There is no amount of alternate universes in which anyone who had ever watched both play even a minute of basketball would legitimately compare Chet Holmgren with Luis Scola.
Banchero = Julius Randle minus the toxic attitude he’s had this year. Chet has elite defensive instincts - cut from the AK47 mold. This high in the draft you take the best prospect available and it’s Chet or Jabari. Banchero has the highest floor.
Huh? Chet moves his feet quick enough to guard 4s. The notion that he's slow is so wei4d to me. He also doesn't have to get as close to guys, so he has more of a gap. I think Nurkic+Chet is a great fit, especially for Chaunceys system. Allows one big to play up at the point of the screen while leaving the other to protect the rim. Look at Cleveland with Mobley and Allen. It's allowed them to play Markkanen at the 3 and be fine.
Oh, there are several analogs to Holmgren: Dragan Bender, Shawn Bradley, Zach Collins. People who don't like him, at least me, are more concerned that he lacks the frame to put on functional strength, put up big numbers playing against competition that for the most part isn't even G-League level and for a guy touted as being a unicorn with these perimeter skills Gonzaga didn't seem comfortable enough in that part of his game that should have created such a mismatch to use it even in big games. EDIT: I also thought, for a guy who's touted as this other-worldly shot-blocker, he was a step slow far too many times against Memphis, which scored something like 40 points in the paint even with him playing 30 minutes. I see him as a boom-or-bust prospect. High ceiling. Basement floor.
Similar in build but I don't see Holmgren running point like Pokusevski does and Poku hasn't proven anything in the NBA yet.
Well, the Blazer team that played OKC last night probably would have finished near the top of the WCC, so I guess that does play into the Poku-Chet comparison.
Dragan Bender: no. There was very little to go on in drafting him, and he certainly wasn't known for his defense. Shawn Bradley: YAWN. This is because of the "tall and skinny white guy" thing. It's probably the closest match, but (a) Bradley literally had to play center because he was too slow for anything else, (b) he played in a center-dominant era and got murdered by people like Shaq, and (c) there was no hint of "guard skills" in Shawn Bradley. One of the most appealing things about Holmgren is his basketball brain and dribbling/shooting ability. (Lest we forget.) Zach Collins: This is the "white guy who played one year for Gonzaga" thing. Again, SOME similarities, but I don't really see it. Collins is a pretty standard college 4/5. Holmgren... isn't. (I actually really liked Zach when he could stay healthy, but would agree he was taken too high at #10. He was never even projected as high as Holmgren. He averaged under 18 mpg for Gonzaga in his one year.) The frame issue is a legit concern. He will always get pushed around. But luckily for him there are very few teams whose focus is pounding the ball down low. His value is coming out of nowhere to block shots, not guarding some giant one-on-one. See Robert Williams on Boston, for example. As for the versatility: he's a freshman on a college team with Drew Timme - of course they're not going to take risks with his skills. They have to win EVERY GAME - they're not interested in developing him. Funny, everyone thinks Banchero has a high floor, but then I see him being compared with Michael Beasley. Wanna know who had a better NBA career out of Beasley and Bradley (both taken #2, BTW)? Seriously: just about every year there's a tweener forward who's a great college scorer with "all the tools to play good defense" who gets taken top 5 and is out of the league in 5 years or fewer (or playing on a league minimum contract somewhere). Beasley (#2) Derrick Williams (#2) Thomas Robinson (#5) Otto Porter (#3) Marvin Bagley (#2) I see Banchero as having much more bust potential. His only value is as the main scorer. If he's not scoring, what's he doing out there? Bust players are players who have to be The Guy, and if they can't be that (and they're not good enough to be that in the NBA) there's no point to them. Holmgren is useful if he doesn't take a shot. (Re: the Memphis game: Holmgren got 4 blocks and Memphis shot 42%. And Gonzaga won.)
I take Chet, he's the front line defender we've needed and he certainly can shoot/play inside out. Yeah, it will take some time to get him comfortable. The other thing I like about Chet is his competitiveness and he's going to get pushed around but he's smart enough to know where he has an advantage too. I do like Banchero too, but realistically unless we trade up there is not much chance we have a shot at either. My dark horse at 5-12 is Murray. I like his age much like Dame and Roy and he's ver capable on both ends of the floor and has decent size.
I'm torn on Chet as he has the big white guy stigma around him and those shoulders scream that he'll never be able to put on any real weight to his frame, but the guy is so skilled and can help you without the ball being in his hands, something that is obviously important with guys like Dame and Ant already on the roster. I like Paolo a lot but he total lack of will to play defense has to be a major red flag, especially again for a team with Dame and Ant on it. The guy can score and seems to have all the necessary traits to be good on defense but has yet to show it. Long run I'd take Holmgren of the two but it's close.
i find people making definitive statements about any draft prospect kinda hilarious. i'm guilty of it at times too but i try to couch my predictions so that i remain somewhat open-minded when things finally shake out on draft day. projecting these prospects 5 yrs down the line after getting NBA level coaching/development is not easy, and it's why the first ten players picked in any draft are never the ten best players after everything is said and done. even people who draft these guys for a living have made colossal mistakes, so it's really not much of a shame to get things wrong. as far as Chet's defense, I think he'll be an elite shot blocker. those instincts SHOULD translate. I've been maintaining for a while that he needs to be planted near the rim and always in drop coverage so that the team he's on takes advantage of his rim protection. i also don't see him having the foot speed or lateral mobility to guard any 4s in the NBA, especially with increased spacing. People like to think he's Evan Mobley, while he's closer to being Rudy Gobert. Definitely valuable, but not nearly the kinda defensive stalwart that some people are projecting (and yes, i know Gobert is a perennial DPOY candidate, Holmgren could be somewhat close to that too, but we keep seeing Gobert repeatedly neutralized in the playoffs and I'd like someone more mobile and able to switch).
The comparison in this thread is Chet to Paola. So what is your opinion on Banchero's defense? Is he going to be a plus or minus? If Banchero is a minus, he doesn't need to be neutralized.
