DraftRank's 2011 NBA Mock Draft

fazon · Post #1 » by **fazon** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:29 pm

http://draftrank.com/category/nba+mock-draft

Check it out and let me know what you guys think.

tidho · Post #2 » by **tidho** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:19 pm

If Minny and Cleveland stay 1-2 I think Minnywill absolutely take Irving and leave Williams for Cleveland.

Either way I don't see Cleveland taking Vesely, who I struggle to find a team for (maybe the Bobcats).
The next two guys on your board are more likely options for the Cavaliers. I think Valanciunas goes higher, but you seem to prefer Motiejunas - which is fair. If he's there I think the Cavaliers grab him and the soon to be retired Big Z will be brought back for the development project. I'm very high on Burks for the Cavaliers because they have nothing at the position.

fazon · Post #3 » by **fazon** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 9:37 pm

tidho wrote:If Minny and Cleveland stay 1-2 I think Minnywill absolutely take Irving and leave Williams for Cleveland.

Either way I don't see Cleveland taking Vesely, who I struggle to find a team for (maybe the Bobcats).
The next two guys on your board are more likely options for the Cavaliers. I think Valanciunas goes higher, but you seem to prefer Motiejunas - which is fair. If he's there I think the Cavaliers grab him and the soon to be retired Big Z will be brought back for the development project. I'm very high on Burks for the Cavaliers because they have nothing at the position.

I absolutely believe that Irving is the better player and better option, but I'm sure Minny will take Williams purely out of team needs. I guess they might take Irving if the possibility of trading Rubio arises, which probably will since he expressed interest in playing in a big city.

I like Motiejunas better, I think he's more consistent and a safer bet.

I'm high on Burks as well, but I think Cleveland needs a forward more than they need a guard.

AQuintus · Post #4 » by **AQuintus** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 12:14 am

AQuintus wrote:Absolutely no way that the Wolves would take Williams over Irving. Point Guard (Flynn (probably gone), Ridnour (career backup), Telfair (gone), and Rubio (down year and might not come over)) is a huge need, while Forward (Love (best player), Beasley (2nd best player), Johnson (rookie and top 5 pick), Tolliver (4th best player), Randolph (3rd best player), and Webster) is not.

Edit:

fazon wrote: but I'm sure Minny will take Williams purely out of team needs.

Even if you think that PG is not a need due to Rubio, Forward is absolutely not even close to a need. Especially PF, and especially especially PFs that compare to Michael Beasley, who is already on the team.

fredericklove · Post #5 » by **fredericklove** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:11 am

Kyle Singler's comparison is nothing like Hedo. Not even close, his best comparison is Dunleavy.

fazon · Post #6 » by **fazon** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 6:17 am

AQuintus wrote:
AQuintus wrote:Absolutely no way that the Wolves would take Williams over Irving. Point Guard (Flynn (probably gone), Ridnour (career backup), Telfair (gone), and Rubio (down year and might not come over)) is a huge need, while Forward (Love (best player), Beasley (2nd best player), Johnson (rookie and top 5 pick), Tolliver (4th best player), Randolph (3rd best player), and Webster) is not.

Edit:

fazon wrote: but I'm sure Minny will take Williams purely out of team needs.

Even if you think that PG is not a need due to Rubio, Forward is absolutely not even close to a need. Especially PF, and especially especially PFs that compare to Michael Beasley, who is already on the team.

Their biggest need is a center, second biggest need is a 2-guard. Unless they're planning on taking Kanter at #1 (I don't see him meshing well on Minny), it's between Williams and Irving. Rubio, Telfair and Irving are pure point guards, probably Flynn and Ridnour as well so they're fine at PG. They already have Love and Randolph at PF but they're weak at C, so why not draft a big with the intention of giving Love more center minutes?

AQuintus · Post #7 » by **AQuintus** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 6:41 pm

fazon wrote:Their biggest need is a center, second biggest need is a 2-guard.

I'm a Wolves fan. I've watched almost every Wolves' game this year, and I can say without any doubt in my mind that PG is the team's biggest need followed by C. SG could definitely be upgraded, but we have our lotto pick from last year playing there, and with an offseason of work and a better PG feeding him easy looks, Johnson should be fine there for now.

Rubio, Telfair and Irving are pure point guards, probably Flynn and Ridnour

Telfair is a free agent and won't be resigned, Flynn was being shopped at the trade deadline and already has one foot out the door, and Ridnour is a career backup. Rubio is the only one that has the potential to be a starter in the NBA, but he's had a down year in Europe and might not even come over. On top of that, he isn't as good of a prospect as Irving, so passing on him because of Rubio would be really dumb. Passing on Irving because of Telfair, Flynn, or Ridnour would be way beyond dumb.

They already have Love and Randolph at PF but they're weak at C, so why not draft a big with the intention of giving Love more center minutes?

Because they also have Beasley and Tolliver. Love could play at C, but it's not ideal and if he does play there, you need a tall, long, defensive stud to cover for him, and that's not Williams. On top of that, Irving is the better player, prospect, and fit.

as well so they're fine at PG.

The fact that you're honestly arguing this makes it really hard for me to take the rest of your mock seriously. If you're so off base with your opinions on the team that I follow, how far off are you on the other teams?

fazon · Post #8 » by **fazon** » Sun Apr 24, 2011 3:08 am

Beasley is better at 3 than 4.

I won't lie, I've only watched about 10 T'Wolves games this season but Flynn - Rubio? - Ridnour at the point looks better than Love - Randolph - Milicic at the 4 and 5.

Now personally, I would take Irving #1, no question about it, but I'm basing this mock draft on what I think will happen. Actually, I did this mock a while back and didn't really look it over before posting it. If I were to look it over today, yes, I'd probably have Irving there.

Now let's say they do decide to take Irving. I could see Flynn (I doubt they'll get his value back in return, so I doubt he'll be dealt) and/or Rubio being moved, or someone (probably Flynn) plays the two, moving Johnson back to his natural position at 3, and shifting Beasley back to the 4 spot. Do they really want Flynn at the two? Or a 4 PG rotation? That's why (at the time I did this mock), I had them taking Williams instead.

AQuintus wrote:
fazon wrote:Their biggest need is a center, second biggest need is a 2-guard.

I'm a Wolves fan. I've watched almost every Wolves' game this year, and I can say without any doubt in my mind that PG is the team's biggest need followed by C. SG could definitely be upgraded, but we have our lotto pick from last year playing there, and with an offseason of work and a better PG feeding him easy looks, Johnson should be fine there for now.

Rubio, Telfair and Irving are pure point guards, probably Flynn and Ridnour

Telfair is a free agent and won't be resigned, Flynn was being shopped at the trade deadline and already has one foot out the door, and Ridnour is a career backup. Rubio is the only one that has the potential to be a starter in the NBA, but he's had a down year in Europe and might not even come over. On top of that, he isn't as good of a prospect as Irving, so passing on him because of Rubio would be really dumb. Passing on Irving because of Telfair, Flynn, or Ridnour would be way beyond dumb.

They already have Love and Randolph at PF but they're weak at C, so why not draft a big with the intention of giving Love more center minutes?

Because they also have Beasley and Tolliver. Love could play at C, but it's not ideal and if he does play there, you need a tall, long, defensive stud to cover for him, and that's not Williams. On top of that, Irving is the better player, prospect, and fit.

as well so they're fine at PG.

The fact that you're honestly arguing this makes it really hard for me to take the rest of your mock seriously. If you're so off base with your opinions on the team that I follow, how far off are you on the other teams?

djthesonicsfan · Post #9 » by **djthesonicsfan** » Wed May 4, 2011 8:36 pm

Comments? Obviously you're a Celts fan who is still pissed about the Perkins trade. Otherwise you wouldn't have made us take Singler instead of Singleton.

RTM · Post #10 » by **RTM** » Wed May 4, 2011 10:47 pm

There's no way Detroit takes Terrence WIlliams at 7. We don't need an offense first tweener.

princeofpalace · Post #11 » by **princeofpalace** » Thu May 5, 2011 12:03 am

RTM wrote:There's no way Detroit takes Terrence WIlliams at 7. We don't need an offense first tweener.

Terrence Jones is a F who can rebound, block shots and plays defense. He's not an offense only player at all, if anything I think he needs to work on developing more of an offensive arsenal. If he measures in at 6'9'' Id love to him at #7.

RTM · Post #12 » by **RTM** » Thu May 5, 2011 2:31 pm

^ Brain fart. You knew what I meant.

And notice how you took "offense first" and turned it into "offense only". Watching him play (saw him play Washington at Maui, @UNC, Florida in the SEC tournament, and at some point in all of his tourney games), it's pretty clear that his effort on the defensive end isn't consistent. He's a talent, but he sure looked a lot more engaged looking for his shot than trying to defend. From what I saw, he's more of a gambler than a "stay in front of his man" defender. The steals were in part due to overplaying his man, and the blocks were from the weak side. I never once saw him go to the floor.

On offense, he likes he 3 pt shot too much, which was going down really well early, but not as much late. You can tell he's more into it. I think he's going to be a Tim Thomas tweener, a move or two inside, but far happier playing a face up game. I don't love his shoulders - I don't think his frame is going to fill out once more, and I doubt his "bulk" (despite his listed weight) being enough to play the 4.

There are just so many better options at 7. He'd really have to win me over.