2019 NBA Draft

Alec Zander

Sixth Man
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
2,273
Reaction score
1,802
Points
113
It’s concerning to me that Culver couldn’t beat most college defenders off the dribble. So many of his points seemed to come from inefficient/low percentage shots, or high percentage cutting type plays. His game is also very much below the rim. Even on Oops he wasn’t really getting up there. I wish there was a more well-roundedness to his offensive game. Better 3s, easy layups off the dribble, etc. more evidence of a good scoring aptitude.

I like some stuff he does. He has good vision, finds open guys, plays the passing lanes. Plays hard too. But he definitely projects as a glue guy/role player than a starting 5 player on a playoff team (in the west anyway).

The way I tend to see things is, if you can’t do certain things in college, you just can’t do them in the NBA. If there’s things you can barely do in college, you probably won’t be able to do them in the NBA. The things you’re really really good at, those tend to translate. What does Culver do really really well and will continue to do against even better athletes?

He probably won’t score enough to be a star. His shot can develop a la Sexton, but he isn’t athletic enough to create his own shot. That limits his floor for me. And at this point in our rebuild, I’d rather target someone with a higher ceiling and better tools. I may regret this post.
 
Last edited:

inliner311

NBA Starter
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
6,037
Reaction score
4,624
Points
113
It’s concerning to me that Culver couldn’t beat most college defenders off the dribble. So many of his points seemed to come from inefficient/low percentage shots, or high percentage cutting type plays. His game is also very much below the rim. Even on Oops he wasn’t really getting up there. I wish there was a more well-roundedness to his offensive game. Better 3s, easy layups off the dribble, etc. more evidence of a good scoring aptitude.

I like some stuff he does. He has good vision, finds open guys, plays the passing lanes. Plays hard too. But he definitely projects as a glue guy/role player than a starting 5 player on a playoff team (in the west anyway).

The way I tend to see things is, if you can’t do certain things in college, you just can’t do them in the NBA. If there’s things you can barely do in college, you probably won’t be able to do them in the NBA. The things you’re really really good at, those tend to translate.

What does Culver do really really well and will continue to do against even better athletes?

He probably won’t score enough to be a star. His shot can develop a la Sexton, but he isn’t athletic enough to create his own shot.
This is some of the stuff I question about him too. The shots he takes are just going to make him a streaky shooter. Clarkson seems to takes similar shots that Culver takes and we have seen those results.

His ball handling is another concern for me. To me they are just good enough to be a ball handler in college, when he get to the NBA and good on ball defender are going to be able to create alot of turnovers from him.

I just don't like how he doesn't have any elite attribute to hang his hat on. There are very few stars that are just decent athletes and well rounded players. I just think his 80% ceiling projection is a role player. To me for him to be a star it's more like a 110% ceiling projection where he unexpectedly get better at some area from some unforeseen circumstances. Something like a Jimmy Bulter or Oladipo development path that no organization should bank on when drafting a player.
 

Nathan S

33 is the new 23
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
11,033
Reaction score
13,665
Points
123
Have to compare Culver against the other options on the board, though. Reddish and Hunter sure weren't creating much offense 1-on-1, and they looked clunky when they tried. Garland only played 4 games, none against respectable defensive teams. Could make a case for White, but he gives you nothing on defense.
 

Alec Zander

Sixth Man
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
2,273
Reaction score
1,802
Points
113
You aren’t wrong. The only reason we’re discussing Culver at 5 is because it’s a weak draft in terms of offensive talent. Really weak actually. All the players are gonna have warts where we stand currently.

I know it’s in vogue to throw out the term two-way player and all that but scoring effectively and efficiently is ultimately the equivalent of hitting in baseball. It can mask a lot of other issues. I haven’t watched enough of White to form an opinion but I’ll do that tonight.

I’ve been a fan of Bol and was probably the first to say so on here. Because I believe his scoring ceiling is game changing. Lot of risk though (almost all health) and no one sees him in the top 10.
 

inliner311

NBA Starter
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
6,037
Reaction score
4,624
Points
113
Have to compare Culver against the other options on the board, though. Reddish and Hunter sure weren't creating much offense 1-on-1, and they looked clunky when they tried. Garland only played 4 games, none against respectable defensive teams. Could make a case for White, but he gives you nothing on defense.
I think Garland, Reddish, Hunter, and White all have at least one elite attribute though. Hunter has the wingspan and frame you want for a wing. Hopefully his elite 3pt shooting will translate to the NBA line and he will be able to up his attempts without much of a negative effect on his percentage. Reddish basically has all the physical attibrutes you would want from a modern wing. Garland has the quick release, almost unlimited range, and handles. Coby White has the speed where no one can keep up with him in transition.
 

Nathan S

33 is the new 23
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
11,033
Reaction score
13,665
Points
123
You aren’t wrong. The only reason we’re discussing Culver at 5 is because it’s a weak draft in terms of offensive talent. Really weak actually. All the players are gonna have warts where we stand currently.

I know it’s in vogue to throw out the term two-way player and all that but scoring effectively and efficiently is ultimately the equivalent of hitting in baseball. It can mask a lot of other issues. I haven’t watched enough of White to form an opinion but I’ll do that tonight.

I’ve been a fan of Bol and was probably the first to say so on here. Because I believe his scoring ceiling is game changing. Lot of risk though (almost all health) and no one sees him in the top 10.
Yup...big fan of Bol from a draft-for-ceiling standpoint. If he has even a 50/50 chance of fully recovering from this foot injury that puts him in the next tier of prospects after Zion/Ja for me.

I think Garland, Reddish, Hunter, and White all have at least one elite attribute though. Hunter has the wingspan and frame you want for a wing. Hopefully his elite 3pt shooting will translate to the NBA line and he will be able to up his attempts without much of a negative effect on his percentage. Reddish basically has all the physical attibrutes you would want from a modern wing. Garland has the quick release, almost unlimited range, and handles. Coby White has the speed where no one can keep up with him in transition.
Is there anything special about having one elite attribute though? Drafting's more complicated than just comparing each player's single best skill.
 

inliner311

NBA Starter
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
6,037
Reaction score
4,624
Points
113
Is there anything special about having one elite attribute though? Drafting's more complicated than just comparing each player's single best skill.
It's not just about the sole elite attribute but usually that one area is where they can set themselves a part and it makes one area of the game real easy for them or just hard to defend. I think every star player has to be well rounded but that elite attribute(s) allow them to build out their game and have something to lean on when things get tough.

It's more about Culver lacking that elite attribute more than the other players having it. We saw in his last few tourament games that when things got tough, he really didn't have anything to turn to.
 
Last edited:

Nathan S

33 is the new 23
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
11,033
Reaction score
13,665
Points
123
It's not just about the sole elite attribute but usually that one area is where they can set themselves a part and it makes one area of the game real easy for them or just hard to defend. I think every star player has to be well rounded but that elite attribute(s) allow them to build out their game and have something to lean on when things get tough.
That elite attribute is probably defense for Culver, the way you're describing it. When he's having a rough offensive night he tries hard to make up for it on the defensive end, and that's a big reason why Texas Tech made it to the finals. Building his game around that attribute he might be something like Iguodala, which would be a great outcome.
 

inliner311

NBA Starter
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
6,037
Reaction score
4,624
Points
113
That elite attribute is probably defense for Culver, the way you're describing it. When he's having a rough offensive night he tries hard to make up for it on the defensive end, and that's a big reason why Texas Tech made it to the finals. Building his game around that attribute he might be something like Iguodala, which would be a great outcome.
How versatile on defense do you think he will be? He seems to have the frame to put on some muscle but will that hinder is already questionable quickness?

I question the same thing with Hunter like I think he is stronger already but will he be able to hang with SGs while also being strong enough to not get bullied by PFs even if it's just in small ball lineups. To me Culver is a SG/SF right now and Hunter is a SF/PF but will either of them be able to guard that 3 position very well which I think makes them that much more valuable in today's NBA.
 

MarkPriceFan

In the Rotation
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
720
Reaction score
690
Points
93
I think Garland, Reddish, Hunter, and White all have at least one elite attribute though. Hunter has the wingspan and frame you want for a wing. Hopefully his elite 3pt shooting will translate to the NBA line and he will be able to up his attempts without much of a negative effect on his percentage. Reddish basically has all the physical attibrutes you would want from a modern wing. Garland has the quick release, almost unlimited range, and handles. Coby White has the speed where no one can keep up with him in transition.
Garland is way ahead of the rest of this pack for me. Problem is it looks like most NBA teams see this too and he is likely to go 4th to whomever the Pelicans trade #4 to.

I like Reddish's upside better than Hunter/Culver. I think if we stay at 5 its Reddish for me. I'd love to somehow make the Atlanta trade for 8 and 17. Reddish at 8 and Bol Bol at 17.
 

Ozone

Towel Waver
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
426
Reaction score
148
Points
43
Cavs are taking Reddish if they stay at 5 if Garland is gone along with what seems like a lock at 1-3. And they will trade down if they want a higher floor player with less upside like Hunter or Culver who both are being overrated in this draft due to the lack of obvious bpa based on pure potential.
 

Bulldog2Buckeye

Situational Stopper
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
491
Reaction score
363
Points
63
Honest question, how valuable is JR at this point? I keep hearing how his contract is one of a kind and will be a great piece, but I’m confused on what I should be expecting the return for essentially facilitating a salary dump to be. Is it a lottery pick? Move up from 26 to like 15ish range? Or is it worth like two second founders?
 

NMCav

Sixth Man
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
1,725
Reaction score
1,561
Points
113
U WOT M8?
Hes closer to a shorter thicker (Not fat just a ball of muscle) Blake Griffin then LeBron James. If he develops the same way Blake did I am unsure how successful he will be in the NBA with his size. Hes gonna be a 20-10 player but hes never gonna be a LeBron level guy in my opinion. Blake has been fun to watch his entire career but was never a true franchise player.
 
Top