Bigger need: wing defense or legitimate C? Who do we draft?

[azuresou1]

Which is a bigger need?

The two are somewhat tied to each other - with better wing defense we'd get fewer forays into the paint, and Josh or Al wouldn't need to help as much, allowing us to be in a better position to rebound or box out. With a legitimate C, we would get the rebounding and big body we need inside, while allowing Josh or Al to gamble more. I think C is a bigger need - but I will take the BPA from these two categories.

My prospect list of C's:
Solomon Alabi - dubious we'll get him, but my favorite option
Dexter Pittman - not sure we'll get him either, but he reminds me of Kendrick Perkins with less anger and more offense
Artsiom Parakhouski - hard to project, but I think he could be a Nick Collison type of player, a solid utility bigman
Jerome Jordan - reminds me of DeAndre Jordan, whom I really like
Garret Siler - invite him back to training camp and see if he got any better in China

My prospect list of wings:
Quincy Pondexter - Gerald Wallace 2.0, but I don't think he'll fall to us
James Anderson - great size and athleticism, gives defensive effort, shoots great
Eliot Williams - quick, speedy defender with great athleticism
Devin Ebanks - not really a wing, but I'm sold on him - he's kind of like Marvin, and if we could have drafted Marvin in the 25th pick range, we would be ecstatic as hell
Jeremy Lin - probably a second round pick realistically, but he's played great, and God knows Atlanta could use more fans, even if it's just because he's an Asian-American on an NBA team

Also, free Teague! He plays mostly solid defense with a few rookie mistakes scattered in, but I would say that he already defends better than Bibby, Craw, and Mario.

[raleigh]

I was looking at ORtg the other day, and Anderson was near the top. That's a tremendous sign of his ability to make an immediate impact IMHO.

I would prefer a wing unless Alabi falls. Pittman has certainly improved and I will keep an eye on him. Parakhouski doesn't strike me as the defender the Hawks need. I don't think Jordan or Siler are that talented.

[azuresou1]

IMO Anderson is one of the biggest sleepers in the draft. He's projected to go 25-30th-ish, and I think he has the potential to be a solid second/amazing third option type player.

[killbuckner]

Once again I will state my disdain for drafting for need when you have a pick in the 20's. Does anyone seriously want to say that this team is now better off because the Hawks drafted a need in Jeff teague rather than Dejuan Blair? Take the best person on the board when your pick comes- as long as you get a useful player then the rest of it will work itself out.

[raleigh]

Once again I will state my disdain for drafting for need when you have a pick in the 20's.

Hence my preference for wings.

Blair is a terrible analogy, though. The reason teams passed on him wasn't his talent.

[azuresou1]

DeJuan Blair fell to the second round because of his injury concerns - otherwise he would have gone Top 15-ish.

I will draft for the BPA as long as it's not another 6'9-6'10 forward. Is that fair enough? He's not going to get any PT to develop or to showcase his talent for a trade, and we would be better off trading the pick away.

[killbuckner]

mrhonline- I was more talking about the discussion on the board leading up to the draft where there were huge arguments about whether to take Blair because that wouldn't be drafting for need. I'm sure there are people here who still wouldn't want Blair on the roster.

The Hawks medical team has better information to me about his knees than I do- but people here were in massive arguments about the same drafting for need issue that always comes up. And I simply think its looking at the problem wrong when you start from the point of asking where do we need to draft. If you have a need then you can't count on a player taken in the 20's to fill it.

[killbuckner]

I will draft for the BPA as long as it's not another 6'9-6'10 forward. Is that fair enough?

To me no- I literally don't at all believe in worrying about what you have on the roster when you are drafting at that point in the draft. If the best player is a quality backup PF then you take them, be grateful you locked in a great backup big at a small salary and celebrate. Thinking like this is how the Hawks ended up with Acie Law over Thaddeus Young.

[azuresou1]

Acie Law was the 11th pick, not the 25th-30th pick. There's a world of difference between the talent levels there, just like there's a huge difference between the 11th pick and the Top 3-5 picks. Also, Acie did great in college and had the 'it' factor.

It's not like BPA doesn't have massive flaws too. We drafted Marvin over CP3 and Deron because he was 'the best player available,' even though we had a gaping hole at PG.

This doesn't even take into account that if we draft another 6'9 forward, they are quite literally going to get no playing time in likely 60 something games, because Marvin himself is only averaging 29 MPG, and they're not going to cut into his minutes even further for a backup who's not as good.

[killbuckner]

I actually don't believe in drafting for need outside the top 10- If you have ever looked at how many busts end up in the 10-15 range I think you will see why. Acie law was a terrible pick even though he filled a need. Incidentally he was an even worse pick because he was at a position of need and the Hawks delayed in filling that need because they didn't want to block him.

I Also don't believe in it for the top 3 picks. There you need to make sure you get the best player here. The problem wasn't drafting the best player available with Marvin Williams- it was completely bypassing the best players available even though they did play a position of need.

If in the 5 to 10 range if you want to focus more on need then I don't have as much of a problem with it. But for the most part I don't think you ever screw up by getting the best player.

If you draft a guy who can help a team then the minutes will work themselves out. There normally isn't a problem finding minutes for a guy who can play- the problem is getting enough minutes for the guys who can't help a team.

[raleigh]

If you have a need then you can't count on a player taken in the 20's to fill it.

I would prefer to trade the pick, so you're preaching to the choir.

[azuresou1]

My personal preference is that you draft based on upside that fills a need later on in the draft. If you looked at my prospect lists, I think you'll find that I didn't list any players that can't contribute both now and later.

[killbuckner]

But you are starting your lists by asking where the hawks have the biggest need which is the fundamental mistake I think people make over and over.

[raleigh]

But you are starting your lists by asking where the hawks have the biggest need which is the fundamental mistake I think people make over and over.

Only if you assume that there is a wide discrepancy of talent/upside between players available late in the first round. I'm not sure that has been the case since HSers were no longer allowed to declare.

[azuresou1]

I'm of the opinion that late in the draft, other than project players, injury risks, and complete steals (e.g. a Manu or a Gilbert), the talent level is roughly the same.

[killbuckner]

And I think thats ridiculous to think that all players at that point are pretty much the same. Lawson fell further than he should have. To me the Suns would have still been better off taking Lawson than Earl Clark even though the Suns already have Steve Nash. The Bulls would ahve been better off taking Lawson than James Johnson even though they already have Rose. Every draft there are guys that fall farther than they should because teams pass on them when they don't think the guy fills a need. But team needs change all the time- to me you just need to focus on getting guys who can help a team win and don't worry about the details of what you already have.

[BAMABIRD]

We need a center in the worst way, or atleast someone that can hit the boards. The Hawks are getting killed on the glass when they play teams that have true big men.

[killbuckner]

Here's a link to the draft thread from last year (started in April) for those that are interested in how the discussion played out last time. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=896686

Its sort of intersting to see how our preconceptions about players ended up shaking out over the course of the process.

[azuresou1]

I would have taken Blair at 19 if I was GM, particularly because I went to school in Pittsburgh and I actually met him (so a slight homerism factor), but I can see why we didn't take him - because big men with injury risks are... well... risky. I do not mind that we picked up Teague. But like I said, talent was not the reason Blair slipped from being Top 15 to the second round.

Furthermore, everyone I listed has not just upside and production other than Jeremy Lin (who probably has no upside other than from a marketing/fanbase perspective, and who we can probably nab in the second round anyways), but also fulfills a need.

A crude analogy is fantasy basketball. You're in round 10, out of a 13 round draft (we'll say at the beginning of the season, before we know what we do now). You already have a very good team that is lacking, oh, 3PTers. Now, if your choice is between Marc Gasol and... Mario Chalmers, you obviously take Marc Gasol, because he is a significantly better player. Now, on the other hand, if your choice is between Channing Frye and Marc Gasol, you take Channing Frye, because they're roughly comparable (fantasy-wise), but Frye would fill a team need.

If, say, Xavier Henry slips all the way to us, then we obviously take him. Since I am highly dubious this is going to happen, we might as well take the best combination of talent, upside, and need possible. That's all I'm saying.

[evildallas]

I believe in drafting for value and fit with a plan. Last year I wasn't restricted to PG, but I suspected that a PG would provide the best value because of depth at that position in the talent pool. It's hard to judge Teague right now vs other picks because I'm not sure any of those picks would have gotten consistent PT under Woodson. But I don't think the plan was for Teague to be a key cog in this years team. At that point in the draft I think we selected based on talent upside knowing that he still had a lot of development to go, but with hope and faith that down the line he could be a viable starter. Also I don't believe we passed on Blair because we had to get a PG, it was a health issue and they were scared away because of it.

To the original questions: I think we need length and better rebounding. A defensive wing is nice conceptually, but the reality is it wouldn't work. First you have to assess whether the player gets on the floor to make an impact. If you get your primary scoring from your wings then adding a defensive wing backup then the impact is mitigated because your primary scorer is on the court more often and definitely at crunch time. One way you improve your wing defense by upgrading your interior shot blocking presence to allow your existing wings to defend more aggressively and play the ball tighter because they aren't as worried about getting beat off the dribble.

Having said this I don't really tie the what we need most to who do we draft though. In the mid-20's and second round you are either grabbing a niche talent, rolling the dice on a risk, or trying to develop a steal. In all 3 of those cases it does relate to our biggest need.

Niche talent - does something very well (shoot, rebound, block shots), but lacks the overall game to be a full-time cog. If they had the whole package they would have went higher. Maybe they work on their game to be a full timer down the line, but for now they are just a piece and must be combined selectively with other for a chance to succeed.

A risk - could be a full time player (like Blair), but a risk like health or other red mark dropped them from where they would have gone solely on talent. It's hard to count on these players to fill a big need because they have an associated risk that might make them unavailable. For instance San Antonio has been very happy with Dejuan Blair, but if they had penciled him in to be their starting PF in the off-season it would have been insanely risky. That would be like signing Randolph Morris and saying that we're set at back up C. You better have more planned that just that.

Trying to develop a steal - this is a player who you know isn't ready now (if they were they would have gone higher), but you see that they possess the raw ability to someday be a full time player. You are trying to buy a future starter cheap knowing you have to invest more training and development in them, but you see a chance to get a starter down the line. Think of Rondo as a perfect example. He had the physical skills and work ethic, but didn't have the shooting (still doesn't). Would have been horrible to make expect him to solve a need year 1, but now he's playing the best on a team loaded with big name players after a few more years of hard work. Hopefully Teague fits this category down the road. He wasn't drafted to fill a role year 1, but hopefully he develops into a guard worthy of starters minutes down the line.


I do worry that the Hawks don't speed enough on scouting. I believe if they did they might have drafted Roddy Beaubois instead of Teague because of his unique skills and upside (as fast, but with longer arms to possibly be a better defender down the line). Also I think if they scouted more they would have been really keen to land an early 2nd round pick because of the tremendous values available there (Blair, Brockman, Jerebko, Thornton). They stood pat and the choices were more lean. The only guy picked after the Hawks 2nd rounder to make an impact was AJ Price.