John Hollinger on Ingram's NBA Potential

John Hollinger on Ingram's NBA Potential - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: John Hollinger on Ingram's NBA Potential (/thread-22756.html)

John Hollinger on Ingram's NBA Potential - FarmTeam - 12-20-2021

Thought folks on here would be interested in John Hollinger's take on Harrison Ingram's NBA draft prospects. Hollinger writes for The Athletic and is a former VP of Basketball Ops for the Memphis Grizzlies. I'm starting to think Ingram is a one-and-done. If he's a lottery pick, it's a no-brainer. But even as a later first round pick it's worth doing in my view. And my editorial aside is that this team is so poorly coached that Ingram isn't particularly going to improve his draft stock with another year. The write-up is below:

PROSPECT OF THE WEEK: Harrison Ingram, freshman SF, Stanford

I was hoping to have Memphis’ Jalen Duren in this spot, but my trip to Nashville to see his Tigers take on Tennessee proved fruitless when the game was canceled shortly before tip-off.

However, I was able to see Stanford’s Harrison Ingram on Sunday afternoon here in Vegas before heading over to the G League showcase. Despite an otherwise moribund effort from his Stanford team in a snoozy 60-53 loss to Texas, Ingram showed why he has fans in the late first round with his performance. Ingram had 15 points, seven rebounds, three assists and three steals in 31 minutes while serving as his team’s de facto point guard even though he often matches up with threes and fours.

At 6-foot-7 (ish) with a solid frame comparable to Jimmy Butler or Solomon Hill, Ingram has the basic nuts and bolts of NBA small forward viability despite lacking superior athleticism. He’s comfortable handling the ball and already capable of some advanced reads as a passer, ones which likely would have proven more fruitful in the company of more talented teammates. (Stanford is KenPom.com’s 98th-ranked offense; Ingram is its only player with a PER above 20.)

As a shooter, he’s made 31.6 percent of his 3s and 81.6 percent from the line. Eye-test-wise, the shot looks … OK. He lines up his set shot with his right foot far ahead of his left — not quite in Cameron Payne territory but definitely a bit side-saddle — and the result could be a lot of foot-on-the-line 2s. However, he seems comfortably getting into his midrange bag off the dribble, something he’s required to do a fair amount for this team. Overall, one might describe his shooting as adequate.

Defensively, he’s not a hugely dynamic or athletic presence, but he seems fine enough. He’s not a stopper, but Ingram’s size and IQ should enable him to guard NBA wings and perhaps play some small-ball four.

If all this sounds a bit lukewarm, keep in mind that Ingram is a freshman who will be 19 on draft night. He has a pretty clear pathway to plus outcomes as an NBA role player at a position where teams are constantly in need of talent. That may not be enough to get him in the lottery, but in a college season where several prospects have disappointed, Ingram has lived up to the billing as a potential first-rounder.

RE: John Hollinger on Ingram's NBA Potential - OutsiderFan - 12-20-2021

Stanford hoops will not make any progress as a program unless Ingram returns for at least one more season.

RE: John Hollinger on Ingram's NBA Potential - Brickcity - 12-20-2021

(12-20-2021, 02:32 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Stanford hoops will not make any progress as a program unless Ingram returns for at least one more season.

Exactly. I'm sick and tired of reading about the future draft prospects of our players. I mean, who cares? This program will never get off the ground if Haase can't keep guys around longer.

RE: John Hollinger on Ingram's NBA Potential - Phogge - 12-20-2021

I'd trade the roster and Haase for the USF roster and its young coach. Better yet I'd trade Haase and Muir and a few million for USF's coach.

RE: John Hollinger on Ingram's NBA Potential - old spanish trail - 12-20-2021

(12-20-2021, 02:25 PM)FarmTeam Wrote: Thought folks on here would be interested in John Hollinger's take on Harrison Ingram's NBA draft prospects. Hollinger writes for The Athletic and is a former VP of Basketball Ops for the Memphis Grizzlies. I'm starting to think Ingram is a one-and-done. If he's a lottery pick, it's a no-brainer. But even as a later first round pick it's worth doing in my view. And my editorial aside is that this team is so poorly coached that Ingram isn't particularly going to improve his draft stock with another year. The write-up is below:

PROSPECT OF THE WEEK: Harrison Ingram, freshman SF, Stanford

I was hoping to have Memphis’ Jalen Duren in this spot, but my trip to Nashville to see his Tigers take on Tennessee proved fruitless when the game was canceled shortly before tip-off.

However, I was able to see Stanford’s Harrison Ingram on Sunday afternoon here in Vegas before heading over to the G League showcase. Despite an otherwise moribund effort from his Stanford team in a snoozy 60-53 loss to Texas, Ingram showed why he has fans in the late first round with his performance. Ingram had 15 points, seven rebounds, three assists and three steals in 31 minutes while serving as his team’s de facto point guard even though he often matches up with threes and fours.

At 6-foot-7 (ish) with a solid frame comparable to Jimmy Butler or Solomon Hill, Ingram has the basic nuts and bolts of NBA small forward viability despite lacking superior athleticism. He’s comfortable handling the ball and already capable of some advanced reads as a passer, ones which likely would have proven more fruitful in the company of more talented teammates. (Stanford is KenPom.com’s 98th-ranked offense; Ingram is its only player with a PER above 20.)

As a shooter, he’s made 31.6 percent of his 3s and 81.6 percent from the line. Eye-test-wise, the shot looks … OK. He lines up his set shot with his right foot far ahead of his left — not quite in Cameron Payne territory but definitely a bit side-saddle — and the result could be a lot of foot-on-the-line 2s. However, he seems comfortably getting into his midrange bag off the dribble, something he’s required to do a fair amount for this team. Overall, one might describe his shooting as adequate.

Defensively, he’s not a hugely dynamic or athletic presence, but he seems fine enough. He’s not a stopper, but Ingram’s size and IQ should enable him to guard NBA wings and perhaps play some small-ball four.

If all this sounds a bit lukewarm, keep in mind that Ingram is a freshman who will be 19 on draft night. He has a pretty clear pathway to plus outcomes as an NBA role player at a position where teams are constantly in need of talent. That may not be enough to get him in the lottery, but in a college season where several prospects have disappointed, Ingram has lived up to the billing as a potential first-rounder.

Ooofta. I wish we could drop another coach in right now. "Moribund", "more fruitful in the company of more talented players". I taped and watched the whole thing again, and it's becoming maddening. So long as they aren't winded, leave Ingram and Frenchie on the floor and tell Frenchie not to dribble but shooting is just fine, tell Delaire that he's a great player, but will be greater if he doesn't try to dribble himself into a better position and doing so will nail him to the bench, set up at least 5 clean shots for Jones per game, for God's sake don't inbound into the corner, tell Taitz to play defense or see the bench, tell Keefe he must be able to score more and shoot FT's to stay on the court, make Angel the first wing off the bench and tell him to shoot.

Other thoughts, Murrell can shoot but is mediocre at best on D, Silva is playing more like a college than hs player now, I feel badly for Kisunas as he's playing better than ever but can't shoot or rb like Fernchie and doesn't play positional D like Keefe, O'Conell is same as he ever was for better or for worse.

RE: John Hollinger on Ingram's NBA Potential - burger - 12-20-2021

(12-20-2021, 03:03 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: Ooofta. I wish we could drop another coach in right now. "Moribund", "more fruitful in the company of more talented players". I taped and watched the whole thing again, and it's becoming maddening. So long as they aren't winded, leave Ingram and Frenchie on the floor and tell Frenchie not to dribble but shooting is just fine, tell Delaire that he's a great player, but will be greater if he doesn't try to dribble himself into a better position and doing so will nail him to the bench, set up at least 5 clean shots for Jones per game, for God's sake don't inbound into the corner, tell Taitz to play defense or see the bench, tell Keefe he must be able to score more and shoot FT's to stay on the court, make Angel the first wing off the bench and tell him to shoot.

Other thoughts, Murrell can shoot but is mediocre at best on D, Silva is playing more like a college than hs player now, I feel badly for Kisunas as he's playing better than ever but can't shoot or rb like Fernchie and doesn't play positional D like Keefe, O'Conell is same as he ever was for better or for worse.

Gotta disagree with some of these takes.

Delaire is typically getting the ball outside the three point line, which forces him to have to drive--not his strength. He needs to play inside more, but it's not his fault where he gets the ball. That's on Haase.

Taitz is shooting 50% on three pointers on a team that struggles with offense. He needs to be on the court regardless of his defense.

Jones hasn't had a great outside shooting touch since his freshman year. But he still brings a lot on defense and has become a more dynamic scorer. If we're going to start running plays to get 3-point shooters open, let's do it for Taitz (50% on 3's this season), Silva (58%), Raynaud (50%), and Angel (38%). Also, boy would it be great if we ran some ball screens to get 3-point shooters open. Every team we play does this, but we hardly ever do.

Anyway, as a team we really only have one big problem: turnovers. We are 318th in D-I in turnover rate. This seems to happen to us every year no matter who the personnel are (20-21: 281st in turnovers, 19-20: 298th, 18-19: 308th). So it's a coaching thing, not a personnel issue. I don't know what specifically Haase is doing to cause this, but it's become a signature of his teams.

RE: John Hollinger on Ingram's NBA Potential - teejers1 - 12-20-2021

(12-20-2021, 02:25 PM)FarmTeam Wrote: Thought folks on here would be interested in John Hollinger's take on Harrison Ingram's NBA draft prospects. Hollinger writes for The Athletic and is a former VP of Basketball Ops for the Memphis Grizzlies. I'm starting to think Ingram is a one-and-done. If he's a lottery pick, it's a no-brainer. But even as a later first round pick it's worth doing in my view. And my editorial aside is that this team is so poorly coached that Ingram isn't particularly going to improve his draft stock with another year. The write-up is below:

PROSPECT OF THE WEEK: Harrison Ingram, freshman SF, Stanford

I was hoping to have Memphis’ Jalen Duren in this spot, but my trip to Nashville to see his Tigers take on Tennessee proved fruitless when the game was canceled shortly before tip-off.

However, I was able to see Stanford’s Harrison Ingram on Sunday afternoon here in Vegas before heading over to the G League showcase. Despite an otherwise moribund effort from his Stanford team in a snoozy 60-53 loss to Texas, Ingram showed why he has fans in the late first round with his performance. Ingram had 15 points, seven rebounds, three assists and three steals in 31 minutes while serving as his team’s de facto point guard even though he often matches up with threes and fours.

At 6-foot-7 (ish) with a solid frame comparable to Jimmy Butler or Solomon Hill, Ingram has the basic nuts and bolts of NBA small forward viability despite lacking superior athleticism. He’s comfortable handling the ball and already capable of some advanced reads as a passer, ones which likely would have proven more fruitful in the company of more talented teammates. (Stanford is KenPom.com’s 98th-ranked offense; Ingram is its only player with a PER above 20.)

As a shooter, he’s made 31.6 percent of his 3s and 81.6 percent from the line. Eye-test-wise, the shot looks … OK. He lines up his set shot with his right foot far ahead of his left — not quite in Cameron Payne territory but definitely a bit side-saddle — and the result could be a lot of foot-on-the-line 2s. However, he seems comfortably getting into his midrange bag off the dribble, something he’s required to do a fair amount for this team. Overall, one might describe his shooting as adequate.

Defensively, he’s not a hugely dynamic or athletic presence, but he seems fine enough. He’s not a stopper, but Ingram’s size and IQ should enable him to guard NBA wings and perhaps play some small-ball four.

If all this sounds a bit lukewarm, keep in mind that Ingram is a freshman who will be 19 on draft night. He has a pretty clear pathway to plus outcomes as an NBA role player at a position where teams are constantly in need of talent. That may not be enough to get him in the lottery, but in a college season where several prospects have disappointed, Ingram has lived up to the billing as a potential first-rounder.

Actually hope this guys is correct on Ingram's prospects for his sake. I just don't see it. Tweener size and Q&A pedestrian. Maybe if he develops as a dead eye shooter then Ingram can find a spot on NBA roster. But otherwise, hard to see . . . .

lex24 - lex24 - 12-20-2021

(12-20-2021, 02:44 PM)Brickcity Wrote:
(12-20-2021, 02:32 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Stanford hoops will not make any progress as a program unless Ingram returns for at least one more season.

Exactly. I'm sick and tired of reading about the future draft prospects of our players. I mean, who cares? This program will never get off the ground if Haase can't keep guys around longer.

Well, what do you expect him to do if a kid is being projected as a first round pick? Maybe don’t recruit guys with one and done potential? Look at the schools that are successful and generally have guys that stick around. What are they doing?

And of course, being able to develop kids once they arrive is crucial.

RE: John Hollinger on Ingram's NBA Potential - SamuelMcF - 12-20-2021

I am under the impression Ingram is not a OAD. This isn't Ziaire, who was NBA-bound since he was 16.

RE: John Hollinger on Ingram's NBA Potential - Farm93 - 12-20-2021

(12-20-2021, 08:14 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: I am under the impression Ingram is not a OAD. This isn't Ziaire, who was NBA-bound since he was 16.

Maybe Stanford is the perfect home for OAD types.

While other D1 teams push through 3 or 4 games in the conference tournament, Stanford just plays one.
Then while top teams play several grueling games in the NCAA tournament, Stanford doesn't play at all.

Trying to utilize load management during your one year in college?
Come to Stanford and avoid that March grind.

A don't worry about how a losing team may tarnish your status because everyone in the NBA believes Stanford players will shine after they leave Haase.

RE: John Hollinger on Ingram's NBA Potential - FarmTeam - 12-20-2021

(12-20-2021, 08:14 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: I am under the impression Ingram is not a OAD. This isn't Ziaire, who was NBA-bound since he was 16.

Is there some concrete reason that this notion has been floating around on this board? Has Ingram actually said anything? Until stated otherwise, I think it's generally safe to assume that he has a goal of playing in the NBA and if (and it's a key "if" of course) his draft stock is high enough to be a first rounder, he's going to come out.

And fwiw I don't begrudge him in the slightest. I used to be a little judgmental of kids going pro early, but now that I'm older (and possibly wiser and certainly more of a realist) I'm fully in support of them striking while the money is there. Don't think he or anyone else owes anything to the university or anyone else. Not that you said anything to the contrary, just making a general comment here.

To me the only reason he stays a second year (or longer) is if his draft stock is low (outside first round) and he needs another year as a result, or very possibly if he's projected late first round and thinks another year will get him into the lottery. But as Hollinger implies, when you're playing in a moribund offense on a team that is devoid of talent, it's hard to shine. If he's already a first rounder, I hope he comes out for his sake.

(12-20-2021, 04:35 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Actually hope this guys is correct on Ingram's prospects for his sake. I just don't see it. Tweener size and Q&A pedestrian. Maybe if he develops as a dead eye shooter then Ingram can find a spot on NBA roster. But otherwise, hard to see . . . .

Time will tell of course, but I can see the NBA potential. 6'7" with a solid build, can handle the ball and passes well, plays solid defense, can play in the post a little and can shoot (though needs to get better and possibly can). He's the prototype of the modern NBA: switch-everything on D and multiple shooters and ball-handlers on offense. Not saying he's going to be a star, but don't see him as a "tweener" either. That implies to me that he's a too-small low post player, which he's not as he has a much broader skillset than that.

RE: John Hollinger on Ingram's NBA Potential - akiddoc - 12-20-2021

I don't see how he can be a first round pick. He isn't that athletic. He looks like a great college player who does not translate well to the NBA.

RE: John Hollinger on Ingram's NBA Potential - old spanish trail - 12-21-2021

(12-20-2021, 03:44 PM)burger Wrote:
(12-20-2021, 03:03 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: Ooofta. I wish we could drop another coach in right now. "Moribund", "more fruitful in the company of more talented players". I taped and watched the whole thing again, and it's becoming maddening. So long as they aren't winded, leave Ingram and Frenchie on the floor and tell Frenchie not to dribble but shooting is just fine, tell Delaire that he's a great player, but will be greater if he doesn't try to dribble himself into a better position and doing so will nail him to the bench, set up at least 5 clean shots for Jones per game, for God's sake don't inbound into the corner, tell Taitz to play defense or see the bench, tell Keefe he must be able to score more and shoot FT's to stay on the court, make Angel the first wing off the bench and tell him to shoot.

Other thoughts, Murrell can shoot but is mediocre at best on D, Silva is playing more like a college than hs player now, I feel badly for Kisunas as he's playing better than ever but can't shoot or rb like Fernchie and doesn't play positional D like Keefe, O'Conell is same as he ever was for better or for worse.

Gotta disagree with some of these takes.

Delaire is typically getting the ball outside the three point line, which forces him to have to drive--not his strength. He needs to play inside more, but it's not his fault where he gets the ball. That's on Haase.

Taitz is shooting 50% on three pointers on a team that struggles with offense. He needs to be on the court regardless of his defense.

Jones hasn't had a great outside shooting touch since his freshman year. But he still brings a lot on defense and has become a more dynamic scorer. If we're going to start running plays to get 3-point shooters open, let's do it for Taitz (50% on 3's this season), Silva (58%), Raynaud (50%), and Angel (38%). Also, boy would it be great if we ran some ball screens to get 3-point shooters open. Every team we play does this, but we hardly ever do.

Anyway, as a team we really only have one big problem: turnovers. We are 318th in D-I in turnover rate. This seems to happen to us every year no matter who the personnel are (20-21: 281st in turnovers, 19-20: 298th, 18-19: 308th). So it's a coaching thing, not a personnel issue. I don't know what specifically Haase is doing to cause this, but it's become a signature of his teams.

I actually agree with some of your takes. Delaire gets into trouble when he dribbles in the paint. He's trying to get himself a shot but he loses it 25% of the time. I agree he should position down low where he could more likely catch and shoot. Unfortunately he kinda likes perimeter as a starting point.

Yes, Taitz has been a major point contributor. Just tell him to be more aware and work harder on D.

And, yes, set up the shooters. They actually exist, and cut down on TO's.

(12-20-2021, 03:44 PM)burger Wrote:
(12-20-2021, 03:03 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: Ooofta. I wish we could drop another coach in right now. "Moribund", "more fruitful in the company of more talented players". I taped and watched the whole thing again, and it's becoming maddening. So long as they aren't winded, leave Ingram and Frenchie on the floor and tell Frenchie not to dribble but shooting is just fine, tell Delaire that he's a great player, but will be greater if he doesn't try to dribble himself into a better position and doing so will nail him to the bench, set up at least 5 clean shots for Jones per game, for God's sake don't inbound into the corner, tell Taitz to play defense or see the bench, tell Keefe he must be able to score more and shoot FT's to stay on the court, make Angel the first wing off the bench and tell him to shoot.

Other thoughts, Murrell can shoot but is mediocre at best on D, Silva is playing more like a college than hs player now, I feel badly for Kisunas as he's playing better than ever but can't shoot or rb like Fernchie and doesn't play positional D like Keefe, O'Conell is same as he ever was for better or for worse.

Gotta disagree with some of these takes.

Delaire is typically getting the ball outside the three point line, which forces him to have to drive--not his strength. He needs to play inside more, but it's not his fault where he gets the ball. That's on Haase.

Taitz is shooting 50% on three pointers on a team that struggles with offense. He needs to be on the court regardless of his defense.

Jones hasn't had a great outside shooting touch since his freshman year. But he still brings a lot on defense and has become a more dynamic scorer. If we're going to start running plays to get 3-point shooters open, let's do it for Taitz (50% on 3's this season), Silva (58%), Raynaud (50%), and Angel (38%). Also, boy would it be great if we ran some ball screens to get 3-point shooters open. Every team we play does this, but we hardly ever do.

Anyway, as a team we really only have one big problem: turnovers. We are 318th in D-I in turnover rate. This seems to happen to us every year no matter who the personnel are (20-21: 281st in turnovers, 19-20: 298th, 18-19: 308th). So it's a coaching thing, not a personnel issue. I don't know what specifically Haase is doing to cause this, but it's become a signature of his teams.