# Luol Deng--Am I missing something??



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

As I was watching the Pacers/Heat last night, something struck me. Luol Deng's game is eerily similar to Ron Artests coming out of college. Same build (Deng is a little bigger actually), both are not great ball-handlers, but excellent shooters. Both play both ends of the floor, both can reboud well for their size...etc, etc...


So then the question becomes, if we were able to draft the "second coming" of Ron Artest (**Note, I AM NOT saying that he WILL be that good....but I am thinking about saying it LOL!!), wouldn't we be stupid NOT to just stand pat and take him??


Someone please enlighten me and wake me up from my insanity.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

interesting comparison. one part of it I like is that lots of people say Luol is a step slow. When you watch Artest, he sometimes seems a step slow too because of his bulk, but that doesn't stop him from being the best defender in the game. I feel that Deng is similar in that regard though obviously he won't be as fierce as Artest since almost no one is. Their offensive games are different, but similar in that they're slightly unorthodox yet very effective.

I've been on record since probably November saying that I'd be happy to add Deng to the team. That hasn't changed.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> Someone please enlighten me and wake me up from my insanity.


Cold water stat...

Artest is an all-star, I just think of Deng being slightly better than Eric Williams, he's in the mold of him and Battier IMO which means role player not superstar, which means he won't be another Artest...

Artest has this psycho thing going for him too that helps a lot with his game, not sure Deng has that same intensity.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> interesting comparison. one part of it I like is that lots of people say Luol is a step slow. When you watch Artest, he sometimes seems a step slow too because of his bulk, but that doesn't stop him from being the best defender in the game. I feel that Deng is similar in that regard though obviously he won't be as fierce as Artest since almost no one is.


I was thinking those EXCAT THOUGHTS last night, as I watched Artest D-up.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I'm curious to see if Luol is actually faster/a better leaper than we think. He's rather bulky and a bit awkward looking, but I think it might actually be happening. I'm very interested to see Chad Ford's annual report on the lottery prospects combine numbers.

By the way, Chad had an extremely lengthy and thorough article in Insider today about first round prospects.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Luol Deng--Am I missing something??*



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Cold water stat...
> ...


Fair enough. But the difference between Artest and Battier, doesn't have a whole lot to do with their physical tools. Battier was a known commodity coming out of Duke (4 years there, was long enough for people to pretty much know what he was gonna be). Artest, is not THAT physically superior to Battier, but he is miles better in his defensive technique, and his mental approach to the game. That is something that Deng (still an unknown commodity at 19, but with similar physical gifts), can LEARN.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> I'm curious to see if Luol is actually faster/a better leaper than we think. He's rather bulky and a bit awkward looking, but I think it might actually be happening. I'm very interested to see Chad Ford's annual report on the lottery prospects combine numbers.
> 
> By the way, Chad had an extremely lengthy and thorough article in Insider today about first round prospects.


So am I. In fact, this is one of my burning questions about this years top prospects. Whose game is lying based on what we see on TV.?


----------



## JohnPaxson (Apr 21, 2004)

As I have said before what you saw this season at Duke does not even scratch the surface of what Deng can do. Do not worry about him athleticism either. He is more than athletic enough to play the 3. Not versatile enough to play the 2 but will be very good at the 3. As far as the Artest comparisions go Luol won't be that great defensively I don't think but not far behind. Long arms, anticipation, and aggressiveness is top notch. Artest and his crazy attitude ala Rodman is what puts him over the top of Deng. Deng is a very intense competitor but not over the top like Artest. On the other side of the ball though Deng will be a better offensive player. Much more versatile and under control offensively. Better ball handler and perimeter shooter. And the court vision is superb for Deng. He will be one of the best passers at the 3 spot in the NBA. His ability to feed the post is outstanding and will mesh perfectly with Curry IMO. If Paxson misses out on Okafor, Deng at #2 or #3 is one hell of a consolation prize. Luol Deng might not give you 25+ points a game but he will fill up a stat and bring intangibles and leadership that can not be measured. He is certainly a couple levels above Eric Williams and Battier. Those comparisions crack me up.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Both Deng and Artest have found ways to be extremely effective offensively in the paint. Both have that aggressive, take it to the hole attitude which is exactly what you want from your players at playoff time. Defensively I think I'd compare Deng to Pippen before I'd consider him similar to Artest. Ron Artest is a physical bull who can control his opponent with shear strength and tenacity. Artest also has that certain "edge" that lends itself well to intimidation. 

In his heyday, Pippen was also a tenacious, in your face defender. But instead of muscle he used his tremendous wingspan and anticipatory instincts to cut off passing and driving lanes while presenting a very long obstacle for opponents to try to shoot over.

Pippen was strong enough to hold his own anywhere on the floor, but his wasn't the powerful and physically intimidating force that Artest is.

Deng, I think can be every bit as effective as Artest is offensively. Defensively it would be a mistake for him to emulate Artest's style. But he'd do well to study tape of Pippen because that's a style he could eventually put to good use. 

Deng has length and he's fearless. He doesn't think twice about giving up his body on offense or defense. Deng may very well turn out to be a hybrid SF with a unique combination of skills and abilities that at times may remind some of Artest, others of Pippen, and still others who may view him as entirely one of a kind. Is he the next Artest? No. Is he the next Pippen? No. Is he the next Eric Williams? Lets hope he turns out to be significantly better than a journeyman ballplayer. Time will tell what he turns out to be. One thing's certain: he's got some great tools and a wonderful attitude to work with.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

He might be a step slow to guard the quicker 3's, but his wingspan more than makes up for that. That's also a big reason why I was very high on Dwayne Wade when he was in his freshmen year at Marquette. Wade WAS my guy. The big knock on him was his lack of height. But his wingspan was immense! 

That's what makes D-Marsh such a good rebounder. He has the wingspan of a 7 footer. Deng has a very decent wingspan and I think he will be a fantastic player. Probably not much of an impact his first year, well not as much as Okafor anyway. But he WILL be a special player with a little time.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Deng is the perfect Paxson draft pick. Team player, contribute from day 1, professional, hard working and coachable. Anyone thinking Paxson will draft a headcase is preaching to a wall.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

he sometimes looks like sort of a tweener 3/4 on offense in the long term. Right now more 3. That could be good depending on the team because we can all see how tweeners are more miss than hit. But i think that tweeners like this mostly underwhelm you because they are only real good on one end of the floor. Then they seem more like they are limited instead of versatile. 

If Deng can guard 3s full time if required (he sure looks like he can) and hit the long ranger and rebound he's going to work out because we know he will have ability to play in the post. He should be better on the glass than Artest who is more of a perimeter guy than Deng will be in 5+ years.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: Luol Deng--Am I missing something??*



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> I just think


You should try listening sometimes.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Luol Deng--Am I missing something??*



> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> You should try listening sometimes.


:laugh:


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Luol Deng--Am I missing something??*

Face it guys, arenas could be right about Deng or any other player. Only thing about arenas is that he's got controvercial opinions, and he's so sure he's right!


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Luol Deng--Am I missing something??*



> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> Face it guys, arenas could be right about Deng or any other player. Only thing about arenas is that he's got controvercial opinions, and he's so sure he's right!


I've never said I was right...


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Wow, what a great comparison, Both are deceptively fast due to their bulk. I don't have anything new to contribute, compliments Vicious.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Take it from someone who saw Artest as a Junior at LaSalle Academy in Manhattan and in the Wheelchair Classic at Riverbank state park, Luol Deng is nowhere near as physical or tenacious as Ron Artest is/was. I have those old St. John's tapes of him and Luol would have to be pretty exceptional to be Artest. Artest always had this football players type body, but then in 2 years he filled it out and now he is a beast out there. Luol is way too gangly to ever be Ron Artest. 

They are nothing alike IMO. Luol is a jack of all trades type. Artest is a defensive machine with constantly improving offense. I doubt Luol Deng is a big scorer in the NBA. Anything about 19 would be a suprise to me. Artest meanwhile, I feel can be a very effective scorer because of his ability to get to the rack and his style of play.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Luol Deng--Am I missing something??*



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I've never said I was right...


well you just appear repetitive and frequently wrong


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Luol Deng--Am I missing something??*



> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> well you just appear repetetive and frequently wrong


Really?

What have I been "wrong" about?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Take it from someone who saw Artest as a Junior at LaSalle Academy in Manhattan and in the Wheelchair Classic at Riverbank state park, Luol Deng is nowhere near as physical or tenacious as Ron Artest is/was. I have those old St. John's tapes of him and Luol would have to be pretty exceptional to be Artest. Artest always had this football players type body, but then in 2 years he filled it out and now he is a beast out there. Luol is way too gangly to ever be Ron Artest.
> 
> They are nothing alike IMO. Luol is a jack of all trades type. Artest is a defensive machine with constantly improving offense. I doubt Luol Deng is a big scorer in the NBA. Anything about 19 would be a suprise to me. Artest meanwhile, I feel can be a very effective scorer because of his ability to get to the rack and his style of play.


someone said Luol Deng was good at everything, great at nothing. Usually those types are ok players, sometimes good. But dont have that certain something that seperates them from the pack. Maybe Deng is different. Who knows?

One think on Deng vs Artest. Body wise, athletic ability and positioning, they are similar. However, what people forget is that Artest is borderline nuts. and the best defenders in the NBA all have that combative attitude. There is more to defending then fundamentals. You have to have that no one is going to come into my house and steal my mamas cooking type of attitude. I have seen nothing from Deng to lead me to believe that he has that mean streak in him. Again, I would support the Deng pick big time. But I just dont see him as an Artest type of player at all


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Take it from someone who saw Artest as a Junior at LaSalle Academy in Manhattan and in the *Wheelchair Classic at Riverbank state park*, Luol Deng is nowhere near as physical or tenacious as Ron Artest is/was.



Wheelchair Classic? This sounds like a good story, pray do tell...


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Luol Deng--Am I missing something??*



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Really?
> ...


I'm sure you'll find out. its just an appearance of being frequently wrong. Of course, i could be wrong about that.........But i don't anticipate that being the case


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Luol Deng--Am I missing something??*



> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> well you just appear repetitive and frequently wrong


Fleetwood, mate, the kid has opinions and frankly how can that be wrong? its not like he said 2+2=5. Thats wrong. But to say the Bulls should trade down, how can that be considered "wrong"? its his opinion


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Like I said though, the body types are not similar. If Deng puts on as much weight as Artest, he will be very slow. Artest has very powerful legs and looks like he should be a linebacker. Deng is slender, but with 15 lbs of muscle he would be a nice strong 3 man. 

I am high on Deng to be a better version of Battier. Hopefully a better ball-handler. Guys with weak handles usually get exposed in the pros.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> 
> Wheelchair Classic? This sounds like a good story, pray do tell...


He wasn't knocking people who were in wheel chairs out. 

He was playing in the annual showdown between Brooklyn-Queens-Manhattan-Bronx. They play semifinals and then finals. I made the last cut for it my senior year but I missed out.

The year Artest played Lamar Odom played, Ricardo Greer (Pittsburgh), Kevin Morris (Georgia Tech/Georgia State), Allen Griffin (Syracuse), Shaheen Holloway (Seton Hall) and quite a few other good players who went on to become very good players. Some of the names slip my mind.

Artest was the MVP of the game for Manhattan with almost a triple double. You can tell then he was going to special because he didn't have his body rounded yet (he was awkward, but he was so strong)


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

for the record, I don't think anyone is claiming that Deng does have the Artest/Rodman mean streak that can separate good defenders from great ones. But if he's a Battier or Posey-level defender or better, that's still very good, and I think he can be that good. I agree to an extent with HKF that Deng isn't as physically imposing or tenacious as Artest, but no one is. I see Deng as a cross between Artest's strength and Pippen's length, but I'd be crazy to predict that he'll be anywhere near as good as the current best defender and one of the best defenders of all time. JMO.

HKF, you call Deng slender, but I think he's pretty solidly built for a 19 year old. He's got a broad, fairly bulky frame.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Luol Deng--Am I missing something??*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Fleetwood, mate, the kid has opinions and frankly how can that be wrong? its not like he said 2+2=5. Thats wrong. But to say the Bulls should trade down, how can that be considered "wrong"? its his opinion


its just a feeling I get. maybe its lower intestinal bloat


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Luol Deng--Am I missing something??*



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I've never said I was right...


You're just a confident guy who comes in with guns blazing. Besides, saying you're right and thinking you're right are two different things. You have very strong opinions.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> for the record, I don't think anyone is claiming that Deng does have the Artest/Rodman mean streak that can separate good defenders from great ones. But if he's a Battier or Posey-level defender or better, that's still very good, and I think he can be that good. I agree to an extent with HKF that Deng isn't as physically imposing or tenacious as Artest, but no one is. I see Deng as a cross between Artest's strength and Pippen's length, but I'd be crazy to predict that he'll be anywhere near as good as the current best defender and one of the best defenders of all time. JMO.
> 
> HKF, you call Deng slender, but I think he's pretty solidly built for a 19 year old. He's got a broad, fairly bulky frame.


He has broad shoulders and massive upper back. He is built very well for a 19 year old (assuming he is 19, birth records in Sudan are a little hard to come by). At 225 he is plenty strong.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> for the record, I don't think anyone is claiming that Deng does have the Artest/Rodman mean streak that can separate good defenders from great ones. But if he's a Battier or Posey-level defender or better, that's still very good, and I think he can be that good. I agree to an extent with HKF that Deng isn't as physically imposing or tenacious as Artest, but no one is. I see Deng as a cross between Artest's strength and Pippen's length, but I'd be crazy to predict that he'll be anywhere near as good as the current best defender and one of the best defenders of all time. JMO.
> 
> HKF, you call Deng slender, but I think he's pretty solidly built for a 19 year old. He's got a broad, fairly bulky frame.


Maybe it was when I looked at him compared to Okafor and Shelden Williams he looked thin. The problem is, when Okafor gets to the league he is going to look thin himself playing against grown men. 

So what would Deng look like to the eye?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Luol Deng--Am I missing something??*



> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> its just a feeling I get. maybe its lower intestinal bloat


I get that same bloated feeling too after trying to digest Arenas' posts. You are not alone


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Luol Deng--Am I missing something??*



> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> its just a feeling I get. maybe its lower intestinal bloat


I am not picking on you mate. Your in my Hall of Fame. But there is a difference between being wrong and disagreeing with ones opinions. I just wanted to clarify that. 

Anyway, please tell me AZ is going Democrat this November? I hear it isnt but JK (not Jerry Krause) needs it to win this thing!


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> He wasn't knocking people who were in wheel chairs out.


Damn, 

It sounded like some kinda charity thing... pros play in chairs vs a real wheel chair team. I had a mental image of Artest giving a Paraplegic a stiff elbow, aka Barkley in that USA v. Angola game from the original dream team.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Luol Deng--Am I missing something??*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I am not picking on you mate. Your in my Hall of Fame. But there is a difference between being wrong and disagreeing with ones opinions. I just wanted to clarify that.
> ...


In a recent development, I may be in AZ as opposed to Chicago for grad school next year (long story). If so, I'll help the Kerry contingent.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

doesn't Okafor weigh nearly as much as David Robinson did?

Deng's not a huge guy compared to NBA 4s and 5s, but he's a good size for the 3. Bigger than Carmelo, I think, and he still has room to fill out some more. And a strong build, but not in the league of Artest in that sense, who is just huge. How a guy that size moves the way he does, I just don't understand.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Luol Deng--Am I missing something??*



> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> In a recent development, I may be in AZ as opposed to Chicago for grad school next year (long story). If so, I'll help the Kerry contingent.


Yeah, whats the latest? Are you going to be a fellow Sun Devil?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Luol Deng--Am I missing something??*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, whats the latest? Are you going to be a fellow Sun Devil?


Could be. My favorite prof at NU is now going to be teaching at ASU. That's your alma mater? I'll pm you and we can chat about it.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Luol Deng--Am I missing something??*



> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Could be. My favorite prof at NU is now going to be teaching at ASU. That's your alma mater? I'll pm you and we can chat about it.


I am going to take off for a few minutes but will look for it later in the day


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Luol Deng--Am I missing something??*



> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> I get that same bloated feeling too after trying to digest Arenas' posts. You are not alone


Take some Exlax...

Seriously though, what's with the personal digs?


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> One think on Deng vs Artest. Body wise, athletic ability and positioning, they are similar. However, what people forget is that Artest is borderline nuts. and the best defenders in the NBA all have that combative attitude


Scottie Pippen Didn't. Shaq didn't. David Robinson didn't. Joe Dumars didn't......etc....


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

show some compassion, arenas!  

wouldn't you be a little grouchy and tempermental if you had intestinal pain? :laugh:


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Luol Deng--Am I missing something??*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I am not picking on you mate. Your in my Hall of Fame. But there is a difference between being wrong and disagreeing with ones opinions. I just wanted to clarify that.
> ...


well, its a given i respect your intelligent opinion, even if a given one coincides with arenas by some galactic tragedy

you know, i wouldn't put it past going Dem, with these people that are moving out here tending to be more Democratic lately, yet they are middle/upper middle class types. These kinds of people pay a lot of attention to consistency and detailing (a little too much), and the rotten Republicans are doing a great job painting Kerry as a flip flopper.
yesterday they played an interview from 1970 where Kerry said he was against the Vietnam war B4 he enlisted, and played another next to it from this year where he says he wanted to enlist with enthusiasm. Geeze!

Put it like this, i think if the AZ economy stayed static, it could go Democrat quite easily. But its kind of strong enough still, and i don't know about them going for Kerry. People don't like him as much personally as they do Bush, and thats a huge factor. I'm getting a little bit nervous about they way he campaigns (too nuanced) and how he's coming across as a fibber/panderer. Today its almost exactly 50/50.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> 
> 
> Scottie Pippen Didn't. Shaq didn't. David Robinson didn't. Joe Dumars didn't......etc....


Rodman was, Jordan to an extent (his over-competitiveness borders on being maniacal), Wallace isn't exactly Peyton Manning either... noones saying that you have to be crazy to be a top notch defender, but there may be someting wrong with the combined lot that allows them to do special things on the court.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> 
> 
> Scottie Pippen Didn't. Shaq didn't. David Robinson didn't. Joe Dumars didn't......etc....


You dont think Scottie Pippen had a bit of a combative personality? Shaq doesnt have one (And he isnt that great a defender to start out with)? Joe D was a nice guy. But he had some of the alltime combative types all around him. DRob, give you that. But look at the D player of the year awards sometime, they always have guys who have a bit of a chip on their soilder


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Combative? Absolutely. Crazy? No.

I think its FAR too early to determine whether or not Deng has that combativeness in him or not.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Krakken</b>!
> As I was watching the Pacers/Heat last night, something struck me. Luol Deng's game is eerily similar to Ron Artests coming out of college. Same build (Deng is a little bigger actually), both are not great ball-handlers, but excellent shooters. Both play both ends of the floor, both can reboud well for their size...etc, etc...
> 
> 
> ...


they are not similar, not even close not in build (artest on draft day was at 246 someplace i doubt deng will ever reach) Deng is a better athlete but alot of his skills are way short . For one st. Johns ran their offense through ron-ron as he was a much better ballhandler and passer and made great decisions, Deng is a cog in the duke machine and anyone who saw deng launching 20 fters in his final game can tell you deng still has a way to go on his decision making.

deng at this point looks much closer to the 2nd coming of shane battier which isn't a bad thing but its not artest.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Luol Deng--Am I missing something??*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> they are not similar, not even close not in build (artest on draft day was at 246 someplace i doubt deng will ever reach) Deng is a better athlete but alot of his skills are way short . For one st. Johns ran their offense through ron-ron as he was a much better ballhandler and passer and made great decisions, Deng is a cog in the duke machine and anyone who saw deng launching 20 fters in his final game can tell you deng still has a way to go on his decision making.
> ...


Kudos. Great point. I knew someone could articulate what I failed to do. :yes:


----------



## MiSTa iBN (Jun 16, 2002)

Luol Deng's not even as quick as Artest, he does have him in length, but both players are different. He looks like eric williams if anything


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> they are not similar, not even close not in build (artest on draft day was at 246 someplace i doubt deng will ever reach) Deng is a better athlete but alot of his skills are way short . For one st. Johns ran their offense through ron-ron as he was a much better ballhandler and passer and made great decisions, Deng is a cog in the duke machine and anyone who saw deng launching 20 fters in his final game can tell you deng still has a way to go on his decision making.
> 
> deng at this point looks much closer to the 2nd coming of shane battier which isn't a bad thing but its not artest.


I'm not going to try to compare Deng to Artest because I don't think they are very similar, but I've seen you compare him to Battier on numerous occasions and I'm still mystified.

How can you put these two on the same playing field, when Deng clearly has so many additional weapons in his arsenal? I think you are confusing the two on personality alone.

The biggest knocks on Battier -- and what limit his ability to take over offensively in the NBA -- are his average athleticism and his lack of ability to take his man off the dribble. Deng excels in these areas.

His athleticism is excellent and, I believe, very underrated by those who haven't watched him enough. He seems to glide around the court in a manner that seems to indicate he's not explosive. And I think he's been pigeonholed because of this. But you have to watch him to see that when his athleticism reveals itself it can be very explosive. Remember back to the 2nd Duke-UNC game when he caught a couple of high tosses for alleyoops. Or think about th dunks he had in the tournament off the fast break. He gets off the floor VERY quickly.

He's also shown the knack for taking guys off the dribble, and has a pretty well developed post game already. He's got a variety of moves on the block, some nice up-and-unders and the like.

Additionally, Deng has the long arms that are so valuable in the NBA. He uses them extremely well on defense and has the ability to be an elite defensive player in the NBA. He's the kind of guy that should be averaging 1.5 spg and 1.5 bpg in the league eventually.

We know he can rebound. We know he can score. For those who disagree, I think you are in need of a SERIOUS reality check. Put him into context in that he was a FRESHMAN on a team where he needed to share the ball with a lot of scorers, and still managed 15 ppg. (Put him on Syracuse a year earlier instead of Carmelo, and Deng is probably averaging 19 or 20) No Duke freshman has scored at that clip since Johnny Dawkins in '86.

Now this is not to say that he doesn't have things to work on, because he does. But I don't see any deficiencies in his game that will hold him back in the long run. He can shoot well enough, but he obviously needs to get better (and more consistent). He needs to trust his abilities more and be more assertive. This deferential attitude may keep him from exploding onto the NBA scene as a rookie.

But in the end, this is a young kid who has all the tools and skills necessary to succeed in the NBA. He can shoot, score, pass, rebound, defend and has athleticism at the SF position. The last guys with resumes that well-rounded were Grant Hill and Scottie Pippen.

With all these tools and skills, and the work ethic to continue his improvement in all areas, I don't understand how you can think he has a Battier-like ceiling? It just defies logic to me...


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I think Deng has a very deceptive first step.His legs r so long and quite often he beats smaller quicker guys off the drible - one long step and his shoulders r ahead of u.he can get to the paint.

I agree he's no Ron Artest on defense. u need Rons character to be Ron.But he is a good defensive player. active and thinking.long Arms.

And he's got alot on offense , and he's not 20.


----------



## genex (Apr 17, 2003)

*he*

shv


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not going to try to compare Deng to Artest because I don't think they are very similar, but I've seen you compare him to Battier on numerous occasions and I'm still mystified.
> ...


1st of all you can be be smooth moving and athletic and its possible to see (take a look at some old duke games you'll see this guy named grant hill) Deng is no grant hill 

2nd battier entered the nba with most scouts considering him rather athletic due to the individual workouts (the drill where they dunk medicine balls specifially he supposedly won over alot of scouts)

and for your information most 3's come into the league saying they can shoot pass rebound defend ...its what they are supposed to do they are small forwards, in truth i could see deng stay in college for 8 years and he wouldn't be the player for duke battier was ...or hill for that matter , and please in the future dont mention deng in the same sentence with pippen again , he has done absolutely nothing to suggest he deserves it except be 6'8. 

pip was the best defender on earth of his era, and won 6 titles deng wasn't the best defender in his duke line up and has won nothing but your unsubstantiated love. 

deng would have done nada at cuse except play 2nd fiddle to warrick, to say he would have scored 20 as a #1 option for a team who won a college title when absolutely nobody schemed for him at duke and his scoring was somewhat inconsistent there is really showing some homerism, because if you had watched anthony you would have to know how off comparing deng and anthony really is.now dont get me wrong i believe deng will be a fine a player but he is not going to be a superstar as you for some reason seem to think he is. 

The resume you gave to deng is well a pipe dream because both hill and pippen were dominant athletes who were dominant college players before they became dominant pro's and what defies logic to me is how you seem to disagree with me and virtually every scout are saying the same thing about his athletism ....nice but not special , and if you are wondering what special is take a look at his competition at 3 in the draft , Josh Smith who athletically is being compared to vince carter with heart and tracy mcgrady but is much rawer in skills


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> 1st of all you can be be smooth moving and athletic and its possible to see (take a look at some old duke games you'll see this guy named grant hill) Deng is no grant hill


I agree he's no Grant Hill, but he's not that far off. He's definitely much closer to Hill in athleticism than he is to Battier.



> 2nd battier entered the nba with most scouts considering him rather athletic due to the individual workouts (the drill where they dunk medicine balls specifially he supposedly won over alot of scouts)


Athleticism tests won't tell you what you can't already see from the guy on the court, and you can tell that Battier's athleticism is average. Don't tell me scouts considered him athletic -- they just didn't. I'd love to see proof otherwise.



> and for your information most 3's come into the league saying they can shoot pass rebound defend ...its what they are supposed to do they are small forwards, in truth i could see deng stay in college for 8 years and he wouldn't be the player for duke battier was ...or hill for that matter , and please in the future dont mention deng in the same sentence with pippen again , he has done absolutely nothing to suggest he deserves it except be 6'8.


Most 3's come into the league able to shoot, pass, rebound and defend? Very few can do all four, just check. Few can pass well and few can defend well. The amount that can do all four is miniscule.

When you say that Deng could stay in college for 8 years and not be the player for Duke that Battier was it's making a pretty bold statement, but you don't back it up. If Deng stays in school next year, he would be considered one of the top 2 or 3 pre-season candidates for NPOY -- this according to virtually any analyst who did a preseason preview. Duke's recent track record with the elite talents who became freshman studs (Williams & Brand) had them becoming NPOY's by their sophomore years, so to project Deng in that fashion is by no means unreasonable. Already those players as sophomores are in the ballpark with the player Battier was as a senior.

So if you really don't think he would improve in a similar fashion (at that pace surpassing Battier's status by year 3) what is your support? I mean, what factors am I missing in projecting a player's improvement? As far as I can tell improvement is a product of natural skill (Deng rates high here), work ethic (which he definitely has), coaching staff/development (hard to argue with Duke's staff), and athletic upside/potential (which he certainly rates highly, especially within the college context). I mean, it just adds up that he would be destined for college greatness, and sooner rather than later.



> pip was the best defender on earth of his era, and won 6 titles deng wasn't the best defender in his duke line up and has won nothing but your unsubstantiated love.


I'm not comparing Deng to Pippen yet, but I'm just showing what his potential is like. He's a truly versatile player -- the type that could lead his team in all or virtually all statistical categories if he continues to improve like Pip and Hill did.



> deng would have done nada at cuse except play 2nd fiddle to warrick, to say he would have scored 20 as a #1 option for a team who won a college title when absolutely nobody schemed for him at duke and his scoring was somewhat inconsistent there is really showing some homerism, because if you had watched anthony you would have to know how off comparing deng and anthony really is.now dont get me wrong i believe deng will be a fine a player but he is not going to be a superstar as you for some reason seem to think he is.


To attribute his scoring only to other teams not gameplanning for him is shortsighted in a couple regards. First, in that situation, he'd also be getting more shots which would increase his scoring output. Secondly, if you watched him more, you'd see that he accumulates points by so many different means that gameplanning would likely do little to change that. He's such a versatile scorer, racking up points from all over the court in many different fashions --- from outside, at the line, in the post, off the dribble, on the break and off rebounds -- that you can't really gameplan differently and expect to shut him down because he'll find other ways to score. His points are often quiet, but they always add up for him, even if you can't point to one dominant scoring trait.



> The resume you gave to deng is well a pipe dream because both hill and pippen were dominant athletes who were dominant college players before they became dominant pro's and what defies logic to me is how you seem to disagree with me and virtually every scout are saying the same thing about his athletism ....nice but not special , and if you are wondering what special is take a look at his competition at 3 in the draft , Josh Smith who athletically is being compared to vince carter with heart and tracy mcgrady but is much rawer in skills


First off, Pippen was a dominant college player? Come again? I've never heard of a Division III player who was considered dominant beyond the scope of Division III. I think a player who's (arguably) best freshman in the country playing for the top program in the country is probably considered to have a little more dominance in his blood.

On Deng's athleticism, here's a few scouting reports for you...

http://www.nbadraftreport.com/dengscoutingreport.htm

Strengths: Great athleticism, big wing span… adapts to the defense, anticipates the play, he will see the play one pass ahead of everyone else… can handle the ball, plays three positions (shooting guard, small forward, and power forward), an all-around talent… good range on his shot, makes good moves to the basket… a good defender…

http://www.raptorblog.com/features/feature_031804.html

Luol Deng — Duke freshman — 6'8" 220lb SG/SF
Deng is a tremendous athlete with the best all-around game of any player expected to enter the upcoming draft. He does everything well but nothing on a superstar level. He defends well, has quick hands and feet, and is developing an improved outside shot. He might not be well-suited for a leadership role on an NBA team, but he is sure to be an outstanding complementary player for a team with an established star and leader.


In other articles I googled, he is described as having "uncanny athleticism", "excellent athleticism", "athleticism to boot", among some other choice references.

I found only one mention that did not rave about his athleticism, saying only that he lacks "traditional athleticism" but compensates with a "unique and effective first step".

Now he's no Josh Smith, but then few are. His athleticism is truly spectacular and maybe 3 or 4 players in the NBA can match it. Nevertheless, Deng's athleticism rates very highly, and it certainly isn't preventing him from doing much on the court. If you're going to argue a player lacks athleticism, you should at least be able to point out a deficiency it causes, or else there's no point to making that argument in the first place. But the fact is there are no deficiencies that it causes in his game. It's obvious Deng has no issues with his first step. It's obvious he has no problem finishing strong or elevating to the bucket in a hurry. It's obvious it's not holding back his ability to defend. So where does this supposed lack of athleticism diminish his game?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MiSTa iBN</b>!
> Luol Deng's not even as quick as Artest, he does have him in length, but both players are different. He looks like eric williams if anything


Hmm...I've been saying the same thing for weeks....


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!But the fact is there are no deficiencies that it causes in his game. It's obvious Deng has no issues with his first step. It's obvious he has no problem finishing strong or elevating to the bucket in a hurry. It's obvious it's not holding back his ability to defend. So where does this supposed lack of athleticism diminish his game?


It's not about deficiencies in college. It's about projected deficiencies in the pros.

By the way, are these scouting reports are a joke? He certainly would not be that hot a prospect if he had to cut it at either SG or PF in my book.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


even in your grand attempts to spin i would like to point out this scouting report which is a basic carbon copy of any scouting report of battier when he came out. 

lets do a recap defends well does everything well but nothing at a superstar level and is sure to be an outstanding complementary player....

has it ever occured to you if he were all you say he was the scouting reports would say things that didn't have "complimentary player " in them , i mean really think about it , do you think grant hill's scouting reports said he was going to be somebody's complimentary player ...no they said he was the next MJ, and while its fun whatching you run down past duke alums for current ones, when they are really so very similar I think its time you take in some reality Pippen dominated at the draft camps so yes he was a dominant college player who just played against weak competition , and when he got to face good college players he did to them what he did to the NAIA players , deng wont even go to the draft camps so what we have is what he's already done which is not dominant at all just complimentary play and there is nothing about him to say he will be this all world player you claim him to be , at least nothing more than any other lottery pick .

you are going on faith that he will improve on every facet of his game to be a grant hill or a pippen which is basically saying he he's the kind of small forward that comes along every 5 years or so in the form of peja , hill pip melo or LBJ.

and i dont see it , i dont see him being the best player on his team or even a strong #2 ,in truth i see his future being less bright than our own kirk hinrich who was taken at #7 which is where i think deng should go give a spot or 2 based on need and particular team circumstance.

and to help you out on battiers athletic ability ...can you name the last time a player was taken as high as him(and wasn't a center) and wasn't at least a good athlete for the nba?

i bet you cant because it doesn't happen unless you are a center because 6'8 wing players who cant run and jump aren't lotto picks no matter what school they come out of or what they accomplish while they were there.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> even in your grand attempts to spin i would like to point out this scouting report which is a basic carbon copy of any scouting report of battier when he came out.


Talk about spinning. I asked you some very direct questions in my prior post and you completely avoided answering them. I made my points and supported them, and while it's fine for you to refute them, you should also have the courtesy to formulate your own arguments based on support instead of just spinning the party-line rhetoric.



> lets do a recap defends well does everything well but nothing at a superstar level and is sure to be an outstanding complementary player....


In some ways, Pippen was "considered" an outstanding complementary player (an assessment I disagree with) because no one ever saw him dominating in the NBA the way an MJ did. But when you look at his total package of skills, you realize that he was, in fact, a superstar.

I think Deng could be very similar in that regard, or at least a poor man's version of that. While I think he has the capability to be a #1 scorer on a team, I think he's probably more likely to be a #2 option -- and 18-20 ppg guy. But his complete array of skills should be factored in. He is an extremely advanced defensive talent, and can do just about everything else on the floor. I think at worst he will be an Eddie Jones type, at best a Grant Hill type.



> has it ever occured to you if he were all you say he was the scouting reports would say things that didn't have "complimentary player " in them , i mean really think about it , do you think grant hill's scouting reports said he was going to be somebody's complimentary player ...no they said he was the next MJ


You are getting into semantics of what it is to be a "complementary player" and the fact is people have very different opinions of what that means. As for Grant Hill, had he decided to leave school after his freshman season, the scouting reports might have said the exact same thing since that's essentially the role he took on as a freshman. I think it's tough to envision a player taking on a different role than you've seen them take on so far in their career, yet it happens all the time. It's called development.




> and while its fun whatching you run down past duke alums for current ones, when they are really so very similar I think its time you take in some reality Pippen dominated at the draft camps so yes he was a dominant college player who just played against weak competition , and when he got to face good college players he did to them what he did to the NAIA players , deng wont even go to the draft camps so what we have is what he's already done which is not dominant at all just complimentary play and there is nothing about him to say he will be this all world player you claim him to be , at least nothing more than any other lottery pick .



I'm not sure I see your point here. It seems that your assumption of ability to dominate comes only from the most recent point in time. I believe dominance develops over time. Pippen certainly wasn't dominant after his freshman season -- he barely even made his college team.

Hell, Deng's freshman season was more productive statistically than MJ's on teams of similar calibre. (Let's avoid a pissing match over that last statement -- I'm not comparing him to MJ) My point being, MJ became dominant over time. By the way he burst onto the scene his freshman season, you could tell he was capable of being a great player. It turned out to be true, as he was a 20 ppg scorer as a sophomore and an All-American.

Now let me ask you a couple questions (and maybe you'll afford me the courtesy of answering them this time?)... Do you disagree with the consensus assessment that Deng is a NPOY candidate next year if he stays in school? Do you not see him scoring 18-20 ppg for what would be one of the top teams in the country (should he stick around)? If you don't think so, I'd be curious to hear what makes you think he won't reach that calibre.

And if you do think he would attain that level of dominance in college next year, don't you think it would be reasonable to project him as a star in the NBA then? If you answer affirmatively to that question, then do you think that his entering the NBA after just his freshman season will forever limit his ability to become a dominant player?



> you are going on faith that he will improve on every facet of his game to be a grant hill or a pippen which is basically saying he he's the kind of small forward that comes along every 5 years or so in the form of peja , hill pip melo or LBJ.


No, I'm not going on faith. I'm going on reasonable conjecture based on other information/data I already have. I've identified the four factors I think are most important in determining a player's development and shown how it is reasonable to assume Deng will improve in these facets. (If you disagree with them, by all means add your own factors to the list and show me where he falls short)



> and i dont see it , i dont see him being the best player on his team or even a strong #2 ,in truth i see his future being less bright than our own kirk hinrich who was taken at #7 which is where i think deng should go give a spot or 2 based on need and particular team circumstance.


That's fine to hold your opinion, but just "not seeing it" does nothing to convince me otherwise. I "see him" being a star level player, but I don't expect that statement to convince you otherwise.



> and to help you out on battiers athletic ability ...can you name the last time a player was taken as high as him(and wasn't a center) and wasn't at least a good athlete for the nba?
> 
> i bet you cant because it doesn't happen unless you are a center because 6'8 wing players who cant run and jump aren't lotto picks no matter what school they come out of or what they accomplish while they were there.


Find me a scouting report that says Battier was athletic. I can name several players picked near the top of the draft that were average athletes at best -- Dunleavy, Ferry, just to name a couple. The guys who are picked high with average athleticism usually make up for it in other areas, like high skill level or basketball savvy, which I think accurately describes Battier coming out of college.

happygrinch, your entire argument seems predicated on poking whatever little hole you can in my argument. But you haven't yet formulated your own coherent argument to support your statement. Give me something tangible here. Because it seems more like you don't WANT Deng to be good more than you have evidence to support your claim.

In the end, I think you just need to put him into better context. He did amazing things this year as just a freshman. As a first year college player, he outproduced (or roughly equalled the output) the likes of the following wing players from top programs: MJ, Grant Hill, Stackhouse, Maggette, Vince, Hamilton, Pierce, Butler, Jefferson. The bottom line is that guys who have special freshman seasons at top programs while also possessing the requisite NBA body/athleticism almost necessarily go on to star careers. And many that aren't even that special as freshman still go on to star careers because they develop over time.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

If there is a player in the draft that plays anything like Grant Hill, its Josh Smith, not Luol Deng. Deng is a player. But he isnt a player that cant be defined by a position, like Hill was. Smith however can be your 1, 2, 3 on any given night. That is the type of player Hill was. Deng is a 3, thats pretty much about it


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> If there is a player in the draft that plays anything like Grant Hill, its Josh Smith, not Luol Deng. Deng is a player. But he isnt a player that cant be defined by a position, like Hill was. Smith however can be your 1, 2, 3 on any given night. That is the type of player Hill was. Deng is a 3, thats pretty much about it


I think Deng's got some 4 in him. He will use his post game at the 3, anyway, something that Josh Smith, or most threes in the NBA (many who are excellent) do not have. Deng is no 2 though, that's for sure.

I do hope Paxson considers Josh Smith though. The dude is so talented.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> I think Deng's got some 4 in him. He will use his post game at the 3, anyway, something that Josh Smith, or most threes in the NBA (many who are excellent) do not have. Deng is no 2 though, that's for sure.
> ...


Perhaps DMD. I think Deng has the body to fill out to a huge 3. However, the Hill comparisons are way off. the only similarity is that they went to Duke and both stand 6-8. Outside of that, there really is nothing. Hill was a player who was so versatile, a guy who could guard 3 or 4 spots and offensively fill alot of different roles. Deng, IMO, will be an allstar 3 who rarely plays anything but the 3 spot. Deng is far closer to Jamal Mashburn, then he is Grant Hill, based on what I see


----------



## Philo (Feb 13, 2003)

Shoot, if we can get a Jamal Mashburn type talent, minus the injuries of course, I would be overjoyed. Deng or Smith??? Who cares, they both can come in and help the team.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Philo</b>!
> Shoot, if we can get a Jamal Mashburn type talent, minus the injuries of course, I would be overjoyed. Deng or Smith??? Who cares, they both can come in and help the team.


Exactly, it all depends on what you want. Smith or Deng, either will emerge as a nice player. I personally have always preferred the more versatile player when everything else is equal. In this case, Id take Smith. interestingly, they went to the same HS. Based on what I have heard, the similarities at the same age are striking


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Perhaps DMD. I think Deng has the body to fill out to a huge 3. However, the Hill comparisons are way off. the only similarity is that they went to Duke and both stand 6-8. Outside of that, there really is nothing. Hill was a player who was so versatile, a guy who could guard 3 or 4 spots and offensively fill alot of different roles. Deng, IMO, will be an allstar 3 who rarely plays anything but the 3 spot. Deng is far closer to Jamal Mashburn, then he is Grant Hill, based on what I see


I don't mind players who are locked into one position, if they fit it to a "T." Most players who can play two positions are not experts at either. Garnett is the ultimate exception to this, as was Magic. A guy who can REALLY guard two or three positions on the floor is very useful, though.

As for Grant Hill, I think people get caught up in the fact that Grant and Luol are very close and talk on the phone a lot and that Luol learned basketball by patterning his game after Grants. That's his intent, not necessarily the result. I still think the closest comparison to Luol in the league is none other than Melo, a SF with ball skills, an outside shot, and post moves. Luol does not have as good of face up game or maybe not that #1 mentality, but I still think that's the closest guy.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Philo</b>!
> Shoot, if we can get a Jamal Mashburn type talent, minus the injuries of course, I would be overjoyed. Deng or Smith??? Who cares, they both can come in and help the team.


Right, the good news is that there is more than one good swingman prospect, and I too like them both. I doubt Paxson would draft Smith, but maybe he could surprise us.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

The Josh Smith hype machine has gotten a bit out of control in my estimation.

Whenever there's a superior athletic talent that you don't know enough about, it's easy to get overly excited. It doesn't necessarily mean they are the next great thing.

I think character and competitiveness have a lot to do with how great a player will be, especially those that comes straight from high school. From what I've seen of Smith, he has a brain the size of a peanut. The last guy who came into the league with a head like his was Darius Miles.

Smith thinks he's got nothing to learn, has no humility, and admits he's going to the NBA for the money. This sounds like a recipe for disaster. He will get corrupted by the lifestyle.

He will be able to cut it as a productive player on talent alone, of this I'm pretty sure. But I don't see even a shred of evidence that he has the potential to be a TEAM-ELEVATING superstar, and to be honest those are the guys I'm looking for in the draft.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't mind players who are locked into one position, if they fit it to a "T." Most players who can play two positions are not experts at either. Garnett is the ultimate exception to this, as was Magic. A guy who can REALLY guard two or three positions on the floor is very useful, though.
> ...


I think that is a very good comparison in alot of ways. While I would say that Deng is clearly not the offensive player Carmello is, his impact on the rest of the game should be greater. Will that translate to a Denver like turnaround for the Bulls? No. But he is a good player. and a step in the right direction. But then again, the true great wing players. The Jordans, Magics, Lebrons, Tmacs, Kobes, Hills, Pippens all had one thing in common, they could guard multiple spots and fit different roles offensively as the game saw fit. Being able to play the point on some possessions, and then posting up a smaller player on another possesion is a huge advantage. If that is what you want, and its something I believe the Bulls need, then Josh Smith is the man. Deng is a pure 3. He wont be doing too much outside of the typical 3 stuff, though he will be good at that


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I think that is a very good comparison in alot of ways. While I would say that Deng is clearly not the offensive player Carmello is, his impact on the rest of the game should be greater. Will that translate to a Denver like turnaround for the Bulls? No. But he is a good player. and a step in the right direction. But then again, the true great wing players. The Jordans, Magics, Lebrons, Tmacs, Kobes, Hills, Pippens all had one thing in common, they could guard multiple spots and fit different roles offensively as the game saw fit. Being able to play the point on some possessions, and then posting up a smaller player on another possesion is a huge advantage. If that is what you want, and its something I believe the Bulls need, then Josh Smith is the man. Deng is a pure 3. He wont be doing too much outside of the typical 3 stuff, though he will be good at that


Andre Iguodala may be fit multi position guarding swingman despite being on the very low end of height for the 3 position, although his offense will probably not match your megastar list above. Knowing what we know about Paxson, I wouldn't be surprised if his list of players he is interested in is:

Okafor
Deng
Iguodala

or trade the pick

BTW, rlucas, here's what DraftCity says about Josh Smith's defense:

"His defense, other than the eerie shotblocking ability, is atrocious. For all his speed and athleticism he doesn't have the lateral quickness to play the faster players on the perimeter. He is also very lax on defense, barely trying at times. He simply cannot be asked to cover any better than average offensive player on the perimeter. The key in his weaknesses can be summed up in one word really: consistency. He needs more consistency instead of simply the flashes that he does show."

http://www.draftcity.com/joshsmith.htm

I saw more potential than this in the televised all star games.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I think that is a very good comparison in alot of ways. While I would say that Deng is clearly not the offensive player Carmello is, his impact on the rest of the game should be greater. Will that translate to a Denver like turnaround for the Bulls? No. But he is a good player. and a step in the right direction. But then again, the true great wing players. The Jordans, Magics, Lebrons, Tmacs, Kobes, Hills, Pippens all had one thing in common, they could guard multiple spots and fit different roles offensively as the game saw fit. Being able to play the point on some possessions, and then posting up a smaller player on another possesion is a huge advantage. If that is what you want, and its something I believe the Bulls need, then Josh Smith is the man. Deng is a pure 3. He wont be doing too much outside of the typical 3 stuff, though he will be good at that


Great post!

The Deng hype machine should take a breath and the time to read this.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> Great post!
> 
> The Deng hype machine should take a breath and the time to read this.


I guess I qualify as the "Deng hype machine", and I basically agree with rlucas' post, but with a caveat. Deng may be simply a pure 3 in the NBA on offense, but defensively I think he'll be effective at defending any 2 or 3 and even the 4 on occasion.

I'm not ready to put Deng in the same classification as the aforementioned superstars, I merely believe he has that potential should he continue strong improvement in his ballhandling skills and passing ability.

My expectation though is that he'll fall in a half-step below those players -- likely an all-NBA 3rd team type of talent.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess I qualify as the "Deng hype machine", and I basically agree with rlucas' post, but with a caveat. Deng may be simply a pure 3 in the NBA on offense, but defensively I think he'll be effective at defending any 2 or 3 and even the 4 on occasion.
> ...


all 3rd team NBA sounds about right to me. He has a high ceiling and as accomplished a ton without the experience of other players. But he just doesnt have the total all around game from Smith. But then again, sometimes it better to do one thing great, then alot of things "good". But right now, the scouting report is closer to the second half of that sentence for Deng, then the first half


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Andre Iguodala may be fit multi position guarding swingman despite being on the very low end of height for the 3 position, although his offense will probably not match your megastar list above. Knowing what we know about Paxson, I wouldn't be surprised if his list of players he is interested in is:
> ...


He seems to be dropping DMD. And he would certainly qualify big time in a trade down situation I would agree. The Jefferson comparison is a little too easy. But could Igoudala be this years. gulp, Pietrus? a shut down defender at a number of spots but in Andre's case, a more complete ballhandler and a little less on the shot?


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

> Exactly, it all depends on what you want. Smith or Deng, either will emerge as a nice player. I personally have always preferred the more versatile player when everything else is equal. In this case, Id take Smith. interestingly, they went to the same HS. Based on what I have heard, the similarities at the same age are striking


This is not right is it? I did not think Smith and Deng went to the same HS. ????


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> But could Igoudala be this years. gulp, Pietrus?


Gulp indeed. Yeah, that's a very reasonable comparison. I don't think he has Pietrus' boundless energy though. Andre could be a lock down defender, but he sometimes is lax.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

why is it that only Duke players generate this much animosity? There's always a group of people determined to take Duke prospects down a peg when talking about their ability to play in the NBA. And people who defend said players are just "blinded by the hype machine".


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> why is it that only Duke players generate this much animosity? There's always a group of people determined to take Duke prospects down a peg when talking about their ability to play in the NBA. And people who defend said players are just "blinded by the hype machine".


For the record, VF, I like Deng alot. But I just think, long term (18 months) there are better options at the 3 in this draft and there will be better players taken 10-20


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> For the record, VF, I like Deng alot. But I just think, long term (18 months) there are better options at the 3 in this draft and there will be better players taken 10-20


I'm sure VF isn't talking about you rlucas. There will always be a certain amount of hatred going Duke's way. Duke is not my favorite team, but I do admire what they do there, and they put out many good players to the league.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Talk about spinning. I asked you some very direct questions in my prior post and you completely avoided answering them. I made my points and supported them, and while it's fine for you to refute them, you should also have the courtesy to formulate your own arguments based on support instead of just spinning the party-line rhetoric.
> ...


my opinion on deng is pretty easy to sum up , nice player ,will be a good team guy but absolutely nothing to build a team around (battier, basically)and my reasons are also pretty easy , he lacks eye popping athletic ability nor is he some freak at any facet of the game though he seems good at most of them.

what you have done is cry for whatever reason that i must be out to discredit the kid and you optimism about him , well junior i didn't start this discussion with you , you started it with me i didn't ask you squat about your opinions you are asking them of me.

you are the one trying to convince me of things not the other way around and you haven't done it saying he has had a better frosh campaign than MJ means little so did jason capono, it didn't mean kapono was a future star and it doesn't mean deng is one 

i could say anyone like felipe lopez had a better freshman year than mj 

chris taft was freshman of the year in the big east and had better freshman #s than emeka okafor ....does that mean he will be better than okafor?

no it doesn't ,and your reasoning is weak to put it mildly college achievements mean nothing in the pro's what matters is althletic ability, degree of skill level and work ethic and if you dont have the 1st 2 to such a degree that it is impossible to guard you one on one you wont be an offensive star, its really that simple Look i have outline my belief on it and i'm leaving at such in my opinion deng is a marginal star at best and is a good player and will continue to be one but believe me there is a precidint of players having better freshman years than mj or grant hill or whoever and not being 10 time all stars and instead being far less than that


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm sure VF isn't talking about you rlucas. There will always be a certain amount of hatred going Duke's way. Duke is not my favorite team, but I do admire what they do there, and they put out many good players to the league.


alot more recently too. Maggette, Hill, Brand. For a while it was bust U. Not anymore. I still wouldnt touch a kid from Indiana though. Only Isiah has broken through from that school


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> alot more recently too. Maggette, Hill, Brand. For a while it was bust U. Not anymore. I still wouldnt touch a kid from Indiana though. Only Isiah has broken through from that school


See, I can't even go with this. I'm just not sure that I'd be too concerned with the past history of any elite program when it comes to churning out NBA superstars. I think you really have to seperate the player from the school as much as possible. That being said, I'm not too impressed with anyone on Indiana's roster right now, Bracey Wright included.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> alot more recently too. Maggette, Hill, Brand. For a while it was bust U. Not anymore. I still wouldnt touch a kid from Indiana though. Only Isiah has broken through from that school


I wouldn't even count Maggette...

Maggette became a player in the league, Duke didn't produce that...

If Maggette would have stayed at Duke he would have been another Dahntay Jones..

Going to the league gave him the chance to develop all of his skills instead of being another "athletic freak/defensive specialist" filling a role on Duke's roster.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> Maggette became a player in the league, Duke didn't produce that...
> 
> If Maggette would have stayed at Duke he would have been another Dahntay Jones..


Since you bring this up again, I will again repeat that this is among the stupidist things I've ever seen posted on these boards. I'm astounded you actually believe this.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> my opinion on deng is pretty easy to sum up , nice player ,will be a good team guy but absolutely nothing to build a team around (battier, basically)and my reasons are also pretty easy , he lacks eye popping athletic ability nor is he some freak at any facet of the game though he seems good at most of them.
> 
> what you have done is cry for whatever reason that i must be out to discredit the kid and you optimism about him , well junior i didn't start this discussion with you , you started it with me i didn't ask you squat about your opinions you are asking them of me.


Don't get your panties in a bunch. I'm trying to engage you in a reasonable and thoughtful discussion, but that is obviously beyond your capacity. What purpose does your belligerence serve?



> you are the one trying to convince me of things not the other way around and you haven't done it saying he has had a better frosh campaign than MJ means little so did jason capono, it didn't mean kapono was a future star and it doesn't mean deng is one


I believe I made myself very clear. It's not merely as simple as having a good freshman year. There are FOUR FACTORS I identified in projecting talent. The players I mentioned fit the four factors (or rate highly enough in one to make up for any deficiency in another), while Kapono clearly does not.

I'll repeat... (1) High Skill level (2) NBA athleticism/body (3) Coaching staff/Program quality (4) Work Ethic. Kapono rated highly with #1, was marginal in #3 and #4, and completely lacked #2.



> i could say anyone like felipe lopez had a better freshman year than mj


Felipe Lopez rated high in #1 and #2 and low in #3 and #4.



> chris taft was freshman of the year in the big east and had better freshman #s than emeka okafor ....does that mean he will be better than okafor?


There's nothing I can't stand more than a warped sense of logic. (Aside from you neglecting the pre-conditions I defined), this statement you make is the equivalent of me saying that because Deng's numbers were better than Jordan's as a freshman that he will be better than Jordan. I CLEARLY AM NOT MAKING THAT ARGUMENT.

If you are trying to make an analogy to my argument, the correct interpretation would have been IF Chris Taft had the NBA athleticism, work ethic and quality development that Okafor had, THEN he likely to be of a similar calibre to Okafor.



> no it doesn't ,and your reasoning is weak to put it mildly college achievements mean nothing in the pro's what matters is althletic ability, degree of skill level and work ethic and if you dont have the 1st 2 to such a degree that it is impossible to guard you one on one you wont be an offensive star, its really that simple Look i have outline my belief on it and i'm leaving at such in my opinion deng is a marginal star at best and is a good player and will continue to be one but believe me there is a precidint of players having better freshman years than mj or grant hill or whoever and not being 10 time all stars and instead being far less than that


College achievements do mean something, though I still understand your poorly formulated point. College success doesn't necessarily translate to NBA success. Duh.

Given the other requisites for NBA success, however, college production does matter. You claim that athletic ability, skill level and work ethic determine NBA stardom (hmmm, that point sounds sorta familiar.... ) and that's true.

For some reason you believe that Deng lacks in these areas. Is it his work ethic? I doubt it, since Coach K consistently raves about Luol's work ethic, and Luol has proven himself by waking up at 5 am everyday at prep school to practice. Is it his skill level? Probably not, since every scout in the world marvels at his skill level at 6'8.

So basically your argument comes down to this. Because your (obviously poor) eye for talent says that Deng's athletic ability is limited and can't beat people off the dribble -- which, by the way, is in direct disagreement with the assessments of all the scouting reports I mentioned (yes, I actually provided SUPPORT for my point) -- Deng will not be a star.

And you think that opinion should carry any weight? :no:

Without demonstrating with some support that Deng's athleticism is so marginal that it will prevent him from being able to score in the NBA, your argument is baseless. So go on believing what you want to believe, just don't expect to be proven right.

Nice arguing with you again, happygrinch. Next time bring your "A" game chump.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> Don't get your panties in a bunch. I'm trying to engage you in a reasonable and thoughtful discussion, but that is obviously beyond your capacity. What purpose does your belligerence serve?
> 
> quote:
> ...


:rocket:
:rocket:
:rocket:
:rocket:
:rocket:
:rocket:
:rocket:
:rocket:
:rocket:
:rocket:


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Since you bring this up again, I will again repeat that this is among the stupidist things I've ever seen posted on these boards. I'm astounded you actually believe this.


Is it really?

I think anyone has followed Mags's career, and being a Clipper fan I have been able to see him a lot, knows that this kid became a player in the league.

He got in the league because of athleticism, and he had that at Duke, but the driving ability, the jumper, the skills that are making him a player in this league were not harnessed at Duke.

You're a pretty intelligent guy, how you don't understand that is beyond me...

A guy becomes a player in the NBA 3 years after he left a school in which played at for one season, yet that school/program should get the credit for his development WHILE in the league?

Ya, that's a no today, tomorrow, and every day that there's a day in existence.

If stupid means right, then you're right, that's a stupid comment.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Don't get your panties in a bunch. I'm trying to engage you in a reasonable and thoughtful discussion, but that is obviously beyond your capacity. What purpose does your belligerence serve?
> ...


you are a very confused soul , you need help


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Is it really?
> ...


Saying that Duke is not responsible for his game and saying that Duke would have ruined him and made him into a "Dahntay Jones" is a very, very different thing.

You just glossed over that "minor" detail in your reply.

Yeah, Chris Duhon, blah blah, DMD doesn't buy it for a second that "Duke makes you regress."


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> See, I can't even go with this. I'm just not sure that I'd be too concerned with the past history of any elite program when it comes to churning out NBA superstars. I think you really have to seperate the player from the school as much as possible. That being said, I'm not too impressed with anyone on Indiana's roster right now, Bracey Wright included.


I don't think it's wise to ignore the past history of a program.

The schools that have reputations of producing NBA busts are usually the schools that have the very best coaches in the NCAA. The reason these coaches are the best is they can get great production out of guys with inferior talent. Coach K is the best coach in the country and he makes guys like Trajan Langdon and Chris Duhon look great, then when they try to play in the NBA their inferior talent gets exposed and they do nothing.

So if a program has produced a bunch of busts, maybe it was just the system that made these guys look good in college. When the next prospect comes along from that same school with that same coach, you have to ask yourself, maybe it's also just the system that's making this guy look good, and he's not really all that talented.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Saying that Duke is not responsible for his game and saying that Duke would have ruined him and made him into a "Dahntay Jones" is beyond me.
> ...


They aren't!!!

How is Duke responsible for NBA success acheived 3 years after he's left the school???

He's been in the league, going on 5 seasons, and played at Duke for 1.

This is a kid who left after his freshman year of averaging 10 pts and a couple boards, but he could because had NBA size and athleticism, not because he had NBA game.

Doc Rivers gave up on him because of that, if he was half the player then as he was now, he would have never just been shipped out.

You don't have buy that Duke doesn't regress players, but you know what, that's the track record, at the end of the day you have to live with that fact.

Mags would have played a similar role on Duke as Dahntay Jones did, in the NBA Mags has been in a situation where he could be one of the stars on the team, he's our #2 option, #1 when Brand is hurt.

That would have never been his role at Duke.

You won't win this one, I'll guarantee that, but we can keep discussing it.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> Yeah, Chris Duhon, blah blah, DMD doesn't buy it for a second that "Duke makes you regress."


This is a comical comment, I won't make it personal and say it was stupid like you did about mine...

Well blah blah blah Duhon has cost himself millions of dollars by staying at Duke, blah blah blah...


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> I don't think it's wise to ignore the past history of a program.
> 
> The schools that have reputations of producing NBA busts are usually the schools that have the very best coaches in the NCAA. The reason these coaches are the best is they can get great production out of guys with inferior talent. Coach K is the best coach in the country and he makes guys like Trajan Langdon and Chris Duhon look great, then when they try to play in the NBA their inferior talent gets exposed and they do nothing.
> 
> So if a program has produced a bunch of busts, maybe it was just the system that made these guys look good in college. When the next prospect comes along from that same school with that same coach, you have to ask yourself, maybe it's also just the system that's making this guy look good, and he's not really all that talented.


The problem I see with this debate is that it always centers around Duke, a school for which so many have vitriol. So it's easy to pare down the argument to it's core and say simply that "Duke produces busts".

Fact is, there are many factors that we know play into one's ability to succeed in the NBA. Before chalking up a player's ability to succeed based on the school he went to, consider all factors involved.

Because if you look at the best producers of NBA talent, you'll find that they've all had huge busts (UNC had Montross & Forte, Arizona had Miles Simon & Loren Woods), and it's for the same reasons a school like Duke has had busts -- those guys just didn't have what they needed to be good in the NBA. I think it has little to do with the school. Any top 10-15 program, in my opinion, does just as good a job as the next of preparing players for success on the next level.

Schools don't PRODUCE talent, they GUIDE talent, and it's really quite a stretch to think that these top quality programs are actually messing up a player's natural ability to be a successful NBA player.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think it's wise to ignore the past history of a program.
> ...


Agreed. But the best coaches often get some of the best recruits. How could you ever exclude them from your draft board because they come in good? Sure you need to be careful, but you're a smart armchair scout, ArtestFan. You know there are certain skills you have to look for to see through the program.

Why would you draft Chris Duhon in the lottery this year? Why were the Cavs dumb enough to draft Trajan "Tweener" Langdon in the lottery last year? I'm just not willing to exclude Deng because he's a Dukie. I'm not 100% sure about him, but there's a lot to like based on skill, athleticism, and fundimental ability.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> They aren't!!!
> ...


i'm going to go on a limb and say the main target of your scorn is coach K since it is him who recruits and then coaches these players . I'm gonna disagree with you on that he(or duke) ruins players for instance i doubt he ruined brand or grant hill, he merely gets players that fit his system(or he makes them fit) and that system is not a perfect fit for the nba so some players fit in just fine at the next level and some have problems unlike north carolina which runs a more pro friendly sys. so its a better transition , colleges like UCLA or kansas also have busts it just doesn't have a spotlight on them like duke does


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> Agreed. But the best coaches often get some of the best recruits. How could you ever exclude them from your draft board because they come in good? Sure you need to be careful, but you're a smart armchair scout, ArtestFan. You know there are certain skills you have to look for to see through the program.
> 
> Why would you draft Chris Duhon in the lottery this year? Why were the Cavs dumb enough to draft Trajan "Tweener" Langdon in the lottery last year? I'm just not willing to exclude Deng because he's a Dukie. I'm not 100% sure about him, but there's a lot to like based on skill, athleticism, and fundimental ability.


My bad, then. I thought you were saying that you should just look at how successful a guy was in college when you decide where to draft him, which would be dumb becacuse performance is skewed by things like coaching, and there also other factors like potential.

Can't disagree with any of what you just wrote. You have to look at the individual player and make sure your view of him isn't being affected (whether positively or negatively) by the school he went to.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> They aren't!!!
> 
> How is Duke responsible for NBA success acheived 3 years after he's left the school???
> 
> ...


As I said before, colleges GUIDE talent, they don't PRODUCE talent. In Maggette's one year at Duke, they gave him many tools to further his progress as a player. Duke doesn't deserve credit for making him the player he is today, but they definitely helped it along. To suggest that he would have regressed at Duke is asinine.



> Doc Rivers gave up on him because of that, if he was half the player then as he was now, he would have never just been shipped out.
> 
> You don't have buy that Duke doesn't regress players, but you know what, that's the track record, at the end of the day you have to live with that fact.


Is that really the track record? Or is that your biased perception of their track record? Did Brand regress? How about Dunleavy? Boozer? Williams? Langdon? Carrawell? Dawkins? Hurley? Laettner? The list goes on. All of these guys improved, just as most top talents improve over their time in college.

Your regression argument just has no backing. And I'll live with THAT fact.



> Mags would have played a similar role on Duke as Dahntay Jones did, in the NBA Mags has been in a situation where he could be one of the stars on the team, he's our #2 option, #1 when Brand is hurt.
> 
> That would have never been his role at Duke.
> 
> You won't win this one, I'll guarantee that, but we can keep discussing it.


Laughable.

Maggette was already being projected as a pre-season all-american for his sophomore year before he shocked the world and declared his early entry. He was expected to step in that year and be the #1 guy. If you remember correctly, Battier and Carrawell were the top returning scorers to that team, neither having averaged double digits the year before.

So don't even give me that garbage. I was at Duke during this time, and I remember how good Maggette was as a freshman. He averaged 10 ppg on a talent laden squad where he could only muster 20 mpg. Believe me, he was well on his way to stepping in and being the go-to-guy as a sophomore. Worlds ahead of a guy like Dahntay.

Arenas, don't let your hatred prevent you from seeing the truth.

Face it, you just have a severe case of Duke envy. I'm sorry your college program (ITT Tech I'm guessing?) sucks.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> Duke doesn't deserve credit for making him the player he is today


Well I'm glad you jumped in...

1. This debate between DMD and started way before today, but you're agreeing with that point that I made a long time ago.



> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> Face it, you just have a severe case of Duke envy. I'm sorry your college program (ITT Tech I'm guessing?) sucks.


What is there to envy about Duke?

Duke people, even UNC fans are amazing...

You guys would give your players BJ's while they're on campus, but if they leave the school early, they're backstabbers, idiots, anything negative you can call them in the book.

(This is for anyone, go to www.truthaboutduke.com and see what I'm talking about)

As many talented players that went to Duke, when you have so few that have actually excelled on the next level, that says something about the program.

Plain and simple.

I'm happy for you that you went to Duke, I go to University of Miami which may not be Duke but is far from being an ITT Tech.

Nice try though at trying to offend me, feel free to try again.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> My bad, then. I thought you were saying that you should just look at how successful a guy was in college when you decide where to draft him, which would be dumb becacuse performance is skewed by things like coaching, and there also other factors like potential.
> ...


Oh, no. I just think the poster arenas goes overboard with the Duke hatred. And he's not alone. I know another respected poster Hong Kong Fooey is not a big fan of how they do things at Duke and how they really prepare players for the NBA. Yes, perhaps Coach K and other players max out the talent they have, but even that is changing because now his players are leaving early when they show enough potential. I definitely wouldn't draft a Dukie because he was a Dukie, but I like a lot of the kids that come out of that program. I really thought Jay Williams was going to be a big star because of his incredible work ethic, but we will probably never know. 

I know Battier was the college player of the year and all, but he got drafted way too high. Personally, I'm glad the Bulls didn't take him. I want a small forward with more handle in the modern NBA. 

I just try to take it player by player. But there's no doubt that Duke, Arizona, and UConn get great prospects, and you have to evaluate each of them carefully when it comes to be draft time.

In regards to Indiana, I think a lot of top propsects avoided the school because they had the potential to make it big elsewhere without being abused by Bobby Knight. He's gone now, so maybe Indiana will get some more blue chippers. They thought they had Josh Smith for a minute...


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh, no. I just think the poster arenas goes overboard with the Duke hatred. And he's not alone.


I'm looking at facts, I'm looking at track record, actual evidence/proof and presented that to you which you have not yet had a response for...

Hatred has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Arenas, I do too have a response. Remember a very long and detailed thread I started a while back when I went player by play through Dukies of the last 15 or so years? Am I a genius scout, hells no, but that's a response.

I have no affiliation to the Duke program whatsoever except for the fact that I admire the program. I went to Northwestern, who has never once made an NCAA tournament.:no: 

I disagree with the opinion that so many Duke players have failed to live up to their potential, and in this thread I go one by one through the Duke players that I remember and try to evaluate how much NBA potential they really ever had and what they ended up acheiving.

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86889&highlight=duke+arenas

Arenas, do you really believe this "programs can ruin players" argument just applies to Duke and no other schools?

Your Duke regression theory is the one thing you bring up often that has no proof or not even a good argument. Sure, you can bring up the college career of Chris Duhon as "proof," but we're talking about how these guys do in the NBA, and he hasn't stepped foot on an NBA court. How is your projection proof?

Please do not say I have no response. I took a long time to write the response above.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Well I'm glad you jumped in...
> ...


its sad when people have to resort to such low brow tactics 

creepy and sad


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> This is a comical comment, I won't make it personal and say it was stupid like you did about mine...
> ...


He probably did cost himself millions, no doubt about that. 

I'm sorry to call you out, but you really strike a nerve with this one point and I really think it's stupid. A lot of what you say is controvercial, but this one thing crosses the line for me. 

As long as you don't call me stupid, I don't mind if you call any of my arguments or theories stupid.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> Arenas, I do too have a response. Remember a very long and detailed thread I started a while back when I went player by play through Dukies of the last 15 or so years? Am I a genius scout, hells no, but that's a response.
> 
> I have no affiliation to the Duke program whatsoever except for the fact that I admire the program. I went to Northwestern, who has never once made an NCAA tournament.:no:
> ...


I don't have a program can ruin a player theory...

I do believe though that Duke has a system, and it's made for guys to excel within that system, ultimately though sometimes that limits guys games.

Look at the Duke rosters over the past few years and you'll find yourself saying, oh this guy is the current this guy from 99...

It's like some kind of assembly line, player leaves, look for and replace with similar player, it works for the college game and Duke has one of the best basketball programs in the country, but they're not producing the best pro basketball players.

I don't need to keep stating this, look at the track record...

In regards to Duhon, he might have a nice NBA career, point is RIGHT NOW he's cost himself millions of dollars.

He leaves his sophomore year and he's a lotto pick with a guaranteed contract, as it is now he's staring at being drafted somewhere in the 40s...

I would gladly trade the financial security for helping Coach K add on to the reputation of Duke basketball and being loved by Duke fans who would put brujeria on me if I left school early...


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

Hey I'll be the first one to admit that most Duke fans suck.

I hate them as much as the next guy, especially the Cameron Crazies. And especially the dweebs who sleep in tents for weeks just to get into a game.

So please don't lump me in with these douchebags. I would never badmouth someone who's part of the Duke family, even if I didn't think they were making the best decision. Once you've signed with Duke, you're part of the family, and I'll stand by that guy -- even if he transfers (Burgess) or decides to jump to the NBA before ever stepping foot on campus (Livingston).

I'll readily admit my arrogance as a Duke fan, but I guess it just comes out when I'm constantly defending my school for no better reason than that others are envious. Face it, Duke runs as close to a model program as can be run, and that makes people jealous.

I'll never quite understand why, though. It's not like the Yankees who have an unfair advantage within their system. Duke preaches the right values, and therefore attracts the right players, and therefore reaps what it sows. What's wrong with that?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> He probably did cost himself millions, no doubt about that.
> ...


What crosses the line?

You go back to the thread, you first said, "that's one of the stupidest things I've ever read"...

Last time I checked just having an opinion about something that isn't personal to you is crossing the line.

My opinions are "controversial" because I don't just jump on to what everyone else...not because they are actually controversial.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> I don't have a program can ruin a player theory...
> 
> I do believe though that Duke has a system, and it's made for guys to excel within that system, ultimately though sometimes that limits guys games.
> 
> ...


Why do you emply such simplistic logic?

Duke's track record of producing NBA talent since 1998 is better than any school with maybe the exception of Arizona. So you can bury that track record you speak of, because it simply doesn't hold true anymore. It's meaningless because the program has evolved and if your talking about the current program, you should be looking at what's happened recently. And their production of NBA talent speaks for itself.

Duke used to recruit non-athletes, who therefore did not experience NBA success. We all know who the examples are.

Since 1998 Duke has begun getting better athletic talents... perhaps Coach K changed his recruiting philosophy. Point is, since 1998, Duke has produced 5 players who have eclipsed 12 ppg in the NBA -- Brand, Battier, Maggette, Boozer, Dunleavy. Not to mention that JWill was headed in that direction. And now Deng. That's a pretty remarkable track record if you think about it.

(But I'm sure you'll find a way to tell me that, although they've all been productive players, they're still disappointments )

arenas, I'm so gonna enjoy Duke kicking the snot out of your school next year, and the next year, and the next year....


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't have a program can ruin a player theory...
> ...


Duhon would have been drafted earlier in a previous draft, no doubt. He would have been better off leaving then, fiscally at least. But this has happened to other players at other schools. It certainly happened to Rod Grizzard. Some players like Gerald Wallace and Darius Rice might have been drafted higher coming out of high school. But I don't necessarily blame their college programs for that. Any player must take responsibility for his decision and or his regression. 

Arenas, you just don't seem to give Duke's program any credit for what they do do right. Look at Brand. Here's an undersized 4 who plays two years at Duke. He's one of the best players in the country if not the best by year 2. Coach K even says he's ready to go pro and wishes him well. The undersized, not so athletic Brand needs a lot of mental tenacity to excell with his physical situation. And he has it. Are you sure he didn't garner some of this from Coach K and the Duke staff? I think Duke players almost always have great work ethics and good attitudes, and if that's what Duke helped Brand with, it was just what he needed.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> What crosses the line?
> ...


I think I need to apologize, arenas. I think I've been misunderstand what I labeled your "regression theory." When you said that 'if Mags would have stayed at Duke, he would have become another Dahntay Jones,' I thought you meant he would become a lesser pro player by staying at Duke, not that he would be filling Jones' role in Duke's system. That I can understand and don't even disagree with. So if I have misunderstood and harped on a misunderstanding, I do apologize.

Now if you really mean that staying at Duke ruins your pro potential, well then I do mean the very strong and even attacking stance I take.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> I think I need to apologize, arenas. I think I've been misunderstand what I labeled your "regression theory." When you said that 'if Mags would have stayed at Duke, he would have become another Dahntay Jones,' I thought you meant he would become a lesser pro player by staying at Duke, not that he would be filling Jones' role in Duke's system. That I can understand and don't even disagree with. So if I have misunderstood and harped on a misunderstanding, I do apologize.
> ...


Apology accepted...


----------



## MiSTa iBN (Jun 16, 2002)

I don't think Maggette was a top 15 player coming out of high school, there were several other players at the small foward position ranked ahead of him. I don't think player development is an issue with Duke and they don't get the VERY best players as other schools do, the elite type players that will make an impact on the next level. They didn't start getting big time recruits until the Elton Brand class, whom was a true talent. Lately Coach K's been getting and putting out good players for the NBA. If Shaun Livingston attended Duke he would've been a TRUE superstar maybe even better than Jay Williams, because Coach K gets the best out of his players abilities. He wouldn'tve been some overhyped player, he would've been the real deal. He's a talent that Coach K's never had besides Grant Hill.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> I don't think Maggette was a top 15 player coming out of high school, there were several other players at the small foward position ranked ahead of him.


I agree with the point of your post, but this statement is incorrect. Maggette was a consensus top 5 or6 recruit coming out of HS and I don't think I ever saw him ranked below 10.

That year just happened to be strong year for forwards -- with Harrington, Lewis, Korleone Young and Q Richardson all in the mix at the top.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MiSTa iBN</b>!
> They didn't start getting big time recruits until the Elton Brand class, whom was a true talent.


What the frick?!? Duke has been getting good players for at least 25 years.

This is a list of Duke McDonalds AA's, a virtual who's who of non NBA impact:

Duke (34)
Alaa Abdelnaby (1986), Sacramento Kings
Tommy Amaker (1983)
Gene Banks (1977), Chicago Bulls
Shane Battier (1997), Memphis Grizzlies
Carlos Boozer, Jr. (1999), Cleveland Cavaliers
Elton Brand (1997), Los Angeles Clippers
Chris Collins (1992)
Johnny Dawkins (1982), Detroit Pistons
Luol Deng (2003)
Sean Dockery (2002)
Taymon Domzalski (1995)
Chris Duhon (2000)
Michael Dunleavy Jr. (1999), Golden State Warriors
Daniel Ewing (2001)
Danny Ferry (1985), San Antonio Spurs
Phil Henderson (1986), San Antonio Spurs
Grant Hill (1990), Orlando Magic
Bobby Hurley (1989), Vancouver Grizzlies
Nate James (1996)
Greg Koubek (1987)
Christian Laettner (1988), Washington Wizards
Trajan Langdon (1994)
Corey Maggette (1998), Los Angeles Clippers
Martin Nessley (1983), Sacramento Kings
Cherokee Parks (1991), Los Angeles Clippers
Ricky Price (1994)
Shavlik Randolph
J.J. Redick (2002)
Casey Sanders (1999)
Quin Snyder (1985)
Vince Taylor (1978), New York Knicks
Michael Thompson (2002)
Jay Williams (1999), Chicago Bulls
Steve Wojciechowski (1994)


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

College coaches are not paid to develop NBA players, they are paid to win basketball games.

This is yet one of the reasons why the NBA needs to create a legit minor league. Guys with future pro talent are not getting the opportunity to live up to their potential as much because it is more about W-L's than player/skills development. A minor league would solve that.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> College coaches are not paid to develop NBA players, they are paid to win basketball games.
> 
> This is yet one of the reasons why the NBA needs to create a legit minor league. Guys with future pro talent are not getting the opportunity to live up to their potential as much because it is more about W-L's than player/skills development. A minor league would solve that.


...on that note for all the Livingston needs to go to college folks...

Coach K does not want his players lifting so it will be awfully hard for him to gain strength at Duke.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> ...on that note for all the Livingston needs to go to college folks...
> 
> Coach K does not want his players lifting so it will be awfully hard for him to gain strength at Duke.


What???

If anything, Coach K has gotten criticism for insisting his players lift too much and put on too much weight.

He had Boozer playing at 285, while he's now at a more natural weight for him of 258.

Burgess's dad wouldn't shut up about how Coach K had his son put on too much weight and it supposedly ruined Chris' career.

How about Dunleavy's ridiculous body development over three years? Or Shav Randolph's? Or Nick Horvath's? All these guys entered Duke as 6'10 stick figures.

Duke has a very strong track record of players developing their bodies, and it makes sense when you understand that they have one of the best training staffs in all of college.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

It's widely known that Johnny Dawkins is the man behind that great workout program at Duke. I am not going to lie, Duke players do come in physically prepared for the NBA, but they struggle with the mental approach to the NBA game because of the Fist. They are almost too team oriented when they get in because they forget that you have to be able to make offense for yourself first.


----------



## MiSTa iBN (Jun 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MemphisX</b>!
> 
> 
> What the frick?!? Duke has been getting good players for at least 25 years.
> ...



Good list, but no one on it had superstar like ability except for Jay Williams, who was rated #1 by most sites, Elton Brand whom was rated #1 by most sites, and Grant Hill. Michael Thompson, Casey Sanders, Daniel Ewing, Dockery, Redick, Dunleavy Jr..etc..weren't ahead of the class, they were all rated below the top 15. The last guy who was ranked ahead of the class for Duke was Luol Deng...So like I said, Duke hasn't been getting the elite players in the high school recruiting scene until the Elton Brand class. Chris Duhon won the best player of the year award, but he wasn't rated in the top 5 in most sites. If Duke got Livingston he'd be a hell of a player since he's probably the best talent in this entire draft. Anyway, I think I've made my point....hopefully


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MiSTa iBN</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Good list, but no one on it had superstar like ability except for Jay Williams, who was rated #1 by most sites, Elton Brand whom was rated #1 by most sites, and Grant Hill. Michael Thompson, Casey Sanders, Daniel Ewing, Dockery, Redick, Dunleavy Jr..etc..weren't ahead of the class, they were all rated below the top 15. The last guy who was ranked ahead of the class for Duke was Luol Deng...So like I said, Duke hasn't been getting the elite players in the high school recruiting scene until the Elton Brand class. Chris Duhon won the best player of the year award, but he wasn't rated in the top 5 in most sites. If Duke got Livingston he'd be a hell of a player since he's probably the best talent in this entire draft. Anyway, I think I've made my point....hopefully


danny ferry was a player considered to have superstar ability as was christian laetner , they just didn't pan out in the pro's, kobe if he had gone to college was headed to duke like grant hill did whom i think all will say had superstar ability

duke consistenly gets among the best recruiting classes in the country and their fair share of all americans people trot out lists like they expected Duke to get the top 3 players every year who are going to college , duke does as well in recruiting as any team in the country as their aren't many teams that have sent out more lottery picks than the blue devils


----------



## MiSTa iBN (Jun 16, 2002)

I didn't say that they didn't get the best recruiting classes man, hell everyone knows that they do, they just don't get the VERY best player in that class, and didn't until Elton Brand who's doing well in the NBA.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MiSTa iBN</b>!
> I didn't say that they didn't get the best recruiting classes man, hell everyone knows that they do, they just don't get the VERY best player in that class, and didn't until Elton Brand who's doing well in the NBA.


they get that player otfen enough ...heck look at the thread you are on . isn't he(deng) considered the best fresham prospect in the country?

the truly elite player doesn't come to duke ...or anyone , they go pro now ...as well they should if you ask me.


----------



## MiSTa iBN (Jun 16, 2002)

Man, lol, you're not understanding my argument, and probably the only one that isn't since you're still trying to argue. Guys were dissing Duke, saying that Duke couldn't develop talent for the NBA, but my counter argument was that Duke didn't start getting the big time one on one player until Elton Brand, then it was Jay Williams, then it was Luol Deng, they've been getting all americans, but they weren't rated as high as those I just named. Alot of them not even top 10 players, even this year such as DeMarcus Nelson, whom's an All American, but isn't even rated in the top 20 on some sites. So when he goes pro, and is a bench player guys will say they don't know how to develop talent. (I do think he's a talent, but that's another story) You brought up Danny Ferry, but was he really good enough to make the jump from preps to pros? lol, was he that kind of talent? There wasn't any internet then, so I don't know how high the dude was rated, all I know is that he was an All American. Shaun Livingston was arguably the best talent Coach K would've got, and has the one on one ability, athleticism and skills to make it on the next level. Rated only behind Dwight Howard as the best high schooler, Duke didn't get players like that until what class? lol...For people saying Duke doesn't develop talent are haters, Coach K gets the best out of his players abilities, that's why they're successful. Cleveland drafted Trajan Langdon, did people really see this guy having a good one on one game to be picked that high? He could shoot, but he wasn't that talented to be picked that high. Same with William Avery, not having point guard skills (whom wasn't an All American) and didn't have a good left hand and wasn't a great defender. **ck this I gotta go to work, i'll see ya


----------

