JasonIsDaMan wrote:I am going to keep this strictly to production, because style is in the eye of the beholder.
Yes, the front office should know better. I go back to Wally. He was drafted in that spot because he had the size and spot-up shot to play immediately, and did. He needed to improve defensively and off-the-dribble, and maybe even in the post. Never happened.
Other than that, it was fairly easy to predict what would happen.
One of the reasons I don't contribute much to "draft threads" is that nowadays I see so few of these guys I really can't form an educated opinion. But back when I would watch lots of college and/or amateur ball, I could tell who was going to get it done and who wasn't with great regularity. And equally important, I could figure out who would continue to be an off-the-court screwup as a pro and who would turn it around.
You may not completely agree with my position, but what is the alternative? Team X reaches for Player Y, so now that guy has to outperform his capabilities. I am sure a lot of current/former Wolves employees appreciate the effort, but it's not really how it works.
That's the point of the thread.
It's great that you are so adept at identifying talent and fuck ups. Kudos. I haven't tracked my own success ratios for awhile, but I do know who I like to watch play basketball and who I don't... and that's the premise behind the thread.
kurrdog53 wrote:Peeler had glimpses of really helping the team, but in truth, all he did was jack 3s to a less than desirable percentage.
Peeler earned some goodwill in that playoff series vs. Seattle.
He was probably the Wolves best performer during that series.
16 ppg
8 reb
4 ast
2 stl
48% on threes.
He just couldn't quite sustain it. Not a bad player... but a consistently inconsistent one. I can see why he'd make a most hated list and wouldn't be THAT surprised if people remembered him fondly. He was around long enough for all of his greatest flaws to be exposed for all of us.
kurrdog53 wrote:Peeler had glimpses of really helping the team, but in truth, all he did was jack 3s to a less than desirable percentage.
Peeler earned some goodwill in that playoff series vs. Seattle.
He was probably the Wolves best performer during that series.
16 ppg
8 reb
4 ast
2 stl
48% on threes.
He just couldn't quite sustain it. Not a bad player... but a consistently inconsistent one. I can see why he'd make a most hated list and wouldn't be THAT surprised if people remembered him fondly. He was around long enough for all of his greatest flaws to be exposed for all of us.
Peeler was probably the original Luke Ridnour whipping boy award guy. He was a fringe starter that was relied on for more than he could consistantly deliver. It's funny how people say in this thread they were annoyed with him taking 3's considering right now we scream for guys to jack them up. Lol he was streaky and looking back at his percentages he sucked hitting 2 point shots which sounds about right.
