For bigs you only need to have the capability to shoot you dobt need to actually shoot. They just need to be guarded by the opponent when they go 5 out so it creates space. Mobley shoots like 69% from ft I dont think he'll be significantly better than the 30%, maybe he can lift that to 33% or w/e. But even that is enough imo.
We can learn something from watching the abomination that is the USA mens basketball team... DEFENSE and REBOUNDING are hugely important to winning basketball games. Even if you have the offensive talent advantage by a wide margin, as Team USA does, they can get beaten by teams who have superior defense and rebounding. One draft prospect provides ELITE defense and rebounding -- and that is Evan Mobley. Take note.
Yeah, im not sure what that has to do with anything. Of course some players are better than others, lol. Yes, but they all pretty much universally have a lean one way or the other. There's very few - no? - players that are equal great at being outside in and inside out. Like Sabonis, that's an inside out player, even though he can hit a 3. In fact, that was the point of calling them inside-out or outside-in. The later part means they can do both, but they start with one. As I noted, there are purely outside only or inside only players, too (the 3&D wing, the interior big - Capela example) that can be solid, too. for sure, i agree. deep draft with those kind of role players that make a difference on some champ squads. Probably right, though i think there is risk at 2. Of these top 5/6 guys, VERY unlikely they all hit. Missing would be BAD. Anyway... my whole point is ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL. Unless you already have the 1/2/3 position filled with those all stars, at 2, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL - eg. you grade both players out EXACTLY the same - I go with the outside in player every time. Which is, these days, most players, lol. At this point, though, it doesn't sound like a lot of people have Mobley/Green as being equal. Most seem to fall firmly in a "this player is/will be better camp". I've been firm in GreenGang, yet think I might be one of the more balanced guys out there still lol. I'm like 60/40 or 55/45. I don't think there's a ton of separation. Just a little, plus that all else being equal guard thing.
I disagree that Beal and Lavine are dominant guards. Which to me is being a guard that has won 50+games as the main offensive option, doing so with less talent is even more impressive (ex. Harden). Gun to my head, I would also take Mitchell over Booker. If Booker was on Utah instead of Mitchell I don’t think they would be nearly as good. AD is a dominant big man, but being a dominant big does not lead to playoff success, much less a title. I get that its not all about one player or draft but my philosophy would be to take the highest ceiling guys in the top couple of picks. Just my perspective.
https://www.wkyc.com/article/sports...reen/535-b4fd930b-a8ff-4a4b-ae81-2bdda8d36a59 Interesting take from Dean Demakis (deanondraft.com). He says Cunningham isn't #1 pick and should actually be as low as #6. He says Green is too one-dimensional. He can only score, is too small, can't pass or defend well. He thinks Mobley is the clear #1. Read his complete evaluation here. According to him, if the Rockets don't take Mobley they will likely set their franchise back for years to come.
Hmmmm Everybody talks about how bad Cade Cunningham’s teammates are, but every half-decent computer model rated Oklahoma State as the better team entering the season as he had relatively decent high major teammates. Evan Mobley was the top prospect who had the clearly most flawed cast, yet he was able to carry them much further than expected by several orders of magnitude.
48 minutes of at least two 7 footers on the court playing inside-outside or outside-inside, depending on matchups.
I was a bit brainwashed from all the Jalen Green hype I'm seeing on social media. Now I'm back to my senses and am back on the Mobley train.
I'll admit I haven't watched him a ton but the reports I have read from real draft nerds is that he is actually not that great of a rebounder for his size - subpar even for his size on account of his slight frame. I guess this is what I am having a hard time at with Mobley - he's a big who isn't particularly great at the things bigs normally do. His low post game and his rebounding is weak and while every says he has potential to have range, he hit 12 threes last year in total - hardly what I would call a deep threat. It begs the question - if Mobley is not strong enough to play in the paint on the college level and doesn't have great range to the college 3pt line then what can his value really be in the NBA playing strong, grown men if the 2 best shots in basketball are inside and from deep? ....I get the high ceiling aspect of him - he could be an elite NBA defender without much improvement, but you gotta hope/pray he gets better at all the rest of the stuff to become a truly elite player. I just don't think the risk is worth the pick at the #2 spot in the draft - he should be able to offer a lot more NBA skills than that with THAT high of a pick.....and don't even get me started on the checkered injury history pasts of bigs in the NBA. The hand check rule changes, the prevalence of value on the 3pt shot, and injury past of NBA bigs all adds up to bigs are a much riskier position in the NBA to fill. I would rather take that risk with a 20th pick or a 13th pick than the #2 pick.
Pretty concise and accurate. If we're talking overall game impact and results...Suggs and Mobley are head and shoulders above the rest. The more I see about Green, the less I like him. Seems small, can't pass, doesn't have good vision...most scouts have refrained from calling him selfish but you can read between the lines. Suggs seems like a better floor general to me than Cade. He also looks like a better athlete. Cade is bigger and has PG tools as well but doesn't have the drive Suggs has. Also not huge on his attitude of only wanting to work out for one team.
From highlights alone, I haven't been blown away by Mobley. He seems to me a little frail, his jump shot too inconsistent, and his repertoire a bit limited. He seems a little more "raw" than Green or Cunningham, which would mean he has more ways to go. I am personally leaning towards Mobley, especially after last season and watching this playoffs. It's not only that this team was outmatched all year at the 5, but that the 5 position, especially a versatile 5, in the current NBA is a difference maker. Deandre Ayton, Giannis, Jokic, Embiid, Anthony Davis, etc. are all pivotal players, and offer a mismatch that other teams really struggle to contain. We don't have any players that can compete with these guys, and if Mobley gives us a player with that type of skillset, then he's bringing something much rarer to the table than a SG that can score which is much easier to find in free agency or the draft.
Funny, I look at those teams and think that those bigs only get as far as their scoring guards will take them - Booker and CP3, Middleton, Murray, Lebron....and frankly Embid's problem historically has been that he hasn't had that reliable shot making guard on his roster yet. I mean - looking at the last 10 NBA Finals teams, Bosh(who is really a 4 but they played small ball) and AD were the only modern/versatile 5s and those two players happened to have the GOAT on their team which MAY have had something to do with their titles.
Context is important - you saw Green playing grown men - most of whom have been professional basketball players for many years now, all those collegiate players were playing other 19 and 20 yr olds.
