*** Official 2018-19 Draft Thread ***

[SO_MONEY]

i beg to differ with your assessment. KBD - until he buffs up his noodley arms, legs, shoulders and chest - is a 3. so, in light of that, it's KAT, dieng and saric vs. wiggins, cov, okogie, KBD and reynolds. we do need more bigs than wings.

and here's the other thing about it. cov, okogie, KBD and reynolds are all playing about where we'd hope they'd be. we really shouldn't be chucking any of those guys to the curb. it's wiggins who is underperforming. the number ONE wing we have. and we're not getting rid of him. all FIVE of them are under contract. cutting bait on the lessers of the bunch doesn't make sense because they're kind of okay. long story short - we have enough wings. the only way we'd need to add is if, for some reason, we found a trade partner for wigs that didn't bring back another wing.

LOL. You question KBD as a big, which he is. He is not and never will be a SF.

So just all of last year and all of his time in college but..................never.

He is a 3 that can play some 4 not the other way around.

Nope. He doesn't have the handles or mobility. He is a PF. Sorry. Yes, he is skinny for his position, but it is not like Clarke backers see that as an issue another obvoius PF.

[thinktank]

LOL. You question KBD as a big, which he is. He is not and never will be a SF. And if it is Wiggins who is underperforming, then all the more reason for a wing as a need.

It’s the cold hard truth.

[thinktank]

Yall obsess about position labels in a weird way.

Someone here is violently obsessed with a PF.

[mlhouse]

LOL. You question KBD as a big, which he is. He is not and never will be a SF.

So just all of last year and all of his time in college but..................never.

He is a 3 that can play some 4 not the other way around.

Nope. He doesn't have the handles or mobility. He is a PF. Sorry. Yes, he is skinny for his position, but it is not like Clarke backers see that as an issue another obvoius PF.

I agree that Bates-Diop is more of a 4 tweeter than a 3, but the most important thing is how they play. He plays as a stretch 4 that can in occasionally go inside.

[SO_MONEY]

So just all of last year and all of his time in college but..................never.

He is a 3 that can play some 4 not the other way around.

Nope. He doesn't have the handles or mobility. He is a PF. Sorry. Yes, he is skinny for his position, but it is not like Clarke backers see that as an issue another obvoius PF.

I agree that Bates-Diop is more of a 4 tweeter than a 3, but the most important thing is how they play. He plays as a stretch 4 that can in occasionally go inside.

Frankly, it is the same arrguments over and over. Is Derrick Willams a SF?, is BJ a SF? ect.. People just want to fit square pegs into round holes. You would think that at some point they would realize the pattern of being wrong on things like this. People are what they are, no need to force things.

[mlhouse]

Nope. He doesn't have the handles or mobility. He is a PF. Sorry. Yes, he is skinny for his position, but it is not like Clarke backers see that as an issue another obvoius PF.

I agree that Bates-Diop is more of a 4 tweeter than a 3, but the most important thing is how they play. He plays as a stretch 4 that can in occasionally go inside.

Frankly, it is the same arrguments over and over. Is Derrick Willams a SF?, is BJ a SF? ect.. People just want to fit square pegs into round holes. You would think that at some point they would realize the pattern of being wrong on things like this. People are what they are, no need to force things.

The Wolves organization and their fans have been way behind the ball on all of this. The 1-2-3-4-5 PG-SG-SF-PF-C molds have been cast off by most team concepts long ago. Part of the problem is that we have had strong willed old school coaches with set offensive schemes for the past decade from Rambis installing the Triangle, Adelman, Saunders/Mitchell, and Tom Thibodeau. But the constant debate of Towns being a "Center' or a "power forward" is idiotic. NO matter what you label him, he will play the same.

[Thrillkill]

So you think they'll bench KAT for Clarke?

?

Dude, what part of Clarke being able to block a shot when Towns gets used in P@R is getting past you?

When did you say that?

I refer you to the 500 posts where I have said it since probably December. Probably only 300 times in this thread and 100 in the last week so I can see how you missed it.

[j2j]

I agree that Bates-Diop is more of a 4 tweeter than a 3, but the most important thing is how they play. He plays as a stretch 4 that can in occasionally go inside.

Frankly, it is the same arrguments over and over. Is Derrick Willams a SF?, is BJ a SF? ect.. People just want to fit square pegs into round holes. You would think that at some point they would realize the pattern of being wrong on things like this. People are what they are, no need to force things.

The Wolves organization and their fans have been way behind the ball on all of this. The 1-2-3-4-5 PG-SG-SF-PF-C molds have been cast off by most team concepts long ago. Part of the problem is that we have had strong willed old school coaches with set offensive schemes for the past decade from Rambis installing the Triangle, Adelman, Saunders/Mitchell, and Tom Thibodeau. But the constant debate of Towns being a "Center' or a "power forward" is idiotic. NO matter what you label him, he will play the same.

Bingo

[j2j]

?

Dude, what part of Clarke being able to block a shot when Towns gets used in P@R is getting past you?

When did you say that?

I refer you to the 500 posts where I have said it since probably December. Probably only 300 times in this thread and 100 in the last week so I can see how you missed it.

To be fair, I ignore most of your posts because there's little value amongst the ranting, raving, and insults. But now I get what you're saying.

[Thrillkill]

I agree that Bates-Diop is more of a 4 tweeter than a 3, but the most important thing is how they play. He plays as a stretch 4 that can in occasionally go inside.

Frankly, it is the same arrguments over and over. Is Derrick Willams a SF?, is BJ a SF? ect.. People just want to fit square pegs into round holes. You would think that at some point they would realize the pattern of being wrong on things like this. People are what they are, no need to force things.

The Wolves organization and their fans have been way behind the ball on all of this. The 1-2-3-4-5 PG-SG-SF-PF-C molds have been cast off by most team concepts long ago. Part of the problem is that we have had strong willed old school coaches with set offensive schemes for the past decade from Rambis installing the Triangle, Adelman, Saunders/Mitchell, and Tom Thibodeau. But the constant debate of Towns being a "Center' or a "power forward" is idiotic. NO matter what you label him, he will play the same.

Shocking that who you can guard does not come into your argument anywhere. Also have you heard of these things called dunks and FT's.

Let's watch Towns guard your favorite position the "stretch 4" I mean Jesus. Do you read what you write?

[Thrillkill]

When did you say that?

I refer you to the 500 posts where I have said it since probably December. Probably only 300 times in this thread and 100 in the last week so I can see how you missed it.

To be fair, I ignore most of your posts because there's little value amongst the ranting, raving, and insults. But now I get what you're saying.

Yep must be me doing the sad passive aggressive response when I can't take a moment to read and comprehend.

[j2j]

I refer you to the 500 posts where I have said it since probably December. Probably only 300 times in this thread and 100 in the last week so I can see how you missed it.

To be fair, I ignore most of your posts because there's little value amongst the ranting, raving, and insults. But now I get what you're saying.

Yep must be me doing the sad passive aggressive response when I can't take a moment to read and comprehend.

Ok

[SO_MONEY]

I agree that Bates-Diop is more of a 4 tweeter than a 3, but the most important thing is how they play. He plays as a stretch 4 that can in occasionally go inside.

Frankly, it is the same arrguments over and over. Is Derrick Willams a SF?, is BJ a SF? ect.. People just want to fit square pegs into round holes. You would think that at some point they would realize the pattern of being wrong on things like this. People are what they are, no need to force things.

The Wolves organization and their fans have been way behind the ball on all of this. The 1-2-3-4-5 PG-SG-SF-PF-C molds have been cast off by most team concepts long ago. Part of the problem is that we have had strong willed old school coaches with set offensive schemes for the past decade from Rambis installing the Triangle, Adelman, Saunders/Mitchell, and Tom Thibodeau. But the constant debate of Towns being a "Center' or a "power forward" is idiotic. NO matter what you label him, he will play the same.

Agree and disagree. While the 1-2-3-4-5 PG-SG-SF-PF-C molds might be outdated, there is still minimum requirements of skills. Meaning a SF or what would be a SF needs to have certain skills and these skills are becoming more and more necissary as skill levels have increased across all body types. Players are becoming more and more guard-like offensively, and many aim to defend multiple positions. When a player has limitations, it becomes less about positionless basketball, because they have a position and if they play out of it there would be a need for slack to be picked up by a different player which is what positionless basketball seeks to avoid...i.e. skills overlap and you create mismatches and advantages over the other teams limmited players.

[KevinBaconIsNotMyHero]

Just watched some highlights(I know it’s not the way to scout basketball guys lol) of Sekou Doumbouya on Twitter from a game yesterday where he scored 34 points. He was attacking consistently in transition and pulling up with his jumper. It was fun to watch. Still would like to see his defensive acumen and some rebounding but I’ll probably have to search YouTube for some games.

[UnFadeable21]

Clarke with the best block in college basketball last year

[UnFadeable21]

[j2j]

Commitments this early, especially late in the lottery, are just stupid.

[mlhouse]

Frankly, it is the same arrguments over and over. Is Derrick Willams a SF?, is BJ a SF? ect.. People just want to fit square pegs into round holes. You would think that at some point they would realize the pattern of being wrong on things like this. People are what they are, no need to force things.

The Wolves organization and their fans have been way behind the ball on all of this. The 1-2-3-4-5 PG-SG-SF-PF-C molds have been cast off by most team concepts long ago. Part of the problem is that we have had strong willed old school coaches with set offensive schemes for the past decade from Rambis installing the Triangle, Adelman, Saunders/Mitchell, and Tom Thibodeau. But the constant debate of Towns being a "Center' or a "power forward" is idiotic. NO matter what you label him, he will play the same.

Agree and disagree. While the 1-2-3-4-5 PG-SG-SF-PF-C molds might be outdated, there is still minimum requirements of skills. Meaning a SF or what would be a SF needs to have certain skills and these skills are becoming more and more necissary as skill levels have increased across all body types. Players are becoming more and more guard-like offensively, and many aim to defend multiple positions. When a player has limitations, it becomes less about positionless basketball, because they have a position and if they play out of it there would be a need for slack to be picked up by a different player which is what positionless basketball seeks to avoid...i.e. skills overlap and you create mismatches and advantages over the other teams limmited players.

No, about the only thing that the former "postions" do, essentially, is describe a way of playing.

Today's NBA has created "roles" instead of positions and the easiest way of understanding this is just look at NBA Example 1: Lebron James. What "position" does Lebron play? He isn't a PF. He isn't a forward. He is probably mostly a PG, but then he isn't.

I would argue that there are more than 5 "roles" on the NBA court now and really good teams that maximize their efficiency figure out how to get the right players in the right roles on the court. It would be interesting to do a detailed analysis of this but some of the role break downs are:

play intiators, on-ball, off-ball, shooting ranges, rebound type

A guy like Geogui Dieng is a non-initiator, offball, limited range standstill rebounder. Most traditional NBA "4" would be like this.

But another way of considering it is to think of the 1-2-3-4-5 positions as being continuous. Dieng is probably a "4.6" with Saric more of a 3.7. Ricky Rubio was probably a 1.0 play initiator, on-ball, limited range non-rebounder.

[thinktank]

Bad idea to use Lebron as your example of how the rest of NBA players play.

Some guys are very position-less.

Most are not.

[mlhouse]

Bad idea to use Lebron as your example of how the rest of NBA players play.

Some guys are very position-less.

Most are not.

Again, most guys are position less because every team has position less players. What is Towns? Center, PF, 3 point shooting specialist? Trying to peg him in a position and then peg the other players around him into a position is a huge mistake and a mistake the Wolves have perpetuated for many years running.

If you think roles instead your offense and defense is going to be much more efficient. Many teams use 1 on-ball isolation, 1 pick and roll screener, and 3 space guys and design their offense around those roles. Harden, Capella and the rest of the Rockets. The Rockets don't give a shit about defensive matchups because their primary concern is to force you to match them. Only a couple of teams can.

[thinktank]

Some things never change.

I tried, guys.

The whole league is as position-less as Lebron now.

Because Lebron is a good example of the whole league.

KBD is a SF now. Take it on mlhouse's word.

[SO_MONEY]

The Wolves organization and their fans have been way behind the ball on all of this. The 1-2-3-4-5 PG-SG-SF-PF-C molds have been cast off by most team concepts long ago. Part of the problem is that we have had strong willed old school coaches with set offensive schemes for the past decade from Rambis installing the Triangle, Adelman, Saunders/Mitchell, and Tom Thibodeau. But the constant debate of Towns being a "Center' or a "power forward" is idiotic. NO matter what you label him, he will play the same.

Agree and disagree. While the 1-2-3-4-5 PG-SG-SF-PF-C molds might be outdated, there is still minimum requirements of skills. Meaning a SF or what would be a SF needs to have certain skills and these skills are becoming more and more necissary as skill levels have increased across all body types. Players are becoming more and more guard-like offensively, and many aim to defend multiple positions. When a player has limitations, it becomes less about positionless basketball, because they have a position and if they play out of it there would be a need for slack to be picked up by a different player which is what positionless basketball seeks to avoid...i.e. skills overlap and you create mismatches and advantages over the other teams limmited players.

No, about the only thing that the former "postions" do, essentially, is describe a way of playing.

Today's NBA has created "roles" instead of positions and the easiest way of understanding this is just look at NBA Example 1: Lebron James. What "position" does Lebron play? He isn't a PF. He isn't a forward. He is probably mostly a PG, but then he isn't.

I would argue that there are more than 5 "roles" on the NBA court now and really good teams that maximize their efficiency figure out how to get the right players in the right roles on the court. It would be interesting to do a detailed analysis of this but some of the role break downs are:

play intiators, on-ball, off-ball, shooting ranges, rebound type

A guy like Geogui Dieng is a non-initiator, offball, limited range standstill rebounder. Most traditional NBA "4" would be like this.

But another way of considering it is to think of the 1-2-3-4-5 positions as being continuous. Dieng is probably a "4.6" with Saric more of a 3.7. Ricky Rubio was probably a 1.0 play initiator, on-ball, limited range non-rebounder.

Sigh. Positions are roles, roles are positions. The more you can do, the more roles you will have, the more positions you will play. There are minimum expectations of skill sets like it or not...i.e. If you can't ball handle and pass you are not going to be a PG. When you have players who have overlapping skills that meet thoes minimum requirements, that is when positionless basketball comes into play, where players are jacks of all trades, their skills and defensive capabilities exceed convention. You must exceed convention.

[mlhouse]

Agree and disagree. While the 1-2-3-4-5 PG-SG-SF-PF-C molds might be outdated, there is still minimum requirements of skills. Meaning a SF or what would be a SF needs to have certain skills and these skills are becoming more and more necissary as skill levels have increased across all body types. Players are becoming more and more guard-like offensively, and many aim to defend multiple positions. When a player has limitations, it becomes less about positionless basketball, because they have a position and if they play out of it there would be a need for slack to be picked up by a different player which is what positionless basketball seeks to avoid...i.e. skills overlap and you create mismatches and advantages over the other teams limmited players.

No, about the only thing that the former "postions" do, essentially, is describe a way of playing.

Today's NBA has created "roles" instead of positions and the easiest way of understanding this is just look at NBA Example 1: Lebron James. What "position" does Lebron play? He isn't a PF. He isn't a forward. He is probably mostly a PG, but then he isn't.

I would argue that there are more than 5 "roles" on the NBA court now and really good teams that maximize their efficiency figure out how to get the right players in the right roles on the court. It would be interesting to do a detailed analysis of this but some of the role break downs are:

play intiators, on-ball, off-ball, shooting ranges, rebound type

A guy like Geogui Dieng is a non-initiator, offball, limited range standstill rebounder. Most traditional NBA "4" would be like this.

But another way of considering it is to think of the 1-2-3-4-5 positions as being continuous. Dieng is probably a "4.6" with Saric more of a 3.7. Ricky Rubio was probably a 1.0 play initiator, on-ball, limited range non-rebounder.

Sigh. Positions are roles, roles are positions. The more you can do, the more roles you will have, the more positions you will play. There are minimum expectations of skill sets like it or not...i.e. If you can't ball handle and pass you are not going to be a PG. When you have players who have overlapping skills that meet thoes minimum requirements, that is when positionless basketball comes into play, where players are jacks of all trades, their skills and defensive capabilities exceed convention. You must exceed convention.

Sigh, no they are not. That is why there are terms such as "stretch-4" to try to descripe roles beyond position. Maybe a more modern version of positions can be described, but the difference is they would not ever be a complete set. A complete set is the PG-SG-SF-PF-C concept. But consider a new, modern definition of "positions" defined by roles 1 - 10. You could have a 2, 4,6,8,10 on the court. Or 1,3,5,7,9. Or 1-1-3-4-9.


If you design your offense from a roles based perspective rather than a positional, you will design a more comprehensive offense.

[irishman89]

What exactly is the point of a team giving a player a draft guarantee anyway?

[SO_MONEY]

No, about the only thing that the former "postions" do, essentially, is describe a way of playing.

Today's NBA has created "roles" instead of positions and the easiest way of understanding this is just look at NBA Example 1: Lebron James. What "position" does Lebron play? He isn't a PF. He isn't a forward. He is probably mostly a PG, but then he isn't.

I would argue that there are more than 5 "roles" on the NBA court now and really good teams that maximize their efficiency figure out how to get the right players in the right roles on the court. It would be interesting to do a detailed analysis of this but some of the role break downs are:

play intiators, on-ball, off-ball, shooting ranges, rebound type

A guy like Geogui Dieng is a non-initiator, offball, limited range standstill rebounder. Most traditional NBA "4" would be like this.

But another way of considering it is to think of the 1-2-3-4-5 positions as being continuous. Dieng is probably a "4.6" with Saric more of a 3.7. Ricky Rubio was probably a 1.0 play initiator, on-ball, limited range non-rebounder.

Sigh. Positions are roles, roles are positions. The more you can do, the more roles you will have, the more positions you will play. There are minimum expectations of skill sets like it or not...i.e. If you can't ball handle and pass you are not going to be a PG. When you have players who have overlapping skills that meet thoes minimum requirements, that is when positionless basketball comes into play, where players are jacks of all trades, their skills and defensive capabilities exceed convention. You must exceed convention.

Sigh, no they are not. That is why there are terms such as "stretch-4" to try to descripe roles beyond position. Maybe a more modern version of positions can be described, but the difference is they would not ever be a complete set. A complete set is the PG-SG-SF-PF-C concept. But consider a new, modern definition of "positions" defined by roles 1 - 10. You could have a 2, 4,6,8,10 on the court. Or 1,3,5,7,9. Or 1-1-3-4-9.


If you design your offense from a roles based perspective rather than a positional, you will design a more comprehensive offense.

No, they are using terms like stretch-4 or point-forward to demonstrate the fact a player's skills exceed convention in certain aspects, thus allowing them to play multiple positions or fill multiple roles schematically particularly offensively. This however is only applicable to those who not only have skills on the offensive end that exceed convention, but also have the ability to defend a player who conventionally has a similar skill-set. Otherwise they need to defend who they can cover.

[KevinBaconIsNotMyHero]

What exactly is the point of a team giving a player a draft guarantee anyway?

From what I’ve heard from guys like Sam Vecenie and Danny Leroux teams do this because it often increases the likelihood that the player promised will be there when the team is drafting .If player X has a promise from the Celtics at 14, he may elect not to work out for teams above the Celtics if that’s where he wants to play. He may also not release medical info to those teams. Because of that, teams pass on player x.

[LordNu]

We are going in for Hachimura? Hmm

[Moses Scurry]

That means we won't get him. Wonder what plan B is?

[j2j]

That means we won't get him. Wonder what plan B is?

Hopefully Sekou is plan A, but they don't expect him to be there. Then someone else swoops in and grabs Rui, leaving Sekou for us.

Zion, Ja, RJ, Hunter, Culver, Garland, and White are the 7 guys who I believe are guaranteed to go before us.

Then there's a mashup of these 7 who I believe have a chance of being in the top 10 somewhere due to rumors:
Cam Reddish
Sekou Doumbouya
Rui Hachimura
Brandon Clarke
Jaxson Hayes
Nassir Little
Kevin Porter Jr

Best case scenario Porter and Reddish are 2 of the 3 we need to go before us.

[somuchyummy]

this is still the guy i want with our second rounder. i don't care if these clips are from two years back and not just last year. i don't care if he had issues with HC huggins. i don't care if he's been rehabbing a knee. i don't care if he's somewhat gone MIA. i don't care if he's more like 6-6 and half instead of 6-9 or 6-11. ben wallace was also undersized (6-7 250) and size isn't the only similar thing between wallace and sags konate. i'd just like a guy on our team who can bring this on a nightly basis:
Click here to learn how to add YouTube Videos to your phpBB forum