Blazer Draft Consensus nearly 100% Set

Virtually every major mock draft has us picking a defensive PF first (and nearly all have it as Kenneth Faried) and a PG in the second round- like we need another second round PG.

While this makes sense, I might go opposite. A good PG in round one and the best rebounding PF in the second as they are easier to find.

 

I would agree with you. Using Faried as an example, who would you rather have on the floor as the back up PF, he or Wallace (When Batum comes in at SF)

Yes we need another back up PF, but another PG is much more needed.

 

Sure, if we don't trade up our out.

My money is on trading into the top five and drafting a point guard, I don't care what Nate said about only wanting vets. That is, unless we trade for a vet point guard instead, but I think getting a vet we'd want by that route is less likely.

All things are possible and nothing is certain at this point. Projecting who we are going to pick based on our current draft position is folly.

Having said that, if we do retain no. 21 or purchase a similar draft pick, I think the need to draft a defensive PF as projected in these mocks is spot on.

So...I'm going with a PG in the top five and a PF, hopefully Faried.

 

If we don't make a move, I'm all about BPA. Screw drafting for need.

Go Blazers

 

Same. Increase the talent whenever possible and address roster balance through trade and free agent signings.

 

I'd also like to see us trade up for a PG to eventually replace Miller. We aren't going to find that PG int he second round.

 

It's this thinking that nets you a roster with 9 players between 6'6" and 6'8".

 

If you don't make any trades or free agent signings.

The other way of thinking nets you Sam Bowie instead of Michael Jordan. Or, less specifically, a roster not good enough to win.

 

I would argue that drafting for position gets you:
Sam Bowie instead of MJ.
Greg over Kevin.
Martel instead of CP3 or D-Will.

I'd take the 6'6"-6'8" guys and trade them for pieces to fill out the roster, if I ran the circus.

Go Blazers

Edit: Min beat me to it! Crap...Ed beat me, too. (Brought my LeBron late in the thread.)

 

I'd argue this example, though not the others. At the very least, their talent was considered equal and, going into the draft, most seemed to think Oden was an even more special prospect. But even if you just viewed them as equal, then using "need" as a tie-breaker is reasonable. I don't think Oden over Durant was the same mistake as Bowie over Jordan, where the clearly less-talented guy was taken due to need. If a mistake was made based on information at the time (which is arguable) it was missing health issue warning signs.

 

Yeah, I agree, that's a much much closer analogue. And while I think Jordan was the better NBA player, it's close enough that I wouldn't say Houston made a mistake. Had Olajuwon had Pippen for all of Pippen's prime career, and Jordan hadn't, the title count might be switched.

 

When you are drafting 21st in a draft like this BPA is out the door as it's a huge guess in any case, so go for need cause the talent's already become iffy. You can't tell me that some PG at available at 21 is a BPA over a backup PF as the same spot.

 

We may not, but if a trained staff of scouts and talent evaluators can't do any level of separation after the top 15 or so, that's more than a little pathetic. I do agree, though, that if a few players are rated evenly, go for need as a tie-breaker. But if your scouting personnel has some opinions on who's best when you pick, you had better take that guy regardless of position, just to maximize your chances of getting an NBA player. Not taking the very best talent (by your organization's ratings) gimps your chances of even getting an NBA-caliber player.

 

That just doesn't wash, evaluating talent at that level is much more of a crapshoot. So unless a draft is absolutely stacked on talent at one position, at 21 take what you need. I bet of you ran a 10 yr comparison of players drafted at lets say the 18-24 draft spots, the degrees of eventual NBA succes each slot had would not be all that different.

 

I think the same might well be true of spots 5-10 or 10-15. That doesn't mean you don't try to stack your odds (even if it's marginal gains) in your favor by taking the guy you believe, based on extensive scouting, to be the best talent. If you have no opinion, go for need...but if you have no opinion, what are you being paid for? You can get "these guys are all late first round prospects" from a bunch of free NBA draft sites.

 

I would agree....if a stellar talent dropped to us. But at the point where we are picking, the difference between BPA and next BPA is small enough that I would draft for need.

 

-probasketballdraft.com