Hicks123 wrote:And can we dismiss Emmanuel Mudiay from our conversation? I know we just resigned Rubio, but I am still not convinced he is our future. I am not going to even talk about skill level as this debate has been worn out over the years, but simply from an injury level, he is obviously a HUGE risk. Some will argue that none of his injuries are the same, thus he is not "injury prone", but I disagree. Some guys can stay on the court over the course of a career, and some can not. Assuming Rubio comes back within the next couple weeks, he will have missed 100 games over 3 1/2 seasons. This is certainly not a solid trend, and is extremely discouraging.
Physically, Mudiay plays a Westbrook style game. We have all seen what a game changing, physical, scoring PG can do to influence a game. Westbrook is as big a game changer on many nights as we see in the NBA. I honestly don't know anything about this guy other than seeing his physical makeup and stats from China.....but I wouldn't pass him over JUST BECAUSE we have Rubio.
As most of you know, I'm the first guy to call someone injury prone. But in Ricky's case I don't see that yet. Until this most recent injury, he had never had a sprained ankle before. Tell me how many NBA players can say that. And he hasn't missed any games that I can remember with the knee since coming back a couple years ago. I just don't see anything chronic with him yet. Let's hope he's had a couple of unfortunate accidents that won't hamper him going forward.
Camden wrote:Except Cousins was way more versatile than Okafor, which was why he was scary coming out. Cousins could win on the block, from the perimeter and in face-up situations. That talent was always a sure thing whereas his mentality was not.
Okafor is shooting 12% better from the field than even Cousins did his freshmen season. Okafor's efficiency is trumping Cousins and Towns' versatility. I would rather have the guy who is going to wear you down in the post at a highly efficient level than expect a big to learn to score from so many different areas. I seriously doubt Towns will have a midrange game and post game both above average. Centers don't need a mid-range game anyway. Pek has been doing just fine without one. It is more important that they be able to pass out of the high post which is something Okafor is already working on in college. I think Okafor has already learned the hardest thing for big men to learn which is a versatile and efficient post game. Getting a 15 ft jump shot would be icing on the cake for a Center which he could still learn but doesn't necessarily need. He's also physically bigger than most C's in the league already at 270 pounds. Most C's don't carry around that kind of weight anymore so I don't imagine him getting pushed around that easily. I think his biggest thing will be conditioning out of the gate, but the benefit of his playing time at Duke is we know he could at least play 30 MPG's out of the gate. The last thing I'll note is that the NBA game is going to benefit Okafor the same as Towns because he now has space to work with in the post with the defense not constantly collapsing on him instantly because they can't just leave the 3 pt line open all game. Getting the ball into the post is a much easier feat in the pros than in college because the spacing provides more angles and room to get the ball to him down low. I don't think he'll shot 67% in the pro's, but even if that number drops to 60% that would still be highly efficient for a big in the pros.
I love that this draft is mostly about bigs and that there are real debates that can be had about them. I think we could go either way with a number of these prospects and have them fit nicely in what we do. What is undoubted is that we do need some size back in our lineup.
I think this draft is Okafor and projects for bigs.
I don't see Towns as an better of a prospect then Vonlesh. Vonlesh actually had a better freshman year on a team that needed him and other teams were focusing on.
thedoper wrote:I love that this draft is mostly about bigs and that there are real debates that can be had about them. I think we could go either way with a number of these prospects and have them fit nicely in what we do. What is undoubted is that we do need some size back in our lineup.
We need size upfront, a backup PG, a starting PF, more ball-handlers, better defenders, and better outside shooting. A team that is as bad as us has multiple needs, none of which can all be solved with a single draft. Now we can debate which of these weaknesses are the most acute, which ones get solved through the internal growth of our own players, and which ones are better addressed via the draft vs. trades vs. free agency, but my opinion is there isn't a single prospect in the top 5 or 6 that someone couldn't make a case for addressing one of our many weaknesses.
"A team that is as bad as us has multiple needs, none of which can all be solved with a single draft."
Maybe not, but the return of injured players + further growth from current young players + minimal additions/subtractions in the off-season could/would be huge. A team as bad as this one is without three starters and a scoring punch off the bench. We never got to see what this team could have been (story of the last half decade).
thedoper wrote:I love that this draft is mostly about bigs and that there are real debates that can be had about them. I think we could go either way with a number of these prospects and have them fit nicely in what we do. What is undoubted is that we do need some size back in our lineup.
We need size upfront, a backup PG, a starting PF, more ball-handlers, better defenders, and better outside shooting. A team that is as bad as us has multiple needs, none of which can all be solved with a single draft. Now we can debate which of these weaknesses are the most acute, which ones get solved through the internal growth of our own players, and which ones are better addressed via the draft vs. trades vs. free agency, but my opinion is there isn't a single prospect in the top 5 or 6 that someone couldn't make a case for addressing one of our many weaknesses.
I agree our needs go beyond bigs, but there are some talented bigs that would be hard to pass up where we are drafting in my mind. Plus scoring a talented big can affect many of the points on your list. I am happy that it seems there is a move back to valuing size again with the influx of talented big men in the league. If we are staying in the West you are going to need talented bigs if we are going to compete for the next 10 years.
thedoper wrote:I love that this draft is mostly about bigs and that there are real debates that can be had about them. I think we could go either way with a number of these prospects and have them fit nicely in what we do. What is undoubted is that we do need some size back in our lineup.
We need size upfront, a backup PG, a starting PF, more ball-handlers, better defenders, and better outside shooting. A team that is as bad as us has multiple needs, none of which can all be solved with a single draft. Now we can debate which of these weaknesses are the most acute, which ones get solved through the internal growth of our own players, and which ones are better addressed via the draft vs. trades vs. free agency, but my opinion is there isn't a single prospect in the top 5 or 6 that someone couldn't make a case for addressing one of our many weaknesses.
I agree our needs go beyond bigs, but there are some talented bigs that would be hard to pass up where we are drafting in my mind. Plus scoring a talented big can affect many of the points on your list. I am happy that it seems there is a move back to valuing size again with the influx of talented big men in the league. If we are staying in the West you are going to need talented bigs if we are going to compete for the next 10 years.
I agree, I just wouldn't want us to pass on someone who we might think is more talented. But yeah, all else being equal, you take a big. And given the injury history of bigs, it seems like you can never have enough of them.
Camden wrote:"A team that is as bad as us has multiple needs, none of which can all be solved with a single draft."
Maybe not, but the return of injured players + further growth from current young players + minimal additions/subtractions in the off-season could/would be huge. A team as bad as this one is without three starters and a scoring punch off the bench. We never got to see what this team could have been (story of the last half decade).
Yeah, it would be nice to have some freakin' stability for once. I'm pretty sure with everyone healthy and some time to build chemistry, they could generate some serious offense. Probably not as potent as the Clppers or Golden State, but may be borderline top 10. The question is whether Flip and his staff can ever get this team to defend. Rubio will help, but I'm not sure how much good Pek and Martin can do.
