Yep, it's very clear that there are plenty of good players taken out of the lottery. It seems like right before draft time, all the major sports magazines and newspapers make some reference to relative success of draft picks. While there are some duds at #1, there are considerably more duds at #2 (think Duncan vs Van Horn)... and basically, as you get farther and farther down the line, your mileage willl vary more and more.
Absolutely understood. My point had really nothing to do with specific numbers.I am just stating the theory (of which here is some evidence) that guys who slip usually actually make out well, while when you reach for a guy it doesn't usually work out. Granted there are alot more guys who slip vs the guys who are truly considered reaches, but that can really only further my point in that reaching is not a reliable action to take.
It's all about risk vs reward... + need... + potential vs realized potential...
The argument I have in this equation is the need part. SA didn't need Duncan. They could have used a 2 guard. Portland needed a center and picked Bowie, bypassing MJ. Granted these are only two examples, but when it comes to need in the draft you are filling a need in 2-3 years, not necessarily what you need now.
Using us as an example we could definately use a PG in 2 or 3 years. We could resign Q2 and be ok at the SF spot...IMO we are set at the C, PF, and can in my mind at least have options at the SF spot. Depending on where you place Craw-I place him as a 6th man swingman off the bench-we can use a 2 guard definately and a true PG(Nate may or may not be good, but he is more of a 2 guard in a points body).
They say that Brian Scalabrine has the "winner" brain type (like Jordan, like Bird)... but unforunately, he's stuck in that slow, frankenstein-looking body. In the case of Ricky Davis, they thought he had world class athleticism, but failed in everything else, from basketball IQ, skill level, etc... several teams gave up on him before he emerged as a regular triple-double threat. (He's still considered by many to be a selfish player in spite of the great numbers... and his teams have yet to win anything)
I'm not sure what you mean here...so I'll respond to what I interpret it as: I see you saying take the athlete before you take a less athletic player who does the dirty work. I can see where you are coming from, but as you said athleticism doesn't make you a winner, but there is a fault in this example. Cardinal was not the #1 rated SF in the draft and Davis did not come out of absolute nowhere.
6/30/2006 10:26 PM
No one waits 2-3 years to make comparisons for any drafted player!