Barnes/Beal/Drummond/Robinson still available...5th pick
- Thread starter K F Jay
- Start date
Trade the pick!
We need to start making progress now and need an established youngish veteran to add to the roster that addresses our need.
I like Drummond's potential as Cosuins' frontcourt partner BUT he is years away from being a consistent contributions. That is if he ever gets there.
Robinson is undersized and is as good a match next to Cousins as JJ Hickson was. In other words terrible!
Beal is just adding more headaches to the backcourt that is already overloaded with mismatched pieces.
Barnes is probably the one that is most ready to go and fits a need BUT we have more than enough players that need shots, the last thing we need is to add another one. Barnes is not a lock down defender that we would ideally be looking for in a SF but he is a good spot up shooter from the corner which would be handy.
If we end up with Barnes, then MT will need to be moved. There is just not enough basketballs for Evans, MT, Barnes and Cousins....and IT.
Either way, the pick itself won't do anything other than create headaches unless there are other moves involved.
Something tells me Petrie will pick Barnes!
We need to start making progress now and need an established youngish veteran to add to the roster that addresses our need.
I like Drummond's potential as Cosuins' frontcourt partner BUT he is years away from being a consistent contributions. That is if he ever gets there.
Robinson is undersized and is as good a match next to Cousins as JJ Hickson was. In other words terrible!
Beal is just adding more headaches to the backcourt that is already overloaded with mismatched pieces.
Barnes is probably the one that is most ready to go and fits a need BUT we have more than enough players that need shots, the last thing we need is to add another one. Barnes is not a lock down defender that we would ideally be looking for in a SF but he is a good spot up shooter from the corner which would be handy.
If we end up with Barnes, then MT will need to be moved. There is just not enough basketballs for Evans, MT, Barnes and Cousins....and IT.
Either way, the pick itself won't do anything other than create headaches unless there are other moves involved.
Something tells me Petrie will pick Barnes!
At this point, if those guys are on the board, I take Robinson. He's nothing like Hickson. He's not a perfect fit admittedly, but he's going to be a very good player. I love the thought of Drummond working out, and he's obviously the best fit if he does work out, but he scares me. If Robinson is gone, I have Drummond first on my board. But with Robinson there, you take him. This always happens. People complain about height, underrate athleticism etc.. Robinson has a lot of upside. We'd still need a shotblocker, but there is still minutes for that guy as a third big off the bench. It's a conundrum due to JT, but Robinson is going to be a much better player. He's an excellent rebounder (imagine him next to Cousins), a good man defender, very strong and athletic, extremely quick for a big, has improved greatly. He's a smart player with a high ceiling, and his character is outstanding. He's gone through adversity and came out stronger. He's the type of guy you want on your team.
Reaching for need in the draft is a terrible idea. Seriously, look how many teams have come to regret it. It happens every year. We have clear needs. But you don't pass over the better players and let need cloud your judgement. You can always work out a trade for a proven player that suits your need using a stud rookie. Once you reach and it doesn't work out, you've just set yourself back at least a year.
Reaching for need in the draft is a terrible idea. Seriously, look how many teams have come to regret it. It happens every year. We have clear needs. But you don't pass over the better players and let need cloud your judgement. You can always work out a trade for a proven player that suits your need using a stud rookie. Once you reach and it doesn't work out, you've just set yourself back at least a year.
If Robinson is 6'9.5 you probably have to take him. It could work out to be similar to a Gasol and Randolph pairing although the players are nothing alike but complement each other well. Although the fact that numerous Kansas big men have flamed out in the league has put some doubt in my mind. But Robinson has also developed the ability to shoot as far as the 3 to his repertoire so that is a plus and it makes it harder to guard him. If he was 6'10 legit, I doubt he drops to the Kings.
Barnes is there. Looks like he has everything you would want in a SF except elite athletesism. Robinson has the motor, but is he big enough. Drummond has the size and is what the Kings need defensively. But he is VERY RAW and is going to take time to develope. That being said, I would hate to look back three years from now and say "Oh my God, why didn't we take that guy". My pick is Drummond. (Dream Maker or Heart Breaker)
I voted Drummond but I'm already having second thoughts. I have a hard time choosing between Drummond, Robinson, and Barnes because I think all three of them could be very good. They're three very different players but all of them fill a need for us as well. Robinson is probably the safest pick but Drummond has off the charts potential and would give us the interior defender we need next to Cousins if he works out. I really like Barnes but it's easier to find a SF in free agency. Then again, the "when in doubt go big" rule has been debunked many times in the past and Barnes has nearly as much potential as Drummond without the high risk of being a bust. It'll be easier to say after the combine and workouts. Strictly on potential and fit though, I think we'd have to go Drummond.
Beal:
Based on college work: 2nd
Based on basketball build/ballhandling: 31st
Overall: 5th
I'm really torn on Beal. Statistically, I think things will translate--guy can score, that's for sure, and rebound. But as a guard...hmmm...his unselfishness/PG skills, at least based on how he was used in Florida, was actually closer to a PF than it was to a SF, and he's a 6'4" guard. That could really put a damper on things. I really question whether he has the PG skills to gain staying power in the second chapter of his career, once the sparkplug scoring stuff dries up. To me, he just looks like a scorer and rebounder--those types have a few good years, gain a toxic contract, and because undersized scorers are en vogue, they get replaced by the next best thing--another 6'3" scorer who's younger comes into the draft and becomes better than said guard. That reads like Ben Gordon to me. He's NBA ready, but as a long term play, he's the sort of guy that becomes overrated quickly.
Harrison Barnes:
Based on college work: 19th
Based on basketball build/ballhandling: 33rd
Overall: 27th
Here's the thing about Barnes, and I know this is all subjective: I never believed in his ability to be a lottery pick. Not after his freshman year. Not after this year. Now that the data is stacking up, we're gaining a bit more certainty that well...he isn't what we thought he was. He isn't all that in college, and his pedigree as a shooter is overrated--35% and 33%, with low to mid 70s free throw shooting. Meh. But that's not really the major problem--I think, as far as the NBA is concerned, he operates way better as a smallball PF rather than as a prototypical SF. Yeah, I know, Kendall Marshall handles the ball and hogs all the assists, but Barnes also struggles to handle the ball (PF levels), and is way better served in the league doing things off the ball. Catch-and-shoot jumpers, off ball cuts for athletic plays, things like that. For a SF, that build is good, but I don't believe he's completely optimal for that position. As a PF, his build is alright for the league, nothing special. That's why I keep thinking his game is more of a late mid to late 1st round pick. If he can fine tune the three point shooting, I'm seeing Al Harrington, but for now, maybe more like Marvin Williams. A bit of a tweener.
Andre Drummond
Based on college work: 34th
Based on basketball build/ballhandling: 37th
Overall: 39th
Just not sold on this guy. I want to like him--don't forget, DeAndre Jordan had attitude problems in his one year at Tex-A&M and got drafted in the late 30s, like where I'm projecting Drummond throughout--but I don't really see it. In terms of skills, he's deficient, but he doesn't offset it with great rebounding despite the fact that he's bigger than everyone else. In fact he's poor, relative to size. Also, he's a center due to sheer size and lack of skills, obviously, but I charted all the draftable centers in this year's draft, and he's by far the most deficient in ballhandling. Like, really deficient, to the point where I think he's mostly a catch and dunk player, or catch and finish. Which is weird, given that he's done those behind-the-back passes at high school. I dunno. Offensively, man--it will just be scoring based on athleticism and sheer size, and nothing else. Really, the appeal is just the shotblocking. I'd be more interested if he were a 7-footer, given the lack of skills. As is, I'm just not sure about this guy. To me, there's a lot of red flags. Yeah, Bynum was raw, but the Lakers really threw the resources and I guess had Kobe to give Bynum some level of accountability, and even now he has those rebellious issues. Drummond's offense is just uber raw, the push shot is a turnoff, and I doubt he'd ever amount to anything offensively. I think if he's optimized properly with DeMarcus, as I said in another thread, we can shield the weaknesses and optimize the strengths, but I'm seeing an upside of DeAndre, at best, here.
Based on college work: 2nd
Based on basketball build/ballhandling: 31st
Overall: 5th
I'm really torn on Beal. Statistically, I think things will translate--guy can score, that's for sure, and rebound. But as a guard...hmmm...his unselfishness/PG skills, at least based on how he was used in Florida, was actually closer to a PF than it was to a SF, and he's a 6'4" guard. That could really put a damper on things. I really question whether he has the PG skills to gain staying power in the second chapter of his career, once the sparkplug scoring stuff dries up. To me, he just looks like a scorer and rebounder--those types have a few good years, gain a toxic contract, and because undersized scorers are en vogue, they get replaced by the next best thing--another 6'3" scorer who's younger comes into the draft and becomes better than said guard. That reads like Ben Gordon to me. He's NBA ready, but as a long term play, he's the sort of guy that becomes overrated quickly.
Harrison Barnes:
Based on college work: 19th
Based on basketball build/ballhandling: 33rd
Overall: 27th
Here's the thing about Barnes, and I know this is all subjective: I never believed in his ability to be a lottery pick. Not after his freshman year. Not after this year. Now that the data is stacking up, we're gaining a bit more certainty that well...he isn't what we thought he was. He isn't all that in college, and his pedigree as a shooter is overrated--35% and 33%, with low to mid 70s free throw shooting. Meh. But that's not really the major problem--I think, as far as the NBA is concerned, he operates way better as a smallball PF rather than as a prototypical SF. Yeah, I know, Kendall Marshall handles the ball and hogs all the assists, but Barnes also struggles to handle the ball (PF levels), and is way better served in the league doing things off the ball. Catch-and-shoot jumpers, off ball cuts for athletic plays, things like that. For a SF, that build is good, but I don't believe he's completely optimal for that position. As a PF, his build is alright for the league, nothing special. That's why I keep thinking his game is more of a late mid to late 1st round pick. If he can fine tune the three point shooting, I'm seeing Al Harrington, but for now, maybe more like Marvin Williams. A bit of a tweener.
Andre Drummond
Based on college work: 34th
Based on basketball build/ballhandling: 37th
Overall: 39th
Just not sold on this guy. I want to like him--don't forget, DeAndre Jordan had attitude problems in his one year at Tex-A&M and got drafted in the late 30s, like where I'm projecting Drummond throughout--but I don't really see it. In terms of skills, he's deficient, but he doesn't offset it with great rebounding despite the fact that he's bigger than everyone else. In fact he's poor, relative to size. Also, he's a center due to sheer size and lack of skills, obviously, but I charted all the draftable centers in this year's draft, and he's by far the most deficient in ballhandling. Like, really deficient, to the point where I think he's mostly a catch and dunk player, or catch and finish. Which is weird, given that he's done those behind-the-back passes at high school. I dunno. Offensively, man--it will just be scoring based on athleticism and sheer size, and nothing else. Really, the appeal is just the shotblocking. I'd be more interested if he were a 7-footer, given the lack of skills. As is, I'm just not sure about this guy. To me, there's a lot of red flags. Yeah, Bynum was raw, but the Lakers really threw the resources and I guess had Kobe to give Bynum some level of accountability, and even now he has those rebellious issues. Drummond's offense is just uber raw, the push shot is a turnoff, and I doubt he'd ever amount to anything offensively. I think if he's optimized properly with DeMarcus, as I said in another thread, we can shield the weaknesses and optimize the strengths, but I'm seeing an upside of DeAndre, at best, here.
Last edited:
Drummond has Thabeet written all over him. Completely raw, low BB IQ, only thing he does well is grab lobs (which he won't get as easily in the NBA) and offensive rebounds. Pass.
Barnes has gotten worse every year; best case scenario is he's another decent scorer who can't shoot from three and just adds to the logjam in the backcourt.
Robinson has gotten better every year and is the most complete player of the guys here. I might even give up one of MT or Tyreke to trade up and get him, since it would give us a good chance of having the best frontcourt in the NBA for the next decade.
Barnes has gotten worse every year; best case scenario is he's another decent scorer who can't shoot from three and just adds to the logjam in the backcourt.
Robinson has gotten better every year and is the most complete player of the guys here. I might even give up one of MT or Tyreke to trade up and get him, since it would give us a good chance of having the best frontcourt in the NBA for the next decade.
Wow! Just wow!
Robinson is a terrible fit jext to Cousins and you would trade MT or Reke for him?
Robinson is as good a fir with Cousins as JJ Hickson was and we all know how that one turned out! What we need next to Cousins is a player that can be very effective without getting shots not another undersized "big" that needs his shots
Robinson is a terrible fit jext to Cousins and you would trade MT or Reke for him?
Robinson is as good a fir with Cousins as JJ Hickson was and we all know how that one turned out! What we need next to Cousins is a player that can be very effective without getting shots not another undersized "big" that needs his shots
Wow! Just wow!
Robinson is a terrible fit jext to Cousins and you would trade MT or Reke for him?
Robinson is as good a fir with Cousins as JJ Hickson was and we all know how that one turned out! What we need next to Cousins is a player that can be very effective without getting shots not another undersized "big" that needs his shots
Robinson is a terrible fit jext to Cousins and you would trade MT or Reke for him?
Robinson is as good a fir with Cousins as JJ Hickson was and we all know how that one turned out! What we need next to Cousins is a player that can be very effective without getting shots not another undersized "big" that needs his shots
Wow! Just wow!
Robinson is a terrible fit jext to Cousins and you would trade MT or Reke for him?
Robinson is as good a fir with Cousins as JJ Hickson was and we all know how that one turned out! What we need next to Cousins is a player that can be very effective without getting shots not another undersized "big" that needs his shots
Robinson is a terrible fit jext to Cousins and you would trade MT or Reke for him?
Robinson is as good a fir with Cousins as JJ Hickson was and we all know how that one turned out! What we need next to Cousins is a player that can be very effective without getting shots not another undersized "big" that needs his shots
Also, Drummond would probably fit better next to Cousins IF he wasn't going to be a Thabust. Seriously though, the guy just doesn't have any kind of a game past 5 feet and the ONLY reason he has decent offensive rebound numbers because on the offensive end, since he had no game outside of 5ft, played right next to the rim. His defensive rebounding numbers are atrocious for a guy his size.
Rebounding is a skill you either got or you don't got. Drummond does not have it.
Last edited:
The other key similarity is that they both need the ball to be effective. Something that we can't have. What we need next to Cousins is a role player that excels at things that Cousins doesn't or a role player that does the dirty work and is not looking to score his fair share.
That is why Hickson was such a terrible fit. In no way am I comparing Robinson's game to Hickson's as they are obviously different but the key similarity is that both need the ball to be effective and they don't get it (as they won't with us) then they become the shell of their ability.
Its exactly the reason why JT was our most effective player next to Cousins and Hickson stunk it up as much as he did. It is not about who Robinson reminds me of as a player but what type of player is he. Its why Shaq won with guys like Haslem next to him but didn't with someone like Malone. The difference in talent level is obvious but so is the difference in "fit"! This is not a video game where you stack up with players that are better overall, this is real life business where fit at times is MUCH more important than talent level, especially if you have your talented guy already.
That is why Hickson was such a terrible fit. In no way am I comparing Robinson's game to Hickson's as they are obviously different but the key similarity is that both need the ball to be effective and they don't get it (as they won't with us) then they become the shell of their ability.
Its exactly the reason why JT was our most effective player next to Cousins and Hickson stunk it up as much as he did. It is not about who Robinson reminds me of as a player but what type of player is he. Its why Shaq won with guys like Haslem next to him but didn't with someone like Malone. The difference in talent level is obvious but so is the difference in "fit"! This is not a video game where you stack up with players that are better overall, this is real life business where fit at times is MUCH more important than talent level, especially if you have your talented guy already.
If we just want a role player who can grab boards and get put-backs, then we should stick with JT and grab a guard. JT would fit perfectly on a playoff team next to a workhorse center.
The Shaq comparison is off because Shaq was completely ineffective from outside 3-5 feet. I'd also note that Shaq won with Zo and Haslem, not just Haslem, and those are two guys with games that are much less compatible yet they won because both made big contributions. Robinson and Cousins are both decent shooters; putting one on the block and the other on the high post would make for a nightmare matchup because if you leave a guy open at the top he could knock down the shot, and if you guard the low post alone either of those guys is capable of scoring.
You don't need both guys to be scoring 20 ppg- we had this debate endlessly about Martin and Evans and its true for the front court as well. Each guy would get less touches than if they were the man, but efficiency and team play will increase. You could also bring JT off the bench to balance things out so that they have 5-10 minutes a game where they each is being showcased.
Duncan/Admiral worked, Vlade/Webber worked, Pippin/Jordan worked, Lebron/Wade works. As long as you have a good coach and a good system, I don't see why anyone would be opposed to having 2 great post players (or guards) and instead go after pairing our all-NBA center with an almost surefire bust.
The Shaq comparison is off because Shaq was completely ineffective from outside 3-5 feet. I'd also note that Shaq won with Zo and Haslem, not just Haslem, and those are two guys with games that are much less compatible yet they won because both made big contributions. Robinson and Cousins are both decent shooters; putting one on the block and the other on the high post would make for a nightmare matchup because if you leave a guy open at the top he could knock down the shot, and if you guard the low post alone either of those guys is capable of scoring.
You don't need both guys to be scoring 20 ppg- we had this debate endlessly about Martin and Evans and its true for the front court as well. Each guy would get less touches than if they were the man, but efficiency and team play will increase. You could also bring JT off the bench to balance things out so that they have 5-10 minutes a game where they each is being showcased.
Duncan/Admiral worked, Vlade/Webber worked, Pippin/Jordan worked, Lebron/Wade works. As long as you have a good coach and a good system, I don't see why anyone would be opposed to having 2 great post players (or guards) and instead go after pairing our all-NBA center with an almost surefire bust.
No matter who is like whom, we need a big person or two more than we are projected to have next year. If we let Greene go which is likely, and someone offers JT more money than we want to match, we will have one NBA caliber player over 6'6". Count Honeycutt and Outlaw what you wish. If Cousins stubs his toe, we have none. Am I missing someone? Also, I absolutely don't understand why people think that having JT and Cousins is adequate. #1, it gives no bench strength and #2, injuries being part of the game, it leaves us very, very vulnerable.
Duncan/Admiral worked as two HOF defensive mastemind 7 footers, and notably Admiral stepped way back offensively and took a clear backseat to Duncan. The reason that was still effective was because Admiral was defensively dominant even at 14ppg. Vlade also went about 12ppg, and he was offensively a big PG. This Robinson is none of the above. I posted a list of all the guys playing PF wingmen to the great centers of the past 30 years and I'll repost it here:
Barely a gunner (Cummings for the first couple of years of Admiral's career aside) in the bunch. Defense everywhere. Last year the only roleplayer on the entire team who played the game right was Jason Thompson. The very last thing we need to do is to replace him with a guy who doesn't get that and add further confusion to the team, now basically attacking Cousins the same way we have attacked Reke. We'll lose both guys in the end you know if we keep being stupid. Othrr franchises who actually win know how to surround their stars with roleplayers that make the star's life easier. Not bury them in offensive minded players who get in the way and confuse everything.
Last edited:
Well given that our franchise stacks up SGs and even PGs and calls them SFs, if Barnes is drafted all of a sudden Tyreke Evans, John Salmons, Terrence Williams and Francisco Garcia shift back into mroe SG minutes to compete with Marcus Thornton and Jimmer Fredette. but I'm sure it will all work out.
I just love when people say that this or that player needs the ball in his hands to be effective. Effective is a very general term, so you need to define what you mean my effective when making that statement. Effective on offense, or defense? I don't know too many players that are effective on offense without touching the ball at some point. You have to touch the ball to pass it. You have to touch the ball to shoot it. If you not going to do either of those two things, you might as well not even be out there on offense, unless you want a player that does nothing but stand at the top of the key and set screens. Here's a clue. If you can't score, you won't be guarded. That leads to having the other four players being guarded by five players.
Having said all that. Robinson is a very unselfish player, and if you don't think so, then you didn't watch him play. He has great hands and is a relentless rebounder. He's certainly didn't dominate the ball at Kansas, but he did have the ball in his hands a lot at times. Thats what happens when you rebound. Its very difficult to rebound the ball without touching it. He's also a very good passer averaging around 2 assists a game. I'll be honest. I'm not sure what kind of game of basketball some of you want. Do you want a team that just gives the ball to two players and no one else touches the ball, and if they do, they should go to the bench. All of this is the biggest bunch of nonsense I've heard in a long time. The more skills any player, and I mean any player has, is a benefit to the team. It then comes down to how a player uses those skills.
Because you can shoot, doesn't mean you have to shoot. If you put five very talented players on the floor together that are committed to team play, the best players will still end up taking the most shots. But it will happen within the flow of the game, and not be forced. Unselfishness and patience along with talent wins games. What I don't want on the team, is a player that thinks he's better than he is, who also has tunnel vision once the ball hits his hands. How many times did you see Hickson pass the ball once he had it? He almost always forced up some kind of shot. Thats not what Robinison does.
Robinson isn't my first choice, but I'll take him over Drummond 10 times out of 10. The same people that are lusting after Drummond, will be bitching about his play one year from now if we draft him. As one of the NBA GM's said when asked about Drummond. " My hope is that someone picks him before its my turn to pick. He's a GM's nightmare!"
Having said all that. Robinson is a very unselfish player, and if you don't think so, then you didn't watch him play. He has great hands and is a relentless rebounder. He's certainly didn't dominate the ball at Kansas, but he did have the ball in his hands a lot at times. Thats what happens when you rebound. Its very difficult to rebound the ball without touching it. He's also a very good passer averaging around 2 assists a game. I'll be honest. I'm not sure what kind of game of basketball some of you want. Do you want a team that just gives the ball to two players and no one else touches the ball, and if they do, they should go to the bench. All of this is the biggest bunch of nonsense I've heard in a long time. The more skills any player, and I mean any player has, is a benefit to the team. It then comes down to how a player uses those skills.
Because you can shoot, doesn't mean you have to shoot. If you put five very talented players on the floor together that are committed to team play, the best players will still end up taking the most shots. But it will happen within the flow of the game, and not be forced. Unselfishness and patience along with talent wins games. What I don't want on the team, is a player that thinks he's better than he is, who also has tunnel vision once the ball hits his hands. How many times did you see Hickson pass the ball once he had it? He almost always forced up some kind of shot. Thats not what Robinison does.
Robinson isn't my first choice, but I'll take him over Drummond 10 times out of 10. The same people that are lusting after Drummond, will be bitching about his play one year from now if we draft him. As one of the NBA GM's said when asked about Drummond. " My hope is that someone picks him before its my turn to pick. He's a GM's nightmare!"
Here are the FGA for the Kings last year, with notes:
Thronton 15.8 (would like more)
Cousins 15.6 (would like more)
Evans 14.3 (would like more)
Thomas 8.8 (would like more)
TWilliams 7.8 (only 18gms)
Salmons 7.5 (would like more)
Fredette 7.3 (would like more)
Thompson 6.9
Greene 5.0
Hickson 4.9 (would like more, but gone)
Garcia 4.7
Outlaw 4.5
Hayes 3.2
Honeycutt 1.6 (15gms)
Whiteside 1.5 (18gms)
---------------------
Total: 86.6 FGA/GM (1st in NBA)
Okay, so we already lead the lead in overall FGA. Meaning that its highly unlikely we can just expand the pool of shots available -- if anybody gets more shots than somebody else has to lose theirs. Meanwhile 6 of our 7 top FGA guys (and likely the 7th too, although in a smart world you would only have Twill or Salmons, one or the toher, not both next year) were chafing at shots already this past season. And the starting PF on the team, and virtually only roleplayer who understood the term, averaged all of 6.9 FGA last season.
And its not as if we were bizarrely hierarchal last year -- in fact quite the opposite. Of the four teams competing for a title right now, you know how many double figure FGA guys each team had? OKC had the obvious 3. Ditto for Miami -- their Big Three. teh Spurs, the famous share the ball Spurs? 4, and that's only if you count Patty Mills' 18 games of garbagetime chucking. Otherwise they had 3 as well. The Celtics had 5, more due to age than anything, and 3 of those 5 barely broke the 10 FGA limit (Allen 10.8, Rondo and Bass 10.7). Come playoff time they are back down to 3.
What does all this mean? It means this: we should not be looking for the "best player". We should be looking for the best player for US. And what that means given our already overstuffed offense and terrible defense is determing which guy can be the best player if he's going to get 8 shots or less. Because that's what we have to spare. And so for us the best player is the player is the best WITHOUT the ball. At #5 you still want to draft a star. But we need a DEFENSIVE star, not an offensive one. There are no shots. There is a desperate need for defenders that only Reke of our top guys has any chance of providing.
If we want a project who cannot rebound the ball that well on the defensive end we might as well just grab Fab Melo (via trade of course). For Drummonds "skill set" he does not belong in the top 5 let alone the top 10 in my opinion. He's way too passive, he doesn't defend all that well and it's going to get a lot tougher in the NBA to defend bigger and faster guys being that he's so passive. Once the ball gets in his hands outside of 5 feet it's almost a guaranteed miss or turnover. A lot of his offensive rebounds came off his own misses.
Seriously though.. You talk about defense.. OK, then lets take a chance on Melo via a trade rather than wasting a high pick on Drummond. Drummond isn't the defensive player you think he is. Remember we had this same argument when I said Thabeet wasn't the defensive player you thought he was? You came back and said he was the DPOY. Well I thought something looked funny about him getting that award because there were too many flaws in his game, and bigger players could just push him out of the way when they wanted to. There was no reason Thabeet should have got DPOY.
Drummond does not get pushed around as easily as Thabeet, but I see the same passive behavior when it comes to defense. He WAY too often was nowhere near the rim to even have a chance at defensive rebounds (he would often step out to guard forwards or guards for some reason), and when he was near the rim all too often I see him just stand there, and not even try to get the ball.
I love to hate UCONN, but on a real note Drummond is not a good player. He's Thaterrible and will be a Thabust.
Seriously though.. You talk about defense.. OK, then lets take a chance on Melo via a trade rather than wasting a high pick on Drummond. Drummond isn't the defensive player you think he is. Remember we had this same argument when I said Thabeet wasn't the defensive player you thought he was? You came back and said he was the DPOY. Well I thought something looked funny about him getting that award because there were too many flaws in his game, and bigger players could just push him out of the way when they wanted to. There was no reason Thabeet should have got DPOY.
Drummond does not get pushed around as easily as Thabeet, but I see the same passive behavior when it comes to defense. He WAY too often was nowhere near the rim to even have a chance at defensive rebounds (he would often step out to guard forwards or guards for some reason), and when he was near the rim all too often I see him just stand there, and not even try to get the ball.
I love to hate UCONN, but on a real note Drummond is not a good player. He's Thaterrible and will be a Thabust.