Quazza wrote:FNQ wrote:Giddey may turn out OK, I think he will, but I still wouldnt take him in the top 10. Nor would I take Mitchell, who's done nothing on offense except against us. Nor would I take Duarte with either pick, as he doesnt play defense and is just given an extreme green light on a perpetually "reloading" team that doesnt have a ton of options
Murphy looks fine but he definitely looks to have a ceiling, meaning he's a lot closer to full potential than someone like Giddey
Not really sure why any of that would be damning
I know you hated him through the draft but this seems a weird take. Who are the 10 rookies that look better ?
Also have heard from a very reliable contact we had told him we'd take him at 7 and that's why OKC took him "early "
Most rookies aren't playing, he looks better by default
He's still a very bad defender and a questionable shooter. Both of those things greatly limit what you can be on this team. He's still going to have a hell of a time finishing unless he gets really strong, but if he does, can his already limited quickness still be effective?
I dont know who you know, but thats the 3rd time I've heard that exact same thing with a different name, none of which were Kuminga (Moody, Bouknight)
Also the reasoning makes no sense, OKC didnt have a 2nd pick in the 1st. They took him because they wanted him, because they saw how good their team was when run by an actual PG instead of WB