[JoeWolf1]

For all of us draft enthusiasts there has always been the discussion as to whether potential or production is more important when deciding which young player to pick, but lately I’ve been noticing how subjective "potential" really is.

One school of people interprit potential as how much room a player has to grow and it’s almost a detriment if a player improves.  If a player puts in the hard work and improves their ceiling is now all of a sudden lower than a player who is just a physical specimen and can’t shoot the ball. I personally take issue with this interpritation because I feel if a player improves drastically that indicates a hard work ethic and more likely than not, the guys who make great strides in between college seasons turn out to be better players than the raw "naturual physical tools paired with low Bball IQ" players.

I personally feel the players with the post potential and highest ceilings are those that improve greatly from year to year.  To me, a player who doesn’t improve raises more of a red flag than a player who expands his game every year, but is an inch too short for his position.

You’re NBA All-Stars of today are not guys who had to , they are guys who, if they went to college, produced at a high level, improved every year and have added new aspects to their games.

Even Andrew Bynum who came straight out as the youngest player in NBA history has improved every year. Between his rookie and sophmore years, he made great strides.

Since potential is so subjective, which players do you feel have the highest potential after the Kevin Durants of the world who produce insane numbers AND show a lot of room to grow?  The guys so raw yet physically imposing, like Drummond, they have a worse FT% than most middle school players?  The guys who have a nice versitle basic skillset and solid production that with a little imagination you can see a future star, like Perry Jones, but also raise questions about desire?  Or the guys who produce insane numbers in college, improve every year, but don’t quite fit the ideal size mold for their position? like Thomas Robinson.

It’s easy to pick the no brainers, Kyrie Irving was without a doubt the #1 pick last year and it was an easy call, but after the sure fire guys, which group of players do you feel have the most potential when still picking high in the lottery.

[Anton123Participant]

 Drummond’s FT% scares me, if I was an elite prospect, I’d do everything to get rid of such a glaring weakness. Even Shaq’s FT numbers look elite next to him.

I mean it’s not that hard to just stay over every day and shoot some free throws. It would really make me think twice before I chose him.

You know guys like Thomas Robinson and Gihlchrist will work on every weakness they have and eventually become very good. 

I think if potential is something that means how good a player CAN get, there should also be an indicator of how likely it is for a player to reach his potential

[TheArtistPaysthePriceParticipant]

Drummond is a great case study. His ceiling is a middle class mans (as opposed to a poor mans) Shaq/Amare combination. His floor seems to be Jerome James. That gap is so large its crazy.

The problem I have with picking guys that are projects, even ones with lots of potential-potential, is that by time they are good you have to pay then like they are good. Either that or their good for somebody esle.

If it takes Drummond 4 years to average 15 and 10, then you will have paid him to do the develop the skills he could have got in college, costing you nothing. He will be a restricted free agent and at 15 and 10 he will want north of 10 million a year.

If I’m Portland and Drummond is their then I take him and then bring back Camby, a free agent, to teach him how to be a professional.

Its a crap shoot, would you rather have Marshon Brooks or Derrick Favors. One contributes, starts and helps win games. The other has so much potential its ridiculous. In a trade up trade what team wouldn’t take Favors. = Lamb vs Drummond

It’s not just draft enthusiasts, its GM’s/everybody.

[surveParticipant]

 and as I posted here the other day, I dont think enough attention is paid to what type of person these players are off the court.  that factors heavily into potential to me.

Greg Monroe and Derrick Favors seem like the kind of guys off the court that I would want on my team because I believe they will work hard to improve and not be easily distracted.  On the other hand Cousins is a guy that just screams Charles Barkley to me.  The signs have been there even when he was in high school.  He is so cocky and high-strung and is so in love with his pure talent.  It has already been stated that in Sac he has displayed a bad attitude and not the best work ethic.  

I wouldnt walk away from Drummond because of his FT%.  Its going to be a challenge for his coaches but you know what…thats what interviews are for.  If he seems like a guy who isnt concerned with being a star yet and acknowledges that he really isnt even a "good" ball player yet, then teams may overlook that because they may feel it wont be hard to correct some of his flaws if he is willing to put in the work.

so I like upside and I like character.  my draft favorites are Drummond, Davis, Barnes, Robinson, MKG, and Beal.  to name a few.

some guys that I feel are risky are Rivers, PJIII (I love the guy but certain things about him just raise red flags), Wroten.  This is all relative as to where they fall, some players I would take before them, others I would not.

[kngojcParticipant]

 That’s an interesting take you have on that with the Favors/Brooks comparison. But Favors is really showing he’s been working on his game lately. He looks like he’s developed some nice post moves and will continue to get better (especially being in Utah, he could maybe ask the Mailman for some advice). Brooks was a scorer straight out of college, when you picked him you knew exactly what you were getting. With that being said, the guard vs forward comparisons are so hard because big men take at least an extra year to develop than guards. If Brooks averaged 20 ppg and Favors averaged 14 & 10 which player would you pick then? That’s why its so hard not to at least look at the post players like Drummond. Because at worst, they’re a sizable player that can help clog up the middle and rebound the ball. But at best they could be a dominant player. If a guard doesn’t pan out, you might just have a guy like Wes Johnson (even though he’s hardly a guard) who just stands in the corner waiting to shoot.

[TheArtistPaysthePriceParticipant]

You’re right nobody wants to end up with Wes Johnson. But if it takes a guy ago years to be a player doesnt that count against him. Look how much everyone in Denver’s brass loved Nene, until he started making 13 mill a year. When you avg the same amount of millions as point per game you are not worth the money. So if Favors doesn’t avg 14 points a game until you are paying 9 mill a season, how is that a good investment?

P.S. I would still take Favors over Brooks even though it doesnt make scents.

[surveParticipant]

By the same token as you stated with Brooks, I think that scouts shouldve know what they were getting with Johnson.

I thought he was a good player but certain things turned me off about him.  I dont like the fact that teams force a position on guys and thats kinda what happened there.  One thing is for sure, the learning curve for Wes would be much steeper because he was already pretty "old" compared to his lottery counterparts.  He is a good athlete, but I dont like the way he uses it.  Its like a guy that has raw speed against a guy who is not quite as fast naturally but is a trained runner.  

The other thing I saw is too, potential is really subjective because of the team, coach, rotation, and system you may fall into.  Wes could still be a good player but Minny may not be the place for him.  Hell, you already have Derrick Williams and Beasley fighting for minutes at SF….so Wes has to play SG just by default if nothing else.  Yes…..potential is VERY subjective, especially in today’s games due to a myriad of variables. 

[i’m jus so offendedParticipant]

I don’t know about a great post. Of course potential is subjective, why do you think Thabeet goes 2nd overall. In terms of this years draft, i believe the Durant "potential plus production" type players are display big time. I believe guys put up great numbers like Davis, MKG, T-Rob, Beal, Barnes and those top tier guys played great in college and still have room to expand their games and get better. Drummond and PJ III are examples of higher potential with lower production. To me, PJ III is still a top 5-10 based on the fact he was used incorrectly at Baylor and his skill set equals a 3 in the NBA. He has nice shot form, can get to the rim from the perimeter, can rebound and showed against kentucky can bang down low and he was taking it to Ant Davis and willing his team to a comeback that fell short. So of course potential is subjective and GM’s who fall in love with it seem to lose their jobs more often than not.

[Memphis MadnessParticipant]

I think Anthony Davis has "potential".  Yeah he put up great stats and won a title as a freshman but he could still get bigger and improve his offense.  He has a wide range of comparisons all the way from Pervis Ellison on the low end to Bill Russell on the high end.  He is a unique player and a team might just have to use him as best they can and then get other guys around him to adapt. 

Every guy in the draft is pretty much a "potential" pick because the guys have a lot to work on.  Or, you get Jared Sullinger who you know what you are getting with him and his ceiling might be perceived as lower than some.  But, if he turns into a slightly more athletic, better offensive DeJuan Blair and the rest of the guys picked ahead of him turn out to be busts then he could turn into one of the steals of the draft.   Another guy like Sully is Draymond Green who is an undersized power forward who can rebound, score some, and lead. 

These "potential" picks will all be about value.  Andre Drummond might be a pure potential pick but he makes a lot of sense outside the top 3 or 4.  Drummond offers value there and he is 6’10 or taller, and a solid athlete who can block shots.  Guys like that come at a premium.  The other big "potential" guy is Perry Jones.  He wasn’t consistent, but you kind of get the feeling that he could at least be a 6’11 Danny Granger with better athleticism.  Not sure you take that guy in the top 3, but oustide the top 5 he really starts to make sense. 

My late first round "potential" guy is Fab Melo.  Yeah, he didn’t do a lot and he might not be a scholar but he is tall and athletic and can block/alter shots.  He was a good defensive anchor in college who looked mobile and fluid.  If you like Andre Drummond in the top 10 I can’t understand why you wouldn’t like Fab Melo in the 20’s.  If Fab Melo goes to the right team then he might end up being the steal of the draft since he won’t have to worry anymore about going to class.  Plus, you can play some zone D in the NBA so that would help Fab Melo.  And, he is not one of those guys who just used to camp out in the middle in Big East games since there is no defensive 3 seconds in college (yes, I am talking about you, Hasheem Thabeet).  His floor is probably similar to Andre Drummond.  His ceiling might be tough to peg, but you could say the same thing about Andre Drummond.

[mosdefParticipant]

this is a good subject

The thing with looking at prospects is that every fan wants an All Star player/Dream Team member regardless if they pick 2, 14, or 27. If I was a GM, I would want the player to actually show he is a good basketball player with skill and desire while his wingspan and jumping ability being only a tie breaker. I also put a lot of emphasis on skills that really cant be worked on in later years (ball handling) Shooting range and FT shooting can be worked on but if they didnt have the fire to be the 1-2 Guy on their college team, that would be a huge red flag telling me he probably really wont improve on either. Im not too big into height. 6’8 and half compared to 6’10” but the 6’8′ guy knows the game is fine by me. If we look back at the 2008 draft for example, alot of people marveled at Joe Alexanders freak leaping ability along with Anthony Randolph. Meanwhile Brook Lopez (Jared Sullinger) went in between both of them and outside of injury, is the better player cuz he knows the game. Knowing the game outside of the 1st pick is what makes players good. Not Anthony Randolph (Perry jones) being able to jump out of the gym and dribble like a guard.

If a player is just a role player or takes a back seat on his college team (Andre Drummond) I highly doubt he will just explode and be the Batman or the Robin. He will more likely be the Alfred.  I would still draft him, but I would feel safer with drafting him later then say with the #2 pick. People act like drafting to be safe is a bad thing a lot of times and want to catch the potential in the freak athlete. If you compare a player (Thomas Robinson) to a David West there is nothing wrong with that to me. David West is/was a good player. He will never be considered the best PF in the game but he will get you wins.

If we consider the safe guys to be Antony Davis, MKG and Thomas Robinson then my next list would be

Jared Sullinger(improved range), Bradley Beal(showed he can rebound which shows toughness to me), Royce White(skill size ratio), Austin Rivers (would take chance on mid to late lottery but need complimentary guard) and Tyshawn Taylor (late tho shot selection scares me) Orlando Johnson (2nd round)

I would stay away from Perry Jones(desire), Kendall Marshall(quickness-shooting), Harrison Barnes(lack of penetration), Andre Drummond(desire), Doron Lamb (flat trajectory)

[TheArtistPaysthePriceParticipant]

Drummond has potential potential. As meaning he has the potential to have potential, he hasn’t shown any basketball potential yet.

Yet, I think should go before the 7 pick. Even though that doesn’t make scents.

[Author]

Posts