D4H's 2017 NBA Draft Preview

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Then Bill Russell is the GOAT, right?

Different era. This is like asking me if the 60s pre-Superbowl era Packers are the best team ever. I say no because that era was not as competitive as the present era.

The Bill Russell era Celtics competed in a league with only 8 teams and a limited talent pool. Much different than the present NBA with 30 teams and a global talent pool.

If Bill Russell won 11 rings in today's NBA he would be the GOAT. But because he won these championships during a weak era, he's not the GOAT. Similarly, Wilt's statistical exploits are less impressive given the weak era he played in. Its a major reason I have guys like Shaq and Hakeem rated above him.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

If the be all is rings then yes they are. That's why it's dumb to judge on rings alone.

What about having different standards for different players do you not understand? Great NBA players and NFL QBs are judged by CHAMPIONSHIPS. This is how the greats are separated from one another. And its because winning is more important than anything else.

Great players are considered great because they can raise the level of their teammates and win. A role player who just happens to be paired with great players doesn't get the benefit of that respect. Robert Horry was a great role player. He contributed to winning. But he was not the difference maker. Guys like Hakeem, Shaq, Kobe, and Duncan were.

 

[n_huffhines]

Different era. This is like asking me if the 60s pre-Superbowl era Packers are the best team ever. I say no because that era was not as competitive as the present era.

The Bill Russell era Celtics competed in a league with only 8 teams and a limited talent pool. Much different than the present NBA with 30 teams and a global talent pool.

If Bill Russell won 11 rings in today's NBA he would be the GOAT. But because he won these championships during a weak era, he's not the GOAT. Similarly, Wilt's statistical exploits are less impressive given the weak era he played in. Its a major reason I have guys like Shaq and Hakeem rated above him.

My point is that titles aren't the only consideration, and sounds like you agree with me. Era matters. Teammates matter. Opponents matter. Stats matter. Skill set matters. Every season matters, not just seasons in which you made the finals. It's not just about finals record.

And while we're on the subject, the NBA today is so much more skilled and sophisticated than it was in MJ's prime. Bigger, faster, stronger, a much more spread out half court game, scouting advances, coaching advances, etc. This is the best basketball we've ever seen. We've gone from a game where most teams had 3 starters playing from about 17' and in, to a game where most teams have 4 starters who can shoot 3's. It's a completely different ball game.

 

[volfanhill]

He's already 3-5 in the finals man. That really really bad. I believe 5 finals losses in the most all-time for a former MVP. That's a very dubios record. And its unlikely to get any better considering how loaded Golden State is moving forward.

LeBron's career will look a lot like Wilt Chamberlain when it's done. Great individual stats. But a poor record in terms of championships (Wilt was 2-4 in the finals). Definitely top 10 all-time but lower than the guy who were greater champions.

So let's say he wins 3 more and ties Jordan with six rings (I agree no easy thing GS around) you would consider that worse then Jordan's resume? Being 6-0 is not better then being 6-5. That means Lebron got there 5 more times. You are rewarding Jordan for worse performance in that scenario.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

My point is that titles aren't the only consideration, and sounds like you agree with me. Era matters. Teammates matter. Opponents matter. Stats matter. Skill set matters. Every season matters, not just seasons in which you made the finals. It's not just about finals record.

And while we're on the subject, the NBA today is so much more skilled and sophisticated than it was in MJ's prime. Bigger, faster, stronger, a much more spread out half court game, scouting advances, coaching advances, etc. This is the best basketball we've ever seen. We've gone from a game where most teams had 3 starters playing from about 17' and in, to a game where most teams have 4 starters who can shoot 3's. It's a completely different ball game.

Totally disagree. I think the present era (2010s) is weakest since the 1980s. The 1990s and 2000s were way better. Less superstars than ever before. And the few there are try to team up together. Physicality is all but gone. The mid-range game is dead. The post-game is also on it's way to extinction. The overreliance on the 3-point shot is disgusting.

All in all this is the one of the worst eras in the NBA since 1980.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

So let's say he wins 3 more and ties Jordan with six rings (I agree no easy thing GS around) you would consider that worse then Jordan's resume? Being 6-0 is not better then being 6-5. That means Lebron got there 5 more times. You are rewarding Jordan for worse performance in that scenario.

First of all, that's not happening. LeBron will turn 33 at the end of this year. He's closer to the end of his career than he is to being in position to double his ring count.

But just for fun I will answer your ridiculously speculative question. No. LeBron would not be as good as Jordan because 6-0 will better than 6-5. Having a flawless finals record is better than having one with warts. The only way for LeBron to be BETTER than Jordan would be to win 7. Just tying Jordan wouldn't do it.

 

[butchna]

So let's say he wins 3 more and ties Jordan with six rings (I agree no easy thing GS around) you would consider that worse then Jordan's resume? Being 6-0 is not better then being 6-5. That means Lebron got there 5 more times. You are rewarding Jordan for worse performance in that scenario.

Jordan rewarded himself. Won every championship every opportunity. You're wanting to reward Lebron for failing 5 times.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Jordan rewarded himself. Won every championship every opportunity. You're wanting to reward Lebron for failing 5 times.

These guys probably think the Buffalo Bills going to 4 straight superbowls but losing every single one of them is better than a team just going to 1 superbowl but winning it.

Always losing championships is not something to applaud.

 

[n_huffhines]

Totally disagree. I think the present era (2010s) is weakest since the 1980s. The 1990s and 2000s were way better. Less superstars than ever before. And the few there are try to team up together. Physicality is all but gone. The mid-range game is dead. The post-game is also on it's way to extinction. The overreliance on the 3-point shot is disgusting.

All in all this is the one of the worst eras in the NBA since 1980.

The mid-range game is dead because the game evolved. The mid-range jumper is the worst shot on the floor. The average G shoots 36% from 3. Because 3 > 2, that's the equivalent of shooting 54% from mid-range. 54% from mid-range is an extremely special season. Not sure it's even happened before.

If you're shooting 45% from 15-22', you're having a damn good season but that's less efficient than the average 3 point shooter.

This is why the mid-range game is dead.

The post game is extinct because you can double away from the ball now and the game is more spread out so you need a faster center who can set a high screen, sprint to the basket, then sprint back on D. Lumbering pivots don't work in today's NBA. Having a post threat was the best way to create open perimeter shots back in the day, but with how spread out the floor is now, you don't need a center to create open perimeter shots.

Again, the game has evolved.

 

[volfanhill]

Jordan rewarded himself. Won every championship every opportunity. You're wanting to reward Lebron for failing 5 times.

No I am rewarding Lebron for having as many rings, in this scenario, and making it farther in the playoffs 5 more times. You are rewarding worse performance.

 

[BadJerry20]

Well Jerry we have a new "dumbest thing posted in this thread". Although does it really count if he's trolling and being dumb on purpose? Nobody can really be that stupid.

Lol I'm out, I can't deal with the idiocy anymore. I'm mad at myself for getting sucked in.

 

[n_huffhines]

Kevin Durant has never had a season where he shot 54% from mid-range. He did get close one year at about 52%.

Kobe Bryant never got close to 54%. His best years were about 45%. He had many seasons well below that, including a few under 39%.

 

[butchna]

No I am rewarding Lebron for having as many rings, in this scenario, and making it farther in the playoffs 5 more times. You are rewarding worse performance.

There's nothing further than the championship. Fail to win there and you gotta start subtracting...and let him win 3 more first.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

The mid-range game is dead because the game evolved. The mid-range jumper is the worst shot on the floor. The average G shoots 36% from 3. Because 3 > 2, that's the equivalent of shooting 54% from mid-range. 54% from mid-range is an extremely special season. Not sure it's even happened before.

If you're shooting 45% from 15-22', you're having a damn good season but that's less efficient than the average 3 point shooter.

This is why the mid-range game is dead.

The post game is extinct because you can double away from the ball now and the game is more spread out so you need a faster center who can set a high screen, sprint to the basket, then sprint back on D. Lumbering pivots don't work in today's NBA. Having a post threat was the best way to create open perimeter shots back in the day, but with how spread out the floor is now, you don't need a center to create open perimeter shots.

Again, the game has evolved.

I wouldn't call what we've seen in the NBA evolution. More like devolution.

The game was far more enjoyable to watch in the 90s and 2000s.

 

[volsandpirates]

I wouldn't call what we've seen in the NBA evolution. More like devolution.

The game was far more enjoyable to watch in the 90s and 2000s.

Your level of enjoyment of today's game is completely irrelevant in an argument about the overall skill level.

 

[n_huffhines]

I wouldn't call what we've seen in the NBA evolution. More like devolution.

The game was far more enjoyable to watch in the 90s and 2000s.

We're talking about competition and winning, not your enjoyment as a spectator.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Your level of enjoyment of today's game is completely irrelevant in an argument about the overall skill level.

I wouldn't call a 3 point shooting free for all skill advancement. Players in the 90s were far more well rounded. Guys actually could play defense and offense. Now we have one dimensional players like Steph Curry winning back to back MVPs. Or a team without a legit big man like the Warriors winning championships.

Steph Curry would be a nobody in the 90s and early 2000s because he lack of ability to guard PGs one on one would be exposed. The league was more isolation based back then. The zone defense was also illegal so you couldn't hide bad defensive players like Curry from their man.

Go watch some old school 90s basketball and then talk to me cause this argument right now is laughable. Today's game is significantly inferior to the 90s in every facet except 3-point shooting.

 

[n_huffhines]

Curry has the 2nd best handle in the NBA. He's a great passer. He's the best shooter we've ever seen. He's great at finishing around the basket. He's a great thief. He's a good rebounder.

Which is the one dimension you're talking about?

Curry would do just fine back in the day. You had two rim defending bigs in the paint to help you when you got beat, in the 90s.

Magic didn't play D. Steve Nash didn't play D. Charles Barkley wasn't a very good defender. Allen Iverson wasn't very good at D. You see what you want to see and ignore the rest.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Curry has the 2nd best handle in the NBA. He's a great passer. He's the best shooter we've ever seen. He's great at finishing around the basket. He's a great thief. He's a good rebounder.

Which is the one dimension you're talking about?

Curry would do just fine back in the day. You had two rim defending bigs in the paint to help you when you got beat, in the 90s.

Magic didn't play D. Steve Nash didn't play D. Charles Barkley wasn't a very good defender. Allen Iverson wasn't very good at D. You see what you want to see and ignore the rest.

Curry's the only guy I've seen run away from his responsibilities defensively. Its sad to see 6'8" Klay Thompson having to run around guarding 6'0" PGs because Steph Curry can't.

No other great player in the past was hidden on defense the way Steph Curry is hidden by the Warriors.

 

[volsarelife1]

Curry's the only guy I've seen run away from his responsibilities defensively. Its sad to see 6'8" Klay Thompson having to run around guarding 6'0" PGs because Steph Curry can't.

No other great player in the past was hidden on defense the way Steph Curry is hidden by the Warriors.

You basically didn't answer anything he asked. Lol

 

[n_huffhines]

Curry's the only guy I've seen run away from his responsibilities defensively. Its sad to see 6'8" Klay Thompson having to run around guarding 6'0" PGs because Steph Curry can't.

No other great player in the past was hidden on defense the way Steph Curry is hidden by the Warriors.

That doesn't make him one dimensional. He has a hard time stopping dribble-penetrators. There is literally one dimension of the game he struggles with. He does everything else at a high level.

The fact that you use the greatest shooter of all time as support for your argument that basketball is less skilled now, tells how bonkers you are.

 

[The Dog]

Rodman also won 2 titles with less around him. He was the best player on the Pistons, IMO.

No, Isiah Thomas was and always will be the best player on the Pistons. Rodman brought energy, defense and rebounding. I love Rodman as a player, but he couldn't score in a whorehouse with a pocket full of 100 dollar bills

 

[n_huffhines]

no, Isiah Thomas was and always will be the best player on the Pistons. Rodman brought energy, defense and rebounding. I love Rodman as a player, but he couldn't score in a whorehouse with a pocket full of 100 dollar bills

The Pistons were the best team largely because of the D, not the O. The O made them good enough, but the D is what made them champs.

 

[The Dog]

The Pistons were the best team largely because of the D, not the O. The O made them good enough, but the D is what made them champs.

Exactly, they were accused of making the NBA boring and thuggish because of their defense. But, Isiah was the heart and soul of that team and while he wasn't the best defensive player on the team, he still was a pretty damn good defensive player. Dumars was the lockdown defender of the guards.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Its what you've been waiting for. After the overwhelmingly positive response to my 2017 NFL Draft preview and review, I've decided to do it for the NBA Draft as well. As I've said before, I'm actually a bigger NBA fan than I am a football fan. Basketball has always been my first love and the NBA Draft has always been something I've followed closely. So without further ado, here are my rankings of the top prospects in the 2017 NBA Draft:

The Elite (players who should be perennial all-stars)
1. Jayson Tatum - future superstar; NBA comp: Paul George/Grant Hill
2. Lonzo Ball - future superstar; NBA comp: Penny Hardaway/Jason Kidd

- Unlike most people, I view this as a two player draft. Its all about Jayson Tatum and Lonzo Ball for me. I rate both players as the top prospect in this draft by a wide margin. Its honestly a question of taste for me between the two. If you want a high scoring athletic wing who will be an elite two-way player, then you pick Jayson Tatum. However, if you want an elite point guard who will be the consummate floor general to lead your team, then you pick Lonzo Ball. Both should be perennial all-stars and among the best players at their position for the next 10 years. You all know how I much I love Lonzo Ball. I believe he's an incredible player with one of a kind passing ability. He's a true PG in every sense of the word very much like Jason Kidd. However, he's taller and more athletic than Kidd. Which is why I think Penny Hardaway is a more apt comparison. He's the type of player whose impact will go beyond stats. He should help turn around the Lakers franchise. The other player I love in this draft is Jayson Tatum. The kid just has it all. He's tall (6'8"), he's long (6'11" wingspan), he's athletic, he has a great shooting stroke, incredible one on one skills, and a body that once he gets stronger should allow him to play anywhere from SG to PF. He should honestly be the consensus #1 overall pick in this draft instead of Markelle Fultz. He has everything you are looking for from a great wing in the NBA. He'll be one of the best small forwards in the NBA by the time he's 23 years old.

Potential to be Stars but unlikely (players with immense talent but significant questions)
3. Harry Giles - potential all-star (if healthy); NBA comp: Chris Bosh

- Its really sad what happened to this kid because before the knee injuries he was the consensus #1 pick in this class. He was a freakish 6'10" athlete with incredible first step quickness, speed, and leaping ability. He looked like a young Kevin Garnett. A guy who could lock down the paint and perimeter defensively who was also versatile enough offensively to be a point power forward. I personally would be willing to spend a top 5-10 pick on him just on the off-chance he somehow returns to even half of the player he used to be. He's naturally talented enough that outside of Jayson Tatum and Lonzo Ball, I would consider drafting him ahead of anyone else in this draft. I don't know if he ever returns to the player he once was but he's talented enough to take a chance on.

4. Jonathan Isaac - solid starter w/all-star potential; NBA comp: poor man's Kevin Durant (more defense; less offense)

- This is a player who has some incredible talent. In terms of physique he's very similar to Kevin Durant. However, he lacks Durant's refinement offensively when he came into the league. He does, however, show more promise as a defender early in his career than Durant did at 19 years old. I personally think Jonathan Isaac will be more of an elite role player (ala Draymond Green) than a guy who can be the first option on a good team. The perfect fit for him would be a team like the Minnesota Timberwolves that already have young stars like Andrew Wiggins and Karl-Anthony Towns. That would be a team in which his defensive skills and ability to catch-n-shoot the 3-ball would make him a very valuable piece on a potential contender of the future.

5. Josh Jackson - solid starter w/all-star potential; NBA comp: Jimmy Butler/DeMar DeRozan

- This kid has some intriguing talent. But he has serious flaws. He's got a questionable handle, suspect shot, and his overall skill set as a player in the half-court against a set defense is limited. Its laughable that he's higher on most boards than Jayson Tatum. Josh Jackson if everything works out for him could turn into another Jimmy Butler. A really good 2-way player who can get you 20ppg on offense and offer you elite perimeter defense on the other side. However, he's also just as likely to end up as another Gerald Green. A great athlete who never quite figures it out and ends up being a bench-warmer. He still has quite a lot of talent so I would take a shot at him if Jayson Tatum, Lonzo Ball, and Jonathan Isaac are off the board.

Solid Starters/Role Players (players who lack the talent to be stars but should contribute to a team)

6. Markelle Fultz - solid starter; NBA comp: Eric Gordon/CJ McCollum

- This might be one of the most overrated NBA prospects in quite some time. Don't get me wrong, the kid has some talent. But its definitely not #1 overall pick caliber talent. As you can see, my NBA comps for him are Eric Gordon and CJ McCollum. First and foremost, Markelle Fultz is not a PG. He lacks the sort of vision and natural passing skills required to be a PG. He's an undersized 2-guard. He also has mediocre athleticism. Anyone who think this guy is in the same class as Russell Westbrook or John Wall when it comes to athleticism will be sorely disappointed. Markelle Fultz is actually a good fit for Philadelphia (although I wouldn't have traded up to get him and given up other picks). Fultz can provide decent spacing as a shooter for Ben Simmons and Joel Embiid. He can also score one on one in the half court when those guys are on the bench. Defensively, however, he's a big-time liability. Also, I can't overlook the fact his team won only 9 games in college. That tells me has poor leadership qualities and other intangibles.

7. Justin Jackson - solid starter/role player; NBA comp: Nicolas Batum

- Very underrated player. I think he can be a solid starter in the NBA. He's the modern 3nD SF. That means he can play great defense on the wing against the other teams best offensive player. And on offense he can provide spacing by being a great catch n shoot player from the 3-point line. Someone will draft him in the middle of the first round and end up with a solid starter.

8. Dennis Smith Jr. - starter/role player; NBA comp: Emmanuel Mudiay
9. De'Aaron Fox - starter/role player; NBA comp: Brandon Knight

- Both players are very similar to Emmanuel Mudiay who was drafted by the Denver Nuggets a few years ago. Neither is quite as big as Mudiay but both are just as explosive if not moreso. Smith and Fox's big issue, just as it was and is Mudiay's big issue, is SHOOTING. If they become more competent shooters from the perimeter then both have a chance to maybe become really good players in the league. But if not, then they'll be be just like Emmanuel Mudiay and Brandon Knight. Guys on bad teams trying to fight for minutes.

10. Terrance Ferguson - starter/role player; NBA comp - JR Smith/Terrance Ross
11. Malik Monk - starter/role player; NBA comp - Lou Williams

- I honestly don't know why Malik Monk is rated as a potential top 10 pick but Terrance Ferguson isn't. Ferguson was more highly thought of when they were both coming out of high school. Ferguson is 3 inches taller (6'7" vs 6'3"). Ferguson is more athletic. And Ferguson is just as good a shooter. And Ferguson is younger. There is literally no reason to pick Malik Monk ahead of Terrance Ferguson unless you just think going to college at Kentucky for one year rather than heading to Australia to play one year of professional basketball overseas makes someone a better player. Both players are very similar but I think Ferguson has the higher ceiling. Monk will at best be a bench scorer like Lou Williams. Ferguson gives you the potential to be a starting SG that offers great perimeter defense and elite 3-point shooting ala JR Smith in his prime.

Best of the Rest

12. Zach Collins
13. Lauri Markkanen
14. Jarrett Allen
15. Justin Patton
16. Bam Adebayo

- All 5 of these big men are similar which is why I've grouped them the same. Now this doesn't mean they have similar skill sets. In fact the opposite is true. All of these big men have different strengths. The thing that ties them together is they all do just one thing really good and are deficient at nearly everything else. For example, Lauri Markkanen is an amazing outside shooter for a guy who is 7-feet tall. However, he can't rebound or protect the rim. So what value does he have as a center if all he can do is shoot 3s but can't play defense or rebound? Similarly Justin Patton and Jarrett Allen are really good at protecting the rim and playing defense but they can't contribute offensively. Bam Adebayo is undersized for a PF and lacks the length to be a factor defensively or the skill set to be a factor offensive. Best case scenario he's an energy big who grabs a few rebounds. The guy with the highest ceiling is Zach Collins because he at least offers the potential to contribute on both sides of the court. He shows some ability to block shots and protect the rim, while also exhibiting a decent stroke on his jump shot. His problem is he's only 230 lbs and lacks the girth to guard anyone in the post.

Second Round Steals (guys who probably won't be drafted in the 1st round but can make NBA teams)

- P.J. Dozier
- Ivan Rabb

I hope y'all realize, I'm not just good at the NFL Draft.

My #1 rated player from the 2017 NBA Draft, Jayson Tatum, is about to lead his team to the NBA Finals. While the guy everyone had going #1 last year, Markelle Fultz, can't get a minute in the playoffs.

I was right about Jayson Tatum being a SUPERSTAR and I was right about Markelle Fultz being a bust.