Official 2015 NBA Draft Discussion Thread [ft. TyCobb]

[dockingsched]

I just think its too early in the building process to start passing up what the team thinks is a better player for a player that will theoretically fit better. Randle has not even played any real minutes, he's still a huge question mark. Kilroy earlier posted about how the lakers better know if he can be a star, which no one ever questioned that, but whether it happens or not is yet to be determined.

At this point the roster is flexible, you amass who you think the best players are, see who proves themselves as true cornerstones and move anyone else if necessary to complement. Rosters don't need to be concrete so early on and your opinion of who they can and can't play next to doesn't have to be so absolute either.

[ALL HAIL]

Positions are for all-star game voting.

Is that a David Kahn quote?

I think I saw it on Jaden Smith's Twitter page.

I've been watching more and more of Looney. I like his game Ty.

I think it'd be very silly for the Lakers to draft him though.

Even if he is the best player available, the difference between his game and a guy that fits better next to Randle is not significant enough to risk having both and jeopardizing the development of one or both.

And I'm an old ass man Ty, if you want to "clown" me you're gon' have to be a whole lot more explicit. Hope the audience is amused though.

[dockingsched]

Looney isn't a top 5 pick though, when you start getting into the picks in Looneys range drafting with fit in mind becomes a lot more valuable. My comments which I didn't clarify is more geared towards players in the top 5.

[TyCobb]

What's Looney's range?

[ALL HAIL]

I just think its too early in the building process to start passing up what the team thinks is a better player for a player that will theoretically fit better. Randle has not even played any real minutes, he's still a huge question mark. Kilroy earlier posted about how the lakers better know if he can be a star, which no one ever questioned that, but whether it happens or not is yet to be determined.

At this point the roster is flexible, you amass who you think the best players are, see who proves themselves as true cornerstones and move anyone else if necessary to complement. Rosters don't need to be concrete so early on and your opinion of who they can and can't play next to doesn't have to be so absolute either.

Define what it means to "amass ... the best players"? Isn't that what Kahn thought he was doing? Even if Johnny Flynn and Barea and Ridnour were all balers, it still makes no sense to have a bunch of guys together who don't fit.

It's the same reason that Orlando trade Webber, who as th best player available, for Penny, who was clearly the better fit.

Unless the gap between the "fit" guy is significant from that of the "higher on the draft board" guy, you should go with fit because, at the end of the day, these players have to be developed.

[dockingsched]

I'd peg him at 10-14

[TyCobb]

I have him Top 5, , but then again I'm biased having watched all his games.

[ALL HAIL]

Looney isn't a top 5 pick though, when you start getting into the picks in Looneys range drafting with fit in mind becomes a lot more valuable. My comments which I didn't clarify is more geared towards players in the top 5.

I don't put stock into where others project guys. I'm like Jim Buss in that I've got my own formulas, so if Ty has him top three from everything he's seen, I respect that wholeheartedly.

As far as the media's top five go, I think all of those guys fit. I'm not a big fan of all those guys but they, in no way could impede Randle's development. I'm speaking of Okafor, Towns, Russell, Mudiay, Johnson, the foreign kid, Turner, and Stein by the way.

Anything but a PF, regardless if that PF is the best player available or not. Let's have some common sense people.

[TyCobb]

I also have Melo Trimble #9, but for some reason he's not even on most mocks. 72.4 FT Rate and shoots 87% from the FT line, with 3 point range.

Most of these draft websites weigh HS rankings heavily.

[dockingsched]

I have him Top 5, , but then again I'm biased having watched all his games.

Yeah Ive tried to catch as much as possible from all your updates. I see a lot of the strengths you do and can see how you'd fall in love with his outlook. I'm still leery about what role he'd fit in the NBA.

[dockingsched]

I just think its too early in the building process to start passing up what the team thinks is a better player for a player that will theoretically fit better. Randle has not even played any real minutes, he's still a huge question mark. Kilroy earlier posted about how the lakers better know if he can be a star, which no one ever questioned that, but whether it happens or not is yet to be determined.

At this point the roster is flexible, you amass who you think the best players are, see who proves themselves as true cornerstones and move anyone else if necessary to complement. Rosters don't need to be concrete so early on and your opinion of who they can and can't play next to doesn't have to be so absolute either.

Define what it means to "amass ... the best players"? Isn't that what Kahn thought he was doing? Even if Johnny Flynn and Barea and Ridnour were all balers, it still makes no sense to have a bunch of guys together who don't fit.

It's the same reason that Orlando trade Webber, who as th best player available, for Penny, who was clearly the better fit.

Unless the gap between the "fit" guy is significant from that of the "higher on the draft board" guy, you should go with fit because, at the end of the day, these players have to be developed.

For the magic you're talking about a team with an established stud in shaq who is obviously the cornerstone youre going to build around. The lakers are not in the same situation.

For the wolves you're talking about a team with multiple prospects and big minute veterans all set to play the same postion with relatively the same skill set. It was unique set of repetitive players.

[ALL HAIL]

The point is that the idea of "drafting the best player available" is not an exact science.

If you draft a PG high in the draft one year and you're high on him, you shouldn't draft another PG high in the draft unless the gap between him and the next guy on your board is remarkable.

If the Lakers are high on Randle at PF then they shouldn't draft another one unless the next guy in line is significantly less of a player.

Do I really have to spell all this out? Y'all are too intelligent to be patronized. This seems like common sense.

[dockingsched]

You're the one trying to make everything an exact science, there are exceptions for everything. No one said it's an exact science.

My posts on this topic addressed someone first questioning whether drafting okafor was a good idea since they believed teaming him with randle was a concern on the defensive end.

[ALL HAIL]

You're the one trying to make everything an exact science, there are exceptions for everything. No one said it's an exact science.

Anytime someone utters the phrase, "draft the best player," that's an exact science. There's no wiggle room there doc. If you don't want to be interpreted in that way, qualify your statement. Otherwise, when I read, "draft the best player available," I have to think that's "exactly" what you mean.

[dockingsched]

You're the one trying to make everything an exact science, there are exceptions for everything. No one said it's an exact science.

Anytime someone utters the phrase, "draft the best player," that's an exact science. There's no wiggle room there doc. If you don't want to be interpreted in that way, qualify your statement. Otherwise, when I read, "draft the best player available," I have to think that's "exactly" what you mean.

I made an edit to my last post, my entire point was a direct response to someone talking about concerns over okafor and randle.

[ALL HAIL]

You're the one trying to make everything an exact science, there are exceptions for everything. No one said it's an exact science.

My posts on this topic addressed someone first questioning whether drafting okafor was a good idea since they believed teaming him with randle was a concern on the defensive end.

And you're clearly not reading, because I've explained over and over that my philosophy of drafting for fit has exceptions. My last four or five posts have illustrated when and why you should deviate from my philosophy. As you've stated ... everything has exceptions--you just can't assume that everyone understands that.

[ALL HAIL]

You're the one trying to make everything an exact science, there are exceptions for everything. No one said it's an exact science.

Anytime someone utters the phrase, "draft the best player," that's an exact science. There's no wiggle room there doc. If you don't want to be interpreted in that way, qualify your statement. Otherwise, when I read, "draft the best player available," I have to think that's "exactly" what you mean.

I made an edit to my last post, my entire point was a direct response to someone talking about concerns over okafor and randle.

I hear you. I may have started that when I quoted Lucky about his "I don't pay attention to defense" comment. Okafor and Randle aren't ideal because they're both not really, really long, but, again, if Okafor is rated higher than Towns and the gap between the two is significant, then, by all means, they should draft Okafor.

I haven't made up my mind on that yet. I like both Okafor and Towns, but, regardless of fit, I haven't decided who is the better prospect for me. Clearly, Towns fits better right now because of his shotblocking, but I'm still deciding who is better and by how much.

[TyCobb]

Phil Jackson at the Bobby Portis vs. Kentucky game.

[Pointgod]

I just think its too early in the building process to start passing up what the team thinks is a better player for a player that will theoretically fit better. Randle has not even played any real minutes, he's still a huge question mark. Kilroy earlier posted about how the lakers better know if he can be a star, which no one ever questioned that, but whether it happens or not is yet to be determined.

At this point the roster is flexible, you amass who you think the best players are, see who proves themselves as true cornerstones and move anyone else if necessary to complement. Rosters don't need to be concrete so early on and your opinion of who they can and can't play next to doesn't have to be so absolute either.

Define what it means to "amass ... the best players"? Isn't that what Kahn thought he was doing? Even if Johnny Flynn and Barea and Ridnour were all balers, it still makes no sense to have a bunch of guys together who don't fit.

It's the same reason that Orlando trade Webber, who as th best player available, for Penny, who was clearly the better fit.

Unless the gap between the "fit" guy is significant from that of the "higher on the draft board" guy, you should go with fit because, at the end of the day, these players have to be developed.

I wouldn't try to get anything from Kahn's decision making. The man is a moron plain and simple. Choosing the best player available and the best fit would have been Steph Curry. The reason that I'm all for taking the player with the highest ceiling is that when you're a team starting from scratch you want to amass as much talent as you can. As you take takes form and you create a direction you can move the pieces that don't fit and bring in the pieces that don't. I wouldn't put too much faith in Randle starting, much less having some amazing rookie season. The guy is coming back from a broken leg and he's a rookie at that. We don't know where his conditioning will be or if the Scott wants to bring him along slowly.

[LApwnd]

haha at this rate do we even need to discuss a top 5 draft player anymore? lets just focus on Hou pick lol....freakin idiots.