# At 13 Collison would be a steal, and a perfect fit



## Karl Malones Elbows (Mar 20, 2008)

I know everybody's really high on Westbrook, but when I watch UCLA I can't seem to stop watching Collison. Westbrook may have higher star potential, but I think Collison has the best chance at contributing to a championship Blazers team. To put it another way, Collison writes the sentence while Westbrook provides the exclamation point. With Roy, Aldridge, Rudy, and *ahem* Oden this team doesn't need any more punctuation, it needs someone to write the script. Collison is a complete and smart point that could immediately fill that role.

Collison is just really good (if not great) at everything he does. He plays tough defense from the start of the game to the end, every single play. Seeing Collison in a defensive stance every time down the court really stands out. I'm sure he has weaknesses but I just have no idea what they are. Every time I watch UCLA he's the player that stands out to me as being the best pro player. 

Like Roy I think Collison will be the most NBA ready rookie in his class and will be able to contribute on both ends right away. He's a third year player shooting .506 from 3, .492 from the field and .874 from the line. He doesn't turn the ball over and quickly recovers from mistakes. He's got those super long arms that are all over the place on defense as noted by his 2 bpg this season and last.

Of all the players currently projected around Portland's spot Collison is the only one I'd want. Other than him I'd rather just package the pick in a trade for Harris or another established PG.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=26892
http://www.nbadraft.net/admincp/profiles/darrencollison.html

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CV5lS9KceYw&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CV5lS9KceYw&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

He is on the small side. He has the skills, and the athletic ability but he weighs no more than like 160 pounds. He will have a little of an adjustment period but by the end of his rookie year he will be able to compete fairly well.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

seems a bit young, don't you think? I mean, first of all, he can't be drafted for another 6 years..


----------



## Sonny-Canzano (Oct 20, 2007)

DJ Augustine > Darren Collison


----------



## Sonny-Canzano (Oct 20, 2007)

Hap said:


> seems a bit young, don't you think? I mean, first of all, he can't be drafted for another 6 years..


I almost laughed.

..almost :whistling:


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

-Sonny- said:


> DJ Augustine > Darren Collison


Augustin is how it's spelled but yes I agree. Collison has more athletic ability but Augustin has a great feel for the game, and is more skilled than Collison. Collison has greater potential on the NBA level though.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

-Sonny- said:


> I almost laughed.
> 
> ..almost :whistling:


Sorry, buy you are wrong. You actually did laugh. see?



-Sonny- said:


> :rofl2::rofl2:
> 
> That is so funny!!!


----------



## bigbailes (Jul 6, 2006)

If Kevin Love is there at 13...we better grab him!


----------



## Karl Malones Elbows (Mar 20, 2008)

bigbailes said:


> If Kevin Love is there at 13...we better grab him!


I hope not, he's just so slooow. There's tons of players like him in college every year, they never make good pros. And the best he could ever hope for on the Blazers is to keep the backup PF spot locked up. There's no way he'd ever start over Aldridge.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Karl Malones Elbows said:


> I hope not, he's just so slooow. There's tons of players like him in college every year, they never make good pros. And the best he could ever hope for on the Blazers is to keep the backup PF spot locked up. There's no way he'd ever start over Aldridge.


We're not looking to replace LMA, so why not draft a career backup? Though I have to agree in that we should try to nab the best PG we can, and get a Love-like backup PF afterwards. But drafting Love to back up LMA for 12 years is no bad thing.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

As I have said, Love's ego won't let him be a career backup....
Westbrook is who we need..a perimeter lock down guard to play along side Roy. Roy has the ball in his hands a lot, so he is almost like a pg...put Russell next to him and watch the D try to contain us.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

Karl Malones Elbows said:


> I hope not, he's just so slooow. There's tons of players like him in college every year, they never make good pros. And the best he could ever hope for on the Blazers is to keep the backup PF spot locked up. There's no way he'd ever start over Aldridge.


I understand that I am one of the few who think he has a legit chance to be a good pro on this entire site. But to say there is players like him every year in college basketball that is just false. Sure there are slow white guys who average double-doubles but very few have them same skill-set he does. He can rebound, is unselfish, has a great passion for the game, sets good screens, and is the best passing bigman I have seen in a while (especially when it comes to outlet passes). Thats also just describing the inatangibles of his game. He also has a gret offensive skill-set. He can score down on the block, can hit the perimeter shot, and overall is very versatile. If he had Beasley's athletic ability he would be drafted with the #1 pick this year. That being said Love has a lot better shot to succeed in the NBA than guys like Hansbrough, Harangody, DJ White, and the other elite PF across America (of course this excludes Beasley who is on a whole other level). The Trailblazers would be dumb to select him with whatever pick they receive because Aldridge, and Oden are both better than he is (or at least the way Aldridge is playing lately). Westbrook, Bayless, Mayo, Augustin, or Collison would all be good fis for you guys.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

MAS RipCity said:


> As I have said, Love's ego won't let him be a career backup....
> Westbrook is who we need..a perimeter lock down guard to play along side Roy. Roy has the ball in his hands a lot, so he is almost like a pg...put Russell next to him and watch the D try to contain us.


Whats with everybody pounding home this ego thing with Love? He seems like a good kid to me, or is there something I'm missing here. I will admit he comes off as a douchebag at times.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

It may not be all Kevin's fault, but his dad is an ego-maniac and I think he feeds it into Kevin. Kevin has already stated this year ucla needed to get him the ball more often..not something I think is cool to do in public. I really don't think playing in his hometown is such a good idea.
I really want westbrook or hansbrough....Tyler would be a reach but damnitt, I love his energy. It would be like Rasta Monster all over again. An awesome, aggressive backup who provides D, rebounding, and energy for the white unit. He would push our guys in practice as well.


----------



## Karl Malones Elbows (Mar 20, 2008)

The lottery isn't for drafting backups, you get veterans for that job. And there's no way Love is going to be content being a backup, he's a competitor who expects to be a starter in this league. No way he's okay being in a situation where he knows he has no chance to start, ever.

While I like Westbrook and he's a good defender, he's not even close to being on the same level as Collison in that department. Westbrook's not fast enough to keep up with the fast NBA points, so it would present the same problem as Roy guarding the fast points. Who would guard Parker, Paul, or Harris? Collison is as fast as all of them and has been a true lock down defender since his freshman year. He's a true floor general and as close of an example of a Nate-type player as there exists in the draft. Collison is also a far better shooter from downtown hitting .506; Westbrook is only .333 behind the college line.

Anyway there's no reason to think Westbrook will be available at Portland's pick. And I don't think he's worth trading Outlaw and 13 for, which is the bare minimum it would take to get into the top 8.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

MAS RipCity said:


> It may not be all Kevin's fault, but his dad is an ego-maniac and I think he feeds it into Kevin. Kevin has already stated this year ucla needed to get him the ball more often..not something I think is cool to do in public. I really don't think playing in his hometown is such a good idea.
> I really want westbrook or hansbrough....Tyler would be a reach but damnitt, I love his energy. It would be like Rasta Monster all over again. An awesome, aggressive backup who provides D, rebounding, and energy for the white unit. He would push our guys in practice as well.



+1


----------



## ROYisR.O.Y. (Apr 1, 2007)

i <3 collison
collison=poor mans cp3


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Collison is a very heady player and he's an outstanding perimeter shooter, he'll probably be a steady Steve Blake type at the next level, but he is pretty small and very slight which would make me pause drafting him in the mid first round.

Westbrook had a really bad game offensively last night against Marquette (nothing would go down it seemed) but anyone saying he's not fast enough is seeing something entirely different than I have the 6-7 times I've watched UCLA play this year; the kid is a great defender, has an explosive first step and is an amazing finisher at the rim. The only knock on him is that his handles aren't always great, and he's never had to carry the PG load for a full season.

I think either would be decent pros, but if I had to pick a back-court mate for Brandon, I'd lean toward Westbrook who is comfortable playing off ball ... I just wonder if his outside shot wouldn't be his achilles heel? (at least for a year or two).


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

bball2223 said:


> Augustin is how it's spelled but yes I agree. Collison has more athletic ability but Augustin has a great feel for the game, and is more skilled than Collison. Collison has greater potential on the NBA level though.


i don't know about collison having more pro potential. both guys will at least be good nba backups. i'm not so sure collison can be more than that. but with the way augustin can control the game, i think he will be a solid starter. collison is a good fit for any team though. what team couldn't use a pg that is good defensively and will knock down open shots?


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

bball2223 said:


> Augustin is how it's spelled but yes I agree. Collison has more athletic ability but Augustin has a great feel for the game, and is more skilled than Collison. Collison has greater potential on the NBA level though.


I haven't seen DJA play, but the ESPN draft guy who was covering the UCLA game
says that collison was the best PG in the nation. The color guy brought up
DJA, but the ESPN guy said that Collision's defense was much better.
(He must have been talking outside of Rose).

NBAdraft.net rates DJA's defense as a 7, Collison's as an 8.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

wizmentor said:


> I haven't seen DJA play, but the ESPN draft guy who was covering the UCLA game
> says that collison was the best PG in the nation. The color guy brought up
> DJA, but the ESPN guy said that Collision's defense was much better.
> (He must have been talking outside of Rose).
> ...


collison is better at defense, augustin better at offense and running a team.


----------



## chairman (Jul 2, 2006)

Trade the pick. I am not impressed with anyone so far except Beasley. Hoping to watch Rose tonight, but overall this draft sucks. Solid players yes, but they all look like good back ups to me. I am sure some will emerge as stars. But not many sure bets.

Westbrook btw is fast enough to defend, he just can't shoot well enough from the outside to start. Like all of them they can get better, but we are talking about a starter on a championship team. I am just not too impressed. I would take Collison though as a back up down the road. But Love has more value. I was hoping he would be a bust. But the guy is fundamentaly great. He will be a solid back up as well.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Karl Malones Elbows said:


> The lottery isn't for drafting backups, you get veterans for that job. And there's no way Love is going to be content being a backup, he's a competitor who expects to be a starter in this league. No way he's okay being in a situation where he knows he has no chance to start, ever.


If a guy doesn't start but averages 30 minutes per game or so on a contending team, is that really such a terrible thing for an ego to endure? I happen to think that Love projects well beside Oden or LaMarcus as LA has the length to guard most front court players and should only become stronger as time passes. I also don't think that Love is all that slow... dude moves his big body around pretty nimbly IMO. I'll be interested to see his pre-draft numbers. I'd want to see him measure in at least 6'8 barefoot... I'm pretty sure his run jump numbers will surprise people. 



bball2223 said:


> Whats with everybody pounding home this ego thing with Love? He seems like a good kid to me, or is there something I'm missing here. I will admit he comes off as a douchebag at times.


Through some 2nd hand teacher gossip I've heard dude is a jerk... but I also happen to think thats probably true of most pro athletes including (gasp) Portland Trailblazers. I'll trust management to decide whats what in that area. I'm not saying that there aren't sorts of personalities that shouldn't be brought on board, but rather that we're in a poor position to judge whose okay or not.

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Karl Malones Elbows said:


> Collison is just really good (if not great) at everything he does. He plays tough defense from the start of the game to the end, every single play. Seeing Collison in a defensive stance every time down the court really stands out. *I'm sure he has weaknesses but I just have no idea what they are.* Every time I watch UCLA he's the player that stands out to me as being the best pro player.


size... dude is tiny compared to most NBA small guards. Just my guess that he's about 5'9 155 lbs. but we'll see at the pre-draft. I don't think that eliminates his chances of being a rotation player, but he's going to have the same issues that face all small guards.

STOMP


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Westbrook's not fast enough to keep up with the fast NBA points


he is faster, more athletic, and more explosive than Collison.



> Anyway there's no reason to think Westbrook will be available at Portland's pick. And I don't think he's worth trading Outlaw and 13 for, which is the bare minimum it would take to get into the top 8.


He hasn't had a good tourny, and was predicted at 9 before it started. Maybe some people declare, and he slides down to 10-12, then we can pretty easily snatch him. Its all gonna depend on that.

Anyway, i'd WAY rather have Hudson than Collison. faster, better defender, taller, longer, better shooter, unselfish and all that. Hudson's stats are amazing, and averaged around 30 points when he played the 3 tourny teams (memphis, Vandy and UNLV) on his schedule. He also had a quadriple double, and is by far the best rebounding guard i've seen since Jason Kidd. He averages 8 rbs a game at 6'4 ish, but has an amazingly long wingspan, with mad hops.

there is no way i see Collison being a player better than Blake, which will just have him as a backup for our championship team. We aren't lookin' for that in the lottery. Westbrook has the potential to be great. When collison went down, and Westbrook had to step in to the PG spot, he led the pac-10 in assists.


----------



## Karl Malones Elbows (Mar 20, 2008)

No way is Westbrook faster than Collison. It's just not even a valid argument. Collison will instantly be one of the fastest and quickest players in the NBA, he's on that elite level. Westbrook can jump higher and farther. Collison projects to be better than Blake at every single area of the point guard position. I see Blake as the backup on the Championship runs.

Also, Collison measured 6' barefoot and I don't remember weight ever mattering for the point guard position. If he's 160 now he'll be 180+ in a few years and that's more than adequate. 

NBADRAFT.net says:

NBA Comparison: Kevin Johnson

Strengths: Made a name for himself as a freshman as a lock down defender, *with his tremendous reflexes, long arms and quick feet: Collison has the ability to make life hell for opposing point guards trying to bring the ball up the court … An absolute jet, has an extra gear which allows him to blow by virtually any college PG at will … His hand and foot speed put him in elite company* … Mentally tough. Has a great motor, competes hard and doesn’t back down ... He steps his level of intensity up in important situations … Has really improved as a floor general and shows excellent vision and passing along with great ball handling ability … A smart decision maker who knows when to pull the ball out and when to attack the glass … Rarely makes bad judgments passing the ball … He’s just 6’ feet (barefoot) but *has extremely long arms allowing him to play bigger than his actual size* … His outside shooting has shown excellent improvement, and he has also developed an effective mid-range tear drop that he utilizes over shot blockers … His body control is tremendous … A real terror as an on ball defender, quick to pounce on any mistake made by opposing guards … If he gets a step on opponents in the open court, it’s usually too late to catch up to foul him …


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Karl Malones Elbows said:


> Also, Collison measured 6' barefoot


link?

STOMP


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Collison is not better than any of your present point guards, maybe Taurean Green


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> No way is Westbrook faster than Collison. It's just not even a valid argument


Collison might be quicker, but isn't as fast. And yes it is a valid arguement. Westbrook is also bigger, longer, more athletic, and has more potential.

Westbrook will develop into a better PG at the NBA level, imo. But won't be as much of a pure PG. He will be a better scorer and better in the fast break. Also, imo better at defense.

While Collison got injured for like 4-6 games, Westbrook took the PG spot on UCLA and led the Pac-10 in assists during that time.

Being 6 ft. and 160 just isn't attractive to me. PGs like him come along all the time.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Collison is not better than any of your present point guards, maybe Taurean Green


We don't have Green anymore.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Quite simply, I want KP to trade the pick. If that means he is trading up, or out of the draft is fine with me. If he can not get decent value in trade for the pick, then just keep it and use it. But picking at 13 is a crap shoot, so you take best player available. If that is Kevin Love, then take him. The great thing about picking at 13 is that there is no pressure on the team or on the player drafted. If Love were to develop and excel as many (including me) think he will, then he will be worth more in trade after a year or two in the NBA then the actual 13th pick was.

Love could actually end up playing a vital role on a Blazers championship team. LA could slide to the SF slot some (not a lot), and create match up problems for the opponent. BPA is the only way to pick at 13.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

You guys can argue over the first round. I want to make the 2nd round pick and I want this man. 
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/z64oJTF0Au8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/z64oJTF0Au8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

A cross between Josh Howard and Latrell Spreewell.

Sonny "The Sheriff" Weems.


----------



## obiwankenobi (Jan 31, 2004)

Love reminds me so much of Bill Laimbeer it's scary. Except his footwork is better. He would be fantastic for this team based on his skills. Is there PT for him? Is he the right kind of character guy for Pritchard to draft? I don't know. But we need rebounding, we need toughness and he has both of those.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> Being 6 ft. and 160 just isn't attractive to me. PGs like him come along all the time.


Chris Paul measured 5'11.75 barefoot at his pre-draft and weighed in at 178lbs. It would raise my opinion of Collison if he were to come in at that size... I think he's smaller.

STOMP


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

-Sonny- said:


> DJ Augustine > Darren Collison



Augustin sucks. We better not pick him.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

^i like Augestin better than Collison.



> Chris Paul measured 5'11.75 barefoot at his pre-draft and weighed in at 178lbs. It would raise my opinion of Collison if he were to come in at that size... I think he's smaller.


Chris Paul was a special talent. Collison cannot be compared to him.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

STOMP said:


> size... dude is tiny compared to most NBA small guards. Just my guess that he's about 5'9 155 lbs. but we'll see at the pre-draft. I don't think that eliminates his chances of being a rotation player, but he's going to have the same issues that face all small guards.
> 
> STOMP


and you get 5'9 from where? look at him on the court. no way is he 5'9.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Collison is a much better FT shooter than DJA.

A lot of people dog on Jack, but he is clutch at the line in the 4th - we need
that, so the FT difference could be significant. However, Rudy really
shoots FTs at a high percentage, so that could be moot.


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

It is so funny to me how all you think you are NCAA scouts and know how players are going to turn out.

Great thread... experts. LOL


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

BenDavis503 said:


> It is so funny to me how all you think you are NCAA scouts and know how players are going to turn out.
> 
> Great thread... experts. LOL


You really shouldn't be throwing stones in your glass house.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> and you get 5'9 from where? look at him on the court. no way is he 5'9.


if you read my post and you should be able to figure out my source.

STOMP


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

STOMP said:


> if you read my post and you should be able to figure out my source.
> 
> STOMP


you said it was just your guess. if you are guessing that he's 5'9, i have to doubt that you've seen him play because he definitely doesn't seem to be that short.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

wizmentor said:


> Collison is a much better FT shooter than DJA.


collison is not a much better free throw shooter than augustin. this season, collison has shot 10% better, but last season augustin shot 2% better. i don't know why, but the whole texas team has kinda been worse at the line this year. abrams dropped from over 90% to just under 80%. it might have something to do with them all playing so many minutes since they have no depth behind than their 3 starting guards.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

rocketeer said:


> and you get 5'9 from where? look at him on the court. no way is he 5'9.


i also really doubt that collison is 5'9". my guess is he'll measure in at 5'11" - 6' w/o shoes. if he's any taller than that, he might move into the top 12.


----------



## Karl Malones Elbows (Mar 20, 2008)

rocketeer said:


> collison is not a much better free throw shooter than augustin.


Yes he is, in fact he's just a way better shooter all around. His shooting form is simply flawless.
Collison: FG% .494, 3% .516 FT% .876,
Augustin: FG% .447, 3% .385 FT% .784,

That is much better by my definition.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

I'd be delighted if we got Collison. He seems to be everything we need in a compliment to Brandon. Good shooter, good defender, is effective both with and without the ball. I'm thinking his shooting makes him a better match than Westbrook.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Karl Malones Elbows said:


> Yes he is, in fact he's just a way better shooter all around. His shooting form is simply flawless.
> Collison: FG% .494, 3% .516 FT% .876,
> Augustin: FG% .447, 3% .385 FT% .784,
> 
> That is much better by my definition.


did you even bother reading my post? collison may be a better free throw shooter than augustin(or he may not be), but he definitely is not a much better free thow shooter.

those percentages are deceiving as well when comparing the two players. augustin is depended on to create for the entire texas offense and that obviously is going to have him taking more forced shots at the end of the shot clock when things don't open up and is going to be more tiring. and he essentially plays the entire game all game which would obviously have an effect on the percentages as well. collison has the luxury of one of the best post players in college to get him easier shots. collison may be a better shooter than augustin, but it's not nearly as big a margin as the numbers suggest(if there is a margin at all).


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

I guess I'd rather trade the pick with players to get a Baron Davis level point if we can..Calderon would be nice as well.

No one in the draft looks like a can't miss point guard- there will be one or two all-star point guards, but it's too hard to tell- so I'd go for a veteran.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

I'd love to go after Devin Harris again and take on some salary but he's been playing terrific for the Nets. I would give up Outlaw and our pick for him in an instance. Calderon is another guy that might be had but I know the price is high. And as we discussed earlier, Maurice Williams could probably be had as well. I think those are our best three options to look at this summer.


----------



## Karl Malones Elbows (Mar 20, 2008)

rocketeer said:


> did you even bother reading my post? collison may be a better free throw shooter than augustin(or he may not be), but he definitely is not a much better free thow shooter.


Yes, you said Collison isn't a better free throw shooter when clearly he is. 



> those percentages are deceiving as well when comparing the two players.


Not really.



> and he essentially plays the entire game all game


He plays 2 minutes per game more than Collison.


----------



## Karl Malones Elbows (Mar 20, 2008)

Is Barron Davis a free agent? He would be a great pickup as would Harris. However trading for either of them would still leave a hole at SF. Drafting Collison would potentially allow us to trade for a SF.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Karl Malones Elbows said:


> Yes, you said Collison isn't a better free throw shooter when clearly he is.


i said that collison isn't a *much* better free throw shooter than augustin. key word is in bold.



> Not really.


they definitely are deceiving. if augustin had a lesser role in the offense, his percentages would be higher(though of course his impact on the game will be lower).



> He plays 2 minutes per game more than Collison.


and he creates the offense for his entire team. you don't think that is tiring? the offense is all abrams running off screens and augustin penetrating and creating for either himself or his teammates depending on what the defense does.


----------



## Karl Malones Elbows (Mar 20, 2008)

rocketeer said:


> they definitely are deceiving. if augustin had a lesser role in the offense, his percentages would be higher(though of course his impact on the game will be lower).p


I don't see any reason to believe that.




> and he creates the offense for his entire team. you don't think that is tiring? the offense is all abrams running off screens and augustin penetrating and creating for either himself or his teammates depending on what the defense does.


So your argument is that Augustin is just too tired from those extra two minutes a game? That's the angle you're going for? Collison takes the ball down the court every time too.

Collison plays full energy the entire game, and he does it on *both ends* of the court. And I don't see him getting tired, I don't see his offensive game getting worse at the end of games and I don't see him giving up on defense at the end of games. In fact that's when he shines; note him taking over the game and leading UCLA's come from behind win against A&M where he had 4 of the teams final 6 and half of the game clinching block. You're saying that Augustin is just too tired to perform as well as Collison? I don't think he's too tired, I just don't think he has the complete offensive game and pure shot that Collison does. 

Collison can hit every shot and has many moves to get seperation. Augustin does not have anything close to a complete offensive game and I don't think his size or length project development in that area either. His offensive game pretty much only consists of driving to the basket or chucking up 3's. He's an excellent passer but so is Collison who actually turns the ball over less.

But really Collison separates himself from Augustin on the defensive end. He's a true elite defender and will likely get even better. Augustin just isn't and doesn't have the athleticism or body to get suddenly get better in the pros. I think Augustin is a very good point guard and would be a good fit on many teams in the league, I just don't think so on Portland, at least not as well as Collison anyway.

I think Collison is the Roy of this draft.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Karl Malones Elbows said:


> Collison can hit every shot and has many moves to get seperation. Augustin does not have anything close to a complete offensive game and I don't think his size or length project development in that area either. His offensive game pretty much only consists of driving to the basket or chucking up 3's. He's an excellent passer but so is Collison who actually turns the ball over less.


you clearly have not seen augustin play much if you've even seen him play at all.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> you said it was just your guess. if you are guessing that he's 5'9, i have to doubt that you've seen him play because he definitely doesn't seem to be that short.


oh you got me... I post all the time about guys I've never seen play 

I'm still waiting on the link of his supposed barefoot 6' measurement... actually I'm starting to suspect I'll just be waiting on the pre-draft

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> you clearly have not seen augustin play much if you've even seen him play at all.


dude... do you have any other comeback when someone disagrees with you?

STOMP


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

STOMP said:


> dude... do you have any other comeback when someone disagrees with you?
> 
> STOMP


yes i do. in these two cases though, i felt that one was appropriate. if you think collison is 5'9, then how tall do you think westbrook is? and is that 5'9 barefoot(which is a meaningless height since they play basketball wearing shoes) or 5'9 in shoes? because in comparison to the other players on the ucla team and the players on opposing teams, collison doesn't seem that small to me.

and with the other guys description of dj augustin's offensive game and him apparently not realizing anything about the texas offense, i feel like he must not have seen them play more than a couple of games if that.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> yes i do. in these two cases though, i felt that one was appropriate. if you think collison is 5'9, then how tall do you think westbrook is? and is that 5'9 barefoot(which is a meaningless height since they play basketball wearing shoes) or 5'9 in shoes? because in comparison to the other players on the ucla team and the players on opposing teams, collison doesn't *seem that small to me*.


so you have an impression from your observations as do I... I made it very clear that I didn't have the facts by both asking for a link from someone who seems to have been posturing and by noting 5'9 (barefoot) as my best guess. He seems that small to me, but I'm interested in seeing whats exactly what.

btw... I don't get the measurements with shoes on justification. I walk around in shoes, but when I go to the doctor for a physical I'm measured barefoot. Hockey players aren't measured with their skates on... in fact I'm not aware of any other sport or walk of life where people are measured with their shoes on. A quick look at past NBA pre-drafts reveals how widely shoe thickness varies. For instance, while 1.25" seems about the norm, this last year Spencer Hawes showed up with shoes that were 2.25" thick. Barefoot he's a 1/4 inch taller then LaMarcus... should he be listed 1.25" taller because of the lifts he was wearing one day? What if he changes shoes... should he be remeasured?



> and with the other guys description of dj augustin's offensive game and him apparently not realizing anything about the texas offense, i feel like he must not have seen them play more than a couple of games if that.


take it or leave it, but I'd try to use other ways of expressing yourself then claiming the other poster is making up their observations from scratch. You'll avoid fights over nothing and be able to discuss hoops without offending the other person.

STOMP


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

STOMP said:


> so you have an impression from your observations as do I... I made it very clear that I didn't have the facts by both asking for a link from someone who seems to have been posturing and by noting 5'9 (barefoot) as my best guess. He seems that small to me, but I'm interested in seeing whats exactly what.


fair enough. 5'9 barefoot is not as ridiculous as a guess as i had originally thought. though if he is 5'9 barefoot, westbrook has to be similarly small(a little taller obviously, but not much).



> btw... I don't get the measurements with shoes on justification. I walk around in shoes, but when I go to the doctor for a physical I'm measured barefoot. Hockey players aren't measured with their skates on... in fact I'm not aware of any other sport or walk of life where people are measured with their shoes on. A quick look at past NBA pre-drafts reveals how widely shoe thickness varies. For instance, while 1.25" seems about the norm, this last year Spencer Hawes showed up with shoes that were 2.25" thick. Barefoot he's a 1/4 inch taller then LaMarcus... should he be listed 1.25" taller because of the lifts he was wearing one day? What if he changes shoes... should he be remeasured?


in hockey, height isn't really relevant. the game is played on the ground. basketball is the sport height is most relevant in because the basket is 10 feet in the air.

i don't understand why we should use barefoot measurements because the game is not played barefoot. they wear shoes to play, so why do i care about any height other than the height they play at? if hawes plays in shoes 2.25" thick, then that is the height he plays at and when he stands on the court next to lamarcus, he's going to be 1.25" taller. isn't that all we care about when we're talking about these measurements. even if they are the same height barefoot, hawes being taller when they are actually on the court is all that matters(in regards to their height).



> take it or leave it, but I'd try to use other ways of expressing yourself then claiming the other poster is making up their observations from scratch. You'll avoid fights over nothing and be able to discuss hoops without offending the other person.


i did. me and karl malones elbows had several posts back and forth. from his responses and lack of understanding of the circumstances that augustin plays in makes me believe he must not have seen him play too much.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> if hawes plays in shoes 2.25" thick, then that is the height he plays at and when he stands on the court next to lamarcus, he's going to be 1.25" taller. isn't that all we care about when we're talking about these measurements. even if they are the same height barefoot, hawes being taller when they are actually on the court is all that matters(in regards to their height).


Hawes doesn't necessarily play in the shoes he was measured in. Also it's rare for players to wear the same type of shoes in successive seasons so it follows that their heights would vary from one season to the next. I'd much rather have NBA players stay with the rest of the world's conventions and list their barefoot heights as that doesn't change... unfortunately "they" aren't listening to me :azdaja:

STOMP


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

STOMP said:


> Hawes doesn't necessarily play in the shoes he was measured in. Also it's rare for players to wear the same type of shoes in successive seasons so it follows that their heights would vary from one season to the next. I'd much rather have NBA players stay with the rest of the world's conventions and list their barefoot heights as that doesn't change... unfortunately "they" aren't listening to me :azdaja:
> 
> STOMP


that's true, but i assume that they measure them in the same shoes that they are going to do all the different drills and stuff in. so those most likely would be their playing shoes(or at least shoes thats sole purpose was to give them a height increase or else it could possibly bring down the rest of their testing results. i like the shoe height because it's essentially their playing height(within .25" or maybe .5" depending on changing shoe differences) while barefoot height could be a couple of inches off.


----------



## HurraKane212 (Aug 2, 2007)

1's and 5's tend to be the worst "sole offenders." The difference between 5'11" AND 6'1" could be the difference in being a lotto pick or a mid-bubble first rounder. Also, the difference between 6'9" and 6'11" is pretty big.

If Kevin Love were 7' (or even 6'10" barefoot) He'd be a lotto pick easy. Richard Hendrix too... if he was 7' he'd be a top 10 pick. 
Remember, the difference between being a top 5 pick and a 20's pick is several million dollars.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

http://www.nbadraft.net/ now (3/25) has us
taking Collison at #13.

I'm not sure if their choices take team needs into consideration,
but I doubt that they do. So, based on the tourney, they
think Collison's stock is rising.

Draftexpress has him gone at #12.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

^cool. Hopefully he knocks Westbrook down a bit to us. 

but seriously, i've been evaluating who i think the 3 best pure PGs in this draft are.. lawson, collison and augestin. I think i like Augestin the best. IDK if i consider Rose a "pure" PG, but Rose is probably my favorite PG.

Its cool that Collison raised his stock. I wonder how high Westbrook, Collison and Love are gonna go if UCLA wins it all.


----------

