From what I've heard, there'll be about 15 players long gone by #10.... [video]http://www.nba.com/blazers/video/2013/06/10/mccollum061013m4v-2504695[/video]
I would be very surprised if McCollum is there when we pick. If he is, I would say pick him for someone else. If we're keeping the player we pick at #10 I want it to be one who complements the team, not who duplicates what we've already got. And yes, I'm aware of the BPA ethos, but I don't necessarily buy that a player who would be great in one situation is great in another. So "BPA" includes reference to the team you're drafting him to be a member of (if you see what I mean). I know he's saying he could play alongside Lillard, but Lillard is saying "he could come off the bench". Here's a possible historical comparison: Utah with Stockton and Hornacek. Hornacek was probably around McCollum's size and had similar skills. BUT: notice Stockton was a PURE PG, which neither Lillard nor McCollum are. If we drafted McCollum it would be more like the Philly team that traded Barkley for Hornacek and started Hornacek and... I want to say Hersey Hawkins? [Checks: ah yes, it was. And they went 26-56.] Two short tweeners pretending to share PG duties. So: if McCollum fell, he would almost certainly be the highest remaining player on most peoples' draft boards. But he wouldn't be the best player for the Blazers. So, by all means take him: and trade him. Unless you think he's actually a better version of Lillard (blasphemy!) in which case trade Lillard - you could probably get a nice player in return... But if we're picking to keep, and we're picking a guard, then I'd go Schröder or one of the two hyphenated guys. Or better yet, acquire a pick lower down and get Franklin or Crabbe, and take a big at #10.
Just because lillard can score the ball doesn't mean he doesn't have pure pg skill. Don't be hard headed...or did you not watch any games last year?
He isn't first on my wish-list but I think he's gonna be very good. He would make for a very interesting combo-guard combination with Lillard. I like that Olshey likes him, tells me he has a good eye for talent.
At number 10, of all the most realistic possibilities I like Zeller the most. He must get stronger but his understanding of the game if excellent and he's a great athlete. Not to mention his great touch from anywhere on the floor. I don't know if he fits well with LMA, but he may be the best prospect at 10.
Yes I did. Lillard is not the worst at creating shots for others, and he clearly means well (he's not a player who just freezes out the other players) BUT it's not a great strength and doesn't appear to come particularly naturally. What I saw was that in first halves he would focus on trying to get others involved and not be particularly good at it, and at the same time we'd lose his strength and everyone would start saying "what's with Lillard? He's invisible out there!" Then, in second halves, he would say fuck it and start getting his, and we'd all be happy. Why do you think we acquired Maynor and Stotts played them together so much? (Posting tip: don't quote the entire post, just the part you're responding to.)
because playing Wes & DL 48 minutes a night wasn't a realistic option. Those two and Maynor were by far their best 3 guards. STOMP
We got Maynor because we were able to pick up a pretty good back up PG for pretty cheap. We didn't have one. Stotts played them together because playing two PG's together works. Always has. An extra passer/ball handler in the game that can also shoot..... Offensively it is ideal. Defensively.....you have to pick your spots.
If Batum moved to SG, we would have another ball handler at guard. I think our sights should really be on a defensive minded SF. One that slashes and posts up. We could bring Matthews as the first guard off the bench and really solidify our bench.
So you want a defensive SF that can create their own shot and score by slashing and posting up . . . I think every team in the league wants that player.
Totally agree with you on this. I like Lillard - I like him a lot. But his passing skills are adequate, not terrific. The reason he's able to average so many assists is because (a) the ball is in his hands 90% of the time and (b) he's a good player that doesn't generally make bad decisions. But he doesn't generally create high percentage shots for his teammates. Open shots, yes, but not high percentage shots. Nic actually does a better job at creating high percentage shots for others. That's not to say he WON'T make passes for high percentage shots - when he sees an opening he'll make the pass - but he's not the type to gamble on high risk/high reward passes, and doesn't quite seem to know how to create those cutting and passing lanes that lead to assisted lay-ups.
Did Nic's ball handling get significantly better, suddenly? The difference between Maynor and pretty much everyone else on our team is the reason we played Maynor w/DL. Or else, we wouldn't of had to put Maynor in to get pressure off of Lillard.
There is a reason why too. The Sf is an anchor like the center, just that the Sf anchors the perimeter. Batum isn't good in this regard. He plays like a sg; which should be his position:
Nic is a good handler. There was a reason why our team had much more success when his hand wasn't injured too.
The more ball handlers on the floor the better. I don't care which wing position Nic plays, but the other wing needs to be able to possess those skills too. I want three on the floor at all times. Certainly they won't all be as good as the PG but teams who only having two players who can handle the ball are limited. Those who only have one.....suck
