Pacers Draft Board: Pick #16

Post #1 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Wed May 28, 2008 3:15 pm

Pacers Draft Board:

1. Derrick Rose
2. Michael Beasley
3. O.J. Mayo
4. Jerryd Bayless
5. Brook Lopez
6. Eric Gordon
7. Anthony Randolph
8. Russell Westbrook
9. Kevin Love
10. D.J. Augustin
11. DeAndre Jordan
12. Danilo Gallinari
13. Marreese Speights
14. JaVale McGee
15. Kosta Koufos

I took mizzou's change of vote in the last one and Koufos snuck out the win.

Post #2 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Wed May 28, 2008 3:21 pm

I'm going to take a leap here, and vote Brandon Rush. Kids a solid player. He plays well off the ball offensively (doesn't need to dominate the ball to be effective), and is a pretty solid defensive wing player. I could see him as a long-term answer at SG for us playing next to Danny Granger. I think we could hold onto Dunleavy for about 2 more years and let Brandon grow into the role, and then trade Dunleavy as he turns into an expiring contract and fill whatever need we have at that point.

Post #3 » by **mizzoupacers** » Wed May 28, 2008 3:34 pm

I vote again for CDR, I think he's a bit better than Rush, although it's certainly close enough to make for a good debate.

I'm persuaded by CDR's field goal pct. that was more than 100 points higher than Rush's last season, plus CDR's nearly three-to-one advantage in free-throw attempts (I love big guards who go to the basket and draw fouls).

Having watched Rush pretty closely for three years at Kansas, I know he is a big, skilled, athletic two guard with obvious NBA potential. But he drifts through a lot of games and just does not always seem to be a very intense competitor, and I suspect that's why his shot and his game in general was not more consistent. It could be that he was still recuperating from a serious injury last season, and that his NBA performances will be more consistent. He's definitely one of the two or three guys left on the board that I'd most want the Pacers to take.

cdash · Post #4 » by **cdash** » Wed May 28, 2008 3:54 pm

I'll go with Arthur for the third straight time.

Post #5 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Wed May 28, 2008 4:52 pm

mizzoupacers wrote:But he drifts through a lot of games and just does not always seem to be a very intense competitor, and I suspect that's why his shot and his game in general was not more consistent.

Possibly a bad trait shared by several of the Rush's?

xxSnEaKyPxx · Post #6 » by **xxSnEaKyPxx** » Wed May 28, 2008 4:55 pm

I'm going with Arthur, Alexander behind him, then Ty Lawson.

Granger da OG · Post #7 » by **Granger da OG** » Wed May 28, 2008 5:00 pm

6th time ive voted for Arthur, he is way too low on our board

Post #8 » by **Grang33r** » Wed May 28, 2008 5:21 pm

Donte Greene. Great athletic player, he can shoot the 3 and he dribbles the ball as good as a point guard. He has star written all over him.

Orlock78 · Post #9 » by **Orlock78** » Wed May 28, 2008 5:36 pm

I'm totally with Grang33r on this, I think Greene has an excellent shot of being a lot more than a role player, unlike most of the guys at this point in the draft.

Post #10 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Wed May 28, 2008 6:03 pm

Granger da OG wrote:6th time ive voted for Arthur, he is way too low on our board

For me, it's a little tough to vote for Arthur until we either trade 2 of JO, Murphy, and Diogu, or at least come to some sense of a resolution on who we're keeping. Within about 3-5 picks, I'd have to probably take him no matter what happens. I do agree though, he's probably one of the most NBA-ready PF's in the draft after Beasley and Lopez (if you consider him a PF).

FreeRon · Post #11 » by **FreeRon** » Wed May 28, 2008 6:05 pm

Granger da OG wrote:6th time ive voted for Arthur, he is way too low on our board

16 on draftexpress, 9 on nbaraft.net, 10 on nbcsports, 16 on hoopshype, 14 on insidehoops, 12 on espn...the general idea about him seems to be that he's a bit of a risk but a very athletic PF so if you need a PF he's your best shot at this point. The problems with that for us is that we don't need a PF. If we have to evaluate a pick this low, it's either because we've traded up, which we wouldn't do for a PF unless the trade involved JO, or because we're in the second round and we'll take any projected top-20 pick at that point. If you want to assume we've traded JO I'll go with you on this one. I think 11 is a reach for him though and we'd be dumb to trade back into the first round for a PF when we have needs at PG and C.

Post #12 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Wed May 28, 2008 6:10 pm

At this point, I'd just like to continue this exercise just simply so that we can have a relatively defined overall board consensus on who we rank (our "Big Board" if you will).

This way, if we end up somehow getting a late 1st round pick, we could all look at our list and say we we think overall is the most value at that pick (of course previous picks or other roster limitations will change our though process at this point).

cdash · Post #13 » by **cdash** » Wed May 28, 2008 8:43 pm

This "need" talk is where teams get in trouble. I've said it here before, I think this team has "needs" at every position besides small forward. Some are more pressing than others, but I dont think (especially at this point in the Big Board) that we should be throwing that word around.

FreeRon · Post #14 » by **FreeRon** » Wed May 28, 2008 8:49 pm

Where we've gotten into problems is not talking about need. Drafting Granger and Williams with Jax was bad...adding Harrington and then trading him for Dunleavy just got us into this mess where we have too many SF's and have to play somebody out of position. At 16 I wouldn't be opposed to drafting a backup PF. The problem with that is that we don't have the 16th pick, so at this point we're looking at who we would trade to get that pick. Nobody's giving it up for Williams, I doubt they'd give it for Dunleavy considering his contract, and Granger's too good to give up for it. We'd be trading a player from a weaker area to strengthen the 4 spot.

Post #15 » by **PR07** » Wed May 28, 2008 9:24 pm

I'm going with Darrell Arthur, best talent on the board.

cdash · Post #16 » by **cdash** » Thu May 29, 2008 2:22 am

FreeRon wrote:Where we've gotten into problems is not talking about need. Drafting Granger and Williams with Jax was bad...adding Harrington and then trading him for Dunleavy just got us into this mess where we have too many SF's and have to play somebody out of position. At 16 I wouldn't be opposed to drafting a backup PF. The problem with that is that we don't have the 16th pick, so at this point we're looking at who we would trade to get that pick. Nobody's giving it up for Williams, I doubt they'd give it for Dunleavy considering his contract, and Granger's too good to give up for it. We'd be trading a player from a weaker area to strengthen the 4 spot.

Drafting Granger was bad? This is a Big Board, not a Mock Draft, so its not like we are talking to trade to get here.

Also, I dont see how not drafting for need has gotten us in a whole lot of trouble. Granger and Williams are our two most promising young players. I agree that drafting for need is good to an extent (I, for one, dont want any part of any SF in this draft), but we just have too many holes in our team to be doing that.