Blazer Draft Consensus nearly 100% Set

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Virtually every major mock draft has us picking a defensive PF first (and nearly all have it as Kenneth Faried) and a PG in the second round- like we need another second round PG.

While this makes sense, I might go opposite. A good PG in round one and the best rebounding PF in the second as they are easier to find.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Virtually every major mock draft has us picking a defensive PF first (and nearly all have it as Kenneth Faried) and a PG in the second round- like we need another second round PG.

While this makes sense, I might go opposite. A good PG in round one and the best rebounding PF in the second as they are easier to find.

I would agree with you. Using Faried as an example, who would you rather have on the floor as the back up PF, he or Wallace (When Batum comes in at SF)

Yes we need another back up PF, but another PG is much more needed.

 

[BBert]

Sure, if we don't trade up our out.

My money is on trading into the top five and drafting a point guard, I don't care what Nate said about only wanting vets. That is, unless we trade for a vet point guard instead, but I think getting a vet we'd want by that route is less likely.

All things are possible and nothing is certain at this point. Projecting who we are going to pick based on our current draft position is folly.

Having said that, if we do retain no. 21 or purchase a similar draft pick, I think the need to draft a defensive PF as projected in these mocks is spot on.

So...I'm going with a PG in the top five and a PF, hopefully Faried.

 

[oldguy]

If we don't make a move, I'm all about BPA. Screw drafting for need.

Go Blazers

 

[Minstrel]

If we don't make a move, I'm all about BPA. Screw drafting for need.

Same. Increase the talent whenever possible and address roster balance through trade and free agent signings.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Sure, if we don't trade up our out.

My money is on trading into the top five and drafting a point guard, I don't care what Nate said about only wanting vets. That is, unless we trade for a vet point guard instead, but I think getting a vet we'd want by that route is less likely.

All things are possible and nothing is certain at this point. Projecting who we are going to pick based on our current draft position is folly.

Having said that, if we do retain no. 21 or purchase a similar draft pick, I think the need to draft a defensive PF as projected in these mocks is spot on.

So...I'm going with a PG in the top five and a PF, hopefully Faried.

I'd also like to see us trade up for a PG to eventually replace Miller. We aren't going to find that PG int he second round.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

If we don't make a move, I'm all about BPA. Screw drafting for need.

Go Blazers

It's this thinking that nets you a roster with 9 players between 6'6" and 6'8".

 

[Ed O]

It's this thinking that nets you a roster with 9 players between 6'6" and 6'8".

Not if you can make trades... and most teams can

Also, free agency is always an option to add players.

Ed O.

 

[Minstrel]

It's this thinking that nets you a roster with 9 players between 6'6" and 6'8".

If you don't make any trades or free agent signings.

The other way of thinking nets you Sam Bowie instead of Michael Jordan. Or, less specifically, a roster not good enough to win.

 

[oldguy]

It's this thinking that nets you a roster with 9 players between 6'6" and 6'8".

I would argue that drafting for position gets you:
Sam Bowie instead of MJ.
Greg over Kevin.
Martel instead of CP3 or D-Will.

I'd take the 6'6"-6'8" guys and trade them for pieces to fill out the roster, if I ran the circus.

Go Blazers

Edit: Min beat me to it! Crap...Ed beat me, too. (Brought my LeBron late in the thread.)

 

[Minstrel]

Greg over Kevin

I'd argue this example, though not the others. At the very least, their talent was considered equal and, going into the draft, most seemed to think Oden was an even more special prospect. But even if you just viewed them as equal, then using "need" as a tie-breaker is reasonable. I don't think Oden over Durant was the same mistake as Bowie over Jordan, where the clearly less-talented guy was taken due to need. If a mistake was made based on information at the time (which is arguable) it was missing health issue warning signs.

 

[BrianFromWA]

A better example may be Hakeem over Jordan, where both were considered world-class college talents, and Hakeem was going to be the #1 pick all day long.

 

[Denny Crane]

A better example may be Hakeem over Jordan, where both were considered world-class college talents, and Hakeem was going to be the #1 pick all day long.

With 20/20 hindsight, and being a Bulls fan, I'd still take Hakeem 1st.

But I would have taken Durant and not drafted Bowie.

 

[Minstrel]

A better example may be Hakeem over Jordan, where both were considered world-class college talents, and Hakeem was going to be the #1 pick all day long.

Yeah, I agree, that's a much much closer analogue. And while I think Jordan was the better NBA player, it's close enough that I wouldn't say Houston made a mistake. Had Olajuwon had Pippen for all of Pippen's prime career, and Jordan hadn't, the title count might be switched.

 

[Blazinaway]

If we don't make a move, I'm all about BPA. Screw drafting for need.

Go Blazers

When you are drafting 21st in a draft like this BPA is out the door as it's a huge guess in any case, so go for need cause the talent's already become iffy. You can't tell me that some PG at available at 21 is a BPA over a backup PF as the same spot.

 

[Minstrel]

When you are drafting 21st in a draft like this BPA is out the door as it's a huge guess in any case, so go for need cause the talent's already become iffy. You can't tell me that some PG at available at 21 is a BPA over a backup PF as the same spot.

We may not, but if a trained staff of scouts and talent evaluators can't do any level of separation after the top 15 or so, that's more than a little pathetic. I do agree, though, that if a few players are rated evenly, go for need as a tie-breaker. But if your scouting personnel has some opinions on who's best when you pick, you had better take that guy regardless of position, just to maximize your chances of getting an NBA player. Not taking the very best talent (by your organization's ratings) gimps your chances of even getting an NBA-caliber player.

 

[Blazinaway]

We may not, but if a trained staff of scouts and talent evaluators can't do any level of separation after the top 15 or so, that's more than a little pathetic. I do agree, though, that if a few players are rated evenly, go for need as a tie-breaker. But if your scouting personnel has some opinions on who's best when you pick, you had better take that guy regardless of position, just to maximize your chances of getting an NBA player. Not taking the very best talent (by your organization's ratings) gimps your chances of even getting an NBA-caliber player.

That just doesn't wash, evaluating talent at that level is much more of a crapshoot. So unless a draft is absolutely stacked on talent at one position, at 21 take what you need. I bet of you ran a 10 yr comparison of players drafted at lets say the 18-24 draft spots, the degrees of eventual NBA succes each slot had would not be all that different.

 

[Minstrel]

That just doesn't wash, evaluating talent at that level is much more of a crapshoot. So unless a draft is absolutely stacked on talent at one position, at 21 take what you need. I bet of you ran a 10 yr comparison of players drafted at lets say the 18-24 draft spots, the degrees of eventual NBA succes each slot had would not be all that different.

I think the same might well be true of spots 5-10 or 10-15. That doesn't mean you don't try to stack your odds (even if it's marginal gains) in your favor by taking the guy you believe, based on extensive scouting, to be the best talent. If you have no opinion, go for need...but if you have no opinion, what are you being paid for? You can get "these guys are all late first round prospects" from a bunch of free NBA draft sites.

 

[B-Roy]

Same. Increase the talent whenever possible and address roster balance through trade and free agent signings.

I would agree....if a stellar talent dropped to us. But at the point where we are picking, the difference between BPA and next BPA is small enough that I would draft for need.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Word around the league is that the Blazers like and intend to take Faried at 21 if he lasts. Faried would give the Blazers a quality defender and rebounder to add to the frontcourt and could play alongside LaMarcus Aldrige or Marcus Camby. Faried is a tireless worker and his efforts and production will be appreciated by the Blazers fans.

-probasketballdraft.com

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Yahoo just released their Mock 3.0:

The Trail Blazers feel like they’ve added enough young prospects to their roster over the past two seasons and would like to find someone at this spot who doesn’t need his hand held and can contribute right away. At this point in the draft, they aren’t going to find a prospect better than Kenneth Faried.

The team has been looking for a tough and active power forward who can bring energy off the bench. Faried could be exactly what the doctor ordered.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

NBAdraft.net just updated their mock and have Portland taking Faried.

I really hope he'll fall to #21 but I really doubt he'll get past a few teams just ahead of us.

 

[jlprk]

Big smile guy and I like long hair. He'll probably cut it though, being a rookie.

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...&gs_upl=1770l6624l0l3l3l0l1l1l0l127l238l0.2l2

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

NBAdraft.net just updated their mock and have Portland taking Faried.

I really hope he'll fall to #21 but I really doubt he'll get past a few teams just ahead of us.

Really? Due to his size and playing for Morehead State I think he'll be there for us. I mean, look at Babbitt. A perfect example of a player playing against inferior teams and being picked too high. So I wonder if that will carry over to this draft and cause Faried to be there at 21.'

 

[STOMP]

for reference, Faried's measurements at the predraft had him the exact same height as Martell Webster (6'6 barefoot) with a 1" bigger wingspan and weighing 5 pounds less. He'll need a Dennis Rodman/Gerald Wallace type motor to get it done inside at that size. I didn't watch him in college, but the draft sites seem united in saying that he's got no jumper to stretch his offensive game outside of the paint.

STOMP

 

[PtldPlatypus]

for reference, Faried's measurements at the predraft had him the exact same height as Martell Webster (6'6 barefoot) with a 1" bigger wingspan and weighing 5 pounds less. He'll need a Dennis Rodman/Gerald Wallace type motor to get it done inside at that size. I didn't watch him in college, but the draft sites seem united in saying that he's got no jumper to stretch his offensive game outside of the paint.

STOMP

For reference, he does have that motor which you suggest he needs. You don't set rebounding records at 6'6" without it. Watching him play, he clearly puts out more effort than everyone else on the floor.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

For reference, he does have that motor which you suggest he needs. You don't set rebounding records at 6'6" without it. Watching him play, he clearly puts out more effort than everyone else on the floor.

But he plays for Morehead State in the feared Ohio Valley Conference against the likes of Southeast Missouri State, Tennessee Tech, UT Martin, SIU Edwardsville and other heart stopping teams.

Maybe it's easy to see why he gets so many rebounds.

 

[STOMP]

For reference, he does have that motor which you suggest he needs. You don't set rebounding records at 6'6" without it. Watching him play, he clearly puts out more effort than everyone else on the floor.

dude played in the Ohio Valley Conference... that might have a little something to do with it too. I've little doubt he stood out for those who follow the mighty OVC.

here's a tidbit from his draftexpress page that I find appropriate to this discussion...

Looking at the top rebounders in our database over the past decade, it is clear that being an elite NCAA rebounder does not guarantee a NBA career. Amongst the top 100 collegiate rebounders in the past nine years, 34 prospects have made it to the NBA. Five of those 34 signed as undrafted free agents, nine were selected in the second round and 20 garnered a guaranteed contact as first round picks.

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Kenneth-Faried-5325/

I'm neither for or against acquiring him, as again I haven't seen him play. I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion trying to bring up relevant counter points

STOMP

 

[PtldPlatypus]

dude played in the Ohio Valley Conference... that might have a little something to do with it too. I've little doubt he stood out for those who follow the mighty OVC.

here's a tidbit from his draftexpress page that I find appropriate to this discussion...



http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Kenneth-Faried-5325/

I'm neither for or against acquiring him, as again I haven't seen him play. I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion trying to bring up relevant counter points

STOMP

Understood. I was really primarily commenting on his "motor" as you termed it. His rebounding (which, it should be noted isn't just top 100 or even top 10 in the decade, but #1 all-time) was really mentioned as statistical evidence in support of my main comment, which was that my observation--having watched him play--is that he most certainly has the specific characteristic you indicated he would likely need.

BTW, it's not just against OVC teams that it's evident; he unquestionably stood out in the tournament too, against Louisville (Big East). Most energetic player on the floor, by far.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'd challenge that DRaftExpress bullet. At some point on here I pulled the top three rebounding leaders from every year this decade and showed how almost half had "good" NBA careers, not just "made it to the NBA". I'll try to find it, but I think they're doing some creative cherry-picking.