Sam Dekker comparisons

[Beat LA]

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?

I forgot to mention that.  He's played extremely well not just in the tournament not just in general, but against the teams with lottery talent on them.  Last night, especially.  It's not like he's Luke Babbitt, who dominated his conference, only to be shut down by a guy at Rhode Island who wasn't even drafted, lol. I still never understood why so many people compared that guy to Chris Mullin, but whatever.

[cometboy]

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.

I'm no genius mind you, but if he played in 62, 42 and 80 games in his first three years, that's not 86%. It's 75%. I'll leave it to someone else to decide if that makes a difference or not.

cb

[Eddie20]

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

When a comparison is used it means the said player's game is reminiscent of the one he's being compared with. It does not mean he will be better, worse, or the same.

Van Horn was the far superior college player player, no question. However, that might not necessarily mean his game will translate better on the next level. Dekker's style of play, is reminiscent of Van Horn's, but Dekker has a better ability to defend his position (SF) on the next level. Van Horn was sort of caught in no man's land because he didn't move as well laterally as Dekker and this caused him to struggle defending quick forwards.

[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.

I'm no genius mind you, but if he played in 62, 42 and 80 games in his first three years, that's not 86%. It's 75%. I'll leave it to someone else to decide if that makes a difference or not.

cb

1998-99 was a lockout year and was 50 games long.

[cometboy]

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.

I'm no genius mind you, but if he played in 62, 42 and 80 games in his first three years, that's not 86%. It's 75%. I'll leave it to someone else to decide if that makes a difference or not.

cb

1998-99 was a lockout year and was 50 games long.

Fair enough - I stand corrected - actually, sit corrected since I'm on my 3rd G&T

cb

[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.

I'm no genius mind you, but if he played in 62, 42 and 80 games in his first three years, that's not 86%. It's 75%. I'll leave it to someone else to decide if that makes a difference or not.

cb

1998-99 was a lockout year and was 50 games long.

Fair enough - I stand corrected - actually, sit corrected since I'm on my 3rd G&T

cb

Well then enjoy that G&T and a TP.

[cometboy]

thanks BB - I should have known better. You are a very meticulous poster.

cb

[truth4lyfe]

I see some Jeff Green as weird as that may sound. Good athlete but neither one is great laterally. Decent shooter with a suspect handle. Seems to disappear for stretches but can also dominate at times.

[byennie]

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

When a comparison is used it means the said player's game is reminiscent of the one he's being compared with. It does not mean he will be better, worse, or the same.

Van Horn was the far superior college player player, no question. However, that might not necessarily mean his game will translate better on the next level. Dekker's style of play, is reminiscent of Van Horn's, but Dekker has a better ability to defend his position (SF) on the next level. Van Horn was sort of caught in no man's land because he didn't move as well laterally as Dekker and this caused him to struggle defending quick forwards.

Let's not get pedantic about the definition of "comparable". In this context, it meant of similar/near/close talent level. I don't think they are close at the same stage in their careers, and people are way underselling the quality of Van Horn's career.

Dekker is maybe the 15th best prospect in this draft, with 3 years of college play that support the idea that he's not a lottery talent. To say he has a few big games and some defensive potential makes him a similar prospect to a guy who went #2 after Duncan and immediately stepped in as a 19-and-7 player is outlandish, IMO. He's not a defensive stopper by any means, just possibly decent at the NBA level. Van Horn would go top-5 in this draft based on his college career, even with the same defensive concerns.

[Evantime34]

I'm not sure about this comparison. They play different positions, have different strengths and weaknesses and are playing in a much different era.

Yes they are both tall white guys, but I don't really see the similarities in their games.

[saltlover]

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

Sure you can.  You oughtn't, but if you're posting 50+ times a day, who's got time to actually, you know, find out things before they post.

[greg683x]

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.

lol daaaaaaaaaaaamn

[blink]

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

Sure you can.  You oughtn't, but if you're posting 50+ times a day, who's got time to actually, you know, find out things before they post.

Well it isn't exactly the 1st time that it has happened, so...there is that.
tp!

[Boris Badenov]

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

Sure you can.  You oughtn't, but if you're posting 50+ times a day, who's got time to actually, you know, find out things before they post.

I stand corrected. TPs all around.

[tarheelsxxiii]

Easy hybrid of poor man's Keith Van Horn and Pee Wee Herman.