# Eastern Conference Draft Grades



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Tomorrow I will have the Western Conference, including the first "Draft Day F" I have ever had the distinct displeasure of giving out. 

Boston Celtics
#18 Gerald Green
#50 Ryan Gomes
#53 Orien Greene
Grade: A+
Analysis: Danny Ainge got his second straight player with legit superstar potential, only spending a couple of mid-first rounders. It's mind boggling that teams could be stupid enough to pass up on Green outside of the top 5, but somehow it happened. Now Boston has one of the best young cores in the league, and will remain a playoff contender. Huh? 

New Jersey Nets
#15 Antoine Wright
#43 Mile Ilic
Grade: B+
Analysis: The Nets needed a big man, but clearly thought the best player on the board was Wright. If it wasn't for Gerald Green, I would agree with them. Wright is in an interesting situation. He probably doesn't play much right away, but he's going to learn from the best of the best. Don't read into his poor combine results - he's a great athlete. As far as athleticism translating on to the actual floor, I don't think Joey Graham has anything on Wright. 

New York Knicks
#8 Channing Frye
#21 Nate Robinson
#30 David Lee
Grade: D-
Analysis: Once again, I just can't agree with Isaiah's moves here. Channing Frye is Tony Battie waiting to happen, and taking David Lee with players like Andray Blatche, Rony Turiaf, and Chris Taft still on board is just plain stupid. He also uses a first round pick on a 5'7 guard that has questionable floor general ability. I like Robinson as a second rounder, but at least use the 30th pick on him. Never mind the fact that they already have enough at the PG spot with Marbury and Crawford, and are now overloaded in the backcourt with Quentin Richardson. This team is a disaster

Philadelphia 76ers
#45 Louis Williams
Grade: B-
Analysis: Philly gets another Allen Iverson understudy. He probably bounces around in the D-league for the next few years, and may never be more than a minor league scoring specialist. Still, he can be a scorer. You just never know how he'll develop in the new farm system. 

Toronto Raptors
#7 Charlie Villanueva
#16 Joey Graham
#46 Roko Ukic
#58 Uros Slokar
Grade: B-
Analysis: It's hard to like these picks. Villanueva might be able to play with Bosh, but both need space on the floor. Graham is going to be solid, but still isn't going to be that guy the Raptors need to break people down off the dribble. How good would Gerald Green and Jarret Jack look right now? Nonetheless, you can't help but think that Villanueva and Graham will make the Raptors better in the long run, and that the fans have something to be excited about again. Ukic is an absolute steal in the 2nd round.

Chicago Bulls
no picks
Grade: A
Analysis: Luol Deng or Nate Robinson? You make the pick...

Cleveland Cavaliers
#44 Martynas Andriuskevicius
Grade: B
Analysis: This guy is a total bust as a first rounder, as I have been saying since seeing him work out first hand in Chicago, but why not take a flier in the 2nd? It didn't cost the Cavs anything. Five years down the road, he could be something. But not before then...

Detroit Pistons
#26 Jason Maxiell
#56 Amir Johnson
#60 Alex Acker
Grade: A
Analysis: After quite possibly taking the cake in Chicago as the best player in the camp, it was obvious that Maxiell was going to be a player. I didn't think a team would have the guts to actually take him in the first round, but now I commend the Pistons for doing so. It's absolutely the right move, and Maxiell is going terrorize the paint in Motown for years to come. Johnson is an NBDL stash, but a good one, with a Rasheed Wallace type body/athleticism. Lottery talent in the 2nd round is never a bad thing...

Indiana Pacers
#17 Danny Granger
#46 Erazem Lorbek
Grade: B+
Analysis: I'm not as high on Granger as some are. To me he's more of a 3/4 rather than a true wing, and the late lotto to mid-first was the right area for him to go in. Granger is going to have trouble making an impact in Indiana, as Artest and Jackson will start and Bender/Jones will fight him for minutes every step of the way. Why not take Gerald Green if your rookie is going to be seeing a lot of pine regardless? Still, you can't go wrong with taking a talent like Granger at #17. Lorbek was the most productive draftee in the Euroleague, so it's hard to argue with his selection. 

Milwaukee Bucks
#1 Andrew Bogut
#36 Ersan Illyasova
Grade: A
Analysis: The Bucks couldn't screw up the top pick, and got a very nice potential puzzle piece for down the road. Don't buy the Chad Ford Andrei Kirilenko comparisons. Illyasova is a finesse-style combo forward, with a sweet outside shooting touch. Think Radmanovich.

Atlanta Hawks
#2 Marvin Williams
#31 Salim Stoudamire
#59 Cenk Akyol
Grade: B+
Analysis: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this 10 wings in a row for the Hawks? Boris Diaw, Travis Hansen, Josh Childress, Josh Smith, Donta Smith, Royal Ivey, Victor Sanikidze, Marvin Williams, Salim Stoudamire, and Cenk Aykol. Wow. Dan Dickau was their last non-wing pick. He's looking like a steal at a position Atlanta is in desperate need of, but of course they traded him. But I guess I can't argue with the picks here. They got the #1 guy in the draft at #2, but just don't need him. Stoudamire is a sideshow sort of player, but that one dynamite skill will keep him in the league for a long time. The best shooter in the league before he plays his first game? Perhaps...

Charlotte Bobcats
#5 Raymond Felton
#13 Sean May
Grade: A-
Analysis: I think the Bobcats got the guy they wanted at 5. Felton is as explosive as they come, and a true "make everybody better" type of PG. Bickerstaff continues to pick success, using the first three lottery picks in the history of the franchise on national champions. The hometown connection of Felton and May helps, as does getting two guys that have played with each other for 3 seasons and basically won the national title by themselves. I have to question May's selection a bit, as the Bobcats were much further along in the frontcourt, and Felton is the type of player that could really help out dynamic scoring wing. There were several available. If the Bobcats go Antoine Wright or Gerald Green here, they are the winners on draft night 2005. 

Miami Heat
#29 Wayne Simien
Grade: B+
Analysis: Simien was the clear-cut guy to take here. He can step in and help right away, and has a near perfectly polished back to the basket game. The Heat didn't exactly need another PF, but when a late lottery talent like Simien is available at 29, you snatch him up. 

Orlando Magic
#11 Fran Vazquez
#38 Travis Diener
Grade: C-
Analysis: Vazquez might be an iffy proposition, but he did play to rave reviews in the Euroleague, and has remained productive all year. He might not have the best risk/reward ratio, however. This pick has the feel of a promise made a very long time ago. Diener is a guy that's going to be in the league for a long time, even though he might not have a place on the Magic roster next season. Trading out of the second round this year for a future second round pick makes no sense at all, especially when you look at all the players that were still out there at #44. Why would Orlando have a problem with stashing Marty overseas for a few years? Do they think they can do better next season? 

Washington Wizards
#49 Andray Blatche
Grade: B+
Analysis: I thought he had the talent to go in the first round. Now he's a definite D-leauge player, but he's certainly a better prospect than any of the 3 high school guards that were picked ahead of him.


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

Nice anaylsis. I think the Nets should be lower, not filling any type of "right now" need in a power forward...


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

sheefo13 said:


> Nice anaylsis. I think the Nets should be lower, not filling any type of "right now" need in a power forward...


My reasoning for giving the Nets such a good grade is that they got the guy I feel might have been as high as the 6th or 7th best player in the draft at 15. It's doubtful that any of the PF's available at #15 would have made them noticeably more competitive this season anyways.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

A part of me died when Charlotte didn't draft Green, Granger or Wright with the 13th pick...

I would have loved to hear "Felton to Okafor" and "Felton to Green"


----------



## sheefo13 (Jul 13, 2002)

I just don't think Scalabrine is a good enough player to start there. They better get SAR or Marshall... Or else this draft could be even worse for them.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

sheefo13 said:


> Nice anaylsis. I think the Nets should be lower, not filling any type of "right now" need in a power forward...


The Nets needed a scorer off of the bench and they still have free agency to add a veteran PF.

Or Wright could be part of a trade for KG


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

Jonathan Watters said:


> Don't buy the Chad Ford Andrei Kirilenko comparisons. Illyasova is a finesse-style combo forward, with a sweet outside shooting touch. Think Radmanovich.


I was going to ask about this, ok I can deal with a Radman type player in Milwaukee if we ever do bring the kid over.


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

sheefo13 said:


> I just don't think Scalabrine is a good enough player to start there. They better get SAR or Marshall... Or else this draft could be even worse for them.


Since when has Veal started at the 4 for NJ?


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Have the Western conference grades come out yet? I didn't see them.


----------



## Adam Miller (Apr 13, 2005)

Jonathan, not bad at all. I'm not a big fan of your Heat or 76ers grades but they're tolerable. The Pistons grade I can't stand anyone giving them an A. Here's something I think you and the rest of the world needs to remember. Maxiell measured out at 6-5. I don't care how he did in Chicago. He was playing college players, not NBA players. He's a NATURAL power forward meaning if he can't play there, he's going to sit on the bench. 

I don't know any power forwards in the NBA that are all-stars under a true 6-8. The only undersized power forward that small who's had success is Charles Barkley. Do you think Maxiell could be Charles Barkley? I don't. 

He might play small forward but I think he's too slow and he's not that great of a perimeter player. He does play bigger than he is, but better as a second round pick not a first round pick. 

I also wouldn't call Amir Johnson lottery talent although I do agree he has the potential to be pretty good as an NBDL stash.


----------



## OGR (Mar 9, 2005)

1) Channining Frye plays nothing like Tony Battie, so you obviously don't know the player.

2) Nate Robinson was going to be picked by Sacramento or Seattle if we didn't make the pick.

3) Lee's work ethic, heart, and attitude got him the nod over Taft. He's also further in his development, and in an offense where all they shot was 3 pointers (Florida) he was terribly underused.

I disagree completely on your Knick analysis.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Adam Miller said:


> Jonathan, not bad at all. I'm not a big fan of your Heat or 76ers grades but they're tolerable. The Pistons grade I can't stand anyone giving them an A. Here's something I think you and the rest of the world needs to remember. Maxiell measured out at 6-5. I don't care how he did in Chicago. He was playing college players, not NBA players. He's a NATURAL power forward meaning if he can't play there, he's going to sit on the bench.
> 
> I don't know any power forwards in the NBA that are all-stars under a true 6-8. The only undersized power forward that small who's had success is Charles Barkley. Do you think Maxiell could be Charles Barkley? I don't.
> 
> ...


I am fully aware of how he measured. He also has a 7'3 wingspan. I am aware of the fact that he is undersized, and aware of the "only Charles Barkley can play PF under 6'6" argument. Can we please skip it? Nobody is stupid enough to think that Maxiell is going to be an all-star. Especially not a team picking at #27 that already has quite a bit of talent. 

Think of Jason Maxiell in the same vein you would think of Larry Johnson. 

The fact remains that if you were at the camp, you wouldn't be contesting the pick. It's not that he was just playing well. He was absoulutely dominating some very talented post players. It wasn't his craft, or his knowledge of the game. It was sheer strength and athleticism. If anybody else in Chicago used raw tools to dominate like he did, I would be hyping them just the same. It's absolutely staggering how athletic he truly is, and just because he's 6'5 doesn't make him any less dominant. Doubt all you want, but you won't be doubting me five years from now. He will play PF, and he will be a good one. 

Amir Johnson is lottery talent, based on athleticism alone. His game is a bit raw and he has especially poor hands, but athleticism like that in a 6'10 package is special. He goes to Louisville, averages 17 ppg his sophomore year, and he's a lottery pick. If he had his head on straight, it would have happened...


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

> Artest and Jackson will start and Bender/Jones will fight him for minutes every step of the way. Why not take Gerald Green if your rookie is going to be seeing a lot of pine regardless?


Bender will most likely be on the IL this season. James Jones, although he is a good backup will be moved to third string with Granger here. Jackson will also get most of his minutes at the SG. There are at least 20 minutes for Granger to play each game.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

Jonathan Watters said:


> Bender/Jones will fight him for minutes every step of the way.


No they won't. More than likely, neither of them will even be on the Pacers' active roster next year.


----------



## Adam Miller (Apr 13, 2005)

Jonathan Watters said:


> I am fully aware of how he measured. He also has a 7'3 wingspan. I am aware of the fact that he is undersized, and aware of the "only Charles Barkley can play PF under 6'6" argument. Can we please skip it? Nobody is stupid enough to think that Maxiell is going to be an all-star. Especially not a team picking at #27 that already has quite a bit of talent.
> 
> Think of Jason Maxiell in the same vein you would think of Larry Johnson.
> 
> ...


Ok, I'll argue this from your last point I guess. If Amir Johnson is a lottery talent, so is Pierre Pierce, Sean Banks, Randolph Morris, etc, etc. Even this upcoming draft. Would you call James White who can jump out of the gym a lottery talent? No. I'll give you a name who's first round talent who you probably haven't even heard about. 

Carlos Hurt from Robert Morris College. Should have started over Taquan Dean at Louisville but didn't have his head on straight. McDonald's All-American, averaged around 25 ppg. Now, he's probably back in his home town Houston, smoking pot. No difference really between Hurt and Johnson. Johnson has more talent but people who know about Carlos Hurt think if he played at Louisville, he would be a surefire first round pick. 

As for me not being awed because I didn't see him at Chicago, he could have been the best player there and I would have had doubts. NBA talent is not Chicago talent. It's very simple. He is going to have a hard time adjusting to the NBA, I guarantee you, it's not like I've never seen him before. 

Also, I'm not calling Maxiell an all-star but it seems like you are. An A imples that the Pistons got great value with their draft. I already addressed Amir Johnson but the Pistons drafted in the late first round, if they got good value for him, he's a lottery talent which means he should be an all-star, which means he should be Charles Barkley not Larry Johnson.


----------



## 7M3 (Aug 5, 2002)

Jonathan Watters said:


> New Jersey Nets
> #15 Antoine Wright
> #43 Mile Ilic
> Grade: B+
> Analysis: The Nets needed a big man, but clearly thought the best player on the board was Wright. If it wasn't for Gerald Green, I would agree with them. Wright is in an interesting situation. *He probably doesn't play much right away*, but he's going to learn from the best of the best. Don't read into his poor combine results - he's a great athlete. As far as athleticism translating on to the actual floor, I don't think Joey Graham has anything on Wright.


Don't much understand the bolded portion. The Net's have no one off the bench at both the SG and SF positions, and are in dire need of a shooter. You figure Vince and Richard are gonna clock in around 35-37 MPG, and that leaves a solid 20 minutes for Antoine right off the bat. And, if Antoine plays well, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Nets experiment a tad with a 3 guard line-up. Jefferson's got the bulk to defend some 4's, atleast sparingly. 

You seem like you've seen quite a bit of Antoine. How do you rate his defensive ability? I've read a couple conflicting reports regarding his D. I'd also be interested in your opinion on both his NBA readiness, and his potential.


----------



## Enigma (Jul 16, 2002)

OGR said:


> 3) Lee's work ethic, heart, and attitude got him the nod over Taft. He's also further in his development, and in an offense where all they shot was 3 pointers (Florida) he was terribly underused.


You forgot his athleticism. Lee is/was the most athletic big man who worked out in Chicago. Not to mention, he's pretty polished. That's a tough combination to find, athletic and polished.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Hi Jonathan,

What do you think the chances of Gilchrist making the Cavs roster? We've got big holes at the PG position and I'd like you're opinion on him


----------



## MrFloppy (Jun 25, 2005)

Isiah Thomas gets bent over again but this time by himself. :banana:


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Adam Miller said:


> Ok, I'll argue this from your last point I guess. If Amir Johnson is a lottery talent, so is Pierre Pierce, Sean Banks, Randolph Morris, etc, etc. Even this upcoming draft. Would you call James White who can jump out of the gym a lottery talent? No. I'll give you a name who's first round talent who you probably haven't even heard about.
> 
> 
> Carlos Hurt from Robert Morris College. Should have started over Taquan Dean at Louisville but didn't have his head on straight. McDonald's All-American, averaged around 25 ppg. Now, he's probably back in his home town Houston, smoking pot. No difference really between Hurt and Johnson. Johnson has more talent but people who know about Carlos Hurt think if he played at Louisville, he would be a surefire first round pick.


I absolutely have heard of Carlos Hurt. He was a freakin' McDonald's All American. How could I not have heard of him? 

Yes, those players are probably lottery talents. Not Morris, maybe not Pierce. But they've all had the chance to prove themselves at the college level. Pierce and Banks are proven character question marks. Morris and White have proven that they simply aren't that good. Johnson hasn't had a chance to prove anything. But I doubt you will admit there is a difference...



> As for me not being awed because I didn't see him at Chicago, he could have been the best player there and I would have had doubts. NBA talent is not Chicago talent. It's very simple. He is going to have a hard time adjusting to the NBA, I guarantee you, it's not like I've never seen him before.


And if you would have been at Chicago, you would be ranting and raving about him right now. It's that simple...



> Also, I'm not calling Maxiell an all-star but it seems like you are.


I will respond to this with something I wrote earlier in the thread. 



> Nobody is stupid enough to think that Maxiell is going to be an all-star.


Maybe you ought to go back and re-think what you just said...



> An A imples that the Pistons got great value with their draft. I already addressed Amir Johnson but the Pistons drafted in the late first round, if they got good value for him, he's a lottery talent which means he should be an all-star, which means he should be Charles Barkley not Larry Johnson.


My goodness. You just keep spouting craziness and more craziness. If Maxiell is even close to Larry Johnson, which would make him a multiple-season 20/10 player, he would be the steal of the draft. The Pistons drafted a defensive-minded roleplayer. He is going to be a 10/10 guy in the league for years. He fits their situation and is a low-risk pick. Maybe you only gave A's to teams that drafted future all-stars, but I'm just not that shortsighted.


----------



## Adam Miller (Apr 13, 2005)

Jonathan Watters said:


> I absolutely have heard of Carlos Hurt. He was a freakin' McDonald's All American. How could I not have heard of him?
> 
> Yes, those players are probably lottery talents. Not Morris, maybe not Pierce. But they've all had the chance to prove themselves at the college level. Pierce and Banks are proven character question marks. Morris and White have proven that they simply aren't that good. Johnson hasn't had a chance to prove anything. But I doubt you will admit there is a difference... .


I agree, Johnson hasn't had a chance to prove anything, but I don't think he would prove anything at Louisville where in my opinion they don't use their big men enough, and he's going to need more than two years to develop. I would put Pierce in the same class as Johnson even though he's older. I think the only time he's been able to showcase his talent is freshman year. He redshirted the next year, sophomore year, there were so many distractions, he couldn't focus on just basketball. This year, I watched him in the Maui Invitational and he tore up Texas and Louisville. He didn't do terrible against UNC either. However, he didn't play a full season so you can't really count that either. I asked around about him at some of the workouts and everyone I talked to said he would've gone between 20-35 if he played the whole season and had his head on straight.

If he can actually get out of Iowa, he should be able to sign with an NBA team pretty quick. If you look at my draft rankings, that's why he's in the high 30's.




Jonathan Watters said:


> And if you would have been at Chicago, you would be ranting and raving about him right now. It's that simple... .



Alright we could seriously go back and forth on this for a long time as we have with anything we disagreed with. Maybe our grading scales are different. Here's mine:
A= Perfect draft. There’s not much better they could have done or this was the ideal draft for them. Most likely they are a winner in the draft.
B= Good draft that worked very nice with their team needs. There were better players but they drafted guys that will work with their team.
C= Fits their needs but not a good draft for them at all. The team probably passed on a lot of better players with one of their picks.
D=Not only did they not get players who don’t fit their needs, but they probably reached way too high in the draft for them too. Probably a loser in the draft.
F= Wasted their picks completely on this draft. Nobody in their selections will do anything for this team.
Incomplete=Didn’t have a pick, come back next year.
N/A=I don’t know enough the players drafted so I can’t grade this team.

When I mean perfect draft, I mean they got someone who shouldn't have fell to them. They got guys who fit their position needs AND got great value for the pick. Also, why would Detroit take a power forward when they can't even make time for Darko? If you're expecting a 10/10 guy, I would put them at a B for the draft because those are reasonable expectations for a late first rounder. The problem is, they didn't need a big man so in my scale, that knocks them down to a D.


----------



## DH12 (Jun 22, 2005)

Pacers Fan said:


> Bender will most likely be on the IL this season. James Jones, although he is a good backup will be moved to third string with Granger here. Jackson will also get most of his minutes at the SG. There are at least 20 minutes for Granger to play each game.






RP McMurphy said:


> No they won't. More than likely, neither of them will even be on the Pacers' active roster next year.


You're both forgetting that with the new CBA the maximum active roster size increased. Granger, Bender and Jones can all be on the active roster this season.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Adam Miller said:


> I agree, Johnson hasn't had a chance to prove anything, but I don't think he would prove anything at Louisville where in my opinion they don't use their big men enough, and he's going to need more than two years to develop. I would put Pierce in the same class as Johnson even though he's older. I think the only time he's been able to showcase his talent is freshman year. He redshirted the next year, sophomore year, there were so many distractions, he couldn't focus on just basketball. This year, I watched him in the Maui Invitational and he tore up Texas and Louisville. He didn't do terrible against UNC either. However, he didn't play a full season so you can't really count that either. I asked around about him at some of the workouts and everyone I talked to said he would've gone between 20-35 if he played the whole season and had his head on straight.
> 
> If he can actually get out of Iowa, he should be able to sign with an NBA team pretty quick. If you look at my draft rankings, that's why he's in the high 30's.


I grew up in Iowa, and the Hawkeyes are my true hometown team. I've been following them my entire life. I agree that Pierce has first round potential. He might be a bit of a poor man's Larry Hughes. Great athleticism, good combination of size and athleticism, and the potential to be a very tough defender at the NBA level. Unfortunately, you have to balance out the good games (Maui, for instance) with the bad. He single-handedly lost Iowa a game against Northwestern this year, when he commited 10 turnovers - most of which were unforced and in crucial 2nd half moments. His assist to TO ratio was horrible, and couldn't hit a free throw to save his life. There's also the very disturbing fact that he played one of his best games of the season, putting down 25 in a win against Indiana, when he knew his college career was pretty much over. He's a great talent, and even comes off as a nice enough guy. But something about Pierce is completely out of control. Based on raw talent he probably would have ended up as a first rounder after his senior year, but teams don't draft based soley on raw talent, either...



> Alright we could seriously go back and forth on this for a long time as we have with anything we disagreed with. Maybe our grading scales are different. Here's mine:
> A= Perfect draft. There’s not much better they could have done or this was the ideal draft for them. Most likely they are a winner in the draft.
> B= Good draft that worked very nice with their team needs. There were better players but they drafted guys that will work with their team.
> C= Fits their needs but not a good draft for them at all. The team probably passed on a lot of better players with one of their picks.
> ...


I guess I don't have a set scale. I just know that Detroit really doesn't have any needs to address, so a roleplayer type like Maxiell is OK. He's the perfect Detroit player as well, and I guess that's why I give them an A. Ben Wallace isn't much taller than 6'7, and he is a great defender. Maxiell can do similar, even if lesser, things in Detroit's defensive scheme.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

DH12 said:


> You're both forgetting that with the new CBA the maximum active roster size increased. Granger, Bender and Jones can all be on the active roster this season.


I can't speak for Pacers Fan, what I meant was, Bender will be on the injured list all year, and Jones won't be re-signed.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

DH12 said:


> You're both forgetting that with the new CBA the maximum active roster size increased. Granger, Bender and Jones can all be on the active roster this season.


I remember hearing about that, but I don't know what the exact number is. Bender isn't going to be on the active roster, either. He can't. I mean, it's not that he's not allowed, it's that he'll be injured.


----------



## Adam Miller (Apr 13, 2005)

Jonathan Watters said:


> He single-handedly lost Iowa a game against Northwestern this year, when he commited 10 turnovers - most of which were unforced and in crucial 2nd half moments. His assist to TO ratio was horrible, and couldn't hit a free throw to save his life. There's also the very disturbing fact that he played one of his best games of the season, putting down 25 in a win against Indiana, when he knew his college career was pretty much over. He's a great talent, and even comes off as a nice enough guy. But something about Pierce is completely out of control. Based on raw talent he probably would have ended up as a first rounder after his senior year, but teams don't draft based soley on raw talent, either...


Alright, fair criticism. He does look a little out of control. My question to you is, would he have those 10 turnovers if he was playing with oh say Illinois? In my mind, there are only two athletic guys who can keep up with Pierce, Thomas and Haluska. Hansen has decent speed for a center but can't keep up with Pierce, neither can Brunner or Horner for that matter. I actually didn't like him for this reason either although I know someone in Iowa (John Thompson) who was in the scouting business 10 years ago. What he said is that the turnovers are part Pierce, but mostly his teammates don't move fast enough to try and catch the ball. Put him with Illinois or UNC and all those turnovers would be assists.

I do agree he can't hit a free throw to save his life.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

I never saw it that way with Pierce. Most of his turnovers are simply trying to do much. Dribbling it off his foot, forcing the fancy pass, trying to drive on 4 guys and commiting a charge. Haluska and Horner are actually pretty darn good Big Ten gaurds, and Horner is about as good a passer as the Big Ten has right now. With Horner, Pierce played off the ball most of the time anyways, so that's no excuse. 

Still, it comes down to the mental side of things for Pierce. He always limited his turnovers when he had to handle against Illinois (Horner not athletic enough), so it really has nothing to do with ability at all.


----------



## Adam Miller (Apr 13, 2005)

Jonathan Watters said:


> I never saw it that way with Pierce. Most of his turnovers are simply trying to do much. Dribbling it off his foot, forcing the fancy pass, trying to drive on 4 guys and commiting a charge. Haluska and Horner are actually pretty darn good Big Ten gaurds, and Horner is about as good a passer as the Big Ten has right now. With Horner, Pierce played off the ball most of the time anyways, so that's no excuse.
> 
> Still, it comes down to the mental side of things for Pierce. He always limited his turnovers when he had to handle against Illinois (Horner not athletic enough), so it really has nothing to do with ability at all.


Horner and Haluska are good but not great. I think Horner's more of a shooting guard but he's slow and he's unathletic as you said. Definitley not a player with NBA potential although a great shooter so he could make a lot of money in Europe. 

I would say Haluska is kind of a Turkoglu/Anderson type because he's a tweener but he's fast and pretty athletic. I would agree Pierce tries to do too much but it's not all of his turnovers. I think Pierce didn't trust his teammates enough which might be a whole other issue. He's one of the more creative players I've seen. I think if he can get some solid coaching in the NBA, he'll be pretty good--although the judge actually has to let him out of Iowa.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

..

I would give Orlando's draft a B - more than a C-. Orlando really needed either another big man with Cato and Battie not being with the team much longer or a guy they could groom as their starting SG. Green could have been an option at that pick but obviously a lot of other teams passed on Green so obviously he wasn't thought of nearly as highly as all the internet analysts thought. Orlando got the best big man available at 11 - there could be an argument for May but Vasquez is bigger and seems to have a little more potential. Vasquez will be able to play come C in the NBA but May won't.

Drafting Marty and dealing him away seemed stupid at first, but Orlando still picked up Gortat for just cash and Gortat probably has just as good of a shot at making the NBA than Marty does.

Diener is the only pick I don't really agree with. He's got no spot on Orlando and there were a number of HS kids or euros they could have gambled on and sent to the NBDL to develop for a couple years.


----------



## reach4thesky (Jul 6, 2005)

Come on a B- for the Raptors, you my friend may be the only person in the world not bashing them, if you saw the draft even C.Villinueva looked surprise that he got drafted that high and Joey Graham over Granger. 

D- for the Knicks :no: , I'm a Knicks fan and last year I was mad with the Ariza pick and how wrong was I Ariza is the best defnder on the team and if he develope a jumper he's a future star in the making. My point is don't sleep on Isiah picks cause this guy knows how to draft. I agree it could've been a better draft for us but it wasn't that bad.

Larry Johnson if some of you have forgotten was a #1 pick overall, he's like Penny Hardaway he was a superstar until he got an injury that caused him to never be the same so comparing Johnson to Jason Maxiell is just retarded. If you want to compare the 2 say Maxiell is like Johnson after his devastating injury.


----------

