Caleb Swanigan

[ATLSmith]

Caleb Swanigan is just short of ideal height (6'8.5") for a NBA PF but he has the weight (247 lb) to hold his own as a rookie and an outstanding wingspan (7'3.5").  He's shown to be an elite rebounder, has solid post moves and, to top it all off, is a very good shooter.  Most mock drafts have him available when the Hawks pick but I wouldn't be surprised if he goes a lot earlier.

What do you all think of him?

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Caleb-Swanigan-71578/

 

[Guest]

Nah.  I'm sure he'll be a solid pro but ... just, nah.  A lot of his effectiveness is overpowering college guys.  Shades of Tyler Handsblow.  Reminds me of Leon Powe post knee-injuries.

I get it, I get it .. he's a skilled big.  But he looks like a plodder to me.  Kind of a smaller version of Okafor and we see how he translated despite being much better than Swanigan at the college level.

I'd rather reach on a guy with better measurables although not as much college production (Rabb, Hartenstein, etc.).

[ATLSmith]

I see what you are saying about him being a bit slow down the court.  What interests me the most is that he can shoot but also hold his own in the post.  I wouldn't expect him to put up the same rebounding numbers in the pro's, but that's why we have Dwight.

Of the two alternatives you mentioned, Hartstein looks really interesting.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ATLSmith said:

I see what you are saying about him being a bit slow down the court.  What interests me the most is that he can shoot but also hold his own in the post.  I wouldn't expect him to put up the same rebounding numbers in the pro's, but that's why we have Dwight.

Of the two alternatives you mentioned, Hartstein looks really interesting.

I get that part of it, but if all he's gonna be is a decent board guy and a sometimes post scorer then I'm not drafting him in rnd 1.

The Wisconsin guy (Happ?) is the same.  Effective mainly due to BBIQ and overpowering college guys.  Not a 1st rounder in my book.

[Lurker]

Unless this team wants to head straight to needing to fully blow it up, they need to start taking risks on low floor high ceiling guys. I mean Swanigan, Motley, and Hart may all be solid pros but they all have a low ceiling.

Happ's not going to be a first rounder.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Lurker

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Unless this team wants to head straight to needing to fully blow it up, they need to start taking risks on low floor high ceiling guys. I mean Swanigan, Motley, and Hart may all be solid pros but they all have a low ceiling.

Happ's not going to be a first rounder.

You must be back off your meds 'cause I agree totally with all this.  No more low ceiling guys in the draft!!!

Hart reminds me of George Hill for some reason.

[ATLSmith]

13 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Unless this team wants to head straight to needing to fully blow it up, they need to start taking risks on low floor high ceiling guys. I mean Swanigan, Motley, and Hart may all be solid pros but they all have a low ceiling.

Happ's not going to be a first rounder.

1

Makes sense.  Someone like Schröder.  When the Hawks drafted him everyone was like, "Who?"  Or, at least I was.  But after his first year it was evident that he could be something special.  Now, if he would just stop throwing the ball away (a conversation for another thread perhaps)

[Lurker]

1 hour ago, kg01 said:

You must be back off your meds 'cause I agree totally with all this.  No more low ceiling guys in the draft!!!

Hart reminds me of George Hill for some reason.

Oh if Hart's available at 31st, I'm absolutely taking him, but anywhere in the first round is too early. I think he could be Brogdon part 2, but it shouldn't mean push him into the first round.

[DBac]

Ehhh a lot of his game is based on being bigger than the  guys he faces. He has some sneaky good passing and outside shooting, but I don't think he's a good enough offensive player to make up for his lack of athleticism on defense. At best he's Jokic lite.

[KB21]

This is the guy to target with the 19th pick.  

He can play on the low block.  He can play in the high post.  He dominated his league.  He has an NBA body and NBA strength.  He's the same age as some of these so called "high ceiling" guys who don't know how to play the game.  

[Guest]

Plodding bigs no longer have a place in the league.  EZPass although I want him to succeed based on his backstory.

[KB21]

I'll tell you what.  You guys take the track athlete gazelles who have limited basketball skills and do not understand ball movement or defined roles.

I'll take the "plodder" who understands spacing and has developed his basketball skills to the point where he was one of the most dominant players in college basketball.

Example, if you tell me that you would take Harry Giles Jr. over Caleb Swanigan, I will completely ignore your future posts.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, KB21 said:

I'll tell you what.  You guys take the track athlete gazelles who have limited basketball skills and do not understand ball movement or defined roles.

I'll take the "plodder" who understands spacing and has developed his basketball skills to the point where he was one of the most dominant players in college basketball.

Example, if you tell me that you would take Harry Giles Jr. over Caleb Swanigan, I will completely ignore your future posts.

You're making a lot of assumptions here.  Just because one doesn't like the plodding Swanigan, it absolutely, positively does not mean they lack an appreciation for basketball or that there's an affinity to the 'all-measurables' guys.

Like I said, I'm rooting for Swanigan but I also recognize a lot of his effectiveness is in over-powering college guys.  He'd be a relatively undersized 5 in the league.  IMO, his work ethic will allow him to be a rotation player but with the way the game is going it's likely he'll struggle to guard at the next level.  And I can't see him bully-balling too many guys in the post.

Any decent coach would immediately put him in a situation of having to defend PnR.  Is he able to hold his own in that situation?  Not yet IMHO and I don't think we'd have time to wait/bet on it coming to him.

I hate Okafor but I'd rather trade for him who we at least know can score at the NBA level.  That's very much in question for Swanigan due, in part, to his limitations physically/athletically (it does matter).

[KB21]

One of the reasons tanking is a poor strategy is because teams in the lottery tend to take the guys who are athletic with perceived high upsides, and more often than not, those high athletic guys can't play and don't adapt well to being role players.  That's the reason teams picking high continue to pick high. 

 

 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, KB21 said:

One of the reasons tanking is a poor strategy is because teams in the lottery tend to take the guys who are athletic with perceived high upsides, and more often than not, those high athletic guys can't play and don't adapt well to being role players.  That's the reason teams picking high continue to pick high. 

 

 

Yeah, I agree somewhat.  It's a combination of several things.

To me, teams are tanking for the wrong guys.  Meaning, there ain't no Lebrons out there so why would you torpedo your whole organization for a guy who may/may not pan out?  We knew Lebron was Lebron when he was 15.  It's not a mystery.

Second, the act of tanking sends the wrong message organization-wide.  Think about what PHI's scouts do.  They probably spend 90% of their travel, time, etc. "scouting" like 5 guys.  Are they really working?  I get it, I'm sure they scout a lot of guys.  However, the organization is telling you that the future of the franchise is banking on that top pick.  "Ah, we'll just trade them late 1sts and/or 2nd rounders."  

On the other hand, scouts in places like UTA, SAS and other non-tankers, spend time looking beyond the MockNBADraft.com site lists.

[Lurker]

And taking the safe college guy is also how middling franchises stay middling. There is a point in time in which you have to gamble. Nothing against Swanigan, but he's a 5 or a liability in today's NBA and he's too short to be a starting 5... if it were to work out, he's a bench version of Nikola Jokic.

[KB21]

12 hours ago, Lurker said:

And taking the safe college guy is also how middling franchises stay middling. There is a point in time in which you have to gamble. Nothing against Swanigan, but he's a 5 or a liability in today's NBA and he's too short to be a starting 5... if it were to work out, he's a bench version of Nikola Jokic.

I can remember back in 2012 that there was this safe college guy I was touting for Atlanta that ended up going in the second round.  Much like Swanigan, that guy played with a high BBIQ and had great length.  His game was that of an all around game.  He was a tremendous leader and played well in the Big 10.  I was a strong proponent of drafting him in 2012.

 

That player was Draymond Green, who was considered to be another plodding, safe college guy coming out of Michigan State.

 

This is what I said about Green over at Peachtree Hoops in 2012:

http://www.peachtreehoops.com/2012/6/20/3098991/nba-draft-2012-draymond-green-hawks

Quote

They will definitely like some more than others. I don’t know that they will openly talk about who they like in this way though. I would love for this to be true. Draymond Green has many of the qualities this team desperately needs relative to his basketball IQ and leadership ability. He has three strong qualities that have a very high correlation relative to transferring from college to the pros. Those qualities are his rebounding (which is third among power forwards and first among small forwards), his passing ability (very high assists rate and assists per field goal attempt for his position), and his shooting ability (34-36% on threes).

When you break down his offensive game, about 53% of his offense is on two point shots. He has an excellent mid range game. About 20% comes from three point shots, and about 20% from free throws. So, overall, his offense is really spaced out.

I’m still in the process of evaluating these prospects for myself, and I am taking more of an analytical approach than a traditional scouting approach with these players. Right now, my two favorites are Draymond Green and Jae Crowder. I’m trying to study Royce White a little more as well. I have to admit that I am intrigued with a guy who leads his team in points, assists, rebounds, steals, and blocks while having a relatively low usage rate for a leading scorer. A couple of other guys on my list are Will Barton (best rebounding guard in the draft) and Jared Cunningham (good shooter with very high free throw rate).

Posted by KB21 on Jun 20, 2012 | 11:18 AM

There were people who said Draymond would be the next Luke Harangoty, and I've seen Swanigan compared to Tyler Hansbrough on here for some reason.

Let me put it this way though.  Caleb Swanigan will be a star in the NBA.  When he learns how to play defense at the NBA level, he will outplay probably every player that gets drafted in the lottery this year.

Swanigan will be a Draymond Green/Paul Millsap type, and those two players are the best two power forwards in the NBA. 

 

[Lurker]

Yeah....no. These are very bad comps. Draymond was already seen as an outstanding defender at Michigan State and I don't know as much about Millsap from college but what I do know is he wasn't seen as a liability on defense for the reasons that Swanigan was.

And you don't have "THE" Draymond without Steph and Klay anyway.

If you've read my prior posts, I too have said that I take a hard pass on Giles. But there is a point in time in which you can't just be taking the glue guys of the world with your top picks.

[KB21]

6 hours ago, Lurker said:

Yeah....no. These are very bad comps. Draymond was already seen as an outstanding defender at Michigan State and I don't know as much about Millsap from college but what I do know is he wasn't seen as a liability on defense for the reasons that Swanigan was.

And you don't have "THE" Draymond without Steph and Klay anyway.

If you've read my prior posts, I too have said that I take a hard pass on Giles. But there is a point in time in which you can't just be taking the glue guys of the world with your top picks.

Draymond actually came out of college with questionable defense.  Every draft write up on him questioned his speed and lateral agility.

http://www.nba.com/draft/2012/prospects/draymond-green/

Quote

Strengths:
*Stat sheet stuffer
*Skilled passer
*Excellent rebounder
*Can score in the post
*Good ball handler
*Can shoot the 3
*Great understanding of the game

Weaknesses:
*Who does he defend?
*Doesn’t have great lateral quickness

Quote

NBA projection:
Green has been projected as a late first-round pick. The consensus is that Green won’t be able to guard either forward position because true small forwards will be quicker and true power forwards taller and able to post him and shoot over him. But he’s got an arsenal of skills, including passing, rebounding and the ability to knock down the 3-pointer that can make him valuable.

You are going to keep missing on these types of players if you continue to fall for the eye candy and fools gold of the so call high upside freshmen.

[Guest]

Draymond is an exception and, as @Lurker said, is only made by the presence of Curry and Thompson.  I'm rooting for the day when Draymond is put on a team where he has to fend for himself just so people can see how overrated he is and how dependent he is on the teammates he has and the system in which he plays.

If you want to look for the next "Draymond", you do so in the 2nd round at the earliest.  Or you trade for a guy like the Nance guy from LAL and develop your own "Draymond".  You cannot take a 1st round pick and expect the exception to work out again.