Charlie is really impressing the hell out of me, but I still would have taken Danny Granger over him. Don't call me a "hater" though, I'm just not sold on a rookie who has a nice streak of games on an 0-9 team in 30.7 mpg. I'm not saying that to offend anyone, but you have to look from it from an outsider's perspective. Still, I thought he'd be a bigger bust than he's been none the less.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Voodoo Child:</div><div class="quote_post">Charlie is really impressing the hell out of me, but I still would have taken Danny Granger over him. Don't call me a "hater" though, I'm just not sold on a rookie who has a nice streak of games on an 0-9 team in 30.7 mpg. I'm not saying that to offend anyone, but you have to look from it from an outsider's perspective. Still, I thought he'd be a bigger bust than he's been none the less.</div> hows Granger doing in Indy?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting ktrulez:</div><div class="quote_post">hows Granger doing in Indy?</div> It would help if Indiana would actually play him. I don't think you really get a chance to prove that your a quality NBA player by playing only 10 minutes a game. However, I think as the season goes on, Granger will eventually fit in as a solid role player and show why he should have beena top 10 pick... BTW, I will admit that I didn't like Toronto picking Charlie V, but who knows, maybe he was a good pick after all; but I still would have picked Granger.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting ktrulez:</div><div class="quote_post">hows Granger doing in Indy?</div> If you're saying that to imply that Villanueva's doing better than Granger, then you're missing my point. Put Granger on the worst team in the NBA and give him 31 mpg, and then see how he does. He's on one of the top teams in the NBA now though behind Ron Artest and is getting 11 mpg. His 2.2 ppg and 2.8 rpg is exceptional given the circumstances, and his defense is unparalleled in this rookie class.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Voodoo Child:</div><div class="quote_post">If you're saying that to imply that Villanueva's doing better than Granger, then you're missing my point. Put Granger on the worst team in the NBA and give him 31 mpg, and then see how he does. He's on one of the top teams in the NBA now though behind Ron Artest and is getting 11 mpg. His 2.2 ppg and 2.8 rpg is exceptional given the circumstances, and his defense is unparalleled in this rookie class.</div> Shouldn't the arguement be Granger over Graham ?? Hindsight is 20/20 obviously but (given the way things played out) drafting Granger at 7 would have been a waste because he was still around @ 16 Criticism is fair .. but other teams passed on the guy too ....
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting a13x:</div><div class="quote_post">Shouldn't the arguement be Granger over Graham ?? Hindsight is 20/20 obviously but (given the way things played out) drafting Granger at 7 would have been a waste because he was still around @ 16 Criticism is fair .. but other teams passed on the guy too ....</div> Well, we're not talking about the pick of Graham. The only Raptors pick relevant to this thread really is the #7 pick. Besides, even if we are considering both picks, I would have drafted him #7 and then probably Green, Warrick, or someone else at #16. You can substitute Granger's name with a lot of names of players drafted after Villanueva anyway. I just used Granger as an example. The point is that Villanueva just had a streak of good games on the league's worst team while playing 31 mpg. It's not like that has convinced me that he was the best possible pick at #7, and the thread's title certainly made me laugh.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting ktrulez:</div><div class="quote_post">hows Granger doing in Indy?</div> None of our rookies would get more than 10 MPG on Indy, so it's not really relevant. I'd assume on the Hornets, or if he was on the Raptors, Granger would also be getting high praises.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting og15:</div><div class="quote_post">None of our rookies would get more than 10 MPG on Indy, so it's not really relevant. I'd assume on the Hornets, or if he was on the Raptors, Granger would also be getting high praises.</div> That's an insult to the Hornets. They're actually not bad this year (4-5), and the greatest thing is that Desmond Mason still hasn't started to play a major role in their offense yet. With Chris Paul, they might be a legit playoff team next year with a year of experience, a free agent signing or two, and a lottery pick. You're right though, it's useless to bring stats into an argument comparing two players if they don't play on the same level or in the same minutes.
I always figured that most of the criticism of the Villanueva pick was about his role on the team, rather than whether or not he would pan out in the NBA. It's 9 games into the season, and I'm still not quite sure how Bosh, Villanueva, and Graham will eventually all be able to start. Charlie's definitely shown that he is a lottery talent, but not all of the criticism was unwarranted.
To Voodoo Child: They would give him minutes on the Hornets. I like Paul and West, but he'd likely play over Rasual Butler at SF, and with JR Smith and Claxton [means Paul is't playing SG] being injured, they'd find a way to get him 25+ MPG in their swingman rotation, and maybe have him playing a little PF in smaller lineups. I'm real happy West is doing good though, I liked him when he was drafted and was a little dissapointed before, but he's back on track. The guy has a mad long wingspan. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I always figured that most of the criticism of the Villanueva pick was about his role on the team, rather than whether or not he would pan out in the NBA. It's 9 games into the season, and I'm still not quite sure how Bosh, Villanueva, and Graham will eventually all be able to start. Charlie's definitely shown that he is a lottery talent, but not all of the criticism was unwarranted.</div> It was, that's why I keep wondering why people are acting like those who were criticizing him were going so from a talent standpoint. I thought he was a talented player, I was thinking on a team where he could start, he'd give 14 points, 9 rebounds, and 1.5 blocks. He's a better scorer than I thought, but not as good on the glass and with the blocks. I don't remember anyone criticizing him from a talent standpoint. I still have seen 0 C potential from Charlie. He's a 4/3, with the 4 likely being his best position. Graham is not a SG either, he's a SF. So I'm also still not sure how it will work out in the future, but for now, let's just go with it.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">To Voodoo Child: They would give him minutes on the Hornets. I like Paul and West, but he'd likely play over Rasual Butler at SF, and with JR Smith and Claxton [means Paul is't playing SG] being injured, they'd find a way to get him 25+ MPG in their swingman rotation, and maybe have him playing a little PF in smaller lineups. I'm real happy West is doing good though, I liked him when he was drafted and was a little dissapointed before, but he's back on track. The guy has a mad long wingspan.</div> Aren't you forgetting Desmond Mason? He didn't get the minutes to start the season, but they're easing him into the new role. He's a player who can potentially play 35-40 mpg as the season progresses. What about Bostjan Nachbar and Kirk Snyder? Both players average over 20 mpg. What happens when Claxton and Smith return from injuries? That'd just further burry Granger on the bench. Obviously he'd get more time on New Orleans/Oklahoma City than he's getting on Indiana, but I still don't think you'd see him get the time that the Raptors are giving Villanueva.
You're right, I actually forgot about Nachbar. Snyder is playing well, but they'd cut his minutes and have him getting DNP-CD's like last year if they had Granger. Anyways, bad example.
voodoo child... is there a reason why granger dropped that low... i was a big fan of his and i actually wanted the raptors picking him... he was a solid scorer and had good defense... i mean we all knew that green dropped for a reason, he was plainly not ready as he was hyped up to be... but why did granger dropped so low? was it his knee concerns?
Honestly, I had no idea Villy was that good. I only watched him a little bit, and didn't think very high of him. I really changed my mind. And just because he plays the same position as Chris, I don't think it really matters. You guys were really pissed when they drafted for position, and not talent. Now when they try and draft the best players available, we get on his back again. I really hated Babs, and thought he should be fired immediately, but if you look at the current team, it is FULL of potential. The only place from here is up.
You're making it too simple. It's not just a case of position vs talent. If you need a C, and have a good PG, and their's a potential wise 18-10 C in the draft and a 20-8 PG in the draft, obviously you take the C. If you need a C, and have a swingman, and their's a guy who's at best a role playing C vs a perimeter player who has the potential to be one of the best defenders in the league, and a great all-round player. You take the perimeter player and work from there. You pick on need when the talent levels are similar. You don't pick on need when their's a big discrepency between the players you're picking. This year the talent levels were very similar, Charlie and Granger should both be good players, and some could argue Granger is the better player right now even just with less oppurtunity. Charlie is far from being head and shoulders above him, and since we needed a SF and there were 2 similar players, it would make sense to draft the one that's not redundant to your team position wise. That's what made people question the pick really, but in addition to that, if we did draft Charlie as a SF, then it also made us wonder why we drafted Graham who is a SF too [cause I'm definately not buying him being a SG].
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting rafy:</div><div class="quote_post">And just because he plays the same position as Chris, I don't think it really matters. You guys were really pissed when they drafted for position, and not talent. Now when they try and draft the best players available, we get on his back again. </div> Its not as simple as drafting for position or drafting for best player available; it all comes down to the circumstances. When you have a high level of talent at most positions (like there was when both Babcock drafted two SF's in Villanueva and Graham), then you gotta choose a player that will fit in better with the team. If the talent level falls off after a couple players (like it did when Iguodala was on the board last year), then you gotta go for BPA instead of reaching 5 or 10 spots. Villanueva's a great talent, but if you wanted him, why draft Graham? or vice versa? Its not like there weren't quality picks at other positions, like when we drafted Hoffa. EDIT: it looks like I posted the same thing as you at the same time, og.
I see your point, but I think Charlie has a lot more potential than Danny. Villy adds some offensive rebounding and size. And who is to say he can't eventually transition to a C? Again, I think Joey can easily transition to a SG easily, if he works on his handles. But Joey adds the things we need, toughness and aggressiveness. His nickname in college was well deserved. He plays tough defense, and always looks to take it to the whole, which something we really need, as opposed to all the jump shooters we have.
Why draft someone who has the potential to change his game, when there was already someone on the board who could play that way? I know this has been a dead issue for a while, but Granger is just as good as Graham at all aspects of the game, but has the guard skills to play the 2 and 3. It just doesn't add up. At this point, Raps fans can at least take consolation that Villanueva has a very good chance of becoming the best forward from this year's draft.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chutney:</div><div class="quote_post">Why draft someone who has the potential to change his game, when there was already someone on the board who could play that way? I know this has been a dead issue for a while, but Granger is just as good as Graham at most categories, but has the guard skills to play the 2 and 3. It just doesn't add up. At this point, Raps fans can at least take consolation that Villanueva has a very good chance of becoming the best forward from this year's draft.</div> Joey finished first in the physical tests. He's a leader by example. He's tough. If he does transition to SG, which I think he will definately be capable of in a year or two, he'll be able to play the 2, 3, and 4. He obviously has a very good work ethic, and the little I saw of both Granger and Graham, Joey has the edge on almost all of the catagories, in my personal opinion. If you think about it, the only thing stopping him from being a SG, is his handles. But ball handling is one of the easiest things to improve, and he has proven he has a very good work ethic from his college days.
cut the "what ifs" raptors drafted charlie and graham period and i think most of us are quite happy with them
