Is Blake Griffin REALLY going to make us all that better?

[BMiller52]

Really, how is he going to make us that much better? I know he's technically a star prospect and everything, but he doesn't play any defense. I've watched the guy plenty of times and yeah he is a beast on the boards and a good athlete, but he plays no D whatsoever and his post game+ball handling isn't really too great.

Everyone wants to dump Thompson, but why? Is Rubio+Thompson worse than Rubio+Griffin, if we can somehow even pull both players with a trade? I don't think so to be honest. With Rubio, Martin, Griffin, and Hawes on the same team, you are going to be a team that has some star power but in the end you lose year after year because the entire team is soft and doesn't play defense at all.

As a rookie, JT was defending freaking Bynum/Gasol, Duncan, Nene/Martin, Dirk, etc. He took his lumps don't get me wrong, but dang he did a good enough job to the point where you can say "okay yeah he's going to be able to give you good POST defense(which griffin doesn't), he's going to give you good rebounding(probably about the same as Griffin), and he'll give you some shotblocking(came on more towards the end of the year, averaged like 3 times as many blocks in college as Griffin did).

I don't know if it's a smart move to dump a kid that's 6'11'', 250, with long arms, so you can get a guy who is 6'8'' or 6'9'' that's athletic but really doesn't play any defense. I just don't want us to end up as a ridiculously soft team that underachieves year in and year out because of our softness.

 

[Jechtsphere]

Pretty much my thoughts, I don't see us as a better team with Griffin.

Some people like to throw out names like Amare and Karl Malone but I doubt he gets anywhere near that level, I'd stick with JT...if there was some actual star power where it makes you say WOW we can not pass on this guy no matter what then yeah you take him but he doesn't strike me as wow he has to be the # 1 pick...if it was clear cut it wouldn't be 50-50 in the votes for people who went Griffin or Rubio.

Give me a damn PG!

 

[KingsCitizen]

Yup! We should be better off with a great PG.
If the ping pong balls bounce right and we secure #1, I bet John Wall or Ricky Rubio will be all smiles depending on who Petrie will be really intersted.

FYI, in other threads there were discussions that John Wall might jump to the NBA if he were to be picked as #1 this year. That's totally better even if he's promised to be #1 next year. Remember how Jrue Holiday's stock got compromised upon entering college.

 

[kennadog]

John Wall has said he's not entering the draft, doesn't even think he is even eligible to enter and he promised his father, who died when he was nine, that he'd go to college.

 

[bajaden]

Really, how is he going to make us that much better? I know he's technically a star prospect and everything, but he doesn't play any defense. I've watched the guy plenty of times and yeah he is a beast on the boards and a good athlete, but he plays no D whatsoever and his post game+ball handling isn't really too great.

Everyone wants to dump Thompson, but why? Is Rubio+Thompson worse than Rubio+Griffin, if we can somehow even pull both players with a trade? I don't think so to be honest. With Rubio, Martin, Griffin, and Hawes on the same team, you are going to be a team that has some star power but in the end you lose year after year because the entire team is soft and doesn't play defense at all.

As a rookie, JT was defending freaking Bynum/Gasol, Duncan, Nene/Martin, Dirk, etc. He took his lumps don't get me wrong, but dang he did a good enough job to the point where you can say "okay yeah he's going to be able to give you good POST defense(which griffin doesn't), he's going to give you good rebounding(probably about the same as Griffin), and he'll give you some shotblocking(came on more towards the end of the year, averaged like 3 times as many blocks in college as Griffin did).

I don't know if it's a smart move to dump a kid that's 6'11'', 250, with long arms, so you can get a guy who is 6'8'' or 6'9'' that's athletic but really doesn't play any defense. I just don't want us to end up as a ridiculously soft team that underachieves year in and year out because of our softness.

Let me say first that I agree with you. I'm one of those that wanted the Kings to draft Thompson before the draft. So, its kind of like, I had some part in his picking, even when I know I didn't. Its a vicarious thing I guess. Anyway, I'm the last person that wants to trade Thompson. There are no guarantee's that Griffin will be any better than Thompson. However, I don't think it has to be an either, or, situation. I think the two of them can co-exist.

If the Kings can find a way to aquire Rubio as well, fine! But not at the expense of trading Thompson. As far as defense goes where Griffin is concerned, I will take a wait and see atitude. I would find it hard to believe that a player thats as athletic as Griffin is, is incapable of playing defense. He's tough and plays hard. I've seen him dive into the second row of the stands trying to save a ball. Soft is not a word I would use to describe him. It should also be pointed out, that grabbing defensive rebouonds is an important part of defense as well.

If one could go back to all the games we lost by 2 to 3 points and then look at how many second chance points the other team had because of our inability to grab defensive rebounds, then a great rebounder becomes more important. And Griffin was a great rebounder in college. We'll see how that translates to the NBA.

There are two key stats that I can look at without looking at the score and almost always tell you who won the game. If the team had 20 plus assists, 12 or less turnovers, and out rebounded the other team, especially on the defensive rebounding side, they probably won the game.

Everyone gets caught up in the sexy side of defense. The blocked shot. The steal. Both of which are desired and wanted. But give me a team with a very effective offense, which means 20 plus assists and low turnovers, and a team that rebounds the ball, and I guarantee you that team will be on the sunny side of the defensive equation, even with only average man defense at the positions. Its hard to run fast breaks off of made baskets. Now add a couple of very good man defenders into the equation, and suddenly your one of the better defensive teams in the league. I give you the Spur's, or the old Kings.

 

[Aenadin]

better as a team? better but not passable...but we WILL BE BETTER than this current team/roster

in terms of media coverage we could be a better team since getting blake automatically has the leagues eyes on him as a potential rookie of the year... but it would also force JT to play limited minutes behind him

honestly one athletic man cant make an entire team athletic.. its going to take more than blake griffin to make our team better it has to be a team effort and a good coach...

 

[rainmaker]

Obviously, Griffin would help us. How much, no one knows. But I think his growth as an nba player will take longer if he is coming off the bench and backing up JT and Hawes. Of course they all can co-exist, but I don't think that is the best scenario. And I am not for trading either JT or Hawes. They both have earned the right to be full-time starters next year, and I really think we will see both of them improve considerably over the next 2 yrs, especially if we hire a good coach. They need as much time on the court as possible.

This team is in dire need of a pg. Our assist to turnover ratio is terrible, as well as our ball movement and inabiltiy of anyone on this team to penatrate and create eaasy shots for others. Griffin is the consensus #1 pick in this draft, but I think Rubio would help us more. I also think Sacramento would be a better place for Rubio than Griffin. Rubio would generate more excitement, get more time on the court, have a larger overall impact on the team, and would be given the responsibility from day one of being the starting pg on this team. I don't see Griffin starting, and because of that his learning curve will take longer. I also don't want JT going to the bench in favor of Griffin. Griffin is a great player, but its not an ideal situation for him to come in as a backup for the forseable future.

 

[HighTopKicks]

Let me say first that I agree with you. I'm one of those that wanted the Kings to draft Thompson before the draft. So, its kind of like, I had some part in his picking, even when I know I didn't. Its a vicarious thing I guess. Anyway, I'm the last person that wants to trade Thompson. There are no guarantee's that Griffin will be any better than Thompson. However, I don't think it has to be an either, or, situation. I think the two of them can co-exist.

If the Kings can find a way to aquire Rubio as well, fine! But not at the expense of trading Thompson. As far as defense goes where Griffin is concerned, I will take a wait and see atitude. I would find it hard to believe that a player thats as athletic as Griffin is, is incapable of playing defense. He's tough and plays hard. I've seen him dive into the second row of the stands trying to save a ball. Soft is not a word I would use to describe him. It should also be pointed out, that grabbing defensive rebouonds is an important part of defense as well.

If one could go back to all the games we lost by 2 to 3 points and then look at how many second chance points the other team had because of our inability to grab defensive rebounds, then a great rebounder becomes more important. And Griffin was a great rebounder in college. We'll see how that translates to the NBA.

There are two key stats that I can look at without looking at the score and almost always tell you who won the game. If the team had 20 plus assists, 12 or less turnovers, and out rebounded the other team, especially on the defensive rebounding side, they probably won the game.

Everyone gets caught up in the sexy side of defense. The blocked shot. The steal. Both of which are desired and wanted. But give me a team with a very effective offense, which means 20 plus assists and low turnovers, and a team that rebounds the ball, and I guarantee you that team will be on the sunny side of the defensive equation, even with only average man defense at the positions. Its hard to run fast breaks off of made baskets. Now add a couple of very good man defenders into the equation, and suddenly your one of the better defensive teams in the league. I give you the Spur's, or the old Kings.

I agree totally on the issue of rebounds & 2nd chance pts. But, the 1st thing that I look at when I look at boxscores is 'points in the paint'. Those are high percentage pts and in close games you want pts down low over jump shot.

If we get Griffin, I hope he gives us what JT did this yr, only more. Rebounds & offensive put backs. 20/20 would be nice, just like Boozer did to the Lakers tonight.

 

[Bricklayer]

As with almost all of these questions, the answer is entirely dependent on your read n Griffin. I share your concerns -- I question Griffin's size, his defense, whether just trying to attack bigger stronger players in the NBA wiht his hustle game is going to translate. So for me the question is apt. I don't think he and Thompson can work together, don't think you can play he, JT and Hawes as a frontcourt unless you want to bad and defenseless forever. But if you think he's a star, if you believe he's 20-10 and a #1 option then obviously he helps a great deal (well, even then there is a followup question whether you are a believer in Thompson being 20-10 himself or not).

 

[=LarryLegend=]

This team is in dire need of a pg. Our assist to turnover ratio is terrible, as well as our ball movement and inabiltiy of anyone on this team to penatrate and create eaasy shots for others. Griffin is the consensus #1 pick in this draft, but I think Rubio would help us more. I also think Sacramento would be a better place for Rubio than Griffin. Rubio would generate more excitement, get more time on the court, have a larger overall impact on the team, and would be given the responsibility from day one of being the starting pg on this team. I don't see Griffin starting, and because of that his learning curve will take longer. I also don't want JT going to the bench in favor of Griffin. Griffin is a great player, but its not an ideal situation for him to come in as a backup for the forseable future.

I agree with this.

 

[Sac.1989]

yep, lets hope we get a top 2 pick firstly and go from there.

 

[Kingster]

Griffin and His Defense

Griffin might make us better, but not significantly so. It's interesting to me that the consensus on this board is that he's not going to make us better. Some might qualify it and say, "if he's a star" he'll make us better. But isn't that what we're wondering? - Is Griffin a star?

You bring up the comparison of Thompson and Griffin on defense. Everybody is rightly concerned that Griffin was not very good on D in college. So, how could a player who everybody regards as so athletic, and who does appear to be very competitive, be so soft on D? I don't buy the notion that he had to "save himself" from fouls so he didn't play D. You can play D in college without getting fouls. After all, that's what good D is - preventing your man from scoring without fouling him. This all raises certain questions about Griffin.

If a player doesn't go for shot blocks, rebounding becomes a lot easier. One of the most athletic things you'll see in basketball is a big man go for a shot block, and then, either after making the block or not making the block, get the rebound. It demands a lot of athleticism because the defensive player is usually going to be off-balance and out of position after going for the shot block. He has to react quickly after shot block attempt, maintain balance, often turn his body around (in a 180 sometime) and get the ball. So, what's a great way to increase your rebounding stats? Just don't go for the shot blocks. Position yourself everytime for the potential missed shot, not for defending your man. Your stats look better with the rebounds, and as we all know, there are no stats for defense. So it's definitely possible that Griffin was stuffing his stat sheet.

Another possibility is that Griffin doesn't have the athleticism that everybody thinks he has. He doesn't have the fluidity to go for a block, maintain balance, turn, jump quickly, and get the rebound.

A third possibility is that he just doesn't have the athletic tools to be a very good defender in college, regardless of whether he wants to play defense or not. In any case, all of the above doesn't make me excited about drafting him.

 

[bigbadred00]

I know you can't teach size but I don't think there are that many college stars who you would consider great defenders when they first came out of school. Honestly most of the good/great big men in the NBA are out of HS or out of Europe.

Jefferson-HS
Okafor-Doesn't score well, 2 or 3 years in college-plays solid but not amazing D.
Bosh-1 year College (I wouldn't have called him a great defender now or in college)
Yao-Due to his size is/was a great defender.
Dirk-Europe--still doesn't play good D.
Dwight-out of HS, has grown into the best defender in the league.
West-Not much of a defender now or ever, not much of one in college.
Duncan-One of the best college defenders all time.
KG-out of HS, sick defender.
Paul-Out of Europe, average defender although soft.
Okur-Out of Europe
Boozer-Kinda like Griffin, rebounds well but doesn't defend well.
Shaq-2 Years in college, good defender for early career.
Lee-Not much of a defender but rebounds.
Aldridge-Solid defender, not a great rebounder.
Oden-good defender in college, foul machine now.
Jamison-Never much of a defender.
Murphy-Rebounds b ut plays little to no D.
Love-Rebounds plays little to no D.
Beasley-Rebounds, plays little to no D.
Nene-Out of Brazil.
Spencer-Average to below average, 1 year in college
Brad-Bad defender.
Anderson-Out of South America.
Brook Lopez-SOlid defender and 2 years in college.

List goes on and on but most college players didn't come out as good defenders. I don't think Griffin has the size to be a dominant defender but neither does most of the 4s in the NBA. Right now most teams use the idea of having 1 good rebounder scorer at either the 4/5 and a foil for that. Honestly Hawes-Thompson really doesn't make that much sense either, much like adding Griffin to that line up makes much defensive sense. I guess Thabeet makes more sense for this current team to team with Hawes and Thompson although if we get the 1st or 2nd pick I'd almost be silly to pass on Rubio or Griffin unless we trade.

 

[fnordius]

But isn't that what were wondering? - Is Griffin a star?

That's half of what I'm wondering. The other half is "is he such a poor match with our existing roster that we'd benefit more from drafting someone else?"

I feel pretty confident that he'll do well in the NBA. I feel far less confident that he's what this team needs. I really hope that Rubio sticks this draft out, because otherwise I see nobody who'd be a better fit for this team than Thabeet, and, while I like Thabeet, I'll admit that he impresses me as a riskier choice overall. Attitude will decide whether he's the next Mutumbo or the next Olowokandi, and I don't feel competent to predict the outcome.

 

[bigbadred00]

That's half of what I'm wondering. The other half is "is he such a poor match with our existing roster that we'd benefit more from drafting someone else?"

I feel pretty confident that he'll do well in the NBA. I feel far less confident that he's what this team needs. I really hope that Rubio sticks this draft out, because otherwise I see nobody who'd be a better fit for this team than Thabeet, and, while I like Thabeet, I'll admit that he impresses me as a riskier choice overall. Attitude will decide whether he's the next Mutumbo or the next Olowokandi, and I don't feel competent to predict the outcome.

Kandi was never that good at Pacific which isn't even a BCS school. I'm not sure about Thabeet either. He is very awkward on the court but he does play excellent help D something we've been lacking since Webber and Vlade were here and healthy. Thabeet is definitely raw but he played in an ultra competitive Big East. He is also been the defensive player of the year in the country the last 2 seasons. Now his offensive game is ultra raw, but we don't need him to be a scorer, if he's half as good as Mutombo, the team should be happy. Other than a PG, this team has no interior D. If Thabeet can give some block shots and some solid D on top of an improved offensive game in the future--he might be the best pick for the team. This draft is ultra short when it comes to legit 5s while it's very deep with respect to 1s.

I can see us taking Thabeet and then having a shot at Maynor, Lawson, Flyy, Curry, Teague, Mills, Price with one of our later picks. After Griffin, Thabeet--I don't have as much trust in the bigs such as Hill, Patterson, Mullens, Blair, Tyler, Lawal, etc.

 

[Kingster]

That's half of what I'm wondering. The other half is "is he such a poor match with our existing roster that we'd benefit more from drafting someone else?"

I feel pretty confident that he'll do well in the NBA. I feel far less confident that he's what this team needs. I really hope that Rubio sticks this draft out, because otherwise I see nobody who'd be a better fit for this team than Thabeet, and, while I like Thabeet, I'll admit that he impresses me as a riskier choice overall. Attitude will decide whether he's the next Mutumbo or the next Olowokandi, and I don't feel competent to predict the outcome.

I also feel pretty confident that Griffin is not what this team needs. This team needs someone who could potentially be a superstar, and I see Griffin with an extremely low probability of that.

The whole notion of risk is very intriguing to me when it comes to the draft. I really think that a large part of Griffin being the consensus #1 is the aversion to risk - he's perceived as a low risk pick. What you see is what you get. He's probably not going to surprise you on the upside (he'll be pretty good, but not a superstar), but he's also probably not going to surprise you on the downside (he probably won't be an also-ran). The will to "not be wrong" is greater than the will "to be right". Fear is a great motivator. So if you don't want to "blow it", you pick Griffin. That doesn't mean that you think there could be three or four other players in the draft who could be significantly better than Griffin. It just means that you perceive them to have more risk than Griffin, which of course, increases the probability that you might "be wrong".

We've had a zillion discussions on this board about the need to draft high in order to get a superstar. Well, we might have the #1 pick. If you think the possibility of Griffin being a superstar is 1 in 20, whereas another player has more risk to the downside but has a 1 in 4 chance of being a superstar, who do you pick?

 

[Rose2Thomas]

Now I'm as big a fan of Thompson as anyone, it's a big reason why I want Rubio more than Griffin. But lets not underrate Griffin and overrate Thompson.

Thompson is most likely never going to become a lockdown defensive anchor, and that's what he would need to be to be a bigger impact than what Griffin is projected to become.

I would certainly trade Thompson if that's what it took to get both Griffin and Rubio.

 

[Kingster]

Now I'm as big a fan of Thompson as anyone, it's a big reason why I want Rubio more than Griffin. But lets not underrate Griffin and overrate Thompson.

Thompson is most likely never going to become a lockdown defensive anchor, and that's what he would need to be to be a bigger impact than what Griffin is projected to become.

I would certainly trade Thompson if that's what it took to get both Griffin and Rubio.

So, lets take a look at this comparison.

Thompson is fast; Griffin is fast
Thompson is quick; Griffin is quick
Thompson shoots better than Griffin
Thompson is at least equal, if not better in terms of ball handling and passing.
Griffin can jump higher than Thompson.
Griffin is somewhat better than Thompson in rebounding
Griffin is probably stronger than Thompson.
Thompson is longer and has a greater defensive presence.
Thompson has quick lateral movement; Griffin - ?

What exactly is Griffin bringing to the table that is going to make him superior to Thompson? There are as many negatives as there are positives. At best, it seems like a wash for Griffin. I'd give less weight to Griffin's strength because that is something that Thompson can develop.

 

[HighTopKicks]

If size + athleticism are going to be your main criteria as to whether Griffin will be a star PF, then convert Greene to PF. He's taller than Griffin, has just as much hops as Griffin, and is almost a big already. He has the frame to put on more weight, and only needs more weight room training to increase his strength.

Griffin has the PF mentality. He's been down low fight against double teams for 2 yrs. He has the vertical to go up and take rebounds away from people while JT doesn't. Griffin can put down an alley-oop with authority while JT is still getting his 2 handed dunks blocked. They both run the court better than most SF's and 2 guards. And, there are no better hussle Bigs in the NBA than JT & Griffin.

I'll let the coach decide if they can work together. But, there's no doubt in my mind that Griffin could be as good as Boozer. And, JT may end up a better center than a PF, but able to play both equally well. So, I see no problem with the Kings taking Griffin #1.

For those who think Rubio would be better for the Kings than Griffin, I can only say you may be right. But, with all the PG's in the draft, you can have Rubio and I'll take all the others, and we'll see who has the player with the best career 2 yrs from now.

In fact, I'm guessing that if John Wall would be allowed to enter the draft this yr, 90% of the Rubio supporters would jump onto the Wall bandwagon. We do need a playmaking PG, but don't put all your money on the favorite. I'd rather have Griffin & Maynor than Rubio and any other big available at 23.

 

[D-Rock]

I have a question about Griffin's court vision.

I haven't seen the guy play, aside from Youtube dunk compilations. However, one thing I have noticed from still pictures that the guy has very narrowly set eyes.

Does this affect his peripheral vision, or court vision in general? Could he be blind to an open man, waiting to shoot a corner 3?

 

[bajaden]

Another possibility is that Griffin doesn't have the athleticism that everybody thinks he has. He doesn't have the fluidity to go for a block, maintain balance, turn, jump quickly, and get the rebound.

A third possibility is that he just doesn't have the athletic tools to be a very good defender in college, regardless of whether he wants to play defense or not. In any case, all of the above doesn't make me excited about drafting him.

If you don't think that Griffin is athletic, then you really haven't seen him play much. Every scout in the league says he's one of the most athletic big men to come out of college in the last decade. I've watched Griffin play in over 20 games. I don't get a prize for that, but it does mean I might know what I'm talking about. I watched Webb go 2 for 24 one night. Does that mean I should have drawn the conclusion that he can't shoot.

As far as rebounding and blocking shots go. You tell me who it is that blocks shots and then gets the rebound. Wilt used to do it. So did Russell. Mutumbo didn't! As I pointed out in another thread. I started keeping track of every blocked shot and who ended up with the ball after the shot was blocked. Not just for the Kings, but for any team I watched. I don't have the stats in front of me right now, but close to 75 % of the time the team that had its shot blocked ended up with the ball back and close to 55% of the time they scored a basket. So what good did the block do, other than look good in the stat sheet. I'll take the rebound thank you. At least that way, we have the ball. By the way, I've never seen anyone grab as many off balance rebounds as Griffin does. And obviously you've never seen his spin move to the basket. I've never seen another big man make that move as quick.

As far as Griffin stuffing his stat sheet. All I know is that all the reports on him say that he's very coachable and a hard worker. His coach said that he's constantly working on his game. I don't know the kid, so I'm certainly not going make any judgements in that regard.

Having said all this, I want the Kings to draft Rubio.

 

[Kingster]

If size + athleticism are going to be your main criteria as to whether Griffin will be a star PF, then convert Greene to PF. He's taller than Griffin, has just as much hops as Griffin, and is almost a big already. He has the frame to put on more weight, and only needs more weight room training to increase his strength.

Griffin has the PF mentality. He's been down low fight against double teams for 2 yrs. He has the vertical to go up and take rebounds away from people while JT doesn't. Griffin can put down an alley-oop with authority while JT is still getting his 2 handed dunks blocked. They both run the court better than most SF's and 2 guards. And, there are no better hussle Bigs in the NBA than JT & Griffin.

I'll let the coach decide if they can work together. But, there's no doubt in my mind that Griffin could be as good as Boozer. And, JT may end up a better center than a PF, but able to play both equally well. So, I see no problem with the Kings taking Griffin #1.

For those who think Rubio would be better for the Kings than Griffin, I can only say you may be right. But, with all the PG's in the draft, you can have Rubio and I'll take all the others, and we'll see who has the player with the best career 2 yrs from now.

In fact, I'm guessing that if John Wall would be allowed to enter the draft this yr, 90% of the Rubio supporters would jump onto the Wall bandwagon. We do need a playmaking PG, but don't put all your money on the favorite. I'd rather have Griffin & Maynor than Rubio and any other big available at 23.

Greene doesn't have the frame to get considerably stronger. Thompson does.

So you're just restating what I've already said: Griffin can jump higher and he's stronger. But how much stronger do you think Griffin is going to get relative to Thompson? Thompson has a pretty big frame on him. He can definitely get stronger relative to Griffin. To me, Griffin looks like he's maxed out in the strength department - he's reached his strength ceiling. And Thompson is longer on defense. And he probably has better passing and dribbling skills. And his shooting is without doubt better than Griffin's. Boozer is pretty good, but against longer players with some athleticism, he tends to wilt (see the Laker games). If Boozer was Thompson's age, I'd take Thompson over Boozer, straight up. This is an argument where reasonable people can differ, and if that's the case, there isn't a whole lot of difference.

 

[Kingster]

If you don't think that Griffin is athletic, then you really haven't seen him play much. Every scout in the league says he's one of the most athletic big men to come out of college in the last decade.

That's great. So the most athletic big man in a decade can't play defense. That's freaking hilarious. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

As far as rebounding and blocking shots go. You tell me who it is that blocks shots and then gets the rebound. Wilt used to do it. So did Russell. Mutumbo didn't!

Well, you've just named a few. It does require a lot of athleticism, doesn't it? Walton was another. I'm sure there are good defensive power forward who have done it as well. Wicks could certainly do it. Duncan in his prime. Garnett. Amare. I'm sure there are several others who have the capability of doing it in the league now, but just aren't as noticeable because they aren't great scorers. Heck, Wallace can block a shot and recover to get the rebound. And remember, it's not just blocking shots and getting a rebound, but being able to attempt to block a shot, recover, and get the rebound. That is much more important, as we all know that most times you don't get the shot block, just the attempt.

I think you're really missing the point here, however. It's not that I require that Griffin must block shots and then get the rebound to prove that he can play defense. And it's not even that I require him making blocked shots in order to prove that he can play defense. I'm saying that one reason for him not even trying to go for shot blocks is that it takes away from his rebounding. That's one possible scenario for why he doesn't evenappearto make the attempt to play defense. I'll be the first one on this board that will say that shot blocking can be very overated, but in order play pf you've got to get up high and and at least "fake" you're going to block the shot to make it uncomfortable for the opposing player; that means you're sacrificing potential rebounds.

As far as Griffin stuffing his stat sheet. All I know is that all the reports on him say that he's very coachable and a hard worker. His coach said that he's constantly working on his game. I don't know the kid, so I'm certainly not going make any judgements in that regard.

That may be the case. But it doesn't answer the question, does it? Why is he so poor on defense?

Having said all this, I want the Kings to draft Rubio.

Why, because Griffin can't play D?

PS I agree about Mutombo. And I agree with your analysis on shot blocking. That's a big reason I'm not enamored with Thabeet.

 

[fnordius]

If Thabeet can give some block shots and some solid D on top of an improved offensive game in the future--he might be the best pick for the team.

Yeah. I still prefer Rubio, but it remains to be seen whether he will even stick it out this year. I wouldn't mind getting Thabeet at #3, or at #2 if Rubio withdraws. I don't even want to think about what happens if all 3 are out of the running, though.

 

[bajaden]

That's great. So the most athletic big man in a decade can't play defense. That's freaking hilarious. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?



Well, you've just named a few. It does require a lot of athleticism, doesn't it? Walton was another. I'm sure there are good defensive power forward who have done it as well. Wicks could certainly do it. Duncan in his prime. Garnett. Amare. I'm sure there are several others who have the capability of doing it in the league now, but just aren't as noticeable because they aren't great scorers. Heck, Wallace can block a shot and recover to get the rebound. And remember, it's not just blocking shots and getting a rebound, but being able to attempt to block a shot, recover, and get the rebound. That is much more important, as we all know that most times you don't get the shot block, just the attempt.

I think you're really missing the point here, however. It's not that I require that Griffin must block shots and then get the rebound to prove that he can play defense. And it's not even that I require him making blocked shots in order to prove that he can play defense. I'm saying that one reason for him not even trying to go for shot blocks is that it takes away from his rebounding. That's one possible scenario for why he doesn't evenappearto make the attempt to play defense. I'll be the first one on this board that will say that shot blocking can be very overated, but in order play pf you've got to get up high and and at least "fake" you're going to block the shot to make it uncomfortable for the opposing player; that means you're sacrificing potential rebounds.



That may be the case. But it doesn't answer the question, does it? Why is he so poor on defense?



Why, because Griffin can't play D?

PS I agree about Mutombo. And I agree with your analysis on shot blocking. That's a big reason I'm not enamored with Thabeet.

I don't have an answer as to why he played defense the way he did. Based on what I know about him and his work ethic, I just don't think he's the type of person that would throw in the towel in one area to look good in another. I would love to say its the coaching or the system, but I don't know, so I won't speculate.

I can only speak to what I do know. I know he's extremely athletic. I know he has a good vertical. I've seen him dunk with his shoulder even with the basket. I've seen him hit his head on the backboard. I know he's very strong. I've seen him off balance leaning over backwards, rip the ball out of the hands of two players with one hand. I know he runs the floor as good as anyone in the NBA right now. I know he's a terrific finisher around the basket. I also know that he's rough around the edges with his low post game. he has a lot to learn in that area. He doesn't have an outside game at all. He's not the greatest freethrow shooter in the world. He has good hands and he's a decent to good passer. He has a good feel for the game.

None of those things make him a star, but he has a good foundation to build on. I think the reason there's been a comparison to Malone coming out of college, is that all those thing were said about Malone coming out of college. That of course doesn't make him Malone. But I'd rather be compared to Malone than David Lee.

Anyway, I don't disagree with some of your reservations about him. But then I have reservations about a lot of players in this draft. I'm glad you mentioned Walton by the way. I'm sure there are a lot people that never saw him play and only think of him as someone they wished spoke another language. When he was healthy, he was one of the best bigs out there. He just should have eaten more raw meat..

 

[kennadog]

I'm glad you mentioned Walton by the way. I'm sure there are a lot people that never saw him play and only think of him as someone they wished spoke another language.

You mean English?

 

[bajaden]

You mean English?

Hey! Someone got it. Well said....

 

[Kingster]

I don't have an answer as to why he played defense the way he did. Based on what I know about him and his work ethic, I just don't think he's the type of person that would throw in the towel in one area to look good in another. I would love to say its the coaching or the system, but I don't know, so I won't speculate.

I can only speak to what I do know. I know he's extremely athletic. I know he has a good vertical. I've seen him dunk with his shoulder even with the basket. I've seen him hit his head on the backboard. I know he's very strong. I've seen him off balance leaning over backwards, rip the ball out of the hands of two players with one hand. I know he runs the floor as good as anyone in the NBA right now. I know he's a terrific finisher around the basket. I also know that he's rough around the edges with his low post game. he has a lot to learn in that area. He doesn't have an outside game at all. He's not the greatest freethrow shooter in the world. He has good hands and he's a decent to good passer. He has a good feel for the game.

None of those things make him a star, but he has a good foundation to build on. I think the reason there's been a comparison to Malone coming out of college, is that all those thing were said about Malone coming out of college. That of course doesn't make him Malone. But I'd rather be compared to Malone than David Lee.

Anyway, I don't disagree with some of your reservations about him. But then I have reservations about a lot of players in this draft. I'm glad you mentioned Walton by the way. I'm sure there are a lot people that never saw him play and only think of him as someone they wished spoke another language. When he was healthy, he was one of the best bigs out there. He just should have eaten more raw meat..

Yeah, it's too bad Walton had all those injuries. He was a fantastic basketball player. I remember him going to head to head with Jabbar, and I thought he won a lot of those matchups. I'd really like to have him tutor Jason and Spencer for a while in the art of shot blocks. I've heard him talk about it and never have heard such a technical description of it given - footwork, angles, keeping the ball in play, etc.

I don't doubt Griffin's speed, quicks, or jumping. I have a feeling that when he does the workouts he's going to wow some people with those measurements. But something has got to explain his the mysterious lack of defense. I'm sure it will be explained in due time. As the draft gets closer there probably will be more info on this that comes out, especially from people who might want to grab him with a lower pick.

 

[bajaden]

Yeah, it's too bad Walton had all those injuries. He was a fantastic basketball player. I remember him going to head to head with Jabbar, and I thought he won a lot of those matchups. I'd really like to have him tutor Jason and Spencer for a while in the art of shot blocks. I've heard him talk about it and never have heard such a technical description of it given - footwork, angles, keeping the ball in play, etc.

I don't doubt Griffin's speed, quicks, or jumping. I have a feeling that when he does the workouts he's going to wow some people with those measurements. But something has got to explain his the mysterious lack of defense. I'm sure it will be explained in due time. As the draft gets closer there probably will be more info on this that comes out, especially from people who might want to grab him with a lower pick.

One thing to think about, and its an intangible thing, is what players have elevated their teams to a higher level all by themselves. If you look around the NBA and see who the stars are, by and large, when in college they elevated their team above expectations. I think Teague falls into that catagory, despite his falling short in the tourney. How good would Rider have been without Thompson? Same could be said of Durant when at Texas, although he did have help from Augustine. Think Duncan and Wake Forrest. So for what its worth, Griffin did ellevate Oklahoma to be better than they should have been. Patty Mills did the same for St. Mary's.

On the other side of the coin, how important was Thabeet to UConn. Did he personally take them on his back and carry them? I'm not saying that good players can't come out of good programs. I'am saying that special players in most cases, are the program. Its not the be all, end all. But I think its one of the things that one should consider.

 

[Kingster]

One thing to think about, and its an intangible thing, is what players have elevated their teams to a higher level all by themselves. If you look around the NBA and see who the stars are, by and large, when in college they elevated their team above expectations. I think Teague falls into that catagory, despite his falling short in the tourney. How good would Rider have been without Thompson? Same could be said of Durant when at Texas, although he did have help from Augustine. Think Duncan and Wake Forrest. So for what its worth, Griffin did ellevate Oklahoma to be better than they should have been. Patty Mills did the same for St. Mary's.

On the other side of the coin, how important was Thabeet to UConn. Did he personally take them on his back and carry them? I'm not saying that good players can't come out of good programs. I'am saying that special players in most cases, are the program. Its not the be all, end all. But I think its one of the things that one should consider.

I agree. When Griffin was out with injury, his team dropped off a lot. When Thabeet was out with injury or foul trouble, it just wasn't a big drop off, and sometimes there was no drop off.

I'll tell you a player that obviously had a huge effect on his team winning when he was playing and not winning when he wasn't (in foul trouble) - Blair. We can all pick at him for being too short, or not a shot blocker, but that guy really made his presence felt - literally - on the opposing team. He just pounded people in the paint, and I don't see that being much different in the NBA. If we pick him at #23 I wouldn't mind at all. Nobody can say this guy is soft, that's for sure.

As for Teague, you probably know I think he's probably the most talented player in the draft. With Teague, it all depends on what's between the ears. How competitive is he? How coachable? If he is highly competitive and coachable, then I think he can be very very good.

The other player that really intrigues me is Evans because he has pg skills, is 6'6" with a 7' wingspan, very athletic, very good rebounding and defending potential, great finisher. If he gets his shot down, he also could be extremely good. The Kings have guys like Spencer, Thompson and Martin that can really spread the floor. I think a guy like Evans could have a field day driving the ball because the floor is so spread with those players on it.