I'm not sure that I see Jerem Grant's NBA

[CaliCuse]

talent just yet. His outside or even his medium range shot is suspect. Rebounding might be hi biggest asset thus far . It kind of baffles me that some GM is going to throw millions in his direction. Tyler is an entirely different kind of risk.Despit his size he has the talent to play pg up there.

 

[TBCuse11]

He is a Darius Miles clone. Thats a compliment by the way...

 

[upperdeck]

His best asset wont be the same when he gets to the NBA. he wont be the quicker forward or be able to bull to the basket or out jump most people.

 

[RF2044]

Yesterday's first half was indicative of why he isn't quite yet ready for the NBA.

Love his potential, though, and think he'll be a lottery pick whenever he goes. Just hope he decides that he could use another year... because he really needs it.

 

[Doc5120]

He's a superb athlete, but not a great basketball player at this point. He's able to make up for what he lacks in skill with his superior athletic ability. While I believe he'll be a lottery pick whenever he decides to come out, I think he has a ways to go before he makes any sort of impact at the next level. All that said, he's going to get paid whether or not he gets any better, because the NBA draft is all about potential. And Grant certainly has it.

 

[moqui]

the three Ps: pedigree, potential and production.

here's the deal with the NBA draft: you can't pass. You have to take someone. So, a team outside the lottery is going to see those 3 ps and realize he's a better risk than most of the other options available.

and remember . . . if he's a year older, that 2nd P loses quite a bit of its value. Potential has a very short shelf life.

 

[two3zone]

Players that do the things he can do "athleticism wise" do not play in college. His game may not be all the way there but he does things that not many player at any level can do. A NBA team will try and develop his jump shot more than he can while being in college.

 

[Lawrinson14]

the three Ps: pedigree, potential and production.

here's the deal with the NBA draft: you can't pass. You have to take someone. So, a team outside the lottery is going to see those 3 ps and realize he's a better risk than most of the other options available.

and remember . . . if he's a year older, that 2nd P loses quite a bit of its value. Potential has a very short shelf life.

And an even smaller return on investment. That's why it boggles my mind why the NBA would not support a rule in which college players have to stay at least 3 years. It would benefit their product so much.

 

[Doc5120]

And an even smaller return on investment. That's why it boggles my mind why the NBA would not support a rule in which college players have to stay at least 3 years. It would benefit their product so much.

Completely agree. It would improve both the college and NBA games, as far as quality. I keep holding out hope that one day a rule will be put into place by the NBA where guys have to be at least 2 years removed from high school, but hopefully 3. The number of guys declaring early has gotten out of control.

 

[Full_Rebar]

Actually, the better investment for the NBA would be to increase the D-League and follow the MLB draft rule. This would allow HS players into the Draft, which would be expanded to more than 2 rounds, and require those who go to college to stay for 3. Some players would develop better in an environment like minor league baseball without the academic requirements.

 

[Knicks411]

And an even smaller return on investment. That's why it boggles my mind why the NBA would not support a rule in which college players have to stay at least 3 years. It would benefit their product so much.

I think a lot of the time NBA teams want players in their league with their coaches as soon as they can.

 

[Garbs]

His best asset wont be the same when he gets to the NBA. he wont be the quicker forward or be able to bull to the basket or out jump most people.

how do you know that?

And an even smaller return on investment. That's why it boggles my mind why the NBA would not support a rule in which college players have to stay at least 3 years. It would benefit their product so much.

so the NBA would be better off with Anthony Davis playing for Kentucky this year?

 

[Eagles20]

I agree with what you have all said...he has nba athleticism and their is no doubting that. He also has a great knack for drawing fouls, now he just needs to knock a few more free throws down. I would love to see him come back after another summer of skill development and increasing his strength.

 

[Garbs]

I agree with what you have all said...he has nba athleticism and their is no doubting that. He also has a great knack for drawing fouls, now he just needs to knock a few more free throws down. I would love to see him come back after another summer of skill development and increasing his strength.

we would all love that, but I don't think it is going to increase his chances at making it in the NBA

 

[Lawrinson14]

how do you know that?


so the NBA would be better off with Anthony Davis playing for Kentucky this year?

You named one pick. Out of 30. Let's say 10 out of 30 first round picks pan out. That means 2/3rds of those drafted were busts.

And yes, I think it would benefit the NBA if Anthony Davis stayed at UK. If nothing else, I see no way that it would hinder the NBA.

 

[jekelish]

He is quite possibly the most athletic wing player in the country right now. But, he's not strong enough to play the 4 and not skilled enough to play the 3 at the next level. I really hope his dad and uncle, who know that better than anyone, convince him to stay and work on his skill set one more year.

 

[moqui]

You named one pick. Out of 30. Let's say 10 out of 30 first round picks pan out. That means 2/3rds of those drafted were busts.

and if they spent an extra year in college, they would still be busts.

if you can't develop your game in the 2 guaranteed years when it is your full time job, the notion that you could have done it while dicking around with NCAA practice & coaching limitations is ludicrous

 

[anomander]

It's called potential. He is a long armed 6'9 super athlete. Once he starts consistently knocking down that 15-18 foot jump shot like his uncle perfected (and it will happen), he will become a near impossible cover. There isn't many PF's who can come out and cover him 17 feet out that Grant can't go by. Also don't forget he had mono right before the season, and lost a lot of the bulk he had put on in the offseason.

If there is 1 thing he could work on it would be a left hand. That should come as well.

 

[two3zone]

You named one pick. Out of 30. Let's say 10 out of 30 first round picks pan out. That means 2/3rds of those drafted were busts. And yes, I think it would benefit the NBA if Anthony Davis stayed at UK. If nothing else, I see no way that it would hinder the NBA.

Two thirds of the draft would probably be busts anyway.

 

[OrangeDW]

I DVR'd the Cuse-UConn '94(one of the most entertaining SU games ever played, by the way) game last night and watched after the Wake game since they were on at the same time. While watching, I started thinking about this. Thinking how Grant is a projected lottery pick as a soph., and I was watching a sophomore John Wallace who was far more advanced in his skills and just a better basketball player at the same stage than Grant is. Wallace wasn't a projected lottery pick as a soph...or at any point as he went 18th as a Senior(and was projected around there when he considered leaving as a Junior).

And then I got thinking...am I wrong in thinking that '94 team was as good or better at almost every position than this team? And while that was a very good SU team, they weren't #2 and 20-0! That was a 23-7, sweet 16 team.

Moten was way better than Cooney. Wallace was significantly better than Grant. Hill(a freshman) was better than Christmas(a Junior).

Fair is better than Jackson, though Luke was a solid player. And honestly, as much as I love Ennis and think he's outstanding...a senior Adrian Autry was really, really good and would have to get the nod.

There was just a lot more basketball skill on the court back then...for everyone. I think those of us who watched basketball back then, have a hard time seeing a lot of these guys projected so high in the drafts. Even though we know how it works, it's still hard to make that connection. Players who aren't even that good yet and are pretty limited in what they can do right now get picked high every year!

 

[Libero2]

I DVR'd the Cuse-UConn '94(one of the most entertaining SU games ever played, by the way) game last night and watched after the Wake game since they were on at the same time. While watching, I started thinking about this. Thinking how Grant is a projected lottery pick as a soph., and I was watching a sophomore John Wallace who was far more advanced in his skills and just a better basketball player at the same stage than Grant is. Wallace wasn't a projected lottery pick as a soph...or at any point as he went 18th as a Senior(and was projected around there when he considered leaving as a Junior).

And then I got thinking...am I wrong in thinking that '94 team was as good or better at almost every position than this team? And while that was a very good SU team, they weren't #2 and 20-0! That was a 23-7, sweet 16 team.

Moten was way better than Cooney. Wallace was significantly better than Grant. Hill(a freshman) was better than Christmas(a Junior).

Fair is better than Jackson, though Luke was a solid player. And honestly, as much as I love Ennis and think he's outstanding...a senior Adrian Autry was really, really good and would have to get the nod.

There was just a lot more basketball skill on the court back then...for everyone. I think those of us who watched basketball back then, have a hard time seeing a lot of these guys projected so high in the drafts. Even though we know how it works, it's still hard to make that connection. Players who aren't even that good yet and are pretty limited in what they can do right now get picked high every year!

I think it is a given that basketball at the college and professional levels is weaker than it was 20 years ago. Kids stayed in college back then, and became exceptional players, that way when they walked into the league, they were already great players ready to contribute and a higher percentage of players could carve out a career in the league instead of a random year or two then 5 in the NBADL before they quit or go to Europe.

 

[OrangeDW]

I think it is a given that basketball at the college and professional levels is weaker than it was 20 years ago. Kids stayed in college back then, and became exceptional players, that way when they walked into the league, they were already great players ready to contribute and a higher percentage of players could carve out a career in the league instead of a random year or two then 5 in the NBADL before they quit or go to Europe.

Yeah, it was just so striking when watching it. It was just a much cleaner, smoother, more skilled game. And obviously that game was not the norm(108-95!) and we certainly played some rock-fights in that era, but I can't even fathom a game like that happening in this era...both because there's less skill/talent and also because the game is played and reffed differently.

 

[orange2win]

The NBA would rather develop those kids with potential themselves. Change is not going to come from the NBA. It is the NCAA who must step in and make the case that a rule change is needed for the good of the college athlete.

Problem is the kid they would be moving to protect stands to lose millions and will not be happy. The NBA will not be happy either and the College administrations don't really care. That leaves the likes of you and I don't think anybody is listening to us?

 

[moqui]

I DVR'd the Cuse-UConn '94(one of the most entertaining SU games ever played, by the way) game last night and watched after the Wake game since they were on at the same time. While watching, I started thinking about this. Thinking how Grant is a projected lottery pick as a soph., and I was watching a sophomore John Wallace who was far more advanced in his skills and just a better basketball player at the same stage than Grant is. Wallace wasn't a projected lottery pick as a soph...or at any point as he went 18th as a Senior(and was projected around there when he considered leaving as a Junior).

And then I got thinking...am I wrong in thinking that '94 team was as good or better at almost every position than this team? And while that was a very good SU team, they weren't #2 and 20-0! That was a 23-7, sweet 16 team.

Moten was way better than Cooney. Wallace was significantly better than Grant. Hill(a freshman) was better than Christmas(a Junior).

Fair is better than Jackson, though Luke was a solid player. And honestly, as much as I love Ennis and think he's outstanding...a senior Adrian Autry was really, really good and would have to get the nod.

There was just a lot more basketball skill on the court back then...for everyone. I think those of us who watched basketball back then, have a hard time seeing a lot of these guys projected so high in the drafts. Even though we know how it works, it's still hard to make that connection. Players who aren't even that good yet and are pretty limited in what they can do right now get picked high every year!

I'm with you right up until PG. I love Red, and his 2nd half vs. Missouri is one of my favorite Orange performances ever . . . but I think Ennis is a different kind of cat altogether. It's not something you can point to on a stat sheet, but we all see it game after game - just absolute mastery on the court; he has the control and he bends the game to his will. He is like a Jedi or a Ninja or whatever metaphor you want to come up with. I wrote after the Pitt game that he plays the game like Neo in The Matrix; he is seeing something that the rest of us cannot, and is just able to effortlessly make things happen.

 

[OttoMets]

I DVR'd the Cuse-UConn '94(one of the most entertaining SU games ever played, by the way) game last night and watched after the Wake game since they were on at the same time. While watching, I started thinking about this. Thinking how Grant is a projected lottery pick as a soph., and I was watching a sophomore John Wallace who was far more advanced in his skills and just a better basketball player at the same stage than Grant is. Wallace wasn't a projected lottery pick as a soph...or at any point as he went 18th as a Senior(and was projected around there when he considered leaving as a Junior).

And then I got thinking...am I wrong in thinking that '94 team was as good or better at almost every position than this team? And while that was a very good SU team, they weren't #2 and 20-0! That was a 23-7, sweet 16 team.

Moten was way better than Cooney. Wallace was significantly better than Grant. Hill(a freshman) was better than Christmas(a Junior).

Fair is better than Jackson, though Luke was a solid player. And honestly, as much as I love Ennis and think he's outstanding...a senior Adrian Autry was really, really good and would have to get the nod.

There was just a lot more basketball skill on the court back then...for everyone. I think those of us who watched basketball back then, have a hard time seeing a lot of these guys projected so high in the drafts. Even though we know how it works, it's still hard to make that connection. Players who aren't even that good yet and are pretty limited in what they can do right now get picked high every year!

Kind of read my mind - I was thinking many of those things after watching the 1994 game against Lafayette a couple weeks ago. (I also believe that Scott McCorkle is a really player comparison for Cooney; McCorkle is underrated by current fans and likely would have been a solid contributor if he hadn't been constantly injured and also in Boeheim's doghouse.)

Anyway, the 1994 UConn game is one of my ten favorites, 1994 was a very deep and talented team, and most of those guys would play heavy minutes for many SU teams, even in recent years. Even Reafsnyder was more skilled than all three current SU centers.

I was fortunate to grow up watching teams in that era. They made college basketball fun to watch. I love our current success, but the game isn't played at such a high level and it's not quite the same.