Baseline81 wrote:I'm not exactly sure by what you mean "6 or more getting hyped over" Curry. If you are saying 6 prospects were drafted ahead of him, sure. But Curry had buzz about him. Plenty of stories about the Knicks hoping/praying he fell to them at 7. But I don't honestly recall Flynn being touted above Curry. I think that was more of Kahn's doing -- one of his many, many mistakes.
Curry names 6 PGs specfically and shows a media head example who was touting 5 of them for being better athletes that should be taken first as PGs. This was real. I'm not talking about the BS stories we always hear after the fact from teams afterwards. "Somebody picked them first". They can't rewrite the script because they didn't trade to get them. "they knew"...yeah right. Because they didn't. Another reason they might not trade up, because the draft experts didn't have him going that high. They had others being drafted first, even for his position. But more than just position, the fact they had anyone of any position over him should tell you none of these guys know. He should have at least have been in the big top 3 discussion all along, if anyone knew anything real. The day of twitter had already long since arrived. The masses were already drooling over all the potential players with access and overanalyzing them all. Nothing should get missed anymore people claim. Except when people are humans and allow hype to carry their thoughts.
Baseline81 wrote:Wait, you are now comparing McLaughlin's college resume to that of Curry's? You really want to go down this path? And to say McLaughlin "was nearly unstoppable in college" is quite the statement...
Strawman much? Did I even claim he should be a starting pg? "compare to..
.stfu" I'm talking about an unflappable small player that can do anything on the court. Name any skill or mental weaknesses. Go ahead and try. He was doing it all in college as well. Go, watch some of his games. I have. That doesn't mean his size isn't an issue and can't be taken advantage of. But his size doesn't mean he can't be a good NBA player. Today it's all because he went undrafted that people disrespect him. Over on the trade board we have shrinks vaunted "unbiased" trade pros and one of them was suggesting this team should improve itself by adding DJ Augustin to play backup PG here. ARGH the ignorance! (5' 11", 183 lbs Augustin). Think maybe the team already has someone like that? Not that anyone around the league would know because JMac was never drafted and his own team's fans don't even give him credit for what he is capable of. BTW, DJ Augustin drafted 9th overall in 2008, 12 years ago and he's still in the league performing enough for first backup but JMac's rookie season is already as good, maybe even more versitile. What's the difference? Two rounds of meaningless draft foolishness.
Baseline81 wrote:
I am simply debating your stance on not selecting a "hype" prospect. And for me, it's not just that the player is being "hyped." There's more to it than that. You have to factor in things like physical traits, skills, potential, production and the context of his role.
And here again you are claiming I'm only saying they have Hype stamped on their forhead or something? Why do you think I question some of these players? Because of exactly what they haven't shown in all things...or shown too much of bad things.
Baseline81 wrote:I am still trying to figure out which specific prospects you would draft first overall if there is no trade to be made. You say there are a few in this draft to take shots on. Who? Is there a prospect in this draft that combined Leonard's measurements (height, weight and wingspan) with the ability to shoot and play defense? I think if there were, he would be just as "hyped" as some of the others. And then you bring up Tatum, who was "hyped" out of HS and Duke. He was consistently mocked to go in the top-3. Not understanding your use of that example either.
Tatum in college: 6-8, 50% 2FG, 34% 3FG, 85% FT, 7 rebounds, 2+ APG, 2.5 stocks, 17 pts. High IQ, sound player.
Now there is real production, real size, real baller. A real reason to be up in top 3. Why was he brought up? Because these are the types of players the Wolves have to find some way to compete against, defend against. This is the teams weakness. This should be what they are targeting their best picks looking for.
Why else was Tatum brought up?
He went 3rd! Behind Fultz and Lonzo Ball. Why in the hell were they up there, hyped up there, and ultimately drafted up there? Why would Tatum go third in that set of 3 players?
This hype thing is real and we need to weed out the ones that are only up that high for that reason. Maybe it's one player. Maybe it's the entire top 6 players. The consensus talk can shove it. The consensus and the experts have proven how bad they can get this result.
Of the three "athletes" and "hype" players at the top I've already chosen Wiseman for what looks like more versitiliy than just playing Center. If I had no choice to pick from the three and were forced to shoot for the moon I choose him because he might be capable of something league busting and otherwise provides us better rim protection and easy buckets at minimum. Something needed. But I see better more productive, proven, two way playing, game IQ proven players in this draft to spend draft picks on. Look for them. Personally if I GMed a team, I would be searching for high potential projects and players I have to teach everything to outside the draft entirely. This way no one will care when I don't start them. Do you assume those players aren't out there?
Baseline81 wrote:I brought DeRozan in to the discussion because he is exactly the type of player you are against -- "hyped" and lacked college production. And yet, he's managed to become a 4-time NBA all-star despite his style of play. It may not be your cup of tea, but clearly was in Toronto.
It clearly wasn't in Toronto as they traded him away for a player that actually could do what he couldn't. That is, SHOOOOOOOOT at any kind of distance at all. He's not my cup of tea for NBA. He may be a hard working players, but he's a bit of a blackhole that needs the offense to be a certain way, needs his high amount of shots all from one close distance. He would be fine as a rotational player, but overdrafted and then locked into way too high of minutes as a starter he forces your offense a certain direction to get his 21 pts. Much like the Wolves were forced to in order to get Wiggins to produce 20 pts, to the detriment of everyone else on the team. Hmmm...I'm thinking of Edwards again all of a sudden.
