Jarrett Culver

[Monster]

One article I read about Culver suggested the Lakers give prospects more of a runway for their vertical leap. I can't find anything to substantiate that claim (I think that article was more of a well informed fan blogger). It's worth remembering that Lavine's 46 inch vertical was there after posting a 41.5 inch vertical at the combine. We don't have combine numbers for Culver. We all know LaVine is a freak athlete but a difference of over 4 inches is quite a lot. Regardless Culver looks like he can get up which is good to see. I'm interested in looking more into his lower body because World pointed it out as well as another piece I read last night.

The Lakers vertical inflation factor is interesting. But it doesn't change the fundamental fact that Culver's vertical is elite. It would just mean that Culver's actual combine vertical would be around 40.5." That's elite.

As I've pointed out, Culver's elite vertical has never been apparent to me watching him play. But that doesn't mean it hasn't helped his game or won't help his game in the future. Perhaps it had something to do with him averaging 6.4 rebounds per game. That stat is actually elite for a SG. I know a lot of things go into rebounding, but Culver's rebounding certainly wasn't helped by his dinosaur arms. :)

I know you were joking but he has a perfectly fine wingspan especially for his height. It's not exciting which is how I feel about most of his other physical measurements which is why I wasn't all that high on him. We aren't talking about Herro or Ty Jerome...both guys I like. It will be interesting to see him on the NBA floor though. Some guys just look/play bigger than they are. Culver did seem to be that way in college. He doesn't look like a guy that's basically has the underwhelming length of Jimmy Butler...who does also plays bigger than his combine measurements but obviously stronger. Another comp that would be interesting to look at is a young Iggy because of his multidimensional although flawed game.

It would be interesting to see some breakdowns of how Culver played with his team and how that would affect his rebounding. There are some systems that could adversely affect the way guys can get to balls. Regardless he was at least above average while also being an above average defender. As my friend who watched most of the draft pointed out to me...it's not like Texas Tech played a ton of possessions which would effect some of his numbers although we were specifically talking about assists at the time. What would his numbers look like in a system where they got up and down the floor? It's at least mildly interesting to think about. Like you said in another post I'm curious and therefore want to know a lot about this guy and form some opinions. I am looking forward to seeing him on the floor at some point in the coming months.

[WildWolf2813]

https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2019/6/18/18678005/jarrett-culver-nba-draft-minnesota-timberwolves-scouting-report-video-stats-texas-tech

Good stuff... I like the fact it seems like we have another able/willing passer on the squad. While he showed a lot of craftiness and finishing ability at the college level, we'll see how many of those attempts either come up a bit short or get swatted away at the next level.

I go back to the Evan Turner comparison since both are slow, but smart, all around players. He was a high-level scorer at OSU, but his shooting and craftiness simply didn't translate at the next level. I can envision similar problems for Culver. Kyle Anderson is also a good comp, although I do see Culver developing into a better scorer.

Evan Turner didn't shoot nearly as well from outside.

Craftiness can translate just as much as athleticism can't.

We have a GM who knows three point shooters and who can and can't shoot them. Did he forget that overnight? I'm pretty sure he thinks he can identify someone who can do well on that end.

Heh, it is kind of funny seeing you show this kind of bullish-ness about a Timberwolves move! I believe the last time you were this excited about a draft pick, it was Shabazz Muhammed.....Oops.

More Dieng than Bazz but I liked having those two instead of just Trey Burke. I just wanted them to actually play more. I'll always support younger guys getting a chance here because it's not like this team wins anything so why not actually develop players?

I still think Bazz caught a raw deal for his weaknesses while all this team did was pay Wiggins $150 mil for his.

[60WinTim]

This is the most in-depth breakdown I have seen on Culver. It includes fodder for those who like him and those who don't. But I like the perspective on potential. I sure hope Rosas follows through on his player development emphasis!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Sv8AYItgTkCulver

[Lipoli390]

This is the most in-depth breakdown I have seen on Culver. It includes fodder for those who like him and those who don't. But I like the perspective on potential. I sure hope Rosas follows through on his player development emphasis!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Sv8AYItgTkCulver

Thanks for posting, Tim. This was one of the better draft analysis videos I've seen on anyone. Very smart and balanced. You're right that there is fodder for both sides of the debate. But it's intelligent fodder. The analyst's main take-away was that he has the key attributes of NBA success that you can't teach while his deficiencies are all things that can improved through hard work and good coaching. Since one of his strengths is apparently a great worth ethic and competitive drive, that bodes well. However, his shot AND shooting mechanics are really bad. But the other deficiencies like his tendency to get faked off his feet close outs, hop on defense and poor decision-making are all very fixable. I think he's quicker with the ball and has a better handle than I originally thought. As you said, I sure hope this organization ramps up its player development substantially as Rosas has suggested they would.

[Monster]

This is the most in-depth breakdown I have seen on Culver. It includes fodder for those who like him and those who don't. But I like the perspective on potential. I sure hope Rosas follows through on his player development emphasis!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Sv8AYItgTkCulver

Thanks for posting, Tim. This was one of the better draft analysis videos I've seen on anyone. Very smart and balanced. You're right that there is fodder for both sides of the debate. But it's intelligent fodder. The analyst's main take-away was that he has the key attributes of NBA success that you can't teach while his deficiencies are all things that can improved through hard work and good coaching. Since one of his strengths is apparently a great worth ethic and competitive drive, that bodes well. However, his shot AND shooting mechanics are really bad. But the other deficiencies like his tendency to get faked off his feet close outs, hop on defense and poor decision-making are all very fixable. I think he's quicker with the ball and has a better handle than I originally thought. As you said, I sure hope this organization ramps up its player development substantially as Rosas has suggested they would.

Thanks for posting. There is so much good content out there it's kind of amazing.

[Lipoli390]

This is the most in-depth breakdown I have seen on Culver. It includes fodder for those who like him and those who don't. But I like the perspective on potential. I sure hope Rosas follows through on his player development emphasis!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Sv8AYItgTkCulver

Thanks for posting, Tim. This was one of the better draft analysis videos I've seen on anyone. Very smart and balanced. You're right that there is fodder for both sides of the debate. But it's intelligent fodder. The analyst's main take-away was that he has the key attributes of NBA success that you can't teach while his deficiencies are all things that can improved through hard work and good coaching. Since one of his strengths is apparently a great worth ethic and competitive drive, that bodes well. However, his shot AND shooting mechanics are really bad. But the other deficiencies like his tendency to get faked off his feet close outs, hop on defense and poor decision-making are all very fixable. I think he's quicker with the ball and has a better handle than I originally thought. As you said, I sure hope this organization ramps up its player development substantially as Rosas has suggested they would.

Thanks for posting. There is so much good content out there it's kind of amazing.

Good point, Monster. It is pretty amazing. All of us on this Board are sort of arm-chair GMs. Leading up to the draft, we watch lot of highlight videos, re-watch some games we recorded, and read/listen to lots of draft analysis from experts. Based on all of that, we form educated opinions on prospects. The video analysis Tim posted is a reminder of how much we don't know. This video has obviously been in the public domain, yet I don't think any of us saw it before the draft. It makes me think about all the information teams have that's never in the public domain - especially information on the personality and character of prospects.

So as informed as we are in our arm-chairs, it should go without saying that Rosas and his staff knew more than we did about draft prospects on draft night. As a result, we should probably give Rosas the benefit of the doubt for now. I wouldn't necessarily say the same thing about David Kahn who came in as PBO with absolutely no qualifications for the job. I wouldn't even say the same thing about Thibodeau or Layden. Thibodeau was at least a basketball guy, but he had absolutely no experience even working in a front office. His dual role as head coach further compromised his ability to be effective. Layden had front office experience, but a terrible track record as the head guy with the Knicks. In contrast, Rosas and Gupta arrived here with extensive front office experience and track records of success. And Rosas doesn't have the dual role Thibodeau had. That's a long way of saying that I'm going to cut Rosas more slack.

[Lipoli390]

Cool - Don't worry. I still believe Rosas made a mistake giving up a valuable asset (Saric) to get Garland without knowing he could get him. And I still believe we would have been better off staying at #11 and taking either Doumbouya or Romeo Langdon. In the poll on this Board I said I would have taken Doumbouya with Langdon as a close second. If I had more information assuring me that Langdon's worth ethic was sound and that he had true passion for the game, I would have opted for Langdon who I think has a much better chance than Culver of becoming an all-star caliber player.

I'm just trying to make myself feel better about what's happened so far. And I'm going to dial down my rhetoric a bit in criticizing Rosas for the summer. But so far, I'm not impressed.

[Coolbreeze44]

Cool - Don't worry. I still believe Rosas made a mistake giving up a valuable asset (Saric) to get Garland without knowing he could get him. And I still believe we would have been better off staying at #11 and taking either Doumbouya or Romeo Langdon. In the poll on this Board I said I would have taken Doumbouya with Langdon as a close second. If I had more information assuring me that Langdon's worth ethic was sound and that he had true passion for the game, I would have opted for Langdon who I think has a much better chance than Culver of becoming an all-star caliber player.

I'm just trying to make myself feel better about what's happened so far. And I'm going to dial down my rhetoric a bit in criticizing Rosas for the summer. But so far, I'm not impressed.

Lippy, yeah Rosas made a mistake. I don't think there is much question about that. But more than that, a couple of points are framing my judgement about this draft:

1) I've talked a lot about being innovators and not imitators. To me, Rosas seems like an imitator. He wants to play primarily a one, a big, and three wings. That's been done already. He would impress me much more if he came up with a strategy that would differentiate us from what the trend is. Finding innovators is tough, there are a lot more imitators. The NFL is full of copiers. But the originals tend to win most of the titles.

2) It's very hard to move out of the middle of the NBA. It happens but you usually have to go backwards before you can go forward. The Bucks are an exception. They were in the middle, hired an innovative coach, and made some shrew signings. Of course it didn't hurt to have a top 5 player in the league to begin with. We have a top 20 player and some decent pieces, but Jarret Culver isn't a step to move us out of the middle.

And I'm not saying Rosas should be expected to make us a contender immediately. Just that I haven't seen anything yet that is moving us in the right direction. I'm patient enough to see what happens in the next year or two.

[Monster]

This is the most in-depth breakdown I have seen on Culver. It includes fodder for those who like him and those who don't. But I like the perspective on potential. I sure hope Rosas follows through on his player development emphasis!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Sv8AYItgTkCulver

Thanks for posting, Tim. This was one of the better draft analysis videos I've seen on anyone. Very smart and balanced. You're right that there is fodder for both sides of the debate. But it's intelligent fodder. The analyst's main take-away was that he has the key attributes of NBA success that you can't teach while his deficiencies are all things that can improved through hard work and good coaching. Since one of his strengths is apparently a great worth ethic and competitive drive, that bodes well. However, his shot AND shooting mechanics are really bad. But the other deficiencies like his tendency to get faked off his feet close outs, hop on defense and poor decision-making are all very fixable. I think he's quicker with the ball and has a better handle than I originally thought. As you said, I sure hope this organization ramps up its player development substantially as Rosas has suggested they would.

Thanks for posting. There is so much good content out there it's kind of amazing.

Good point, Monster. It is pretty amazing. All of us on this Board are sort of arm-chair GMs. Leading up to the draft, we watch lot of highlight videos, re-watch some games we recorded, and read/listen to lots of draft analysis from experts. Based on all of that, we form educated opinions on prospects. The video analysis Tim posted is a reminder of how much we don't know. This video has obviously been in the public domain, yet I don't think any of us saw it before the draft. It makes me think about all the information teams have that's never in the public domain - especially information on the personality and character of prospects.

So as informed as we are in our arm-chairs, it should go without saying that Rosas and his staff knew more than we did about draft prospects on draft night. As a result, we should probably give Rosas the benefit of the doubt for now. I wouldn't necessarily say the same thing about David Kahn who came in as PBO with absolutely no qualifications for the job. I wouldn't even say the same thing about Thibodeau or Layden. Thibodeau was at least a basketball guy, but he had absolutely no experience even working in a front office. His dual role as head coach further compromised his ability to be effective. Layden had front office experience, but a terrible track record as the head guy with the Knicks. In contrast, Rosas and Gupta arrived here with extensive front office experience and track records of success. And Rosas doesn't have the dual role Thibodeau had. That's a long way of saying that I'm going to cut Rosas more slack.

Good stuff here. The thing is which you have pointed out for years that this board has had a number of times where it seemed to be smarter than our own front office. We do sometimes forget our misses though. I also think that sometimes when I am right or a bunch of folks here get it right sometimes it seems to have gone against the consensus around the league...as much as I can tell. We were both wanting another player other than Dunn. Meanwhile it seemed like there were A LOT of fans of the guy. I just didn't see the upside but it seemed like it wasn't just few people assessing the wrong guy including our organization but a lot of people did.

I don't remember the thread where it was being discussed about how it can be hard to know who is going to succeed especially aside from the basket all skills and talent. Wolves fans have been seemingly hoodwinked with guys with great smiles terrific personalities and work ethic or whatever. That doesn't mean that if a guy like Culver who maybe has those things actually going for him over other players would be worthless. I tend to guess there are a number of intangibles that Culver has which is why he is thought of more highly than some of the other wings/prospects to put him a tier or 2 higher. Maybe none of that stuff will seem to matter but you don't hear any bad stuff about him.

Like you said Rosas and his group probably deserve a little more benefit of the doubt because they seem pretty legitimately qualified. I think To some extent we can also forget how much of a crapshoot these things are. At some point you have to make a decision on various prospects. It's not easy. Flip had injury concerns about CJ McCollum and for over a year into his career that seemed like a correct assessment. Now Flip looks like he made a bad assessment for passing on him (and others in that draft). He was right about Burke though so...and again the trade down still wasn't bad as he could have still gotten some good players. People like to say taking Durant was he obvious choice in that draft. If healthy Greg Oden at worst (based on what he did when he played) would have been a top 10 center who could score rebound defend. Heck he maybe have won a DPOY. He came into the league when centers actually were highly valued and were utilized more and if I remember right there was basically a handful of guys that were actual legit starters. Now you have guys that don't even start that probably are that talented. $&@# happens. Look at how Memphis built a heck of a run despite blowing a number of picks and Mayo ended up leaving for nothing. Nobody bats 1.000. But you gotta do more. To me it's felt like this organization always stops short of really trying to give themselves every opportunity to save themselves from the mistakes that come along (selling picks not using roster spots for taking shots at young players etc etc). Hopefully that $&@# has ended.

[Lipoli390]

Monster - I think you nailed the crux of past Wolves front office failures. Part of it, of course, has been lots of poor player personnel judgments - e.g., passing on McCollum and then taking Bazz over Giannis, taking Dunn over Murray or Hield, and taking Patton over Collins or Anunoby. But as you suggested, the bigger failing has been the organization's failure to maximize opportunities. Other way to put it would be squandering opportunities and, I would add, tripping over their own feet. As you said, no organization bats .1000. The key is maximizing your opportunities. You named the major repeating failures like selling picks and not using roster spots to take shots at young players with upside.

I think the Thursday's draft was another example of the Wolves failure to maximize opportunities. There was near consensus that this draft had a big drop off after the top 3 or 4 and was relatively flat talent-wise after that. Knowing now that the Wolves were willing to part with Saric, the smart move to maximize opportunities would have been using Saric and #11 to get two first round picks in the 14-30 range. After trading up for Garland and missing, I suspect the Wolves could have swapped #6 for two such picks. Even if the Wolves liked Culver more than other players likely to be available in the 14-30 range, I can't imagine the differential being enough to justify putting all their chips in the Culver bucket when they could have given themselves two shots at 1st round talent in a flat draft.

I truly hope I'm wrong about Culver and I've seen and read enough to have some hope that I am. But I still don't see the super high upside and see a fundamentally broken perimeter shot that led to a 30% three-point percentage and 70% free throw percentage. So let's hope that this kid's reputed stellar work ethic and love of the game will propel him to fix his shot and learn to take better advantage of his elite hops. It's certainly possible. But I think the key now will be whether Rosas does those other things to maximize opportunities - bringing in young talent as free agents, focusing on development, etc. And I still think Okogie has the chance to get great.

The bottom line is this that there is no quick fix. It's a process. Isn't that what we've learned from the Sixers. Certainly the Spurs have taught us that lesson over many years. Towns in 23 and on the front end of a 5-year deal. So we have some time. Let's get young talent with high upside, staff up with developmental side of the organization and see if we can get and develop another allstar caliber player to team with KAT. I think Garland would have been that guy. I'm not so sure about Russell on a max contract for all the reasons Q has identified. It could be Okogie or even Culver. Or maybe it's one of the young second or third tier free agents available this summer like Hezonja, Mudiay, Trey Lyles, Kokmaz, Jeremy Lamb, Hollis-Jefferson or MCW. Maybe we can clear enough space to make an offer the Wizards wouldn't match for Bobby Portis. I really want Rosas and his team to prove that they are different from and much smarter than the front office regimes we're accustomed to as Wolves fans.