What's new
By:

Following potential 2015 draftees

ScreenShot2015-01-20at111226PM.png
 
Stifle Tower said:
But just like Exum, Kanter had one amazing int'l game where he outplayed the competition. I remember Kanter supporters kept bringing that up as the reason for taking him over Valanciunas - because of that head-to-head matchup.

Rule of thumb should be to take players who have been successful over the course of an entire season, whether that be at a U.S. university or top-level international league. That player should also have NBA-level measurements in terms of size and speed. I know there might be outliers we miss. That's ok...draft "projects" with a later pick. But missing on lottery selections is the surest way to perpetual mediocrity: Kanter, Burke and maybe Exum. Hope I'm wrong, but I don't see Dante as all-star material. He just doesn't have the attitude to develop into anything more than a solid rotation player. Stars have swagger; they've had swagger since elementary and intermediate school. You see it in youth leagues. You see it throughout HS and into college. I'm not saying that's a perfect way to evaluate. But there aren't many all-stars who don't have that "alpha" attitude. Some MIGHT develop a little as they mature; I think Favors is going through that now. And some "alphas" are selfish, offense-only idiots - that's what you weed out in interviews and workouts and scouting as you speak with their coaches and look at game film.

But lottery, especially high-lottery, you definitely need to go for players who have a "resume" AND have attitude/desire AND have NBA-level size/speed for their positions. Like I said, there will ALWAYS be exceptions. And there will be busts who had all the prerequisites. But the lottery is about getting players with the highest percentage of being successful.
Click to expand...

Timmy, Dirk, PG13. A lot of swagger and antics since day 1.
 
BTP said:
Timmy, Dirk, PG13. A lot of swagger and antics since day 1.
Click to expand...

Swagger does not equal "antics." Swagger to me is self-confidence. The desire to have the ball in your hands, the belief you can and will make the important shots.

Dirk has always been an alpha; he's never been gun-shy. What were Tim Duncan's college stats? There was no question he had the resume, size and skills to be a great player. Paul George? He was ranked similar to Hayward. Many on this board wanted him. That's where workouts and interviews come into play. I have no problem with KOC drafting GH over PG. PG has obviously developed into the better player. That wasn't obvious at the time. But GH at LEAST has the "alpha" attitude that's made him a top-tier SF in the league.

Go back through the drafts and you can see why many of the "busts" or disappointments who were drafted top-10 shouldn't have been drafted that high.
2004: Araujo: great motor and stats, but measurements were off (T-Rex arms).
2005: Marvin Williams - drafted #2 on potential but didn't have the drive. Not a "bust," but certainly a huge disappointment given his selection over DWill and CP3.
2006: Morrison: Offense-only player. There were many who questioned this pick. O'Bryant (#9 pick): TBH, didn't even remember him until I looked at the draft. Character issues. Accepted money during summer for work he didn't do; was suspended by NCAA.
2007: Oden (injuires, so doesn't count). Jianlian - could cite level of competition in CBA. Was ok, not spectacular in FIBA tournaments. Injuries were also a factor, as was prima donna/"entitement" attitude by him and his agent (asked Milwaukee not to draft him, complained about PT in NJ).
2008: Joe Alexander. Can't fault the pick. He had all the qualities, great college career, great measurables; just failed to develop in the NBA.

I could go on (Jimmer anyone?), but that's just a quick look back at 5 drafts. Let others take the huge leaps of faith (which are often leaps of desperation). There are generally very good options available top-5 and even top-10. It's extremely risky to take players based solely on potential, measurements, or 1-2 great games in some tournament. I HOPE Dante is not on the disappointment list for 2014 when we look back 5 years from now.
 
Stifle Tower said:
But just like Exum, Kanter had one amazing int'l game where he outplayed the competition. I remember Kanter supporters kept bringing that up as the reason for taking him over Valanciunas - because of that head-to-head matchup.

Rule of thumb should be to take players who have been successful over the course of an entire season, whether that be at a U.S. university or top-level international league. That player should also have NBA-level measurements in terms of size and speed. I know there might be outliers we miss. That's ok...draft "projects" with a later pick. But missing on lottery selections is the surest way to perpetual mediocrity: Kanter, Burke and maybe Exum. Hope I'm wrong, but I don't see Dante as all-star material. He just doesn't have the attitude to develop into anything more than a solid rotation player. Stars have swagger; they've had swagger since elementary and intermediate school. You see it in youth leagues. You see it throughout HS and into college. I'm not saying that's a perfect way to evaluate. But there aren't many all-stars who don't have that "alpha" attitude. Some MIGHT develop a little as they mature; I think Favors is going through that now. And some "alphas" are selfish, offense-only idiots - that's what you weed out in interviews and workouts and scouting as you speak with their coaches and look at game film.

But lottery, especially high-lottery, you definitely need to go for players who have a "resume" AND have attitude/desire AND have NBA-level size/speed for their positions. Like I said, there will ALWAYS be exceptions. And there will be busts who had all the prerequisites. But the lottery is about getting players with the highest percentage of being successful.
Click to expand...

you just described Stanley Johnson. I would give up anyone not named exum, Gobert, favors or Haywood to get him.
 
LOL @ everyone bitching about us drafting Exum.

Wiggins, Parker, and Embiid were off the board 1-2-3. Who else did you guys want? It's been an incredibly underwhelming rookie class thus far, and Exum still appears to have as much or more potential as anyone else in the class.

Honestly, I've been pleased with Exum so far. We knew he would be raw as all hell but he's shown more flashes than I thought. The physical tools to be an elite-level PG are all still there. He just needs time to come into his own and let the game slow down.
 
Stifle Tower said:
Swagger does not equal "antics." Swagger to me is self-confidence. The desire to have the ball in your hands, the belief you can and will make the important shots.

Dirk has always been an alpha; he's never been gun-shy. What were Tim Duncan's college stats? There was no question he had the resume, size and skills to be a great player. Paul George? He was ranked similar to Hayward. Many on this board wanted him. That's where workouts and interviews come into play. I have no problem with KOC drafting GH over PG. PG has obviously developed into the better player. That wasn't obvious at the time. But GH at LEAST has the "alpha" attitude that's made him a top-tier SF in the league.
Click to expand...

Dirk always been an alpha? Remember any 2006 late June sports network? Soft, not clutch, no killer gene, not american, whatever.
Dirk is playing like an alpha, because his style of leadership is leading by example, not demand. The others on the team want him to take these shots.

Duncan was a similar case. Leader through Popovich's trust.

George was mediocre on college, very on and off. Developed in the NBA to reach the next level.

Last year almost everyone was bitching about Gordon not being an alpha, being a waste of a draftpick etc...
 
bigmike said:
LOL @ everyone bitching about us drafting Exum.

Wiggins, Parker, and Embiid were off the board 1-2-3. Who else did you guys want? It's been an incredibly underwhelming rookie class thus far, and Exum still appears to have as much or more potential as anyone else in the class.

Honestly, I've been pleased with Exum so far. We knew he would be raw as all hell but he's shown more flashes than I thought. The physical tools to be an elite-level PG are all still there. He just needs time to come into his own and let the game slow down.
Click to expand...

Jazz fans think hes a bust. National guys think hes playing much better than expected and are still high on him. Outside of his apparent lack of killer instinct, I think his main problem is he still has the body of an 18 yo. A lot of these college freshman were men since they were 16. Okafor, Johnson, etc .... they were 6'7" 240 in HS. Exum is still growing into himself. Once he has a year or two of NBA training and can put some muscle on (hopefully similar to Hayward) I think a lot of these perceived problems go away.
 
Keep in mind, if Jerry Sloan were the coach of the Jazz, Exum wouldn't be seeing the floor at all. It would be like CJ Miles' rookie year. Ronnie Brewer had a couple years of college and didn't play until the tail end of the year. Bryon Russell didn't get any time until the tail end of his rookie year. Etc.

Why don't Raptors fans ***** and moan about that guy Bruno Carpaccio (or whatever his name is)? Guys this young and underdeveloped need time to get their sea legs. They're still learning the game to some extent.
 
I'm on that buy an additional pick for Jake Layman bandwagon (that I'm now starting).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5lZpkite-s

Maryland plays @ Indiana tomorrow at 8 central on ESPNU. I will probably be checking it out to watch him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top