2012 NBA Draft - Part II

[Ruzious]

Lots of really strong possibilities for that pick at 32/33:
John Jenkins
Doron Lamb
Jae Crowder
Draymond Green
Fab Melo
Festus Ezeli
..and plenty more, there will be some good players there - plus another chance to take a flyer with the mavs pick (currently #49)

Fascinating list. As much as I'd love to take a flyer on Melo, we needs a shootist. Green is a legitimately great college player, but I just don't see him doing it in the NBA. He did everying INCLUDING mop the floor the other day. He literally took a mop to clean up a wet spot on the floor during the game. Jenkins is such a prolific knock-down 3 long-range shooter, I'd have to take him - even though I really love Crowder and like Lamb. If we could get both Crowder and Jenkins without giving up anything significant, I'd be real happy. I've heard some crazy things about how competitive Crowder is in practice - Every drill is a big competition for him, and he baiscally makes all of his teammates compete for them. His coach was gushing how he makes everyone on the team more competitive. When you watch Marquette play, look at how physically tough everyone plays.

[nate33]

These are the telling quotes for me from the article about Harrison Barnes:

“I’ve adopted a work ethic established by my mom,” Harrison says. “Just watching her being a single parent and fighting through a lot of problems. She was always instilling in me being humble, but working hard.”

“When Harrison first got to Carolina as a freshman we would play pickup at 11 o’clock every night and then he would stay and work out until 2 or 3 in the morning even though we’d have to wake up at 6:30 for weights,” Marshall says. “Honestly, I thought something was wrong with him. But the last thing you want to do as a competitor is to be outworked, so he’s definitely led the rest of us through his example.”

That's good to hear. At least he won't be lazy. And on the MKG versus Barnes debate, it's no longer so easy to argue that MKG is likely to outwork Barnes.

That said, Barnes still looks awfully passive out there, and for all his hard work, he still isn't THAT great of a shooter. He just doesn't look like anything more than a role player in the NBA.

[DallasShalDune]

I think MKG and Barnes both suffer from passiveness. My worries that Barnes will be a bust have been quelled a bit, particularly thanks to the atrocious play by Perry Jones and comparing Barnes to him, but I would still rather have a T-Rob over Barnes.

[Severn Hoos]

Lots of really strong possibilities for that pick at 32/33:
John Jenkins
Doron Lamb
Jae Crowder
Draymond Green
Fab Melo
Festus Ezeli
..and plenty more, there will be some good players there - plus another chance to take a flyer with the mavs pick (currently #49)

I've been a Sullinger supporter (OK, that didn't sound so good), and I'm less inclined to draft him in the wake of the Nene trade. But still, I think he's sometimes criticized unfairly. The primary reason I say this is that he has spent almost all of his minutes this year (and last) at C, out of necessity for his team. So, while a lot of the other top PF prospects have the luxury of going against college PFs, he's had to go against college Cs (some/many of whom will be PFs in the NBA, if they make it there).

I just think he's had a better preparation to play in the NBA than some other PF prospects who have been going up against many guys who will probably be SFs in the NBA. And, I think the injury has affected him as well. I guess time will tell....

What you say certainly should be taken into account when thinking about Sully.
But I think you qualified it well by saying that many college Cs end up playing
PF in the assoc so Sully really isn't different in that regard than many others.
The real question to me is how explosive he is when he is healthy. Right now
I think NBA big men will shut him down. It is nice that he has some shooting
touch with range though.

Yes, jim - that's what I was trying to say, that he has been playing against NBA PFs while other college PFs (like, I have so say - Robinson) have been spending a lot of time battling NBA SFs. Consider Robinson, who has had monster games against Mizzou - who practically plays 4 guards. When Withey's on the floor, Robinson's probably going against Kim English.

So Sully doesn't get a bonus for playing against NBA PFs, but perhaps others' stats/production should be "adjusted" given that they're going up against smaller players, on average? (Will be interesting to see Robinson go against Henson, a true NBA PF. He still got a lot of rebounds against Purdue but shot horribly. Hmmm.....)

[DCZards]

I think MKG and Barnes both suffer from passiveness. My worries that Barnes will be a bust have been quelled a bit, particularly thanks to the atrocious play by Perry Jones and comparing Barnes to him, but I would still rather have a T-Rob over Barnes.

I too have real concerns about Barnes' lack of aggressiveness. And there's an argument to be made to draft the best talent available when you're choosing a top lottery pick, which is probably not Barnes if you're picking 2-6. But I can't help but think that both Robinson (who would probably be my first choice after Davis) and MKG don't really feel the Zards major need, especially now that the Zards have Nene.

The Zards NEED shooting and scoring from either a SG or SF, preferably a SF, imo. Barnes looks like a natural at the SF position, particularly as it relates to his size and body type. I also think Barnes will work his butt off to improve those things he's not good at, such as taking people off the dribble and passing.

And, while Harrison is not a great athlete, neither was Brandon Roy. Like Roy though, Barnes is poised and mature beyond his age, and has a high b'ball IQ.

[truwizfan4evr]

If wizards not able to get Anthony Davis or Thomas Robinson. Are next player has to be Michael Kidd Gillchrist he's a winner he won in high school and now for Kentucky. Wizards need a player who brings that winning attitude to the locker room and the court and he be a nice back court with John wall. Here a documentary on Michael kidd-Gillchrist prayer for a perfect season. When he was in high school. it is a very good video so make sure you watch it. If you have not seen it yet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZGQJV8i ... _embedded#!

[rl25g]

That said, Barnes still looks awfully passive out there, and for all his hard work, he still isn't THAT great of a shooter. He just doesn't look like anything more than a role player in the NBA.

MKG is just as if not more passive than Barnes. Barnes at least shoots the rock and tries to create offense at times. MKG disappears for entire games imo.

MKG would step in and do what Vesely does, just at the 3 spot. He would play good team defense, bring effort, hustle and energy, but only shoot the rock if the shot-clock is winding down or if it is a dunk.

Barnes has proven that he can shoot the 3, create offense and have basketball skill to accompany his basketball IQ. He brings something different than we already have, and also fills a need.

I'd take Barnes over MKG at this point.

[nate33]

That said, Barnes still looks awfully passive out there, and for all his hard work, he still isn't THAT great of a shooter. He just doesn't look like anything more than a role player in the NBA.

MKG is just as if not more passive than Barnes. Barnes at least shoots the rock and tries to create offense at times. MKG disappears for entire games imo.

MKG would step in and do what Vesely does, just at the 3 spot. He would play good team defense, bring effort, hustle and energy, but only shoot the rock if the shot-clock is winding down or if it is a dunk.

Barnes has proven that he can shoot the 3, create offense and have basketball skill to accompany his basketball IQ. He brings something different than we already have, and also fills a need.

I'd take Barnes over MKG at this point.

Fair points.

Both guys seem like they have more talent than they show, but they are having trouble finding a way to assert themselves while playing on teams loaded with pro-level talent. It's tough to say whether that's a problem because they're too passive, or if it's a good thing that they're team players who are sacrificing for a greater cause.

It sure would be interesting to see them play on teams where they were the undisputed star.

[7-Day Dray]

That said, Barnes still looks awfully passive out there, and for all his hard work, he still isn't THAT great of a shooter. He just doesn't look like anything more than a role player in the NBA.

MKG is just as if not more passive than Barnes. Barnes at least shoots the rock and tries to create offense at times. MKG disappears for entire games imo.

MKG would step in and do what Vesely does, just at the 3 spot. He would play good team defense, bring effort, hustle and energy, but only shoot the rock if the shot-clock is winding down or if it is a dunk.

Barnes has proven that he can shoot the 3, create offense and have basketball skill to accompany his basketball IQ. He brings something different than we already have, and also fills a need.

I'd take Barnes over MKG at this point.

I agree. We already have enough hustle players that can only score off cuts and putbacks. MKG is probaly a little more skilled than Vesely, but it's minimal. It at least looks like Barnes has one great skill that he'll be able to hang his hat on if he doesn't improve - shooting.

[Mizerooskie]

I'm kind of souring on Thomas Robinson. Not saying he's not a good prospect, but I'm not sure how much more he offers than Booker, other than a few inches in height and wingspan. His skill-game in the post isn't particularly advanced or varied, and he's not much of a shot blocker.

I know people might say look at their respective college stats, but they have to be put in context. Robinson's supporting cast is miles ahead of Booker's in college, and they faced similar levels of competition.

[MF23]

For all of the Sullinger supporters this upcoming game vs Gates will be the most telling. Gates is an NBA level pf and I'll be very interested in looking at this game. Personally I wouldn't touch Sullinger in the lottery. There's just noway I would do it as a GM.

[nate33]

I'm kind of souring on Thomas Robinson. Not saying he's not a good prospect, but I'm not sure how much more he offers than Booker, other than a few inches in height and wingspan. His skill-game in the post isn't particularly advanced or varied, and he's not much of a shot blocker.

I know people might say look at their respective college stats, but they have to be put in context. Robinson's supporting cast is miles ahead of Booker's in college, and they faced similar levels of competition.

I'm kind of at the other end of the spectrum. I watched every minute of the Kansas/Perdue game during which Perdue did everything in their power to limit Robinson. While Robinson's scoring numbers were impacted, I still felt he was a huge presence on the floor. He was very active on the glass, rotated on D, and moved well without the ball. Purdue put two or three guys on him and he wore them all down. I just liked how he made his presence felt under the worst kind of circumstances. I loved his motor, his intensity and his leadership. He definitely has the mental make up to be a high draft pick. I think he's the second best player in this draft

That said, there is definitely a concern that Robinson more or less duplicates Booker's skills. Robinson is a bit bigger and is a better rebounder, but offensively and defensively, there doesn't seem to be much difference. Robinson is Booker plus another 1-2 rebounds per game. Is that really worth sacrificing a top 4 pick? I don't know.

If end up in the top 2 or 3 and Robinson is on the board, I wouldn't be at all upset if we drafted him, but I'd also explore a trade down (assuming a trade up is impossible).

[Mizerooskie]

I'm kind of souring on Thomas Robinson. Not saying he's not a good prospect, but I'm not sure how much more he offers than Booker, other than a few inches in height and wingspan. His skill-game in the post isn't particularly advanced or varied, and he's not much of a shot blocker.

I know people might say look at their respective college stats, but they have to be put in context. Robinson's supporting cast is miles ahead of Booker's in college, and they faced similar levels of competition.

I'm kind of at the other end of the spectrum. I watched every minute of the Kansas/Perdue game during which Perdue did everything in their power to limit Robinson. While Robinson's scoring numbers were impacted, I still felt he was a huge presence on the floor. He was very active on the glass, rotated on D, and moved well without the ball. Purdue put two or three guys on him and he wore them all down. I just liked how he made his presence felt under the worst kind of circumstances. I loved his motor, his intensity and his leadership. He definitely has the mental make up to be a high draft pick. I think he's the second best player in this draft

That said, there is definitely a concern that Robinson more or less duplicates Booker's skills. Robinson is a bit bigger and is a better rebounder, but offensively and defensively, there doesn't seem to be much difference. Robinson is Booker plus another 1-2 rebounds per game. Is that really worth sacrificing a top 4 pick? I don't know.

If end up in the top 2 or 3 and Robinson is on the board, I wouldn't be at all upset if we drafted him, but I'd also explore a trade down (assuming a trade up is impossible).

Don't get me wrong, I think Robinson is an excellent player. But your first paragraph essentially describes the situation Booker was put in every game at Clemson.

I actually think I'll be pretty disappointed with any non-Davis big at this point.

[tontoz]

Yes, jim - that's what I was trying to say, that he has been playing against NBA PFs while other college PFs (like, I have so say - Robinson) have been spending a lot of time battling NBA SFs. Consider Robinson, who has had monster games against Mizzou - who practically plays 4 guards. When Withey's on the floor, Robinson's probably going against Kim English.

That is a good point that i haven't seen mentioned here before. Definitely takes a little luster off Robinson.

[Dat2U]

The idea of making draft decisions based on Trevor Booker's presence is laughable. We had this same argument this past draft involving Faried & Booker. Everyone said Booker is too similar to Faried. Nonsense. For all of Booker's benefits he's still most likely a backup PF. We need talent, regardless of position. Draft the best player available. Stop worrying about fit. If Robinson is the BPA then draft him and worry about fit later. If MKG is the BPA, who cares if effort guys like Singleton & Vesely were drafted a year? Just get the BPA and let everything figure itself out afterwards.

[nate33]

The idea of making draft decisions based on Trevor Booker's presence is laughable. We had this same argument this past draft involving Faried & Booker. Everyone said Booker is too similar to Faried. Nonsense. For all of Booker's benefits he's still most likely a backup PF. We need talent, regardless of position. Draft the best player available. Stop worrying about fit. If Robinson is the BPA then draft him and worry about fit later. If MKG is the BPA, who cares if effort guys like Singleton & Vesely were drafted a year? Just get the BPA and let everything figure itself out afterwards.

For the record, I'm not advocating that we take Beal or Barnes if Robinson is on the board. Robinson is better than those two guys. I wouldn't just pick a lesser player because we need a wing. All I'm saying is that the duplication with Booker is enough for me to consider a trade down where we get more in return.

[Dat2U]

I think MKG and Barnes both suffer from passiveness. My worries that Barnes will be a bust have been quelled a bit, particularly thanks to the atrocious play by Perry Jones and comparing Barnes to him, but I would still rather have a T-Rob over Barnes.

I too have real concerns about Barnes' lack of aggressiveness. And there's an argument to be made to draft the best talent available when you're choosing a top lottery pick, which is probably not Barnes if you're picking 2-6. But I can't help but think that both Robinson (who would probably be my first choice after Davis) and MKG don't really feel the Zards major need, especially now that the Zards have Nene.

The Zards NEED shooting and scoring from either a SG or SF, preferably a SF, imo. Barnes looks like a natural at the SF position, particularly as it relates to his size and body type. I also think Barnes will work his butt off to improve those things he's not good at, such as taking people off the dribble and passing.

And, while Harrison is not a great athlete, neither was Brandon Roy. Like Roy though, Barnes is poised and mature beyond his age, and has a high b'ball IQ.

One massive difference b/w Roy & Barnes which makes the comparison questionable. Roy was a very skilled ballhandler. You could run the offense through him and he could set others up. He was a defacto PG at times. Barnes ball skills pale in comparison, nor does he have the court vision.

And of course the Wizards need shooting & scoring from the SG/SF position. That goes without saying, but they also need a lot of other things that Barnes doesn't necessarily provide. I wouldn't be focused on finding the perfect fit, instead I'd be focused on finding the perfect player. Or the guy that's closest to perfection that we can get. Barnes might be a very good fit skill wise, but he's far away from being a perfect player for us.

[Dat2U]

The idea of making draft decisions based on Trevor Booker's presence is laughable. We had this same argument this past draft involving Faried & Booker. Everyone said Booker is too similar to Faried. Nonsense. For all of Booker's benefits he's still most likely a backup PF. We need talent, regardless of position. Draft the best player available. Stop worrying about fit. If Robinson is the BPA then draft him and worry about fit later. If MKG is the BPA, who cares if effort guys like Singleton & Vesely were drafted a year? Just get the BPA and let everything figure itself out afterwards.

For the record, I'm not advocating that we take Beal or Barnes if Robinson is on the board. Robinson is better than those two guys. I wouldn't just pick a lesser player because we need a wing. All I'm saying is that the duplication with Booker is enough for me to consider a trade down where we get more in return.

Worried about duplication of a backup (Booker) is what leads us to selecting Vesely or Singleton over Faired. It would be one thing if Booker is entrenched as a starter but he's not at that level.

[nate33]

Worried about duplication of a backup (Booker) is what leads us to selecting Vesely or Singleton over Faired. It would be one thing if Booker is entrenched as a starter but he's not at that level.

No. Booker is not why we selected Vesely and Singleton. Indeed, one can argue that Vesely and Seraphin are more like Booker than Faried is. Both have tweener forward builds, both play D, neither can shoot. At least Faried is more of a true power player.

I don't know why Faried wasn't picked, but I don't think Booker had anything to do with it.

[SUPERBALLMAN]

The idea of making draft decisions based on Trevor Booker's presence is laughable. We had this same argument this past draft involving Faried & Booker. Everyone said Booker is too similar to Faried. Nonsense. For all of Booker's benefits he's still most likely a backup PF. We need talent, regardless of position. Draft the best player available. Stop worrying about fit. If Robinson is the BPA then draft him and worry about fit later. If MKG is the BPA, who cares if effort guys like Singleton & Vesely were drafted a year? Just get the BPA and let everything figure itself out afterwards.

For the record, I'm not advocating that we take Beal or Barnes if Robinson is on the board. Robinson is better than those two guys. I wouldn't just pick a lesser player because we need a wing. All I'm saying is that the duplication with Booker is enough for me to consider a trade down where we get more in return.

I'm definitely looking more closely at Beal. As of now I like Robinson alot at #2, although I am waiting to see how he measures at pre-draft. It's hard to tell on tv, but watching him he looks to me to be about 6-7, which might change my mind. I also have thought Barnes could be a good fit, but watching him last night he did not impress, and his shooting was especially disapointing.

Beal is starting to get my attention as a potential ideal running mate with Wall, giving us a big-time backcourt tandem for years to come. His scouting reports touting his high bb-IQ, strong fundamentals and work ethic, leads me think he could become another Harden-type. Leaves us a hole at SF, but maybe we can address that in FA? I agree Booker is ideally a backup PF, but I could live with a PF by commitee of Booker (starter), Vesely, Singleton easier than another year of Crawford starting at SG I think.