Case to Trade up for Tari Eason

NBA has been in midst of position revolution for years now.

League is increasingly becoming position fluid where terms like 3-D, stretch big, engine are more accurate than PG, SG, SF, PF, C or 1-5.

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/...misfits-are-dismantling-an-antiquated-system/

 

Nah PJ Tucker and Eric Gordon didn't have to change their shot

 

its more important how many skills you have on offense and how versatile you are on defense. there's no real name to categorize all the combinations therein.

 

Offensive versatility and defense are highly sought after skillsets in the wing category.

 

Most coveted role players are called 3-D wings for a reason.

 

3 and D role players are in such demand right now the best one in this draft is going to go #1 overall.

 

The Rockets may have to give up that Bucks pick (plus the 17th pick) to move up

 

Tape doesn't lie.

Hope he falls to 17.

 

Is that an attempt to say in a polite way that he’s dumb ??

 

If we stay at 17 and he is the best available as determined by Stone, you take him. There is so much propaganda out there and planted rumors abound this time of year. I don’t care if he’s dumb as a rock if his defense translates to the NBA.

 

vince young was dumb, look how great he became!

 

LOL. I was wondering how you can tell a guy has low basketball IQ by interviewing him. Do they ask something like, "If your big man has the ball in the post and you are at the weak side corner, do you cut or stay put?"

Anyway, I do believe that intelligence is an important "talent" for success in the NBA. I hope our scouting department takes this into serious consideration.

 

Watching him on film he doesn’t seem very smart. Seems oblivious to a lot of things, but if they take him at 17 I’ll hope for the best.

But I’d rather move up for a better prospect.

 

Is IQ really that big of a deal?

Signed, Squid

 

Stone: "Mister Eason, glad we could get you on the line."
(thud thud thud) Eason: (holding shoe) "Guess what that is? That's my skull, dude!"
Stone: "Uh, yeah, ha ha, that's good. Well, your agent---"
Eason: "Is your name really 'Stoned'? I like you already!"

 

"Whataburger or In-N-Out?"

 

I'm imagining something like the old Gruden QB Camp segments; breaking down film, having them analyze their own plays, and seeing if they can internalize a playbook quickly. Maybe going over a long set of plays both on offense and defense, and then seeing if he can remember them and execute them on the court.





I'd argue that this is going to be more important than whatever players show physically at their workouts; does the guy prepare, or is he capable of preparing mentally. Good NBA defenses are so much more complex now than back in the '90s with the illegal defense rules; no matter how good you are individually at shutting a man down 1-on-1, if you can't be a part of a system, you really limit what the rest of the team can do around you. And if you can't rapidly adjust to different coverages on a game-by-game basis, you risk being completely neutralized in the playoffs when teams start scheming to exploit your tendencies.

Can they be critical about their own play, and figure out what needs to be done next time, like Kobe or Dray? This is just the stuff that they release publicly; the discussions internally could be even more detailed. You can absolutely imagine a guy like Battier knowing the exact percentages of a guy from each individual spot on the floor, and how he changed up his coverages based on the matchup of the night.

Not saying that this kind of thing is necessary at all to be a great player. Lots of guys completely reject analytics. But if you're going to make your bones in the league as a defensive anchor, you're going to need to know what everyone else is doing, and what the offensive player is looking for on any given possession.





This all still feels like a big smokescreen to me. Like he's hoping to land in a certain spot, and is subconsciously or intentionally tanking his workouts.