Challenge: Convince me Paulo Banchero will be good

[GeorgeMarcus]

I watched a handful of his games at Duke and no doubt he's a skilled offensive player, but is he really cut out to be a difference maker in the NBA? It's hard for me to envision him as a competent defender- either he's forced into heavy switching at the 4 or sacrificing rim protection at the 5. I realize that's an oversimplification but I can't envision a scenario where he isn't at least somewhat of a minus on that end of the floor.

Offensively, he has some range but it's not like he projects to be a true floor spacing big. His ball-handling/passing are probably my favorite parts about his game but that can't be the calling card of a #3 pick big man in a deep draft. Good scorer in the post yet that skillset doesn't carry the same weight that it use to.

Naturally, NBA scouts are a lot more qualified than I am to make these assessments. Can you guys help me see what they see?

[clyde21]

he's a legit 6-10 guy with a strong physical profile, has a sophisticated scoring repertoire for his age, high offensive BBIQ with + ball skills and passing juice, slots in nicely in today's NBA as a versatile point-forward type while potentially being able to score 20 a pop. good leadership qualities.

biggest question marks are how he scales defensively. seems positionally locked at the 4 at this point but if he can prove he can defend from the 5 hole in any capacity that should should scale his game considerably and make him more valuable.

don't think he's a can't miss guy, but clearly a good prospect who should be a starter type for a long time. Julius Randle or less athletic Blake Griffin type to me.

[GeorgeMarcus]

he's a legit 6-10 guy with a strong physical profile, has a sophisticated scoring repertoire for his age, high offensive BBIQ with + ball skills and passing juice, slots in nicely in today's NBA as a versatile point-forward type while potentially being able to score 20 a pop. good leadership qualities.

biggest question marks are how he scales defensively. seems positionally locked at the 4 at this point but if he can prove he can defend from the 5 hole in any capacity that should should scale his game considerably and make him more valuable.

don't think he's a can't miss guy, but clearly a good prospect who should be a starter type for a long time. Julius Randle or less athletic Blake Griffin type to me.

Preciate the insight. I agree with you about fitting in as an offensive player, but I've found the vast majority of versatile 4/5 guys are high level defenders. Horford, JJJ, Bam... All different archetypes within that umbrella but All-Defensive types across the board. If he doesn't scale as a defender then I imagine his ceiling would be relatively low. Randle is a nice player but not exactly the guy you want as a "best scenario" when drafting that high.

[EMG518]

he's a legit 6-10 guy with a strong physical profile, has a sophisticated scoring repertoire for his age, high offensive BBIQ with + ball skills and passing juice, slots in nicely in today's NBA as a versatile point-forward type while potentially being able to score 20 a pop. good leadership qualities.

biggest question marks are how he scales defensively. seems positionally locked at the 4 at this point but if he can prove he can defend from the 5 hole in any capacity that should should scale his game considerably and make him more valuable.

don't think he's a can't miss guy, but clearly a good prospect who should be a starter type for a long time. Julius Randle or less athletic Blake Griffin type to me.

Preciate the insight. I agree with you about fitting in as an offensive player, but I've found the vast majority of versatile 4/5 guys are high level defenders. Horford, JJJ, Bam... All different archetypes within that umbrella but All-Defensive types across the board. If he doesn't scale as a defender then I imagine his ceiling would be relatively low. Randle is a nice player but not exactly the guy you want as a "best scenario" when drafting that high.

I don't get why people throw out the name Randle other than they both have big bodies.

Randle isn't as tall, has no standing reach, is less athletic, and less skilled at the same age so how can that be a comp.

I would take Paolo after the All star break once he is acclimated his rookie year over Randle now.

I think the defensive concerns are way overstated also.

[NO-KG-AI]

He's plenty big, strong and athletic enough to defend 4 and 5 and be able to switch and survive. If you believe he's the kind of guy that will buy in defensively and play with effort on that end, I wouldn't have concerns about it, so interviews will be important. Lesser physical specimens have been + defenders. Can't see him being an anchor or an all defensive team guy though either way.

[clyde21]

he's a legit 6-10 guy with a strong physical profile, has a sophisticated scoring repertoire for his age, high offensive BBIQ with + ball skills and passing juice, slots in nicely in today's NBA as a versatile point-forward type while potentially being able to score 20 a pop. good leadership qualities.

biggest question marks are how he scales defensively. seems positionally locked at the 4 at this point but if he can prove he can defend from the 5 hole in any capacity that should should scale his game considerably and make him more valuable.

don't think he's a can't miss guy, but clearly a good prospect who should be a starter type for a long time. Julius Randle or less athletic Blake Griffin type to me.

Preciate the insight. I agree with you about fitting in as an offensive player, but I've found the vast majority of versatile 4/5 guys are high level defenders. Horford, JJJ, Bam... All different archetypes within that umbrella but All-Defensive types across the board. If he doesn't scale as a defender then I imagine his ceiling would be relatively low. Randle is a nice player but not exactly the guy you want as a "best scenario" when drafting that high.

I don't get why people throw out the name Randle other than they both have big bodies.

Randle isn't as tall, has no standing reach, is less athletic, and less skilled at the same age so how can that be a comp.

I would take Paolo after the All star break once he is acclimated his rookie year over Randle now.

I think the defensive concerns are way overstated also.

practically the same exact size and same athletic profile and Paolo projects to be a similar archetype with similar offensive skills. it's a pretty straightforward comp.

[CP War Hawks]

He passes the eye test with limited in game watching Duke. He has the best body control of the top tier guys in this draft and physically he's more than NBA ready. Should be able to slide to the 5 eventually the same way Horford was able to.

[K_chile22]

Paolo is much more perimeter oriented than Randle ever was. Randle is a bruiser who wants to buy to the rim but can hit a J if he has to. Late career Blake before he fell off but after he was jumping over cars is a much better comp. And that was an all NBA level player

[The-Power]

Should be able to slide to the 5 eventually the same way Horford was able to.

Very different levels of rim protection.

[clyde21]

Paolo is much more perimeter oriented than Randle ever was. Randle is a bruiser who wants to buy to the rim but can hit a J if he has to. Late career Blake before he fell off but after he was jumping over cars is a much better comp. And that was an all NBA level player

Randle had more 3 attempts than shots at the rim this year, it's almost as if u guys dont watch basketball

[Duke4life831]

Randle is no doubt the best comp for Paolo. This is pretty much why Paolo gets the Randle comp.

6'9-6'10
Physically strong and matured even at an early age
Athletically not really explosive, but move pretty damn well for a guy his size (height and thickness)
Not a dynamic handle, but again for their size its definitely workable
Has shown some flashes with the jumper, but pretty inconsistent and best at attacking the rim with their combination of size and strength and should probably attack more often than they do.
Weak on the defensive end.

Again when doing a basic overview of these guys coming out of college, Randle is probably the best match. But again that also doesnt mean these guys are identical twins either.

For example, I think Paolo is more well refined in most of these areas compared to Randle. I think Paolo gets his shots up much better within the flow of the offense compared to Randle ever has. This is why I have been saying I think Paolo is the much more team friendly version of Randle. I also think Paolo has been handed the keys to being more of a on ball creator from an earlier age than Randle did, which I think leads to Paolo being more refined with decision making when the ball is in his hands. I also think that lends to Paolo shooting more 3s at a higher volume and at an earlier age than Randle and is further along in that aspect as well.

I think a more refined Randle is a pretty damn good player, it was only a couple years ago Randle was on the All NBA team. So I think Paolo has 2 big question marks for his NBA career.

1. Can he become a consistent 36+% 3pt shooter in his prime. If so that will really open up his offense and I could see him being a 25/10/5 on good efficiency offensive player.
2. He has the physical tools to be at least a solid defensive player. Will he ever put it together on that end.

I think both are legit solid questions and that's why he is most likely not going to go any higher than 3rd in the draft. But I think he has a nice foundation to build upon and he doesnt have anything that could prevent him from improving both his major question marks. Again good size and solid athleticism, so nothing physical that would limit him from being a good defensive player. Then with his jumper, once you get out past 15ft the form could be pretty inconsistent. But nothing broken in his shot. Just needs to tighten it up and get a little more consistent with it.

[clyde21]

also, just LOL @ at the idea that Blake Griffin is/was ever more 'perimeter oriented' than Randle.

at his apex (13-14) Griffin took 52 3s to over 600+ attempts at the rim. Randle this year had 390 attempts from 3 to 316 shots at the rim. Randle took as many 3s this year alone than Blake took his first 10 years in the league combined. Blake didn't become more perimeter oriented until he got to Detroit.

again, i'm not sure if you guys even watch the NBA at this point, such a weird thing to say, or maybe you guys still think this is the Randle in college or something.

[K_chile22]

Paolo is much more perimeter oriented than Randle ever was. Randle is a bruiser who wants to buy to the rim but can hit a J if he has to. Late career Blake before he fell off but after he was jumping over cars is a much better comp. And that was an all NBA level player

Randle had more 3 attempts than shots at the rim this year, it's almost as if u guys dont watch basketball

32% of his shots per CTG came at the rim vs 28% from 3. Last year was the only year he shot more from 3 than at the rim (his one good year!) and all the other years were not remotely close. Besides, that doesn't really tell you much about their games, getting to the rim is good regardless was talking about the way they attack. 80% of Randle's 3s are assisted. he doesn't self create from the perimeter unless it's a bulldoze to the rim attempt that sometimes ends up settling for a middie

[K_chile22]

also, just LOL @ at the idea that Blake Griffin is/was ever more 'perimeter oriented' than Randle.

at his apex (13-14) Griffin took 52 3s to over 600+ attempts at the rim. Randle this year had 390 attempts from 3 to 316 shots at the rim. Randle took as many 3s this year alone than Blake took his first 10 years in the league combined. Blake didn't become more perimeter oriented until he got to Detroit.

again, i'm not sure if you guys even watch the NBA at this point, such a weird thing to say, or maybe you guys still think this is the Randle in college or something.

Almost like you're ignoring the part where everyone is saying late prime Blake and being really rude and dismissive for no reason. Sorry you're smarter than everyone, won't disagree with you again

[clyde21]

Paolo is much more perimeter oriented than Randle ever was. Randle is a bruiser who wants to buy to the rim but can hit a J if he has to. Late career Blake before he fell off but after he was jumping over cars is a much better comp. And that was an all NBA level player

Randle had more 3 attempts than shots at the rim this year, it's almost as if u guys dont watch basketball

32% of his shots per CTG came at the rim vs 28% from 3. Last year was the only year he shot more from 3 than at the rim (his one good year!) and all the other years were not remotely close. Besides, that doesn't really tell you much about their games, getting to the rim is good regardless was talking about the way they attack. 80% of Randle's 3s are assisted. he doesn't self create from the perimeter unless it's a bulldoze to the rim attempt that sometimes ends up settling for a middie

yes - that's why when people comp Paolo to Randle, it's assumed that Knicks Randle is the comp people are making. he's essentially going to be playing a very similar archetype in the league on both sides of the court.

and yes, Paolo is a bit more sophisticated creator than Randle, doesn't mean the comp isn't - again - a straightforward one. that's why Paolo is slated to go with top3 and Randle went 8th.

[babyjax13]

he's a legit 6-10 guy with a strong physical profile, has a sophisticated scoring repertoire for his age, high offensive BBIQ with + ball skills and passing juice, slots in nicely in today's NBA as a versatile point-forward type while potentially being able to score 20 a pop. good leadership qualities.

biggest question marks are how he scales defensively. seems positionally locked at the 4 at this point but if he can prove he can defend from the 5 hole in any capacity that should should scale his game considerably and make him more valuable.

don't think he's a can't miss guy, but clearly a good prospect who should be a starter type for a long time. Julius Randle or less athletic Blake Griffin type to me.

Preciate the insight. I agree with you about fitting in as an offensive player, but I've found the vast majority of versatile 4/5 guys are high level defenders. Horford, JJJ, Bam... All different archetypes within that umbrella but All-Defensive types across the board. If he doesn't scale as a defender then I imagine his ceiling would be relatively low. Randle is a nice player but not exactly the guy you want as a "best scenario" when drafting that high.

Early Detroit Blake Griffin I think is the upper end outcome. Someone who can score and be an offensive hub and - while not a great defender - be at least able to cover on the boards for a good rim protector to go hunting for shots.

[clyde21]

also, just LOL @ at the idea that Blake Griffin is/was ever more 'perimeter oriented' than Randle.

at his apex (13-14) Griffin took 52 3s to over 600+ attempts at the rim. Randle this year had 390 attempts from 3 to 316 shots at the rim. Randle took as many 3s this year alone than Blake took his first 10 years in the league combined. Blake didn't become more perimeter oriented until he got to Detroit.

again, i'm not sure if you guys even watch the NBA at this point, such a weird thing to say, or maybe you guys still think this is the Randle in college or something.

Almost like you're ignoring the part where everyone is saying late prime Blake and being really rude and dismissive for no reason. Sorry you're smarter than everyone, won't disagree with you again

i like the late Blake comp too...guess who late Blake compares to? Julius Randle now.

[babyjax13]

also, just LOL @ at the idea that Blake Griffin is/was ever more 'perimeter oriented' than Randle.

at his apex (13-14) Griffin took 52 3s to over 600+ attempts at the rim. Randle this year had 390 attempts from 3 to 316 shots at the rim. Randle took as many 3s this year alone than Blake took his first 10 years in the league combined. Blake didn't become more perimeter oriented until he got to Detroit.

again, i'm not sure if you guys even watch the NBA at this point, such a weird thing to say, or maybe you guys still think this is the Randle in college or something.

Almost like you're ignoring the part where everyone is saying late prime Blake and being really rude and dismissive for no reason. Sorry you're smarter than everyone, won't disagree with you again

i like the late Blake comp too...guess who late Blake compares to? Julius Randle now.

Griffin was a lot more cerebral as a player in that era than Randle and more skilled at everything.

[clyde21]

Almost like you're ignoring the part where everyone is saying late prime Blake and being really rude and dismissive for no reason. Sorry you're smarter than everyone, won't disagree with you again

i like the late Blake comp too...guess who late Blake compares to? Julius Randle now.

Griffin was a lot more cerebral as a player in that era than Randle and more skilled at everything.

may I remind everyone Randle averaged 6apg and 5apg last two years in New York, even more than Blake in his prime.

[HotelVitale]

Hmm feels like way too much time spent here hashing out comparisons. Those are zero help beyond explaining what a player kinda sorta looks like to someone who’s never seen that prospect before. After that player’s a player and there are myriad small things that are gonna make his destiny.

The case for Paolo is simple: he’s a tall strong creator with good athleticism and toughness who has great shooting potential. If he adapts and improves well there’s no reason he can’t shoot like a Paul George type wing and also drive at a very high level (esp with the threat of his shot).

He also took over tournament games and other important games and has clearly demonstrated some of that go-to mode, which no one else in that top 3 can say.

That said, I’m a little agnostic on him now. Part of the reason why is that it’s not that hard for me to imagine him popping, but he needs to pop to be really good. It’s always tough to assume anyone’s gonna reach full potential on that cuz so few do, and if he's just a solid creator/shooter in the NBA he’s not good enough on defense or at anything else for him to be all that great. I.e. his max potential is really nice but his average outcome is not that exciting.