# Chad Ford: Pritchard burning up the phone lines



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> *The skinny:* Right now it seems unlikely that the Blazers actually keep this pick. They are loaded with young players and have a history of being very active on the trade market. GM Kevin Pritchard is already burning up the phone lines. I think he either packages some of his young players with this pick and moves up, or he trades for a veteran.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=MockDraft-080602


----------



## HAAK72 (Jun 18, 2007)

In KP We Trust!!!


----------



## DonCorleone (Jul 1, 2005)

Burn baby burn.


----------



## RoyToy (May 25, 2007)

Move Up - Westbrook! Move Up - Westbrook!


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Nice. I had a feeling KP would be very aggressive. 

One thing though, DJ @ #6? WTF is Ford thinking?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

whether he makes a move or not, of course KP is on the phone gauging whats out there. Dude has every reason to make a deal... too many picks, too many players. Here's guessing their is a pretty hot market for what he's peddling and it's more a matter of someone offering him what he wants. 

Westbrook seems an obvious target, but trading for the right vet might make even more sense.

STOMP


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I don't really think we need a vet. Seems like Roy is wise beyond his years. We have Blake, Joel, and hell Trav's been in the league 5 years. This team is rising together.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Move up Mayo! Move up Mayo!


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Mayo, Westbrook, or Gordon, get one an consolidate..booya


----------



## JAFO (Jul 2, 2006)

Don't need a vet! Don't want a vet! Combine Jack and #13 and move up in the draft to get the pick that you want KP.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

yuyuza1 said:


> Nice. I had a feeling KP would be very aggressive.
> 
> One thing though, DJ @ #6? WTF is Ford thinking?


damn it. i wish i had posted a mock draft earlier. augustin would have been my 6th pick. he's definitely the best guy in this draft(even better than rose) to run d'antoni's offense.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Randolph and Westbrook goin' 10 and 11? That isn't bad. Those are my two guys right there.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

In that article Ford mentions that Miami may trade down to get Mayo. I think KP needs to see if he can make a run at Beasley, starting by going after the 3rd or 4th pick, then talking to Miami.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

JAFO said:


> Don't need a vet! Don't want a vet! Combine Jack and #13 and move up in the draft to get the pick that you want KP.


But KP said he wants a vet


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I think Mayo is out of POR reach...I think Mayo goes #3 (perhaps #2)...It may not be MIN taking him at #3, I see a trade occuring with MIN bouncing down a few spots to grab Love or Lopez...

I think the player POR needs to target is Gordon...He can shoot, he can score, he can take a little of the PG duties off of Roy...and he has nice measureables (strength, speed, wingspan, athleticism & toughness)



> Eric Gordon is 6-3 ¼ in shoes, with a terrific 6-9 wingspan. He jumped 40 inches, lifted the bar 15 times, and ran 10.81 and 3.01. He plays like a great athlete, and tested out well too.


I think Bayless is a lock at #4 to SEA...and Ridnour will be given his walking papers...

IF POR deals up it will be one of the teams sitting at #5 through #9 IMO...that means MEM, NY, LAC or MIL

Interestingly...all 4 of those teams are entertaining trading their pick....


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Thanks Chad Ford for telling us what we already knew! :biggrin:

IN KP I TRUST!


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Yea, I would like to know when exactly has KP not been burning up the phone lines? Every draft is so entertaining, I don't dare miss it!:biggrin:


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

23 days baby! Bring on the draft!!!!!!!


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Kmurph said:


> I think Mayo is out of POR reach...I think Mayo goes #3 (perhaps #2)...It may not be MIN taking him at #3, I see a trade occuring with MIN bouncing down a few spots to grab Love or Lopez...
> 
> I think the player POR needs to target is Gordon...He can shoot, he can score, he can take a little of the PG duties off of Roy...and he has nice measureables (strength, speed, wingspan, athleticism & toughness)
> 
> ...



I think Portland needs to get into the Clippers pick (7). That will get them Gordon as long as one of Lopez/Love go before seven. If Portland is targeting a higher pick I still think they need to get the seventh pick to be able to move up a bit more. I see no way that Minny works with us since we are in the same division. Seattle seems locked into Bayless. I don't think MIA wants Beasley since he measured 6'7, but I do not think they want to move down much.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I think LAC might be looking to deal also. There is a good chance Augustine or Westbrook are avaliable at #13, and a PG is what they really need. I can also see them wanting a guy like Rush at 13 to shore up their weak SG position. 

What would it take to get #7?


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I think Rose is a lock at #1 to CHI

I think Bayless is a lock at #4 to SEA

I think there is a good chance there will be some moving at #2 and #3...

I think Riley opts for Mayo to pair with Wade...over Beasley...He may entertain trading down, but I don't think MIN is a willing partner and unless he can convince MEM into a swap...where they would grab Beasley @ #2...then he risks losing his guy (Mayo)...even if he did swap withMEM, he takes the risk of MIN trading the pick...and I think there is a good chance they might...and someone swooping in and taking Mayo from him...Riley IMO is not a big risk taker...so I say he stays put and takes Mayo....

MIN is another wildcard here....they very well could have Beasley drop in their lap and then TRADE their pick to move down a few spots (b\t #5=#7...maybe flip flop w/ MEM?) to get a nice young player (or picks) and get Love or Lopez...I buy that they are after Love....

That leaves POR looking to deal with NY @ #6, LAC @ #7 or MIL @ #8..and #8 may not be low enough to get Gordon or Gallinari...Westbrook though could be there....

LOL..anyway that is my speculation today...Love this time of year...


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I don't see a guy like Eric Gordon being a guy you move up for. OJ Mayo maybe, not Gordon. I also think that Rush is a reach there, because remember he has injury history.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

As long as we don't give up Travis to move up to 7 or so, I'm cool


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

I think Miami should just draft Beasley and swap him for Mayo to whichever the team that ends up drafting him. I have a feeling Pritchard is doing the same with the one or two players they are targeting. Just wait and see where are they going and then work out a trade with that team.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

hasoos said:


> I don't see a guy like Eric Gordon being a guy you move up for. OJ Mayo maybe, not Gordon. I also think that Rush is a reach there, because remember he has injury history.


I totally disagree, Gordon would be a great player to move up for. He would play so well next to Roy. Gordon would not be the primary PG on offense, Roy would, but Gordon could help with ball handling. But on offense, Roy would have the ball in his hand and have Gordon to knock down shots from anywhere, and he is also a man that can create for himself, which is needed on this team. Gordon would really space the floor well. On Defense, Gordon is not the great yet, but he has all the tools, and I mean ALL the tools to become a lock-down defender. Huge 6'9" wingspan. He is extremely quick with outstanding lane agility and 3/4 sprint numbers. He even has a 40' vert. I could see Gordon being groomed to be a killer defender and sharpshooter. Just what the Blazers need.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

GOD said:


> I totally disagree, Gordon would be a great player to move up for. He would play so well next to Roy. Gordon would not be the primary PG on offense, Roy would, but Gordon could help with ball handling. But on offense, Roy would have the ball in his hand and have Gordon to knock down shots from anywhere, and he is also a man that can create for himself, which is needed on this team. Gordon would really space the floor well. On Defense, Gordon is not the great yet, but he has all the tools, and I mean ALL the tools to become a lock-down defender. Huge 6'9" wingspan. He is extremely quick with outstanding lane agility and 3/4 sprint numbers. He even has a 40' vert. I could see Gordon being groomed to be a killer defender and sharpshooter. Just what the Blazers need.


Agreed. Eric Gordon would be a great addition. I'd be willing, I think, to move Outlaw + the 13 for him.

Ed O.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I'd rather move Rudy for Gordon. Travis is more versatile than Rudy. If we got Gordon, there would be no minutes for Rudy, whereas Trav could still start at 3, back up at 3, or backup LMA at the 4.
Not to mention, no one on our team would face double teams, because there'd always be someone open, who is good, to burn you


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

MAS RipCity said:


> I'd rather move Rudy for Gordon. Travis is more versatile than Rudy. If we got Gordon, there would be no minutes for Rudy, whereas Trav could still start at 3, back up at 3, or backup LMA at the 4.


I disagree. Roy/Rudy/Gordon would be a potentially great fit at the two guard spots and it would be a much more balanced back court, in my opinion, than using Outlaw at the backup 4 instead of, say, Frye.

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Gack, I can't believe how many people like Eric Gordon.

I think he's a bust and here's why.

Who cares about athleticism/length/etc...he's a bad defender. Guys generally don't get better at defense. It's a natural skill and Eric Gordon doesn't have it.

He's a tiny SG in a PG's body. Guys like that often don't succeed and if they do, they're not the kind of player that helps you win games. 

He's a one dimensional scorer. He doesn't pass well. He doesn't rebound well. He doesn't take care of the ball. For all the talk about how great a shooter he is, he only shot 33% from three, 43% overall. So maybe he can shoot, but he can't MAKE shots. 

He cleaned up against weak competition early in the year, but struggled against tourney teams.

For some reason, the press loves this kid...I guess because people REALLY overvalue scoring, but he just has way too many red flags to make him a great prospect in my book.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

I did like Gordon, and i'm kind of 50/50 on that situation. I don't see Roy as our answer at the PG.

Gordon just doesn't do it for me at the PG position either.

I think i would be REALLY high on Gordon IF he came into Portland and worked out and showed the ability to play point. If that kid can prove he can be a point guard for us (doesn't have to be a pure PG) then i think he is in my top 3 (realistic) draftees.

As of right now though, idk.

I'm definitely more into defense and PG ability right now more than his scoring ability. I think with Rudy and Greg coming, we have 4 really sexy scoring options. I just don't think that is a need we need to fill as bad as someone who can play PG for us.

The ball is in his court, imo. If he can play PG, and wants to play PG, and understands that at 6'4 that would be a really nice skill to have, then i'm all for it.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> Gack, I can't believe how many people like Eric Gordon.
> 
> I think he's a bust and here's why.
> 
> ...


HELL YES! I'm not getting why so many people are so high on him. He's very overated. In every game I watched this season he was unimpressive. He's strong, but not overly skilled. He's an average shooter. He played below average defense. I don't like him, and I certainly wouldn't move any of our best pieces to get him.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> He's an average shooter


I think he is going to be a GREAT shooter in the NBA.

I can't comment on his defense, as i don't know enough about it.

But i'm with you as i would not move our main pieces (Big 3 plus Rudy, Outlaw or Joel) to get him as of right now.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Fork said:


> Gack, I can't believe how many people like Eric Gordon.
> 
> I think he's a bust and here's why.
> 
> ...


He seems like a more athletic version of JJ Redick.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

B_&_B said:


> He seems like a more athletic version of JJ Redick.


That is a very weird comparison. If JJ were one of the top athletes in his entire class and had 6'9" wingspan, I think JJ would be killer.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

The thing I like about Gordon is how many times he got to the line in games. I think that is a skill that is very valuable and translates nicely.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I would be astonished if Gordon didnt turn out to be on the level of the other Gordon. 

That being said, I am not sure if he is a great fit for this team. If we didnt already have a 6th man type CG coming over(Rudy), I would take a long look at him.


----------



## glazeduck (Mar 20, 2007)

Fork said:


> Gack, I can't believe how many people like Eric Gordon.
> 
> I think he's a bust and here's why.
> 
> ...


Just curious, but are these statements based off of your opinion or more of a factual nature. I've only seen Gordon play once so if you know his game more intimately then i'll take your word for it, but from everything I've read about him I've understood that he's a good defender (not great like Westbrook, but probably the 2nd best elite defending guard in the draft), so I'm curious where the statement of "he's a bad defender" comes from.

Also, I wouldn't say he's tiny at all. He's over 6'3 and a very solid 222. That's certainly not huge, but I wouldn't have a problem putting him on Michael Redd or Jamal Crawford in a game.

As far as you saying that he's a one dimensional scorer I couldn't disagree more. He's a very good outside shooter but is best when he's driving to the basket and getting to the line, AND at 6'3+ and 222, if he's playing alongside Brandon he's going to have plenty of postup opportunities through the years, and w/ his athleticism and body control should be continue to add to his aresenal. That's 3 different ways of scoring now with more to come in the future.

Finally, yeah he really struggled down the stretch but I think many players would struggle w/ the coaching debacle that went on, so to me he should get a pass on that. To me it shows that he's a good kid that values important people in his life and when his coach was fired if affected him, not exactly something I would bash a 19 year old kid about.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

That's the thing with Eric Gordon. I see folks all psyched about him, but I watched him play 3 games this year, and he didn't astound me in any of them. I also don't buy the "coaching" thing affecting him. I think it was more of he was doing well, and the opponents adjusted to him, realizing the team didn't have many other scoring options, and clamped down on him. He may have been having problems. Who knows. The other thing I would point out, is that his school, has not been very good at producing NBA players in a long, long time.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

Gordon was average to good defensively all year, not on the same level as Westbrook or Mayo defensively, but he certainly wasn't a bad defender. And I personally think he projects much better defensively at the PG than the likes of Bayless, he's got great size/speed at the PG spot.

Offensively he had a great driving game, 2nd behind Tyler Hansborough in FTs on the year. He was a good shooter until the later parts of the year when he hurt his wrist/Sampson was kicked out, above 38% on 3's pre-injury.

I could see him going as high as 5, but it's more likely he goes at 6 or 7 to the Knicks or the Clippers. Whether KP could move up and snatch him I'm unsure of, and with Rudy coming I think we need more of a combo guard than Gordon, who I don't see as anything but a SG offensively with the ability to guard PG's on D.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I'll bring up a name here, that I think will be available in the late first round, and I think he has everything you will need in a point guard. 

Mario Chalmers.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

glazeduck said:


> As far as you saying that he's a one dimensional scorer I couldn't disagree more. He's a very good outside shooter but is best when he's driving to the basket and getting to the line, AND at 6'3+ and 222, if he's playing alongside Brandon he's going to have plenty of postup opportunities through the years, and w/ his athleticism and body control should be continue to add to his aresenal. That's 3 different ways of scoring now with more to come in the future.


I may have not been as clear as possible. I didn't mean that he was a one dimensional scorer...I meant that he is one dimensional: a scorer. The point was he doesn't rebound, defend or pass well. And he turns it over too much. And he doesn't shoot well.

I've watched maybe 6-7 of his games, so I MAY be wrong about his defense, but I wasn't ever impressed by his defense. Most scouting reports I've read list it a weakness. I've been wrong before, so I won't argue the point too strongly. 

I don't know...I just get a rich man's Juan Dixon feel from this guy. Which would make him Ben Gordon I guess. I just don't like that kind of player.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

hasoos said:


> I'll bring up a name here, that I think will be available in the late first round, and I think he has everything you will need in a point guard.
> 
> Mario Chalmers.


draft express has his Best Case: Jarrett Jack and Worst Case: Daniel Ewing. So...
yeah. i'd rather not have another J.J. infact i'd rather not even have the one we have already.


----------



## HurraKane212 (Aug 2, 2007)

Gordon hurt his wrist and that damaged his fg%.
Early on, he was lighting it up. Gordon would be a great addition, a Monta Ellis to Roys' Baron Davis (only with a better 3pter) Gordon can go strong to the rim, take the contact, and finish. Gordon is fast and can defend PGs. I don't see how getting him wouldn't be an upgrade, even though I'd rather have Mayo.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

HurraKane212 said:


> Gordon hurt his wrist and that damaged his fg%.
> Early on, he was lighting it up. Gordon would be a great addition, a Monta Ellis to Roys' Baron Davis (only with a better 3pter) Gordon can go strong to the rim, take the contact, and finish. Gordon is fast and can defend PGs. I don't see how getting him wouldn't be an upgrade, even though I'd rather have Mayo.


We don't need another combo guard that can't play defense. Gordon can't play defense. Russell Westbrook is a much better fit and cheaper to get for our team.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

The Chalmers comparison to Jack is atrocious. The NBADraft.net comparison is better, Keyon Dooling. A pesky defender with a decent J and below average playmaking skills.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Gordon on Defense

From Draft express, under his weaknesses in the "at a glance" section there is nothing listed for defense. Under strengths, the only thing listed are *Effort defensively and Lateral quickness*. So from that site, it looks like they don't consider him a bad defender at all, and might put him in the good category. 

From the articles, this was said regarding his D (2/15/08)


> Defensively, Gordon shows a great deal of potential, as he’s strong, quick and physical, and puts a lot of effort into this part of his game when fully motivated. His low center of gravity helps him stay in front of most any guard he matches up with, and he’s quick enough to recover on players even when he gets beat. At times, though, he lacks focus, showing poor fundamentals and letting inferior players get by him. He has good potential in this area, even if many NBA shooting guards will be able to just shoot over him due to his below average size at his position. Measurements will be important in this area in particular, as Gordon has been listed anywhere from 6-2 to 6-4 depending on who you ask.


(11/25/07)


> Physically, Gordon entered college with an already great body, weighing in at 205 pounds. Along with a chiseled frame, Gordon has explosive leaping ability combined with a quick first step to the basket. These physical attributes give him the potential to lock down defensively. He has proved capable of physical defense against low-major opponents so far, but the real test comes when he will have to defend an elite wing prospect.


I did not pick and choose, these were the only two quotes regarding his D since August of 07. 

From NBAdraft.com

Under Strengths


> Defensively, he has the potential to be great simply because of his physical tools (good length, nice lateral foot-speed and strength), combine that with his desire and decent understanding of team concepts, and he is already well ahead of the curve …





> Shows excellent desire and intensity defensively, good at anticipating steals


Under Weaknesses 
Nothing listed for defense

I did not look at every site out there, but the first two I did look at seemed to think he was fairly good on D with tons of defensive potential.


So it looks to me like with the right coaching, He can become a great defender of PG's, and a decent defender of SG's. Paired with Roy or Rudy, who would mostly play SG, he would be a great match on the defensive end.


----------



## HurraKane212 (Aug 2, 2007)

Balian said:


> We don't need another combo guard that can't play defense. Gordon can't play defense. Russell Westbrook is a much better fit and cheaper to get for our team.


_ citation needed _
Please substantiate your claim that Eric Gordon can't play defense.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

I didn't realize that Gordon's wrist was affecting his shot. Still, if we're moving, I'd much prefer Love, the Itallian, Mayo, or even Bayless (assuming the cost isn't too high).

There isn't much that I would give up to get Gordon. I'm not sold.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> He's a tiny SG in a PG's body. Guys like that often don't succeed and if they do, they're not the kind of player that helps you win games


Gordon 6'3.5 in shoes - 6'9 wingspan - Max Vert 40 - Lane Agility 10.81 

Mayo 6'4.25 in shoes - 6'6 wingspan - Max Vert 41 - Lane Agility 11.04

What does that make Mayo then?


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

We should target the Clippers pick to get Russell or Gordon. I think they would be interested in Raef, Rudy, or Sergio.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Gordon 6'3.5 in shoes - 6'9 wingspan - Max Vert 40 - Lane Agility 10.81
> 
> Mayo 6'4.25 in shoes - 6'6 wingspan - Max Vert 41 - Lane Agility 11.04
> 
> What does that make Mayo then?


well i think that Mayo is projected to be a PG on the next level.



> We should target the Clippers pick to get Russell or Gordon. I think they would be interested in Raef, *Rudy*, or Sergio.


would you give up Rudy for the #7 pick? I think Rudy is better than anyone we can get at #7, honestly.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I have thought a lot about where Rudy would fit into this draft, and I think that you are right that he most likely would be better than or around #7. But there are a few things working against him if he were in this draft. 1) he is 23 years old. 2) decent, but not great athleticism. 3) Euro guys often don't pan out as well as NCAA players do in the top of the draft. 

I think Rose, Beasley and Mayo would certainly go ahead of Rudy. After that, I think he could fall anywhere from #4 to #9. And farther than #9 would be considered a big steal. any higher than #4 would be considered a huge reach.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

I feel ya GOD.

I think 4-9 depending on the team.

But i'd trade Outlaw before i trade Rudy for sure.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> well i think that Mayo is projected to be a PG on the next level.


I think he is projected as a SG, with some PG abilities...but I would be surprised if he ends up in a PG role....


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> I think he is projected as a SG, with some PG abilities...but I would be surprised if he ends up in a PG role....


I know that he says he views himself as a point... isn't that the position he played throughout HS?

STOMP


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

IMO, I would take Westbrook and Gordon over Rudy..


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

MAS RipCity said:


> IMO, I would take Westbrook and Gordon over Rudy..


I don't know why Portland fans are so high on Westbrook. I mean, I like him and all, but the team drafting him has know that he isn't really NBA ready. It's going to be a few years before Westbrook can really start contributing. KP has stated multiple times that he wants an impact player. A person who can contribute right away. Rudy is probably more ready than Westbrook.

As for Gordon, IDK, I don't know much about him.


----------



## RoyToy (May 25, 2007)

Westbrook can contribute right away on defense, much like Oden. He can create a 1man fast break with his steals. I'd guess that he's probably McMillan's guy.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

RoyToy said:


> Westbrook can contribute right away on defense, much like Oden. He can create a 1man fast break with his steals. I'd guess that he's probably McMillan's guy.


McMillan isn't a fast break coach.

And defense in the college level doesn't always translate into defense in the NBA unless you're a big man like Oden. Westbrook is going to have to learn it's much harder to guard players on the NBA level.

Does he have the ability to be a great defender? Yes. Is it likely he'll be one right off the bat? Probably not.


----------



## RoyToy (May 25, 2007)

B-Roy said:


> McMillan isn't a fast break coach.
> 
> And defense in the college level doesn't always translate into defense in the NBA unless you're a big man like Oden. Westbrook is going to have to learn it's much harder to guard players on the NBA level.
> 
> Does he have the ability to be a great defender? Yes. Is it likely he'll be one right off the bat? Probably not.


I don't think you understand what I meant. I'm talking about ripping his man/getting in the passing lanes and taking off for the easy 2. Easy buckets is something this team needs.

If Westbrook can stay and play good D on Rose, I'm sure he can guard pretty much every PG in the NBA, maybe minus a few. PGs will have a hard time getting around him, that's for sure. I don't think he'll have much of an issue playing defense in the NBA. His size and freakish athleticism tells me so.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

RoyToy said:


> I don't think you understand what I meant. I'm talking about ripping his man/getting in the passing lanes and taking off for the easy 2. Easy buckets is something this team needs.
> 
> If Westbrook can stay and play good D on Rose, I'm sure he can guard pretty much every PG in the NBA, maybe minus a few. PGs will have a hard time getting around him, that's for sure. I don't think he'll have much of an issue playing defense in the NBA. His size and freakish athleticism tells me so.


Taking risks on steals is also something that McMillan doesn't preach. He plays slow tempo game, and he tries to limit mistakes.

And Rose does not equal every point guard in the league. Rose may be an amazing athlete, but he's far from one of the top point guards in the NBA. You can't really expect Westbrook to play well against guys like Iverson or Calderon. NBA points will run circles around him. He'll learn, but it will take awhile.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

B-Roy said:


> Taking risks on steals is also something that McMillan doesn't preach. He plays slow tempo game, and he tries to limit mistakes.
> 
> And Rose does not equal every point guard in the league. Rose may be an amazing athlete, but he's far from one of the top point guards in the NBA. You can't really expect Westbrook to play well against guys like Iverson or Calderon. NBA points will run circles around him. He'll learn, but it will take awhile.


Have you watched Westbrook play in college? The one thing that I was impressed with Westbrook was his defense especially man to man defense. No matter which player he was guarding Mayo, Bayless, Rose he basically make it really tough for them to get into their game. I think his defense will be the one thing that he will be able to contribute in the NBA right away. I believe he was Pac10 defensive player of the year.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Tortimer said:


> Have to watch Westbrook play in college? The one thing that I was impressed with Westbrook was his defense especially man to man defense. No matter which player he was guarding Mayo, Bayless, Rose he basically make it really tough for them to get into their game. I think his defense will be the one thing that he will be able to contribute in the NBA right away. I believe he was Pac10 defensive player of the year.


I realize that. My point was just that college defense doesn't always instantly translate into NBA defense.


----------



## RoyToy (May 25, 2007)

I'd bet Westbrook does it.

Agree to disagree about his defense then. I don't think it will take long at all. He shut down some of the best guards in college last year. He gives full effort on defense and athletically can stick with pretty much anyone. 

If there's one thing that will translate well to the NBA for Westbrook, it is his defense.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> I know that he says he views himself as a point... isn't that the position he played throughout HS?


It may be, I don't know...but I don't see him being an NBA point....He may be a playmaking SG like Roy is...buy an everyday PG?...I don't see it...


----------

