"It's not complicated: Hield can play" -Kobe

[LarBrd33]

If Buddy Hield is a less athletic Ray Allen, we should draft him every day and twice on Sunday. Allen is one of the greatest offensive players of all time and still an All-Star when he was well below his athletic peak. They put up very similar numbers in college, and Hield was in fact considered a defense-first player earlier in his career.

I highly doubt he matches Allen's career... but if that was the trajectory he'd go #1 overall. 80% of that would be a steal at #3.

Ray Allen sounds like a reach.   I've seen it said that Hield is somewhere between Nick Young and JJ Reddick.   Some have suggested his ceiling is Ben Gordon.

Sure - because Ray Allen is a reach for virtually every college player ever, including everyone in this draft, at this stage. There's maybe one player every 2-3 years that actually projects to have that good of a career?

Of course Ben Gordon ceiling is ridiculous. He could be Ben Gordon but if that's his ceiling he belongs in the 2nd round. None of those guys are his ceiling, but sure, they're in his range like every other guard prospect in the 1st round.

Ben Gordon was the 3rd pick in the draft who had two seasons of 20 ppg in the NBA and had an 11 year career (and averaged over 40% from three for his career).  His per 36 minute career average is 19.6 ppg.  He was also injured and never the same player or he might have had more than two season of at least 20 ppg. 

Hield would have a very nice career if he ended up like Ben Gordon, especially if he stayed healthy, unlike Ben Gordon.

Which is why apparently Ben Gordon is seen as Hield's absolute best-case scenario.  More likely he ends up significantly worse than Gordon.  That's how I've seen it put, at least.

[byennie]

Ben Gordon was the 3rd pick in the draft who had two seasons of 20 ppg in the NBA and had an 11 year career (and averaged over 40% from three for his career).  His per 36 minute career average is 19.6 ppg.  He was also injured and never the same player or he might have had more than two season of at least 20 ppg. 

Hield would have a very nice career if he ended up like Ben Gordon, especially if he stayed healthy, unlike Ben Gordon.

There's a big difference between "like Ben Gordon" and Ben Gordon. You're basically saying his ceiling is the same as Ben Gordon's ceiling was at some point. That's a totally different statement.

In actuality, Ben Gordon never played in an All-Star game, was a full-time starter for exactly one season, and never averaged even 14 points after his 5th season. It's completely absurd to say that's the *ceiling* for Buddy Hield. Yes, Gordon was a pretty good player for a little while. That's not the ceiling on a guy who just put up 25ppg and nearly shot 50% from deep in a major conference.

[LarBrd33]

Ben Gordon was the 3rd pick in the draft who had two seasons of 20 ppg in the NBA and had an 11 year career (and averaged over 40% from three for his career).  His per 36 minute career average is 19.6 ppg.  He was also injured and never the same player or he might have had more than two season of at least 20 ppg. 

Hield would have a very nice career if he ended up like Ben Gordon, especially if he stayed healthy, unlike Ben Gordon.

There's a big difference between "like Ben Gordon" and Ben Gordon. You're basically saying his ceiling is the same as Ben Gordon's ceiling was at some point. That's a totally different statement.

In actuality, Ben Gordon never played in an All-Star game, was a full-time starter for exactly one season, and never averaged even 14 points after his 5th season. It's completely absurd to say that's the *ceiling* for Buddy Hield. Yes, Gordon was a pretty good player for a little while. That's not the ceiling on a guy who just put up 25ppg and nearly shot 50% from deep in a major conference.

Just curious, can you list some players drafted in the past 10 years who averaged close to 25ppg as Seniors and ended up better than peak Ben Gordon?

Ben Gordon is a generous comp.  We could be looking at the next Jimmer Fredette.

[LarBrd33]

Here's a better question... can you name every 4-year Senior drafted in the past decade to make an all-star team?   It's a smaller group than players who left early. 

[byennie]

Ben Gordon was the 3rd pick in the draft who had two seasons of 20 ppg in the NBA and had an 11 year career (and averaged over 40% from three for his career).  His per 36 minute career average is 19.6 ppg.  He was also injured and never the same player or he might have had more than two season of at least 20 ppg. 

Hield would have a very nice career if he ended up like Ben Gordon, especially if he stayed healthy, unlike Ben Gordon.

There's a big difference between "like Ben Gordon" and Ben Gordon. You're basically saying his ceiling is the same as Ben Gordon's ceiling was at some point. That's a totally different statement.

In actuality, Ben Gordon never played in an All-Star game, was a full-time starter for exactly one season, and never averaged even 14 points after his 5th season. It's completely absurd to say that's the *ceiling* for Buddy Hield. Yes, Gordon was a pretty good player for a little while. That's not the ceiling on a guy who just put up 25ppg and nearly shot 50% from deep in a major conference.

Just curious, can you list some players drafted in the past 10 years who averaged close to 25ppg as Seniors and ended up better than peak Ben Gordon?

Why? Saying Hield's ceiling is Ben Gordon has nothing to do with "peak" Ben Gordon, and it's a completely arbitrary metric to limit the comparisons to a stat only a handful of players achieve. How many seniors have averaged 25ppg at a big conference school in the last 5 years? None other than Hield this year. Or last. Does McDermott count from Creighton?

But since we're playing, Lillard averaged 24.5 as a senior at Weber State, and he seems to be destined for a much better career than Ben Gordon. I'd say Oklahoma has a tougher schedule.

[byennie]

Ben Gordon was the 3rd pick in the draft who had two seasons of 20 ppg in the NBA and had an 11 year career (and averaged over 40% from three for his career).  His per 36 minute career average is 19.6 ppg.  He was also injured and never the same player or he might have had more than two season of at least 20 ppg. 

Hield would have a very nice career if he ended up like Ben Gordon, especially if he stayed healthy, unlike Ben Gordon.

There's a big difference between "like Ben Gordon" and Ben Gordon. You're basically saying his ceiling is the same as Ben Gordon's ceiling was at some point. That's a totally different statement.

In actuality, Ben Gordon never played in an All-Star game, was a full-time starter for exactly one season, and never averaged even 14 points after his 5th season. It's completely absurd to say that's the *ceiling* for Buddy Hield. Yes, Gordon was a pretty good player for a little while. That's not the ceiling on a guy who just put up 25ppg and nearly shot 50% from deep in a major conference.

Just curious, can you list some players drafted in the past 10 years who averaged close to 25ppg as Seniors and ended up better than peak Ben Gordon?

Ben Gordon is a generous comp.  We could be looking at the next Jimmer Fredette.

Stop moving the goal posts. The argument was Hield ceiling = Gordon. Not who is a good comp, regardless of whether we agree on that.

Gordon is deliberately picked so that the argument can alternate between his peak (pretty good) and his actual career (not so much). It's hand waving.

[LarBrd33]

Ben Gordon was the 3rd pick in the draft who had two seasons of 20 ppg in the NBA and had an 11 year career (and averaged over 40% from three for his career).  His per 36 minute career average is 19.6 ppg.  He was also injured and never the same player or he might have had more than two season of at least 20 ppg. 

Hield would have a very nice career if he ended up like Ben Gordon, especially if he stayed healthy, unlike Ben Gordon.

There's a big difference between "like Ben Gordon" and Ben Gordon. You're basically saying his ceiling is the same as Ben Gordon's ceiling was at some point. That's a totally different statement.

In actuality, Ben Gordon never played in an All-Star game, was a full-time starter for exactly one season, and never averaged even 14 points after his 5th season. It's completely absurd to say that's the *ceiling* for Buddy Hield. Yes, Gordon was a pretty good player for a little while. That's not the ceiling on a guy who just put up 25ppg and nearly shot 50% from deep in a major conference.

Just curious, can you list some players drafted in the past 10 years who averaged close to 25ppg as Seniors and ended up better than peak Ben Gordon?

Why? Saying Hield's ceiling is Ben Gordon has nothing to do with "peak" Ben Gordon, and it's a completely arbitrary metric to limit the comparisons to a stat only a handful of players achieve. How many seniors have averaged 25ppg at a big conference school in the last 5 years? None other than Hield this year. Or last. Does McDermott count from Creighton?

But since we're playing, Lillard averaged 24.5 as a senior at Weber State, and he seems to be destined for a much better career than Ben Gordon. I'd say Oklahoma has a tougher schedule.

Technically Lillard was a Redshirt Junior.  He was injured his Junior season and was given a medical redshirt... otherwise, he had the talent to jump to the pros after his 3rd year.   So, technically speaking, he doesn't qualify as a 4 year senior.

Here's a list of every 4-year senior drafted over the past decade to make an all-star team:

Roy Hibbert, Damian Lillard, Brandon Roy, Draymond Green

Ouch.   Aside from a couple flukey players (Hibbert/Green) who dramatically exceeded expectations, there aren't many recent examples of guys who stayed 4 years and excelled in the NBA.  Of those 3 players, only Brandon Roy was taken in the lottery.

Plenty of Jimmer Fredette's, though. 

So if someone says that Hield's best-case scenario is peak Ben Gordon, they probably mean that's his ceiling.  Sure, technically every player has a Michael Jordan ceiling if you're ignoring the concept of ceilings.  But if you're looking at his "best-case scenario", sounds like most are saying his "best case" is borderline star.

[PickNRoll]

Ben Gordon was the 3rd pick in the draft who had two seasons of 20 ppg in the NBA and had an 11 year career (and averaged over 40% from three for his career).  His per 36 minute career average is 19.6 ppg.  He was also injured and never the same player or he might have had more than two season of at least 20 ppg. 

Hield would have a very nice career if he ended up like Ben Gordon, especially if he stayed healthy, unlike Ben Gordon.

There's a big difference between "like Ben Gordon" and Ben Gordon. You're basically saying his ceiling is the same as Ben Gordon's ceiling was at some point. That's a totally different statement.

In actuality, Ben Gordon never played in an All-Star game, was a full-time starter for exactly one season, and never averaged even 14 points after his 5th season. It's completely absurd to say that's the *ceiling* for Buddy Hield. Yes, Gordon was a pretty good player for a little while. That's not the ceiling on a guy who just put up 25ppg and nearly shot 50% from deep in a major conference.

Just curious, can you list some players drafted in the past 10 years who averaged close to 25ppg as Seniors and ended up better than peak Ben Gordon?

Why? Saying Hield's ceiling is Ben Gordon has nothing to do with "peak" Ben Gordon, and it's a completely arbitrary metric to limit the comparisons to a stat only a handful of players achieve. How many seniors have averaged 25ppg at a big conference school in the last 5 years? None other than Hield this year. Or last. Does McDermott count from Creighton?

But since we're playing, Lillard averaged 24.5 as a senior at Weber State, and he seems to be destined for a much better career than Ben Gordon. I'd say Oklahoma has a tougher schedule.

Technically Lillard was a Redshirt Junior.  He was injured his Junior season and was given a medical redshirt... otherwise, he had the talent to jump to the pros after his 3rd year.   So, technically speaking, he doesn't qualify as a 4 year senior.

Here's a list of every 4-year senior drafted over the past decade to make an all-star team:

Roy Hibbert, Damian Lillard, Brandon Roy, Draymond Green

Ouch.   Aside from a couple flukey players (Hibbert/Green) who dramatically exceeded expectations, there aren't many recent examples of guys who stayed 4 years and excelled in the NBA.  Of those 3 players, only Brandon Roy was taken in the lottery.

Plenty of Jimmer Fredette's, though. 

So if someone says that Hield's best-case scenario is peak Ben Gordon, they probably mean that's his ceiling.  Sure, technically every player has a Michael Jordan ceiling if you're ignoring the concept of ceilings.  But if you're looking at his "best-case scenario", sounds like most are saying his "best case" is borderline star.

I have to say, that's pretty [dang]ing for Hield.

[LarBrd33]

Ben Gordon was the 3rd pick in the draft who had two seasons of 20 ppg in the NBA and had an 11 year career (and averaged over 40% from three for his career).  His per 36 minute career average is 19.6 ppg.  He was also injured and never the same player or he might have had more than two season of at least 20 ppg. 

Hield would have a very nice career if he ended up like Ben Gordon, especially if he stayed healthy, unlike Ben Gordon.

There's a big difference between "like Ben Gordon" and Ben Gordon. You're basically saying his ceiling is the same as Ben Gordon's ceiling was at some point. That's a totally different statement.

In actuality, Ben Gordon never played in an All-Star game, was a full-time starter for exactly one season, and never averaged even 14 points after his 5th season. It's completely absurd to say that's the *ceiling* for Buddy Hield. Yes, Gordon was a pretty good player for a little while. That's not the ceiling on a guy who just put up 25ppg and nearly shot 50% from deep in a major conference.

Just curious, can you list some players drafted in the past 10 years who averaged close to 25ppg as Seniors and ended up better than peak Ben Gordon?

Ben Gordon is a generous comp.  We could be looking at the next Jimmer Fredette.

Stop moving the goal posts. The argument was Hield ceiling = Gordon. Not who is a good comp, regardless of whether we agree on that.

Gordon is deliberately picked so that the argument can alternate between his peak (pretty good) and his actual career (not so much). It's hand waving.

This is just what I've read.  Perhaps Hield exceeds expectations.  I just know what I've heard/read... and what I've heard/read is that Hield falls somewhere on the Nick Young -> JJ Reddick spectrum and that his best-case scenario might be a guy like Ben Gordon... Meaning, they expect that if everything goes right, he could be as good as Ben Gordon was on the NBA level.  Borderline star seems to be his ceiling.  I'm not moving goal posts... it is what it is.  Most legitimate draft analysts expect Hield to be a quality role player at most. 

But yes, I agree that Doug McDermott is a great recent comparison.  It was talked about in another thread... McDermott was arguably a more impressive College player than Hield and if both were in the same draft class, McDermott might be drafted ahead of Hield based on their College credentials.  2014 was a thought to be a deeper draft than this with as many as 9 players thought to have star potential.  From what I understand, only two players in this draft are thought to have star potential.  It's possible that the #3 pick in this draft is comparable to the #10 pick in 2014. 

That's why you have guys like Chad Ford suggesting Boston trade #3 + Thomas to acquire Jimmy Butler... and guys like Kevin Pelton saying that Jusuf Nurkic (#16 pick in 2014 and spent most of last season injured) would be good value if Boston can acquire him for the 3rd pick.

That directly reflects how they see prospects like Hield... who as far as I can tell, they don't even expect to be taken as high as 3.

[LarBrd33]

Btw, these aren't my own opinions. This is just things I've heard from multiple people who follow college basketball who have more valuable opinions than Kobe Bryant - who by the way, is on record as saying that college basketball doesn't help players:  http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/01/nba-kobe-bryant-college-basketball-ncaa  ... So if anything he's just being PC when specifically asked about buddy hield.

[byennie]

Lillard was a 4 year player who turned 22 before his rookie year. The comp on age and experience is more than valid, especially given the smaller school. Redshirt status is pretty irrelevant.

[MBunge]

Sometimes being older is an advantage. Who is to say that any of the freshmen leaving after this year would be able to put up the incredible numbers he did if they stuck around for 3 more years.  Plus you get a guy who is more likely to contribute right away, instead of learning on the job like the rookies we usually draft.  It can be an asset, really.

People are just silly - they choose to live inside a little bubble which only allows them to comprehend anything that goes outside of current trends.

People choose to ignore past facts like:

* David Robinson was 24 in his rookie year
* Michael Jordan was 21 in his rookie year
* Hakeem Olajuwon was 22 in his rookie year
* Anfernee Hardaway was 22 in his rookie year
* Karl Malone was 22 in his rookie year
* John Stockton was 22 in his rookie year
* Clyde Drexler was 21 in his rookie year
* Larry Bird was 23 in his rookie year

I could go on and on and on listing past greats who were 21 and older in their rookie years, because (as people seem to forget) the trend for guys to declare for the draft at 18/19 is something that's only really started up in around the past 10 years.

Part of the reason Kobe fell so far in the draft is because he was so young, and people were worried about whether he'd be ready for the NBA and mature enough to make the transition.
15-20 years ago players leaving early was something seen mostly as a bad thing.  Now days people thing "he's 21/22 years old, he has no upside". 

It's ridiculous.

The logic here's a bit faulty. When these hall-of-famers were dominating college, they were dominating top-level talent--players who were as old and developed as they were. The argument against Hield is that the best talent usually leaves college after one year; that wasn't true when the guys you listed played. If you want to use Curry, Lillard, McCollum, Isaiah, Draymond, Jae, Middleton, etc. as examples, then that would be reasonable, but a 23 year-old Bird was not the same thing as a 23 year-old Hield is.

It's not faulty logic because Hield's numbers are not only dominant when compared with 18 and 19 year olds.  His numbers are dominant no matter who you compare him too.

The only guys in college basketball who (could be argued) are putting up overall numbers as good as Hield are Simmons and Valentine.  Nobody else comes remotely close.   

It's pretty clear to see that Hield, as a offensive player, is on a whole other level to everybody else in the college game right now. 

* He's dominating to the tune of 28 Points and 6.7 Rebounds Per 40 minutes

* He's taking almost 8.7 three point attempts per game on 46% shooting

* He's taking 7.5 two point attempts per game on 55% shooting

* He is getting to the foul line at a high rate and shooting 88% from there

*  He has +22.3 net rating and a +11.5 Box Plus Minus, so he clearly makes his team better to a dramatic degree

* He carried his team deeper then any other top-6 projected prospect did, so he clearly is a winner

* He has the greatest intangibles of any prospect in the draft - nobody  could say a single bad thing about his attitude, his work ethic, his motor, his willingness to improve or his desire to win

I just don't get it - what more can the guy do?"  What does a 22 year old college player have to do to prove that he has star potential?  Do you people expect him to average 40 PPG on 65% from the field?  Pull off 360 dunks from the three point line?  Win national championships on an annual basis? 

Hield has done pretty much everything you could possible ask of a college player except win a national title, and he came closer to that then ANY of the other guys who are being talked about here.  Yet still people do not show him the respect he has well and truly earned.

I can understand why Kobe appreciates Hield, because like Kobe, Hield is a supremely talented scorer and a competitor of the highest degree.  Guys who have great talent tend to become stars.  Guys who are great competitors win games.  Guys who have both tend to win championships

Kahlil Felder has significantly better total stats than Hield.  I mean Felder was 3rd in PPG and led college basketball at 9.3 apg (1.2 apg better than the guy that finished in 2nd).  He leads the nation by a wide margin in something called Points Produced (basketball-reference stat).  Felder was 27.1, Hield was 21.7.

That is the problem with college stats and projecting them to professional ability.  I mean Felder is 5'9" 180 pounds.  Does that strike you as a NBA player's typical body type?  Yet he is dominating college basketball

Felder played for an Oakland team out of the Horizon League that didn't even make the NCAA tournament.  Hield performed in the Big 12 and made it to the Final Four.

Mike

Grayson Allen, Stefan Moody, etc.  The list goes on and on.  College success has absolutely no relation at all to professional success.

I have no idea what throwing out the names of two guys, neither of whom has been rated anywhere as highly as Hield, is supposed to prove.  Yes, some guys who are great in college turn out to be so-so NBA players and some of them are even busts.  So what?  Plenty of guys who get drafted for their huge upside also turn out to be mediocre or terrible NBA players.

There's little point in arguing against an unreasoning prejudice that won't recognize even something as obvious as Steph Curry going from being drafted behind Hasheen Thabeet, Tyreke Evans, Ricky Rubio and Johnny Flynn at 22 to MVP and best player on a 73 win team at 27.

Mike

follow along, he is saying because Hield is so dominant in college he will be a star in the league (he also incorrectly says Hield is so much better than everyone else offensively, which is just silly because Hield didn't lead anything except total points (not ppg) as a result of his team playing so many games).  My point is there is no correlation at all between college and professional basketball as it pertains to success or lack there of in one or the other.  Some of the greatest NBA players, weren't very good in college (some didn't play in college at all), while some of the greatest college players had almost no success in the NBA (Dennis Hopson, Adam Morrison, and even a guy like Christian Laettner certainly didn't live up to the college success).  Now sure a future great NBA players is most likely also going to be great in college, but it certainly doesn't have to be so, especially now with players leaving after 1 year of college (David Robinson, for example averaged only 7.6 p and 4 r per game his freshman year at Navy).

My homework task for you, is to name me the last 5 college players who (in the same season):

1) Averaged at least 25 PPG
2) Shoot at least 50% / 40% / 80%
3) Made it to the final four 

You time starts....now!

While you're at it I would also like to note that there are only four (4) players in this entire draft who actually played in the final four:

Buddy Hield
Brice Johnson
Malachi Richardson
Michael Gbinije

Hield is the only guy on that list who is a sure fire first rounder, which means he is the only guy projected to go top 20 who has actually proven himself as a winner on the big stage.  Does that count for nothing in your books, truly?

1) Best Scorer in the draft lottery
2) Best shooter in the draft lottery
3) Best winner in the draft lottery
4) Best overall physical measurements (combined height/length/strength/athleticism) of any guard in the lottery

Apparently all of the above approximately equates to a future NBA role player.

Hield will have a fine NBA career, I just don't see star potential in him.  I think he will be a spot starter/6th man type player, which absolutely matches what a number of scouts say about him.  He had a very nice senior season, but there is after all a reason he wasn't even projected to be drafted after his junior season.  He then started off the year like a crazy man but then reverted back much closer to his mean (which wasn't even projected as a 1st round pick).  There is no way I'd take Hield at 3.  It would be a waste of a pick.

I see star potential with him, with his shot form and finishing ability around the rim. If he for some reason forgets how to shoot then he will be a bust. Otherwise he is sure to fill it up. What is not to like about his offensive game?

How about these from draftexpress' write up on him. 

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Buddy-Hield-58749/

"There are some question marks about what type of creator he will be at an NBA level, though, as he at times struggles to turn the corner already against quicker collegiate guards, and can't always create much breathing room against bigger and lengthy wings. "

"He can be a little bit predictable when putting the ball on the floor, as he almost always pulls up off the dribble or tries to execute a step back when driving left, and will try to get all the way to the rim when going right (which is rare). Not blessed with an elite first step, he can still stand to continue to improve his advanced ball-handling skills to create space in the half-court. In traffic, as he doesn't always have the size or explosiveness to finish effectively against rim-protectors, and thus relies very heavily on his shot-making prowess from the perimeter."

"Hield also doesn't offer much as a passer or facilitator, sporting the second lowest pure point rating and assist to turnover ratio among the shooting guards in our Top-100 prospect rankings. He'll pull off the occasionally drive and dish play, but for the most part he's looking for his own offense whenever he's on the floor, and does not possess an exceptionally high basketball IQ."

And don't even get started on his defense, which is pretty poor at this point (and he is already 23 which means he isn't going to make leaps and bounds improvements).  Hield is a pretty one dimensional scorer.  He isn't a great dribbler, he isn't a great facilitator, and he isn't the quickest guy in the world.  He could easily be a Kyle Korver type player, which is a fine NBA career, but not a guy you would want with the 3rd pick in the draft.

Of course, Draft Express also says...

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Buddy-Hield-58749/

"Hield's perimeter shooting is as good of a place as any to start the conversation about his offensive game. His 147 3-pointers made (in 37 games) was by far the highest mark among all college players this year, and is tied for the highest total mark any college basketball player has achieved since Steph Curry made 162 back in 2008.

What's impressive about Hield's 3-point shooting isn't just the huge volume of makes this season, it's also the incredible accuracy, at 46%.

He's deadly in transition, is always moving to relocate into a better look after giving it up, and has a super quick trigger that allows him to get his shot off in the blink of an eye. Hield knocks down shots from NBA range on a regular basis, often with a hand in his face while well-guarded by defenses that are geared to slowing him down.

Hield has always been a tremendous shooter (career 39% 3P%), but he was much more of a catch and shoot guy for the first few years of his college career. Although he's absolutely elite with his feet set still (68/139, 49%), he's also turned himself into a much improved off the dribble shooter as well (51/137, 37%), which makes him very difficult to stop considering many of these attempts come from beyond the 3-point line (0.98 PPP).

Although he doesn't have great size, or the highest release point (he's largely a flat-footed shooter), he utilizes impressive footwork, hesitation moves and fadeaways to help him get his shot off in difficult situations, especially in big moments with the shot-clock running down.

His ball-handling skills in general improved as his college career moved on, as evidenced by his career high 55% 2P% this past season. He's able to attack his defender off closeouts with nice footwork and timing, and will mix in some change of speeds, spin moves and side-steps out of pick and rolls and isolations. He drives left almost exclusively, but has started to show some ability to use it to finish inside the paint as well, where he shot 56% this season."

Draft Express had negative things to say about Karl Anthony Townes last season too.  They're supposed to have negative things to say about every player.

Mike

He specifically asked what wasn't to like about his offensive game.  I answered his question.  The good things he does on offense had nothing to do with his question and thus there was no reason to point them out.  Everyone knows Hield can shoot the ball.

And my response highlights that everyone knows Hield can do more than just "shoot the ball."

People have gotten hung up on the Redick comparison for Hield but I saw somebody bring up another name...Cutino Mobley.  Mobley had an 11 year NBA career where he averaged over 17 points a game four times after spending four years in college, and Hield was a substantially better college player and is rated by everyone far higher than anyone had Mobley.

Mike

actually reading that it basically just says Hield is an excellent shooter, but is so coming off the dribble, standing still, at the rim, etc. and has some respectable shooting moves (like fadeaways).  But he is predictable, isn't a good ball handler, isn't quick enough to stay with PG's or big enough to stay with wings, etc. 

Hield is a pretty one dimensional player.  I think Kyle Korver is the best comparison (though Hield should be a better rebounder).  A great shooter (and was almost immediately), but didn't have a varied offensive game and wasn't what you would call a good defender.

Draft Express, whom you seem to believe is 100% accurate in their player assessments, had Hield as #6 in this year's draft.  That's above Jaylen Brown and Jamal Murray and behind only Chriss, Bender and Dunn.  Considering the VERY high bust potential in Chriss and Bender, the all-knowing Draft Express is essentially saying that Hield is really the 4th surest thing in the draft.

Kyle Korver, by the way, was the 51st pick in 2003.  It makes far more sense to equate Bender to Darko and Chriss to Tyrus Thomas than it does to match Hield with Korver.

Mike

[byennie]

Btw, these aren't my own opinions. This is just things I've heard from multiple people who follow college basketball who have more valuable opinions than Kobe Bryant - who by the way, is on record as saying that college basketball doesn't help players:  http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/01/nba-kobe-bryant-college-basketball-ncaa  ... So if anything he's just being PC when specifically asked about buddy hield.

Ok- I mean it's certainly hard to challenge the unknown opinions of unknown other people. The fact that Kobe isn't a great analyst doesn't matter. Nobody is judging Hield based on what Kobe says, despite the thread title.

What doesn't add up is the idea that most if not all "good" analysts are ranking Hield in the Nick Young / Redick / Ben Gordon camp. None of those guys would be lottery picks if teams had a crystal ball to see their career arcs, let alone if that arc was their ceiling. Where do all these analysts you talk to have Hield ranked? Late 1st rounder? I can't find anyone online publishing their analysis that concludes he's less than a top 10 prospect. Every mock I've seen has him in the 3-8 range. So do you know some insiders that should be trusted over every major online source?

I don't deny at all that Hield could fail, at least relative to a top-8 selection's expectations. But this whole "smart people know he's Ben Gordon at best" has no credibility if you can't point to a single person actually saying it outside of a forum post.

[LarBrd33]

Btw, these aren't my own opinions. This is just things I've heard from multiple people who follow college basketball who have more valuable opinions than Kobe Bryant - who by the way, is on record as saying that college basketball doesn't help players:  http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/01/nba-kobe-bryant-college-basketball-ncaa  ... So if anything he's just being PC when specifically asked about buddy hield.

Ok- I mean it's certainly hard to challenge the unknown opinions of unknown other people. The fact that Kobe isn't a great analyst doesn't matter. Nobody is judging Hield based on what Kobe says, despite the thread title.

What doesn't add up is the idea that most if not all "good" analysts are ranking Hield in the Nick Young / Redick / Ben Gordon camp. None of those guys would be lottery picks if teams had a crystal ball to see their career arcs, let alone if that arc was their ceiling.

And I guess that speaks volumes about how this draft is perceived.  Two guys with star potential and a lot of role players.  It's not unheard of... Anthony Bennett went #1 in a draft... nobody really had him projected as a future star either.

Like it was mentioned before... #3 in this draft might be equal to the #10 pick in the 2014 draft.  And Hield might not even go in the Top 5.

It actually makes a lot of sense.  Chad Ford and Kevin Pelton suggested Boston's options at #3 were between Murray, Dunn, Bender and Chriss.  So based on that, looks like they are projecting Hield 7th at the highest.  And Pelton said that Boston should consider moving #3 for Jusaf Nurkic.  Nurkic was selected #16 in 2014 and spent most of last season injured.   So there you go... two draft experts who think the #3 pick is the equivalent of a mid 1st in 2014... and don't see Hield going 3rd.

And this is the same kind of stuff the people I know who follow College ball are telling me... that there's nobody with star potential available at #3 (though nobody knows anything about Bender) and that Buddy Hield's ceiling is limited.  And fwiw, I'm pretty sure it was on Bill Simmons podcast that they suggested Hield would fall somewhere in the Nick Young -> JJ Reddick spectrum.   Whoever drafts Hield will be hoping he can be more Reddick than Nick Young.

[byennie]

Btw, these aren't my own opinions. This is just things I've heard from multiple people who follow college basketball who have more valuable opinions than Kobe Bryant - who by the way, is on record as saying that college basketball doesn't help players:  http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/01/nba-kobe-bryant-college-basketball-ncaa  ... So if anything he's just being PC when specifically asked about buddy hield.

Ok- I mean it's certainly hard to challenge the unknown opinions of unknown other people. The fact that Kobe isn't a great analyst doesn't matter. Nobody is judging Hield based on what Kobe says, despite the thread title.

What doesn't add up is the idea that most if not all "good" analysts are ranking Hield in the Nick Young / Redick / Ben Gordon camp. None of those guys would be lottery picks if teams had a crystal ball to see their career arcs, let alone if that arc was their ceiling.

And I guess that speaks volumes about how this draft is perceived.  Two guys with star potential and a lot of role players.  It's not unheard of... Anthony Bennett went #1 in a draft... nobody really had him projected as a future star either.

Like it was mentioned before... #3 in this draft might be equal to the #10 pick in the 2014 draft.  And Hield might not even go in the Top 5.

It actually makes a lot of sense.  Chad Ford and Kevin Pelton suggested Boston's options at #3 were between Murray, Dunn, Bender and Chriss.  So based on that, looks like they are projecting Hield 7th at the highest.  And Pelton said that Boston should consider moving #3 for Jusaf Nurkic.  Nurkic was selected #16 in 2014 and spent most of last season injured.   So there you go... two draft experts who think the #3 pick is the equivalent of a mid 1st in 2014... and don't see Hield going 3rd.

And this is the same kind of stuff the people I know who follow College ball are telling me... that there's nobody with star potential available at #3 (though nobody knows anything about Bender) and that Buddy Hield's ceiling is limited.  And fwiw, I'm pretty sure it was on Bill Simmons podcast that they suggested Hield would fall somewhere in the Nick Young -> JJ Reddick spectrum.   Whoever drafts Hield will be hoping he can be more Reddick than Nick Young.

I don't disagree with -all- of this, but you're taking some small factoids and leaping to conclusions.

Bennett was a terrible choice at #1 in the end, but there were plenty of analysts saying he was the best offensive player in the draft, and did in fact have star potential and could even be a 20-10 guy some day. Most had him in the 5-10 range and virtually all saw him with a very high ceiling. Heck, SBNation had a big board with him at #1: http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/6/4/4378776/anthony-bennett-scouting-report-nba-draft-2013. So your comment "nobody really had him project as a future star" is totally false.

As for Nurkic, he'd go higher than #16 in a redraft, so no, that doesn't mean #3 = #16. Ask Pelton if his trade idea means that #3 is equivalent to a mid 1st rounder from 2014, and he'd say no. Your logical leap.

Again, there's some risk attached to Hield no doubt. #3 is pretty high for him. But all this stuff about #3 = #16, and ceiling = projection, and seniors never succeed, and Anthony Bennett wasn't even projected as having star potential? None of it checks out.

It's pretty simple, really. Drafting 22 year old college players in the top half of the lottery is risky business. But it's no worse than projecting 18 year olds from overseas, or bouncy big guys with crazy wingspans who weren't even good in college... and those are consistently considered acceptable risks. Guys like Brandon Roy and Damian Lillard were really good players well worth high picks (Roy's injury problems notwithstanding), and are just as valid as the Doug McDermott  et al comparisons. There's just no need for anyone to claim they know with certainty that Hield won't be more than a role player in the pros. Nobody knows that.