AbeVigodaLive wrote: Klomp wrote:
But if they're so easy to find... wouldn't they have had the immediate impact of a Haliburton type a lot sooner? That's sort of the point the poster was making... we don't need to play the waiting game with those guys like we do with "lead guys."
I don't think they're so easy to find. Especially since oftentimes you have to develop them too.
Yeah. You and I agree.
The other guy was presenting a very different take... and I was being sarcastic.
Oh here we go.
I'll disagree. It is much easier to find these guys if you are actually looking for them instead of looking for moonshots.
Two requirements up your odds. Proven shot consistency, proven game IQ you can see in games. These two things aren't so difficult to spot for Pro evaluators, or shouldn't be.
Draft players without those two requirements proven at any time in their past and you are asking for a project. Find a large set of players with those requirements and start widdling them down based on other characteristics until you find a couple you believe in. Hello successful draft. Successful in finding a player that can very quickly pick up your scheme and produce something. What their ceiling actually will be is never known even if people love claiming they know that all the time.
I still remember chatter on Murray his draft year, glossed over...just a shooter. Herro?
I was talking this summer about finding players that fit. Oh no! You don't draft for need! Nobody drafts for need! Wolves aren't good enough to draft for need! Same story every year. As if some magic jumping bean is going to be passed over because we drafted a SF or PF with size that both shoots well and has game IQ. What exactly is a moon shot pick hoped to turn into anyway but exactly a player that can shoot and has enough game IQ, just enough athletics and mentality to become special? That was our moonshot because it puts our team in contention. We went looknig for random project moonshots, the moonshot.
Our team, with one eye already buried deep in a possible future where we overlooked someone great because we already had guards, chose to draft another guard to assure that future we saw coming didn't happen. In fact, most fell in luv with the mass hype choices of the two guards or the center dreams. Perfect set of players in positions we already have filled. So none of them present the possibility of us choosing for need, right? At least we won't screw up the draft that way, right? Never gets old.
The one thought that matters to me in this book if you read nothing else is...
If you draft someone with proven good shooting and game IQ then at worst you will likely have someone that can be used as a rotation role player early and could exist around others. But your choice still has the possibility of being so much more. Because the things that make great players great usually aren't knowable predraft.