And UNC played them once or twice a year when he was there.

and svg has only made the playoffs once in his 4 years.

i really dont get the hype

ain't no way Kennard's workout was better than Mitchell's...nope


Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
http://Tupreme.com

like 60% over the last 3 years

year 1 was a wash, the last 2 have been injury filled

im not advocating an extension, but lets see how his last year goes. if they stay healthy, they'll win.

The Knicks passed up on Dennis Smith Jr. AND Donovan Mitchell LOL.

The Hornets drafted MALIK MONK over Donovan Mitchell, and as previously mentioned The Pisstons chose some pedestrian white boy from Duke over Donovan.



Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
http://Tupreme.com

>The Knicks passed up on Dennis Smith Jr. AND Donovan Mitchell
>LOL.

I let out a nice, deep and painful laugh watching highlights from last night's game. I saw a graphic stat on ESPN that he tied a record for getting 100+ points in his first four games as a rookie; I think Jordan was the only other player to do that.

A nice, deep and painful laugh indeed as a Knicks fan.

and averaged 9 shots per game

in 6 of those 8 games he shot 50% or higher and for the month shot 47/42/86

AND maintained a >2:1 A:TO

I hate that SVG is gonna be coaching for his job this year. Bullock/Stanley/Kennard need to be playing 32 mpg each between the 2 wing spots, but coaching hot seats and "reliable" vets go together like PB&J

and it's not like stan needs an excuse to bury young guys and play trash vets.

which he had better be allowed to play out.

give him a chance with a top 9 of Reggie, Dre, Blake, Bullock, Kennard, Stanley, Ish, Tolliver, Moreland

they have been too good with Reggie on the floor to abort this imo. they were 19-14 when Reggie got hurt; if they get back to that, then maybe extension talk. if they are under .500 then just can him.

So of course he's good. Second-best three-point shooting rookie this season behind Tatum-- and honestly wouldn't surprise me if he ends up the best three-point shooter in the class overall longterm.

But draft revisionists are gonna do what they do: ignore what happened in college entirely, ignore why Kennard wasn't a bad pick at all, and ignore how well the lesser player is doing because the player drafted below happens to be doing much better. It's like saying "why did the Nets take Jarrett Allen over Kyle Kuzma????" Just because Kuzma had a really great rookie year doesn't mean that Allen didn't have a good one himself-- and doesn't mean that Allen wasn't the right pick there.

If you look back at rookie seasons for players picked 12th overall over the last, say, twenty years, I'd be really surprised if Kennard didn't have a Top 5 season of that group. Might even be Top 3-- only Saric and Thaddeus Young strike me as obvious choices to be above him. This rookie class just had an exceptionally deep group of terrific rookie seasons because of some very surprising first-year results from guys like Mitchell, Kuzma, Bogdanovic, and Dillon Brooks.

its a pick outside of the top 10...who gives a shit what the next guy does?

>


Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
http://Tupreme.com

clifford doesnt like rookies.

>The Knicks passed up on Dennis Smith Jr. AND Donovan Mitchell LOL.

Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
http://Tupreme.com

His shot selection was awful in college-- only shot 33% from 3 and under 40% overall against Tier A competition his sophomore year, not to mention all of the ill-advised contested mid-rangers he'd clunk in iso-- and he's undersized for conventional NBA shooting guard wisdom. Elite athlete, elite defender... but seemed more like a scrappy guard off the bench or the kind of guy who stuffs stats on a bad team more than a guy who stars for a playoff team.

Before the combine, he was expected to go in the 20s. (Source, among others: https://web.archive.org/web/20170401024051/http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2017/) The draft comparisons I saw at the time were, for best case scenarios, names like Avery Bradley and Eric Bledsoe-- both of whom were picked in the late teens out of college IIRC. And both of them had better college seasons than Mitchell's best.

It's really not that surprising considering what he did in college that he got picked where he did. What *is* surprising is how far he's come in such a short period of time.

Just like calling for sure top 5 picks busts. NO. They were the pick at the time and ended up sucking. Guys like Mitchell and Draymond got picked where the they should have and got in the league with drive and a chip on their shoulder and out performed their draft stock and made a bunch of teams regret passing on them and a bunch of interneters revising history.

due to the 6-10 wingspan, plus he's just a physical guy.

I guess like Draymond he just got lucky and landed in the right situation where he had the opportunity to shine.

Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
http://Tupreme.com

In a world where Draymond Green went 35th overall, I wouldn't call this too much of a head-scratcher.

Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
http://Tupreme.com

But Green played big at least, I really didn't have much indication that Mitchell could do what he is doing until I actually saw him in the pros.

screamed lottery pick.

and if they say they did they're lying..

this happens sometimes...

nobody really messed up passing on him because he wasn't showing he would ball out to this level... some guys just bubble when they hit the pros... Kuzma is another one like that...

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

when you have self-anointed experts with definitive takes on guys that are barely legal drinking age or even younger

well, MJ and “management” wanted Monk over Mitchell.

had in the list of scrubby ass gunners


I've been wrong lately :(

About Trae too

usually doesn't work out!


dude is the exception, man

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

he's not perfect, but he has all the stuff that people are usually looking for

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

and looking at the names drafted before them makes me look at all these self-proclaimed "draft experts" sideways

profession. I was an 'engineer' if you believed my title. I clearly am not, but my profession at the time was considered engineering.

Some teams will pick players based on where their highest possible outcome is. Some will pick based on their median outcome. Some won't pick players with low floors. Some pick players with high floors and hope to build. It varies from team to team, year to year.

So player analysis for the draft is never "this guy IS this"-- at least scouts don't do that, maybe some of the dummies on TV do. Scouts and smart draft guys will discuss a range outcomes, and they'll often center in on certain "swing skills." i.e. "he couldn't shoot 3s in college. if he can figure that out as a pro, he's an All-Star. if not, he's a lower-tier starter/bench rotation player."

respond once he has millions in the bank regardless of what his "ceiling" and "floor" is or estimated to be.

At every level some guys get satisfied with that level of success, some have the internal drive and work ethic to continue to get better.

Some kids will come in with internal drive and work ethic. I think the ones where this is obvious tend to be the guys who are drafted very, very high-- or guys who are picked unexpectedly high, considering their current talent level. That sort of deal.

But then you also have guys that just didn't fuck with college who figure it out. Or you have guys who kind of loaf for much of their rookie contract while they're young, until they realize, "oh shit, this might fuck with my money," so then they crank up the focus. Or you have the guys who just won't ever figure it out fully.

And you'll have the opposite too: you'll have guys who are high-character dudes where you think, "they're hard workers, at minimum they'll be really good role players as pros," who then just... don't figure it out regardless of their work ethic. Some dudes can work their asses off, be great in the locker room, be phenomenal in college, and still just never adjust to the pro game.

That's the part of a scout's job I envy the least. You can make very reasonable educated guesses on their range of outcomes due to skills, game IQ, athleticism, productivity at lower levels, etc... but you can never truly know what's gonna happen with the mind of a young man getting to such a competitive level of the sport.

studs at the high school level then didn't do much in college. Some guys were studs in college but didn't do much at the pro level.

I don't think those guys "fell off" as much as they got comfortable at the level they were at and didn't think they had to continue to work to improve to remain among the elite at each level.

I feel like the elite of the elite at the pro level are guys that never get satisfied and are always trying to get better season after season and constantly trying to add to their game.

Those guys are harder to identify when they are not necessarily "physical freaks" especially while they are still teenagers.

That was a very big man-heavy draft. KAT, Jahil Okafor, and Porzingis were three of the top 4. Then guys like Kauley-Stein and Myles Turner went ahead of him. Most of the rest of the guys who went before him were wing/PF types.

The only two guards who went ahead of him with D'Angelo and Mudlay. And D'Angelo was an all-American and consensus top guard pick.

He only took *four* isolation jump shots all season at Kentucky, and nearly every shot he took was a jump shot, so he didn't generate a lot of free throw attempts. The rare times he took it to the rim (only about 10% of his FGAs), he didn't finish efficiently. He also wasn't a very good defender-- a smart guy with a good frame, but not a guy you could count on generating stops at the next level.

So Booker was a shooting guard that everyone knew was a phenomenal catch-and-shoot guy, but people weren't sure if he was a strong shot creator, a strong foul generator, or a strong defender. Now, I had him at 8th on my Big Board (I tweet my Big Boards for posterity for just this reason!), so I was clearly higher than the teams that drafted, because I believed he could shoot off the bounce at the next level... but I do understand why teams didn't have him as a lock Top 5 guy. Four iso shots is a *really* small sample, lol.

Furthermore, this was before shooters were trending as the top priority in the draft. There were six guys 6'9+ drafted before Booker, only one of whom shots 3 at above a 30% clip. In today's NBA, Booker is a stone cold lock Top 10 guy, because even if teams did think "he's just a catch-and-shoot knockdown guy who moves the ball pretty well and has strong positional size," that's just viewed as more valuable today than it was then.

their way...

Jah
Herzonja
Mudiay
Stanley
Justise
Trey Lyles

most of those dudes received a lot of hype on these boards at one time.

Then you have a dude like Cameron Payne picked 14th after Booker that was out of the league and bouncing around the G-league and China and now is back as key role player on team that has a shot at going to the Finals

There's no doubt that Snyder's never had anything but the utmost confidence in Mitchell, even in the early years where Mitchell's lower efficiency led to some late game stumbles. I'm sure that confidence has continued to inspire Mitchell to push himself.

https://youtu.be/xm4JV6jSouo?t=126