RealGM

Buddinger is a legit player. Hill will be a starter, smart, hardworking, steady producer (though groundbound, not a pure athletic mismatch). There are a number of players in this draft who will have an NBA career. Solid bets. This is a good draft for roleplayers, few supernova talents.

Ruzious wrote:The thing I wonder is - guys like Nash... eh, there are no guys like Nash. So, is he the exception to the rule? I think he is. Just like AI was the exception to a rule. Larry Bird. Barak Obama. Trying to find the next one will prolly be fruitless.

No doubt. Not trying. I'm saying Stef Curry has a ridiculous number of NCAA leading stats, came into D1 instantly successful and has only improved every year and this year added 7 asts to his game improving on his ast/to rate while actually increasing his usage rate to a silly degree. Among league leaders in points, steals, assists, PER/40, win scores by position. NCAA tourney success. I'm saying I haven't seen another NCAA player with a similar build but similar results. I'm saying stats suggest and the thin-slice quick-read of his game suggests Stef Curry is another exception.

Until he added the PG aspect to his game, over one summer, I had doubts. Now, doubts are still reasonable, but I get the feeling he'll find away to succeed despite the real knocks against him. Am I saying he's a surefire lock?

No. A risk. A gamble. A hunch. Not necessarily the safe smart play. I'm saying the creeping instinct is this kid is another remarkable outlier. If I'm wrong, I'm okay with that. The Wiz ain't taking him anyway. I'm saying I think he's a better PG than any other in this draft. Better than any other positional player is compared to any other player at their position. (With at least one obvious exception, maybe two).

So regardless of team need, and acknowledging he's not an instant fit with personnel (except that he'd make our young Bigs look better) I'd rather use the top pick to both upgrade and swap down to be in position to be forced to trust that quick instinct-- rather than to make the consensus safe play for an above average-guy at a need position.

It's paradoxical. But then it's the same way Ernie always makes the best choice with the late-round picks, but often makes missteps with his mid-first-rounders. When forced to gamble, he makes the right read. Forget consensus. Use the force.

Ruzious wrote:Doc, another cautionary comparison - Steve Alford. http://www.basketballreference.com/play ... =ALFORST01 Think about it - if he was asked to move to the point and play the same role that Curry is - Would he have put up similar numbres? I think Curry is better - but I'm not sure how much.

Steals, assists, rebounds he's better off the bat. Hypothetical Alford-as-PG? Likely failure. What's unusual to me is that in Stef a first-option off-the-ball shooter was able to slide into the primary floor general and instantly make the adjustment-- to lose a 10 assist per game PG who had been feeding him the ball, but pick up where he left off (and better) with no appreciable increase in TOs per possession. Instead he simply gets to the line more. It doesn't ordinarily happen.

Thus, exceptional.

Doc, you've sold me on Curry. I also like that Dat2U likes him. If we end up picking third or lower, I say trade down, dump some bad contracts (maybe in exchange for a decent vet), and draft Curry. If we pick second, I'm torn between drafting Hill or trading down for Curry. Obviously, if we pick first, we'll take Griffin and be done with it.

Ernie just invested 111 million in a scoring point and got spent a first round pick in the last 2 months on his back up. The idea that wizards are going to draft a scoring point guard really is a waste of time. Now if you are speculating on other teams..then yeah..but not for the wiz.

WizarDynasty wrote:Ernie just invested 111 million in a scoring point and got spent a first round pick in the last 2 months on his back up. The idea that wizards are going to draft a scoring point guard really is a waste of time. Now if you are speculating on other teams..then yeah..but not for the wiz.

We're on board, WD.

nate wrote:If we end up picking third or lower, I say trade down, dump some bad contracts (maybe in exchange for a decent vet), and draft Curry. If we pick second, I'm torn between drafting Hill or trading down for Curry. Obviously, if we pick first, we'll take Griffin and be done with it.

Yup - Griffin - maybe he doesn't concentrate on D, but he certainly has defensive ability, and he's a phenom. I still don't know what I'd do at 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6. 6 would really suck. I'd have no problem with a trade down - in theory - but if it involves dropping salary - it better not be at a large expense in talent. Using a high pick basically just to drop salary would make me very upset. Going through all this losing better mean getting big-time talent from the draft.

Nice to see Thabeet increasing his value.

Blake 40 pts 20+ reb?

C-Bud: NBA player underperforming in an NCAA system. A lot of the time as a forward, he's the one setting screens for their itty bitty pg when other players should be trying to spring budinger free. Earlier in the season we saw the astronomical %'s that Bud can put up if given a clean look. I'm sure he'll get a lot of those looks in the 2nd unit of an NBA team. Adam Morrison was the Laser-Disc to Chase's Blue Ray. Faster load times, crisper image, and stuffed full of bonus material.

Curry: After doing some fact-sifting on B-R, i'm assuming curry will develop into one of two players: 1- Ben Gordan, 2- Terrel Brandon. Both were supreme scorers in college while chipping in 5ish boards/assists per game. One became a scoring dynamo and the other became a very efficient set-up man. Both are borderline all-stars but hampered by their lack of size at their respective positions (TB was a tiny man). Good, yes. Exceptional? I'll wait for him to prove me wrong.

Thabeet: The black Mark Eaton. Thabeet would find it easier to ride a unicycle than to score in double-figures in the NBA. He's just not good enough. However being hailed as Mark Eaton isn't a an insult by any means. He can prove to be a defensive menace with his size and a team could do a lot worse than drafting a poor man's Mark Eaton (like drafting Johan Petro). This guy will never play his way out of the league because of his size (see Brown, K.) which is more assurance than the previous 2 players have.

Danny Green: Ideally he would be a 6'6 guard who's versatile and makes smart plays all the time much like Josh Childress. However, given his lack of production after 4 years at UNC, I have much lower hopes for him. His size, 3 point shooting, and mediocre play reminds me of a player the wizards had earlier this decade. Bobby Simmons. Not as strong, a better shooter,

nate33 wrote:Doc, you've sold me on Curry. I also like that Dat2U likes him. If we end up picking third or lower, I say trade down, dump some bad contracts (maybe in exchange for a decent vet), and draft Curry. If we pick second, I'm torn between drafting Hill or trading down for Curry. Obviously, if we pick first, we'll take Griffin and be done with it.

The Wizards, if they don't pick 1st overall and select Griffin, should trade down for Curry.

Prior to this season being over they should simply call up Richard Hendrix from D-League.

Just getting healthy, hiring a new coach, and adding Curry and Hendrix would be huge.

CCJ, you should watch Hill. He's an absolute beast as a rebounder (not DeJuan Balir esque, but who is?). He's leading his team (as well as Buddinger) to IMO, one of the teams to beat come NCAA time. I don't think there is a better "big 3" than Hill, Buddinger, and Wise in America. Hill scores with both hands, is a better defender than Griffin, and has to play 40 MPG. He's in excellent shape and can play any style.

A draft that yields Hill and Buddinger would be a dream come true for me.

How we went from we need perimeter defense, to we need a 6-1 (he ain't 6-3) shooting guard, is beyond me. If you want to trade down, great. But, trade down and take Tyler Smith (who will both be a steal, and actually plays defense) or T. Williams. I have that Almond feeling. But, I suppose time will tell. Ben Gordan was a great example of Curry's upside (yes, Curry is a better distributor). And Ben Gordan (great scorer and all) is the last thing this team needs. Indeed, I would rather develop Crit than have a Ben Gordan off our bench, because we need defense. We don't have a shutdown defending SG to cover these scoring points. We don't have defensive monster, roaming SFs and PFs who can crash in and fill the lane (perhaps Dom once he develops), to cover when Arenas and Curry get beat (and they will). When are we going to get to the defense? Not to mention the part about how we don't exactly have All Stars waiting in the post for a pass.

Doc, your whole pick a player according to what he will become rating is flawed -- because All Stars don't mean championship players. Often, for a team, the last thing you need is another All Star. That makes the defensive role player more valuable to that team. As I said, Nash would do very little off our bench (in terms of winning championships), while a shutdown defender would make a great difference. Glue guys might never become All Stars, but can be just as valuable to a team. So can spark plugs off the bench. But, not on a team with a ton of o and the worst d in the league.

As I said, time will tell.

Hilarious, you guys want this team to get better defensively but then are on board with a volume shooter who can't guard players more athletic and faster than he is. The same group of guys who talk about continuity is overrated, yet want to bring in more of the same players.

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:

nate33 wrote:Doc, you've sold me on Curry. I also like that Dat2U likes him. If we end up picking third or lower, I say trade down, dump some bad contracts (maybe in exchange for a decent vet), and draft Curry. If we pick second, I'm torn between drafting Hill or trading down for Curry. Obviously, if we pick first, we'll take Griffin and be done with it.

The Wizards, if they don't pick 1st overall and select Griffin, should trade down for Curry.

Personally, I 'd prefer Thabeet a hundred times over Curry.

But that's just me.

fishercob wrote:I wish I could put money in Vegas on Thabeet being a complete bust. The guy's a total stiff.

How much?

"Thabeet, to me, might be the best player in the country," Seton Hall coach Bobby Gonzalez said. "I don't know who has a better player than him, who is a more dominant guy than him in the country. He, to me, is the No. 1 player in America. In my opinion from what I have seen, you know I am not trying to push him out the door, have him go pro, but if I was an NBA franchise I would take him No. 1 in the draft."

I still dont get all the love for curry. We got scoring guards in young, arenas, critt (to some extent). Yea curry has an outside shot, but like Rafael122 said, we dont need him. He is 6'2, and i dont think he will be able to guard anybody.

We need a PF rebounding machine who can dominate. Ding Ding


BLAKE GRIFFIN
He only had 40 pts. and 23 boards. He had 30 and 19 with 15 minutes left in the game. I would even take Thabeet over curry like wizardspride said. We need better big men. With that slight possibility of McGee possible playing the 4. (H. Brown mentioned it on the ESPN broadcast)

The one guard that really intrigues me is Demar Derozan. He has been quiet but his HS tapes are unbelievable. If he could put together his physical gifts with his talent he will be special. He got LeBron type athleticism.

Was gonna post college comparisons re: Ben Gordan (played with legit NBA talent --Okafor, Caron, Villenueva, Hilton Armstrong, Josh Boone-- hell he should have had _waay more_ assists than his 4 per game.

But mostly I just liked the look on JT3's face (cropped off since it's too large)in this picture :

"What the hell, how do we stop this kid?"

But just to make it clear since I've typed it to death already:

THE POINT IS THAT (after #1) THE PICK HAS BETTER VALUE IN TRADE THAN THE VALUE OF THE EARLY PICKS.

I take Griffin no question. Then I take Bosh. Or Vince Carter. Or the best deal you can get with a package of one of Jamison/Blatche/Caron/Nick/filler + the pick for a better defender in either the frontcourt or 2-guard. In realistic equivalent value. Plus their pick.

With the trade down you take the best available talent regardless of position. It's my assessment that you get that value best for Curry. Mine alone. I'm happy to be on an island on this, and apologize if I've talked anyone else into it.

But anyone who think this team doesn't need to develop a back-up scoring/distributing/floor general/clutch/winning guard hasn't been paying attention. Yeah we need perimeter defense. No doubt. But scheme alone can help some. And you don't tend to pick your best defenders in the draft. They tend to come from free agency, often from guys who've had to go to Europe to learn how to do it. Veterans defend better than raw recruits. To get them you have to clear some roster and cap space, via trade. In the draft you build for the future, not immediate help.

Picking for perceived team need lands you Pecherov, not Rondo or Farmar.

I would love to pick Blake Griffin and Jodie Meeks in the 2nd round. Meeks will definitely be there.

He has scoring ability, a little undersized but he is effective. He went off for 45, remember he went for 50+ earlier in the season.

placeholder for more developed thoughts:
=============================================

pg/combos -- needs: deep scoring, distribution, leadership, PER production.
(& Defense, if no Critt/DMac)
Growth of Bigs dependent on the on-ball guard. Few Big PGs to play next to Gil.
-------------------------
--Jeff Teague (defense despite size, perimeter blocks, steals; fg%'s, FT attempts. No passing)
--Curry (ad nauseum-- good defense, remember biggest need: IQ more than talent, ball smarts)
--Nick Calathes (all 'round game. good size. passing, IQ, good fit next to Gil; brother Pat Calathes)
--Ty Lawson (short neck, wide chest/wingspan, strong. but also short arms. Competitor. Probable NCAA champ. leader on most talented team, undeniable effect despite advantages of surrounding talent. Leadership.)
--Ricky won't come out to play
--Sergio Llull (as a rd 2 Eurostash. And can we steal Kopponen from the Blazers?)

--Terrance Wms vs Jrue -- contrast of defensive specialists.

(other running notes: McClintock, Meeks, Johnny Flynn & wide open 'Cuse, Jerel McNeal next to Dominic James, Hackett)
==================================================================


swing/backcourt -- needs: IQ, replacement for DSteve, slashing/FTAs, defense, passing/boards
-------------------------
Evan Turner (sleeper) -- needs confidence in his outside shot, but otherwise ideal next to Gil? Or duplicate what Dom brings, plus scoring?
Danny Green -- as SF--no FT's, better passing than handle. DSteve replacement.
Harden as Glue guy -- great on a trade-down if he slips in workouts/measurements. Other than d, great running dog for Gil.
Henderson -- what no FTs?
Sylven Landesburg -- won't come out, but still...


The LeBron question --length vs strength vs smarts vs athletix. Consider Caron/Jamison.
-------------------------------------
Earl Clark -vs- DMcGuire -vs- Aminu for instance
Geoff McDermott, but no.

===========================================================
post intimidation -- (the real LeBron solution)
-------------------------
Griff
Jordan Hill -- grunt work, smart positional defense, hustle & strong.
Blair (equiv steals/40 to PG. also: with better conditioning, imagine his numbers, totals in only 25 mins./game)
Monroe vs. Blatche
Thabeet vs McGee

Brockman, Hendrix, Jeff Adrien, etc. Too bad we lack roster spots.

Blake Griffin with 40 and 23 last night.

WizStorm wrote:Blake Griffin with 40 and 23 last night.

That kid Thabeet is a beast, you can never have enough big men. Better yet - good big men are excelent trade bait. I'm excited about the draft and picking low.

My draft picks 1-3 - I'd love to have eather 1 or 2. Not excited about Curry at all.

1. Thabeet - Game changer. My pick for #1 as of today.
2. Griffin - Another big, got to love it.
3. Curry - we don't need him,

You can never have enough minutes at C behind Haywood for not one or two, but three big men (not even counting Pecherov) if Hill or Thabeet is the pick. I agree with doc, too bad we don't have roster spots.

Blatche, Mcgee, and Pecherov are all 22 years of age or younger. (Edited: Oleksiy turned 23 in December). I see absolutely no way drafting another young C is the answer. Thabeet is a tremendous shotblocker, but I don't see how the Wizards add him if they plan on doing anything at all at C with Javale McGee.

I don't trust the Wizards to successfully trade any of the young big men and see nothing but diminishing value with dimisnishing minutes/stats if they draft another C.

Griffin is freakishly athletic and clearly a PF. He's IMO an easy pick if the Wizards get the 1st overall pick.