The OFFICIAL rookie impressions thread pt.III

Bo Outlaw · Post #1481 » by **Bo Outlaw** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 5:33 pm

So if we had a redraft

1.Davis(NOH)
2.Drummond(CHA)
3.Beal(WAS)
4.Waiters(CLE)
5. MKG(SAC)
6.Lilliard(POR)
7. Barnes(GSW)
8.Harkless(TOR)
9.Sullinger(DET)
10.Leonard(NOH)
11.Robinson(POR)
12.Nicholson(OKC)
13.Henson(PHX)
14.Zeller(MIL)
15.Wroten Jr.(ORL)
16.Ross(HOU)
17.O`Quinn(CLE)
18.Teague(HOU)
19.J.Lamb(ORL)
20.Fournier(DEN)
21.Taylor(BOS)
22.Moultrie(BOS)
23.O.Johnson(ATL)
24.Crowder(DAL)
25.Marshall(MEM)
26.Green(IND)
27.PJ3(PHI)
28.T.Jones(OKC)
29.Cunningham(CHI)
30.Ezeli(GSW)

King d · Post #1482 » by **King d** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 6:05 pm

Bo Outlaw wrote:So if we had a redraft

1.Davis(NOH)
2.Drummond(CHA)
3.Beal(WAS)
4.Waiters(CLE)
5. MKG(SAC)
6.Lilliard(POR)
7. Barnes(GSW)
8.Harkless(TOR)
9.Sullinger(DET)
10.Leonard(NOH)
11.Robinson(POR)
12.Nicholson(OKC)
13.Henson(PHX)
14.Zeller(MIL)
15.Wroten Jr.(ORL)
16.Ross(HOU)
17.O`Quinn(CLE)
18.Teague(HOU)
19.J.Lamb(ORL)
20.Fournier(DEN)
21.Taylor(BOS)
22.Moultrie(BOS)
23.O.Johnson(ATL)
24.Crowder(DAL)
25.Marshall(MEM)
26.Green(IND)
27.PJ3(PHI)
28.T.Jones(OKC)
29.Cunningham(CHI)
30.Ezeli(GSW)

Waiters and MKG above Lillard? Come on son. That would't happen if the draft was today

ADoaN17 · Post #1483 » by **ADoaN17** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 6:31 pm

MKG would be the best fit for the Kings but they wouldn't pass on Lillard. Waiters is picked before because they have Kyrie.

DusterBuster · Post #1484 » by **DusterBuster** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 6:50 pm

In a re-do draft, Lillard unquestionably goes #5 to the Kings. MKG is not a better fit for them than Lillard would have been. Lillard is a star player they need and at a position they've struggled with since Mike Bibby left town.

Bo's re-do draft is close, but this seems much more likely when considering talent and team needs.....

1.Davis (NOH)
2.Drummond (CHA)
3.Beal (WAS)
4.Waiters (CLE)
5.Lillard (SAC)
6.MKG (POR)
7.Barnes (GSW)
8.Harkless (TOR)
9.Sullinger (DET)
10.Leonard (NOH)
11.Robinson (POR)
12.Nicholson (OKC)
13.Henson (PHX)
14.Zeller (MIL)
15.Wroten Jr. (ORL)
16.Ross (HOU)

DusterBuster · Post #1485 » by **DusterBuster** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 6:53 pm

King d wrote:Waiters and MKG above Lillard? Come on son. That would't happen if the draft was today

MKG no way, Waiters.... maybe. Not saying that Waiters is the better player, but why would Cleveland want/need Lillard when they already have Irving? Waiters plays a position of need of them whereas Lillard plays the same position as their best player. Yes, he can play off the ball as a two guard, but he'd be unquestionably undersized as a SG.

King d · Post #1486 » by **King d** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 7:46 pm

Believe or not, not every team drafts based on team needs, ask David Kahn.

The cavs obviously didn't know how good Lillard was going to be. If they did I'm sure they'd at least consider drafting Lillard instead of Waiters

What I'm 100% sure is that there is no way he would pass the kings 5th pick

Shem · Post #1487 » by **Shem** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 7:52 pm

I won't be long before this thread gets closed and part 4 is opened now that we've hit 100 pages on this one.

DusterBuster · Post #1488 » by **DusterBuster** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 8:12 pm

King d wrote:Believe or not, not every team drafts based on team needs, ask David Kahn.

The cavs obviously didn't know how good Lillard was going to be. If they did I'm sure they'd at least consider drafting Lillard instead of Waiters

What I'm 100% sure is that there is no way he would pass the kings 5th pick

David Kahn is a POS GM, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with that.

Look, the Cavs had their mind made up about Waiters VERY early on in the process. He had made it public at the Orlando pre-draft camp that he wasn't going to be doing any private workouts from teams because he already had a guarantee from a team they were going to pick him. Obviously that was the Cavs. So again, why would the Cavs pick Lillard over Waiters when they A) have Irving and B) needed a SG, not another PG. I don't see any reason why they should pick Lillard @ #4 in a re-do draft. And look, this is coming from a big Lillard/Blazer fan, but I'm also being realistic about it.

Again, using your Kahn reference, how did picking 2 PG's work out for him? Not great. Lillard looks like he'll be the better pro than Waiters, but it's not such a huge gap between the two that it should be considered egregious that the Cavs would take Waiters over Lillard.

I will completely agree with you however that there's NO WAY the Kings would pass on him @ #5 in favor of MKG. Lillard is far better than MKG, already a much bigger star and plays a much more important position that the Kings needed help at. On top of all that, unlike the Cavs who had their mind made up about Waiters very early on, rumor had it the Kings seriously considered taking Lillard @ #5, as late as the day of the draft.

Brapman · Post #1489 » by **Brapman** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 9:16 pm

Your point is that Drummond - age 19, supposedly incredibly cochable, is a finished product.

That's just nuts.

There isn't one GM in the league who would take Valanciunas over Drummond. Not a single one. And I'm a big fan of Valanciunas - he's going to be a borderline all-star center throughout his career. But you're looking at a size, strength (not even close to fully developed yet), speed and agility ratio that can fairly be compared to Dwight Howard's. Drummond's a once in a generation talent and by far one of the best C prospects the league has ever seen. The question for him is whether he can get to Shaq, Hakeem, Jabbar levels or whether he ceiling's out at Howard level.

Valanciunas is excellent. But he's nowhere near as athletic, and his ceiling is more like HIbbert.

This is NOT a close call.

Hendrix · Post #1490 » by **Hendrix** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 9:40 pm

Brapman wrote:Your point is that Drummond - age 19, supposedly incredibly cochable, is a finished product.

That's just nuts.

There isn't one GM in the league who would take Valanciunas over Drummond. Not a single one. And I'm a big fan of Valanciunas - he's going to be a borderline all-star center throughout his career. But you're looking at a size, strength (not even close to fully developed yet), speed and agility ratio that can fairly be compared to Dwight Howard's. Drummond's a once in a generation talent and by far one of the best C prospects the league has ever seen. The question for him is whether he can get to Shaq, Hakeem, Jabbar levels or whether he ceiling's out at Howard level.

Valanciunas is excellent. But he's nowhere near as athletic, and his ceiling is more like HIbbert.

This is NOT a close call.

I'm not exactly sure who you are talking to here.

However, you should probably temper your expecations a bit. Drummond is not a once in a generation talent, and any talk of Shaq, Hakeem, or Jabbar is ridiculous at this point.

Also, i like Hibbert. He's a great defender. But, Val's potential is significantly higher imo. Val is 20 years old, and already a significantly better offensive player.

monopoman · Post #1491 » by **monopoman** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 10:12 pm

Hendrix wrote:
Brapman wrote:Your point is that Drummond - age 19, supposedly incredibly cochable, is a finished product.

That's just nuts.

There isn't one GM in the league who would take Valanciunas over Drummond. Not a single one. And I'm a big fan of Valanciunas - he's going to be a borderline all-star center throughout his career. But you're looking at a size, strength (not even close to fully developed yet), speed and agility ratio that can fairly be compared to Dwight Howard's. Drummond's a once in a generation talent and by far one of the best C prospects the league has ever seen. The question for him is whether he can get to Shaq, Hakeem, Jabbar levels or whether he ceiling's out at Howard level.

Valanciunas is excellent. But he's nowhere near as athletic, and his ceiling is more like HIbbert.

This is NOT a close call.

I'm not exactly sure who you are talking to here.

However, you should probably temper your expecations a bit. Drummond is not a once in a generation talent, and any talk of Shaq, Hakeem, or Jabbar is ridiculous at this point.

Also, i like Hibbert. He's a great defender. But, Val's potential is significantly higher imo. Val is 20 years old, and already a significantly better offensive player.

Yeah Shaqs rookie numbers are very similar to Drummond If you only use per 36 or something. Not really the same thing.. crap Oden's numbers were amazing if you only used per 36.

Han Solo · Post #1492 » by **Han Solo** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 10:14 pm

Toronto fans are funny..

Hendrix · Post #1493 » by **Hendrix** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 10:23 pm

monopoman wrote:Yeah Shaqs rookie numbers are very similar to Drummond If you only use per 36 or something. Not really the same thing.. crap Oden's numbers were amazing if you only used per 36.

Drummond's #'s aren't even in the ballpark even with per 36.

Shaq was a 23 and 14 player on insane efficiency as a rook.

Han Solo · Post #1494 » by **Han Solo** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 10:24 pm

We get it. Drummond is nowhere near the talent Val is. Move on..

Hendrix · Post #1495 » by **Hendrix** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 10:26 pm

Han Solo wrote:We get it. Drummond is nowhere near the talent Val is. Move on..

Wtf are you talking about?

Han Solo · Post #1496 » by **Han Solo** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 10:28 pm

Hendrix wrote:
Han Solo wrote:We get it. Drummond is nowhere near the talent Val is. Move on..

Wtf are you talking about?

I got on here at work today and read nothing but Toronto fans talking ish about Drummond and how he can't hold Val's jock..

We'll see who ends up better..

Hendrix · Post #1497 » by **Hendrix** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 10:35 pm

Han Solo wrote:
Hendrix wrote:
Han Solo wrote:We get it. Drummond is nowhere near the talent Val is. Move on..

Wtf are you talking about?

I got on here at work today and read nothing but Toronto fans talking ish about Drummond and how he can't hold Val's jock..

We'll see who ends up better..

Well, I've been defending Drummond, and there's literally been 1 person in this thread that said Val is better than Drummond, so go cry to someone else.

Blkbrd671 · Post #1498 » by **Blkbrd671** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 11:01 pm

love the knee jerk reaction post to val, he had a good game and drummond didn't. that's really all that needs to be said. both are great center pieces going forward. Drummond's got the higher ceiling, Vals got the higher floor. really nothing new

Blkbrd671 · Post #1499 » by **Blkbrd671** » Tue Apr 2, 2013 11:05 pm

orangeparka wrote:I can see Drummond becoming a Sanders type player. Just coz he doesn't have great offensive potential doesn't mean he can't be a really good player.

he actually has huge offensive potential with his ability to move at 300 lbs. he's busted out a couple post moves that blew up our game threads. He's still 3-4 years away from dominating offensively, even more if our idiot coach ever learns how rotations work

dmize · Post #1500 » by **dmize** » Wed Apr 3, 2013 12:00 am

Casey Jonas wrote:
ComboGuardCity wrote:Really no point in arguing. Based on your username, I figure you're a huge Jonas fan and I'm a huge Drummond fan. My personal opinion is that while, Jonas has a more polished post game at the moment, Drummond is younger with far less experience and has the potential (Which I think he will reach) to be the best defensive center in the game + Top 3 offensive force as well. I think to say he's reached his ceiling because he had a bad game in his third game back from sitting out with a fractured tailbone is convenient. Personally, I don't care really how Jonas turns out, I just hope the Pistons turn it around next year so I can watch a good product instead of ads for nickel seats.

I think that excuse is convenient. (and never said he's tapped out, just think there isn't much more to come, but there should certainly be some minor improvements)

Without a doubt, one of the more asinine posts I've ever had the displeasure of reading on GB.