# Courtside Monday Night Thread 5/10/04



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

send your emails to [email protected] 

I will have a recap after the show


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

no not again whats up with kxl man this is ridculous


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

i emailed the courtside crew and asked what is the problem with kxl


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

iam sorry guys could anyone who listens let me know what happened


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

hey, not bad..Warkentein likes Jackson..

maybe I'm onto something...


----------



## Discovery69 (Nov 7, 2002)

I was only able to tape the first hour while I was coaching a couple of soccer teams.....

*LA Lakers*
Mike Rice & Steve Jones comments
Mike R.
- Thinks Jackson will be replaced by a former Laker, Bryon Scott.
- Doesn't think Payton will be back.
- Doesn't understand why Jackson doesn't use the pick n' roll play with Payton and Malone. Rice thinks this would open up the offense even more for the Lakers.
Steve Jones
- He thinks Jackson and Payton aren't going anywhere.
- He says only a few teams can run the pick n' roll. Kings, Spurs, Nets, Pacers.

*Mark Warkentien*
Jerry Skoloska
- Mark thinks he is the circus side show.
- He is going to drive GMs crazy because is he a potential player or not in the NBA.
- It going to take several years before he is ready. 
Robert Swift
- There is a lot of buzz on Swift from his monster throw down dunk on Jermaine O'Neal last summer in a camp.
Drafting a center between #6 through #15
- History shows that 7'+ centers drafted between #6 to #15 do not work out. Roy Tarpley is the only 7'+ player in the history of a player drafted between #6 through #15 that has had a decent career.
History shows a team most likely to screw up the draft
- How many teams have picked a player that has made Mark's jaw drop from a surprised player? Mark's first draft with Bob Whitsitt, Blazer GM at the time. Bob tells Mark don't worry the Clippers will screw up the draft. The Clippers were going to pick #16 and they picked Randy Woods??? instead of Doug Christie.

*6'11'+ white guys* - Mark W.
- Mark took NBA registers for the last 10 years and looked at 6'11"+ white guys in the NBA.
- Assume this isn't the big white guys can't play center.
- Mark said their was 100 white guys 6'11"+ in the NBA in the last 10 years.
- How many were successful? His defined success criteria was at the minimum a player needs to average 1640 minutes in a season (~20 min. a game).
- There were only 45 out of an 100 that played at least one season of 1640 minutes or more.
- Of those 45 guys that made it, how old were they on average when they played their first season of 1640 minutes?
- Age 24 1/2 years old.
- Dirk Nowitski was the youngest & only one at 21 and Will Purdue was the oldest at 31. 
- Time... tick tock... tick tock... time...is what an NBA team needs to understand when they draft a 6'11"+ white player whether they are from outside/inside the U.S.

*Using Historical Stat Numbers with Eyes and Ears* - Mark W.
- When the Blazers can match up what they see, hear and using historical stat numbers all match up they are 100% right all the time.
- Zach Randolph - eyes, ears & numbers tell us this is not a good player but a hel_ of a player. Tates Locke, who is a scout for the last 34 years in the Indiana area tell us this is the best rebounder ever to come out of Indiana. 
- They took all the players from the past 40 year in the Big Ten that drafted or played in the NBA.
- On a per minute basis, Zach Randolph was the best rebounder per minute in the history of the Big Ten. 
Lottery Picks
- In the history of the draft, you can look at anyone and you will see at least a dozen players that have made it in the NBA and were not drafted in the top 12. 
- The odds are against a team drafting in the lottery {top 12} of having a long term 6-7 year successful player. There are at least 12 players drafted in the mid to late 1st round since the lottery draft that have had more successful careers then a lottery pick.
- The numbers don't lie. Since the history of the lottery there will be 3-4 players that turn out to be bust in the NBA.

*The Second Draft - July 1st* - Mark W.
- A new phenomen that is occurring with the NBA scouts today.
- Restricted Free Agents & Unrestricted free agents.
- With the number of young 18 to 19 years olds that are sitting on the bench and not playing, but are learning in NBA practices.
- NBA scouts are now going to NBA team pre-game warm-up and practices and observing the potential Gold mines.
Darius Miles 
- is a perfect example of a player the Blazers have been scouting for 2-3 years. 
- The Blazers liked him a lot & observed his development quietly. 
- LA Clippers gave up on him too quick and traded him. The Blazers saw Darius was in a bad situation at Cleveland and made an offer for him. 
- The Blazers are very happy and see a potential star player. 
- All of this was from the eyes, ears and numbers they ran on Miles.
- This is another example of a player where eyes, ears and numbers all line up.
Marquis Daniels
- Daniels is an example of how eyes, ears and numbers did work. 
- The Blazers had him in twice and were going to pick him, because they really liked him in work outs. Eyes, ears and numbers worked, but so did Travis Outlaw. The Blazers then did who will be a star vs. just a starter. 

*History vs. last 90 days before the draft* - Mark W.
- NBA teams spend way too much time looking at what a player has accomplished in the last 90 days then the history of the player. 
- Mark W. uses companies and stocks as an example of how they are looking at players today.
- If IBM or Intel quarterly earnings were bad in the last 90 days are you going to write that company off. No, you look at the overall performance and history of the company. 
- If your stock broker came up to you today and said IBM and Intel are great stocks to buy today, you would probably buy it.
- If you stock broker said hey "Joe's donut shop" is a good stock to buy. You would have to look at the numbers....
- The same goes for players, some players you know right off they will be stars, but it is the undiscovered players you have to use the "eyes, ears & numbers" to see if they will make it.

*Jermaine O'Neal* - Mark W.
- Jermaine is a perfect example of eyes, ears and numbers worked, but when he was drafted Mark got booed and chastised by the local media for drafting O'Neal.
- Look at who has become a star.

*Travis Outlaw* - Mark W.
- Outlaw matches up with the eyes, ears and numbers.
- Give Outlaw three years, this is a player out of the Darius Miles mold.
- He will be a very good player in the NBA in 4-5 years from now at SG/SF/PF.

*Luke Jackson* - Mark W.
- Mark loves Luke Jackson. Eyes, Ears and Numbers all match up.
- Mark said he is tough as nails and a very smart player.
- This is a trap that Mark is in, he has seen Luke play a lot and maybe too much.
- Mark got a report out of Chicago today that Luke Jackson "wiped the floor" against Andre Iguodala. Mark did not hear this from Jackson's agent, but another source he trusts at Hoops The Gym in Chicago. 
- Mark heard Jackson has taken it very personal. He has been reading the articles and rankings off the internet and wants to show the NBA he can play. 
- Jackson is set to prove he is ranked ahead of some of the SG/SFs in the draft and has impressed scouts in his workouts.
- He may be a mid 1st round {possible low lottery pick} selection instead of a late 1st, early second round pick from his workouts.
- He is scheduled to work out with the Bulls, Blazers (next week), Warriors and Lakers.
- Jackson wants to be a Blazer and his folks would like him to be a Blazer.
- The Blazers marketing department really wants the local kid on the Blazers.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

first off, thanks for taking the time to do a recap...



> Originally posted by <b>Discovery69</b>!- Time... tick tock... tick tock... time...is what an NBA team needs to understand when they draft a 6'11"+ white player whether they are from outside/inside the U.S.


Are you embellishing here on the "white guy" stuff? I'm not sure why someone's pigment is even being mentioned... blacks, latinos, and asians age too right?



> Jerry Skoloska- Mark thinks he is the circus side show.


Who??? Never heard of him before.



> Luke Jackson - Mark W.- Mark loves Luke Jackson.


If that is true, I wish he'd cover his cards more. A respected talent evaluator publically raving about a player seems like he is driving up his value. 

btw... I hope/trust the Blazer marketing department has the same amount of say in the draft as me.

STOMP


----------



## Discovery69 (Nov 7, 2002)

I mis-spelled his name, it is Jerry Sokoloski, the big 7'5" guy who used to weigh 500+ lbs. and is now slimmed down to 330 lbs.

Jerry Sokoloski 

No I wasn't embellishing, Mike Rice was talking about how Danny Ainge is enamored with Robert Swift and wanted to know if the Blazers were interested in Mr. Swift. This is when Mark W. went on to talk about the success of white players 6'11" and taller. Mark's point was it takes time for big white players to make any significant impact in the NBA and the average age is 24 1/2 years....

Mark W. said if there were 7'+ players that can block, rebound and score he would not be talking about him. He did dance around the comment about Peter Ramos, but commenting on centers that are drafted between #6 - #15 have not turned out or take a lot of time to develop. 

One thing about Mark W., I haven't seen him this open about a player like Luke Jackson. Looks like Luke Jackson could be the Blazers #13 pick.....


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

maybe Luke could pull a Eli Manning and tell all other teams to not waste a pick on him, because he wants to be a Blazer.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> Are you embellishing here on the "white guy" stuff? I'm not sure why someone's pigment is even being mentioned... blacks, latinos, and asians age too right?
> STOMP


Is it irrelevant? Kareem, Parish, Kevin Willis . . . are several examples of non-caucasian centers who played into their forties. I know these are pre-lottery, but if statistics show that white centers mature (physically) more slowly and burn out earlier, isn't that significant? I don't think there are enough examples of Latino and Asian centers for a reasonable comparison. Statistical observations are what they are . . . facts.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Discovery69</b>!
> One thing about Mark W., I haven't seen him this open about a player like Luke Jackson. Looks like Luke Jackson could be the Blazers #13 pick.....


I along with others on this board have not been very excited about that possibility. However, if Mark W really believes that Luke is worth the 13th pick then I think he should go for it. 

Many have complained that Luke would be behind Miles and Rube, but I don't see why he couldn't end up at the 2. I don't think anyone would argue that he doesn't have some of the bbal IQ that the Blazers seem to lack on occasion as a team.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

If Luke is owning Andre Iguodala, then damn he may not be there at #13.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

After listening last night, I really am beginning to doubt Mike Rice's sanity. He suggested that the Blazer's leave Outlaw & Qyntel unprotected, which to me, SPECIFICALLY concerning Outlaw would be absolutely stupid and unnecessary. 

Why would you give CHA another young player to help make them potentially better? That is dumb. Especially when, with their cap restrictions this first year there is no way they would take either DA or Ruben. I think Rice has lost it.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Discovery69</b>!
> 
> *Luke Jackson* - Mark W.
> - Mark heard Jackson has taken it very personal. He has been reading the articles and rankings off the internet and wants to show the NBA he can play.
> ...


This is one of the reasons to draft Luke... (at #23)
Players who are determined and have great work ethics (e.g. Zach) are very valuable, and you get a lot out of them.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

I'd take Luke at #13. Portland needs a guy like that. Not only is he talented enough to be an NBA player (maybe not LOTTERY athleticism, but talented enough to play in the league), he's tough as nails, he's a hard worker, he's a leader, he's smart and he can shoot. Add all his positive qualities with his mid level athleticism, and you've got yourself a player, pure and simple. He's the kind of guy you don't want to pass on. The Blazers will regret it if they don't take him at #13. There's a chance he won't be available at #23.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Its looking more and more like he wont be available at 23... but you never know.

As I've said before, many people who have seen Outlaw practice have said he's many, many, many years away from being a NBA caliber player and that he wouldnt even be close to a top notch college player if he was in the NCAA's now.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

Wow ... I sure like Warkentein. Very down to earth. Glad he's a part of the organization still.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I disagree with taking Luke at 13. I like Luke but I think that in Portlands positiont both roster and draft wise that picking a younger player with a higher potential ceiling is a wiser pick at 13. To Me I am really set in on taking Telfair @ 13 if he is there. I think the potential there is more importlant to the Blazers than Luke is. 

I have been saying this for a long time now. Telfair @13, Jackson @ 23, unless there is a Center that really has something that make the management think he is better long term than Jackson.

If Telfair isn't there @13 then Things are different, but I still doubt I take the safe pick @ 13, I look at JR Smith at that point.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JohnnyCash</b>!
> Its looking more and more like he wont be available at 23... but you never know.
> 
> As I've said before, many people who have seen Outlaw practice have said he's many, many, many years away from being a NBA caliber player and that he wouldnt even be close to a top notch college player if he was in the NCAA's now.


Many people who saw TO early in the season say this...many reports towards the end of the season said otherwise, but Portland was on a run, and it wasn't time to change the rotation up too much, when it was working.

Soem reports were saying he was starting to light it up with the J towards the end of the season.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> I disagree with taking Luke at 13. I like Luke but I think that in Portlands positiont both roster and draft wise that picking a younger player with a higher potential ceiling is a wiser pick at 13. To Me I am really set in on taking Telfair @ 13 if he is there. I think the potential there is more importlant to the Blazers than Luke is.
> 
> I have been saying this for a long time now. Telfair @13, Jackson @ 23, unless there is a Center that really has something that make the management think he is better long term than Jackson.


chances are, jackson won't be there at 23. Plus, who is going to be available at 13 (or 14) thats really all that much better than Jackson is? The fact of the matter is that most of the players who are "better", will be gone, or are 18. And this team doesn't need another 18 year old who won't play.

On top of that, it sounds like Telfair might be the one available at 23, and not Jackson.



> If Telfair isn't there @13 then Things are different, but I still doubt I take the safe pick @ 13, I look at JR Smith at that point.


I think the team needs to take someone who can help them now, physically, emotionally, and IQ wise. Thats not a knock on JR Smith, but what good did Outlaw do on this team? 

What good was Zach his first 1 3/4 years in Portland? Not much. 

What good has Woods been? Not much. 

Get someone who can help them now, even if it's 10-15 minutes a night. Thats far more than Both Zach and Woods got their rookie years. 

What age were Zach and Woods when they finally helped the team (well, Zach)?

22-23. 

What age would Woods be if he helps this year? 23-24.

Whats all this mean? Generally, a guy is a lot more mature at 22-23 (the general age of a college graduate/1st year NBA player) than he is at 18. 

(Dwyane Wade is a good example of a guy who was older, but still worth the pick).

So why get another player just because he's 4 years younger? in most cases, he won't help you for 2-4 years anyway. And the players that DO help you soon, aren't likely available when the Blazers pick.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

Jackson, being a part of this team, is beginning to intrigue me. 

I'd assume that Portland hasn't given him the *wink, wink*, or he wouldn't be setting up try outs with other teams. True?

Starting MIles and Jackson (hey, I hate to throw out there so quick, but we're looking at Anderson or Jackson, and I'd prefer Jackson's shooting to Anderson's overall experience), with Patterson and Anderson backing them up. Outlaw and Woods won't get their shot this season, unless an injury or trade happens. 

Jackson might get burned on defense, but his overall play on offense COULD be more beneficial than starting Anderson.

However, I can think of a number of scenarios where Portland would be better off if able to make different moves. This isn't their best option, but it's an option that MAY improve the team.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

What player really is going to make much difference at #13?

Portland already has these guys who will get the bulk of PT.

Stoudemire, Anderson, Miles, Randolph, SAR, Ratliff, Patterson

Poptlands glaring need is in the backcourt and at the Center both in backup roles. Now if the goal is to use RP at the SG primarily then Jackson can find some time at the 3. 

I think any Rookie at this point will have trouble being much impact. Portland can sit tight with their roster and make a strong run at the playoffs again next season, so why not gamble on upside. Zach has been very good, Woods has show glimpses and who knows maybe he will live up to his own billing this summer.

I say at #13 take the player who will be better in 2-3 years, not who will help you most now.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> chances are, jackson won't be there at 23. Plus, who is going to be available at 13 (or 14) thats really all that much better than Jackson is? The fact of the matter is that most of the players who are "better", will be gone, or are 18. And this team doesn't need another 18 year old who won't play.


You can speculate that Luke will be gone prior to #23, but you'll be going against the thinking of most if you do so. Most mocks have him available at 23 and sometimes well beyond. Unless Nash is going to pull a McGrady out of his hat to transform the Blazers instantly back into relevancy, I for one don't want the Blazers management to get too hung up on what this team needs in the short term. I'm much more interested in getting the best talent for a couple years from now when the team's other young talent is coming into it's own. If thats Luke fine, but I really doubt any rook (outside a lotto miricle top 3 slot) will be seeing much of a role in Portland next season.

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> What player really is going to make much difference at #13?
> 
> Portland already has these guys who will get the bulk of PT.
> ...


I think Jackson (in the long run) is better suited at the SG. I don't know if I'd say that the goal is (or should be) to have RP be the SG tho.


> I think any Rookie at this point will have trouble being much impact. Portland can sit tight with their roster and make a strong run at the playoffs again next season, so why not gamble on upside. Zach has been very good, Woods has show glimpses and who knows maybe he will live up to his own billing this summer.


unless the Blazers sign Brent Barry (which I doubt they will, altho I'm sure they want him) this team has no shooters. No shooters means they'll have to work a lot harder to win games. 

Having Jackson, while not the answer (as of now) for the shooting problems, isn't a bad thing. 

Depending on him exlusively isn't wise, but at least he can hit shots.


> I say at #13 take the player who will be better in 2-3 years, not who will help you most now.


part of the problem with this team is the players they have on the bench (Omar Cook, Woods, Outlaw) realistically won't help them now, but in 2-3 years.

It's not as if the team is going to compete for a title next year, so I don't see the reason why getting a young player to play now is frowned apon.

I think part of Portlands problem is the fact their younger players (not that the team is old) aren't playing much.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Well I think of it like this. No rookie is going to have a huge impact for Portland.

WHo would you rather take? 
Shane Battier
or
Tracy McGrady

Battier had a much larger contribution for his first couple of years than McGrady did. But look at what each respectively has accomplished at this point.

Now I know this is a completely different scenario. Because a HS prospect is a gamble, but usually teams that make gambles are the ones who are most successful, but they can also suffer hideous failure. I equate it to business, if you want to expierience radical success you often need to take larger risks, but they are just that a risk. Portlands situation there is little to lose.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Well I think of it like this. No rookie is going to have a huge impact for Portland.
> 
> WHo would you rather take?
> ...


well then, which would you rather have, Tim Duncan or McGrady? (I originally put Miles, because McGrady and Battier didn't come out in the same draft, so I changed it to McGrady and Duncan since they did).

Both came out in 97. 

I'd much rather have Duncan yesterday, today and tomorrow. 



> Now I know this is a completely different scenario. Because a HS prospect is a gamble, but usually teams that make gambles are the ones who are most successful, but they can also suffer hideous failure. I equate it to business, if you want to expierience radical success you often need to take larger risks, but they are just that a risk. Portlands situation there is little to lose.


maybe if the Blazers had a shot at the top 3 high school prospects, you could argue taking one. But they don't. So taking one on the slim chance he might be the "next big thing", is pointless. So might the guy you take in the first round who's a college graduate!

No one thought Jordan was that special in college. Same with Drexler. Or John Stockton. Or Tim Duncan, who I believe, is playing a lot better than his college stats would've made you believe he'd be be the stud he is in the NBA. What I'm trying to say is, you never know what the player is going to be like, college or pro. But you know one thing with college players, they're generally more mature (both physically and emotionally) and can make contributions to the team easier than a 18 year old *kid* can.


Take for example Duncan. 

http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/players/playerpage/6552

Sure, they were good stats, but none of em were holy jumping up and down martha look at those stats, stats.

Yes, his rebound #'s were good, but they weren't earth shattering. 

Why was Duncan able to contribute RIGHT away with the Spurs? 

He was much more mature, and experienced. 

I know no one is debating this little factoid, I'm just saying that for this team, it doens't need another young young kid. It needs someone who can contribute now, and who isn't afraid of becoming a leader of sorts.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't see as how a Young kid at #13 hurts them, nor do I see how Jackson at #13 helps them enough to pass on....

Dang it I think we need to start a new thread for this debate.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Discovery69</b>!
> Marquis Daniels
> - Daniels is an example of how eyes, ears and numbers did work.
> - The Blazers had him in twice and were going to pick him, because they really liked him in work outs. Eyes, ears and numbers worked, but so did Travis Outlaw. The Blazers then did who will be a star vs. just a starter.


Interesting. So Mark says that he saw Daniels as a 'starter' last summer? And this is pretty high praise for Outlaw - to put him above what many would say is this year's 'undrafted gem'.



> *Travis Outlaw* - Mark W.
> - Outlaw matches up with the eyes, ears and numbers.
> - Give Outlaw three years, this is a player out of the Darius Miles mold.
> - He will be a very good player in the NBA in 4-5 years from now at SG/SF/PF.


Again, high praise for Outlaw. My question - do the Blazers need both Miles and Outlaw if Travis is in the same mold as Darius? I'm not saying trade one of them now, but might that eventually be necessary?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> Sure, they were good stats, but none of em were holy jumping up and down martha look at those stats, stats.
> ...


I don't know Hap...

Career Numbers of 16.5 ppg and 12.3rpg in college are pretty stinking good.

Junior year 19.1ppg 12.5rpg
Senior Year 20.8ppg 14.5rpg

How can't miss is that?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> I don't see as how a Young kid at #13 hurts them, nor do I see how Jackson at #13 helps them enough to pass on....
> 
> Dang it I think we need to start a new thread for this debate.


I could understand taking a young kid if the team was like San Antonio, or the Blazers of 2000. They could 'afford' to take a youngin'.

Now they can't. They already have a pick thats basically wasted in Outlaw. 

There is such a thing as over preparing for the future. Who cares what might happen in 4-5 years? In 4-5 years, Miles might be the best player in the league. 

Sure, it (kinda) worked for the Pacers, but conning Portland into thinking Dale Davis was worth anything didn't hurt them either. Or that Jalen Rose was worth Ron Artest.

It's kinda like the Bulls. they should've kept Elton Brand over whoever they traded him for (was it Chandler? I don't remember). 

Why? Brand helps them now, and they get better, now. Instead, they just keep heaping on player after player.. hoping that one will not suck.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

*Hap - *

I agree that sometimes the best college players are not the best pro players, and vice versa.

However, I have to disagree with your assessment of Duncan. I saw a few Wake Forest games when he was there and he was a dominant player in perhaps the best conference of that time. His stats are great for ACC play. 17-20 PPG and 12-15 RPG for 3 years in a row is fantastic at that level of college competition.

Also, he was universally considered a shoo-in to be the #1 pick after his sophomore year, but he stayed in school and Joe Smith went #1. He was considered a certainty to go #1 after his junior year, but he again stayed at WF, and Iverson was taken with the top pick.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

The Bulls did make a big mistake and yes it was Chandler. Brand BTW was just coming off his rookie season when he was the #1 overall and had averaged 20 and 10 as a rookie. What they were thinking I have no clue. 

I think Jackson would be an excellent addition to Portland just not at 13.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't know Hap...
> ...


compared to his NBA stats, and the fact he's lead them to two (maybe 3) nba finals..is arguably the best big man in the game, I do say it's not an obvious thing. I doubt that anyone (seriously) thought that Duncan would become a multi time MVP of the NBA based on his college stats. 

I think from his stats, people thought he'd be a Chris Webber more than a Tim Duncan. Do you see what I'm saying?

His stats weren't as good as Shaq's in college, but there's no one (outside of a few homer Laker fans) who would say that Duncan isn't just as good as Shaq. 

Hell, look at Drexlers stats. I doubt anyone would think from the stats he'd be arguably one of the best SG's to ever play in the NBA (altho, his rebounding #'s were freaking insane in college..9.9 a game!)

Look at Barkleys college stats. 
At Auburn. Not very impressive either. He wasn't a 'can't miss'. 

Infact, Hakeem's stats weren't terribly impressive either.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> *Hap - *
> 
> I agree that sometimes the best college players are not the best pro players, and vice versa.
> ...


I'm not saying he was some crum bum, like the Bandit was. I'm saying you look at those stats and you don't think "Ok, he'll be one of the best players to ever play the game. Period, end of sentance."

thats all.


> Also, he was universally considered a shoo-in to be the #1 pick after his sophomore year, but he stayed in school and Joe Smith went #1. He was considered a certainty to go #1 after his junior year, but he again stayed at WF, and Iverson was taken with the top pick.


agree'd, but his stats don't make you think he'd turn out to be the absolute stud he is today. He basically didn't miss a beat.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Let the top 5 teams take the top 5 picks of this season, let the next take the top 5 picks for in 2 years.

Sound funky? Yes but that's the mindset.

WOuld a team have made a poor decision dratfting Jordan out of High School? How about Paul Pierce? 

Honestly at #13 I would rather take a shot at a guy who has the potential to be an All Star level player and wait 2 years, than to take a guy who IMO is going to be steady eddy and always get you 10ppg and 5rpg. Sure Luke could be better than that, but keep in mind that scouts have him pegged in the late teens to early 20's. Few players in that range do better than 10ppg on average.

Most mocks I've read show luke in the 23-27 range. Now I know mocks aren't always right but it's safe to say that the range they predict players in is fairly reliable if you average them all out.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> The Bulls did make a big mistake and yes it was Chandler. Brand BTW was just coming off his rookie season when he was the #1 overall and had averaged 20 and 10 as a rookie. What they were thinking I have no clue.
> 
> I think Jackson would be an excellent addition to Portland just not at 13.


as of this very moment, no he's probably not worth the 13. Could he be after the chicago pre-camps? WHo knows. He might be a steal at 13 by then.

or the clippers will take him and he'll turn into another Joe Wolfe.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Schilly</b>!
> Honestly at #13 I would rather take a shot at a guy who has the potential to be an All Star level player and wait 2 years, than to take a guy who IMO is going to be steady eddy and always get you 10ppg and 5rpg. Sure Luke could be better than that, but keep in mind that scouts have him pegged in the late teens to early 20's. Few players in that range do better than 10ppg on average.
> 
> Most mocks I've read show luke in the 23-27 range. Now I know mocks aren't always right but it's safe to say that the range they predict players in is fairly reliable if you average them all out.


as i've said before, (to you, and to others) these "mocks" are generally done by idiots.

Btw, who wouldn't want a guy in 2-3 years who would be an all star?

But thats really pointless. I'd much rather have a guy who's an MVP candidate at 13, than a guy who gets us 15 and 6 for his career. But so what? The chances of getting someone who's an all star at 13, are just the same of Luke Jackson (or some other college jr or sr) turning out ot be a steal at 13. 

People are falling for the lure of the "P" word. Potential. 

It's a wicked thing, that "P" word. Especially when people fall for it, and take someone who "might" be good for someone who "might" be good who's a little older.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Discovery69 

what a nice job ! I gave you a star !

I too don't like it when anybody collecting stats, singles out 
white players.
For some reason,they don't quite get the chance that black players get.
It seems peculiar to me.
To say that they are not as good just isn't true.


I recognize you were relaying info..nothing against you.
Just a comment against the NBA..
Please keep your good posts coming.
Welcome !


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

*So Cal* - I wonder if Miles or Outlaw could eventually play together, with one at the off-guard?

Portland (mostly Whitsitt and Warkentein) sure have set up Portland with enough pieces to remain and become a contender (I say remain, because I doubt Sheed or Bonzi would have been dealt if Whitsitt was still here). 

* Expiring Contracts with Stoudamire, Davis, SAR, and Ratliff (the last two, Nash's contribution)

* Miles (Nash's best deal ever?)

* Woods (eventually will become a starter in this league, IMO)

* Outlaw (according to Warkentein, he'll be more than just a starter)

* Randolph (an emerging star)

Potentially, this team has more than enough talent to eventually form quite the team. I'd say Portlanders and Blazermaniacs should be excited!


----------

