Trey Burke, Michigan's Point-Guard, saw him against NC state and was very impressed. Nbadraft.net have him as the 35th pick, I think that's going to change. Here's his player-page from Espn: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/player/_/id/56670/trey-burke
This. When a team has as little talent as ours, it seems to me it's more important to plug holes than duplicate our strengths.
This kid could be something special though. I am getting way ahead of myself but Lillard can play off-guard in small stretches if needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trey_Burke http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/sports/2011/03/24/driven-burke-is-ohios-best.html ALWAYS draft BPA. Trade for need if required.
There's a lot good players in this draft IMO and its still early. I like Burke, too, I was actually going to mention him in the draft thread the other day. Tim Hardaway Jr. looks nice, too.
This is highly contradictory. Shouldn't you just take the most talented guy regardless rather than a less talented player who fills a need? Aside from that, you have Lillard as PGOTF, a top ten SG (lmao), Batum as SFOTF, LMA as PFOTF, and Myers Leonard as COTF. Obviously if Lillard is supposed to be the cornerstone you need PG less than the other spots, but its not like you have glaring holes among starters.
Well, that's the $10,000 debate. Some people advocate always taking the person you think is the most talented even if it duplicates what you have. I think it's the majority opinion. But there is also a strong school of thought, followed by many GM's, that you draft for your needs. Then, if those needs can't be met, take the best player available. I tend to like this point of view.
The problem with the drafting for needs is that a lot of GMs (in my opinion at least) will actually swear they drafted BPA but that is because they built this kid up in their mind, thinking how great he would fit in a spot they need, that they are somewhat blinded by the fact that he doesn't grade out as good as a player at another position.
I think it's as a lot reference, you tier it, and then go by need within the tier, all players being equal.
I still think we need a bruising, banging, take-no-prisoners, PF that can also score from the post (Z-Bo and AlJeff com to mind as examples). Even though he looks good on "paper" (20 & 7+), I'm still losing faith in Aldridge by the day. Now, who that player might be? I haven't really looked to see what's out there.......as of yet.
I'd like to say yes? But, long-term, I still kinda think he's off-the-bench material. I'd be happy to be wrong in that assessment, though.
Hickson has performed every-time when given a chance. I am not sure what he has left to prove? Is he perfect? Of course not, that is why you would not be paying a guy like him close to MAX money. He seems constantly underrated however.
I'd say this is the most realistic way its done. If a PG was the last guy left in a tier would you still take him over the PF in the next tier down? I think in a few years you'd probably be kicking yourself if you didn't, but the draft is a crap shoot.
LOL. Hickson is very good at what he does, but he is a one trick pony. He crashes the boards and scores on put backs. He doesn't defend, post up or pass out. Like ABM said, I still think we need a bruising, banging, take-no-prisoners, PF that can also score from the post. Hickson can back him up.
No LOL at all. I think the game has changed the last few years. I think your PF is the one to do the dirty work and get garbage style points if that is what you need. That is not to say that is the only thing Hickson can do however. When LMA was out at the end of last year Hickson was the starting PF and as such was the focus of the defense and he still put up big points and not just on put-backs.
I'm fine with LA at PF. His numbers are comparable with decent PF's. That said, a player like JJ is invaluable as he is a player who mixes it up and does the dirty work. I'd love to see him resigned.
