Author Topic: Are Barrett and Williamson better prospects than Tatum?  (Read 7589 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Are Barrett and Williamson better prospects than Tatum?
« Reply #45 on: March 04, 2019, 06:12:46 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
So many can’t miss prospects don’t pan out. Look at the 76ers. Okafor, fultz and noel. If noel was not hurt he would have been number 1 pick.
No one said Noel was a can't miss prospect.  The general thought on him was that he would be a superb defender, but his offense was always going to struggle.  He was also hurt so you really don't know what might have been but for the injuries.  And just because someone goes or might go #1 doesn't mean he was a can't miss prospect.  All drafts are not created equal.   As for Fultz, he is hurt and basically has been his entire career.  33 games in his first 2 seasons isn't exactly a lot of game action.  Who knows what might have been had he not injured his shoulder.  Okafor didn't pan out and he was pretty heavily hyped entering the draft, but he is definitely the exception not the rule. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Are Barrett and Williamson better prospects than Tatum?
« Reply #46 on: March 04, 2019, 12:31:41 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
So many can’t miss prospects don’t pan out. Look at the 76ers. Okafor, fultz and noel. If noel was not hurt he would have been number 1 pick.
No one said Noel was a can't miss prospect.  The general thought on him was that he would be a superb defender, but his offense was always going to struggle.  He was also hurt so you really don't know what might have been but for the injuries.  And just because someone goes or might go #1 doesn't mean he was a can't miss prospect.  All drafts are not created equal.   As for Fultz, he is hurt and basically has been his entire career.  33 games in his first 2 seasons isn't exactly a lot of game action.  Who knows what might have been had he not injured his shoulder.  Okafor didn't pan out and he was pretty heavily hyped entering the draft, but he is definitely the exception not the rule.

It is certainly more common than you are making it out to be, and you seem to have an excuse for every guy that doesn't make it. Jabari Parker was a can't miss and he is certainly a bust. Yet, the reason he is a bust doesn't seem to be the knee injuries you mentioned. It is that is absolutely abysmal at defense and never had any interest in improving his. he has even publicly commented on this. Is your belief that his knee injuries hurt his brain and made him not want to play defense?

 Andrew Wiggins was also a can't miss prospect with a whole year long talk of teams "riggin for wiggins." Obviously he is also a huge bust. Also, believe it or not Lonzo Ball was considered a superstar prospect by Chad Ford, in the same category as Fultz. Maybe Ford isn't your cup of tea, I think his tiers are a bit silly, but everyone seems to cite them here and they have very few people put in that category.

Then of course there is Okafor. No way to try to spin this, there have been plenty of guys that have been labeled as future superstars by Ford that just haven't panned out.

« Last Edit: March 04, 2019, 12:50:48 PM by celticsclay »

Re: Are Barrett and Williamson better prospects than Tatum?
« Reply #47 on: March 04, 2019, 01:08:19 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Andrew Wiggins was also a can't miss prospect with a whole year long talk of teams "riggin for wiggins." Obviously he is also a huge bust. Also, believe it or not Lonzo Ball was considered a superstar prospect by Chad Ford, in the same category as Fultz. Maybe Ford isn't your cup of tea, I think his tiers are a bit silly, but everyone seems to cite them here and they have very few people put in that category.

Then of course there is Okafor. No way to try to spin this, there have been plenty of guys that have been labeled as future superstars by Ford that just haven't panned out.

Give him a year or two, his writeups will have magically become much more down on those guys.

Re: Are Barrett and Williamson better prospects than Tatum?
« Reply #48 on: March 04, 2019, 01:27:56 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
So many can’t miss prospects don’t pan out. Look at the 76ers. Okafor, fultz and noel. If noel was not hurt he would have been number 1 pick.
No one said Noel was a can't miss prospect.  The general thought on him was that he would be a superb defender, but his offense was always going to struggle.  He was also hurt so you really don't know what might have been but for the injuries.  And just because someone goes or might go #1 doesn't mean he was a can't miss prospect.  All drafts are not created equal.   As for Fultz, he is hurt and basically has been his entire career.  33 games in his first 2 seasons isn't exactly a lot of game action.  Who knows what might have been had he not injured his shoulder.  Okafor didn't pan out and he was pretty heavily hyped entering the draft, but he is definitely the exception not the rule.

It is certainly more common than you are making it out to be, and you seem to have an excuse for every guy that doesn't make it. Jabari Parker was a can't miss and he is certainly a bust. Yet, the reason he is a bust doesn't seem to be the knee injuries you mentioned. It is that is absolutely abysmal at defense and never had any interest in improving his. he has even publicly commented on this. Is your belief that his knee injuries hurt his brain and made him not want to play defense?

 Andrew Wiggins was also a can't miss prospect with a whole year long talk of teams "riggin for wiggins." Obviously he is also a huge bust. Also, believe it or not Lonzo Ball was considered a superstar prospect by Chad Ford, in the same category as Fultz. Maybe Ford isn't your cup of tea, I think his tiers are a bit silly, but everyone seems to cite them here and they have very few people put in that category.

Then of course there is Okafor. No way to try to spin this, there have been plenty of guys that have been labeled as future superstars by Ford that just haven't panned out.
Parker basically entered the league injured playing just 25 games as a rookie, got better across the board and played 76 games in year 2, in year 3 when he was still just 21 he was basically averaging 20/6/3 with a steal and a 56.3 TS% (36.5% from 3).  He played just 51 games because he sadly got hurt again and has never the same.  Seems strange that you don't think the injuries altered his career. 

Wiggins has a career average of 19.4 ppg with 4.2 rpg and 2.1 apg.  I have hard time calling those stats a bust even though he has seemingly regressed a bit as the talent around him has gotten better.  While he clearly isn't a franchise level talent, if he continues to put up stats like that he will have a very long career and any team would gladly take those numbers.

Ball is currently hurt after spending a bunch of his rookie year injured.  He has already played 45 less games than Tatum as an example.  Do you not think injuries affect a player's development, especially early on in their careers?
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Are Barrett and Williamson better prospects than Tatum?
« Reply #49 on: March 04, 2019, 02:11:39 PM »

Offline gpap

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8224
  • Tommy Points: 417
Zion reminds me of Larry Johnson crossed with Bo Jackson. Like a smaller Shaq (EDIT actually shorter, he's gotta weigh more than Shaq did at 19) with more range and ball handling. If he approaches his ceiling he'll be a very special player, like MVP caliber.

That remains to be seen of course but he's the one just about every GM would take right now out of the three.


The question you have to ask about every elite prospect coming into the league now is: "Will he create three point shots for himself?  Will he create three point shots for others?"

It is very difficult to imagine a player for whom the answer to those questions is "No" becoming an MVP type player.

Not that difficult as we have one of those guys right now in Giannis. Not saying Zion would become Giannis but it's fair to say he's one of the very few recent prospects who's as physically talented as him.

Wish Danny Ainge had the opportunity to draft someone as special as Giannis

Re: Are Barrett and Williamson better prospects than Tatum?
« Reply #50 on: March 04, 2019, 03:06:22 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
So many can’t miss prospects don’t pan out. Look at the 76ers. Okafor, fultz and noel. If noel was not hurt he would have been number 1 pick.
No one said Noel was a can't miss prospect.  The general thought on him was that he would be a superb defender, but his offense was always going to struggle.  He was also hurt so you really don't know what might have been but for the injuries.  And just because someone goes or might go #1 doesn't mean he was a can't miss prospect.  All drafts are not created equal.   As for Fultz, he is hurt and basically has been his entire career.  33 games in his first 2 seasons isn't exactly a lot of game action.  Who knows what might have been had he not injured his shoulder.  Okafor didn't pan out and he was pretty heavily hyped entering the draft, but he is definitely the exception not the rule.

It is certainly more common than you are making it out to be, and you seem to have an excuse for every guy that doesn't make it. Jabari Parker was a can't miss and he is certainly a bust. Yet, the reason he is a bust doesn't seem to be the knee injuries you mentioned. It is that is absolutely abysmal at defense and never had any interest in improving his. he has even publicly commented on this. Is your belief that his knee injuries hurt his brain and made him not want to play defense?

 Andrew Wiggins was also a can't miss prospect with a whole year long talk of teams "riggin for wiggins." Obviously he is also a huge bust. Also, believe it or not Lonzo Ball was considered a superstar prospect by Chad Ford, in the same category as Fultz. Maybe Ford isn't your cup of tea, I think his tiers are a bit silly, but everyone seems to cite them here and they have very few people put in that category.

Then of course there is Okafor. No way to try to spin this, there have been plenty of guys that have been labeled as future superstars by Ford that just haven't panned out.
Parker basically entered the league injured playing just 25 games as a rookie, got better across the board and played 76 games in year 2, in year 3 when he was still just 21 he was basically averaging 20/6/3 with a steal and a 56.3 TS% (36.5% from 3).  He played just 51 games because he sadly got hurt again and has never the same.  Seems strange that you don't think the injuries altered his career. 

Wiggins has a career average of 19.4 ppg with 4.2 rpg and 2.1 apg.  I have hard time calling those stats a bust even though he has seemingly regressed a bit as the talent around him has gotten better.  While he clearly isn't a franchise level talent, if he continues to put up stats like that he will have a very long career and any team would gladly take those numbers.

Ball is currently hurt after spending a bunch of his rookie year injured.  He has already played 45 less games than Tatum as an example.  Do you not think injuries affect a player's development, especially early on in their careers?

You honestly believe Parker is a terrible defensive player (and expresses public interest in not playing it) because he got injured? Respectfully, that just doesn't make any sense.

Also, you have to be one of the only people in the world right now that doesn't consider Wiggins a huge bust. From the Ringer "To explain to his followers just how talented Wiggins was, veteran college basketball analyst Jeff Goodman claimed Wiggins would have been the no. 1 player in the vaunted 2007 high school class that included Derrick Rose, Michael Beasley, Kevin Love, Blake Griffin, Eric Gordon, and O.J. Mayo." Your comment that any team would take Wiggins is one of the more ill-advised comments I have seen you make. You realize that Wiggins is shooting 39% from the field to get his 19 points and taking over 16 shots a game?

To put this in perspective "Wiggins’s sudden inability to convert 2-point field goals isn’t just bad, it’s on the edge of history. Among qualifying players, Wiggins’s 2-point field goal percentage thus far this season ranks among the 150 worst figures ever, which doesn’t sound too horrific until you consider that only seven of those performances occurred after 1975. "

Not only would I argue that not every team would want those numbers, I would argue that very teams would actually allow those numbers to even happen on their squad. It is downright awful.

I gotta ask man, where do you come up with some of stuff you post? I see you making some very well informed arguments sometimes where you use advanced statistics and data. Then other times you get in an argument, dig in on the argument, and post something I may have said when I was 12 and looked at stats on the back of a basketball card and saw a guy score 19 points a game (World B Free is incredible!). What is the deal with that?

Re: Are Barrett and Williamson better prospects than Tatum?
« Reply #51 on: March 04, 2019, 04:47:58 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
So many can’t miss prospects don’t pan out. Look at the 76ers. Okafor, fultz and noel. If noel was not hurt he would have been number 1 pick.
No one said Noel was a can't miss prospect.  The general thought on him was that he would be a superb defender, but his offense was always going to struggle.  He was also hurt so you really don't know what might have been but for the injuries.  And just because someone goes or might go #1 doesn't mean he was a can't miss prospect.  All drafts are not created equal.   As for Fultz, he is hurt and basically has been his entire career.  33 games in his first 2 seasons isn't exactly a lot of game action.  Who knows what might have been had he not injured his shoulder.  Okafor didn't pan out and he was pretty heavily hyped entering the draft, but he is definitely the exception not the rule.

It is certainly more common than you are making it out to be, and you seem to have an excuse for every guy that doesn't make it. Jabari Parker was a can't miss and he is certainly a bust. Yet, the reason he is a bust doesn't seem to be the knee injuries you mentioned. It is that is absolutely abysmal at defense and never had any interest in improving his. he has even publicly commented on this. Is your belief that his knee injuries hurt his brain and made him not want to play defense?

 Andrew Wiggins was also a can't miss prospect with a whole year long talk of teams "riggin for wiggins." Obviously he is also a huge bust. Also, believe it or not Lonzo Ball was considered a superstar prospect by Chad Ford, in the same category as Fultz. Maybe Ford isn't your cup of tea, I think his tiers are a bit silly, but everyone seems to cite them here and they have very few people put in that category.

Then of course there is Okafor. No way to try to spin this, there have been plenty of guys that have been labeled as future superstars by Ford that just haven't panned out.
Parker basically entered the league injured playing just 25 games as a rookie, got better across the board and played 76 games in year 2, in year 3 when he was still just 21 he was basically averaging 20/6/3 with a steal and a 56.3 TS% (36.5% from 3).  He played just 51 games because he sadly got hurt again and has never the same.  Seems strange that you don't think the injuries altered his career. 

Wiggins has a career average of 19.4 ppg with 4.2 rpg and 2.1 apg.  I have hard time calling those stats a bust even though he has seemingly regressed a bit as the talent around him has gotten better.  While he clearly isn't a franchise level talent, if he continues to put up stats like that he will have a very long career and any team would gladly take those numbers.

Ball is currently hurt after spending a bunch of his rookie year injured.  He has already played 45 less games than Tatum as an example.  Do you not think injuries affect a player's development, especially early on in their careers?

You honestly believe Parker is a terrible defensive player (and expresses public interest in not playing it) because he got injured? Respectfully, that just doesn't make any sense.

Also, you have to be one of the only people in the world right now that doesn't consider Wiggins a huge bust. From the Ringer "To explain to his followers just how talented Wiggins was, veteran college basketball analyst Jeff Goodman claimed Wiggins would have been the no. 1 player in the vaunted 2007 high school class that included Derrick Rose, Michael Beasley, Kevin Love, Blake Griffin, Eric Gordon, and O.J. Mayo." Your comment that any team would take Wiggins is one of the more ill-advised comments I have seen you make. You realize that Wiggins is shooting 39% from the field to get his 19 points and taking over 16 shots a game?

To put this in perspective "Wiggins’s sudden inability to convert 2-point field goals isn’t just bad, it’s on the edge of history. Among qualifying players, Wiggins’s 2-point field goal percentage thus far this season ranks among the 150 worst figures ever, which doesn’t sound too horrific until you consider that only seven of those performances occurred after 1975. "

Not only would I argue that not every team would want those numbers, I would argue that very teams would actually allow those numbers to even happen on their squad. It is downright awful.

I gotta ask man, where do you come up with some of stuff you post? I see you making some very well informed arguments sometimes where you use advanced statistics and data. Then other times you get in an argument, dig in on the argument, and post something I may have said when I was 12 and looked at stats on the back of a basketball card and saw a guy score 19 points a game (World B Free is incredible!). What is the deal with that?
I never claimed Parker was a great defender and he was never projected as one, but in his 3rd year as a 21 year old he was averaging 20/6/3 and shooting the ball pretty efficiently.  Had he not gotten hurt again, it would be reasonable to expect him to be at least that level of player.  If he is doing that offensively you can overlook some poor defense.  Heck look at all the Irving threads based on a very similar premise i.e. you overlook his poor defense because of what he brings offensively.  Now obviously I'm not comparing the style of play between Parker and Irving, but their overall impact on the floor.  Parker's career is much much different if he doesn't get hurt.  The loss of athleticism, speed, quickness, and power killed his game and he is a shell of himself. 

I think every team in the league would find a role for Wiggins and would be happy to take him.  Not at the max level contract he has, but he would absolutely be at worst a rotation player on every team in the league.  Wiggins has already had 2, 20 point seasons, other than Irving, Boston has 1 20 point season from the entire rest of the roster (Hayward's last year in Utah).  Now clearly Wiggins has regressed since his peak, but Minnesota has been a complete and utter disaster the last 2 seasons, so I'm not sure how much of that is really Wiggins fault and how much of that is the mess of a front office and coaching staff.   Wiggins is a poor defender, but he has potential there, as well as offensively (which he has shown already).  He just needs to get out of Minnesota because he quite simply isn't a good fit with the rest of that roster as he is at his best when he the offense moves through him and he can get to the hole and score inside (his FTr was very good to elite his first 3 years and has been mediocre since).  Thibs roster moves really has hamstrung Wiggins development and growth and really made him less effective. Sometimes players are just better with a bigger role (see Rozier when he starts vs. when he comes off the bench).
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Are Barrett and Williamson better prospects than Tatum?
« Reply #52 on: March 05, 2019, 03:55:13 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
So many can’t miss prospects don’t pan out. Look at the 76ers. Okafor, fultz and noel. If noel was not hurt he would have been number 1 pick.
No one said Noel was a can't miss prospect.  The general thought on him was that he would be a superb defender, but his offense was always going to struggle.  He was also hurt so you really don't know what might have been but for the injuries.  And just because someone goes or might go #1 doesn't mean he was a can't miss prospect.  All drafts are not created equal.   As for Fultz, he is hurt and basically has been his entire career.  33 games in his first 2 seasons isn't exactly a lot of game action.  Who knows what might have been had he not injured his shoulder.  Okafor didn't pan out and he was pretty heavily hyped entering the draft, but he is definitely the exception not the rule.

It is certainly more common than you are making it out to be, and you seem to have an excuse for every guy that doesn't make it. Jabari Parker was a can't miss and he is certainly a bust. Yet, the reason he is a bust doesn't seem to be the knee injuries you mentioned. It is that is absolutely abysmal at defense and never had any interest in improving his. he has even publicly commented on this. Is your belief that his knee injuries hurt his brain and made him not want to play defense?

 Andrew Wiggins was also a can't miss prospect with a whole year long talk of teams "riggin for wiggins." Obviously he is also a huge bust. Also, believe it or not Lonzo Ball was considered a superstar prospect by Chad Ford, in the same category as Fultz. Maybe Ford isn't your cup of tea, I think his tiers are a bit silly, but everyone seems to cite them here and they have very few people put in that category.

Then of course there is Okafor. No way to try to spin this, there have been plenty of guys that have been labeled as future superstars by Ford that just haven't panned out.
Parker basically entered the league injured playing just 25 games as a rookie, got better across the board and played 76 games in year 2, in year 3 when he was still just 21 he was basically averaging 20/6/3 with a steal and a 56.3 TS% (36.5% from 3).  He played just 51 games because he sadly got hurt again and has never the same.  Seems strange that you don't think the injuries altered his career. 

Wiggins has a career average of 19.4 ppg with 4.2 rpg and 2.1 apg.  I have hard time calling those stats a bust even though he has seemingly regressed a bit as the talent around him has gotten better.  While he clearly isn't a franchise level talent, if he continues to put up stats like that he will have a very long career and any team would gladly take those numbers.

Ball is currently hurt after spending a bunch of his rookie year injured.  He has already played 45 less games than Tatum as an example.  Do you not think injuries affect a player's development, especially early on in their careers?

You honestly believe Parker is a terrible defensive player (and expresses public interest in not playing it) because he got injured? Respectfully, that just doesn't make any sense.

Also, you have to be one of the only people in the world right now that doesn't consider Wiggins a huge bust. From the Ringer "To explain to his followers just how talented Wiggins was, veteran college basketball analyst Jeff Goodman claimed Wiggins would have been the no. 1 player in the vaunted 2007 high school class that included Derrick Rose, Michael Beasley, Kevin Love, Blake Griffin, Eric Gordon, and O.J. Mayo." Your comment that any team would take Wiggins is one of the more ill-advised comments I have seen you make. You realize that Wiggins is shooting 39% from the field to get his 19 points and taking over 16 shots a game?

To put this in perspective "Wiggins’s sudden inability to convert 2-point field goals isn’t just bad, it’s on the edge of history. Among qualifying players, Wiggins’s 2-point field goal percentage thus far this season ranks among the 150 worst figures ever, which doesn’t sound too horrific until you consider that only seven of those performances occurred after 1975. "

Not only would I argue that not every team would want those numbers, I would argue that very teams would actually allow those numbers to even happen on their squad. It is downright awful.

I gotta ask man, where do you come up with some of stuff you post? I see you making some very well informed arguments sometimes where you use advanced statistics and data. Then other times you get in an argument, dig in on the argument, and post something I may have said when I was 12 and looked at stats on the back of a basketball card and saw a guy score 19 points a game (World B Free is incredible!). What is the deal with that?
I never claimed Parker was a great defender and he was never projected as one, but in his 3rd year as a 21 year old he was averaging 20/6/3 and shooting the ball pretty efficiently.  Had he not gotten hurt again, it would be reasonable to expect him to be at least that level of player.  If he is doing that offensively you can overlook some poor defense.  Heck look at all the Irving threads based on a very similar premise i.e. you overlook his poor defense because of what he brings offensively.  Now obviously I'm not comparing the style of play between Parker and Irving, but their overall impact on the floor.  Parker's career is much much different if he doesn't get hurt.  The loss of athleticism, speed, quickness, and power killed his game and he is a shell of himself. 

I think every team in the league would find a role for Wiggins and would be happy to take him.  Not at the max level contract he has, but he would absolutely be at worst a rotation player on every team in the league.  Wiggins has already had 2, 20 point seasons, other than Irving, Boston has 1 20 point season from the entire rest of the roster (Hayward's last year in Utah).  Now clearly Wiggins has regressed since his peak, but Minnesota has been a complete and utter disaster the last 2 seasons, so I'm not sure how much of that is really Wiggins fault and how much of that is the mess of a front office and coaching staff.   Wiggins is a poor defender, but he has potential there, as well as offensively (which he has shown already).  He just needs to get out of Minnesota because he quite simply isn't a good fit with the rest of that roster as he is at his best when he the offense moves through him and he can get to the hole and score inside (his FTr was very good to elite his first 3 years and has been mediocre since).  Thibs roster moves really has hamstrung Wiggins development and growth and really made him less effective. Sometimes players are just better with a bigger role (see Rozier when he starts vs. when he comes off the bench).

What team is running their offense through a guy having one of the 7 worst shooting seasons of the 45 years? He is a huge bust man. It’s nkt even debatable. They couldn’t measure heart at the combine