and with the #1 pick in the 2009 NBA draft the Kings select...
- Thread starter RiffRaff
- Start date
Really wish I could have seen that Georgetown/UConn game. Thanks for the summary. Can't make a top 5 without having seen Monroe, but I still like Thabeet even if he struggled. He won't be guarding many power forwards in the NBA. I think he's one of those guys who will be better in the NBA than in college because he'll be guarding the Brook Lopezes of the world, not the Greg Monroes.
Also, someone's going to have to explain Jrue Holiday to me. Has he been playing better lately? I wasn't impressed when I saw him play a few times early in the season. He doesn't look that quick to me.
Also, someone's going to have to explain Jrue Holiday to me. Has he been playing better lately? I wasn't impressed when I saw him play a few times early in the season. He doesn't look that quick to me.
Last edited:
If past is prologue, you and a lot of other people on this board are right, and Mills is very good. And Petrie probably believes he's very good. But come draft day, Petrie will sit back in his passive self and watch Mills go a few slots ahead of his second #1, not making a deal to get a player that he really likes. That's one of the things that drives me crazy with Petrie - he knows talent, he just doesn't seem to have the guts to trade up in the draft to get it.
PS Brook Lopez is significantly better than Thabeet imo. Thabeet is really challenged on the offensive end. He's not a great rebounder either. Great, so he blocks shots. That's not nearly enough to make up for his other deficiencies.
I've heard through the grapevine that he has been playing better. Part of the problem Holliday faces is that he's taking point guard responsibilities away from the senior Collison. It's hard to be "the man" in that kind of situation.
I've heard through the grapevine that he has been playing better. Part of the problem Holliday faces is that he's taking point guard responsibilities away from the senior Collison. It's hard to be "the man" in that kind of situation.
I think it was Chad Ford who had an excellent article about this on ESPN, although it requires Insider. However, it articulates how I feel drafting should be done and how I do my fantasy drafts pretty well.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/insider/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=Tiers-080619
The premise is basically rank players into tiers. When it is your turn to draft, you take the biggest need within the current tier. However, you never reach to a lower tier simply for need. So if the Kings have a SG and PF in the same tier (even if the SG is slightly higher), than taking the C makes sense. However, if the SG is the only player left in say Tier 2, but there is a Tier 3 PG available, then you still take the SG.
I will post a blip from the article below that explains it better. However, if I am violating any rules, I understand if a Moderator has to erase this.
"
The rules are pretty simple. You always draft the highest-ranked player in a given tier. So, for example, if the Warriors are drafting at No. 14 (Tier 4 territory) and Joe Alexander (a Tier 3 player) is on the board, they take him regardless of position. You never take a player from a lower tier if one from a higher tier is available. So if the Warriors have Darrell Arthur ranked No. 1 in Tier 4, they still take Alexander, even though power forward is a more pressing need.
WARRIORS
Team needs
1. PF
2. PG
3. SG
Tier 3
7. Joe Alexander
8. Brook Lopez
Tier 4
1. Darrell Arthur
2. Brandon Rush
3. Kosta Koufos This system protects teams from overreaching based on team need. The Warriors won't pass on a clearly superior player like Alexander to fill a need with Arthur. However, the system also protects teams from passing on a player who fits a need just because he is ranked one or two spots lower overall.
Let me give you an example from the worst-drafting team over the past few years, the Hawks. Former Hawks GM Billy Knight said in the past that he takes the best player on the board, regardless of team need. He proved that in the past few years by taking Marvin Williams ahead of Chris Paul and Deron Williams in 2005, and taking Shelden Williams ahead of a point guard like Rajon Rondo in 2006.
A source formerly with Atlanta's front office told me the Hawks had Marvin Williams ranked No. 1, Andrew Bogut ranked No. 2, Deron Williams ranked No. 3 and Paul ranked No. 4 in 2005. So on draft night, Knight took Marvin Williams with the No. 2 pick after the Bucks selected Bogut No. 1 overall.
In a tier system, however, the source conceded that all four players, at least in his mind, would have been Tier 1 players -- in other words, the Hawks thought all four had equal long-term impact potential. If the Hawks had employed a tier system, they would have ranked inside the tier based on team need and fit, rather than just ranking the prospects from 1 to 30.
In that case, the Hawks likely would have ranked either Bogut (they needed a center) or Deron Williams (they still need a point guard) No. 1. Marvin Williams actually would have been ranked No. 4 under that scenario.
In any case, like every draft system, the tier system isn't perfect. But the teams that use it have found success with it. It has allowed them to get help through the draft without overreaching. Compared to traditional top-30 lists or mock drafts, it seems like a much more precise tool of gauging which players a team should draft."
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/insider/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=Tiers-080619
The premise is basically rank players into tiers. When it is your turn to draft, you take the biggest need within the current tier. However, you never reach to a lower tier simply for need. So if the Kings have a SG and PF in the same tier (even if the SG is slightly higher), than taking the C makes sense. However, if the SG is the only player left in say Tier 2, but there is a Tier 3 PG available, then you still take the SG.
I will post a blip from the article below that explains it better. However, if I am violating any rules, I understand if a Moderator has to erase this.
"
The rules are pretty simple. You always draft the highest-ranked player in a given tier. So, for example, if the Warriors are drafting at No. 14 (Tier 4 territory) and Joe Alexander (a Tier 3 player) is on the board, they take him regardless of position. You never take a player from a lower tier if one from a higher tier is available. So if the Warriors have Darrell Arthur ranked No. 1 in Tier 4, they still take Alexander, even though power forward is a more pressing need.
WARRIORS
Team needs
1. PF
2. PG
3. SG
Tier 3
7. Joe Alexander
8. Brook Lopez
Tier 4
1. Darrell Arthur
2. Brandon Rush
3. Kosta Koufos This system protects teams from overreaching based on team need. The Warriors won't pass on a clearly superior player like Alexander to fill a need with Arthur. However, the system also protects teams from passing on a player who fits a need just because he is ranked one or two spots lower overall.
Let me give you an example from the worst-drafting team over the past few years, the Hawks. Former Hawks GM Billy Knight said in the past that he takes the best player on the board, regardless of team need. He proved that in the past few years by taking Marvin Williams ahead of Chris Paul and Deron Williams in 2005, and taking Shelden Williams ahead of a point guard like Rajon Rondo in 2006.
A source formerly with Atlanta's front office told me the Hawks had Marvin Williams ranked No. 1, Andrew Bogut ranked No. 2, Deron Williams ranked No. 3 and Paul ranked No. 4 in 2005. So on draft night, Knight took Marvin Williams with the No. 2 pick after the Bucks selected Bogut No. 1 overall.
In a tier system, however, the source conceded that all four players, at least in his mind, would have been Tier 1 players -- in other words, the Hawks thought all four had equal long-term impact potential. If the Hawks had employed a tier system, they would have ranked inside the tier based on team need and fit, rather than just ranking the prospects from 1 to 30.
In that case, the Hawks likely would have ranked either Bogut (they needed a center) or Deron Williams (they still need a point guard) No. 1. Marvin Williams actually would have been ranked No. 4 under that scenario.
In any case, like every draft system, the tier system isn't perfect. But the teams that use it have found success with it. It has allowed them to get help through the draft without overreaching. Compared to traditional top-30 lists or mock drafts, it seems like a much more precise tool of gauging which players a team should draft."
Ok, I'm not suprised by the top 4 (although I still think Holliday will sneak into your list by the end of the Tourney). However, Lawal is still very raw. He has a huge wingspan and all the raw skills, but is just that raw offensively and only blocks 1.2 shots a game. Low even for a raw player with his physical capabilities. What is your take on him?
I've seen Thabeet play quite a few times, and I still think he shows flashes of offensive potential. He's got great hands and he's got a jump hook that's not bad when he uses it, and he shoots free throws decently for a big (66-70%). He's also good at getting garbage points around the basket and finishing. I mean, he's shooting 67% from the field this year.
Problem is, he just never gets the ball, and never will in the perennial UConn offenisve free for all. He's probably never going to be someone you go to for points in the NBA, but he wouldn't be a Ben Wallace-esque black hole either.
Problem is, he just never gets the ball, and never will in the perennial UConn offenisve free for all. He's probably never going to be someone you go to for points in the NBA, but he wouldn't be a Ben Wallace-esque black hole either.
Boy did you say a mouthful when you said he's no Mutombo offensively. Mutombo has never been considered a very good offensive player. Especially when he was young. He never got better than decent. So to say that Thabeet is not as good, which is true, tells you all you need to know about Thabeet's offensive game. There isn't one.
I think you pretty much covered it. I have him in fifth place on potential alone. I doubt that he will stay there. He hasn't played that well the last two games, but he's been the focus of the defense. As you said he's raw, but he has good court awareness and does a lot of the little things he needs to do to get better. Such as not leaving his feet on ball fakes, and blocking out for rebounds, etc. He still has a ways to go and by no means is anywhere near as polished as Monroe.
DX's changes alone show how these rankings will shift constantly until draft day. If Monroe, Thabeet, etc have a great, or horrible, tournament showing the boards may look completely different come May. and June. But, in vague terms, if a guy like Monroe or Thabeet is still in top 4 contention when we pick around there in June, I think you have to pull the trigger. PG can be addressed elsewhere--either waiting another year for Rubio, or using a pick from a Miller or Salmons deal to package with the Houston pick and try to trade up. Or if all three big man pan out, you trade one for a PG. But if there's a quality, potential franchise big on the table in June, you have to take him. Hawes and Thompson are by no means sure bets, and we're in no position to turn away talent, no matter what position they play.
Dalembert is his ceiling IMO, although he could be an even better shot blocker than him. Which isn't bad at all, but is it good enough to draft at a position we already have Hawes at? I'd rather try to accomodate Hawes' weaknesses (defense/rebounding) at the PF position than replace him or try to have a revolving frontcourt with him, Thompson, and Thabeet.
Last edited:
Well, last night he dropped two passes right under the basket. He doesn't position himself in the post and the reason his percentage is so high is because almost all of his points come off of dunks. I've alread watched this guy play 4 times this year and I'm sorry, he just doesn't have offensive instincts.
I'm not saying he can't play in the NBA. Put him on a team with four other starters that can score the ball and he'll be fine. He's a terrific shot blocker. The most troubling part of his game to me is his rebounding. All he gets are lucky rebounds. He doesn't work for them. And he doesn't appear to like contact. He gets pushed out of the way by players much smaller than him.
Hey if the Kings could get him with Houston's pick, I'm on board. But there's no way in the world he's a top five pick.
I'm not saying he can't play in the NBA. Put him on a team with four other starters that can score the ball and he'll be fine. He's a terrific shot blocker. The most troubling part of his game to me is his rebounding. All he gets are lucky rebounds. He doesn't work for them. And he doesn't appear to like contact. He gets pushed out of the way by players much smaller than him.
Hey if the Kings could get him with Houston's pick, I'm on board. But there's no way in the world he's a top five pick.
Right now there's a pretty large gap between Holiday and the top four on my list. Now that may narrow by draft day, and I hope it does. I hope like hell that he proves to me and everyone that he's a true pt guard. I think its a little harder for him having to play with Collison. I keep hoping that Collison will have some little nagging injury that will keep him out for a few games, just to give Holiday a chance to be the leader of the team.
I admit I'm going a lot on my own projections of Holiday, but I'm confident he'll prove to be a talent worthy of being in that same tier as them. "True PG" gets tossed around a lot, but I don't think we need a high assist always giving it up type of PG, I'd settle for a Billups type easy; which I think we need more than a Calderon type.
I was thinking more of a Chris Paul.
No seriously, I know what you mean. To me, a true pt guard is someone that first of all, has pt guard skills. Passing skills, and the ability to see the floor and the play before it happens. I believe he also has to be thinking about getting his teammates involved before anything else. At the same time, I would like him to be able score when needed.
I don't think being the quickest is a necessary quality. It certainly doesn't hurt, but John Stockton wasn't that quick, and I doubt anyone would turn him down for their team. What I don't want is an AI wantabe. My gut tells me thats what Curry is going to be. I could be wrong. I would take Mills over Curry in a heartbeat. I still have high hopes for Holiday. Plenty of time left for him to shine.
No seriously, I know what you mean. To me, a true pt guard is someone that first of all, has pt guard skills. Passing skills, and the ability to see the floor and the play before it happens. I believe he also has to be thinking about getting his teammates involved before anything else. At the same time, I would like him to be able score when needed. I don't think being the quickest is a necessary quality. It certainly doesn't hurt, but John Stockton wasn't that quick, and I doubt anyone would turn him down for their team. What I don't want is an AI wantabe. My gut tells me thats what Curry is going to be. I could be wrong. I would take Mills over Curry in a heartbeat. I still have high hopes for Holiday. Plenty of time left for him to shine.
My gut tells me the opposite, and it's based on the Loyola (MD) game where the opposing coach designed a very strict (and very silly) double team on Curry. Once Curry figured out the double team, he went into the far corner of the court to see if they would continue it, and they did. So Curry spent his offensive possessions doing nothing and letting his team go 4-on-3. All game. He scored no points. I can't see Iverson doing that, ever.
He is quite a gunner, but I think it's more out of necessity than out of selfishness. As long as he can handle the point in the NBA, I'd have him pretty high on my draft board.
He is quite a gunner, but I think it's more out of necessity than out of selfishness. As long as he can handle the point in the NBA, I'd have him pretty high on my draft board.
You could be right. Sometimes its hard to judge a player because of the system he plays in. Curry could be a victim of that. North Carolina is a school that has the ability to disguise players. Sometimes hiding a superstar and sometimes making an average player look better than he is.
One of those sum of the parts things.
Anyway, I respect your opinion, and will continue to watch him. Hopefully Davidson will make the show again.
One of those sum of the parts things.
Anyway, I respect your opinion, and will continue to watch him. Hopefully Davidson will make the show again.
Right back atcha. As far as Davidson goes, I think aside from next week's visit to Duke, they're not too likely to get any national television unless they do get to the dance. But right now their RPI is really soild, so they're in good shape to make it in "at large" even if they lay an egg in their conference tourney. And that'll be my only further chances to watch Curry before the draft. It seems that you have access to more than just the national feeds, so keep watching and reporting for us!
