What is he if he doesn't improve as a shooter?
Jimmy Butlerish?
I don't think that he is comparable to Mikal at all.
I like Culver for a bunch of reasons. Putting his shooting numbers a side, I like his strides and how quickly he can get to the rim. I believe he will improve as a ball handler.
I like how good of a finisher he is with either hand. That, along with his length is a good recipe at the next level.
I think he is raw, but in a sense that he is great room for improvement. I think he is still growing. He has tremendous frame to add muscle and I just believe he has a good package to build on.
Part of my ranking also takes the team into consideration.
I'm speaking to NBA level role. Defender, shooter, good 2-way wing. There's differences between them but what can they realistically do in the NBA.....I'd bet it is
probably the same thing.
I'm sure his total AST numbers will at some point be mentioned but he's a 1.3 AST/TO player, which probably speaks to how sloppy he can be with the ball. He's like Barrett, without Barrett's ability to dribble (on what appears to be an NBA level for a SF). I get he's a better defender than RJ but I'm speaking to how limited his offensive ceiling
may be. Minus dribbling skills, Culver just doesn't have a lot of room for growth, in a majority of prospect cases. So if that is something you think he's not given enough credit for, he could certainly be far better than I think he will.
Butler is the go to standard Jack of all trades" best case, for guys like Culver but Jimmy did a handful of things really well that Culver does not.
1. He drew more fouls
2. He was a better FT shooter on more attempts (78%)
3. He had a great TO per 100 number (2.5)
4. He generated BLK/STL per foul at a 30% higher rate
5. He generated BLK/STL/OREB per foul at nearly 2x.
6. A lower volume but far more efficient scorer on a PPFG basis.
How they generate value is different......I guess is what I am saying. Butler's overall impact was drug down by mainly one thing......below average shot attempts per 100 (17.5). Which makes sense for a "Jack of all trades" guy.
Culver is trying to be framed as a "Jack of all trades" while, for one college season, shooting 26 times per 100. Maybe that's what his team needs but he's shooting like he's trying to be a #1 option and not doing very well at it, in addition to being turnover prone. It's a lot tougher to envision that type of player, sans dribbling skill, sans possibly shooting potential, bucking a prospect profile trend.
I'm really not overly negative about Culver, if it sounds like it. I think he's going to be a solid NBA player but you just cannot take someone like him in the top 2 IMO. That was my gripe here. Ignore the players for a second.......if you pit a 1.2 rated PG vs. a 0.9 SG and say, how many times out of 100 will the SG be the best player......it's just not a lot, if you're being conservative. It can certainly happen, I just don't think it's a player like Culver that would prove that to be wrong. For the record, I also don't think it is someone like DeAndre Hunter either. It's, to me, someone more like Talen Horton-Tucker....who just has more projectable NBA ISO skills and is still really young. Would I take him over Culver? Probably not but that is the
type of player more likely to exceed his profile.
My opinion on Culver is a lot, a lot more positive as a 3/4 combo player.....because especially at the 4, assuming he is actually 6'8", his straight line dribbling is a lot more effective. As a 2 or even a full time 3? Can you actually envision him scoring against good NBA wings? And if so? How? I just am curious what a more detailed look at him is as an ISO player is.