RealGM

Draft Express has Udoh ranked 10th (link below to his profile)
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Ekpe-Udoh-1220/

What do you guys think of Larry Sanders? DE has him ranked 18th
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Larry-Sanders-5148/

It seems like Sanders's mid-range game would be a better fit with Hibbert. He seems athletic enough to play some 3 as well if he can push his range to 20ft or further.
I like Udoh as well and his toughness inside could be just what they need alongside Hibbert. The two of them would definitely deter drives from the perimeter.
It's a PF rich draft which is more evidence that a G was the right pick in 2009... Oh wait, ummm, yeah we missed the boat on that one didn't we?

I think they are both guys the Pacers should be looking at between now and draft night.

I think Sanders might be a little more athletic. (But I can't see him ever playing small forward.) I think Udoh might be a bit more NBA-ready. But I'm curious to see what people will say about them as they go through all the pre-draft camps and stuff.

I'm on the Udoh bandwagon here. Sanders would be a reach unless we trade back into 17-20 spots, in my opinion.

ardthomp wrote:Sanders would be a reach unless we trade back into 17-20 spots, in my opinion.

Maybe...maybe not. That's where Sanders is projected to go now, but the projections will change between now and June. They always do. No telling yet whether Sanders will rise, fall, or stay in the same range.

mizzoupacers wrote:

ardthomp wrote:Sanders would be a reach unless we trade back into 17-20 spots, in my opinion.

Maybe...maybe not. That's where Sanders is projected to go now, but the projections will change between now and June. They always do. No telling yet whether Sanders will rise, fall, or stay in the same range.

+1

i remember a few years ago every draft site had us picking westbrook with the like 12th pick or something. i personally wasnt for it at the time, but then he went 4th overall and is turning out to be one of the best players of that class. a lot can change between now and the draft.

my guess is that if we're offered a chance to trade down for two picks we'll do it. we did it two drafts ago and had a deal in place to do it again last year that fell apart when Henderson was picked ahead of our slot.

I like Udoh's toughness in the paint, but does he offer enough athleticism and quickness next to Hibbert? I've only seen him play less than a handful of times, so it's hard for me to say.

PR07 wrote:I like Udoh's toughness in the paint, but does he offer enough athleticism and quickness next to Hibbert? I've only seen him play less than a handful of times, so it's hard for me to say.

I think so. He's got an array of post moves already, albeit a little forced at times. He's not an explosive athlete, but his footwork is very solid. What I do like is his abiliy to score from different areas which could compliment Roy rather well.

I'm glad that I got a fun one going here!
I think that either player is athletic enough to improve their game rapidly and in many many ways. I think that Sanders seems to be more of a natural ball player on the offensive end. Udoh seems to be more of a planner, which meant he often had to force his move because he waited so long to make it. Both have pretty good timing on the defensive end. Udoh's size is a hige advantage over Sanders though (6'10", 240lbs vs 6'9" 205lbs). wingspan is a big deal, we'll have to see where that gets them as well.
Here's a twist though. Udoh probably fits in ahead of Hansbrough in the rotation; Sanders behind Hansbrough. Will that influence Bird (Hansbrough justification), or does he have the humility to admit that Lawson was the right pick?
Too bad we have to deal with the playoffs while we're focused on the draft.

Hansbrough hasn't been proven the wrong pick.

Hell, Bogut was a bust, but now he's one of the top 3 centers in the East. He wasn't the best player available at #1, but he is better than most #1 selections and is smart enough to continue improving. You can't just say that Lawson is a better pick because of a good rookie season (by the way, Hansbrough's average efficiency was higher than Lawson's) when Hansbrough could've had a good one had it not been for a slew of unfortunate injuries. Hansbrough played 29 games, averaging 8.5 points and 4.8 rebounds and getting 73% from the line (he didn't shoot well at 36%). Lawson played 2 more minutes a game, averaging 7.8 points and 2.7 assists with 68% from the line (he was better from the field).

So there is no definite evidence that makes Ty Lawson any better than Tyler Hansbrough production-wise for their respective teams. You can't label a bust until you're three full years in.

I also still like the Hansbrough pick. Watching the playoffs is a good reminder of how important physical toughness is. Hansbrough is pretty unique in that respect. I still see him as a potential cross between Haslem, Milsap and maybe even a little David Lee.

As to the original question, how do Udoh and Sanders compare to Josh McRoberts? Anyone else think McRoberts might be better than either of them?

A couple of you have mentioned his toughness inside, yet the very scouting report that was linked questions his toughness inside. Something's not adding up.

At the basket, Udoh leaves some points on the floor at times, as despite being a very good overall athlete due to his mobility, fluidity, and coordination, he isn’t the toughest, most explosive or reactive player, not always elevating with great ease around the rim, and seemingly shying away from contact at times.

What's the sample size of games these scouts are pulling from? Some games a player will really hustle, sometimes a tiny injury or mental block or fatigue can prevent that.

Miller4ever wrote:Hansbrough hasn't been proven the wrong pick.

Hell, Bogut was a bust, but now he's one of the top 3 centers in the East. He wasn't the best player available at #1, but he is better than most #1 selections and is smart enough to continue improving. You can't just say that Lawson is a better pick because of a good rookie season (by the way, Hansbrough's average efficiency was higher than Lawson's) when Hansbrough could've had a good one had it not been for a slew of unfortunate injuries. Hansbrough played 29 games, averaging 8.5 points and 4.8 rebounds and getting 73% from the line (he didn't shoot well at 36%). Lawson played 2 more minutes a game, averaging 7.8 points and 2.7 assists with 68% from the line (he was better from the field).

So there is no definite evidence that makes Ty Lawson any better than Tyler Hansbrough production-wise for their respective teams. You can't label a bust until you're three full years in.

I didn't say Hansbrough is a bust, I said he was the wrong pick. In a draft rife with good to great point guards you don't select a PF unless you're a team on the verge of contending and you're just looking at the best player available. You wait for the next year when the draft is rife with big men and you get one then. I brought up Lawson specifically because he was the guy that Bird named specifically when defending himself for picking a white player higher than anyone thought he should go. Lawson would have had a year of great minutes running the team at this point.

The draft is a gamble no matter who you pick. That's why I firmly believe there is no wrong pick, just ones that turn out badly. If you make out with a talented player who is worth their pick, then it's like breaking even. When people talk about missing a good player, it's like going to Vegas upset that you're not the guy who won the WSOP tournament. And the statement you made about pf's doesn't make sense. You can draft however you want, because you then have assets to trade if nothing else.

Miller4ever wrote:And the statement you made about pf's doesn't make sense. You can draft however you want, because you then have assets to trade if nothing else.

Who would take Hansbrough in trade? He appears to be a mess, and since the Pacers reached he's a more expensive mess than he should be.

The Pacers needed to fill a frontline position, and a PG. Last year's draft had PG options, this year is full of bigs and they had to know it. The guys that make these desicisions get paid to know about the coming draft classes. They had a shot at a starting PG last year and instead went for a big. If they're trying to add players to fill positions they should be paying attention to who's coming up.

Darn submit button...
So even if they swing and miss in 2009, they should still swing at the right player position.

So you meant to not draft a PF in the case of the Pacers specifically in 2009. You made it sound like a general drafting principle.