2012 NBA Draft

[Ruzious]

9:00 tonight is Sullinger vs Illin's big talented 7 footer Meyers Leonard.

[fishercob]

In the precious little I'm seen of Drummond, it seems that his instinct is not to take advantage of his tremendous size. Not drawing any definitive conclusions therefrom, but I hope to see that improve very soon.

[Dat2U]

9:00 tonight is Sullinger vs Illin's big talented 7 footer Meyers Leonard.

Sullinger showing some nice range on the J thus far. But the Leonard kid definitely has size & ability.

A must watch on ESPN.

[queridiculo]

There's just something that bothers me about Sullinger's activity level. I see a lot of standing around, knees not bent, plodding around instead of making decisive moves.

[Halcyon]

I'm not a big college basketball fan, in fact I'd hardly call myself a fan at all.

Can someone explain to me why Anthony Davis is the consensus #1 pick? I've watched some highlights that are up on YouTube of various games and came away thoroughly unimpressed.

He doesn't appear to have any offensive game at all and, unless he fills out quite a bit, he looks virtually identical to McGee to me. Clearly an uninformed opinion, I admin, but can someone fill me in? Most of the top 2 guard picks look substantially better to me, and while Drummond appears to be a big risk (if he comes out) he at least appears to have the size I'd want.

Davis is extremely skilled for a bigman his size, due to his late growth spurt. He is pretty low usage right now due to the fact that his team is full of talented, ball-dominant players. Additionally, he seems to have very good defensive instincts, with 10.6 boards per game, 4.6 blocks per game, 1.4 steals per game but more impressive to me is the 2.3 fouls per game with those defensive numbers.

And oh yeah, he's a freshman. I think he has huge upside but still has a low bust rate, due to his overall bball IQ.

[Severn Hoos]

I think Jared reads this board, and all the comments about how he's no Kevin Love because he can't shoot the 3 have inspired him....

[queridiculo]

Every team takes crazy pills with the draft approaching. They'll fall in love with measurables and I wouldn't be surprised to see Sullinger drafted 5-10.

[Hoopalotta]

Keeping in mind that assorted prognosticators suggest that scoring differential is a better determinant of the final record than midseason records, it's rather shocking that, despite our nigh eye-watering slumery, there's actually four teams with worse points differentials than us as of now. The woebegone wastrels: Charlotte, Sacramento, Detroit & Neo-Joisey.

None else appears poised to waft of such base vapors, but it would seem this might be more of a dogfight to achieve the inverse of excellence than had been earlier assumed.

[nate33]

We've had a very easy schedule though. Have we had any back-to-back games against a team with rest?

[dangermouse]

I'm not a big college basketball fan, in fact I'd hardly call myself a fan at all.

Can someone explain to me why Anthony Davis is the consensus #1 pick? I've watched some highlights that are up on YouTube of various games and came away thoroughly unimpressed.

He doesn't appear to have any offensive game at all and, unless he fills out quite a bit, he looks virtually identical to McGee to me. Clearly an uninformed opinion, I admin, but can someone fill me in? Most of the top 2 guard picks look substantially better to me, and while Drummond appears to be a big risk (if he comes out) he at least appears to have the size I'd want.

Davis is extremely skilled for a bigman his size, due to his late growth spurt. He is pretty low usage right now due to the fact that his team is full of talented, ball-dominant players. Additionally, he seems to have very good defensive instincts, with 10.6 boards per game, 4.6 blocks per game, 1.4 steals per game but more impressive to me is the 2.3 fouls per game with those defensive numbers.

And oh yeah, he's a freshman. I think he has huge upside but still has a low bust rate, due to his overall bball IQ.

This is why i wouldnt pass on him. Dude has multi-year DPOY written all over him.

A Davis/McGee front line would terrify opposing coaches. McGee/Davis/Singleton/Young/Wall. Not much scoring, but just try and score on them.....

[Ruzious]

9:00 tonight is Sullinger vs Illin's big talented 7 footer Meyers Leonard.

Sullinger showing some nice range on the J thus far. But the Leonard kid definitely has size & ability.

A must watch on ESPN.

What a fun game to watch that was. Brandon Paul - known to be an extremely inefficient shooter - took 15 FG attempts... and scored 43 points. Not only that, he was everywhere on defense - and came up with a huge block when he doubled down on Sullinger late in the game. Seriously, that was one of the greatest individual games I've Ever seen in college basketball. I don't know if he's a prospect cuz of his inefficiency and being just 6'4, but he plays like he's 6'7 - very long and athletic. Even at his size, he can be an above average defender in the NBA, imo. It was fun to watch his parents watch him - they looked like they were hesitant to get too excited, but when he kept making big play after big play - they couldn't help themselves.

Leonard is definitely a top 10 pick when he comes out - the question is - when is he coming out. Technically, he's got everything - 7'1 250, very good athlete, very good mobility, good fundamentals at both ends, very nice shooting touch, smart kid - from watching him being interviewed. I'm just not quite sure about his mental toughness - he looks a little too satisfied with himself sometimes - but there just aren't many players with his combo of size, talent, and skill in the universe.

One unknown player I'd keep an eye on for Illin is Bertrand - the 6'5 wiry swingman - they were playing him at forward, but that's just because they have more guards than forwards. He'd done hardly anything until the last 6 games, and he's still not a high usage player, but he's shooting over 60% - a crafty under-utilized scorer.

[fishercob]

What last night's Wizards game underscores is that our team's top need is a primary scorer -- and an efficient, high volume one at that.

We also have 3 guys at the 3 and 4 positions -- Singleton, Booker and Vesely -- who know how to play. They all have their limitations for sure. None of them is guaranteed to be longterm "answers" at their positions or starter-quality guys on championship teams. But they know how to play; and that separates them from the majority of our roster and a great many guys who have come through this organization over the past decade.

How do these two facts mesh with this upcoming draft? I mean, you obviously take Anthony Davis if you can get him and work out the rest later. But Sullinger? Henson? Barnes? MKG? It would be great if MKG were a Pierce type that was a primary 3 but could give you credible minutes at SG. I dont know his game enough though.

Lots of questions.

[fishercob]

Beal finally got it going last night. 17 points on just 8 shots -- 4-6 from 3 and 5-6 from the line, plus ten rebounds, 2 steals, a block and a single turnover in 33 minutes. I hope that shot keeps falling; his rebounding seems instructive of next level success.

PJ3 finally showed up in a big game too. 17 points on on 8-12 shooting and 8 boards. Just two trips to the line, no 3's and 5 TO's though. I continue to think he's not a fit here.

[Ruzious]

Yeah, as fun as last night's game v Tor was - it was against a 20 win team last year that did nothing to improve - and didn't sign their 1st round pick. Vesely's probably not going to get 5 steals a game and make all of his FG attempts. The young 3 - Vesely, Singleton, and Booker are most likely never going to be scorers. They'll all have roles, but they are limited players.

[pancakes3]

limited in what sense?

i'll agree that those 3 are limited in the sense that they're not bonafide stars but imho there's ample starting potential in all 3 there as long as there's a scorer in the lineup somewhere - especially singleton.

[fishercob]

None of them are creators, mainly. They are certainly not first options on offense -- probably not second. They all have the potential to be really good role players. But we need an offensive star.

[Severn Hoos]

What last night's Wizards game underscores is that our team's top need is a primary scorer -- and an efficient, high volume one at that.

We also have 3 guys at the 3 and 4 positions -- Singleton, Booker and Vesely -- who know how to play. They all have their limitations for sure. None of them is guaranteed to be longterm "answers" at their positions or starter-quality guys on championship teams. But they know how to play; and that separates them from the majority of our roster and a great many guys who have come through this organization over the past decade.

How do these two facts mesh with this upcoming draft? I mean, you obviously take Anthony Davis if you can get him and work out the rest later. But Sullinger? Henson? Barnes? MKG? It would be great if MKG were a Pierce type that was a primary 3 but could give you credible minutes at SG. I dont know his game enough though.

Lots of questions.

Definitely agree, fish, especially with the bolded part. And that's why I have been less inclined to consider Henson as the pick, since he's definitely not a high volume, primary scorer (though he could be a high-efficiency scorer).

Obviously, I'm a big Sullinger fan, so would be happy to add him, even though he plays the same position as the 3 guys you mentioned. Return of small-ball?

From what I've seen of MKG, he really is a SF - again, playing the same position as the other 3. So we're in the age-old debate of Need vs. BPA. And while it's always dangerous to draft for need, it is sometimes reasonable to not draft a player because you already have someone at his position. (Before anyone says it, yes I do realize this is the exact scenario that cause Portland to pass on MJ. That was less about needing a C than it was about already having a star on the wing - Drexler. Like I said, sometimes.)

So MKG - could he play SG? If so, he'd be ideal, especially if (there's the dreaded "if" again) he works on that 3-point shot. Unfortunately, I do think he's a pure SF.

Barnes at SG? Maybe, and in theory he is better at the desperate need we have of someone - anyone - who can actually shoot. In the end, though, is he really even an upgrade over Young? Higher BBIQ, to be sure, but Barnes isn't really an all-around guy either. And he sure looks like a SF to me as well.

I think you should add Jeremy Lamb to the list. 64% TS, 61% eFG - looks like high efficiency to me. And making nearly three 3-pointers per game on 41% shooting is a good sign for a high-volume guy. Could be a nice consolation prize if the anti-tank crew actually starts winning games.

Finally, I would definitely look to move up into the late 1st, using our two 2nd rounders (could both be in the 30s, if Dallas really falls off) and other sweetener if necessary, to draft the other Lamb, Doron. At 47% from three, he could be a lower usage, high efficiency guy to bring off the bench.

Is it Draft Day yet?

[pancakes3]

jeremy lamb and bradley beal are the sg prospects of note and both are projected borderline top 10 picks. i don't think we can trade up that high without making some major concessions, like offering booker and/or future picks.

dealing only the spare parts and 2nd round picks, i think we have to set our sights lower like drafting austin rivers or the kentucky lamb.

(i really have a bad feeling about harrison barnes. he's going to be productive but not earthshattering. marvin williams-esque)

[WallTown02]

The more I think about our team going forward and this draft, the more I think we need to acquire another top 10 pick. However, as stated in previous threads, this is not going to be likely as everyone knows this is such a strong draft.

What would people think about the following scenario?

We luck out and get a top 2 pick. Another team pulls a cleveland and lands two top 8 picks. Would you consider trading the top pick for two top 8 picks in this draft?

Most people agree that Davis/Drummond are the top two prospects. However, are the next 6 prospects close enough in potential that they'd be worth taking over one great prospect? Davis is more appealing as he'll likely be a great two way player. However, would one of Lamb/Kidd-Gilchrist/Barnes and one of Sullinger/Robinson/Henson be better?

I guess it depends on exactly how high the picks are because i'd really only want Sullinger mixed with Lamb or Kidd-Gilchrist. Thoughts?

[Ruzious]

limited in what sense?

i'll agree that those 3 are limited in the sense that they're not bonafide stars but imho there's ample starting potential in all 3 there as long as there's a scorer in the lineup somewhere - especially singleton.

Limited on offense - nothing important.