Jarrett Culver

[JustCame]

Any proof of this way more athletic and quicker stuff? I am not going to bother to address the R.J. stuff. But this more spring in his step is amusing to me. Especially as someone who watched a lot of TTU games this year.

No I do not have imperial data to prove it but I dont know that there was when Jalen played. Idk that Culver is more or less athletic than his peers but I watched Jalen Rose. The guy was about as athletic as Shaun Livingston post injury. Actually Livibgston is a perfect comparison. Skilled in the half court and can run an offense anywhere from the 1-3 but wasnt at all verticle.

I thought Culver was your boy. You gotta know hes more athletic than that.

You got the wrong person. I am on the anti Culver train but I still like him in some ways. I just don't see a top 10 pick

I don't see any arguments for this whatsoever. This draft class is very weak past the top 3. Culver has shown a great overall offensive game (can pretty much do it all), good defense, and carried Texas Tech to the Championship game. There's no way you could convince me there are 10 better prospects.

You can nitpick and say things like he's not a good shooter (overblown; he's above-average), takes too many bad shots, doesn't have elite athleticism. He actually fixed his shooting form a little for this year, which could explain his regression in 3pt%, and it proves that he can further adapt his shot. Every prospect has their own flaws, and that's why I have him top 5 in my rankings and not top 3.

[King Ken]

No I do not have imperial data to prove it but I dont know that there was when Jalen played. Idk that Culver is more or less athletic than his peers but I watched Jalen Rose. The guy was about as athletic as Shaun Livingston post injury. Actually Livibgston is a perfect comparison. Skilled in the half court and can run an offense anywhere from the 1-3 but wasnt at all verticle.

I thought Culver was your boy. You gotta know hes more athletic than that.

You got the wrong person. I am on the anti Culver train but I still like him in some ways. I just don't see a top 10 pick

I don't see any arguments for this whatsoever. This draft class is very weak past the top 3. Culver has shown a great overall offensive game (can pretty much do it all), good defense, and carried Texas Tech to the Championship game. There's no way you could convince me there are 10 better prospects.

You can nitpick and say things like he's not a good shooter (overblown; he's above-average), takes too many bad shots, doesn't have elite athleticism. He actually fixed his shooting form a little for this year, which could explain his regression in 3pt%, and it proves that he can further adapt his shot. Every prospect has their own flaws, and that's why I have him top 5 in my rankings and not top 3.

Culver fans gonna be real disappointed. I've heard around and teams see him the way I do. Some even worse. He will slide like Malik Monk fell.

This draft isn't weak to the point a team should draft an obvious bust with a top 10 pick. This draft is an eye of the beholder draft. Some will do well and some won't

[Nazrmohamed]

You got the wrong person. I am on the anti Culver train but I still like him in some ways. I just don't see a top 10 pick

I don't see any arguments for this whatsoever. This draft class is very weak past the top 3. Culver has shown a great overall offensive game (can pretty much do it all), good defense, and carried Texas Tech to the Championship game. There's no way you could convince me there are 10 better prospects.

You can nitpick and say things like he's not a good shooter (overblown; he's above-average), takes too many bad shots, doesn't have elite athleticism. He actually fixed his shooting form a little for this year, which could explain his regression in 3pt%, and it proves that he can further adapt his shot. Every prospect has their own flaws, and that's why I have him top 5 in my rankings and not top 3.

Culver fans gonna be real disappointed. I've heard around and teams see him the way I do. Some even worse. He will slide like Malik Monk fell.

This draft isn't weak to the point a team should draft an obvious bust with a top 10 pick. This draft is an eye of the beholder draft. Some will do well and some won't

I remember now. It wasnt Culver you liked. It was Reddish.

Reddish.

[clyde21]

Malik Monk wasn't nearly as good of a prospect as many here thought...just a good athlete but physically weak, a bad defender, and was completely irrelevant when he wasn't scoring.

[916fan]

Malik Monk wasn't nearly as good of a prospect as many here thought...just a good athlete but physically weak, a bad defender, and was completely irrelevant when he wasn't scoring.

I don't think anyone imagined Monk being this bad in the NBA. But I guess if we want to be fair to him, he's been dealt with a raw deal compared to other prospects. He barely got PT in his rookie year for a lottery bound team under Clifford who wanted Mitchell instead. In his 2nd season, he got a new HC who gave him a little bit more PT, but no consistency, yanking him out after mistakes.

But ouch for Charlotte. Even Luke Kennard looks a lot better.

[Stillwater]

JC definitely can and will get stronger imo, which is the first order of business along with improving his finishing.
He already moves really well w/out the ball and has a solid ability to create for himself and others, I think with his
size/length for position and ability to make difficult shots he will get his at the next level , but might take awhile.
He isn't an elite athlete but is crafty enough and shown enough versatility to at least be a solid nba starter.

[connseanery]

So what's up with Culver putting up a 45 1/2" inch vertical? He's close to reaching the top of a 12 foot vertical tester standing on a 6 inch box. He tests like Zion but in games their bounce is totally different. Is Culver just one of those guys that need a clear running path to elevate well or has he just been practicing really hard after the NCAA season for this type of testing?

Read on Twitter

[clyde21]

not sure if that's an angle/camera trick but his head looks legit at the rim

[connseanery]

not sure if that's an angle/camera trick but his head looks legit at the rim

That's reasonable if he's touching over 12 feet.

My question is, has anyone ever tested so well but absolutely not displayed impressive leaping of any sort in games?

[pelifan]

So what's up with Culver putting up a 45 1/2" inch vertical? He's close to reaching the top of a 12 foot vertical tester standing on a 6 inch box. He tests like Zion but in games their bounce is totally different. Is Culver just one of those guys that need a clear running path to elevate well or has he just been practicing really hard after the NCAA season for this type of testing?

first it needs to be said the lakers workout numbers are always weirdly high.


But I always thought Culver would surprise athletically. He doesnt really go for big highlight dunks. He's not Zion but i think hes an above average NBA athlete personally

[connseanery]

So what's up with Culver putting up a 45 1/2" inch vertical? He's close to reaching the top of a 12 foot vertical tester standing on a 6 inch box. He tests like Zion but in games their bounce is totally different. Is Culver just one of those guys that need a clear running path to elevate well or has he just been practicing really hard after the NCAA season for this type of testing?

first it needs to be said the lakers workout numbers are always weirdly high.

But I always thought Culver would surprise athletically. He doesnt really go for big highlight dunks. He's not Zion but i think hes an above average NBA athlete personally

The numbers they report are unsually high but this time there is actual photo evidence of Culver reaching above 12' on the tester. In the past I think the Lakers just have some people that can't do math.

Reported 46 inch vertical from Lavine.
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/other-sports/news/zach-lavine-46-inch-vertical-leap-video-lakers-vine/nmkfllkxzni1ki1tojwb6z8h

Levine isn't even reaching the top of the 12' tester. He measured at 8' 4" standing reach at the combine. If he had a 46 inch vert, he should be touching 12' 2". Maybe he just alligator armed his standing reach with the Lakers.

[CP War Hawks]

Crazy looking pic, fitting of the Lakers to produce it... I just think Culver expends alot of energy on the court, and doesn't have the bounce to rise like that in game. His raw jumping ability is at the 40"+ range no doubt.

[PhilBlackson]

The fact the pic doesn't have the rim itself looking squarely at the camera, so that the rim is level shows that the angle is upwards and as such it will make him look to be higher from that vantage point.

I'm not saying that his vert didn't test higher than expected BUT that pic I believe is being intentionally made to look like he's a far more explosive athlete than what he actually is. Who knows what the Lakers' intentions are whether that's trying to sell another franchise on his potential *ahem* or to sell the fans on him as a fall back (because I think LAL has their eyes set on a Ball trade for #6 or #7 where Culver could/should be still available). But that's just my take...

[MemphisX]

Who cares? He didn’t play like a high riser. So jumping in a gym alone is meaningless.

[Roddy B for 3]

No I do not have imperial data to prove it but I dont know that there was when Jalen played. Idk that Culver is more or less athletic than his peers but I watched Jalen Rose. The guy was about as athletic as Shaun Livingston post injury. Actually Livibgston is a perfect comparison. Skilled in the half court and can run an offense anywhere from the 1-3 but wasnt at all verticle.

I thought Culver was your boy. You gotta know hes more athletic than that.

You got the wrong person. I am on the anti Culver train but I still like him in some ways. I just don't see a top 10 pick

I don't see any arguments for this whatsoever. This draft class is very weak past the top 3. Culver has shown a great overall offensive game (can pretty much do it all), good defense, and carried Texas Tech to the Championship game. There's no way you could convince me there are 10 better prospects.

You can nitpick and say things like he's not a good shooter (overblown; he's above-average), takes too many bad shots, doesn't have elite athleticism. He actually fixed his shooting form a little for this year, which could explain his regression in 3pt%, and it proves that he can further adapt his shot. Every prospect has their own flaws, and that's why I have him top 5 in my rankings and not top 3.

Does Culver have athletisism on par with young Paul Pierce?

Pierce is said to have always had an old man's game.

So if Culver has a SG old man's game and Pierce having had an old man SF game I can tell what level of player they will be if their athletisim is equal.

A player with the accomplishment and skill of JC with Pierce athletic abilities is #2 pick Imo.

I don't think JC has athletic abilities like. Young Pierce.

So I'm trying to think of a SG in the last two decades with JC's skills but with (I think JC is definitely less athletic than DeAndre Hunter who projects as a good or better defensive player) what I fear is JC's athletic abilities.

If JC is a 6 on the NBA rotation plyer athletic abilities and Rookie Paul Pierce was a 9. Then I can project accordingly. JC had great skills so what does. 6 athletic with a 9 skills leave you? Maybe an above average rotation player

JC needs to be able to attack the basket harder. If he thickens up and retains explosion and strength he'll be good. His best scoring ability is his three point shoot and his straight line drive.

His three point shoot is good but he got smothered all year. Some players have high wife open stats and low covered stats. JC has a low 3pt % against double teams are guys like DeAndre Hunter picking him up all game in a championship setting.

That's JC's scoring ability. His PG is below average for an NBA starting PG but is very good for an NBA starting SG.

He'll just have a tough time hitting his kick out passes if he can't beat guys like KCP and Jaylen Brown and Lonzo Ball he'll be able to match guys like Buddy Heild but Dearon Fox would be able to keep his feet in front of JC.

So JC has to be able to hit those pull up threea. He's about a 31% shooter from the college three on those shots. On high volume.

He's about a 40% shooter from college three on open shots. On high volume.

I don't like projecting skills on a player when evaluating. I evaluate as JC as a better 3pt shooting Evan Turner.

A 7 or 8 man on a really good team or a #3 on a friendgs playoff team.

If he can lern to shoot more efficiently, his unique skills will have him as a near all-star (his 90th percentage out come is probably Joe Johnson.)

I am evaulating JC as a Eric Gordon type player, I expect his skills to increase but his above the rim game to become more of a pull up game.

Eric Gordon if healthy all year and playing at his consistent high level (instead of real life where he has cold weeks), if Eric Gordon player at his high game all year (like what actual stars do) he would be viewed similar to Joe Johnson (maybe a tier less).

I expect JC to miss games due to injury (his slight frame) but to be a very valuable player if he can hit his non-corner threes above 36% on average.

If he can't fix his non corner threes I think he'll be a below average starter.

[ruffian253]

Will be a jae crowder/demarr carrol type player. Not sure how much of the NCAA tournament most of you watched, but offensively, JC was horrible and struggled with scoring often going 4/20, most of his points came from the FT line. So if you are looking for an offensive weapon, probably JC is not that guy, but can probably develop into that in about 3-5 years. His calling will be on the defensive end as he has all the physical tools to carve out a niche there.

[BostonCouchGM]

Malik Monk wasn't nearly as good of a prospect as many here thought...just a good athlete but physically weak, a bad defender, and was completely irrelevant when he wasn't scoring.

I don't think anyone imagined Monk being this bad in the NBA. But I guess if we want to be fair to him, he's been dealt with a raw deal compared to other prospects. He barely got PT in his rookie year for a lottery bound team under Clifford who wanted Mitchell instead. In his 2nd season, he got a new HC who gave him a little bit more PT, but no consistency, yanking him out after mistakes.

But ouch for Charlotte. Even Luke Kennard looks a lot better.

yeah, it really matters where these kids get drafted. Look at the Mavericks. They started Doncic and let him be their leader despite his massive shortcomings. He shot 32% from three but they didn't care and let him shoot 7 a game. What other rookie in NBA history who has proven to NOT be a good shooter has been given free-reign like that? And Doncic is a horrible defender. So terrible defense that should keep him on the bench, which is what happened to Redick, Monk and pretty much every other rookie in NBA history, is ignored and he gets 32 mpg. And he was 10th in turnovers per game too. So, you have a massive defensive liability, who can't shoot and turns the ball over, yet leads his team in usage? But I'd rather have that, when the team isn't contending, so any potential improvement happens quicker so he can be the best player he can be, sooner, rather than later, than watch the player go to a different organization and put it all together. And by "putting it all together" I mean, they finally get the minutes/touches. What does CHA gain by Monk FINALLY showing his potential in year 3 just in time for him to potentially leave in FA and them not knowing truly what they have on their hands to make an informed decision to match offers for him? That's when you get Nurkic, Lowry, Nash, McGrady, and Harden situations. These teams are so poorly run.

[Jamaaliver]

Read on Twitter

[Nazrmohamed]

Malik Monk wasn't nearly as good of a prospect as many here thought...just a good athlete but physically weak, a bad defender, and was completely irrelevant when he wasn't scoring.

Well its not like he was drafted in a horrible spot though. I mean, I alway knew everything you said when he was draftable. But still, nothing hes done so far makes me thibk he couldn't be a sixth man type of player and typically once the dust settles and all the busts reveal themselves and late first rounders who turn into solid role players emerge.....if all you walk away with is a 6moy candidate at 11-14 then youve done ok. Even with the flaws you've mentioned he still has that level of potential.

[bwgood77]

Will be a jae crowder/demarr carrol type player. Not sure how much of the NCAA tournament most of you watched, but offensively, JC was horrible and struggled with scoring often going 4/20, most of his points came from the FT line. So if you are looking for an offensive weapon, probably JC is not that guy, but can probably develop into that in about 3-5 years. His calling will be on the defensive end as he has all the physical tools to carve out a niche there.

No, he's more like Jalen Rose. Perhaps a little better defensively.