All Thingz Keegan

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Fez Forthright said:
Are the stars aligning just so?

Dame suddenly follows Keegan…

Schmitz’ favorite player in this draft is Keegan…

What say you?
Click to expand...
I say that we can't come out of this off season without upgrading both starting forward spots. So if Murray is there and we have other means of adding that other forward then, we'll take him but if he's there and we can get a really valuable offer for him by trading back to a later lotto pick and adding an established star forward, we'll do that.
 
Keegan Murray seems ideal for the Blazers, with exceptional skills at scoring, rebounding, critical moment game-winning plays, defensive plays, hustle, and winning attitude that will fit extraordinarily well with Dame, Chauncey, and the faster, better ball movement style of the Blazers. Let's add him as the PF that the Blazers need for a Championship contender team!
 
illmatic99 said:
i get dame vibes from keegan.

older prospect who wasn't highly recruited, mature beyond his years, super confident of his abilities, dominated in college on a lesser-talented team.
Click to expand...

I see a virtual clone of Danny Granger with Keegan
 
I believe I was the first on here to really toot the Keegan Murray horn

So bow down before thy and give me a foot rub
 
We’d have to trade up though. I think he could move up to the top 5.
 
Daniels is the most realistic target at #7.

I’d much rather get him for his star potential than have Jermaine Grant’s salary on us.

I don’t focus our team on this imaginary championship window with Lillard. To me it’s more about building for the future. Don’t mortgage the future unless you have a realistic shot at getting a bonafide star around Lillard, which is highly unlikely.
 
MickZagger said:
I believe I was the first on here to really toot the Keegan Murray horn

So bow down before thy and give me a foot rub
Click to expand...
i def wasn't. he's like the most boring prospect projected in the top 7. he seems like the classic high floor prospect, but i've been saying his biggest strengths address our biggest weaknesses, so it seems like an obvious fit. While I'm a fan of Murray, I still am hesitant to project his stats from Iowa to NBA.

my only consistent takes so far in this process are:
- stay away from Chet. not really deviating from this.
- Banchero #1.
- Smith is amazing.
- Stay the hell away from AJ Griffin.
- Eason projects really well.

I've also changed my mind on a few things:
- I had Johnny Davis > Ivey before digging deeper into Ivey. I think Davis can still be a great prospect, but elevated Ivey to tier 1.
- Initially felt this draft was top heavy, but it's pretty deep.
- Sochan looks like a good prospect, but I'd still take Eason over him. But I see the merits of Jeremy as a top 10 guy as well.
- I probably overhyped Agbaji a bit. I think his absolute ceiling might be as a role player.
- I see the intrigue in Sharpe a bit more now than I did earlier. Still a healthy level of skepticism though.

It's kinda funny to see people making grand claims 4 months before the draft and treating them like gospel. My feelings about these guys changes every time I do more research and I try not to let my bias affect the way I evaluate them. Hope our management is similar. Also hope by the time the actual draft rolls around, my thoughts and our management's thoughts have reached a level of consistency in the decision making to determine the right order.
 
illmatic99 said:
i def wasn't. he's like the most boring prospect projected in the top 7. he seems like the classic high floor prospect, but i've been saying his biggest strengths address our biggest weaknesses, so it seems like an obvious fit. While I'm a fan of Murray, I still am hesitant to project his stats from Iowa to NBA.

my only consistent takes so far in this process are:
- stay away from Chet. not really deviating from this.
- Banchero #1.
- Smith is amazing.
- Stay the hell away from AJ Griffin.
- Eason projects really well.

I've also changed my mind on a few things:
- I had Johnny Davis > Ivey before digging deeper into Ivey. I think Davis can still be a great prospect, but elevated Ivey to tier 1.
- Initially felt this draft was top heavy, but it's pretty deep.
- Sochan looks like a good prospect, but I'd still take Eason over him. But I see the merits of Jeremy as a top 10 guy as well.
- I probably overhyped Agbaji a bit. I think his absolute ceiling might be as a role player.

It's kinda funny to see people making grand claims 4 months before the draft and treating them like gospel. My feelings about these guys changes every time I do more research and I try not to let my bias affect the way I evaluate them. Hope our management is similar.
Click to expand...

I don’t see Murray as that boring . He’s a 6’8” wing with a handle. I do wish he was a little more long and rangey. I prefer guys who have length at that position and can close out on shooters.

This draft is one of the deeper ones in recent history. Ivey is a guy who has seemingly lost some buzz but has star potential. He reminds me a ton of Colin Sexton coming out of college, but let’s hope he can defend much better.
 
MickZagger said:
Daniels is the most realistic target at #7.

I’d much rather get him for his star potential than have Jermaine Grant’s salary on us.

I don’t focus our team on this imaginary championship window with Lillard. To me it’s more about building for the future. Don’t mortgage the future unless you have a realistic shot at getting a bonafide star around Lillard, which is highly unlikely.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's either or. We definitely shouldn't trade the 7 for Grant. Now if they think Sochan or Eason or Dieng project to be just as good as Daniels or Murray, then sure, you can move back and get them and trade the other pick for Grant, but I don't see that being the case but who knows.

Just because Daniels or Murray are rated higher than Sochan or Eason, doesn't necessarily mean they will be better players. Murray seems like a guy who is well rounded and can contribute right away however. I'd be pretty pissed if they traded his rights if they have a chance to get him.
 
MickZagger said:
I don’t see Murray as that boring . He’s a 6’8” wing with a handle. I do wish he was a little more long and rangey. I prefer guys who have length at that position and can close out on shooters.

This draft is one of the deeper ones in recent history. Ivey is a guy who has seemingly lost some buzz but has star potential. He reminds me a ton of Colin Sexton coming out of college, but let’s hope he can defend much better.
Click to expand...
i wish he had done the measurements at the combine. i worry about murray's ability to move laterally against guards.

but his footwork on offense is impeccable. i get he's two years older than others in this class, but he's got an NBA ready post/midrange game right now, and combined that with a smooth outside jumper, i see him putting up 15 ppg his rookie year if he's in the right role.

i think Ivey is ROY if he goes to a team where he can be a lead guard. With the way he draws fouls and increased spacing in the NBA, he's gonna put points up so easily. oh i see him closer to Donovan Mitchell than Sexton/Morant.
 
theprunetang said:
Young and pre-injuries, Danny Granger was a baller. The current player that reminds me of Granger is Khris Middleton.
Click to expand...

Granger was a baller. I liked his game a lot. He and Roy were kind of the unsung low key stars in the league during their short era’s.

Granger wasn’t really a lights out shooter from deep though
 
If Sacramento is picking at 4, they’re taking Keegan.

Sharpe nor Ivey make any sense for them given the stated goal of “win now”.
 
Predator said:
If Sacramento is picking at 4, they’re taking Keegan.

Sharpe nor Ivey make any sense for them given the stated goal of “win now”.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Sac can definitely use a PF. But they could also use a SF and a bigger guard. Weren't we envious of their young roster a year ago? It has a lot of holes right now.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
Yeah, Sac can definitely use a PF. But they could also use a SF and a bigger guard. Weren't we envious of their young roster a year ago? It has a lot of holes right now.
Click to expand...

“Win now” and “Shaedon Sharpe” don’t really go hand in hand. The prospect that played absolutely none at all last year?

And Ivey doesn’t particularly make sense either as trading away their PG and moving to a rookie PG isn’t exactly “win now” thinking.
 
Predator said:
“Win now” and “Shaedon Sharpe” don’t really go hand in hand. The prospect that played absolutely none at all last year?

And Ivey doesn’t particularly make sense either as trading away their PG and moving to a rookie PG isn’t exactly “win now” thinking.
Click to expand...

SacTown said that? Win Now?
That is funny.
 
Predator said:
If Sacramento is picking at 4, they’re taking Keegan.

Sharpe nor Ivey make any sense for them given the stated goal of “win now”.
Click to expand...

Ivey has the much higher floor. So does Sharpe. Sacramento taking Murray at 4 makes absolutely no sense but then again, Kings gonna Kings so who knows.
 
Predator said:
If Sacramento is picking at 4, they’re taking Keegan.

Sharpe nor Ivey make any sense for them given the stated goal of “win now”.
Click to expand...
I think that's who takes him.
Detroit takes Ivey at 5
Who do the Pacers take??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top