Wolves Board Consensus Mock Draft

Krapinsky · Post #1 » by **Krapinsky** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 9:10 pm

First of all, please don't lock this. I don't want to take away from the regular draft discussion. Here's my idea. The draft thead is so scattered with opinions that it's difficult to get an idea what the consensus is among posters of who they think the Wolves should draft. Here, we can vote one by one based on draft position who the wolves should take. We'll start with the first pick. Once a player gets ten votes, we'll mark that player down as the wolves first choice, and go on to the next possible choice. Try to keep track and keep the format consistent. It should get more interesting once we get to the third pick and so on...

I'll get it started. (put the number of votes in the parenthesis)

PICK 1: Beasley (1)

kandiking · Post #2 » by **kandiking** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 9:11 pm

pick 1 beasley
pick 2 rose?

Krapinsky · Post #3 » by **Krapinsky** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 9:13 pm

Pck 2 not just yet Kandyman. try this:

Pick 1: Beasley (2)

mandurugo · Post #4 » by **mandurugo** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 9:28 pm

Pick 1: Beasley (3)

Frozen316 · Post #5 » by **Frozen316** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 9:28 pm

Pick 1: Beasley (4)

mayorhoiberg · Post #6 » by **mayorhoiberg** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 9:31 pm

Pick 1: Rose (1)

Post #7 » by **C.lupus** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 9:35 pm

Pick 1: Beasley (5)

Good thread Dr. K

deeney0 · Post #8 » by **deeney0** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 9:41 pm

Pick 1: Beasley (6)

Krapinsky · Post #9 » by **Krapinsky** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 9:43 pm

Nice. Just to keep better track, let's try this:

PICK 1: Beasley (6); Rose (1)

and so on...

MN Die Hard · Post #10 » by **MN Die Hard** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 9:49 pm

Is it too much of an assumption to call Beasley #1 and Rose #2, and start at #3?

Krapinsky · Post #11 » by **Krapinsky** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 9:53 pm

MN Die Hard wrote:Is it too much of an assumption to call Beasley #1 and Rose #2, and start at #3?

That's a good point. I would like to see how close it is though, i.e. 10 Beasley to 1 Rose , or 10-5.

Rose would probably be a unanimous #2, so we could maybe jump to three.

PeeDee · Post #12 » by **PeeDee** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 10:09 pm

(1) Beasley

collin_k41 · Post #13 » by **collin_k41** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 10:16 pm

Beasley ( 8 ) ; Rose (1)

B Calrissian · Post #14 » by **B Calrissian** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 10:23 pm

Beasley (9) - Rose (1)

4ho5ive · Post #15 » by **4ho5ive** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 10:32 pm

Pick 1:Beasley (10)-Rose (1)
Pick 2: Rose (1)

Blue Wolf · Post #16 » by **Blue Wolf** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 10:34 pm

Pick 1:Beasley (10)-Rose (1)
Pick 2: Rose (2)

Krapinsky · Post #17 » by **Krapinsky** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 10:37 pm

Nice. I think we should just take Diehard's reccomendation, assume Rose will be unanimous here, and move to pick three now, unless anyone objects.

1: Beasley
2: Rose
3: Lopez (1)

B Calrissian · Post #18 » by **B Calrissian** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 10:49 pm

1- Beasley
2- Rose
3- Jordan (1) Lopez (1)

Krapinsky · Post #19 » by **Krapinsky** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 10:56 pm

B Calrissian wrote:1- Beasley (11) Rose (1)
2- Rose (4)
3- Jordan (1) Lopez (1)

Correction, Beasley only has 10 for 1st. Let's just cap the voting on Pick 1 and 2 and concentrate on three. Only keep track of the current voting total for the pick we're voting on. I'll provide the stats at the end. For now though it looks like this:

1. Beasley (10); Rose (1)
2. Rose (10) [assumed]
3. Lopez (1); Jordan (1)

B Calrissian · Post #20 » by **B Calrissian** » Fri Mar 7, 2008 11:00 pm

How does Beasley only have 10? Both 4ho and blue wolf wrote 10. And what if others want to pick Rose as number one.. Shouldn't we keep track until everyone can vote?

*Also wouldn't Beasley have a vote for the 2nd pick since one person picked Rose for the 1st pick?