DCZards wrote:WallToWall wrote:Ok…
I am going to admit that, beyond our first pick, I don’t understand how the rest of our picks help in a rebuild. I assume that Dawkins went for BPA with the last 2 picks as opposed to BPA at positions of need (correct me if this is wrong). Doesn’t this strategy slow down the rebuild process because we still have positions of need to fill, as we have to spend time to evaluate the play of a crowded position (wing guard)? Or is Dawkins signaling that we are fine with the C, PF, and SF positions because we have who we need (I don’t understand that)?
Can someone who has an understanding of the strategy being followed explain it to me?
I can’t claim to know for sure this FO’s drafting strategy. But after watching several videos of the second pick Riley over the last 24+ hours I know why they drafted him—he’s extremely skilled offensively and could end up being a major steal at pick 21.
You don’t pass on that to pick a third or fourth tier C or PF simply because you need one.
Personally, I wanted the Zards to draft Fleming but I do see Riley’s tremendous upside.
This.
W2W. The thing to remember is we are in the talent acquisition phase, not the team assembly phase. We are still digging the site of a rebuild, not yet even pouring the foundations.
We have to lose this year or we miss one more chance at a franchise caliber player. If we don't land in the top 8 this draft we lose out on a historic draft. One the pundits have been tracking for 3 years and say is deeper in top end talent than this year. With multiple Flagg level players. This team needs a no-question high usage high efficient player to carry us. Do we have a franchise player yet? Until we have that guy we have nothing to build around. The draft is the best chance to get that player for free. Losing that asset for no reason is poor strategy.
So. How do we get there. How do we both add good talent and still lose. One way is by strategic redundancy. That is: add depth of talent in places where you already have talent. Instead of adding minor upgrades in your area of weakness. Frankly I like that strategy better than the Grunfeldian philosophy of designed vulnerability: where you might have an all-star at a position of need, but intentionally put no back-ups behind them, so if they catch an injury from over-use you can bottom out and earn a high lotto pick. A la the Spurs with Robinson and Duncan. Not fun when Arenas goes down, and we had refused to select Curry behind him because we already 'had' a PG. Not fun when all our back-ups to John Wall are undersized and overmatched.
Here we simply add talent. Regardless of position if the upside is there. But if that player falls in a position that we have a guy, fine, that's a good thing. They can push each other for minutes, test each other in practice, gladiator school style, and whichever one wins out earns the top minutes. It gives a coach the ability to sub out a guy for teaching moments. While still remaining young and energetic on the floor. We can afford to freely sub youth for youth instead of overplaying the veteran in front of them. Especially if many are switchable between guard and wing spots.
Would we be better this year if we had selected a solid upperclassman in the front court? Yes. Marginally. But we saw this spring that even one extra win will scramble your hopes and draft strategies. The biggest weakness of this team is interior defense and rebounding. We did not answer that need in the draft. You have to figure that is intentional. Why. You saw how our record took a bump as soon as we dropped Kuzma and played Champagnie in his minutes. Can we afford a whole year of that? Look around the East. The Celts shipped out 40% of their championship starting 5. Brooklyn is trying to play 5 rookie point guards who can't shoot. The Bucks have Giannis, and nothing else. And may be forced to ship him.
So. Unless the front court player we are picking up was too good to pass up. Unless that guy had an upside that could be all-star level. We can pass on drafting for roster balance for now. We want talent above all. We are okay adding guys who look like they can play, bring the right attitude, and also have that upside. Room to grow.
Is there enough play time to develop them? One sneaky asset we have used that other teams don't seem to utilize as well is the close synergy between the Wiz and out G-League team. Amber Nichols has been promoted to overseeing all player development, as well as closely tracking the scouting and talent acquisition departments. Under her direction the GoGo has become a guard academy. Growing a remarkable % of players who graduate to the NBA. Here and jumping to other teams. Those players climb to the back end of our bench, then become trade assets coveted by other teams. We got a 1st round pick from Philly in exchange for a guy with a heart condition that was cast off by other teams. We grew Champagnie to a force at the back end of the bench.
I don't mind sifting Will Riley and Jamir Watkins into the mix. Every time I tried to scout Jakucionas I noticed this skinny kid aggressively forcing the action. Will Riley needs size to be able to play the way his instincts tell him to. But the GoGo don't play 82 games. There is more time for a motivated player to hit the weights and work with big time training staff. He's another Dawkins special who is still in the middle of his growth spurt. He has yet to add grown weight an muscle. If and when he does though, his shifty probing attacking style will become tough to stop. And as for Watkins, we are really complaining about adding a defensive tough guy to our G league team? That can only help us develop guys in the minor league, and if he surprises and breaks out, we get a rough cut diamond a la Champagnie. We are not trying to build our NBA roster with the 43rd pick, we are adding to Amber Nichols arsenal in the developmental league. That helps any guy we have to send back for seasoning, by ensuring that they are dropping in to a competitive atmosphere no matter what.
Look. I'm the Big Man evangelist. I wanted Maluach if Ace didn't fall. Sad/funny I think both of those players would have better careers if they had landed with us. I feel bad for both that they are not in ideal spots to succeed. As for other Bigs, I wanted Sorber, even in a trade up. I think I would have taken Rocco even, at 43. But I don't hate the concept that in this phase of roster building, the team simply wants the guys they think are killers who love the game and have a chance to get better and better as they commit to personal growth.
In my read of their personality, I can see synergy between Kyshawn and Riley when they get dropped in off the bench. Both have that deadmans face and aggressive mindset, one with the dribble-drive attack, the other with no conscience in shooting every open shot. I get the sense this team is going to have fun playing next to each other. My feeling is win or lose we are going to have players who enjoy competition and will push each other to get better, on and off the court. I don't think you can add too many of that kind of player.
