Official 2013 Draft Thread - Part VI

[pancakes3]

I've heard some people say Noel's IQ was actually fairly poor. Relying on his athleticism to make up for his poor positioning (ala Mcgee). Can anyone provide insight on this?

I think the encouraging signs are that he:
- Gets steals. His steals are very impressive. He plays passing lanes. He pokes it out mid-dribble. He's very in tune with the flow of a game defensively.
- Gets rebounds. Even if he is relying on athleticism, he's still getting the job done. It's not like he's only gettin g7-8 boards a game. 9.5 rpg in 31 mpg is good, if not great. 7th in the SEC in rebounds despite missing the last month and a half.
- Keeps blocks in bounds. I don't know how much of this is luck and how much by design but he keeps the ball in play for a lot of his blocks. He has highlight blocks that get sent into the stands but for a lot of his blocks, they end up in the hands of his teammates going the other way. I'm very encouraged by the fact that he doesn't pull the "block a shot out of bounds and glower" very often.

When we first got the 3rd pick i felt that Porter was the obvious choice. I haven't seen anything to make me change that opinion. I think most of the board agrees.

I think the big question is what to do if Porter taken before we pick. We seem to be all over the place in that scenario.

I think that'd only be an issue in the nightmare scenario of Noel/Porter both being unavailable. I think that's where the kooky trades come into play. Personally I'd bite the bullet and draft bennett.

[nate33]

While i have been advocating Bennett quite a bit, i will say i have no issue with Porter and he would actually move up over Bennett in the scenario that we trade back up for a project (I.E. Adams). Porter would mitigate a lot of risk with taking a guy like Adams. I just dont see how Adams can Bust.

Serious question for the NBA historians, has there ever been a bigman with his size and athleticism who loves contact and did not succeed(Guys with serious personality disorders/drug problems should not be considered)? This is not a rhetorical question, I am really wondering.

Somebody brought up Meyers Leonard the last time this subject came up. I don't know if I'd categorize Meyers Leonard as "loving contact" though.

Here's a list of guys in the DX database with a standing reach 9'0" or more, a weight of 245 or more, and a lane agility below 12. I also included their standing vertical and draft slot for reference:

Code: Select all

Name              Wght  Span     Reach    NoStpV   Agility  Drafted
Steven Adams      255   7'4.5    9'1.5"   28.5     11.85    ?     
DeMarcus Cousins  292   7'5.75"  9'5"     23.5     11.4     4     
Loren Woods       246   7' 5.5"  9'5"     24.5     11.83    45     
Greg Oden         257   7'4.25"  9'4"     32       11.67    1     
Darko Milicic     250   7'5"     9'3.5"   26.5     11.3     2     
Jason Jennings    249   7' 7"    9'3"     29       11.92    42     
B.J. Mullens      258   7'1.5"   9'3"     28.5     11.1     21     
Chris Richard     252   7'4.5"   9'2.5"   26.5     11.39    41     
Jeremy Tyler      262   7'5"     9'2.5"   28       11.26    50     
Chris Kaman       252   6'11.75" 9'2.5"   23.5     11.33    6     
Derrick Favors    245   7'4"     9'2"     31.5     11.74    3     
Andre Drummond    279   7'6.25"  9'1.5"   31.5     10.83    9     
Enes Kanter       259   7'1.5"   9'1.5"   26       11.3     8     
Robert Archibald  250   6'11.75" 9'1.5"   24       11.34    31     
Nene Hilario      253   7' 4.5"  9'1"     30       10.73    7     
Chris Taft        261   7'1.75"  9'1"     28.5     11.26    42     
Ike Diogu         255   7'3.5"   9'1"     28       11.94    9     
Carlos Boozer     258   7' 2.25" 9' 0.5"  26.5     10.77    34   

In general, it seems like most of the guys who met this criteria while passing the "eye test" sufficiently well to be considered first round picks ended up faring pretty well. Only Darko, Diogu and Mullins busted, and Mullins in particular would never be accused of "loving contact".

The successes are Cousins, Oden, Kaman, Favors, Drummond, Kanter, Nene and Boozer. That said, Adam's standing reach is near the bottom of this list, though his jumping ability bests most of them.

[DANNYLANDOVER]

Additionally, Porter will be an excellent finisher in transition, a knock down 3-point shooter, and a guy who can post up effectively. He has more of an "inside-out" game than Bennett.

Bennett shot way better as a rookie than Porter did, so Porter being a better shooter is arguable.

[DANNYLANDOVER]

While i have been advocating Bennett quite a bit, i will say i have no issue with Porter and he would actually move up over Bennett in the scenario that we trade back up for a project (I.E. Adams). Porter would mitigate a lot of risk with taking a guy like Adams. I just dont see how Adams can Bust.

Serious question for the NBA historians, has there ever been a bigman with his size and athleticism who loves contact and did not succeed(Guys with serious personality disorders/drug problems should not be considered)? This is not a rhetorical question, I am really wondering.

Somebody brought up Meyers Leonard the last time this subject came up. I don't know if I'd categorize Meyers Leonard as "loving contact" though.

Here's a list of guys in the DX database with a standing reach 9'0" or more, a weight of 245 or more, and a lane agility below 12. I also included their standing vertical and draft slot for reference:

Code: Select all

Name              Wght  Span     Reach    NoStpV   Agility  Drafted
Steven Adams      255   7'4.5    9'1.5"   28.5     11.85    ?     
DeMarcus Cousins  292   7'5.75"  9'5"     23.5     11.4     4     
Loren Woods       246   7' 5.5"  9'5"     24.5     11.83    45     
Greg Oden         257   7'4.25"  9'4"     32       11.67    1     
Darko Milicic     250   7'5"     9'3.5"   26.5     11.3     2     
Jason Jennings    249   7' 7"    9'3"     29       11.92    42     
B.J. Mullens      258   7'1.5"   9'3"     28.5     11.1     21     
Chris Richard     252   7'4.5"   9'2.5"   26.5     11.39    41     
Jeremy Tyler      262   7'5"     9'2.5"   28       11.26    50     
Chris Kaman       252   6'11.75" 9'2.5"   23.5     11.33    6     
Derrick Favors    245   7'4"     9'2"     31.5     11.74    3     
Andre Drummond    279   7'6.25"  9'1.5"   31.5     10.83    9     
Enes Kanter       259   7'1.5"   9'1.5"   26       11.3     8     
Robert Archibald  250   6'11.75" 9'1.5"   24       11.34    31     
Nene Hilario      253   7' 4.5"  9'1"     30       10.73    7     
Chris Taft        261   7'1.75"  9'1"     28.5     11.26    42     
Ike Diogu         255   7'3.5"   9'1"     28       11.94    9     
Carlos Boozer     258   7' 2.25" 9' 0.5"  26.5     10.77    34   

In general, it seems like most of the guys who met this criteria while passing the "eye test" sufficiently well to be considered first round picks ended up faring pretty well. Only Darko, Diogu and Mullins busted, and Mullins in particular would never be accused of "loving contact".

The successes are Cousins, Oden, Kaman, Favors, Drummond, Kanter, Nene and Boozer. That said, Adam's standing reach is near the bottom of this list, though his jumping ability bests most of them.

Drummond is quite a physical specimen!

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

This is exactly the reason I prefer Bennett. We aren't the Spurs - we can't expect good picks as far as the eye can see. If we take your reasoning, Porter represents a low risk approach toward long term success, that will be dependent on other equally good decisions over time. That's just not the Wizards. We suck as an organization, and shouldn't be planning a slow march to a title. In football terms, we are far better off throwing the long ball in the hopes of getting a touchdown strike vice running a control offense that picks up 5 yards a play on the way to a score. We will fumble or get intercepted taking that tact.

I just think we should be shooting to find potentially the best player in the draft even if there's a high bust potential, vice settling for a sure bet 6th best player.

I still don't understand how a high IQ do everthing 6-9 SF is playing it safe but an offensively focused and defensively challenged 6-7 PF is going for the win. Otto Porter is a sophomore, but 3 months younger. Otto won Big East POY and carried his team this year. Bennett played in the Mountain West and struggled against conference level comp. What makes Bennett such an ideal proposition when we don't even know if he's got the requisite size of the position?

I think we wrongly speak in generalities a lot of times without even paying attention to the facts.

Porter is my favorite type of prospect. (No, I don't just like undersized PFs). He is a prospect whose game grows and he keeps improving.

Oladipo and Olynyk blew up statistically and they showed refinement in their games. So did Porter. Otto Porter developed range and he greatly improved his passing. Porter turned it over less as his usage greatly increased. More assists, more threes, more scoring, consisting rebounding and steals--with less turnovers. Porter is a high IQ, high-effort player at both ends of the court.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/pla ... ter-1.html

Players with his body type tend to be very durable and they improve as they put on muscle. Porter IMO is going to become a better and better scorer his first 3-5 NBA seasons. He will be a good defender day one.

I've said I think Oladipo will be Rookie of the Year. That said, Porter is a winning player. He's going to be bigger stronger than Prince. Probably better, too.

[Dat2U]

This is exactly the reason I prefer Bennett. We aren't the Spurs - we can't expect good picks as far as the eye can see. If we take your reasoning, Porter represents a low risk approach toward long term success, that will be dependent on other equally good decisions over time. That's just not the Wizards. We suck as an organization, and shouldn't be planning a slow march to a title. In football terms, we are far better off throwing the long ball in the hopes of getting a touchdown strike vice running a control offense that picks up 5 yards a play on the way to a score. We will fumble or get intercepted taking that tact.

I just think we should be shooting to find potentially the best player in the draft even if there's a high bust potential, vice settling for a sure bet 6th best player.

I still don't understand how a high IQ do everthing 6-9 SF is playing it safe but an offensively focused and defensively challenged 6-7 PF is going for the win. Otto Porter is a sophomore, but 3 months younger. Otto won Big East POY and carried his team this year. Bennett played in the Mountain West and struggled against conference level comp. What makes Bennett such an ideal proposition when we don't even know if he's got the requisite size of the position?

I think we wrongly speak in generalities a lot of times without even paying attention to the facts.

I think Bennett is more versatile than Porter. Bennett can play inside-out, Porter is gonna be a jump shooter. Bennett handles better and I have a hunch that he's gonna be drafted to play SF and PF in small-ball lineups, just like Melo and LBJ. Melo and LBJ only play PF because their teams lack depth at PF/C. Offensively, Bennett has better SF/PF skills than Porter...better ball handler, better athlete, and stronger. On defense though, Porter is clearly better.
Obviously, they are two great prospects, but you seem to be biased towards Porter and make it sound like Bennett is a complete dud with no skills to speak of.

Porter operated out of the high post. I think Porter has plenty of versatility. He's not just a spot up shooter. Anyone watching his games should have seen that. He certaintly makes better decisions with the ball in his hands than Bennett does. Bennett is unique in that he's a face up guy at 250 lbs but contrary to opinion his game isn't really much beyond that. The biggest advantage that I see Bennett has is that he's far more comfortable shooting off the dribble and he's got a better first step when slashing. But like many bigs before him, Bennett handles are solid for a big (i.e. two or three straight line dribbles) but let's not make it like he's got deluxe handles and is crossing guys up left and right (I don't know if crossing up McAdoo from UNC counts, lol). I don't know if his offensive game would translate to a 3. It's not like he could come in and post smaller guys. He doesn't have any post game to speak off. He's facing you up, and attacking the rim. Or, he'll get paint touches through pick & rolls or cuts. There's no hook shot, no go-to move, no backing down smaller guys and overpowering them. That's not him. He's face up and blow by or pulling up in your face for jumper.

And I wouldn't be looking for Bennett to be dropping any dimes either. The awareness is night and day. On both ends of the court. Porter is clearly the smarter basketball player and will likely always be. It's a relatively easy decision for me b/w the two.

[go'stags]

Additionally, Porter will be an excellent finisher in transition, a knock down 3-point shooter, and a guy who can post up effectively. He has more of an "inside-out" game than Bennett.

Bennett shot way better as a rookie than Porter did, so Porter being a better shooter is arguable.

At this very moment Porter is younger than Bennett, so this doesn't matter all that much to me. Especially considering Porter was playing in the tough Big East versus the Mountain West.

[gambitx777]

I think Batum is Porter's maximum, not minimum. I see little reason to expect him to be much more than a quality starter, say, 10th best SF in the league. I see no star-caliber talent there. Just... competence.

Funny thing is if Batum played with any fire and intensity he'd be a lot better than the 10th best SF.

And I don't know how Porter's ceiling is only 10th best. LeBron & Melo are no longer SFs for the most part. Durant is clearly the best. You'd have to consider George & Leonard in the top 5, I'd don't know why Porter couldn't be a top 5 SF either. It's not like being a top 5 SF means your an allstar.

It still burns me that we could have had him and that we should have had him.

I think porter can be better than Batum I think he can be a much better tashan price with better offence and better defense.

[nate33]

Here's a list of guys in the DX database with a standing reach 9'0" or more, a weight of 245 or more, and a lane agility below 12. I also included their standing vertical and draft slot for reference:

Code: Select all

Name              Wght  Span     Reach    NoStpV   Agility  Drafted
Steven Adams      255   7'4.5    9'1.5"   28.5     11.85    ?     
DeMarcus Cousins  292   7'5.75"  9'5"     23.5     11.4     4     
Loren Woods       246   7' 5.5"  9'5"     24.5     11.83    45     
Greg Oden         257   7'4.25"  9'4"     32       11.67    1     
Darko Milicic     250   7'5"     9'3.5"   26.5     11.3     2     
Jason Jennings    249   7' 7"    9'3"     29       11.92    42     
B.J. Mullens      258   7'1.5"   9'3"     28.5     11.1     21     
Chris Richard     252   7'4.5"   9'2.5"   26.5     11.39    41     
Jeremy Tyler      262   7'5"     9'2.5"   28       11.26    50     
Chris Kaman       252   6'11.75" 9'2.5"   23.5     11.33    6     
Derrick Favors    245   7'4"     9'2"     31.5     11.74    3     
Andre Drummond    279   7'6.25"  9'1.5"   31.5     10.83    9     
Enes Kanter       259   7'1.5"   9'1.5"   26       11.3     8     
Robert Archibald  250   6'11.75" 9'1.5"   24       11.34    31     
Nene Hilario      253   7' 4.5"  9'1"     30       10.73    7     
Chris Taft        261   7'1.75"  9'1"     28.5     11.26    42     
Ike Diogu         255   7'3.5"   9'1"     28       11.94    9     
Carlos Boozer     258   7' 2.25" 9' 0.5"  26.5     10.77    34   

In general, it seems like most of the guys who met this criteria while passing the "eye test" sufficiently well to be considered first round picks ended up faring pretty well. Only Darko, Diogu and Mullins busted, and Mullins in particular would never be accused of "loving contact".

The successes are Cousins, Oden, Kaman, Favors, Drummond, Kanter, Nene and Boozer. That said, Adam's standing reach is near the bottom of this list, though his jumping ability bests most of them.

I'm going to quote myself here and point out that this is a pretty powerful argument in favor of the Wizardynasty position. Screw the college production (and he was reasonably productive even if he wasn't dominant). All we need to know about Adams' college career is that he's a bruiser who is happy to throw his body around but can do so without fouling out. A guy with his physical traits and his love of contact is going to pan out to be a pretty solid player. Trade the 2014 pick for the Dallas pick and draft him!

And this recent talk of him improving his jumper is just gravy. If he can knock down standstill 15-footers to force defenses to guard him, it'll make him an even better player.

[Dat2U]

Additionally, Porter will be an excellent finisher in transition, a knock down 3-point shooter, and a guy who can post up effectively. He has more of an "inside-out" game than Bennett.

Bennett shot way better as a rookie than Porter did, so Porter being a better shooter is arguable.

But they are the same age basically with Porter being a little younger. So I wouldn't put any limitations on Porter improving his skill if you believe Bennett will improve as well.

[go'stags]

Nate, the most important things for a defensive C prospect who has the requisite physical profile are A) how hard he works and B) How well he understands schemes, offenses, player tendencies, etc, and C) how quickly he can react based on what he sees.

In order to be a high level player you need more than just good size and mobility, you need to be able to lead a defense.

I liked what I saw from Adams when I saw him, but I saw only a couple minutes here and there of Pitt games.

[DANNYLANDOVER]

Additionally, Porter will be an excellent finisher in transition, a knock down 3-point shooter, and a guy who can post up effectively. He has more of an "inside-out" game than Bennett.

Bennett shot way better as a rookie than Porter did, so Porter being a better shooter is arguable.

But they are the same age basically with Porter being a little younger. So I wouldn't put any limitations on Porter improving his skill if you believe Bennett will improve as well.

I agree they'll both improve. I just think it's a wash for both of them.
I like both (Bennett a lil more) and will be fine picking either, but I just don't get the Bennett hate.

[go'stags]

I don't hate Bennett. I just have way to many questions about him, and even is he does reach his upside (whatever that is), I question how much his game will contribute to winning.

Basically, he needs to score like Amare (at least 25 ppg) to really be a key cog on a championship team. His defensive potential is limited, he isn't going to create for others, and he won't be a Kevin Love type rebounder. I'll pass.

[Dat2U]

While i have been advocating Bennett quite a bit, i will say i have no issue with Porter and he would actually move up over Bennett in the scenario that we trade back up for a project (I.E. Adams). Porter would mitigate a lot of risk with taking a guy like Adams. I just dont see how Adams can Bust.

Serious question for the NBA historians, has there ever been a bigman with his size and athleticism who loves contact and did not succeed(Guys with serious personality disorders/drug problems should not be considered)? This is not a rhetorical question, I am really wondering.

Somebody brought up Meyers Leonard the last time this subject came up. I don't know if I'd categorize Meyers Leonard as "loving contact" though.

Here's a list of guys in the DX database with a standing reach 9'0" or more, a weight of 245 or more, and a lane agility below 12. I also included their standing vertical and draft slot for reference:

Code: Select all

Name              Wght  Span     Reach    NoStpV   Agility  Drafted
Steven Adams      255   7'4.5    9'1.5"   28.5     11.85    ?     
DeMarcus Cousins  292   7'5.75"  9'5"     23.5     11.4     4     
Loren Woods       246   7' 5.5"  9'5"     24.5     11.83    45     
Greg Oden         257   7'4.25"  9'4"     32       11.67    1     
Darko Milicic     250   7'5"     9'3.5"   26.5     11.3     2     
Jason Jennings    249   7' 7"    9'3"     29       11.92    42     
B.J. Mullens      258   7'1.5"   9'3"     28.5     11.1     21     
Chris Richard     252   7'4.5"   9'2.5"   26.5     11.39    41     
Jeremy Tyler      262   7'5"     9'2.5"   28       11.26    50     
Chris Kaman       252   6'11.75" 9'2.5"   23.5     11.33    6     
Derrick Favors    245   7'4"     9'2"     31.5     11.74    3     
Andre Drummond    279   7'6.25"  9'1.5"   31.5     10.83    9     
Enes Kanter       259   7'1.5"   9'1.5"   26       11.3     8     
Robert Archibald  250   6'11.75" 9'1.5"   24       11.34    31     
Nene Hilario      253   7' 4.5"  9'1"     30       10.73    7     
Chris Taft        261   7'1.75"  9'1"     28.5     11.26    42     
Ike Diogu         255   7'3.5"   9'1"     28       11.94    9     
Carlos Boozer     258   7' 2.25" 9' 0.5"  26.5     10.77    34   

In general, it seems like most of the guys who met this criteria while passing the "eye test" sufficiently well to be considered first round picks ended up faring pretty well. Only Darko, Diogu and Mullins busted, and Mullins in particular would never be accused of "loving contact".

The successes are Cousins, Oden, Kaman, Favors, Drummond, Kanter, Nene and Boozer. That said, Adam's standing reach is near the bottom of this list, though his jumping ability bests most of them.

This list seems hit or miss to me. Diogu, Taft, Archibald, Tyler, Richard, Mullens, Jennings, Milicic & Woods all stunk as NBA players. Kaman had a decent career I guess but I'm not really excited about finding another Chris Kaman. I don't know what to read or infer from this list. I don't see how this makes Adams a can't miss prospect.

Adams is not someone that really impresses me. He's raw as sushi but he does have some good physical tools. Phyiscally he honestly reminded me of Kris Humphries when I saw him (???). I think he's net negative offensively. I don't buy the 15 footer he was making during the workouts, he couldn't throw in the ocean outside of a layup or dunk at Pitt. He's a 44% FT shooter. His offensive skill level is basically non-existant. I also question whether he's got good hands. He'll never be a guy you can throw it to in the post.

Defensively is where he'll make his mark but he's still so raw. He doesn't seem particularly aware to me. He's a poor defensive rebounder because of this. He often is out of place and has no feel in general.

To be truthful I see a lot of Kwame in Adams. He might last awhile in the NBA as a backup but I don't his physical tools are unique or special enough to overcome the fact that he's rawer than many high school kids.

[nate33]

Nate, the most important things for a defensive C prospect who has the requisite physical profile are A) how hard he works and B) How well he understands schemes, offenses, player tendencies, etc, and C) how quickly he can react based on what he sees.

In order to be a high level player you need more than just good size and mobility, you need to be able to lead a defense.

I liked what I saw from Adams when I saw him, but I saw only a couple minutes here and there of Pitt games.

I agree that basketball IQ is an important issues. From Adams' interviews, it seems that he's a pretty bright guy. He's articulate and fairly witty, at least.

Here's an article on his academics:

Warren also introduced Adams to Kenny McFadden, a former player at Washington State who had settled in New Zealand after his playing career there. McFadden runs a basketball academy in Wellington.

"After his father died, he was running around, not focused on school and had no direction," McFadden said by telephone from New Zealand last week. "At that age, he was getting into a lot of mischief, nothing that was very positive."

McFadden accepted Adams into his basketball academy, and Warren enrolled him in Scots College, a secondary school with high academic standards. The only rule McFadden had for Adams was that he had to attend school every day if he wanted to play basketball.

"He was just missing discipline and an education," McFadden said.

McFadden used to get upset when people in New Zealand said Adams was unintelligent. The school system in Rotorua, where Adams grew up, was rudimentary. The teachers at Scots College informed McFadden that Adams was behind his peers in basic reading and writing skills when he enrolled.

"Steven had to learn how to learn" McFadden said. "We had to establish good habits with him. At first, it was culture shock for him. The school is focused on education. We wanted to get him in an environment where it was school-first. He had to wear a suit and tie every day. He had to shine his shoes. The biggest challenge for us early on was finding size-18 dress shoes for him. But all of that stuff taught him discipline."

Outside influences told Adams that he should turn professional out of high school because they believed he would never be able to qualify for an NCAA school in the United States. But Adams did so well at Scots College that he qualified for Pitt and passed through the NCAA Clearinghouse after graduating in December.

Adams attended Notre Dame Prep in Fitchburg, Mass., for one semester, but that was arranged only so he could acclimate himself to American basketball before enrolling at Pitt in June.

"The kid is one of the brightest kids you'd ever want to meet," McFadden said. "Once he got into a good school and had the opportunity to learn, he ran with it."

Tough to be sure how much of this is fluff and how much of it is sincere. But basically, he had a pretty rough time as a teenager after his dad died but then got himself on track once he had a good father figure and mentor in his life.

[Dat2U]

Bennett shot way better as a rookie than Porter did, so Porter being a better shooter is arguable.

But they are the same age basically with Porter being a little younger. So I wouldn't put any limitations on Porter improving his skill if you believe Bennett will improve as well.

I agree they'll both improve. I just think it's a wash for both of them.
I like both (Bennett a lil more) and will be fine picking either, but I just don't get the Bennett hate.

Saying he's not worth the 3rd pick is not hate, it's honesty. If we were drafting 8th or 9th it might be a different story.

[Nivek]

If both Noel and Porter are gone when the Wizards pick, I'd either pick Oladipo or Zeller, or I'd trade the pick. I think Oladipo is going to be the best player in this draft, but he plays the same position as Beal and doesn't have PG skills. I'm just nutty enough to pick him anyway and tell the coaching staff to come up with some 3-guard sets so Wall, Beal and Oladipo could get plenty of time together. All the while with an eye toward a deal to bring in some frontcourt help.

I'm confident Zeller will be a good pro, but...he has to make the transition to PF. His size and athleticism are more than adequate for PF. He claims to have a good jumper.

[nate33]

This list seems hit or miss to me. Diogu, Taft, Archibald, Tyler, Richard, Mullens, Jennings, Milicic & Woods all stunk as NBA players. Kaman had a decent career I guess but I'm not really excited about finding another Chris Kaman. I don't know what to read or infer from this list. I don't see how this makes Adams a can't miss prospect.

The way I look at it, guys like Taft, Archibald, Tyler, Richard, Jennings and Woods didn't pass the smell test when they were drafted. That's why they were taken in the second round. Maybe they were terrible college players. Maybe they were idiots. Maybe that had obvious character issues. But whatever the case, the obvious warning signs were there and evident to all.

Among guys that actually passed the smell test enough to be first round picks, only Diogu and Darko were busts. I don't remember much about Diogu. Darko just didn't like basketball. (Mullens also busted, but he was allergic to contact even in college. He was drafted as a pure gamble on his physical traits.)

Adams passes the smell test. By all accounts, he's a hard worker and he relishes doing the dirty work that teams need from their bigs. I agree that he is raw as hell, but so was Drummond. The bottom line is that he is a freak athlete. You rarely see his combination of length, strength and agility. That combination usually pans out as long as we're not talking about a knucklehead.

To be truthful I see a lot of Kwame in Adams. He might last awhile in the NBA as a backup but I don't his physical tools are unique or special enough to overcome the fact that he's rawer than many high school kids.

Adams may not have highly coordinated hands, but he differs from Kwame in that he has huge hands. He had the second biggest hands at the combine. He may not be great at catching the ball in traffic, but I don't think he'll have trouble finishing like Kwame did.

[TGW]

If both Noel and Porter are gone when the Wizards pick, I'd either pick Oladipo or Zeller, or I'd trade the pick. I think Oladipo is going to be the best player in this draft, but he plays the same position as Beal and doesn't have PG skills. I'm just nutty enough to pick him anyway and tell the coaching staff to come up with some 3-guard sets so Wall, Beal and Oladipo could get plenty of time together. All the while with an eye toward a deal to bring in some frontcourt help.

I'm confident Zeller will be a good pro, but...he has to make the transition to PF. His size and athleticism are more than adequate for PF. He claims to have a good jumper.

Do the unthinkable and trade Beal? I'm just throwing ideas out there.

[DCsOwn]

For those interested

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/48227

Wizards talk:


dc (dc)

I've seen a few reports suggesting the Wizards might be leaning towards drafting Anthony Bennett over Otto Porter b/c of his greater upside. Two questions, 1) what makes Bennett potentially better than someone like Rodney Rodgers, and 2) is Porter's updside actually that low? He's only 20, big, long, athletic, and can score inside and out. Seems like people are selling the guy short based solely on comps to guys who were doing similar things when they were SENIORS (ie. Battier). Thanks.
Chad Ford (1:09 PM)

I think Porter and Bennett are the two guys they are debating between (though if Noel slipped to 3, he'd be in the mix too). I don't get the impression they are leaning towards Bennett yet. But they do really like him. As far as upsides go, I do think people are underestimating Porter because he wasn't hyped out of high school and plays a more understated game. I think he's got a very bright future and would have no problems with the Cavs taking him No. 1.



Gabe (Milwaukee)

Better prospect out of college...Beal or McLemore?
Chad Ford (1:42 PM)

Beal.