiency as Tre against the same level of competition. His highlights are definitely not as cool as Tre's though.
 
Roy_McAvoy said:
Fears has a 6'5" wingspan (horrible) and shot 28% from the 3 last year. I'll be so bummed out if he's the pick.

He had also had a game last season against Texas A&M where he went 0-5 from the floor, had 0 points, and 3 assists. It's crazy to draft a guy at #5 that's capable of scoring 0 points in a college basketball game.
Click to expand...
Plus someone posted his high school 3pt shooting numbers and they weren’t good.
 
KqWIN said:
My process should point me to Fears > Tre. I typically value the ability to get easy shots over the ability to make difficult ones. But idk why I still have Tre > Fears. I don't think it's Tre stan propaganda bc that has only made me lower on Tre.

I'm kind of surprised that PPG FC is not as high on Fears. He scored at the same rate + efficiency as Tre against the same level of competition. His highlights are definitely not as cool as Tre's though.
Click to expand...

The only thing Tre does better is shoot 3s and be tall.
 
Basketball Novice said:
The only thing Tre does better is shoot 3s and be tall.
Click to expand...

But hey, those are some very important things for basketball! The rationale part of my brain is telling me that the developments necessary for Fears to become a star are more realistic than they are for Tre. Tre is kind of breaking my scale for just how impressive his shot making is though.
 
If the Jazz really do like Fears & Kneuppel a lot, it makes all the sense in the world to trade with New Orleans down to #7.

They'd be guaranteed to get one Fears, Knueppel, Bailey, or Johnson (likely Fears).
 
KqWIN said:
But hey, those are some very important things for basketball! The rationale part of my brain is telling me that the developments necessary for Fears to become a star are more realistic than they are for Tre. Tre is kind of breaking my scale for just how impressive his shot making is though.
Click to expand...

In terms of efficiency:

Tre shoots: 55.7% TS on 43/40/87

Fears shoots: 56.2% TS on 43/28/85

Tre's path to being more efficient is to completely change his playstyle, attack the rim much much more and to draw some fouls.

Fears' path to being more efficient is to get stronger to help with finishing a bit and to improve the 3 from 28% to 32-35%


As you have articulated, I see Fears' path as being much more realistic.
 
Roy_McAvoy said:
If the Jazz really do like Fears & Kneuppel a lot, it makes all the sense in the world to trade with New Orleans down to #7.

They'd be guaranteed to get one Fears, Knueppel, Bailey, or Johnson (likely Fears).
Click to expand...
If you really really really love Fears you may need to take him at 5. If you trade with NOLA they take Bailey then the rumored favorite to Washington (6) would be Fears.
 
Basketball Novice said:
In terms of efficiency:

Tre shoots: 55.7% TS on 43/40/87

Fears shoots: 56.2% TS on 43/28/85

Tre's path to being more efficient is to completely change his playstyle, attack the rim much much more and to draw some fouls.

Fears' path to being more efficient is to get stronger to help with finishing a bit and to improve the 3 from 28% to 32-35%


As you have articulated, I see Fears' path as being much more realistic.
Click to expand...

Tre's path almost never happens, and when it does, it's usually because a totally changed his role. Booker, for example, completely changed roles going from spot up shooter to ball in hand player. So it can happen, but it's usually because a player did not have an opportunity to play with the ball before the NBA like Book. If a guy already has the freedom to attack the rim, he usually doesn't suddenly start doing that in the NBA. I made a big fuss about this way back, but still no Tre fan has been able to show when this has actually happened in history.

Still, there are examples of players who are really good offensive players despite tough shot diets. Herro, McCollum, Murray etc. But those are what I consider the high end outcomes for Tre.
 
KqWIN said:
I know you love that phrase, but the only thing we really have at home is Kessler. I would give every other player on the roster exactly zero impact on the 5th pick decision.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm the one with one note/key lol. I guess I am not worried about current fit so much as "look at this closet full of guards we have accumulated like this... how did this happen? Is it possible this player type is abundant? Should we factor that in here". Like future fit base on look we got a lot of **** just like this and you don't love the result.

I also think unless you have deals lined up it can hurt a lot of the assets we then have. Which guys aren't playing because those guys lose trade value and dev time.

I just think its a high cost/low reward type of situation at 5. If we get a bunch of **** to trade back to 7 or 8 I guess I can hold my nose and do it depending on who is on the board at the time.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Maybe I'm the one with one note/key lol. I guess I am not worried about current fit so much as "look at this closet full of guards we have accumulated like this... how did this happen? Is it possible this player type is abundant? Should we factor that in here". Like future fit base on look we got a lot of **** just like this and you don't love the result.

I also think unless you have deals lined up it can hurt a lot of the assets we then have. Which guys aren't playing because those guys lose trade value and dev time.

I just think its a high cost/low reward type of situation at 5. If we get a bunch of **** to trade back to 7 or 8 I guess I can hold my nose and do it depending on who is on the board at the time.
Click to expand...

I think it's valid to question the archetype in the league as a whole, I just really hate the concept of "we have them at home". To me that implies we have something of value that's influencing our decision. Like if we're talking about Maluach, yeah we have a C at home. If we're talking about anything else besides C, we've got nothing. I am not letting Collier or Key dictate my decision making in this way and if we are roping Clarkson and Sexton to this that is heinously stupid. I would accept "we should learn our lesson". But I absolutely cannot accept "we have that already". Those are two VERY different things IMO.
 
KqWIN said:
I think it's valid to question the archetype in the league as a whole, I just really hate the concept of "we have them at home". To me that implies we have something of value that's influencing our decision. Like if we're talking about Maluach, yeah we have a C at home. If we're talking about anything else besides C, we've got nothing. I am not letting Collier or Key dictate my decision making in this way and if we are roping Clarkson and Sexton to this that is heinously stupid. I would accept "we should learn our lesson". But I absolutely cannot accept "we have that already". Those are two VERY different things IMO.
Click to expand...
What if its a "we have that at home sweetie maybe we should learn our lesson?"

Like when my wife tells me I can't get an elliptical machine when I have a treadmill that isn't being used at home.

lol I get what you are saying tho
 
Strangely enough, I wouldn't mind Kon at 5 either. Completely different style than Fears but there is something to be said for having the style of an efficient basketball robot. No frills, no flash, just raw efficient buckets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top