NBA comps for draft picks

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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.

I’m not even a Chet fan and cmon he didn’t get blown by that often and when he did his length negated it. He got a lot of blocks because ppl underestimated his length and ability to recover
 
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?
Id select Murray. He’s a good defensive player and can score inside out. I see him as primarily a 4.
 
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.
I’m in the same boat as you. I went back and forth with Zagger and BJ all season talking about let’s see what happens in the tourney because during the season whenever he played talent it was much, much different than his in-conference play.

i do agree with bones that a few of the calls in the arky game were highly suspect.
 
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.
We have answered this before.
You use him like the Celtics use Robert Williams.
Virtually no team has 4-5 legitimate offensive threats.
You put him on whoever is worse, aka can’t dribble, between the 3/4 and use him as an insanely talented off ball help defender.
 
Id select Murray. He’s a good defensive player and can score inside out. I see him as primarily a 4.

I couldn't argue with that. It's subjective. I just get concerned with us going small at a position again. Our coverage radius is awfully small going 6-2, 6-3, 6-5, 6-8, 7-0.

Of course, if you can address that somewhere else ... like I said, I think we're looking at 3-4 new rotation players. If you get size, length and wingspan in your other acquisitions, it could work. I just fear we leave ourselves repeating old mistakes and wind up treading water. I'd probably pick Sharpe and, if I couldn't move 11 in a deal to get someone like Anunoby, go with Sochan or Eason and pick one of the international Cs with one of our second round picks and hope their learning curve is like Batums and they surprise us with how quickly they can contribute.
 
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.
He fouled out of 3 games all year including the Arkansas game which wasn't his fault at all. Far cry from "fouling out all year" or whatever your first sentence is. He did just fine for a 7 footer when switched onto non WCC guards, so he'll be fine guarding PFs on the NBA. If you're worried about Jae Crowder blowing by him then I don't know what to tell you.
 
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?
Sharpe at 6.
Eason or Sochan at 11.
they won’t be there at 15.
 
I couldn't argue with that. It's subjective. I just get concerned with us going small at a position again. Our coverage radius is awfully small going 6-2, 6-3, 6-5, 6-8, 7-0.

Of course, if you can address that somewhere else ... like I said, I think we're looking at 3-4 new rotation players. If you get size, length and wingspan in your other acquisitions, it could work. I just fear we leave ourselves repeating old mistakes and wind up treading water. I'd probably pick Sharpe and, if I couldn't move 11 in a deal to get someone like Anunoby, go with Sochan or Eason and pick one of the international Cs with one of our second round picks and hope their learning curve is like Batums and they surprise us with how quickly they can contribute.
If Williams is available with the second pick, id take him he’s 7’ with 7’7” reach and hes big and strong in the paint. Nurk is injury prone.
 
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!
he's got size to be an SF. 6'6 with a long wingspan. And only 18 so room to grow height wise as well. I just don't know if any of his HS skills will translate.
 
I’m not even a Chet fan and cmon he didn’t get blown by that often and when he did his length negated it. He got a lot of blocks because ppl underestimated his length and ability to recover
.... in the wcc

:)
 
He fouled out of 3 games all year including the Arkansas game which wasn't his fault at all. Far cry from "fouling out all year" or whatever your first sentence is. He did just fine for a 7 footer when switched onto non WCC guards, so he'll be fine guarding PFs on the NBA. If you're worried about Jae Crowder blowing by him then I don't know what to tell you.
I’m not even a Chet fan and cmon he didn’t get blown by that often and when he did his length negated it. He got a lot of blocks because ppl underestimated his length and ability to recover
@BonesJones Great reference with Crowder, he's got to be one of the less athletic small ball PFs in the league. I wouldn't be worried about a blow by from RoCo either. In fact there are a lot of wings that wouldn't just blow by him but those wings including Crowder and RoCo could definitely post the guy up with their big time strength and low center of gravity. I know he didn't foul out a ton because when he got into foul trouble he played less minutes and more so less aggressively. I was saying that some of the time when an opponent was getting by him a lot he'd reach one of those long arms out and get the opponent. I know you watched the games, so I know you saw it. As far as the trick that he's used to negate his lack of foot speed... @Predator I don't think that works in the NBA. I think NBA scorers will get to the hole too quickly.
 
@BonesJones Great reference with Crowder, he's got to be one of the less athletic small ball PFs in the league. I wouldn't be worried about a blow by from RoCo either. In fact there are a lot of wings that wouldn't just blow by him but those wings including Crowder and RoCo could definitely post the guy up with their big time strength and low center of gravity. I know he didn't foul out a ton because when he got into foul trouble he played less minutes and more so less aggressively. I was saying that some of the time when an opponent was getting by him a lot he'd reach one of those long arms out and get the opponent. I know you watched the games, so I know you saw it. As far as the trick that he's used to negate his lack of foot speed... @Predator I don't think that works in the NBA. I think NBA scorers will get to the hole too quickly.
Bro, 6'6 Jae Crowder would have ZERO success posting up 7'1 Chet Holmgren. RoCo's gonna post him up?! Cmon now.
 
When we've gotten to the point that the argument that Chet is a great defender is that he wouldn't get beat off the dribble or posted up by 3-and-D players like Jae Crowder and Robert Covington, I think we've reached the level of desperation or surreality.

A better question might be "Could Chet Holmgren post up either Jae Crowder or RoCo or could he take them from the wing on an iso?"
 
All year, WCC or otherwise...

I'm curious, and I ask this in all earnestness, do you have a personal connection with the guy?

We don't always agree, but I generally appreciate your opinions on hoops talent. With Chet, though, you seem to have a very deeply embedded interest, almost the kind I'm used to seeing from family, or a trainer, or an AAU coach. You seem to get upset when anyone doesn't put Chet over as the greatest thing and won't acknowledge any criticism of his play or potential, even if it's supported by facts.

It just feels like your objectivity got left at the door on any discussion about him.
 
I'm curious, and I ask this in all earnestness, do you have a personal connection with the guy?

We don't always agree, but I generally appreciate your opinions on hoops talent. With Chet, though, you seem to have a very deeply embedded interest, almost the kind I'm used to seeing from family, or a trainer, or an AAU coach. You seem to get upset when anyone doesn't put Chet over as the greatest thing and won't acknowledge any criticism of his play or potential, even if it's supported by facts.

It just feels like your objectivity got left at the door on any discussion about him.
he's not alone here. the Chet love is rivaling the Ammo/draft the stache nonsense back in 06. While I think he's a decent prospect, I am deathly afraid of drafting him because of his high bust potential. And I certainly don't think he's a HOF caliber prospect as some here like to project.
 
he's not alone here. the Chet love is rivaling the Ammo/draft the stache nonsense back in 06.

I think there definitely are posters who want to see every guy with a PNW connection turn into the one that lifts the Blazers out of mediocrity. Collins had a lot more support, IMO, than his play merited. I remember posters that wanted to draft Pritchard and trade for Boucher, who I think are journeymen.

I get it. If I had a friend's kid have a chance to play for and help the Blazers, I'd be pulling for him. The Blazers are my team. If Chet Holmgren ends up with them, I hope he's great. I'm just not going to turn off everything I know about basketball because I want the kid to be the savior to the exclusion of all other information or possibilities. If someone has a legit answer for the criticisms, other than "You're wrong. You don't know Chet. You don't know basketball," then it's easy enough to put them out there or to just say "He definitely has things he needs to iron out and he's not a sure thing but I think he'll overcome the question marks became X, Y and Z."
 
I'm going to try to head this off before someone takes it into the weeds.

-- Since Chet is not a team, the WCC vs Pac-12 has no bearing on where he stands as a prospect.
-- Of the 58 players currently projected in this year's draft by NBADraft.net, 35 of them are from four conferences: SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12. That's more than every other conference in the country, early-entry G-Leaguers and international players combined.
-- Of the players in NBADraft.net's top 100 big board, more than half of them are from those four conferences.
-- Chet's biggest competition to be drafted first overall are from the SEC, the ACC and the Big Ten, not the Pac-12.
-- There are only two players from the WCC and Pac-12 combined in the consensus top 25 draft prospects.
-- Three Final Four teams came from those four conferences, including the eventual champion and the runner-up.
-- The WCC ranked ninth in conference ranking by RPI and Sagarin and 10th by NET ranking. Even with the No. 1 overall seed, its OOC record was ninth among conferences -- in other words, there were a lot of mediocre teams and players in the WCC this year somewhere.

Unless someone is going to try to make the argument that there are bigger, faster, stronger, more talented, and more athletic players in the WCC than these other conferences who for whatever reason are getting overlooked en masse by the NBA, then you have to accept that the level of players Chet faced each week in the WCC wasn't nearly as analogous to what he'll see at the next level as Smith, Banchero, and Ivey played against. Of course, none of that has anything to do with whether or not the Pac-12 or WCC was better this season.
 
I'm going to try to head this off before someone takes it into the weeds.

-- Since Chet is not a team, the WCC vs Pac-12 has no bearing on where he stands as a prospect.
-- Of the 58 players currently projected in this year's draft by NBADraft.net, 35 of them are from four conferences: SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12. That's more than every other conference in the country, early-entry G-Leaguers and international players combined.
-- Of the players in NBADraft.net's top 100 big board, more than half of them are from those four conferences.
-- Chet's biggest competition to be drafted first overall are from the SEC, the ACC and the Big Ten, not the Pac-12.
-- There are only two players from the WCC and Pac-12 combined in the consensus top 25 draft prospects.
-- Three Final Four teams came from those four conferences, including the eventual champion and the runner-up.
-- The WCC ranked ninth in conference ranking by RPI and Sagarin and 10th by NET ranking. Even with the No. 1 overall seed, its OOC record was ninth among conferences -- in other words, there were a lot of mediocre teams and players in the WCC this year somewhere.

Unless someone is going to try to make the argument that there are bigger, faster, stronger, more talented, and more athletic players in the WCC than these other conferences who for whatever reason are getting overlooked en masse by the NBA, then you have to accept that the level of players Chet faced each week in the WCC wasn't nearly as analogous to what he'll see at the next level as Smith, Banchero, and Ivey played against. Of course, none of that has anything to do with whether or not the Pac-12 or WCC was better this season.

Its why Chet chose to play in that conference. I question his competitiveness for that reason
 
I'm curious, and I ask this in all earnestness, do you have a personal connection with the guy?

We don't always agree, but I generally appreciate your opinions on hoops talent. With Chet, though, you seem to have a very deeply embedded interest, almost the kind I'm used to seeing from family, or a trainer, or an AAU coach. You seem to get upset when anyone doesn't put Chet over as the greatest thing and won't acknowledge any criticism of his play or potential, even if it's supported by facts.

It just feels like your objectivity got left at the door on any discussion about him.
I don't have Chet as the #1 guy on my board. Wouldn't be upset if we took Banchero or Jabari over him. But the narratives are bullshit. Everything I've said is what you'll find on his scouting report and what scouts would tell you. Meanwhile, you have people out here who don't want to draft him based on the combination of his skin pigmentation and birthplace. You have people who don't want to draft him because he played in the WCC when our best player is from Weber State. You have people that can't get past the fact that he's skinny when we're the team that passed on Kevin Durant. You have people saying he fouled out all year when he fouled it in less then 10% of his games. You have people holding his tournament shooting addict him while ignoring that Jabari Smith went 3-for-16 in the 2nd round against a questionable Miami defense. You have people arguing that he can't stay in front of anyone when I watched him stay in front of guys all year long. I've never seen this much unreasonable criticism for a Top 5 in my life, and many people (not here) have come out and admitted or implied that it's because he's white.
 
I'm going to try to head this off before someone takes it into the weeds.

-- Since Chet is not a team, the WCC vs Pac-12 has no bearing on where he stands as a prospect.
-- Of the 58 players currently projected in this year's draft by NBADraft.net, 35 of them are from four conferences: SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12. That's more than every other conference in the country, early-entry G-Leaguers and international players combined.
-- Of the players in NBADraft.net's top 100 big board, more than half of them are from those four conferences.
-- Chet's biggest competition to be drafted first overall are from the SEC, the ACC and the Big Ten, not the Pac-12.
-- There are only two players from the WCC and Pac-12 combined in the consensus top 25 draft prospects.
-- Three Final Four teams came from those four conferences, including the eventual champion and the runner-up.
-- The WCC ranked ninth in conference ranking by RPI and Sagarin and 10th by NET ranking. Even with the No. 1 overall seed, its OOC record was ninth among conferences -- in other words, there were a lot of mediocre teams and players in the WCC this year somewhere.

Unless someone is going to try to make the argument that there are bigger, faster, stronger, more talented, and more athletic players in the WCC than these other conferences who for whatever reason are getting overlooked en masse by the NBA, then you have to accept that the level of players Chet faced each week in the WCC wasn't nearly as analogous to what he'll see at the next level as Smith, Banchero, and Ivey played against. Of course, none of that has anything to do with whether or not the Pac-12 or WCC was better this season.
And Dame played in the Big Sky. Ant played in high school. The dude was the #1 player in high school, and people can't get over what conference he played in?
 
When we've gotten to the point that the argument that Chet is a great defender is that he wouldn't get beat off the dribble or posted up by 3-and-D players like Jae Crowder and Robert Covington, I think we've reached the level of desperation or surreality.

A better question might be "Could Chet Holmgren post up either Jae Crowder or RoCo or could he take them from the wing on an iso?"
What??? If people were saying that Giannis would get posted up successfully by Robert Convington, would you not disagree?
 
I don't have Chet as the #1 guy on my board. Wouldn't be upset if we took Banchero or Jabari over him. But the narratives are bullshit. Everything I've said is what you'll find on his scouting report and what scouts would tell you. Meanwhile, you have people out here who don't want to draft him based on the combination of his skin pigmentation and birthplace. You have people who don't want to draft him because he played in the WCC when our best player is from Weber State. You have people that can't get past the fact that he's skinny when we're the team that passed on Kevin Durant. You have people saying he fouled out all year when he fouled it in less then 10% of his games. You have people holding his tournament shooting addict him while ignoring that Jabari Smith went 3-for-16 in the 2nd round against a questionable Miami defense. You have people arguing that he can't stay in front of anyone when I watched him stay in front of guys all year long. I've never seen this much unreasonable criticism for a Top 5 in my life, and many people (not here) have come out and admitted or implied that it's because he's white.
You say you don't have him number 1, then draw parallels to Durant and attack anyone everyone who brings up talking points against him.
 
I don't have Chet as the #1 guy on my board. Wouldn't be upset if we took Banchero or Jabari over him. But the narratives are bullshit. Everything I've said is what you'll find on his scouting report and what scouts would tell you. Meanwhile, you have people out here who don't want to draft him based on the combination of his skin pigmentation and birthplace. You have people who don't want to draft him because he played in the WCC when our best player is from Weber State. You have people that can't get past the fact that he's skinny when we're the team that passed on Kevin Durant. You have people saying he fouled out all year when he fouled it in less then 10% of his games. You have people holding his tournament shooting addict him while ignoring that Jabari Smith went 3-for-16 in the 2nd round against a questionable Miami defense. You have people arguing that he can't stay in front of anyone when I watched him stay in front of guys all year long. I've never seen this much unreasonable criticism for a Top 5 in my life, and many people (not here) have come out and admitted or implied that it's because he's white.

1. I think you're conflating some criticism with false narratives. If anything, I think Chet's gotten a pass on some of his question marks. But you still find those concerns mentioned in a lot of his counting reports.
2. The questions aren't BS is you can't rebut them with anything other than "You're wrong."
3. No one is absolutely writing him off. I've called him a boom-or-bust prospect -- high ceiling but with high bust potential because of his frame, his offense, his reaction time, and his performance against the caliber of competition he'll face in the NBA.
4. Lillard was the sixth pick and faced a lot of the same questions and we both know that more often than not Dame and Ja are the exception, not the rule. It's fair to have a healthy dose of skepticism when a guy hasn't performed much or well against top competition.
5. Kevin Durant played an entire season at Texas AND he was 25 pounds heavier while 2 inches shorter than Chet coming into the NBA. Also, he was an exceptional offensive player and still NO ONE, not the Blazers, not anyone else was taking him over Oden at that time. And there still were concerns about his frame at the time.
6. The fouled out thing is a weird fixation for you. First, my post was about his issues getting into foul trouble against teams with quicker, bigger, stronger athletes. It was specific. It wasn't one game. It wasn't at one point in the year. It was 10 games spaced throughout the year and the trend was remarkably uniform.
7. See point 6 regarding and replace fouling with shooting. I'll add to that that the fact that he isn't getting a lot of shots is a concern for me, too. You can yell from the mountains that they didn't need to run plays for him, but I have trouble believing a Hall of Fame level coach has what I am told is such a mismatch weapon and he never takes advantage of it? That's fantastical.
8. You said I was cherry-picking but you've twice now mentioned Smith going 3-for-16 in an NCAA tourney game ... conveniently ignoring a superior body of work against a slew of teams filled with pro prospects. You write off Chet's last 3 weeks as a slump but try to equate Smith's poor shooting game with it.
9. This is where I think you go off the wagon. If I have stats and reason for criticism, it's not unreasonable. If you haven't seen a more scrutinized top 5 prospect in your life, you must have just been born. And he's a victim of reverse racism??? OMG. That's just ridiculous. If anything, he's gotten people overlooking his shortcomings than vice versa.

I don't know. You just posted a bunch of wild opinion and apples and orange comparisons, Bones, and it just makes it seem to me you're personally invested in Chet more than the Blazers. Maybe that's the wrong read on it, but that's how it looks to me reading this in the context of other posts I've seen you make on the topic.
 
I don't know. You just posted a bunch of wild opinion and apples and orange comparisons, Bones, and it just makes it seem to me you're personally invested in Chet more than the Blazers. Maybe that's the wrong read on it, but that's how it looks to me reading this in the context of other posts I've seen you make on the topic.
It's draft the stache all over again. If anything, his posts make me want Chet even less.
 
What??? If people were saying that Giannis would get posted up successfully by Robert Convington, would you not disagree?

I would if that was the whole focus of the conversation. It wasn't, though. It seemed like pulling a couple of outliers and trying to use that to make a point that couldn't have been made otherwise. Seemed like kind of a weak focus.
 
It's draft the stache all over again. If anything, his posts make me want Chet even less.

And, let's be fair, there at least was the poor man's Larry Bird comparison that could be made with Morrison at the time. Again, though, outliers. For every Bird and Lillard and Ja that make it from mid-major schools there are dozens of players who get scouted or drafted who can't make that jump in talent level.
 
And Dame played in the Big Sky. Ant played in high school. The dude was the #1 player in high school, and people can't get over what conference he played in?

The NBA's not high school. Dame is an outlier, not the rule. And Ant took four years to play to the level worthy of a first-round pick.

Like I said above, weird for a guy to say other people are cherry-picking criticisms with Chet based on CHET'S OWN PERFORMANCES by fixating on the two or three guys out of a couple of hundred that do make it. Those guys all faced those questions and a lot more didn't make it than did, but none of them are Chet Holmgren.

It just doesn't seem like your objectivity is strong on this one, Bones.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top