Griffin or Rubio????
- Thread starter CruzDude
- Start date
I think I would take Griffin over Rubio because Griffin is more of a sure thing than Rubio. There are many more question marks about Rubio than there is with Griffin. It also depends on the style the Kings prefer to play. With Griffin you have someone who will be able to bang down low and add muscle to the inside and if he is as good as advertised he would create double teams. Someone who can create double teams on a consistent basis will change the whole dynamic of the team for the better. Kings at the moment are a pretty decent jump shooting team and we live and die by jumpers, so just imagine now also having post presence to go to and playing inside out. That right there would be a formula for successs 
. With Rubio you have someone who could direct the offense. At such a young age he seems to have IQ level off the charts. As a point guard he will put people in the right places and make the right plays. He'll basically make people around him better with his passing skills. Our assist to turn ratio will definitely improve with better point guard play. Personally I would prefer rebounding and inside presence over good assist/turnover ratio. Also Kings right now are pretty much a perimeter team, so adding something inside would balance the team out more.
. With Rubio you have someone who could direct the offense. At such a young age he seems to have IQ level off the charts. As a point guard he will put people in the right places and make the right plays. He'll basically make people around him better with his passing skills. Our assist to turn ratio will definitely improve with better point guard play. Personally I would prefer rebounding and inside presence over good assist/turnover ratio. Also Kings right now are pretty much a perimeter team, so adding something inside would balance the team out more.
Last edited:
A great PG like Deron or Paul or Rose have impacted their franchises more than the teams that took bigs like Beasley or Horford. Griffin is a better Beasley and not quite a Horford.
So, I'd rather take a shot on a franchise PG than Griffin... unless of obvious LeBron or Dwight Howard was going in this draft, I'd pick Rubio.
What'd be IDEAL to me is; we get the 1st pick, and Thunder end up like 4th.... we grab Griffin... and if Rubio is still on the board at OK's pick, we work out a trade of Griff and McCants or something for Ricky and Green or something...
So, I'd rather take a shot on a franchise PG than Griffin... unless of obvious LeBron or Dwight Howard was going in this draft, I'd pick Rubio.
What'd be IDEAL to me is; we get the 1st pick, and Thunder end up like 4th.... we grab Griffin... and if Rubio is still on the board at OK's pick, we work out a trade of Griff and McCants or something for Ricky and Green or something...
One aspect to consider in the Rubio debate: what will be available at the position next year. With the position becoming increasingly athletic going forward, will Rubio be able to hang? And if that is in question, should we take Griffin this year and then John Wall next year? I guess the bottom line of my prod is this: who will be better in 5 years, John Wall or Rubio?
I'm not sure whether Rubio could become the caliber of player Deron and Paul is. While I do think he will become a decent point guard, I don't think he can impact the game like how Deron and Paul does. If you compare Rubio to Deron, Paul, and Rose, he lacks a lot of what all those point gaurds have.. such as athleticism/speed/strength/offense. Who knows.. maybe he could improve in those areas?
Just for the record.. Horford is not better than Beasley.. you have to put in account that Beasley is a lot younger than Horford and is producing stats already near Horfords. Beasely will definitely become better than Horford if he is not already. I do think Griffin at the minimum will at least become an Al horford for you, but lets hope he becomes more than just that if we do indeed draft Griffin.
I think its a highly unlikely scenario that we trade for another high pick. Through history Geoff Petrie almost never trade for more picks. Also by 4th pick im pretty sure Rubio would be gone by then
Just for the record.. Horford is not better than Beasley.. you have to put in account that Beasley is a lot younger than Horford and is producing stats already near Horfords. Beasely will definitely become better than Horford if he is not already. I do think Griffin at the minimum will at least become an Al horford for you, but lets hope he becomes more than just that if we do indeed draft Griffin.
I think its a highly unlikely scenario that we trade for another high pick. Through history Geoff Petrie almost never trade for more picks. Also by 4th pick im pretty sure Rubio would be gone by then
You guys aren't addressing the question. The question isn't who do you want more or should we trade down, the question is do you take Griffin or Rubio with the #1 pick??
And personally I think anyone taking Rubio over Griffin with the #1 pick is nuts. It's a lot of wishful thinking to think that his passing ability alone is more likely to pan out than Griffin's athleticism and motor.
People are rooting for the player they want Rubio to be, not the player he is. I can't believe people have gotten so out of control with their Rubio love. The guy is limited even in the best case scenario!!
And personally I think anyone taking Rubio over Griffin with the #1 pick is nuts. It's a lot of wishful thinking to think that his passing ability alone is more likely to pan out than Griffin's athleticism and motor.
People are rooting for the player they want Rubio to be, not the player he is. I can't believe people have gotten so out of control with their Rubio love. The guy is limited even in the best case scenario!!
Last edited:
That's just unfair. I have seen my fair share of both; I prefer Rubio. That's not to say that I think Griffin definitely won't be a better pro than Rubio, I just don't think he will be.
I agree that perhaps some are setting themselves up for disappointment when they compare Rubio to Paul and Rose. He is simply not the athlete they are. I do think he has a far higher ceiling than you give him credit for, though.
Anyway, I do like Griffin. I would be happy with him at 1. But, if it comes down to a choice between the two, I'm taking Rubio.
This was said by hrdboild in the other thread.
I agree with this very much. I'd take Griffin over Rubio. Big>small, unless we're talking about Chris Paul.
With Rubio, you'd still need a player like Griffin (or at least a player with the potential that Griffin has). With Griffin, you don't need the visionary passing of Rubio to be successful.
I agree with this very much. I'd take Griffin over Rubio. Big>small, unless we're talking about Chris Paul.
With Rubio, you'd still need a player like Griffin (or at least a player with the potential that Griffin has). With Griffin, you don't need the visionary passing of Rubio to be successful.
Last edited:
I'm not really objecting to people wanting Rubio more than Griffin. That's their prerogative. I just think that people are beginning to act like Rubio's a sure thing and that we HAVE to have him, nevermind his shortcomings.
I know you know what those shortcomings are, and we've discussed them a lot. But the fact is: he has a lot of shortcomings. Even in the best case scenario I don't know that he would be worth a #1 pick because of his athletic limitations.
Meanwhile, yes, Griffin also has some limitations, but I trust him a great deal more as a #1 pick in a weak draft because I think the odds are much greater that he pans out than Rubio. And we still need another big.
And fine, if Rubio's the guy, get him, but don't get him at #1. That's just not good value. Trade down.
I know you know what those shortcomings are, and we've discussed them a lot. But the fact is: he has a lot of shortcomings. Even in the best case scenario I don't know that he would be worth a #1 pick because of his athletic limitations.
Meanwhile, yes, Griffin also has some limitations, but I trust him a great deal more as a #1 pick in a weak draft because I think the odds are much greater that he pans out than Rubio. And we still need another big.
And fine, if Rubio's the guy, get him, but don't get him at #1. That's just not good value. Trade down.
I don't recall anyone that voted for Rubio saying that he was a sure thing. And you did imply that anyone that would pick him over Griffin was nuts. I think thats coming on a little strong. Personally I would be happy with either one. I do believe we have a greater need at the point position and Rubio does have a lot of the skills that I like. Chris Paul himself gave praise to Rubio for his abilities. The safest pick. Probably Griffin. The one with the greatest reward, if the dude is as good as advertised. Rubio! The question is, how much do you want to gamble?
Ok, maybe "insane" is a little strong, but you have to admit that the Rubio love has gotten a little irrational at this point. If you took away the highlight reels and the cool name and the hype and you told people "There's this 18 year old Spanish guy who is a really great passer but can't shoot and is an average athlete at best," I don't think people would be talking about passing on the consensus #1 to get him.
This is a no-brainer. For us to have a shot at Griffin means we're picking #1, and if we land the #1 pick and choose someone other than the Oklahoma PF then someone needs to be fired, barring a trade down. I'm open to Rubio but you don't pick him with the #1.
Remember the Pistons decided they didn't need another SG and instead drafted for need with a young Euro big? A few years later, that SG met the Pistons in the playoff and almost single-handedly knocked them out.
We're facing a similar situation in that if we land the #1 pick, many of the teams drafting immediately behind us are in our conference. Whoever we pass is going to be our opponent for a long time - facing us four times every year, helping a WC team take our playoff spot, and potentially knocking us out of the post-season. A lot is at sake and I think the Kings have to go with the sure thing, in this case Griffin.
The question I ask is, which player most make you uneasy if the Kings are playing his team in a 7-game series? For me, I'd not feel comfortable seeing the Kings face Griffin. Rubio, on the other hand, I think can be neutralized by good strategy. In fact, Griffin, Harden, and Thabeet are guys that if we pass, I'd wish they go to the EC.
Remember the Pistons decided they didn't need another SG and instead drafted for need with a young Euro big? A few years later, that SG met the Pistons in the playoff and almost single-handedly knocked them out.
We're facing a similar situation in that if we land the #1 pick, many of the teams drafting immediately behind us are in our conference. Whoever we pass is going to be our opponent for a long time - facing us four times every year, helping a WC team take our playoff spot, and potentially knocking us out of the post-season. A lot is at sake and I think the Kings have to go with the sure thing, in this case Griffin.
The question I ask is, which player most make you uneasy if the Kings are playing his team in a 7-game series? For me, I'd not feel comfortable seeing the Kings face Griffin. Rubio, on the other hand, I think can be neutralized by good strategy. In fact, Griffin, Harden, and Thabeet are guys that if we pass, I'd wish they go to the EC.
Last edited:
You are making Rubio sound worse than he is with that statement. He isn't just a passer, he's a floor leader. Honestly i want that over the inside presence right now. I have to agree with you that we take Griffin first thoe, because we can always trade down. We might be able to get Rubio and a little extra if we play our cards right by drafting Griffin, so taking Rubio first should be out of the question imo.
The focus should always be on improving your team the best way, not how to prevent other teams from getting better.
If you're going to use the 2003 draft as a comparison, then why are you talking about Wade being the alternative to Darko? Wade was not considered the BPA by anyone at that pick so I don't see how you can expect them to have considered Wade the second best talent at the time.
Also, what are you trying to imply by the Darko comparison? Drafting by need with a top pick fails? That's ridiculous, what Darko turned into was a shock to everyone, and anyone who picked him in the top 5 would've been greatly disappointed.
Sure you take the BPA but when the talent level is comparable you give need the edge because it's the path of least resistance. Sure Griffin is consensus no.1 right now, but Rubio hasn't been in the discussion because it's uncertain whether he is going to be in the draft. Also, bigs normally get the edge over PG's at the top picks. Only recently in Rose's pick has that really been challenged. However if you look at the '90 and the '94 draft you'll see that thinking didn't work out there. My point being that BPA isn't necessarily what the consensus is because the consensus is normally bias towards bigs, especially American bigs.
Griffin has plenty of downside to him, and I really don't see the degree of separation between him and Rubio as far as talent goes to suggest that if we did take Rubio with the 1st pick instead of Griffin that it would be cause for a firing. I'm definitely open to drafting Griffin and trading down, he's highly valued but if there isn't really any great deals to be had in trading down then we should just pick the guy we think is going to be the best player.
If you're going to use the 2003 draft as a comparison, then why are you talking about Wade being the alternative to Darko? Wade was not considered the BPA by anyone at that pick so I don't see how you can expect them to have considered Wade the second best talent at the time.
Also, what are you trying to imply by the Darko comparison? Drafting by need with a top pick fails? That's ridiculous, what Darko turned into was a shock to everyone, and anyone who picked him in the top 5 would've been greatly disappointed.
Sure you take the BPA but when the talent level is comparable you give need the edge because it's the path of least resistance. Sure Griffin is consensus no.1 right now, but Rubio hasn't been in the discussion because it's uncertain whether he is going to be in the draft. Also, bigs normally get the edge over PG's at the top picks. Only recently in Rose's pick has that really been challenged. However if you look at the '90 and the '94 draft you'll see that thinking didn't work out there. My point being that BPA isn't necessarily what the consensus is because the consensus is normally bias towards bigs, especially American bigs.
Griffin has plenty of downside to him, and I really don't see the degree of separation between him and Rubio as far as talent goes to suggest that if we did take Rubio with the 1st pick instead of Griffin that it would be cause for a firing. I'm definitely open to drafting Griffin and trading down, he's highly valued but if there isn't really any great deals to be had in trading down then we should just pick the guy we think is going to be the best player.
Well, the real comparison is Carmelo Anthony more than Wade. Wade was seen as kind of a wildcard because of his height and how he came out of nowhere, but Carmelo WAS considered the BPA by most rational people at the time (i.e. not Chad Ford) and Dumars passed on him for the mysterious upside choice. I think that's the more obvious parallel with the Rubio over Griffin debate.
I'm a little puzzled. You talked as if Wade shouldn't be mentioned because he wasn't considered the BPA, so you're talking about concensus (a big part of who's the BPA). But in the next breath you completely dismissed concensus.
I, for one, don't want to base anyone on consensus. Griffin is the best player becasue he's the best one I've seen outside of the NBA. Simple as that.
First of all, the 03 draft was an example of what can happen when you let good talent slip to your conference rival; it sure can come back to haunt you in a tangible way (in this case being knocked out of PO).
Second, I'm not comparing Darko to Rubio. I never saw Darko played in Europe so I won't go there. But there are several parallel with the 03 draft:
1) Like Rubio, there was a LOT of hype surrounding Darko before the draft. Again, I never saw Darko played in Europe, perhaps the hype was justified.
2) There were sure-thing like Carmelo, but for reason that never quite fully explained, almost everyone fell in love with Darko. The questions that many people wanted to know back then is similar to the question many people are asking now, "If Darko isn't a sure-fire All-Star then why don't the Piston draft Carmelo, who at worst is a borderline All-Star?"
3) American players who played with or againsted Darko all had nothing but high praise for the kid. Sports Illistrated had a full article on him, said the 7-footer is a combination of the best of both worlds - Euro skill and NBA toughness.
And lastly, I'd argue that there is no such thing as "All things being equal/comparable then draft for need." Things are never equal, I don't know of a way to compare a PF and a PG. All I can say is that if Griffin is used properly, he will have a bigger impact on a game than Rubio.
Are you saying Griffin's #1 status is due to biased consensus towards bigs and that Rubio is the BPA at #1? If that's the case, I'd say you're wrong on both account.
I, for one, don't want to base anyone on consensus. Griffin is the best player becasue he's the best one I've seen outside of the NBA. Simple as that.
First of all, the 03 draft was an example of what can happen when you let good talent slip to your conference rival; it sure can come back to haunt you in a tangible way (in this case being knocked out of PO).
Second, I'm not comparing Darko to Rubio. I never saw Darko played in Europe so I won't go there. But there are several parallel with the 03 draft:
1) Like Rubio, there was a LOT of hype surrounding Darko before the draft. Again, I never saw Darko played in Europe, perhaps the hype was justified.
2) There were sure-thing like Carmelo, but for reason that never quite fully explained, almost everyone fell in love with Darko. The questions that many people wanted to know back then is similar to the question many people are asking now, "If Darko isn't a sure-fire All-Star then why don't the Piston draft Carmelo, who at worst is a borderline All-Star?"
3) American players who played with or againsted Darko all had nothing but high praise for the kid. Sports Illistrated had a full article on him, said the 7-footer is a combination of the best of both worlds - Euro skill and NBA toughness.
And lastly, I'd argue that there is no such thing as "All things being equal/comparable then draft for need." Things are never equal, I don't know of a way to compare a PF and a PG. All I can say is that if Griffin is used properly, he will have a bigger impact on a game than Rubio.
Are you saying Griffin's #1 status is due to biased consensus towards bigs and that Rubio is the BPA at #1? If that's the case, I'd say you're wrong on both account.
Last edited:
This debate is a good one considering the two are most likely going to be the top two picks in this years' class, but what it really comes down to is need.
Jason Thompson is a blossoming rookie PF. No need to draft two PF's in back-to-back years. Skilled big men aren't as hard to come by like they used to be. Griffin MAY be the best player, but he doesn't fill a need, which means I say no.
Now as for Rubio, the kid can play. I've watched every game and every highlight reel of the guy, and his instincts and court vision are a rare find. True impact PG's are VERY hard to find, and with the fact that Beno sucks and B-Jax is nearing the end, we need to address this position. Rubio may or may not take time to develop, but being 18 you have to expect that.
In the meantime, his J-Will like flair and style will translate to more fans in the stands, with his presence almost J-Will like. Fans will love him, and he will fill a need. Gotta pick him, in my opinion. If we don't, I'll be pretty pissed on draft day.
Jason Thompson is a blossoming rookie PF. No need to draft two PF's in back-to-back years. Skilled big men aren't as hard to come by like they used to be. Griffin MAY be the best player, but he doesn't fill a need, which means I say no.
Now as for Rubio, the kid can play. I've watched every game and every highlight reel of the guy, and his instincts and court vision are a rare find. True impact PG's are VERY hard to find, and with the fact that Beno sucks and B-Jax is nearing the end, we need to address this position. Rubio may or may not take time to develop, but being 18 you have to expect that.
In the meantime, his J-Will like flair and style will translate to more fans in the stands, with his presence almost J-Will like. Fans will love him, and he will fill a need. Gotta pick him, in my opinion. If we don't, I'll be pretty pissed on draft day.
Thing about Rubio is, he makes ever player on your roster better. Guys like Hawes, JT, Nocci, K-Mart and Cisco need to be made better. Griffin does not make teammates better. I am likening Rubio to a young Jason Kidd from Cal the way he can dictate tempo in the half-court and open court, and his aggression on defense.
I just hope he will be able to score about 12-16 pts/game to go with his 10+ assists and 2-3 steals, and that his athleticism is on par with the better PGs in the league. These are big questions unanswered and what GP gets paid to envision, or not.
I just hope he will be able to score about 12-16 pts/game to go with his 10+ assists and 2-3 steals, and that his athleticism is on par with the better PGs in the league. These are big questions unanswered and what GP gets paid to envision, or not.