Vols in NBA Draft

#101
#101
Vols8086 said:
That's really not accurate. If all things were equal about the prospects, then age would be the trump card for sure. But its just not that simple. Cade Cunningham is a full year older and nobody thinks his potential development is lesser than younger players in this draft.

The age game really makes a big difference when you're comparing a 1 and done vs a 3 or 4 year college guy. Plus taking into account if your organization is still building or you're an aging team looking for day 1 impact. Which is why once you get in the 20s, the draft can get really unpredictable.
Click to expand...
It’s 100% accurate

I didn’t say they viewed his development as larger than all players, I said “many”…and that’s 100% accurate. He’s younger than almost all and less college experience than many others in this class. If he was 22 years old and a junior or senior he wouldn’t be getting projected where he currently is, a good bit of his stock has to do with his age.
 
Last edited:
#102
#102
Chris4Vols22 said:
When I look at all of Springer's potentials (not just age), I don't get that sure-fire feeling of "yes, he's obviously getting drafted in the first" like I do with Keon.
Click to expand...
Well 1 is projected Top 10 and the other Top 25 so I would expect that you would feel more confident in Keon for sure lol.
 
#103
#103
bleedingTNorange said:
It’s 100% accurate

I didn’t say they viewed his development as larger than all players, I said “many”…and that’s 100% accurate. He’s younger than almost all and less college experience than many others in this class.
Click to expand...

If they viewed him having a high ceiling, he wouldn't be projected as a guy to go in the 20s. Its his perceived lack of a high ceiling that has him dropping out of the lottery.

Him being the youngest player doesn't automatically mean he has a higher ceiling. Honestly he doesn't have one elite skill by NBA standards that you say "yep, that translates from day 1".
 
#104
#104
Vols8086 said:
If they viewed him having a high ceiling, he wouldn't be projected as a guy to go in the 20s. Its his perceived lack of a high ceiling that has him dropping out of the lottery.

Him being the youngest player doesn't automatically mean he has a higher ceiling. Honestly he doesn't have one elite skill by NBA standards that you say "yep, that translates from day 1".
Click to expand...
Like I added in to my post…

“If he was 22 years old and a junior or senior he wouldn’t be getting projected where he currently is, a good bit of his stock has to do with his age.”
 
#106
#106
Chris4Vols22 said:
Lol is right because that point is irrelevant to the discussion. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised if Springer slips to the second.
Click to expand...
You said you don’t get that sure feeling, I lol’d because no duh…that would be like me saying about Keon “I don't get that sure-fire feeling of "yes, he's obviously getting drafted in the Top 8” like I do with Cade. Lol
 
#107
#107
bleedingTNorange said:
Like I added in to my post…

“If he was 22 years old and a junior or senior he wouldn’t be getting projected where he currently is, a good bit of his stock has to do with his age.”
Click to expand...

Well you didn't have that originally when I responded. I don't disagree with that statement.

However I still disagree with your premise that Springer is viewed as having a higher ceiling than many or most or whatever adjective you want to use. If scouts thought he had a high ceiling, that combined with his age would make him a top 5 pick. The fact he is so young and still not a lottery guy says a lot about his lack of a high ceiling in the eyes of NBA folks.
 
#108
#108
Vols8086 said:
Well you didn't have that originally when I responded. I don't disagree with that statement.

However I still disagree with your premise that Springer is viewed as having a higher ceiling than many or most or whatever adjective you want to use. If scouts thought he had a high ceiling, that combined with his age would make him a top 5 pick. The fact he is so young and still not a lottery guy says a lot about his lack of a high ceiling in the eyes of NBA folks.
Click to expand...
I never used the term “high ceiling”, that’s you.
 
#109
#109
bleedingTNorange said:
You said you don’t get that sure feeling, I lol’d because no duh…that would be like me saying about Keon “I don't get that sure-fire feeling of "yes, he's obviously getting drafted in the Top 8” like I do with Cade. Lol
Click to expand...
Again, irrelevant to the discussion. At this point, I'm not sure if a discussion is happening. I said I wouldn't be surprised to see Springer slip to the second. Then, you posted your comment about the NBA drafting on potential, which doesn't really have anything to do with my post. I could only assume that you were countering my claim of Springer possibly slipping to the second when you were talking generally about draft potential.

So were you agreeing, disagreeing, or not really addressing my claim?
 
#111
#111
Vols8086 said:
If they viewed him having a high ceiling, he wouldn't be projected as a guy to go in the 20s. Its his perceived lack of a high ceiling that has him dropping out of the lottery.

Him being the youngest player doesn't automatically mean he has a higher ceiling. Honestly he doesn't have one elite skill by NBA standards that you say "yep, that translates from day 1".
Click to expand...
HIs ceiling is why he's a projected first round pick. Because he's so young he's a high risk, which is why he's not higher.

The picks around the 20s tend to be solid roster builders that sometimes develop into all stars down the road. Pascal Siakam is an example of a guy who was selected young in the 20s more because of his potential than his achievement, and he's been All NBA.
 
#112
#112
Chris4Vols22 said:
Again, irrelevant to the discussion. At this point, I'm not sure if a discussion is happening. I said I wouldn't be surprised to see Springer slip to the second. Then, you posted your comment about the NBA drafting on potential, which doesn't really have anything to do with my post. I could only assume that you were countering my claim of Springer possibly slipping to the second when you were talking generally about draft potential.

So were you agreeing, disagreeing, or not really addressing my claim?
Click to expand...
You mentioned not analyzing any other draft prospects and that you couldn’t imagine 30 guys not going before Springer…I was pointing out something about Springer verse the vast majority of the class that is in his favor. I didn’t know if you knew that or not, I assumed not since you had mentioned not analyzing the other prospects.
 
#113
#113
Chris4Vols22 said:
Lol is right because that point is irrelevant to the discussion. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised if Springer slips to the second.
Click to expand...
I might have agreed with you prior to the combine, but his numbers there make me think he’s a 95% sure 1st round selection
 
Last edited:
#114
#114
If Yves can be a consistent corner 3 point shooter, he can have a role because of his defense and athleticism. He could be a more athletic version of PJ Tucker. He can be a cutter and lob threat on offense as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvolrecruiting
#118
#118
kckempf said:
Facts are facts, huh? NBA revenue more than doubled in the last decade. What kind of product in decline experiences massive growth?

A Decade of NBA Profit: How Did the League Fare in 2020?
Click to expand...

Facts are facts and different facts mean different things. This is not that hard, I clearly stated I am talking about the decreased interest here in the states which is clearly proven by the data on the US audience...you point to profits which obviously factors in the global audience (and understanding the increased broadcasting bandwidth over the past decade is key).
 
#119
#119
MinisterofDef#92 said:
Facts are facts and different facts mean different things. This is not that hard, I clearly stated I am talking about the decreased interest here in the states which is clearly proven by the data on the US audience...you point to profits which obviously factors in the global audience (and understanding the increased broadcasting bandwidth over the past decade is key).
Click to expand...
So facts are facts until you don't like them? Easy to dismiss them when they don't agree with your world view.
 
#120
#120
kckempf said:
So facts are facts until you don't like them? Easy to dismiss them when they don't agree with your world view.
Click to expand...

Lol...I didn't dismiss anything. Either you cannot comprehend or you are bad at spinning and deflecting so I will break it down for you...I clearly specified US viewership which I supported with data (one set of facts). You respond with total profitability (another set of facts). Apples and oranges but, yes, both can be true...lol.
 
#121
#121
MinisterofDef#92 said:
Lol...I didn't dismiss anything. Either you cannot comprehend or you are bad at spinning and deflecting so I will break it down for you...I clearly specified US viewership which I supported with data (one set of facts). You respond with total profitability (another set of facts). Apples and oranges but, yes, both can be true...lol.
Click to expand...
The crux of your intent is to show that the NBA is hurting itself because of “poor ratings” when they’ve been knocking it out of the park — league is making more money than ever, players earning more than ever, and team owners are seeing their investments explode in value. Domestic TV ratings have cratered since cable subscriptions have also cratered, and that trend can be tracked in every sport. Singling out the TV ratings for the NBA without putting them into context has been the number one way of making a bad faith argument about the health of the league. Nobody who’s making boatloads of money from pro basketball is worrying about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol49er
#122
#122
On Pons in the combine scrimmages (which are practically meaningless)
If Yves Pons is going to make the NBA, it’s going to be as a guy who translates his exceptional athleticism into being a jack of all trades defender. And if that’s the case, then it’s a major problem that Joe Wieskamp, admittedly a better defender than often given credit for, had to clean up his mistakes rather than the other way around. Similarly, he’s not in a position to force Trendon Watford and Joe Wieskamp to switch onto opposing centers on an island. He (#59 below) just seemed constantly a step behind, and for guys who are already physically weird to begin with that step can end the possession. I would contend that Pons actually looked like the worst defender on the floor more often than he did the best, so while he still displayed his jump-out-of-the-gym athleticism and actually made a few jump-shots, he probably cemented himself as nothing more than a gimmick player.
Click to expand...

Combine Scrimmage Review — The Looney Bin
 
#124
#124
johnfnkelly said:
On Pons in the combine scrimmages (which are practically meaningless)


Combine Scrimmage Review — The Looney Bin
Click to expand...
Looney bin is probably accurate. Hard to determine help defenses and switches in a combine setting given there's no defensive system in place. In that guys clip, it looks like he clearly was switching the pick, and the other guy didn't switch the pick. Impossible to know who's at fault.

Also just put on the tape. He was the second best defender (behind JJJ) according to advanced stats on probably the best defensive team in the nation. Had a 7.4 block % that led the team, and led the SEC in blocks the year before. He can guard 1-5 with his size and length. He guarded Azubuike pretty darn well his junior year, and he was at least 290 when he played him (particularly since he was giving up 75 pounds). He tested incredibly well on the agility tests, way better than that on vertical tests. There are certainly reasons to criticize Yves, like lack of shooting or adequate handle, but defense is not one of those reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volprofch05
#125
#125
rdk4121 said:
Looney bin is probably accurate. Hard to determine help defenses and switches in a combine setting given there's no defensive system in place. In that guys clip, it looks like he clearly was switching the pick, and the other guy didn't switch the pick. Impossible to know who's at fault.

Also just put on the tape. He was the second best defender (behind JJJ) according to advanced stats on probably the best defensive team in the nation. Had a 7.4 block % that led the team, and led the SEC in blocks the year before. He can guard 1-5 with his size and length. He guarded Azubuike pretty darn well his junior year, and he was at least 290 when he played him (particularly since he was giving up 75 pounds). He tested incredibly well on the agility tests, way better than that on vertical tests. There are certainly reasons to criticize Yves, like lack of shooting or adequate handle, but defense is not one of those reasons.
Click to expand...

Pons can't guard 1-5.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top