2012 NBA Draft - Part V

[nate33]

He likes Drummond and Barnes. WizD always puts measurements, particularly standing reach and lane agility, above all else. It doesn't matter if they suck in college, if they're tall and quick, they're future superstars.

[TheKingOfVa360]

[quote="Zonkerbl"]Yeah, basketball is a combination of athletic skill and basketball-specific coordination (as opposed to say, hitting a ball with a bat coordination).

It's good to have apples to apples height and reach and vertical reach measurements. Precisely the reason this thread is so long is we want to know if it's true that Beal is short -- he isn't. We also want to know if his leaping ability can make up for him being a little short -- looks like it can.

It's good to know if someone with a good reputation for defense has good lateral quickness -- that means success at the college level is likely to translate to the pros.

Not particularly interested in Sullinger's lane agility test - that's not his game, although it confirms that he will struggle on defense at the pro level.

This data can answer some specific questions about players for us, the fans. Pro folks already can tell that Beal's leaping ability makes up for any lack of height, and etc.

It almost feels like one guy made an issue of Beal's height and then everyone else decided to join the party. Was Gilbert Arenas the ideal size of a SG? I don't think so. With that being said, Beal > Arenas. I hope the Wizards can get him.

Arenas was a PG and I doubt Beal will ever have an season or two where he averages over 28 ppg. But Beal is the pick, let's stop over thinking. Drummond has a high bust potential and MKG is a bad fit because of his lack of shooting

I agree that the Arenas comp is way off. Beal is not a pg and doesn't have Gil's ability to get to the basket and create his own shot. You don't have Robinson in the equation?[/quote]


I really like T Rob but feel we already have a lot of pf/c talent with Nene, Serph, Booker, and Vesley. We need a young sg or sf bad. Plus if we get Beal then Crawford has to come off the bench which is addition by subtraction. Our biggest weakness is outside shooting and that's Beals biggest strength. It's a perfect match.

[TheKingOfVa360]

there is only one player outside of AD that makes us contender if he is groomed
correctly and its not Beal.
For us to worry to much about what wall thinks when he isn't a difference maker on offense and an inefficient scorer and playmaker is absurd. Wall is not a dominant offensive player and we don't have one.
Our recent acquisition of Nene and his years of training in a winning culture and high basketball IQ is the only trump card we have in terms of transforming any player in this draft into not just an allstar but superstar. Nene is the one asset that the wizards have that nearly no early lotto team has and he completely allow us to evaluate players differently. To repeat, MKG and BEAL, even if they reach the highest possible ceilinig will not make us a deep playoff team and we aren't getting a player in free agency that will make us a contender. Wake up people. If you are aiming to be the philadelphia 76ers or atlanta hawks...then getting "safe" low ceiling guys who are average nba starters is your cup of Tea but most older posters here were disappointed with getting destroyed in round two by the cavaliers at the wizard peak and learned valuable lessons when it comes to team building. Superstar are the only thing that matter in the playoffs and if you built your team incorrectly, you will suffer.

The Wiz never played the Cavs in the 2nd round. We got swept by the Heat. Any Wizard fan should know that

[WizarDynasty]

He likes Drummond and Barnes. WizD always puts measurements, particularly standing reach and lane agility, above all else. It doesn't matter if they suck in college, if they're tall and quick, they're future superstars.

dont forget above average bulk....and if i see high level potential in highschool, i usually can project what they will be even after a mediocre first year of college. so again, 2AD's, 1 HB...and the devastating royce white is all you guys need to remember.

[AWIZZINGBULLET]

Yeah, basketball is a combination of athletic skill and basketball-specific coordination (as opposed to say, hitting a ball with a bat coordination).

It's good to have apples to apples height and reach and vertical reach measurements. Precisely the reason this thread is so long is we want to know if it's true that Beal is short -- he isn't. We also want to know if his leaping ability can make up for him being a little short -- looks like it can.

It's good to know if someone with a good reputation for defense has good lateral quickness -- that means success at the college level is likely to translate to the pros.

Not particularly interested in Sullinger's lane agility test - that's not his game, although it confirms that he will struggle on defense at the pro level.

This data can answer some specific questions about players for us, the fans. Pro folks already can tell that Beal's leaping ability makes up for any lack of height, and etc.

It almost feels like one guy made an issue of Beal's height and then everyone else decided to join the party. Was Gilbert Arenas the ideal size of a SG? I don't think so. With that being said, Beal > Arenas. I hope the Wizards can get him.

Arenas was a PG and I doubt Beal will ever have an season or two where he averages over 28 ppg. But Beal is the pick, let's stop over thinking. Drummond has a high bust potential and MKG is a bad fit because of his lack of shooting

On paper he was a PG. He had no problem scoring on anyone whether it was another PG guarding him or a SG; he was the last really good scorer, who was heavily relied on for points by the WIzards in recent memory that's why I mention Beal, size and Arenas. When I say Beal will prove to be better than Arenas, I mean for the starting unit as a whole not necessaarily points averaged, though I do believe he will show an ability to score as easily though perhaps not in the same manner that Arenas did. Beal will be just as important but will have a bigger impact on the team than Arenas did if he's drafted by Washington.

[Jay81]

He likes Drummond and Barnes. WizD always puts measurements, particularly standing reach and lane agility, above all else. It doesn't matter if they suck in college, if they're tall and quick, they're future superstars.

barnes did not suck in college. He wasnt as great as the hype

[Jay81]

i would trade booker and our 1st next year for a the 5th pick. I heard Sacremento has been offered Noah for the 5th pick and Tyreke Evans

[nate33]

and the devastating royce white is all you guys need to remember.

I'm curious what it is you like so much about Royce White. He doesn't seem to fit your idea of a quality talent. He's not that tall, he has a poor standing reach of 8'-8.5", and he didn't participate in the athleticism drills. All we know is that he is heavy at 261. In general, short, heavy PF's do not succeed. Here is a list of guys drafted in the past decade who weighed more than 255 at the combine while measuring less than 9-0" on standing reach:

Code: Select all

Name              Weight   Reach 
Mike Sweetney     262      8'11.5"
Derrick Caracter  280      8'11.25
Jason Maxiell     258      8'11" 
Joey Dorsey       265      8'11" 
Wayne Simien      256      8'11" 
Dejuan Blair      277      8'10.5"
Brandon Hunter    266      8'9.5"
James Johnson     257      8'9.5"
Paul Millsap      258      8'9.5"
Jared Sullinger   268      8'9.5"
Sean May          259      8'9"   
Royce White       261      8'8.5"
Shelden Williams  258      8'8"   
Craig Smith       259      8'7.5"

Only one of these guys panned out as a starting-caliber player, Millsap.

[dobrojim]

PER has one other fault that damns it for me: the way it values scoring, if a player shoots over 40% then the more shots he takes the higher his PER. Hence it inflates scores for guys who shoot a lot.

WS40 is a better overall compilation of box score stats. Again, however, it doesn't adjust for position, so it's only useful to compare guys at a single spot.

PER is actually worse than that for how it values shooting. I forget the number right now, but a player can improve his PER by shooting more frequently if his percentage is something around 27-28%. Wins Produced is an improvement (when it comes to how it handles efficiency), but goes too far the other way -- a player contributes in WP with his shooting only when he's better than 50%. My system (naturally) gets it right -- the line is about 41-42%. That is to say, a player helps his team (on average) when he shoots better than 41-42% (it fluctuates a bit from year to year, but that's where it is nowadays). I posted the math somewhere on the boards, but my search-fu is not strong. Maybe one of the archivists can dig it up.

shouldn't the ideal system add value to a player's stat for shooting better
than some well considered average and detract for shooting worse? I would
think that a 'well considered' stat might be something like team or league average
FG% (or eFG%/TS% which take FTs produced into account?).

[nate33]

i would trade booker and our 1st next year for a the 5th pick. I heard Sacremento has been offered Noah for the 5th pick and Tyreke Evans

Sacramento should take that and run. Noah would be a nice complement to Cousins, both on the floor and in the locker room.

[dobrojim]

I like this kid. I see no way he ends up in a Wizards uniform, but Terrence Jones looks as if he can play SF and not be bad at all. He's quicker than I thought. I believe he could be better in the NBA than he was in college because he's pretty good on both sides of the court.

Pretty impressive workout video, but I know that looks can be deceiving.




In the NCAA highlight video (below) Terrence Jones shows that he can hit the open midrange shot and he can at least advance the ball up the court with his dribble. At 3:00 and at 3:50 Jones shows he's got some serious ups with the ability to finish in traffic. He is a very impressive finisher and a power dunker on a par with


He reminds me of a bigger, young Antawn Jamison on offense. Jones will score well in the NBA. Defensively, he should be pretty solid against 3s or 4s.

Watching the finals he won me over. He will find a place in the league. Very solid guy. I would take him on my team. Smooth stroke. If he can play the 3 there would be room for him on the Wiz. He has kind of a shorter Boshness to him.

+1 on Jones, he won me over during the NCAA's as-well, love his versatility. A more physical AJ is a good comparison.

I was troubled by what I perceived to be a lack of touch on his shot,
both from the perimeter and in close.

Were my eyes lying to me?

I do think he has a chance to be a solid player but he's not going to get picked
anywhere where it appears we're likely to be picking.

[nate33]

i would trade booker and our 1st next year for a the 5th pick.

Who would you take?

It would be interesting if Charlotte took MKG at #2. We could then grab Robinson at #3 and we'd still get a shooter, Beal or Barnes at #5. There's a good chance it would be Beal given the rumors of how much Cleveland likes Barnes.

Then go ahead and overpay for Batum since he'd have a 4 year contract that would be up just when the rookie draftees need to be resigned. We would roll with:

PG Wall/Mack
SG Beal/Crawford/Denmon
SF Batum/Singleton/Crowder
PF Robinson/Vesely/J.Singleton
C Nene/Seraphin

It might take a year for everyone to gel, but that's a very good starting lineup with average or better starters at every position. If Wall pans out to be an elite superstar, they could win a title.

[jivelikenice]

Did Sacramento offer that or did the Bulls? I'd be surprised if the Bulls were already willing to part with Noah.

[dobrojim]

We seem to be running out of things to talk about, so I have a project to suggest that would solve the problem.

I think we should petition the NBA to add a 3d round to the draft. No, seriously -- think of how much speculation we could do here if there were another round! Think about what could define a good round 3 prospect. All those guys who dominated at podunk colleges. Guys with a standing reach (any standing reach).

We could even have a 3d kind of guard -- after all, why stop at 2? I think the new category should be the "pointless guard" -- though, come to think of it, that may not really be a new category. Don't we already have one of those?

What do you say? Can I get some support for this idea?

It would make more sense if the NBA was more like MLB with a roster
that was 1.5 - 2.0 times the current NBA roster size and a more pure
affiliation between D-league and parent teams.

[Jay81]

i would trade booker and our 1st next year for a the 5th pick.

Who would you take?

It would be interesting if Charlotte took MKG at #2. We could then grab Robinson at #3 and we'd still get a shooter, Beal or Barnes at #5. There's a good chance it would be Beal given the rumors of how much Cleveland likes Barnes.

Then go ahead and overpay for Batum since he'd have a 4 year contract that would be up just when the rookie draftees need to be resigned. We would roll with:

PG Wall/Mack
SG Beal/Crawford/Denmon
SF Batum/Singleton/Crowder
PF Robinson/Vesely/J.Singleton
C Nene/Seraphin

It might take a year for everyone to gel, but that's a very good starting lineup with average or better starters at every position. If Wall pans out to be an elite superstar, they could win a title.

I would actually take Beal at 3 so Cleveland dosent get him at 4 and no way they would take Robinson. So Beal at 3...Robinson at 5.

It sounds like Sacramento is willing to move the 5th overall pick...but what is the cost? Booker and our 1st next year probably wont get it done right?

[REDardWIZskin]

Assuming we take Robinson at 3, Is there any player in the lottery this yr that you would trade Booker plus a 1st next yr for? Im not ready to part ways with Book but that seems to be the thought process of the the board, so I'm curious what type of SG on another team you want in return or SG in the draft you'd want.

[AWIZZINGBULLET]

i would trade booker and our 1st next year for a the 5th pick.

Who would you take?

It would be interesting if Charlotte took MKG at #2. We could then grab Robinson at #3 and we'd still get a shooter, Beal or Barnes at #5. There's a good chance it would be Beal given the rumors of how much Cleveland likes Barnes.

Then go ahead and overpay for Batum since he'd have a 4 year contract that would be up just when the rookie draftees need to be resigned. We would roll with:

PG Wall/Mack
SG Beal/Crawford/Denmon
SF Batum/Singleton/Crowder
PF Robinson/Vesely/J.Singleton
C Nene/Seraphin

It might take a year for everyone to gel, but that's a very good starting lineup with average or better starters at every position. If Wall pans out to be an elite superstar, they could win a title.

I would actually take Beal at 3 so Cleveland dosent get him at 4 and no way they would take Robinson. So Beal at 3...Robinson at 5.

It sounds like Sacramento is willing to move the 5th overall pick...but what is the cost? Booker and our 1st next year probably wont get it done right?

Throw in this year's first 2nd rd pick or both.

[nate33]

I would actually take Beal at 3 so Cleveland dosent get him at 4 and no way they would take Robinson. So Beal at 3...Robinson at 5.

It sounds like Sacramento is willing to move the 5th overall pick...but what is the cost? Booker and our 1st next year probably wont get it done right?

You're right. The smart move would probably be to go ahead and take Beal at #3.

And yes, I seriously doubt Sacramento trades the #5 for Booker and our next pick. With our draft haul, we'll probably be picking in the mid teens next year. I wouldn't trade a #5 pick for Booker (2 years removed from free agency) and a future pick in the teens.

[Rafael122]

Ford's mock draft 7.0 has us taking Kidd-Gilchrist.

Next 5 out: Quincy Miller, Jared Cunningham, and Doran Lamb to name a couple. I think of those 3, I would take Miller in round 2, assuming we keep our picks. Stash him on the bench, get him healthy and see what happens late in Year 1/Year 2.

[WizarDynasty]

and the devastating royce white is all you guys need to remember.

I'm curious what it is you like so much about Royce White. He doesn't seem to fit your idea of a quality talent. He's not that tall, he has a poor standing reach of 8'-8.5", and he didn't participate in the athleticism drills. All we know is that he is heavy at 261. In general, short, heavy PF's do not succeed. Here is a list of guys drafted in the past decade who weighed more than 255 at the combine while measuring less than 9-0" on standing reach:

Code: Select all

Name              Weight   Reach 
Mike Sweetney     262      8'11.5"
Derrick Caracter  280      8'11.25
Jason Maxiell     258      8'11" 
Joey Dorsey       265      8'11" 
Wayne Simien      256      8'11" 
Dejuan Blair      277      8'10.5"
Brandon Hunter    266      8'9.5"
James Johnson     257      8'9.5"
Paul Millsap      258      8'9.5"
Jared Sullinger   268      8'9.5"
Sean May          259      8'9"   
Royce White       261      8'8.5"
Shelden Williams  258      8'8"   
Craig Smith       259      8'7.5"

Only one of these guys panned out as a starting-caliber player, Millsap.

Yeah royce white is nightmare compared to these guys. All I gotta say is Dwade at 260 and if Leonsis can use his business skills to get a mid first round pick and get White, it will blow away grabbing seraphin at 17. Charles Barkley, Dwade and Gilbert Arenas, Steve Nash combination. Just to imagine him in crunch time in the 4th quarter. I will give it to him with 2 minutes left before i would give the ball to wall. He is a nightmare mismatch and second 1st mid first round pick should be acquired at all cost after 2AD's and HB.