Official #2 Pick Thread - Ford #7: Parker

[emunney]

Still like the Szczerbiak comparisons for McBuckets.

*That is if everything works out for him, think his floor is like a white Jared Dudley, that being because you can't compare him to non Caucasian players..

The Wally comp is good. Doug is just so skilled at moving off the ball to set himself up and he's got his nifty mid post game and J to take advantage of. Its hard to imagine him not being a double digits-mid/low teens scorer. Not terribly concerned about his defense either, he knows where to be and is fundamentally sound, he's not gonna lock anyone up but there are worse defenders in the league right now.

Weezy, it's also disingenuous to talk down mcdermotts play because "seniors are supposed to dominate". Fact is Doug dominated his soph and junior year as well and had a frosh year that was pretty damn impressive in its own right. It's not like Doug just started succeeding on the court because he was a mature senior whooping up on underclassmen.

34 steals and 14 blocks in 4 years goes a long way in suggesting that he doesn't know where to be on D. I think it's pretty clear that his defensive anticipation is otherworldly awful.

You're wrong. He just always stays home.

[breakchains]

http://journaltimes.com/sports/basketba ... 963f4.html

Jabari Parker doesn’t have any qualms about playing in Milwaukee for the Bucks.

So says two people who are quite close to him: his father Sonny and former Duke University teammate Rodney Hood.

Jabari Parker is a consensus top-three prospect for the June 26 NBA draft and there is a strong possibility he could be chosen by the Bucks, who have the second overall selection.

“Jabari just wants to play ball; He won’t have any issues about playing in Milwaukee, not at all,’’ said Hood, a projected lottery pick himself. “And, if he went to Milwaukee, it would only be a short distance away from his home, which would be good. He’d be fine with that.’’

“It would be nice if he went there (to Milwaukee),’’ Sonny said. “It’s a straight drive (on highway 94) to Milwaukee; I wouldn’t have to get on a plane.

“Milwaukee is a nice town. It’s not as big as Chicago, of course, but it’s similar to Chicago in that it’s on the lakefront. It’s a nice community.’’

Said Hood: “He’s committed to being a great player. He wants to be a great player.’’

Sonny Parker said his son is driven to excel and has seriously studied the pro game for years, Sonny said Jabari has become almost obsessed with watching the classic games on NBA TV and YouTube, trying to glean knowledge from the game’s legendary players.

Sonny said Jabari was particularly interested in players who exhibited an all-around game.

“Jabari is a throw-back; he watches old-school basketball games all the time,’’ Sonny Parker said. “He’s watched Bob Cousy and Earl Monroe and Jerry West and Pete Maravich.

“And he likes Oscar Robertson; he likes Magic Johnson, he likes those types of players. Larry Bird is another one. He likes well-rounded players, the guys who can shoot, rebound and pass. He likes their versatility.’’

[Zeezprah]

Randle is going to be very, very good in the NBA. He doesn't even have his man strength yet. He definitely inspires more confidence in me than a guy like Vonleh who appears to be a plodder from the couple of games I've seen him play. Vonleh looks like Udoh to me...with a little more range. I'm scared of him.

i don't see it at all either. nothing wow'd be anytime i saw him in college. add to the fact his shot is kind of broke atm? no thanks.

another guy who shot up the boards due to size.

maybe i'll be wrong on him, but i'm certainly glad we're not gonna be the ones picking him.

He didn't get the touches that he should have had, but with the touches he did get, he was flat out better than Randle. Better touch inside, actually had touch outside, just as good a rebounder, and a far better defender.

And unless you're talking about Randle, I'm not sure how you can say his shot is broken. Vonleh's shooting is one of the main reasons that he's been in the conversation with Randle all year. You could argue that his sample size was too small, since he only attempted one 3 per game, but the guy shot 48.5% from outside and again, he was also a better scorer than Randle inside.

he tweaked his shot and apparently it's flat as hell and looks like garbage.

just not a fan. nothing wows me there. i just see a mediocre big with good measurables.

sorry, just how i see it.

[Bernman]

Does that mean u think Wiggins will be the type of busts Yi, Alexander and to an extent Jennings were/is?

Yes and no. I like him more than them, but they were also considerably lower picks. There is a difference between 6/8/10 and 2. The standard is much higher for this pick. So the disappointment would equate to about the same as the aforementioned past ones.

I think about Wiggins around what I thought of Henson before that draft, only with some more boom and bust potential. But like I thought about Henson, I think the most likely scenario for Wiggins by a good margin is high-level role player to low-level core player.

[machu46]

i don't see it at all either. nothing wow'd be anytime i saw him in college. add to the fact his shot is kind of broke atm? no thanks.

another guy who shot up the boards due to size.

maybe i'll be wrong on him, but i'm certainly glad we're not gonna be the ones picking him.

He didn't get the touches that he should have had, but with the touches he did get, he was flat out better than Randle. Better touch inside, actually had touch outside, just as good a rebounder, and a far better defender.

And unless you're talking about Randle, I'm not sure how you can say his shot is broken. Vonleh's shooting is one of the main reasons that he's been in the conversation with Randle all year. You could argue that his sample size was too small, since he only attempted one 3 per game, but the guy shot 48.5% from outside and again, he was also a better scorer than Randle inside.

he tweaked his shot and apparently it's flat as hell and looks like garbage.

just not a fan. nothing wows me there. i just see a mediocre big with good measurables.

sorry, just how i see it.

That's fine. I'm just not sure what you see in Randle then besides tenaciousness on the offensive end. He doesn't really do anything better than Vonleh besides maybe passing, and that's still a weakness for him as well.

[theFireBlanket]

http://journaltimes.com/sports/basketball/bucks-beat-parker-willing-to-play-in-milwaukee/article_1d3ad7a8-ed37-11e3-8bb6-0019bb2963f4.html

Randy84 (I think), already posted the article.

Seemed a foregone conclusion that Parker wouldn't mind being in Milwaukee, considering his personality and hometown being very close. The part about being a student of the game, all-around players and aspiring to be one himself definitely impress me. This was definitely Woelfel's dream article to type with the draft coming up.

I'd be fine with them selecting him if the consensus for the Bucks draft team is that he's the BPA at 2, after having everyone in for workouts and meetings.

[Frank Nova]

Does that mean u think Wiggins will be the type of busts Yi, Alexander and to an extent Jennings were/is?

Yes and no. I like him more than them, but they were also considerably lower picks. There is a difference between 6/8/10 and 2. The standard is much higher for this pick. So the disappointment would equate to about the same as the aforementioned past ones.

I think about Wiggins around what I thought of Henson before that draft, only with some more boom and bust potential. But like I thought about Henson, I think the most likely scenario for Wiggins by a good margin is high-level role player to low-level core player.

Where does Wiggins rank on ur personal board?

[Bernman]

Where does Wiggins rank on ur personal board?

Not bending to public pressures, like 6th, honestly. I put him 4th on the last list in that conventional first tier, but that was just to avoid another argument with ardent Wiggins' backers.

If I'm GM I know someone would feel a lot more comfortable drafting him than me, so starting at 3 I'd trade down at least 1 spot for the extra potential core player in the form of a top 10 pick, future lightly/unprotected pick, or esteemed prospect. And I figure I'd get it, plus Exum/Smart/Gordon.

I think Gordon and Wiggins are similar as prospects in amount of warts and athletic potential, only I think shooting is easier to develop for a prospect than handle, and I trust Gordon's b-ball i.q., desire displayed in games, as well as the awareness he displays in interviews more. I've learned to put more and more emphasis on personality as opposed to length/athleticism these days from watching the superstars in the NBA talk as well as getting burned by Brandan Wright a while back. I figured I was doomed as far as him being a standout NBA player was concerned when after the draft I heard him state he wished he would be half as good as Chris Bosh. I think he was trying to come off as humble, but that's not what you want to hear as a fan or prospective team either. Before that he came off as aloof to me, but I overlooked it. He's went on to be a useful player in the league, but more as like a super-charged role player than a team leader.

[Frank Nova]

Where does Wiggins rank on ur personal board?

Not bending to public pressures, like 6th, honestly. I put him 4th on the last list in that conventional first tier, but that was just to avoid another argument with ardent Wiggins' backers.

If I'm GM I know someone would feel a lot more comfortable drafting him than me, so starting at 3 I'd trade down at least 1 spot for the extra potential core player in the form of a top 10 pick, future lightly/unprotected pick, or esteemed prospect. And I figure I'd get it, plus Exum/Smart/Gordon.

I think Gordon and Wiggins are similar as prospects in amount of warts and athletic potential, only I think shooting is easier to develop for a prospect than handle, and I trust Gordon's b-ball i.q., desire displayed in games, as well as the awareness he displays in interviews more. I've learned to put more and more emphasis on personality as opposed to length/athleticism these days from watching the superstars in the NBA talk as well as getting burned by Brandan Wright a while back. I figured I was doomed as far as him being a standout NBA player was concerned when after the draft I heard him state he wished he would be half as good as Chris Bosh. I think he was trying to come off as humble, but that's not what you want to hear as a fan or prospective team either. Before that he came off as aloof to me, but I overlooked it.

I agree that personality and the way these kids handle themselves is a highly overlooked quality that shouldn't really ever be overlooked in the 1st place. Wiggins is either the silent killer type or passive aggressive type. He doesn't seem to possess the vocal leadership skills ud like to see in ur "franchise guy". That's just my opinion tho. But having said that it wouldn't stray me away from taking him and feeling good about it.

I never saw the production from Gordon I would've liked to have seen from him compared to Wiggins who had a few games that he just completely dominated both ends. IMO, there isn't 1 quality Gordon has that is superior to Wiggins. I like Gordon in the top 8 but I can't help but like Wiggins in the top 3. Yoyo string handle from a swingman is a luxury, not a necessity. Wiggins has the quickness and explosiveness to make his move and attack, just because he doesn't "break ankles" doesn't mean he's gonna look like Manute Bol when he dribbles.

[TroyD92]

Can you imagine if LeBron had a type A personality? Destruction.

[Bucks7rules]

dunno what to choose.

[SpottedBadger]

Where does Wiggins rank on ur personal board?

Not bending to public pressures, like 6th, honestly. I put him 4th on the last list in that conventional first tier, but that was just to avoid another argument with ardent Wiggins' backers.

If I'm GM I know someone would feel a lot more comfortable drafting him than me, so starting at 3 I'd trade down at least 1 spot for the extra potential core player in the form of a top 10 pick, future lightly/unprotected pick, or esteemed prospect. And I figure I'd get it, plus Exum/Smart/Gordon.

I think Gordon and Wiggins are similar as prospects in amount of warts and athletic potential, only I think shooting is easier to develop for a prospect than handle, and I trust Gordon's b-ball i.q., desire displayed in games, as well as the awareness he displays in interviews more. I've learned to put more and more emphasis on personality as opposed to length/athleticism these days from watching the superstars in the NBA talk as well as getting burned by Brandan Wright a while back. I figured I was doomed as far as him being a standout NBA player was concerned when after the draft I heard him state he wished he would be half as good as Chris Bosh. I think he was trying to come off as humble, but that's not what you want to hear as a fan or prospective team either. Before that he came off as aloof to me, but I overlooked it.

I agree that personality and the way these kids handle themselves is a highly overlooked quality that shouldn't really ever be overlooked in the 1st place. Wiggins is either the silent killer type or passive aggressive type. He doesn't seem to possess the vocal leadership skills ud like to see in ur "franchise guy". That's just my opinion tho. But having said that it wouldn't stray me away from taking him and feeling good about it.

I never saw the production from Gordon I would've liked to have seen from him compared to Wiggins who had a few games that he just completely dominated both ends. IMO, there isn't 1 quality Gordon has that is superior to Wiggins. I like Gordon in the top 8 but I can't help but like Wiggins in the top 3. Yoyo string handle from a swingman is a luxury, not a necessity. Wiggins has the quickness and explosiveness to make his move and attack, just because he doesn't "break ankles" doesn't mean he's gonna look like Manute Bol when he dribbles.

That last part is why I think the "risk" associated with drafting Wiggins is being far too overblown.

The best attribute in Wiggins' game is his nuclear first step and that's not going to change. So if he sharpens his dribble in connection to that first step, which is highly likely, then you're dealing with potentially one of the best slashers in the NBA.

[White+Purple]

I've learned to put more and more emphasis on personality as opposed to length/athleticism

Agreed.

[Ill-yasova]

It's amazing how many people on here are absolutely certain they can predict the future careers of 19 year-olds after only seeing one season of them playing basketball.

[TroyD92]

I personally love the one's who know what guys really "want it."

[White+Purple]

Randle won't have to find his niche like McDermott will. Randle will come in from day 1 and be able to bang with NBA bodies. Randle is a traditional PF, he already has a foundation. McDermott is too small to play even a stretch 4 and to slow to play on the wing. He will live and die by how crafty he can be off the ball to get in position to score. Randle should and will be able to utilize his skill set to be forceful in the paint.

Sure, both have defensive limitations but I'm willing to bet Randle has more success guarding bigs and I feel like they'd be equally as bad guarding wings so I still give the advantage to Randle.

Plus I think McDermott is overrated truthfully. Seniors are supposed to dominate college basketball. They are more mature physically and mentally. That's just life in general.

This post doesn't add up. Randle will score in the NBA because he's better physically, but McDermott scored more in the NCAA because he was better physically?
I get what you mean, but don't agree.

[White+Purple]

I think you take Randle over all those guys for the simple reason that if he hits, he could hit really big.

This is why I still have Randle over Saric, Stauskas and McDermott. But the chances of him hitting are pretty small - he'd have to develop his shot, completely reshape his game (including restraint on post entries) and learn to defend at a decent level. That's quite a mountain to climb, when I could trade back four spots and get one of the other three guys, all who are significantly better than Korver IMO.

[Frank Nova]

Randle won't have to find his niche like McDermott will. Randle will come in from day 1 and be able to bang with NBA bodies. Randle is a traditional PF, he already has a foundation. McDermott is too small to play even a stretch 4 and to slow to play on the wing. He will live and die by how crafty he can be off the ball to get in position to score. Randle should and will be able to utilize his skill set to be forceful in the paint.

Sure, both have defensive limitations but I'm willing to bet Randle has more success guarding bigs and I feel like they'd be equally as bad guarding wings so I still give the advantage to Randle.

Plus I think McDermott is overrated truthfully. Seniors are supposed to dominate college basketball. They are more mature physically and mentally. That's just life in general.

This post doesn't add up. Randle will score in the NBA because he's better physically, but McDermott scored more in the NCAA because he was better physically?
I get what you mean, but don't agree.

I never said McDermott was better physically in college at all. I clearly said Randle has a NBA position already and has the body type to play his position whereas McDermott possesses neither of those. And yes, IMO that'll translate to Randle being able to score better in the pros than McDermott even though McDermott was the superior scorer in college. Plus I was talking all around skill set, not just scoring. Which brings me back to why I don't like 1 trick ponys like McDermott in the 1st place. I saw Adam Morrisons, Jimmer Fredettes and even Tyler Hansboroughs run through college hoops at better programs than Creighton just to fall flat on their faces at the next level. I gave McDermott his credit for being a great great college scorer, but that's where it stops for me until proven otherwise. And if McDermott does happen to struggle to score in the pros, please give me 1 other reason to even think he will stick around in the league? .... Go ahead, I'll wait.

And I don't agree that u like the Vikings but we can't all be perfect.

[trwi7]

I personally love the one's who know what guys really "want it."

And what it really is.

[Frank Nova]

I personally love the one's who know what guys really "want it."

And what it really is.

Pretty sure "what it really is" refers to competitive edge.. I want my player(s) to be like the Dave Chapelle that destroys the cancer kid at street hoops on playstation, not the Dave Chapelle that let's him win because he has cancer. Maybe that's a cruel example but I couldn't think of a better and more clearer way to get the point across. (Plus I was just watching that episode )