Who to draft?

[rocketeer]

Well all I can say right now is who not to draft. Greg Monroe. The guy has motor issues. I saw him play several times this year and he seemed disinterested at best. He definitly has skills. No motor to back them up though.

monroe is going to be one of the best players from this draft but he isn't really a good fit for the blazers since they already have aldridge.

 

[Minstrel]

Re: Cahd Ford's draft blog

Weren't you disappointed we didn't draft Blair? (I was too). Blair definitely fits the description of a high-motor guy, that would never become a core / franchise player.

But Blair was probably the most talented guy available at that pick (at least among US college players...I don't know enough about international prospects to comment on them). I don't want to speak for Ed, but as someone who shares the same philosophy on drafting, I'm not against a high motor...I just don't want it to be a bigger selection criterion than talent/skills.

A high upside/risky motor guy at least gives you the chance for an impact player. A low upside/high motor guy essentially ensures low impact (but also a higher "floor"...less total wash-out risk). Since I think serviceable NBA players aren't that hard to find, I'd rather gamble on a guy who might be tremendous or might be a total disappointment (whereupon, the team can cut ties) than safely select a guy who's likely to be the sort of player who's generally available for parts of the MLE.

A high talent, high motor guy (as we could label Blair)? Sure, sign me up! I also like eternal happiness and beautiful things.

 

[<-=*PdX*=->]

All I know is every year since Pritch became GM that I have been thrown for a loop on who we were gonna draft. I am sure that will be the same this year.

 

[blazerboy30]

Re: Cahd Ford's draft blog

But Blair was probably the most talented guy available at that pick (at least among US college players...I don't know enough about international prospects to comment on them). I don't want to speak for Ed, but as someone who shares the same philosophy on drafting, I'm not against a high motor...I just don't want it to be a bigger selection criterion than talent/skills.

A high upside/risky motor guy at least gives you the chance for an impact player. A low upside/high motor guy essentially ensures low impact (but also a higher "floor"...less total wash-out risk). Since I think serviceable NBA players aren't that hard to find, I'd rather gamble on a guy who might be tremendous or might be a total disappointment (whereupon, the team can cut ties) than safely select a guy who's likely to be the sort of player who's generally available for parts of the MLE.

A high talent, high motor guy (as we could label Blair)? Sure, sign me up! I also like eternal happiness and beautiful things.

I agree with your post, except the last line. Maybe that is where our opinions differ. I don't consider Blair a "high talent" guy. He is an undersized (for the NBA), high motor, workhorse. Having said that, I would have loved to draft him, or would love to draft a similar player this year considering where we are projected to pick.

 

[Minstrel]

Re: Cahd Ford's draft blog

I agree with your post, except the last line. Maybe that is where our opinions differ. I don't consider Blair a "high talent" guy. He is an undersized (for the NBA), high motor, workhorse. Having said that, I would have loved to draft him, or would love to draft a similar player this year considering where we are projected to pick.

Who did you feel was more talented than Blair at that point in the draft? His size isn't good, but he was expected to be a potentially high level rebounder and solid post scorer. For a pick in the 20s, that's pretty good. He was thought a possible top-ten pick until injury concerns caused him to tumble massively.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Re: Cahd Ford's draft blog

Who did you feel was more talented than Blair at that point in the draft? His size isn't good, but he was expected to be a potentially high level rebounder and solid post scorer. For a pick in the 20s, that's pretty good. He was thought a possible top-ten pick until injury concerns caused him to tumble massively.

By solid post scorer, do you mean he can get his own shot in the post? If you do, I don't know what you are talking about. Blair cannot create his own shot in any way and he most likely will never be able to. For a post player, ability to create shots in the post (post moves) is what offensive talent means. Blair doesn't have that. He also doesn't have defensive talent. He does have extraordinary rebounding talent and the other things that come with that (put backs, receiving passes right next to the rim).

 

[Minstrel]

Re: Cahd Ford's draft blog

By solid post scorer, do you mean he can get his own shot in the post? If you do, I don't know what you are talking about. Blair cannot create his own shot in any way and he most likely will never be able to. For a post player, ability to create shots in the post (post moves) is what offensive talent means. Blair doesn't have that.

Sorry, I used the wrong term. I meant solid inside scorer. And by that I mean, efficiently generate points near the hoop. And he is doing that, which is part of why his PER is very high for rookie.

Are you contesting that he was, at least arguably, the most talented player left when Portland made its first-round selection? If so, what player was clearly more talented?

 

[Nikolokolus]

Re: Cahd Ford's draft blog

Sorry, I used the wrong term. I meant solid inside scorer. And by that I mean, efficiently generate points near the hoop. And he is doing that, which is part of why his PER is very high for rookie.

Are you contesting that he was, at least arguably, the most talented player left when Portland made its first-round selection? If so, what player was clearly more talented?

Nick Calathes FTW!!!!

 

[oldmangrouch]

Re: Cahd Ford's draft blog

Sorry, I used the wrong term. I meant solid inside scorer. And by that I mean, efficiently generate points near the hoop. And he is doing that, which is part of why his PER is very high for rookie.

Are you contesting that he was, at least arguably, the most talented player left when Portland made its first-round selection? If so, what player was clearly more talented?

On behalf of the pro-Blair people you were ripping on last draft day, we accept your apology.

 

[Minstrel]

Re: Cahd Ford's draft blog

On behalf of the pro-Blair people you were ripping on last draft day, we accept your apology.

I wasn't ripping the pro-Blair people. I was pro-Blair and I'm not self-flagellating. I was gently admonishing the "I disagree with the pick, therefore KP mailed it in" people. Not that I remember who they were.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I had to say I was pretty surprised that Blair slid past us not once but twice in the second round, but my only reaction was "holy shit, his knees must look worse than Oden's" ... maybe they still are basically ticking time bombs, who knows? That said I'm modestly pleased with Dante's game, Pendergraph I'm less optimistic about, but for second rounder I'm not sure what you can expect.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Re: Cahd Ford's draft blog

I wasn't ripping the pro-Blair people. I was pro-Blair and I'm not self-flagellating. I was gently admonishing the "I disagree with the pick, therefore KP mailed it in" people. Not that I remember who they were.

OK, so it wasn't about being right, it was about being polite.

I can accept that.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Re: Cahd Ford's draft blog

Sorry, I used the wrong term. I meant solid inside scorer. And by that I mean, efficiently generate points near the hoop. And he is doing that, which is part of why his PER is very high for rookie.

Are you contesting that he was, at least arguably, the most talented player left when Portland made its first-round selection? If so, what player was clearly more talented?

I am not contesting that at all, I agree that he was the most talented player available.

 

[Blaze01]

Give it up people...Blair was ok, nothing great...

I don't think POR passing up on him was that big of a deal AT ALL....both Cunningham and Pendergraph showed glimpses every bit as impressive as Blair this year...I am tires of reading this "we passed on Blair" bullshit from naysayers...give it a rest already...

and we don't know yet what type of NBA player Claver will be, although he was awarded best young player in euroleague? this year.

 

[BrianFromWA]

^^With all due respect Blaze, comparing Blair's production and role this year on a team that went further in the playoffs than we did with Pendergraph's is pretty laughable.
Blair in 18mpg backing up the greatest PF of all time...7.8pt/6.4reb (comes to a 17/14 "per40")--17.8 PER.
JP in 10.4mpg backing up Juwan Howard, then relegated to Shavlik Randolph playing time--2.7pt/2.5reb (10/9 per 40)--12.1 PER. And that's including the final-game explosion where he scored 22% of his points for the entire year.

In shortened playoff rotations: JP- 17 playoff minutes in the garbage time of blowouts. Blair--10mpg giving 4/4.

Games lost to injury. JP-23. Blair-0.

I could keep going, but there literally isn't a single reason, metric or observation about Blair that doesn't compare favorably to JP. Not one.

 

[Blaze01]

except if you watched them play on the court...

Look, Blair had a good rookie year...but I don't see him as anything more than a bench level player....He is a good rebounder and guy to to mix it up\throw his weight in the paint, but didn't really show any discernable go to offensive move...

Cunningham showed some real nice flashes of potential when he was in games...good mid range jumper that is pretty damm automatic, great hustle, good defender and rebounder.....Quite frankly, he showed more potential and a more important definable NBA skill (that mid range shot) than Blair did....

 

[BlazerCaravan]

A few metrics: Offensive Rating and Defensive Rating. Win Shares per 48 minutes. True Shooting % and Effective Field Goal %. Turnovers per 36 minutes. Free Throw %.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.cgi?id=ZGicZ

 

[BrianFromWA]

So having a mid-range jumper (the most inefficient shot in basketball) that you shoot an inefficient 44% on (.88points per shot is horrific) is a "definable NBA skill", but being an elite-level rebounder (his ORb% led the league, but he was just short of qualifying by minutes, his DRb% was 10th, and total % was 4th) and garbageman isn't?

And I noticed you didn't bring up JP. What's his definable NBA skill?

 

[blazerboy30]

Re: Cahd Ford's draft blog

Who did you feel was more talented than Blair at that point in the draft? His size isn't good, but he was expected to be a potentially high level rebounder and solid post scorer. For a pick in the 20s, that's pretty good. He was thought a possible top-ten pick until injury concerns caused him to tumble massively.

Nobody at that point. But it depends on what you mean by "talent". I think Dante has more "talent" than Blair. But, I wanted Blair (and still would) because of his rebounding and "toughness", which are usually a function of a player's "motor". So, like I said: At this point, I'm willing to give up some "talent" for a strong "motor", just like I would have last year to get Blair.

 

[blazerboy30]

So having a mid-range jumper (the most inefficient shot in basketball) that you shoot an inefficient 44% on (.88points per shot is horrific) is a "definable NBA skill", but being an elite-level rebounder (his ORb% led the league, but he was just short of qualifying by minutes, his DRb% was 10th, and total % was 4th) and garbageman isn't?

And I noticed you didn't bring up JP. What's his definable NBA skill?

I think Dante's defense and defensive potential are better than his mid-range jumper. And, 44% for mid-range jumpers isn't bad.

 

[BrianFromWA]

44% for mid-range jumpers is horrible and inefficient. Just b/c we're used to watching LMA and Travis shoot 41% doesn't mean it's "not bad". If it's your emergency safety-valve, maybe it's acceptable. But shooting 29% from 3 is better than shooting 44% from mid-range...and I don't think we're clamoring for a bunch of 29% 3-point shooters. Couple that with the fact that it's his only discernable offensive skill, and that's not "talented." Or helpful. And nowhere close to "more important" than rebounding, which you asserted in post 46.

What about his defensive potential makes you think it's NBA-quality? What is it about holding opponents' reserve PFs a PER of 17.9 that makes you think his defense is "quality"? What about his 104 DRtg vs. Blair's 101 makes you not think Blair has some potential, either?

 

[Nikolokolus]

So having a mid-range jumper (the most inefficient shot in basketball) that you shoot an inefficient 44% on (.88points per shot is horrific) is a "definable NBA skill", but being an elite-level rebounder (his ORb% led the league, but he was just short of qualifying by minutes, his DRb% was 10th, and total % was 4th) and garbageman isn't?

And I noticed you didn't bring up JP. What's his definable NBA skill?

you're spot on. Right now neither Dante or JP has shown themselves to be particularly natural fits in a traditionally defined 1-5 NBA offense; both seem to be stuck between positions (Dante a 3/4 and Jeff a 4/5) either undersized for the larger spot or too slow for the smaller role. I'm not 100% sure either is going to become a regular rotation player, but based on what I saw of the two I'd give Dante a slightly higher chance of becoming a regular reserve as a "big" small forward especially if he can extend his range out to the three point line -- something that I don't think is beyond the realm of possibility with his solid form on his 18 footer. Defensively I also think he's got at least enough smarts to defend the 3 or the 4 depending on matchups and despite not being the most laterally quick guy you'll ever see at the 3 he can be adequate. Jeff I doubt sticks in the NBA long term.

Blair on the other hand is fine as an off-the-bench power forward, he's always going to give up inches on defense, but he rebounds like a mad-man and he scores very efficiently around the basket, skills that are always in demand and bankable, he'll be a rotation player right up to the moment both of his knees explode (whenever that happens).

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I have to say, while Blair performed admirably and was obviously better than JP and DC... why are people complaining we *didn't* draft a player with bad knees after complaining that we *did* draft a player with bad knees? I mean seriously, people!

 

[BlazerCaravan]

So having a mid-range jumper (the most inefficient shot in basketball) that you shoot an inefficient 44% on (.88points per shot is horrific) is a "definable NBA skill", but being an elite-level rebounder (his ORb% led the league, but he was just short of qualifying by minutes, his DRb% was 10th, and total % was 4th) and garbageman isn't?

And I noticed you didn't bring up JP. What's his definable NBA skill?

Where did you get the 44% stat? I want to see the link, so I can also look at JP's mid-range jumper.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Where did you get the 44% stat? I want to see the link, so I can also look at JP's mid-range jumper.

http://www.82games.com/0910/09POR11.HTM

Try this.

 

[hasoos]

I have to say, while Blair performed admirably and was obviously better than JP and DC... why are people complaining we *didn't* draft a player with bad knees after complaining that we *did* draft a player with bad knees? I mean seriously, people!

At the same time you are omitting 2 different pieces of information. The Blazers had multiple picks with which to get players at that part of the draft. Secondly, you are comparing a high draft pick to a low draft pick which is pretty much disposable. 2nd round picks can be bought for cash most of the time on draft day for very little. The risk is negligible at that time in the draft. Any player you find from position 20 on is a fucking gift.

Another point people don't make is that Pendergraph had a career threatening hip impingement. We signed him anyhow.

 

[BrianFromWA]

wait...is anyone complaining about us drafting Roy, even though he had (and is continuing to have) bad wheels? Or are you talking about Oden, who at the time he was drafted hadn't had a knee problem? Or am I just really missing something here?

 

[blazerboy30]

44% for mid-range jumpers is horrible and inefficient. Just b/c we're used to watching LMA and Travis shoot 41% doesn't mean it's "not bad".

Yeah, 44% is pretty bad compared to Blair's 33%, or Duncan's 43%, or Roy's 46%, or Parker's 40%. Am I looking at the wrong stat here? Can you provide a list of players who have a lot better mid-range shooting percentage?

If it's your emergency safety-valve, maybe it's acceptable. But shooting 29% from 3 is better than shooting 44% from mid-range...and I don't think we're clamoring for a bunch of 29% 3-point shooters. Couple that with the fact that it's his only discernable offensive skill, and that's not "talented." Or helpful. And nowhere close to "more important" than rebounding, which you asserted in post 46.

I guess you aren't talking to me, because I didn't even make post #46.

What about his defensive potential makes you think it's NBA-quality? What is it about holding opponents' reserve PFs a PER of 17.9 that makes you think his defense is "quality"? What about his 104 DRtg vs. Blair's 101 makes you not think Blair has some potential, either?

Wait, I guess you are talking to me, because I'm the one talking about his defense. Can you get your argument straight?

You're the one assuming we should be judging his defense while guarding PF's, not me.

 

[blazerboy30]

wait...is anyone complaining about us drafting Roy, even though he had (and is continuing to have) bad wheels? Or are you talking about Oden, who at the time he was drafted hadn't had a knee problem? Or am I just really missing something here?

I think you need to re-read the thread to see what the conversation was actually about. Nowhere did I, or anybody else on this thread, bring up not drafting him because of his knees.

 

[hasoos]

It looks like Cousins is starting to slide a bit. I wonder how much movement is going on right now due to the draft camps taking place?