Sam Dekker comparisons

[GratefulCs]

to other white players?

I think the answer is pretty obvious..

[Tr1boy]

Van Horn was on another level as a college player. He was bigger and stronger than Dekker, and just as athletic (if not more). Much better at taking the ball to the basket.

I mean, Dekker is having a decent year but until recently he was a late first round pick in a decent draft. He might end up going in the 10-15 range though that's nowhere a given.

Van Horn was the #2 pick behind only Duncan in the same draft that yielded Billups, McGrady etc. Injuries slowed him down but he was a 20ppg scorer from his first day in the NBA. If GMs thought Dekker was that good he'd be a lock for the top 5.

Let's not let the projections run too far ahead of reality. It's just setting up for disappointment.

Van horne was not worthy of being picked number 2.

He was a tweener in the worse way. Dekker is a sf able to play some pf. Better defender  also

You are wrong. He was the consensus no.2 pick in the draft. He was a great college player, with length, shooting skill.  Just did not do well as a pro.  But he certainly was worthy at the time of being 2nd pick.

A gms job is not to draft a guy that is an elite college player but skills/tools may translate poorly at the nba level.   So Van Horne being chosen #2 + the career he had in the nba was not the best move. 

KVH was not physical enough to battle pfs not quick/athletic enough to go against good sfs.  Not a deadly shooter.  Not a versatile defender.   Another example is Tyler Hansborough. For the type of college career he had, he should of gone in the top 5. Instead got chosen much later which was the right move

Dekker IMO will be better at the NBA level than either of these two guys.

[Mencius]

to other white players?

I think the answer is pretty obvious..

Because whites are more similar athletically to other whites than they are to blacks as a general rule.

[Boris Badenov]

Van Horn was on another level as a college player. He was bigger and stronger than Dekker, and just as athletic (if not more). Much better at taking the ball to the basket.

I mean, Dekker is having a decent year but until recently he was a late first round pick in a decent draft. He might end up going in the 10-15 range though that's nowhere a given.

Van Horn was the #2 pick behind only Duncan in the same draft that yielded Billups, McGrady etc. Injuries slowed him down but he was a 20ppg scorer from his first day in the NBA. If GMs thought Dekker was that good he'd be a lock for the top 5.

Let's not let the projections run too far ahead of reality. It's just setting up for disappointment.

Van horne was not worthy of being picked number 2.

He was a tweener in the worse way. Dekker is a sf able to play some pf. Better defender  also

You are wrong. He was the consensus no.2 pick in the draft. He was a great college player, with length, shooting skill.  Just did not do well as a pro.  But he certainly was worthy at the time of being 2nd pick.

A gms job is not to draft a guy that is an elite college player but skills/tools may translate poorly at the nba level.   So Van Horne being chosen #2 + the career he had in the nba was not the best move. 

KVH was not physical enough to battle pfs not quick/athletic enough to go against good sfs.  Not a deadly shooter.  Not a versatile defender.   Another example is Tyler Hansborough. For the type of college career he had, he should of gone in the top 5. Instead got chosen much later which was the right move

Dekker IMO will be better at the NBA level than either of these two guys.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Van Horn averaged 20ppg in his first three years. He was a 20ppg scorer in the NBA the second he stepped on the court, and by his third year was averaging 8.5 rpg and 2.0 apg and getting All Star consideration. He ended up declining after that due in part to injuries but to argue that his skills didn't "translate" is absurdly ill-informed even by your standards.

What would "translating" have meant exactly? 30ppg? In fact scoring 20ppg in college and then doing it again as soon as you enter the league is the definition of "translating."

If any of the informed parties involved (GMs for example, as opposed to people whose knowledge of NBA history doesn't extend further back than yesterday's YouTube highlights) thought Sam Dekker would average 20ppg in his first three years in the NBA, he'd be going in the top 5. But he's not.

[Tr1boy]

Van Horn was on another level as a college player. He was bigger and stronger than Dekker, and just as athletic (if not more). Much better at taking the ball to the basket.

I mean, Dekker is having a decent year but until recently he was a late first round pick in a decent draft. He might end up going in the 10-15 range though that's nowhere a given.

Van Horn was the #2 pick behind only Duncan in the same draft that yielded Billups, McGrady etc. Injuries slowed him down but he was a 20ppg scorer from his first day in the NBA. If GMs thought Dekker was that good he'd be a lock for the top 5.

Let's not let the projections run too far ahead of reality. It's just setting up for disappointment.

Van horne was not worthy of being picked number 2.

He was a tweener in the worse way. Dekker is a sf able to play some pf. Better defender  also

You are wrong. He was the consensus no.2 pick in the draft. He was a great college player, with length, shooting skill.  Just did not do well as a pro.  But he certainly was worthy at the time of being 2nd pick.

A gms job is not to draft a guy that is an elite college player but skills/tools may translate poorly at the nba level.   So Van Horne being chosen #2 + the career he had in the nba was not the best move. 

KVH was not physical enough to battle pfs not quick/athletic enough to go against good sfs.  Not a deadly shooter.  Not a versatile defender.   Another example is Tyler Hansborough. For the type of college career he had, he should of gone in the top 5. Instead got chosen much later which was the right move

Dekker IMO will be better at the NBA level than either of these two guys.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Van Horn averaged 20ppg in his first three years. He was a 20ppg scorer in the NBA the second he stepped on the court, and by his third year was averaging 8.5 rpg and 2.0 apg and getting All Star consideration. He ended up declining after that due in part to injuries but to argue that his skills didn't "translate" is absurdly ill-informed even by your standards.

What would "translating" have meant exactly? 30ppg? In fact scoring 20ppg in college and then doing it again as soon as you enter the league is the definition of "translating."

If any of the informed parties involved (GMs for example, as opposed to people whose knowledge of NBA history doesn't extend further back than yesterday's YouTube highlights) thought Sam Dekker would average 20ppg in his first three years in the NBA, he'd be going in the top 5. But he's not.

What happened after his first three seasons in the NBA? The first two he didn't even play the whole year.  He had what 3 full seasons in his whole career

He was not particularly good at the defensive end.  Overpowered on alot of occasions.  The physicality of it all probably took a toll on his body.

He was not worthy of being a #2 overall pick but he was not a bad player. Just a tweener

Some ppl here are saying yeah right Dekker will be as good as KVH. Well i'm stating he will at least have a position in the nba. He will have size adv vs other sfs . Pretty skilled. Above avg versatile defender

[Boris Badenov]

Van Horn was on another level as a college player. He was bigger and stronger than Dekker, and just as athletic (if not more). Much better at taking the ball to the basket.

I mean, Dekker is having a decent year but until recently he was a late first round pick in a decent draft. He might end up going in the 10-15 range though that's nowhere a given.

Van Horn was the #2 pick behind only Duncan in the same draft that yielded Billups, McGrady etc. Injuries slowed him down but he was a 20ppg scorer from his first day in the NBA. If GMs thought Dekker was that good he'd be a lock for the top 5.

Let's not let the projections run too far ahead of reality. It's just setting up for disappointment.

Van horne was not worthy of being picked number 2.

He was a tweener in the worse way. Dekker is a sf able to play some pf. Better defender  also

You are wrong. He was the consensus no.2 pick in the draft. He was a great college player, with length, shooting skill.  Just did not do well as a pro.  But he certainly was worthy at the time of being 2nd pick.

A gms job is not to draft a guy that is an elite college player but skills/tools may translate poorly at the nba level.   So Van Horne being chosen #2 + the career he had in the nba was not the best move. 

KVH was not physical enough to battle pfs not quick/athletic enough to go against good sfs.  Not a deadly shooter.  Not a versatile defender.   Another example is Tyler Hansborough. For the type of college career he had, he should of gone in the top 5. Instead got chosen much later which was the right move

Dekker IMO will be better at the NBA level than either of these two guys.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Van Horn averaged 20ppg in his first three years. He was a 20ppg scorer in the NBA the second he stepped on the court, and by his third year was averaging 8.5 rpg and 2.0 apg and getting All Star consideration. He ended up declining after that due in part to injuries but to argue that his skills didn't "translate" is absurdly ill-informed even by your standards.

What would "translating" have meant exactly? 30ppg? In fact scoring 20ppg in college and then doing it again as soon as you enter the league is the definition of "translating."

If any of the informed parties involved (GMs for example, as opposed to people whose knowledge of NBA history doesn't extend further back than yesterday's YouTube highlights) thought Sam Dekker would average 20ppg in his first three years in the NBA, he'd be going in the top 5. But he's not.

What happened after his first three seasons in the NBA? The first two he didn't even play the whole year.  He had what 3 full seasons in his whole career

He was not particularly good at the defensive end.  Overpowered on alot of occasions.  The physicality of it all probably took a toll on his body.

He was not worthy of being a #2 overall pick but he was not a bad player. Just a tweener

Some ppl here are saying yeah right Dekker will be as good as KVH. Well i'm stating he will at least have a position in the nba. He will have size adv vs other sfs . Pretty skilled. Above avg versatile defender

Go ahead, change the subject and the goalposts, and try to back away from your earlier statements. What you wrote isn't going to change:

1. Van Horn's skills didn't "translate" even though he averaged 20ppg right off the bat. I asked if you have some definition of "translate" other than "apply in the NBA in short order." You didn't answer my question. Waiting...

2. I pointed out that Van Horn got hurt and that was a reason for his short career. You ignored that. You ask "what happened" after then - well, he got hurt. He retired at age 30.

3. You're on record as saying Dekker will be better than Van Horn. That will mean putting up numbers that in many ordinary years would win ROY (Van Horn actually got votes over Duncan who had one of the better rookie seasons ever). And, he'll be a clear All-Rookie 1st teamer and will average 20ppg in his first three years or do something similarly impressive. that's what being better than Van Horn would mean. You said it. Not me.

4. You haven't backed up any of your vague generalizations about Dekker vs. Van Horn. "Tweener," "skilled," etc....honestly. It's straight from the Skip Bayless school of player evaluation. As an example you said above that Dekker is an "SF who can play some PF" but call Van Horn - who was bigger and stronger - a "tweener." Mkay.

[Tr1boy]

Van Horn was on another level as a college player. He was bigger and stronger than Dekker, and just as athletic (if not more). Much better at taking the ball to the basket.

I mean, Dekker is having a decent year but until recently he was a late first round pick in a decent draft. He might end up going in the 10-15 range though that's nowhere a given.

Van Horn was the #2 pick behind only Duncan in the same draft that yielded Billups, McGrady etc. Injuries slowed him down but he was a 20ppg scorer from his first day in the NBA. If GMs thought Dekker was that good he'd be a lock for the top 5.

Let's not let the projections run too far ahead of reality. It's just setting up for disappointment.

Van horne was not worthy of being picked number 2.

He was a tweener in the worse way. Dekker is a sf able to play some pf. Better defender  also

You are wrong. He was the consensus no.2 pick in the draft. He was a great college player, with length, shooting skill.  Just did not do well as a pro.  But he certainly was worthy at the time of being 2nd pick.

A gms job is not to draft a guy that is an elite college player but skills/tools may translate poorly at the nba level.   So Van Horne being chosen #2 + the career he had in the nba was not the best move. 

KVH was not physical enough to battle pfs not quick/athletic enough to go against good sfs.  Not a deadly shooter.  Not a versatile defender.   Another example is Tyler Hansborough. For the type of college career he had, he should of gone in the top 5. Instead got chosen much later which was the right move

Dekker IMO will be better at the NBA level than either of these two guys.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Van Horn averaged 20ppg in his first three years. He was a 20ppg scorer in the NBA the second he stepped on the court, and by his third year was averaging 8.5 rpg and 2.0 apg and getting All Star consideration. He ended up declining after that due in part to injuries but to argue that his skills didn't "translate" is absurdly ill-informed even by your standards.

What would "translating" have meant exactly? 30ppg? In fact scoring 20ppg in college and then doing it again as soon as you enter the league is the definition of "translating."

If any of the informed parties involved (GMs for example, as opposed to people whose knowledge of NBA history doesn't extend further back than yesterday's YouTube highlights) thought Sam Dekker would average 20ppg in his first three years in the NBA, he'd be going in the top 5. But he's not.

What happened after his first three seasons in the NBA? The first two he didn't even play the whole year.  He had what 3 full seasons in his whole career

He was not particularly good at the defensive end.  Overpowered on alot of occasions.  The physicality of it all probably took a toll on his body.

He was not worthy of being a #2 overall pick but he was not a bad player. Just a tweener

Some ppl here are saying yeah right Dekker will be as good as KVH. Well i'm stating he will at least have a position in the nba. He will have size adv vs other sfs . Pretty skilled. Above avg versatile defender

Go ahead, change the subject and the goalposts, and try to back away from your earlier statements. What you wrote isn't going to change:

1. Van Horn's skills didn't "translate" even though he averaged 20ppg right off the bat. I asked if you have some definition of "translate" other than "apply in the NBA in short order." You didn't answer my question. Waiting...

2. I pointed out that Van Horn got hurt and that was a reason for his short career. You ignored that. You ask "what happened" after then - well, he got hurt. He retired at age 30.

3. You're on record as saying Dekker will be better than Van Horn. That will mean putting up numbers that in many ordinary years would win ROY (Van Horn actually got votes over Duncan who had one of the better rookie seasons ever). And, he'll be a clear All-Rookie 1st teamer and will average 20ppg in his first three years or do something similarly impressive. that's what being better than Van Horn would mean. You said it. Not me.

4. You haven't backed up any of your vague generalizations about Dekker vs. Van Horn. "Tweener," "skilled," etc....honestly. It's straight from the Skip Bayless school of player evaluation. As an example you said above that Dekker is an "SF who can play some PF" but call Van Horn - who was bigger and stronger - a "tweener." Mkay.

1. He avg close to 20ppg in a partial year.  Scoring points I'm sure you realize
by now does not mean everything. Does not mean your a great player.
What about defense?

2.  KVH got hurt bc he prob couldn't handle the the physicality of the nba  vs
other pfs.  He was bruised up.   Overextended himself trying to keep up with faster sfs
3. Dekker doesn't have to score the same amount of points to be better than KVH or have a better career.
He is already a better defender at the same age and will be a better defender in the nba.  He can score also if you haven't noticed
4.  Dekker is a SF that can play some/cover pfs. He is a very good one on one defender and versatile to guard sg/pfs temporarily.  Keith Van Horn was considered a PF that got
"beat up" on the defensive end, and could not guard quicker sfs.  A classic definition of a tweener is a guy that can't guard one position particularly well.   These kind of players can have advs on the offensive end but may have issues on the defensive end and overall be a liability (team defense)

[bknova]

Yeah, I think I'm the only one that made the Van Horn comparison and I think it's the player that he reminds me the most of. Size (both considered very big for the SF spot), athletic ability, ability to handle the ball, shooting range, versatility, and even little things like being a bit upright/stiff in the hips,

This was Van Horn at roughly the same age...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l98UCldvPU0

And then in the league, with good video on his underrated athletic ability

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fqoWAuhBF8

Nope. I too see Van Horn every time I see Dekker.  Only interested at the Clippers pick.

[footey]

Van Horn was on another level as a college player. He was bigger and stronger than Dekker, and just as athletic (if not more). Much better at taking the ball to the basket.

I mean, Dekker is having a decent year but until recently he was a late first round pick in a decent draft. He might end up going in the 10-15 range though that's nowhere a given.

Van Horn was the #2 pick behind only Duncan in the same draft that yielded Billups, McGrady etc. Injuries slowed him down but he was a 20ppg scorer from his first day in the NBA. If GMs thought Dekker was that good he'd be a lock for the top 5.

Let's not let the projections run too far ahead of reality. It's just setting up for disappointment.

Van horne was not worthy of being picked number 2.

He was a tweener in the worse way. Dekker is a sf able to play some pf. Better defender  also

You are wrong. He was the consensus no.2 pick in the draft. He was a great college player, with length, shooting skill.  Just did not do well as a pro.  But he certainly was worthy at the time of being 2nd pick.

A gms job is not to draft a guy that is an elite college player but skills/tools may translate poorly at the nba level.   So Van Horne being chosen #2 + the career he had in the nba was not the best move. 

KVH was not physical enough to battle pfs not quick/athletic enough to go against good sfs.  Not a deadly shooter.  Not a versatile defender.   Another example is Tyler Hansborough. For the type of college career he had, he should of gone in the top 5. Instead got chosen much later which was the right move

Dekker IMO will be better at the NBA level than either of these two guys.

You're playing a 20-20 hindsight game. You are ignoring fact that Van Horn was virtually everyone' s consensus #2 pick in that draft, if you followed NBA back then you would acknowledge that.  Regardless, your love affair with Dekker is misplaced. He is just not athletic enough to be a good pro.  His game is too clunky.  His handle is reckless, he will get stripped and blocked trying to pull that high dribble off in the NBA.  Huge mistake to even think of wasting a first round pick on him.  I wouldn't even use the Clip pick on him.  This is what happens when people start to watch college guys during the NCAA tournament. They form these strong judgments without sufficient data.

[Boris Badenov]

Go ahead, change the subject and the goalposts, and try to back away from your earlier statements. What you wrote isn't going to change:

1. Van Horn's skills didn't "translate" even though he averaged 20ppg right off the bat. I asked if you have some definition of "translate" other than "apply in the NBA in short order." You didn't answer my question. Waiting...

2. I pointed out that Van Horn got hurt and that was a reason for his short career. You ignored that. You ask "what happened" after then - well, he got hurt. He retired at age 30.

3. You're on record as saying Dekker will be better than Van Horn. That will mean putting up numbers that in many ordinary years would win ROY (Van Horn actually got votes over Duncan who had one of the better rookie seasons ever). And, he'll be a clear All-Rookie 1st teamer and will average 20ppg in his first three years or do something similarly impressive. that's what being better than Van Horn would mean. You said it. Not me.

4. You haven't backed up any of your vague generalizations about Dekker vs. Van Horn. "Tweener," "skilled," etc....honestly. It's straight from the Skip Bayless school of player evaluation. As an example you said above that Dekker is an "SF who can play some PF" but call Van Horn - who was bigger and stronger - a "tweener." Mkay.

1. He avg close to 20ppg in a partial year.

100% factually wrong. He played 62, 42 and 80 games in his first three years. He played in 86% of his team's games in his first three years, averaging 20ppg over that time period. How on earth is that "partial"?

You can't just make things up when the internet is out there, for anyone to verify that you're spouting nonsense.

2.  KVH got hurt bc he prob couldn't handle the the physicality of the nba  vs
other pfs.  He was bruised up.   Overextended himself trying to keep up with faster sfs

Any facts that would support this? Nope. Idle speculation with no support. Go on, tell us what you "prob" think happened. And how he "prob" got "overextended" and "bruised up." Classic.

And for the record Van Horn played almost exclusively at PF in those early years. The Nets started Jayson Williams at C, KVH at PF and Kendall Gill at SF.
 

3. Dekker doesn't have to score the same amount of points to be better than KVH or have a better career. He is already a better defender at the same age and will be a better defender in the nba.  He can score also if you haven't noticed.

Right. So you give me the benchmark for success if he's not going to average 20ppg and be a borderline All-Star. What will Dekker do? Any projections? How will it be better than Van Horn?

4.  Dekker is a SF that can play some/cover pfs. He is a very good one on one defender and versatile to guard sg/pfs temporarily.  Keith Van Horn was considered a PF that got
"beat up" on the defensive end, and could not guard quicker sfs.  A classic definition of a tweener is a guy that can't guard one position particularly well.   These kind of players can have advs on the offensive end but may have issues on the defensive end and overall be a liability (team defense)

I don't even know what you are trying to say here. Like I said, it's Skip Bayless-style evaluation. Vague generalities with no facts or even one link to one other person on planet earth who shares your opinions.

[byennie]

Anyone saying Dekker is a comparable prospect to Van Horn either wasn't around when he was drafted, or has a fuzzy memory.

Van Horn was consensus #2 after Duncan, who was a once-in-a-decade type prospect. He was an excellent pro before injuries derailed his career. 19-and-7 and then 22-and-8 in his first two years, and although he didn't win any championships, he did play a major role on some good teams including when the Nets went to the Finals in 2002.

I swear if you're drafted top-5 and don't have a HOF career, within 10 years you weren't that good.

COULD Dekker be a better player? Sure it's possible, but unlikely. And he's definitely nowhere close as a prospect at the same age.

[Celtics4ever]

Dekker may shoot up, the boards with his NCAA and someone may fall to us.

Why comparisons they are usually wrong, they are simply a tool for people to relate other players too that are too lazy to draw their own conclusions.

[Tr1boy]

Van Horn was on another level as a college player. He was bigger and stronger than Dekker, and just as athletic (if not more). Much better at taking the ball to the basket.

I mean, Dekker is having a decent year but until recently he was a late first round pick in a decent draft. He might end up going in the 10-15 range though that's nowhere a given.

Van Horn was the #2 pick behind only Duncan in the same draft that yielded Billups, McGrady etc. Injuries slowed him down but he was a 20ppg scorer from his first day in the NBA. If GMs thought Dekker was that good he'd be a lock for the top 5.

Let's not let the projections run too far ahead of reality. It's just setting up for disappointment.

Van horne was not worthy of being picked number 2.

He was a tweener in the worse way. Dekker is a sf able to play some pf. Better defender  also

You are wrong. He was the consensus no.2 pick in the draft. He was a great college player, with length, shooting skill.  Just did not do well as a pro.  But he certainly was worthy at the time of being 2nd pick.

A gms job is not to draft a guy that is an elite college player but skills/tools may translate poorly at the nba level.   So Van Horne being chosen #2 + the career he had in the nba was not the best move. 

KVH was not physical enough to battle pfs not quick/athletic enough to go against good sfs.  Not a deadly shooter.  Not a versatile defender.   Another example is Tyler Hansborough. For the type of college career he had, he should of gone in the top 5. Instead got chosen much later which was the right move

Dekker IMO will be better at the NBA level than either of these two guys.

You're playing a 20-20 hindsight game. You are ignoring fact that Van Horn was virtually everyone' s consensus #2 pick in that draft, if you followed NBA back then you would acknowledge that.  Regardless, your love affair with Dekker is misplaced. He is just not athletic enough to be a good pro.  His game is too clunky.  His handle is reckless, he will get stripped and blocked trying to pull that high dribble off in the NBA.  Huge mistake to even think of wasting a first round pick on him.  I wouldn't even use the Clip pick on him.  This is what happens when people start to watch college guys during the NCAA tournament. They form these strong judgments without sufficient data.

The tournament performance is the icing on the cake

The base is a player that is 6'9 with 6'10 wingspan (generous size for a SF), pretty good quickness/athleticism for size, good shooter (has improved on consistency) , versatile defender. 

He was a key performer (clutch 3) on a Wisconsin team (underdogs) that was able to beat the best team in the country.  He was also key vs Arizona also. Another clutch 3 late in the game

How can all of this not be considered impressive?   What is it you look for in a nice prospect?

[Beat LA]

A few places I read they compare Dekker to Sean Elliott and I really like that comparison.

I saw that, as well, but perhaps he's more like Detlef Schrempf, who was mentioned near the bottom of the first page of this thread.  The problem with comparing Dekker to Van Horn is that Dekker is a much better passer, or am I wrong about this, as well? 

Btw, since we're comparing white guys to other white guys, what about Mike Dunleavy Jr (even though Dekker actually has a post game)?  I especially liked his defense against a smaller and quicker player in Harrison last night (I just can't remember which one of the brothers it was). 

[Who]

Chandler Parsons was the comparison I've seen a lot over the last few days.