Zach Collins is ready

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Found this on Collins before the draft on another site, and written by a laker fan, but it’s so good it’s worth sharing. The irony? When we look back on this draft, people may very well be saying the Lakers should’ve drafted Collins.
—-
Why Zach Collins?
The short answer? Because he’s probably the most underrated player in this draft. And I don’t say that lightly. On this forum, we talk a lot about Lonzo Ball’s incredible impact on UCLA, turning a downtrodden franchise into a winner. And deservedly so. But Zach Collins also deserves credit for helping take Gonzaga to the NCAA finals as a freshman (statistically, Collins and Nigel Williams Goss were Gonzaga’s best players). The difference is that Collins did it as a 19 year old freshman while Goss was a 22 year old. Collins has freakish upside. But because he didn’t receive as much playing time as other “top prospects” and hasn’t been as media hyped, people are undervaluing him. The Lakers should take this opportunity to snag him.

For those of you who didn’t watch Gonzaga games, this is Zach Collins. He’s a 7-footer with amazing talent, whose defense was arguably the best in all of college basketball.

Collins’ box-score stats are misleading -- mostly because he only averaged ~17 minutes a game. People may see that he tallied only 10 points and 6 rebounds a game and wonder why I think he’s undervalued. While Collins did average 10 and 6, the truth is that when you project his minutes out longer, his production reaches absurd levels.

To show you what I mean, I’ve listed the per 40 minute box scores of both Zach Collins and Karl-Anthony Towns (from his one season stint at Kentucky).

Karl-Anthony Towns

Zach Collins

As you can see, their stat lines are pretty comparable. Perhaps, you might be thinking, “so Collins performed well in 17 minutes, but it’s unlikely that he could perform at that level given extended minutes.” But in fact the evidence suggests just the opposite -- with more playing time, players often increase their efficiency!

A Defensive Genius
Perhaps Collins’ biggest strength is his immaculate defense. In his one year at Gonzaga, he achieved a defensive rating of 79.4, making him number 1 in all of NCAA basketball for 2016-2017 as a freshman. What makes Collins such a dominant force on the defensive end is the combination of his 7-foot frame, his athleticism, his quickness, his impeccable timing, and his high basketball IQ.

See for yourself.

Here we see Collins rotating over to contest the drive after his teammate goes for the steal. His athleticism, size, and timing secure the block and launch the Zags on a fast break for easy points.

In this clip, Collins comes from behind to end the opponent’s fast break layup. Collins has a high motor and doesn’t give up on plays.

Perhaps more than any other draft prospect, Collins has an amazing understanding of verticality. Even when he doesn’t block the shot, he can contest without fouling by jumping straight up and bothering it.

You can see another example of his verticality skills here. Notice also his impeccable timing -- knowing exactly when to jump and preparing for it with that little hop step. His body control, combined with his length, make him a crazy strong defender.

Nor does Collins quit on a play. He’s shown that he hustles and boxes out to secure rebounds, whether on the defensive or offensive end of the floor. He’s also demonstrated a Kevin-Love like nose for the ball that’s special.

But maybe more important than even Collins' length, timing, and body control is his agility. Collins has shown not only that he can cause havoc in the paint, but also that he can step out and defend guards on the perimeter.

He has the lateral quickness to slide with smaller players without fouling them, a skill that’s particularly important at the next level, since pick and roll is so popular.

What’s so incredible is that Collins is able to do this as a 7-footer. Watch as he switches onto Jared Brownridge of Santa Clara, closes off the drive, and forces him into a terrible shot.

Stratospheric Offensive Upside
Offensively, Zach Collins has already demonstrated a tremendous skillset: excellent footwork, great post moves, efficient outside shooting, and strong finishing ability.

He has a sweet up and under move.

And he does it from both sides of the floor.

He’s agile enough to outmaneuver opposing bigs on the block.

He has easily one of the prettiest jump hooks in college basketball.

And he can hit it in traffic.

Or in an iso-type situation.

Due to his quickness advantage over bigger guys, he can usually take his man off the dribble.

He runs hard in the fastbreak. His high motor and finishing ability will be huge assets to us, especially if we draft Lonzo and play a more up-tempo style.

Watch in this clip how he runs the floor hard, catches, and finishes in transition. Now imagine we have Lonzo running the break with him and lobbing it up -- he would fit perfectly with us.

He’s also a great lob target off screen and rolls.

Another facet of Collins’ game that makes him a rare talent is his shooting ability. He has the skills to step outside and knock down outside jumpers. This makes him a pick and pop threat so that teams can’t just sag off of him to protect against the roll. Imagine the high screen and roll possibilities with D’lo and Lonzo.

Collins is also a threat to catch and shoot in the high post.Overall, he’s an extremely efficient shooter, with a true shooting % of 70.3, which was the second highest in among all college freshmen this past season.

Collins has even shown the ability to shoot the three ball.He shot 47%(!) from 3 at Gonzaga. Admittedly, this was done in a small sample size, but given his high free throw %, good mechanics, and high outside shot % slightly inside the three point arc, it’s likely Collins can become a good -- maybe even a knock-down -- three point shooter. This versatility on the offensive end allowed him to have an offensive rating of 125.1, which is 10th best among all freshmen in this year’s draft class. With Lonzo Ball feeding him, that efficiency will likely go even higher -- not even to mention his improvements and upside.

Conclusion

In short, Collins has both the offensive and defensive tools and versatility to excel at both the 4 and 5. His defensive prowess, combined with his offensive abilities, present nightmares for opposing teams. And if this hasn’t convinced you, the advanced analytics love him: among the freshmen in this draft class, he ranks number 2 in box plus/minus behind only Lonzo Ball. He ranks 3rd overall in PER and 2nd overall in Wins produced per 48.
 
Last edited:
1. There have been more good wings than bigs, yes, but that doesn’t mean they’re more valuable. Two way bigs are just rare (thus more valuable)

2. Guys like LA can create for themselves. You don’t have to be able to put the ball on the floor to create for yourself.

3. How have we been better without Aldridge? We havent won 50+ once since he’s been gone.
When this was LA's team (between Roy and Lillard), we SUCKED. We've never sucked half as badly since it's been Lilliard's team.

Bigs haven't always been rare - it's only recently that decent PFs have been hard to find. But until recently, PF was the easiest position to fill for a very long time.

If you can't dribble the ball, your impact is minimized.

If PFs have such a huge impact on the game, is that why NOP is dominating the league? Or NYK? Or MIN when they had Love? Or KG? Or TOR when they had Bosh? Barkley was a great PF, but did he ever get PHI or PHX to the Finals (maybe he did, I'm honestly asking here...but the point kinda remains)?
 
When this was LA's team (between Roy and Lillard), we SUCKED. We've never sucked half as badly since it's been Lilliard's team.

Bigs haven't always been rare - it's only recently that decent PFs have been hard to find. But until recently, PF was the easiest position to fill for a very long time.

If you can't dribble the ball, your impact is minimized.

If PFs have such a huge impact on the game, is that why NOP is dominating the league? Or NYK? Or MIN when they had Love? Or KG? Or TOR when they had Bosh? Barkley was a great PF, but did he ever get PHI or PHX to the Finals (maybe he did, I'm honestly asking here...but the point kinda remains)?

That goes both ways. I could come up with a list of great guards on awful teams too. Pelicans aren’t shitty because of Anthony Davis. He’s the only reason they win ANY games. At the end of the day it’s still a team sport.
 
And we only had one strike shortened season in between Roy and Lillard, and it was Aldridge surrounded by a bunch of nobodies. He was still our focal point when he played with Lillard. Let’s not try to minimize that just to prove a point.
 
Different than saying we should have taken Greek Freak instead of CJ. No one thought he was cant miss. Jordan, KD, Bird were all thought of as cant miss

Not quite correct. D69 had the Greek Freek as a top-3 player coming into that year's Draft. Same guy that had Stifle Tower in his top-5.
 
Not quite correct. D69 had the Greek Freek as a top-3 player coming into that year's Draft. Same guy that had Stifle Tower in his top-5.
Yep. And I was totally on board with his recommendations.
 
Found this on Collins before the draft on another site, and written by a laker fan, but it’s so good it’s worth sharing. The irony? When we look back on this draft, people may very well be saying the Lakers should’ve drafted Collins.
—-
Why Zach Collins?


...etc.

I have never seen a post which worked so hard to disguise its sources. Whoever spent hours writing it does not believe in giving credit. Then you hid whoever that was.
 
Didn't you click anything? The writer went to great lengths to copy Basketball-Reference charts and YouTube videos into his own personal accounts, then cited his own copies. Shameful journalism/plagiarism.
 
Not quite correct. D69 had the Greek Freek as a top-3 player coming into that year's Draft. Same guy that had Stifle Tower in his top-5.
What'd he think of Collins?
 
Well... LeBron might as well be considered a PF, when you think who he can match up with. He's arguably the best PF of all-time when viewed in that light. And regardless of position, there's no better two-way player.

Kobe had Shaq and Gasol throughout his championship runs, both dominant inside players. Both were more offense than defense, but certainly created problems at the other end. Curry has Green, one of the most position-less players in the game, but clearly a dominant two-way big who is seen by many as the cornerstone of the team.

Yes, but you walk a thin line in the first argument because we can consider Magic Johnson as a versatile big as well, Lebron versatility does not make him a "2 way big" as Scalma meant.

The 2nd argument is not really relevant to the discussion because i never said you don't need good Centers or Power Forwards to win a championship. Gasol and Green were supporting players for Kobe and Curry. The discussion was about superstar 2way bigs are always > superstar guards.
 
There isn't enough minutes to play all 3 of them?

CJ goes out with ~4 minutes left in the 1st Q -> 4
CJ starts the 2nd Q with Mitch and plays ~5 minutes with him before Dame is back -> 5
Mitch gives CJ ~3 minutes to rest at the end of the 2nd -> 3

So that's around 12 minutes of play in the 1st half alone and i didn't even address Dame's usual grind at the 1st quarter.

Right now both Lillard and CJ are playing 37 minutes each night, their substitutes are Pat and Napier (who doesn't get complete trust from Stotts).

People are expecting Dame and CJ to play 40 minutes each night, run more miles than most players in the league, show consistency and play elite defense on top of it all.

I'm sorry it doesn't work this way.

Incorrect. I do not expect that from them at all, and I’m not sure where that has even been suggested.

I said he can’t play alongside our two best players and he doesn’t address our biggest need (at SF), because if he is a ‘all star’ there is no way you’re only playing him 20 minutes a night (per your rotation), and if you want to extend his minutes into the 30s, as you would with an all star, he simply wouldn’t fit with this team because we cannot play 3 6’4 players together, especially for extended minutes; thus, you would have to cut CJs and Dames minutes even further as it’s not a realistic lineup to trot out.

I notice you conveniently dropped your argument about Durant, Harden, and Westbrook when noted that it probably would’ve made a ton of sense for them to trade one of them if they were all midgets.

Collins can play alongside our three best players and addressed a major need at the time.

A third guard doesn’t move the needle for this team, unless said guard is a defensive savant and can guard MONSTERS at small forward. Donovan Mitchell, with his wing span and all, is not guarding Paul George, Kevin Durant, Kawhi Leonard.
 
What's the value of a 6'3 guy who is a so-so defender but can handle the ball really well and shoot from anywhere on the court in insane percentages?

I'm pretty sure he's worth a championship.

I'm kinda with you in your argument because i love versatile bigs who can play on both ends, but at the same time the NBA was dominated this past decade by Lebron,Kobe and Curry - non of them can be considered "two way bigs".

Pretty sure Steph didn’t do anything until Draymond got there.
 
The fact of the matter is that wings can create for themselves (and others) whereas bigs generally cannot. Since the modern era, good wings have always been VASTLY more important to winning than good bigs. If you can't handle the ball, your impact is limited. It's why we've consistently been better with Lillard* than we were with LMA. It's why Lillard* has had FAR more success than Anthony Davis. If you're not Tim Duncan, you have no business being your team's best player.

*I realize Lillard is not a wing, but he plays more like a wing than like a PG.

Bigs are reliant upon little guys; but little guys need big guys to win, IMO.

I’d wager it’s easier for Anthony Davis to win a championship with a B level PG than it would be for Lillard to win a championship with a B level big, given equal rosters.

In essence, Solid guard play gives you a higher floor and lower ceiling, imo. Solid big play, low floor, high ceiling - if you can find a PG.

If guards won chips Allen Iverson would have a couple, not Shaq and Kobe.
 
Yes, but you walk a thin line in the first argument because we can consider Magic Johnson as a versatile big as well, Lebron versatility does not make him a "2 way big" as Scalma meant.

I disagree. Magic infamously filled in for Kareem in the Finals, but he never matched up against bigs after that. Pippen would check him to negate the size advantage, but Pippen guarded lots of PGs, so that doesn't mean much.

LeBron came into the league as a SG, plays mostly SF, and has been the PF on the Olympic team. He's as tall as most PFs (like Magic) and can out-muscle pretty much any big (unlike Magic).

Think of it this way. If you could field a team of any player at each position, selecting the same player multiple times, would you have Magic anywhere but PG? Probably not. But, a lineup with LeBron at SG, SF, and PF would be hard to pass up.
 
So in the 84 draft, you have to pick Jordan or Olajuwan. Who is your pick?
Olajuwan...we had Drexler so...a big would've been the move....nobody at the time thought Jordan would be what he turned out to be.
 
Olajuwan...we had Drexler so...a big would've been the move....nobody at the time thought Jordan would be what he turned out to be.
Not true. Bob Knight (his Olympic coach) saw it coming. Surely you've heard of his pre-draft conversation with Blazer GM Stu Inman: "I was standing next to my friend as we watched us practice and I said, 'You're luckier than anybody could be in basketball, you have a chance to get Jordan,'" Knight said. "He said, 'Yeah, Bob, he's great, but we need a big man.' And I told him, 'Play Jordan at center and he'll lead the league in scoring. He's that good.'"
 
Not true. Bob Knight (his Olympic coach) saw it coming. Surely you've heard of his pre-draft conversation with Blazer GM Stu Inman: "I was standing next to my friend as we watched us practice and I said, 'You're luckier than anybody could be in basketball, you have a chance to get Jordan,'" Knight said. "He said, 'Yeah, Bob, he's great, but we need a big man.' And I told him, 'Play Jordan at center and he'll lead the league in scoring. He's that good.'"
well I'm sure somebody did but at the time it wasn't a position of need....and I still think Alajuwon would be the choice at that time.
 
well I'm sure somebody did but at the time it wasn't a position of need....and I still think Alajuwon would be the choice at that time.
Did you not read Knight's quote? His point was that talent trumps positional need (an axiom that is as true now as it was then), and Jordan's talent was superior to all others', irrespective of position.
 
Did you not read Knight's quote? His point was that talent trumps positional need (an axiom that is as true now as it was then), and Jordan's talent was superior to all others', irrespective of position.
Nope....just remember the time and my logic would've still taken Alajuwon...don't see how that's ignoring talent over position...it's adding talent at a position in my view...unlike 99% of basketball fans, I was never a huge Michael Jordan fan.....I thought he hurt the balance in the league by superstar status...after him everyone spent their cap on one or two players who were ballhogs and surrounded them with scraps..Jordan got the most ref love of any player I ever watched play...he never got T'd up for screaming at refs....never got called for obvious fouls...etc...sure he was a great competitor...I liked the Dream much more as a player and a teammate
 
The notion that nobody knew what Jordan was gonna be is fallacy. Especially after hitting the game winning shot.

 
The notion that nobody knew what Jordan was gonna be is fallacy. Especially after hitting the game winning shot.


My point wasn't that scouts didn't know Jordan was special...it's that nobody knew he'd dominate like he did....Hakeem was pretty special as well...Jordan was packaged .....movie deal.....biggest star since Ali in sports....that's what I don't think people saw coming when he was drafted....Bowie was also a really gifted player with a time bomb knee...but a special talent...I think people make more out of that draft than they should
 
Not true. Bob Knight (his Olympic coach) saw it coming. Surely you've heard of his pre-draft conversation with Blazer GM Stu Inman: "I was standing next to my friend as we watched us practice and I said, 'You're luckier than anybody could be in basketball, you have a chance to get Jordan,'" Knight said. "He said, 'Yeah, Bob, he's great, but we need a big man.' And I told him, 'Play Jordan at center and he'll lead the league in scoring. He's that good.'"

I wish we could go back in time and slap some sense into people. It's true that most people undervalued Jordan at the time, but there are enough of those accounts, and enough evidence of just how good he was already, it should have been an easy pick if people weren't blinded by the "need a big" doctrine.

Hell, I just saw some stat the other day about Bill Cartwright, of all people, having some of the most historic stats as a rookie. I thought he was always a journeyman... The point being, you take the safe pick when there's greatness available, and worry about filling in the gaps later. Don't gamble on a big with an injury history.

And yes, I was in support of the Oden pick. Although, I would have felt differently had the info been made available before the draft about his leg dangling from his hip when he was a kid...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top