• Our developer will be working on RCF over the next few weeks. Things may look wonky at times, normal functions may not work or dissappear completely. It's the nature of the beast but we'll try to make sure this is painless as possible.

NBA Draft Lottery- Cavs Pick 5th

daytripper

Miracle of Richfield
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
1,960
Reaction score
1,931
Points
113
I'll have to listen to the Dunc'd on podcast. Those guys hated Barrett too.
 

DeeThree

Undoubtadly Never Doubted
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
2,597
Reaction score
704
Points
113
Go watch more on Culver. His ball handling skills are probably on par with Cedi's. Someone who probably fits more as a 3rd ball handler than a 2nd or primary. He has to hunch over and use his body to keep defenders away from the ball instead of facing up the the basket.
Ive never listen to this podcast before but I went and just wanted to hear what they say. In this episode the Culver stuff starts at around 28 minutes. I listened to 26 minutes of Philly when I could have skipped ahead.

They really say some of the stuff that have concerned me with Culver. They broke it down real well on why they don't like him. If anyone is real high on Culver, it would be worth listening for perspective.

Do you have a link? Nvm. Here is the podcast:

 
Last edited:

Green Lantern

Guardian of the Cavaliers
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
6,730
Reaction score
2,435
Points
113
Who are these guys doing this podcast and are they actually qualified to give
Analysis??
These days practically anyone can try to break down players but be inaccurate in their data.
Has nothing to do whether I like the player but I wonder about these talking heads.
 

CBBI

Super Chill Mode
Joined
Apr 17, 2005
Messages
8,452
Reaction score
12,413
Points
123
I listened to the Dunc’d On pod and generally speaking I really like what those guys have to say, but I can’t say I agree with them on Culver.

Obviously they do not believe he can be a primary offensive creator in the NBA, but I don’t think teams are considering him/should be drafting him for that role anyway. If you draft Culver and expect him to be that Harden/Leonard caliber wing who can score and create at a super duper elite level, you’re going to be disappointed.

If you draft him expecting to get a Caris LeVert with better defense or an Evan Turner with more willingness to take and make threes, then your expectations are more in line.

Culver, to me, is pretty clearly a guy who has the ability to score points and create shots for others in the halfcourt, but should be doing it in a secondary/second banana/complimentary whatever you want to call it role.

To put it another way, I’ve said this before but I am more confident that Culver’s efficiency/effectiveness will improve when he’s asked to do less than he was asked to do in college compared to Hunter and Reddish who will be asked to do more than they were asked to do in college.
 
Last edited:

inliner311

NBA Starter
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
6,185
Reaction score
4,782
Points
113
I listened to the Dunc’d On pod and generally speaking I really like what those guys have to say, but I can’t say I agree with them on Culver.

Obviously they do not believe he can be a primary offensive creator in the NBA, but I don’t think teams are considering him/should be drafting him for that role anyway. If you draft Culver and expect him to be that Harden/Leonard caliber wing who can score and create at a super duper elite level, you’re going to be disappointed.

If you draft him expecting to get a Caris LeVert with better defense or an Evan Turner with more willingness to take and make threes, then your expectations are more in line.

Culver, to me, is pretty clearly a guy who has the ability to score points and create shots for others in the halfcourt, but should be doing it in a secondary/second banana/complimentary whatever you want to call it role.

To put it another way, I’ve said this before but I am more confident that Culver’s efficiency/effectiveness will improve when he’s asked to do less than he was asked to do in college compared to Hunter and Reddish who will be asked to do more than they were asked to do in college.
I think they also talked about some of the same stuff we talk about here when we talk about Culver and some of these prospects. I've always questioned more if Culver was worth taking #5 because I just don't see the elite skill or attribute that he can hang his hat on in the NBA. They also brought up going for best player available and shooting for high upside because of the new odds and the lack of talent in the roster. They thought the Cavs could just get stuck in an almost endless cycle with picks between #5-#10 for years where taking the safe pick just doesn't get them anywhere.

Culver and Sexton might be endless workers but the difference is Sexton has that elite level speed that he can lean on to succeed in the NBA. I think any prospect we draft in the lotto needs a box check where they are or could be elite in one area to go along with good work ethic and the fire to be great.
 

LeeBuckeye

Sixth Man
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
1,323
Reaction score
1,438
Points
113
Who are these guys doing this podcast and are they actually qualified to give
Analysis??
These days practically anyone can try to break down players but be inaccurate in their data.
Has nothing to do whether I like the player but I wonder about these talking heads.
Same. Wish there was a website that kept track of how right or wrong draft analyst are on prospects in general. Everyone has their information but pick and choose whatever data points they like to support or criticize a player and is often riddled with contradictions. Recruiting website have % accuracy rating which is pretty flawed but give you an idea of who's information to trust for the most part.
 

Ozone

Towel Waver
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
452
Reaction score
159
Points
43
I think they also talked about some of the same stuff we talk about here when we talk about Culver and some of these prospects. I've always questioned more if Culver was worth taking #5 because I just don't see the elite skill or attribute that he can hang his hat on in the NBA. They also brought up going for best player available and shooting for high upside because of the new odds and the lack of talent in the roster. They thought the Cavs could just get stuck in an almost endless cycle with picks between #5-#10 for years where taking the safe pick just doesn't get them anywhere.

Culver and Sexton might be endless workers but the difference is Sexton has that elite level speed that he can lean on to succeed in the NBA. I think any prospect we draft in the lotto needs a box check where they are or could be elite in one area to go along with good work ethic and the fire to be great.
Yeah Culver doesn't scream elite any more than Hunter, but Culver does have a little better handles, and creation potential but after it's all said and done neither have upside of Kevin Porter who nobody wants at 5 because he can't make ft same as RJ yet has better athleticism than all 3 etc.
To me if you play the positives vs the cons game you are eliminating bust risk,but in doing so are also killing any chance of getting a gem.
They have to take risk because they will still suck playing it safe just wont suck as bad, where if they hit on one of the KPorter,Little,Sekou,Bol,Reddish types then they won't suck and if that player busts the drop off from where they are now aint much if anything.
 

Cavatt

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
19,253
Reaction score
18,857
Points
123
I have heard multiple people think there is an outside chance Culver could become that primary playmaker, but it isn't going to happen in year 1. It would be more like a Jimmy Butler type trajectory where he is great defensively and is a valuable player, and his offensive game takes some time to develop. He will have some 2ndary playmaking, but won't be initiating the offense a lot immediately.
 

sailfish

NBA Starter
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
4,046
Reaction score
2,523
Points
113
Yeah Culver doesn't scream elite any more than Hunter, but Culver does have a little better handles, and creation potential but after it's all said and done neither have upside of Kevin Porter who nobody wants at 5 because he can't make ft same as RJ yet has better athleticism than all 3 etc.
To me if you play the positives vs the cons game you are eliminating bust risk,but in doing so are also killing any chance of getting a gem.
They have to take risk because they will still suck playing it safe just wont suck as bad, where if they hit on one of the KPorter,Little,Sekou,Bol,Reddish types then they won't suck and if that player busts the drop off from where they are now aint much if anything.
This is the kind of draft where The 5th, 6th, and/or 7th drafted wing could easily end up better then the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th. Guys like Culver and Hunter have an extra year, or two in Hunter’s case, in college and are more finished products than freshmen, like Reddish, Langford, & Porter. Quite honestly, I’m not sure that those three freshmen don’t end up better, in the long run, than Culver or Hunter. The NBA draft has always been a projection and it’s especially true this year.
 

The Human Q-Tip

Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Moderator
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
23,989
Reaction score
32,605
Points
148
This is the kind of draft where The 5th, 6th, and/or 7th drafted wing could easily end up better then the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th. Guys like Culver and Hunter have an extra year, or two in Hunter’s case, in college and are more finished products than freshmen, like Reddish, Langford, & Porter. Quite honestly, I’m not sure that those three freshmen don’t end up better, in the long run, than Culver or Hunter. The NBA draft has always been a projection and it’s especially true this year.
The uncertainty of making projections cuts both ways. Yes, the 5th-7th drafted wing may end up better than the 2-4th drafted wing. But the reverse also is true, So the "you never can know for sure" argument really doesn't offer anything useful in terms of deciding which particular player to select.
 

thedarkness2332

The Official Ass-Slap Guy
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
8,063
Reaction score
14,225
Points
123
I have heard multiple people think there is an outside chance Culver could become that primary playmaker, but it isn't going to happen in year 1. It would be more like a Jimmy Butler type trajectory where he is great defensively and is a valuable player, and his offensive game takes some time to develop. He will have some 2ndary playmaking, but won't be initiating the offense a lot immediately.
I think Jimmy Butler is a great comparison for Culver as a player--with the exception that Culver seems to be a much better teammate.
 

CalBuckeyeRob

In the Rotation
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
804
Reaction score
711
Points
93
The uncertainty of making projections cuts both ways. Yes, the 5th-7th drafted wing may end up better than the 2-4th drafted wing. But the reverse also is true, So the "you never can know for sure" argument really doesn't offer anything useful in terms of deciding which particular player to select.
It does tell you that just going for the more advanced guy is not a reliable indicator if that same guy is older with more development time. You have to project from limited information as to what they figure to be at age 25. There is no magic formula to do that, but the difference between 19 and 22 is huge for growth. In fact if you are making an apples to apples comparison, any player that was impactful as a freshman is essentially better at the same point in their career than a guy that redshirted unless it was due to injury.
 

sailfish

NBA Starter
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
4,046
Reaction score
2,523
Points
113
The uncertainty of making projections cuts both ways. Yes, the 5th-7th drafted wing may end up better than the 2-4th drafted wing. But the reverse also is true, So the "you never can know for sure" argument really doesn't offer anything useful in terms of deciding which particular player to select.
That’s true, but the 2nd-4th drafted wings are generally expected to be better than the ones chosen 5th-7th. There seems to be more uncertainty this year than ever. For that reason, teams would be wise to stick to their draft boards, which may differ significantly, from each other as well as from the various mock drafts put out by media members.
 

sailfish

NBA Starter
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
4,046
Reaction score
2,523
Points
113
It does tell you that just going for the more advanced guy is not a reliable indicator if that same guy is older with more development time. You have to project from limited information as to what they figure to be at age 25. There is no magic formula to do that, but the difference between 19 and 22 is huge for growth. In fact if you are making an apples to apples comparison, any player that was impactful as a freshman is essentially better at the same point in their career than a guy that redshirted unless it was due to injury.
Well said. A guy, like De’Andre Hunter had a redshirt year at UVA as well as two years of playing experience. He is then being compared side by side against the freshmen, Reddish, Langford, & Porter, who had only 1 year to grow/develop their game, not 3. Unless Hunter either took the game up late or had some kind of late growth spurt, one could, naturally assume that he is closer to hitting his ceiling than the other guys.

Then again, some teams may want a player that is more of a finished product, rather than one that they will have to develop.
 
Last edited:

inliner311

NBA Starter
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
6,185
Reaction score
4,782
Points
113
I have heard multiple people think there is an outside chance Culver could become that primary playmaker, but it isn't going to happen in year 1. It would be more like a Jimmy Butler type trajectory where he is great defensively and is a valuable player, and his offensive game takes some time to develop. He will have some 2ndary playmaking, but won't be initiating the offense a lot immediately.
Just like Jimmy Butler I think Culver would have to be force into an uncomfortable situation to be the primary ball handler for a long period of time by circumstance or by the organization to get his handles up to NBA level. Ive thought the same thing with Cedi. It's hard for the organization to do something like that on their own without an injury to push the situation. It will be ugly and only helps that player to develop.

Butler wouldn't be the ball handler he is today without all the injuries that Rose got which allowed him to slide over to be the primary handler for long periods of time. Its just hard to recreate that development path.

Orlando tried to do it without an injury and force Oladipo to become the primary ball handler. They gave up on Oladipo before the rewards came from that development path. Even in that case Oladipo needed to study under Westbrook to find the mentality needed to put it all together to be a star once he got to Indy.
 
Last edited:

Misc Costs To Finish Browns Site

Total amount
$750.00
Goal
$750.00


Radio

Top