Again, a consensus lottery pick will be picked in the lottery, or at least close to it. I don't care what was written in somebody's mock, or if he was invited to sit in the blue room. He was not consensus lottery. 21 players were picked in front of him.
If that is what you believe, fine. At this point we are just arguing opinion. I believe you are wrong. He was slated to go high everywhere. He didn't. By your standards anyone not picked in the lottery was not good enough to go in the lottery, not leaving any room for error or the probability that someone just does slip(even though it happens every year). I'm not going to argue this anymore. I gave my evidence. If you're satisfied with the evidence that well, he couldn't have just slipped and he wa the 22nd(or whatever) best player in the draft, fine. To me you're using the result to justify your argument. I'm arguing other things should come into consideration, not just the result. But whatever fits you.
I am not confused.
He needs to have the ball in his hands: Redundant.
He shoots a lot: Redundant.
Turns it over a lot: Redundant.
Noty a good defensive player: Redundant.
Excels at running a team? Yet to be proven at the pro level.
1-Of course he needs the ball in his hands, he's a freakin' PG in charge of distributing the ball!
2-Rajon has taken 3, 7, and 6 shots this season. Total of 16.
(I'll just go by the frst 3 games)
Nate has taken 7, 8, 11-26 total.
Steph has taken 13, 9, 9-31 total
Francis has taken 6, 6, 9-total of 21-and has been our best guard.
Jamal has taken 8, 9, 8- total 25.
Rajon-5.7 pts, 3.7 ast., 3 boards on .438 shooting.
Nate -14.3 pts, 1.0, ast., 2.3 boards on .512 shooting.-I read the career numbers on Nates's shooting. He is shooting better than Rondo.
Steph- 12.5 pts, 4.3 ast., 2.5 boards on .342 shooting
Steve- 10.5, 5.3, 4.3 on .500 shooting
Craw- 9.3, 1.5, 2.5 on .213 shooting.
Edit according to Yahoo- Rondo averages 5.3 shots per game.
Craw-11.8, Francis-6, Marbury-10.3, Nate-10.3.
According to this Rondo makes more happen without the ball than Nate and Craw. And this season would probably be our most efficient guard outside of Francis. And can split between the 2 and 3 but has the size Nate doesn't have and the ability to run an offense that at the least Craw and Nate don't possess.
BTW-Rondo averages 22:48 mins per game Craw is 31:53, Francis is 28:06, Marbury is 36:17, Nate is 24:11.
TO's: Rondo-1.67, Robinson-1.3, Marbury-3, Francis-2.5, Craw-1.8
Ast/TO-Rondo-1.8, Nate-.80, Marbury-1.42, Francis-2.10, Craw-o.86
That is almost certainly true. I don't think it is true of Williams.
At least we agree there may have been someone to help more. Like I said I would have been happy with Rondo to. Williams was just the best prospect available.
It's not confusing, I just don't agree. I am not talking about hindsight. You were pointing out a guy you would rather have in Tucker, and I simply am pointing out that based on his NBA performance thus far, he is about the equal of Balkman.
Also, I am sorry Joe, but Rondo is not shooting better or scoring more than NR by a long shot. He is averaging 1 assists and .7 rebounds more. Even if he was playing better than NR for Boston, that does not mean he would have gotten the time here. To move up on the depth chart he would have to really outplay somebody, which he would not be based on what we have seen so far.
Rajon Rondo: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/4149
Nate Robinson: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3947
I was wrong, I said it before, about Robinson's FG%.. Robinson is playing like a 5-6 shooting guard. I never said Rondo scored more.
He is being brought along slowly, playing in each game. I haver claimed he would get big minutes. BUt WIlliams would be getting Mardy Collins minutes, meaning he would not play except in extreme situations.
I disagree. Williams and Rondo both would be out 3rd best guard this season.
Probably, but Williams was not one of them.
Once again, I am only attached to WIlliams because he was by far the best prospect on the board.
I understand that you are arguing the principle, I just think that Duncan is a poor example of that principle because he is the proverbial can't miss player. I think it is best to use examples that compare well to the situation we are discussing. Clyde/Jordan/Bowie, were all huge stars. Bowie would have been pretty good except he was made from glass. Duncan is not apt at all because he really is the kind of player you pick no matter who you have on your team.
Ok...forget Duncan. Forget all the names. principle is still the same. This conversation is deep enough without me arguing about the names I use for my examples.
Putting names aside, I and 21 GM's agree that Williams is not the type of player you pick because he is simply that good. Maybe you think he is, but there is no evidence as a pro to suggest he is that good.
There is also no evidence to suggest he isn't.
But hey, it's early, maybe he will go buckwild and make 21 teams including the Knicks sorry they passed up on him. He certainly is in the best situation to accomplish that, while he would not have been on the Knicks.
I agree he wouldn't have been in the best situation on the KNicks, but I still think he would have matured here.
11/8/2006 11:28 AM
