A shrewd move by the team maybe, but a completely idiotic one by Waiters if his workouts would have made him go higher. That's the guy you want at 6. Comfortable falling to someone, rather than prove himself, and get into the top 6 or so.
Someone who watched more Duke than I did this year tell me if the claim that Rivers can play PG is BS or not. Pruiti's writeup seems to say he's Wall-esque, which seems to be a good fit if we have, say, MKG and Batum on the wings. But in the games I saw he was like Jerryd Bayless against NJN. Sure, he scored...even some cojone shots...but I didn't watch him and think "man, he could dominate from PG like Wall or Rose if the ball was always in his hands"
I've watched enough games to know that Rivers won't ever play PG. He might be a high USG% player, but in no right mind would anyone call him a PG.
Again, stupid of Waiters. He's too scared to go up against Beal, Barnes, Lamb, etc. and push himself into top tier. He's below guys, and scared to work out. Lillard is seen as the top PG. Most everyone views him as such. Working out against Marshall, etc. could only hurt, and is proving something only to people on message boards.
On top of that, if your major concern is him not being a PG, but a short SG, what is a 1 on 1 workout going to prove? nothing.
Rivers can be a PG. Honestly, that's originally why I thought we liked him - we would play him there. Getting someone with his versatility still leaves the ability to improve at either guard position. Or draft Rivers and Lillard and run a 3-guard rotation with Wessy too.
I don't think Rivers will ever be a PG. He makes bad passes and takes worse shots. He's going to be an instant offense SG off the bench on a good team, or starting ball hog SG on a bad team.
Rastapopoulos had a good post showing why if your team selects Austin Rivers in the lottery, you're gonna have a bad time.
And his evidence was from a guy who said he'd take Jae Crowder early in the lottery as well. So.....I'll take those opinions with a large grain of salt. Sometimes, you can stare too hard at stats, and forget the game is still played on the court, and not on paper. I appreciate stats, and all they can tell us, but completely discounting things like the ability to create shots for oneself, and saying he'd pick Crowder early lotto kills my desire to listen too much.
Did he say he'd pick Crowder early in the lottery or that that's where his stats dictate he should be taken? There's a big difference IMO. Because he's probably right about Crowder. I think in 2 years he will without a doubt be one of the top 14 players from this draft.
Gonzaga was a shitty program when Stockton was there, and had never won an NCAA tournament game until long after Stockton left. Santa Clara was made by Steve Nash, and was also a shitty program with no NCAA history to speak of before Nash played there with one NCAA tournament appearance prior to Nash in the last 23 years. Weber State has advanced 2x out of the first round of the NCAAs in the last 20 years. Oregon State can't even claim that.
Every year there are players taken late in the draft who, if you ranked the players a year later, would be in the top 15. He's saying Jae Crowder will turn out to be one of those players. Every year there are players taken in the lottery who shouldn't have been drafted. He's saying Rivers is one of those guys. Sounds pretty plausible to me. (Yes, no doubt Rivers has a nicer HoopMixTape than Crowder can ever hope to have. But I'm sure that was true of God Shammgod too.)
Ruben Nembhard, former Blazer great! Those two teams beat Michigan State and North Carolina, respectively, in the first round. Montana's won a few games as well the last 15 years.
