OK? This misses the point I was making. The point is that everyone can pick and choose what means most to them. If two players have different pros and cons, you don't have to treat them the same. So when someone says, "I worry about Tre's ability to attack the rim", the response can't be "if you’re out on Tre idk how you aren’t gonna be out on almost everyone". The can be in on someone else because they value other things more.
Following Potential 2025 Draftees
- Thread starter Elizah Huge
- Start date
OK? This misses the point I was making. The point is that everyone can pick and choose what means most to them. If two players have different pros and cons, you don't have to treat them the same. So when someone says, "I worry about Tre's ability to attack the rim", the response can't be "if you’re out on Tre idk how you aren’t gonna be out on almost everyone". The can be in on someone else because they value other things more.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
And vice versa
Thats not how you should project development. Each player has multiple optional paths that lead to different results. To project you should take their bankable skills and attributes, and see what options exist.
If Fears doesnt develop his shooting then what paths are there left for him to become successful? How many 6'4 non shooter archtypes are there?
If Tre doesnt drastically improve his rim rate he will still have many paths to success. He can develop any combination of other skills like his defense, passing, handle and all of those lead to different outcomes but at the very bottom end of outcomes projecting Beasley+ or Monk+ feels pretty fair.
That is if their existing skills even translate and either one even cares about becoming anything after they get their first bag... but thats a different story.
Basketball Novice
Well-Known Member
You can factor in development paths in lesser roles but that feels like a hedging your bet approach to drafting. It's not a bad approach but, you might miss out on some unique players if you overly lean in on this.
I just brought up those examples because each player had a question mark that is very different from the other. It was said that if you don't like Tre, you can't like anyone. My point of that post was to say that when players have different weaknesses, you can develop different opinions on how those things play out. In other words, you can dislike Tre and like another player because you believe that the other player has weaknesses that he can overcome more easily. You can pick any two players and do this, I just don't like the idea that we must see all weaknesses and project them all the same. And FYI, we were talking about the potential to be a lead initiator specifically, so we were talking about the high end outcomes.
But to your larger point, yes absolutely. We should be thinking about all the scenarios and what development (or lack thereof) leads to what outcomes. I've have said this before, but a reason why I have a tendency towards VJ is that I like all the players that fit in his archetype from the bottom to the top. I like Oladipo, I also like Melton. For Tre, I really think something like Herro/Murray would be a great outcome for us at #5, but I don't like the Hield, Monk, Beasley types as those defensive combo guards. That's just my personal preference.
I have also mentioned Fears as the biggest boom or bust prospect in this range. I agree with you in the sense if he doesn't have the jumper, he could be out of the league.
Last edited:
Basketball Novice
Well-Known Member
Also, since the topic was brought up, I am planting my flag right now. Fears is my guy.
Fears > Tre
Fears > Tre
I think his path to stardom might be more realistic than Tre's, but he's a little too risky for me. Still have Tre ahead personally.
You cant realistically project MVP level outcomes. Jokic, SGA, Giannis... none of them was top 5 even.
Im not trying to project one specific outcome.. thats the whole point. You look at all the outcomes. I just gave the low end examples.. not the high end.
Basketball Novice
Well-Known Member
Not implying MVP level outcomes, just unique players who don't fit into ready made archetypes, weird players, so to speak. Some examples might be guys like Brandon Clarke or Sengun. A player I am intrigued by who doesn't fit into a ready archetype or more specifically fits into a bad archetype is someone like Jase Richardson. The scoring touch and shooting are undeniable but the size and the one handedness makes everyone pause.
What is Jase Richardson's actual role in the NBA? Not enough playmaking and passing for a point, not enough size for the 2. Ultimately an undersized combo guard. Not valuable at all. Stamped and labeled.
Should we be hesitant in his evaluation since he doesn't fit a valuable role? Its a sliding scale of judging players wholly on their own skillsets vs wholly on how they can fit into a specific role.
In general, are teams more geared towards fitting players into systems or fitting systems to players. What are the Jazz more geared towards?
Jase actually fits into an archetype that has been really successful. As much as we don't love the idea of a small guard, small guards have a really high rate of being all star+.
I've become extremely high on Jase, but it is taking a leap of faith and believing that he was held back at Michigan St. There were 3 small, upperclassman guards that were ahead of him at Michigan St. Wouldn't be the first time a college coach prioritized the wrong guy (or best NBA guy).
Basketball Novice
Well-Known Member
Hmmmm, I'm intrigued to hear more on your Jase take. Sure, there are small guards that do become all stars but high rate? I will have to look into this, crunch the numbers, so to speak. Also, do you think the overly left handedness of his matters?