Sam Dekker comparisons

[Tr1boy]

6'9 , 220 pounds, 6'10 wingspan.  Pretty good quickness, athleticism.   Crafty around the basket with improved jumpshot/shot creation ability this season. Versatile defender. So far this tourney, clutch

Does he compare to Gordon Hayward? Chandler Parsons? Some have said a more mobile Keith Van Horne.

Could be available by 13-16

vs Kentucky final four. Last moments of the game
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB9bYKVCzOw

vs Arizona elite 8. Last moments of the game
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVWwFTLyrSg
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-jfJSFInqE

[Eddie20]

Yeah, I think I'm the only one that made the Van Horn comparison and I think it's the player that he reminds me the most of. Size (both considered very big for the SF spot), athletic ability, ability to handle the ball, shooting range, versatility, and even little things like being a bit upright/stiff in the hips,

This was Van Horn at roughly the same age...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l98UCldvPU0

And then in the league, with good video on his underrated athletic ability

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fqoWAuhBF8

[Tr1boy]

Yeah, I think I'm the only one that made the Van Horn comparison and I think it's the player that he reminds me the most of. Size (both considered very big for the SF spot), athletic ability, ability to handle the ball, shooting range, versatility, and even little things like being a bit upright/stiff in the hips,

This was Van Horn at roughly the same age...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l98UCldvPU0

So you be good if the Celts picked him at 13-16?

[Eddie20]

Yeah, I think I'm the only one that made the Van Horn comparison and I think it's the player that he reminds me the most of. Size (both considered very big for the SF spot), athletic ability, ability to handle the ball, shooting range, versatility, and even little things like being a bit upright/stiff in the hips,

This was Van Horn at roughly the same age...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l98UCldvPU0

So you be good if the Celts picked him at 13-16?

At that range, yeah. I like 11 guys better, in terms of upside, but I do like him over someone like Looney even though Looney is ranked higher.

[oldutican]

to other white players? 

[Yoki_IsTheName]

Yeah, I think I'm the only one that made the Van Horn comparison and I think it's the player that he reminds me the most of. Size (both considered very big for the SF spot), athletic ability, ability to handle the ball, shooting range, versatility, and even little things like being a bit upright/stiff in the hips,

This was Van Horn at roughly the same age...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l98UCldvPU0

So you be good if the Celts picked him at 13-16?

At that range, yeah. I like 11 guys better, in terms of upside, but I do like him over someone like Looney even though Looney is ranked higher.

Count me in on it. If we're getting a Kieth Van Horn player at that range, I call it a good day. Is it weird that I see a little Caron Butler on him? Can shoot, attack, solid athlete, doesn't shy away from physicality. He probably won't be an all star like Butler, but I see the same qualities.

[Tr1boy]

His defense is very impressive. Moves his feet laterally as good as smart/crowder. Click the link below. It wont work from this site

youtu.be/fWIJqJ2SAVs

[Boris Badenov]

Van Horn was on another level as a college player. He was bigger and stronger than Dekker, and just as athletic (if not more). Much better at taking the ball to the basket.

I mean, Dekker is having a decent year but until recently he was a late first round pick in a decent draft. He might end up going in the 10-15 range though that's nowhere a given.

Van Horn was the #2 pick behind only Duncan in the same draft that yielded Billups, McGrady etc. Injuries slowed him down but he was a 20ppg scorer from his first day in the NBA. If GMs thought Dekker was that good he'd be a lock for the top 5.

Let's not let the projections run too far ahead of reality. It's just setting up for disappointment.

[Celts Fan 508]

A few places I read they compare Dekker to Sean Elliott and I really like that comparison. 

[Eddie20]

Van Horn was on another level as a college player. He was bigger and stronger than Dekker, and just as athletic (if not more). Much better at taking the ball to the basket.

I mean, Dekker is having a decent year but until recently he was a late first round pick in a decent draft. He might end up going in the 10-15 range though that's nowhere a given.

Van Horn was the #2 pick behind only Duncan in the same draft that yielded Billups, McGrady etc. Injuries slowed him down but he was a 20ppg scorer from his first day in the NBA. If GMs thought Dekker was that good he'd be a lock for the top 5.

Let's not let the projections run too far ahead of reality. It's just setting up for disappointment.

On the flipdside, that draft wasn't very strong. Billups as the #3 is a perfect example of how weak that draft was. This has nothing to do with what he produced at the NBA level, but given his athletic ability and what he actually accomplished in college I don't think there is anyway he gets picked in, say the top 7, of this draft. Mercer was our pick at 6th if memory serves me. If he were in this draft he might not be a lottery pick.

[Celts Fan 508]

Van Horn was on another level as a college player. He was bigger and stronger than Dekker, and just as athletic (if not more). Much better at taking the ball to the basket.

I mean, Dekker is having a decent year but until recently he was a late first round pick in a decent draft. He might end up going in the 10-15 range though that's nowhere a given.

Van Horn was the #2 pick behind only Duncan in the same draft that yielded Billups, McGrady etc. Injuries slowed him down but he was a 20ppg scorer from his first day in the NBA. If GMs thought Dekker was that good he'd be a lock for the top 5.

Let's not let the projections run too far ahead of reality. It's just setting up for disappointment.

On the flipdside, that draft wasn't very strong. Billups as the #3 is a perfect example of how weak that draft was. This has nothing to do with what he produced at the NBA level, but given his athletic ability and what he actually accomplished in college I don't think there is anyway he gets picked in, say the top 7, of this draft. Mercer was our pick at 6th if memory serves me. If he were in this draft he might not be a lottery pick.

That might be one of the worst drafts, only 3 All-Stars out of the whole draft.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_NBA_draft

[Tr1boy]

Van Horn was on another level as a college player. He was bigger and stronger than Dekker, and just as athletic (if not more). Much better at taking the ball to the basket.

I mean, Dekker is having a decent year but until recently he was a late first round pick in a decent draft. He might end up going in the 10-15 range though that's nowhere a given.

Van Horn was the #2 pick behind only Duncan in the same draft that yielded Billups, McGrady etc. Injuries slowed him down but he was a 20ppg scorer from his first day in the NBA. If GMs thought Dekker was that good he'd be a lock for the top 5.

Let's not let the projections run too far ahead of reality. It's just setting up for disappointment.

Van horne was not worthy of being picked number 2.

He was a tweener in the worse way. Dekker is a sf able to play some pf. Better defender  also

[footey]

Van Horn was on another level as a college player. He was bigger and stronger than Dekker, and just as athletic (if not more). Much better at taking the ball to the basket.

I mean, Dekker is having a decent year but until recently he was a late first round pick in a decent draft. He might end up going in the 10-15 range though that's nowhere a given.

Van Horn was the #2 pick behind only Duncan in the same draft that yielded Billups, McGrady etc. Injuries slowed him down but he was a 20ppg scorer from his first day in the NBA. If GMs thought Dekker was that good he'd be a lock for the top 5.

Let's not let the projections run too far ahead of reality. It's just setting up for disappointment.

Van horne was not worthy of being picked number 2.

He was a tweener in the worse way. Dekker is a sf able to play some pf. Better defender  also

You are wrong. He was the consensus no.2 pick in the draft. He was a great college player, with length, shooting skill.  Just did not do well as a pro.  But he certainly was worthy at the time of being 2nd pick.

[Boris Badenov]

Van Horn was on another level as a college player. He was bigger and stronger than Dekker, and just as athletic (if not more). Much better at taking the ball to the basket.

I mean, Dekker is having a decent year but until recently he was a late first round pick in a decent draft. He might end up going in the 10-15 range though that's nowhere a given.

Van Horn was the #2 pick behind only Duncan in the same draft that yielded Billups, McGrady etc. Injuries slowed him down but he was a 20ppg scorer from his first day in the NBA. If GMs thought Dekker was that good he'd be a lock for the top 5.

Let's not let the projections run too far ahead of reality. It's just setting up for disappointment.

On the flipdside, that draft wasn't very strong. Billups as the #3 is a perfect example of how weak that draft was. This has nothing to do with what he produced at the NBA level, but given his athletic ability and what he actually accomplished in college I don't think there is anyway he gets picked in, say the top 7, of this draft. Mercer was our pick at 6th if memory serves me. If he were in this draft he might not be a lottery pick.

Well, that draft isn't viewed as very strong after the fact because a couple of the top picks (Van Horn, Mercer) had careers shortened by injury. Do you have any evidence that it was viewed as weak at the time?

Van Horn was 1st team All American, ESPN's College Player of the Year and had scored 20+ ppg at the college level for three straight seasons. Every other player who was on that 1st team went in the top 10 of the draft, including Mercer who was also viewed as a very good prospect.

Van Horn was viewed as a possible multiple All-Star selection and franchise cornerstone. Here's the only mock draft I could find online:

Keith Van Horn has great size to be an NBA small forward (6'9", 230 lbs.)
and the rebounding and shot blocking skills to give some time at the 4 spot.
Many have drawn comparisons to Larry Bird. I don't feel he's as talented as
Bird was but he definitely has the potential. His all around game would be a
valuable asset to any team. He has proven in his four years at Utah that he
is a great leader by taking them to the NCAA' tournament four times. I feel
that if Tim Duncan were not in this draft that he would be the first one
selected and even though Duncan is don't look for him to go any lower than 2
or 3

After the Sixers traded his rights (for the #7 pick and other assets):

``You never want to give up a franchise player. When you think a guy is going to be one of the top 10 players in the league, then you want to keep him. Van Horn is probably that, but I think we might have gotten one, too.''

I don't see anyone saying similar things about Dekker, who's not even the best prospect on his own team according to most analysts.

[Eddie20]

Van Horn was on another level as a college player. He was bigger and stronger than Dekker, and just as athletic (if not more). Much better at taking the ball to the basket.

I mean, Dekker is having a decent year but until recently he was a late first round pick in a decent draft. He might end up going in the 10-15 range though that's nowhere a given.

Van Horn was the #2 pick behind only Duncan in the same draft that yielded Billups, McGrady etc. Injuries slowed him down but he was a 20ppg scorer from his first day in the NBA. If GMs thought Dekker was that good he'd be a lock for the top 5.

Let's not let the projections run too far ahead of reality. It's just setting up for disappointment.

On the flipdside, that draft wasn't very strong. Billups as the #3 is a perfect example of how weak that draft was. This has nothing to do with what he produced at the NBA level, but given his athletic ability and what he actually accomplished in college I don't think there is anyway he gets picked in, say the top 7, of this draft. Mercer was our pick at 6th if memory serves me. If he were in this draft he might not be a lottery pick.

Well, that draft isn't viewed as very strong after the fact because a couple of the top picks (Van Horn, Mercer) had careers shortened by injury. Do you have any evidence that it was viewed as weak at the time?

Van Horn was 1st team All American, ESPN's College Player of the Year and had scored 20+ ppg at the college level for three straight seasons. Every other player who was on that 1st team went in the top 10 of the draft, including Mercer who was also viewed as a very good prospect.

Van Horn was viewed as a possible multiple All-Star selection and franchise cornerstone. Here's the only mock draft I could find online:

Keith Van Horn has great size to be an NBA small forward (6'9", 230 lbs.)
and the rebounding and shot blocking skills to give some time at the 4 spot.
Many have drawn comparisons to Larry Bird. I don't feel he's as talented as
Bird was but he definitely has the potential. His all around game would be a
valuable asset to any team. He has proven in his four years at Utah that he
is a great leader by taking them to the NCAA' tournament four times. I feel
that if Tim Duncan were not in this draft that he would be the first one
selected and even though Duncan is don't look for him to go any lower than 2
or 3

After the Sixers traded his rights (for the #7 pick and other assets):

``You never want to give up a franchise player. When you think a guy is going to be one of the top 10 players in the league, then you want to keep him. Van Horn is probably that, but I think we might have gotten one, too.''

I don't see anyone saying similar things about Dekker, who's not even the best prospect on his own team according to most analysts.

That draft was considered weak. Duncan was clearly the prize and Van Horn was #2. However, Van Horn being labeled the clear cut #2 had as much to do with his skill as it did with the lack of overall talent of the other players in the draft. This doesn't mean Van Horn was a bad player, quite the contrary. There were concerns though as to what position he would play. People felt he would be like Detlef Schrempf, playing both forward sports. There were also concerns though as to what position he could defend. Was he big enough to handle 4's? Quick enough to handle 3's? There were also questions as to his toughness. That said, he would of have been a fine consolation prize had we not gotten Duncan. The moment we didn't get a top 2 pick we were left scrambling. That speaks to the known lack of quality that draft had beforehand.