What I'm saying is that if Dieng is a Larry Sanders-type defender, why isn't he a consensus lock to be Top 10? I happen to like his game, and he should have a role in the NBA for a while and not be a bust. Finding the next franchise player at #10 based on 'BPA' seems like a formula for failure.
Isn't the knock on him his age and the fact people think he is near his "ceiling" at the moment? I wouldn't mind taking him but I think he will be available later on in the draft so we could easily trade back a few spots and gain another asset and grab him. I think he should be taken in the top 10 but the draft has taken a turn in the last 10 years from "Draft guys you can use and mold in your system" to "draft the guy with the highest potential so you can maybe just maybe grab the next superstar".
Przybilla took years to learn defense, even if you subtract the injured time. Dieng is strong and smart, so maybe he could help about the time he's leaving.
It "appears" that he will go later in the draft, perhaps 15-20 basis most mocks and let me stress in this draft especially, these are best guesses. So if POR wants Dieng and can trade the 10 and gain another asset that would be the ideal situation, of course there is the risk someone could take him earlier, for example if we traded the 10 to Utah for 14 and 21 maybe OKC would take him. My guess is he is available at 14.
To bring up Ekpe Udoh again [FONT="]because I think his situation was analogous to Dieng’s (older, offensively limited, college team overachieved)[/FONT]: does anyone remember where he was slated to go in most mocks? My recollection is that the Warriors took him MUCH higher (#6). Now, a lot of people think that that was a real reach, [video=youtube;mUcbQHrf-KA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUcbQHrf-KA[/video] and could probably point to his anemic career numbers to back that up. But I also know that a lot of Warriors fans really liked him, and he was a real +/- star for them. [video=youtube;rqdretQWMMg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqdretQWMMg[/video] Plus the Bucks pretty much insisted he be included in the Bogut trade, so he had value. So why did he go at #6? My guess is (a) Mock drafts don't really reflect actual GM thinking, and/or (b) the Warriors tried to trade down but couldn't/couldn't be sure that if they did he'd be available.
Dieng is old (23 and a half years old), not very big and he has no offensive game. I am not impressed. Ed O.
Too bad it's a terrible comparison. And he can hit a mid range J and pass really well for a big. So even though he's never going to be a 15 point scorer he has valuable offensive skills. Anybody who actually watches him play would have a hard time not respecting his game. He just makes winning plays.
It is possible to believe he will be the best big man available at #10 and not be convinced he is the best *player* available at #10. Hence the ambivalence.
He claims to be 23. Birth records from the 3rd-world have proven to be less than complete. He could be 25, for all we know.
If he were bigger, younger, or had a better offensive game, he would not be available at 10. Fact is, his wingspan and standing reach are sufficient for him to play center, his offensive game is better than you suggest (particularly his passing), and he's young enough to play for a decade, so none of your concerns are a particularly big deal. Personally, I like the fact that he spent so long in college developing into a player who's probably ready to contribute at the pro level from day one.
You always were youth-obsessed, Ed. Doesn't that sting all the more as you crumble into old-age? Think of him as Anthony Davis without the offense. Only bigger. There, don't you feel better? Or how about Marcus Camby over a decade younger? What I like about him is I think he can complement both Aldridge and Leonard. He can actually hit the open mid-range jump shot and has the rudiments of a post game. And one very important offensive skill: he's a very good passer. Watch this: [video=youtube;OpxLbcI_fQY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpxLbcI_fQY[/video]
Agree with JDC that it's lazy. The reason Anthony doesn't play anymore is because he can't hit a jump shot, but Dieng can. Also Dieng is bigger. (Besides: it's not a strict comparison - it's "he reminds me of". It's not meant to be "he will end up like that" - I looked at Mbakwe and the name given was Reggie Evans. Even worse, for Nate Wolters (all-O, limited D) the comparison was Kirk Hinrich. I think it's just "who looks like him in some way")
Suppose I'm right and the best PLAYER is Dennis Schroeder (I can't be bothered to do the umlaut any more). Would you take him? Suppose he turns out to have all-star talent (as "Sam Chadwick" says here) wouldn't that create a problem here?? Would it happen here? (Having said that, I actually think we SHOULD take him, but only if we can get Dieng too.) Everybody says "Best Player Available" is diametrically opposed to "fit" but that implies that there is some objective ranking system whereby you can say that Muggsy Bogues is three points on the Best Player Scale higher than (say) Manute Bol. But that's ridiculous: apart from anything, what players become is a function of the system they're in. A player who might blossom on one team might never do so on another. Imagine if Boris Diaw had never gone to Phoenix. He would be long out of the NBA and as little remembered as...somebody I've forgotten. Or Derek Fisher not on the Lakers. Or Eric Snow if Larry Brown had never got hold of him. Or Raymond Felton if he'd been on the Blazers all his career. All that aside: the value of defensive bigs has been amply demonstrated in these playoffs. Bogut, Hibbert, Gasol. Sure, Dieng is unlikely ever to be a Hibbert, but if he's 80% of that (on the mythical BPS) he's going to be less than 20% of the cost.
