It's early, but anybody have a draft wish list yet?
- Thread starter bluntsnbball
- Start date
No.
He's not Pippen -- the defining Pippen traits were that he was All Defensive stud with great guard skills who could run an offense. MKG seems cut more from the Gerald Wallace/Josh Smith cloth, except a few inches shorter. That can be an extremely useful player type, but what's the high end there? Has there been a player of that ilk better than Wallace/Smith?
He's not Pippen -- the defining Pippen traits were that he was All Defensive stud with great guard skills who could run an offense. MKG seems cut more from the Gerald Wallace/Josh Smith cloth, except a few inches shorter. That can be an extremely useful player type, but what's the high end there? Has there been a player of that ilk better than Wallace/Smith?
I don't think he'll be a better pro, maybe on the same level if everything lines up right. As a perimeter defender, he should make multiple all-defense teams. Like I said before, I question whether he'll be able to score enough to gain All-Star attention. But he's not a stats guy, he's a results guy. He's going to help you win in any way he can. And in that respect he's destined to become a fan favorite wherever he goes. I'd love to have both of them on my team, but I wouldn't trade Tyreke for him.
Goods views guys the reason I ask is because lately the thought of having Evans and MKG on the floor together worry me to be honest. Evans could probably school MKG with his handles & spin moves but thats neither here nor there, point being I feel as talented and hard working as MKG is the peices dont appear to fit on paper at least especially if T. will is in the long term plans. Barnes, Marhall, T.Jones seem to me like the right direction to go to me.
He's more talented than Wallace. I think his best comp talent and skill wise is Ron Artest. Except instead of having serious mental issues, he's got the perfect temperament and attitude.
It's not a given that he'd be better than Tyreke, but its certainly possible. They both have huge room for growth. I would say that MKG is an easier piece to build around.
It's not a given that he'd be better than Tyreke, but its certainly possible. They both have huge room for growth. I would say that MKG is an easier piece to build around.
Last edited:
Well if they're going to base his employment on his recuiting, instead of the job he's been doing recently, then I have no argument. Obviously, I'm not a big fan of Howlands. I find him to be a repressive, my way or the highway coach, who for the most part, seldom lets players play to their strengths. Which is why a couple of his recruits have left after one year there. He'd have to land both guys for UCLA to be considered for the number one recruiting class. Arizona currently holds that position with three players in the top ten. You could make a case for Kentucky if they land either Noel or Muhammed.
I'll say this, it would be nice to see the Pac 12 up there competing with the ACC, Big 12, SEC, etc. Especially UCLA, a school that used the be the standard by which all other schools were measured.
I'll say this, it would be nice to see the Pac 12 up there competing with the ACC, Big 12, SEC, etc. Especially UCLA, a school that used the be the standard by which all other schools were measured.
I'm going to disagree 100%. I'll agree that he's not Pippen. But he's very Pippen like coming out of college. Gilchrist is a terrific ballhandler and passer. He's also a defensive stud. Also, Gerald Wallace measured out at 6'7" at the combine, and Gilchrist measured out at the Jordan Brand classic, at 6'7.5". So if you want to quibble, he's actually a half inch taller than Gerald. When Pippen came out of college, the knock on him was his inconsistent outside shot. Ditto Gilchrist.
Now whether he'll ever be as good as Pippen is another story. Or even Gerald Wallace for that matter. But he has all the skills necessary, except an outside shot, to excell in the NBA. He also has a work ethic that Wallace didn't have when we drafted him.
Now whether he'll ever be as good as Pippen is another story. Or even Gerald Wallace for that matter. But he has all the skills necessary, except an outside shot, to excell in the NBA. He also has a work ethic that Wallace didn't have when we drafted him.
Leonard is all potential at the moment. Don't get me wrong, he has some skills, but he needs serious polish. However, he has terrific size and athleticism. He already has an NBA body. He's certainly worth a gamble, especially if you need a big man. However, I wouldn't take him in the top ten. But you never know.
Well, yeah, the idea being that you don't fire a coach who has a good chance to (or just has) brought in a great recruiting class, because then the players transfer away (with no year delay of eligibility) and you're left with nothing. If you've started with nothing, sure, why not? But you can't have a shot at the #1 or #2 recruit in the country and fire the coach he wants to come in to play for.
Agreed on all counts. But UCLA does appear to be firmly in the running for both guys, so it's not outlandish to say they have a shot at the #1 class.
Agreed on all counts. But UCLA does appear to be firmly in the running for both guys, so it's not outlandish to say they have a shot at the #1 class.
As much as it disturbes me to do it, and I ought to say Barnes just to irritate you, but I think I'd take a gamble on Drummond. And he is a gamble, but, if he pans out, he could be a top five PF in the NBA. To be honest, it all depends on where we end up picking. If were at number 7, Barnes will be gone, and likely Drummond will as well.
Right now I think I'd go Drummond and then Barnes but I flip-flop on those two. Bradley Beal would probably be in the conversation as well but he seems like such a poor fit for us. With this draft, there are players I'd feel good about drafting all the way to the end of the lottery. Some of them are SGs which don't fit comfortably in our starting lineup, but talent-wise there's a lot of it on the board.
I agree! I really like Bradley, but, if all things are equal, and my choice is between a SF, and a SG, I have to lean hard to the SF position. Especially with that current, and perhaps future addition of Williams. I also love Jeremy Lamb, but once again he's a SG. Folks have a tendecy to exaggerate whatever the defiences of a player are. No, Barnes can't handle a ball like Gilchrist, but he handles the ball as well as most of the SF's in the league. Now if your projecting him as a SG, then thats another story. Is he great at creating his own shot? No! But he is capable of doing so, and he's gotten much better at coming off screens. So he's not just a, plant yourself in the corner spot up shooter.
Can he pass the ball like Gilchrist? No! But his passing is more than adequate, and he's young, he'll get better. If you take Gilchrist out of the equation, then Barnes is potentially the best SF in the draft. I say potentially because I really like Jeffery Taylor, and if Quincy Miller comes out, which I doubt, but if he does, its possible that he'll be a better player down the road. But There's no SF that impacts the game like Gilchrist.
Can he pass the ball like Gilchrist? No! But his passing is more than adequate, and he's young, he'll get better. If you take Gilchrist out of the equation, then Barnes is potentially the best SF in the draft. I say potentially because I really like Jeffery Taylor, and if Quincy Miller comes out, which I doubt, but if he does, its possible that he'll be a better player down the road. But There's no SF that impacts the game like Gilchrist.
Better? eh, we're still about 10 years away from making that judgement. I'd say he certainly has the ceiling and the work ethic to be better though. I've never seen a college player work as hard as MKG does on the defensive end and have the tools to back it up. Skills like an outside shot can be taught. His talent level along with his heart/work ethic is certainly a rare combination from a one and done college player
I'm curious why? This is the deepest draft we've had in some time. Its loaded with talent, so why now do you think it sucks. I could see you saying that last year, and maybe you did. I don't remember, but I'm very excited about this draft. No matter what, we're going to get a good player, and if we're lucky, we'll get a great player.
But Im interested in your thoughts Vlade.
But Im interested in your thoughts Vlade.
I would like to see 4 guards picked before we pick. Is that asking too much? Yes, probably, but there seems to be always a team that makes a major screw up so I am asking for many of them. 
Look at the year we got Cousins. You could say that 4 teams screwed up. If any of them had taken the time to sit down with him, they might have changed their mind on what a poison he would be to their team.
Look at the year we got Cousins. You could say that 4 teams screwed up. If any of them had taken the time to sit down with him, they might have changed their mind on what a poison he would be to their team.
I would like to see 4 guards picked before we pick. Is that asking too much? Yes, probably, but there seems to be always a team that makes a major screw up so I am asking for many of them. Look at the year we got Cousins. You could say that 4 teams screwed up. If any of them had taken the time to sit down with him, they might have changed their mind on what a poison he would be to their team.
Look at the year we got Cousins. You could say that 4 teams screwed up. If any of them had taken the time to sit down with him, they might have changed their mind on what a poison he would be to their team.
Last edited:
Let me correct what I said then. If any had sat down with him and had half an inkling of what makes people tick, they would have understood that he could be handled. I hope with your complaints about this 21 year old not having a completely polished game is just to be humorous as I know of no 21 year old who doesn't have flaws. I saw Cousins in interviews prior to the draft and would have picked him #1. Does that mean I know a lot more about what makes people tick than basketball GMs, yes, I'm afraid it does.
Ditto.. He does everything well.. Yes, even defense. He sticks to his man, even when they are off the ball, and when his man has the ball he stays in front of them and is able to cut off the lane. I have even sen Barnes guarding opposing PGs really well.
Drummond is a long shot and I don't think I would take a chance on him.
Drummond is a long shot and I don't think I would take a chance on him.
Sometimes it works out well, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes people grow, sometimes they don't. It's not about having a polished game at 21, it's the things he does around the game that made people question his attitude. I'm not saying they won't regret their decisions. I'm just saying that the red flags he displayed at Kentucky were displayed last year as well. He has proven everyone right, both detractors and fans. He is passionate, but also loses his cool. He has a lot of skill, but that sometimes gives him too many options. He fights for every advantage to win, but those fights sometimes put him on the losing side. Everyone knew taht as an offensive big, he displayed talent that doesn't come around too often. But he also gaave a lot of reasons to not pick him. Good for you if you think this makes you better than all the GMs. I'm not talking about that, nor do I care. I'm just listing the predicted pluses and minuses of DMC, which all turned out to be true.
As to your last sentence, I presume then you think it was appropriate to pick him #5 and that the people who passed him by were correct. This is not a retrospective "I told you so" either as last year I said he was going to be spectacular. Very few people agreed with me. I say when you have a spectacular athlete who is troubled, you go the extra mile and have him evaluated by someone who knows something.
Last edited:
I'll take the Drummond risk if he's there for us to pick. His athleticism for a big man is off the charts. Pair him with DMC who will score a load inside and Drummond will have all the time in the world to grow into a better offensive player. And looking at the progress of Hassan, JT and DMC just this year, I think we got a really good big man coach hiding among our coaching staff.
Maybe it has good depth, but it lacks a lot of upside at the top. A lot of unfulfilled hype with Drummond, P. Jones, and Barnes. I still really like Terrence Jones' talent, but you can throw him in with those guys who have disappointed in their development (or lack thereof) too. It makes me question their motor/work ethic/character. Bradley Beal seems like the only player with actual triple threat skills at the top of the draft.
Anthony Davis is the undisputed prize and blue chipper of the draft, and yet his accomplishments have only proven to be on one end of the floor. Yes, there's a lot of reason to believe he can be a very good offensive player, but he has yet to develop a real offensive game worthy of an advertised franchise player.
I think there can be a number of good players in this draft (and there's always surprises), but it seems like there's just a lot of no.3 type players. So perhaps it won't be until the middle to late first round where you'll be getting high quality players for where you're picking.
I got sucked into the hype of this draft early on, but I've been convinced otherwise as the season has gone along, but for a lot of the media, the hype has stuck. I don't like pissing on draft hype because I love the draft and want it to be exciting, but I've grown very pessimistic about this draft. I think a lot of the college purists like this draft, but college purists tend to only look at draft prospects through the rose-colored lens of the college game.
Anthony Davis is the undisputed prize and blue chipper of the draft, and yet his accomplishments have only proven to be on one end of the floor. Yes, there's a lot of reason to believe he can be a very good offensive player, but he has yet to develop a real offensive game worthy of an advertised franchise player.
I think there can be a number of good players in this draft (and there's always surprises), but it seems like there's just a lot of no.3 type players. So perhaps it won't be until the middle to late first round where you'll be getting high quality players for where you're picking.
I got sucked into the hype of this draft early on, but I've been convinced otherwise as the season has gone along, but for a lot of the media, the hype has stuck. I don't like pissing on draft hype because I love the draft and want it to be exciting, but I've grown very pessimistic about this draft. I think a lot of the college purists like this draft, but college purists tend to only look at draft prospects through the rose-colored lens of the college game.