# ESPN: Blazers will pick Spencer Hawes



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

ESPN projects that Portland will pick 7th in this summer's draft and take 7'0 foot freshman center Spencer Hawes. They call him "an extremely skilled center with advanced low-post moves for a player his age."

http://espn.go.com/


----------



## OntheRocks (Jun 15, 2005)

No they won't.


----------



## sabas4mvp (Sep 23, 2002)

I hope not, I don't want him... One husky (I do love Roy though) is enough, and Martell was almost a Husky.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

i'd be ecstatic to land hawes with the 7th pick. he's already got a great post game with good range out to 18ft. he's a decent shot blocker. his obvious weakness is rebounding. i'm definately on board with this pick.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Count me in. 

If he comes out next year there's no way we'll be in the ballpark to get him.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Samuel said:


> Count me in.
> 
> If he comes out next year there's no way we'll be in the ballpark to get him.


you don't think so? i think we'll get a pick between 5-8. that's where i project hawes to be drafted.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> you don't think so? i think we'll get a pick between 5-8. that's where i project hawes to be drafted.


Me too.

But not in the 2008 draft.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

Yi at sf


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Sabas light. I really like Hawes.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Samuel said:


> Me too.
> 
> But not in the 2008 draft.


What he said.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Samuel said:


> Me too.
> 
> But not in the 2008 draft.


if he's guaranteed top 10, i think it's likely that he'll come out.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Spencer may not even declare.

I actually think there is a good chance Noah will fall to the Blazers. Portland was reportedly high on him last year. He seems a bit Joel Pryzbilliay to me, but since Joel keeps getting hurt, perhaps we should draft Noah, then trade Jack and Pryz for a draft pick.


----------



## sabas4mvp (Sep 23, 2002)

I'd rather have Hawes than Noah. I dont want Noah at all, I just have a feeling NBA players will be too much for him to handle.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I think Noah would be a good pickup. Right away he would be our best defender in the post.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

The thing I keep hearing about Joakim Noah is that he's a gamer who works his arse off. That kinda falls in line with the culture that Pritchard keeps talking about. I'm not saying that's the sole attribute that we should be looking for... but it should be part of it.

And I know everyone is saying to go with a 3 in this year's draft, but if a big like Noah or Hawes falls to us, we should take him.


----------



## Tim Lehrbach (Sep 17, 2003)

Samuel said:


> And I know everyone is saying to go with a 3 in this year's draft, but if a big like Noah or Hawes falls to us, we should take him.


I share this sentiment. This draft is overflowing with big men who possess unique talents. As much as a top wing would fit in great here, I can't see passing up the opportunity to bring in a dynamic, athletic big man. And somebody _will_ be available where the Blazers pick. I will be delighted when the Blazers add Noah, Horford, Wright, Hawes, or McRoberts in the draft.

If the Blazers want to acquire a wing in the draft, they should look to use their second rounders (they'll have at least two and as many as four) to move into the second half of the first round. There is a plethora of strong-finishing and competent defending wings ready to step in alongside the playmakers we already have.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I agree completley. I would like a SF, but in reality when you have the chance to take a big man with unique skills you do it. I think all five of those guys have great NBA potential. Noah never stops moving on the floor, defends well, passes well and can rebound/block decently. Horford has a great combo of bulk and athlecism to go with a 14' jumper. Wright is simply an athletic freak with a decent B-Ball IQ. Hawes has a developed post game, footwork and a B-Ball IQ far older than him. McRoberts is a very underrated player. He is too unselfish to ever be a star, but he has the best J out of everyone on this list, is the best passer out of everyone on this list and can rebound/block/defend adequatley. Having those five big men plus Oden in the draft nearly guarantees one will be avaliable for us.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I'm not a big fan of Noah. He's a tremendous college player but none of his tools project to dominate at the NBA level, in my opinion. Being good all around and bigger than most college players can lead to excellence in the college arena, but his athleticism and size will not be special in the NBA (because the NBA has a great deal of size and sheer athleticism) and not having a dominating aspect to his game will marginalize him.

I'd rather have Hawes. While nothing is guaranteed, he at least possesses the potential to be dominating in the post and on the boards. In terms of being a polished post player, smart defender, good rebounder and excellent passer, he reminds me a poor man's Tim Duncan. Adding in his shooting range and Brad Daugherty might be a good NBA comparison.


----------



## Tim Lehrbach (Sep 17, 2003)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> McRoberts is a very underrated player. He is too unselfish to ever be a star, but he has the best J out of everyone on this list, is the best passer out of everyone on this list and can rebound/block/defend adequatley.


I'm glad the first response to my inclusion of McRoberts among the elite big men in the draft was one of shared appreciation instead of disgust. Your description is succinct.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Tim Lehrbach said:


> I will be delighted when the Blazers add Noah, Horford, Wright, Hawes, or McRoberts in the draft.


you had me until mcroberts. i have watched 5 games that he played in, and i honestly don't see anything deserving lotto status. the guy is soft, slow, can't bang downlow, and not good defensively. he's an excellent passing bigs and has good handles. but those qualities aren't the most important in a bigs.

jeff green is a guy that i like.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> I'm not a big fan of Noah. He's a tremendous college player but none of his tools project to dominate at the NBA level, in my opinion. Being good all around and bigger than most college players can lead to excellence in the college arena, but his athleticism and size will not be special in the NBA (because the NBA has a great deal of size and sheer athleticism) and not having a dominating aspect to his game will marginalize him.
> 
> I'd rather have Hawes. While nothing is guaranteed, he at least possesses the potential to be dominating in the post and on the boards. In terms of being a polished post player, smart defender, good rebounder and excellent passer, he reminds me a poor man's Tim Duncan. Adding in his shooting range and Brad Daugherty might be a good NBA comparison.


i like noah. i wouldn't drfat him top 4, but i like him a lot. i agree that he doesn't possess superstar potential, but i love his all around game and the intangibles that he brings. i'm high on those type of players. i think noah will be a great, great role player on a winning team. sometimes those players are just as important as the star players.


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

oden,durant,budinger or maybe YI are acceptable picks, would`nt touch McRoberts with a 2nd rnd pick let alone a top ten.If i ever saw a stereotypical white stiff (re: BUST) then its mcroberts.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> if he's guaranteed top 10, i think it's likely that he'll come out.


True.

But if he stays in he might be able to crack the top 4. I'm not saying he 'should', but he might.

I'm with you; I'd like to see him drop to us. Hawes and Aldridge project pretty well, and possess attributes found in other positions.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

www.starbury.com said:


> would`nt touch McRoberts with a 2nd rnd pick let alone a top ten.


Really?

I think his only problem is he isn't fast enough. He has all the tools that you find in top flight SFs except quickness.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Samuel said:


> Really?
> 
> I think his only problem is he isn't fast enough. He has all the tools that you find in top flight SFs except quickness.


i can't see him playing any position than pf in the NBA. he's too slow to play sf. hell, i think he's too slow for a pf. he has good range for a big, but subpar compared to sf. his handles, same as his shooting, is good for a big but subpar for a sf. he's not particularly good at rebounding or shotblocking for his position either. mcroberts is way overrated imo.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Noah is a C version of Ruben Patterson minus the tude. He plays great D, runs the court well, is a more cerebral player then Rube, and he has way more leadership skills. I saw one play when they were playing Kentucky this past weekend or so...He picks up a loose ball, dribbles the length of the court, and flushes it down with one hand. The most impressive aspect of this paly to me? When he was done, there was a stoppage of play and he turned to teh Gator fans and provoked them on to be louder. He would clap his hands and get his team pumped up. This is exactly what we need. If a few of my guys are gone by the time we pick (Julian,Brandon,Greg,Kevin,Spencer and maybe Al or Yi) I'd welcome him with open arms. He may be even guy you trade your 2nds for a mid-1st rounder if he falls.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> i can't see him playing any position than pf in the NBA. he's too slow to play sf. hell, i think he's too slow for a pf. he has good range for a big, but subpar compared to sf. his handles, same as his shooting, is good for a big but subpar for a sf. he's not particularly good at rebounding or shotblocking for his position either. mcroberts is way overrated imo.


Yeah, I think he's still a first round pick, though. I'd take him if I was in the 14-20 range, but wouldn't want to take him in the top 10.

Interesting that the site that looks so heavily at the European game ranks him the highest (#7). Which begs the question: if he were Androsh Psychroberts from Czechistania, would we feel diferently?


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

Samuel said:


> Really?
> 
> I think his only problem is he isn't fast enough. He has all the tools that you find in top flight SFs except quickness.


you are crazy if u think mcroberts is/will play SF in the nba,he`ll be a PF and a crap one at that


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> When he was done, there was a stoppage of play and he turned to teh Gator fans and provoked them on to be louder. He would clap his hands and get his team pumped up. This is exactly what we need.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

www.starbury.com said:


> you are crazy if u think mcroberts is/will play SF in the nba,he`ll be a PF and a crap one at that


I don't think he'll play SF in the NBA. I'm saying if he was quicker, he'd be a great SF, but as it stands, he's a SF in a PFs body. Which is too bad, because he'd be a good SF if he had the speed for it.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Run that Lotto Sim a few times....In 5 times we landed Hawes, Julian Wright 2 times, dropped to 8 and took Young and Hawes the 5th.

Getting passed by Seattle changes your odds at the #1 from 2.8% to 4.3%, now I know that doesn't sound like much but when you are looking at odds for #1, #2 and #3 that is a drastic difference.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

the worst team has won the lottery 2 outta the past 25 times.....why do i have a weird feeling that boston will win the lottery, no matter where they finish?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

rose garden pimp said:


> the worst team has won the lottery 2 outta the past 25 times.....why do i have a weird feeling that boston will win the lottery, no matter where they finish?


Because they're closest to Bristol, Connecticut.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

rose garden pimp said:


> the worst team has won the lottery 2 outta the past 25 times.....why do i have a weird feeling that boston will win the lottery, no matter where they finish?


maybe it is because oden looks just like bill russel (the current age) in a green uniform? :raised_ey


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

Samuel said:


> Yeah, I think he's still a first round pick, though. I'd take him if I was in the 14-20 range, but wouldn't want to take him in the top 10.
> 
> Interesting that the site that looks so heavily at the European game ranks him the highest (#7). Which begs the question: if he were Androsh Psychroberts from Czechistania, would we feel diferently?



no maybe a few years ago but teams have more scouts over there now and focus on the players now more than ever! But you gave me an idea maybe McRoberts should go to europe to improve his game? I think he would have a better career over there an in the nba go play for Tau, Benton, Cska or Efes Psilen!


----------



## smeedemann (Jul 16, 2003)

I still say NO to Noah! This guy is overhyped and overrated. I don't think he will be any more than a mediocre role player at best in the NBA.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

smeedemann said:


> I still say NO to Noah! This guy is overhyped and overrated. I don't think he will be any more than a mediocre role player at best in the NBA.


Brandon Roy has turned out to be a much better NBA player than we all thought. Maybe Noah will, too.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Brandon Roy has turned out to be a much better NBA player than we all thought. Maybe Noah will, too.


Good point. I am not big on Noah (seems mediocre), but there are a lot of parallels -- "a player who is good at everything, but not exceptional at anything" made me uninterested in Roy as well. And that was the wrong call.

iWatas


----------



## smeedemann (Jul 16, 2003)

Roy was never hyped up and talked about like Noah is. Roy also was on a less talented team than Noah is. Noah might not even be the best player on his team (see Al Horford). I may be wrong but I don't think he will have the impact that Roy has with the Blazers this year.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

Hawes reminds me a lot of poor man's "Big Country".

I really hope we don't draft him, he's going to be a giant bust.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Right now being slotted at #7 does not really mean anything. There is both the chance to move up into top three or possibly down to 8-10. For those that hate Noah, I am not big on him either. But Phoenix sure is, so hope that they get the ATL pick (top 3 protected). They will look to do whatever they can to get him. If Portland Picks 7, you want to see guys like Noah gone in front of you. The same for McRoberts and Hawes. 

Also pay attention to the draft order, because after Oden and Durant, the picks will mainly go by team needs because best player available projects from 3-12 probably. The guys projected at 3-12 are all pretty even so team need will be a huge indicator of where players are taken this year in the lotto.

I also feel there will be some trades in the lottery this year as teams try to get into position to get their guy. As I said earlier, Phoenix will do all they can to get Noah. They see him as the perfect center for their up-tempo game.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Odds of dropping to 8 are pretty slim...9 exceptionally slim and #10 near impossible. I just ran a sim 1000 times and here's what we got

#1 63 times (6.3%)
#2 54 times (5.4%)
#3 58 times (5.8%)
#7 579 times (57.9%)
#8 221 times (22.1%)
#9 24 times (2.4%)
#10 1 time (0.1%)

Top 3 combined 17.5%


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Schilly said:


> Odds of dropping to 8 are pretty slim...9 exceptionally slim and #10 near impossible. I just ran a sim 1000 times and here's what we got
> 
> #1 63 times (6.3%)
> #2 54 times (5.4%)
> ...


If you look closer at your numbers, we have a 17.5% chance of moving up, and a 24.6% chance of moving back. The odds are best we stay at seven, *but we have a much better chance of moving back then forward*. Remember last year we finished with the worst possible pick we could get out of the lottery.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

MAS RipCity said:


> *Noah is a C version of Ruben Patterson minus the tude.* He plays great D, runs the court well, is a more cerebral player then Rube, and he has way more leadership skills. I saw one play when they were playing Kentucky this past weekend or so...He picks up a loose ball, dribbles the length of the court, and flushes it down with one hand. The most impressive aspect of this paly to me? When he was done, there was a stoppage of play and he turned to teh Gator fans and provoked them on to be louder. He would clap his hands and get his team pumped up. This is exactly what we need. If a few of my guys are gone by the time we pick (Julian,Brandon,Greg,Kevin,Spencer and maybe Al or Yi) I'd welcome him with open arms. He may be even guy you trade your 2nds for a mid-1st rounder if he falls.


A 6’11 Patterson would put the Blazers in the playoffs faster than Gandhi’s ghost. He made Kentucky’s big men look sissified in that second half. I would take him over Hawes too.

I like Noah in a 7 game serries too. Could you picture having to face this guy for seven games?


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Noah reminds me alot of a better version of Anderson Varejo, and that is definatley not a bad thing. Varejo makes things happen, never stops hustling and is a good defender. That is what Noah will be.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I'd Much rather have Noah than Hawes...I'm not sold on Hawes at all...

It will be really interested in seeing how the draft plays out past the top 3 (ODen, Durant, Brandan Wright)...IF they all declare, which I suspect they will...

I think if POR is sitting at #6-#8 the chances are very good that a good player will slide to them....


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i think it goes:

tier1: oden durant
tier2: wright wright
tier3: horford noah yi


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

BIG Q said:


> Remember last year we finished with the worst possible pick we could get out of the lottery.


Which makes me think we might get lucky this year!


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)




----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> Which makes me think we might get lucky this year!


I am also leaning that way as well. The year we drafted Martell we did move up to three from wherever we finished the season at (5 or 6 I believe).


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Noah is over three years older than Hawes, and I don't think he's going to be an above-average starter in the NBA.

I didn't want to draft Noah last year, when he was coming off of his great tourney play and was a year younger... I certainly don't think he's a better prospect now. With that being said, acquiring him at #7 or so would be a lot better than at #1, which is where we were talking about him last year.

Hawes is good. Skilled offensively, especially on the post. Has a good nose for the ball on the boards. And he's young. I'd be pretty excited to get him at #7.

The buzz on sports radio up here in Seattle is that Hawes is going to go pro. We'll wait and see...

Ed O.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

I'd rather have Noah than Hawes. Noah is much more athletic in my opinion.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

So, Ed, are you back from your self-imposed hiatus from the board or just slumming today? :biggrin:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> So, Ed, are you back from your self-imposed hiatus from the board or just slumming today? :biggrin:


Heh. Not 100% sure, but since the Nash era is almost over (21 games until I can, wholeheartedly, root for the team again) and the draft is more exciting than the actual games (again, until next year), I might be back.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Given the fact that Portland's record with high school kids has been abysmal, and their record with 4-year college player Brandon Roy has been spectacular, I'm wondering if Pritchard and company will want to go with a more "seasoned" player in the upcoming draft. I realize that Hawes is a college player, but even so the Blazer brass may want to go with a guy who has two or three years of college experience under his belt (if there ARE any of them in this year's draft!).


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Given the fact that Portland's record with high school kids has been abysmal, and their record with 4-year college player Brandon Roy has been spectacular, I'm wondering if Pritchard and company will want to go with a more "seasoned" player in the upcoming draft. I realize that Hawes is a college player, but even so the Blazer brass may want to go with a guy who has two or three years of college experience under his belt (if there ARE any of them in this year's draft!).


You might be right that the team would prefer a more seasoned college player... but I hope they don't. Roy was a great pick, and Webster is still a work in progress, but I doubt that Portland's record with high schoolers is that much worse than it has been with four year seniors.

Telfair, remember, was parlayed into Roy. Compare that to what a four year senior flop of equal magnitude (say, for example, Rafael Araujo, who went 5 spots ahead of Telfair but is about five years older) would bring, and I think the prep prospects often have more value even when they flop.

Another consideration is that extremely young/inexperienced players are often drafted purely on their potential... Outlaw, for example, almost certainly wasn't as good as most players at his position that went after him in the draft.

Here, though, Hawes might already be the more complete player. He's not the ballhandler that Noah is, but he's a much better shooter (from the line and the perimeter) and has better moves down low. Statistically, the two are about equal this year... and Hawes is over three years younger.

It all adds up (to me) to Hawes being the better prospect.

Ed O.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I completley agree. Noah will not be a bad role palyer, in fact I think he is going to be a better version of Anderson Varejo. But, his jump shot, unless COMPLETLEY refined, is going to hold him back from being a very good starter, IMO. Hawes has the potential to be as good as Brad Miller with better footwork and more athlecism. Last year he would have gone top 3 without question.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Heh. but since the Nash era is almost over (21 games until I can, wholeheartedly, root for the team again)
> 
> Ed O.


I don't understand. What is happening in 21 games? Why is the Nash era ALMOST over?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Masbee said:


> I don't understand. What is happening in 21 games? Why is the Nash era ALMOST over?


The end of the season. I turn my expectations back on after the team will finally (from my perspective) have turned the corner.

Ed O.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Once again, I am not against taking Hawes, but am I the only one who thinks he creates a bit of a jam down low? I think the duo of Zach and LaMarcus is great. They compliment each other well and both can score. Then we have Joel taking 15-20 minutes a game as a defensive specialist. Where would Hawes fit in? I may be overvaluing Joel, as I think he could easily be moved. But he is defensive game changer, and is one of the few above average defenders this team has.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Once again, I am not against taking Hawes, but am I the only one who thinks he creates a bit of a jam down low? I think the duo of Zach and LaMarcus is great. They compliment each other well and both can score. Then we have Joel taking 15-20 minutes a game as a defensive specialist. Where would Hawes fit in? I may be overvaluing Joel, as I think he could easily be moved. But he is defensive game changer, and is one of the few above average defenders this team has.


I think both guys would be a good fit. Randolph’s ability to swing the ball out of the high post matters more than who is in the low post and Aldridge can play low and high. Hawes needs a little more seasoning and he could have a high post game that reminds people of Tim Duncan and while Noah isn’t that versatile I would say his upside as a pure defensive/rebound/hustle specialist is at least more immediate and maybe even greater than what Hawes is going to give you in the future. So no matter what either player is a net gain. I don’t think the Blazers can go wrong replacing Pryz and Mags in the rotation with either one of those guys.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Once again, I am not against taking Hawes, but am I the only one who thinks he creates a bit of a jam down low? I think the duo of Zach and LaMarcus is great. They compliment each other well and both can score. Then we have Joel taking 15-20 minutes a game as a defensive specialist. Where would Hawes fit in? I may be overvaluing Joel, as I think he could easily be moved. But he is defensive game changer, and is one of the few above average defenders this team has.


I just don't care if it causes a log jam. When picking in the lottery, and especially top 8 or so, you select the best player period. If there is a log jam, then we have some pretty good players to use as trade bait.

Also, although I like Zach, I think he plays a different game then several other players that I would like to see play more. Roy can play either fast or ginde out bball, but I really think that Aldridge, Sergio, Webster and Outlaw are all much better playing at a faster pace. So a pick that created a log jam at PF/C would allow us to trade Zach easier and get some other position taken care of.


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

I think that Aldridge is the future direction of this team. I would like to see a solid body paired with Aldridge. Noah I think will find his dominance diminished in the NBA, where he is the average player not the top 1% of physical specimins. A tandem of Noah and Aldridge would get abused by larger players. Hawes would provide a solid low block player that wouldn't get pushed around. He has an amazing skill set around the basket and is effective with both hands. You should try and watch a UW game if you can to see his game. Also remember that Roy when he played in the Rutgers Park games played with Hawes and Nate Robinson and got 2nd place in the tourney. So we already know that Roy and Hawes can coexist.


----------



## porkchopexpress (May 24, 2006)

cpt.napalm said:


> I think that Aldridge is the future direction of this team. I would like to see a solid body paired with Aldridge. Noah I think will find his dominance diminished in the NBA, where he is the average player not the top 1% of physical specimins. A tandem of Noah and Aldridge would get abused by larger players. Hawes would provide a solid low block player that wouldn't get pushed around. He has an amazing skill set around the basket and is effective with both hands. You should try and watch a UW game if you can to see his game. Also remember that Roy when he played in the Rutgers Park games played with Hawes and Nate Robinson and got 2nd place in the tourney. So we already know that Roy and Hawes can coexist.



Well, he'll be on FSN around 830 West Coast time tonight.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Noah is over three years older than Hawes, and I don't think he's going to be an above-average starter in the NBA.


you're that low on Noah? i don't think he'll ever be a superstar or even a star, but i think he'll be a great complimentary to a star player. definately above average, i'd say. on the defensive end alone will make him a good player, imo. and i don't think he'll be a liabilty on offense. he doesn't have a lot offensive moves, but he efficiently find ways to score. between noah and hawes, it's a tough call for me. my guts says noah, but hawes is younger and already pretty good.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

A question: Is it even remotely possible that Noah could get some meaningful minutes at SF?

I ask because I've seen several write-ups suggesting he currently ends up playing there on the offensive end _and_ several others that talk about how both quick and fast he is, often leading the break, etc. On the other hand, the "quick and fast" descriptions generally go with a "for a four or five" modifier. I'm mostly thinking about guys like Dirk and Marion who are pretty tall forwards somewhat known for their ability to play the 3 -- I'm clear he'd likely get burned even trying to stay with Ime. I'm just curious about the larger 3s.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> you're that low on Noah?


Then there's that amazing phone call where someone... Dickie V. I think? ...was talking privately not realizing that his phone was on and that he was theoretically supposed to be speaking with some on-air radio guys. He went on to say that Noah's own coach shared privately that he thought it'd be a huge mistake for a team to take Noah ahead of X, Y, or Z players -- basically that the coach didn't think Noah should be considered top 10 worthy.

I don't have a link but it was big enough news that I'm sure Google or some such could turn it up for you if you're interested.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Samuel said:


> Because they're closest to Bristol, Connecticut.


I don't get it. Thats where the ESPN headquarters are, not NBA's.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Noah reminds me alot of a better version of Anderson Varejo, and that is definatley not a bad thing. Varejo makes things happen, never stops hustling and is a good defender. That is what Noah will be.


I've been saying that exact same thing on this board and on the draft board for over a year. Varejao is a players I like, but not somebody you take with a potential top 5 pick in one of (if not thee) deepest draft in the NBA in years.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

TLo said:


> I'd rather have Noah than Hawes. Noah is much more athletic in my opinion.


Would you rather have Keon Clark or Tim Duncan? Clark is way more athletic.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Noah is the product of over-hyping by network television (primarily ESPN) to find stick a face with the Florida basketball team that won the championship without one star player who sticks out from the rest. Noah's personality was perfect for marketability on what was otherwise a very boring tournament (aside from the George Mason story). His tournament run was a good, but very unspectacular. He averaged something like 14 and 7 in the tournament and was given far too much credit.

Noah is an energy player, not a spectacular player. Definitely not a top 10 pick (especially in this draft). He doesn't have any offensive game, he gets a majority of his points on tip-in's and a broken plays. He'll be a decent role player coming off the bench, but not a star.


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Noah is the product of over-hyping by network television (primarily ESPN) to find stick a face with the Florida basketball team that won the championship without one star player who sticks out from the rest. Noah's personality was perfect for marketability on what was otherwise a very boring tournament (aside from the George Mason story). His tournament run was a good, but very unspectacular. He averaged something like 14 and 7 in the tournament and was given far too much credit.
> 
> Noah is an energy player, not a spectacular player. Definitely not a top 10 pick (especially in this draft). He doesn't have any offensive game, he gets a majority of his points on tip-in's and a broken plays. He'll be a decent role player coming off the bench, but not a star.


This man speaks the truth.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> I don't get it. Thats where the ESPN headquarters are, not NBA's.


I think the root of 'east-coast media bias' centers precisely from Bristol, Connecticut. They dominate TV and Internet sports media, pretty much. So imagine the hype and obnoxious Celtic-centered nonsense that we'd have to put up with after that. Ugh, makes me sick to my stomach just thinking about it...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Samuel said:


> I think the root of 'east-coast media bias' centers precisely from Bristol, Connecticut. They dominate TV and Internet sports media, pretty much. So imagine the hype and obnoxious Celtic-centered nonsense that we'd have to put up with after that. Ugh, makes me sick to my stomach just thinking about it...


It'd be like the 80's all over again..

I bet you, deep down inside, the NBA and ESPN want Oden on the Celtics and Durant on the Lakers.


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

Hap said:


> It'd be like the 80's all over again..
> 
> I bet you, deep down inside, the NBA and ESPN want Oden on the Celtics and Durant on the Lakers.


Boston over New York? They'd probably want Oden to the Knicks, Durant to Lakers, B. Wright to Celtics. The new Lebron-Melo-Wade, they'd tell us incessantly. bleh.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

the lakers have been slipping

Gray had a pretty good game today


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Noah is the product of over-hyping by network television (primarily ESPN) to find stick a face with the Florida basketball team that won the championship without one star player who sticks out from the rest. Noah's personality was perfect for marketability on what was otherwise a very boring tournament (aside from the George Mason story). His tournament run was a good, but very unspectacular. He averaged something like 14 and 7 in the tournament and was given far too much credit.
> 
> Noah is an energy player, not a spectacular player. *Definitely not a top 10 pick *(especially in this draft). He doesn't have any offensive game, he gets a majority of his points on tip-in's and a broken plays. He'll be a decent role player coming off the bench, but not a star.


He’s probably going to be a top five pick and he could start for a lot of teams. Noah starts for Philly, Charlotte, maybe the Celts unless they are really committed to going small, Sonics, Kings, Jersey, and he battles Aldridge for PT on the Blazers.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

PorterIn2004 said:


> A question: Is it even remotely possible that Noah could get some meaningful minutes at SF?
> 
> I ask because I've seen several write-ups suggesting he currently ends up playing there on the offensive end _and_ several others that talk about how both quick and fast he is, often leading the break, etc. On the other hand, the "quick and fast" descriptions generally go with a "for a four or five" modifier. I'm mostly thinking about guys like Dirk and Marion who are pretty tall forwards somewhat known for their ability to play the 3 -- I'm clear he'd likely get burned even trying to stay with Ime. I'm just curious about the larger 3s.


No...not a chance. Noah can't shoot a mid-range jumper to save his life. I am not even sure he can make a short-range jumper on a consistent basis.


----------

