# rebelsun 2010 mock



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

So, here's my attempt at a mock. These are the picks I would make as each team, not as I think will happen in reality. This assumes no trades, although there will be several...


1. Washington - John Wall: no-brainer pick for any team; the most interesting point prospect since Iverson.

2. Philadelphia - Evan Turner: Favors' upside is intriguing, but Turner is extraordinarily polished and will be a plus-starter from the beginning; 09-10 PHI was one of those most underachieving teams I can remember; with Turner, there's no excuse to miss the playoffs

3. New Jersey - Derrick Favors: lot less risk and downside than Cousins and complements Lopez better; has some interesting upside; should be solid, or more, starter for a dozen years

4. Minnesota – DeMarcus Cousins: this is where things will get interesting; Cousins is a top-2 talent in the draft, but MIN is stocked in the paint; there will be significant interest in this pick to nab him; Johnson should be a decent starter, but they already have a SF in Brewer (who's not a true SG); if MIN does take Cousins, it would very likely piss off Darko enough to send him back to Europe for good; if they should end up keeping the pick, I would probably take Cousins and figure the rest out later; if Darko leaves, he leaves; worst case you have 3 very good post players to get 32mpg each; Kahn showed he wasn't afraid to take Rubio and figure it out later, so I don't think he'd be hesitant to take, by a goddamn country mile, the BPA here

5. Sacramento - Patrick Patterson: SAC already has 4 SFs under contract, so I'm wondering if they don't pass on Johnson, if available; Petrie isn't afraid to take his guy, though; the Kings are desperate for some toughness and finishing in the post, and Patterson might be the best solution; Udoh and Aldrich could be interesting here, too

6. Golden State - Wes Johnson: the Warriors need help everywhere but PG, and Wes is the most polished guy available; he's an athletic shooter and finisher and should fit very well in GS

7. Detroit - Greg Monroe: the Pistons are absolutely starving for any kind of post talent, and Greg's the best available by a decent margin; could make a very interesting 6'11 forward pairing of the future in he and Daye

8. LA Clippers – Ekpe Udoh: this is one that could go in any direction; they lack depth everywhere and could really be free to take the BPA; if I'm them, I would pass on Aminu here, to preserve that wide open SF spot for Bron; Griffin is injury-prone and there isn't a great-defending big on the roster, so I'll take Udoh's length, mobility, and defense to shore up the frontline

9. Utah - Ed Davis: Utah is desperate for post defense, and Davis gets the nod here over Aldrich; he can play both post positions, is effective in the post, and seems like he'd fit as a Sloan guy

10. Indiana - Willie Warren: easily the biggest surprise on the list; this IND roster has a pathetic level of talent in the backcourt; they need a lot help; Willie may have some issues, but he's also a natural scorer and can play both guard positions; Bird has positioned this thoroughly-mediocre roster for purgatory and needs to make some bold moves; this could be one of them

11. New Orleans - Daniel Orton: there are some interesting wings available, but NOH has plenty of wing depth while being thin in the post; Orton should be able to play some PF as well and could become the solid reserve post that neither Simmons or Armstrong was supposed to be; I like him a little more than Aldrich

12. Memphis – Avery Bradley: Aminu gets a long look here, but they already have plenty of SFs on the roster; PG depth is much more of a concern and Avery is probably the best available at the position; as Mayo can play some point, Avery's lack of said skills aren't much of an issue; Bledsoe gets consideration here, too

13. Toronto – Al-Farouq Aminu: this may surprise some that he falls this far, but I think he's the dreaded tweener combo-F in the worst sense; this is a situation where I actually like him because of the unorthodox positional needs of a Bargnani roster; they need rebounding and defense at SF, and Amini can provide this; Hedo apparently wants out and I'm not sure DeRozan or Weems are SFs; this would be excellent value for them; Damian James might be a sleeper pick here, as his game might complement Bargnani even better

14. Houston - Cole Aldrich: Morey seems to value defense and I wonder if he's produced an algorithm yet that concludes playing 6'6 Chuck Hayes at C will likely never win a playoff series; Anderson and Hill aren't real post defensive forces, and this gives them the best backup C, including a 63 y/o Mutombo, in the Yao era

15. Milwaukee - Paul George: their roster is pretty solid, without any massive weaknesses; Henry might be interesting here, but may be redundant next to Delfino; George is a very long and versatile wing that gives them a defensive look to complement all the shooters

16. Minnesota - Xavier Henry: this is why they shouldn't take Wes Johnson at #4, because an interesting SG, and not SF, should be available here; this is very solid value if he falls and gives them a legit starting SG to spread the D for all their post beasts; Rubio/Henry/Brewer/Jefferson/Cousins would be a very interesting potential future lineup; the additions of Henry and Cousins could entice Rubio to come over early

17. Chicago – Luke Babbitt: he might be redundant next to fellow combo-F James Johnson, but they do different things; this would especially be an interesting LeBron carrot, if he did indeed request the trade for his 'stretch 4' in Antawn

18. Miami - Eric Bledsoe: this just seems like a Miami pick - athletic and aggressive; Chalmers only has one year left and Bledsoe would provide needed depth at the point

19. Boston - James Anderson: BOS is facing a major lack of depth at the 2 and James is the most polished available; he's not a replacement for Ray Allen, but gives them decent insurance; Dominique Jones, who seems an awful lot like Tony Allen, might be interesting here as well

20. San Antonio - Elliot Williams: Finley is gone while Mason and Bogans are free agents, so I think they turn to SG; I think Williams is the most talented of this tier consisting of he, Jordan Crawford, and Dominique Jones

21. Oklahoma City - Kevin Seraphin: there doesn't seem to be a particular lack of depth anywhere; Collison isn't getting younger, while White and Mullens haven't been able to contribute yet; Seraphin gives them a beefier post off the bench, to complement pogostick Ibaka

22. Portland - Damion James: they're a little stocked on the wings, but I like James playing next to Aldridge; he's not a great rebounder for his size and having James on the floor would negate that immediately; if Rudy returns to Europe, Batum would play more 2 and Damian could split the SF time w/ Webster

23. Minnesota - Lance Stephenson: if they take Counsins and Henry, it solves a lot depth issues; I'll take Lance here to give them a strong, physical wing defender

24. Atlanta – Hassan Whiteside: he fell farther then I thought he would; the Hawks get a much needed talented post defender; he may not be able to help right away, but at least gives them some upside at the position; if available, I think he's too talented to fall any farther

25. Memphis - Devin Ebanks: Gay and Brewer are question marks going into the offseason and taking Ebanks would give them another interesting option at the wing; I'm not sure Carroll or Young are more than 10mpg NBA players; Ebanks has some work to do, but has some interesting upside as a long, Posey-like wing defender

26. Oklahoma City - Dominique Jones: OKC still doesn't have much weakness, so probably just go for BPA; Jones is a stat-stuffer that can play some point; seems like a Presti/Spurs-school pick

27. New Jersey - Stanley Robinson: the Nets don't have any glaring needs; they could use a SF defender - I'm not sure Terrence Williams can handle that full-time - so I'll take Robinson and his upside

28. Memphis - Jordan Crawford: after adding Ebanks and his wing defense, Crawford adds to backcourt depth and gives them a solid perimeter scorer

29. Orlando – Armon Johnson: Jason Williams isn't getting any younger and they need penetrators to create space for their shooters; Johnson is an elite athlete that is aggressive going to the hoop

30. Washington - Larry Sanders: Grunfeld has been enamored with long athletes in recent years, and Sanders may have the most upside left on the board; they need depth in the post and his length is enough to take him over Lawal, who may actually have a lower downside


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

I absolutely LOVE the Willie Warren to the Pacers pick, I actually had some discussions about that on the Pacers subforum. It just makes so much sense.

I would also be ecstatic if Whiteside fell to the Hawks, that would probably be a best cast scenario for me.

Although, again, I don't see where anybody is getting the idea that Bradley can log serious minutes at PG at the next level. He's shown nothing to give anybody that impression.


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

Patterson at #5 is a HOF horrible pick.


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

jmk said:


> Patterson at #5 is a HOF horrible pick.



lol, I'm not sure it's quite Shelden Williams at 5, but considering that the talent level drops off considerably after 4, I don't think it's as ridiculous as it may initially appear. There are comparisons of Patterson to Carl Landry, but Patrick is longer, much less careless with the ball, and is a better defender. He may not be outstanding at any one particular thing, but I'm not sure he has any real weakness, either. Considering their roster needs also, it's not unreasonable. Monroe is a Jason Thompson clone, they have a half dozen wings, and there isn't really a point worth taking this high, so it seems they go big. Udoh, Davis, and Aldrich are interesting, but I'm not sure any of them will be more than 12ppg scorers. After the top four, I think he has the highest overall downside of anyone remaining.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Sacremento should trade down. Anyone you want at five is likely to be there at ten...Of course everyone knows that so you're not getting much.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Playing it safe with a role player like Patterson at 5 is exactly what you'd be doing. It would be a bad pick the second it was made.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I'm just not going to take anyone like Patterson at five because of the money. He would probably be there at fifteen for roughly half the rookie payscale and if he isn't then someone just as good will be there. You take him at five in two years you're refusing his option because it'd pay him a lot more than he'd be worth.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

I'll take Orton in N.O. I'd also like to derail HKF's avatar and take Udoh too.


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

HKF said:


> Playing it safe with a role player like Patterson at 5 is exactly what you'd be doing. It would be a bad pick the second it was made.


Well, if role player is defined as a non-star, or at least a player having less than star potential, then there's an argument that essentially everyone after #4 is a role player. I think the only ones that may have that kind of upside are Warren and Whiteside, but each has concerns. 

If I was Petrie, I would welcome offers for the pick, but the point of this mock would be to take the guy I would take for each team if they had to keep the pick. I'm not sure I wouldn't have hesitation about paying any of the guys outside of the top-4 those 3rd and 4th year salaries for #5. Patterson, and those three other bigs, are the ones I'd have the least concern about being worth that money. I just like Pat the best for that roster.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I would easily take Jordan Crawford before a guy like Patterson and Crawford is not going anywhere near the top 5. I am not understanding where this Patterson love is coming from, but this dude is a top 15 pick at best. At #5, yes that would be Shelden Williams redux. The guy has zero upside.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Patterson's a lottery player, but 5 is just too high for him. I'd definitely take Pat over Johnson though. Funny how there's all this outrage over Patterson going that high, but Johnson consistently being mentioned as a top 7 pick raises no concerns. I dont see how Udoh works on the Clippers. Griffin is going to get a lot of minutes at the forward spot. So will Jordan and Kaman at the C position.

Speaking of bad lottery picks...Willie Warren at 10 is just terrible. Bradley's too high also.

P.s. the Nets really like Williams at the 2/3 spot...I doubt they pick Stanley Robinson.


----------



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

I think the Kings have their sights set on Monroe but we will see. I would expect the Wolves to take Wes Johnson because of Love/Jefferson but they might just go for Cousins anyway. Especially if there is any truth to the Randolph for Love rumors.


----------



## billfindlay10 (Jan 24, 2003)

If Aminu fals to the Raptors at 13 I would be pretty happy, his great length on the wing would help out. As mentioned Weems and DeRozan are more of 2's than they are 3's


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

HB said:


> Speaking of bad lottery picks...Willie Warren at 10 is just terrible.


Willie Warren was a surefire top 10 pick before this past season, and nobody really knows what scouts actually think of him. His stock could be anywhere. Besides, is there really a difference from an overall talent perspective between the players available at 10 compared to 20? At the very least, you have to see how great of a fit he would be on the Pacers.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Well if you look at Rebelsun's draft and the guys that are still on the board after Warren, you have to wonder why the Pacers would waste a lottery pick on a guy whose upside is so limited.

Orton, Aminu, Aldrich, Babbit, Henry, Anderson, Bledsoe. If they are so desperate about getting a point guard, go with Bledsoe. They want a scoring wing, take Henry or Anderson. Troy Murphy's most likely gone this season, so you want a big, there's Orton and Aldrich available. So many options besides picking Warren.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

HB said:


> Well if you look at Rebelsun's draft and the guys that are still on the board after Warren, you have to wonder why the Pacers would waste a lottery pick on a guy whose upside is so limited.
> 
> Orton, Aminu, Aldrich, Babbit, Henry, Anderson, Bledsoe. If they are so desperate about getting a point guard, go with Bledsoe. They want a scoring wing, take Henry or Anderson. Troy Murphy's most likely gone this season, so you want a big, there's Orton and Aldrich available. So many options besides picking Warren.


Three of the guys you mentioned play the same position as their best player, so though I agree their draft stock might be more valuable than Warren's is at the moment, they don't make basketball sense. 

You wouldn't draft Aldrich, because between him and Roy Hibbert neither can log any minutes at PF. Henry doesn't fit their offense because he couldn't create his own shot if his life depended on it. He would come in and seriously be Brandon Rush with better defense. And frankly, I don't really know that Bledsoe is a better NBA prospect than Willie Warren.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Henry couldn't fit their offense...yet Brandon Rush is on the Pacers team.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

So why exactly then do you think he's a better fit if there is already somebody on the team with a very similar skillset? Doesn't that seem a little redundant to you?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Because Henry is most likely a better player than Rush


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Not saying he isn't going to be a better player than Rush, but they still have very similar skillsets.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

HB said:


> Well if you look at Rebelsun's draft and the guys that are still on the board after Warren, you have to wonder why the Pacers would waste a lottery pick on a guy whose upside is so limited.
> 
> Orton, Aminu, Aldrich, Babbit, Henry, Anderson, Bledsoe. If they are so desperate about getting a point guard, go with Bledsoe. They want a scoring wing, take Henry or Anderson. Troy Murphy's most likely gone this season, so you want a big, there's Orton and Aldrich available. So many options besides picking Warren.


Warrens upside is probably better than all of those guys you listed tho, other than maybe Aminu or Babbit. He's coming off of a disappointing season, riddled w/ attitude & injury concerns, but he proved more as a freshman than any of those other guys. After some thought, I'd probably take Warren over Bradley right now as a prospect. I was disappointed with his measurables, but he's proven more on the court than alot of guys listed over him.

As for Patterson, I like him as an NBA player... I think he's a lotto player, but If you're going to reach for a big I would probably take a risk on Monroe or Davis @ 5, over him. Thta's just me, tho. Luke Babbit is really growing on me, with the more tape I see. I wouldn't be surprised to see him go higher than ppl expect.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Patterson at 5 is criminal. The Kings have Carl Landry already. If the Kings reach at 5, it might be fir Bradley who might fit next to Tyreke but I doubt they do something that radical.

All those Memphis picks...no way. Grizz want length on the perimeter and shooting.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

HB said:


> Well if you look at Rebelsun's draft and the guys that are still on the board after Warren, you have to wonder why the Pacers would waste a lottery pick on a guy whose upside is so limited.
> 
> Orton, Aminu, Aldrich, Babbit, Henry, Anderson, Bledsoe. If they are so desperate about getting a point guard, go with Bledsoe. They want a scoring wing, take Henry or Anderson. Troy Murphy's most likely gone this season, so you want a big, there's Orton and Aldrich available. So many options besides picking Warren.


i don't understand your upside comment. warren has huge upside. it could be argued that he has the most upside of any guard outside the top two. the problem is that he also is a huge risk and easily could end up out of the league after his first contract having contributed nothing.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

GregOden said:


> Although, again, I don't see where anybody is getting the idea that Bradley can log serious minutes at PG at the next level. He's shown nothing to give anybody that impression.


he has bradley going to memphis. that is one destination(along with portland, miami, the lakers) where bradley should be able to log serious minutes as a "pg" a couple years down the road. i don't think it's likely at all that he develops real pg caliber skills but alongside guys like mayo, roy, wade, or kobe that's not needed.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

End of it all five is just a bad spot to be. Almost anyone you go with there will either have a pretty high bust potential or no ceiling at all .If I couldn't trade the pick I'd go with a big man, they'll be tall no matter what. Really Udoh might well be the fifth best prospect in this draft. He has a definite skill set which will definitely translate into the NBA. Patterson has benchplayer written all over him. He doesn't have enough of anything to guarantee that he'll make an impact in the NBA. Question is whether or not he can even get minutes in a good big man rotation. The Kings already have Hilton Armstrong, do they need a doppelganger?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> i don't understand your upside comment. warren has huge upside. it could be argued that he has the most upside of any guard outside the top two. the problem is that he also is a huge risk and easily could end up out of the league after his first contract having contributed nothing.


What huge upside? Care to elaborate....I am sure he'll be a decent scorer, some have compared him to Arenas, but for one he's smaller and two he doesnt have playmaking abilities. So again why's a team that needs a point guard drafting a 2 guard with the 10th pick? If they want 2 guards Henry and Anderson will be on the board.

Lol at Diable's post, sometimes you make some really weird statements. Hilton Armstrong couldn't even hit a jumpshot in his final year in college, Patterson's post game in his first year in college was more advanced than what Hilton showed in his last year. Armstrong was a shot blocker, Patterson's a finesse scorer...yeah very similar...oh wait!


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Hilton Armstrong does nothing at the NBA level...What exactly are we claiming that Patterson will do in the NBA? Who can he guard? Do you think he's going to be a rebounder?...No you think he's going to shoot jumpshots? Is he Jason Kapono? He better be pretty close, because he's not good enough at anything else. His ceiling is the second big man off your bench unless your big man rotation is so bad you may as well play Nellyball.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

HB said:


> What huge upside? Care to elaborate....I am sure he'll be a decent scorer, some have compared him to Arenas, but for one he's smaller and two *he doesnt have playmaking abilities.* So again why's a team that needs a point guard drafting a 2 guard with the 10th pick? If they want 2 guards Henry and Anderson will be on the board.


That's where you're wrong, imo. I would dare say he has even better handles than Wall... In terms of measurables, he's not up to par... In terms of passing, vision, maybe not on Walls level either... But in terms everything else, he's arguably the best guard prospect aside from Turner/Wall... Probably shouldve skipped out on the combine like Bledsoe, if he was gona lay an egg like that. But Ingoring all the outlying factors... Kid can play ball a little bit


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Lol at better handles than Wall, do you see how fast Wall gets up and down the court from coast to coast? Or should I cue the vid of him taking the ball behind his back for that layup that was shown over and over again. Warren's team lacked a good point guard the two years he was there, he had every opportunity to show case those playmaking skills. And whatever you are smoking let me have some of it? Warren a better guard prospect than Henry and Anderson?


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

HB said:


> Lol at better handles than Wall, do you see how fast Wall gets up and down the court from coast to coast? Or should I cue the vid of him taking the ball behind his back for that layup that was shown over and over again. Warren's team lacked a good point guard the two years he was there, he had every opportunity to show case those playmaking skills. And whatever you are smoking let me have some of it? Warren a better guard prospect than Henry and Anderson?


I dont see what foot speed up the court has to do with ballhandling... Speed is a measurable, and I said his measurables were poor. But at the end of the day they aren't everything. You still have to play ball, and this kid can play. 

I seen alot of Wall being in SEC territory, so I know his flaws. In open court is great, he's probably the best transition player I've seen since Lebron. But i'm sure even he will tell you that his change-of-pace game in half-court needs work. I dont think I ever really saw him break someone down off the dribble, it was always cuts or in transition. He is really good dont get me wrong, but in terms of his handles I dont think they are as tight as guys like Derrick Rose coming out.(Part of which is why I was abit skeptical of him late in the season, and high on Warren)

In terms of his PG ability though(in halfcourt set)s, I will be eager to see how well he translates and how he develops. He'll be an effective PG for sure, but it's gonna be cool to watch his transition. I've been watching him closely, so he'll be one of my favorite guys to keep an eye on next year... That doesn't mean I think his ball handling is better Warren though... Not if were talking about ability to break someone down off the dribble(i'm not talking about foot speed, or beating someone up the court.)


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

The thing is about Bradley, if he was a PG then why was he not given a chance to run the team. It is not like Texas had Darren Collison in front of him and their season went down hill. It seems that at some point he would have been given at least some PG duties. This even like what happened to Mayo who was made to play SG but when the season was going south the essentially let him go nuts the last half of the season as an on the ball scorer.


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

Diable said:


> Hilton Armstrong does nothing at the NBA level...What exactly are we claiming that Patterson will do in the NBA? Who can he guard? Do you think he's going to be a rebounder?...No you think he's going to shoot jumpshots? Is he Jason Kapono? He better be pretty close, because he's not good enough at anything else. His ceiling is the second big man off your bench unless your big man rotation is so bad you may as well play Nellyball.


I'm not sure at all about comparing Armstrong to Patterson. Hilton was a 6'11 defensive specialist who was never especially productive in his four college seasons and was drafted way too soon. He's much, much closer to an Udoh without the ball skills.

Pat is an NBA PF, and has the size and athleticism to guard the position. Many look at his drop in rebounding numbers this year, but he had over 9rpg last year and still managed over 7 this year playing next to the most talented college post since Oden, and maybe beyond. Again, I don't think Patterson's gonna set the world on fire, but considering the drop-off at #5, it then becomes finding the dog with the least fleas. I think Patterson will at least be a longer Landry w/ better defense with an upside of an 18/8 David West. Is such a guy normally worth taking at #5? No. With all of the problematic guys left, though, if I had to pick, I'll take him for that particular roster. It's entirely possible he could wind up a career 15-20mpg reserve, but I would bet against it. I would also say it's entirely possible than any other player available at that point could just as soon end up a career 15-20mpg bench guy as well.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I don't buy Patterson ever being a productive NBA player. He's not skilled enough to beat bigger guys and he's not athletic enough to handle guys his own size or smaller. He's a guy who has to work for a couple of years just to find any role in the NBA. He will never start for a team that doesn't have a legitimate chance to win the lottery. He might be a power forward in the NBA, but he's not going to be any damned good at it.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

'ever being a productive NBA player'
'not skilled enough to beat bigger players'
'Not athletic enough to handle guys his own size'

This is also from the guy who compared him to Hilton Armstrong...you definitely havent watched enough of this guy. This is a league where guys like Carl Landry, Chuck Hayes and Milsap have carved out niches for themselves.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Carl Landry was a better college player than Patterson was too. More productive numbers wise and he was still a 2nd round pick. Millsap was the best rebounder in the country all three years in college and still was a 2nd round pick. Hayes was undrafted, played in the D-League and worked his way onto a team.

Patterson is being picked 5th with not one discernible NBA skill to hang his hat on? Really? That seems completely asinine.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Landry was a better college player than Patterson? Really? Man I understand his game isn't 'sexy' but lets not rewrite history. Guy was a pretty good college player. Damn efficient one too. Landry and Millsap might have been better rebounders, but none of them had the type of skillset Patterson developed in his 3 years in college. He worked hard on his game, lets respect that. I have said he's not good value at number 5, but most of the guys after him have glaring holes in their game too.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Landry picked in the 2nd round. Patterson top five. Please try to keep up. Pat wasn't sniffing the tournament till those super freshmen came to town.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Umm Gillespie's team made the tournament no? And again lol why does everyone keep ignoring the fact that I said at 5 he's not good value, still doesnt mean he isnt a lotto pick though.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

He made it his first year.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Umm try again...Patterson was on the 07-08 squad that lost in the first round. Team had Jasper, Meeks and Patterson.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

I think the real lesson here is that if you're drafting 5-10 get the hell out of this draft. See if you can sucker the Bullets into giving you a drawing in the Harrison Barnes or Michael Gilchrist lotteries.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Barnes isnt a 'one and done'...lets not jinx the Tar Heels shall we.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Oh yes he is.


----------



## Rather Unique (Aug 26, 2005)

HB said:


> *Landry was a better college player than Patterson? Really?* Man I understand his game isn't 'sexy' but lets not rewrite history. Guy was a pretty good college player. Damn efficient one too. Landry and Millsap might have been better rebounders, but none of them had the type of skillset Patterson developed in his 3 years in college. He worked hard on his game, lets respect that. I have said he's not good value at number 5, but most of the guys after him have glaring holes in their game too.


You can sure as hell make an argument for it. Don't forget HB, that Landry was an 18ppg in college. Which matches PP's best from 2 years ago when he was playing with Meeks going nuts in the backcourt. Landry was pretty much all Purdue had his last year there.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

HB said:


> Lol at better handles than Wall, do you see how fast Wall gets up and down the court from coast to coast? Or should I cue the vid of him taking the ball behind his back for that layup that was shown over and over again. Warren's team lacked a good point guard the two years he was there, he had every opportunity to show case those playmaking skills. And whatever you are smoking let me have some of it? Warren a better guard prospect than Henry and Anderson?


I really do not think you have seen very much of Willie Warren play. Warren is most certainly up there with Wall in terms of ball handling, both have extremely advanced skills with both hands. 

As for Warren not being a playmaker, I'm not quite sure where you're getting that information from. Warren still averaged 4.1 assists per game on top of being his teams leading scorer. To put that into some context for you, because it's obvious you aren't going to be able to do that without some help, Wall averaged 6.5 assists on a much, much better team. I'm not trying to say Warren is a better prospect than Wall, because that's absurd. However, I can say with 100% certainty that had Warren been playing on a legitimate team his stats would look much better. Oklahoma's offense was piss poor last year, their second leading scorer was a freshman who had a field goal percentage under 40% (39.8%, I believe).

Warren has showed the ability to play point at the next level. He's never going to pass like Steve Nash, but that doesn't mean he can't play the position.

Watch this and enjoy


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Carl Landry was a great defender and a great rebounder in college. He had obvious skills which would translate directly to the NBA, above all else he had the mentality of a great player...or a rabid dog too. Patterson doesn't have anything remotely close to those things.


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

Diable said:


> Carl Landry was a great defender and a great rebounder in college. He had obvious skills which would translate directly to the NBA, above all else he had the mentality of a great player...or a rabid dog too. Patterson doesn't have anything remotely close to those things.


C'mon dude, did you look at the numbers? Patterson had a better career rebound/min rate than Landry and Carl didn't have two top-20 picks in the post to compete with for boards. The only obvious transferable skill seemed to be post scoring, which I would say Pat owns as well. Intangibles are debatable, but I'm not sure anyone would call Pat soft. I'm not sure you can shoot almost 60%, at only 6'9 and on high volume, for your career in the SEC without a good deal toughness.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

^The guy obviously has never watched Patterson and from the last few posts not many have followed his career. They thought he'd only been to the tourney with Cal smh


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

GregOden said:


> I really do not think you have seen very much of Willie Warren play. Warren is most certainly up there with Wall in terms of ball handling, both have extremely advanced skills with both hands.
> 
> As for Warren not being a playmaker, I'm not quite sure where you're getting that information from. Warren still averaged 4.1 assists per game on top of being his teams leading scorer. To put that into some context for you, because it's obvious you aren't going to be able to do that without some help, Wall averaged 6.5 assists on a much, much better team. I*'m not trying to say Warren is a better prospect than Wall, because that's absurd. However, I can say with 100% certainty that had Warren been playing on a legitimate team his stats would look much better. *Oklahoma's offense was piss poor last year, their second leading scorer was a freshman who had a field goal percentage under 40% (39.8%, I believe).
> 
> ...


How much better did he look when he played next to Blake and Taylor Griffin? 

Tiny Gallon is going to be playing in the NBA next year btw, its not like he had 'terrible' teammates this past season.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

HB said:


> How much better did he look when he played next to Blake and Taylor Griffin?
> 
> Tiny Gallon is going to be playing in the NBA next year btw, its not like he had 'terrible' teammates this past season.


How does that make sense to you? Tiny Gallon may or may not be drafted and you're comparing that to playing alongside the number one overall pick and a guy who was drafted in the middle of the second round? Come on dude, that's a reach and a half.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I am saying a team with Warren and two Mcdonald's All Americans isnt as bad as you want to make them out to be. Warren played with some talent dude in both his freshman and sophomore years.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

HB said:


> I am saying a team with Warren and two Mcdonald's All Americans isnt as bad as you want to make them out to be. Warren played with some talent dude in both his freshman and sophomore years.


It doesn't matter what these kids did in high school, I don't know what makes you think that's relevant. 

Tommy Mason Griffin had a 39.8% field goal percentage and is almost a lock not to be drafted. Tiny Gallon may or may not be drafted at the very end of the second round and you think that's comparable to playing alongside the best player in the country and his brother? Come on HB.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Tiny Gallon might get taken before Warren fyi...article today said the Nets are looking at taking Gallon with their 27th pick. The guy you love to hype is 28th on DE's draft and 30 something on NBA draft.net...now something doesn't make sense. If this guy is as good as you claim he is, why do they constantly have him in the low 20s-30s range?


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

I like how you mention "some article" with no link or merrit and then use DE and NBADraft as references. DE doesn't have Gallon being drafted at all and NBADraft has him being picked by the Knicks 39th overall.

By next time this year, you'll see exactly why I'm talking this kid up.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

GregOden said:


> I like how you mention "some article" with no link or merrit and then use DE and NBADraft as references. DE doesn't have Gallon being drafted at all and NBADraft has him being picked by the Knicks 39th overall.
> 
> By next time this year, you'll see exactly why I'm talking this kid up.


Libk

You can go the individual articles if you want or just *read this*

That good enough for ya?


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

What is that, off of some dude's blog? Here's my favorite part of the whole thing 



> Gallon is projected to go be an early second rounder, maybe higher on draft night (one mock draft has him going to the Knicks, another has him undrafted). Gallon feels his stick is rising through workouts and he wants to show it.


An early second rounder, then cites mock drafts where he goes undrafted the other he's middle of the second. Loving the typo's too, seems pretty legit. PAUSENOT. Good stuff HB, stayin' credible.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Lol at some dude's blog, Netsdaily is like the most popular blog when it comes to any and everything Nets related. Surprised you have never heard of it, its quite popular. 

The Nets have three picks, 3, 27 and 31. Gallon could be one of their late picks, which could still be better than where Warren has been pegged to go. Is that so hard to understand?


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

I question the IQ level of that site when one of their writers has two boneheaded typo's in one two sentence paragraph, and he makes an unjustified statement which he backs up with references that don't actually back up his claim.


----------



## Wade County (Jun 22, 2003)

Does Warren remind anyone of Rodney Stuckey? I honestly think if he falls to the last first/early second round he's gonna make someone look real smart.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

GregOden said:


> I question the IQ level of that site when one of their writers has two boneheaded typo's in one two sentence paragraph, and he makes an unjustified statement which he backs up with references that don't actually back up his claim.


'That' site has been referenced by some major sites e.g ESPN


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Doesn't change the fact that the article you cited was poorly written and obviously had very little thought or factual information behind it.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

The quote you are referencing GO is from the blog of Fred Kerber, the NY Post's beat writer assigned to cover the Nets. Link to NY Post Nets blog Blame Fred and the Post, not NetsDaily

The only thing that has to do with NetsDaily is that it is a link on ND. As far as HB's comments, NetsDaily is the definitive site for aggregating and linking to all of the Nets related news published around the world. (And yes, I know more than a little about ND  )


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

cpawfan said:


> The quote you are referencing GO is from the blog of Fred Kerber, the NY Post's beat writer assigned to cover the Nets. Link to NY Post Nets blog Blame Fred and the Post, not NetsDaily
> 
> The only thing that has to do with NetsDaily is that it is a link on ND. As far as HB's comments, NetsDaily is the definitive site for aggregating and linking to all of the Nets related news published around the world. (And yes, I know more than a little about ND  )





GregOden said:


> Doesn't change the fact that *the article* you cited was poorly written and obviously had very little thought or factual information behind it.


Didn't mean for it to come across like I was attacking the website itself as much as I was attacking the integrity and credibility of the linked article.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

GregOden said:


> Didn't mean for it to come across like I was attacking the website itself as much as I was attacking the integrity and credibility of the linked article.


It is all good. I saw where the confusion started and was just trying to clear up for future readers


----------



## SlamJam (Nov 27, 2004)

hayward in the 2nd round?


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

SlamJam said:


> hayward in the 2nd round?


I tried to make each pick as if I was each team, and he just never seemed like the best option available. I'm not really sold on him at all in the NBA. He has short arms and isn't a great outside shooter. Quite frankly, I think he's Joe Alexander with less athleticism.


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

rebelsun said:


> I tried to make each pick as if I was each team, and he just never seemed like the best option available. I'm not really sold on him at all in the NBA. He has short arms and isn't a great outside shooter. Quite frankly, I think he's Joe Alexander with less athleticism.


C'mon, man. Try a little harder than that. That's the best you could come up with because they're both white dudes?

Alexander is a great athlete that doesn't know how to play basketball at all. Hayward is a decent athlete whose main strength is really his knowledge of how to play basketball. That's a REALLY bad comparison.


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

jmk said:


> C'mon, man. Try a little harder than that. That's the best you could come up with because they're both white dudes?
> 
> Alexander is a great athlete that doesn't know how to play basketball at all. Hayward is a decent athlete whose main strength is really his knowledge of how to play basketball. That's a REALLY bad comparison.


That may be fair in terms of their game IQ, but skill-wise I don't see a lot of difference. Taking a player for his intangibles above all else is problematic; that was the Morrison rationale. I really don't know what his value is in the league. He's tall and decently athletic, but his length is a problem. He's not a great outside shooter or a distributor, and I'm not sure he's gonna blow by NBA guys off the dribble. So what's left? Court awareness, maybe a mid-range shot, and subpar defense? I just don't get it.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

rebelsun said:


> I tried to make each pick as if I was each team, and he just never seemed like the best option available. I'm not really sold on him at all in the NBA. He has short arms and isn't a great outside shooter. Quite frankly, I think he's Joe Alexander with less athleticism.


Wow.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I hope Hayward lasts until the 2nd round...Bobcats don't have a first


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

rebelsun said:


> Taking a player for his intangibles above all else is problematic; that was the Morrison rationale.


do you really believe this statement(the morrison part)?


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Morrison was taken because that idiot Bob Johnson thought he could sell tickets. Hayward doesn't lack the physical attributes which made Ammo incapable of performing at the NBA level. He's on the same plane as most of his contemporaries athleticially. He's also a vastly better all around prospect. Hayward is going to match up in the NBA. He's got a position and he can guard it. Now people who are picking him to go fifth are overrating the hell out of him, but it's certain that he's going to end up getting drafted between 10 and 20. Truthfully he will probably be better in the NBA than he was in college. He's better suited to be a good roleplayer than he was to be the star of a team


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> do you really believe this statement(the morrison part)?


The issue with him is that he created this persona/brand/etc that people fell in love with enough that they ignored, or at least significantly discounted, everything else. I bought into it like everyone; I thought the guy was gonna be a 18ppg Wally Z-type. When you look at the prospect, and not the star/image/personality/etc, there was a good deal of concern, though. He had decent height but had a terrible NBA body, wasn't a great defender, and wasn't particularly skilled outside of shooting and slashing; he was essentially a scoring specialist. On paper, he looks like a 6th man/fringe starter specialist, but his intangibles caused people to 'believe' that he'll somehow continue to transcend this laundry list of weaknesses at the highest level. Adam had the best intangibles, in terms of leadership/killer instinct/will/etc, of any prospect I've seen in the about the 10 years I've been following the draft, a trait which ultimately didn't really get him anywhere in the league. 

I think the same thing is going on with Hayward; I think his stock's value is more influenced by his story than anything else. Kid from small school, Indiana no less, leads underdog team all the way to the tourney championship game. If Butler lost in the 1st round, Hayward probably wouldn't have to think twice about returning to school. The guy was the best player on a team that made a miracle run and consequently, it's easy to fall in love with him. I would bet that if you put Luke Babbitt on that same team, and they make that same run, people would be making Larry Bird comparisons and he'd be in discussions for the top-5. 

Haywood's not the scorer that Adam was, but he seems to have fewer holes in his game. I think the situations are similar, though. It gets to be problematic when forced to defend what a guy brings to the table, that ultimately, the most interesting skill or asset he has are his intangibles. Adam's scoring was absolutely an asset, but there are 25+ppg scoring specialists in college every year - your Aubrey Colemans and Henry Domercants and whatnot - that often go undrafted and never amount to anything in the NBA. Morrison went that high because he cultivated this incredible self-belief/attitude/psychology/persona/brand that translated into college wins and consequently caused other people to indulge in the hype as well.


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

rebelsun said:


> Adam had the best intangibles, in terms of leadership/killer instinct/will/etc, of any prospect I've seen in the about the 10 years I've been following the draft, a trait which ultimately didn't really get him anywhere in the league.


:lol:

Oh, lord. Adam Morrison, the kid who started sobbing like a little bitch girl when his team was down only 2 and had possession of the ball with a legit chance to tie or even win the game?

Yeah, great leadership/killer instinct/will. 

:laugh:


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

jmk said:


> :lol:
> 
> Oh, lord. Adam Morrison, the kid who started sobbing like a little bitch girl when his team was down only 2 and had possession of the ball with a legit chance to tie or even win the game?
> 
> ...


Morrison started getting emotional with play stopped at 2.6sec, down by 1, and UCLA had possession:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbRaRc9nxIw

It wasn't like he fainted or something. He's rational; he knew that the probability of them winning the game at that point was minimal. You can hear the announcers saying that a 'miracle' was needed. Even if that was a lapse in composure, his body of work more than excuses him showing emotion when, outside of said miracle, his (remarkable) college career was essentially over.


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

rebelsun said:


> Morrison started getting emotional with play stopped at 2.6sec, down by 1, and UCLA had possession:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbRaRc9nxIw
> 
> It wasn't like he fainted or something. He's rational; he knew that the probability of them winning the game at that point was minimal. You can hear the announcers saying that a 'miracle' was needed. Even if that was a lapse in composure, his body of work more than excuses him showing emotion when, outside of said miracle, his (remarkable) college career was essentially over.


Dude, if he was a leader AT ALL, if he had any will AT ALL, if he had any killer instinct AT ALL, he would have manned up, not been a little bitch, and rallied the troops. You think Kobe is going to start crying like a little bitch in that situation?

His team still had a chance and he was squatting down pissing his pants and crying like a pussy.

If Morrison is seriously the prospect that you believe showed the most will/killer instinct/leadership etc., in the past decade, then you are a supremely ****ty talent evaluator, and probably shouldn't be making any mock drafts, let alone posting them here. That's the god honest truth.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Dont really like Ammo's game, but still dont get why people knock him for crying...he was passionate about winning. Kobe cried when the Suns knocked them out a few years ago too...


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

HB said:


> Dont really like Ammo's game, but still dont get why people knock him for crying...he was passionate about winning. Kobe cried when the Suns knocked them out a few years ago too...


Did he cry when they still had a legitimate chance to win the game?

I have no problem with players crying after losing, but when you're still playing a game, and you still have an actual shot to win, and you're the supposed leader on the team, that **** is weak as hell.

Also, rebel, didn't mean to be so harsh, but I think Morrison is a little bitch, and you calling him the college player with the most leadership/will/killer instinct, etc. in the past decade is a huge joke.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Chance to win? Dude guy knew their season was over. Kobe's thrown many a temper tantrum whilst the game was going on...so I dont know what exactly you are trying to get at.


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

HB said:


> Chance to win? Dude guy knew their season was over. Kobe's thrown many a temper tantrum whilst the game was going on...so I dont know what exactly you are trying to get at.


They were down 1 point with almost 3 seconds left. In the pantheon of the NCAA tourney, tons of crazier **** has happened. Hell, they even got a good shot off at the end of the game that would have tied it (they only needed a 2). 

And if you are equating throwing a "temper tantrum" with starting to cry when your team still has a shot to win, you need not give your input.

What am I getting at? Adam Morrison is a little bitch. A softie. A pussy. Calling him the best leader, etc. of a past decade sounds like the beginning of a BallScientist thread.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

I don't know if there is another basketball player that I dislike more than Adam Morrison. I badmouthed that kid as much as I could before the draft, and I would continue to badmouth him to this day if he ever actually got onto the court.

He had good college production, but he was never the "best" anything (other than growing that mustache...hated it with a passion, but I can respect the effort! haha).


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

'Intangibles' is a vague term and is open to interpretation. There's an argument to be made that he displayed poor leadership by showing emotion in the last seconds of a low-probability situation/game. I'm not sure, though, how a guy with thoroughly underwhelming athleticism somehow stumbles upon a crazy 28+ppg season average against quality D-1 opponents by being a pussy. That requires a ton of consistent aggression and confidence. I'm not sure how you softly lead the nation in scoring.


----------

