Chad Ford Mock 7.0 today Gordon and Porzingis

[NorthernLightning]

Claiming that any college player can ever amount to more than jack squat seems to be taboo around here. Because it hasn't happened yet and "I watched very little college ball but..." is the motto.

  There's a huge gulf between "more than jack squat" and "a better version of Scottie Pippen". You're doing one and claiming you're doing the other.

  Edit: take heart, though. If the Celts get him the number of "he could be the next Pippen" posters will skyrocket.

"a better version of Scottie Pippen". You're doing one and claiming you're doing the other."

You use quotes, and yet you misquote me. pretty slick.

  More like paraphrased you. Here's your quote:

"Gordon has a very real chance of being a dominant defender like a bigger and stronger Scottie Pippen".

Thanks for quoting me, as opposed to misquoting me.

[D.o.s.]

Claiming that any college player can ever amount to more than jack squat seems to be taboo around here. Because it hasn't happened yet and "I watched very little college ball but..." is the motto.

Pippen is obviously a best case scenario, but Gordon has just as much versatility as Pippen did, since Gordon is taller and stronger and will just keep getting stronger for years.

Look at today's biggest stars, most of them seem to be close to Gordon's size: Lebron, KD, Carmelo, PGeorge, Blake, Love, Aldridge, Wiggins, JParker, etc.

There is a much longer list of NBA players who did not pan out as well as they were expected to than those who exceeded expectations. The idea that its at all likely that Gordon will have an on-the-court career similar to Scottie is laughable, and not because we're all allergic to having high hopes for NBA prospects.


Also laughable: Wiggins and Jabari Parker are already NBA Stars.

[Evantime34]

Claiming that any college player can ever amount to more than jack squat seems to be taboo around here. Because it hasn't happened yet and "I watched very little college ball but..." is the motto.

Pippen is obviously a best case scenario, but Gordon has just as much versatility as Pippen did, since Gordon is taller and stronger and will just keep getting stronger for years.

Look at today's biggest stars, most of them seem to be close to Gordon's size: Lebron, KD, Carmelo, PGeorge, Blake, Love, Aldridge, Wiggins, JParker, etc.

There is a much longer list of NBA players who did not pan out as well as they were expected to than those who exceeded expectations. The idea that its at all likely that Gordon will have an on-the-court career similar to Scottie is laughable, and not because we're all allergic to having high hopes for NBA prospects.


Also laughable: Wiggins and Jabari Parker are already NBA Stars.

The draft is about projecting players. The attitude of laughing off every players ability to do things in the NBA until they actually do those things is counter to the idea of the draft.

I too prefer to trade for an established player like Love, but if we don't get him because another team did or because Minnesota wanted too much then it makes the most sense to use our 6th pick. If we are gong to use our 6th pick, then it makes sense for us as arm chair gms to projects what a player will be.

What is the point of laugh at comparisons of draft prospects? If you think it is ridiculous you are probably in the wrong thread.

[D.o.s.]

Its not the projection of players so much as the constant refusal to take into account things like context.

In every thread about Gordon, someone has brought up the fact that he's an awful shooter. Then NorthernLightning responds with '35% isn't awful'. Then someone points out what a small sample size that 35% is based on, then he proceeds to say that we don't know what we're talking about

Rinse, lather, repeat. It's not so much about his antagonistic attitude as much as the fact that he's clearly oblivious, to put it kindly, and that casts serious doubts in my mind (and others) as to the possible accuracy of any of his posts.

Especially when this was the poster who introduced his argumentative attitude to us by saying that we're downplaying players 'of European Descent' because they're white in a series of posts that eventually got scrubbed because, you know, it's completely and utterly incorrect, which seems to be the throughline of many of his posts.

[Evantime34]

Its not the projection of players so much as the constant refusal to take into account things like context.

In every thread about Gordon, someone has brought up the fact that he's an awful shooter. Then NorthernLightning responds with '35% isn't awful'. Then someone points out what a small sample size that 35% is based on, then he proceeds to say that we don't know what we're talking about

Rinse, lather, repeat. It's not so much about his antagonistic attitude as much as the fact that he's clearly oblivious, to put it kindly, and that casts serious doubts in my mind (and others) as to the possible accuracy of any of his posts.

Especially when this was the poster who introduced his argumentative attitude to us by saying that we're downplaying players 'of European Descent' because they're white in a series of posts that eventually got scrubbed because, you know, it's completely and utterly incorrect, which seems to be the throughline of many of his posts.

I understand that the way he is presenting his argument is causing you to discount whatever he is saying. But right now I am the one making the argument that I believe Gordon to be an elite defender.

The numbers of the players he guarded and his teams both in college and international play bears this out. He has a great assist to turnover numbers which project to him being a very good passer. He had the best rebounding numbers on his team despite playing on the wing for most of the season.

So far the evidence projects to him being a very good passer, rebounder, cutter and defender with superb athleticism. Dribbling is hard to quantify but I believe he can create for others in addition to that. The knock on his game is his shooting, but luckily for him historically shooting has been shown to be the most easily improvable skill amongst NBA players.

I think he will be able to learn to shoot well, but even if he can't I believe his elite athleticism will allow him to be elite at the 3 position in every facet of the game besides shooting, to me that makes him worthy of the 6th pick.

As far as his shot, it looks short, compact and easily repeatable. My only problem with it is that he shoots the ball pretty far in front of him, which won't lend itself to knocking down contested jumpers, but the look of his jump shot indicates to me he will eventually be able to knock down the open shot.

How I feel about his shot kind of mirrors what Austin Ainge said:

On Gordon's shot: ?He shoots threes. He shot some threes in college, just not a ton of them. It?s not a really difficult long shot for him, he just needs to make a few more. ... His mechanics are pretty good and I think that gives me hope. Pretty sound fundamentally.?

[BballTim]

Claiming that any college player can ever amount to more than jack squat seems to be taboo around here. Because it hasn't happened yet and "I watched very little college ball but..." is the motto.

  There's a huge gulf between "more than jack squat" and "a better version of Scottie Pippen". You're doing one and claiming you're doing the other.

  Edit: take heart, though. If the Celts get him the number of "he could be the next Pippen" posters will skyrocket.

"a better version of Scottie Pippen". You're doing one and claiming you're doing the other."

You use quotes, and yet you misquote me. pretty slick.

  More like paraphrased you. Here's your quote:

"Gordon has a very real chance of being a dominant defender like a bigger and stronger Scottie Pippen".

Thanks for quoting me, as opposed to misquoting me.

  Again, I was paraphrasing. Not to mention it was a much better representation of what you said than "more than jack squat".

[Donoghus]

Its not the projection of players so much as the constant refusal to take into account things like context.

In every thread about Gordon, someone has brought up the fact that he's an awful shooter. Then NorthernLightning responds with '35% isn't awful'. Then someone points out what a small sample size that 35% is based on, then he proceeds to say that we don't know what we're talking about

Rinse, lather, repeat. It's not so much about his antagonistic attitude as much as the fact that he's clearly oblivious, to put it kindly, and that casts serious doubts in my mind (and others) as to the possible accuracy of any of his posts.

Especially when this was the poster who introduced his argumentative attitude to us by saying that we're downplaying players 'of European Descent' because they're white in a series of posts that eventually got scrubbed because, you know, it's completely and utterly incorrect, which seems to be the throughline of many of his posts.

I understand that the way he is presenting his argument is causing you to discount whatever he is saying. But right now I am the one making the argument that I believe Gordon to be an elite defender.

The numbers of the players he guarded and his teams both in college and international play bears this out. He has a great assist to turnover numbers which project to him being a very good passer. He had the best rebounding numbers on his team despite playing on the wing for most of the season.

So far the evidence projects to him being a very good passer, rebounder, cutter and defender with superb athleticism. Dribbling is hard to quantify but I believe he can create for others in addition to that. The knock on his game is his shooting, but luckily for him historically shooting has been shown to be the most easily improvable skill amongst NBA players.

I think he will be able to learn to shoot well, but even if he can't I believe his elite athleticism will allow him to be elite at the 3 position in every facet of the game besides shooting, to me that makes him worthy of the 6th pick.

As far as his shot, it looks short, compact and easily repeatable. My only problem with it is that he shoots the ball pretty far in front of him, which won't lend itself to knocking down contested jumpers, but the look of his jump shot indicates to me he will eventually be able to knock down the open shot.

How I feel about his shot kind of mirrors what Austin Ainge said:

On Gordon's shot: ?He shoots threes. He shot some threes in college, just not a ton of them. It?s not a really difficult long shot for him, he just needs to make a few more. ... His mechanics are pretty good and I think that gives me hope. Pretty sound fundamentally.?

Mechanically, I'm inclined to agree with Austin Ainge.  Just from what I've seen, his form isn't too bad at all.  Looks relatively sound.  Nothing jumps out at me.

[BballTim]

Claiming that any college player can ever amount to more than jack squat seems to be taboo around here. Because it hasn't happened yet and "I watched very little college ball but..." is the motto.

Pippen is obviously a best case scenario, but Gordon has just as much versatility as Pippen did, since Gordon is taller and stronger and will just keep getting stronger for years.

Look at today's biggest stars, most of them seem to be close to Gordon's size: Lebron, KD, Carmelo, PGeorge, Blake, Love, Aldridge, Wiggins, JParker, etc.

There is a much longer list of NBA players who did not pan out as well as they were expected to than those who exceeded expectations. The idea that its at all likely that Gordon will have an on-the-court career similar to Scottie is laughable, and not because we're all allergic to having high hopes for NBA prospects.


Also laughable: Wiggins and Jabari Parker are already NBA Stars.

The draft is about projecting players. The attitude of laughing off every players ability to do things in the NBA until they actually do those things is counter to the idea of the draft.

I too prefer to trade for an established player like Love, but if we don't get him because another team did or because Minnesota wanted too much then it makes the most sense to use our 6th pick. If we are gong to use our 6th pick, then it makes sense for us as arm chair gms to projects what a player will be.

What is the point of laugh at comparisons of draft prospects? If you think it is ridiculous you are probably in the wrong thread.

  Projecting players doesn't mean figuring out what their absolute ceiling is. It's about figuring out what kind of pros they're likely to be. Claiming that Gordon't extremely unlikely to be a Pippen level of defender is a reasonable stance to take in a thread like this.

[Evantime34]

Claiming that any college player can ever amount to more than jack squat seems to be taboo around here. Because it hasn't happened yet and "I watched very little college ball but..." is the motto.

Pippen is obviously a best case scenario, but Gordon has just as much versatility as Pippen did, since Gordon is taller and stronger and will just keep getting stronger for years.

Look at today's biggest stars, most of them seem to be close to Gordon's size: Lebron, KD, Carmelo, PGeorge, Blake, Love, Aldridge, Wiggins, JParker, etc.

There is a much longer list of NBA players who did not pan out as well as they were expected to than those who exceeded expectations. The idea that its at all likely that Gordon will have an on-the-court career similar to Scottie is laughable, and not because we're all allergic to having high hopes for NBA prospects.


Also laughable: Wiggins and Jabari Parker are already NBA Stars.

The draft is about projecting players. The attitude of laughing off every players ability to do things in the NBA until they actually do those things is counter to the idea of the draft.

I too prefer to trade for an established player like Love, but if we don't get him because another team did or because Minnesota wanted too much then it makes the most sense to use our 6th pick. If we are gong to use our 6th pick, then it makes sense for us as arm chair gms to projects what a player will be.

What is the point of laugh at comparisons of draft prospects? If you think it is ridiculous you are probably in the wrong thread.

  Projecting players doesn't mean figuring out what their absolute ceiling is. It's about figuring out what kind of pros they're likely to be. Claiming that Gordon't extremely unlikely to be a Pippen level of defender is a reasonable stance to take in a thread like this.

It's fine to claim, dismissing something as laughable is not.

The comparison in size, length and athleticism is what makes me like the comp, laughing it off because Gordon hasn't done it yet is not making a strong argument against.

[nickagneta]

Gordon is an elite level athlete. But he has only decent rebounding skills and only decent handles with a poor outside shot. And by poor I mean atrocious.

If he could ever get to the point of being able to hit 3 pointers at a 35% clip for 2-3 3PTA per game, find 3-4 spots on the floor where he can hit a 2 pt shot at a 50% rate, and shoot FTs at a 75% rate, there is no doubt the kid could have enormous upside.

But if he can't he will be a role player, plain and simple. That's my opinion and I think that's pretty well informed having watched Gordon about a half dozen times last year and read a lot on him and seen all the you tube and draft express vids posted on this site.

My opinion is, it would be just a lot harder for Gordon to become the shooter he has to to be a great player than a player like Vonleh, who is bigger and when he fills out will play a position of need for the Celtics, center, will be to learn a system and become a better all around defender when he isn't already an atrocious defender or lacking in defensive skills like NL is suggesting.

For that reason I would take Vonleh over Gordon.

Also, at a position of need is Marcus Smart who I think will become a premiere guard defender, has above average PG skills, a streaky ability to score from outside and who has a lot of D Wade in him. I would take Smart over Gordon.

I also have been a large advocate of Tyler Ennis and think he will be one of the very best players to come out of this draft once 5-6 years have passed. The kid has Westbrook size, a Rondo play making, running a team mentality and plus shooting and passing skills as well as an ability to play clutch in the toughest situations.

I also like Garry Harris and feel he could be a lot like Bradley Beal and that he has that type of upside.

Those are guys I have talked about, though maybe Harris less than the others, and have suggested that the C's go after those players.

But given my long standing dislike for young players, something that is well known on this site, I would absolutely rather trade both first rounders this year for an established star as I believe winning basketball starts with established, experienced stars that know how to play winning basketball.

All if this wouldn't be known by NL as instead of friendly discourse and conversation he instantly goes into swarmy, passive aggressive insulting mode and would rather take the conversation into an immature "My opinion is better than yours" direction rather than ask polite questions regarding why people might disagree with him and respectfully discussing the difference of opinions.

I disagree with you on these points:
1. Gordon has elite rebounding skills for his position. He lead his team in defensive rebounding percentage despite spending the majority of his time (before their PF got hurt) defending the wing. Being able to guard on the perimeter, close out on shots without fouling and then get the rebounds is some kind of feat.
2. I disagree about the handles but there really isn't a metric to prove you wrong.
3. His shot isn't great but 35% is more decent than atrocious. I think he will never be an elite shooter who can hit shots with a hand in his face but he will be able to knock down open shots at the NBA level and with everything else he brings to the game hitting open shots will be enough
4. Why does Gordon need to be a good shooter to be more than a role player? I think he will bring elite defense, rebounding, and shot creation from the 3 spot. I really like the Pippen comparison (look up Pippen's college numbers and he shot less than 10% in his first two years from 3)
5. I'm worried about Vonleh's athleticism. He tested very well at the combine but he didn't really show it that much in games.
6. Not an Ennis fan, I think he's solid and a good player to fit around elite talent to facilitate but I don't see him having the quickness to get to the hole in the NBA or defend elite pgs.
7. I like Harris but I don't think he can shoot quite as well as Beal nor does he have the size and I am warry of bringing in another combo guard onto the team.
8. I much prefer Love to making our 6th pick, I much prefer Asik to making our 17th pick, but other than Love I can't think of a guy on the market that I would trade our 6th for.

Here is a good post on Gordon http://deanondraft.com/type/aside/

Rebounding tends to translate in the NBA for the NCAA so elite NBA rebounders tend to have been elite NCAA rebounders. Good NBA rebounders, good NCAA rebounders and so forth. I don't consider 8 RPG elite for a SF. If he is only getting 6-8 RPG in the NBA people are not going to consider him an elite rebounder. I think we just have different ideas of what elite is and what good is. He will be a decent to good overall rebounder who will rebound very well for his position. Maybe that represents what I meant a bit more in rebounding.

When I say decent handles I mean for a guy his size he will have good handles but as an overall player his handles will be decent. He doesn't have Lebron handles. That's elite. I don't think he even has Blake Griffin handles which are extremely good for a big man and overall as a player very good. I think with faster more athletic competition his handles won't show off as well as the open court transition game he showed his handles off in in college.

He only shot 45 3 pointers to obtain that 35% three point percentage. A much higher sample size was his 2 point jump shots which he took at a 27.5% rate and all shots not a layup which he shot at a 29% rate. He shot free throws at a 42% rate. So outside of layups or plays at the rim he truly was an atrocious shooter. Shots that are that messed up tend not to get fixed easily if at all.

I think if you aren't going to be a good shooter and be limited offensively only the greatest of the greats turn out to be a Pippen or a Rodman or a Ben Wallace and so forth and are considered a great player. If you aren't one of those greats you tend to be role players like Bruce Bowen or Tony Allen or Shane Battier. And there's nothing wrong with being that good. I just think that's more realistic.

I think Vonleh's athleticism didn't show enough in college as compared to a combine because he is still slow to really learn the game and I think he sometimes can almost be seen being hesitant to make plays because he's thinking through things. I think the athleticism is there but he's going to need longer to learn and adapt. Probably a longer developmental curve.

We can agree to disagree on Ennis. I think the kid has Mike Conley type game and will reach that type of a ceiling. To me, that's a dang good player. Like the way he runs an offense and he tested very well at the combines on some of the speed drills(Like top 3-5 in a couple and top 7 in a few). I think with intelligence and size and good athleticism, he will develop well. The skills will translate, IMHO.

I thought Harris was 6'5" with an average reach and wingspan for a kid that size. Nothing wrong with that size for a shooting guard. I don't think he has to be considered a combo guard. More like a SG with a good handle and decent passing ability.

Love is what I was talking about. If others are available I am sure Ainge would be using the pick in a trade for quality talent.

TP for answering in a civilized manner as apposed to the manner another responded simply because of my use of the word atrocious.

[NorthernLightning]

Worth re-posting:

Asked to compare himself to an NBA model, Gordon says: "Scottie Griffin - a combination of Scottie Pippen and Blake Griffin. The defensive intensity of Pippen, and his ability to handle the ball. And I love Blake Griffin's athleticism."

[NorthernLightning]

He will be a decent to good overall rebounder who will rebound very well for his position. Maybe that represents what I meant a bit more in rebounding.

Yes, he will rebound very well for his position, which is a big upgrade from Jeff Green.

So outside of layups or plays at the rim he truly was an atrocious shooter.

You left out 3 pointers. Why? A lot of guys are better 3 point shooters than long two point shooters, because they practice that exact distance more and it is more deeply ingrained in their muscle memory.

I don't think Gordon has great natural touch, but he can practice specific long shots like squared up and open 3 pointers and should be able to put up a decent percentage, which is what he did in college on low volume.

Given that Gordon has emulated Pippen for at least two years, and given his solid ball handling and good passing, and solid 3 point %, it's likely that these are the skills that Gordon was working on most, at his young age.

If Gordon had been emulating Kevin McHale for the past two + years, we'd probably see more advanced post moves from him this year, and less polish on his ball handling and passing and 3 point %.

At just 18 years old, and already a heady player with glimpses of a rock solid point forward in the future, we should be pretty excited about his upside.

He might not ever master the mid-range pull up like Paul Pierce, or the 11 foot floater like Tony Parker, but we've seen plenty of players with mediocre shooting touch establish a solid corner 3 or even top of the key 3.

This is where the term 3 and D comes from. Most of the 3 and D guys are not great or even good mid-range jump shooters, but they work and work and work on their 3 pointer and they bury it deep in their muscle memory and put up solid %s and make a career of it.

But because Gordon brings those point forward foundational skills like ball handling, decision making, and passing vision, and most importantly his top notch athleticism, he can be much more than a 3 and D guy.

[BballTim]

Worth re-posting:

Asked to compare himself to an NBA model, Gordon says: "Scottie Griffin - a combination of Scottie Pippen and Blake Griffin. The defensive intensity of Pippen, and his ability to handle the ball. And I love Blake Griffin's athleticism."

  Why was it worth posting to begin with?

[Donoghus]

Worth re-posting:

Asked to compare himself to an NBA model, Gordon says: "Scottie Griffin - a combination of Scottie Pippen and Blake Griffin. The defensive intensity of Pippen, and his ability to handle the ball. And I love Blake Griffin's athleticism."

  Why was it worth posting to begin with?

Because confident talk counts for everything?

[BballTim]

Claiming that any college player can ever amount to more than jack squat seems to be taboo around here. Because it hasn't happened yet and "I watched very little college ball but..." is the motto.

Pippen is obviously a best case scenario, but Gordon has just as much versatility as Pippen did, since Gordon is taller and stronger and will just keep getting stronger for years.

Look at today's biggest stars, most of them seem to be close to Gordon's size: Lebron, KD, Carmelo, PGeorge, Blake, Love, Aldridge, Wiggins, JParker, etc.

There is a much longer list of NBA players who did not pan out as well as they were expected to than those who exceeded expectations. The idea that its at all likely that Gordon will have an on-the-court career similar to Scottie is laughable, and not because we're all allergic to having high hopes for NBA prospects.


Also laughable: Wiggins and Jabari Parker are already NBA Stars.

The draft is about projecting players. The attitude of laughing off every players ability to do things in the NBA until they actually do those things is counter to the idea of the draft.

I too prefer to trade for an established player like Love, but if we don't get him because another team did or because Minnesota wanted too much then it makes the most sense to use our 6th pick. If we are gong to use our 6th pick, then it makes sense for us as arm chair gms to projects what a player will be.

What is the point of laugh at comparisons of draft prospects? If you think it is ridiculous you are probably in the wrong thread.

  Projecting players doesn't mean figuring out what their absolute ceiling is. It's about figuring out what kind of pros they're likely to be. Claiming that Gordon't extremely unlikely to be a Pippen level of defender is a reasonable stance to take in a thread like this.

It's fine to claim, dismissing something as laughable is not.

The comparison in size, length and athleticism is what makes me like the comp, laughing it off because Gordon hasn't done it yet is not making a strong argument against.

  Is he the first player in the last 30 or so years to compare well to Pippen in terms of size, length and athleticism? Were other players that did all-time great defenders? If not, then explaining why he's more likely to succeed than other players with similar measurements would be a good argument.