SI gives the Blazers an A+ for this year's draft

[chris_in_pdx]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/sam_amick/06/29/nba-draft-grades/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Tremendous work by a Blazers group that prepared for the draft while dealing with a major transition period, as general manager Neil Olshey was hired just weeks ago after a year with Chad Buchanan running the show as an interim GM. Weber State point guard Damian Lillard (No. 6) was their top target, and he'll fill the void left by free-agent point guard Raymond Felton. Illinois center Meyers Leonard (No. 11) has his critics and isn't a sure thing, but he impressed numerous teams more than Tyler Zeller during the draft process and has a rare combination of size, speed and athleticism (he was in play for New Orleans at No. 10 as well). The rich got richer at No. 40, where Will Barton was a steal. Barton, who deemed himself the best wing in the draft earlier this month, was seen by many as a first-round pick.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

nice! they only gave them a b+ in 2006

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/marty_burns/06/29/draft.grades2/index.html

 

[THE HCP]

But look at what they gave Toronto! Ridiculous!

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Yeah, but they're confused - nobody can fill the crater (void) left by Felton's departure. C+.

 

[bigbailes]

I think most of the grades were a little high but in the end we didn't seem to reach for guys at 6 or 11 and they both fill needs. You combine that with a steal in the 2nd round and I'm more and more impressed with this draft today. 1 ... 2 ... 3 years down the road we'll see but right now it looks pretty good.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

I think most of the grades were a little high but in the end we didn't seem to reach for guys at 6 or 11 and they both fill needs. You combine that with a steal in the 2nd round and I'm more and more impressed with this draft today. 1 ... 2 ... 3 years down the road we'll see but right now it looks pretty good.

Agreed. And while we didn't necessarily get a bunch of guys who started at the top of their classes, I believe we got guys who will finish at the top of their respective classes. Like they say, it's not how you start but how you finish.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Agreed. And while we didn't necessarily get a bunch of guys who started at the top of their classes, I believe we got guys who will finish at the top of their respective classes. Like they say, it's not how you start but how you finish.

You don't have to quote Mrs. HCP to us!

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Sure I do. HCP's probably not aware how to finish!

From the sounds of it, I'm not sure he knows how to "start" either.

 

[Shooter]

Congrats to the Blazers! The "re-tooling" is off to a great start with Lillard, Leonard, and Barton.

 

[HailBlazers]

A is for Assets, Exactly what we got in this draft, throw in the plus for the Blazers finding their PGOTF

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

A is for Assets, Exactly what we got in this draft, throw in the plus for the Blazers finding their PGOTF

That PG is the PG of NOW and the future, IMO.

 

[BoomChakaLaka]

I would have given and "A" not an "A+"

I would have liked to have seen us trade down a spot or two, immediately after learning Waiters was picked at #4. We would have wound up with the same selections and perhaps another late first rounder. This would have been an A+. But the risk may not have been worth the game - so great job overall.

 

[jlprk]

This ranks us at the top of the worst drafts. Below that, it says we're tied for worst individual pick.

http://www.behindthebasket.com/btb/2012/6/28/2012-nba-draft-observations-part-1.html

 

[PapaG]

I think most of the grades were a little high but in the end we didn't seem to reach for guys at 6 or 11 and they both fill needs. You combine that with a steal in the 2nd round and I'm more and more impressed with this draft today. 1 ... 2 ... 3 years down the road we'll see but right now it looks pretty good.

An athletic PG who can shoot and thrives driving to the hoop, an athletic C who is raw but has tons of potential, and a silky wing who is a proven scorer in a decent conference, and for a decent program.

Just a great draft, IMO. Lillard won't be a bust. I just can't see how, Leonard may be, but at 11, I'd risk on the athleticism, and in the 2nd round, the Blazers get a first-round talent who should make the roster.

 

[PapaG]

This ranks us at the top of the worst drafts. Below that, it says we're tied for worst individual pick.

http://www.behindthebasket.com/btb/2012/6/28/2012-nba-draft-observations-part-1.html

Zachariah Blott KILLED it during the draft coverage this year. His insight was AMAZING.

:MARIS61:

 

[Natebishop3]

This ranks us at the top of the worst drafts. Below that, it says we're tied for worst individual pick.

http://www.behindthebasket.com/btb/2012/6/28/2012-nba-draft-observations-part-1.html

Wow that guy is terrible. His analysis is laughable.

 

[PapaG]

Wow that guy is terrible. His analysis is laughable.

I like him calling MJ's overreach on MKG to be one of three best drafts.

A poor man's Shawn Marion (without 3-point range) with the 2nd pick. Well done, MJ!

 

[BrianFromWA]

Where would you have slotted MKG? And other than Robinson (and just about everyone said it was a coin flip between the two), who else would've been a no-brainer for MJ?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Yahoo gave the Blazers a B

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-b...9--nba.html;_ylt=AqG5tXDbN82XUyfnhXmZJne8vLYF

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Would have been an A++++++ if it were Waiters/Leonard!

 

[Natebishop3]

Where would you have slotted MKG? And other than Robinson (and just about everyone said it was a coin flip between the two), who else would've been a no-brainer for MJ?

I think MKG will end up a huge bust simply because of where he was drafted. I think he'll be a solid pro, but definitely not a #2 pick.

 

[PapaG]

Where would you have slotted MKG? And other than Robinson (and just about everyone said it was a coin flip between the two), who else would've been a no-brainer for MJ?

I think Robinson was the obvious pick for Charlotte. MJ has an infatuation with wing players that have obvious limitations. MKG is going to be a solid pro, but unless he just completely changes and improves his game, his ceiling is Shawn Marion/Gerald Wallace, IMO. Very good players, but flawed in terms of being franchise players.

I found it odd that MKG's "with shoes" height was a full 1.75" higher than w/out shoes. That's an anomaly. The standard is between 1" and 1.5", but MKG's wingspan of 7' is nice, as is his standing reach of 8'8.5". MKG's Max Vert of 35" would be a concern to me, though.

By comparison, Nic Batum was 6'7.5" w/shoes, had a standing reach of 8'8.75", and had a wingspan of 7'.75".

 

[Natebishop3]

I think Robinson was the obvious pick for Charlotte. MJ has an infatuation with wing players that have obvious limitations. MKG is going to be a solid pro, but unless he just completely changes and improves his game, his ceiling is Shawn Marion/Gerald Wallace, IMO. Very good players, but flawed in terms of being franchise players.

I found it odd that MKG's "with shoes" height was a full 1.75" higher than w/out shoes. That's an anomaly. The standard is between 1" and 1.5", but MKG's wingspan of 7' is nice, as is his standing reach of 8'8.5". MKG's Max Vert of 35" would be a concern to me, though.

By comparison, Nic Batum was 6'7.5" w/shoes, had a standing reach of 8'8.75", and had a wingspan of 7'.75".

I don't know why people keep comparing him to Marion or GWall. Both those guys were jump-out-of-the-gym crazy athletes. Marion's freakin nickname was "The Matrix" for pete's sake. MKG isn't that great of an athlete, and even most of his highlights show him playing below the rim. Definitely not a Marion or Wallace.

 

[Minstrel]

MKG strikes me as a Shane Battier type. I think he'll be a good and useful pro, like Battier, but I'd be concerned with using a top-5 pick on a player who doesn't do any single thing really well. It's possible to be a star with just a "good all around, not amazing at anything" profile, but it's very hard. I'd like a "star prospect" to have at least one tool that projects to being his entry to stardom.

 

[PapaG]

I don't know why people keep comparing him to Marion or GWall. Both those guys were jump-out-of-the-gym crazy athletes. Marion's freakin nickname was "The Matrix" for pete's sake. MKG isn't that great of an athlete, and even most of his highlights show him playing below the rim. Definitely not a Marion or Wallace.

That's a good point. I think the comparisons to Marion and Wallace come from the funky shooting style.

Maybe it's time to call MKG a John Wallace type.

 

[PapaG]

MKG strikes me as a Shane Battier type. I think he'll be a good and useful pro, like Battier, but I'd be concerned with using a top-5 pick on a player who doesn't do any single thing really well. It's possible to be a star with just a "good all around, not amazing at anything" profile, but it's very hard. I'd like a "star prospect" to have at least one tool that projects to being his entry to stardom.

Let's look at Portland's draft picks in the first round.

Lils has excellent athleticism and is a great shooter (in college, at least). Limitations - is he a PG?

Leonard, the second he signs his contract, will be an elite athlete as a 7' player, and because he played wing before a growth spurt in HS, he also has a very good outside shot for a center. Limitations - he's a complete unknown, but if he puts in the work, outside of injury, he should be a productive NBA player.

What does MKG do great? Hustle? Hustle guys are fantastic, but they're pieces you add later, not building blocks. I might be wrong on MKG, but I just have never really thought much of his game, outside of his 'hustle' and size.

 

[Natebishop3]

That's a good point. I think the comparisons to Marion and Wallace come from the funky shooting style.

Maybe it's time to call MKG a John Wallace type.

Actually I think Minstrel's comparison is spot on. He seems like a Shane Battier guy. The only real difference is that Battier stayed in college and was taken sixth overall instead of second.