I think Hendricks is better than that, but Whitmore is still the take if he’s there. I think in general folks have this idea that some guys are much more likely to be boom/bust and other guys are safe but I suspect it’s a misconception. A lot of safe guys just end up being bad too.
Being good in the NBA is just such a high bar to clear. DARKO has 75 players that played their first season this year. 1 of them is above average (Walker Kessler). There are 76 sophomores. 5 of them were above average. It’s a long climb to being decent let alone good.
I think part of it is that fulfilment of “3 and D” is easier to attain than “2nd option on offense” generally speaking and so a guy who seems athletic and can shoot some appears to be like 70% of the way there (which may not be the case?)
Peripherally
Walker Kessler showing up and doing 85% of last year’s Rudy Gobert (and like 105% of this year’s Rudy Gobert) albeit on a lower minute load is…really something!
My initial obsession was Whitmore due to his age and the insane athleticism that he showed he was able to use in a functional way, and his ability to get to the rim with a remarkably polished bag is impressive.
But as I watch the other prospects, I’m left entirely confused. Amen is a tantalizing prospect with athleticism that’s even more elite than Whitmore’s and a feel for the game that is mouthwatering ; but he’s 20 years old playing against tweeners and his shot is fundamentally broken. Ausar is in the same boat except he has slightly less athleticism, has better shot mechanics, and can’t drive to the rim. Taylor Hendricks can guarantee spacing and more wins this upcoming year but I’m not sure if a low ceiling player is something Detroit needs right now.
This is Weaver’s decision to make, and given that he has access to information and 1v1 interaction with these prospects, he’d better get it right.
I disagree that Hendricks ceiling is low. I think it’s high and can develop more than just a standard 3 and D wing player with shotblocking capability. It’s higher than most think it is IMO.
I am not a huge Pistons fan these days, but while I understand the zingers against Weaver for having Kevin Ollie at the top of his list when there are some amazing coaches at the unemployment office… Why are we criticizing his draft evaluation based on measurables when he’s taken Cade, Ivey, Duren, Livers, and Stew?
I think his drafts have been totally fine, roughly average?
I wouldn’t give any executive “credit” for taking the consensus first pick first really, and Ivey where they got him was pretty much consensus.
This board is far more bullish on Duren than I am (I just think there is a ton of grey area there and its still far from certain he’ll be good) and far more down on Stewart than I am (and my issue on Stewart is that I think making him a 4 so you can play your cadre of centers who couldn’t find “defense” in a dictionary" is a mistake).
Livers…I mean getting a useful guy in the second round sometimes is gonna happen.
That group seems pretty par for the course given their draft slots.
I’m more laughing at thie cliche (that clearly has some truth) that he’s obsessed with length.
I think Weaver’s best asset has been in response to his biggest obstacle - that unlike most teams going in the tank, he had precious few assets to trade, and they’re MOSTLY been limited to their own draft slots - he’s done well generating more picks and bites at the apple while working with a pretty limited core of assets.
I’m high on both. Stewart I just love. Kid’s just my favorite player for some reason.
With Duren, his quick passing instincts and his footwork give me a lot of optimism, especially at his age. But also, I just loved his game when Michigan was recruiting him. He and Jarace Walker were two prospects I really wanted Michigan to get. So I would not be opposed to the Pistons pairing them up.
The sheer fact that Duren held his own on a very bad team at his age is very impressive. I dk what his upside is but I think you’d expect him to have a reasonably long peak as an at least a league average center. That’s not worth that much bc it’s easy to find a cheap cromulent 5? So they may find themselves pressured to figure out the right number for those subsequent contracts if he can’t be a star bc he’ll both produce and be fairly replaceable.
I think we kind of see Duren similarly - my thing is that I just don’t see “All-Star” there. At least the defense needs needs a radical improvement to sniff that.
I don’t think radical improvement is necessarily unlikely. He was the youngest player in the NBA last year and has a good head on his shoulders. The kid will definitely improve, but yes what is his ceiling?
Yeah, he’ll definitely improve. He has good agility, pretty good offensive skill, and a very good motor. Negatives would be size (he’s maybe an inch taller than Stewart, so I don’t come close to buying 6’11", people have been saying for years his height is BS) and (lack of) defensive instinct.
I think his offensive rebounding and finishing ability given him a pretty high floor on that end. I think defensively he’s a center you’re always going to need one of those condor-esque 4’s next to (JJJ, Serge Ibaka of old, Mobley). If he devotes himself to screens like Steven Adams that would be good? I realize I just named two power forwards who complimented Steve Adams so maybe he’s Steven Adams with a bit better scoring?
Doubt Ollie is a good idea and I think there’s a heavy bit of cronyism going on here but I would like to be proven wrong because the level of reputational damage this guy has taken because of the cretinous vultures in college basketball is criminal.
I don’t think a Championship winning coach has ever had their abilities diminished by the public as much as this guy. The show clause on him is tragic.
I don’t think Ollie is as bad as his reputation right now and I was hoping he’d get a chance to rebuild his resume somewhere. But with a team trying to get out of a never-ending rebuild who has a young core he’s underwhelming - especially when there are several ELITE coaches on the open market.