CelticsStrong
Around the League => The Draft => Topic started by: wahz on January 05, 2014, 01:51:13 PM
-
I think I have seen enough to be confident that there are two guys who will make a huge difference wherever they go and beyond them there are no sure stars. The difference between 2nd and 3rd is going to be large. And Embiid doesn't look like an old man, nor does he look fragile. He is quick. He seems to be working very hard. Not much needs to be said about Parker. He is the most complete player already.
If we assume that the difference between the third and second draft position will be very large, what can we realistically do to move up without losing too much?
-
I haven't watched a ton of college basketball this year, but I think there are a LOT of people who would just as easily say that Wiggins and Randle are the top 2 with a huge drop off after them...Exum might even get some love.
Overall, we should be quite excited if we land in the top 6...ya know, if we aren't going to contend for a championship this year.
-
I'd be thrilled with a top 5 pick. I think they will all be excellent. Smart would be my guy if we got #6 but I'm not as thrilled with him as the first 5.
-
I think I have seen enough to be confident that there are two guys who will make a huge difference wherever they go and beyond them there are no sure stars. The difference between 2nd and 3rd is going to be large. And Embiid doesn't look like an old man, nor does he look fragile. He is quick. He seems to be working very hard. Not much needs to be said about Parker. He is the most complete player already.
If we assume that the difference between the third and second draft position will be very large, what can we realistically do to move up without losing too much?
I'm going to ask you the same question I ask every sudden "expert".
Do you watch College basketball religiously every year? Do you typically have a good eye for who will end up being stars in the NBA? Or did you just watch a few games this year and make up your mind?
-
From watching the top 6 (minus exum who I can only go by scouting reports) I can see most teams viewing the top 6 as two separate tiers. 1 Parker, wiggins, and embiid. 2 exum, smart and randle.
-
I think I have seen enough to be confident that there are two guys who will make a huge difference wherever they go and beyond them there are no sure stars. The difference between 2nd and 3rd is going to be large. And Embiid doesn't look like an old man, no does he look fragile. He is quick. He seems to be working very hard. Not much needs to be said about Parker. He is the most complete player already.
If we assume that the difference between the third and second draft position will be very large, what can we realistically do to move up without losing too much?
I am interested in your response to the following:
Some historical perspective on drop-offs. Rate the drop off you predict in 2014 compared with others from 2001-2008:
Note: I'll stick to top picks -- I won't refer to steals down the list as these occur in every draft. But it seems true that you can see somewhat of a general drop-off (with obvious player exceptions) each year past the top picks.
Which of the following drop-off scenarios do you think most closely resembles the 2014 draft or do you think the 2014 draft could be uniquely talented as compared with these drafts?
2001: (Omit Kwame Brown):
From: Tyson Chandler (2) and Pao Gasol (3)
To: Eddie Curry (4), Jason Richardson (5), Shane Battier (6), Eddie Griffin (7), Dasagna Diop (8.
2002:
From: Yao Ming
To: Jay Williams (2), Mike Dunleavy (3), Drew Gooden (4), Nikoloz Tskitishvili (5), Dujuan Wagner (6), Nene (7), Chris Wilcox (8
2003 (Omit Darko):
From Lebron (1), Carmelo (3), Bosh (4), Wade (5),
To: Kaman (6), Hinrich (7), TJ Ford (8, Sweetney (9), Jarvis Hayes (10), Pietrus (11)
2004:
From: Dwight Howard, Okafur (2), Ben Gordon (3)
To: Shaun Livingston, Devin Harris, Childress, Deng, Rafael Arujo, Iguadala
2005:
From: Bogut (1) Marvin Williams (2), DWill (3), CP3 (4)
To: Felton (5) Martell Webster (6), Villanueva (7), Frye (8, Diogu (9), Bynum (10)
2006:
From: Bargnani (1) and Aldridge (2)
To: Adam Morrison (3), Ty Thomas (4), Sheldon Willims (5), Roy (6), Foye (7), Gay (8, Patrick O'Bryant (9)
2007:
From: Oden (1), Durant (2), Horford (3)
To: Conley (4), Jeff Green (5), Jianlian (6), Corey Brewer (7), Brandon Wright (8, Noah (9)
2008:
From: Rose (1), Beasley (2), Mayo (3), Westbrook (4) Love (5)
To: Galinaro (6), Eric Gordon (7), Joe Alexander (8, DJ Augustin (9), B Lopez (10)
Going back a little further, the dropoff from Tim Duncan to Keith Van Horn and the rest (save the eventual emergence of Chuncey Billups) was astronomical.
What do you think the 2014 dropoff (as you say, after Parker and Embiid) will be using historical comparisons?
-
Speaking of Dropping off anyone see Parker choke yesterday and get crushed by ND?
2-10 Shooting
1-5 3P shooting
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=400502771
He stunk up the joint and played horrible. Hood looked better.
-
Speaking of Dropping off anyone see Parker choke yesterday and get crushed by ND?
2-10 Shooting
1-5 3P shooting
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=400502771
He stunk up the joint and played horrible. Hood looked better.
I admittedly don't follow College ball... but I think all these brand new experts need to do themselves a service and take a look at the Freshman College stats for some of their favorite NBA stars. They might be surprised to see guys like Paul Pierce averaging a mere 12 points on 41%/30%/60% shooting. It might surprise them to see that Shaq averaged 14 points as College freshman. I really think people watch College games expecting NBA stats and then overreact when a stud like Wiggins is "only" averaging 15 (efficient) points as a College Freshman.
Also, I feel like a lot of these "brand new experts" don't understand the difference between putting up 20 points for Duke vs putting up 30 points for Washington State.
Parker is averaging 20 points, 8 rebounds, 2 assists, 1.2 blocks, 1 steal on 51%/43%/74% shooting ... Someone with knowledge of College ball should chime in here. How are those stats for a Freshman playing at Duke. Is that pretty common?
-
I think I have seen enough to be confident that there are two guys who will make a huge difference wherever they go and beyond them there are no sure stars. The difference between 2nd and 3rd is going to be large. And Embiid doesn't look like an old man, nor does he look fragile. He is quick. He seems to be working very hard. Not much needs to be said about Parker. He is the most complete player already.
If we assume that the difference between the third and second draft position will be very large, what can we realistically do to move up without losing too much?
I'm going to ask you the same question I ask every sudden "expert".
Do you watch College basketball religiously every year? Do you typically have a good eye for who will end up being stars in the NBA? Or did you just watch a few games this year and make up your mind?
Aside from the "sudden experts" there are the skeptics, who realize that the pundits and scouts who watch college hoops religiously aren't overly accurate in their predictions. Don't forget about us.
-
Speaking of Dropping off anyone see Parker choke yesterday and get crushed by ND?
2-10 Shooting
1-5 3P shooting
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=400502771
He stunk up the joint and played horrible. Hood looked better.
I admittedly don't follow College ball... but I think all these brand new experts need to do themselves a service and take a look at the Freshman College stats for some of their favorite NBA stars. They might be surprised to see guys like Paul Pierce averaging a mere 12 points on 41%/30%/60% shooting. It might surprise them to see that Shaq averaged 14 points as College freshman. I really think people watch College games expecting NBA stats and then overreact when a stud like Wiggins is "only" averaging 15 (efficient) points as a College Freshman.
Also, I feel like a lot of these "brand new experts" don't understand the difference between putting up 20 points for Duke vs putting up 30 points for Washington State.
Parker is averaging 20 points, 8 rebounds, 2 assists, 1.2 blocks, 1 steal on 51%/43%/74% shooting ... Someone with knowledge of College ball should chime in here. How are those stats for a Freshman playing at Duke. Is that pretty common?
I'll just answer the question myself. What Parker is doing right now at Duke is unprecedented. He's easily the best Duke freshman in history. Possibly the best player that school has ever had. Grant Hill is typically regarded as one of the 3 best players in that school's history... he averaged 11 points and 5 rebounds as a freshman. Compare Hill's senior year to Parker's Freshman year and you might have a discussion. Hill averaged 17 points, 7 rebounds, 5 assists, 2 steals and a block in 36 minutes per game. Again, Parker is averaging 20 points, 8 rebounds 2 assist, 1 block and 1 steal in 29 minutes.
Should have little trouble averaging 25-30 in the league.
-
I think I have seen enough to be confident that there are two guys who will make a huge difference wherever they go and beyond them there are no sure stars. The difference between 2nd and 3rd is going to be large. And Embiid doesn't look like an old man, nor does he look fragile. He is quick. He seems to be working very hard. Not much needs to be said about Parker. He is the most complete player already.
If we assume that the difference between the third and second draft position will be very large, what can we realistically do to move up without losing too much?
I'm going to ask you the same question I ask every sudden "expert".
Do you watch College basketball religiously every year? Do you typically have a good eye for who will end up being stars in the NBA? Or did you just watch a few games this year and make up your mind?
Aside from the "sudden experts" there are the skeptics, who realize that the pundits and scouts who watch college hoops religiously aren't overly accurate in their predictions. Don't forget about us.
don't mind him. he's just upset that if the Wahz is right, LB's whole tanking philosophy for this year becomes a pipe dream and rooting for this team to lose has been fool's errand.
-
I think I have seen enough to be confident that there are two guys who will make a huge difference wherever they go and beyond them there are no sure stars. The difference between 2nd and 3rd is going to be large. And Embiid doesn't look like an old man, nor does he look fragile. He is quick. He seems to be working very hard. Not much needs to be said about Parker. He is the most complete player already.
If we assume that the difference between the third and second draft position will be very large, what can we realistically do to move up without losing too much?
I'm going to ask you the same question I ask every sudden "expert".
Do you watch College basketball religiously every year? Do you typically have a good eye for who will end up being stars in the NBA? Or did you just watch a few games this year and make up your mind?
Aside from the "sudden experts" there are the skeptics, who realize that the pundits and scouts who watch college hoops religiously aren't overly accurate in their predictions. Don't forget about us.
don't mind him. he's just upset that if the Wahz is right, LB's whole tanking philosophy for this year becomes a pipe dream and rooting for this team to lose has been fool's errand.
Wahz is right?... that there's a massive dropoff after Parker and Embiid?
Funny... draftexpress has Wiggins and Randle going #1 and #2. Chad Ford had Wiggins and Randle #1 and #2 until recently when he moved up Parker to #2.
Also, I love the leap that "wahtz being right" means LarBrd33's wrong. I asked if wahtz had some basis for his minority view.. apparently that makes me "wrong". ::)
Also, scouts/pundits and draft experts have a better track record than the skeptics would like you to believe. There are some hits and misses, but typically when they say a guy is "can't miss", he usually doesn't miss.
-
I've been a draft fiend for about three years now and I can at least say that the top 7 of this draft has higher potential than any one in last year's draft save for Antetokunmpo(who I was high on since the moment I saw him and was hoping we'd draft him).
Credentials: http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=63261.0 (back before anyone even knew how to spell his name 8))
Follow that with solid B+ prospects like Rodney Hood, James Young, Jerami Grant, Willey Caullie Stein (I think Rondo could turn him into a player- former QB to former wide reciever) and we're looking like we're in business. Not to mention there's athletes availible in the mid to late first round like Zack LaVine, Montrezl Harrel, Gary Harris and Glenn Robinson III.
Sorry but no matter how much folks want to discount the talent in this draft it's still miles ahead of most years. Even the hype factory Andrew Wiggins is beginning to be considered so overrated that he's becoming vastly underrated. People always forget that he kills the U.S. team in international play. I'll go on record and say that I'd still take him over Jabari Parker since I think his game will translate to the spacing of the NBA and Parker is probably at greater risk of injury.
-
Also, scouts/pundits and draft experts have a better track record than the skeptics would like you to believe. There are some hits and misses, but typically when they say a guy is "can't miss", he usually doesn't miss.
Sure, that's what they say. You just have to rely on their ever-changing definition of what constitutes a miss.
-
Having watched college basketball pretty religiously I know that comparing college stats for freshmen the last couple few years to freshmen from years ago is like comparing apples and oranges.
First for decades, freshmen were not even eligible to play varsity sports in college. I believe it was the Marshal tragedy in college football that changed that in the 70's. Even after that it took many many yuears for some old school coaches to even play freshmen, as they would rather sit them and have them learn. But even when they did get playing time, for the most part they were playing players 2-3 years older than them and just as talented. Most players even with great talent stay four years in college.
But the 80's and 90's and 00's slowly started a trend where underclassmen started declaring for the draft and the most talented of talented possible incoming freshmen just ignored college and went straight to the pros. Slowly over time the college game has gotten watered down to the point where modern college basketball is no where near the quality of the game it was years ago.
Freshmen in the past didn't put up big numbers because they weren't allowed to play, didn't play as they earned their stripes behind upper classmen, played against very talented teams filled with pro level players that stayed in school, or had the best of the best freshmen declare for the NBA and so never played in college as freshmen.
Today's freshmen rule college basketball in a watered down game. The current freshmen are the stars whereas the stars of years ago were talented upper classmen that had stayed in a system for years and become excellent pro level players.
Its just unfair to compare numbers from pro's who had a freshmen season years and years ago to today's current freshmen who play a different role in a much different game.
And besides, as I have said so many times before, you don't judge future NBA prospects by their stats, you judge them on their abilities and mental makeups. People make the same mistake when players go off in the Summer League and expect similar professional results in the NBA.
-
Also, scouts/pundits and draft experts have a better track record than the skeptics would like you to believe. There are some hits and misses, but typically when they say a guy is "can't miss", he usually doesn't miss.
Sure, that's what they say. You just have to rely on their ever-changing definition of what constitutes a miss.
But Tim, this is what bugs me. I've been following the NBA via the Internet on an obsessive level since I guess 2000. I had connection in 1997, but it wasn't the same as it was in 2000. That's when sites like nbadraft.net started cropping up, the forum culture started shaping into what it is today... and ESPN was doing their "Next" series where they started hyping the crap out of prospects.
In the past 14 years, there's only a handful of players who received the royal hype treatment.
Yao
LeBron/Melo
Durant/Oden
Anthony Davis
This draft
From following guys like Chad Ford, there were other names that became apparent as "can't miss".
Chris Paul (don't mind the fact he was picked later... all the experts I listened to said he was the best player in that draft)
Derrick Rose
John Wall (labelled a poor man's Rose)
Kyrie Irving (labelled a poor man's Wall)
Blake Griffin was labelled can't miss... a sure 20/10 player. Anthony Davis was a called a better version of Blake Griffin with elite defense.
There were bad drafts that they told us were bad drafts and ended up being bad drafts. 2001, 2006, 2013 (so far).
There were guys they told us could be stars if everything broke correctly (Dwight Howard).
Experts were infatuated with Kevin Love. There were post-draft articles that bashed the Mayo for Love trade as a massive mistake.
During that tenure, the only guys I'd say they were wrong about were #1 - Oden. And Oden would have been a star had he stayed healthy. #2 - Darko. Not sure what they were thinking with that one. I'd also stretch and say there might have been a little hype about Michael Beasley, because his stats were so terrific... but there were plenty of experts discounting Beasley's personality and saying he had bust potential.
I'm telling you... unless I'm just totally losing my mind and retroactively changing history, generally when the experts say a player is "can't miss"... he hasn't missed. There are only a few players they really hype going into a draft... every year there's some naysayer fans who don't want to believe it. "LeBUST James" was a frequent term in the months leading up to Bron's rookie campaign. TONS of people bashed Durant his rookie year when the frail player shot 41% as a shooting guard. Plenty of folks knocked Anthony Davis last year and this year he's proving experts 1000% right.
There was a brief period during the high school era that experts got a little carried away with their "ceiling" meter on players like Darius Miles, Tyson Chandler and Eddie Curry... but none of those guys were ever labelled "can't miss".
This year, I'm hearing them calling quite a few players "can't miss". It's a unique draft. Because all the players are coming out at the same time, some fans have trouble believing it. From what I understand, any one of the guys who are currently the consensus Top 6 could have come out in 2013 and would have been the top pick in the draft. 2013 draft was horrid. 2014 draft is epic. I'm not surprised that some fans want to call it "overhyped". They do it every year. But at this point, I just trust what the experts say. They are typically right. It's actually a little weird to me that people still suggest that draft experts/pundits could be THAT wrong. Have you not been following this league?
-
I've been touting this guy for a while now, but have been watching the first half of UCLa vs USC and Kyle Anderson is incredible....6-9 and playing pg....great vision and in between game
-
Also, scouts/pundits and draft experts have a better track record than the skeptics would like you to believe. There are some hits and misses, but typically when they say a guy is "can't miss", he usually doesn't miss.
Sure, that's what they say. You just have to rely on their ever-changing definition of what constitutes a miss.
But Tim, this is what bugs me. I've been following the NBA via the Internet on an obsessive level since I guess 2000. I had connection in 1997, but it wasn't the same as it was in 2000. That's when sites like nbadraft.net started cropping up, the forum culture started shaping into what it is today... and ESPN was doing their "Next" series where they started hyping the crap out of prospects.
In the past 14 years, there's only a handful of players who received the royal hype treatment.
Yao
LeBron/Melo
Durant/Oden
Anthony Davis
This draft
From following guys like Chad Ford, there were other names that became apparent as "can't miss".
Chris Paul (don't mind the fact he was picked later... all the experts I listened to said he was the best player in that draft)
Derrick Rose
John Wall (labelled a poor man's Rose)
Kyrie Irving (labelled a poor man's Wall)
Blake Griffin was labelled can't miss... a sure 20/10 player. Anthony Davis was a called a better version of Blake Griffin with elite defense.
There were bad drafts that they told us were bad drafts and ended up being bad drafts. 2001, 2006, 2013 (so far).
There were guys they told us could be stars if everything broke correctly (Dwight Howard).
Experts were infatuated with Kevin Love. There were post-draft articles that bashed the Mayo for Love trade as a massive mistake.
During that tenure, the only guys I'd say they were wrong about were #1 - Oden. And Oden would have been a star had he stayed healthy. I'd also stretch and say there might have been a little hype about Michael Beasley, because his stats were so terrific... but there were plenty of experts discounting Beasley's personality and saying he had bust potential.
I'm telling you... unless I'm just totally losing my mind and retroactively changing history, generally when the experts say a player is "can't miss"... he hasn't missed. There are only a few players they really hype going into a draft... every year there's some naysayer fans who don't want to believe it. "LeBUST James" was a frequent term in the months leading up to Bron's rookie campaign. TONS of people bashed Durant his rookie year when the frail player shot 41% as a shooting guard. Plenty of folks knocked Anthony Davis last year and this year he's proving experts 1000% right.
There was a brief period during the high school era that experts got a little carried away with their "ceiling" meter on players like Darius Miles, Tyson Chandler and Eddie Curry... but none of those guys were ever labelled "can't miss".
This year, I'm hearing them calling quite a few players "can't miss". It's a unique draft. Because all the players are coming out at the same time, some fans have trouble believing it. From what I understand, any one of the guys who are currently the consensus Top 6 could have come out in 2013 and would have been the top pick in the draft. 2013 draft was horrid. 2014 draft is epic. I'm not surprised that some fans want to call it "overhyped". They do it every year. But at this point, I just trust what the experts say. They are typically right. It's actually a little weird to me that people still suggest that draft experts/pundits could be THAT wrong. Have you not been following this league?
TP. Really dig this post, it definitely mirrors most of my sentiments on draft analysis. Got a question for you... is Chris Walker going to be the next Darius Miles? I'm having trouble seeing past his crazy potential even though he couldn't be farther from"can't miss".
-
Also, scouts/pundits and draft experts have a better track record than the skeptics would like you to believe. There are some hits and misses, but typically when they say a guy is "can't miss", he usually doesn't miss.
Sure, that's what they say. You just have to rely on their ever-changing definition of what constitutes a miss.
But Tim, this is what bugs me. I've been following the NBA via the Internet on an obsessive level since I guess 2000. I had connection in 1997, but it wasn't the same as it was in 2000. That's when sites like nbadraft.net started cropping up, the forum culture started shaping into what it is today... and ESPN was doing their "Next" series where they started hyping the crap out of prospects.
In the past 14 years, there's only a handful of players who received the royal hype treatment.
Yao
LeBron/Melo
Durant/Oden
Anthony Davis
This draft
From following guys like Chad Ford, there were other names that became apparent as "can't miss".
Chris Paul (don't mind the fact he was picked later... all the experts I listened to said he was the best player in that draft)
Derrick Rose
John Wall (labelled a poor man's Rose)
Kyrie Irving (labelled a poor man's Wall)
Blake Griffin was labelled can't miss... a sure 20/10 player. Anthony Davis was a called a better version of Blake Griffin with elite defense.
There were bad drafts that they told us were bad drafts and ended up being bad drafts. 2001, 2006, 2013 (so far).
There were guys they told us could be stars if everything broke correctly (Dwight Howard).
Experts were infatuated with Kevin Love. There were post-draft articles that bashed the Mayo for Love trade as a massive mistake.
During that tenure, the only guys I'd say they were wrong about were #1 - Oden. And Oden would have been a star had he stayed healthy. I'd also stretch and say there might have been a little hype about Michael Beasley, because his stats were so terrific... but there were plenty of experts discounting Beasley's personality and saying he had bust potential.
I'm telling you... unless I'm just totally losing my mind and retroactively changing history, generally when the experts say a player is "can't miss"... he hasn't missed. There are only a few players they really hype going into a draft... every year there's some naysayer fans who don't want to believe it. "LeBUST James" was a frequent term in the months leading up to Bron's rookie campaign. TONS of people bashed Durant his rookie year when the frail player shot 41% as a shooting guard. Plenty of folks knocked Anthony Davis last year and this year he's proving experts 1000% right.
There was a brief period during the high school era that experts got a little carried away with their "ceiling" meter on players like Darius Miles, Tyson Chandler and Eddie Curry... but none of those guys were ever labelled "can't miss".
This year, I'm hearing them calling quite a few players "can't miss". It's a unique draft. Because all the players are coming out at the same time, some fans have trouble believing it. From what I understand, any one of the guys who are currently the consensus Top 6 could have come out in 2013 and would have been the top pick in the draft. 2013 draft was horrid. 2014 draft is epic. I'm not surprised that some fans want to call it "overhyped". They do it every year. But at this point, I just trust what the experts say. They are typically right. It's actually a little weird to me that people still suggest that draft experts/pundits could be THAT wrong. Have you not been following this league?
TP. Really dig this post, it definitely mirrors most of my sentiments on draft analysis. Got a question for you... is Chris Walker going to be the next Darius Miles? I'm having trouble seeing past his crazy potential even though he couldn't be farther from"can't miss".
Yeah, there have been others labeled as can't miss. Darko and Van Horn come to mind, both underperformed to different levels. Van Horn was solid, but not at the level many thought.
Excellent post btw!
-
Embiid and Wiggins are playing on CBS at 4:30 today. I do agree that Embiid and Parker are the two best players but don't sleep on Randle. He is Chris Webber minus the passing ability. Rondo and Randle would be lethal, especially in the pick in pop and roll. And he plays harder than anyone in this draft....
-
Also, scouts/pundits and draft experts have a better track record than the skeptics would like you to believe. There are some hits and misses, but typically when they say a guy is "can't miss", he usually doesn't miss.
Sure, that's what they say. You just have to rely on their ever-changing definition of what constitutes a miss.
But Tim, this is what bugs me. I've been following the NBA via the Internet on an obsessive level since I guess 2000. I had connection in 1997, but it wasn't the same as it was in 2000. That's when sites like nbadraft.net started cropping up, the forum culture started shaping into what it is today... and ESPN was doing their "Next" series where they started hyping the crap out of prospects.
In the past 14 years, there's only a handful of players who received the royal hype treatment.
Yao
LeBron/Melo
Durant/Oden
Anthony Davis
This draft
From following guys like Chad Ford, there were other names that became apparent as "can't miss".
Chris Paul (don't mind the fact he was picked later... all the experts I listened to said he was the best player in that draft)
Derrick Rose
John Wall (labelled a poor man's Rose)
Kyrie Irving (labelled a poor man's Wall)
Blake Griffin was labelled can't miss... a sure 20/10 player. Anthony Davis was a called a better version of Blake Griffin with elite defense.
There were bad drafts that they told us were bad drafts and ended up being bad drafts. 2001, 2006, 2013 (so far).
There were guys they told us could be stars if everything broke correctly (Dwight Howard).
Experts were infatuated with Kevin Love. There were post-draft articles that bashed the Mayo for Love trade as a massive mistake.
During that tenure, the only guys I'd say they were wrong about were #1 - Oden. And Oden would have been a star had he stayed healthy. #2 - Darko. Not sure what they were thinking with that one. I'd also stretch and say there might have been a little hype about Michael Beasley, because his stats were so terrific... but there were plenty of experts discounting Beasley's personality and saying he had bust potential.
I'm telling you... unless I'm just totally losing my mind and retroactively changing history, generally when the experts say a player is "can't miss"... he hasn't missed. There are only a few players they really hype going into a draft... every year there's some naysayer fans who don't want to believe it. "LeBUST James" was a frequent term in the months leading up to Bron's rookie campaign. TONS of people bashed Durant his rookie year when the frail player shot 41% as a shooting guard. Plenty of folks knocked Anthony Davis last year and this year he's proving experts 1000% right.
There was a brief period during the high school era that experts got a little carried away with their "ceiling" meter on players like Darius Miles, Tyson Chandler and Eddie Curry... but none of those guys were ever labelled "can't miss".
This year, I'm hearing them calling quite a few players "can't miss". It's a unique draft. Because all the players are coming out at the same time, some fans have trouble believing it. From what I understand, any one of the guys who are currently the consensus Top 6 could have come out in 2013 and would have been the top pick in the draft. 2013 draft was horrid. 2014 draft is epic. I'm not surprised that some fans want to call it "overhyped". They do it every year. But at this point, I just trust what the experts say. They are typically right. It's actually a little weird to me that people still suggest that draft experts/pundits could be THAT wrong. Have you not been following this league?
My guess is you say that you're hearing them call quite a few players can't miss but when the next great draft comes around you'll mainly remember the ones that were correct. I keep hearing about how accurate the people who rate the draft are, I even hear about how they're becoming more accurate than they used to be, but then I look at drafts and I'm fairly unconvinced that's the case. Somebody posted all of Chad Ford's Tier 1 and Tier 2 picks and the results were fairly meh. I think your memory is fairly selective.
-
Yeah, there have been others labeled as can't miss. Darko and Van Horn come to mind, both underperformed to different levels. Van Horn was solid, but not at the level many thought.
Excellent post btw!
I have to admit Van Horn had a much better NBA career (statistically speaking) than my memory serves. By memory, I would have thought he was 15 ppg guy for about 4-5 years. He was better, longer than that. But the drop-off from Duncan to him still was pretty massive. Franchise guy to good (offensively) rotation guy.
-
Speaking of Dropping off anyone see Parker choke yesterday and get crushed by ND?
2-10 Shooting
1-5 3P shooting
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=400502771
He stunk up the joint and played horrible. Hood looked better.
I love seeing Duke lose and all but tough to get on Parker, the was his first bad game as a college player. He has been so dominate that I think we could cut him some slack for one bad game.
-
In a perfect world, we'll trade a never-regains-his-form Rondo for the #2 pick, who will turn out to be a massive bust.
That way Tim and LB can both be right.
-
I look at draft analysts like this, if they are right 50% of the time, they are doing real well.
I look at Mel Kiper Jr, who's been doing draft analysis for the NFL much longer than Chad Ford has for the NFL and that dude is lucky to be correct 40% of the time.
The NBA has a much smaller draft pool and if Ford is right 50% of the time on players, he is doing well. The people at nbadraft.net are jokes. Draftexpress and Ford I find to be the best but I usually call my buddies who work in college sports and talk to them and get better insight than I get from Ford a lot of times.
-
I think I have seen enough to be confident that there are two guys who will make a huge difference wherever they go and beyond them there are no sure stars. The difference between 2nd and 3rd is going to be large. And Embiid doesn't look like an old man, nor does he look fragile. He is quick. He seems to be working very hard. Not much needs to be said about Parker. He is the most complete player already.
If we assume that the difference between the third and second draft position will be very large, what can we realistically do to move up without losing too much?
What pick do we have in this hypothetical scenario? A team in the top 2 would have to prefer one of the other players and we'd have to have a low enough pick where they could still definitely attain that player. Of course, this also requires that the other team in the top two will not take the player they covet. It's just way too early to speculate now with so many unknown factors.
-
I will define myself as a college basketball expert, relative at least to a Celtics message board -- I didn't really start watching NBA ball with regularity until 2005, but watched as much NCAA as I could get my hands on for a decade before, and still only watch the C's when I watch the NBA.
Parker is as impressive as any freshman small forward I remember seeing at a major college program since Carmelo Anthony. He might be better, might be worse, because a decade can do a lot to your memory, but he should be in the same discussion as Melo. Here is a side-by-side comparison of their stats, for those who like statistics.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=carmelo-anthony&i=1&p1=jabari-parker (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=carmelo-anthony&i=1&p1=jabari-parker)
(Note: I'd put Kevin Durant above Melo, but I also think they weren't playing the same position. Durant was unquestionably a stretch 4, and sometimes a stretch 5 in college, whereas Melo and Parker are playing a much more similar position. If you want to argue that I should compare Parker and Durant, I will tell you KD was better.)
I've said in other posts how much I like Embiid. I do think college centers are harder to judge, especially elite ones, because they so rarely have anyone near their level to go up against. Also, they sometimes rely very much on having a decent pg to get much going offensively, since 7-foot tall 19 year-olds (and heck, 22 year-olds), rarely have much in the way of offensive refinement (because they never need to develop it in college or high school to get their shot off). That said, Embiid is definitely a defensive difference-maker, and a decent passer out of the post when double-teamed. He's better than Roy Hibbert as a freshman, although certainly not Roy Hibbert as a senior. Greg Oden, in my opinion, was better as a freshman, which a) makes me sad about what his career has amounted to, and b) remind you there is no sure thing. Due to the scarcity of elite centers in the world, Embiid is my #1 hope for the C's to draft. That said, he only plays about 50% of his team's minutes so far, and is someone who's I think would really benefit from a second year in school, because he is new to the game. For personal monetary reasons, I think he should come out, but from a basketball perspective, Embiid after 1-2 more years of Bill Self could be on a hall-of-fame track. Here's a comparison of Embiid, freshman Hibbert, and Oden.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=greg-oden&i=1&p1=joel-embiid&p2=roy-hibbert&roy-hibbert=2004-2005 (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=greg-oden&i=1&p1=joel-embiid&p2=roy-hibbert&roy-hibbert=2004-2005)
I think Wiggins is getting to the point of being underrated at this point. He hasn't looked as consistently good as Jabari Parker, but there's no question in my mind why everyone was fawning over him prior to the start of the year. I think the expectations of him had been set at MVP-LeBron level, which was very unfair. To me he and Parker are still the clear top 2 in the class, and if they go 1-2, there will be two happy teams at the top.
I think Randle has at times been dominant, but I think any talk of him being selected above Parker or Wiggins this point isn't based on evidence. Randle punishes the mismatches he gets in the paint, which is frequent, but doesn't have 3-point range, and can get very careless with the ball. He looks like a very good college freshman power forward, but much more like an Anthony Bennett or Derrick Favors (very very good), than like a Chris Webber whom you remember for decades.
I like Marcus Smart a lot more than other people here, I think. He's probably the best player at a major college of taking over a game this year. Last year that player to me was Trey Burke. OSU has other talent, but he is the transcendent player that makes that team go. I'd probably take Smart above Randle if I were starting a team.
I haven't seen enough of Gordon in Arizona, because I don't stay up as late as I used to watching West Coast basketball. (Getting older stinks). What I have seen however, has been very good. Looking at his game log lets me know that I've missed his stinkers, and why people have gotten down on him. His best games have definitely made him look like he's in the same class as Randle, and his worst games as someone who slides out of the draft.
My feeling is the top 5 draftable players in college are Parker in Wiggins in your top 2, and Smart, Embiid, and Randle as 3-5. To me, this is a deep top 5. I think many years, a player of Embiid's quality or Smart's quality goes #1, and someone like Randle is consistently in the top 3 in all but the deepest years. With Exum also being in the mix, one of those guys will likely slide out of the top 5, which to me means at #6 you're getting someone who in most years would be no worse than #3.
To me this draft will have the best player since Kevin Durant, and also the best top 2 since that draft as well. While I'd take the top 2 of 2007-2008 over the top 2 this year (again, this is without prior knowledge of the sad case of Greg Oden), I'd probably take anyone in this year's top 6 over Al Horford, who went #3 and has been a very good NBA player. Jeff Green went #5 that year, and I see Glenn Robinson III as a very similar player, and it looks like he'll be in the 10-20 range. To me there is no panic if we miss out on one of even the top 4 picks. This draft is rightfully seen as historic at the top of the class. The depth of it also potentially extends very far through the first round, depending who comes out earlier.
One final note for newer college basketball watchers -- I think the conference schedule, which is just starting, tends to be a better barometer for performance than the non-conference schedule, especially for freshman (at major colleges). In the non-conference schedule, you see guys going up against lesser competition most nights. Sure, there are the big games (and there has been better scheduling of those big games over the past decade), but most nights it's against some small-conference school who won't stand a chance of beating you. There's less scouting of players, and more "weird" systems run, so that can have a pretty big impact, positively or negatively, for players. Once you get to the conference schedule, there's more film on the players, and opposing team's are much more familiar with each other. Dominating conference play is much more important than early-season or tournament play, in my opinion.
-
I think I have seen enough to be confident that there are two guys who will make a huge difference wherever they go and beyond them there are no sure stars. The difference between 2nd and 3rd is going to be large. And Embiid doesn't look like an old man, nor does he look fragile. He is quick. He seems to be working very hard. Not much needs to be said about Parker. He is the most complete player already.
If we assume that the difference between the third and second draft position will be very large, what can we realistically do to move up without losing too much?
What pick do we have in this hypothetical scenario? A team in the top 2 would have to prefer one of the other players and we'd have to have a low enough pick where they could still definitely attain that player. Of course, this also requires that the other team in the top two will not take the player they covet. It's just way too early to speculate now with so many unknown factors.
Very true. I don't see any team in the top of the draft trading their picks unless there is unmistakeable down right perfect info of who is getting drafted after them and they decide to do a conditional trade where they pick someone and trade picks with another team 2-3 picks away and thereby get their player while not "reaching" for him and simultaneously picking up some more value in the trade.
otherwise, I just don't see a team in the top 7-10 picks making a trade to trade down.
-
I don't think Jabari Parker is nearly as complete a player as he's being touted.
At this point, he's a pretty terrible defensive player. He has nice length and will occasionally use it to gamble for a steal, but that's his only positive impact on that end of the court. Otherwise he displays inconsistent effort, poor positioning and fundamentals, and poor lateral quickness. Two of those can be fixed with work, but he'll always get beaten by a player who can expose his lack of explosion.
Do I think he'll be a star in the NBA? Yes. But who do people use as a comp for Parker so often? Carmelo - that comp fits on both ends of the floor. How many times has Melo truly threatened for an NBA title? Arguably once with Billups on the Nuggets, in a West that was weak except for the Lakers at the top.
So while this draft is continuously lauded for being the 'best since LeBron' and all of that stuff, you can't just toss Parker on a pile of spare parts and crap and expect him to eventually drag it to the finals like LeBron did in Cleveland. He's not on that level. He needs other stars behind him, as well as roleplayers who can mask his weaknesses (like Dirk had in his title year).
-
I don't think Jabari Parker is nearly as complete a player as he's being touted.
At this point, he's a pretty terrible defensive player. He has nice length and will occasionally use it to gamble for a steal, but that's his only positive impact on that end of the court. Otherwise he displays inconsistent effort, poor positioning and fundamentals, and poor lateral quickness. Two of those can be fixed with work, but he'll always get beaten by a player who can expose his lack of explosion.
Do I think he'll be a star in the NBA? Yes. But who do use as a comp for Parker so often? Carmelo - that comp fits on both ends of the floor. How many times has Melo truly threatened for an NBA title? Arguably once, in a West that was weak except for the Lakers at the top.
So while this draft is continuously lauded for being the 'best since LeBron' and all of that stuff, you can't just toss Parker on a pile of spare parts and crap and expect him to eventually drag it to the finals like LeBron did in Cleveland. He's not on that level. He needs other stars behind him, as well as roleplayers who can mask his weaknesses (like Dirk had in his title year).
While I agree with what you're saying, the idea that the west was weak in 2009 is a little silly.
-
TP to saltlover for his analysis.
I want to make it clear... I haven't watched a single College basketball game this year. I absolutely do NOT follow the NCAA. I just assume the experts aren't taking crazy pills. Generally in my experience following the league the players they say are "can't miss" don't miss.
When someone comes out and calls this draft "overrated", I immediately have to question whether or not that person actually follows college ball or if they are just watching a handful of games for the first time with NBA-tinted glasses.
saltlover gave his College b-ball credentials and then proceeded to back up what the experts have been saying. This draft is epic. I've yet to see anyone with any credibility say otherwise. Typically it's just someone who watched Wiggins and was "underwhelmed", because he didn't drop 40 points "on the college level". Those type of people don't know what they are talking about. I don't know what I'm talking about either, but at least I have the sand to admit it.
-
I think I have seen enough to be confident that there are two guys who will make a huge difference wherever they go and beyond them there are no sure stars. The difference between 2nd and 3rd is going to be large. And Embiid doesn't look like an old man, nor does he look fragile. He is quick. He seems to be working very hard. Not much needs to be said about Parker. He is the most complete player already.
If we assume that the difference between the third and second draft position will be very large, what can we realistically do to move up without losing too much?
I'm going to ask you the same question I ask every sudden "expert".
Do you watch College basketball religiously every year? Do you typically have a good eye for who will end up being stars in the NBA? Or did you just watch a few games this year and make up your mind?
I watch a ton of college ball every year.
I thought Wade would be a superstar.
I wanted us to draft Aldridge.
I knew Durant should have gone first
I knew we stole McHale
I knew Rondo should start right away.
I have one glaring error I'll never live down and it was that I thought Bill Walton was overrated. I still wonder what the heck I was thinking about on that one.
But the point was to start a discussion about how to move up into the top two, and I understand your point: Am I right that in 2020 it will look like Parker and Embiid should go one and two? I hope I'm wrong, actually, since I doubt we pick in the top two.
-
I don't think Jabari Parker is nearly as complete a player as he's being touted.
At this point, he's a pretty terrible defensive player. He has nice length and will occasionally use it to gamble for a steal, but that's his only positive impact on that end of the court. Otherwise he displays inconsistent effort, poor positioning and fundamentals, and poor lateral quickness. Two of those can be fixed with work, but he'll always get beaten by a player who can expose his lack of explosion.
Do I think he'll be a star in the NBA? Yes. But who do use as a comp for Parker so often? Carmelo - that comp fits on both ends of the floor. How many times has Melo truly threatened for an NBA title? Arguably once, in a West that was weak except for the Lakers at the top.
So while this draft is continuously lauded for being the 'best since LeBron' and all of that stuff, you can't just toss Parker on a pile of spare parts and crap and expect him to eventually drag it to the finals like LeBron did in Cleveland. He's not on that level. He needs other stars behind him, as well as roleplayers who can mask his weaknesses (like Dirk had in his title year).
While I agree with what you're saying, the idea that the west was weak in 2009 is a little silly.
It was nothing like it is this year.
San Antonio had no Ginobili, New Orleans quit on their coach, Dallas didn't play defense, Houston overachieved with Yao and scraps, etc.
Not a strong playoff field for the west that year.
-
TP to saltlover for his analysis.
I want to make it clear... I haven't watched a single College basketball game this year. I absolutely do NOT follow the NCAA. I just assume the experts aren't taking crazy pills. Generally in my experience following the league the players they say are "can't miss" don't miss.
When someone comes out and calls this draft "overrated", I immediately have to question whether or not that person actually follows college ball or if they are just watching a handful of games for the first time with NBA-tinted glasses.
saltlover gave his College b-ball credentials and then proceeded to back up what the experts have been saying. This draft is epic. I've yet to see anyone with any credibility say otherwise. Typically it's just someone who watched Wiggins and was "underwhelmed", because he didn't drop 40 points "on the college level". Those type of people don't know what they are talking about. I don't know what I'm talking about either, but at least I have the sand to admit it.
Well I call this draft over rated and I have probably watched more college ball than you have pro ball so if you are talking about me you could not be more wrong.
Edit: That sounded harsher than I wanted it to be but basically it points to the fact that people on this board don't know other people on this board and trying to make it seem that another poster's opinion isn't valid just because YOU(meaning anyone) don't think they are qualified as Chad Ford, doesn't mean they don't have the right to have that opinion or that they are wrong or that they aren't as qualified as Chad Ford.
-
Lol some people think there are like 10 superstar players and then there are people in this thread who thinks there is like 1 or two and that the draft is overrated.
#letsfindahappymedium
-
I will define myself as a college basketball expert, relative at least to a Celtics message board -- I didn't really start watching NBA ball with regularity until 2005, but watched as much NCAA as I could get my hands on for a decade before, and still only watch the C's when I watch the NBA.
Parker is as impressive as any freshman small forward I remember seeing at a major college program since Carmelo Anthony. He might be better, might be worse, because a decade can do a lot to your memory, but he should be in the same discussion as Melo. Here is a side-by-side comparison of their stats, for those who like statistics.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=carmelo-anthony&i=1&p1=jabari-parker (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=carmelo-anthony&i=1&p1=jabari-parker)
(Note: I'd put Kevin Durant above Melo, but I also think they weren't playing the same position. Durant was unquestionably a stretch 4, and sometimes a stretch 5 in college, whereas Melo and Parker are playing a much more similar position. If you want to argue that I should compare Parker and Durant, I will tell you KD was better.)
I've said in other posts how much I like Embiid. I do think college centers are harder to judge, especially elite ones, because they so rarely have anyone near their level to go up against. Also, they sometimes rely very much on having a decent pg to get much going offensively, since 7-foot tall 19 year-olds (and heck, 22 year-olds), rarely have much in the way of offensive refinement (because they never need to develop it in college or high school to get their shot off). That said, Embiid is definitely a defensive difference-maker, and a decent passer out of the post when double-teamed. He's better than Roy Hibbert as a freshman, although certainly not Roy Hibbert as a senior. Greg Oden, in my opinion, was better as a freshman, which a) makes me sad about what his career has amounted to, and b) remind you there is no sure thing. Due to the scarcity of elite centers in the world, Embiid is my #1 hope for the C's to draft. That said, he only plays about 50% of his team's minutes so far, and is someone who's I think would really benefit from a second year in school, because he is new to the game. For personal monetary reasons, I think he should come out, but from a basketball perspective, Embiid after 1-2 more years of Bill Self could be on a hall-of-fame track. Here's a comparison of Embiid, freshman Hibbert, and Oden.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=greg-oden&i=1&p1=joel-embiid&p2=roy-hibbert&roy-hibbert=2004-2005 (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=greg-oden&i=1&p1=joel-embiid&p2=roy-hibbert&roy-hibbert=2004-2005)
I think Wiggins is getting to the point of being underrated at this point. He hasn't looked as consistently good as Jabari Parker, but there's no question in my mind why everyone was fawning over him prior to the start of the year. I think the expectations of him had been set at MVP-LeBron level, which was very unfair. To me he and Parker are still the clear top 2 in the class, and if they go 1-2, there will be two happy teams at the top.
I think Randle has at times been dominant, but I think any talk of him being selected above Parker or Wiggins this point isn't based on evidence. Randle punishes the mismatches he gets in the paint, which is frequent, but doesn't have 3-point range, and can get very careless with the ball. He looks like a very good college freshman power forward, but much more like an Anthony Bennett or Derrick Favors (very very good), than like a Chris Webber whom you remember for decades.
I like Marcus Smart a lot more than other people here, I think. He's probably the best player at a major college of taking over a game this year. Last year that player to me was Trey Burke. OSU has other talent, but he is the transcendent player that makes that team go. I'd probably take Smart above Randle if I were starting a team.
I haven't seen enough of Gordon in Arizona, because I don't stay up as late as I used to watching West Coast basketball. (Getting older stinks). What I have seen however, has been very good. Looking at his game log lets me know that I've missed his stinkers, and why people have gotten down on him. His best games have definitely made him look like he's in the same class as Randle, and his worst games as someone who slides out of the draft.
My feeling is the top 5 draftable players in college are Parker in Wiggins in your top 2, and Smart, Embiid, and Randle as 3-5. To me, this is a deep top 5. I think many years, a player of Embiid's quality or Smart's quality goes #1, and someone like Randle is consistently in the top 3 in all but the deepest years. With Exum also being in the mix, one of those guys will likely slide out of the top 5, which to me means at #6 you're getting someone who in most years would be no worse than #3.
To me this draft will have the best player since Kevin Durant, and also the best top 2 since that draft as well. While I'd take the top 2 of 2007-2008 over the top 2 this year (again, this is without prior knowledge of the sad case of Greg Oden), I'd probably take anyone in this year's top 6 over Al Horford, who went #3 and has been a very good NBA player. Jeff Green went #5 that year, and I see Glenn Robinson III as a very similar player, and it looks like he'll be in the 10-20 range. To me there is no panic if we miss out on one of even the top 4 picks. This draft is rightfully seen as historic at the top of the class. The depth of it also potentially extends very far through the first round, depending who comes out earlier.
One final note for newer college basketball watchers -- I think the conference schedule, which is just starting, tends to be a better barometer for performance than the non-conference schedule, especially for freshman (at major colleges). In the non-conference schedule, you see guys going up against lesser competition most nights. Sure, there are the big games (and there has been better scheduling of those big games over the past decade), but most nights it's against some small-conference school who won't stand a chance of beating you. There's less scouting of players, and more "weird" systems run, so that can have a pretty big impact, positively or negatively, for players. Once you get to the conference schedule, there's more film on the players, and opposing team's are much more familiar with each other. Dominating conference play is much more important than early-season or tournament play, in my opinion.
this is probably one of the best statistics I read about college ball to date.
I may be taking your comments wrong a bit, but I think you're also implying that if the Cs get a top 5 pick, then we should be safe, because the top 5 is very very deep.
Again, I really like Parker and Embiid, as my top 2, and Marcus Smart as my 3rd.
-
I don't think Jabari Parker is nearly as complete a player as he's being touted.
At this point, he's a pretty terrible defensive player. He has nice length and will occasionally use it to gamble for a steal, but that's his only positive impact on that end of the court. Otherwise he displays inconsistent effort, poor positioning and fundamentals, and poor lateral quickness. Two of those can be fixed with work, but he'll always get beaten by a player who can expose his lack of explosion.
Do I think he'll be a star in the NBA? Yes. But who do use as a comp for Parker so often? Carmelo - that comp fits on both ends of the floor. How many times has Melo truly threatened for an NBA title? Arguably once, in a West that was weak except for the Lakers at the top.
So while this draft is continuously lauded for being the 'best since LeBron' and all of that stuff, you can't just toss Parker on a pile of spare parts and crap and expect him to eventually drag it to the finals like LeBron did in Cleveland. He's not on that level. He needs other stars behind him, as well as roleplayers who can mask his weaknesses (like Dirk had in his title year).
While I agree with what you're saying, the idea that the west was weak in 2009 is a little silly.
It was nothing like it is this year.
San Antonio had no Ginobili, New Orleans quit on their coach, Dallas didn't play defense, Houston overachieved with Yao and scraps, etc.
Not a strong playoff field for the west that year.
That's a bit of a hindsight rewrite, I think. If the Lakers hadn't won, you could've said something like "Kobe went rogue and froze out Pau" instead.
Almost every team in the West that year was a 50 win team, with New Orleans and Utah missing that margin by one win and two, respectively.
So, yes, you could argue that it might've been weaker than years prior, but it was in no way a weak conference.
-
I don't think Jabari Parker is nearly as complete a player as he's being touted.
At this point, he's a pretty terrible defensive player. He has nice length and will occasionally use it to gamble for a steal, but that's his only positive impact on that end of the court. Otherwise he displays inconsistent effort, poor positioning and fundamentals, and poor lateral quickness. Two of those can be fixed with work, but he'll always get beaten by a player who can expose his lack of explosion.
Do I think he'll be a star in the NBA? Yes. But who do use as a comp for Parker so often? Carmelo - that comp fits on both ends of the floor. How many times has Melo truly threatened for an NBA title? Arguably once, in a West that was weak except for the Lakers at the top.
So while this draft is continuously lauded for being the 'best since LeBron' and all of that stuff, you can't just toss Parker on a pile of spare parts and crap and expect him to eventually drag it to the finals like LeBron did in Cleveland. He's not on that level. He needs other stars behind him, as well as roleplayers who can mask his weaknesses (like Dirk had in his title year).
While I agree with what you're saying, the idea that the west was weak in 2009 is a little silly.
It was nothing like it is this year.
San Antonio had no Ginobili, New Orleans quit on their coach, Dallas didn't play defense, Houston overachieved with Yao and scraps, etc.
Not a strong playoff field for the west that year.
That's a bit of a hindsight rewrite, I think. If the Lakers hadn't won, you could've said something like "Kobe went rogue and froze out Pau" instead.
Almost every team in the West that year was a 50 win team, with New Orleans and Utah missing that margin by one win and two, respectively.
So, yes, you could argue that it might've been weaker than years prior, but it was in no way a weak conference.
I feel that it's the weakest the West has been in several years and that the East actually fielded more legit contenders that year. Don't look at the regular season win count; look at the postseason rosters.
Anyway, agree to disagree on that point. Regardless, my initial point stands that Parker isn't quite what he's being billed as.
-
Yeah, I'll give you that one for sure.
In his defense, though, I'm not sure there are very many players who can single-handedly drag their teams to making some serious noise in the playoffs.
-
I think I have seen enough to be confident that there are two guys who will make a huge difference wherever they go and beyond them there are no sure stars. The difference between 2nd and 3rd is going to be large. And Embiid doesn't look like an old man, nor does he look fragile. He is quick. He seems to be working very hard. Not much needs to be said about Parker. He is the most complete player already.
If we assume that the difference between the third and second draft position will be very large, what can we realistically do to move up without losing too much?
What pick do we have in this hypothetical scenario? A team in the top 2 would have to prefer one of the other players and we'd have to have a low enough pick where they could still definitely attain that player. Of course, this also requires that the other team in the top two will not take the player they covet. It's just way too early to speculate now with so many unknown factors.
Yes I can see the discussion has gone sideways since there won't be agreement on players. But what I am thinking is we go into this with all the picks we know about and a 6th and 14th this year. Yes its a wag! Can we trade future considerations, and this years 6th and 14th, and say Green to move up 4 spots. Imho, getting the 2nd pick is good enough. Randle can be Zach Randolph. Thats nice but Embiid can be better than that, imho
-
I think I have seen enough to be confident that there are two guys who will make a huge difference wherever they go and beyond them there are no sure stars. The difference between 2nd and 3rd is going to be large. And Embiid doesn't look like an old man, nor does he look fragile. He is quick. He seems to be working very hard. Not much needs to be said about Parker. He is the most complete player already.
If we assume that the difference between the third and second draft position will be very large, what can we realistically do to move up without losing too much?
What pick do we have in this hypothetical scenario? A team in the top 2 would have to prefer one of the other players and we'd have to have a low enough pick where they could still definitely attain that player. Of course, this also requires that the other team in the top two will not take the player they covet. It's just way too early to speculate now with so many unknown factors.
Very true. I don't see any team in the top of the draft trading their picks unless there is unmistakeable down right perfect info of who is getting drafted after them and they decide to do a conditional trade where they pick someone and trade picks with another team 2-3 picks away and thereby get their player while not "reaching" for him and simultaneously picking up some more value in the trade.
otherwise, I just don't see a team in the top 7-10 picks making a trade to trade down.
I agree for the most part. The only exception to your logic that comes to mind is Sacramento. They have Cousins who seems to have taken a leap, they've been burned in the draft recently (TRob) and they have a new owner who wants to build a winning team now.
I could see Sac trading their pick (maybe only if it's in the 4-5 range rather than the top 3) for an established star. For example, they might be interested in trading #4 for Rondo and #10.
Cleveland could possibly be in the same boat after the Bennett fiasco, I guess.
-
TP to saltlover for his analysis.
I want to make it clear... I haven't watched a single College basketball game this year. I absolutely do NOT follow the NCAA. I just assume the experts aren't taking crazy pills. Generally in my experience following the league the players they say are "can't miss" don't miss.
When someone comes out and calls this draft "overrated", I immediately have to question whether or not that person actually follows college ball or if they are just watching a handful of games for the first time with NBA-tinted glasses.
saltlover gave his College b-ball credentials and then proceeded to back up what the experts have been saying. This draft is epic. I've yet to see anyone with any credibility say otherwise. Typically it's just someone who watched Wiggins and was "underwhelmed", because he didn't drop 40 points "on the college level". Those type of people don't know what they are talking about. I don't know what I'm talking about either, but at least I have the sand to admit it.
Well I call this draft over rated and I have probably watched more college ball than you have pro ball so if you are talking about me you could not be more wrong.
Edit: That sounded harsher than I wanted it to be but basically it points to the fact that people on this board don't know other people on this board and trying to make it seem that another poster's opinion isn't valid just because YOU(meaning anyone) don't think they are qualified as Chad Ford, doesn't mean they don't have the right to have that opinion or that they are wrong or that they aren't as qualified as Chad Ford.
Fair enough... and also Wahz just qualified his opinion by saying he's been watching College ball for years.
I'll take your guys word for it. If this is merely a 2 player draft, we oughta dump the picks and throw everything we have at bringing in vets like Melo, Afflalo and Asik. The heck with the draft. Go all-in.
But as of right now, I'll go with the consensus that we'd be in good position with a Top 8 pick. Even if you're right and this draft is "overrated"... the league-wide consensus is that it is NOT overrated. That means a Top 8 pick has considerable trade value whether you intend to use it or not.
-
I will define myself as a college basketball expert, relative at least to a Celtics message board -- I didn't really start watching NBA ball with regularity until 2005, but watched as much NCAA as I could get my hands on for a decade before, and still only watch the C's when I watch the NBA.
Parker is as impressive as any freshman small forward I remember seeing at a major college program since Carmelo Anthony. He might be better, might be worse, because a decade can do a lot to your memory, but he should be in the same discussion as Melo. Here is a side-by-side comparison of their stats, for those who like statistics.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=carmelo-anthony&i=1&p1=jabari-parker (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=carmelo-anthony&i=1&p1=jabari-parker)
(Note: I'd put Kevin Durant above Melo, but I also think they weren't playing the same position. Durant was unquestionably a stretch 4, and sometimes a stretch 5 in college, whereas Melo and Parker are playing a much more similar position. If you want to argue that I should compare Parker and Durant, I will tell you KD was better.)
I've said in other posts how much I like Embiid. I do think college centers are harder to judge, especially elite ones, because they so rarely have anyone near their level to go up against. Also, they sometimes rely very much on having a decent pg to get much going offensively, since 7-foot tall 19 year-olds (and heck, 22 year-olds), rarely have much in the way of offensive refinement (because they never need to develop it in college or high school to get their shot off). That said, Embiid is definitely a defensive difference-maker, and a decent passer out of the post when double-teamed. He's better than Roy Hibbert as a freshman, although certainly not Roy Hibbert as a senior. Greg Oden, in my opinion, was better as a freshman, which a) makes me sad about what his career has amounted to, and b) remind you there is no sure thing. Due to the scarcity of elite centers in the world, Embiid is my #1 hope for the C's to draft. That said, he only plays about 50% of his team's minutes so far, and is someone who's I think would really benefit from a second year in school, because he is new to the game. For personal monetary reasons, I think he should come out, but from a basketball perspective, Embiid after 1-2 more years of Bill Self could be on a hall-of-fame track. Here's a comparison of Embiid, freshman Hibbert, and Oden.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=greg-oden&i=1&p1=joel-embiid&p2=roy-hibbert&roy-hibbert=2004-2005 (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=greg-oden&i=1&p1=joel-embiid&p2=roy-hibbert&roy-hibbert=2004-2005)
I think Wiggins is getting to the point of being underrated at this point. He hasn't looked as consistently good as Jabari Parker, but there's no question in my mind why everyone was fawning over him prior to the start of the year. I think the expectations of him had been set at MVP-LeBron level, which was very unfair. To me he and Parker are still the clear top 2 in the class, and if they go 1-2, there will be two happy teams at the top.
I think Randle has at times been dominant, but I think any talk of him being selected above Parker or Wiggins this point isn't based on evidence. Randle punishes the mismatches he gets in the paint, which is frequent, but doesn't have 3-point range, and can get very careless with the ball. He looks like a very good college freshman power forward, but much more like an Anthony Bennett or Derrick Favors (very very good), than like a Chris Webber whom you remember for decades.
I like Marcus Smart a lot more than other people here, I think. He's probably the best player at a major college of taking over a game this year. Last year that player to me was Trey Burke. OSU has other talent, but he is the transcendent player that makes that team go. I'd probably take Smart above Randle if I were starting a team.
I haven't seen enough of Gordon in Arizona, because I don't stay up as late as I used to watching West Coast basketball. (Getting older stinks). What I have seen however, has been very good. Looking at his game log lets me know that I've missed his stinkers, and why people have gotten down on him. His best games have definitely made him look like he's in the same class as Randle, and his worst games as someone who slides out of the draft.
My feeling is the top 5 draftable players in college are Parker in Wiggins in your top 2, and Smart, Embiid, and Randle as 3-5. To me, this is a deep top 5. I think many years, a player of Embiid's quality or Smart's quality goes #1, and someone like Randle is consistently in the top 3 in all but the deepest years. With Exum also being in the mix, one of those guys will likely slide out of the top 5, which to me means at #6 you're getting someone who in most years would be no worse than #3.
To me this draft will have the best player since Kevin Durant, and also the best top 2 since that draft as well. While I'd take the top 2 of 2007-2008 over the top 2 this year (again, this is without prior knowledge of the sad case of Greg Oden), I'd probably take anyone in this year's top 6 over Al Horford, who went #3 and has been a very good NBA player. Jeff Green went #5 that year, and I see Glenn Robinson III as a very similar player, and it looks like he'll be in the 10-20 range. To me there is no panic if we miss out on one of even the top 4 picks. This draft is rightfully seen as historic at the top of the class. The depth of it also potentially extends very far through the first round, depending who comes out earlier.
One final note for newer college basketball watchers -- I think the conference schedule, which is just starting, tends to be a better barometer for performance than the non-conference schedule, especially for freshman (at major colleges). In the non-conference schedule, you see guys going up against lesser competition most nights. Sure, there are the big games (and there has been better scheduling of those big games over the past decade), but most nights it's against some small-conference school who won't stand a chance of beating you. There's less scouting of players, and more "weird" systems run, so that can have a pretty big impact, positively or negatively, for players. Once you get to the conference schedule, there's more film on the players, and opposing team's are much more familiar with each other. Dominating conference play is much more important than early-season or tournament play, in my opinion.
this is probably one of the best statistics I read about college ball to date.
I may be taking your comments wrong a bit, but I think you're also implying that if the Cs get a top 5 pick, then we should be safe, because the top 5 is very very deep.
Again, I really like Parker and Embiid, as my top 2, and Marcus Smart as my 3rd.
I'm not saying the C's will be safe if they pick in the top 5. No pick is 100% lock, be it to injuries, lack of further developoment, etc. And certainly I'd rather have pick #2 than pick #5, and I do think there is a drop off between the top 2 and the next 3-4. I don't think the drop-off is as severe, and I don't think that Embiid is #2, even though he is my #1 choice for the Celtics due to need of an elite center. I just think the chance of getting a multi-year all-star with #5 is greater this year than most years. That's why enough teams are willing to tank, because even if the lottery balls don't bounce their way, if they draft high enough, it won't matter as much as in the 2012 draft for example, when it was Anthony Davis or bust (or do cartwheels that Jared Sullinger fell to you, as I would have done had I been able to cartwheels).
-
TP to saltlover for his analysis.
I want to make it clear... I haven't watched a single College basketball game this year. I absolutely do NOT follow the NCAA. I just assume the experts aren't taking crazy pills. Generally in my experience following the league the players they say are "can't miss" don't miss.
When someone comes out and calls this draft "overrated", I immediately have to question whether or not that person actually follows college ball or if they are just watching a handful of games for the first time with NBA-tinted glasses.
saltlover gave his College b-ball credentials and then proceeded to back up what the experts have been saying. This draft is epic. I've yet to see anyone with any credibility say otherwise. Typically it's just someone who watched Wiggins and was "underwhelmed", because he didn't drop 40 points "on the college level". Those type of people don't know what they are talking about. I don't know what I'm talking about either, but at least I have the sand to admit it.
Well I call this draft over rated and I have probably watched more college ball than you have pro ball so if you are talking about me you could not be more wrong.
Edit: That sounded harsher than I wanted it to be but basically it points to the fact that people on this board don't know other people on this board and trying to make it seem that another poster's opinion isn't valid just because YOU(meaning anyone) don't think they are qualified as Chad Ford, doesn't mean they don't have the right to have that opinion or that they are wrong or that they aren't as qualified as Chad Ford.
Fair enough... and also Wahz just qualified his opinion by saying he's been watching College ball for years.
I'll take your guys word for it. If this is merely a 2 player draft, we oughta dump the picks and throw everything we have at bringing in vets like Melo, Afflalo and Asik. The heck with the draft. Go all-in.
But as of right now, I'll go with the consensus that we'd be in good position with a Top 8 pick. Even if you're right and this draft is "overrated"... the league-wide consensus is that it is NOT overrated. That means a Top 8 pick has considerable trade value whether you intend to use it or not.
I for one don't think its a two player draft.
I happened to think there are a good 6-7 future All-Stars in this draft its good and its deep, depending on who comes out.
I think its over rated in the fact people are saying there are 6-7 franchise cornerstones in the draft. Now that's subjective in what does someone call a franchise cornerstone.
Well, Rondo isn't one and neither is ZBo and that's who Smart and Randle remind me of. Great players that bring a lot to the table but neither ZBo nor Rondo should be your #1 guy on a team if you want to be a contender.
Parker, Wiggins, Embiid look like the best bets for franchise cornerstones and even then Embiid has as many questions as Nerlens Noel, ability wise. Noel obviously has injury questions as well.
I've have seen Gordon twice and that kid, IMHO, is not a franchise guy and probably has the best chance at being a bust. I would take McDermott over Gordon as a player.
-
I'm going to give up on this thread. To be CLEAR, I don't think its a "two man draft." I do think you have two guys who are going to be sure thing NBA stars. I think you then MAY have other guys who are as good but I think the odds are you have a possible Dr. J and a possible Hakeem and than a drop off to Zach Randolph and then Bobby Dandrige knock offs. The rest of the draft can be good but I think Embiid and Parker are the guys who will have by far, the best NBA careers and I'd be looking to move up to two.
The main point was how do we move up to 2 from say 6 without losing too many assets?
-
I'm going to give up on this thread. To be CLEAR, I don't think its a "two man draft." I do think you have two guys who are going to be sure thing NBA stars. I think you then MAY have other guys who are as good but I think the odds are you have a possible Dr. J and a possible Hakeem and than a drop off to Zach Randolph and then Bobby Dandrige knock offs. The rest of the draft can be good but I think Embiid and Parker are the guys who will have by far, the best NBA careers and I'd be looking to move up to two.
The main point was how do we move up to 2 from say 6 without losing too many assets?
If there is a "Huge" dropoff after #2, you don't. Plain and simple. You can move up, but it will cost you a lot. Probably Rondo and #6, because no team wants to be seen as trading that #2 for a collection of lesser picks or NBA role players in a league where you need multiple stars to win.
My point is that there isn't a huge dropoff (although I highly doubt Embiid goes #2 anyway), and I wouldn't go all out to pay that price. I'd call, and see what it was, but it's going to be too costly to be worth it.
-
I'm going to give up on this thread. To be CLEAR, I don't think its a "two man draft." I do think you have two guys who are going to be sure thing NBA stars. I think you then MAY have other guys who are as good but I think the odds are you have a possible Dr. J and a possible Hakeem and than a drop off to Zach Randolph and then Bobby Dandrige knock offs. The rest of the draft can be good but I think Embiid and Parker are the guys who will have by far, the best NBA careers and I'd be looking to move up to two.
The main point was how do we move up to 2 from say 6 without losing too many assets?
If there is a "Huge" dropoff after #2, you don't. Plain and simple. You can move up, but it will cost you a lot. Probably Rondo and #6, because no team wants to be seen as trading that #2 for a collection of lesser picks or NBA role players in a league where you need multiple stars to win.
My point is that there isn't a huge dropoff (although I highly doubt Embiid goes #2 anyway), and I wouldn't go all out to pay that price. I'd call, and see what it was, but it's going to be too costly to be worth it.
That's probably the best answer you are going to get wahz.
-
The main point was how do we move up to 2 from say 6 without losing too many assets?
I don't think it's possible. The NBA is all about quality of quantity, so no team is gonna move a top 2 pick in this draft for something outside the top 5, regardless of what we package with it.
This is why I am a big propenent of getting as many unprotected picks in this draft as possible. I'd still like to see shop Rondo to a losing team in desparate need of a big-name player.
-
But the point was to start a discussion about how to move up into the top two, and I understand your point: Am I right that in 2020 it will look like Parker and Embiid should go one and two? I hope I'm wrong, actually, since I doubt we pick in the top two.
I would still take Wiggins over Parker. Parker is gonna be a great scorer in the league, but I still feel that Wiggins can be a monster on both ends of the court. And right now Exum and Embiid are still neck and neck for me as prospects. I think the sky is the limit for both of those kids. I love me some bigs so I'd be thrilled if we can score Embiid, but Exum's combo of length/first-step/instinct/coachability is drool-inducing. I'm not as high on Randle since I think the C's already have a PF for the future in Sully, but I could definitely see him as a 25/10 guy in his prime (if he gets matched with a good p'n'r partner).
-
But the point was to start a discussion about how to move up into the top two, and I understand your point: Am I right that in 2020 it will look like Parker and Embiid should go one and two? I hope I'm wrong, actually, since I doubt we pick in the top two.
I would still take Wiggins over Parker. Parker is gonna be a great scorer in the league, but I still feel that Wiggins can be a monster on both ends of the court. And right now Exum and Embiid are still neck and neck for me as prospects. I think the sky is the limit for both of those kids. I love me some bigs so I'd be thrilled if we can score Embiid, but Exum's combo of length/first-step/instinct/coachability is drool-inducing. I'm not as high on Randle since I think the C's already have a PF for the future in Sully, but I could definitely see him as a 25/10 guy in his prime (if he gets matched with a good p'n'r partner).
While Wiggins is more athletic, much more, giving him more defensive potential, I can't see him executing moves like Jabari can. Parker just has it all offensively, and is a solid rebounder. He also hustles on defense which is half the battle.
I agree on Embiid, been watching videos on him and I'd be thrilled if the Celtic's landed him.