# DraftExpress SF ranked list



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

Here is the list of top SF candidates in the draft from DraftExpress:
Who will the Blazers draft in the second round?

Top-20 '07 SFs Rankings
#	Player
1	Kevin Durant SF/PF 18 years old, 6' 10" 215lbs. Texas
2	Corey Brewer SF 21 years old, 6' 8" 185lbs. Florida
3	Julian Wright SF/PF 20 years old, 6' 9" 211lbs. Kansas
4	Al Thornton SF/PF 23 years old, 6' 7" 221lbs. Florida State
5	Jeff Green SF 20 years old, 6' 10" 228lbs. Georgetown
6	Jared Dudley SF 21 years old, 6' 7" 219lbs. Boston College
7	Alando Tucker SF 23 years old, 6' 5" 205lbs. Wisconsin
8	Dominic McGuire SG/SF/PF 21 years old, 6' 8" 220lbs. Fresno State
9	Thaddeus Young SF/PF 18 years old, 6' 8" 210lbs. Georgia Tech
10	Derrick Byars SG/SF 23 years old, 6' 7" 215lbs. Vanderbilt

11	Demetris Nichols SF 22 years old, 6' 8" 211lbs. Syracuse
12	Wilson Chandler SF 20 years old, 6' 8" 210lbs. DePaul
13	Reyshawn Terry SF 23 years old, 6' 8" 222lbs. North Carolina
14	Joao Gomes SG/SF 22 years old, 6' 7" 190lbs. Barreirense
15	Jonas Maciulis SG/SF 22 years old, 6' 6" 216lbs. Zalgiris Kaunas
16	Marko Tomas SF 22 years old, 6' 8" 198lbs. Real Madrid
17	Quinton Hosley SG/SF 23 years old, 6' 8" 215lbs. Fresno State
18	Mohamed Abukar SF/PF 22 years old, 6' 10" 210lbs. San Diego State
19	Curtis Sumpter SF 23 years old, 6' 8" 227lbs. Villanova
20	Marcel Jones SF 22 years old, 6' 8" 220lbs. Oregon State


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Interestingly, ESPN says Corey Brewer's NBA position will be SG.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Thornton ahead of Green?

Green was, at age 20, the Big East player of the year. He measured taller than expected...

I just don't get it. Both of them have potential weaknesses (improved but questionable perimeter shooting, both played the power forward spot in college extensively), but I see Green's youth and basketball IQ and playmaking/passing ability as a much more valuable asset than Thornton's athleticism.

*shrug*

Also: Dudley over Thaddeus Young? Man... I wonder what those guys are smoking. Their mock draft has Dudley going 6 spots lower than Young. Weird.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

You're providing insufficient reasoning as to why Thornton is rated higher, maybe he shouldn't be but his athleticism alone isn't the only aspect of his game greater than Green's.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Also: Dudley over Thaddeus Young? Man... I wonder what those guys are smoking. Their mock draft has Dudley going 6 spots lower than Young. Weird.


Yeah, even if you think Thad Young has 'bust' written all over him, he's one of the top athletes in the country and given his value coming out of high school, someone will bite on him in the mid-first round hoping to get a lottery-type prospect in a few years. He's totally worth taking a chance on over Dudley. 

It's too bad for Dudley. If he were 3-4 inches taller he'd be in the lottery.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> You're providing insufficient reasoning as to why Thornton is rated higher, maybe he shouldn't be but his athleticism alone isn't the only aspect of his game greater than Green's.


DraftExpress Mock Draft:

Jeff Green: #7
Al Thornton: #14

So why is Thornton ranked higher?

Setting the mock draft aside what does Thornton have going for him above and beyond Green, other than his athleticism? That he's demonstrated he can shoot a LOT more often than Green? Because other than that (and the resulting advantage in ppg), their stats are either a push or an advantage to Green.

Ed O.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I think people are concerned about Green's lack of explosiveness and wonder whether he's a 4 in a 3's body.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Samuel said:


> I think people are concerned about Green's lack of explosiveness and wonder whether he's a 4 in a 3's body.


Hm... he might end up being a 3 in a 4's body. He's nearly as tall as Horford (a quarter inch shorter in their shoe measurements) and heavier than Noah (228 to 223). If he's a really a 4, at least he's got the body for it. 

The explosiveness is a concern, although his no step vertical and max vertical were each pretty darn impressive. Not as good as Thornton's, of course, but much better than, say, Julian Wright's.

Ed O.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

I think the biggest question about Green is who will he guard in the NBA? If you look at his lane agility (especially) and 3/4 court sprint (not so much) times they were quite slow for a 3 (even slower than many of the 4s and some of the 5s). So, some question if he has the foot speed to guard NBA small forwards. At 228 lbs. he also currently lacks the bulk to guard NBA power forwards (Bobby Medina could fix that). However, I do agree Green has a very high basketball IQ and is an excellent passer for a forward.

Of course, his times were better than Kevin Durant's and not any worse than Al Thornton's. So, go figure.

Thornton is a much better scorer and a better shooter than Green. Not that Green is bad, but Thornton is better (44.4% 3FG% vs. 37.5%). And, it's not just about Thornton taking more shots, if you look at their PER stats, Thornton's was 30.7 and Green's was 24.1. Thornton is a big time scorer and flashy as all get out. Green is less flashy and less explosive on offense, but it more of total package thanks to his much better passing. Green also led his team to the final four. FSU didn't even make the tournament (in all fairness to Thornton, it's not like he had any decent teammates to help share the load).

So, if a team is looking for an explosive scorer at the 3, Thornton would be the better choice. If you're looking for a more well rounded player who is an excellent passer, you take Green.

Personally, I'd be happy with either (or better still, Corey Brewer) if we get another pick. I'll leave it to KP to sort out who's a better fit on the roster he's assembling. My preferred order would be Brewer, Green, Thornton, but I'd trust Pritchard's judgment over my own.

BNM


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

IMO that list of rankings is pretty good. Especially in light of some of the pre draft workouts I have read about.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

isn't a lack of explosiveness what Roy was heavily criticized for at this time last year? I think it's one of the more overrated qualitites in testing personally, because on court explosiveness is so different from a lane agility test, it's good to know that a player is quick for sure, but nothing huge to fret about if the numbers aren't great because Green will know where he wants to go so much earlier because of his great court IQ. Besides, Sergio is plenty explosive enough


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

darkhelmit54 said:


> isn't a lack of explosiveness what Roy was heavily criticized for at this time last year?


True. And note that Roy is not a great defender and probably never will be due to that. 

At our 3 spot, short of getting an offensive powerhouse - T-Mac, Durant type, I really think the best fit will be an outstanding defender - preferably one that can comfortably cover the best wing on the opposition 2 or 3. That means they need to be quick and long. Pippen is the prototype.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Man, I hope it stays that way, cause I think Green would fit in perfectly here. If he keeps being under-rated maybe we could trade Jack to Atlanta for #11 and snag Green there.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

darkhelmit54 said:


> isn't a lack of explosiveness what Roy was heavily criticized for at this time last year?


Actually, no it's not. If you look at Roy's numbers from last year, they are flat out outstanding for a player 6'6". His lane agility time of 11.13 and 3/4 sprint time of 3.27. combined with his 34" standing vertical and 40.5 max. vertical should be enough to silence anyone who'd question his athleticism.

Also, Roy tested very well in his ability to move quickly in all four directions (forward, backward, left and right). Lack of athleticism was never a criticism of Brandon Roy (at least by people who had a clue). If there was a "knock" on him it was that he did everything well, but nothing outstanding (like somebody who's good at everything is less of a prospect than someone with obvious weaknesses).

BNM


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Hm... he might end up being a 3 in a 4's body. He's nearly as tall as Horford (a quarter inch shorter in their shoe measurements) and heavier than Noah (228 to 223). If he's a really a 4, at least he's got the body for it.
> 
> The explosiveness is a concern, although his no step vertical and max vertical were each pretty darn impressive. Not as good as Thornton's, of course, but much better than, say, Julian Wright's.
> 
> Ed O.


My guess is that the position question is weighing heavily on some minds.

Thornton might bust - or he might be a credible NBA starter. IMHO, Green is a "tweener" best suited to come off the bench. The catch there, is that most quality "6th man" types are very aggressive. Watching Green in college, I didn't see that. He struck me as more of a "let the game come to him" type.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> My guess is that the position question is weighing heavily on some minds.
> 
> Thornton might bust - or he might be a credible NBA starter. IMHO, Green is a "tweener" best suited to come off the bench. The catch there, is that most quality "6th man" types are very aggressive. Watching Green in college, I didn't see that. He struck me as more of a "let the game come to him" type.


His unselfish play is one of the major reasons he's being underrated and didn't put up more impressive stats in college. In addition his skills weren't showcased well in the Princeton offense, I think he'll be a player like Roy who looks more impressive at the pro level than in college, and he'll be one of the rare players who don't see a significant dip in production from college to their rookie year.

I've heard Pritchard say in an interview that what sold him on Roy was that he claimed one of his vices was caring more about his teammates than himself, this is a quality I also see in Green in spades.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Setting the mock draft aside what does Thornton have going for him above and beyond Green, other than his athleticism?
> Ed O.


His PER is higher, he's just a better shooter and scorer plain and simple, that can't be disputed. His three point percentage is excellent and far better than Green's. I trust that Pritchard selects the guy that would fit best with us. From the outside looking in, I'd take Thornton but Green's overall game is enticing as well.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> I think the biggest question about Green is who will he guard in the NBA? If you look at his lane agility (especially) and 3/4 court sprint (not so much) times they were quite slow for a 3 (even slower than many of the 4s and some of the 5s). So, some question if he has the foot speed to guard NBA small forwards. At 228 lbs. he also currently lacks the bulk to guard NBA power forwards (Bobby Medina could fix that). However, I do agree Green has a very high basketball IQ and is an excellent passer for a forward.
> 
> Of course, his times were better than Kevin Durant's and not any worse than Al Thornton's. So, go figure.
> 
> ...



Bingo.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

no international players i noticed


----------



## SamOwie (Jun 6, 2007)

Ed O said:


> Thornton ahead of Green?
> 
> Green was, at age 20, the Big East player of the year. He measured taller than expected...
> 
> ...



They are very different players, that's for sure. Thornton is WAY more advanced offensively at this stage, however he'll be 25? by the time he plays his first nba game. Thornton is also a poor passer. However, he is an excellent shooter out to NBA 3 range.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

SamOwie said:


> However, he is an excellent shooter out to NBA 3 range.


A few people have commented on these two players three point shooting ability. Let's look on a per-game basis at 3 pointers taken and made...

Thornton:
Taken/game: 2.31
Made/game: 1.03

Green: 
Taken/game: 2.59
Made/game: .97

Does anyone serious see that as a significant difference in ability to shoot the three pointer? Thornton shot fewer threes per shot attempt from the field, which indicates (to me) less confidence in his ability, if anything.

Another way of looking at this... their 3 point percentages:

Thornton: 44.4%
Green: 37.5%

Big difference, huh? 6.9%? It sure seems like it...

But let's change their season totals so Thornton missed THREE of the three pointers he made and Green made THREE of the treys he missed. That's one trifecta every ten games that rattled in or out...

Thornton: 40.7%
Green: 40.6%

Now, if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts so much, but the number of shots they took (and made) is so small that it's hilarious to me that someone would look at a single season and claim that one is a significantly better three point shooter than the other.

Ed O.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

SamOwie said:


> Thornton is WAY more advanced offensively at this stage, however he'll be 25? by the time he plays his first nba game.


He's old for a rookie, but not THAT old. He'll be 23 when he plays his first NBA game and turn 24 during the second month of his rookie year.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Now, if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts so much, but the number of shots they took (and made) is so small that it's hilarious to me that someone would look at a single season and claim that one is a significantly better three point shooter than the other.


If you want a bigger sample size look at the last TWO seasons. Thornton is a combined 56/123 = 45.5%. That's pretty darn good. Green is a combined 65/188 = 34.6%. Not awful, but not nearly as impressive. He made nine more threes, but it took him 65 more attempts to do so.

Green is definitely a better all around player, but when it comes to shooting the ball, he's no match for Thornton. Thornton shot over 50% from the field all four years at FSU and improved his FT shooting every year (to the point he was actually slightly better than Green last season). Green isn't a bad shooter overall, but Thornton is better. Shooting and scoring are the two advantages Thornton has over Green. They are both very good rebounders. Thornton has a very slight edge in pace adjusted reb/40, but he also wasn't playing next to a huge center like Green was with Hibbert (although he's huge, Hibbert wasn't a very good rebounder for a player his size - still better than any of Thornton's teammates). So, call the rebounding a wash. Blocks are about the same and Thornton gets a few more steals, but no real significant advantage. Green pretty much takes all the other categories - especially passing. Overall, I'd take Green over Thornton, but if we get the 11th or 14th pack, Green will probably be gone. Thornton is my 4th pick in the draft at SF (behind Durant, Brewer and Green), but the one most likely available in the latter half of the lottery.

BNM


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> If you want a bigger sample size look at the last TWO seasons. Thornton is a combined 56/123 = 45.5%. That's pretty darn good. Green is a combined 65/188 = 34.6%. Not awful, but not nearly as impressive. He made nine more threes, but it took him 65 more attempts to do so.


Isn't it odd that for such a good shooter he's only made 56 three pointers in his last 65 games?

I know he's been incredibly efficient... there's no question about that. But for someone with allegedly great range shouldn't he be taking better advantage of the short three point line? 

Ed O.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Isn't it odd that for such a good shooter he's only made 56 three pointers in his last 65 games?


Not really , given that he was forced into a more power forward type of role in FSU's weird two forward/three guard line-up. He was actually their only lgitimate low post scoring threat. So, he spent quite a bit of time down on the blocks, far away from the three point line. In the NBA, he'll be a true SF with more opportunities to shoot the three.

BNM


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Masbee said:


> True. And note that Roy is not a great defender and probably never will be due to that.


as BNB already pointed out, the numbers doesn't show at all that Roy's not athletic. in fact, the numbers show that he's very athletic. compared his numbers against the wing players in this year draft, he would be among the top athlete. just because his moves are fluid and smooth, doesn't mean he's not explosive. roy is the type of player that would rather go for a quick layup than gather for a dunk. roy has good footwork on defense. only thing he lacks is great length.

i also disagree with your implication that you have to be explosive and very athletic to be a great perimeter defender. i think explosiveness and jumping ability is more important for interior defenders. raja bell, bruce bowen, ron artest, shane battier, none are consider very explosive or great athletes. what they all have in common is smarts (knowing when to gamble, playing the angles, know how to use their teammates for help) and tanacity on defense.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> Not really , given that he was forced into a more power forward type of role in FSU's weird two forward/three guard line-up. He was actually their only lgitimate low post scoring threat. So, he spent quite a bit of time down on the blocks, far away from the three point line. In the NBA, he'll be a true SF with more opportunities to shoot the three.


Defensively, it makes sense to have him play where the team needs him, but if he's a legit 45% shooter from 3 point range why would FSU force him down on the blocks? It seems like it would be smarter to give him the ball more and let him create for himself.

I find it hard to believe that the coach was stupid enough to take a great shooter and make him a power forward. I find it MUCH more likely that people are projecting him as a pure 3 based on his athleticism and the relatively small sample size of his perimeter shooting.

As I said last week: we'll see, won't we? 

Ed O.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

This page of the thread has some GREAT arguments :clap: . Remind me never to say something dumb that's debatable ever again.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

wow, they rank thad young low. hey, i wish that all the other gm think the same way. we'll buy another low 1st round pick and draft young. young is the sleeper in this draft, imo.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Defensively, it makes sense to have him play where the team needs him, but if he's a legit 45% shooter from 3 point range why would FSU force him down on the blocks? It seems like it would be smarter to give him the ball more and let him create for himself.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that the coach was stupid enough to take a great shooter and make him a power forward. I find it MUCH more likely that people are projecting him as a pure 3 based on his athleticism and the relatively small sample size of his perimeter shooting.


FSU hasn't had a center on the roster for years. They've basically been playing a PF at center and a SF at PF along with three guards. This year their "big" man was a 6'9" 220 lb. sophomore that averaged 6.9 PPG. So, Thornton was Fforced to play out of position at the 4 and was their only legitimate low post scoring threat. Obviously, it wasn't a hugely sucessful system as FSU missed the NCAA tournament, yet again. They regularly get players drafted (Alexandar Johnson, Von Wafer, etc.), but have limited team success in the tough ACC.

If you don't believe me about Thornton's shooting ability, or find the sample size too limited, read some of the scouting reports on him. There's a reason he's being projected as a top 15 pick in this very deep draft - and it's not his great all around game or "intangibles". He can flat out shoot the ball - plain and simple.

Again I'd take Green over Thornton due to his better overall game - given the choice.

BNM


----------



## SamOwie (Jun 6, 2007)

Ed O said:


> Isn't it odd that for such a good shooter he's only made 56 three pointers in his last 65 games?
> 
> I know he's been incredibly efficient... there's no question about that. But for someone with allegedly great range shouldn't he be taking better advantage of the short three point line?
> 
> Ed O.


God forbid he doesn't rely upon the outside shot. <sarc>I mean in this day and age all we need is another mid range scorer right? </sarc>


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

BuckW4GM said:


> wow, they rank thad young low. hey, i wish that all the other gm think the same way. we'll buy another low 1st round pick and draft young. young is the sleeper in this draft, imo.



he wont make it past philly at 12 or N.O at 13 if he`s available


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

SamOwie said:


> God forbid he doesn't rely upon the outside shot. <sarc>I mean in this day and age all we need is another mid range scorer right? </sarc>


Too much sarcasm. Not enough content.

What were you trying to tell me?

Ed O.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

BuckW4GM said:


> as BNB already pointed out, the numbers doesn't show at all that Roy's not athletic. in fact, the numbers show that he's very athletic. compared his numbers against the wing players in this year draft, he would be among the top athlete. just because his moves are fluid and smooth, doesn't mean he's not explosive. roy is the type of player that would rather go for a quick layup than gather for a dunk. roy has good footwork on defense. only thing he lacks is great length.
> 
> i also disagree with your implication that you have to be explosive and very athletic to be a great perimeter defender. i think explosiveness and jumping ability is more important for interior defenders. raja bell, bruce bowen, ron artest, shane battier, none are consider very explosive or great athletes. what they all have in common is smarts (knowing when to gamble, playing the angles, know how to use their teammates for help) and tanacity on defense.


I said "true" to the comments pre-draft that Roy wasn't an impressive athlete. Those things were said. 

I don't see Roy as a player who is explosive athletically. Roy is not now a good defender. Due to his lack of overwhelming athleticism (Jordan, Pippen type), or strength or size (Artest) he does not have the ability to overwhelm a good offensive player. I think with work he can become a decent defender as he does have more than enough athletic ability to keep up. And he can use his head and preparation to be better. 

Again, just not to dominate. As for the Bowen type defenders, realize that Bowen is more athletic than people realize and that he has trained to play defense. If you spend hours in the gym running and sliding backwards you can get pretty good at it. Roy won't be spending the majority of his time training to defend.

Since Roy cannot dominate defensively with hall-of-fame athletic ability nor size, he would have to spend much of his time training to be a good defender. Does it make sense to try to turn Roy - already an above average offensive player and team leader - into a defensive stopper a la Bowen? I don't think so. Go with the flow. Make Roy a better TEAM defender. Help him lean when to pick his spots. Help him use his smarts so he will know how to herd to opposition and lull them into doing what you want, as opposed to "locking down" a guy.

Since I think Roy will not be a great defender, and since Roy will have a key role in the offense expending energy there, since Sergio is not a good defender, that is how I come to the conclusion that it would be best if we have a great defender at the 3 spot. If we have a weak defender at the 3, our perimeter defense could be awful.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Bwatcher said:


> Here is the list of top SF candidates in the draft from DraftExpress:
> Who will the Blazers draft in the second round?
> 
> Top-20 '07 SFs Rankings
> ...




Just for a point of comparison, here is the way they are ranked on CBSsportsline.com.

1.Durant
2. Green
3. J Wright
4. Thornton
5. T Young
6. Chandler
7. Tucker
8. Byars
9. Dudley
10. M Williams

Notice someone missing? They are now projecting Brewer as a SG.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Masbee said:


> I said "true" to the comments pre-draft that Roy wasn't an impressive athlete. Those things were said.


i'm well awared those things were said about roy. what i don't understand is why you would claim something to be true, when now with hindsight, has proven to be clealy false. from your reply, you implied clearly that you still believes what were said about roy to be true.



> I don't see Roy as a player who is explosive athletically.


even though i disagree, i can totally understand why some would view roy as not an explosive athlete. he does play below the rim, and he doesn't go for the flashy dunks. i'm just saying the explosion is there, and he only use them when he has to. i've seen it.



> Due to his lack of overwhelming athleticism (Jordan, Pippen type), or strength or size (Artest) he does not have the ability to overwhelm a good offensive player. I think with work he can become a decent defender as he does have more than enough athletic ability to keep up. And he can use his head and preparation to be better.


first of all, i think roy is already an average defender. so whatever "decent" means, i think he's already there.

as for your contention that you need "overwhelming athleticism" to be great on defense, i just don't think that it's true for a perimeter defender. does it help to have tremendous athleticism? sure. but as i have already pointed out, there are great perimeter defenders in the league now who doesn't have elite athleticism. heck, i'd put roy's athletism up there with anyone of them. don't tell me guys like battier, bowen, artest, posey, hassel, bell, are superior athletically to roy. 



> As for the Bowen type defenders, realize that Bowen is more athletic than people realize and that he has trained to play defense. If you spend hours in the gym running and sliding backwards you can get pretty good at it. Roy won't be spending the majority of his time training to defend.


i'm not arguing over whether or not roy should be focusing more on improving his defense over offense, i'm saying roy has the athleticism to be a great defender if he decides to focus on that. you seem to imply roy's limited on defense due to his (lack there of) athleticism.



> Since Roy cannot dominate defensively with hall-of-fame athletic ability nor size, he would have to spend much of his time training to be a good defender.


he would have to spend much of his time training to be a great defender whether he possesses hall-of-fame athletic ability or not. there are has been many, many players who possessed elite athleticism yet weren't great defenders. vince carter, d. wilkins, mcgrady, clyde, allen, anthony, lebron, the list goes on.

to me, being a great perimeter defender is more sheer tanacity and smarts than it is athleticism. sure, you need to be athletic, but not all-world type of athleticism.



> Since I think Roy will not be a great defender, and since Roy will have a key role in the offense expending energy there, since Sergio is not a good defender, that is how I come to the conclusion that it would be best if we have a great defender at the 3 spot. If we have a weak defender at the 3, our perimeter defense could be awful.


not that i agree that roy won't be a great defender, but i can agree that we need a lockdown type of perimeter defender to help both roy and sergio out. i'd rather they exert more of their energy on offense.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

It doesn't matter who the best overall SF is.

It matters which SF fits this team the best.
It seems like Al Thornton is a much better shooter
than any of the other highly regarded SFs listed.
Obviously, Al can do a lot more than shoot.

I have yet to hear a good explanation of how
Green or any of the others fit the team better
than Al Thornton.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

wizmentor said:


> I have yet to hear a good explanation of how
> Green or any of the others fit the team better
> than Al Thornton.


What is there to "fit"?

How do we know what this team IS?

We don't know who the PG is. We don't know whether Zach's going to be on the team. Aldridge and Roy have had about a full season between them under their belts. Oden hasn't played a single professional minute yet.

I love our core and our future, but it's not like we need one last piece to get over some sort of hump here... looking at fit, rather than simply at the best player, is like building on quicksand.

Ed O.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Ed O said:


> What is there to "fit"?
> 
> How do we know what this team IS?
> 
> ...





We know we are going to draft Oden.
We know we have a 4th quarter go-to guy in Roy.
We know we have we have a fantastic PF who can shoot and block shots.
We know that we want to move uptempo.
We know that Zach does not fit the cultrure KP keeps talking about.
We know each of these pieces is young and will be with the team a long time,
which is more than most of the other teams know.



Ed O said:


> I love our core and our future, but it's not like we need one last piece to get over some sort of hump here... looking at fit, rather than simply at the best player, is like building on quicksand.
> Ed O.


This is hyperbolic and wrong. We need a shooter, period.
Consider the past championship teams. Houston, Chicago, SA - they all
had shooters.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> What is there to "fit"?
> 
> How do we know what this team IS?
> 
> ...


We might not know what the team IS, but I'm sure Pritchard does. I'm sure he knows who his PG is, I'm sure he knows that he'll be trading Zach, and I'm sure he knows Roy, Aldridge, and Oden will be starting. 

I don't think it's too early to say who fits in with our team and culture and who doesn't. We've seen Pritchard is all about preparation, and he is surely preparing this roster before day 1 of the season starts.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

wizmentor said:


> We know we are going to draft Oden.


I think that's safe to say, yes.



> We know we have a 4th quarter go-to guy in Roy.


He only played in 57 games. The team was terrible, and none of the games meant anything. And yet we "know" that he's a 4th quarter go-to guy? That's a joke, right?



> We know we have we have a fantastic PF who can shoot and block shots.


Again: a joke, right? Aldridge only had one good month in the league so far. Calling him a "fantastic PF" is WAY overstating things. He's a very good prospect, but he's not fantastic as a player yet. He hasn't even showed he can hold down a starting job.



> We know that we want to move uptempo.


We do? How do we know that? Nate has never had up-tempo teams before, and I seriously doubt he's that interested in having one now.



> We know that Zach does not fit the cultrure KP keeps talking about.


That is true... so what? Do we know whether he's going to play this year for the Blazers? No. Do we know what piece(s) we're going to get back for him? No.



> We know each of these pieces is young and will be with the team a long time,


We know they're young, but not that they'll be here for a long time. We also don't know what the pieces ARE since they're so young and inexperienced.



> This is hyperbolic and wrong. We need a shooter, period.


In your opinion, sure. But it's based on a bunch of assumptions that YOU have made. I disagree that there's enough evidence to support your assumptions, firstly, and secondly would argue that even if your assumptions were correct, we'd be better off taking the better player, rather than the lesser player who is a better fit.



> Consider the past championship teams. Houston, Chicago, SA - they all had shooters.


Every team in the NBA has shooters. Which team doesn't? 

Ed O.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

OK, the foundation seems to be in place. The new roof should be on soon. There is still a lot of basic work that needs doing, before we start fussing over the luxury items. 

(In case anybody missed the point - a one dimensional shooter is a luxury item! Add in the fact that a high percentage of guys drafted to fill that role are total flops, and it just isn't worth it. If the team lands another lotto pick, they need to be looking for a sound, versatile player.....not another Webster or Adam.)


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> OK, the foundation seems to be in place. The new roof should be on soon. There is still a lot of basic work that needs doing, before we start fussing over the luxury items.
> 
> (In case anybody missed the point - a one dimensional shooter is a luxury item! Add in the fact that a high percentage of guys drafted to fill that role are total flops, and it just isn't worth it. If the team lands another lotto pick, they need to be looking for a sound, versatile player.....not another Webster or Adam.)


Al Thornton is one dimensional? You are feeling grouchy.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

wizmentor said:


> Al Thornton is one dimensional? You are feeling grouchy.



OK, guilty as charged! :sadbanana:


----------

