Jon Scheyer - NBA player?

[hq2]

I think it's about time for folks to kick this around some? So, is he? I think
on first examination, my guess is he wouldn't be, but......

Let us examine the career of one Jim Spanarkel, a very similar player, who in fact had a decent (several year) NBA career (greatly aided by the fact that he played for an expansion team.) Both were 6-5, a little slow (although in my book, Scheyer may actually be quicker) and both were very, very smart court players who knew how to use their smarts to figure out how to be better than their physical talents allowed. In my opinion, Scheyer is a better shooter; nicer touch, better arc, a little better range. On the other hand, Spanarkel was not only smart, but also was raised on Jersey City streetball,
so he developed all sorts of ways to score and get to the free throw line; he
was unafraid to go right to the bucket and take the contact, which helped him a lot in the NBA.

So, will Scheyer make it? Who knows! I'd say on the right team he could do it.
What's not to like about a good off the bench player who can come in, shoot threes, handle the ball well, and (hopefully) play decent defense. He certainly would be an ideal role player; he'll know his limits, and will work hard to help the players around him. So, I say, somewhere there's a roster spot for him (hey, there was for Shavlik Randolph, and still is for Brian Scalabrine!) I'd say he's a mid to late second rounder, and finally sticks somewhere. What do people think?

[Huh?]

Utah Jazz with the 51st pick.

[jv001]

I think it's about time for folks to kick this around some? So, is he? I think
on first examination, my guess is he wouldn't be, but......

Let us examine the career of one Jim Spanarkel, a very similar player, who in fact had a decent (several year) NBA career (greatly aided by the fact that he played for an expansion team.) Both were 6-5, a little slow (although in my book, Scheyer may actually be quicker) and both were very, very smart court players who knew how to use their smarts to figure out how to be better than their physical talents allowed. In my opinion, Scheyer is a better shooter; nicer touch, better arc, a little better range. On the other hand, Spanarkel was not only smart, but also was raised on Jersey City streetball,
so he developed all sorts of ways to score and get to the free throw line; he
was unafraid to go right to the bucket and take the contact, which helped him a lot in the NBA.

So, will Scheyer make it? Who knows! I'd say on the right team he could do it.
What's not to like about a good off the bench player who can come in, shoot threes, handle the ball well, and (hopefully) play decent defense. He certainly would be an ideal role player; he'll know his limits, and will work hard to help the players around him. So, I say, somewhere there's a roster spot for him (hey, there was for Shavlik Randolph, and still is for Brian Scalabrine!) I'd say he's a mid to late second rounder, and finally sticks somewhere. What do people think?

I think Jon may be a little better player than Jim. He is a little quicker and faster. Your point of who would not want someone who can come off the bench shoot well, handle the ball and play decent defense has a place on the right team. but that's always the key, the right team. I like his chances over such players as Daniel Ewing and DeMarc. I know they are not playing now, but they did make the roster of some teams. Jon has made a believer out of me. Go Duke!

[MChambers]

I think it's about time for folks to kick this around some? So, is he? I think
on first examination, my guess is he wouldn't be, but......

Let us examine the career of one Jim Spanarkel, a very similar player, who in fact had a decent (several year) NBA career (greatly aided by the fact that he played for an expansion team.) Both were 6-5, a little slow (although in my book, Scheyer may actually be quicker) and both were very, very smart court players who knew how to use their smarts to figure out how to be better than their physical talents allowed. In my opinion, Scheyer is a better shooter; nicer touch, better arc, a little better range. On the other hand, Spanarkel was not only smart, but also was raised on Jersey City streetball,
so he developed all sorts of ways to score and get to the free throw line; he
was unafraid to go right to the bucket and take the contact, which helped him a lot in the NBA.

So, will Scheyer make it? Who knows! I'd say on the right team he could do it.
What's not to like about a good off the bench player who can come in, shoot threes, handle the ball well, and (hopefully) play decent defense. He certainly would be an ideal role player; he'll know his limits, and will work hard to help the players around him. So, I say, somewhere there's a roster spot for him (hey, there was for Shavlik Randolph, and still is for Brian Scalabrine!) I'd say he's a mid to late second rounder, and finally sticks somewhere. What do people think?

I agree. I'd say Spanarkel was a little more physical than John. In fact, I think I know that Spanarkel ended up playing small forward for the Mavericks in their initial years.

I think John will have a long NBA career, much like Steve Kerr. He's not the shooter Kerr was, but if anything he's a better ballhandler (tho Kerr was good) and defender. I'm not saying he'll be a star, or even a starter, but he'll do fine.

[SupaDave]

I'm just glad Jon going pro is a legitimate topic now.

[Lord Ash]

To be honest, I have felt it was a legit topic since Jon's first year, where he showed poise, the ability to score and shoot, and almost most importantly always seemed to have a "nose" for the ball and being in the right place... I was always disappointed that he was a bit overlooked, presumably because he does not fit the traditional "NBA mold."

[monkey]

Much as I like Jon, not sure I see it as of yet. The problem is he doesn't do any one thing at a superstar level IMO. Someone mentioned Kerr - but Kerr's special talent was his shooting - that's what kept him in the league. Scheyer is a very good shooter, but not as good as Kerr - or for that matter, I think, Trajan Langdon, who was in the NBA for only a short while before moving on to Moscow.

[ChicagoCrazy84]

Much as I like Jon, not sure I see it as of yet. The problem is he doesn't do any one thing at a superstar level IMO. Someone mentioned Kerr - but Kerr's special talent was his shooting - that's what kept him in the league. Scheyer is a very good shooter, but not as good as Kerr - or for that matter, I think, Trajan Langdon, who was in the NBA for only a short while before moving on to Moscow.


In Trajan's defense, I think he would've been in the NBA for a long time if it had not been for tearing his knee up pretty bad. Also, he probably could've come back, but he's had a good thing going in Moscow, I don't think he's ever really tried to come back.
Scheyer will be an NBA player, I have no doubt. He may not be a 1st round pick, but his PG skills and 6'5 frame make him an appealing prospect. If he bulked up a little more, that would help. Redick has bulked up pretty good the last couple years and that has helped his D.

[Saratoga2]

My spelling may be off, but I go back a long time to the old Celtics teams. John was the same size, but maybe a bit heavier than Scheyer, not a lot. He always was moving and never seemed to tire. John was not really the greatest shooter, not bad but not great either. Would he make today's league? I think so.

Then there was Danny Ainge, again, another Celtic. He also was 6'5" and not exactly rugged, but he was a good ball handler, tenacious defender and had a decent shot. He really was a pugnatious player. Would he make the league today? Probably?

Both were smart and both similar to Scheyer in many ways. At the time they played both were considered excellent and started on championship teams. Maybe the game has changed a lot where quickness and athletic ability trump all, but I think there is still room for a player like Scheyer.

You can see the superstars in college ball today and clearly they will be chosen first as will some of the better foreign products, so Jon will probably have to wait for the second round, that is if he wants to play in the league.

[brlftz]

the comparison i always make is jeff hornacek. excellent shooters that always make the right play, and are more athletic than you think. the utah prediction is a good one imo.

[TampaDuke]

I wouldn't count Jon out, but I'm not so sure that comparisons to Spanarkel or even Kerr count for much. Heck, IMO, it's not even a given that Kerr would be able to secure a long-term spot on an NBA team these days. The NBA has changed, even over the past 10 years. Is there a current player to whom Jon is similar? I can't think of a good example off the top of my head, but those are the types of players that I'd compare him with.

Seems to me that another potential issue with him latching on to a team is the fact that he's probably not going to be viewed as having a large upside. He'll continue to improve incrementally, but my guess is the perception of him is -- what you see today is what you'll get over the long term. NBA teams have demonstrated over and over again that they'll take a flier on an unproven player with "upside" rather than a player they view as topping out as only a role player without the prospect of developing into something more. IMO, there's no doubt he'll get looks as a free agent, summer leaguer and maybe even a second rounder (although I'm certainly hoping for more), but he's not likely to have much time to seize a roster spot.

Regardless, if Jon has the desire to play professional basketball, I have no doubt that he can have a long and successful career overseas if the NBA doesn't offer him a decent chance (a la Trajan).

Whether NBA GMs appreciate his talents or not, I'm just happy we have him on our team for this year!

[CameronCrazy'11]

I've always thought that Jon would make money playing basketball, but now I'm pretty sure he'll get to the NBA. He's an extremely steady player who will never hurt his team. I'm not sure whether or not he'll be a regular contributor, but I wouldn't bet against him.

[blueprofessor]

No offense to Jon, who is having a very nice year, but Spanarkel was a great player and all-America in 1978 as well. Jon has never made a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd team all-ACC. He has never been an honorable mention all-ACC.

Spanarkel was 2nd team all-ACC as a soph, 1st team as a junior and senior,and 1st team UPI all-America as a senior.
He became the 1st 2,000 point scorer in Duke history. He scored 2,012 points,had 454 rebounds , 253 steals and 399 assists, shot 52.7% from the floor and 80.6% from the free throw line. He was an excellent defender and was team MVP 3 times (Banks and G-man were teammates).
When he left the school, he was Duke's all-time career leader in points, steals, and assists.
Banks: "Spanarkel was the best leader I've ever encountered."
He averaged 19.2 (3rd in ACC), 20.8 (3rd in ACC), and 15.9 ppg in his last 3 seasons,as well as about 4 assists and 4 rebounds per game for his career.

In the pros he shot 47% and averaged 14.4 and 10.1 ppg in his 2 best years.

Best regards--Blueprofessor:)

[Greg_Newton]

Much as I like Jon, not sure I see it as of yet. The problem is he doesn't do any one thing at a superstar level IMO. Someone mentioned Kerr - but Kerr's special talent was his shooting - that's what kept him in the league. Scheyer is a very good shooter, but not as good as Kerr - or for that matter, I think, Trajan Langdon, who was in the NBA for only a short while before moving on to Moscow.

What's the saying though... to stick in the NBA, you either have to do one thing exceptionally well or a lot of things very well? I think Jon fits the latter description.

Agreed that the 80s/90s player comparisons don't mean much... but neither does the fact that Jon's never made any All-ACC teams. He's currently the frontrunner for ACC POY and in the All-American conversation. If his play drastically falls off from here out, then obviously the conversation changes, but going on what we know as of now...

I think the best current blueprint for him is JJ Redick. JJ is a better shooter, yes, but he's currently sticking in the league for his all-around play rather than his shooting. I think Jon has the potential to play the role Redick plays maybe even better than Redick does, because he sees the game at such an advanced level and can play point guard on offense. If he keeps up his current level of play he'll get a shot, and IMO whether he works as hard as Redick has to stay in the peak physical shape necessary to play NBA defense will determine whether he is successful or not.

It's easy to look at Jon's various attributes separately and say that he doesn't look add up to a pro prospect. However, measurements and statistics aside, he is just a better basketball player right now than most other prospects. Take Matt Bouldin, for example, who was projected a few spots higher than Jon in the mock. His concussion probably had something to do with how he looked Saturday, but he wasn't even in the same stratosphere as Jon. Same with Dyson in the UConn game, to a lesser extent.

He's got that same "it" quality that made Stephen Curry a lotto pick, he just doesn't look as cool...

[BlueintheFace]

Love him, think he might end up one of the most underrated Duke players in history, incredibly smart, probable asset to any NBA team, might even be an all-american/NPOY candidate by year's end...... but I don't trust NBA GMs to take him. If he ends up 1st or 2nd team All-American he should be drafted... if not, I have my doubts.

[Houston]

Jon definitely will be making money playing basketball. Hopefully, it will be in the NBA. Jon's prospects in the big boy league are a function of the team that drafts him. I would love to see him in Boston!

[Tim1515]

After reading the Battier article posted on here a few days ago, i could see the Rockets drafting him in the second round or at least give him a shot after the draft. Jon is putting up good numbers and not making mistakes offensively and defensively. The fact that Battier plays for Duke and is a major focus of the rockets new approach to determining player value...i honestly believe they'll take a look at Scheyer to see if he can handle playing point in the nba.

[Wildcat]

I think he will make his money at the next level come ACC and March play. That will be a good litmus test to see if he has the toughness, strength, desire and character/leadership and the much needed confidence to play at another level. Steve Blake the former Maryland point was a nice player who reminds me of Jon some; but Blake may have been a little quicker and reckless in a good way. Jons a cerebral fundamental player that could to develop some vocal leadership skills and court character to catipult himself to the next level.

On the other hand; I do believe he can play at the next level. He has the court saavy, timeless fundamentals, smarts and character/desire to help a TEAM succeed. I like the guy myself; admit I was hard on him throughout his career at times, but based on what I see of him, he is a humble, respectful and high character guy. Someone will value what he brings to the court; but don't sleep Jon may be a little tougher, stronger and better than what we've seen of him so far. He just needs some individual coaching and moat to bring it out of him.

[uh_no]

meh

he's too alarmingly nonathletic

[weezie]

I love you guyz.

If Jon doesn't end up getting drafted or playing in Europe, he ends up a coach.

I just hope this old weez has a change to see it happen.

[Ima Facultiwyfe]

I'm looking forward to seeing him in his zooty suit sitting next to K someday really soon.
Love, Ima

[Jumbo]

I think it's about time for folks to kick this around some?

Actually, this has been something we've been kicking around since Scheyer was a freshman. My feelings on the subject are well known. At this point, all I want to say is that I just sincerely hope everything works out as well as I've thought it would and that he continues playing at this level all season. Scheyer is a terrific player and it doesn't matter if most teams don't think he fits their mold as long as a couple do (or even one does, for that matter). And while it's understandable that we would look to existing players as a proxy/comparison, I feel like that pigeonholes any player, including Scheyer. Finally, I just wish every comparison wasn't to another white player.

[Underdog5]

I'm biased since Jon has been my favorite current player since he was in highschool but I actually think he is this teams best pro prospect.

[Kedsy]

I'm biased since Jon has been my favorite current player since he was in highschool but I actually think he is this teams best pro prospect.

What do you mean, "best" pro prospect? He's not going to be drafted the highest, he's not the most likely to start in the NBA, and he's not likely to play the most minutes in the League or have the longest pro career.

That said, I've been opining for some time now that I think Jon can make an NBA roster, and to me at least that will be quite an accomplishment, in and of itself.

[Underdog5]

If I was a GM and had to take a player from this team he'd be my first pick in a heart beat. Clearly the rest of the world is higher on Kyle and I'm hoping Mason eventually turns out to be better than both. But given Jon's contribution to this team relative to everyone else on it, he'd be my pick.

[Troublemaker]

I think many NBA coaches wouldn't mind having on the bench a 6'5" point guard that can run the offense, see over the defense, and make the right pass. You either want to be tall or athletic in that league, and Jon's height is a big positive that can make up for any athletic limitations. But only if he can hit the NBA 3 at a good rate on kickouts and ball reversals. Jon's not JJ. He's always been a very different type of player, more of a playmaker than a pure long distance shooter, and I wouldn't be surprised if the extra three feet of distance that the pros use impacts his 3-pt shooting percentage dramatically. I also wouldn't be surprised if there's no impact at all, but I'm saying it's not a given that he'll be a deadeye long distance shooter in the pros. And if he can't hit the NBA 3 coming out of college, would an NBA team afford him the opporunity to gradually increase his range over the lifetime of a contract, given that he's a tall PG with excellent intangibles for the position? I hope so.

[Kedsy]

I think many NBA coaches wouldn't mind having on the bench a 6'5" point guard that can run the offense, see over the defense, and make the right pass. You either want to be tall or athletic in that league, and Jon's height is a big positive that can make up for any athletic limitations. But only if he can hit the NBA 3 at a good rate on kickouts and ball reversals. Jon's not JJ. He's always been a very different type of player, more of a playmaker than a pure long distance shooter, and I wouldn't be surprised if the extra three feet of distance that the pros use impacts his 3-pt shooting percentage dramatically. I also wouldn't be surprised if there's no impact at all, but I'm saying it's not a given that he'll be a deadeye long distance shooter in the pros. And if he can't hit the NBA 3 coming out of college, would an NBA team afford him the opporunity to gradually increase his range over the lifetime of a contract, given that he's a tall PG with excellent intangibles for the position? I hope so.

I think as a PG, the questions about Jon would be whether he could defend NBA PGs, which is why he'll probably have to be drafted as a combo guard or a shooter. And for those positions his size is decent but not outstanding. I agree with you that it's hard to predict how his shot will translate to the longer distance, because of that funny spin he seems to have. I still expect him to go in the second round and make a team, though.

[duke09hms]

If I was a GM and had to take a player from this team he'd be my first pick in a heart beat. Clearly the rest of the world is higher on Kyle and I'm hoping Mason eventually turns out to be better than both. But given Jon's contribution to this team relative to everyone else on it, he'd be my pick.

perhaps that is why the GMs are who they are

[SMO]

Finally, I just wish every comparison wasn't to another white player.

Is that because you think we're making those comparisons based on stereotypes or because you wish there were a better comparison to Jon of another race? Personally, I can't think of a good proxy for Jon of another race but I don't consider that a bad thing. A lot of the comparisons mentioned are/were really good players.

[brevity]

Finally, I just wish every comparison wasn't to another white player.


Is that because you think we're making those comparisons based on stereotypes or because you wish there were a better comparison to Jon of another race? Personally, I can't think of a good proxy for Jon of another race but I don't consider that a bad thing. A lot of the comparisons mentioned are/were really good players.

I share Jumbo's frustration. Even well-considered arguments that compare one white player to another can come across as lazy, or worse. So I'll say this: I can't immediately think of any NBA player, of any race, that looks like a reliable predictor of Jon Scheyer's career trajectory.

Also consider that after last year's mass run at PGs, many teams aren't looking to fill that position, at least with a high draft pick. Which is bad news for first round prospects, but maybe good news for a second rounder.

[SMO]

I share Jumbo's frustration. Even well-considered arguments that compare one white player to another can come across as lazy, or worse.

If they're well-considered arguments let's not brand them something they are not. Fair enough? There are plenty of poorly reasoned arguments on the board to criticize!

[davekay1971]

Their games and skill sets are different, but Jon reminds me of Shane. IMHO, the two smartest basketball players I've seen in a long, long time. They both significantly raise their value on the basketball court by their incredible understanding of the game, of their place on the court, of the action around them, of time, situation, etc. Jon has the skills to be an NBA player, and may repeat Shane's NBA success by, like Shane, always being the smartest guy on the court.

Except, of course, when he plays against Shane. Then the two can set up a chess table in the center jump circle or something...

[SupaDave]

After reading the Battier article posted on here a few days ago, i could see the Rockets drafting him in the second round or at least give him a shot after the draft. Jon is putting up good numbers and not making mistakes offensively and defensively. The fact that Battier plays for Duke and is a major focus of the rockets new approach to determining player value...i honestly believe they'll take a look at Scheyer to see if he can handle playing point in the nba.

Good point. They did aquire John Lucas' son who I think Jon could pretty much handle.

[UrinalCake]

This may sound a little crazy but I've always compared him to Mike Dunleavy - good height for his position, not out-of-this world athletic but smart as hell, great instincts, and really versatile. I think whether he sticks in the league will be hugely dependent on what team he goes to and what opportunities he is given. Not all teams will recognize the assets that he brings to the table.

[Billy Dat]

Aside from the supremely gifted players, it is very hard to predict who will make an NBA roster and who will not.

Jumbo makes perhaps the most important point, all Jon needs is one team to see value in him to either draft him or bring him into camp. The rest will be up to him and he'll need a good deal of luck, too.

Despite the lazy negative press about Duke players in the NBA, I think the current crop is proving that players forged in the K fire pit tend to have the fire in the belly necessary to do what needs to be done to make themselves relevant. That begins with the hard work of creating an NBA body (something Scheyer will have to do) and relentlessly working on your game to acentuate whichever skills are going to make you stick. I think that JJ, Shelden, Dahntay and Duhon are all good examples of this concept (Shav, too, when he was still in the league). I think NBA coaches and GMs want Kryzyzewski-coached players because they know they are fundamentally sound, hard workers, and generally low maintainence.

In an attempt to compare him to a non-white player - how about Stanford grad, Atlanta Hawk alum and current Olympiakos player, Josh Childress?

Childress is taller, with a longer wingspan, and was a much more coveted NBA prospect, but this 2 year old scouting report on him sounds a lot like Scheyer, "A long, lanky swingman with a solid all-around skill set. Does not excel in any one particular aspect of the game. Possesses solid athleticism, but his great work-ethic and feel for the game makes this less conspicuous. Has put on some weight since coming into the League. Remains very skinny, which makes him a bit injury prone. Owns a huge wingspan. Displays high-character off the floor, something that became very clear during his collegiate career with the Stanford Cardinals. Inability to add significant bulk has limited his durability and effectiveness around the rim. Versatility, smarts and finesse make him a valuable asset."

[DukieInBrasil]

I've thought that Jon could be an NBA player since his So. year. His career could very much be like that of Kirk Hinrich of the Bulls. Hinrich was not more prolific at Kansas than Jon is this year. Hinrich has also enjoyed a multi-year career, was a starter for several years and still gets regular minutes. Hinrich played PG for the bulls even alongside Duhon. I think that they are a good comparison even though i think Scheyer is the better player and better suited to play PG or 2G in the NBA.

[Jumbo]

If they're well-considered arguments let's not brand them something they are not. Fair enough? There are plenty of poorly reasoned arguments on the board to criticize!

I don't think anyone's "branding them as something they are not" I agree with brevity that it is, if not lazy, simplistic to compare Scheyer to white players. I also don't agree that they're particularly well thought out. Steve Kerr? No way. Kerr was an incredible shooter -- Scheyer is nowhere close to that level. But Scheyer is bigger, twice the defender, a better ball-handler, passer, rebounder, etc. I don't see much in common with them. Same thing with Redick. He's another guy who is a pure spot-up shooter in the NBA. We're all Duke fans here, and we could tell from Day 1 that Scheyer's game was quite different from J.J.'s. If I had to go with a default white guy to compare Scheyer to, it might be Brent Barry later in his career (when he no longer had the hops to dunk from just inside the FT line). He was a good shooter but not picture perfect, played the 2 at the same height as Jon but handled well enough to function as a de facto PG in a pinch, defended well, made his teammates better. But even that comparison is off.

I don't see a perfect proxy for Scheyer in the NBA right now, which is fine. In an odd way, he is somewhat similar to Juan Dixon. Maybe a bit of Delonte West. But there are weaknesses in both those comparisons, too.

I don't think it's necessary to find the the ideal match for Jon with a current player. It's much more important that someone simply sees a well-rounded player who can be a successful SG off the bench with the ability to initiate the offense as well, who can defend bigger, more "athletic" players (as he's shown in the past), who excels in wing denial, who is a crafty scorer with a good, but streaky jump shot, and wants that guy. That team also needs to recognize that the easiest skill to improve in the NBA is shooting, and that if Scheyer can go from a very good -- but inconsistent -- shooter to an outstanding one, all the other things he does very well will become that much more valuable.

[gumbomoop]

Their games and skill sets are different, but Jon reminds me of Shane. IMHO, the two smartest basketball players I've seen in a long, long time. They both significantly raise their value on the basketball court by their incredible understanding of the game, of their place on the court, of the action around them, of time, situation, etc. Jon has the skills to be an NBA player, and may repeat Shane's NBA success by, like Shane, always being the smartest guy on the court.

Amen, amen. On some other thread in last few weeks, a few of us have gingerly compared JS to SB. Davekay's specifics are spot on: smartest, value-added, understanding, place, action, time, situation. JS's computer brain/intuition is always calculating 3 or 4 things, on both O and D. I do sometimes wonder what a game would look like when, say, 4 or 5 of the guys on the court were doing this.

Truly, truly remarkable court sense; so much so, that JS gets ticked at himself when he fails to make the defensive play he wants. I'm convinced when he cusses [metaphorically] himself on such occasions, he's thinking: "How did I get that wrong?"

[devilboomer]

I've thought that Jon could be an NBA player since his So. year. His career could very much be like that of Kirk Hinrich of the Bulls. Hinrich was not more prolific at Kansas than Jon is this year. Hinrich has also enjoyed a multi-year career, was a starter for several years and still gets regular minutes. Hinrich played PG for the bulls even alongside Duhon. I think that they are a good comparison even though i think Scheyer is the better player and better suited to play PG or 2G in the NBA.

Hinrich is a very capable PG in the NBA. I think his speed and penetration skill are better than Scheyer's, but I agree that someone will give Scheyer a chance to play in the NBA. Luke Ridnour might be a better comparison than Hinrich, but I also think Ridnour is quicker than Jon.

At 6'4"-6'5", Jon will most likely have to play the PG position, as he lacks the pure athleticism (hops, quickness) to be an undersized 2G. If you want to be an undersized 2G in the league, you need to have crazy hops (Nate Robinson, Ben Gordon, Monta Ellis, Gerald Henderson) or be a lights-out shooter (Redick). Dunleavy succeeds b/c he possesses considerable size for a 2G and has deceptive athleticism.

Rockets would not be a bad idea. Who backs up Brooks?

[Jumbo]

Hinrich is a very capable PG in the NBA. I think his speed and penetration skill are better than Scheyer's, but I agree that someone will give Scheyer a chance to play in the NBA. Luke Ridnour might be a better comparison than Hinrich, but I also think Ridnour is quicker than Jon.

At 6'4"-6'5", Jon will most likely have to play the PG position, as he lacks the pure athleticism (hops, quickness) to be an undersized 2G. If you want to be an undersized 2G in the league, you need to have crazy hops (Nate Robinson, Ben Gordon, Monta Ellis, Gerald Henderson) or be a lights-out shooter (Redick). Dunleavy succeeds b/c he possesses considerable size for a 2G and has deceptive athleticism.

Rockets would not be a bad idea. Who backs up Brooks?

Scheyer is a legit 6'5", which is large enough to play the 2 in the NBA. Given his use of angles and success guarding bigger players in the past, I think teams will be pleasantly surprised with his ability to guard wings. The fact that he has some ability to play the 1 on offense enhances his value, but doesn't mean that will be his primary spot as a pro.

[devilboomer]

Scheyer is a legit 6'5", which is large enough to play the 2 in the NBA. Given his use of angles and success guarding bigger players in the past, I think teams will be pleasantly surprised with his ability to guard wings. The fact that he has some ability to play the 1 on offense enhances his value, but doesn't mean that will be his primary spot as a pro.

Of note, I was reading on one of the draft sites that while Scheyer has great size (6'5"), this is because his neck is unusually long. His wingspan is therefore considerably shorter than other prospects at 6'5".

ETA: Found some measurements during Jon's Sr. year of HS:

Jon Scheyer, Hgt: 6-4.25, Reach: 8-2.5, Wingspan: 6-4.25
Gerald Henderson, Hgt: 6-4, Reach: 8-6, Wingspan: 6-10.75

[nmduke2001]

The NBA is a completely different game than NCAA basketball. The NBA disproportionately values athleticism and “upside” during the draft. Every now and then you get a four year guy like Shane or Danny Granger who is drafted high but more often teams will go after players that still have room to improve. I don’t believe Scheyer has much more room to improve. What you see is what you get. Ultimately, I feel, that will hurt him.

I would offer the comparison of Corey Maggette and Chris Carrawell as proof of the NBAs differences to the NCAA. Chris was the ACC POY and 1st Team All-American his senior year. Chris had many of the same attributes that we currently use to describe Jon. Chris was drafted in second round by the Spurs, a team that values smart team-oriented players. Nonetheless, Chris was cut. Corey on the other hand averaged 10 points in 17 minutes a game as a freshman. He was selected 13th in the draft and has earned more than $48 million dollars and counting in the NBA. It would be hard to argue that Corey’s freshman year was more impressive than Chris’ senior campaign, but Corey has had NBA success while Chris did not. Corey’s athleticism and ability to score one-on-one has kept him in the league and I fear that Jon will face a fate much like that of Chris. Having said all of that, Steve Blake is still in the league, so who knows what the heck GMs are thinking. I hope Jon proves me wrong…

[sagegrouse]

The NBA is a completely different game than NCAA basketball. The NBA disproportionately values athleticism and “upside” during the draft. Every now and then you get a four year guy like Shane or Danny Granger who is drafted high but more often teams will go after players that still have room to improve. I don’t believe Scheyer has much more room to improve. What you see is what you get. Ultimately, I feel, that will hurt him.

…

Scheyer biggest upside is the ability to fill out his frame and some muscle, which will happen over the next few years.

sagegrouse

[SMO]

I don't think anyone's "branding them as something they are not"

I'm glad you think so. When I read that, "Even well-considered arguments that compare one white player to another can come across as lazy, or worse," I got the impression someone was implying that racism was involved in the comparisons, which seemed like quite a leap. I guess "or worse" meant something totally benign. I'm glad you clarified the original poster's statement and I'm sure he is too.

[SMO]

I also don't agree that they're particularly well thought out. Steve Kerr? No way. Kerr was an incredible shooter -- Scheyer is nowhere close to that level. But Scheyer is bigger, twice the defender, a better ball-handler, passer, rebounder, etc. I don't see much in common with them. Same thing with Redick. He's another guy who is a pure spot-up shooter in the NBA. We're all Duke fans here, and we could tell from Day 1 that Scheyer's game was quite different from J.J.'s. If I had to go with a default white guy to compare Scheyer to, it might be Brent Barry later in his career (when he no longer had the hops to dunk from just inside the FT line). He was a good shooter but not picture perfect, played the 2 at the same height as Jon but handled well enough to function as a de facto PG in a pinch, defended well, made his teammates better. But even that comparison is off.

I don't see a perfect proxy for Scheyer in the NBA right now, which is fine. In an odd way, he is somewhat similar to Juan Dixon. Maybe a bit of Delonte West. But there are weaknesses in both those comparisons, too.

I don't think it's necessary to find the the ideal match for Jon with a current player. It's much more important that someone simply sees a well-rounded player who can be a successful SG off the bench with the ability to initiate the offense as well, who can defend bigger, more "athletic" players (as he's shown in the past), who excels in wing denial, who is a crafty scorer with a good, but streaky jump shot, and wants that guy. That team also needs to recognize that the easiest skill to improve in the NBA is shooting, and that if Scheyer can go from a very good -- but inconsistent -- shooter to an outstanding one, all the other things he does very well will become that much more valuable.

Not sure if you're responding to my posts specifically, but you raise a good point that there are not a lot of good comparisons. When I agreed with the Kerr analogy it was more that Kerr was a long-time role player that clearly thought the game well and that's likely why he manages an NBA team today. I could see Scheyer going down a similar path, but their games are different. Same with the Redick comparison. He's like Redick minus the range but plus some other things. In short, they are not the same but Redick is a reference point everyone knows well. One poster even suggested Battier as a point of comparison which sounds silly on some levels, but he made a decent case showing some similarities.

On a side note, you obviously really like Scheyer and I'm a huge fan as well. Based on your responses and sensitivity/interest in all things Scheyer it sounds like you might be close to him. Do you know him personally?

[darthur]

The main problem as I see is that Scheyer would be regarded as too slow to play the 1, and not a prolific enough scorer to play the 2. He may prove some people wrong, but I am pretty sure this will be the main concern from the people that matter. NBA teams are usually more worried about finding go-to players than support players.

But if Scheyer can find a team that already has at least one good scoring and one good dribble penetration option already out there on the perimeter (e.g. a team with a dominant scoring point guard like a Chris Paul or a Jameer Nelson), Scheyer could in fact be excellent support. Guys like this do exist and do succeed in the NBA - Delonte West comes to mind - but I'm not sure how common they are.

[UrinalCake]

Of note, I was reading on one of the draft sites that while Scheyer has great size (6'5"), this is because his neck is unusually long. His wingspan is therefore considerably shorter than other prospects at 6'5".

Aha! I've always felt this to be true but felt weird bringing it up. Having a long neck does make for "wasted" height - not only is your wingspan smaller but your shoulders are lower, making it harder to shoot over people. Scheyer is like the anti-Brand, who has a really short neck and therefore plays much taller than he is.



Scheyer biggest upside is the ability to fill out his frame and some muscle, which will happen over the next few years.

I'm not so sure that bulking up would be to his advantage, as it may decrease his quickness and speed. I don't see him becoming a Deron Williams-type of big point guard who could outmuscle people.

[Jumbo]

Not sure if you're responding to my posts specifically, but you raise a good point that there are not a lot of good comparisons. When I agreed with the Kerr analogy it was more that Kerr was a long-time role player that clearly thought the game well and that's likely why he manages an NBA team today. I could see Scheyer going down a similar path, but their games are different. Same with the Redick comparison. He's like Redick minus the range but plus some other things. In short, they are not the same but Redick is a reference point everyone knows well. One poster even suggested Battier as a point of comparison which sounds silly on some levels, but he made a decent case showing some similarities.

On a side note, you obviously really like Scheyer and I'm a huge fan as well. Based on your responses and sensitivity/interest in all things Scheyer it sounds like you might be close to him. Do you know him personally?

Nah, when you watch a guy play for four years, you develop a good feel for his game, is all. That and I sort of set myself up as a bit of a "defender" of his game right away when I didn't believe all the hype about G and suggested Scheyer would be the one to start as a frosh.

[Underdog5]

The main problem as I see is that Scheyer would be regarded as too slow to play the 1, and not a prolific enough scorer to play the 2. He may prove some people wrong, but I am pretty sure this will be the main concern from the people that matter. NBA teams are usually more worried about finding go-to players than support players.

But if Scheyer can find a team that already has at least one good scoring and one good dribble penetration option already out there on the perimeter (e.g. a team with a dominant scoring point guard like a Chris Paul or a Jameer Nelson), Scheyer could in fact be excellent support. Guys like this do exist and do succeed in the NBA - Delonte West comes to mind - but I'm not sure how common they are.

I look at guys like Anthony Johnson for the Magic or Earl Watson for the Pacers or Jason Hart for the Timberwolves or Eric Snow (probably a better defender but still...) and just can't imagine there isn't a place in the league for Jon. Dude is a baller. Will be a shame if someone this talented doesn't get a solid look some where.

[sagegrouse]

I'm not so sure that bulking up would be to his advantage, as it may decrease his quickness and speed. I don't see him becoming a Deron Williams-type of big point guard who could outmuscle people.

JJ is much stronger and noticeably faster than he was in college. Strength and speed are correlated. I expect the same thing will happen to Jon, although JJ's body change is truly remarkable. Strength and bulk are not the same thing. That said, who could imagine Jon becoming overweight as a pro?

sagegrouse

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

I look at guys like Anthony Johnson for the Magic or Earl Watson for the Pacers or Jason Hart for the Timberwolves or Eric Snow

D-Nelson is better then them as well IMO. But look where he is.

[NM Duke Fan]

I found Jumbo's analysis of Scheyer's game right on the money. I adimit I used to be a skeptic that Jon would play in the NBA. The way he has played and evolved I now could see him playing a nice role, and he might be choosen in the second round of the draft.

Regarding him bulking up much more than he already has: As a health care professional I will say that there is a body type which simply doesn't suceed very much in that endeavor. A key concept is muscle belly length, compared to how much of the total length of the lever is tendon. Individuals with extremely short muscle belly lengths are proportionatley very high in tendon length, and tendons really don't add much mass as you work out. There are examples of such body types in the NBA over time who have done fine, really thin but "wiry" with surprising strength. Remeber that great shooter for the Pacers for all those years?

[hq2]

At Jon's likely position (backup 1, maybe 2, depending on how he's shooting)
strength doesn't matter as much as quickness. He isn't going to be taking it to the basket or rebounding much anyway, so I think he can get by as is. His lack of lateral quickness (per Trajan Langdon) will have much more impact on his defensive game in the NBA. I don't see him playing much for a team without any decent shot blockers; guys who blow by him are going to get too many layups.

[tele]

Read a recent article on increasing percentage of foreign players in NBA, so just for comparison, how about Ricky Rubio? He's already been drafted once, has bad assist turnover ratio, not much outside jumpshot or three range, and I think he sprained his ankle once trying to guard somebody. If Scheyer was from Spain he might be a lottery pick.

[darthur]

Before this year, Chris Paul was a mediocre shooter and he has never in his career had an A/TO ratio anywhere near as good as Scheyer's this year. And yet, he is generally considered to be the best point guard alive today. Steve Nash is the only NBA point guard to win MVP in recent memory, and he did it while racking up turnovers like there was no tomorrow.

You know what those two have in common with Rubio and not with Scheyer? Incredible speed and handle. People want a point guard to break down opponent's defenses off the dribble, not drain open jump shots.

Jon is doing great for us, and hopefully will do well in the NBA, but he is not Rubio.

[DukeBlueDevils47]

I think Jon will end up playing in Europe. With the closer 3 point line over there i think he could really excel. After hes done with his playing career id love to have him come back and coach at Duke

[BryanCenterBlues]

Okay, I know that it was a pipe dream that Scheyer would go to the NBA last year - too slow, not athletic enough, whatever.

But I still find it weird that someone being talked about as a potential All-American and being described as the "hottest player in college basketball right now" is predicted to go undrafted by NBAdraft.com.

Do you guys think a team could find a use for a careful playmaker like Scheyer?

[RoyalBlue08]

IMO, if there isn't an NBA team that can find a role for Scheyer, they need to reexamine how they evaluate talent.

[AlaskanAssassin]

From Jay Bilas during his Chat on Espn.com


Yes, Jon Scheyer will get drafted. It may be in the Second Round, but he will get selected. I think that Scheyer can play in the NBA, but he is not an elite athlete that will be a no-brainer at the next level. He may have an issue as to who he can guard, but I think he will have a good chance to find a place in the NBA.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/30220/ncaa-bb-with-jay-bilas

[CDu]

Prior to the season, I said he had little chance to be an impact player in the NBA. I felt he was strictly a SG without the length or athleticism to defend SG at the NBA level (despite being 6'5", he's short-armed). And I didn't think he was a good enough shooter to fill a Redick/Kerr type of role.

This season Scheyer has really impressed me as a PG offensively. He's so much better than he was last year at the position, when he was really just avoiding turnovers and not really being a playmaker. He's really developed as a playmaker this year. That said, I don't think he's quick enough to defend at the PG spot.

The issue will be where Scheyer can play. The size/speed/athleticism takes a big jump at the next level, so that will be a challenge. But He's a very smart player, so perhaps he can find a way with his craftiness to overcome the increase in athleticism at the next level.

With the improvements he's made this year, I think he'll end up getting drafted, which is more than I could say even 3 months ago. I'd guess it would be in the second round, but somebody will take a look. Despite being one of the best players in the country so far this year, I think the draft combine (where the measurements game takes center stage) is going to knock him to the second round. Where he goes from there, who knows? For a guy who I think will be a niche player if he makes it in the NBA, it'll all be about finding the right home.

[RoyalBlue08]

I know it's a completely different position and skill set, but Scheyer in the NBA reminds me of DeJuan Blair last season. Dominant in college, but falls into the second round (in Blair's case he wasn't athletic enough, wasn't tall enough..blah, blah.) It turns out the things Blair did well he still did well. I think Scheyer could end up being the same way. I think his creative offensive game will translate very well into the NBA despite everyone being more athletic than him. (It's not like he is using an athletic advantage in college to get his points.) And I wouldn't be too concerned about defense. In the NBA, a lot of defense is want to (which he has), and he certainly has the height to defend the 2. If JJ can be a good defender for Orlando, I don't see why Jon can't do the same.

[Greg_Newton]

Search, search, search!;)

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18528

[yancem]

From Jay Bilas during his Chat on Espn.com



http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/30220/ncaa-bb-with-jay-bilas

If JJ Redick can mold himself into a decent defensive player than Scheyer can also. When Scheyer first got to Duke there were a lot of comparisons to Redick but those were based more on them both being 6'4"-6'5" white guys that can shoot the rock. Scheyer was/is slightly taller and more athletic and has a much more well rounded game whereas Redick is a better shooter with much better range. More than the difference in range or the consistency from behind the arc, the biggest advantage Redick had over Scheyer was the quickness of his release. I think that this is one area that Scheyer has really improved upon.

Right now, I don't see why Scheyer can't be at least as good a pro as Redick and probably even better. He can handle and pass the ball better and has better driving skills. I also think that he has improved the speed of his release and the accuracy of his shot to be a dangerous shooter at the nba level. Defensively I think that Scheyer would begin his career at a higher level than Redick did.

[CDu]

Right now, I don't see why Scheyer can't be at least as good a pro as Redick and probably even better. He can handle and pass the ball better and has better driving skills. I also think that he has improved the speed of his release and the accuracy of his shot to be a dangerous shooter at the nba level. Defensively I think that Scheyer would begin his career at a higher level than Redick did.

It's a good point that Scheyer's release has gotten a LOT quicker this year. The last several years he seemed to have a REALLY slow progression from set to release. That, combined with the fact that he essentially shoots a set shot, made it very unlikely that he'd be a shooting specialist at the next level. By contrast, Redick has a fairly quick release but also a very high release.

But Redick was drafted because he had a "A+" skill, which helped offset the athleticism concerns. Scheyer will have the same length/athleticism concerns due to his short arms, but while he has a more diverse skillset he doesn't have that A+ skill. So it'll be a bit trickier for him to find his NBA niche, I think.

That said, he's surprised me pleasantly so far this year. Hopefully he can do so in the coming years at the next level.

[hq2]

The problem with Scheyer is that he does a lot of things pretty well, but none of them exceptionally well. He's a good ball handler, but doesn't penetrate enough to deliver the rock to the bigs in the pros. He's a decent defender, but not quick enough to stay with the fastest players. He's a good three point shooter, but he's streaky and there are doubts he has NBA 3 point range. He gets to the bucket some here and there, but not enough to be a serious penetrating scorer. So basically, he is a good all around college player, but none of his skills would be considered outstanding by the pros, except one; his court smarts. He may be the smartest player since Jim Spanarkel, or ever. That, possibly, might get him an NBA roster spot. Put him in, and he won't do anything dumb. Believe it or not, in the pros, that's a major item; a lot of bench players do lots of stupid stuff out there. Scheyer won't. You can trust him with a lead, and know that when he's in handling the ball, dumb stuff won't happen. As a backup point guard, that's a major plus.