=LarryLegend=
Starter
I am really starting to dig Eric Maynor with houstons pick.
Well, I agree with all that except I'm way more bullish on Ricky Rubio. Everybody in Spain, if not all of pro basketball Europe thinks he's at least as good as Calderon right now and certainly way better than other NBA Spaniard PG's Navarro or Rodriguez. I don't know if he'll be a big time NBA star, but I think he certainly has a chance - in the Steve Nash, John Stockton ball handling, set-up mold. No one would deny that Rubio is a quintessential natural/pure/true PG who at 18-19 has barely scratched the surface of what he can become. He may not be a big time NBA scorer but, he will I think go right on racking up assists like a pin ball machine. If a PG scoring machine is preferred then little pure shooter Stephon Curry is an available template - but I strongly prefer Rubio over him.
Uhh....... have I not been PERFECTLY CLEAR about what I see as the relative flaws of both players? You don't value athleticism. Your choice. I do. Stop acting like I'm just cherry picking what I want to see. I've devoted plenty of space to Thabeet's flaws. Plenty. I don't see him as a perfect option, just one of the "least bad" options in this draft.
With all due respect, I never said that I don't value athleticism. As I said show me a player with athletic ability and good basketball skills and I'm with you. But if I have to choose between a player with only average athleticism and very good basketball skills or a player with great athleticism and poor skills, I'll take the skilled player almost every time. It depends on the circumstance. If I'm picking 15th or 16th, I'll take Thabeet. But to take him as high as 5 or above is a huge risk. I just don't think the Kings can afford a major mistake right now.
I'm a little behind on this whole discussion, but just to jump in on the Rubio thing -- I think the John Stockton comparison is an interesting one. I've been trying to think of pass-first point guards who aren't particularly athletic and rely more on basketball IQ to play the position. Late career Jason Kidd comes up a lot, and I can see that one. Both have pretty good size for their position and Jason Kidd has never been known as a good shooter. He was still very effective late in his career though (up until Dallas I suppose, which may be more a result of personnel and style of play than a dramatic fall off in Kidd's performance). As recently as 2007 he was still putting up triple doubles with regularity.
John Stockton is a name I haven't thought about in awhile though, which is funny because he's obviously up there with the greatest PGs of all time. I wasn't really watching a lot of basketball when Stockton was in his prime, so I'm not familiar with the nuances of his game. Basically I just know that he worked the pick and roll to death with Karl Malone and those two guys alone were enough to win on most nights. So I guess my question is, with all this talk about the NBA getting more athletic, point guards getting quicker, etc -- would John Stockton thrive in the NBA today or is his style of play incompatible? From one point of view I would say that PG is one position where I'd be willing to sacrifice athleticism for basketball IQ. You want a leader out there who knows how to run the plays and get the ball where it's supposed to be. But from another point of view, can you live with Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Rajon Rondo, Russell Westbrook, or whoever torching you every other night because your PG can't stay in front of them?
I don't know. It's possible Rubio's height advantage would even the odds a bit on defense and make up for some of his lack of speed on offense. And I don't think there's any question with him that he can play the PG position from a purely tactical basketball IQ perspective.
.
That makes sense, and normally I'd right there with you on the raw/risk thing (which is why I'm also scared to death of Jrue Holiday). I do think Thabeet is skilled (shotblocking is a skill), but definitely understand that he's not without risk.
I'm just for hitting a home run in this draft, and you don't hit a home run with the average athleticism guys, which is why I'm looking squarely at the special athletes.
I think I'd concur with the late career Jason Kidd comparison for Rubio, he needs to improve his strength though, that's a necessity.
John Stockton is a name I haven't thought about in awhile though, which is funny because he's obviously up there with the greatest PGs of all time. I wasn't really watching a lot of basketball when Stockton was in his prime, so I'm not familiar with the nuances of his game. Basically I just know that he worked the pick and roll to death with Karl Malone and those two guys alone were enough to win on most nights. So I guess my question is, with all this talk about the NBA getting more athletic, point guards getting quicker, etc -- would John Stockton thrive in the NBA today or is his style of play incompatible? From one point of view I would say that PG is one position where I'd be willing to sacrifice athleticism for basketball IQ. You want a leader out there who knows how to run the plays and get the ball where it's supposed to be. But from another point of view, can you live with Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Rajon Rondo, Russell Westbrook, or whoever torching you every other night because your PG can't stay in front of them?
Again, he just turned 18 so I don't think it's much of a problem. What I would put in areas to improve is his shooting, and form.. Form might be hard to change though if he's been doing it a long time.
From one point of view I would say that PG is one position where I'd be willing to sacrifice athleticism for basketball IQ. You want a leader out there who knows how to run the plays and get the ball where it's supposed to be. But from another point of view, can you live with Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Rajon Rondo, Russell Westbrook, or whoever torching you every other night because your PG can't stay in front of them?
I don't know. It's possible Rubio's height advantage would even the odds a bit on defense and make up for some of his lack of speed on offense. And I don't think there's any question with him that he can play the PG position from a purely tactical basketball IQ perspective.
Which leads me to Brandon Jennings. Somebody back there said that there aren't any athletic PGs in this draft except maybe Collison. It's easy to forget about Jennings because he isn't getting big minutes and Euroleague games aren't regularly broadcast here anyway. The general perception seems to be that going to Europe was a mistake and his stock is slipping. Which means it can be forgotten that Jennings was at the top of his high school class, dished out 14 assists and won MVP of the Jordan Brand All Star game, had 9 assists in the McDonald's All Star Game, and is possibly the best PG in Oak Hill history. Some people have been complaining about how weak the freshman class is this season, and Jennings' decision to go to Europe is a big reason why. Look at his high school numbers and then slot him into Arizona this season, and we could be talking about him as the best PG in the nation right now. That's all conjecture of course, and it's just a really long-winding way of saying -- don't forget about Brandon Jennings. He's quite possibly the most gifted PG in this class and there's no question, he will be in the draft this year.
Seeing as we're now the 2nd-linningest team in the NBA, and (from the looks of the schedule) in line for a 16-18 win season, we might not want to think only about the two first-round picks. One of the first few picks of the second round might not be bad at all... if Petrie breaks his habit of treating our second rounder as a throwaway. And the lottery can't make the second round pick drop, like it can with the first rounder.
32nd pick, anyone?
Just another smooth 26 and 19 for Griffin tonight..
P.S. He can pass from the post beautifully
So I guess my question is, with all this talk about the NBA getting more athletic, point guards getting quicker, etc -- would John Stockton thrive in the NBA today or is his style of play incompatible? From one point of view I would say that PG is one position where I'd be willing to sacrifice athleticism for basketball IQ. You want a leader out there who knows how to run the plays and get the ball where it's supposed to be. But from another point of view, can you live with Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Rajon Rondo, Russell Westbrook, or whoever torching you every other night because your PG can't stay in front of them?
Let's keep in mind there are ways to get creative defensively. If you believe that Rubio can be a star, but your one concern is that he will get burned by quicker PGs, you can always get a SG with better lateral quickness who can guard PGs. Rubio is 6'4'' so he could guard a number of wing players. Whoever was the worst 1/2/3 the other team had on the floor.
Similarly, you can get more dominant defensive bigs behind him to help control to paint.
In other words, you don't have to turn away a star because other team's have quick PGs.
Ok, but we're talking about drafting him onto a team with Kevin Martin, who can't really guard PGs. So do we need to find a SF who can guard PGs?
Well, we need the best players possible and then we can worry about fit. If we ultimatley need to trade Kevin Martin, because Rubio is a true star player but needs to be teamed with a SG who can guard PGs, then so be it. Kind of the same way traded for Webber even though we had Corliss and then eventually traded him for Christie, because Corliss did not fit well next to Webber and Vlade.
Edit: nevermind, I think I understand what you're saying now. Find the best players then try and make them fit.
Let's keep in mind there are ways to get creative defensively. If you believe that Rubio can be a star, but your one concern is that he will get burned by quicker PGs, you can always get a SG with better lateral quickness who can guard PGs. Rubio is 6'4'' so he could guard a number of wing players. Whoever was the worst 1/2/3 the other team had on the floor.
Similarly, you can get more dominant defensive bigs behind him to help control to paint.
In other words, you don't have to turn away a star because other team's have quick PGs.
Oklahoma/Oklahoma St.-
Disagree about the passing in this one. He had 7 turnovers, and he always dribbles away from the double-teams rather than recognizing them and making a quick pass. I don't think he's a really smart player. This was yet another game where Griffin dominated because he was the biggest guy on the floor. Most of the time he was being guarded by a guy who was 6'6" and skinny. Despite the stats I don't think it was one of his more impressive efforts.
I dont understand the double standard with Griffin, people say that the only reason he is successful in college is b/c he is the biggest guy on the floor, then go on to say that he wont be successful in the NBA because he isn't big enough.Furthermore, did you see that play where he broke ahead of the pack and Johnson threw him the pass over the wrong shoulder. Blake made the proper adjustment and quickly layed the ball in. To me, that is an incredible showcase of athleticism/coordination/grace, half of NFL WR's couldnt have made that grab.
and i guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree about his passing/IQ b/c I was impressed w/ what I saw/have seen.