NBA comps for draft picks

[MickZagger]

we can agree to disagree. it's why i started this thread to see how others project these guys.

i don't think i've seen any prospect more polarizing than Chat in recent history.

It’s cause he’s white.

 

[PCmor7]

Dale Davis was an NBA all-star and a starter on at least two conference finals teams. If Duren's worst-case scenario is Dale Davis, he's a lot better than I think he is and we'd be getting a steal if we got him with the 11th pick.

 

[Hoopguru]

We shall see, the predraft hasn't even happened yet but I recall how skinny KG was as a rook even though he skipped his predraft. Are you aware that most teams seek to switch on screens these days? Chet is a 3&D monster.

STOMP

KG was skinny & young, I think he flopped more than any 1/2 year player in the history of the league. He was on floor constantly his rookie year. However, they didnt call flops back then.

 

[PCmor7]

I want to say that I hope all of the people that are seeing foot speed that I don't are right because if he can't move his feet fast enough and if he can't get stronger in a way that seems impossible, his one elite defensive skill will be as a shot blocker. He does seem to see opposing offenses well so he should be able to use his length to break up some passes to but as far as one on one defense goes, if his feet aren't a lot faster than I see them then he's fucked against guys that are faster than him in space and fucked against guys that are stronger than him in the post... so basically I think in one way or the other every player that's at a legit starting level in the league will be able to exploit Chet one on one.

Like I said, I hope that's not the case because he seems like a nice enough guy and if his feet are as quick as a lot in here are saying, he'll be incredibly fun to watch on both ends. That's just not what I've seen and I'm talking about what I've seen in multiple games against WCC fours and fives and every game against posts from big time programs.

You aren't the only one that's not seeing the foot speed. I keep looking to see what people are talking about that I'm not seeing. I was rewatching the Memphis game where he was in the middle of the lane in help position and not only wasn't deterring Memphis from attacking the time, they were doing it and scoring and he rarely challenged it.

That was Chet playing against a team with NBA speed and athleticism. Not Chet playing against Pepperdine and Pacific.

People also talk about him getting stronger like it's a given. His frame makes it questionable that he can do that. His frame also makes it questionable that he can do that while maintaining the agility he does have.

His offensive sample size is so small because he's entirely a complementary element. Too many games for a guy I keep being told has this fantastic offensive game to be taking fewer than 10 shots. He took double-figure shots 12 times this season. He got to the foul line 99 times in 31 games.

 

[PCmor7]

One other thing about Chet's range and offensive potential. If you take the best analogs for what he'll see in the NBA defensively, the three NCAA Tournament games, the two WCC tourney games and the regular season games with Texas, UCLA, Duke, Alabama and Texas Tech, he was a sizzling 5-for-30 from 3 in 264 minutes played. He was 2-for-4 in the UCLA game.

EDIT: He also committed 36 fouls in those 10 games.

 

[illmatic99]

Dale Davis was an NBA all-star and a starter on at least two conference finals teams. If Duren's worst-case scenario is Dale Davis, he's a lot better than I think he is and we'd be getting a steal if we got him with the 11th pick.

i'm thinking more Portland Dale Davis.

 

[wizenheimer]

I'm not sure about Holmgren in many areas, but I am pretty damn sure the idea he can guard NBA SF's and wings is loopy. As some have said, I think he'll have lots of trouble, in lots of games, defending NBA PF's. Guys like Giannis and Siakam and Jackson will eat him up

and a lot of NBA C's will simply push him all over the floor. Holmgren will be perpetually in foul trouble at C, at least he will in his first few seasons

I would agree that it's kind of hard to come up with comps for him. KG is a bad one, IMO. Durnat is a ridiculous comp. I think Porzingis is closer; he was/is a similar type of unicorn. And Porzingis is a good comp in another critical way: his impact has never been significant because he's an awkward fit for the modern NBA. Seems like in order to be an impact player as a C, you need extreme elite talent like Jokic or Embid or KAT. That's not to say that lesser talents can't have impacts at C; there are plenty of guys at the level of an Ayton, Sabonis, or Valanciunas. I mean, think about guys like Sabonis, or Nurkic or Valanciunas....how many years in the weight rooms would it take before Holmgren wouldn't be pushed all over the floor by those guys?

and if he's a PF, is there really any chance he ever becomes an elite player? How many top-20 NBA players right now are PF's? I'd say there is only one and that's Giannis. That is a really difficult position from which to create high-level impact

which kind of leads to something else: is Holmgren another project-big? and if he is how long will a team have to wait before he's matriculated from project to star?...if he ever does?

 

[PCmor7]

i'm thinking more Portland Dale Davis.

I thought you might have been going for that,

I'm not sure about Holmgren in many areas, but I am pretty damn sure the idea he can guard NBA SF's and wings is loopy. As some have said, I think he'll have lots of trouble, in lots of games, defending NBA PF's. Guys like Giannis and Siakam and Jackson will eat him up

and a lot of NBA C's will simply push him all over the floor. Holmgren will be perpetually in foul trouble at C, at least he will in his first few seasons

I would agree that it's kind of hard to come up with comps for him. KG is a bad one, IMO. Durnat is a ridiculous comp. I think Porzingis is closer; he was/is a similar type of unicorn. And Porzingis is a good comp in another critical way: his impact has never been significant because he's an awkward fit for the modern NBA. Seems like in order to be an impact player as a C, you need extreme elite talent like Jokic or Embid or KAT. That's not to say that lesser talents can't have impacts at C; there are plenty of guys at the level of an Ayton, Sabonis, or Valanciunas. I mean, think about guys like Sabonis, or Nurkic or Valanciunas....how many years in the weight rooms would it take before Holmgren wouldn't be pushed all over the floor by those guys?

and if he's a PF, is there really any chance he ever becomes an elite player? How many top-20 NBA players right now are PF's? I'd say there is only one and that's Giannis. That is a really difficult position from which to create high-level impact

which kind of leads to something else: is Holmgren another project-big? and if he is how long will a team have to wait before he's matriculated from project to star?...if he ever does?

The competition he faced in college makes a comp even more difficult. If current Josh Hart is playing in a junior high league, how the heck can you tell what he really can do and how he projects?

 

[Hoopguru]

I’ve listened to many NBA analysts and looked at ever mock draft I can access and ALL have Chet in top 5 or better. Thats pretty damn high for a guy that many in here think will bomb or struggle at the next level. Yeah there is risk with any player but the experts seem to think he will be a player.

 

[Hoopguru]

I dont think Chet is the next LaRue.

 

[Hoopguru]

I'm not sure about Holmgren in many areas, but I am pretty damn sure the idea he can guard NBA SF's and wings is loopy. As some have said, I think he'll have lots of trouble, in lots of games, defending NBA PF's. Guys like Giannis and Siakam and Jackson will eat him up

and a lot of NBA C's will simply push him all over the floor. Holmgren will be perpetually in foul trouble at C, at least he will in his first few seasons

I would agree that it's kind of hard to come up with comps for him. KG is a bad one, IMO. Durnat is a ridiculous comp. I think Porzingis is closer; he was/is a similar type of unicorn. And Porzingis is a good comp in another critical way: his impact has never been significant because he's an awkward fit for the modern NBA. Seems like in order to be an impact player as a C, you need extreme elite talent like Jokic or Embid or KAT. That's not to say that lesser talents can't have impacts at C; there are plenty of guys at the level of an Ayton, Sabonis, or Valanciunas. I mean, think about guys like Sabonis, or Nurkic or Valanciunas....how many years in the weight rooms would it take before Holmgren wouldn't be pushed all over the floor by those guys?

and if he's a PF, is there really any chance he ever becomes an elite player? How many top-20 NBA players right now are PF's? I'd say there is only one and that's Giannis. That is a really difficult position from which to create high-level impact

which kind of leads to something else: is Holmgren another project-big? and if he is how long will a team have to wait before he's matriculated from project to star?...if he ever does?

I heard they work for us! Lol
https://thesportsrush.com/nba-news-...rst-overall-pick-ahead-of-nba-draft-2022/?amp

 

[RR7]

and if he's a PF, is there really any chance he ever becomes an elite player? How many top-20 NBA players right now are PF's? I'd say there is only one and that's Giannis. That is a really difficult position from which to create high-level impact

I'd say Durant is a pf, LeBron or AD, or both, draymond. But, regardless, if your issue is with PF position, that kind of eliminates all of the top 3 guys in this draft, regardless of comps, no?

 

[Predator]

I'm not sure about Holmgren in many areas, but I am pretty damn sure the idea he can guard NBA SF's and wings is loopy. As some have said, I think he'll have lots of trouble, in lots of games, defending NBA PF's. Guys like Giannis and Siakam and Jackson will eat him up

and a lot of NBA C's will simply push him all over the floor. Holmgren will be perpetually in foul trouble at C, at least he will in his first few seasons

I would agree that it's kind of hard to come up with comps for him. KG is a bad one, IMO. Durnat is a ridiculous comp. I think Porzingis is closer; he was/is a similar type of unicorn. And Porzingis is a good comp in another critical way: his impact has never been significant because he's an awkward fit for the modern NBA. Seems like in order to be an impact player as a C, you need extreme elite talent like Jokic or Embid or KAT. That's not to say that lesser talents can't have impacts at C; there are plenty of guys at the level of an Ayton, Sabonis, or Valanciunas. I mean, think about guys like Sabonis, or Nurkic or Valanciunas....how many years in the weight rooms would it take before Holmgren wouldn't be pushed all over the floor by those guys?

and if he's a PF, is there really any chance he ever becomes an elite player? How many top-20 NBA players right now are PF's? I'd say there is only one and that's Giannis. That is a really difficult position from which to create high-level impact

which kind of leads to something else: is Holmgren another project-big? and if he is how long will a team have to wait before he's matriculated from project to star?...if he ever does?

Careful, people here don’t want to hear that the top 3 picks don’t really have star potential. The only one with some potential is Banchero because he can at least create his own shot.

SHAEDON. SHARPE. MUST. GET.

 

[wizenheimer]

I'd say Durant is a pf, LeBron or AD, or both, draymond. But, regardless, if your issue is with PF position, that kind of eliminates all of the top 3 guys in this draft, regardless of comps, no?

maybe...I've said before I haven't paid close attention. I've seen Holmgren play more than the others

I do think that stretch-4's/PF's that have the ability to swing to SF and defend SF's have quite a bit of value. Like Siakam and John Collins; or Draymond. Players that can only swing between PF and C have less value in my view unless that are an elite talent, and I don't believe Holmgren will have that level of talent. That's not to say that Smith and Banchero can swing between PF and SF...that I don't know

from my position of limited evaluation, I'm pretty skeptical about Holmgren, I could be way off base though

 

[BonesJones]

lol, i don't think i can be any more in disagreement with this sentiment. i can't picture Chet having the mobility to do anything on D other than protecting the rim.

let's see how the workouts/combine/measurements turn out.

I'm really lost as to why people think he's immobile. He switched onto guards and stayed with them consistently all year.

 

[BonesJones]

One other thing about Chet's range and offensive potential. If you take the best analogs for what he'll see in the NBA defensively, the three NCAA Tournament games, the two WCC tourney games and the regular season games with Texas, UCLA, Duke, Alabama and Texas Tech, he was a sizzling 5-for-30 from 3 in 264 minutes played. He was 2-for-4 in the UCLA game.

EDIT: He also committed 36 fouls in those 10 games.

So he went through a shooting slump at a bad time. Jabari shot 3-for-16 in the 2nd round. The guy can shoot. Cherry-picking a few games to try to say he can't shoot is silly. But that's gonna be the thing with this guy, apparently.

In the Arkansas game he got called for 5 fouls. He truly only committed 1, maybe 2.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Johnny Davis: Manu Ginobili/slightly richer man's CJ Elleby.

I really like this kid: he's a ball of energy and goes 100% on both ends. He's not the greatest athlete but dunks in traffic. He's not the greatest shooter but can score in bunches. So on his best days he looks like Manu - same size, about the same hops and very similar skills. But he's not exactly efficient, is he? You (@HCP) could make a highlight film of CJ Elleby at Washington State and it could look startlingly close. So I'd be both happy and nervous if we took him with our (not the Pels') pick.

 

[blazerkor]

I'm really lost as to why people think he's immobile. He switched onto guards and stayed with them consistently all year.

He got blown by or fouled because he was being blown by all year when defending in space. It happened game after game. Almost every guard you're talking about him staying with was a WCC guard. Against any NBA level athlete I saw him guard he was at a very noticeable disadvantage when it came to mobility like most seven footers are. He's not especially immobile for a seven footer, he's just immobile for a starting level forward in the NBA. At least that's how I see it. I hope I'm seeing it wrong for his sake because, like I said before he seems like a good guy and also if he's as mobile as you're making him out to be he's going to be as fun to watch on both ends of the court as he was at times against WCC competition.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I'm not sure about Holmgren in many areas, but I am pretty damn sure the idea he can guard NBA SF's and wings is loopy. As some have said, I think he'll have lots of trouble, in lots of games, defending NBA PF's. Guys like Giannis and Siakam and Jackson will eat him up

and a lot of NBA C's will simply push him all over the floor. Holmgren will be perpetually in foul trouble at C, at least he will in his first few seasons

I would agree that it's kind of hard to come up with comps for him. KG is a bad one, IMO. Durnat is a ridiculous comp. I think Porzingis is closer; he was/is a similar type of unicorn. And Porzingis is a good comp in another critical way: his impact has never been significant because he's an awkward fit for the modern NBA. Seems like in order to be an impact player as a C, you need extreme elite talent like Jokic or Embid or KAT. That's not to say that lesser talents can't have impacts at C; there are plenty of guys at the level of an Ayton, Sabonis, or Valanciunas. I mean, think about guys like Sabonis, or Nurkic or Valanciunas....how many years in the weight rooms would it take before Holmgren wouldn't be pushed all over the floor by those guys?

and if he's a PF, is there really any chance he ever becomes an elite player? How many top-20 NBA players right now are PF's? I'd say there is only one and that's Giannis. That is a really difficult position from which to create high-level impact

which kind of leads to something else: is Holmgren another project-big? and if he is how long will a team have to wait before he's matriculated from project to star?...if he ever does?

You talk about "the modern NBA" but then you criticize Holmgren because he won't be a great one-on-one defender. But that's not what you draft him for: you draft him as the ultimate help defender. He instantly makes TEAM defense better. Yes, there's almost no chance he wins ROY, and may very well struggle for his first couple of years. But so did Rudy Gobert, about which a lot of the same things were said.

Banchero is very likely to win ROY just because he'll score in bunches. But he'll almost certainly be a sub-par NBA defender, possibly always, so he better be an AMAZING scorer, otherwise he's Bad Carmelo.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

It’s cause he’s white.

And American. Oh, and HE WEIGHS LESS THAN A NON-OBESE 6-FOOTER.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

lol, i don't think i can be any more in disagreement with this sentiment. i can't picture Chet having the mobility to do anything on D other than protecting the rim.
let's see how the workouts/combine/measurements turn out.

The reason Gobert fell so far in the draft is because he measured incredibly poorly for footspeed. Everybody now thinks he can't guard the perimeter, but as he himself points out, the stats don't bear that out.

Gobert was also pretty damn skinny when drafted. And he's never had Holmgren's shot - if he did he'd be up there with Embiid.

 

[PCmor7]

So he went through a shooting slump at a bad time. Jabari shot 3-for-16 in the 2nd round. The guy can shoot. Cherry-picking a few games to try to say he can't shoot is silly. But that's gonna be the thing with this guy, apparently.

In the Arkansas game he got called for 5 fouls. He truly only committed 1, maybe 2.

Eh. Maybe. Maybe not. I'm looking at 10 spaced throughout the season. That's not going through a slump and it's certainly not cherry-picking. It wasn't his 10 worst games. It was the 10 games with the talent and athletic ability most analogous to what he'll see at the next level.

I can and have admitted he might be really good. I just think there are a lot of reasons to have a healthy dose of skepticism about his hype. I think that's much more reasonable than rebutting other people's data with pure opinions like "the guy can shoot" or "he only truly committed one foul," which makes it looks like your objectivity's been lost.

 

[PCmor7]

I mean, I'd have to go back and look, but Chet had at least three fouls in something like eight or nine of those games. You say he only committed two fouls against Arkansas like a fan and then also say I'm cherry-picking stats? He got into foul trouble in almost every game besides Arkansas he played against teams with high high-level athletes, too.

 

[blazerkor]

You talk about "the modern NBA" but then you criticize Holmgren because he won't be a great one-on-one defender. But that's not what you draft him for: you draft him as the ultimate help defender. He instantly makes TEAM defense better. Yes, there's almost no chance he wins ROY, and may very well struggle for his first couple of years. But so did Rudy Gobert, about which a lot of the same things were said.

Banchero is very likely to win ROY just because he'll score in bunches. But he'll almost certainly be a sub-par NBA defender, possibly always, so he better be an AMAZING scorer, otherwise he's Bad Carmelo.

I've seen two people now act like one on one defense doesn't matter in the NBA anymore. Why is that? Just because there's help defense and switching doesn't mean you can't be exploited in isolation and post up situations which happen all of the time in the modern NBA and it also doesn't mean that the help that a guy like Chet will undoubtedly need when blown by in space and muscled up down low, won't compromise the defense and give players Chet wasn't assigned ample scoring opportunities.

Let's not act like in today's NBA you can be a good defender without having to be able to defend someone. The debate has to be: Are his feet as slow as some of us feel or as fast as others of you feel and/or can he increase his strength by enough? If he doesn't have the foot speed to defend athletic PFs and other wings in space or the strength to defend almost any post down low, then I don't know how you cover for that defensively without giving up a lot.

To me the comp is a much weaker and still less athletically explosive Porzingis and I'm talking about today's Porzingis not pre injury KP... he is obviously nowhere close to the athlete KP once was.

 

[Hoopguru]

I've seen two people now act like one on one defense doesn't matter in the NBA anymore. Why is that? Just because there's help defense and switching doesn't mean you can't be exploited in isolation and post up situations which happen all of the time in the modern NBA and it also doesn't mean that the help that a guy like Chet will undoubtedly need when blown by in space and muscled up down low, won't compromise the defense and give players Chet wasn't assigned ample scoring opportunities.

Let's not act like in today's NBA you can be a good defender without having to be able to defend someone. The debate has to be: Are his feet as slow as some of us feel or as fast as others of you feel and/or can he increase his strength by enough? If he doesn't have the foot speed to defend athletic PFs and other wings in space or the strength to defend almost any post down low, then I don't know how you cover for that defensively without giving up a lot.

To me the comp is a much weaker and still less athletically explosive Porzingis and I'm talking about today's Porzingis not pre injury KP... he is obviously nowhere close to the athlete KP once was.

I would think real basketball experts/scouts/coaches/GM's/trainers would be able to determine if he to slow of feet or not or if he can become quicker? Why is it that just about every professional round ball analysts/expert think he's worth a top 5 pick or higher, they see more than just 185 lbs and 7', 20 year old. There are a few 7 footers in the 1st round of the draft that are built and decent players, yet none of them are projected in top five. The guy I think that will surprise is Williams but all the experts have Chet slotted top 3-5.

 

[oldmangrouch]

I've seen more that one source list Sharpe as Portland's pick at #6.

Obvious question: why?

 

[illmatic99]

I've seen more that one source list Sharpe as Portland's pick at #6.

Obvious question: why?

He was the #1 prospect in his HS class. But his whole profile has some red flags for me.

 

[oldmangrouch]

He was the #1 prospect in his HS class. But his whole profile has some red flags for me.

Normally I am a strong believer in drafting BPA...this year, however, strikes me as different. I don't want a guard unless they are both near ready to contribute and a good chance to be above average (at least) on both ends of the court. At #6 there has to be a quality big guy/big wing available who isn't a wild ass risk!

 

[PCmor7]

Normally I am a strong believer in drafting BPA...this year, however, strikes me as different. I don't want a guard unless they are both near ready to contribute and a good chance to be above average (at least) on both ends of the court. At #6 there has to be a quality big guy/big wing available who isn't a wild ass risk!

I actually was thinking about this and even thinking of posting a poll about it, because I think that's the exact position the Blazers might find themselves in.

If you're at 6 and the top five were Chet, Smith, Banchero, Ivey and ... I don't know, someone else other than Sharpe, Murray, Mathurin ... what would you do? Murray is the obvious pick for need, but his upside isn't that of Mathurin and certainly not that of Sharpe. If you pick Murray as a 5 and figure he might start by his second year, with no other major roster changes, the Blazers are playing outsized at four positions. For me, that's a big concern.

Duren's not really even on my draft board anymore, but, even if he was, he'd be an enormous reach and risk at 6 if those other three players still are available. Plus, he might be a guy available at 11 ... but he also might take several years to be able to get into your rotation, if at all.

Do you pick the potential superstar in Sharpe or the potential star who still fills a position of moderate need in Mathurin and then maybe reach at 11 for Sochan or Eason ... or even try to trade back to 15 to get one of those guys and acquire an extra asset like a second rounder you can use to pick and stash an overseas prospect?

 

[PCmor7]

The Blazers really, really need to get into the top three in the lottery or they need something to happen that pushes one of those three PFs down to six.