Chad Fords latest mock (Bucks take Augustin)

[Ayt]

How tall was Charles Barkley? You want athletic freak? Enter Yi. But Yi is not player. Love is player. Barkley was player.

6-7 or 6-8.

I think its funny people think Barkley wasn't a complete freak of nature. He was a phenomenal athlete.

Comparing Love to Barkley is ridiculous.

[paulpressey25]

Barkley was under 6-5"

http://www.celebheights.com/s/Charles-Barkley-2722.html

I think there are some similarities between he and Love from the standpoint that both use(d) their weight and butts to position for rebounds. The NBA is a positional rebounding league where your core matters.

The only problem is that we'll have to see how Love's arms measure out, because I'm not sure he's got the standing reach to help compliment his positioning. He might be one of those guys like Ruben last year, who frequently had the ball taken away from him by taller guys, even though he had position.

[Wise1]

-= original quote snipped =-



Just because Villanueva is a miserable defender doesn't mean we should draft high a power forward that will also struggle defensively because on many nights he'll be at a sizable athletic disadvantage.

Does anyone remember Bill Laimbeer?

[emunney]

-= original quote snipped =-



6-7 or 6-8.

I think its funny people think Barkley wasn't a complete freak of nature. He was a phenomenal athlete.

Comparing Love to Barkley is ridiculous.

QFT. Barkley was one of a kind.

I still think Love will be really good, though. The stats and what I see on the court won't let me believe otherwise.

[Jollay]

-= original quote snipped =-



6-7 or 6-8.

I think its funny people think Barkley wasn't a complete freak of nature. He was a phenomenal athlete.

Comparing Love to Barkley is ridiculous.

Barkley was an insane athlete in about every possible way.

And he wasn't even 6-7. That guy was lucky to be considered 6-6"--he was really like 6-4 and a half, 6'5".

[Jollay]

-= original quote snipped =-If Love goes out to play Bosh for the jumper, Bosh will blow right past him off the dribble.

Even if this happens, I would hope based on basic principles of man to man defense that somebody else would be in the lane.

At a minimum TJ Ford's man I would think would not presently be checking TJ out at the 3-point line with Bosh with the ball at the FT line, much as I fear TJ's 3-point ability.

And if Bosh is playing PF, I'm pretty sure Rasho wouldn't be floating out there either. Help is available in the lane, I'm sure.

And if Bosh is playing center, Bogut will have the exact same problem. Doesn't mean we have to go small to compensate, we exploit their weakness of having skinny Bosh play center and an undersized PF with him right back with Bogut/Love on the other end.

I get your points, though. And I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I find a hard time believing we can do much better if at all, than with Love with 7.

I think Love and Randolph are logical picks.

I am not as familiar with Randolph as I am with Love, however. Can he play SF? Can he shoot? Can he be our Tayshawn Prince?

Having an athletic young SF is a must for this team. Is there anyone else worth taking a flier for at #7 at that position?

[LUKE23]

Barkley was 6-4.5.

[Sigra]

Barkley was small small PF. He was faster then his defenders which is normall because he was lot smaller then they were. If you put SF on him then he use his strangth to post up them. His main qualities were, strong but fast, feeling around basket, shoot and most importantly inteligence and feeling for game. There was no way to defend him because PFs were slow for him and SFs were weak for him. With that range, that touch and that inteligence he was nightmare for oponents.

There are many ways to skin PF cat. You don't have to be 6-10 freak of nature.

[fam3381]

I wonder where Barkley would go in the draft if he came out of college today. I'd have to think he'd fall much further than fifth (where he was picked back in the day) just because teams would be so freaked out about his size.

Btw, I was looking at Chuck's stats on basketball reference and his rebounding numbers (among other things) are just ridiculous. I mean, we all know he was a terrific rebounder, but his career path is pretty mind-boggling....he was actually a better rebounder at the very end of his career despite being damn good to start as well.

In his final season at the age of 36 he had a rebound rate of 18.9. For some perspective, consider that only one PF this year had a better rate than that, and it was Reggie Evans who doesn't do anything aside from look to rebound. Evans (6-8) is also the only guy with a better RR this year who is shorter than 6-10. I know the era is slightly different, but good lord.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

Barkley was a good enough offensive player to overlook his defense and build a team around him. Is Love going to be a nightmare matchup for opposing defenses? Will other teams in the east be making roster moves so that they can grab a player who matches up with Love?

[europa]

I think Barkley's athletic ability would have won out. The fact he was probably 6-4 but could rebound like a madman despite being so damn fat was pretty hard to ignore. If anything, I think the main concerns now would be the same as they were then - his weight. But his production and his ability to not just get rebounds, but possess nearly every one within his grasp would have been impossible to ignore in my opinion.

Most NBA scouts agree that one thing which translates from college to the pros is rebounding. If you're a good rebounder in college, chances are you'll be a good rebounder in the NBA. If you're a sensational rebounder in college - look out. That doesn't always hold true and sometimes it gets ignored (Paul Milsap is a good example of that) but Barkley's game was so well-rounded (no pun intended) I think he would've been impossible to ignore.

But yea, comparing Love to Barkley is ridiculous.

[Jollay]

Where the comparison is good between Love and Barkley is:

Both have NBA bodies and significant tonage.

This is a huge positive.

Defense is never purely one on one matchups, even in the NBA where it is admittedly more so than college and high school obviously.

Love's average athleticism and "lack of length" (even though at the PF position, he really doesn't have such) might be negatives, but Love's positives overweigh them.

You guys just let me know when Yi and CV put a body on cutters through the lane or box out worth a damn. The little things Love can do in this arena should not be underestimated--especially if you understand team defense and team rebounding concepts.

Again, if we could find Kevin Garnett or Dirk Nowitzki at 7, by all means, lets take him. Or a legit SF young guy worth taking at 7.

Until somebody convinces me who that guy is, I think its a no brainer to take Love if he's there. The only possible exception I see is Randolph.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

What about Westbrook? He can play defense at PG or SG.

[Licensed to Il]

Westbrook is my choice for the Bucks first rounder (barring a top three selection). I can't understand why he is dropping down so many draft boards. I have a feeling it is GMs feeding media misinformation, and once the workout process starts again that teams will start mentioning him back in the top six.

Westbrook is a much better prospect than Leondro Barbosa was coming in to the league (same build, same long arms, same incredible quickness, etc) but Westbrook makes better decisions, is a higher leaper, has more experience against elite competition, etc).

I love Westbrook's size, athleticism, defensive energy, and non chucker's mentality for the point guard position.

[Worm Guts]

-= original quote snipped =-



he was really like 6-4 and a half, 6'5".

He was 6-4 1/2 barefoot, but everyone's NBA measurements are with shoes. I'd say Charles Barkley was legitimate 6-6 by NBA standards.

[europa]

Westbrook is my choice for the Bucks first rounder (barring a top three selection). I can't understand why he is dropping down so many draft boards.

I think it may be because there are questions about whether he has the skills to play PG or the size to play SG. I agree he's a guy who could move up if he has some great workouts because he's very athletic and those workouts tend to favor good athletes. But I do think those questions above need to be answered in some fashion before a team can really commit itself to him.

[Balls2TheWalls]

-= original quote snipped =-



I think it may be because there are questions about whether he has the skills to play PG or the size to play SG. I agree he's a guy who could move up if he has some great workouts because he's very athletic and those workouts tend to favor good athletes. But I do think those questions above need to be answered in some fashion before a team can really commit itself to him.

Just as I am afraid of players that don't play defense, I am a little weary of players that haven't proved themselves at the offensive end - especially point guards.

[Licensed to Il]

Europa,

I think a team that wants a point guard who can score at will, and shoot a high volume would obviously prefer Bayless, or even Augistine.

But a team who has already has a, say, Mo Williams type player... and is looking to upgrade their perimiter defense and add size and athleticism to their backcourt wouldn't hesitate to take Westbrook.

I am not saying that Westbrook is Chauncey Billups, but I do think he fits that mold of a big and physical combo guard who leans a little more towards the "point guard" side than the "shooting guard" side.

I see what you are saying, and I have heard it as well. But Westbrook was the engine of UCLA this year, and they pulled out a lot of gritty last minute victories that they had no business winning (a good benchmark for a PG's intangibles).

[LUKE23]

Westbrook definitely improved on offense. He shot 45.7% from the field and 54.8% from the line as a freshman, and 46.5% from the field and 71.3% from the line as a sophomore, while putting up 12.7/4/4.3, which as kind of a second PG, are pretty good numbers. His D is exemplorary and he can get out in the open court.

And where did anyone see Westbrook falling? He's been rising on most boards and a lot of people have called him the sleeper of the draft.

[Jollay]

What about Westbrook? He can play defense at PG or SG.

I like him. Don't like him at 7.

I like that he's tall, athletic, and can play defense. Certainly a Skiles type selection.

Hasn't proven near enough to me for a 6'4" guard for him to be drafted that high.

Wouldn't mind trading down for him, but it depends on who is drafting where. If we could get him and a SF for 7 I'd love that.