Remember Felipe Lopez? Out of HS he was billed as the next Jordan and was on cover of S.I when deciding to going to attend St. Johns. Performed well there but not as well as the hype would have dictated. When he got to the pros he was average.
I am not saying Kanter is not going to pan out but HS-College-and NBA competition are increasing steps and it's good to see how a player performs or at least projects on all of these different levels. His inactivity at Kentucky hurts him in a sense as I don't think it's a given that he would have torn up Div 1 last year at Kentucky.
If Kanter's knees check out (again more rumour) then I would pick him at 3 - maybe even 2. I think Jonas has the higher ceiling but is also a greater risk - all my opinion.
Plus, you're forgetting about his large track record. Dude played 9 games, NINE GAMES, as a seldom used reserve for Fenerbahçe two years ago. Come on, everyone has seen those games. He also played high school ball 2 seasons ago. What more do you want?
In any case, I'm sure we can trust the draft experts without reservation. They never get it wrong. Look at how awesome Darko Milicic has been.
If Kanter can play, that's all that matters.
You are essentially arguing in my favour. You are saying he's better than all the American players.
Whether thats because he played Pro ball is besides the point.
Y'know, come to think of it, with Bynum, Lopez, Perkins, Bogut, Gasol, Noah, Nene etc. all being, essentially, this 'below the rim' type Center, I'm not sure I want this "Wiry, Athletic blah blah blah" center that they speak of.
Name one good Center that plays in this new 'Mold'.
Last edited by Joey; Fri May 6th, 2011 at 03:32 PM.
is kanter doesn't work we can always move Eddy to C.
Last edited by Raptors_; Fri May 6th, 2011 at 10:46 PM.
Too difficult to respond directly to all the different "points" being made in this thread, so I'll just paraphrase (and as a pre-emptive note, I'm less arguing for Kanter and more arguing against some of the silly points being made):
1. "He's undersized for a center because he's 6'11."
Does it really matter if his eyebrows are an inch lower than someone else's, or that someone else has a bigger forehead? Is that how we judge basketball players these days, instead of things like standing reach, wingspan, vertical, strength and skill? It's just funny. Kanter measures 6'11" (in shoes) and 261 lbs back in July 2010 and is undersized, but Aldrich, who was 6'9" without shoes (6'11.25" in shoes) and 236 lbs during last year's predraft camp has legit center size? Really? Maybe Kanter should ask Aldrich for a shoe rec, because those 2.25" heels could help make him a better center.
2. "He doesn't seem himself as a C."
See #3 below. Also, Horford doesn't see himself as a C, but he's one of the better ones in the league.
3. "The NBA is moving away from traditional bigs and toward wiry, athletic bigs who can run."
See #2 above. It's either one or the other; can't be both. Also, I love Tim W's point that the good teams couldn't care less what the "mold" is, because they are the ones setting it. Truth.
4. "Undersized + plays below the rim = shorter Hoffa."
Chuck Hayes is undersized and plays below the rim. I guess that makes him an even shorter Hoffa? Or is he not white enough? Just saying.
Seriously though, I don't see where the comparison is. If you read Hoffa's scouting report, it could be summed up as "big and strong, high motor, very raw, very foul prone." The only common traits are that Kanter is also strong and has a high motor. If you actually look past that, the rest of Kanter's scouting report would say "high skill level, polished game, high IQ." Kanter and Hoffa are two very different players.
5. "He only looked good back then because he was a man playing against high schoolers."
Since when was being a better physical specimen than your peers a negative? I saw this same argument in a different thread knocking Kanter down a peg because of his physical advantage over his peers, and then praising Valanciunas for the potential to grow into his frame because he's only 18? Seriously? Have we forgotten that Kanter is younger than Valanciunas (by half a month, sure, but only in bizarro-world does that also become a negative)? The man vs boy argument would make more sense if Kanter was a 21 year old college senior playing against 18 year old frosh. Also, when did a bird in the bush become more attractive than a bird in hand? I'd rather have Kanter's NBA-ready body than Valanciunas' potential to become stronger. Plenty of prospects have the "potential" to grow into their frames and never do. As we've probably learned over the last 16 years of watching the Raptors, "potential" is just another word for "lacking".
To be honest, if it came down between Kanter and Valanciunas, I'd rather have the former (I'd rather have Irving over both, of course). Valanciunas has length but doesn't really seem to put it to good use.
Defensively, they seem like a wash. Valanciunas is better on help, and Kanter is better on his man (due to his strength). I know we're tired of poor help defenders after dealing with Bargnani, but I'm sure we'd eventually grow tired of watching Valanciunas get abused in the post as well.
From the scouting reports I've read on Valanciunas, it seems much of the praise is about his potential, whereas much of Kanter's praise is for his polish. I also like his rebounding mentality (he's supposedly a better rebounder than Valanciunas, so that's a plus). I'd normally go for the player with the highest ceiling (not saying Valanciunas necessarily has the higher ceiling, btw), but in terms of reachable ceilings, I just don't see Valanciunas being anything more than a solid 12-8 player, and that's if he doesn't bust.
Last edited by Quixotic; Sat May 7th, 2011 at 06:26 PM.
Thanks Quixotic. Great post. I think you got it all.
This from DraftExpress...
Defensively, Kanter had some excellent possessions in practice, coming up with some blocks by being a step ahead of the play and contesting shots with his positioning, rather than his athleticism. His body helps him fight for position on the block, and his physical nature allowed him to deny penetration when his man attempted to take him off the dribble. Once the shot goes up, Kanter does a nice job of sealing off his man and pursuing the ball. Though his ability to rebound outside of his area wasnt as apparent as it was in junior play, hes still, more often than not, the player coming down with the ball in a crowd.
From DraftExpress.com http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/...#ixzz1LiJeMJO5
I imagine the 'Wiry, Athletic' Center that is being spoken about is Javale McGee? Because I've been thinking, and he is the ONLY one I can think of. Ibaka isn't a Center.
You look at Ed Davis last year and he couldn't even practice for half of the year, but he did pretty well this year.
I certainly would have liked to have seen Kanter play at Kentucky, or somewhere else, but from everything I've read, his game has progressed this past year.
There's been quite a bit of talk about his performance at the Nike Hoops Summit and how well he played.
That got me thinking.. did Bargnani ever play for the Internation Select Team? If so.. did he dominate like Kanter? He should've ... one would think ... instead ... complete opposite. In 2004 they got spanked by 20, and some dude named Luka Bogdanovic led the team in scoring.
Check out the American Team they played against though. HOLY SMOKES!
Anyway ya.. not sure of my point to this, just thought that was interesting. haha
Suppose it can interpreted a few different ways.
Either Kanters performance means nothing, because Bargnani turned out to be 'Awesome'.
OR Kanter is actually that much more assertive and a more dominant presense down low.
Last edited by Joey; Sun May 8th, 2011 at 11:16 AM.
It would be interesting to view other players with strong stats at this tournament and see how they developed in the NBA later on. How many are busts and how many are solid at the next level.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)