New top 10 lottery
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:40 am
1. Beasley
2. Rose
3 B Lopez
4 Mcgee
5 Griffin
6 Randolph
7 Mayo
8 Bayless
9 Love
10 Thabeet
2. Rose
3 B Lopez
4 Mcgee
5 Griffin
6 Randolph
7 Mayo
8 Bayless
9 Love
10 Thabeet
Page 1 of 2
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:07 pm
I agree....
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:46 am
WHAT ABOUT BATUM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:54 am
no way mcgee goes that high
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:48 pm
forgot Gallinari
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:50 pm
thabeet will not be a top 10 pick
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:02 pm
revprodeji wrote:forgot Gallinari
Feel free to swap him with Thabeet.
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:55 pm
No way is that list serious.
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:44 pm
Where's Eric Gordon?
Re: New top 10 lottery
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:54 am
BRIGGS wrote:1. Beasley
2. Rose
3 B Lopez
4 Mcgee
5 Griffin
6 Randolph
7 Mayo
8 Bayless
9 Love
10 Thabeet
Even though Love needs to get in better shape, I think the way he played against A&M really raised his stock. I'd put him at 2 now, ahead of Lopez. I also like Bayless more, would put him at 4. Maybe all of that is just my pac10 bias. I'd around my top 5 with Thabeet.
Also, kudos to you for not being like almost everyone else here and just shuffling Nbadraft.net or draftexpress.com mock drafts by a couple spots and calling it their own.
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:37 am
Love is playing like an animal but you're putting way too much stock into a couple of tourney games.
Drafting him 2nd overall is insane ... if a team really wanted him they could slide down at least 5 spots and get him
Drafting him 2nd overall is insane ... if a team really wanted him they could slide down at least 5 spots and get him
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:42 am
Yeah it's not like he led UCLA to a number 1 seed and won Pac 10 POY. Also, in those last couple games, he's outplayed Brook Lopez and Deandre Jordan, two guys who're supposed to be so much better than him. Again, he's got to get in better shape, but his passing, post game, and rebounding as a freshman is so solid and far and ahead of anyone in college.
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:19 am
Tyrus Thomas also outplayed LaMarcus Aldridge in a tourney game, look at how well that turned out. Just because Love is dominating college, doesn't necessarily mean it'll translate over to the next level.
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:47 am
Again, Love's success isn't just the last couple games. He's been the best big guy in college outside of Hansbrough and Beasley this year. His passing, positioning, and footwork down low is ahead of any of his peers.
Aldridge had to contend with both TT and Glen Davis, and it was really the strength of Davis that wore him down. Plus, I remember that game, and Aldridge got the shots he wanted to get, but just had a horrible shooting night, so that's not a very good example to use.
Aldridge had to contend with both TT and Glen Davis, and it was really the strength of Davis that wore him down. Plus, I remember that game, and Aldridge got the shots he wanted to get, but just had a horrible shooting night, so that's not a very good example to use.
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:28 pm
bill curley II wrote:Yeah it's not like he led UCLA to a number 1 seed and won Pac 10 POY. Also, in those last couple games, he's outplayed Brook Lopez and Deandre Jordan, two guys who're supposed to be so much better than him. Again, he's got to get in better shape, but his passing, post game, and rebounding as a freshman is so solid and far and ahead of anyone in college.
Considering they haven't played each other in the tournament...
Look, i'm a huge Love guy, but taking him over Rose or even in the top 5 for that matter is just crazy. I can see him in the 5-10 area if he gets some nice measurements, but number 2 overall?
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:33 pm
bill curley II wrote:Again, Love's success isn't just the last couple games. He's been the best big guy in college outside of Hansbrough and Beasley this year. His passing, positioning, and footwork down low is ahead of any of his peers.
Aldridge had to contend with both TT and Glen Davis, and it was really the strength of Davis that wore him down. Plus, I remember that game, and Aldridge got the shots he wanted to get, but just had a horrible shooting night, so that's not a very good example to use.
Without doubt, but that doesn't change the fact that teams will shy off due to him being 6'8 in shoes (likely) and someone who plays below the rim at that height. Maybe he will prove to be a top 5 guy from this draft, but if you're doing a mock draft I just can't see a team taking Love at 2. Mybe you would, but i'd bet a million dollars that an NBA team wouldn't.
But for the record, again, i'm a huge Love fan. Those outlet passes are just ridiculous and I think a good chunk of his abilities can translate if he sheds a few pounds, making him a pretty damn good player. But again, not better than Rose...
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:01 pm
RyGuy24 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Considering they haven't played each other in the tournament...
Look, i'm a huge Love guy, but taking him over Rose or even in the top 5 for that matter is just crazy. I can see him in the 5-10 area if he gets some nice measurements, but number 2 overall?
UCLA played Stanford twice late in the season, their second to last game and in the pac10 championship game.
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:25 pm
My bad, I thought you were referring to the dance.
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:00 pm
Love may be bigger than initially thought. Either that or Jordan is kind of small.
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:20 pm
I don't know, judging by the shoulders and head it seems like Jordan has 3 or so inches on him. Jordan is 7 ft, so that leaves Love at his listed 6'9. Hopefully 6'9 is legit though, since that would be more than good enough IMO.