Now that we know the draft order, who do we draft? (New thread)
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
The 89 draft I wanted Sean Elliot as well but would have taken Stacey King over Pervis, however, Pervis actually did produce for a short while after he left the Kings. That seemed like a weak draft but it did produce some good players like Tim Hardaway and Glen Rice.
I never wanted Klay Thompson, I thought he would be a bust which is part of the reason I'm less critical now about players like Tatum. Hes the guy I want least right now out of Jackson, Fox, and Isaac, but you never really know until a couple years into the league.
I never wanted Klay Thompson, I thought he would be a bust which is part of the reason I'm less critical now about players like Tatum. Hes the guy I want least right now out of Jackson, Fox, and Isaac, but you never really know until a couple years into the league.
Last edited:
I don't think he's our worst choice out of the top five. In fact, I would probably take him #1 overall. But I am in a clear minority around here.
Then again, there are also a lot of people who think that The Empire Strikes Back is a better film than Star Wars and who think that Stairway To Heaven isn't Led Zeppelin's best song. What are you gonna do?
Then again, there are also a lot of people who think that The Empire Strikes Back is a better film than Star Wars and who think that Stairway To Heaven isn't Led Zeppelin's best song. What are you gonna do?
I'd strongly consider Ball at #1. He's an incredibly effective shooter, a generational passer, and a guy who simply elevates the play of everyone around him. Fultz has a more complete offensive game, has very few weaknesses I can see other than not always seeming to play with max effort and some laziness on D but the reality is still that he didn't elevate his team. That's a concern for me even though I consider Romar to be a good recruiter and poor coach.
Would I want to have to hear from Lavar Ball all the time? Nope. I'm tired of hearing from him now. But I think Ball could be the type of player to transform a franchise.
I doubt he'll ever be a go-to scorer or the guy you look to in crunch time when you need a bucket so a team needs someone else to fill that role but I think Lonzo Ball is an incredible offensive talent.
Would I want to have to hear from Lavar Ball all the time? Nope. I'm tired of hearing from him now. But I think Ball could be the type of player to transform a franchise.
I doubt he'll ever be a go-to scorer or the guy you look to in crunch time when you need a bucket so a team needs someone else to fill that role but I think Lonzo Ball is an incredible offensive talent.
Last edited:
I don't see that as a "hot take" at all. To slightly amend the easiest-found definition on the Googs, a hot take is a piece of deliberately provocative commentary based on shallow reasoning.
I wouldn't characterize suggesting I would select Ball at #1 to be particularly provocative. Most mock drafts have him at #2, behind a player who led his team to a 2-17 record in the Pac-12. Is Fultz really that much of a lock at #1? Just because the common view around here is "please don't let Ball fall to #5 because he's going to be awful", I don't think adhering more closely to the common wisdom is exactly provocative.
I also wouldn't characterize it as based on shallow reasoning. I watched Ball play 30+ games this year, including two in person. Now, I will admit that this is an unusual number of times for me to watch a player (I probably watched Fultz about 5-6 times), and I will also admit that the reason is because I am by birth a UCLA fan. I don't think that necessarily clouds my judgment - for instance I wanted nothing of Shabazz Muhammad or Zach LaVine. But having watched Ball in 30+ games it was very clear to me just how much difference he makes to a team. I can't think of a better college passer in the last 20 years, particularly in the way that he creates baskets for teammates who don't initially look open. His shot chart is a stat-head's dream - he basically takes nothing but high-efficiency shots, either threes or layups, and he hits both at very good rates relative to average. His number of midrange shots last year was vanishingly small, which is good, because those are typically low-efficiency shots unless they are wide open. He may be skinny, but he's a better athlete than most people give him credit for. Down the stretch he was typically playing 38+ minutes per game, and I didn't see him tired. He has great hops and can get up for the backdoor alley-oop just as easily as he can set it up. He has great size for a PG. Oh, and his BBIQ is way off the charts. There's really very little to dislike here. To be continued (to avoid internal server errors).
I wouldn't characterize suggesting I would select Ball at #1 to be particularly provocative. Most mock drafts have him at #2, behind a player who led his team to a 2-17 record in the Pac-12. Is Fultz really that much of a lock at #1? Just because the common view around here is "please don't let Ball fall to #5 because he's going to be awful", I don't think adhering more closely to the common wisdom is exactly provocative.
I also wouldn't characterize it as based on shallow reasoning. I watched Ball play 30+ games this year, including two in person. Now, I will admit that this is an unusual number of times for me to watch a player (I probably watched Fultz about 5-6 times), and I will also admit that the reason is because I am by birth a UCLA fan. I don't think that necessarily clouds my judgment - for instance I wanted nothing of Shabazz Muhammad or Zach LaVine. But having watched Ball in 30+ games it was very clear to me just how much difference he makes to a team. I can't think of a better college passer in the last 20 years, particularly in the way that he creates baskets for teammates who don't initially look open. His shot chart is a stat-head's dream - he basically takes nothing but high-efficiency shots, either threes or layups, and he hits both at very good rates relative to average. His number of midrange shots last year was vanishingly small, which is good, because those are typically low-efficiency shots unless they are wide open. He may be skinny, but he's a better athlete than most people give him credit for. Down the stretch he was typically playing 38+ minutes per game, and I didn't see him tired. He has great hops and can get up for the backdoor alley-oop just as easily as he can set it up. He has great size for a PG. Oh, and his BBIQ is way off the charts. There's really very little to dislike here. To be continued (to avoid internal server errors).
Last edited:
Continued...
The Lonzo Ball dislike really seems to come to three things: 1) His funky shot, 2) Getting schooled by Fox in the Tourney, and 3) His dad. None particularly concern me. His shot goes in, and for those who say it's just going to get blocked, well, I can't remember it being blocked at all at UCLA so it probably couldn't have happened more than a few times. He does tend to shoot from very deep, but again, he hits from very deep. The shot is funky, but it will work. As far as Fox goes, the first meeting was quite a bit more of a draw. Yes, Fox is quicker, but the reason Ball got destroyed in the tournament is that he reportedly pulled his groin early in the game. It had also been less than a month since his mother had had a massive stroke - reportedly she is still unable to speak. So a couple of extenuating circumstances there. And his dad? His dad is a pain in the butt, but from a full year of following Lonzo, he is nothing at all like his dad. The overbearing parent thing will work itself out.
So yeah, I think he's probably the most talented player overall in the draft, at a position we desperately need. Is that a hot take, or is it just going against the consensus?
The Lonzo Ball dislike really seems to come to three things: 1) His funky shot, 2) Getting schooled by Fox in the Tourney, and 3) His dad. None particularly concern me. His shot goes in, and for those who say it's just going to get blocked, well, I can't remember it being blocked at all at UCLA so it probably couldn't have happened more than a few times. He does tend to shoot from very deep, but again, he hits from very deep. The shot is funky, but it will work. As far as Fox goes, the first meeting was quite a bit more of a draw. Yes, Fox is quicker, but the reason Ball got destroyed in the tournament is that he reportedly pulled his groin early in the game. It had also been less than a month since his mother had had a massive stroke - reportedly she is still unable to speak. So a couple of extenuating circumstances there. And his dad? His dad is a pain in the butt, but from a full year of following Lonzo, he is nothing at all like his dad. The overbearing parent thing will work itself out.
So yeah, I think he's probably the most talented player overall in the draft, at a position we desperately need. Is that a hot take, or is it just going against the consensus?
Road to Fox looks promising via a fan vote.
http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=1566173
http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=1566173
This is what I noticed too - his stamina is excellent.....I would say the way he runs reminds me of Steve Nash - a soccer player converted to basketball - or Jason Kidd. He seems to have boundless energy. I watched clips of Fultz vs Ball recently, and though Fultz was smoother and more controlled player, Ball seemed to look his equal or better.
I watched Jason Kidd in High School at the Championship win against Mater Dei at Arco in 92 - that's the closest player I can compare. Kidd just kept running and running and ran Mater Dei off the floor That kind of running up and down, and tirelessly is why I compare Ball to soccer play. I saw a bit of the anticipation and stealing in clips of Ball. Later in Kidd's career he completely disrupted James, Wade and the Heat in the finals with his defense and although Nowitzki won MVP of the Finals deservedly, I though Kidd was the other man behind the curtain for Dallas. He disrupted James and Wade as well as others on the Heat's offense consistently that stymied the Heat. Kidd could do it all....and why he's third on triple doubles all-time. His game processing is at a different level. I agree that Ball would be outstanding to draft, and may get picked up by the Celtics even.
I watched Jason Kidd in High School at the Championship win against Mater Dei at Arco in 92 - that's the closest player I can compare. Kidd just kept running and running and ran Mater Dei off the floor That kind of running up and down, and tirelessly is why I compare Ball to soccer play. I saw a bit of the anticipation and stealing in clips of Ball. Later in Kidd's career he completely disrupted James, Wade and the Heat in the finals with his defense and although Nowitzki won MVP of the Finals deservedly, I though Kidd was the other man behind the curtain for Dallas. He disrupted James and Wade as well as others on the Heat's offense consistently that stymied the Heat. Kidd could do it all....and why he's third on triple doubles all-time. His game processing is at a different level. I agree that Ball would be outstanding to draft, and may get picked up by the Celtics even.
I like Ball but I think the chances of him signing an extension here are very slim. Fox on the other hand, will be much more likely to stick around. I don't like these prima donnas that come out of college and try to force themselves onto a certain team. You have the opportunity of a lifetime no matter what the team is. Don't act like a spoiled little brat.
Fox is my first choice and has been since long before the Tourney. However, you can't really go wrong at 5. If Fox is gone, take either Tatum/Jackson/Smith and be very happy. All of those guys have all-star type talent and fill a position of need. I think Isaac is too much of a risk at 5, but would be all over him at 10. I love his game, I'm just less sure about him than I am the above guys. I doubt he lasts until 10, I think Minny takes him, but it would be ideal.
I think Collins will be a solid NBA player but I don't really like him at 10. If we come away with Isaac, Ntilikina or OG at 10, I'd be very happy.
I think Collins will be a solid NBA player but I don't really like him at 10. If we come away with Isaac, Ntilikina or OG at 10, I'd be very happy.
Good points, appreciate the response.
I'm not on the "don't take Ball train" at all. Think he's a super talented player and like you said, one of the most gifted passers to enter the draft in a long time. Was just surprising to see him ranked #1 for you when I have Fultz pretty far ahead of the pack and then a big grouping of Jackson/Ball/Fox/Tatum for the next 5 spots.
I'm not on the "don't take Ball train" at all. Think he's a super talented player and like you said, one of the most gifted passers to enter the draft in a long time. Was just surprising to see him ranked #1 for you when I have Fultz pretty far ahead of the pack and then a big grouping of Jackson/Ball/Fox/Tatum for the next 5 spots.
Hearing a few takes on Collins, I'm wondering what you guys aren't seeing in his game to think he can't be a high level starter? He's an outstanding rim protector with great timing on contesting shots, he's got a jumper, true positional versatility at the 4 and 5, he has 0 energy/effort concerns, he cleans up the glass on both ends, he has outstanding post footwork and patience and he's a good athlete.
What am I missing?
What am I missing?
I should have added the caveat that I haven't got to see many of his games. Besides, I didn't say I don't like him as a prospect, but with WCS/Skal/Papa already showing promise and vying for minutes, I'm not sure Collins would be the best pick. Of course if you think he's the BPA you take him anyway, but I don't have Collins ahead of some other prospects who will likely be available at 10 hence my concern. I won't be upset if we take him, he just isn't my first choice at 10. I'd take Ntilikina/Isaac/OG ahead of him at 10.
Yes to Fox; 100% NO to Ball!
We seem to be to optimistic that Fox will fall, when it will be BALL THAT FALLS!
Yes Fox is rail thin and not a good shooter, but I don't care. He has incredible speed, a nose for the game and a really good handle (one that allows him to utilize his super-speed for dribble penetration). Everyone in here is right Ball can shoot lights out and pass very well but he is slow as molasses. Fox talks about match-ups. He talks about facing the West's best point guards; he just happens to have the speed and quickness to keep these point guards in front him.
When Ball falls to 5 (because it is going to happen) I say trade the pick! Freaking Lake show even says they are going to work out Fox and Ball. I haven't thought of a great trade yet, but I am not for drafting Ball (AT ALL). If a good trade doesn't present itself take DSJ or best remaining point guard. Mavs are enamored with Frank so he will be gone by 10.
Summary BALL will FALL, don't won't him AT ALL.
Yes to Fox; 100% NO to Ball!
We seem to be to optimistic that Fox will fall, when it will be BALL THAT FALLS!
Yes Fox is rail thin and not a good shooter, but I don't care. He has incredible speed, a nose for the game and a really good handle (one that allows him to utilize his super-speed for dribble penetration). Everyone in here is right Ball can shoot lights out and pass very well but he is slow as molasses. Fox talks about match-ups. He talks about facing the West's best point guards; he just happens to have the speed and quickness to keep these point guards in front him.
When Ball falls to 5 (because it is going to happen) I say trade the pick! Freaking Lake show even says they are going to work out Fox and Ball. I haven't thought of a great trade yet, but I am not for drafting Ball (AT ALL). If a good trade doesn't present itself take DSJ or best remaining point guard. Mavs are enamored with Frank so he will be gone by 10.
Summary BALL will FALL, don't won't him AT ALL.
Probably the main reason he's around 10 in the consensus draft is his lack of pt, making it harder to judge his consistency. I agree that he could be very good. In particular, I like his toughness as well as his athletic ability. You're going to see some guys taken around 10 that are going to be better than some in the top 5. Collins could be one of them. It's very nice to have two picks in the top 10 in this deep draft.
@Sam0ah
Phoenix may very well go with Jackson, Tatum or Issac at 4th. However B. Knight was a mistake. Ulis has shown promise, nothing more. Bledsoe is a high scorer who is too often injured and does not really fit the timeline of Booker and company. They may very well look for Bledsoe's replacement to pair with Booker.
Ryan McDonough, the Suns GM, is entering the final year of his contract. He has a lot of incentive to get this pick right, making who he goes for a big mystery.
Phoenix may very well go with Jackson, Tatum or Issac at 4th. However B. Knight was a mistake. Ulis has shown promise, nothing more. Bledsoe is a high scorer who is too often injured and does not really fit the timeline of Booker and company. They may very well look for Bledsoe's replacement to pair with Booker.
Ryan McDonough, the Suns GM, is entering the final year of his contract. He has a lot of incentive to get this pick right, making who he goes for a big mystery.
For an NBA GM drafting a rookie PG is similar to an NFL GM drafting a rookie QB. You know you very likely aren't going to get great return on investment in year 1. In the NFL that's often a way for a GM to justify a contract extension. "We just need a couple years for this kid to develop and then everything will turn around" so I guess I could see a lame duck GM drafting yet another PG. But if he's really concerned about his job I think he takes the plug and play SF that's left at 4 (Jackson is a no brainer but Tatum would fit too) and sees better immediate results.
The Suns fans (and I'm assuming ownership too) are looking to see this team start showing some promise instead of yet another down year of "rebuilding".
For Divac and the Kings, there's likely more breathing room. They just ended the DeMarcus Cousins era. A rookie PG would be just fine for them.
Maybe I'm just trying to see an angle where Fox definitely becomes a King but to me the logic seems pretty sound.
The Suns fans (and I'm assuming ownership too) are looking to see this team start showing some promise instead of yet another down year of "rebuilding".
For Divac and the Kings, there's likely more breathing room. They just ended the DeMarcus Cousins era. A rookie PG would be just fine for them.
Maybe I'm just trying to see an angle where Fox definitely becomes a King but to me the logic seems pretty sound.
First let me say I was not saying Suns picking a PG is the most likely scenario. @Sam0ah said they did not see how they could go that route, and I am offering food for thought in response.
If I had to say what was likely I would definitely say they take Jackson if he is there.
However to further illustrate my first post. Bledsoe can easily remain the starter while Ulis and pick #4PG develop. No one said the new rookie has to start right away.
In addition, if they draft a SF then you have a minutes crunch somewhere. They already have Bender, Chriss, Chandler, Len, Williams,Dudley and Warren who also played well like Ulis.
Like I said though, my money would be on Jackson, Tatum or even Isaac.
If I had to say what was likely I would definitely say they take Jackson if he is there.
However to further illustrate my first post. Bledsoe can easily remain the starter while Ulis and pick #4PG develop. No one said the new rookie has to start right away.
In addition, if they draft a SF then you have a minutes crunch somewhere. They already have Bender, Chriss, Chandler, Len, Williams,Dudley and Warren who also played well like Ulis.
Like I said though, my money would be on Jackson, Tatum or even Isaac.
