The OFFICIAL rookie impressions thread pt.III

[Malapropism]

I didn't make up anything. He's mediocre at best efficiency wise, and that's what I said. You can use Kevin Durant as a sample of a rookie who was inefficient, but he's not 19 like Durant was, and he's not a physical specimen like that. Apples=/=oranges

Well it's a good thing ROY isn't based on who's the youngest player in the league, or who can jump the highest....I guess?

[NO-KG-AI]

Uh, I never said Chris absolutely wouldn't be moved. I said he'd never demand out and sulk like other guys. Don't put words in my mouth, to make Shem look better lol.

And nah, I've ignored it long enough. It seems that everyone is ok to put their two cents in, unless we like someone better than Lillard.

[NO-KG-AI]

Has anyone here actually disputed that Lillard should be ROY? It seems like a few of you are arguing something that no one has even disputed.

[Malapropism]

Uh, I never said Chris absolutely wouldn't be moved. I said he'd never demand out and sulk like other guys. Don't put words in my mouth, to make Shem look better lol.

It's too bad the search function doesn't work. Would find some pretty interesting results.

[whatchaknow]

I didn't make up anything. He's mediocre at best efficiency wise, and that's what I said. You can use Kevin Durant as a sample of a rookie who was inefficient, but he's not 19 like Durant was, and he's not a physical specimen like that. Apples=/=oranges

Well it's a good thing ROY isn't based on who's the youngest player in the league, or who can jump the highest....I guess?

Yup and gms get fired for falling in love with young guys and athleticism, while ignoring fundamentals and bbiq. Lucky for blazer fans lillard has great tools (speed, athleticism, strength, shooting, passing,etc) while already posting solid numbers and will only get better.

[Malapropism]

Has anyone here actually disputed that Lillard should be ROY? It seems like a few of you are arguing something that no one has even disputed.

The initial prompt was you claiming he would struggle to win ROY against any past ROY except Mike Miller. That's the only statement I had an issue with.

[NO-KG-AI]

Fair enough.

[NO-KG-AI]

Uh, I never said Chris absolutely wouldn't be moved. I said he'd never demand out and sulk like other guys. Don't put words in my mouth, to make Shem look better lol.

It's too bad the search function doesn't work. Would find some pretty interesting results.

Well, I found this from november of 2009: Thread was "will he demand a trade?"

Nope, won't happen. Situation isn't as gloom and doom as people want to believe it is, Paul isn't as dissatisfied as people want him to be, and he's not the type to cry his way out like others do when things get down.

He'll play out his contract, and if things are still tumbling, he'll leave.

I was wrong obviously. When Chris told the Hornets "put a contender around me, or I'm not going to resign", the Hornets said "ain't nobody got time fa dat". Cheap asses. And the rich man buyer fell through HARD too.

I know we could never have gotten both, but I'd do dirty things to have CP3 and Davis :/

[Malapropism]

*snip*

Went digging and found these:

Okafor isn't being traded for capspace. Their has been offers to take him, even without Chris Paul.

a 12 mill per year 14/11 center that plays good defense isn't something that is so debilitating that you move a top 3 player to dump it

Paul isn't going anywhere, Hugh Weber couldn't put it any clearer when he squashed all the rumors, sayig that their is "No question" that Paul will remain with the Hornets.

Because if we trade Chris Paul, we obviously want to trade him for other PGs and such. Yea.

People are acting like Chris Paul can leave next week. Even if he wants to build a super team, he's here until 2012.

Get over it, the new owner doesn't want to go bankrupt by trading the only draw, and lose any chance of competing.

And we definitely wouldn't do the Magic deal, because Portland has a bigger hard on for Paul than anyone, and we won't do that **** deal.

Everybody has to eat some crow at one point or another, right?

Oh, also found this:

I'd take Oden over everything the Magic can offer, combined.

That stings, for both of us.

[NO-KG-AI]

Back on topic. The ROY is locked up, I have no desire to discuss it anymore.

I like Lillard to get much more efficient because I think is shooting is much better than his %'s say, and he's a better decision maker than his assist/turnover says. Not a dynamite playmaker ala a Paul, but heady and smart enough to play efficient floor general.

If I had number 1 and two, I'd still take Davis 1, and probably Drummond at 2 for his pure upside... but if I was swayed to take Lillard at 2, I'd be happy with him for a long long time. I'd kill to have had him dropped to Rivers' spot, which was actually my draft wet dream.

He's not huge or a dominant athlete, so it's hard to see him ever cracking the very top tier of players, because he won't be a Steve Nash type of passer, but he's a going to be really good to great.

[NO-KG-AI]

Things changed when we lost what was a "lock" to be the new owner. That guy was going to be second to only Paul Allen in terms of richness of owners. Tom Benson is a very poor consolation prize. Once it was clear he wasn't going to come in, we started selling off everything, and we all knew it was a matter of time before they moved Paul. Before that? Meh, he wasn't demanding out, but he was making it known that he wanted them to spend.

As for Oden, he's still the best C prospect since Shaq. I thought it was foolish to think in this day and age that a guy would just deteriorate so quickly from injuries. He's actually a modern marvel with how incredibly brittle he was, in retrospect. Genetic freak of nature in terms of broken body :/

[Malapropism]

If I had number 1 and two, I'd still take Davis 1, and probably Drummond at 2 for his pure upside... but if I was swayed to take Lillard at 2, I'd be happy with him for a long long time. I'd kill to have had him dropped to Rivers' spot, which was actually my draft wet dream.

Agreed. Drummond should have went second to begin with. I always thought MKG was a poor choice for a franchise that needed to swing for the fences. He'll be solid, but he'll never match Drummond's pure potential.

[NO-KG-AI]

If I had number 1 and two, I'd still take Davis 1, and probably Drummond at 2 for his pure upside... but if I was swayed to take Lillard at 2, I'd be happy with him for a long long time. I'd kill to have had him dropped to Rivers' spot, which was actually my draft wet dream.

Agreed. Drummond should have went second to begin with. I always thought MKG was a poor choice for a franchise that needed to swing for the fences. He'll be solid, but he'll never match Drummond's pure potential.

I've been blowing that horn for a while. Taking "safe" picks never seems good to me, especially when you're already a bottom feeder.

I think MKG still has pretty high upside though. It's just really hard to get over the huge shooting flaw.

[ComboGuardCity]

If I had number 1 and two, I'd still take Davis 1, and probably Drummond at 2 for his pure upside... but if I was swayed to take Lillard at 2, I'd be happy with him for a long long time. I'd kill to have had him dropped to Rivers' spot, which was actually my draft wet dream.

Agreed. Drummond should have went second to begin with. I always thought MKG was a poor choice for a franchise that needed to swing for the fences. He'll be solid, but he'll never match Drummond's pure potential.

But at some point you have to start winning and if you pick a guy like Drummond with a #2 pick after the worst season ever and he looks like he'll be out of the NBA after his second year, it can kill the morale of a franchise. Cho took the safe route by taking MKG and the smart route by passing on "can't miss" Robinson.

[Wizenheimer]

Has anyone here actually disputed that Lillard should be ROY? It seems like a few of you are arguing something that no one has even disputed.

I watched the game and both rookies looked very good to me. At the same time it's pretty obvious they have completely different roles on their teams. Davis does have much higher "efficiency", but then 76% of Davis's shots are assisted while only 32% of Lillard's shots are. It's a lot easier for a player to have high efficiency when others are creating the offensive opportunities for him. Lillard has the responsibility of running Portland's offense most of the time, as well as creating his own offense. Much harder task and a heavier burden then Davis shoulders.

I also noticed that the Hornets were double-teaming Lillard most of the night, while Davis wasn't doubled one time, at least not that I saw. My guess is that is a season long trend. I know it is for Lillard

it's not a coincidence that Lillard's efficiency has jumped quite a bit in the last 8 games or so. Portland has had, for most of the season, two of the crappiest backup PG's in the league. That has forced Lillard to play tons of minutes while allowing defenses to attack him, pressure him, and wear him down...effectively limiting his efficiency. But since the Blazers added Eric Maynor, they've been able to relieve the pressure on Lillard a littl by allowing Maynor to run the offense. In March, Lillard is shooting over 53% FG's, and 42% on 3's. His assists haven't dropped, but his turnovers have. Granted..small sample size, but I've watched the games and it's obvious a little ball-handling help has worked wonders for Lillard

and while you point to his efficiency, it's worth noting that it is as good as or better then a lot of other top-level PG's when they were also rookies:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=lillada01&y1=2013&p2=rosede01&y2=2009&p3=lawsoty01&y3=2010&p4=willide01&y4=2006&p5=rubiori01&y5=2012&p6=westbru01&y6=2009

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=lillada01&y1=2013&p2=rondora01&y2=2007&p3=conlemi01&y3=2008&p4=parketo01&y4=2002&p5=holidjr01&y5=2010&p6=irvinky01&y6=2012

(and if Portland had the 1st pick, they would have taken Davis as well)

[NO-KG-AI]

If I had number 1 and two, I'd still take Davis 1, and probably Drummond at 2 for his pure upside... but if I was swayed to take Lillard at 2, I'd be happy with him for a long long time. I'd kill to have had him dropped to Rivers' spot, which was actually my draft wet dream.

Agreed. Drummond should have went second to begin with. I always thought MKG was a poor choice for a franchise that needed to swing for the fences. He'll be solid, but he'll never match Drummond's pure potential.

But at some point you have to start winning and if you pick a guy like Drummond with a #2 pick after the worst season ever and he looks like he'll be out of the NBA after his second year, it can kill the morale of a franchise. Cho took the safe route by taking MKG and the smart route by passing on "can't miss" Robinson.

True, but doesn't it always seem like Charlotte goes for the "winner" and not for the big upside guy? I guess not always, but it seems like they're just aching for a breakout star, not a solid guy.

[Malapropism]

If I had number 1 and two, I'd still take Davis 1, and probably Drummond at 2 for his pure upside... but if I was swayed to take Lillard at 2, I'd be happy with him for a long long time. I'd kill to have had him dropped to Rivers' spot, which was actually my draft wet dream.

Agreed. Drummond should have went second to begin with. I always thought MKG was a poor choice for a franchise that needed to swing for the fences. He'll be solid, but he'll never match Drummond's pure potential.

I've been blowing that horn for a while. Taking "safe" picks never seems good to me, especially when you're already a bottom feeder.

I think MKG still has pretty high upside though. It's just really hard to get over the huge shooting flaw.

Ehh, to me, MKG always seemed like a lock to become Gerald Wallace....but nothing more. In this modern age, wings that can't shoot have no chance at becoming elite.

[Malapropism]

If I had number 1 and two, I'd still take Davis 1, and probably Drummond at 2 for his pure upside... but if I was swayed to take Lillard at 2, I'd be happy with him for a long long time. I'd kill to have had him dropped to Rivers' spot, which was actually my draft wet dream.

Agreed. Drummond should have went second to begin with. I always thought MKG was a poor choice for a franchise that needed to swing for the fences. He'll be solid, but he'll never match Drummond's pure potential.

But at some point you have to start winning and if you pick a guy like Drummond with a #2 pick after the worst season ever and he looks like he'll be out of the NBA after his second year, it can kill the morale of a franchise. Cho took the safe route by taking MKG and the smart route by passing on "can't miss" Robinson.

Not sure the chance at "killing morale" is an argument to take MKG over Drummond. All you need is that one player to hit superstar status and your franchise is set for at least the next 5 or so years. You'll get more interest from players and more interest from the league. Drummond offers that, MKG doesn't.

I thought the Bobcats understood this too. I mean, they did take Biyombo last year.

[B-easy]

That dion waiters is exciting man. Looking like d-wade when he drives to the rim, the comparison is legit.

[Dupp]

That dion waiters is exciting man. Looking like d-wade when he drives to the rim, the comparison is legit.

Yeah his game is very similar in some ways. When he wants too he can split the double and get to the rim at will. His handles and change of direction is very wade-esk.

Its really great watching him when he attacks the basket. Hes come a long way finishing at the rim too. He was horrible early on but now he often takes the contact and makes the bucket. Never ever gets the and 1 call but that will come hopefully as he gains respect i guess because he gets hit a lot.


And before anyone jumps on my post hes obviously a very poor mans wade but that can still be a very good player.