RealGM

Latest Chad Ford article on ESPN insider says his draft stock is skyrocketing up, but is it enough to pass Wall?

Can't read the article to know what it says?

Could Evan Turner pass Wall? Absolutely he could.

Guy is a guard, and is averaging like 9.5 boards. WHAT??

If anything I would want the #1 pick to take Turner over Wall. As great as Wall is, Turner is just as good as a prospect and could you imagine Turner and Granger at the wings....HOLY CRAP!

I can't see it happening. It would take a Portland or Clipper franchise to develop a reason not to take Wall. It's no disrespect to Turner, he's fantastic in his own right, just doesn't have the celing that Wall will most likely reach.

It's possible, but I think 8 out of 10 times, Wall is the pick.

#1 position of importance on conventional NBA teams: center

#2 position of importance: point guard

If they are comparable in talent, we should draft according to team needs. Yes, we would have a damn good combination at the wings with Turner and Granger, but that leaves us with a crap PG rotation, and unless we're running the triangle, it just won't work.

How long before PG becomes #1 for a team's needs? This is turning into a guard's league.

Miller4ever wrote:#1 position of importance on conventional NBA teams: center

#2 position of importance: point guard

If they are comparable in talent, we should draft according to team needs. Yes, we would have a damn good combination at the wings with Turner and Granger, but that leaves us with a crap PG rotation, and unless we're running the triangle, it just won't work.

Actually this is bull....

If you look at the traditional teams approach you build your team first on the wings, then in the middle and you support it with a PG and defensive starter opposite your scoring big.

Research my post from a few months back on how championship teams are built.

If we get the no. 1 pick I hope honest to goodness we take Turner. We can always grab another pick and draft a PG at the bottom of the draft. If we take Wall, it'll be another 3 years before we are contenders for the playoffs again.

DWCP2 wrote:

Miller4ever wrote:#1 position of importance on conventional NBA teams: center

#2 position of importance: point guard

If they are comparable in talent, we should draft according to team needs. Yes, we would have a damn good combination at the wings with Turner and Granger, but that leaves us with a crap PG rotation, and unless we're running the triangle, it just won't work.

Actually this is bull....

If you look at the traditional teams approach you build your team first on the wings, then in the middle and you support it with a PG and defensive starter opposite your scoring big.

Research my post from a few months back on how championship teams are built.

If we get the no. 1 pick I hope honest to goodness we take Turner. We can always grab another pick and draft a PG at the bottom of the draft. If we take Wall, it'll be another 3 years before we are contenders for the playoffs again.

Chauncey Billups and Tony Parker say hi.

DWCP2 wrote:Research my post from a few months back on how championship teams are built.

Research NBA history to see how teams are built. In the beginning, during the time when it really mattered, you're talking about Bill Russell and Bob Cousy. Fast forward to now and it's KG and Pau Gasol. Kareem needed Oscar and Magic, Kobe needed Shaq and Pau, Jordan and Pippen needed the triangle, Pierce needed KG, Dr. J needed Moses Malone, etc.

Of all Finals MVP's since they started the award (40 so far) there have been 17 awards that have gone top bigs, and 8 have gone to PG's. 6 have gone to the anomaly that is Michael Jordan, who coincidentally played in the triangle, which doesn't depend on PG's as much, and so we are left with 9 awards going to wing players. Of these wing players, one LOST the Finals. So, PG's at 8 and wings at 8 comes out to AT LEAST equal importance. But even if it's arguable on which between PG's and wings is more important, it is BIGS which get it done.

In terms of league MVP awards, which have been around for 53 years, bigs have been given the award 35 times. PG's have won it 8 times, and Michael Jordan 5 times, leaving 5 times for wings.

Of course, you may say, "MJ was a wing" and you would be correct by definition, but in terms of common practice, MJ is an exception to so many rules out there, because he had an impact on the floor much more similar to a dominant big than a wing.

Here is my favorite part of the argument. When Chicago was pushing Boston to 7 games in that amazing series last season, I e-mailed Reggie's Mailbag with a simple question: was going small a viable way to win and more than just a gimmick? He simply answered, "Big always wins". He didn't put a lot of thought into it, but that is the default mindset of every GM, coach, and retired player (when you're in the NBA, sometimes you tend to believe that it's always up to YOU to win).

I don't want to keep going, because to me it's painfully obvious that, because of an abundance of talented wings in the NBA, it's more important to find the brains (PG) and brawn (Bigs) before filling in the gaps.

Not sure anyone in the NBA has the luxury of building a team in any particular way. Its driven much more by the opportunities that come a particular team's way. This board would agree the Pacer's biggest need is point guard and its an important position to fill. But if Wall isn't there given the Pacer's lack of talent they need to take the best player I really don't care what position he plays.

If you take Turner, be it at 1 or 2 it completly changes the type of pg you need. The need for a traditional point guard is deminished. Shooting abilty would be more important than the ability to distribute. This scenario is a pretty good example of how building a team is a moving target.

As to Turner moving to #1 it probably does depend who has the number 1. TWolves already have a stable of point guards and a huge need on the wing. If they don't see an enormous overall talent difference I could see them going with Turner. The Pacers with their bias towards experienced players might also go that way.

Thing to keep an eye on as well for Minnesota is that they also need a true center as well as wings and the question is between a top five pick and an end of the lottery pick, can they risk getting a wing high and a big low or do they have to get a big high and take a wing low.

It's a lot easier to find a good wing than it is to find a good PG.

Just look at the recent trade deadline. How many good PG's traded places? How many good wings (Kevin Martin, TMac, etc.)?

I take Wall, especially when you consider we already have a good wing in DG.

Short of Wall pulling a Livingston he is the number one pick regardless of the situation