Author Topic: Mudiay falls to 6 in latest cnnsi mock  (Read 6839 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Mudiay falls to 6 in latest cnnsi mock
« Reply #15 on: June 10, 2015, 03:30:53 PM »

Offline TA9

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2712
  • Tommy Points: 118
  • I Bleed Green
Sam Dekker is also falling, he was 10-15 on earlier mocks.

Sam Dekker's lack of ability to create with the ball and general lack of lateral quickness and athleticism concerns me.  Looks like he might be a bit too much of a tweener, and his outside shot isn't even very special.
Dekker is very athletic.  Not sure why you think he isn't.
A lot of people have been calling Dekker unathletic lately. It's due to the low score that he posted in the "standing vertical leap test" at the NBA Draft Combine (I think that he only managed 25" inches.)
Jack of all trades, master of none.

Re: Mudiay falls to 6 in latest cnnsi mock
« Reply #16 on: June 10, 2015, 03:32:34 PM »

Offline colincb

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5095
  • Tommy Points: 501
RJ Hunter keep going up as well.
I thought I was the only one interested in him. He can be a steal. He's a complete player with no flaws. He only need some muscles.


There's also few really good shooters in this draft and only Booker is ranked ahead of him. I'd be surprised if he didn't rise some.

Re: Mudiay falls to 6 in latest cnnsi mock
« Reply #17 on: June 10, 2015, 03:38:04 PM »

Offline loco_91

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2087
  • Tommy Points: 145
Mudiay at 6 isn't outrageous to me, I can see him falling below Winslow and WCS. But Booker at 8 and WCS at 12-- are you serious? Booker is a one-dimensional shooter with above-average height but below-average wingspan, quicks and athleticism for an NBA SG. And WCS at 12-- you're going to take Kaminsky, Booker, and Cameron Payne over a perennial DPOY candidate?!

Re: Mudiay falls to 6 in latest cnnsi mock
« Reply #18 on: June 10, 2015, 03:45:05 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
Looney is the last thing we need. I can't deal with another under sized power forward...
Interesting how much Oubre has fallen as SI projects him at #20, and I don't believe that Rondae Hollis Jefferson will fall all the way to #27 that's too low for him. And i doubt that Cliff Alexander will be drafted that high :o

We need upside, first and foremost.  He's got it.  Might be a top 10 talent at #16, if that's where the Celtics stay.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Mudiay falls to 6 in latest cnnsi mock
« Reply #19 on: June 10, 2015, 03:48:19 PM »

Online Smartacus

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2166
  • Tommy Points: 321
Mudiay at 6 isn't outrageous to me, I can see him falling below Winslow and WCS. But Booker at 8 and WCS at 12-- are you serious? Booker is a one-dimensional shooter with above-average height but below-average wingspan, quicks and athleticism for an NBA SG. And WCS at 12-- you're going to take Kaminsky, Booker, and Cameron Payne over a perennial DPOY candidate?!

How does a player with below average "quicks" test out #1 at the lane agility drills in the combine? Isn't that the very definition of above average quicks?

Re: Mudiay falls to 6 in latest cnnsi mock
« Reply #20 on: June 10, 2015, 03:55:27 PM »

Offline colincb

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5095
  • Tommy Points: 501
Booker had the fastest shuttle run and fastest lane agility score at the Combine, and has been shooting lights out in tryouts. Not many shooters in this draft and everyone needs one.

Re: Mudiay falls to 6 in latest cnnsi mock
« Reply #21 on: June 10, 2015, 04:16:23 PM »

Offline TA9

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2712
  • Tommy Points: 118
  • I Bleed Green
Looney is the last thing we need. I can't deal with another under sized power forward...
Interesting how much Oubre has fallen as SI projects him at #20, and I don't believe that Rondae Hollis Jefferson will fall all the way to #27 that's too low for him. And i doubt that Cliff Alexander will be drafted that high :o

We need upside, first and foremost.  He's got it.  Might be a top 10 talent at #16, if that's where the Celtics stay.
A lot of players in this draft in this draft has upside (Kelly Oubre for an example).
Sure Looney has a ton of upside but he could very well be a bust too (Which is what I think will be the outcome). I think that Looney is too big of a risk to be picked that early. But that's only my opinion.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2015, 04:32:30 PM by TA9 »
Jack of all trades, master of none.

Re: Mudiay falls to 6 in latest cnnsi mock
« Reply #22 on: June 10, 2015, 04:35:42 PM »

Offline loco_91

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2087
  • Tommy Points: 145
Mudiay at 6 isn't outrageous to me, I can see him falling below Winslow and WCS. But Booker at 8 and WCS at 12-- are you serious? Booker is a one-dimensional shooter with above-average height but below-average wingspan, quicks and athleticism for an NBA SG. And WCS at 12-- you're going to take Kaminsky, Booker, and Cameron Payne over a perennial DPOY candidate?!

How does a player with below average "quicks" test out #1 at the lane agility drills in the combine? Isn't that the very definition of above average quicks?
You might be right that he has above-average quicks, and it's an exaggeration to call Booker a one-dimensional shooter-- I should really call him a multi-dimensional shooter, as he can run off screens, attack closeouts, and make plays off the ball. However, I wouldn't get too excited about the combine stats. For example Doug McDermott posted a 3' vert last year, and he has been hopelessly physically outmatched in the NBA. Booker isn't nearly as unathletic as McDermott, but the fact is that he had .4 steals, .1 blocks and 2 boards per game in 21.5 minutes, so he wouldn't be any type of prospect if he were merely an above-average shooter. There a case for him to go mid-first, but no case for #8.

Re: Mudiay falls to 6 in latest cnnsi mock
« Reply #23 on: June 11, 2015, 11:41:58 AM »

Online slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32316
  • Tommy Points: 10098
Looney is the last thing we need. I can't deal with another under sized power forward...
Interesting how much Oubre has fallen as SI projects him at #20, and I don't believe that Rondae Hollis Jefferson will fall all the way to #27 that's too low for him. And i doubt that Cliff Alexander will be drafted that high :o

We need upside, first and foremost.  He's got it.  Might be a top 10 talent at #16, if that's where the Celtics stay.
Wasn't that the reasoning behind Danny drafting Fab?  I'd rather take someone who's more likely to be a productive player than swing and miss on someone with a lot of questions surrounding them. 

If Danny took another swing-for-the-fences guy at 16 and missed, he'd get crucified here.  People are still Monday-morning-quarterbacking his picks of JJJ, Giddens and Fab at much lower draft positions in drafts that were much more of a crapshoot at where he was drafting.

Re: Mudiay falls to 6 in latest cnnsi mock
« Reply #24 on: June 11, 2015, 12:12:20 PM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065
Is it just me, or is there more movement this year in where people are getting slotted, even this close to the draft?

Re: Mudiay falls to 6 in latest cnnsi mock
« Reply #25 on: June 11, 2015, 12:26:35 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
Looney is the last thing we need. I can't deal with another under sized power forward...
Interesting how much Oubre has fallen as SI projects him at #20, and I don't believe that Rondae Hollis Jefferson will fall all the way to #27 that's too low for him. And i doubt that Cliff Alexander will be drafted that high :o

We need upside, first and foremost.  He's got it.  Might be a top 10 talent at #16, if that's where the Celtics stay.

Wasn't that the reasoning behind Danny drafting Fab?  I'd rather take someone who's more likely to be a productive player than swing and miss on someone with a lot of questions surrounding them. 

Sure, I guess you could say it was the reasoning there.  But Fab had a very high likelihood of not working out and a very low likelihood of becoming something.

I don't think you can say the same thing with Looney.


Going for the "safe" pick is what motivates taking somebody like Olynyk instead of going for a prospect like Giannis, Schroder, or Gobert.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Mudiay falls to 6 in latest cnnsi mock
« Reply #26 on: June 11, 2015, 01:07:17 PM »

Offline Tr1boy

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27260
  • Tommy Points: 867
Issue with Mudiay is that he is a streaky shooter at best.

Re: Mudiay falls to 6 in latest cnnsi mock
« Reply #27 on: June 11, 2015, 01:14:29 PM »

Offline colincb

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5095
  • Tommy Points: 501
Last night I put together a spreadsheet of many drafts, and this draft stood out as being pretty different than the others (Basketball insiders, Draft Express, Chad ford, etc.)

Mudiay isn't really falling because he's in contention at 3 where Russell is supposedly their choice, 4 because the Knicks are one of the teams like the Cs that nobody knows what they're going to do, and 6 SAC.  ORL at 5 has Payton, and Kyler who's tied in there says they're not drafting guards. Mudiay has just started working out after unwisely skipping the Combine and supposedly is very impressive so we'll see whether he can get back above Russell with Philly.

Otherwise, no one else has WCS, Dekker, and Rondae Hollis-Jefferson going that low or RJ Hunter getting into the teens and Alexander and Mickey getting into the first round. Possible that it plays out that way, but I'd trust DX and Ford over Mannix when it comes to showing up at workouts and talking to NBA scouts/execs. This looks more like winging it a bit.

I do think WCS could fall because there are a lot of teams that need specific needs and don't need a center (DET, CHA, MIA), several teams that could go in any direction, and SAC and DEN which have a mess in the front offices. Booker OTOH could go as high as 8 or 9 as DET and CHA need outside shooting and this is not a strong draft for that.

Names popular for BOS at 16 are Portis, Lyles, and Dekker. No one else had Looney there. However, many think we going to move up. 

There were 24 players who were first rounders in every mock. So when we get to #28 we're out of luck unless there's a slider or we move up. We show up with Christian Wood or Chris McCullough in several drafts each, both who are projects with big upside. There are also any number of foreign players who start coming into play in the late first round and mocks had us taking Vezenkov, Gauditus, and De Paula there or in the early second round.

Lastly, I tried putting together trading partners just using this year's picks  and future second rounders only (no future firsts, no players) using the pick valuation model from Tankathon/82games. Practically we can't get into the top 5, SAC and DEN at 6&7 seem unlikely because they need to both make a splash giving the nonsense going on in their front offices and DET and CHA really need shooters which we don't have and are not going to be available at 16. 

So I ended up with MIA and IND as being viable and achievable. MIA has starters though they could upgrade PF. Their bench is a big problem and we could give them a lot of picks to help that for the 10th. IND needs a PG but one of Payne or Grant would be available at 16 and they'd get other picks like 28 to get developmental bigs to replace Hibbert and West going forward. Both deals appear to be doable without doing much more than combining excess picks along with this year's firsts. I'd still like to keep the 33rd though to take a flyer on the best stash foreign player available and that would be doable in putting together trades like these. I know someone will come forth with the CHI-DEN trade from last year, but last year's draft was a little deeper in the second tier and CHI overpaid.

Re: Mudiay falls to 6 in latest cnnsi mock
« Reply #28 on: June 11, 2015, 01:18:11 PM »

Offline TheFlex

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2791
  • Tommy Points: 367
Looney is the last thing we need. I can't deal with another under sized power forward...
Interesting how much Oubre has fallen as SI projects him at #20, and I don't believe that Rondae Hollis Jefferson will fall all the way to #27 that's too low for him. And i doubt that Cliff Alexander will be drafted that high :o

We need upside, first and foremost.  He's got it.  Might be a top 10 talent at #16, if that's where the Celtics stay.
A lot of players in this draft in this draft has upside (Kelly Oubre for an example).
Sure Looney has a ton of upside but he could very well be a bust too (Which is what I think will be the outcome). I think that Looney is too big of a risk to be picked that early. But that's only my opinion.

If he had a high floor and a high ceiling he wouldn't be available to us at 16.

These are the guys we're  going to have to look at if we keep our picks. Gonna have to take some risks.


Draft: 8 first rounders in next 5 years.

Cap space: $24 mil.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dkcleague/

Re: Mudiay falls to 6 in latest cnnsi mock
« Reply #29 on: June 11, 2015, 01:20:47 PM »

Offline BDeCosta26

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1314
  • Tommy Points: 232
Looney is the last thing we need. I can't deal with another under sized power forward...
Interesting how much Oubre has fallen as SI projects him at #20, and I don't believe that Rondae Hollis Jefferson will fall all the way to #27 that's too low for him. And i doubt that Cliff Alexander will be drafted that high :o

We need upside, first and foremost.  He's got it.  Might be a top 10 talent at #16, if that's where the Celtics stay.
Wasn't that the reasoning behind Danny drafting Fab?  I'd rather take someone who's more likely to be a productive player than swing and miss on someone with a lot of questions surrounding them. 

If Danny took another swing-for-the-fences guy at 16 and missed, he'd get crucified here.  People are still Monday-morning-quarterbacking his picks of JJJ, Giddens and Fab at much lower draft positions in drafts that were much more of a crapshoot at where he was drafting.

I don't get it either. I guess it's trying to say "We don't have a star or stars yet, so we need to find one". But even a guy like Giannis isn't a real STAR. Finding true stars that late in the draft is a total crapshoot, and even those "high-upside" picks aren't always the ones who turn into stars. Butler wasn't one of those kind of guys, neither was Draymond Green.

Drafting players you feel very confident are going to be productive is the smarter choice, especially when your rebuilding a team because not only is it a safer bet but two or three years down the line a young, productive player is worth much more than a guy who's clearly struggling to make the roster. Fab Melo had ZERO value by his 3rd season. Sullinger, who was drafted right before, has real value.