# Question: Are Oden and Durant really *that* good?



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Disclaimer: I consider it a miserable ****ing chore to watch a college basketball game from start to finish. I will watch a meaningless Sixers-Blazers game instead of a Duke-UNC matchup with the ACC championship on the line. It didn't always used to be this way, but imo early entry has made the college game a shadow of what it was when I was growing up. NCAA success doesn't translate into NBA success as reliably as it once did. And (despite my user name) I don't have a Div I alma mater to root for.

However, in the last 2-3 weeks, I've tried to make a point of watching lots of Durant and Oden, and I am starting to think that they are more like once-every-five-year kinds of players, not once-in-a-generation type players. 

In other words, maybe Oden is more Alonzo Mourning or Shawn Kemp than he is Shaq or Wilt. And maybe Durant is more like a cross between Glen Rice and Robert Parish than he is a cross between Larry Bird and Hakeem Olajuwon. I have absolutely no doubt that both players are going to have excellent NBA careers. I just don't know that they are mortal locks like Magic and Bird and Kareem and Shaq and that sort of player.

Why am I posting this? In the context of our trading the Knicks pick, and whether or not it's considered untouchable. I could see holding onto it at any cost, even if we end up with a 3% chance of moving to 1-2, if I felt Oden and Durant were *that* good. But I don't feel that way, and I'd feel ill if it was West's demand for the Knicks' pick that ended up dashing a reasonable trade for Gasol.

Any thoughts? Am I nuts? Can the teams that draft Oden and Durant all but have their owners' fingers fitted for championship rings?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

It seems to me that to match Gasol's output, the bar is set pretty high. Is there guarantee these guys will ever be as good? It sure looks like they may, but what is the price? 3 years of development? (Look at Kirk, a 4-year college player in a winning system even). 

Seems to me you take the sure thing, which is Gasol. Like you would take the sure thing in Brand instead of trading him for some potential guy that the scouts were drooling over.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Whoever drafts these two, if they build around them the RIGHT way, have very good chances at at ring one day.

They are THAT good, and getting BETTER.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

It's not like it's a one for one trade of a sure thing Gasol for an iffy pick if its going for Gasol along with Deng or Gordon though.

Would you trade a young, motivated, drug-free Shawn Kemp (Oden looks a lot more like Moses Malone to me, by the way, right down to being born aged 30 years old) and Deng (who is Deng? Adrian Dantley?) for Gasol (who is Gasol? A bigger, pre-inuries Toni Kukoc?).


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

The one thing I have not liked about our team, is we cannot train big men. We failed to put the right coaching staff around Eddy and Tyson to teach them the fundamentals. While if we get Oden, I feel he has the desire to become great, but we really need to invest in a big man's coach a la Kareem and Bynum. 

Whoever gets one of these two, like ROY mentioned, if trained properly, will dominate the NBA in no time. It's a matter of going to a team with the right fit. If we do not give up the pick and get lucky, I hope Skiles would be more willing to play these guys than our current rookies.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

while i don't share the same enmity for watching college hoops as the author, i'm in total agreement that the exodus to the pros by 1st and 2nd year players has damaged the college game irreparably.

that stated, it's truly a gamble of great proportions to believe that either player, while guaranteed to be very good pro players, will extrapolate into the bird/magic/russel categories. my belief is the early entry to the pros will stunt their development as players and as men.

oden/durant's learning curves may be swift, but all one has to do is look at the career to date of lebron james. a great player indeed, but his experience (or lack thereof) only being what's he's been exposed to at the pro level is being slowed by organizational misfires, coaching changes, player changes (and yearly occurences at the pro level), all things he has no control over while the fans expect nothing less than a trip to the ECF. realistic or unrealistic, if durant and oden leave after one year, particularly IF either make the NCAA finals or win the championship, the expectations will be the same.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> It's not like it's a one for one trade of a sure thing Gasol for an iffy pick if its going for Gasol along with Deng or Gordon though.
> 
> Would you trade a young, motivated, drug-free Shawn Kemp (Oden looks a lot more like Moses Malone to me, by the way, right down to being born aged 30 years old) and Deng (who is Deng? Adrian Dantley?) for Gasol (who is Gasol? A bigger, pre-inuries Toni Kukoc?).


I wouldn't do those trades in a vacuum, but I would do them if I thought that it was going to take a few years for the drug-free Shawn Kemp/Moses Malone to learn the NBA ropes (which I think is almost inarguably the case with Durant), and that bringing in the bigger, pre-injuries Toni Kukoc would give my team a pretty good shot at winning a few rings before a Magic Johnson/Michael Jordan hybrid and the next Shaq started to dominate my conference.

:smile:

Seriously, that's also sort of informing my thought process. I think we're sort of stuck between two time pressures -- one is Ben Wallace's career running down, the other is LeBron and Dwight Howard (who I would trade the rights to Oden or Durant for in a nanosecond) hitting their peaks and making the road out of the east nigh on impossible for anyone else.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I don't care if they are once in a generation players or not. I'd include that Knicks pick unprotected for Gasol regardless. 

The odds of getting either vs. how good and young I already know Gasol is for a fact via provable criteria, render it a no brainer in my book.

If that pick is included, unprotected, in a reasonable package for Gasol and the pick turns into Greg Oden by some freak occurence, you won't ever, never, EVER hear me express a regret. 

If someone said to me "here is $500,000 - but you have a 3% chance at $1 million" I'd be depositing $500,000 in the bank later that afternoon. And if they showed me that I would have gotten the $1 million, I'd say "oh well" and go buy a Benz anyway.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

In my opinion these are the players in the last ten drafts who have been drooled over in a similar fashion to Oden and Durant: LeBron, Darko, Melo, Yao, Duncan. That's a pretty strong group and I can't think of too many more players to add. Maybe you can throw in Jay Williams but I can't think of too many more players. 

Personally, I'm more worried that the Knicks have some sort of a free fall after the deadline than I am about the current 5% chance of the NY pick turning into one of the top two coming back to haunt us. Either way though, it appears any suggestion that the pick cannot be protected has been abandoned so it just seems there's no reason not to take the risk averse path here. We're not going to entice the Grizzlies into making a deal because of the 5% odds so there's no reason not to play it safe when there's so much on the line.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> If someone said to me "here is $500,000 - but you have a 3% chance at $1 million" I'd be depositing $500,000 in the bank later that afternoon. And if they showed me that I would have gotten the $1 million, I'd say "oh well" and go buy a Benz anyway.


But that assumes that losing out on a 3% chance is a deal breaker for the Grizzlies.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

I think Durant is a cross between Rashard Lewis and Bosh. He may not appear to have an NBA position yet, but man is he going to get to that line.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> But that assumes that losing out on a 3% chance is a deal breaker for the Grizzlies.


The Grizzlies would already have great odds at 1-2 by dint of their own record. I think they would covet the Knicks' pick not because of the very incremental improvement it would give them in landing those players, but because trading Gasol signals a gut rebuild, and they want another pick in a good draft.

I'm also curious to know what you see in the Knicks that makes you believe they're about to head into a free fall. I don't think they're about to go nuts and make a run at the playoffs, either, but I see no signs at all to suggest that they're prone to unravel. And unlike last year, their coach isn't actively trying to sabotage them. 

They're a 35-win team.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> I think Durant is a cross between Rashard Lewis and Bosh. He may not appear to have an NBA position yet, but man is he going to get to that line.


That's a good comparison.

The thing that worries me about Durant is his body. I think his athleticism has been vastly oversold, and I'm not sure he has the frame to put on a lot more bulk.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Great thread, Scott.


Was Oden, coming out of high school, any less lauded than LeBron? He strikes me as that similar "sure thing" that everyone has seen coming a mile away.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> The Grizzlies would already have great odds at 1-2 by dint of their own record. I think they would covet the Knicks' pick not because of the very incremental improvement it would give them in landing those players, but because trading Gasol signals a gut rebuild, and they want another pick in a good draft.


Nice post.

The Grizz have lots of problems. Gasol is their franchise player, but with the second-lowest attendance in the league, he's clearly not proven to be a very effective "hook" for fans. It's reported that the franchise is on the block and West looks like he's ready to put on his retirement pajamas.

From a marketing standpoint, they need to re-shape the inherent drama of the Grizz product to their fans. Getting 3 young, exciting players (1 from the Bulls and 2 lottery picks) to add to Rudy Gay would be an exciting (not to mention cost-effective) selling proposition.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

JeremyB0001 said:


> But that assumes that losing out on a 3% chance is a deal breaker for the Grizzlies.


I don't follow. 

I'm only looking at it from what I'd do if I were Paxson.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Great thread idea. 

I've gone to a few Texas games this season. Durant is incredible, but I'm not sure he'll be better than, say, Tracy McGrady. It's been a long time since a truly great wing player or big man has been in the NCAA -- maybe 10 years? Garnett started the trend in 1995. Kobe in 1996, Duncan and McGrady in 1997. 

Oden and Durant are being overhyped as a result, but I still think they are going to be awesome players worth the risk.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

rwj333 said:


> Great thread idea.
> 
> I've gone to a few Texas games this season. Durant is incredible, but I'm not sure he'll be better than, say, Tracy McGrady. It's been a long time since a truly great wing player or big man has been in the NCAA -- maybe 10 years?


Carmelo Anthony is one that jumps to mind and I'm sure there are others. But you are certainly correct as a general matter.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Carmelo Anthony is one that jumps to mind and I'm sure there are others. But you are certainly correct as a general matter.


DENG!,DENG! DENG :biggrin:


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

I attend OSU, and I'm still not sure where quite to peg Greg Oden at the moment.

His defense should be NBA ready, and by year two, he should be able to anchor a defense like Alonzo Mourning, Ben Wallace, etc.

On offense, he's clearly lacking polish at the moment, but when people critique his scoring ability, I think they often forget one thing: _he's playing with one hand._ And it's his off one to boot, so it's hard to say how good he'll be once he can use both of them.

In his first year, I think he'll be a shoe in to average at least 10-12 points a game the way Dwight Howard and Amare did, and perhaps a little bit more, but I don't think his offensive game is as developed as someone like Spencer Hawes, for example, even though he'll probably have an easier time scoring than him since he's such a superior physical specimen.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I feel that Greg Oden is really good, but I have my doubts about how good hes going to be. He will by default be a top 5 NBA Center just because there arent to many legit ones in the league, but will he be a game changer uhh I dont see it right now. 

As for Durant I think this guy will be a Superstar and He will easily win Rookie of the year in his first year in the NBA. I have never seen a kid his size dominate the college game with so many different scoring abilities, he can shoot the 3, take it to the basket, post up, hes got a hook shot, hes got amazing athletic ability and he isnt that bad of a passer either! Hes one of those once in a decade player.

Also this is a bit too early but keep an eye out for Derrick Rose next year who is looking like the next MJ.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> The Grizzlies would already have great odds at 1-2 by dint of their own record. I think they would covet the Knicks' pick not because of the very incremental improvement it would give them in landing those players, but because trading Gasol signals a gut rebuild, and they want another pick in a good draft.
> 
> I'm also curious to know what you see in the Knicks that makes you believe they're about to head into a free fall. I don't think they're about to go nuts and make a run at the playoffs, either, but I see no signs at all to suggest that they're prone to unravel. And unlike last year, their coach isn't actively trying to sabotage them.
> 
> They're a 35-win team.


Right. So I don't really see why it's an issue then if the Grizzlies have no problem with top 2 protection on the pick.

I don't see anything that makes me think the Knicks will plummet, I'm just very risk averse. It's not that uncommon for a good team to win 8 out of 10 or a bad team to lose 8 out of 10. There's also the possibility that someone like Curry goes down with an injury and the team struggles.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't follow.
> 
> I'm only looking at it from what I'd do if I were Paxson.


I might not have read the analogy as closely as I should. I'm still not really sure what you have to do for your chance at the $1 million. The way I interpreted it though, the point was that you wouldn't risk losing the $500,000 for a chance at the million (ie you can keep your $500,000 or have the prize that's inside the mystery box). My point is if Gasol is the 500k and the chance at a million is the chance at Oden/Durant then you're assuming that by insisting that by refusing to move the pick without protection Pax is foregoing or at least risking his chance of getting the $500,000 (Gasol). As I said in my other post I can't imagine losing out on a 3 or 5% chance of the top two picks would be a deal breaker for Memphis. I find this thread interesting but in some ways pointless because I can't envision a scenario where the Bulls are forced to choose between parting with an unprotected NY pick and getting Gasol.

Edit: I'm also still mystified by this idea that as long as a move improves the team it is irrelevant whether or not the team could have been improved more. If there's a situation where you have a 45 win deal and one deal makes you a 55 win team while another deal that makes a 60 win team and you take the 55 win deal you're missing out on an opportunity to make your team as good as possible which I've always understood to be the ultimate goal. The entire issue is how do you make sure you don't miss out on the 55 win deal while chasing the 60 win deal. That's a critical issue but there's a lot of nuance that goes into it. It's not black and white where you take the 55 win deal no matter what because it improves the team. If you have a 97% chance of getting the 60 win deal and a 100% chance of netting the 55 win deal, you take the risk because there's a small risk and a huge payoff.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Right. So I don't really see why it's an issue then if the Grizzlies have no problem with top 2 protection on the pick.


But we can't protect the pick, or so I've been told. Strenuously and repeatedly.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> In other words, maybe Oden is more Alonzo Mourning or Shawn Kemp than he is Shaq or Wilt. And maybe Durant is more like a cross between Glen Rice and Robert Parish than he is a cross between Larry Bird and Hakeem Olajuwon. I have absolutely no doubt that both players are going to have excellent NBA careers. I just don't know that they are mortal locks like Magic and Bird and Kareem and Shaq and that sort of player.
> 
> Why am I posting this? In the context of our trading the Knicks pick, and whether or not it's considered untouchable. I could see holding onto it at any cost, even if we end up with a 3% chance of moving to 1-2, if I felt Oden and Durant were *that* good. But I don't feel that way, and I'd feel ill if it was West's demand for the Knicks' pick that ended up dashing a reasonable trade for Gasol.


I'm not sure if it makes a difference whether a player is once in a generation or a once-every-5 years player. Either way you figure to have one of the best five players in the game for the next decade. You're not too disappointed if you have a player of Melo's calliber and not Shaq's calliber. Either way the player changes the face of your franchise for the better. Oden or Durant would be substantially better for longer than Gasol, Gordon, or Deng.



ScottMay said:


> In other words, maybe Oden is more Alonzo Mourning or Shawn Kemp than he is Shaq or Wilt. And maybe Durant is more like a cross between Glen Rice and Robert Parish than he is a cross between Larry Bird and Hakeem Olajuwon.


I don't really care for either comparison. We look at Mourning and Kemp differently that we would have if their careers weren't cut drastically short by health and drugs respectively. They might otherwise be talked as guys with at least an outside chance of reaching the HOF. Kemp was done after he was 30 and Zo's last good season was at 29. I think guys like Robinson, Ewing, or Olajuwon. I doubt he'll be the defining player of his era like a Jordon, Bird, Magic, or arguably Shaq but he can be a top 5 or 10 player in the league for a decade. Personally, I find making comparisons by talking about a combination between two players confusing.



ScottMay said:


> Any thoughts? Am I nuts? Can the teams that draft Oden and Durant all but have their owners' fingers fitted for championship rings?


No. In all likelihood the teams that land Oden and Durant will be 30 win teams at best so there will be no supporting cast to surround them. You'll be looking at a situation like LeBron in Cleveland. If any of the top 10 or 15 teams in the league landed either one they could almost certainly fit themselves for a ring or two in the next few years. If the Bulls land Oden they can live without Gasol though the post offense will probably only be 12-14 PPG early on. If they landed Durant they can trade Gordon or Deng for Gasol without losing much, it'd be the equivalent of getting Gasol for free.



DaBullz said:


> It seems to me that to match Gasol's output, the bar is set pretty high. Is there guarantee these guys will ever be as good? It sure looks like they may, but what is the price? 3 years of development? (Look at Kirk, a 4-year college player in a winning system even).


I don't if you want an accurate comparison you can't compare someone like Kirk or Tyrus who were maybe B+ level prospects, you have to compare them with other guys who were considered once-every-five-years can't miss prospects (e.g. LeBron, Iverson, Duncan, Ewing, Robinson, etc.). Look at the rookie seasons that LeBron, Melo, and Wade had. It's not uncommon for the most hyped guys to come in and make huge contributions immediately.



DaBullz said:


> It seems to me that to match Gasol's output, the bar is set pretty high. Is there guarantee these guys will ever be as good?


I think people often forget that there are never any guarantees with any player. A lot of times "unproven" players are lumped together in the same class and considered a gamble. This is a mistake because as I've mentioned, there's a world of difference between a guy who the scouts think is good one year and ends up beating out a few other players for the number one spot (Bogut, Bargnani, Olowokandi) and a player who is the consensus number 1 (or in this case the consensus 1-2) who scouts unanimously regard as one of the best players to enter the draft in years. There's still a risk with those players but it's much, much lower than usual. These players are generally already so ready to contribute when they enter the NBA that I'm not sure the chance of them failing to develop is that much greater than the chances of an All-Star calliber player suddenly failing to play at a high level (Zo, Kemp, Penny Hardaway, Marbury, SAR, McDyess, Grant Hill, Terell Brandon, Juwon Howard, Mashburn). Usually it's injuries, sometimes it's drugs, and sometimes it's inexplicable. There's always a risk though whether you're dealing with proven or unproven players.



BULLHITTER said:


> my belief is the early entry to the pros will stunt their development as players and as men.
> 
> oden/durant's learning curves may be swift, but all one has to do is look at the career to date of lebron james. a great player indeed, but his experience (or lack thereof) only being what's he's been exposed to at the pro level is being slowed by organizational misfires, coaching changes, player changes (and yearly occurences at the pro level), all things he has no control over while the fans expect nothing less than a trip to the ECF. realistic or unrealistic, if durant and oden leave after one year, particularly IF either make the NCAA finals or win the championship, the expectations will be the same.


These guys aren't even straight from high school players. There is an endless list of players to come out early and dominate the league. Jordan only played two years of college ball. I can't say I understand your point about LeBron. If there was one player in the league I could start a team with it would be him.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Also this is a bit too early but keep an eye out for Derrick Rose next year who is looking like the next MJ.


Uh, sure. 

The internet has made it significantly easier for high school prospects to gain fame and build a following. I doubt you would have heard of Derrick Rose or mentioned him in the same sentence as MJ 10 years ago. 

The internet is probably another element of the Durant and Oden hype, but I'm not sure how big a role it has played.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> But we can't protect the pick, or so I've been told. Strenuously and repeatedly.


I'm relatively certain that's false information. It's been coming up a ton in different threads though and not being resolved so I started a new thread.

http://www.basketballforum.com/showthread.php?p=4487619#post4487619


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Uh, sure.
> 
> The internet has made it significantly easier for high school prospects to gain fame and build a following. I doubt you would have heard of Derrick Rose or mentioned him in the same sentence as MJ 10 years ago.
> 
> The internet is probably another element of the Durant and Oden hype, but I'm not sure how big a role it has played.


Hype?

I am not sure why people are so resistant to the obvious. It is not hype. We are talking about two players,Durant and Oden, that have been remarkedly productive. Oden's numbers are very comparable to Shaq's as a Frosh and dwarfs other HOF big men. Durant's college production as a frosh is unmatched in recent (last 30 years?) NCAA play. Plus he is the prototypical player for the 'new' NBA.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Yeah, I was going to say, whats this Durant is all hype. I thought those 25 points 11 rebounds and 2 blocks were a good indiciation that he is quite the player.

Still, for the Bulls, this is a good draft to stay in.

Now say they stick at #9 (which I expect).

They have a 1/50 chance at #1. Thats not bad, much better than winning the jackpot on your average pulltab (and thats only like 55 dollars).

Then we get another chance at #2. Two chances at sure fire superstars is great.

Now say we stick at #9, we still may be able to get a guy like Hasheem Thabeet there, AKA Dikembe Mutumbo.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Durant: if you watch him play, how can you not say that this kid is insanely talented? He shows flashes of KG. In my opinion, a player's "upside" is measured by his greatest moments... those are the points that mark a ceiling. For all the criticism about his body and being able to bang in the post, Durant, a few weeks ago, had three or four consecutive blocks in the paint on a player that was trying to go up strong. In the same POSSESSION.

You are talking about Kevin Durant like he's Tyrus Thomas. He's not. He's a heady, extremely quick-learning player that is emphasizing his defense but completely having his way against any college team. As Bill Simmons recently pointed out, this won't often get you the W if you don't have good support and you don't have a good coaching scheme. Durant is NOT LaMarcus Aldridge and they shouldn't treat him as such.

Make the comparison to RECENT collegiate talent. Watch Durant play, and forget about NBA aspirations for a second; make the comparison on the same stage as others.

IMO, in terms of collegiate talent and ability:

Durant >> Marvin Williams
Durant >> Rudy Gay
Durant >> Andre Iguodala
Durant >> Luol Deng
Durant >>> Adam Morrison
and Durant > Carmelo Anthony
and Durant > Dwyane Wade

On the same stage as those guys.

He's got more athleticism, physical tools, and domination at the same level as all those other guys, AND he shows a mental component to his game that any good NBA coach could cultivate into an incredible basketball player.

Once in a generation? I don't know about that. It's POSSIBLE. But I'd say that Durant is a lock on being a top-4 player at his position (whatever that ends up being), barring injury, within his first two years in the league. He's in that 2003 calibre of player, the LeBron/Wade/Carmelo.

Maybe you think his stats are inflated because his team's not that great and he's the clear superstar. I think that if you watch him play, in his finest moments for stretches of 10-12 minutes on the court, his talent is WAY better than his 25/11/1.6/1.8 reveal. Occasionally it DOES show up in the stat line: 37 pts, 23 rebounds, 3 steals and a block against Texas Tech a few weeks back.

I don't argue with the logic that's being put on display in this thread, for the most part, but I think some raving about Durant is in order. It's impossible to know what makes a "once in a generation" player, but I'd be pretty shocked if Durant isn't one of the best players at his position. It's purely subjective, but I'm surprised there's not more agreement on this. Durant is playing in extremely dominant fashion and he's not even a fraction of the way through his basketball development.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> Hype?
> 
> I am not sure why people are so resistant to the obvious. It is not hype. We are talking about two players,Durant and Oden, that have been remarkedly productive. Oden's numbers are very comparable to Shaq's as a Frosh and dwarfs other HOF big men. Durant's college production as a frosh is unmatched in recent (last 30 years?) NCAA play. Plus he is the prototypical player for the 'new' NBA.


Durant (I haven't watched much of Oden) seems like a once-in-5-years guy to me. I think he's going to be a fantastic player well worth tanking for. Some of the new stories I've read, however, are building him up to the level of superstar. And I'm not sure he's going to be that. I'm not sure he'll be as good as McGrady or Bryant. Carmelo Anthony had a productive freshman season, too, but I don't remember this level of acclaim. 

It's subjective, and if you asked me I probably couldn't point to one specific new story. That's just the impression I get.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

If we get #1, I think we have to go ahead, and get Durant. He's simply better than Oden. Oden's a nice talent and all, but I doubt he will be one of the best of all time, he'll be one of the best of his generation, but not of all time. I think Durant could be the best player ever to step onto the NBA court, I just don't see that from Oden.

Damn, then you have to just take Nocioni and Thomas, and trade them for a center (Pau Gasol maybe....)

But dayumn!

PG-Kirk Hinrich
SG-Ben Gordon
F-Kevin Durant
F-Luol Deng

Now thats a sexy lineup there, we will rule the NBA. Oden would be a good constellation prize if we do end up with #2 though, or heck, maybe the team picking #1 is retarded and picks Oden there.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I still think Oden is going to be one scary mofo IF he refines his skillsets. He is physically a beast, but watching him play, I see lots of fundamental mistakes and he occasionally looks lost, even there at the college level. Of course, then he runs off a string of beastly moves that keeps everyone intrigued. 

So, no, I don't think he is an absolute sure thing as a Legends of the Game time player, but he could be that and I think at worst he'll be an above average true center. Which ain't bad in and of itself. And if he DOES get better footword, a better read on rebounds, better spacing, etc. he very well COULD be Legends of the Game-worthy.

Durant is long and athletic and I think has a little less of a learning curve to overcome than Oden.

I certainly think he also has some Legends of the Game potential, but he has a long way to go before we can talk seriously about that. Again, I think he is, at worst, a hellova pro. 

Both players are worthy of the #1/#2 hype.

I think both will be ready to help right out of the box.

I think Oden has a steeper learning curve, but given the premium on big men, and the fact that I don't think the curve is all THAT huge (ie I don't think he will be frustrating to watch his hot/cold skillset all the way through and beyond his rookie contract, I think he will be able to sort things out in a season or so) I would still take Greg #1 over Kevin.

If there is a LEGIT shot at getting either, I remain convinced that the Knicks picks remains invaluable. With the deep draft, I still think the Knicks pick is pure gold, even if it is mid to late lottery.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Not sure how LeBron becomes Magic/MJ and Durant is only RashadLewis\Parish. What is that?

I see Durant as having a reasonable shot as being as good as LeBron. His vision isn't as good, but his D should be better and his shot more pure. Won't have the bulk, but has more length.

FWIW, Durrant was an absolute rail a year ago and has put on a lot of muscle last summer. 

--------------------------------------------------------------

As for Oden, I haven't seen him as much, but a bigger Mourning that can pass out of a double team or a Kemp that doesn't use blow is a multiple championship centerpiece kinda guy.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Showtyme said:


> Durant: if you watch him play, how can you not say that this kid is insanely talented? He shows flashes of KG. In my opinion, a player's "upside" is measured by his greatest moments... those are the points that mark a ceiling. For all the criticism about his body and being able to bang in the post, Durant, a few weeks ago, had three or four consecutive blocks in the paint on a player that was trying to go up strong. In the same POSSESSION.


Good post. Something else to remember is that he doesn't necessarily _need _to improve in the post to be a very good player considering that most scouts think he can play the two in the NBA.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

rwj333 said:


> Durant (I haven't watched much of Oden) seems like a once-in-5-years guy to me. I think he's going to be a fantastic player well worth tanking for. Some of the new stories I've read, however, are building him up to the level of superstar. And I'm not sure he's going to be that. I'm not sure he'll be as good as McGrady or Bryant. Carmelo Anthony had a productive freshman season, too, but I don't remember this level of acclaim.
> 
> It's subjective, and if you asked me I probably couldn't point to one specific new story. That's just the impression I get.


That likely depends on your definition of a superstar. If you think he can be better than Carmelo that would indicate that we agree he has a good chance to be a top 10 player in the league. Personally, I would define that as being a superstar.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Mebarak said:


> If we get #1, I think we have to go ahead, and get Durant. He's simply better than Oden.


Durant's remarkable production is overshadowing Oden. In any other year people would be amazed that Oden performed so well as a freshman playing without full use of his right (main) hand. With college players, you have to consider how well their game will translate to the NBA. Durant should translate very well but Oden will translate brilliantly. I think a consensus is starting to form that the two are close enough that if one fills a need you have much better than the other, you go with that player. Oden fills a bigger need for the Bulls than Durant who is more of a 2 or 3.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I don't watch very much college basketball, so I rarely have anything to contribute to these discussions -- particularly comparative analyses of Durant vs Oden.

But I did catch the Ohio State - Penn State game last night, and spend all of my time watching Oden's every move on both ends of the floor (sort of consciousness isolation camera). 

What my NBA-conditioned eyes saw was a top NBA center. Oden may have a bit of a learning curve when he gets to the NBA, but he's got everything you want from a low post player, except maybe an outside shot (which he doesn't really need).

The interesting thing is that Penn State was able to neutralize him on the offensive end simply by playing a 2-3 zone with their biggest guy sticking with Oden all all times in the post. The zone collapsed on him every time he got the ball, and Ohio State usually was unable to expoit it.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth. Oden is pretty damn good, and will make someone a fine NBA center.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

rwj333 said:


> Uh, sure.
> 
> The internet has made it significantly easier for high school prospects to gain fame and build a following. I doubt you would have heard of Derrick Rose or mentioned him in the same sentence as MJ 10 years ago.
> 
> The internet is probably another element of the Durant and Oden hype, but I'm not sure how big a role it has played.


The difference here is that 10 years ago these kids aren’t being shown on TV. Have you seen Derrick Rose play? This guy is un-believable, his skill set right now makes him a top 5 pick if he came out this year, next year with one year of college under his belt he’s going to be a top 3 pick. He’s stronger then most PG's, his quicker than most PG's and he’s got that killer instinct that lacks in a lot of young B Ball players.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> The difference here is that 10 years ago these kids aren’t being shown on TV. Have you seen Derrick Rose play? This guy is un-believable, his skill set right now makes him a top 5 pick if he came out this year, next year with one year of college under his belt he’s going to be a top 3 pick. He’s stronger then most PG's, his quicker than most PG's and he’s got that killer instinct that lacks in a lot of young B Ball players.


TV, in and of itself is the main problem these players are over-hyped. i've seen rose numerous times, (being from chicago) and as recently as december 06. barring injury he'll be a pro, no doubt; he's got great athlecticism, decent shot, good handle, nice b-ball IQ. HOWEVER, he's NOT the be-all end all for young guys, and should never be mentioned in the same breath as a jordan. he's probably not even in the top 10 of all-time illinois ballers. 

while i think basketball has evolved since the late 70's-80's, i saw isaiah thomas, eddie johnson, jaime brandon, mark aguirre, et al, all the up to tony allen and the slothful eddy curry in high school, and rose is top notch to be sure, but he'll take his lumps in college and isn't a sure bet to dominate in my view. i was actually more impressed with eric gordon (who i've only seen once)than i've been with rose.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

rwj333 said:


> Durant (I haven't watched much of Oden) seems like a once-in-5-years guy to me. I think he's going to be a fantastic player well worth tanking for. Some of the new stories I've read, however, are building him up to the level of superstar. And I'm not sure he's going to be that. I'm not sure he'll be as good as McGrady or Bryant. Carmelo Anthony had a productive freshman season, too, but I don't remember this level of acclaim.
> 
> It's subjective, and if you asked me I probably couldn't point to one specific new story. That's just the impression I get.


Um...u don't think an 18 year old who averages 25 and 11 as a freshmen DOMINATING the college game will be a superstar?

get real man

he's already a star NOW and still has flaws in his game and iq on the court...dude is simply on ANOTHER level...carmelo wasn't as good as Durant in college....


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> TV, in and of itself is the main problem these players are over-hyped. i've seen rose numerous times, (being from chicago) and as recently as december 06. barring injury he'll be a pro, no doubt; he's got great athlecticism, decent shot, good handle, nice b-ball IQ. HOWEVER, he's NOT the be-all end all for young guys, and should never be mentioned in the same breath as a jordan. he's probably not even in the top 10 of all-time illinois ballers.
> 
> while i think basketball has evolved since the late 70's-80's, i saw isaiah thomas, eddie johnson, jaime brandon, mark aguirre, et al, all the up to tony allen and the slothful eddy curry in high school, and rose is top notch to be sure, but he'll take his lumps in college and isn't a sure bet to dominate in my view. i was actually more impressed with eric gordon (who i've only seen once)than i've been with rose.


Eric Gordon is a pure scorer, hes not a guy whos going to exel at getting the ball to his teamates, Rose on the other hand has made guys around him way better than they actually are. Iam not knocking on Gordon at all but Rose has the whole package and alot of GM's will take Rose over Gordon because Rose has a natural possition and Gordon is looking to be another scoring combo guard.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The ROY said:


> he's already a star NOW and still has flaws in his game and iq on the court...dude is simply on ANOTHER level...carmelo wasn't as good as Durant in college....


Wow calm down there a bit, Yeah Durant is putting up better numbers but Carmelo Anthony was on another level, Carmelo was bored with College Basketball and got his team to national championship. Durant is great but I dont think hes at the Carmelo Anthony level.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Wow calm down there a bit, Yeah Durant is putting up better numbers but Carmelo Anthony was on another level, Carmelo was bored with College Basketball and got his team to national championship. Durant is great but I dont think hes at the Carmelo Anthony level.


Your right, he's not at Carmelo's level, he's above it.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Mebarak said:


> Your right, he's not at Carmelo's level, he's above it.


No, not yet atleast.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

San Jose Mercury -
The father of Kevin Durant has said that he may return to the University of Texas for his sophomore season.

"There's a chance he would come back to Texas next year," said Durant's father, Wayne Pratt. "Kevin is so young. There's not a rush for him to go to the NBA. Right now, we're not even talking about that. We're talking about winning the Big 12, and Kevin continuing to progress academically."


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Mebarak said:


> San Jose Mercury -
> The father of Kevin Durant has said that he may return to the University of Texas for his sophomore season.
> 
> "There's a chance he would come back to Texas next year," said Durant's father, Wayne Pratt. "Kevin is so young. There's not a rush for him to go to the NBA. Right now, we're not even talking about that. We're talking about winning the Big 12, and Kevin continuing to progress academically."


1 serious injury and the kids future goes down the toilet. Just because Durant goes to the NBA doesnt mean that he cant continue his education.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> 1 serious injury and the kids future goes down the toilet. Just because Durant goes to the NBA doesnt mean that he cant continue his education.


He might want to be some college basketball legend, and average like 50 points a game or something. You never know.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Bump.

We can't discuss Oden, obviously, and we're only 19 games into what might be a 19-year career for Durant. But even though I was a Durant skeptic, I didn't think things were going to go THIS poorly for him:

-- 13.94 PER

-- 74% of Durant's FGAs are jumpers, and he's converting at an atrocious .380 eFG.

-- Eye-poppingly bad on-off numbers. The Sonics are a +5.0 with him off the court, which is an astonishing number for a 4-15 team in any context, and -13.6 with him on.

-- A 6.9 rebound rate, tied with DeShawn Stevenson for 121st in the league and a mere tenth of a point behind Ricky Davis (?).

-- And, finally, the number that just killed me. The guy who Bill Simmons said had the potential to be the best overall offensive talent in the history of the NBA is currently sporting a 6.9 assist ratio. That's good for 147th in the league, right behind Noce and Mikki Moore.

Sure, the Sonics' overall talent level is on a par with the 1999-2001 Bulls. But if Durant is the guy his press clippings would lead you to believe, he's got to do better than this. Doesn't he?


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Bump.
> 
> We can't discuss Oden, obviously, and we're only 19 games into what might be a 19-year career for Durant. But even though I was a Durant skeptic, I didn't think things were going to go THIS poorly for him:
> 
> ...


Last night, against the Bucks, Durant showed why he's going to be very good in this league. He also showed why he isn't yet doing better. He did some stupid things out there like hitting a three-pointer and pounding his chest to the Bucks bench only to come back down and shoot an air ball when more open then he would have been if he'd been taking a free throw.

He doesn't appear to be strong physically, and that may be part of his current problems.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

He's gonna be great...definintely going through growing pains so far though...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Bump.
> 
> We can't discuss Oden, obviously, and we're only 19 games into what might be a 19-year career for Durant. But even though I was a Durant skeptic, I didn't think things were going to go THIS poorly for him:


How about that game 20? You are just the tonic the kid needs. 

p.s. What PER after 19 games would the kid need to not be a disappointment to you?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Anyone else notice how the trade I mentioned (Nocioni and Thomas for Gasol) is cropping up right now in the Spanish Media..........


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Durant is a wing player that is tall. He is also primarily a jump shooter. He's gonna be great, but he really doesn't have much versatility to his game. However, he'll still avg. close to 30 ppg (if not more), once he learns the ropes. Will he do anything else? Probably not.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> Anyone else notice how the trade I mentioned (Nocioni and Thomas for Gasol) is cropping up right now in the Spanish Media..........


The Spanish media = The NY Post = Sam Smith


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

HKF said:


> Durant is a wing player that is tall. He is also primarily a jump shooter. He's gonna be great, but he really doesn't have much versatility to his game. However, he'll still avg. close to 30 ppg (if not more), once he learns the ropes. Will he do anything else? Probably not.


30 ppg and some boards and some D sounds pretty good


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> 30 ppg and some boards and some D sounds pretty good


No doubt, but you're going to have to build a great team around him and then hope if his numbers don't lead to wins, that he takes less money (or have an owner that doesn't care about the luxury tax).


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> How about that game 20? You are just the tonic the kid needs.
> 
> p.s. What PER after 19 games would the kid need to not be a disappointment to you?


He reverted to the mean in game 21, though.

It's tough for me to gauge where he ought to be statistically. So far, it seems to me he's allowed to use unlimited possessions and play no defense without consequence for arguably the worst team in the league (of course, that can work both ways -- Seattle's opponents have little else to worry about). A sub-14 would be sort of awful, though, I think.

Again, I'll acknowledge that he has a fantastic amount of skill for a guy his size. I think the discussion should probably be about his athleticism. I think it's average at best, and there's not much potential for improvement.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

average athleticism? not very versitile?

please...

The kid is a BEAST and is just getting started

Funny how people like to sum up someone's game after seeing them in a very limited amount of games.

Once he learns the game, he'll be unstoppable, it's just a matter of time


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It's tough for me to gauge where he ought to be statistically. So far, it seems to me he's allowed to use unlimited possessions and play no defense without consequence for arguably the worst team in the league (of course, that can work both ways -- Seattle's opponents have little else to worry about). A sub-14 would be sort of awful, though, I think.


I have seen Holligner run the same criticism at Durant, so you are not alone, but I think it's WAAAAYYY premature. Most all rookies play better later in the year. So a 13 or 14 or 15 PER could end up being quite a too higher. Even if it doesn't, KG and Kobe had PERs of 15.8 and 14.4 in their rookie years. (Note: of course, neither had any pro ball and Kobe was younger)



ScottMay said:


> Again, I'll acknowledge that he has a fantastic amount of skill for a guy his size. I think the discussion should probably be about his athleticism. I think it's average at best, and there's not much potential for improvement.


Durant is playing the 2. Doesn't that speak to some serious athleticism? His hand/eye coordination and his ability to get any shot off with his footwork and handles are very special for his size IMHO. 

What athleticism did Bird and Magic have? Granted, they both had unbelievable court vision, but I think the point stands. I definetly think Durant has a lot more physical advantages over his peers then someone like Chris Mullin even when you factor in that the league is more athletic.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I was torn when Portland got the first pick on who to take. I then decided Oden had to be the pick.

Durant is going to be all world in a very short time. His coach really needs to put him at SF though IMO for him to really be successful.

As for Oden. All I have to go on is pre season workouts against a Blazers team that aren't world beaters, but LaMarcus Aldridge said he absolutely destroyed everyone in camp on both offense and defense. Aldridge, who is a decent shot blocker, said Oden would get to about 1/2 the shots inside that Aldridge couldn't block. On offense Oden showed a lot of inside quickness and good footwork on his post moves. 

I think both.....barring injuries.....will be very good players in the league


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Any thoughts after last night's game? The kid has skillzzz. But we knew that I guess.


----------

