ok, lets say we are drafting somewhere from 8-12 and both Taft and Charlie V are available. Who would you rather pick?

Rebounding: They both have the ability to be very good rebounders on the next level. I was very impressed towards the end of the season watching CV get up real high to rip a lot of rebounds. Same goes for Taft.
OFFENSE: I have to say that Charlie V is ahead in overall offensive game. He can shoot the rock, handle like a 2 guard, run the floor exceptionally well and has a low post game that should continue to improve. He can play the high or low post very well. Taft has yet to develop on the offensive end yet. He doesn't have many moves on the low block but definitely room to improve.
DEFENSE: Taft is the better on ball defender by far but he doesnt seem to be much of a shotblocker while CV is not so great on the ball but is a great shotblocker on the helpside.

OVERALL: Sometimes I prefer Taft but the more and more I think about it, if Charlie V keeps getting stronger his ceiling is higher than Taft. Both players have been questioned regarding their attitudes and desire. CV has all the tools to be a much better defender. I like his versatility and he would fit well with Marbury. I am just not sold on Taft. He could be very good but how good? He'll be a solid defender, decent in the low post, not such a great shot and questionable desire. If he already established himself as a big time shotblocker I would feel better about selecting him. I think CV just has too much to pass up on.

I'd go Taft. Taft is stronger, better defensively and more consistent on the boards. He's more suited to play inside and has a future at center.

Charlie V has an awful lot of Rasheed in him. He has tendency to fall in love with the perimeter (because he has so much talent there) rather than post up, even though he can be so good there. He also occasionally lacks agression, but when he has the switch on can board and provide a real presence defensively. Such a strange temperment though.

There's a little something missing with Taft too, but I think a lot of it comes from the fact that his team didn't pass to him a lot. He wasn't the no.1 man in Pitt's O and didn't play the major minutes some of the other college stars do (I think he averaged less than 30). I like Taft's talent as a post up player, rebounder and defensively. When he's taken in the lottery he will be given more of a "star" treatment by his team, and I think he has a good chance to come through on the next level. But of course there are still a lot of assumptions to be made with him.

Villenueva is terrible, no heart, no work ethic, no versatlity with the ball, he is tall and athletic thats how he gets by he is going to be pushed around like a wafer, we may be able to get him late........

Taft, so so he is in the same boat, work ethic? desire?,

Posted by MS:

Villenueva is terrible, no heart, no work ethic, no versatlity with the ball, he is tall and athletic thats how he gets by he is going to be pushed around like a wafer, we may be able to get him late........

Taft, so so he is in the same boat, work ethic? desire?,

Yeah to every single one of your questions. MS, Taft was benched by his coach in what should have been a breakout year. His coach went public why he was benched and didn't even blink. Taft was considered a lock for the top 3 but he is falling like a rock. Villanueva has continued to improved every year.