Cavs draft workouts

[MarkPriceFan]

After the Cavs missed on so many lottery picks, like Mihm, Diop, Wagner, Jackson, Waiters, & Bennett, hitting singles may not be such a bad thing. John Beilein doesn’t strike me as a ‘swing for the fences’ kinda guy. I think he wants a bunch of solid, smart players.

This may be true (though we have no idea, he has no NBA track record). I just fear the treadmill if we load up with a bunch of good players and no stars. I know nothing, but my impression watching Hunter and Culver is that neither has any star potential whatsoever. Either should be a solid starter for a long time. We have a bunch of these guys.

I keep feeling like we need to either find a way to trade up to 3 for RJ, or back to 8/10 with Atlanta. Or if we can trade JR for Miami's pick that would be great. I want to take a swing at a star at some point. If we stay at 5 and take the safe pick, by 26 all of the star potential guys will likely be gone.

 

[Funkmastabuck]

Having watched a handful of games last season of both Hunter and Culver, and now having studied their stats a bit, I'm trying to convince myself that I'd be happy with either. But Hunter just seems superior.

Could someone with a preference for Culver please convince me? I'm not even looking to debate. I just want to understand why Culver is an elite shooting guard, when he's such a poor long-range shooter.

EDIT - OK, so I've watched some more film of Culver to try to understand his game. The comparison that comes to mind for me is Jimmy Butler. Maybe not a 3-pt shooter, but a physical presence who can slash and shoot. I think I could get on board with either Hunter or Culver at #5, if we don't move up or back.

 

[CBBI]

Having watched a handful of games last season of both Hunter and Culver, and now having studied their stats a bit, I'm trying to convince myself that I'd be happy with either. But Hunter just seems superior.

Could someone with a preference for Culver please convince me? I'm not even looking to debate. I just want to understand why Culver is an elite shooting guard, when he's such a poor long-range shooter.

In regards to the shooting part, Culver completely overhauled his shot form between his freshman season and this past season.

IMO his new form looks significantly better than the old form, but the results didn’t match the better process. Culver struggled with inconsistency in his new mechanics at times. Some of the new changes (release point, follow through etc.) would simply break down and lack consistency under duress which is somewhat understandable because it’s hard to completely master a whole new shooting form in six months.

I think the more he’s able to muscle memory his current shot form, the fewer issues he’ll have moving forward.

The reason why Culver is so highly regarded otherwise is basically because he’s solid/good at everything else beyond shooting.

He’s has good vision as a passer. He’s a good rebounding wing. He’s already a very good and versatile defender. He’s a good cutter that has a lot of experience moving without the ball. He’s not overly explosive or have a great first step, but that hasn’t stopped him too much from getting to the spots he wants to get to using craftiness. I really like his basketball IQ.

The only thing IMO that Hunter does better than Cuvler right now is shoot the basketball. And don’t get me wrong, that’s a big deal because shooting is always at a premium in the NBA, but I think Culver outclasses Hunter at pretty much everything else.

If I thought Culver’s shot was Michael Kidd-Gilchrist level broken, I wouldn’t be interested in him. If he was a totally unwilling shooter, I wouldn’t be interested in him.

I just think he needs more time to really dial in the significant changes he made to his shot form.

 

[daytripper]

Having watched a handful of games last season of both Hunter and Culver, and now having studied their stats a bit, I'm trying to convince myself that I'd be happy with either. But Hunter just seems superior.

Could someone with a preference for Culver please convince me? I'm not even looking to debate. I just want to understand why Culver is an elite shooting guard, when he's such a poor long-range shooter.

I really like both Hunter and Culver almost equally.
I'm not going to say fit is the reason the Cavs should select Culver (rarely selecting a player in the lottery due to fit is a good idea) but in this case when both players are so closely bunched as prospects I would lean Culver. I just see Culver's strengths (defense, size, secondary ballhandler) as a near perfect fit in the backcourt with Sexton. I also look at Culver's frame and believe there is room for him to get bigger and stronger. His shot needs a little work but believe he has a decent foundation to work with. He really seems to have a very high BBIQ which will allow him to cover holes for Sexton and allow Collin to concentrate more on being an elite scorer. Culver isn't exactly super explosive but I think he's athletic/smart enough with the potential to get bigger and stronger.
I wouldn't be mad if they picked Hunter but my slight lean would be toward Culver.

 

[Nathan S]

In regards to the shooting part, Culver completely overhauled his shot form between his freshman season and this past season.

IMO his new form looks significantly better than the old form, but the results didn’t match the better process. Culver struggled with inconsistency in his new mechanics at times. Some of the new changes (release point, follow through etc.) would simply break down and lack consistency under duress which is somewhat understandable because it’s hard to completely master a whole new shooting form in six months.

I think the more he’s able to muscle memory his current shot form, the fewer issues he’ll have moving forward.

The reason why Culver is so highly regarded otherwise is basically because he’s solid/good at everything else beyond shooting.

He’s has good vision as a passer. He’s a good rebounding wing. He’s already a very good and versatile defender. He’s a good cutter that has a lot of experience moving without the ball. He’s not overly explosive or have a great first step, but that hasn’t stopped him too much from getting to the spots he wants to get to using craftiness. I really like his basketball IQ.

The only thing IMO that Hunter does better than Cuvler right now is shoot the basketball. And don’t get me wrong, that’s a big deal because shooting is always at a premium in the NBA, but I think Culver outclasses Hunter at pretty much everything else.

If I thought Culver’s shot was Michael Kidd-Gilchrist level broken, I wouldn’t be interested in him. If he was a totally unwilling shooter, I wouldn’t be interested in him.

I just think he needs more time to really dial in the significant changes he made to his shot form.

He also faced a ton more defensive pressure in the second half of the season once defenses started gameplanning for him. That's only a partial excuse of course; after all he'll have to be an accurate shooter in those situations to reach his ceiling. But he probably would've finished the season shooting high ~40% from deep if he'd played in the same minor off-ball role he played last year.

 

[LeeBuckeye]

Culver tested well in the vertical jump but really seemed to contort his body and made things look TOUGH on offense. He also seems to have a pretty below average first step and relied on his length. If he doesn’t have the polish of a jumper (some ugly misses) or the size for mismatches outside point or a quick first step, isn’t he a pretty risky pick?

He’s facing Hunter level defenders in the league and we all saw how that went for him in the Championship game.

 

[AussieCavFan]

Culver tested well in the vertical jump but really seemed to contort his body and made things look TOUGH on offense. He also seems to have a pretty below average first step and relied on his length. If he doesn’t have the polish of a jumper (some ugly misses) or the size for mismatches outside point or a quick first step, isn’t he a pretty risky pick?

He’s facing Hunter level defenders in the league and we all saw how that went for him in the Championship game.

It's all pretty relative though as he will also have better teammates that teams would need to keep in check.

For me, his jumper isn't horrible, his release is just a bit late causing him to front rim quite a few shots. I think that's fixable.

I think it is also a pretty small amount of players who have his skills, defense and measurables as well as a high level first step.

I like the Jimmy Butler comparison. Even a slightly worse Jimmy Butler who isn't a head case is a good result imo.

 

[CBBI]

He also faced a ton more defensive pressure in the second half of the season once defenses started gameplanning for him. That's only a partial excuse of course; after all he'll have to be an accurate shooter in those situations to reach his ceiling. But he probably would've finished the season shooting high ~40% from deep if he'd played in the same minor off-ball role he played last year.

I think there’s something to this as well.

Culver was asked to shoulder a massive workload offensively at Texas Tech.

He was their best scorer and best creator and they pretty much designed their entire offense around his ability to make a play for himself or for someone else. His usage skyrocketed from 22.1 as a freshman to 32.2 this season, which was No. 1 in the Big 12 and tied for No. 7 in the nation.

Now he doesn’t have the fully formed skill set as a shooter/ball handler or the crazy explosive athleticism to be a No. 1 option in the NBA, but having so much experience on the ball should benefit him a lot as he transitions into more of a secondary facilitator/scorer role.

Hunter projects to be an excellent 3&D guy, but he really played like one in college too. Over 30% of Hunter’s possessions last year came in the form of spot ups. Just 4% came as a ball handler in pick and roll. He had about a 62% off ball to 38% on ball possession ratio this year for UVA

Culver on the other hand saw 26% of his possessions come as a pick and roll ball handler and about a 60% on ball to 40% off ball ratio.

I’m just more confident in Culver’s ability to be more efficient and effective at the NBA level being asked to do less than he did in college than I am at Hunter being asked to do more if that makes sense.

 

[sailfish]

Something else to consider is, given John Beilein’s advanced age (66) and the fact that he undoubtedly wants to win, the Cavaliers will likely opt for more pro-ready players rather than those that are going to take longer to develop. It’s why I can see the Cavaliers taking two pro-ready players, like DeAndre Hunter & Ty Jerome.

In many ways, this could be a return to the Wayne Embry days, when the Cavs opted for seasoned, pro-ready players over those that were younger and presumably needed more time to develop. I think the Cavaliers are at a point where they will gladly accept players will a lower ceiling in favor of a higher floor.

 

[dark2332]

Something else to consider is, considering Beilein’s advanced age (66) and the fact that he undoubtedly wants to win, the Cavaliers will likely opt for more pro-ready players rather than those that are going to take longer to develop. It’s why I can see the Cavaliers taking two pro-ready players, like DeAndre Hunter & Ty Jerome.

I actually think it’s the complete opposite.

Beilein was brought here specifically to develop and teach young players. It was stated numerous times in the introductory press conference. That’s his strength and his passion. As for how long he’s here, age is just a number.

I do not think the target is an older college player due to the “coach’s window.” Rather, with a developmental emphasis, the plan is to utilize those talents. Any player is on the table—and “homerun swings” are not out of the question.

 

[sailfish]

I actually think it’s the complete opposite.

Beilein was brought here specifically to develop and teach young players. It was stated numerous times in the introductory press conference. That’s his strength and his passion. As for how long he’s here, age is just a number.

I do not think the target is an older college player due to the “coach’s window.” Rather, with a developmental emphasis, the plan is to utilize those talents. Any player is on the table—and “homerun swings” are not out of the question,

Only time will tell, but I have a hard time seeing Beilein going along with picking raw, unpolished players, at his age. I believe he just wants fundamentally-sound, smart players that he can build/work with.

Also, given the Cavaliers penchant for analytics, it puts a premium on production over potential. It’s hard to quantify a prospect’s potential as that is more an area of scouting than analytics.

 

[dark2332]

Only time will tell, but I have a hard time seeing Beilein going along with picking raw, unpolished players, at his age. I believe he just wants fundamentally-sound, smart players that he can build/work with.

Also, given the Cavaliers penchant for analytics, it puts a premium on production over potential. It’s hard to quantify a prospect’s potential as that is more an area of scouting than analytics.

I’m not saying they won’t take a player like Hunter, who is higher floor. It just won’t be due to him being more pro-ready; it would be because they believe him to be the better long term basketball player.

John Beilein was very clear that everyone was up front with him during the process and everyone knows it will take time. He’s here because he’s one of the best teachers in the game today. He loves doing that.

That’s what this is about. If it takes 2-3 years to become a playoff team once again, that’s something he signed on for.

Going out and getting a coach who is a strong developer of talent and then taking lower ceiling guys with the sole focus of them “not needing much development” is entirely counterintuitive.

 

[sailfish]

I’m not saying they won’t take a player like Hunter, who is higher floor. It just won’t be due to him being more pro-ready,; it would be because they believe him to be the better long term basketball player.

John Beilein was very clear that everyone was up front with him during the process and everyone knows it will take time. He’s here because he’s one of the best teachers in the game today. He loves doing that.

That’s what this is about. If it takes 2-3 years to become a playoff team once again, that’s something he signed on for.

Going out and getting a coach who is a strong developer of talent and then taking lower ceiling guys with the sole focus of them “not needing much development” is entirely counterintuitive.

I agree that the Cavs should take the players with the highest ceiling, regardless of where their floor is. That said, I don’t believe that’s going to happen.

The Cavaliers’ emphasis on analytics & college production will basically exclude the low floor guys. It will come down to choosing from among the most productive college or international players, who they deem has the best chance to continue to grow their game. That said, I suspect what they see and what we see will be very different. We may look at a DeAndre Hunter or Ty Jerome and see productive, efficient college players with a limited ceiling, but the Cavs may not see it that way...

 

[CalBuckeyeRob]

After the Cavs missed on so many lottery picks, like Mihm, Diop, Wagner, Jackson, Waiters, & Bennett, hitting singles may not be such a bad thing. John Beilein doesn’t strike me as a ‘swing for the fences’ kinda guy. I think he wants a bunch of solid, smart players.

If true, he will be long retired before the team is relevant. The NBA teams that contend for anything have elite talent to mix with solid, smart players. And you are less likely to find an elite star once you get in the circle of mediocrity at 35-45 wins. I guess it ultimately depends on what you want as a fan. If making the playoffs every now and then--and maybe even winning a couple of games in the first round before a team with stars eliminates you--is acceptable, then "solid" can get you there. If you demand more, you need to be more aggressive, even if that means you could have some major misses between the hits.

 

[dark2332]

I agree that the Cavs should take the players with the highest ceiling, regardless of where their floor is. That said, I don’t believe that’s going to happen.

But they most certainly will, though--especially in the lottery. They're looking for a difference maker if one is to be had and taking the player they believe to be the best long term player at that spot. That's it. Now, could that be Hunter? Maybe. I anticipate one of Culver or Barrett being our pick, based on trading up or one of the two falling.

The Cavaliers’ emphasis on analytics & college production will basically exclude the low floor guys. It will come down to choosing from among the most productive college or international players, who they deem has the best chance to continue to grow their game. That said, I suspect what they see and what we see will be very different. We may look at a DeAndre Hunter or Ty Jerome and see productive, efficient college players with a limited ceiling, but the Cavs may not see it that way...

Maybe, but that has nothing to do with trying to "win now" because our coach is old....

Likewise, later in the draft is where many of those "productive, but older" college players tend to fall. The Cam Johnson's of the world. The Jerome's. It's not an active effort by our staff, necessarily, in such that it's the natural landing spot for role players to playoff teams in the late 1st.

I think this is something that the Cavaliers can use to their advantage. Most teams 20-30 in the draft are looking for high-floor role players and sometimes have issues getting minutes to players needing a lot of development. We're the opposite. We have plenty of time and minutes available.

John Beilein is here to develop talent. Period.

Bringing in guys like Kevin Porter Jr. for workouts (who I am not a fan of) indicates to me that we have no issues swinging for the fences with late picks.