I was thinking Chris Paul. The dude measured under 6' and was an elite defender. I saw him give KD more problems than players much bigger. And of course, fans wanted to pass on him as well because of Damon Lamon Stoudamire.
So take Richardson with the assumption he could be a really good defender because Chris Paul did it? No thanks. I don't get why you take Richardson when there are several guys who are very good defenders, are good shooters and have plenty of length. Unless you think Richardson is an elite scorer who can defend well. I'm taking Bryant, Clifford, Coward and probably McNeeley before Richardson.
I am the only one who mentioned Chris Paul, so I assume you are responding to my post? Again, I don't want him at 11. I was just responding to the "exception to the rule" post.
Comps are tough. They're often in the eye of the beholder. I focus primarily on the stats vs feel. Although I agree that the feel of Bryant's game is primarily defense compared to Oubre's offense, Bryant actually took more 3 pointers per 36 than Oubre, and hit them at a higher rate. Looking at Battier, he was a bad 3 point shooter/scorer his freshman year but ramped it up significantly over his next 3 years to be a prolific scorer at Duke. Part of the reason I enjoy this time of year is because it's so difficult to predict how these kids will progress. Carter only averaged 19.3 mpg. I wouldn't pigeonhole Carter into a singular category just yet.
It certainly looks like you haven't spent much time watching Richardson's game film. I do think he has a chance to be an elite scorer (say CJ level), who is at least willing to try and defend. He's going to be a good player in the league for a long time. I'm probably taking Bryant before Jase... It's a coin flip between Jase/Clifford. But I think Jase is clearly the better player over Coward and McNeeley.
Sell me on Demin. Normally I'm the one who's supposed to be in love with soft Euros with flashy passing skills but I can't think of a success of his type in recent years and I can think of a good deal of failures (well, this guy for one). Will he match the greatness of Viktor Khryapa and Sergei Monya?
1. He is a foreign player who worked on skills in a team game early on. He’s not a pound the rock guy or score first. I am not a fan of PGs who get theirs looking like a scoring guard. From what I can tell, he’s a really long straw that stirs the drink. 2. I like my point guards at 6’3 to 6’5 or 6’6 (without shoes and not with ridiculous wingspan as it seems to make having great handles harder) nor a T-Rex. One exception is Magic but he’s a one-off … and he was a point-forward with the emphasis on point. I am a fan of point-forwards who are actually as much point as forward. 3. Strength, handles, shooting — his floor on these is as a 8th or 9th man, back-up, and 2nd initiator (taller Evan Turner). That’s what I think when reading or hearing what his strongest critics say. His ceiling is “I don’t know” — as in all star. I buy his shot, want to, and enjoyment of a team game.
not advocating one way or the other on Demin.... but I agree about wingspan. I think it's very overrated metric. Obviously, you don't want T-Rex/Bayless arms, but players never stand on the floor with their arms straight out to the side. When it comes to defense, reaction and lateral mobility are much more important than wingspan. I mean sure, if there's a choice between two prospects of equal talent and upside, it could be justified taken a player with a longer wingspan....maybe I mean, Rupert has a 2 inch wingspan advantage on Amen Thompson, and a 3.5 inch advantage over Luguentz Dort
Simple - you take Richardson if you believe he's a better player. Yes defense is a part of that, but so are Richardson's strength.
Granted their arms are usually slightly bent vs straight out, but nonetheless, length on defense helps out more than say..... height, unless you are unerder the basket where standing reach is a bigger factor. But I agree that reaction and lateral movement are probably more important.
Both Noa & Egor shoot below 30% on threes. Sorry we already drafted a couple that havent as yet shot the three well. At least Coward is a good three point shooter.
There's more to basketball than shooting 3s. You're comparing versions of Siakam (Noa) and Giddy (Egor) to Martell Webster (Coward). I really think Noa will be the best player out of these three... and it probably will not be particularly close.
Many people agree with you, so I assume there is some truth to it. For him to be the best of those 3, though, he will have to be able to create his shot much better than he does now. At least from what I can tell from the "highlights," all seem to be fast break shots and dunks. If he does, then yeah, it will not be close. But there is a small degree of a gamble with him. Also, how long will it take for him to add muscle? Remember how every summer we were begging for Batum to stay in Portland to work out in the weight room, but he was always playing for the French national team. It took a while until he bulked up.
Who to take at #11? Most people will say BPA, but to me that's a bit of a clichē. If the highest guy on your board is someone you don't see as a potential star and will be stuck behind a stud, why wouldn't you address an area of need instead? My biggest problem though, is how would anyone ever know who a team had rated higher between a few different guys? Teams can can straight up lie and nobody would ever know they did. Cronin goes into his post-draft press conference and says "we couldn't believe he was still available, so it was a no-brainer for us" and nobody would know better. Plus, what all factors into ranking your BPA? I would think how a player fits into your team needs would factor into your rankings. Last, completely outside of team need or BPA, who could fill a very specific role for future need? As in, we'll be facing Wemby and Flagg a minimum combined games of 10 times per year, more when you figure in playoffs. You're not gonna slow them down with one or two guys, no matter how good they are defensively. Figure in injuries and potential foul trouble in important games and you can make a case for drafting depth pieces just for that situation. It might sound like a stretch, but if we plan on contending we'll have to be able to beat the Spurs and probably Mavs and it could come down to one game, or one quarter, or one possession. In that situation you're gonna hope you have the depth to help battle the best players you'll face. I'd rather have a good depth guy that can fill a specific need instead of just depth at any other position. Bottom line, I'd rather have too many 6'10"+ guys than guards or wings.
The kid is 18 years old, how does anyone really know what kind of pro he will? I guess anymore its not so much of what they have done in college but what their ceiling might be? Sure, he may end the best of the three and he may end up a bust.
