ImageImageImage

Rookieville 2019-20 – Langford, G. Williams, Edwards, Waters, Tacko; (Green, Poirier)

Moderators: sully00, djFan71, ParticleMan, Froob, canman1971, The Comedian, Parliament10

themoneyteam2
Analyst
Posts: 3,261
And1: 5,135
Joined: Oct 19, 2019
   

Re: Rookieville – Langford, G. Williams, Edwards, Waters, Tacko; (Green, Poirier) 

Post#561 » by themoneyteam2 » Fri Aug 7, 2020 3:22 am

BostonCouchGM wrote:
Bleeding Green wrote:
BostonCouchGM wrote:As a reminder. We took a SG who can't shoot and that we didn't need (Langford), a 6'5" PF (Williams) and a 5'11" SG (Edwards) over Bol Bol. Yes. That actually did happen. And people still try to argue that Danny is a good drafter

Can you imagine how much better the Celtics would be if they had been able to add Bol Bol's 8 career points to the roster? Ainge **** up again.


MPJ with another gem 27-12-2
Bol keeps getting more comfortable and playing major minutes with 9-5.
By all means keep defending the picks while other teams get prime talent to drop to them because Danny can't draft. And yes, I CAN imagine how excited this board would be if Bol was currently playing and showing his ability instead of scrubs with no upside on our bench


MPJ wasn't in this year's draft so that's irrelevant. Bol Bol fell to the middle of the 2nd round for a reason. If he was this unicorn you are hyping him up to be not every team would've passed on him.

Who did you want at 14 other than Romeo? This draft sucked pretty much after the top 10. The other top guys on the board when picking at 14 were Sekou, NAW, Bitadze, and Okeke. I'll take Romeo over those guys tbh.

I wasn't a huge fan of the Celtics draft btw so I'm far from a homer. I thought the draft sucked in general last year. Would have maybe preferred Little or Clarke over Grant at 22 but at 14 I was happy with Romeo. He'll be a rotation player next year and already is a really good perimeter defender, which is key to earning minutes under Stevens. I like Langford's potential - he was a consensus top 5 recruit and was in the 99th percentile at finishing in college as a true freshman. Outside shot needs work obviously but he's already great at getting to the line and slashing. Give him a healthy offseason and training camp next year and I think you'll be surprised.

But apparently you only judge the careers of these guys off of a 50 game sample size, and for Romeo's a 30 game one, so I guess Romeo won't get any better.
themoneyteam2
Analyst
Posts: 3,261
And1: 5,135
Joined: Oct 19, 2019
   

Re: Rookieville – Langford, G. Williams, Edwards, Waters, Tacko; (Green, Poirier) 

Post#562 » by themoneyteam2 » Fri Aug 7, 2020 3:29 am

Sorry but if you want to play revionist history game and say Ainge should've picked Kendrick Nunn over Timelord in 2018 then it's just not worth discussing.

Nobody even knew who the hell Nunn was, hence why he went undrafted. I cannot imagine the reaction if Ainge took a 6-2 PG projected to go undrafted at #27 while Robert Williams, who people were surprised slipped to end of first round, was still sitting there.
djFan71
Forum Mod - Celtics
Forum Mod - Celtics
Posts: 8,488
And1: 9,129
Joined: Jul 24, 2010
 

Re: Rookieville – Langford, G. Williams, Edwards, Waters, Tacko; (Green, Poirier) 

Post#563 » by djFan71 » Fri Aug 7, 2020 5:43 am

Bleeding Green wrote:
Homerclease wrote:
Bleeding Green wrote:Can you imagine how much better the Celtics would be if they had been able to add Bol Bol's 8 career points to the roster? Ainge **** up again.

Not necessarily Bol Bol but the rest of his point does kinda stand. Langford needs to develop some sort of a jumper to stick in the league, Grant is an undersized 4 that also has a long way to go on his outside shot and Edwards flashed early, otherwise has been a total flop.

Langford looks **** amazing to me, super high ceiling offensively and he's so quick, long, active defensively. Got him for free, too. At worst he never develops a jumper and he's like Andre Roberson or something.

Is there anyone drafted after Grant that is significantly better besides Clarke? After Carsen Edwards? People have this insane idea that Ainge is missing out on elite talent all over the place. I see some interesting players like Bazley, KPJ, Gafford, Paschall that maybe you could have taken instead of Grant or Edwards, but I'm not taking anyone over Langford in a redraft right now. Maybe Brandon Clarke. Bol Bol looks fun, but he's played 284 total minutes in college and the NBA so far and was drafted 44th overall.

The assertion that Romeo Langford is just some shooting guard that they don't need is insane. Yeah his jumper needs to improve. Every single draftee needs to improve something to be effective save for guys drafted #1 overall generally.

If we just didn't get cute and did Romeo/Clarke, that would have been great. But Clarke for Grant/Edwards is looking like a big mistake. Both in real time (we were screaming for Clarke in the draft thread) and still in hindsight. Grant is and will be solid. Edwards aspires to microwave level at best. Even if they both hit their ceilings, you're still 2 dimes to Clarke's quarter. And since they are both very undersized, it makes their ceiling that much more unlikely.
User avatar
ParticleMan
Forum Mod - Celtics
Forum Mod - Celtics
Posts: 13,963
And1: 6,014
Joined: Sep 16, 2004
     

Re: Rookieville – Langford, G. Williams, Edwards, Waters, Tacko; (Green, Poirier) 

Post#564 » by ParticleMan » Fri Aug 7, 2020 8:33 am

i've been super happy with romeo. the guy is like a mini-marcus defensively, with him and smart in the backcourt teams are really stifled. i totally didn't realize that when we drafted him, that he would be this good on D.

any offense at this point is a bonus, but he's totally capable of finishing if you give him a lane or an open look. so teams have to guard him. that's all you can ask for with a #5 option on offense. but he's got talent and athleticism, he's going to improve eventually.
bucknersrevenge
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,918
And1: 5,665
Joined: Jul 05, 2012
Location: Southern Maryland
Contact:
         

Re: Rookieville – Langford, G. Williams, Edwards, Waters, Tacko; (Green, Poirier) 

Post#565 » by bucknersrevenge » Fri Aug 7, 2020 1:43 pm

themoneyteam2 wrote:
BostonCouchGM wrote:
Bleeding Green wrote:Langford looks **** amazing to me, super high ceiling offensively and he's so quick, long, active defensively. Got him for free, too. At worst he never develops a jumper and he's like Andre Roberson or something.

Is there anyone drafted after Grant that is significantly better besides Clarke? After Carsen Edwards? People have this insane idea that Ainge is missing out on elite talent all over the place. I see some interesting players like Bazley, KPJ, Gafford, Paschall that maybe you could have taken instead of Grant or Edwards, but I'm not taking anyone over Langford in a redraft right now. Maybe Brandon Clarke. Bol Bol looks fun, but he's played 284 total minutes in college and the NBA so far and was drafted 44th overall.

The assertion that Romeo Langford is just some shooting guard that they don't need is insane. Yeah his jumper needs to improve. Every single draftee needs to improve something to be effective save for guys drafted #1 overall generally.


my bad. I thought you knew at least a little about draft prospects and how this rookie class has performed. Now I know better. To answer your question, yes, there will be around 10+ players who will end up having equal or better careers and they were taken much later.

Bazley
Little
Porter Jr.
Claxton
Paschall
Bol
Roby
McDaniels
Reid
Davis

And what most have in common is average or better size and length for their position. Something Danny seems to avoid like the plague.


It's funny because if Ainge picked any of those guys other than Bol Bol at 22, you would have lost it. Grant was 2x SEC POY. I'm pretty sure he can play. But if you're going to project careers based off of 60 career games then it's not worth having a discussion.

And btw, all those guys on that list suck so far other than Paschall and KPJ and they look good since they played on two bottom 5 teams.


This gimmick is so boring...
I am the self-appointed RealGM President of the Tacko Fall fan club. We go big or we go home!! Bold moves require BOLD PREDICTIONS baby!!! Tacko WILL pass TimeLord on the depth chart by the end of next season. You heard it here first!
User avatar
GWVan
Veteran
Posts: 2,565
And1: 1,661
Joined: Dec 12, 2002
Location: The world's most famous beach
 

Re: Rookieville – Langford, G. Williams, Edwards, Waters, Tacko; (Green, Poirier) 

Post#566 » by GWVan » Fri Aug 7, 2020 1:51 pm

There are always so many draft geniuses a year later. Any respectable NBA franchise should put together a panel or these experts before they draft so that they don't do anything wrong. Timelord can facilitate the transfer from the future to insure the correct 20-20 hindsight.
Full of sound and fury; signifying nothing
themoneyteam2
Analyst
Posts: 3,261
And1: 5,135
Joined: Oct 19, 2019
   

Re: Rookieville – Langford, G. Williams, Edwards, Waters, Tacko; (Green, Poirier) 

Post#567 » by themoneyteam2 » Fri Aug 7, 2020 1:59 pm

bucknersrevenge wrote:
themoneyteam2 wrote:
BostonCouchGM wrote:
my bad. I thought you knew at least a little about draft prospects and how this rookie class has performed. Now I know better. To answer your question, yes, there will be around 10+ players who will end up having equal or better careers and they were taken much later.

Bazley
Little
Porter Jr.
Claxton
Paschall
Bol
Roby
McDaniels
Reid
Davis

And what most have in common is average or better size and length for their position. Something Danny seems to avoid like the plague.


It's funny because if Ainge picked any of those guys other than Bol Bol at 22, you would have lost it. Grant was 2x SEC POY. I'm pretty sure he can play. But if you're going to project careers based off of 60 career games then it's not worth having a discussion.

And btw, all those guys on that list suck so far other than Paschall and KPJ and they look good since they played on two bottom 5 teams.


This gimmick is so boring...


I agree. Not even worth arguing if one guy is using revisionist history and judges the future careers of rookies after 30-60 games.
User avatar
Bleeding Green
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 20,487
And1: 8,505
Joined: Feb 28, 2005
Location: Atlantic Champs OMG OMG OMG!

Re: Rookieville – Langford, G. Williams, Edwards, Waters, Tacko; (Green, Poirier) 

Post#568 » by Bleeding Green » Fri Aug 7, 2020 2:08 pm

BostonCouchGM wrote:
Bleeding Green wrote:
Homerclease wrote:Not necessarily Bol Bol but the rest of his point does kinda stand. Langford needs to develop some sort of a jumper to stick in the league, Grant is an undersized 4 that also has a long way to go on his outside shot and Edwards flashed early, otherwise has been a total flop.

Langford looks **** amazing to me, super high ceiling offensively and he's so quick, long, active defensively. Got him for free, too. At worst he never develops a jumper and he's like Andre Roberson or something.

Is there anyone drafted after Grant that is significantly better besides Clarke? After Carsen Edwards? People have this insane idea that Ainge is missing out on elite talent all over the place. I see some interesting players like Bazley, KPJ, Gafford, Paschall that maybe you could have taken instead of Grant or Edwards, but I'm not taking anyone over Langford in a redraft right now. Maybe Brandon Clarke. Bol Bol looks fun, but he's played 284 total minutes in college and the NBA so far and was drafted 44th overall.

The assertion that Romeo Langford is just some shooting guard that they don't need is insane. Yeah his jumper needs to improve. Every single draftee needs to improve something to be effective save for guys drafted #1 overall generally.


my bad. I thought you knew at least a little about draft prospects and how this rookie class has performed. Now I know better. To answer your question, yes, there will be around 10+ players who will end up having equal or better careers and they were taken much later.

Bazley
Little
Porter Jr.
Claxton
Paschall
Bol
Roby
McDaniels
Reid
Davis

And what most have in common is average or better size and length for their position. Something Danny seems to avoid like the plague.

None of those guys are better than Grant right now. if you like them better for some reason in terms of future output, that's fine, but just seems a bit early to be mad about picks when Grant has probably outperformed all those guys except the one who just plays a million minutes on the **** team in the league (Paschall).

lmao talking about how this rookie class has performed and using Bol Bol as an example. Dude just tripled his career minutes last night.
Manocad wrote:I have an engineering degree, an exceptionally high IQ, and can point to the exact location/area of any country on an unlabeled globe.
CelticsPride18
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,068
And1: 5,934
Joined: Oct 31, 2013
       

Re: Rookieville – Langford, G. Williams, Edwards, Waters, Tacko; (Green, Poirier) 

Post#569 » by CelticsPride18 » Fri Aug 7, 2020 2:12 pm

Pretty dumb to use Nunn as an example for Ainge bad drafting. Nunn was a projected first round pick but was undrafted because he plead guilty to a domestic assault charge.
Ernest
Senior
Posts: 597
And1: 470
Joined: Jun 16, 2019
 

Re: Rookieville – Langford, G. Williams, Edwards, Waters, Tacko; (Green, Poirier) 

Post#570 » by Ernest » Fri Aug 7, 2020 9:11 pm

LOL first time on this thread. Expected it to be filled with positive comments given nothing is expected of these guys and they are all playing well. Robert Williams looked great last game and so did Romeo. We have a few pointless games left. I bet they get big minutes as we see if they can crack the rotation.
themoneyteam2
Analyst
Posts: 3,261
And1: 5,135
Joined: Oct 19, 2019
   

Re: Rookieville – Langford, G. Williams, Edwards, Waters, Tacko; (Green, Poirier) 

Post#571 » by themoneyteam2 » Sat Aug 8, 2020 12:23 am

Read on Twitter
BostonCouchGM
Pro Prospect
Posts: 872
And1: 518
Joined: Jun 07, 2018

Re: Rookieville – Langford, G. Williams, Edwards, Waters, Tacko; (Green, Poirier) 

Post#572 » by BostonCouchGM » Sat Aug 8, 2020 4:03 am

Bleeding Green wrote:
BostonCouchGM wrote:
Bleeding Green wrote:Langford looks **** amazing to me, super high ceiling offensively and he's so quick, long, active defensively. Got him for free, too. At worst he never develops a jumper and he's like Andre Roberson or something.

Is there anyone drafted after Grant that is significantly better besides Clarke? After Carsen Edwards? People have this insane idea that Ainge is missing out on elite talent all over the place. I see some interesting players like Bazley, KPJ, Gafford, Paschall that maybe you could have taken instead of Grant or Edwards, but I'm not taking anyone over Langford in a redraft right now. Maybe Brandon Clarke. Bol Bol looks fun, but he's played 284 total minutes in college and the NBA so far and was drafted 44th overall.

The assertion that Romeo Langford is just some shooting guard that they don't need is insane. Yeah his jumper needs to improve. Every single draftee needs to improve something to be effective save for guys drafted #1 overall generally.


my bad. I thought you knew at least a little about draft prospects and how this rookie class has performed. Now I know better. To answer your question, yes, there will be around 10+ players who will end up having equal or better careers and they were taken much later.

Bazley
Little
Porter Jr.
Claxton
Paschall
Bol
Roby
McDaniels
Reid
Davis

And what most have in common is average or better size and length for their position. Something Danny seems to avoid like the plague.

None of those guys are better than Grant right now. if you like them better for some reason in terms of future output, that's fine, but just seems a bit early to be mad about picks when Grant has probably outperformed all those guys except the one who just plays a million minutes on the **** team in the league (Paschall).

lmao talking about how this rookie class has performed and using Bol Bol as an example. Dude just tripled his career minutes last night.


lol what are you talking about. Grant is putting up 3-3-1 lmao. He's a bum.

But, really, who even cares about how rookies perform? High floor low ceiling guys like Grant Williams (and Paschall) who is 1 or 2 years older will play more so put up numbers. It doesn't mean he's better he just has a better opportunity. The reason I bring up Bol is because he's now playing a pretty big role for a playoff team and the only reason it's taken this long is because they were being cautious due to his injury. By the time he's 21 y/o like Grant is now he should be a starter if not star. He's just way more talented. And maybe the rest of those guys don't pan out and end up just role players like Grant Williams. The point is, they at least have a chance to be something more. Grant does not. He lacks size/length/athleticism/skill to do so. So Danny chose a role player at best, like he did when he chose Olynyk over the raw Giannis and Gobert. Like he did when he chose Smart over LaVine (25-5-4 in case you'll laughably suggest Smart is better) and Young over Jokic. You'd think people would stop defending Danny when he does this but nope, still here, not learning any lessons. He keeps passing on potential special players who possess elite traits for safer prospects because they did well in college.
User avatar
Bleeding Green
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 20,487
And1: 8,505
Joined: Feb 28, 2005
Location: Atlantic Champs OMG OMG OMG!

Re: Rookieville – Langford, G. Williams, Edwards, Waters, Tacko; (Green, Poirier) 

Post#573 » by Bleeding Green » Sat Aug 8, 2020 4:32 am

Zach LaVine sucks, sorry too drunk to reply to rest right now. But if you rank LaVine above Smart I dunno what I have to respond to.
Manocad wrote:I have an engineering degree, an exceptionally high IQ, and can point to the exact location/area of any country on an unlabeled globe.
themoneyteam2
Analyst
Posts: 3,261
And1: 5,135
Joined: Oct 19, 2019
   

Re: Rookieville – Langford, G. Williams, Edwards, Waters, Tacko; (Green, Poirier) 

Post#574 » by themoneyteam2 » Sat Aug 8, 2020 4:42 am

BostonCouchGM wrote:
Bleeding Green wrote:
BostonCouchGM wrote:
my bad. I thought you knew at least a little about draft prospects and how this rookie class has performed. Now I know better. To answer your question, yes, there will be around 10+ players who will end up having equal or better careers and they were taken much later.

Bazley
Little
Porter Jr.
Claxton
Paschall
Bol
Roby
McDaniels
Reid
Davis

And what most have in common is average or better size and length for their position. Something Danny seems to avoid like the plague.

None of those guys are better than Grant right now. if you like them better for some reason in terms of future output, that's fine, but just seems a bit early to be mad about picks when Grant has probably outperformed all those guys except the one who just plays a million minutes on the **** team in the league (Paschall).

lmao talking about how this rookie class has performed and using Bol Bol as an example. Dude just tripled his career minutes last night.


lol what are you talking about. Grant is putting up 3-3-1 lmao. He's a bum.

But, really, who even cares about how rookies perform? High floor low ceiling guys like Grant Williams (and Paschall) who is 1 or 2 years older will play more so put up numbers. It doesn't mean he's better he just has a better opportunity. The reason I bring up Bol is because he's now playing a pretty big role for a playoff team and the only reason it's taken this long is because they were being cautious due to his injury. By the time he's 21 y/o like Grant is now he should be a starter if not star. He's just way more talented. And maybe the rest of those guys don't pan out and end up just role players like Grant Williams. The point is, they at least have a chance to be something more. Grant does not. He lacks size/length/athleticism/skill to do so. So Danny chose a role player at best, like he did when he chose Olynyk over the raw Giannis and Gobert. Like he did when he chose Smart over LaVine (25-5-4 in case you'll laughably suggest Smart is better) and Young over Jokic. You'd think people would stop defending Danny when he does this but nope, still here, not learning any lessons. He keeps passing on potential special players who possess elite traits for safer prospects because they did well in college.


Of all things to kill Ainge for drafting Young, its definitely not to say he should have picked Jokic lol. Jokic was a 2nd rounder and was never projected top 20. Ever. You would’ve had a fit if Ainge picked him at 17 in that draft.

James Young was a complete whiff but your revisionist history gimmick is exhausting. Look at the guys in that range who were in contention to be selected. Rodney Hood went a pick after. That’s where your gripe should be with the James Young pick...

Also, the only reason Bol Bol has a pretty big role for the Nuggets right now is because they don’t have 3 rotation players currently suiting up lol. He didn’t even get in the game 2 games ago because Millsap was healthy.

He played 25 mins vs POR when Millsap sat, DNP-CD vs SAS, 4 mins vs OKC, and 12 mins vs MIA. Sorry but that’s in no way “playing a pretty big role”.
BostonCouchGM
Pro Prospect
Posts: 872
And1: 518
Joined: Jun 07, 2018

Re: Rookieville – Langford, G. Williams, Edwards, Waters, Tacko; (Green, Poirier) 

Post#575 » by BostonCouchGM » Sat Aug 8, 2020 4:50 am

themoneyteam2 wrote:
bucknersrevenge wrote:
themoneyteam2 wrote:
It's funny because if Ainge picked any of those guys other than Bol Bol at 22, you would have lost it. Grant was 2x SEC POY. I'm pretty sure he can play. But if you're going to project careers based off of 60 career games then it's not worth having a discussion.

And btw, all those guys on that list suck so far other than Paschall and KPJ and they look good since they played on two bottom 5 teams.


This gimmick is so boring...


I agree. Not even worth arguing if one guy is using revisionist history and judges the future careers of rookies after 30-60 games.


this is what projecting forward means. You take all the information you have on a player and project them forward good or bad. Grant Williams, a 6'5" and change PF, has suboptimal size/length/skills for his position, than you shouldn't expect him to become a high-end starter no matter how high his BBIQ and work ethic is. Which is why Grant likely stays as a role player either coming off the bench or the worst starter in a suspect starting five. And you know that's okay if there aren't players who DO have size/length/skills for their position still on the board. But clearly Bol, Bazley, etc. DO which is why you should take them. Why is this hard to understand? Why is anyone who questions Danny's draft record met with hostility when the evidence is there for everyone to see. I guess people would rather an echo chamber where we all agree so don't mind me. Also, if I wanted these players over who Danny drafted and voiced this on draft night, how is this revisionist history?
themoneyteam2
Analyst
Posts: 3,261
And1: 5,135
Joined: Oct 19, 2019
   

Re: Rookieville – Langford, G. Williams, Edwards, Waters, Tacko; (Green, Poirier) 

Post#576 » by themoneyteam2 » Sat Aug 8, 2020 4:57 am

BostonCouchGM wrote:
themoneyteam2 wrote:
bucknersrevenge wrote:
This gimmick is so boring...


I agree. Not even worth arguing if one guy is using revisionist history and judges the future careers of rookies after 30-60 games.


this is what projecting forward means. You take all the information you have on a player and project them forward good or bad. Grant Williams, a 6'5" and change PF, has suboptimal size/length/skills for his position, than you shouldn't expect him to become a high-end starter no matter how high his BBIQ and work ethic is. Which is why Grant likely stays as a role player either coming off the bench or the worst starter in a suspect starting five. And you know that's okay if there aren't players who DO have size/length/skills for their position still on the board. But clearly Bol, Bazley, etc. DO which is why you should take them. Why is this hard to understand? Why is anyone who questions Danny's draft record met with hostility when the evidence is there for everyone to see. I guess people would rather an echo chamber where we all agree so don't mind me. Also, if I wanted these players over who Danny drafted and voiced this on draft night, how is this revisionist history?


Nobody here has called Grant a high end starter. He’s a career role player. And a lot of people have actually said they wish we took Clarke but the options at that pick were pretty slim. And i was talking more about picking Romeo at 14 which started this whole discussion since you hated that pick. The top options on the board at that pick were Romeo, Sekou, NAW, Okeke, and Goga. I don’t see an issue taking Langford over any of those guys. The draft sucked after the top 10 last year.

I’m more so talking about your revisionist history with Robert Williams saying Ainge should’ve picked Nunn. You would’ve lost it if they picked a 6-2 PG while Williams, a projected lottery pick, was sliding down the board. Nunn went undrafted btw.

If you’re dogging Ainge for picking Robert Williams over Nunn, that’s pretty much the definition of revisionist history.
BostonCouchGM
Pro Prospect
Posts: 872
And1: 518
Joined: Jun 07, 2018

Re: Rookieville – Langford, G. Williams, Edwards, Waters, Tacko; (Green, Poirier) 

Post#577 » by BostonCouchGM » Sat Aug 8, 2020 5:09 am

themoneyteam2 wrote:
BostonCouchGM wrote:
Bleeding Green wrote:None of those guys are better than Grant right now. if you like them better for some reason in terms of future output, that's fine, but just seems a bit early to be mad about picks when Grant has probably outperformed all those guys except the one who just plays a million minutes on the **** team in the league (Paschall).

lmao talking about how this rookie class has performed and using Bol Bol as an example. Dude just tripled his career minutes last night.


lol what are you talking about. Grant is putting up 3-3-1 lmao. He's a bum.

But, really, who even cares about how rookies perform? High floor low ceiling guys like Grant Williams (and Paschall) who is 1 or 2 years older will play more so put up numbers. It doesn't mean he's better he just has a better opportunity. The reason I bring up Bol is because he's now playing a pretty big role for a playoff team and the only reason it's taken this long is because they were being cautious due to his injury. By the time he's 21 y/o like Grant is now he should be a starter if not star. He's just way more talented. And maybe the rest of those guys don't pan out and end up just role players like Grant Williams. The point is, they at least have a chance to be something more. Grant does not. He lacks size/length/athleticism/skill to do so. So Danny chose a role player at best, like he did when he chose Olynyk over the raw Giannis and Gobert. Like he did when he chose Smart over LaVine (25-5-4 in case you'll laughably suggest Smart is better) and Young over Jokic. You'd think people would stop defending Danny when he does this but nope, still here, not learning any lessons. He keeps passing on potential special players who possess elite traits for safer prospects because they did well in college.


Of all things to kill Ainge for drafting Young, its definitely not to say he should have picked Jokic lol. Jokic was a 2nd rounder and was never projected top 20. Ever. You would’ve had a fit if Ainge picked him at 17 in that draft.

James Young was a complete whiff but your revisionist history gimmick is exhausting. Look at the guys in that range who were in contention to be selected. Rodney Hood went a pick after. That’s where your gripe should be with the James Young pick...

Also, the only reason Bol Bol has a pretty big role for the Nuggets right now is because they don’t have 3 rotation players currently suiting up lol. He didn’t even get in the game 2 games ago because Millsap was healthy.

He played 25 mins vs POR when Millsap sat, DNP-CD vs SAS, 4 mins vs OKC, and 12 mins vs MIA. Sorry but that’s in no way “playing a pretty big role”.


this is because the people getting paid to evaluate prospects, and the fans who defend them, got it wrong. And they get it wrong every single draft. They're so bad they have everyone convinced the draft is a crap shoot when it shouldn't be. And when people bring up that their G.M. should have taken Bol, or back then, Jokic or Giannis, they're met with "the scouts had them going where they went for a reason" instead of "yeah, you're right. Why ARE we taking a slight shooting guard (Young) with an attitude problem, bad work ethic, and limited athleticism, when there's a 7 footer, albeit with a weight problem, who has incredible touch, passing and BBIQ?"

Here's nbadraft.net Jokic "weaknesses"

An average athlete lacking great speed and leaping ability … Foot speed is a big liability. He may struggle to stay in front of NBA athletes at the center position … Needs to improve as a post player, gain strength and develop a repertoire of back to the basket moves … Defense is a real weakness at this point due to lack of lateral speed and lack of strength. His length is a big plus, but he’ll need to continue to work on becoming stronger and learn to anticipate in order to overcome his lack of quickness … Despite being a younger guy, his upside appears limited by his lack of explosiveness and foot speed …

lol, in 2015 they're worried about Jokic's need to "improve as a post player" lmao and "develop back to the basket moves". His defense was a concern he had size and good length along with high BBIQ. And they were dead wrong about his foot speed. He was always crafty and his footwork was outstanding for someone his size. So every team got it wrong on someone they should never have let get out of the lottery. Same with Bol. Same with Mitchell Robinson. They're just really bad at their jobs.

It's pretty hilarious people downplaying Bol's present impact and hype because their G.M. passed on him three times. Seriously man. This has to stop. People are raving about him because he can score on all three levels, is a very good defender out to the perimeter and doesn't seem overwhelmed at all. You say he's only playing because people are injured but it's his own injury that prevented them from playing him much up till now. Do you honestly think he won't be getting 20 mpg next season?

And yeah, a guy presently arguing why we should have taken the high upside Bol over low upside Grant Williams would have been really pissed if we took the high upside Jokic over the low upside Young...oh wait, that makes no logical sense
themoneyteam2
Analyst
Posts: 3,261
And1: 5,135
Joined: Oct 19, 2019
   

Re: Rookieville – Langford, G. Williams, Edwards, Waters, Tacko; (Green, Poirier) 

Post#578 » by themoneyteam2 » Sat Aug 8, 2020 5:17 am

BostonCouchGM wrote:
themoneyteam2 wrote:
BostonCouchGM wrote:
lol what are you talking about. Grant is putting up 3-3-1 lmao. He's a bum.

But, really, who even cares about how rookies perform? High floor low ceiling guys like Grant Williams (and Paschall) who is 1 or 2 years older will play more so put up numbers. It doesn't mean he's better he just has a better opportunity. The reason I bring up Bol is because he's now playing a pretty big role for a playoff team and the only reason it's taken this long is because they were being cautious due to his injury. By the time he's 21 y/o like Grant is now he should be a starter if not star. He's just way more talented. And maybe the rest of those guys don't pan out and end up just role players like Grant Williams. The point is, they at least have a chance to be something more. Grant does not. He lacks size/length/athleticism/skill to do so. So Danny chose a role player at best, like he did when he chose Olynyk over the raw Giannis and Gobert. Like he did when he chose Smart over LaVine (25-5-4 in case you'll laughably suggest Smart is better) and Young over Jokic. You'd think people would stop defending Danny when he does this but nope, still here, not learning any lessons. He keeps passing on potential special players who possess elite traits for safer prospects because they did well in college.


Of all things to kill Ainge for drafting Young, its definitely not to say he should have picked Jokic lol. Jokic was a 2nd rounder and was never projected top 20. Ever. You would’ve had a fit if Ainge picked him at 17 in that draft.

James Young was a complete whiff but your revisionist history gimmick is exhausting. Look at the guys in that range who were in contention to be selected. Rodney Hood went a pick after. That’s where your gripe should be with the James Young pick...

Also, the only reason Bol Bol has a pretty big role for the Nuggets right now is because they don’t have 3 rotation players currently suiting up lol. He didn’t even get in the game 2 games ago because Millsap was healthy.

He played 25 mins vs POR when Millsap sat, DNP-CD vs SAS, 4 mins vs OKC, and 12 mins vs MIA. Sorry but that’s in no way “playing a pretty big role”.


this is because the people getting paid to evaluate prospects, and the fans who defend them, got it wrong. And they get it wrong every single draft. They're so bad they have everyone convinced the draft is a crap shoot when it shouldn't be. And when people bring up that their G.M. should have taken Bol, or back then, Jokic or Giannis, they're met with "the scouts had them going where they went for a reason" instead of "yeah, you're right. Why ARE we taking a slight shooting guard (Young) with an attitude problem, bad work ethic, and limited athleticism, when there's a 7 footer, albeit with a weight problem, who has incredible touch, passing and BBIQ?"

Here's nbadraft.net Jokic "weaknesses"

An average athlete lacking great speed and leaping ability … Foot speed is a big liability. He may struggle to stay in front of NBA athletes at the center position … Needs to improve as a post player, gain strength and develop a repertoire of back to the basket moves … Defense is a real weakness at this point due to lack of lateral speed and lack of strength. His length is a big plus, but he’ll need to continue to work on becoming stronger and learn to anticipate in order to overcome his lack of quickness … Despite being a younger guy, his upside appears limited by his lack of explosiveness and foot speed …

lol, in 2015 they're worried about Jokic's need to "improve as a post player" lmao and "develop back to the basket moves". His defense was a concern he had size and good length along with high BBIQ. And they were dead wrong about his foot speed. He was always crafty and his footwork was outstanding for someone his size. So every team got it wrong on someone they should never have let get out of the lottery. Same with Bol. Same with Mitchell Robinson. They're just really bad at their jobs.

It's pretty hilarious people downplaying Bol's present impact and hype because their G.M. passed on him three times. Seriously man. This has to stop. People are raving about him because he can score on all three levels, is a very good defender out to the perimeter and doesn't seem overwhelmed at all. You say he's only playing because people are injured but it's his own injury that prevented them from playing him much up till now. Do you honestly think he won't be getting 20 mpg next season?

And yeah, a guy presently arguing why we should have taken the high upside Bol over low upside Grant Williams would have been really pissed if we took the high upside Jokic over the low upside Young...oh wait, that makes no logical sense


I mean yeah no **** if they could have seen Jokic turning into the player he is he wouldn’t have fallen to the 2nd round but his weaknesses were very big concerns heading into the draft.

As far as Bol Bol, It was the same thing at Oregon. Has these highlight plays that make the general twitter fan salivate, but if you watch the whole game, he's incredibly frustrating on multiple fronts. Can't really guard one-on-one, bad shot selection, turnover prone, and too weak right now. Don’t ask him to move in space/change direction or closeout (frankly, step outside the paint), and you’re golden. And no I don’t think he’ll be getting 20 MPG next year actually. That’d be 6th man level minutes which he certainly won’t be getting.

Wait you seriously just said Bol Bol is a very good defender out to the perimeter? That’s literally his biggest weakness on defense lol. Don’t ask him to move in space or step outta the paint and he’s great but as soon as you have him out on the perimeter it’s BBQ chicken for the offensive player.

But if you want to die on the Bol Bol hill go for it.
themoneyteam2
Analyst
Posts: 3,261
And1: 5,135
Joined: Oct 19, 2019
   

Re: Rookieville – Langford, G. Williams, Edwards, Waters, Tacko; (Green, Poirier) 

Post#579 » by themoneyteam2 » Sat Aug 8, 2020 5:25 am

Bol Bol primarily fell due to medical/injury concerns. Rumors are that he flunked a lot of physical exams due to his extensive injury history and foot surgery.

It’s the same reason why MPJ fell to 14. He was 100% a top 5 talent and was consensus top 3 recruit in the class all of HS. His history of back issues and family medical issues is why he slipped to 14 and then had to redshirt his rookie year. With no injuries he’s a surefire top 5 pick in that draft without thinking twice.
User avatar
Bleeding Green
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 20,487
And1: 8,505
Joined: Feb 28, 2005
Location: Atlantic Champs OMG OMG OMG!

Re: Rookieville – Langford, G. Williams, Edwards, Waters, Tacko; (Green, Poirier) 

Post#580 » by Bleeding Green » Sat Aug 8, 2020 5:27 am

themoneyteam2 wrote:Bol Bol primarily fell due to medical/injury concerns. Rumors are that he flunked a lot of physical exams due to his extensive injury history and foot surgery.

It’s the same reason why MPJ fell to 14. He was 100% a top 5 talent and was consensus top 3 recruit in the class all of HS. His history of back issues and family medical issues is why he slipped to 14 and then had to redshirt his rookie year. With no injuries he’s a surefire top 5 pick in that draft without thinking twice.

Kinda the same thing with Romeo Langford. Dunno who drafted him, but he was consensus top-5 pick going into his injury-hampered freshman season.
Manocad wrote:I have an engineering degree, an exceptionally high IQ, and can point to the exact location/area of any country on an unlabeled globe.

Return to Boston Celtics