I'm calling it...our #3 draft pick for 2016. Buddy Hield. Boom.

[PhoSita]

No, it's really not.

I think people are more willing to overlook Hield's flaws, or questions implicated by the totality of his college career, because he was an awesome shooter who scored a lot of points in his last year. I think as fans we tend to be skeptical of white dudes that fit that profile because of the prominent examples of white guys that have underperformed. There's a skepticism there that doesn't seem to be evident when we are talking about a guy who looks more like the typical NBA star.


And beyond the appearance / name thing, I think there's a tendency to overlook the big picture with a prospect because you really want to believe in their potential.  To me this seems especially common with players who shoot really well and score a lot of points. The flaws of those players is easier to overlook at the time, then in retrospect we wonder how Doug McDermott could be drafted top ten.

[Boris Badenov]

Alright, Pho, it's time for answers.  The point of this exercise would be nice as well.

I just found the similarities in those scouting reports to the way people are advocating for Hield to be interesting.

I strongly suspect the opinions would be a bit different if his name were Brett McHield or Bogdan Heldovic and he looked a little different.

That Bogdan guy sounds intriguing. Next Giannis perhaps? Is there any grainy video of his minutes as water boy in the Indonesian C-league you can share?

[greece66]

Alright, Pho, it's time for answers.  The point of this exercise would be nice as well.

I just found the similarities in those scouting reports to the way people are advocating for Hield to be interesting.

I strongly suspect the opinions would be a bit different if his name were Brett McHield or Bogdan Heldovic and he looked a little different.

That Bogdan guy sounds intriguing. Next Giannis perhaps? Is there any grainy video of his minutes as water boy in the Indonesian C-league you can share?

Bogdan who?

I googled Bogdan Heldovic draft and the only result is this very thread 

[Celtics18]

No, it's really not.

I think people are more willing to overlook Hield's flaws, or questions implicated by the totality of his college career, because he was an awesome shooter who scored a lot of points in his last year. I think as fans we tend to be skeptical of white dudes that fit that profile because of the prominent examples of white guys that have underperformed. There's a skepticism there that doesn't seem to be evident when we are talking about a guy who looks more like the typical NBA star.


And beyond the appearance / name thing, I think there's a tendency to overlook the big picture with a prospect because you really want to believe in their potential.  To me this seems especially common with players who shoot really well and score a lot of points. The flaws of those players is easier to overlook at the time, then in retrospect we wonder how Doug McDermott could be drafted top ten.

OK. Thanks for the free psychoanalysis of my draft preferences.

[BitterJim]

Alright, Pho, it's time for answers.  The point of this exercise would be nice as well.

I just found the similarities in those scouting reports to the way people are advocating for Hield to be interesting.

I strongly suspect the opinions would be a bit different if his name were Brett McHield or Bogdan Heldovic and he looked a little different.

That Bogdan guy sounds intriguing. Next Giannis perhaps? Is there any grainy video of his minutes as water boy in the Indonesian C-league you can share?

Bogdan who?

I googled Bogdan Heldovic draft and the only result is this very thread 

I think it's a name Pho made up.  Boris was piggybacking off of it

[Ilikesports17]

Alright, Pho, it's time for answers.  The point of this exercise would be nice as well.

I just found the similarities in those scouting reports to the way people are advocating for Hield to be interesting.

I strongly suspect the opinions would be a bit different if his name were Brett McHield or Bogdan Heldovic and he looked a little different.

That Bogdan guy sounds intriguing. Next Giannis perhaps? Is there any grainy video of his minutes as water boy in the Indonesian C-league you can share?

Bogdan who?

I googled Bogdan Heldovic draft and the only result is this very thread 

I believe the point is that were Hield white, we would be much quicker to lump him in with other white 4 year sharpshooters

I think it's a name Pho made up.  Boris was piggybacking off of it

I think he's suggesting people would be quicker to lump Buddy in with other 4 year white dudes with lacking athleticism who could shoot 3s if he was white.

[Celtics18]

Ironically, when I first heard the name Buddy Hield during the early part of the recent NCAA season, I figured he was probably white.  I hadn't actually seen him yet, but kept hearing all the hype.

"Buddy Hield from Oklahoma"?  It sounded like such a good ole boy, white Southern name to me.

[LarBrd33]

I wish I could take away the TP I just gave you.  Why be so stinking coy?!!

Do we have to guess?  OK . . . McDermott? . . . Redick?

Now, will you tell us?

LOL.

You got 2/3.

Try to guess the third.

Adam Morrison?

You got it. TP

Tp to pho.  That was hilarious.

[wiley]

No, it's really not.

I think people are more willing to overlook Hield's flaws, or questions implicated by the totality of his college career, because he was an awesome shooter who scored a lot of points in his last year. I think as fans we tend to be skeptical of white dudes that fit that profile because of the prominent examples of white guys that have underperformed. There's a skepticism there that doesn't seem to be evident when we are talking about a guy who looks more like the typical NBA star.


And beyond the appearance / name thing, I think there's a tendency to overlook the big picture with a prospect because you really want to believe in their potential.  To me this seems especially common with players who shoot really well and score a lot of points. The flaws of those players is easier to overlook at the time, then in retrospect we wonder how Doug McDermott could be drafted top ten.

None of the guys Buddy has been compared to in this thread have come close in accolades with regards to character and work ethic. No player in recent draft memory in fact is as highly touted in that regard.  KG level work ethic is rare.  High character is always great to have on one's team.

Of course, how much to ignore or include those intangibles in draft evaluations is another part of the process.  But Buddy praise is about more than just him having a nice senior year.  (so you don't think I'm a blind Buddy lover...I've got Murray one slot ahead of him...based more on what I see as future team need than anything else (I have zero clue who will be better in the NBA between Hield and Murray)

[gift]

No, it's really not.

I think people are more willing to overlook Hield's flaws, or questions implicated by the totality of his college career, because he was an awesome shooter who scored a lot of points in his last year. I think as fans we tend to be skeptical of white dudes that fit that profile because of the prominent examples of white guys that have underperformed. There's a skepticism there that doesn't seem to be evident when we are talking about a guy who looks more like the typical NBA star.


And beyond the appearance / name thing, I think there's a tendency to overlook the big picture with a prospect because you really want to believe in their potential.  To me this seems especially common with players who shoot really well and score a lot of points. The flaws of those players is easier to overlook at the time, then in retrospect we wonder how Doug McDermott could be drafted top ten.

Doesn't it matter how a guy shoots and scores a lot of points and not just whether or not he does? I haven't heard a ton of arguments from either pro-Buddy or anti-Buddy advocates that went too far beyond comparing him to other players. I don't know when a player comparison ever accurately predicted performance. Really bad players have been compared to great ones and marginal prospects have been compared to role players and gone on to become stars. Players of similar caliber have been compared to each other and still effectively fill out very different roles in the NBA. Comparisons are a bit lazy sometimes.

Why does no one talk about Buddy Hield's footwork? This is instrumental in a player's effectiveness.

[PaulP34]

Every single player coming into the NBA every year has flaws. Not one player is a perfect specimen. That being said, kids like Buddy Heild have a big role to fill. The pressure on these kids are outstanding. That's where you have to look deeper into this kids game, physical abilities and mental awareness. Scouts often have a lot of kids to study and often overlook certain aspects so that's where people like us as fans can see things in a kid scouts don't have time for. In Heilds case, he does have that IT factor about him. The silent stat everyone overlooks. When you see a kid who has the work ethic he does, the will to want to be great, that leadership he's got that elevates the players around him. Its not just his shooting that makes him a really solid prospect. There's so many other things I look for. And who ever drafts Buddy Heild is gonna have one heck of a player.

[LarBrd33]

Mike, your attack wasn't warranted.  I'm genuinely asking questions.  I freely admit to not watching College ball.

McDermott went 11th in a what was believed to be an epic draft 8 stars deep.   

Here is why every attack you get is deserved.

Drafted before McDermott in 2014...

10.  Elfrid Payton.
9.  Noah Vonleh.
8.  Nik Stauskus.
7.  Julius Randle.
6.  MARCUS SMART
5.  Dante Exum.
4.  Aaron Gordon.
3.  Joel Embiid.
2.  Jabari Parker.
1.  Andrew Wiggins.

2014 was a three star draft.  That's what everyone said at the time.  That's what everyone thinks now, unless Embiid can't ever play and then they think of it as a two star draft.  Aaron Gordon was not a star.  Dante Exum was intriguing but not a star.  You've spent the last two years constantly whining about Marcus Smart.  Julius Randle was not a star.  Nik Stauskus was surely not a star.  Some of these guy may turn out to be very, very good, even great players but NO ONE thought the 2014 draft was "epic" that went 8 stars deep.

You are just flat out making stuff up about a draft that only happened two years ago.  So, you're either trolling or you have some sort of a brain disorder.

Mike

While I don't think the name calling was necessary here, this is an accurate post.

There were only three guys in the 2014/15 draft that were being considered as star prospects - Wiggins, Parker and Embiid.

It's frankly extremely weird to me that you think his post was accurate.  It wasn't. At all.  Are you looking at the draft in retrospect or something?  His point was the furthest from the truth and it's extremely easy to prove him wrong.

Prior to the 2014 draft we were well aware it was an "epic" draft with multiple elite prospects.  Most thought it was 8 players deep - which is why I was driving the tank bandwagon that everyone eventually hopped onto.  It was the acknowledgement that while there were a few possible transcendent prospects, there were several others with star potential.  This is literally why a large bulk of this forum continues to think Marcus smart has star potential despite two mediocre seasons.  He was one of the 9 guys thought to have star potential.

This is backed up by Chad ford's pre-draft tier article.  As he said, there were a total of 9 prospects who were in the top two "tiers" (tier 1 reserved for players who are can't miss.  Tier 2 reserved for prospects who have star potential).   Per Ford's article, all 9 of those players would have been picked ahead of every single 2013 draft prospect (the top players in that class were only tier 3). 

So he's wrong.  Dead wrong.  And his attitude is shameful.  Accusing me of having brain damage because he himself doesn't remember facts correctly.   

My point is that we haven't yet had a conclusive read on this draft.  From what I understand, Simmons might be considered a tier 1 project.  Ingram is probably a tier 2 prospect.  The rest of them are tier 3 at best.    If buddy hield is considered a tier 3 prospect as I expect, that puts him on a par with Nik stauskas, Doug McDermott and the best of the 2013 draft class.   Those prospects project as starters.  It's nothing to sneeze at.  And like I said, Doug is proving to be an NBA player - I'm sure we could use someone with his shooting ability.   

It's pretty clear from this thread though that folks are super defensive of Hield as if he's the next Celtic superstar and can't fathom he might be a Doug McDermott level prospect.   I'd understand this more if hield was wearing Celtic green, but he's not.  Most mocks I see have him going 6th or 7th.  I wonder if these folks will remain this defensive of hield if he ends up putting up mediocre rookie stats on the 76ers next season.

[MBunge]

I think people are more willing to overlook Hield's flaws

I don't think people are overlooking Hield's flaws.  That is what is happening with Simmons, Ingram and Murray.  Simmons can't shoot a lick.  Ingram could probably get pushed around on court by most of the people who post here.  Murray is no better an athlete than Hield.

Mike

[Celtics18]

Mike, your attack wasn't warranted.  I'm genuinely asking questions.  I freely admit to not watching College ball.

McDermott went 11th in a what was believed to be an epic draft 8 stars deep.   

Here is why every attack you get is deserved.

Drafted before McDermott in 2014...

10.  Elfrid Payton.
9.  Noah Vonleh.
8.  Nik Stauskus.
7.  Julius Randle.
6.  MARCUS SMART
5.  Dante Exum.
4.  Aaron Gordon.
3.  Joel Embiid.
2.  Jabari Parker.
1.  Andrew Wiggins.

2014 was a three star draft.  That's what everyone said at the time.  That's what everyone thinks now, unless Embiid can't ever play and then they think of it as a two star draft.  Aaron Gordon was not a star.  Dante Exum was intriguing but not a star.  You've spent the last two years constantly whining about Marcus Smart.  Julius Randle was not a star.  Nik Stauskus was surely not a star.  Some of these guy may turn out to be very, very good, even great players but NO ONE thought the 2014 draft was "epic" that went 8 stars deep.

You are just flat out making stuff up about a draft that only happened two years ago.  So, you're either trolling or you have some sort of a brain disorder.

Mike

While I don't think the name calling was necessary here, this is an accurate post.

There were only three guys in the 2014/15 draft that were being considered as star prospects - Wiggins, Parker and Embiid.

It's frankly extremely weird to me that you think his post was accurate.  It wasn't. At all.  Are you looking at the draft in retrospect or something?  His point was the furthest from the truth and it's extremely easy to prove him wrong.

Prior to the 2014 draft we were well aware it was an "epic" draft with multiple elite prospects.  Most thought it was 8 players deep - which is why I was driving the tank bandwagon that everyone eventually hopped onto.  It was the acknowledgement that while there were a few possible transcendent prospects, there were several others with star potential.

This is backed up by Chad ford's pre-draft tier article.  As he said, there were a total of 9 prospects who were in the top two "tiers" (tier 1 reserved for players who are can't miss.  Tier 2 reserved for prospects who have star potential).   Per Ford's article, all 9 of those players would have been picked ahead of every single 2013 draft prospect (the top players in that class were only tier 3). 

So he's wrong.  Dead wrong.  And his attitude is shameful.  Accusing me of having brain damage because he himself doesn't remember facts correctly.   

My point is that we haven't yet had a conclusive read on this draft.  From what I understand, Simmons might be considered a tier 1 project.  Ingram is probably a tier 2 prospect.  The rest of them are tier 3 at best.    If buddy hield is considered a tier 3 prospect as I expect, that puts him on a par with Nik stauskas, Doug McDermott and the best of the 2013 draft class.   Those prospects project as starters.  It's nothing to sneeze at.  And like I said, Doug is proving to be an NBA player - I'm sure we could use someone with his shooting ability.   

It's pretty clear from this thread though that folks are super defensive of Hield as if he's the next Celtic superstar and can't fathom he might be a Doug McDermott level prospect.   I'd understand this more if hield was wearing Celtic green, but he's not.  Most mocks I see have him going 6th or 7th.  I wonder if these folks will remain this defensive of hield if he ends up putting up mediocre rookie stats on the 76ers next season.

This just all goes to show how inaccurate Ford and the rest of the professional draft prognosticators often are.

Despite Ford's tiers, it is actually currently looking like the players from the 2013 draft could end up being more successful as a group than their counterparts from 2014.

Why do you see arguing for Buddy Hield as being "defensive"?  We are simply discussing the merits of a player we like.  That seems like a reasonable pursuit on a basketball forum.

[Ilikesports17]

Mike, your attack wasn't warranted.  I'm genuinely asking questions.  I freely admit to not watching College ball.

McDermott went 11th in a what was believed to be an epic draft 8 stars deep.   

Here is why every attack you get is deserved.

Drafted before McDermott in 2014...

10.  Elfrid Payton.
9.  Noah Vonleh.
8.  Nik Stauskus.
7.  Julius Randle.
6.  MARCUS SMART
5.  Dante Exum.
4.  Aaron Gordon.
3.  Joel Embiid.
2.  Jabari Parker.
1.  Andrew Wiggins.

2014 was a three star draft.  That's what everyone said at the time.  That's what everyone thinks now, unless Embiid can't ever play and then they think of it as a two star draft.  Aaron Gordon was not a star.  Dante Exum was intriguing but not a star.  You've spent the last two years constantly whining about Marcus Smart.  Julius Randle was not a star.  Nik Stauskus was surely not a star.  Some of these guy may turn out to be very, very good, even great players but NO ONE thought the 2014 draft was "epic" that went 8 stars deep.

You are just flat out making stuff up about a draft that only happened two years ago.  So, you're either trolling or you have some sort of a brain disorder.

Mike

While I don't think the name calling was necessary here, this is an accurate post.

There were only three guys in the 2014/15 draft that were being considered as star prospects - Wiggins, Parker and Embiid.

It's frankly extremely weird to me that you think his post was accurate.  It wasn't. At all.  Are you looking at the draft in retrospect or something?  His point was the furthest from the truth and it's extremely easy to prove him wrong.

Prior to the 2014 draft we were well aware it was an "epic" draft with multiple elite prospects.  Most thought it was 8 players deep - which is why I was driving the tank bandwagon that everyone eventually hopped onto.  It was the acknowledgement that while there were a few possible transcendent prospects, there were several others with star potential.

This is backed up by Chad ford's pre-draft tier article.  As he said, there were a total of 9 prospects who were in the top two "tiers" (tier 1 reserved for players who are can't miss.  Tier 2 reserved for prospects who have star potential).   Per Ford's article, all 9 of those players would have been picked ahead of every single 2013 draft prospect (the top players in that class were only tier 3). 

So he's wrong.  Dead wrong.  And his attitude is shameful.  Accusing me of having brain damage because he himself doesn't remember facts correctly.   

My point is that we haven't yet had a conclusive read on this draft.  From what I understand, Simmons might be considered a tier 1 project.  Ingram is probably a tier 2 prospect.  The rest of them are tier 3 at best.    If buddy hield is considered a tier 3 prospect as I expect, that puts him on a par with Nik stauskas, Doug McDermott and the best of the 2013 draft class.   Those prospects project as starters.  It's nothing to sneeze at.  And like I said, Doug is proving to be an NBA player - I'm sure we could use someone with his shooting ability.   

It's pretty clear from this thread though that folks are super defensive of Hield as if he's the next Celtic superstar and can't fathom he might be a Doug McDermott level prospect.   I'd understand this more if hield was wearing Celtic green, but he's not.  Most mocks I see have him going 6th or 7th.  I wonder if these folks will remain this defensive of hield if he ends up putting up mediocre rookie stats on the 76ers next season.

This just all goes to show how inaccurate Ford and the rest of the professional draft prognosticators often are.

Despite Ford's tiers, it is actually currently looking like the players from the 2013 draft could end up being more successful as a group than their counterparts from 2014.

Why do you see arguing for Buddy Hield as being "defensive"?  We are simply discussing the merits of a player we like.  That seems like a reasonable pursuit on a basketball forum.

Fords Tiers are not just one dudes rankings. I mean he's pretty solid, but it's not like his word is law. From what I've seen and read Hield is superior to McBuckets and Redick in both work ethic and defensive ability/potential