The NBA is light years behind the NFL when it comes to drafting wisely.

[Hanginthere]

I just have to say that... 9 times out of 10, reaching for potential means you just wasted millions of dollars in the long run...

A lot of GMs, coaches, etc in the NFL learned this lesson in the beginning... The NBA coaches, GMs, etc still have not learned that lesson...

When you're talking about the NBA, I've learned through the years that you draft guys that can shoot or have great talent overall... Projects rarely pan out in this league... And what is with this love of size... Just because a guy is big doesn't mean he's really worth a ****!

Pure shooters are a dying breed in this league and that is why Jimmer Fredette should have been picked at the 5 by the Raptors... But instead, they make the same mistake they have in the past by drafting another Andrea Bargnani that is going to be average at best...

You can teach a shooter to play defense and run an NBA offense... But I think it's a lot more difficult to teach vice versa... Yes, these guys usually become good utility players when it comes to rebounding and playing defense... But if you're really trying to make a statement in the draft, then you go with talent or shooting 1st IMO...

Some are probably going to ream me saying, "Well Bargnani was a shooter"... I'm not talking about a big man that can shoot necessarily (even though that does help spread your offense)... I'm talking about a 2 or 3 that can shoot the ball consistently...

Now that being said... I like the Jazzs pick... They picked the best player on the board, and the most talented... Its a good pick for that spot... We'll just have to wait and see if I'm right...

Thoughts?

 

[noyritus]

I agree but if you have 4 shooters already maybe it's ideal to get a rebounder/defender.

There just aren't many players in the league that can match up and defend the elite big men. If you don't have one on your team then your pretty much screwed come playoff time.

 

[Hanginthere]

I agree but if you have 4 shooters already maybe it's ideal to get a rebounder/defender.

There just aren't many players in the league that can match up and defend the elite big men. If you don't have one on your team then your pretty much screwed come playoff time.

Can't argue that point noyritus

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

Thoughts? How about the thought that you're overrating Jimmer because you're a BYU fan. Think about that one for a little bit. You could make the same argument about Redick, yet I don't see teams scrambling to pick up his shooting prowess. There are many facets to NBA basketball.

Valanciunas is not Bargnani 2.0. He's a solid player, one that no Lietuvos Rytas fans are equally thinking represents a lost type in the NBA (centers).

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

I just have to say that... 9 times out of 10, reaching for potential means you just wasted millions of dollars in the long run...

A lot of GMs, coaches, etc in the NFL learned this lesson in the beginning... The NBA coaches, GMs, etc still have not learned that lesson...

When you're talking about the NBA, I've learned through the years that you draft guys that can shoot or have great talent overall... Projects rarely pan out in this league... And what is with this love of size... Just because a guy is big doesn't mean he's really worth a ****!

Pure shooters are a dying breed in this league and that is why Jimmer Fredette should have been picked at the 5 by the Raptors... But instead, they make the same mistake they have in the past by drafting another Andrea Bargnani that is going to be average at best...

You can teach a shooter to play defense and run an NBA offense... But I think it's a lot more difficult to teach vice versa... Yes, these guys usually become good utility players when it comes to rebounding and playing defense... But if you're really trying to make a statement in the draft, then you go with talent or shooting 1st IMO...

Some are probably going to ream me saying, "Well Bargnani was a shooter"... I'm not talking about a big man that can shoot necessarily (even though that does help spread your offense)... I'm talking about a 2 or 3 that can shoot the ball consistently...

Now that being said... I like the Jazzs pick... They picked the best player on the board, and the most talented... Its a good pick for that spot... We'll just have to wait and see if I'm right...

Thoughts?

Why do teams reach for potential? Because if you don't have a star on your team you are out of luck.

 

[Hanginthere]

Thoughts? How about the thought that you're overrating Jimmer because you're a BYU fan. Think about that one for a little bit. You could make the same argument about Redick, yet I don't see teams scrambling to pick up his shooting prowess. There are many facets to NBA basketball.

Valanciunas is not Bargnani 2.0. He's a solid player, one that no Lietuvos Rytas fans are equally thinking represents a lost type in the NBA (centers).

Actually, no... I am not a big Jimmer fan, nor a BYU fan... In fact (no offense to those who are LDS) I despise everything that the LDS faith stands for... But I am a Utah Jazz fan first and what Jimmer brings to the table translates well to the NBA and with the right coaching I believe he will become a complete player...

We haven't had a Larry Bird type of player in quite a while (maybe big Dirk fits that bill a bit), and even though Jimmer is a guard and not a forward, I think he can be the next one... The only comparison between Jimmer and Redick that you seem to be referring to is the color of their skin... Because Jimmers game is much more advanced in that he can create his own shot whereas Redick was more of a spot up shooter, mostly from midrange...

Jimmers range is far better than Redicks was in college and he is a much better player off of the dribble...

JMO

 

[Hanginthere]

Why do teams reach for potential? Because if you don't have a star on your team you are out of luck.

What I meant more was that teams reach more for projects... Not so much talent... Watching a lot of highlight reels of these big men remind me of guys like Brezec, Nesterovich, etc... Sure, maybe these guys are good for coming off of the bench once in a while to give you some hard hustle minutes, but that is all they are good for really... JMO

 

[Stifle Tower]

And I'm LDS AND a Jimmer fan and I think Jimmer's ceiling is a backup PG and shooting specialist. There are SERIOUS ?'s about Jimmer's ability to guard ANYONE in the NBA. He can have all the heart, he can work his #$@ off, but he's still a tweener...an undersized college SG trying to convert to NBA PG. He is NOT the next Larry Bird. You can bring him off screens, but he's still going to be playing against bigger, quicker guys. And how many college teams had 6'1'1-7'0" bigs waiting in the paint to block his shots or knock him to the floor?

Jimmer will have a good career in the NBA. Sacramento, New York & Phoenix were the best fits for him, so I'm glad he was drafted #10. Fredette is just going to be too much of a liability on the defensive end. He may score 20, but he'll give up that many on the other end. In that respect, maybe a better comparison is to Carlos Boozer, not Larry Bird.

 

[trigg3r]

What I meant more was that teams reach more for projects... Not so much talent... Watching a lot of highlight reels of these big men remind me of guys like Brezec, Nesterovich, etc... Sure, maybe these guys are good for coming off of the bench once in a while to give you some hard hustle minutes, but that is all they are good for really... JMO

Some of these guys are young and it is tougher to find a really good big man than going out and finding a guy like Jimmer. That's why teams like the Raptors take this risk.

 

[Siro]

Actually, no... I am not a big Jimmer fan, nor a BYU fan... In fact (no offense to those who are LDS) I despise everything that the LDS faith stands for...

That's not how the expression "no offense" works.

 

[Hanginthere]

And I'm LDS AND a Jimmer fan and I think Jimmer's ceiling is a backup PG and shooting specialist. There are SERIOUS ?'s about Jimmer's ability to guard ANYONE in the NBA. He can have all the heart, he can work his #$@ off, but he's still a tweener...an undersized college SG trying to convert to NBA PG. He is NOT the next Larry Bird. You can bring him off screens, but he's still going to be playing against bigger, quicker guys. And how many college teams had 6'1'1-7'0" bigs waiting in the paint to block his shots or knock him to the floor?

Jimmer will have a good career in the NBA. Sacramento, New York & Phoenix were the best fits for him, so I'm glad he was drafted #10. Fredette is just going to be too much of a liability on the defensive end. He may score 20, but he'll give up that many on the other end. In that respect, maybe a better comparison is to Carlos Boozer, not Larry Bird.

Okay... Maybe Larry Bird was a bad comparison... After all, he was about 6'8" and Jimmer is 6'2", but the transition from PG to SG for guys this size do very well in the NBA... Just ask guys like Montae Ellis, Stephen Curry, or even Jason Terry... This is not the same as getting a 6'x8" forward who is built like a pogo stick, who can't shoot, and trying to figure out whether he should play SF or PF... This is a different thing entirely...

I believe some of the same tweener talk was thrown about when Curry came into the league... And aside from a few injuries in his young career, he's been nothing short of fabulous... I think that's the type of player that Fredette is... JMO

 

[LogGrad98]

That's not how the expression "no offense" works.

Remember, the only reason people use the phrase "no offense" is so they can say something incredibly offensive and make it look like you are the bad guy if you get offended.

That said, I find it interesting that anyone would despise this:

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men....

Well to each his own.




Back to Jimmer.

I partially agree with the sentiment of drafting for talent and ability. But others have a point in that a team full of "solid" players are not usually going to make any noise without the Kobe/Dirk/Wade/Bird/Johnson factor. Often that is what teams are reaching for, the hope that the project will develop into something beyond a solid role player. Also, for many teams athleticism is rated higher than ability. Maybe they think they can teach basketball, but you cannot teach size/stamina/speed/agility. Most often those are born-with abilities.

Any way you look at it, the draft is almost always a crap shoot. Few players are can't-miss prospects as it is. Sometimes a team would rather gamble on a player that had a ceiling at the Bird/Jordan/Johnson/Kobe/Wade level than take a player that is better right now, but whose ceiling is considerably lower.

I think Jimmer went right about where he belonged, somewhere late lottery or just out of the lottery. It is up to him to prove he deserves it. But he is a project too, and anything but a complete player right now. In the NBA a one-trick pony can usually only go so far.

 

[Hanginthere]

And I'm LDS AND a Jimmer fan and I think Jimmer's ceiling is a backup PG and shooting specialist. There are SERIOUS ?'s about Jimmer's ability to guard ANYONE in the NBA. He can have all the heart, he can work his #$@ off, but he's still a tweener...an undersized college SG trying to convert to NBA PG. He is NOT the next Larry Bird. You can bring him off screens, but he's still going to be playing against bigger, quicker guys. And how many college teams had 6'1'1-7'0" bigs waiting in the paint to block his shots or knock him to the floor?

Jimmer will have a good career in the NBA. Sacramento, New York & Phoenix were the best fits for him, so I'm glad he was drafted #10. Fredette is just going to be too much of a liability on the defensive end. He may score 20, but he'll give up that many on the other end. In that respect, maybe a better comparison is to Carlos Boozer, not Larry Bird.

And about his defense... You've just got to want to play defense... I know I got on Carlos Boozers case quite a lot when he was with us for lack of defense, but I had a chance to watch some Bulls games in the playoffs and he stepped up on the defensive end big time... Defense is an effort stat, and if a coach can get you to "want" to play it, then anybody can...

 

[Fishsticks]

Actually, no... I am not a big Jimmer fan, nor a BYU fan... In fact (no offense to those who are LDS) I despise everything that the LDS faith stands for... But I am a Utah Jazz fan first and what Jimmer brings to the table translates well to the NBA and with the right coaching I believe he will become a complete

me thinks you probably could have kept this secret to yourself.

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

That said, I find it interesting that anyone would despise this:

"We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men...."

Well to each his own.

I know! It's like... that's all our church really teaches, that one quote. That's all our church consists of, nothing else. In fact, I would even adjust it to say our church teaches, "Be good." Who could dislike that?

And I'm also so offended that he dislikes my church! Arg! Let's ban him!

-Craig

 

[Hanginthere]

Remember, the only reason people use the phrase "no offense" is so they can say something incredibly offensive and make it look like you are the bad guy if you get offended.

That said, I find it interesting that anyone would despise this:

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men....

Yeah, I got a few more for that list... How about sexist and racist, just to name a few... I find it hard to believe that a group of people who believe in being honest, true, benevolent, virtuous and in doing good to all men (I guess this part is true as women were left out of that statement) would not allow women to hold the priesthood, or young black men for that matter... How about the fact that a woman cannot reach the highest Kingdom without being married to a husband for instance... Is that virtuous?? To me that sounds like slavery... Sort of like old age England... I guess they were thought of as being true, benevolent, virtuous and all that other "jazz" too... But I digress...
Well to each his own.




Back to Jimmer.

I partially agree with the sentiment of drafting for talent and ability. But others have a point in that a team full of "solid" players are not usually going to make any noise without the Kobe/Dirk/Wade/Bird/Johnson factor. Often that is what teams are reaching for, the hope that the project will develop into something beyond a solid role player. Also, for many teams athleticism is rated higher than ability. Maybe they think they can teach basketball, but you cannot teach size/stamina/speed/agility. Most often those are born-with abilities.

This I agree with

Any way you look at it, the draft is almost always a crap shoot. Few players are can't-miss prospects as it is. Sometimes a team would rather gamble on a player that had a ceiling at the Bird/Jordan/Johnson/Kobe/Wade level than take a player that is better right now, but whose ceiling is considerably lower.

Can't argue with this either...

I think Jimmer went right about where he belonged, somewhere late lottery or just out of the lottery. It is up to him to prove he deserves it. But he is a project too, and anything but a complete player right now. In the NBA a one-trick pony can usually only go so far.

Fair enough.. I respect your opinion...

 

[LogGrad98]

I know! It's like... that's all our church really teaches, that one quote. That's all our church consists of, nothing else. In fact, I would even adjust it to say our church teaches, "Be good." Who could dislike that?

And I'm also so offended that he dislikes my church! Arg! Let's ban him!

-Craig

Dude, no need to be offended about it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I teach my kids those basic ideas in how to deal with people. If you don't, well I guess that is your choice as a parent. If you choose some other course that does not involve teaching your kids to do good and be honest and true, and so forth, that is your choice.

Also, I just followed your example, the great teacher that you are. I gave a small snippet out of context and drew a conclusion about the whole. I just did it without sarcasm and vitriol, that is why you didn't recognize your M.O. Everything in an internet forum is a subset of the whole and intelligent people will recognize it as such and not make silly assumption that make them look stupid. Rarely do I see anyone giving a 1,000 page doctoral thesis on the entire context of anything in an internet forum. I know you never do, and you obviously are never wrong, ergo, I am right too.

I am trying as hard as I can to learn from you Craig, but when you keep changing what you are teaching and can't recognize the efforts of a disciple I have to wonder if what you are teaching is just crap.

No offense.

 

[Nasty Style]

okay, moving along from people getting butt hurt about their religion...

This thread is a joke, right? Cam Newton was selected #1 in the NFL Draft/end of discussion.