The What Should We Do With the 5th Pick II: IBJ Edition

[Kanyewest]

I like Flynn a lot, I would say he has very good point guard skills. I agree that he plays bigger than his size although not big enough to guard shooting guards IMO. He certainly was clutch in college (ie that multiple OT game against UConn)

I don't know if he works well with Arenas as compared to Curry. Flynn needs the ball in his hands; although he can create open looks for Gilbert. Curry can play more off the ball and stretch the court with his mere presence.

But Flynn's speed and quickness would create open looks and will look to finish with that 40 inch vertical he has. I wouldn't say Flynn is the quickest for sure, he has some competition with Ty Lawson and Brandon Jennings. His 3 point shot needs some work, his 3 pointer % was relatively low IIRC.

Still, right now I would only consider Flynn if the Wizards traded down in the draft.

[WashWiz54]

I'm really torn on whether what would be most beneficial for our team- a distributing PG or a starting SG. Personally, I think Nick Young is a future starting SG in this league, however I don't know if management feels the same way. He has all the tools to be a top-tier SG in the league and from what we've heard thus far he seems to be using them. However, if this is not the case DeRozan is my SG of choice. We have time to develop him, and when the book is written on this draft class, I do believe he'll be a the best SG to come out.

An immediate impact SG would obviously be James Harden. A lot of the board has love for him so I won't be repetitive but I'd be fine with him as our pick too. Harden has the edge now but DeRozan will be better in three years. Either way both will be top level SG's so I'm happy with either.

Now if we decide to go PG I have a hard time going against Ty Lawson. We'd obviously trade down since at five he'd be a reach but boy is he a player. He is a floor general and more importantly a proven winner which means a whole lot to me. Why he is so far down on draft boards is beyond me because I have him as the best PG in this draft minus maybe Brandon Jennings.

Speaking of Brandon, while his tenure in Europe didn't work too well he still has a lot of skill. His skills may not have worked in Euro ball, but in the NBA he should be just fine. He's really fast and can take it to the hole with ease but understands he is a PG who's job is to distribute. He looks to be a great running mate with Gil if we decide to give him SG minutes.

The dream however is to get Amare using the pick making all this draft talk irrelevant. Maybe buy a later pick and select Lawson? Oh that would be a dream draft for me.

[FreeBalling]

I'm really torn on whether what would be most beneficial for our team- a distributing PG or a starting SG

my 2cents, PG or SG.

We got Stevenson playing SG, how hard could it be to find a replacement, it's not like he's good.

Take the PG.

[barelyawake]

I still say you take Hill. Everyone has their "thing they look for" when judging players. One of my telltale signs for a good offensive player is a good spin move. If you think of the mechanics involved in a spin move (creativity; ball control; knowing where the basket is at all times; etc), you'll understand why I look for that. Wade, for instance, had a great spin move pre-draft. Hill has a good spin in the post -- meaning even if he's out muscled in the post, he has options. Plus, I love his J. The problem with Hill is he alters our timeline. If you take Hill, you need to either get younger (with a rebuilding mind set) or trade some of our youth -- because we have too many "developing" players to make a serious run.

I get that he doesn't have the highest upside, and that some guards will probably turn out better than him. And I still take him. Why? Because I trust him more than Blatche -- although Hill isn't very ideal on our timeline. But, it's easier to get smalls than bigs, and many of the guards in this draft are a crap shoot. If Rubio falls, I suppose I take him if only for trade value. But, I still don't love his step/leap. And I'm willing to accept my lashings if Harden becomes Pierce, and not simply the very good role player I believe him to be. I still say the best option is to trade the pick, trade down or trade for a future pick. But, if I'm picking fifth, I take Hill (and immediately trade Blatche for a defensive vet).

I generally trust Collegehoops. That site generally gets it right. They do CYA and have players ranked too high (that are ranked highly on draft sites). But, in general, they have a decent track record. According to them (the way I read it), Young is the steal of the draft. Here's their rankings:

Four stars (six is best)

Stephen Curry - PG/SG - Davidson
Tyreke Evans - PG/SG - Memphis
James Harden - SG - Arizona State
Jordan Hill - PF - Arizona
Ty Lawson - PG - UNC
BJ Mullens - C - Ohio State
Ricky Rubio - PG - DKV Joventut
Brandon Jennings - PG - Arizona
Hasheem Thabeet - C - UCONN


Three Stars

Chase Budinger - SF - Arizona
Omri Casspi - SF - Macabbi Tel Aviv
Earl Clark - SF - Louisville
Victor Claver - SF - Pamesa Valencia
DeMar DeRozan - SG - USC
Jonny Flynn - PG - Syracuse
Gerald Henderson - SG - Duke
James Johnson - SF - Wake Forest
Eric Maynor - PG - VCU
Patrick Mills - PG - St. Mary's
Jeff Teague - G - Wake Forest
Sam Young - SF - Pittsburgh

[Optms]

I want Harden or Flynn, I dont want no part of Curry, I might be in the minority, but I dont want him on this team. Yeah he is a great shooter and has a good IQ, but I would take Flynn over him.

I still rank him high in terms of PGs in the draft (if thats the position he is).

1. Rubio
2. Flynn
3. Curry

Flynn is only ranked lower because of size but I really hate when guys are knocked because of height. Look at Chris Paul and Allan Iverson even Earl effin Boykins, he was 5'5, so you know little guys can make it.

Flynn has everything you want. He is probably the quickest player in the draft, is a good distributor, good jumper, with improving range and plays bigger than his listed 6'0.

I guess I have this new love for Flynn, I dont know where it came from but I always had Harden as my first choice unless say Rubio fell.

Theres also a trade down scenario where we could probably take Flynn. A backcourt with him and Arenas would be fun to watch IMO.

I actually never quite understood why some of the guys here are so high on Curry. I still believe Washington would be better off taking a 2 guard seeing as how that is kind of a weakness point for the team going into next season with Young still as a question mark. But if they had to make due with a point guard, Curry would be the third I would consider. Behind Ty Lawson and your choice of Flynn. Ty Lawson and Flynn are among the fastest players in this draft and are either going to make great players for Washington. Unlike curry, there is no question whether these guys will play the 1 and play it effectively at the next level. Lawson is a true point guard who uses his body strength real well and showed he can be really effective when he stays healthy. Flynn is just straight fearless who seems to attack the basket. Like Lawson, he is extremely fast. And I think both these guys can make a bigger differences to the team next year just because they are already true point guards who I trust can dish it out to Washington's shooters. I'm not so bought on Curry's passing game or play making skills at all yet.

[Wiz99]

Based on the little work-out footage I've seen of our prospective options at #5, I was most impressed with Evans. My only concern being his odd sling-back release on his jump shot. I mean, he cocks that thing back way behind his ear, but overall his motion looks pretty smooth to me. Plus, he appears to have legit NBA range and decent handles, which makes him an instant upgrade over NY and DS, respectively. As a matter of pure observation, he also seems physically well put-together, whatever that means. He just has a frame that to me says "NBA ready." So, that said, I'm squarely in the Evans camp as of today.

Welcome aboard, Swami. Like you, I've been impressed by Evan's physical presence. I also like his length and ability to get to the rim. But it's his perimeter D that, imo, the Zards need the most. He's also a true combo guard and Gil had some of his best years playing with another combo guard--Hughes.

Assuming they keep the pick, I could live with the Zards selecting Curry or Harden, both of whom appear to be more polished than Tyreke and more likely to contribute right away. I also wouldn't mind them moving down and drafting a Lawson. But, imo, Evans has "future star" written all over him and therefore would be a great pick.

I'm to the point where I'll be happy with Curry, Harden, or Evans; and will be ecstatic if they pick the guy IMO who's going to be great right away, Blair.

Evans or Curry, for sure.

[Wiz99]

Griffin, Harden, Thabeet, and Rubio will all be gone by our pick in some order or another. When this happens, we either need to trade up for one of those guys or trade down 3-10 spots and take the best player left. The 5th pick really has the least value of any in this draft seeing as Evans, Curry, Hill, Jennings all could be there several spots later.

If we aren't moving up and the top 4 stays as it looks, we need to trade out or down from our pick.
I'm really hoping #5 turns into one of Tayshaun Prince, Amare, Hinrich(and another pick), Josh Smith or another player on that level. What I don't want is a lesser, older or more expensive player such as Rip, Redd, Miller. They can be had for much less than #5.

You seem to be overestimating the value of the #5 pick.

[MJG]

Hollinger posted his annual draft rater article, which is an interesting read. Random tidbit from it:

+ Lawson is the highest rated player in the draft. Seriously, he edges out Griffin. Hollinger does make sure to note that that doesn't necessary mean the Lawson should be the top pick, but he does sound pretty sure that he should at least be the top PG.

That's my boy. Hollinger is a genius... this time.

You'll also enjoy this then:

Table One reports what the seven of these lead guards did in college last season (Ricky Rubio and Brandon Jennings didn’t play college basketball). The players are listed in the order provide by Ford in his mock draft. In looking over the list the play of Jonny Flynn and Ty Lawson stand out. Of the guards listed, Flynn was the least productive in college last year. Yet Flynn is considered a possibility for the Sacramento Kings with the fourth pick and certainly a lock for the lottery. Meanwhile, Lawson was easily the most productive point guard last year and only DeJuan Blair and Blake Griffin posted a higher Position Adjusted Win Score per 40 minutes (PAWS40). Lawson, though, is not considered a possibility for the lottery. In sum, the consensus appears to be that Flynn is clearly better than Lawson. But last year in college it wasn’t even close. Lawson was more productive with respect to shooting efficiency, rebounds, steals, turnovers, and assists. Flynn only has advantage with respect to personal fouls.

[Wiz99]

For once, I like ESPN's draft coverage.

Hollinger's stat-based system is intriguing. Basically, it uses the NBA's past to predict its future. He's gathered stats on all the draft picks since 2002, how they've fared since, statistically isolated the qualities that are different between those who did better than their draft position and those that did worse. The system has some misses but also picks sleepers. It picked Boozer as the #2 prospect in 2006, who was actually drafted #26, and became an all star. Other steals: Howard, Granger, Stuckey.

Chad Ford's tier system is based on inside info from talking directly to NBA GMs. He doesn't reveal any one team's secrets, but combines them to create a consensus among NBA thinking today.

What happens if you put Hollinger and Ford's systems side by side? Are there some steals Hollinger has ID'ed that NBA GMs are missing, which the Wiz might take advantage of? I only looked at Hollinger's top 12 prospects. Anything below there and we're not talking top NBA potential.

Four Sleepers
Danny Green: This was the biggest surprise to me. Hollinger's system has him as the 8th best pro potential - the algorithms say a wing who can shoot and defend has pro promise. The NBA execs don't see it. They've got him as a 6th tier talent, which means he won't even get drafted in the 1st round, if at all!

Ty Lawson: Hollinger's system has him as basically tied with Griffin as the player with the most NBA potential. According to Ford's GM consensus, Lawson is a 4th tier talent and won't go higher than 11.

Austin Daye: Apparently the stats algorithms like tall SFs who can shoot and steal. Hollinger has him #4. Like Lawson, Ford's GMs think Daye is a 4th tier talent who will go after the 10th pick.

Nick Calathes: #6 from the stat machine. May not even get drafted this year because of his bonehead move to sign in Greece.

Four Guys Maybe Not as Good as You Thought: Including Harden and Hill

When you compare Hollinger's results to what GMs are telling Ford, these 4 guys look like they may be taken too high. Two of them are of interest to the Wizards, and one may be a flat out bust.

Harden: The stats say he's #10 in pro potential this year, and only the 5th best wing player. The NBA execs have him as a Tier 2 talent, which means he'll go no lower than 4th.

Thabeet: Hollinger shows Thabeet to be the lower talent he really is. 11th best in his system. Still, if someone is hurting for a center, he's still the best in this weak draft for big men. The GMs have him as a 2nd tier talent, going 4th or higher.

Hill: The NBA execs have him in their Tier 3 talent, going 11th or higher. The stats say Hill is a serious bust candidate. Only 4 players had a worse pure point rating in Hollinger's system.

DeRozan: Hollinger's system hates this guy. It ranked him 54th among 90 prospects. Ouch. The GMs have him as a top 10 pick. Woah!

Upshot for the Wiz? The thing NOT to do is look at Hollinger's list and just take the best player available. Draft for need. I personally don't think a pure PG can play alongside Arenasand thrive. So even though Hollinger's system says Lawson is great, I wouldn't draft him. He'll never see enough PT and when he does he won't be able to shine in Gil's shadow. Rather, we need help at the 2 and the 4, and a backup 3 would be a fine addition. So... with that in mind...

DO NOT draft Harden. The numbers say his skill is over-rated by NBA GMs (so does this year's NCAA tourney flop). DO NOT draft Hill. He looks like a bust.

DO draft any of these guys with the #5 if they are still on the board:
Tyreke Evans, Hollinger's #3 prospect, and potentially a very nice wing player.
Austin Daye, Hollinger's #4, and potentially a nice backup to Caron (who seems to miss about 15 games a season every year, so a Prince-like player would be an asset to have)
Stephan Curry, Hollinger's #5, provided we play him at the 2. As a PG, the stats say he won't be quite as good in the NBA.

And Danny Green looks like a flat out steal for the 2nd round, or low 1st if we end up trading down.

[Wiz99]

Thinking a little more on this. What if we combine Ford and Hollinger's systems in another way.

What if we used Hollinger's stats to say who was best at each position, and Ford's system to say who fits the Wizards' needs best? Ford's system (and one used by a number of GMs) is to first rank players into tiers of talent. We'll use Hollinger's rankings for this. The 2nd step in Ford's system is to rank the 5 floor positions by where your team needs the most help. Third, identify the best player at those 5 positions. When your turn comes to draft, you take the best player at the position of greatest need. So let's do this bitch for the Wiz.

TOP TIER TALENT (using Hollinger's ranking)
1(tied in Hollinger's system). Lawson
1. Griffin
2. Rubio [Hollinger has yet to analyze him, but let's slot him here for now]
3. Evans
4. Daye
5. Curry
6. Calathes
7. Blair
8. Green
9. Flynn
10. Harden
11. Thabeet
12. Clark

NOW WE NEED TO RANK THE WIZARDS' POSITION NEEDS

In my book, the Wiz need a 2 guard most, which I think most people here would agree. 2nd worst need is help at the 4. After that, PG because compared to other positions, our backups are weakest at this spot. Then SF in case Caron is hurt (and he does seem to miss 10-15 games per year). Then C, though I feel better about our 2nd tier talent here b/c we have Blatche and McGee.

1. SG
2. PF
3. PG
4. SF
5. C

THEN THIS SHOULD BE THE WIZARDS DRAFT BOARD: Our top choice should be Evans - the best player at the position we need most. I know, you'd change this if Griffin were available. But he won't be...
SG: (1) Tyreke Evans (2) Curry (3) Green (4) Harden
PF: (1) Griffin (2) Blair
PG: (1) Lawson (2) Rubio, (3) Calathes (4) Flynn
SF: (1) Daye (2) Clark
C: (1) Thabeet

IF THE DRAFT GOES THE WAY FORD'S MOCK SAYS IT WILL, THEN...
The Clips will take Griffin, Memphis takes Thabeet, Oklahoma takes Rubio, Sacramento overreaches with Holiday, meaning this is what the Wiz board should look like with the remaining players.
SG: (1) Tyreke Evans (2) Curry (3) Green (4) Harden
PF: (1) Blair
PG: (1) Lawson (2) Calathes (4) Flynn
SF: (1) Daye (2) Clark
C: no top tier talent after Thabeet

Our top choice? Tyreke Evans! Why, because he's the #1 rated guy at our position of greatest need.

This system depends on (a) your ranking of players, and (b) what position you rate as the Wizards' #1 need. Anyone else want to put up their rankings?

[closg00]

I still say you take Hill. Everyone has their "thing they look for" when judging players. One of my telltale signs for a good offensive player is a good spin move. If you think of the mechanics involved in a spin move (creativity; ball control; knowing where the basket is at all times; etc), you'll understand why I look for that. Wade, for instance, had a great spin move pre-draft. Hill has a good spin in the post -- meaning even if he's out muscled in the post, he has options. Plus, I love his J. The problem with Hill is he alters our timeline. If you take Hill, you need to either get younger (with a rebuilding mind set) or trade some of our youth -- because we have too many "developing" players to make a serious run.

I get that he doesn't have the highest upside, and that some guards will probably turn out better than him. And I still take him. Why? Because I trust him more than Blatche -- although Hill isn't very ideal on our timeline. But, it's easier to get smalls than bigs, and many of the guards in this draft are a crap shoot. If Rubio falls, I suppose I take him if only for trade value. But, I still don't love his step/leap. And I'm willing to accept my lashings if Harden becomes Pierce, and not simply the very good role player I believe him to be. I still say the best option is to trade the pick, trade down or trade for a future pick. But, if I'm picking fifth, I take Hill (and immediately trade Blatche for a defensive vet).

I generally trust Collegehoops. That site generally gets it right. They do CYA and have players ranked too high (that are ranked highly on draft sites). But, in general, they have a decent track record. According to them (the way I read it), Young is the steal of the draft. Here's their rankings:

Four stars (six is best)

Stephen Curry - PG/SG - Davidson
Tyreke Evans - PG/SG - Memphis
James Harden - SG - Arizona State
Jordan Hill - PF - Arizona
Ty Lawson - PG - UNC
BJ Mullens - C - Ohio State
Ricky Rubio - PG - DKV Joventut
Brandon Jennings - PG - Arizona
Hasheem Thabeet - C - UCONN


Three Stars

Chase Budinger - SF - Arizona
Omri Casspi - SF - Macabbi Tel Aviv
Earl Clark - SF - Louisville
Victor Claver - SF - Pamesa Valencia
DeMar DeRozan - SG - USC
Jonny Flynn - PG - Syracuse
Gerald Henderson - SG - Duke
James Johnson - SF - Wake Forest
Eric Maynor - PG - VCU
Patrick Mills - PG - St. Mary's
Jeff Teague - G - Wake Forest
Sam Young - SF - Pittsburgh

Barely - Where does Hill fit in our rotation, where?????? how is he going to get ANY minutes?
If we draft him then one of the bigs is getting moved. I'd rather have James Johnson who is also on the list and weighs 25 pounds more than Hill (if that's the type of player Ernie wants)

[Notorious_1]

For once, I like ESPN's draft coverage.

Hollinger's stat-based system is intriguing. Basically, it uses the NBA's past to predict its future. He's gathered stats on all the draft picks since 2002, how they've fared since, statistically isolated the qualities that are different between those who did better than their draft position and those that did worse. The system has some misses but also picks sleepers. It picked Boozer as the #2 prospect in 2006, who was actually drafted #26, and became an all star. Other steals: Howard, Granger, Stuckey.

Chad Ford's tier system is based on inside info from talking directly to NBA GMs. He doesn't reveal any one team's secrets, but combines them to create a consensus among NBA thinking today.

What happens if you put Hollinger and Ford's systems side by side? Are there some steals Hollinger has ID'ed that NBA GMs are missing, which the Wiz might take advantage of? I only looked at Hollinger's top 12 prospects. Anything below there and we're not talking top NBA potential.

Four Sleepers
Danny Green: This was the biggest surprise to me. Hollinger's system has him as the 8th best pro potential - the algorithms say a wing who can shoot and defend has pro promise. The NBA execs don't see it. They've got him as a 6th tier talent, which means he won't even get drafted in the 1st round, if at all!

Ty Lawson: Hollinger's system has him as basically tied with Griffin as the player with the most NBA potential. According to Ford's GM consensus, Lawson is a 4th tier talent and won't go higher than 11.

Austin Daye: Apparently the stats algorithms like tall SFs who can shoot and steal. Hollinger has him #4. Like Lawson, Ford's GMs think Daye is a 4th tier talent who will go after the 10th pick.

Nick Calathes: #6 from the stat machine. May not even get drafted this year because of his bonehead move to sign in Greece.

Four Guys Maybe Not as Good as You Thought: Including Harden and Hill

When you compare Hollinger's results to what GMs are telling Ford, these 4 guys look like they may be taken too high. Two of them are of interest to the Wizards, and one may be a flat out bust.

Harden: The stats say he's #10 in pro potential this year, and only the 5th best wing player. The NBA execs have him as a Tier 2 talent, which means he'll go no lower than 4th.

Thabeet: Hollinger shows Thabeet to be the lower talent he really is. 11th best in his system. Still, if someone is hurting for a center, he's still the best in this weak draft for big men. The GMs have him as a 2nd tier talent, going 4th or higher.

Hill: The NBA execs have him in their Tier 3 talent, going 11th or higher. The stats say Hill is a serious bust candidate. Only 4 players had a worse pure point rating in Hollinger's system.

DeRozan: Hollinger's system hates this guy. It ranked him 54th among 90 prospects. Ouch. The GMs have him as a top 10 pick. Woah!

Upshot for the Wiz? The thing NOT to do is look at Hollinger's list and just take the best player available. Draft for need. I personally don't think a pure PG can play alongside Arenasand thrive. So even though Hollinger's system says Lawson is great, I wouldn't draft him. He'll never see enough PT and when he does he won't be able to shine in Gil's shadow. Rather, we need help at the 2 and the 4, and a backup 3 would be a fine addition. So... with that in mind...

DO NOT draft Harden. The numbers say his skill is over-rated by NBA GMs (so does this year's NCAA tourney flop). DO NOT draft Hill. He looks like a bust.

DO draft any of these guys with the #5 if they are still on the board:
Tyreke Evans, Hollinger's #3 prospect, and potentially a very nice wing player.
Austin Daye, Hollinger's #4, and potentially a nice backup to Caron (who seems to miss about 15 games a season every year, so a Prince-like player would be an asset to have)
Stephan Curry, Hollinger's #5, provided we play him at the 2. As a PG, the stats say he won't be quite as good in the NBA.

And Danny Green looks like a flat out steal for the 2nd round, or low 1st if we end up trading down.

I've liked D. Green as a prospect every since I heard he was declaring. I think he is the perfect starting 2 guard for us. He's an excellent defender and very good three point shooter. He's not like some of the other guards who needs the ball in his hands to be effective. He would be perfect next to Gil. He would spread the floor with his 3pt shot and play good perimeter D. When Stevenson had the good year with us...that's all we wanted him to do...knock down open threes and play good defense. Green would be a better version of Stevenson. I think sometimes what we fail to realize is we don't need an allstar SG. We need a person who knows he role and sticks to it. Someone who doesn't need to dominate the ball since we know Gil will have it most of the time. We have 3 allstars already...we need compliment players...and I feel Danny Green is perfect.

Throw Green in the starting lineup and draft a point guard with the 5th, whether it be Evans, Curry, Flynn, or Lawson...Let that point guard run with the second unit and develop. Then trade James and Thomas for a veteran big man...someone that will do the dirty work..rebound and defense.

Haywood/McGee/Pech
Jamison/Blatche/Songalia
Butler/Mcguire
Green/Young/Stevenson
Arenas/Top Point Guard/Crittenden

I believe our bench is very good..we just haven't had an opportunity to see it with all the injuries lately. Blatche isn't ready to start but is a good, cheap PF off the bench. Young isn't ready to start but he is a perfect 6th man ala Smith in Denver. When he is hot u let him play..when he isn't you play Deshawn who knows his role.

[closg00]

^^^^^^^

I wonder if Ernie & Flip pay attention to any of this^^^^ stuff?

[barelyawake]

Barely - Where does Hill fit in our rotation, where?????? how is he going to get ANY minutes?
If we draft him then one of the bigs is getting moved. I'd rather have James Johnson who is also on the list and weighs 25 pounds more than Hill.

If I were running the team, the "current roster" would change by at least three players. And where would Hill fit? I would have him at back-up PF. And those players in his way, I would trade for a SG.

Then again, as I said, I think Young is the steal of the draft, and think we should trade down to get him. Or deal the pick for a vet. But, if I were picking #5, I'd take Hill -- knowing full well that some guard is going to prove better than him. But, several guards will also prove worse.

[Wiz99]

Notorious, I like the cut of your jib. I definitely think our biggest need is a 2 that can defend the other squad's best perimeter scrorer and shoot the 3 to spread the floor for Gil.

Tyreke Evans could be a great defender, with that 6'11 wingspan he's got. But he's a poor 3 point shooter so far (27%). But he's only 19 and only played one year in college. I might still take him at the 5. Stephen Curry has the opposite. His body is thin (181 lbs) and he'll get posted up. But he does have a killer 3 (40% average over college).

But my dream scenario is we trade down in the first round, using the 5 as bait to help move Jamison to Phoenix for Amare + #14, or Jamison to Utah for Boozer + #20, then take Green with the lower pick. It's a little high for him, but I'm more and more convinced Green would be what we need, and if it lands us a younger, better replacement for Jamison, I am ALL for it.

Green is an even better 3 point shooter than Curry (42% last season to Curry's 38%). He was the 5th best in the nation last year in open catch and shoot situations -- hello! Gil driving to the hoop and kicking out to open Green for a three! Booyaa!!! He's been UNC's defensive specialist for the past 2 years and is known as a lock down defender with good basketball IQ. Sounds like a Bruce Bowen clone to me. So what about his lower than average ability to take people 1 on 1. We have Gil and Caron for that.

PG: Gil
SG: Green / Young [sparkplug off the bench]
SF: Butler / DMac
PF: Amare / McGee
C: Wood / Blatche

[Notorious_1]

Notorious, I like the cut of your jib. I definitely think our biggest need is a 2 that can defend the other squad's best perimeter scrorer and shoot the 3 to spread the floor for Gil.

Tyreke Evans could be a great defender, with that 6'11 wingspan he's got. But he's a poor 3 point shooter so far (27%). But he's only 19 and only played one year in college. I might still take him at the 5. Stephen Curry has the opposite. His body is thin (181 lbs) and he'll get posted up. But he does have a killer 3 (40% average over college).

But my dream scenario is we trade down in the first round, using the 5 as bait to help move Jamison to Phoenix for Amare + #14, or Jamison to Utah for Boozer + #20, then take Green with the lower pick. It's a little high for him, but I'm more and more convinced Green would be what we need, and if it lands us a younger, better replacement for Jamison, I am ALL for it.

Green is an even better 3 point shooter than Curry (42% last season to Curry's 38%). He was the 5th best in the nation last year in open catch and shoot situations -- hello! Gil driving to the hoop and kicking out to open Green for a three! Booyaa!!! He's been UNC's defensive specialist for the past 2 years and is known as a lock down defender with good basketball IQ. Sounds like a Bruce Bowen clone to me. So what about his lower than average ability to take people 1 on 1. We have Gil and Caron for that.
PG: Gil
SG: Green / Young [sparkplug off the bench]
SF: Butler / DMac
PF: Amare / McGee
C: Wood / Blatche

I'm with you totally. If we can parlay Jamison and the #5 into someone like Amare or Boozer then I'm all for it. In your scenario we get the 14th or 20th pick and we take Green with it. What I would love to then do is get someone like D. Collison with the first pick in the 2nd. Another defensive-minded pure point guard to run with the second unit or occasionally play next to Gil. We instantly shore up our perimeter defense and surround the Big 3 with defensive players in each of the key positions:
Haywood
Blatche
McGuire
Green
Collison

That's a nice defensive unit.

Yes, we would hear all over the media how we reached for Green yada, yada, yada...but I think we get great role players to compliment what we already have. We saw how much of a difference M. Chalmers had in Miami, Collison and Green could have the same impact here.

[Brenice]

Does anyone have any knowledge whether Jordan Hill is a true 4 or, him being green and all, is he like Etan, a 5 in a 4 body?

[closg00]

Cast your vote!
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/wizard ... .html#more

[barelyawake]

Does anyone have any knowledge whether Jordan Hill is a true 4 or, him being green and all, is he like Etan, a 5 in a 4 body?

Indeed, very green. He'll be getting a few travel calls I bet. Has great instincts driving, but sometimes shuffles on the footwork. He's not strong enough to body up on PFs. Though he's got a nice spin move and fade away which will help him until his body develops. And he is in no way like Etan. He has a natural stroke from outside. But, yes very raw. Which is why I said we'd have to change our timeline a bit if he's the pick.

[Notorious_1]

Cast your vote!
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/wizard ... .html#more

I voted for Harden even though I think in 3 years Evans will be the best pick for us out of the choices. All he is is missing is a consistent jumper.