2021 Draft Thread

[FNQ]

The ball movement offense worked really well the first couple of years but you could also say the league has adjusted, know how to switch those baseline actions now. So it's still very effective but not as effective as it used to be.

You could say in key possessions in playoffs games, the shot creator skill is more useful, as you see with someone like CP3 and KD still after his major injury.

We went to the finals in 2019

In key possessions you just need a clutch shooter, which we've had in the past in Iguodala.

What evidence is there that its at all less effective other than just people saying it? Team offense has always been effective when ran through players/teams who do it well. The only time it isnt ideal is in one possession situations where foul calls are more lax, and in that case, you run it through Steph.

If anything, the Poole/Curry tandem success proves that our method of a ball-sharing team with 2 great shooters is still a huge winner. It's never stopped.

[shazam_guy]

Thanks for the responses. Interesting stuff. I guess I was hearing a lot of people going off Moody and onto Bouknight (as one example, but not the only one) and it made me wonder after all the anti-Wiseman, too-raw stuff. I'm pro-Wiseman (at least giving him a couple of years) and, at the moment, still pretty pro-Moody for #7, unless Barnes drops. And I'd be happy with Johnson or Springer at 14, among several others, because they should be able to contribute pretty quickly.

[FNQ]

Have zero interest in Mitchell and I'm super confused why he's popping up on mocks to us. It smacks of analysis that doesnt consider our team.. I could see us taking 2 wings before taking a small guard. Because Poole really is the backup to Curry. If Curry goes down, Poole's who you plug in.

No. Jordan Poole is NOT A POINT GUARD. Dude averages around 2 assists per game and that includes college. He's a shooting guard, and does that reasonably well, if erratically, and he doesn't play much defense. Davion Mitchell is an actual point guard who can dish the rock and put pressure on the defense. We need that. Furthermore, he plays defense. Really good defense. You don't get a nickname like "off-night" by playing lax defense (in Poole's rookie season I could have used that nickname on him in a different, worse way though). He's a totally different player than Poole and in no way do I see Poole as a legitimate "backup to Curry".

Poole averaged 4 APG when Steph was out, which is pretty solid considering that's without our 2 best shooters and being flanked by Oubre/Wiggins/Dray/Looney. Poole is literally a poor man's Curry out there. Like I said, and like we did - if Curry goes down, Poole goes into his spot in the lineup. 22 - 3 - 4 on 59% TS and runs the PnR well too. Meanwhile our typical backup PG during our run, Shaun Livingston, averaged 2 APG as well.

Poole was the direct backup to Curry last year and had a mini breakout season, subbed in pretty well for him too.. he's fine in a backup scoring PG role. Might even be ideal because he mirrors Curry's strengths and weaknesses.

[shazam_guy]

We would have won the 2019 finals, too, if not for that !@%#ing epidemic of tendon-snapping.

[Scoots1994]

I really like how he squares up on his threes. A certain someone who has missed two season squares up like a champ. Really good shooters always square up.

I always though Stephen Wardell Curry was a "really good shooter"

Watch on YouTube

[Sam Lowry Jr]

Have zero interest in Mitchell and I'm super confused why he's popping up on mocks to us. It smacks of analysis that doesnt consider our team.. I could see us taking 2 wings before taking a small guard. Because Poole really is the backup to Curry. If Curry goes down, Poole's who you plug in.

Poole averaged 4 APG when Steph was out, which is pretty solid considering that's without our 2 best shooters and being flanked by Oubre/Wiggins/Dray/Looney. Poole is literally a poor man's Curry out there. Like I said, and like we did - if Curry goes down, Poole goes into his spot in the lineup. 22 - 3 - 4 on 59% TS and runs the PnR well too. Meanwhile our typical backup PG during our run, Shaun Livingston, averaged 2 APG as well.

Poole was the direct backup to Curry last year and had a mini breakout season, subbed in pretty well for him too.. he's fine in a backup scoring PG role. Might even be ideal because he mirrors Curry's strengths and weaknesses.

I do think there's a need for another ball handler/decision maker on the team, regardless whether it's a guard or wing. Yes, Livingston was the back-up pg in our championship years, but we also had Iguodala handling the ball a significant amount with the second unit as well. Last year we had Dray, Steph, Poole, and it fell off a cliff after that with the Wannamakers and Mannions.

Mitchell would compliment Poole well in the second unit. He gives us a point of attack defender and primary ball handler that would let Poole play his natural position and mask his defensive deficiencies in the backcourt. He would fit better with Poole than, say, Bouknight, who has a duplicative skill set, is a poorer defender, and not a great decision maker (assist/TO ratio was horrible). Because of his defense, you could also play Davion with Steph in some lineups.

Mitchell also has the intangibles from what I've seen and read -- fierce competitor, proven winner, hard worker, does what's best for the team, high IQ. There's a lot of Draymond in him, which this team could use.

Also fwiw, it's not just the writers that are mocking Davion to us. I've heard multiple times now -- e.g., Anthony Slater and Sam Vecine on the recent Warriors +/- podcast, Adam Stanco on Chad Ford's podcast -- that the Warriors' are truly interested in Davion (along with Bouknight).

Read on Twitter

The shooting consistency and size does scare me, particularly with how hard he goes on defense and how many charges he took in college (kind of like Marcus Smart). But I wouldn't be disappointed either if we took Davion at 7.

[Onus]

The only negatives I hear about Mitchell is size and wingspan and whether or not his shooting is real.

Size and wingspan are needed for defense. Mitchell was literally the best defensive player in the nation, he made plays all over the floor as a midget, guarded the best prospect and more than held his own. His pressure defense will translate because of his elite quickness and explosion.

Offensively maybe you don’t think the shot translates. It very well may not. But he’s taking a bunch of self created offense. His offense seems mostly self generated and was the bailout option for his team. He’s so damn quick players are scared of him and will concede jumpers to him otherwise he’s blowing by people. Our team right now probably doesn’t suit him since we play so many non shooters we’ll probably be clogging up the paint a lot more than what more modern teams have with 4 and 5 out systems. He’s going to be a handful to guard in a 4 or 5 out system.

[The-Power]

The only negatives I hear about Mitchell is size and wingspan and whether or not his shooting is real.

Those are the biggest issues but it's not like he's great at everything else.

Mitchell was literally the best defensive player in the nation

He was the ‘best defensive player in the nation’ the same way Jevon Carter was in 2018 (or Marcus Garrett last year). It doesn't guarantee great impact in the NBA, and that's the point.

[Sam Lowry Jr]

Offensively maybe you don’t think the shot translates. It very well may not. But he’s taking a bunch of self created offense. His offense seems mostly self generated and was the bailout option for his team.

FWIW Vecenie mentioned that Mitchell was 90 percentile in off the bounce shots on Synergy, but a lot of those shots came off one dribble relocations or ball screens. Not sure where to actually get those numbers, but worth a look.

[HiRez]

Have zero interest in Mitchell and I'm super confused why he's popping up on mocks to us. It smacks of analysis that doesnt consider our team.. I could see us taking 2 wings before taking a small guard. Because Poole really is the backup to Curry. If Curry goes down, Poole's who you plug in.

No. Jordan Poole is NOT A POINT GUARD. Dude averages around 2 assists per game and that includes college. He's a shooting guard, and does that reasonably well, if erratically, and he doesn't play much defense. Davion Mitchell is an actual point guard who can dish the rock and put pressure on the defense. We need that. Furthermore, he plays defense. Really good defense. You don't get a nickname like "off-night" by playing lax defense (in Poole's rookie season I could have used that nickname on him in a different, worse way though). He's a totally different player than Poole and in no way do I see Poole as a legitimate "backup to Curry".

Poole averaged 4 APG when Steph was out, which is pretty solid considering that's without our 2 best shooters and being flanked by Oubre/Wiggins/Dray/Looney. Poole is literally a poor man's Curry out there. Like I said, and like we did - if Curry goes down, Poole goes into his spot in the lineup. 22 - 3 - 4 on 59% TS and runs the PnR well too. Meanwhile our typical backup PG during our run, Shaun Livingston, averaged 2 APG as well.

Poole was the direct backup to Curry last year and had a mini breakout season, subbed in pretty well for him too.. he's fine in a backup scoring PG role. Might even be ideal because he mirrors Curry's strengths and weaknesses.

IDK, I think Poole's barely manageable in a PG role, sure he can do a little of that but IMO it's not his strength. Wannamaker was supposed to fill that role but obviously that was a complete bust. To me we still need a distributer off the bench to complement Poole's scoring—Poole would be more effective not having to create his own shot all the time—and preferably someone who also plays excellent defense. Mitchell looks like he would be a good fit for that role.

But what is a backup point guard? Sure, someone who fills in off the bench while Steph is resting. But you also have to think about injuries, like what if Steph goes down for 10, 20, 30 games? Now Jordan Poole is your starting PG and I think that's a disaster that could cost us a playoff berth. I want to see a point-first player available and we don't have that right now.

I would prefer taking Mitchell more at #14 of course and I get that there's many other uses for the #7 pick, and good players to be had there. But even though Mitchell might be a slight reach at #7, he's most likely gone far before #14. Outside of Cade and Suggs at the top, this draft is loaded with talent but light on PGs you would take in the #7-#14 range.

I see point guard who plays defense as a critical need while many here only see it as a nice-to-have type of thing and I guess that's where we differ.

EDIT: Of course it's possible we could acquire such a player outside of the draft but our resources for making trades and matching salaries are very limited. And if our choices are Wannamaker-level players...yeesh.

[Sam Lowry Jr]

EDIT: Of course it's possible we could acquire such a player outside of the draft but our resources for making trades and matching salaries are very limited. And if our choices are Wannamaker-level players...yeesh.

I agree. The crop of FA pgs is kind of slim this year. I think Scoots mentioned TJ McConnell, who is intriguing. But other than that, Elfrid Payton, Wanamaker, Jeff Teague, Raul Neto, and Dellavedova don't interest me. Maybe Austin Rivers or Alex Caruso?

FA wing is not much better, but maybe we can convince Batum on the cheap, or maybe a Porter Jr or Ariza.

[Scoots1994]

No one has acknowledged the question/comment I posted earlier: If so many people were/are worried about Wiseman at #2 because he's a longer-term project, why are most here now saying we have to take BPA (which means the same thing as Wiseman -- upside over readiness) at #7? Is it just coincidence that the majority of people posting on this thread seem to be pro-upside and anti-ready-now?

Also, Wiseman was raw but 7-foot-plus with a huge wingspan. Seems to be that risk is smaller than a risk on a mid-sized guy with holes in his game like Bouknight or Kuminga. (Not that I'd flip out at either being chosen -- I trust the Ws scouts know more than I do.)

Y'all are puzzling me after so many people have complained on this board (extremely loudly) about picking a raw rookie. ChuckDurn seems to have a specific reason -- trying to build for future with the most upside by picking risky but lots of upside offensive guys -- but I'm not sure why so many others are suddenly in favor of BPA at #7 with the P meaning "potential". Is Curry's window no longer closing? Are we no longer doomed if we don't put the best possible of-the-moment team on the floor in 21-22? Please inform.

signed,

Confused on the Coast

I wasn't sold on Wiseman pre-draft, but the value of a possible elite big was worth the risk, particularly in a very weak looking draft.

I want to keep him because the same is still true.

I want to take the BPA because high picks in the draft are supposed to be rare so you want to get the best player possible when you are up there.

The best player available may also be a great fitting player who can contribute this year. If Suggs drops to the Warriors he would be the best player available and fill a need on the team and get significant minutes as a rookie.

Kuminga, Barnes, Keon Johnson, or Jalen Johnson are going to probably struggle a little more to have a significant impact but their potential to be starting wings in the NBA for a decade and an outside chance at being all-stars puts them ahead of someone like Duarte who, while having one special skill, is not enough of an all-around player to be projected to have the impact of the above list of 4 guys.

Athleticism and shooting are obvious and valued. Defensive skill players are generally left lower on lists. And a great offensive player who doesn't care about defense can be MVP, but a great defensive player who has a weak offensive game is generally dismissed and devalued by fans as "needs a lot of work" and "if he ever develops a shot".

[clyde21]

Read on Twitter

annoyed that the Warriors aren't on this list, but par the course for Mr Myers

[whatisacenter]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Scoots1994]

So many players I'd like to cheer on the Warriors. 2 weeks.

[Sam Lowry Jr]

No one has acknowledged the question/comment I posted earlier: If so many people were/are worried about Wiseman at #2 because he's a longer-term project, why are most here now saying we have to take BPA (which means the same thing as Wiseman -- upside over readiness) at #7? Is it just coincidence that the majority of people posting on this thread seem to be pro-upside and anti-ready-now?

Also, Wiseman was raw but 7-foot-plus with a huge wingspan. Seems to be that risk is smaller than a risk on a mid-sized guy with holes in his game like Bouknight or Kuminga. (Not that I'd flip out at either being chosen -- I trust the Ws scouts know more than I do.)

Y'all are puzzling me after so many people have complained on this board (extremely loudly) about picking a raw rookie. ChuckDurn seems to have a specific reason -- trying to build for future with the most upside by picking risky but lots of upside offensive guys -- but I'm not sure why so many others are suddenly in favor of BPA at #7 with the P meaning "potential". Is Curry's window no longer closing? Are we no longer doomed if we don't put the best possible of-the-moment team on the floor in 21-22? Please inform.

signed,

Confused on the Coast

I'm more in the "ready now" camp, but I'm not adverse to drafting a high upside player, particularly at 7, depending on who we can potentially get in FA. For example, if you can guarantee me a Batum -- even an Ariza -- then I would be ok with drafting a Scottie Barnes who I can patiently develop and who might not be on my 7-8 man deep playoff roster next year.

The player has to have high upside though AND fit the Warriors system. I'm a little wary on Bouknight, for example, because his ceiling as a ball dominant guard in the Warriors' read and react/pass happy system might be a microwave bench scorer a la Lou Williams. There's very few of those who are the centerpieces of championship contenders.

Of course, the timing of FA and the draft makes things difficult to project and there's no guarantee we can get a particular free agent prior to the draft. But that's why Myers et al. get paid the big bucks...

[FNQ]

No. Jordan Poole is NOT A POINT GUARD. Dude averages around 2 assists per game and that includes college. He's a shooting guard, and does that reasonably well, if erratically, and he doesn't play much defense. Davion Mitchell is an actual point guard who can dish the rock and put pressure on the defense. We need that. Furthermore, he plays defense. Really good defense. You don't get a nickname like "off-night" by playing lax defense (in Poole's rookie season I could have used that nickname on him in a different, worse way though). He's a totally different player than Poole and in no way do I see Poole as a legitimate "backup to Curry".

Poole averaged 4 APG when Steph was out, which is pretty solid considering that's without our 2 best shooters and being flanked by Oubre/Wiggins/Dray/Looney. Poole is literally a poor man's Curry out there. Like I said, and like we did - if Curry goes down, Poole goes into his spot in the lineup. 22 - 3 - 4 on 59% TS and runs the PnR well too. Meanwhile our typical backup PG during our run, Shaun Livingston, averaged 2 APG as well.

Poole was the direct backup to Curry last year and had a mini breakout season, subbed in pretty well for him too.. he's fine in a backup scoring PG role. Might even be ideal because he mirrors Curry's strengths and weaknesses.

IDK, I think Poole's barely manageable in a PG role, sure he can do a little of that but IMO it's not his strength. Wannamaker was supposed to fill that role but obviously that was a complete bust. To me we still need a distributer off the bench to complement Poole's scoring—Poole would be more effective not having to create his own shot all the time—and preferably someone who also plays excellent defense. Mitchell looks like he would be a good fit for that role.

But what is a backup point guard? Sure, someone who fills in off the bench while Steph is resting. But you also have to think about injuries, like what if Steph goes down for 10, 20, 30 games? Now Jordan Poole is your starting PG and I think that's a disaster that could cost us a playoff berth. I want to see a point-first player available and we don't have that right now.

I would prefer taking Mitchell more at #14 of course and I get that there's many other uses for the #7 pick, and good players to be had there. But even though Mitchell might be a slight reach at #7, he's most likely gone far before #14. Outside of Cade and Suggs at the top, this draft is loaded with talent but light on PGs you would take in the #7-#14 range.

I see point guard who plays defense as a critical need while many here only see it as a nice-to-have type of thing and I guess that's where we differ.

EDIT: Of course it's possible we could acquire such a player outside of the draft but our resources for making trades and matching salaries are very limited. And if our choices are Wannamaker-level players...yeesh.

To be clear, if Steph goes down, we arent a playoff team in any scenario. But I'd rather replace him with someone with a mirrored skillset than someone who changes how we have to operate

But this ties back into the BPA argument above - you cite a lack of options at PG as a reason to get on Mitchell, also citing lack of options in FA.. well I think the 2nd round is loaded with PG potential, and I think a shoot-first PG is fine as long as they have solid BBIQ. I wouldnt be worried at all if we drafted a SRP PG, had Poole and Nico rostered as well, and just continued to add high IQ players in the vain of JTA, who don't necessarily create but are smart enough to keep the ball hopping around. Livingston was basically that kind of player. And there are several people in this draft (Barnes, Jalen Johnson) as well as other PGs (Hyland, Mann, McBride) who seem to fit our team better and in most cases, cost less draft capital.

I definitely dont see a PG who plays defense as a critical need - we have Steph Curry - but we do need someone who can defend PGs. Wiggins did pretty well against PGs last year and probably is taking Klay's spot in that area. Moody could as well, if drafted. But the value of mostly defensive perimeter players was demonstrated by GP3, who was a waiver wire afterthought most of the season. I feel similarly about create-only PGs (like Giddey) as well.. our offense needs a PG who can score, first and foremost. Our offense is a pass happy, ball sharing, perimeter based team that opens up the inside for our defense-first bigs who are limited offensively. System has worked, why change it?

[watch1958]

I was thinking about Bouknight, and he seemed to me like a potentially better Poole. Got me thinking though, about a funny lineup. Suppose they picked up Kevin Love for free and drafted Bouknight.

Then play Love, Poole, Bouknight, Jessup & whoever. No D at all but it would be awfully funny (and awful) to watch Love initiating up high, with the others just running around looking for shots.

[Onus]

Poole averaged 4 APG when Steph was out, which is pretty solid considering that's without our 2 best shooters and being flanked by Oubre/Wiggins/Dray/Looney. Poole is literally a poor man's Curry out there. Like I said, and like we did - if Curry goes down, Poole goes into his spot in the lineup. 22 - 3 - 4 on 59% TS and runs the PnR well too. Meanwhile our typical backup PG during our run, Shaun Livingston, averaged 2 APG as well.

Poole was the direct backup to Curry last year and had a mini breakout season, subbed in pretty well for him too.. he's fine in a backup scoring PG role. Might even be ideal because he mirrors Curry's strengths and weaknesses.

IDK, I think Poole's barely manageable in a PG role, sure he can do a little of that but IMO it's not his strength. Wannamaker was supposed to fill that role but obviously that was a complete bust. To me we still need a distributer off the bench to complement Poole's scoring—Poole would be more effective not having to create his own shot all the time—and preferably someone who also plays excellent defense. Mitchell looks like he would be a good fit for that role.

But what is a backup point guard? Sure, someone who fills in off the bench while Steph is resting. But you also have to think about injuries, like what if Steph goes down for 10, 20, 30 games? Now Jordan Poole is your starting PG and I think that's a disaster that could cost us a playoff berth. I want to see a point-first player available and we don't have that right now.

I would prefer taking Mitchell more at #14 of course and I get that there's many other uses for the #7 pick, and good players to be had there. But even though Mitchell might be a slight reach at #7, he's most likely gone far before #14. Outside of Cade and Suggs at the top, this draft is loaded with talent but light on PGs you would take in the #7-#14 range.

I see point guard who plays defense as a critical need while many here only see it as a nice-to-have type of thing and I guess that's where we differ.

EDIT: Of course it's possible we could acquire such a player outside of the draft but our resources for making trades and matching salaries are very limited. And if our choices are Wannamaker-level players...yeesh.

To be clear, if Steph goes down, we arent a playoff team in any scenario. But I'd rather replace him with someone with a mirrored skillset than someone who changes how we have to operate

But this ties back into the BPA argument above - you cite a lack of options at PG as a reason to get on Mitchell, also citing lack of options in FA.. well I think the 2nd round is loaded with PG potential, and I think a shoot-first PG is fine as long as they have solid BBIQ. I wouldnt be worried at all if we drafted a SRP PG, had Poole and Nico rostered as well, and just continued to add high IQ players in the vain of JTA, who don't necessarily create but are smart enough to keep the ball hopping around. Livingston was basically that kind of player. And there are several people in this draft (Barnes, Jalen Johnson) as well as other PGs (Hyland, Mann, McBride) who seem to fit our team better and in most cases, cost less draft capital.

I definitely dont see a PG who plays defense as a critical need - we have Steph Curry - but we do need someone who can defend PGs. Wiggins did pretty well against PGs last year and probably is taking Klay's spot in that area. Moody could as well, if drafted. But the value of mostly defensive perimeter players was demonstrated by GP3, who was a waiver wire afterthought most of the season. I feel similarly about create-only PGs (like Giddey) as well.. our offense needs a PG who can score, first and foremost. Our offense is a pass happy, ball sharing, perimeter based team that opens up the inside for our defense-first bigs who are limited offensively. System has worked, why change it?

I wouldn’t draft mitchell because he’s a pg. I’m drafting him because he’s the best at getting his own shot. The fact he can also play off ball and be a knockdown shooter makes him even better.

I probably don’t draft him at 7 but he’d be really hard to pass at 14. I’m taking moody or Wagner at 7.

[Onus]

The only negatives I hear about Mitchell is size and wingspan and whether or not his shooting is real.

Those are the biggest issues but it's not like he's great at everything else.

Mitchell was literally the best defensive player in the nation

He was the ‘best defensive player in the nation’ the same way Jevon Carter was in 2018 (or Marcus Garrett last year). It doesn't guarantee great impact in the NBA, and that's the point.

I’m saying size and wingspan are usually needed for defensive purposes. Mitchell proved he’ll be able to make an impact even with those limitations. Jevon is still in the league but he can’t score. I don’t think Mitchell is going to have that same problem. I think he can be similar to Fred van vleet