Seems about right. Neither blow my skirt up. I'd rather take a swing with Edey in the 2nd round than Clingan in the mid 1st.
Great question. Watching tonight, if Clingan is being considered top five, then Edey's raised his stock again. People can say all they want about "who is he going to defend." I wonder who defends him. There still are plenty of traditional centers in the NBA. He's a very good talent. It's just a matter of a team finding the way to play to his strengths and him finding a way to fit in.
Pretty clear yes he’s all those things. Way better shooter and does have the longer range to stretch to the 3. He rests because he plays harder on the court and the team has options. I doubt very much swapping teams changes much either because UConn is quite a bit better. Just this game tonight you watched a better IQ on both ends of the court. if you watched these guys play that much you would know Eddy is way slower and rests a bunch on the court. You also watched him air ball free throws. Eddy will never be a threat from 3. Most experts say his game simply won’t translate to the pros but maybe he can bring a Steven Adam’s type game?
You aren't missing anything. A narrative formed somewhere in the last two years and nothing we see or that Edey does is going to change minds because people would have to have evolution in their position.
You're correct. Clingan is nothing special. I personally prefer Edey. I wouldn't take either player in the top 15 though
I don't disagree on Edey's game struggling to translate. I didn't see anything tonight about Clingan's IQ being better, just him being on the better team. I can see how Edey is slower than Clingan, but I guess I don't see Clingan being a rim-running post in the NBA; one is slow and the other is slower. You'd think the slower, lower basketball IQ player, inferior shooter, on the worse team shouldn't be able to put up 37/10 on a lottery pick who is better in all the areas you listed. If Edey really is that much worse, I'm surprised how much better he looked tonight.
Clingan is a much better shooter? He is 2-for-8 from 3 in his career and raised his FT% all the way to 58%. Edey's a better than 70% FT shooter for his career and gets to the line a lot. I've watched both of them a lot. I just don't see a lot that supports your contentions. Edey was playing on a greatly undermanned team. He shot 60% on a high volume, he was a physical presence, he rebounded and he blocked shots despite playing against a team that has several NBA prospects (and multiple lottery prospects) and played a tempo that supposedly he can't play.
No team is going to invest their entire offense to slow down and throw the ball into the post for him. He's not going to be able to score the way he is at the NBA level. It's inefficient. There are very few in the league that play that slow, throw it in the post offense. Most teams won't even consider it.
Hyperbole is worse than Hitler. No one is saying any team has to do that. No one is saying he has to do that. All that's being said is that he's at least as good as a guy that recently was being touted as top five in this draft. This is what I mean about people stuck on narratives and then conflating things so they don't have to re-evaluate their positions.
He played better than a top 5 or 10 pick at a completely different level. Not sure what that has to do with Hitler though. I didn't have a position until tonight. I hadn't seen him until tonight. You're making quite the assumption that doesn't apply here. You wanna take him with a late 1st or 2nd? Sure. Expecting him to much of a factor? I don't think he can even be a backup but I'm open to being wrong.
I'd say what you did with your last two posts responding to me were even bigger assumptions except they weren't assumptions -- they were complete misrepresentations of pretty clear points. Anyway, thanks for making my point by completely conflating positions. Kudos.
Most obvious, honest post on the board. OK, I'll spell it out for you. -- It's been said that Clingan now is a potential top 5 pick. It's been said Edey is a waste of a first round pick. But Edey had a great game last night and Clingan was average, and they were playing the same position against each other. Their talents aren't that different. The question was asked why are they viewed so differently. -- One reply was a bunch of opinion that wasn't supported by data. -- Then you who have since said you don't follow the players popped in and replied to me. You wrote no one was going to center their offense around Edey. But I didn't say that. In fact, no one said it. You were arguing a position no one made. -- You wrote Edey won't be able to score like that in the NBA in response to me. But I never said he would. In fact, no one said it. You are arguing a position no one made. -- You said most teams won't consider playing a style that would feature someone like Edey. But I never suggested they would. In fact, no one said it. You are arguing a position no one made ... and on top of that a position you actually can't know and you made it in a very vague way. -- You said you had no opinion until the game last night. I didn't say you did. I said people create a narrative and then conflate things so as not to re-evaluate their positions. That doesn't have to mean you specifically. All it means is you have to stick to the common narrative that's been used without any consideration to new information. -- "Hyperbole" is an exaggeration. Writing false premises like teams would be building their team and style around Edey is hyperbole. No one suggested it except you. You were exaggerating to try to argue against positions no one else had taken. Saying "hyperbole is worse than Hitler" is an example of hyperbole.
To be clear here i agree with you that the difference is negligible at best. I also agree with you on your point "Why is there such a divide between the two?". Neither seem to be huge difference makers. I honestly think if a team takes either of them top 5 they will be frustrated with the pick. When you are talking about things Like BBIQ and translation of game we certainly are nit picking on a few plays here and there. You can't teach 7-4 and 300lbs. Eddy is a monster. Got to be a place for him in the NBA. There might also be some intangibles? Work ethic? Are they teachable? Off court history? How well did they conform to the coaches and systems they played for? I'm betting their combines will say the most about them?
Yep this is huge part of the conversation. If a player is taken with a top 5 pick the assumption is that player needs to be part of a team going forward. Probably isn't more than 2 players in this draft that should have those kinds of expectations on them. Both Eddy or Clingan would have to be projects IMHO but one things holds true. Eddy is very big. This is the NBA we are talking about. You simply cannot teach the tools he has.
You haven't done a good job thus far so I'm not holding my breath. "It's been said" has nothing to do with my premise or what I've said, but if you're asking me to defend someone else's point, I can. Edey dominating Clingan is... ON THE COLLEGE LEVEL. That has no barring on how he translates to the NBA level. People have Clingan higher because he's plug and play and his strengths have nothing to do with having the entire offense structured around him in addition to being far more mobile. Get it yet? Your responses have been all opinion and no data... And guess what? There's nothing wrong with that. None of us are full time scouts so try getting off your soap box. Nobody said that you said that. Do you have feelings of inadequacy and that people are out to get you too? If you don't want people to reply to you, don't post on a message board that's dedicated to discussion. Plenty of people who think Edey should be a lottery pick have made that argument. Are you okay? Again, there seems to be some inadequacies on your part. No one suggested you said that. I'm saying that because without it, I don't see how he would contribute on the NBA level. Try to follow along without projecting your insecurities into the debate. So you're getting mad at me for quoting you and responding to an argument you didn't make but you just did the same thing. Lol You responded to me and said "people" create arguments they don't have to reevaluate. And guess what? I'm not crying about it like you are. Try sticking to your own standard. It's not a false premise because my suggestion is that you would have to center your offense around him to get an adequate use out of him. He's not a plug and play the way Clingan seems to be. Bringing up Hitler is not necessary when you've run out of substance. Try something else. I've never witnessed an Edey fanatic until you came along.
And more hyperbole. If you think I'm an Edey "fanatic," the issue isn't that I've done a poor job explaining. The issue is that you have a very poor job of comprehension or that you like to just make brash comments and get irritated when people point them out. That's a "you" problem. If you've actually paid attention to this board, there are several posters that have questioned why Clingan has been getting rated as a potential/likely lottery pick and Edey has been considered a waste of a first-round pick. Having noticed your posts before, I don't think you pay attention to what else is posted here, though. Anyway, saying Edey and Clingan are close doesn't make someone an Edey fanatic. If you can't understand that concept, again, that's a "you" and a "your comprehension" issue again. No one else would equate saying someone didn't have to be the focal point of a team to being a fanatical supporter. Looking forward to your next gigantic post of false narratives, moved goalposts, conflation and lack of comprehension. As I said before, I love it when the person trying to argue with me makes my case for me. Please continue.
If I was irritated I would have responded with 7 paragraphs like you did. I was worried about you. The only person talking about Clingan between us is you. LMAO. Weird fetish, bro.
