If you have two guys who are exceptionally close in talent, then, fine, take the guy at the position where you have the greatest need. If not, you always should take the better prospect. You don't know what's going to happen with injuries or other things. This league is, more often than not, won by stars. Even when role players like Robert Horry or Steve Kerr win, it's usually because stars have put them in position to be the hero. The way the game currently is played, positions are less and less important. Of course, in five years, someone might have come up with a counter to positionless basketball that puts teams that don't play a true center at a huge disadvantage. You usually win with talent. So you accumulate talent. You can figure the rest out later. What I don't want to see the Blazers do is draft the next Dante Cunningham who fills a decent role off the bench for a couple of years and then is replaced by another guy who does the exact same thing for a couple of years off the bench while Bazley gets drafted a few picks later and, after a couple of years or getting stronger and learning, becomes a guy who is killing the league for the next eight to ten years.
Bazley could very well get drafted and be Dante Cunningham career wise though. No one makes 1st round pick and thinks oh this guy's probably just going to be a borderline nba role player, they pick guys hoping they pan out. Some do, some don't. I mean were all high on Bazley but he could be a bust or never amount to what we think his potential is. It's what makes the draft, challenging, and fun, you just never know.
Very true. However, you have to account for potential and the floor. Potential: Bazley >>> Cunningham Floor: Cunningham >> Bazley Cunningham was the equivalent to a bunt. You may get to first base if you're lucky. Bazley, you're at least swinging at the pitch. You may strike out, but you also may get a double or triple.
If anyone should understand picking the BPA should almost always be the way to go, it should be Blazer fans. How many titles do you think the Blazers would have won had they drafted Jordan the year after drafting Drexler. This wasn't Oden v Durant, where two guys were considered comparable talents. This was the Blazers needing a center and having a fantastic two guard already. So they passed on one of the five greatest players in NBA history. Does anyone think moving Clyde to the 3 most of the time would have been a problem? We ended up finding a playable center on an NBA championship contender in the bargain basement.
There really no sure bets in the draft. To me as much I like him to be on this team I still think we can pick him up in the early 2 round if we want to buy in. The reason I still think he 2rd round is not a lot information on him due he didn't play last year. So far not a lot teams bring him in for workouts I Philly San Antonio Orlando the next one Detroit. This could teams not interested or it could be his agent trying to direct to teams that they is best for there client.
Absolutely. But if you tell me that Bazley and Cunningham's ceilings are remotely close, I'd have to question your eye for talent and knowledge of growth and upside. Hopefully, the Blazers aren't going to draft in the lottery for a long time. So, if you have a chance to get a guy at 25 who might have gone in the top 10, you grab him. If he turns out to be Dante Cunningham or Grant Williams, he turns out to be Dante Cunningham or Grant Williams, just like Dante Cunningham and Grant Williams did. So you don't lose anything betting on his floor, because it's the same. It's his ceiling that is astronomically higher.
I haven't seen any information that he's worked out for Philly. I'm sure his agent has an idea of where what teams he's willing to work out for... Apparently you need a pick in the late teens. Detroit - Pick #15 Orlando - Pick #16 San Antonio - Pick #19 I'd expect Boston #14, #20, & #22, Indiana #18, and Brooklyn #17 to be his next stops.
This is always fun to think about with Donovan Mitchell. Would he be the same player had we taken him at 10 instead of Collins? Maybe he would've been so good in practice that it made CJ expendable though. It's tough to know.
They watch him at pro day in southern California with other players but not physically went to Philly to workout my correction.
Apparently the Knicks and Hawks are discussing a trade of #3 for #8 and #10. As much as I'm kind meh on Barrett I think this would be a bad move by NY in this draft.
I hate to ruffle feathers, but.... 1) There is no such thing as "BPA". Players can be rated on 30 or so metrics. We can make up weighting functions for each of these metrics, but in the end it leads to qualitative decision-making, i.e. guessing. That's why GMs "Tier Draft". 2) We're not drafting Bazley - don't get a coronary when we don't. He's not on our radar, or anyone else's as far as I've heard. If he starts to get on our radar, he'll be on the radar of those picking ahead of us, too.
Geez Buzzkill! 1) You don't think there is a difference between taking the highest rated player on your board no matter what position they play and taking the highest rated player at a specific position of need? C'mon man. 2) What does that mean? Was Collins on our radar before the draft? How are you determining he's not on our radar or anyone else's radar? That's nonsense.
But why shouldn't the "board" or ranking system or whatever take position into account already? Like if I'm making a list of players and two are really close, I'm going to put the player that is a position we need ahead of others we don't need. Makes more sense that way to me.
He was talking about rating prospects on a 30 or so category metric. Position wouldn't come into play. If it's close, absolutely take the position you need. If Phoenix got the #1 pick should they rate Ja Morant higher than Zion because they took Ayton last year?
Yeesh... Don't like this: Weaknesses: Doesn't always look fully engaged in the game and intensity level seems to come and go ... He struggles shooting the three-point shot ... He only hit on 27% of his 3 pointers last year, while taking almost four a game ... Decision making needs work ... He is prone to taking shooting questionable shots at times ... He needs to improve his free throw shooting ... He shot 72% but improving upon it will add to his point totals ... He’s not an explosive athlete ... At times his defensive effort can be lagging ... He can be to ball dominant on offense at times, leading to bad shots ... He can be careless with the ball at times, leading to poor turnovers ... He’s to reliant on his right hand, which will make him easier to defend in the NBA ... He has trouble controlling the game from the half court ... A part of the problem with his three-point shot is that he’s hesitant to take them at times ... He struggles when he is forced to be the primary playmaker ... He needs to improve his overall efficiency as he shot just under 45 percent from the field ... That’s not bad but it could improve ...
But I get your point and think I disagree with it. I think position should be one the main criteria of rating a player for a specific team.
