Minnesota Sports Forum

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

crazy-canuck wrote:Watching the playoffs, the more I want the wolves to draft Clarke.

An active pf that switches, can defend inside and out, and can rebound to start transition opportunities.

Having a green, siakam type wound do wonders for us

I'm just worried about guys who are known for defense translating to the NBA. Clarke is oldest guy in the draft, I'm just worried how a none shooter pairs with KAT. I mean Lineups with Tyus, okogie and Clarke are all below average shooters.

I am just always worried about guys who were supposed to be good at defense because guys like gorgui, kat, Wiggins, brewer were all supposed to be above average defenders and well they aren't. And guys like Rubio and tyus where supposed to be bad on D and they both are pretty good.

Just think it's risky drafting an old guy who makes a living on hustle and athleticism and not natural basketball skill

To be fair, isn't every pick after #2 pretty risky?

There are just so many unknowns with these guys, even in a normal year. This year seems to be taking on a vibe of even more so with teams just as likely to find a gem at #27 as at #6.

The age thing no longer bothers me, especially with a guy like Clarke who showed steady improvement (and allegedly has more ceiling to reach). By all reports, he's incredibly versatile defensively. That seems like a very good thing. Being able to stretch out to the three point line would be nice, but if he had shown that already, he wouldn't be available for the Wolves.

So the question becomes whether his revamped form and improvement is legit with room to get better. Because I like the kid defensively as a really switchy, athletic guy.

Fair point. If we draft Clarke I won't be mad because there is nobody I'm in love with at #11 (I like Windler from Belmont). I just think in general it's hard to project if a guy will be good defensively in the NBA. So many examples of defensive specialists out of college failing on that end in the NBA.

Clarke does have all the tools to be great defensively but is his best position in the NBA a small ball 5 and if that is the case is it worth it with Kat on the roster

kekgeek1 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:

crazy-canuck wrote:Watching the playoffs, the more I want the wolves to draft Clarke.

An active pf that switches, can defend inside and out, and can rebound to start transition opportunities.

Having a green, siakam type wound do wonders for us

I'm just worried about guys who are known for defense translating to the NBA. Clarke is oldest guy in the draft, I'm just worried how a none shooter pairs with KAT. I mean Lineups with Tyus, okogie and Clarke are all below average shooters.

I am just always worried about guys who were supposed to be good at defense because guys like gorgui, kat, Wiggins, brewer were all supposed to be above average defenders and well they aren't. And guys like Rubio and tyus where supposed to be bad on D and they both are pretty good.

Just think it's risky drafting an old guy who makes a living on hustle and athleticism and not natural basketball skill

To be fair, isn't every pick after #2 pretty risky?

There are just so many unknowns with these guys, even in a normal year. This year seems to be taking on a vibe of even more so with teams just as likely to find a gem at #27 as at #6.

The age thing no longer bothers me, especially with a guy like Clarke who showed steady improvement (and allegedly has more ceiling to reach). By all reports, he's incredibly versatile defensively. That seems like a very good thing. Being able to stretch out to the three point line would be nice, but if he had shown that already, he wouldn't be available for the Wolves.

So the question becomes whether his revamped form and improvement is legit with room to get better. Because I like the kid defensively as a really switchy, athletic guy.

Fair point. If we draft Clarke I won't be mad because there is nobody I'm in love with at #11 (I like Windler from Belmont). I just think in general it's hard to project if a guy will be good defensively in the NBA. So many examples of defensive specialists out of college failing on that end in the NBA.

Clarke does have all the tools to be great defensively but is his best position in the NBA a small ball 5 and if that is the case is it worth it with Kat on the roster

Offensively, he's best as a small-ball 5. Not defensively.

And some people have been seeking a move for KAT to play more like a 4 on offense anyway. Personally, I was against it because it would make the Wolves too big (e.g., slow)... but that's not the case with Clarke.

A Clarke pick doesn't get the Wolves to the playoffs. They'd still need a ton of perimeter help. But is passing on a semi-known asset for a potential All Star flyer that "probably" won't pan out worth it?


[Note: I dig Dylan Windler, too. To be fair, mostly because I've actually seen him play and was rooting for the small school in the NCAA tourney.]

crazy-canuck wrote:Watching the playoffs, the more I want the wolves to draft Clarke.

An active pf that switches, can defend inside and out, and can rebound to start transition opportunities.

Having a green, siakam type wound do wonders for us

I like Clarke. He's been a tremendous shot-blocker and good rebounder in college. He has also proven to be a highly accurate shooter in the paint. As for the eye test, he reminds me of John Collins with his small-area quickness, and quick bounce off the floor. Statistically, he's a better shot-blocker than Collins but not as good a rebounder.

My main reservation with Clarke is his length (or lack thereof). He has an 8'6 overhead reach and a 6'8 wingspan. I had read months ago that he had relatively short arms, but I never expected to see numbers that low. Those are numbers you generally see in NBA SGs. There's no question he has elite jumping ability, logging a 34" standing vertical and a 40" max vertical. His elite leaping ability certainly makes up for his lack of length to some extent. But there's no precedent for a successful C or PF in the NBA with Clarke's length. Draymond Green has an 8'10 reach and 7'1.25 wingspan. Siakam has an 8'11.5 reach and 7'3.25 wingspan. Clarke's vertical leap can even out the difference compared to some of these NBA players, but not all of them. For example, Siakam's standing vertical leap was only 3.5 inches less than Clarke's, which leaves Siakam with a net advantage. And there's no substitute for having the length without having to rely on athleticism. I think Clarke will struggle against the much higher level of competition in the NBA were everyone is longer and more athletic. On the defensive end, many of his college blocks will become NBA fouls. And his ability to score easily over opponents in the paint by springing off the floor in college won't be so easy in the NBA to say that least.

So I'm not sure Clarke can guard 5s or even 4s in the NBA. And right now, he doesn't have the shooting range or ball handling skills to play the 3. As I see it, the best hope for Clarke to be an impactful NBA player is to significantly extend his shooting range and improve his ballhandling to the point where he can play the SF position. I think it's possible he could develop into an NBA SF. But I don't have enough confidence in him developing his shooting and ballhandling skills take him at #11.

I have a friend in the NBA who has access to some of the prospect workouts. He took sneak shots of both Brandon Clarke (6'8" with 6'8" reach) and Ty Jerome (6'5" with 6'4" reach).




[Note: Sadly, I'm in this camp, too... as a not-very-subtle tailor recently told (mocked) me. It's probably what will keep me out of the 1st round when I become eligible.]

AbeVigodaLive wrote:I have a friend in the NBA who has access to some of the prospect workouts. He took sneak shots of both Brandon Clarke (6'8" with 6'8" reach) and Ty Jerome (6'5" with 6'4" reach).

To be fair the Raptors are in the NBA Finals...

AbeVigodaLive wrote:I have a friend in the NBA who has access to some of the prospect workouts. He took sneak shots of both Brandon Clarke (6'8" with 6'8" reach) and Ty Jerome (6'5" with 6'4" reach).




[Note: Sadly, I'm in this camp, too... as a not-very-subtle tailor recently told (mocked) me. It's probably what will keep me out of the 1st round when I become eligible.]

Lol.

lipoli390 wrote:

crazy-canuck wrote:Watching the playoffs, the more I want the wolves to draft Clarke.

An active pf that switches, can defend inside and out, and can rebound to start transition opportunities.

Having a green, siakam type wound do wonders for us

I like Clarke. He's been a tremendous shot-blocker and good rebounder in college. He has also proven to be a highly accurate shooter in the paint. As for the eye test, he reminds me of John Collins with his small-area quickness, and quick bounce off the floor. Statistically, he's a better shot-blocker than Collins but not as good a rebounder.

My main reservation with Clarke is his length (or lack thereof). He has an 8'6 overhead reach and a 6'8 wingspan. I had read months ago that he had relatively short arms, but I never expected to see numbers that low. Those are numbers you generally see in NBA SGs. There's no question he has elite jumping ability, logging a 34" standing vertical and a 40" max vertical. His elite leaping ability certainly makes up for his lack of length to some extent. But there's no precedent for a successful C or PF in the NBA with Clarke's length. Draymond Green has an 8'10 reach and 7'1.25 wingspan. Siakam has an 8'11.5 reach and 7'3.25 wingspan. Clarke's vertical leap can even out the difference compared to some of these NBA players, but not all of them. For example, Siakam's standing vertical leap was only 3.5 inches less than Clarke's, which leaves Siakam with a net advantage. And there's no substitute for having the length without having to rely on athleticism. I think Clarke will struggle against the much higher level of competition in the NBA were everyone is longer and more athletic. On the defensive end, many of his college blocks will become NBA fouls. And his ability to score easily over opponents in the paint by springing off the floor in college won't be so easy in the NBA to say that least.

So I'm not sure Clarke can guard 5s or even 4s in the NBA. And right now, he doesn't have the shooting range or ball handling skills to play the 3. As I see it, the best hope for Clarke to be an impactful NBA player is to significantly extend his shooting range and improve his ballhandling to the point where he can play the SF position. I think it's possible he could develop into an NBA SF. But I don't have enough confidence in him developing his shooting and ballhandling skills take him at #11.

He measured out poorly, but thats the only reason we can talk about him at 11. Watching him play, it isn't his athleticism that jumps out at me, it's his awareness and ability to track the ball. Maybe it's watching too many dieng and kat whiffs while blocking shots, but Clarke has a knack of adjusting in the air and finding a way to have his hand near the ball at all times. Hes got a really good feel back there. With as bad as rui was on defense, Clarke should fell right at home anchoring the wolves.

Just a bit over 2 weeks till the draft and is there anyone here absolutely pounding the table for one guy you wouldn't want to trade down and be devastated if we didn't get him? Maybe some people that really like Clarke. So why not trade down?What if other teams don't have a guy they want to trade up and get?


https://twitter.com/briantrobb/status/1135961365171101696?s=21

--Austin Ainge on impact of having three top-22 picks: "It really is evaluating a lot of the same group for all three picks, right? Not any of us can distinguish between 14 and 22 at this point, for the most part. It's a lot of the same guys for all of those picks and workouts."

monsterpile wrote:Just a bit over 2 weeks till the draft and is there anyone here absolutely pounding the table for one guy you wouldn't want to trade down and be devastated if we didn't get him? Maybe some people that really like Clarke. So why not trade down?What if other teams don't have a guy they want to trade up and get?


https://twitter.com/briantrobb/status/1135961365171101696?s=21

--Austin Ainge on impact of having three top-22 picks: "It really is evaluating a lot of the same group for all three picks, right? Not any of us can distinguish between 14 and 22 at this point, for the most part. It's a lot of the same guys for all of those picks and workouts."

This is precisely the reason someone like Boston likely won't trade their 2 picks for our 1. The consensus is that picks 10-20 are similar.

Hicks123 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:Just a bit over 2 weeks till the draft and is there anyone here absolutely pounding the table for one guy you wouldn't want to trade down and be devastated if we didn't get him? Maybe some people that really like Clarke. So why not trade down?What if other teams don't have a guy they want to trade up and get?


https://twitter.com/briantrobb/status/1135961365171101696?s=21

--Austin Ainge on impact of having three top-22 picks: "It really is evaluating a lot of the same group for all three picks, right? Not any of us can distinguish between 14 and 22 at this point, for the most part. It's a lot of the same guys for all of those picks and workouts."

This is precisely the reason someone like Boston likely won't trade their 2 picks for our 1. The consensus is that picks 10-20 are similar.

So I guess the next question is: who realistically could to fall to #11 to be excited about? There will be someone picked that unexpected but it might not be enough to get someone exciting.