• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

2019 NBA Draft

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
I'mWithDan said:
Was Culver not guarding Hunter for most of that half? People still think his ceiling is a role player?

I think it is likely he is a really good role player but clearly his ceiling is higher than people have given him credit for.

Just in this game he hit dagger 3’s over contests, drilled a pull-up off a face up, baseline drive kick out in traffic, ripped down an offensive rebound over multiple defenders for a put back, hit a floater off the dribble.....People act like he just stands there and shoots 12 threes a game. He scores at all levels and has done so all year.

Again, I’m more bullish than average on Hunter but am realistic.....but with that said, a guy with his size, length, athleticism and shooting ability, someone like that has more than a role player ceiling in him.
Click to expand...

I'm not thrilled to stump for Culver after a night like this...but it's worth pointing out how difficult his role was on that Texas Tech team. Tonight in particular, he was directly responsible for creating...what, maybe half of their shot attempts? In other words, they were running their offense through him more than all their other players combined. Hunter, in contrast, was used as an offensive creator for maybe 1/8th or 1/10th of Virginia's possessions.

Of course, he showed how he can have an enormous impact on a game even without dominating the ball, and guys who can create value without dominating the ball are essential to the success of any team. But that does make him a roleplayer, at least by my definition. Now, maybe the smart thing to do in a draft like this is to pick the great roleplayer. I'd be hard pressed to argue that Culver's sliver of a chance at stardom makes him the better value. But I still wouldn't be too excited about it.
 
Hunter stock rose in this game. He has 2 inches and thirty pounds on Culver, so perhaps not a surprise.. but look at the shot chart. Seems he is a right side option only at the moment.

Still we could do worse.
 
ajz20 said:
Well now that he is bowed out, no need to bring his name up again.
It will be interesting to see this place after May 14. Not sure how excited people will be if the reward for a 19 win season is the 6th or 7th pick. Hopefully they win the coin toss vs the Suns. Hunter looked great tonight but I agree with you, his ceiling at the nba is limited to role player. Not the player you are looking for after a 19 win season.[/QUOTE
Click to expand...
CleveRocks said:
Hunter stock rose in this game. He has 2 inches and thirty pounds on Culver, so perhaps not a surprise.. but look at the shot chart. Seems he is a right side option only at the moment.

Still we could do worse.
Click to expand...
You know what you are getting with Hunter. Rebounding, defense and eventually he will probably be a decent spot up three shooter( although he does have a slow release) . I think he can be a very solid role player/starter, two way player , but he is not a guy that you build around. Issue this when you are picking in the top 5, ( second worst record in the NBA) you would ideally want more than that. Despite how much Culver needs to improve , I think he has more upside even though you could argue Hunter might be better today.

Getting picks 4 through 7 is going to really test the front office if it happens. They can’t miss this pick. It would put the rebuild in serious danger.
 
Nathan S said:
I'm not thrilled to stump for Culver after a night like this...but it's worth pointing out how difficult his role was on that Texas Tech team. Tonight in particular, he was directly responsible for creating...what, maybe half of their shot attempts? In other words, they were running their offense through him more than all their other players combined. Hunter, in contrast, was used as an offensive creator for maybe 1/8th or 1/10th of Virginia's possessions.

Of course, he showed how he can have an enormous impact on a game even without dominating the ball, and guys who can create value without dominating the ball are essential to the success of any team. But that does make him a roleplayer, at least by my definition. Now, maybe the smart thing to do in a draft like this is to pick the great roleplayer. I'd be hard pressed to argue that Culver's sliver of a chance at stardom makes him the better value. But I still wouldn't be too excited about it.
Click to expand...
If they land at 4 and the draft goes chalk Zion, Morant and RJ. I don’t think Culver and Hunter are the only two guys they look at. I honestly think they will look at 5 to 6 guys and try to find the player with the highest upside. Remember insiders have indicated that if they don’t land Zion, they will be looking to tank next year by trading away players like Love, TT, Henson etc to secure not losing the pick to the Hawks. They might be okay with someone that is raw and not being ready from day one because it actually fits thier timeline. It won’t be a let’s draft who is going to help us the most in 2020, but rather which one of these guys will be the best player by 2023 type approach. I think Hunter is the safe option today. But there is likely a few players who will go after him who will develop into better NBA players simply because Hunter has a pretty limited apex.
 
ajz20 said:
You know what you are getting with Hunter. Rebounding, defense and eventually he will probably be a decent spot up three shooter( although he does have a slow release) . I think he can be a very solid role player/starter, two way player , but he is not a guy that you build around. Issue this when you are picking in the top 5, ( second worst record in the NBA) you would ideally want more than that. Despite how much Culver needs to improve , I think he has more upside even though you could argue Hunter might be better today.
Click to expand...

Hunter is a 42% 3PT shooter on 150+ college attempts and a 77% FT shooter on 250+. He’s also an elite mid range shooter for a college forward. Why isn't he already considered a good NBA spot up shooter? If he isn’t, who is?

Top 5 shooting numbers for NBA small forwards in my database....min 5 attempts per 100.

Cameron Johnson - .457
DeAndre Hunter . - .438
Mikal Bridges - .435
Dylan Wyndler - .429
Otto Porter - .422

If you only consider lottery SF's, he's the best since possession data, on a min attempt percentage basis. He has good lift on his jumper, high release and good extension. He’s going to reliably get his shot off at the next level IMO. He was doing it with relative ease against Culver, who is a very good defender.

Also, what exactly is Culver’s upside for the people on that corner? Someone make a compelling argument for him. He looks like a methodical, slow footed dribbler, who lacks ISO creativity and can’t shoot. I like his defensive potential but just really do not understand what people see in him offensively. He can make me look like an idiot one day if he actually has something special in him but he was, IMO, exposed for what he is in these last 3-4 games....a long college 2 guard who is able to use his length to score, against 95% of the college players he matches up with. That is not a next level skill at his size. Against NBA length and athleticism (Michigan, Gonzaga, MSU, Virginia), he needed 72 shots to score 66 points. That is just, really bad. Not only were the raw stats bad but visually, eye test, it looked equally bad to me....he just looked overmatched physically, especially against Hunter.

Culver also made a handful of just bad decisions, including settling for a 3 with the game on the line against UVA.....when he's just not a good shooter in general, let alone off the dribble against defensive pressure. I'm curious to see if people start to ask if he is potentially not necessarily a bad bball IQ player but also not a good one either. He seems really average based on some of the decisions he's made, especially shot selection, as Texas Tech got deeper in to the tournament. I think some of that may have manifested from his inability to reliably break someone down off the dribble and get offense......something that isn't going to get easier against NBA defenders.

In general, I just do not see it with him....and to take him over someone like Hunter, who seems to have a high level role player floor and who looked completely dominant against Culver....you are just not going to convince me that there is an age gap that can mitigate their differences......Hunter is taller, longer, heavier, more athletic and a significantly better shooter. I'll take all comers on RCF donation bets on who the better NBA player is between Hunter and Culver. :chuckle:
 
Last edited:
I'mWithDan said:
Hunter is a 42% 3PT shooter on 150+ college attempts and a 77% FT shooter on 250+. He’s also an elite mid range shooter for a college forward. Why isn't he already considered a good NBA spot up shooter? If he isn’t, who is?

Top 5 shooting numbers for NBA small forwards in my database....min 5 attempts per 100.

Cameron Johnson - .457
DeAndre Hunter . - .438
Mikal Bridges - .435
Dylan Wyndler - .429
Otto Porter - .422

If you only consider lottery SF's, he's the best since possession data, on a min attempt percentage basis. He has good lift on his jumper, high release and good extension. He’s going to reliably get his shot off at the next level IMO. He was doing it with relative ease against Culver, who is a very good defender.

Also, what exactly is Culver’s upside for the people on that corner? Someone make a compelling argument for him. He looks like a methodical, slow footed dribbler, who lacks ISO creativity and can’t shoot. I like his defensive potential but just really do not understand what people see in him offensively. He can make me look like an idiot one day if he actually has something special in him but he was, IMO, exposed for what he is in these last 3-4 games....a long college 2 guard who is able to use his length to score, against 95% of the college players he matches up with. That is not a next level skill at his size. Against NBA length and athleticism (Michigan, Gonzaga, MSU, Virginia), he needed 72 shots to score 66 points. That is just, really bad. Not only were the raw stats bad but visually, eye test, it looked equally bad to me....he just looked overmatched physically, especially against Hunter.

Culver also made a handful of just bad decisions, including settling for a 3 with the game on the line against UVA.....when he's just not a good shooter in general, let alone off the dribble against defensive pressure. I'm curious to see if people start to ask if he is potentially not necessarily a bad bball IQ player but also not a good one either. He seems really average based on some of the decisions he's made, especially shot selection, as Texas Tech got deeper in to the tournament. I think some of that may have manifested from his inability to reliably break someone down off the dribble and get offense......something that isn't going to get easier against NBA defenders.

In general, I just do not see it with him....and to take him over someone like Hunter, who seems to have a high level role player floor and who looked completely dominant against Culver....you are just not going to convince me that there is an age gap that can mitigate their differences......Hunter is taller, longer, heavier, more athletic and a significantly better shooter. I'll take all comers on RCF donation bets on who the better NBA player is between Hunter and Culver. :chuckle:
Click to expand...

Where are you on RJ these days? He arguably has a lot of the same offensive weaknesses you're talking about for Culver, and he's a highly suspect defender too. But in his favor, he's yet another year younger. Would you take him top-3?

EDIT: Actually kind of crazy how similar their offensive per-100 possessions stats are.

Culver: 33.7 points on .46/.30/.71 shooting, 11.6 boards, 6.8 assists, 4.9 turnovers

Barrett: 35.0 points on .45/.31/.67 shooting, 11.7 boards, 6.7 assists, 5.0 turnovers
 
Last edited:
Nathan S said:
Where are you on RJ these days? He arguably has a lot of the same offensive weaknesses you're talking about for Culver, and he's a highly suspect defender too. But in his favor, he's yet another year younger. Would you take him top-3?
Click to expand...

I'm more mixed on RJ than I was at the beginning of the year. I would have gone down with the ship and taken him #1 early this season......watching Zion obviously changed that. And even though I liked JA earlier in the year, I really just would have never considered taking him over RJ.....it was more a #1 PG debate than anything.

I personally would put Zion in tier 1 and Ja in tier 2.....but I'm really mixed on what the Cavs specifically do at #2, with Sexton showing such a wild swing in his mid-season development curve. My gut tells me I want to still take Ja and move Sexton at peak value for a future pick but it's a pretty tough call. I probably lean towards trading down if I can......stockpile a few more assets (ideally a future #1) and then take whoever is left on our board in the middle of the lotto.

Tier 3 is just a lot fewer players for me. In this draft, I skew more towards reliable outcomes than ceiling, mainly because I just believe in so few players in the middle of this lottery.

I need to look at all the final data I have, now that the tournament is over.....and I think measurements and athletic testing will matter for a handful of these guys.....but my tier 3 is probably RJ, Clarke and in a best case scenario, I might put Hunter in that group. I take RJ 3, a little more reluctantly and bet that his youth propels him forward more than Culver's will. And given where Culver's shooting just bottomed out at (30% from 3), I'm far more confident that RJ will be a better shooter long term.....and he's additionally bigger, a better athlete and a better passer. I also think he just has better shooting mechanics. His defense is obviously the big wild card......as it's pretty much a lock Culver will be, at worst, above average there.....and more than likely good to a plus NBA defender......I just think Culver doesn't have translatable on ball skills at the NBA level on offense.....where I think RJ does.

So if I have to slot Tier's 1-4.....let's say through the first 7-9 picks...I'd probably land here today:

1.1 Zion

2.1 Morant

3.1 Barrett
3.2 Clarke
3.3 Hunter

4.1 Culver
4.2 Hayes
4.3 Goga
4.4 Bol

Then beyond Bol, there's honestly 7-10 guys I could make an argument for.....skewing more positively towards Williams and Okeke out of that group. Okeke I probably would have had comfortably in the lottery had he not hurt his knee. Now I hope he somehow slides to the Rockets pick.

I'm pretty confident the 5 guys I have in tier 3 and above stay there....Culver I'm most inclined to bet on out of the remaining lotto wings, although more reluctantly....but after the guys in tiers 1-3 are gone, I'm probably just swinging for upside at 6/7.....with Bol, Hayes, Goga, etc. I'm speaking mainly to "my team is just not good" drafting strategy. In the 6/7 range, Culver is a no brainer to me for someone like Atlanta but makes a little less sense for a team with less talent. I'd call him a mortal lock as the 4.1 guy if the Hawks land at 6......I just think he makes too much sense paired with Young.
 
Last edited:
I'mWithDan said:
I'm more mixed on RJ than I was at the beginning of the year. I would have gone down with the ship and taken him #1 early this season......watching Zion obviously changed that. And even though I liked JA earlier in the year, I really just would have never considered taking him over RJ.....it was more a #1 PG debate than anything.

I personally would put Zion in tier 1 and Ja in tier 2.....but I'm really mixed on what the Cavs specifically do at #2, with Sexton showing such a wild swing in his mid-season development curve. My gut tells me I want to still take Ja and move Sexton at peak value for a future pick but it's a pretty tough call. I probably lean towards trading down if I can......stockpile a few more assets (ideally a future #1) and then take whoever is left on our board in the middle of the lotto.

Tier 3 is just a lot fewer players for me. In this draft, I skew more towards reliable outcomes than ceiling, mainly because I just believe in so few players in the middle of this lottery.

I need to look at all the final data I have, now that the tournament is over.....and I think measurements and athletic testing will matter for a handful of these guys.....but my tier 3 is probably RJ, Clarke and in a best case scenario, I might put Hunter in that group. I take RJ 3, a little more reluctantly and bet that his youth propels him forward more than Culver's will. And given where Culver's shooting just bottomed out at (30% from 3), I'm far more confident that RJ will be a better shooter long term.....and he's additionally bigger, a better athlete and a better passer. I also think he just has better shooting mechanics. His defense is obviously the big wild card......as it's pretty much a lock Culver will be, at worst, above average there.....and more than likely good to a plus NBA defender......I just think Culver doesn't have translatable on ball skills at the NBA level on offense.....where I think RJ does.

So if I have to slot Tier's 1-4.....let's say through the first 7-9 picks...I'd probably land here today:

1.1 Zion

2.1 Morant

3.1 Barrett
3.2 Clarke
3.3 Hunter

4.1 Culver
4.2 Hayes
4.3 Goga
4.4 Bol

Then beyond Bol, there's honestly 7-10 guys I could make an argument for.....skewing more positively towards Williams and Okeke out of that group. Okeke I probably would have had comfortably in the lottery had he not hurt his knee. Now I hope he somehow slides to the Rockets pick.

I'm pretty confident the 5 guys I have in tier 3 and above stay there....Culver I'm most inclined to bet on out of the remaining lotto wings, although more reluctantly....but after the guys in tiers 1-3 are gone, I'm probably just swinging for upside at 6/7.....with Bol, Hayes, Goga, etc. I'm speaking mainly to "my team is just not good" drafting strategy. In the 6/7 range, Culver is a no brainer to me for someone like Atlanta but makes a little less sense for a team with less talent. I'd call him a mortal lock as the 4.1 guy if the Hawks land at 6......I just think he makes too much sense paired with Young.
Click to expand...

What's the case for Clarke over Williams? He's probably just a bit longer, which is a plus, but Williams has a much stronger frame, and similar (better?) offensive skills in spite of being more than two years younger. I just don't understand why people are low on Williams generally, I guess, which has been my stance for the better part of the last 6 months :chuckle:

My big board (where 2a vs 2b reflects the fact that I think Morant is the clear #2 guy at this point, but would still struggle to pick him #2 if I already have a cornerstone primary ballhandler type):

1. Zion

2a.2. Morant

2b.3. Bitadze
2b.4. Williams

3.5. Bol
3.6. Barrett
3.7. Culver
3.8. Horton-Tucker
3.9. Claxton
3.10. Jerome

4.11. Winston
4.12. Hunter
4.13. White
4.14. Ponds
4.15. Haliburton
4.16. Tillman
4.17. Garland
4.18. Clarke
4.19. Washington
5.20. Okeke
5.21. Hayes
5.22. Langford
5.23. Alexander-Walker
 
Nathan S said:
What's the case for Clarke over Williams? He's probably just a bit longer, which is a plus, but Williams has a much stronger frame, and similar (better?) offensive skills in spite of being more than two years younger. I just don't understand why people are low on Williams generally, I guess, which has been my stance for the better part of the last 6 months :chuckle:
Click to expand...

I think it largely depends on your view of Williams scoring potential at the NBA level.....because his stand out skill, in relation to Okeke, is his scoring rate.

Okeke is a bit bigger, he’s a high volume 3PT making forward already....something you think Williams has in him but is more projection.....Okeke is a more impactful defender by all defensive metrics and really separates from Williams when looking at /PF (per foul) defensive / hustle metrics.

Okeke:

BLK+STL/PF: 1.622
BLK+STL+OREB/PF: 3.165

Williams:

BLK+STL/PF: 0.889
BLK+STL+OREB/PF: 1.619

Total Rebound rates are similar but Okeke is a far superior offensive rebounder on a per 100 basis. Williams is a bit better passer and he’s a better FT producer.....which makes sense given shot distribution.

The big wild card is the knee though. If both were healthy, I’d be slightly more confident that Okeke would be the better NBA player, just because of his shooting mechanics, shooting production and his defensive profile being better......but it’s a bigger gamble post ACL. What made Okeke unique was his lateral movement, at his size and it’s tough to say if he regains all of that. I’d probably take Williams for health reasons but I think Okeke is one of the more underrated players in this draft given his range of skills and how they fit in to the modern NBA game.

I’m not necessarily low on Williams, I have him in my top 10 but I do agree that it is strange so few have warmed to both he and Okeke for that matter. Most mocks hover them in the 23-35 range, which seems silly given their production and range of skills.
 
I'mWithDan said:
I think it largely depends on your view of Williams scoring potential at the NBA level.....because his stand out skill, in relation to Okeke, is his scoring rate.

Okeke is a bit bigger, he’s a high volume 3PT making forward already....something you think Williams has in him but is more projection.....Okeke is a more impactful defender by all defensive metrics and really separates from Williams when looking at /PF (per foul) defensive / hustle metrics.

Okeke:

BLK+STL/PF: 1.622
BLK+STL+OREB/PF: 3.165

Williams:

BLK+STL/PF: 0.889
BLK+STL+OREB/PF: 1.619

Total Rebound rates are similar but Okeke is a far superior offensive rebounder on a per 100 basis. Williams is a bit better passer and he’s a better FT producer.....which makes sense given shot distribution.

The big wild card is the knee though. If both were healthy, I’d be slightly more confident that Okeke would be the better NBA player, just because of his shooting mechanics, shooting production and his defensive profile being better......but it’s a bigger gamble post ACL. What made Okeke unique was his lateral movement, at his size and it’s tough to say if he regains all of that. I’d probably take Williams for health reasons but I think Okeke is one of the more underrated players in this draft given his range of skills and how they fit in to the modern NBA game.

I’m not necessarily low on Williams, I have him in my top 10 but I do agree that it is strange so few have warmed to both he and Okeke for that matter. Most mocks hover them in the 23-35 range, which seems silly given their production and range of skills.
Click to expand...

Big difference for me is their mentality, and their roles on their respective teams.

Williams is an obvious leader: he's actively communicating all the time, directing traffic, calling plays, leading huddles. He has a clear desire and ability to take over the game in clutch time. Announcers frequently talk about how he's like a coach on the floor. All that is very impressive considering he's a year+ younger than all the other core guys on his team.

Okeke is pretty much the opposite. He has a reserved, quiet personality...in spite of being statistically the best player on his team by quite a distance, he doesn't really act like a leader for them. He doesn't handle the ball much at all, certainly not in clutch time. That's a big part of why he stayed under the radar for so long, IMO. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does certainly point to him being a roleplayer type at the next level rather than a star.


EDIT: Oh, possibly relevant, Williams is the son of a NASA engineer and was recruited by Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. He'll graduate with a business degree at the end of the semester, just a few months after his 20th birthday. Smart cookie.
 
Last edited:
Nathan S said:
Big difference for me is their mentality, and their roles on their respective teams.

Williams is an obvious leader: he's actively communicating all the time, directing traffic, calling plays, leading huddles. He has a clear desire and ability to take over the game in clutch time. Announcers frequently talk about how he's like a coach on the floor. All that is very impressive considering he's a year+ younger than all the other core guys on his team.

Okeke is pretty much the opposite. He has a reserved, quiet personality...in spite of being statistically the best player on his team by quite a distance, he doesn't really act like a leader for them. He doesn't handle the ball much at all, certainly not in clutch time. That's a big part of why he stayed under the radar for so long, IMO. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does certainly point to him being a roleplayer type at the next level rather than a star.


EDIT: Oh, possibly relevant, Williams is the son of a NASA engineer and was recruited by Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. He'll graduate with a business degree at the end of the semester, just a few months after his 20th birthday. Smart cookie.
Click to expand...

I agree with the sentiment on Williams but also think the dynamics on their respective teams are very different.....if you are considering how Okeke's role can change moving forward.

Brown / Harper is possibly the best backcourt duo in Auburn's history. They are upperclassmen lead guards who dominate the ball unlike any perimeter players Williams' plays with....and they're the type of players who need the ball to provide value.

Tennessee's roster is comprised of complimentary spacers around Williams', so he can get credit for seizing the reigns but it's also a situation conducive to doing so IMO.....whereas, if you're being realistic, Okeke's is not. If you flip the two players, it's reasonable to think their roles would reverse IMO.

Now, I don't know that Okeke has star potential but I think it is a non standard situation, where he could have more interesting offensive value than just his shooting. Draft Junkies just posted his offensive video and it does show an interesting mix of skills for his size / position that go beyond spot up shooting.

 
I'mWithDan said:
I agree with the sentiment on Williams but also think the dynamics on their respective teams are very different.....if you are considering how Okeke's role can change moving forward.

Brown / Harper is possibly the best backcourt duo in Auburn's history. They are upperclassmen lead guards who dominate the ball unlike any perimeter players Williams' plays with....and they're the type of players who need the ball to provide value.

Tennessee's roster is comprised of complimentary spacers around Williams', so he can get credit for seizing the reigns but it's also a situation conducive to doing so IMO.....whereas, if you're being realistic, Okeke's is not. If you flip the two players, it's reasonable to think their roles would reverse IMO.

Now, I don't know that Okeke has star potential but I think it is a non standard situation, where he could have more interesting offensive value than just his shooting. Draft Junkies just posted his offensive video and it does show an interesting mix of skills for his size / position that go beyond spot up shooting.

Click to expand...

Do you really think the bold is true? The difference between their personalities on the court is like night and day. I certainly don't mean to come across as bearish on Okeke...I have him at 20, but if not for the knee injury he's be near the top of that 4th tier, which is higher than I've seen him pretty much anywhere else. I've been stumping for him on here since like November when he was a complete nobody. But I see absolutely no way he would've asserted himself as a leader on Tennessee over guys like Schofield and Bone. I think he would've been an excellent player for them, as impactful as Williams minus the clutch time heroics, but he wouldn't be a unanimous 1st-team All-American with announcers and pundits raving about him at every turn. That's just not the kind of player or personality he is.
 
I was crapping on Culver last night but I’m thinking a bit more about his performance and trying to find some nuance.

Regarding attacking the basket: he ran into walls basically. You can critique his decision to do that, but not even LeBron could finish with the way Virginia was packing the paint. I don’t know if that was the design of the plays, or if he had a green light to do his thing and made the wrong choice. There were definitely some instances when the team was down and had NOTHING going on offense and they gave Culver the ball and told him to bail them out. Didn’t work in the first half, worked in the second half at times. The thing about college, and I’m fairly new to watching THIS much college ball, is the utter lack of spacing. They packed the paint and made driving impossible. Culver’s shot wasn’t consistent enough to pull them out. But there were other times he did finish and it looks impressive.

Virginia has a top 5 defense and a slow pace. Other than his own team, there isn’t much worse of a mismatch. With everything said, I don’t think you can assume culver is a plug-and-play player. He look like the most athletic player on the court but it wasn’t as athletic as you envision when you think about number one NBA option
 
Alec Zander said:
I was crapping on Culver last night but I’m thinking a bit more about his performance and trying to find some nuance.

Regarding attacking the basket: he ran into walls basically. You can critique his decision to do that, but not even LeBron could finish with the way Virginia was packing the paint. I don’t know if that was the design of the plays, or if he had a green light to do his thing and made the wrong choice. There were definitely some instances when the team was down and had NOTHING going on offense and they gave Culver the ball and told him to bail them out. Didn’t work in the first half, worked in the second half at times. The thing about college, and I’m fairly new to watching THIS much college ball, is the utter lack of spacing. They packed the paint and made driving impossible. Culver’s shot wasn’t consistent enough to pull them out. But there were other times he did finish and it looks impressive.

Virginia has a top 5 defense and a slow pace. Other than his own team, there isn’t much worse of a mismatch. With everything said, I don’t think you can assume culver is a plug-and-play player. He look like the most athletic player on the court but it wasn’t as athletic as you envision when you think about number one NBA option
Click to expand...

It's a double-edged sword for a prospect making a deep run in march madness. Typically you get credit for being a leader and a winner, but you also face extremely difficult opponents...in Culver's case, 4 of the top 6 teams in the country (according to Kenpom) over the course of 12 days. Safe to say a lot of prospects would have their weaknesses exposed in a gauntlet like that.
 
I hear what you’re saying. But top 10 prospects in the NBA probably shouldn’t be non-factors for long stretches of time, in any college game. Especially an entire half of a championship game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top