# Arizona = How many first round picks?



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Chase Buddinger (Fr.)= No explanation needed, could probably go anywhere between #2-#10 averaging ~20/8/2 as a freshman with worldclass athleticism and a very good shot.









Marcus Williams (So.) = Sure looks like lottery matterial. Last 3 games 20/7/2/1/2, 14/8/0/1, 24/9/2/3 over 50% from 3pt land. #7-#16. 









Mustafa Shakur (Sr.) = Looks like he has finally put it together with more talent around him. Assists so far this season 6,10,9,6,11 and one 20/8/10/4 game. #20-#40.









Ivan Radenovic (Sr.) 6'10 Forward = Breakout year for him, his worst game was 10 points 1 rebound in 20 minutes in a blowout against Northern Arizona other than that he put up 24/8/5, 25/10/4, 10/9, 27/7/1. I think he is a wildcard if he keeps it up he is probably everything Radmanovic was supposed to be. #10-#30.









Jawan McClellan (Jr) = Really is his sophomore season, he will not be a high pick but he has qualities that teams will look for. I think he is a good leader and fighter and he has played up to the expectations this season averaging 15/5/2. (#25-#40)


----------



## crazyfan (Dec 9, 2005)

Budinger and Williams are first round locks.

Shakur is getting the assists but still lacks consistent scoring efforts and a weird shooting technique.

Radenovic has an outside shot of the 1st round but we'll have to see how his season develops

McClellan is a little short for a 2 guard and seems to have a great outside shot but nothing in between,


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

To be completely honest, I could see Budinger being the only first round pick. I don't think that's likely, but I could see it.

Radenovic seems like he's been there for 10 years.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Budinger and Williams are the only 1st rounders I see... Shakur seems like he's regressed since his freshman year.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Radenovic is not very good. He is 2nd round material at best. Shakur would be best calling Jaleel White and asking how he can get a sitcom.


----------



## Bangle (Nov 14, 2006)

I've started to follow them after my Virginia Cavs beat them:clap: but I will say Williams and Budinger are lottery locks....while Shakur could possibly earn a late 1st/early 2nd round draft pick. He's played good this year. Radenovich has been VERY good this year. Underrated. I definitely see him being in the league (Second Round). McClelland, has the tools, but I read, he had some sort of injury last year. I think his athleticism is gone. I think he’ll get drafted but I don’t have the slightest clue about where it’ll be. He's not a bad athlete, but he's nowhere near Williams and espescially Budinger. His 3pt shot is great, but like another poster said, he hasn’t done anything in between. That team is loaded with pure talent though.


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

Budinger and Williams, barring catastrophe, are locks.

Shakur has an outside shot this year at the first because this draft is lacking points.

I don't see much for Radenovic, although I'm sure someone will take him in the 2nd round. The guy is 6'10, 240 and has offensive skills, he'll get interest somewhere.

McLellan would need to have a great senior year go first round.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Budinger and Williams are first rounders. Shakur is on the bubble


----------



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

what about JP Prince and Kirk Walters do they have a chance to get drafted

isnt JP Prince a 6'6 point guard


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

Have a feeling Chase will stay another year and then be a top 5 pick, Williams sort of righted himself after a real shakey start, depending who comes out he may be outside the lottery but still a 1st, the rest are just good college players. just my take.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Shakur is not a point guard, and I don't think anybody would draft him. 

Radenovic has a legitimate shot. Once again, think about his chances as a roleplayer. Teams aren't drafting to finnd the next superstar in the second round.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

rainman said:


> Have a feeling Chase will stay another year and then be a top 5 pick, Williams sort of righted himself after a real shakey start, depending who comes out he may be outside the lottery but still a 1st, the rest are just good college players. just my take.


I think Budinger will be staying for at least another year as well. If he came out now, I think he'd be a top 10 pick, but in a draft like this he wouldn't be a top 5 pick.


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

Budinger and Williams are first rounders.

Radenovic is a mid-to-low second rounder at best.

If Allan Ray couldn't get drafted in a weak year, I don't see why anybody would take Shakur in a strong one.

Jawan McLellan? Come on.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

With all this talent do we even bother playing the NCAA season. Arizona 2007 National Champs.


--------
BTW. they are not in my top 25. Numbers lie - numbers are driven by a system and a lack of depth. Time and time again Zona and its prospects are overrated due to this, but they have caught in the tournament and on draft night.


----------



## Bangle (Nov 14, 2006)

JuniorNoboa said:


> With all this talent do we even bother playing the NCAA season. Arizona 2007 National Champs.
> 
> 
> --------
> BTW. they are not in my top 25. Numbers lie - numbers are driven by a system and a lack of depth. Time and time again Zona and its prospects are overrated due to this, but they have caught in the tournament and on draft night.


Just discussing what's there...I believe Olson has had more talent than this...(namely 01 and 03....i remember their 88 team as well)...talent only gets you so far. On the other hand, this is a draft board, and their team has a few players that will play in the league...just my 2 cents.


----------



## Bangle (Nov 14, 2006)

JuniorNoboa said:


> With all this talent do we even bother playing the NCAA season. Arizona 2007 National Champs.
> 
> 
> --------
> BTW. they are not in my top 25. Numbers lie - numbers are driven by a system and a lack of depth. Time and time again Zona and its prospects are overrated due to this, *but they have caught in the tournament and on draft night*.


wow how are they NOT in your top 25? come on now...on the last part in *bold* I don't understand. Can you explain.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

JuniorNoboa said:


> Time and time again Zona and its prospects are overrated due to this, but they have caught in the tournament and on draft night.


Which players are you talking about that caught on draft night?

For every Woods there is an Arenas


----------



## Bangle (Nov 14, 2006)

cpawfan said:


> Which players are you talking about that caught on draft night?
> 
> For every Woods there is an Arenas


That's my point...I guess...they have had a VERY good track record with NBAers the last 10 years. They send good players to the league


----------



## matt! (Feb 21, 2005)

I think Chase is a very good player, but would you really consider taking him at #2 (assuming Oden goes #1) over Durant, Noah, Wright, Young, Horford, etc.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Yes, the only reason he isn't getting the same hype is because he is white... sad... why people even bring names like Thaddeus Young into the discussion like Chase should never be drafted before them even when he is doing a lot better..


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

Amareca said:


> Yes, the only reason he isn't getting the same hype is because he is white... sad... why people even bring names like Thaddeus Young into the discussion like Chase should never be drafted before them even when he is doing a lot better..


The more I watch Chase, the more I like him as a pro; he should be an outstanding NBA 2. I think it's becoming clearer he's the best prospect under 6'10 in the draft (assuming Durant is 6'10).

Thaddeus seems to do a lot, but I'm not seeing him becoming a go-to scorer in the league like I can with Chase. I'm not even sure that Young is a better prospect than Julian Wright at this point.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I think Shakur should get some consideration. He has toned down his theatrics, but maybe thats still too early to tell


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Chase is a top 10 pick. Williams is a lotto pick. Igor is a mid 2nd rounder. Shakur is undrafted but will get a shot in then Summer League.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

Amareca said:


> Yes, the only reason he isn't getting the same hype is because he is white... sad... why people even bring names like Thaddeus Young into the discussion like Chase should never be drafted before them even when he is doing a lot better..


1st time in the history of the world I've heard this. You are way off base here, way off. 

He would get more hype if people thought he was better. 

He's not an NBA go to guy and his athleticism will be neutralized once he hits the league. Rex Chapman wasn't that athletic when he got into the league.


----------



## DavidCain (Nov 22, 2006)

matt! said:


> I think Chase is a very good player, but would you really consider taking him at #2 (assuming Oden goes #1) over Durant, Noah, Wright, Young, Horford, etc.



thaddeus young has been disaapoitning so far,not so much production because a young player isnt gonna dominate right away but the guy cannot dribble,at this point theres no way this guys on oden or durant or even buddinger level..

aside from his wingspan and athletic aiblity i see nothign spcial about hi sactual basketball skill


----------



## DavidCain (Nov 22, 2006)

jazzy1 said:


> 1st time in the history of the world I've heard this. You are way off base here, way off.
> 
> He would get more hype if people thought he was better.
> 
> He's not an NBA go to guy and his athleticism will be neutralized once he hits the league. Rex Chapman wasn't that athletic when he got into the league.


his athleticism will be nuetralized? the guy has a 42 inch vertical leap hes athletic enough for the nba, and his game isnt based on athleticism anyway so its not like he needs to be an athletic freak to survive..

the rex champman analogy makes no sense, aside from being white they have nothing in common

so because rex chapman wasnt overly athletic in the nba buddinger wont be???

wtf?


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

Yeah! If you're going to make a "they look alike therefore they must play alike" comparison for Budinger, you HAVE to take Brian Scalabrine. There is no other choice.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Best comparison for Chase might be the young allstar Dan Majerle but he is going to be better.

And yes, people don't hype Chase so much because sad thing is a lot of people think white players are automatically worse prospects.


----------



## Victor Page (Nov 1, 2006)

Chase has an understated game - he doesn't demand the ball and hoist up 20 shots a game like Durant (I know Arizona has more talent etc...). Chase makes smart plays away from the ball, and appears to be able to guard people off the dribble (the rarest skill in basketball in my opinion).

I think he's got tons of pro potential but his kind of game often gets under-rated by NBA scouts, who seem to always be looking for guys that are over 6"8 and can dribble (never mind that they can't create their own shot or guard anyone).


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

What's up with Marcus Williams? He's been MIA for most of the season. At this point the lottery is but a fleeting memory.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Amareca said:


> And yes, people don't hype Chase so much because sad thing is a lot of people think white players are automatically worse prospects.


It has more to do with people writing off his athleticism, and that does relate to his skin color. It takes longer for people to recognize athleticism in a white player, for whatever reason. Just like it takes longer for people to recognize basketball IQ in a black player. Stereotypes are dumb like that. 

Chase is one of those guys who will actually translate better into the pros because the spacing is better. He is going to be a really good player.


----------



## pup2plywif (Dec 20, 2005)

rainman said:


> What's up with Marcus Williams? He's been MIA for most of the season. At this point the lottery is but a fleeting memory.


Well last year Marcus Williams had to literally carry the team the entire year. This year theres more talent on the team (Budinger). His statistics show improvement so its not like hes regressing or anything. He just doesnt need to score or carry the team as much this year


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

pup2plywif said:


> Well last year Marcus Williams had to literally carry the team the entire year. This year theres more talent on the team (Budinger). His statistics show improvement so its not like hes regressing or anything. He just doesnt need to score or carry the team as much this year


I hope so being that he's a Seattle boy, he did play real well in their last game so hopefully he's righted the ship. He just looked out of it in their first few games.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

rainman said:


> What's up with Marcus Williams? He's been MIA for most of the season. At this point the lottery is but a fleeting memory.


Lute has been keeping him on the bench, because he isnt rebounding and playing defense like he should. The SDSU game was the Marcus Williams we all know. 21 points and 16 boards is what Marcus Williams is capable of when he is playing an all around game. He is playing the 4 right now, which means nothing because UA is running a 4-1, but he know she needs to rebound and play D like he did against SDSU to stay on the floor. Lute isnt going to leave him out there just because he is Marcus Williams. Lute will sit him down on the bench for a half or so, like he did against Memphis and NAU.

Marcus has the potential to be a lottery pick in a loaded draft, but he isnt getting off on the right foot. He is a sure fire mid first rounder, but should be able to work his way into the lottery with a good season.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

JuniorNoboa said:


> With all this talent do we even bother playing the NCAA season. Arizona 2007 National Champs.
> 
> 
> --------
> BTW. they are not in my top 25. Numbers lie - numbers are driven by a system and a lack of depth. Time and time again Zona and its prospects are overrated due to this, but they have caught in the tournament and on draft night.


You really hate Arizona for some reason.

These numberss don't lie: #1 RPI and SOS. 

As for Arizona being driven by a system and lack of depth... When has Arizona been driven by a system? They have gone from a post team in the 80's to a point guard team in the 90's and now are a different type of team every year since 2000. If numbers are driven by a system, what kind of system is Arizona? They produce great point guards and forwards, despite the make up of the team or offense they run.

Give me a few Arizona prospect who were overrated? If Arizona players are always overrated, then what are Mike Bibby, Damon Stoudamire, Richard Jefferson, Gilbert Arenas, Jason Terry, Channing Frye, Luke Walton, Andre Iguodala, Steve Kerr, Sean Elliot?


----------



## MoscowHeel (Dec 25, 2006)

Buddinger and Williams are 1st rounders, MAYBE Shakur, no chance for the other 2. Buddinger should go anywhere in the lottery and Williams should be late lottery to middle of the 1st.


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

if i was picking now then budinger is a definite top 5 pick to me 

I dont think this draft is as loaded as it`s made out to be,yes there are a lot of big men in the draft but i see 80% of them turning out to be nothing more than role players (starting with Yi Jianlian,horford and noah)


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

www.starbury.com said:


> if i was picking now then budinger is a definite top 5 pick to me
> 
> I dont think this draft is as loaded as it`s made out to be,yes there are a lot of big men in the draft but i see 80% of them turning out to be nothing more than role players (starting with Yi Jianlian,horford and noah)


Agree with your first part, i think the draft is definitely better than last year but may turn out to be a bit overrated if some stay in school. If you use the criteria that anyone besides an allstar is a role player then maybe those 3 are but Yi is going to get some serious allstar attention when his time comes for a couple of reasons.


----------



## PoorPoorSonics (Mar 20, 2004)

Amareca said:


> And yes, people don't hype Chase so much because sad thing is a lot of people think white players are automatically worse prospects.


Think that is the first time I've ever agreed with Amareca.


----------



## Bangle (Nov 14, 2006)

*BUMP* did anyone catch the WASH/ZONA game??? wow ridiculous. Their starting five is scary.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

The most amazing shooting performance by two teams in a single game that I have seen...

Arizona shot 65% from the field and 55% from 3.
Washington shoots 53% from the field and 47% from 3 and loses by 9.

What a game...


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

A few NBA prospects on hand during that game. Great game


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Look at Radenovic's numbers, still think he isn't worth a look in the late first round? He can shoot, pass has decent size, decent rebounder..


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

No. Radenovic is not a PF on the NBA level and he isn't quick enough to play the SF. He's a tweener. Still a second round pick, numbers be damned.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

HKF said:


> No. Radenovic is not a PF on the NBA level and he isn't quick enough to play the SF. He's a tweener. Still a second round pick, numbers be damned.


Yup. There is no first round in his future. He and Mc...cant spell his name have a chance in the second round though.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

Radenovic has to be a PF on the next level. There is no way he can guard on the perimeter. He is best suited as a high-low PF. He has a nice perimeter game, but he doesnt have that athleticism to play on the wing and I am not sure he has the range. He has a nice shot and is consistent out to the college line, but I dont know about the NBA line.

I agree he is still a 2nd rounder, but he could play his way into the bottom of the first round. This draft is going to be loaded, so that is a huge task.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

HKF said:


> No. Radenovic is not a PF on the NBA level and he isn't quick enough to play the SF. He's a tweener. Still a second round pick, numbers be damned.


In some drafts he would probably get some 1st round attention but not this year. They have 4 guys there at U of A that will make a roster and i see two lottery picks, Willims and Budinger.


----------



## vincedunkedonzo2 (Jan 29, 2007)

Shakur is so not undrafted. Hes going in the late first round or early second round. I think the Spurs could use another outside threat.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

But he's not an outside threat.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

In the NBA Shakur is a defensive role player. If he can prove that he can continue to run an offense and find the open man he will be a good backup/spot start PG. He has a ton of potential, but he still has to prove to NBA coaches that he can be counted on to run an offense. 

Shakur is best suited for a run and gun style team, because he is much more comfortable flying down the court. I think the perfect fit for him is in Denver. He doesnt need to run an offense (obviously), he just has to play defense, push the tempo, and find the open man on the break.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

After 4 years of not improving, when does Shakur stop having "potential" and start being just plain bad.


----------



## Quasi-Quasar (Jul 18, 2002)

Nimreitz said:


> After 4 years of not improving, when does Shakur stop having "potential" and start being just plain bad.


He's not all to blame for his stagnant development, he's had four years of bad or absent coaching IMO (personal coaching at least). His release is odd, low, and slow and with his long delivery he's a bit of a mechanical nightmare. Bibby has a low release, but he has a tremendously quick release (as do guys like Baron Davis). To add to that issue, Shakur doesn't have a go-to hesitation-shot nor a jab-step-shot to rely on (Gabe Pruitt and Aaron Brooks make their livings with those moves). An NBA coach (and many NCAA coaches) could fix this in a few months and several thousand reps a week though. He's a solid defender and a good rebounder for his size. His court vision is so-so, but he makes nice passes (although not as crisply as you'd like). There are a few Pac-10 PGs (and one PointF in Weaver's case) that I'd take ahead of him, but he's one of those guys like Smush Parker, that could be servicable or better, but need active coaching and discipline badly.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

Nimreitz said:


> After 4 years of not improving, when does Shakur stop having "potential" and start being just plain bad.


He has improved and is showing his potential this season. However, he still has a way to go.


----------

