No Joe, what I am saying is that not every player who is rumored to be a lottery pick is. Lampe, Taft, and so many other reputed lottery players ended up not being.

Yeah, alot of guys turned bust. But that is the whole point. I can't see your position when you are justifying saying that other people are busts so it's possible Williams will be one. Of course it's possible, but you can't use that to justify a position, IMO.

**

I am not going into arguing Rondo. I like him better than Williams, but unless we are talking about a full on star guard like Paul or even FOrd, we don't need no more PG's.

Ford?!? I see both Williams and Rondo as having the same mentality as Ford.

Williams has to prove that he is that kind of player, not prove that he is not. And I would disagree with you on the evidence. So far, not so good, towards proving Williams is a "can't miss draft him no matter what your needs are" player. Sure it's only 2 games, but the evidence thus far is that he is not. But I'll give him 30-40 games before I say he isn't for sure.

I give PG's a season at least if not more to show something. Which is why I am not judging Nate to harshly, even though he is looking more and more like a 2 guard.

Yeah, alot of guys turned bust. But that is the whole point. I can't see your position when you are justifying saying that other people are busts so it's possible Williams will be one. Of course it's possible, but you can't use that to justify a position, IMO.

Joe, I am not talking about who is a bust, or how good he will even be. I am saying that not every player who is rumored to be a lottery pick is. I do not consider "Lottery pick" to be synonomous with "good".

Williams is not a lottery pick, not even close.

Ford?!? I see both Williams and Rondo as having the same mentality as Ford.

Ford was a much better college player and is super quick player who sets the tempo. I see a comparison to Rondo, but not Williams. Ford was an excellent rookie, so let's see if those 2 can even mess with him.

I give PG's a season at least if not more to show something. Which is why I am not judging Nate to harshly, even though he is looking more and more like a 2 guard.

I think any player at any position deserves at least a season.

I don't think the judgement of NR should be: "is he a PG"? But, is he good? I think he has proven already that he is a good player, an impact player who changes the game.

There have been short shooting guards before, such as Calvin Murphy 5'9".

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 08-11-2006 1:17 PM]

Then you must have a great eye-better than the experts whose job it is to follow the draft and the NBA in genseral- because I kept up on the draft for about 3 months before hand and I never saw Marcus below 9th. And I am not exaggerating when I say never. I mean literally never. No projections, mocks, scouting reports...nothing.

Go back and check my pre-draft posts. I was not high on Williams.

Just call me Karnak.

That right there is the definition of 6th man.

I'm cool with that.

Murphy played in the 70's!

Don't you know? The 70's are back!



oohah

it's pretty f'n simple.

do you think this team needs marcus williams more than anybody else drafted from that pick on?

if the answer is yes, then we should've drafted williams.

otherwise, no.

Posted by TMS:

puzzling why he would go 22nd then.

Not particularly puzzling. Teams make good picks and bad picks all the time. Sometimes they have their own reasons, sometimes it's other stuff. But I guess you could call it puzzling everytime a talented player drops... or maybe it's just that some GMs make mistakes and others capitalize on those mistakes.

Isiah has shown a knack for being capitalized on, so far.

The teams that made a mistake by not drafting Marcus are as follows.

Atlanta (They could have saved 30 million on speedy claxton)

Philly (They could have traded Iverson and got young talent back to go with Iggy and Marcus, had they drafted him)

Kings (They need a young PG to turn the team over too after Bibby leaves)

Pacers (What the hell was Larry thinking?, Shawne Williams)

THE SUNS (Terrible move with Banks, they love passing so does he)

YOU HAVE TO NEGATE THE FOLLOWING TEAM
THE BULLS (Hinrich, Gordon)
THE HORNETS (Paul)
THE WIZ (Arenas)
THE JAZZ (Deron)
THE BOBCATS (Felton)

Posted by martin:

Posted by Solace:

Posted by TMS:

puzzling why he would go 22nd then.

Not particularly puzzling. Teams make good picks and bad picks all the time. Sometimes they have their own reasons, sometimes it's other stuff. But I guess you could call it puzzling everytime a talented player drops... or maybe it's just that some GMs make mistakes and others capitalize on those mistakes.

Isiah has shown a knack for being capitalized on, so far.

also, 22 teams didn't need a point guard and there were also better talent on the board. Bigs ALWAYS get drafted too high. Like that. I think there were about 3 teams that legitimatly passed on Marcus.

let's examine what happened after the #10 pick (I'll use that as a cutoff since the idea is that Marcus Williams was projected to go in the top 10):

11 - ORL - JJ Redick SG - the Magic had Jameer Nelson set at PG so they chose to go w/a shooter instead & fill a need.

12 - NO/OK - Hilton Armstrong C - obviously w/Chris Paul in the fold, they had no need for a PG... they chose to fill a need instead at the C position

13 - CHI - Thabo Sefalosha SG - Bulls were set at the PG position w/Hinrich, so they trade w/PHI for the draft rights to this guy... a little puzzling here tho since they were also set at the swingman spot w/Luol Deng.

14 - UTA - Ronnie Brewer SG - set at PG w/Deron Williams, so they went to fill the need at the other backcourt spot

15 - NO/OK - Cedric Simmons PF - see #12

16 - PHI - Rodney Carney SF - were they set at PG w/AI? i thought they were looking to trade him right around that time? woulda made tons of sense to take a talented PG with their original #13 pick i'd say, but instead they made a trade w/CHI for the draft rights of a 6'6" swingman when they already have Iguodala... why?

17 - IND - Shawne Williams SF - you'd figure any team w/a gimpy Jamaal Tinsley starting at PG should take the best PG left on the board, but they instead chose a 6'8" swingman when they already had Stephen Jackson & had made a trade w/the Hawks for Al Harrington... puzzling to say the least

18 - WAS - Oleksiy Pecherov PF - set at PG w/Arenas, so they go with some unknown Euro F who won't even play for them this season... i didn't know Ed Tapscott was the Wizards' new GM (Frederic Weiss reference obviously)

19 - SAC - Quincy Douby PG - the Kings needed a young PG to take over for Bibby, & they took one... only his name wasn't Marcus Williams... why? *scratching head*

20 - NYK - Renaldo Balkman SF - Knicks were set at PG w/Marbury & Francis, so they went to fill a need at the SF spot (this was before they signed Jefferies & Jalen Rose was apparently not in their plans for this season)

21 - BOS - Rajon Rondo PG - Phoenix had no need at PG w/their MVP Nash, so they traded the pick to the Celtics, who drafted Rondo, even after they'd made a trade earlier that day to acquire another young PG named Telfair... why didn't they take Marcus Williams? strange.


now let's recap:

- of the 10 teams that originally had a pick from 11-21, 7 were already set at the PG position & passed up on Marcus Williams to fill other needs (ORL, NO, CHI, UTA, WAS, NY, PHO)
- another team that acquired a PG via trade earlier in the day chose to trade a future 1st rounder for the draft rights of another PG, but took a pass on MW (BOS)
- PHI & IND had a need for a PG but passed up on MW & took swingmen even they were pretty much set at the 2 & 3 positions
- another team had a need for a PG but passed up on MW & took another PG (SAC)


so which one of these teams were smart & which ones were the morons to have let a talent like Marcus Williams fall through to the Nets? is filling a need over taking the "best available talent" always the wrong thing to do? if so, you'd have to say just about all 10 of these teams whiffed on Marcus Williams... if filling a need is a legitimate drafting strategy, then you'd have to say that there were 3 teams that made blunders passing up on MW, but the Knicks would not be 1 of them... whatever the case, i think it's extremely puzzling why those 3 NBA teams that had glaring needs at the PG position in the Sixers, Kings & Pacers passed up on taking MW, while another team, the Celtics passed him up & took a different PG even after they were set at that position... for the other 8 teams, including the Knicks, you could at least make the argument that they were trying to fill the holes that needed to be filled.

Posted by nyk4ever:

Quincy Douby will never play PG in the NBA, he is a combo guard and a scoring guard, completely different player than Marcus Williams

all the more puzzling as to why the Kings would have passed up on Marcus Williams, wouldn't you say?

Posted by MS:

I think that the suns could have really used marcus with nash breaking down in a couple he would have been right there for them and save them cash since they just extended barbosa and diaw

but the Suns never make moronic decisions like the Knicks, don't you know that? they're perfect in every way imaginable, minus the championships of course.

Posted by TMS:

Posted by nyk4ever:

Quincy Douby will never play PG in the NBA, he is a combo guard and a scoring guard, completely different player than Marcus Williams

all the more puzzling as to why the Kings would have passed up on Marcus Williams, wouldn't you say?

I don't really think so, its not like Bibby is old and the Kings really don't have a glaring need for a PG. The Celtics are the only team that you can question IMO as to why they didn't draft Marcus and most people on this board have said that they think Ainge is a terrible GM. The Knicks were and have been crap team and needed to take the BPA no matter what. Marcus was by far the BPA