Whispers again

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
I like BNM's idea of Crabbe for Rose + swap of pick for salary dump purposes and moving up in a nice draft. Though if you thought Nurkic never got the ball now... ;)
 
glazeduck said:
Cleveland got Lebron. San Antonio got Duncan. Clippers got Griffin. Cowboys got Zeke. Broncos got Von Miller. Panthers got Newton. Raiders got Mack.

Tanking doesn't always work, but there are plenty of examples of when it has.
Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing tanking with just plain sucking. The Clippers didn't tank to get Griffin, they just plain sucked. And the only reason they are any good now is the NBA gifted them CP3. And even with both of them, they have gone no deeper in the playoffs than we have in the last 5 years.

Duncan was drafted 20 years ago. SAS didn't tank. Their best player, a first ballot Hall of Famer, missed the season due to an injury. They added Duncan to what was a 60-win team.

LeBron was drafted 14 years ago, and he had to leave, go to MIA for four years, so CLE could get 6 top 4 picks in 4 years (including THE top pick 3 of the 4 years) and then come back to CLE before they won it all.

There is no Duncan or LeBron (or even a Griffin) in this draft. Who, exactly, are we tanking for?

BNM
 
BrianFromWA said:
I like BNM's idea of Crabbe for Rose + swap of pick for salary dump purposes and moving up in a nice draft. Though if you thought Nurkic never got the ball now... ;)
Click to expand...

Rose would be a 26 game rental, if even that. We could always just flat out waive him. The incentive would be to unload Crabbe's contract and get a better draft pick. Rose is just there as an expiring contract that makes the salaries work.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
You seem to be confusing tanking with just plain sucking. The Clippers didn't tank to get Griffin, they just plain sucked. And the only reason they are any good now is the NBA gifted them CP3. And even with both of them, they have gone no deeper in the playoffs than we have in the last 5 years.

Duncan was drafted 20 years ago. SAS didn't tank. Their best player, a first ballot Hall of Famer, missed the season due to an injury. They added Duncan to what was a 60-win team.

LeBron was drafted 14 years ago, and he had to leave, go to MIA for four years, so CLE could get 6 top 4 picks in 4 years (including THE top pick 3 of the 4 years) and then come back to CLE before they won it all.

There is no Duncan or LeBron (or even a Griffin) in this draft. Who, exactly, are we tanking for?

BNM
Click to expand...
There's no Duncan or LeBrons, but there's a lot of Jimmy Butler level players.

Fultz - Future 25ppg scorer
Ball - Bust (IMO)
Jackson - Future Jimmy Butler type. Will be better than Butler if he becomes a good shooter
Smith - Lillard-like guard
Tatum - A Batum type player that can drive and post up
Isaac - A 6'11 SF who can score. A better prospect than Brandon Ingram.
Monk - A dynamite combo guard who can torch the Nets. Could easily be a 20ppg guy.
Markkanen - Smooth, 7'0 PF with a shot and athleticism.
Fox, Bridges, Ntilikina among others

There's no Duncan or Lebron, bit there's many extremely high level prospects. Everybody drafted in the top 10 would've went in the top 3 last year.
 
glazeduck said:
Cleveland got Lebron. San Antonio got Duncan. Clippers got Griffin. Cowboys got Zeke. Broncos got Von Miller. Panthers got Newton. Raiders got Mack.

Tanking doesn't always work, but there are plenty of examples of when it has.
Click to expand...
Those three NFL teams have the same thing in common and thats they were some of the worst teams that year not by design but because there QB play absolutely sucked. None of those teams tried to tank, they all tried to win but just couldn't because of Kyle Orton, Tim Tebow, Jimmy Clauson, Matt Moore, Brandon Weedon, Matt Cassel
 
BonesJones said:
There's no Duncan or LeBrons, but there's a lot of Jimmy Butler level players.

Fultz - Future 25ppg scorer
Ball - Bust (IMO)
Jackson - Future Jimmy Butler type. Will be better than Butler if he becomes a good shooter
Smith - Lillard-like guard
Tatum - A Batum type player that can drive and post up
Isaac - A 6'11 SF who can score. A better prospect than Brandon Ingram.
Monk - A dynamite combo guard who can torch the Nets. Could easily be a 20ppg guy.
Markkanen - Smooth, 7'0 PF with a shot and athleticism.
Fox, Bridges, Ntilikina among others

There's no Duncan or Lebron, bit there's many extremely high level prospects. Everybody drafted in the top 10 would've went in the top 3 last year.
Click to expand...

And Butler was taken with the LAST pick in the 1st round. Nobody tanked to get him, and that's my point.

BonesJones said:
Everybody drafted in the top 10 would've went in the top 3 last year.
Click to expand...

We may even have a top 10 pick without tanking, and even with tanking, we won't have a top 3 pick. And there will be some players taken 11-15 that will be better than some of the players taken between 4 and 10. So, what's the point of losing on purpose? It breeds bad habits, kills player morale and creates an atmosphere where losing isn't just accepted, it's expected and even encouraged.

Unless you have a top 3 pick, AND there are players of Duncan or LeBron quality available, you're really relying on the quality of your scouting and talent evaluation and dependent on the people picking above you making bad choices. There are almost never any sure things outside of the top 3 picks, and in most years, even those are a crap shoot.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
You seem to be confusing tanking with just plain sucking. The Clippers didn't tank to get Griffin, they just plain sucked. And the only reason they are any good now is the NBA gifted them CP3. And even with both of them, they have gone no deeper in the playoffs than we have in the last 5 years.

Duncan was drafted 20 years ago. SAS didn't tank. Their best player, a first ballot Hall of Famer, missed the season due to an injury. They added Duncan to what was a 60-win team.

LeBron was drafted 14 years ago, and he had to leave, go to MIA for four years, so CLE could get 6 top 4 picks in 4 years (including THE top pick 3 of the 4 years) and then come back to CLE before they won it all.

There is no Duncan or LeBron (or even a Griffin) in this draft. Who, exactly, are we tanking for?

BNM
Click to expand...

Sure, some of those examples weren't explicit tanking, but this is a distinction without a difference. The point of the conversation is whether or not we should do what it takes to get a draft pick that can help this team. Whether we tank (ie. purposely lose to improve our lottery odds) or just plain suck (we're .411 right now, so arguably, we're kinda there too) shouldn't matter unless you truly believe in some mystical karmic force that punishes teams for not "doing it the right way". I provided examples of high/top picks made a significant impact on their teams, how we get there won't matter. There are six teams who are only 1 or 2 wins behind us and another two who are 4 and 5 wins behind us. While those teams all, also suck, it's really not hard to see how we could be sitting in a top 5 slot relatively quickly, especially if we're tanking.

Conversely, who, or more accurately, what are we trying to win for? While not every team picking #1 is immediately launched into the league stratosphere, sports history is littered with mediocre-decent teams who have spent decades winning just enough games to never get better and never enough games to matter. At some point, who cares who we're tanking for? We're tanking for a change of direction, added leverage and flexibility and an improved asset (possibly multiple if NO ships off others before the deadline).

Edit: I'll also add that the question I was answering was simply examples of when "tanking" worked, to which I'll go back to the question of -- why does it matter whether its tanking or sucking? The outcomes are the same. Sports Karma is not a real thing.
 
glazeduck said:
Sure, some of those examples weren't explicit tanking, but this is a distinction without a difference. The point of the conversation is whether or not we should do what it takes to get a draft pick that can help this team. Whether we tank (ie. purposely lose to improve our lottery odds) or just plain suck (we're .411 right now, so arguably, we're kinda there too) shouldn't matter unless you truly believe in some mystical karmic force that punishes teams for not "doing it the right way". I provided examples of high/top picks made a significant impact on their teams, how we get there won't matter. There are six teams who are only 1 or 2 wins behind us and another two who are 4 and 5 wins behind us. While those teams all, also suck, it's really not hard to see how we could be sitting in a top 5 slot relatively quickly, especially if we're tanking.

Conversely, who, or more accurately, what are we trying to win for? While not every team picking #1 is immediately launched into the league stratosphere, sports history is littered with mediocre-decent teams who have spent decades winning just enough games to never get better and never enough games to matter. At some point, who cares who we're tanking for? We're tanking for a change of direction, added leverage and flexibility and an improved asset (possibly multiple if NO ships off others before the deadline).

Edit: I'll also add that the question I was answering was simply examples of when "tanking" worked, to which I'll go back to the question of -- why does it matter whether its tanking or sucking? The outcomes are the same. Sports Karma is not a real thing.
Click to expand...
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a new official motto of S2:
"Distinctions without a Difference"
:)
 
Glazeduck posted a lot 10 years ago on ESPN. Post more now, Glazeduck. I remember.
 
glazeduck said:
Sure, some of those examples weren't explicit tanking, but this is a distinction without a difference. The point of the conversation is whether or not we should do what it takes to get a draft pick that can help this team. Whether we tank (ie. purposely lose to improve our lottery odds) or just plain suck (we're .411 right now, so arguably, we're kinda there too) shouldn't matter unless you truly believe in some mystical karmic force that punishes teams for not "doing it the right way". I provided examples of high/top picks made a significant impact on their teams, how we get there won't matter. There are six teams who are only 1 or 2 wins behind us and another two who are 4 and 5 wins behind us. While those teams all, also suck, it's really not hard to see how we could be sitting in a top 5 slot relatively quickly, especially if we're tanking.

Conversely, who, or more accurately, what are we trying to win for? While not every team picking #1 is immediately launched into the league stratosphere, sports history is littered with mediocre-decent teams who have spent decades winning just enough games to never get better and never enough games to matter. At some point, who cares who we're tanking for? We're tanking for a change of direction, added leverage and flexibility and an improved asset (possibly multiple if NO ships off others before the deadline).

Edit: I'll also add that the question I was answering was simply examples of when "tanking" worked, to which I'll go back to the question of -- why does it matter whether its tanking or sucking? The outcomes are the same. Sports Karma is not a real thing.
Click to expand...

You provided examples where "tanking/sucking" worked.
But there are plenty of examples across all sports where tanking just lead to more tanking/mediocrity.
Unless there is a 100% HoF talent. Tanking for a higher draft pick, is just as much of a crap shoot as drafting not in the top 10.
TWolves/Kings/Sixers/Bucks/Detriot/Charlotte/Orlando/Pelicans/Clippers/Colts/Browns... I really could keep going. Are teams that continually suck/tanked for something yet to never get out of suck-age/mediocrity.
Then there is the other fact that there is at least one NBA team that gave tanking "the finger", and they're now one of the top four or five teams in the league this year. I'm sure if I thought on it for more than a second I could come up with teams(77 Blazers) across sports that have took this approach as well, ending up in the same position.

No matter how anyone views it, there are multiple ways to go about building a team. Losing games on purpose to draft higher has just as much of a chance of getting you to a title as trying to build in the middle of the draft.(unless as I mentioned earlier.. a 22 year old Shaq is in the 17draft.)
 
It's not a matter of falling down, it's if you get back up again.

Some franchises are historically terrible and no amount of Lottery picks will help. Some franchises can go in and go right back out. Portland's history is it won't kill them to go in. They are notoriously a playoff team much more than they are not so if you're going to get a Lottory pick, get as good of a pick as you can.
 
jlprk said:
Glazeduck posted a lot 10 years ago on ESPN. Post more now, Glazeduck. I remember.
Click to expand...

Thanks man, definitely remember you too! I read the site everyday still and used to try to post here at least once a day, but the job's gotten busier, I've got a little guy running around now, a house to take care of, etc...
 
I don't believe in tanking as a way to get better and I don't think we'll lose enough to get a top 5 pick....but the lottery has the benefit of cap relief....rookie contracts are like gold if you get a rotation player that's NBA ready as a rookie....it's hit and miss if you land a project...(Meyers) If there are drafted players better than Connaughton, Layman, Vonleh , Quarterman and Napier....you upgrade those positions....the question becomes...how much longer will you wait on Crabbe, Harkless, Vonleh or Leonard to make a leap in contribution? I think Turner is a keeper.
 
honkicracker said:
You provided examples where "tanking/sucking" worked.
But there are plenty of examples across all sports where tanking just lead to more tanking/mediocrity.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here is claiming that tanking will work out perfectly for us beyond any doubt. The question was to point out times when tanking worked, so that's what I did. To your point (especially if we're all pretending we're Neil Olshey) you've got to trust your data, your scouts and your own eyes. What's the point of even having the conversation if you don't trust the system you've put in place to find your guys?


honkicracker said:
Unless there is a 100% HoF talent. Tanking for a higher draft pick, is just as much of a crap shoot as drafting not in the top 10.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I absolutely HATE this mentality. It's just wrong. Allow me to try to prove it to you in a number of ways.
  1. You give me $100 and I'll give you $20 for it. That shouldn't be any different, right? They're both amounts of money, they can both buy things. What's the difference?
  2. Take a look at the 1998 NBA draft (famous for Michael Olowakandi being the first overall pick). Obviously the Kandiman was a major bust, and in truth that draft, as a whole, wasn't spectacular. But the difference between the Clippers' pick at 1 and the 76ers' pick at 8 (ended up being Larry Hughes) is the option to draft 3 VERY good/borderline great NBA players (Mike Bibby, Vince Carter and Antawn Jamison) and a 4th that ended up getting traded for Dirk Nowitzki (Robert Traylor). While they chose poorly, the Clippers had the opportunity to hit on any of those guys that the 76ers did not. Like it or not, those options and that added flexibility IS worth something.
  3. Look at our selection of Greg Oden -- reportedly the Sonics were offering us Durant, Rashard Lewis and multiple future 1s (one of which ended up being Russell Westbrook). Obviously things didn't work out, but notice how the Hawks at 3 didn't get the same offer? The opportunity to draft certain players IS worth something.

honkicracker said:
TWolves/Kings/Sixers/Bucks/Detriot/Charlotte/Orlando/Pelicans/Clippers/Colts/Browns... I really could keep going. Are teams that continually suck/tanked for something yet to never get out of suck-age/mediocrity.
Click to expand...

No question, there's a lot of mediocrity out there, but arguably ALL of those struggles are more related to leadership from the top. Their suckage and failures in the draft are a byproduct and reflection of that lack of leadership, NOT because they've tanked now and/or in the past.


honkicracker said:
Then there is the other fact that there is at least one NBA team that gave tanking "the finger", and they're now one of the top four or five teams in the league this year. I'm sure if I thought on it for more than a second I could come up with teams(77 Blazers) across sports that have took this approach as well, ending up in the same position.

No matter how anyone views it, there are multiple ways to go about building a team. Losing games on purpose to draft higher has just as much of a chance of getting you to a title as trying to build in the middle of the draft.(unless as I mentioned earlier.. a 22 year old Shaq is in the 17draft.)
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with this, there are multiple ways to build a team. But how many times do we really need to be Charlie Brown with the Free Agent football pulled away from us at the last second? At some point, if you're serious about making a run -- especially in a small market -- you have to embrace the reality that free agency is not a viable way to acquire difference makers. Whether or not the next Shaq is in the draft is immaterial. Certainly having a can't-miss star in the draft would strengthen the argument, but there is inarguably a difference between picking, say 4th and 9th or 10th, regardless of who's in the draft.

I'll also add that I'm in favor of this approach because of how close -- relatively speaking -- we are to getting to a very reasonable spot in the lottery. In general, I agree that the tanking approach is a loser's mentality, and I seriously hope it's not something we get into the habit of. If we were, say 8 or 9 games above the pack and somehow squarely in the 9th or 10th slot, then fine, try to win out -- don't see much benefit to losing. But in this instance, we really are only a handful of games away from having a very attractive pick to add another piece to the roster.

I'll just close by asking, what's the alternative? It's fine for those of you who don't want to tank to have that opinion, but what's a better option? We're not making the playoffs, and if somehow we do limp in, we're getting torched by whoever we face. I just don't see a whole lot of benefit to winning enough games to hang out in the 10th or 11th spot -- what's to gain there that can't be gained by shelving a few of the guys who are known commodities like Dame, Aminu and ET to ensure better lottery odds?
 
Last edited:
glazeduck said:
I don't think anyone here is claiming that tanking will work out perfectly for us beyond any doubt. The question was to point out times when tanking worked, so that's what I did. To your point (especially if we're all pretending we're Neil Olshey) you've got to trust your data, your scouts and your own eyes. What's the point of even having the conversation if you don't trust the guys you've hired to advise you on which players will be the best for your given situation?




I'm sorry but I absolutely HATE this mentality. It's just wrong. Allow me to try to prove it to you in a number of ways.
  1. You give me $100 and I'll give you $20 for it. That shouldn't be any different, right? They're amounts of both money, they can both buy things. What's the difference?
  2. Take a look at the 1998 NBA draft (famous for Michael Olowakandi being the first overall pick). Obviously the Kandiman was a major bust, and in truth that draft, as a whole, wasn't spectacular. But the difference between the Clippers' pick at 1 and the 76ers' pick at 8 (ended up being Larry Hughes) is the option to draft 3 VERY good/borderline great NBA players (Mike Bibby, Vince Carter and Antawn Jamison) and a 4th that ended up getting traded for Dirk Nowitzki. While they chose poorly, the Clippers had the opportunity to hit on any of those guys that the 76ers did not. Like it or not, those options and that added flexibility IS worth something.
  3. Look at our selection of Greg Oden -- reportedly the Sonics were offering us Durant, Rashard Lewis and multiple future 1s. Obviously things didn't work out, but notice how the Hawks at 3 didn't get the same offer? The opportunity to draft certain players IS worth something.



No question, there's a lot of mediocrity out there, but arguably ALL of those struggles are more related to leadership from the top. Their suckage and failures in the draft are a byproduct and reflection of that lack of leadership, because they've tanked now and/or in the past.




I don't necessarily disagree with this, there are multiple ways to build a team. But how many times do we really need to be Charlie Brown with the Free Agent football pulled away from us at the last second? At some point, if you're serious about making a run -- especially in a small market -- you have to embrace the reality that free agency is not a viable way to acquire difference makers. Whether or not the next Shaq is in the draft is immaterial. Certainly having a can't-miss star in the draft would strengthen the argument, but there is inarguably a difference between picking, say 4th and 9th or 10th, regardless of who's in the draft.

I'll also add that I'm in favor of this approach because of how close -- relatively speaking -- we are to getting to a very reasonable spot in the lottery. In general, I agree that the tanking approach is a loser's mentality, and I seriously hope it's not something we get into the habit of. If we were, say 8 or 9 games above the pack and somehow squarely in the 9th or 10th slot, then fine, try to win out -- don't see much benefit to losing. But in this instance, we really are only a handful of games away from having a very attractive pick to add another piece to the roster.

I'll just close by asking, what's the alternative. It's fine for those of you who don't want to tank to have that opinion, but what's a better option? We're not making the playoffs, and if by somehow we do limp in, we're getting torched by whoever we face. I just don't see a whole lot of benefit to winning enough games to hang out in the 10th or 11th spot -- what's to gain there that can't be gained by shelving a few of the guys who are known commodities like Dame, Aminu and ET to ensure better lottery odds?
Click to expand...

The full bolded text tweaks me.
You might as well have put it in all caps.
Because of that, I won't be reading anything you put past the first sentence.
Feel free to adjust your post if you'd like to continue to have a conversation. But without that, I personally won't be responding to anything wrote in this comment.
 
glazeduck said:
I don't think anyone here is claiming that tanking will work out perfectly for us beyond any doubt. The question was to point out times when tanking worked, so that's what I did. To your point (especially if we're all pretending we're Neil Olshey) you've got to trust your data, your scouts and your own eyes. What's the point of even having the conversation if you don't trust the guys you've hired to advise you on which players will be the best for your given situation?




I'm sorry but I absolutely HATE this mentality. It's just wrong. Allow me to try to prove it to you in a number of ways.
  1. You give me $100 and I'll give you $20 for it. That shouldn't be any different, right? They're amounts of both money, they can both buy things. What's the difference?
  2. Take a look at the 1998 NBA draft (famous for Michael Olowakandi being the first overall pick). Obviously the Kandiman was a major bust, and in truth that draft, as a whole, wasn't spectacular. But the difference between the Clippers' pick at 1 and the 76ers' pick at 8 (ended up being Larry Hughes) is the option to draft 3 VERY good/borderline great NBA players (Mike Bibby, Vince Carter and Antawn Jamison) and a 4th that ended up getting traded for Dirk Nowitzki. While they chose poorly, the Clippers had the opportunity to hit on any of those guys that the 76ers did not. Like it or not, those options and that added flexibility IS worth something.
  3. Look at our selection of Greg Oden -- reportedly the Sonics were offering us Durant, Rashard Lewis and multiple future 1s. Obviously things didn't work out, but notice how the Hawks at 3 didn't get the same offer? The opportunity to draft certain players IS worth something.



No question, there's a lot of mediocrity out there, but arguably ALL of those struggles are more related to leadership from the top. Their suckage and failures in the draft are a byproduct and reflection of that lack of leadership, because they've tanked now and/or in the past.




I don't necessarily disagree with this, there are multiple ways to build a team. But how many times do we really need to be Charlie Brown with the Free Agent football pulled away from us at the last second? At some point, if you're serious about making a run -- especially in a small market -- you have to embrace the reality that free agency is not a viable way to acquire difference makers. Whether or not the next Shaq is in the draft is immaterial. Certainly having a can't-miss star in the draft would strengthen the argument, but there is inarguably a difference between picking, say 4th and 9th or 10th, regardless of who's in the draft.

I'll also add that I'm in favor of this approach because of how close -- relatively speaking -- we are to getting to a very reasonable spot in the lottery. In general, I agree that the tanking approach is a loser's mentality, and I seriously hope it's not something we get into the habit of. If we were, say 8 or 9 games above the pack and somehow squarely in the 9th or 10th slot, then fine, try to win out -- don't see much benefit to losing. But in this instance, we really are only a handful of games away from having a very attractive pick to add another piece to the roster.

I'll just close by asking, what's the alternative. It's fine for those of you who don't want to tank to have that opinion, but what's a better option? We're not making the playoffs, and if by somehow we do limp in, we're getting torched by whoever we face. I just don't see a whole lot of benefit to winning enough games to hang out in the 10th or 11th spot -- what's to gain there that can't be gained by shelving a few of the guys who are known commodities like Dame, Aminu and ET to ensure better lottery odds?
Click to expand...
very good points all around....but from everything I've read in this draft the difference isn't that great between the top 20 picks unless you've got number 1 this year...also I trust Olshey's eye for draft talent. I could also see us drafting for another team in a trade as well. I just don't see Olshey getting guys over 24 years of age at this point to build a contender.....as someone mentioned....the bold font is not easy on the eyes for long posts....
 
riverman said:
very good points all around....but from everything I've read in this draft the difference isn't that great between the top 20 picks unless you've got number 1 this year...also I trust Olshey's eye for draft talent. I could also see us drafting for another team in a trade as well. I just don't see Olshey getting guys over 24 years of age at this point to build a contender.....as someone mentioned....the bold font is not easy on the eyes for long posts....
Click to expand...
Trusting "Olshey's eye for talent" is all the more reason to hope for as high a pick as possible. The larger the pool of available players, the more likely the player he wants will be available. That's just common sense.
 
riverman said:
very good points all around....but from everything I've read in this draft the difference isn't that great between the top 20 picks unless you've got number 1 this year...also I trust Olshey's eye for draft talent. I could also see us drafting for another team in a trade as well. I just don't see Olshey getting guys over 24 years of age at this point to build a contender.....as someone mentioned....the bold font is not easy on the eyes for long posts....
Click to expand...
You're wrong. There's 5 guys that would be deserving of #1 (Fultz, Ball, Smith, Jackson, Tatum). Then there's a group of players that would be top 5 in most drafts (Fox, Isaac, Monk, Markannen).

After that it falls off a bit.
 
There's another advantage to moving up in the draft that I haven't seen mentioned (maybe I just missed it?)

If the Blazers can get into the top 3-5 and there really isn't any difference between the guys that are 1-10 (or whatever) then it gives you leverage with teams that want to move up. You could have the opportunity to move back a few places, pick up a few assets and still get a guy you really want.
 
BonesJones said:
You're wrong. There's 5 guys that would be deserving of #1 (Fultz, Ball, Smith, Jackson, Tatum). Then there's a group of players that would be top 5 in most drafts (Fox, Isaac, Monk, Markannen).

After that it falls off a bit.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure Ball isn't Adam Morrison...he's falling on the floor a whole lot against guys the size of Allen Crabbe....I watched him play 4 games...he can shoot...likes to flop...doesn't have an NBA body...
 
riverman said:
I'm not sure Ball isn't Adam Morrison...he's falling on the floor a whole lot against guys the size of Allen Crabbe....I watched him play 4 games...he can shoot...likes to flop...doesn't have an NBA body...
Click to expand...
I think he'll be a bust too, but based on what he's doing in college he'd still be deserving as a boom or bust pick.
 
I've watched a bit of college ball because my client watches every college game so it's on at work....for you guys in the know...who's the next Karl Malone power forward in this draft?
 
Bridges from Michigan st is a player that you need keep a eye on. I know he play SF in college but it seems he also can play some 2. He deadly in the corners from 3 and he can also take it to the rim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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