MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,291
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jun 27, 2012 21:30:01 GMT -5
We’ll have to agree to disagree and let Otto settle this debate for himself. Regardless the reality is that he is the rare III player that is already on the NBA scouts and NBA draft sites’ radar following his freshman season. Yes, that does say something. He could stay until his junior season but we better be prepared for the possibility of him bolting after next season. If he becomes an All-American, if he becomes a likely lottery pick, then I will not blame him for leaving. There will be those who will downplay those chances simply because they don’t want him to leave. I understand that but it won’t change anything. I’m mentally prepared for Otto to move on. I’m more worried that if Greg starts he will display enough to get NBA scouts excited as well. The Hoyas can’t afford to lose both. I probably shouldn’t have even brought that up considering there is a great chance someone will now start claiming that Greg isn’t NBA material either. I agree. The only way Otto is back next year is if he really wants to win a Ship or if the unmentionable happens. I really believe that Greg will bolt after next year also. I see Greg having a breakout year and 6'7"-6'8" SG don't grow on trees. I really hope that I'm right because it would 1.) mean that we are having a great season and 2.) help to get rid of the idea that GTown doesn't put wings into the league...... MCI, the player that Im worried about bolting is Hop. If he puts in work during the summer/fall, he has the skill to be a great player. I saw enough potential in limited action to feel confident that Hop can average double digits............... ;D ;D ;D I'm not worried about Hopkins bolting early but I think he and Jabril have all the potential in the world. |
|
HoyaJake
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 646
|
Post by HoyaJake on Jun 27, 2012 21:32:27 GMT -5
MCI,
"To be honest I doubt most of you even watch much of the NBA to break down the play of most starting SFs in the league."
Right, because the only explanation for people disagreeing with you is ignorance. For what it's worth, I watch a ton of NBA. Then again, so do a lot of really dumb people.
"I mean there are SFs in the NBA without great first steps or elite handles. Look at Danny Granger of Indiana as one lone example. His best quality as a SF is his shooting and he had to work on that part of the game when he made it to the pros."
Danny Granger was a 37% three-point shooter in college and shot 43% his senior year in college. He was already a very good shooter when he got to the league. I mostly agree with your point about people pigeonholing players too much, but shooting is an incredibly important skill for NBA small forwards. How many starting NBA SFs can you name that can't shoot threes? I can think of Josh Smith (amazing athlete) and Shawn Marion (amazing defender, and used to shoot threes very well). Maybe there are one or two other people I am forgetting, but there aren't many.
"all of a sudden he can’t move laterally? Okay, whatever".
Not sure why this is surprising. It has been written about Otto in pretty much every scouting report I've seen and was one of the knocks on him even when he was coming out of high school. I remember writing about it during Kenner last year. He's a terrific help defender and a good post defender. Not a great perimeter on-ball defender.
Again, I love Otto's game and he's obviously going to get better. But he does have some question marks when projecting to the NBA level imo.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,291
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jun 27, 2012 21:39:25 GMT -5
To be honest I doubt most of you even watch much of the NBA to break down the play of most starting SFs in the league. Mistake #1 by some of you is to act as if every player at every position fits the same description anyway. Translation: you are all morons and I am so much smarter than any of the peons on this board.  Whatever. No one is calling anyone a moron, but there are those of you who are happily ignorant in regards to the NBA. Let me put it like this: you can't get away with gloating how much you hate the NBA, how little you watch the NBA, how you have no use for the NBA, how you haven't watched more than a minute in the NBA in over a decade and then go about acting like semi-experts on what it takes to be a good NBA player. When I read remarks from college bball fans that NBA teams don't play good defense or any defense at all it tells me all I need to know about their NBA hoops acumen. Doesn't make one a dummy. You can be a rocket science and despise the NBA but that still means you may be best sticking to sharing insights regarding rockets. |
|
CaliHoya
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 516
|
Post by CaliHoya on Jun 27, 2012 22:15:32 GMT -5
|
|
kghoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,161
|
Post by kghoya on Jun 27, 2012 22:40:02 GMT -5
I hope the Hoyas can get to the Final Four with all these early entry players on the roster
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Well, I'm accustomed to the smooth ride."
Posts: 14,518
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 28, 2012 1:21:34 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure MCI groups every single other poster into one single entity when he reads this board.
If you can find a post where I (or I'd bet, HoyaJake) ever say we hate the NBA, don't watch or haven't watched since Larry and Magi retired, please do feel free to rant about me being ignorant.
Furthermore, in neither of our posts did we decry definitively that Otto won't be ready or even get drafted at the end of next season. Both of us commented that he doesn't have the full skill set of what the NBA is looking for in a wing and is somewhat of a tweener. (I think less of a tweener than Jeff was but he's not what NBA scouts look for when they look for a 3.)
Your only example that we are wrong is oddly Danny Granger -- who isn't a tweener at all and your comment that his handle and first step aren't the best. Okaay, but Otto's aren't better. Not really close. And Granger's a better shooter, especially from three and was from Day One. In other words, your example doesn't prove anything.
The rest of your argument attacks us for stuff that isn't true, so yeah, good on you.
I won't be shocked if Otto turns pro, is ready to turn pro or makes a giant leap this year. But the last time I saw him, he's a tweener who needs to develop better "3" skills because I think his size may make it tough to sell him as a "4". I could talk myself into it, but defensively it might be tough.
|
|
|
|
Post by HoyaAtHeart on Jun 29, 2012 13:37:47 GMT -5
Why do you some of you make it seem like it would be a bad thing if Otto progressed to the point where he's ready to leave after next year?
I really don't understand that thought process.
|
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Jun 29, 2012 13:53:08 GMT -5
Why do you some of you make it seem like it would be a bad thing if Otto progressed to the point where he's ready to leave after next year? I really don't understand that thought process. I think what we want is for Otto to progress to the point where he's ready to leave after next year but to come back anyway. That's how you win championships, by having players who can compete in the NBA playing for you in college. |
|
hoyaboya
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 927
|
Post by hoyaboya on Jun 29, 2012 14:56:48 GMT -5
Kidd-Gilchrist was a 4 in college, will play the 3 in the pros and went #2 overall last night. Otto's in a similar place. Because college hoops is built the way it is, Otto plays some 4 and that's probably his best position for Georgetown given the construction of the team's roster. But he's a clear 3 in the NBA, has the body/skillset/athleticism, and will likely be a lottery pick next year barring injury. He's that good and he projects that well as an NBA 3, in my opinion. I'm with MCI and against SF on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoyas big supporter on Jun 29, 2012 15:00:14 GMT -5
Kidd-Gilchrist was a 4 in college, will play the 3 in the pros and went #2 overall last night. Otto's in a similar place. Because college hoops is built the way it is, Otto plays some 4 and that's probably his best position for Georgetown given the construction of the team's roster. But he's a clear 3 in the NBA, has the body/skillset/athleticism, and will likely be a lottery pick next year barring injury. He's that good and he projects that well as an NBA 3, in my opinion. I'm with MCI and against SF on this one. more or less, this. |
|
bigmanu
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 161
|
Post by bigmanu on Jun 29, 2012 15:10:23 GMT -5
Kidd-Gilchrist was a 4 in college, will play the 3 in the pros and went #2 overall last night. Otto's in a similar place. Because college hoops is built the way it is, Otto plays some 4 and that's probably his best position for Georgetown given the construction of the team's roster. But he's a clear 3 in the NBA, has the body/skillset/athleticism, and will likely be a lottery pick next year barring injury. He's that good and he projects that well as an NBA 3, in my opinion. I'm with MCI and against SF on this one. more or less, this. He played the 3 Davis-5 Jones-4 Kidd-Gilchrist-3 Lamb-2 Teague-1 |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Well, I'm accustomed to the smooth ride."
Posts: 14,518
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 29, 2012 15:10:46 GMT -5
Kidd-Gilchrist was a 4 in college, will play the 3 in the pros and went #2 overall last night. Otto's in a similar place. Because college hoops is built the way it is, Otto plays some 4 and that's probably his best position for Georgetown given the construction of the team's roster. But he's a clear 3 in the NBA, has the body/skillset/athleticism, and will likely be a lottery pick next year barring injury. He's that good and he projects that well as an NBA 3, in my opinion. I'm with MCI and against SF on this one. I could see that happening - him being drafted in the lottery next year. I could also see it not happening. A lot of people were certain Hollis was going to be drafted last night, and in the first round, no less. My point is not that Otto won't be an NBA player (he will) but rather that the level of certainly about how players will progress over the course of a year and how college players will stand up to NBA scrutiny is wildly overstated. I also don't really see Otto and MKG as very similar players, except that both are hardworking team players that do a lot of the little things. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyas big supporter on Jun 29, 2012 15:11:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hoyas big supporter on Jun 29, 2012 15:13:59 GMT -5
He played the 3 Davis-5 Jones-4 Kidd-Gilchrist-3 Lamb-2 Teague-1 so Kidd-Gilchrist never played the 4 spot for stretches and was never put to guard 4s at any point? Ok. Neither him nor Otto played one position exclusively. Sure Otto played a more equal amount of both the 3 and 4 so it's not a perfect example, but it is a good comparison. |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 7,410
|
Post by TBird41 on Jun 29, 2012 15:16:37 GMT -5
Kidd-Gilchrist was a 4 in college, will play the 3 in the pros and went #2 overall last night. Otto's in a similar place. Because college hoops is built the way it is, Otto plays some 4 and that's probably his best position for Georgetown given the construction of the team's roster. But he's a clear 3 in the NBA, has the body/skillset/athleticism, and will likely be a lottery pick next year barring injury. He's that good and he projects that well as an NBA 3, in my opinion. I'm with MCI and against SF on this one. more or less, this. He was a what now? Not to hijack this thread, but MKG was not a 4 anymore than Summers was the 4 on the Final Four team. First, Terrence Jones played the 4 for UK. Second, MKG does not have a post game. Third, his game consisted of slashing from the wing and finishing fast breaks. Fourth, he was the go to defender on the perimeter for UK. He is a great rebounder, but that doesn't make him a four. Seriously, this past year's UK team was as close as we are likely to see of having an archetype at each position. Davis was the shot blocking center. Jones was the PF with the ability to go inside and out. MKG was the slashing wing. Lamb was the lights out shooter and Teague was the point guard. |
|
bigmanu
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 161
|
Post by bigmanu on Jun 29, 2012 15:17:29 GMT -5
He played the 3 Davis-5 Jones-4 Kidd-Gilchrist-3 Lamb-2 Teague-1 so Kidd-Gilchrist never played the 4 spot for stretches and was never put to guard 4s at any point? Ok. Neither him nor Otto played one position exclusively. Sure Otto played a more equal amount of both the 3 and 4 so it's not a perfect example, but it is a good comparison. He played the three. He saw very limited time at the four position. Jones played the 4 spot and logged heavy minutes. |
|
bigmanu
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 161
|
Post by bigmanu on Jun 29, 2012 15:20:30 GMT -5
He was a what now? Not to hijack this thread, but MKG was not a 4 anymore than Summers was the 4 on the Final Four team. First, Terrence Jones played the 4 for UK. Second, MKG does not have a post game. Third, his game consisted of slashing from the wing and finishing fast breaks. Fourth, he was the go to defender on the perimeter for UK. He is a great rebounder, but that doesn't make him a four. Seriously, this past year's UK team was as close as we are likely to see of having an archetype at each position. Davis was the shot blocking center. Jones was the PF with the ability to go inside and out. MKG was the slashing wing. Lamb was the lights out shooter and Teague was the point guard. This! Very well put. Didn't want to hijack the thread either but, MKG playing the 4 spot was blatantly wrong. |
|
dudeslade
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
I got through the Esherick years. I can get through anything.
Posts: 881
|
Post by dudeslade on Jun 29, 2012 16:39:43 GMT -5
I don't know what this means for his NBA value, but for his college production next year as a Hoya and for our team who needs him to become our next star, this is a great line about Otto's performance at the camp: "Porter showed his surprisingly stellar freshman season was no fluke, as his versatility, on-court intelligence, fundamentally sound game, work ethic, athleticism and strong frame translated into consistent production inside and out." |
|
|
|
Post by hoyas big supporter on Jun 29, 2012 18:50:18 GMT -5
so Kidd-Gilchrist never played the 4 spot for stretches and was never put to guard 4s at any point? Ok. Neither him nor Otto played one position exclusively. Sure Otto played a more equal amount of both the 3 and 4 so it's not a perfect example, but it is a good comparison. He played the three. He saw very limited time at the four position. Jones played the 4 spot and logged heavy minutes. Otto started later on and played most of his minutes at the 3 so whatever Otto wasn't playing the 4 too much. |
|
Locker
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,174
|
Post by Locker on Jun 29, 2012 20:13:53 GMT -5
Except that when Nate would get the hook at the 17 minute mark of the first half, Otto came in to play for him, and guarded opposing 4s.
|
|
