With the #7 pick, the Portland Trail Blazers select....

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
1 Eye Jack said:
Book it if Dyson Daniels is there at 7 that’s who we take!
Click to expand...

Daniels seems to have the most desirable potential. Length, playmaking ability, plus defender.....just needs to improve his shooting.

Someone will jump up, and someone will fall....seems to happen every Draft. Teams that want an immediate contributor, might hesitate on Holmgren, at least for the first couple of picks. Smith, Paolo, and Ivey are all ready to be more immediate contributors.
 
TBpup said:
Daniels seems to have the most desirable potential. Length, playmaking ability, plus defender.....just needs to improve his shooting.

Someone will jump up, and someone will fall....seems to happen every Draft. Teams that want an immediate contributor, might hesitate on Holmgren, at least for the first couple of picks. Smith, Paolo, and Ivey are all ready to be more immediate contributors.
Click to expand...
Jeremy Sochan is pretty similar that way to Dyson Daniels. Sochan is a better ball handler than Daniels, but Daniels can make some very amazing full court passes.
 
illmatic99 said:
schmitz compared him to Anthony Edwards after seeing him in scrimmages at UK. If Sharpe has that kinda explosion, then I could be talked into him. But he seems like a guy with a more fluid game than raw power. i still have no idea how to project him with such little body of work against high competition.
Click to expand...
I agree. Don't see the same burst and power Ant had off the dribble. But maybe he's gotten more explosive and improved the handle in the last year. Pro day was kinda disappointing in that respect though.

Duren / Griffin /Sharpe are still my top 3...

I get the skepticism with AJ. He's a funky watch and the defense was not good. But he's was still a very good offensive player in a power conference as an 18 year old who hadn't played much basketball in 2 years (Injuries/Dad playing it safe/Covid shutting down HS/EYBL). His frame+handle+elite shooting is a rare enough combination for me to bet on though.

Looks like he's slimmed down since the season. Seems to be moving better. Still needs to work on his strides using his frame to his advantage and generating more power from his lower body.
People that watched him more in HS say the potential athleticism improvements are being over blown as well. Has never been a guy that created a whole lot of separation or been super quick. The main differences are he's not quite as explosive off 2 feet and has been a lot more cautious overall, especially defensively. Used to be a pretty awesome weakside shot blocker and chase down guy, and we rarely saw that at Duke, especially the chase downs...(still posted a 2.3% blk rate tbf). The added size hurt his movement a bit too.

Understand that the risk is easier to take sitting here than running a team though. The medicals will obviously be huge. The dislocation was pretty bad but no structural damage to his knee that we know of.
 
Last edited:
illmatic99 said:
i think thats a smokescreen.
Click to expand...
This isn’t particularly directed at you.
But I love how many people here have Keegan near the top of their board but then when other teams like him it’s “nah, it’s a smokescreen. Nah, they don’t need him.”

Like the Kings example for instance. A lot of people want Keegan because he is arguably the most NBA ready prospect. But then they say “The Kings don’t need him!”

Then you have a number of people who saw his interview with Schmitz and they liked him even more. And you have Schmitz (I believe it was) saying Keegan might be the best player in the draft in his opinion.
 
Predator said:
This isn’t particularly directed at you.
But I love how many people here have Keegan near the top of their board but then when other teams like him it’s “nah, it’s a smokescreen. Nah, they don’t need him.”

Like the Kings example for instance. A lot of people want Keegan because he is arguably the most NBA ready prospect. But then they say “The Kings don’t need him!”

Then you have a number of people who saw his interview with Schmitz and they liked him even more. And you have Schmitz (I believe it was) saying Keegan might be the best player in the draft in his opinion.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you quoted my response at all. Keegan is near the top of my board based on the assumption that Ivey + top 3 are already taken.

I've been saying for a while I think Ivey is a tier 1 prospect and would not hesitate to gladly take him if he drops. I just think it's a smokescreen from Detroit to try to entice IND/POR to move up because Keegan is a better positional fit for both teams.
 
Murray's comp in many places is....Grant. So if they are going to lose Grant, makes sense to replace him with a younger, cheaper alternative who rebounds MUCH better.

Hmm.....I'll take Murray instead of Grant.
 
TBpup said:
Murray's comp in many places is....Grant. So if they are going to lose Grant, makes sense to replace him with a younger, cheaper alternative who rebounds MUCH better.

Hmm.....I'll take Murray instead of Grant.
Click to expand...

I don't see why one of the worst teams in the league in Detroit should care at all about filling the final roster holes for a playoff rotation.

Thats like the final step 10 of building a contender. But they are on step 2 of just trying to acquire talent.

Not that your wrong, tons of bad teams do this. It's basically how we ended up with Martell Webster instead of CP3 since we had Telfair.
 
WesleyMatthews said:
I don't see why one of the worst teams in the league in Detroit should care at all about filling the final roster holes for a playoff rotation.

Thats like the final step 10 of building a contender. But they are on step 2 of just trying to acquire talent.

Not that your wrong, tons of bad teams do this. It's basically how we ended up with Martell Webster instead of CP3 since we had Telfair.
Click to expand...
I think Sacramento (of all teams!) may go this route. I've heard or read time after time that they don't want to wait 3 years. It doesn't make any sense. Which maybe is consistent for them. They traded a 41% 3-point-shooting point guard and kept a 32% 3-point-shooting point guard.
 
Last edited:
Here's some comparisons of some of the players the Blazers might draft, and Jeremy Sochan thrown in there too. Not sure if he's a guy they're looking at, but I think he'd be a great fit with the Blazers.

I put in bold the best numbers among Sochan, Daniels and Mathurin. Murray is actually best or worst in most of the categories. Even though I'd rather have Daniels or Sochan over Mathurin, because of their size and defense and better rebounding, I can see Mathurin being a good choice, being the better 3-point shooter and getting to the free-throw line a lot to give him the highest true shooting percentage of those three. He also doesn't have the areas of concern that Sochan and Daniels do.

I don't know why Daniels free-throw attempts are so low. He took more shots per 40 minutes than Sochan (12.6 vs 11.2) , yet Sochan took 2.6 times more free throws per 40 minutes than Daniels. And obviously Mathurin and Murray took way more free throws too.

Is this an indication of Daniels' lack of aggression or ability to attack on offense and aversion to contact? Daniels' assist numbers are great, so I guess you can't have everything.

upload_2022-6-2_12-16-34.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2022-6-2_12-16-34.png
    upload_2022-6-2_12-16-34.png
    42.7 KB · Views: 117
Trade up. Trade out. Trade down with keep and trade. Not so many outlets, blogs, posters are predicting using the 7th pick for the Blazers. I've read the reasons, the arguments, relevant evidence, comments parsed from team sources ...
And there is value at 7 and giving up nothing.

The Best? of what may be available?

Keegan Murray: Done deal. I'm in. Looks more PF than SF, but his smoothness and switchability look good. More complete for his game at both ends -- perhaps -- than the top 3 of Smith, Holmgren, Banchero.

Sharpe: a good-sized-uber-athletic SG who ends up as SG/SF. Mystery man and Sharpe as a pick is volatile for rising/falling.

Daniels: a recent rise ... an often told draft tale ... with size (PG/SF), length, vision, defense, anticipation ... a workable shot ... both hands floating well in the lane and around the hoop ... a hot name.

Sochan: all D and movement and enjoys playmaking and a unique story and personality ... enter Draymond comparisons ... add in Batum but thicker.

At least 2 of the above will be at 7. None of the them available at 9? Probably Sochan. Possibly Daniels. Trading down means trading out #9 unless you want Duren/Williams or a guard (or Sochan); most of those options are less attractive to me. [If it's a trade for OG? I'm in. If they trade up to 3 (for Banchero) (or even 5 along with Grant), I'm in. I can be convinced. Down? Not so good.]

One idea circulating is that if they use the pick, other options for trades dried up. Maybe. Maybe they like the pick and who they get better than a trade. That's what Olshey would sell ... of course ... and annoyingly so. Given the players likely to be there and Portland's needs, keeping the 7 ... I'm more than open to it.
 
Last edited:
TBpup said:
Murray's comp in many places is....Grant. So if they are going to lose Grant, makes sense to replace him with a younger, cheaper alternative who rebounds MUCH better.

Hmm.....I'll take Murray instead of Grant.
Click to expand...

Keep Grant (he’s better, likely, in the short term) and sell when there’s a better price. Take the higher ceiling guy if they see that of Ivey or Sharpe to pair with Cunningham?
 
HoopsFanAZ said:
Trade up. Trade out. Trade down with keep and trade. Not so many outlets, blogs, posters are predicting using the 7th pick for the Blazers. I've read the reasons, the arguments, relevant evidence, comments parsed from team sources ...
And there is value at 7 and giving up nothing.

The Best? of what may be available?

Keegan Murray: Done deal. I'm in. Looks more PF than SF, but his smoothness and switchability look good. More complete for his game at both ends -- perhaps -- than the top 3 of Smith, Holmgren, Banchero.

Sharpe: a good-sized-uber-athletic SG who ends up as SG/SF. Mystery man and Sharpe as a pick is volatile for rising/falling.

Daniels: a recent rise ... an often told draft tale ... with size (PG/SF), length, vision, defense, anticipation ... a workable shot ... both hands floating well in the lane and around the hoop ... a hot name.

Sochan: all D and movement and enjoys playmaking and a unique story and personality ... enter Draymond comparisons ... add in Batum but thicker.

At least 2 of the above will be at 7. None of the them available at 9? Probably Sochan. Possibly Daniels. Trading down means trading out #9 unless you want Duren/Williams or a guard (or Sochan); most of those options are less attractive to me. [If it's a trade for OG? I'm in. If they trade up to 3 (for Banchero) (or even 5 along with Grant), I'm in. I can be convinced. Down? Not so good.]

One idea circulating is that if they use the pick, other options for trades dried up. Maybe. Maybe they like the pick and who they get better than a trade. That's what Olshey would sell ... of course ... and annoyingly so. Given the players likely to be there and Portland's needs, keeping the 7 ... I'm more than open to it.
Click to expand...
Trade for OG with #7? No thanks.
 
OneSport3 said:
Bobby Marks with a bold prediction

Click to expand...

That certainly is bold. The only way I see Banchero working is if Dame is traded (meaning we do a complete overhaul, at which point trading up for Banchero would make sense) or finding a new starting C. Nurkic just doesn’t work with Banchero imo.

Nurkic sat out the remaining games of the season eventually. I’d assume it’s because they’ve come to an agreement on a new contract.

Yeah, with Dame/Ant/____/Banchero/Nurk, idk how it all fits. Bamba in place of Nurk though, and I’m a lot more interested.
 
HoopsFanAZ said:
Trade up. Trade out. Trade down with keep and trade. Not so many outlets, blogs, posters are predicting using the 7th pick for the Blazers. I've read the reasons, the arguments, relevant evidence, comments parsed from team sources ...
And there is value at 7 and giving up nothing.

The Best? of what may be available?

Keegan Murray: Done deal. I'm in. Looks more PF than SF, but his smoothness and switchability look good. More complete for his game at both ends -- perhaps -- than the top 3 of Smith, Holmgren, Banchero.

Sharpe: a good-sized-uber-athletic SG who ends up as SG/SF. Mystery man and Sharpe as a pick is volatile for rising/falling.

Daniels: a recent rise ... an often told draft tale ... with size (PG/SF), length, vision, defense, anticipation ... a workable shot ... both hands floating well in the lane and around the hoop ... a hot name.

Sochan: all D and movement and enjoys playmaking and a unique story and personality ... enter Draymond comparisons ... add in Batum but thicker.

At least 2 of the above will be at 7. None of the them available at 9? Probably Sochan. Possibly Daniels. Trading down means trading out #9 unless you want Duren/Williams or a guard (or Sochan); most of those options are less attractive to me. [If it's a trade for OG? I'm in. If they trade up to 3 (for Banchero) (or even 5 along with Grant), I'm in. I can be convinced. Down? Not so good.]

One idea circulating is that if they use the pick, other options for trades dried up. Maybe. Maybe they like the pick and who they get better than a trade. That's what Olshey would sell ... of course ... and annoyingly so. Given the players likely to be there and Portland's needs, keeping the 7 ... I'm more than open to it.
Click to expand...
I agree with all that, except I would not trade the 7th pick for OG. The good and the bad of the draft is the unknown upside and downside. We have to take the risk for the upside.
And I can't just ignore this report from April 3rd:

"The 24-year-old forward will miss Kyle Lowry's return to Toronto due to a thigh injury he suffered in Friday night's game against the Orlando Magic, Raptors coach Nick Nurse said pre-game.
It's a new injury for Anunoby who has missed 30 games this season due to various injuries including a fracture in his right hand that has yet to fully heal. Prior to that, Anunoby was sidelined due to Health & Safety Protocols."
"Various injuries?" Fractured finger. Thigh injury. Calf strain. Hip injury.


Should the Raptors be worried about OG Anunoby’s injury history?

https://raptorsrapture.com/2022/03/07/raptors-worried-og-anunoby-injury-history/
 
blazerfan11 said:
Here's some comparisons of some of the players the Blazers might draft, and Jeremy Sochan thrown in there too. Not sure if he's a guy they're looking at, but I think he'd be a great fit with the Blazers.

I put in bold the best numbers among Sochan, Daniels and Mathurin. Murray is actually best or worst in most of the categories. Even though I'd rather have Daniels or Sochan over Mathurin, because of their size and defense and better rebounding, I can see Mathurin being a good choice, being the better 3-point shooter and getting to the free-throw line a lot to give him the highest true shooting percentage of those three. He also doesn't have the areas of concern that Sochan and Daniels do.

I don't know why Daniels free-throw attempts are so low. He took more shots per 40 minutes than Sochan (12.6 vs 11.2) , yet Sochan took 2.6 times more free throws per 40 minutes than Daniels. And obviously Mathurin and Murray took way more free throws too.

Is this an indication of Daniels' lack of aggression or ability to attack on offense and aversion to contact? Daniels' assist numbers are great, so I guess you can't have everything.

View attachment 47752
Click to expand...

I'm not criticizing you with this:

I really don't like the height 'in-shoes' gauge because it can be deceptive. And it's so simple to compare w/o shoes, providing the player and his agent didn't chicken-out of being measured:

Ochai Agbaji 6' 4.50''
Paolo Banchero (chicken)
Kofi Cockburn 6' 11.00''
Dyson Daniels 6' 6.00''
Johnny Davis 6' 4.25''
Ousmane Dieng (chicken)
Jalen Duren (chicken)
Tari Eason 6' 6.75''
AJ Griffin (chicken)
Chet Holmgren (chicken)
Jaden Ivey (chicken)
Nikola Jovic 6' 9.50''
Bennedict Mathurin 6' 4.50''
Keegan Murray (chicken)
Shaedon Sharpe 6' 4.25''
Jabari Smith (chicken)
Jeremy Sochan (chicken)
Mark Williams 7' 0.00''
 
wizenheimer said:
I'm not criticizing you with this:

I really don't like the height 'in-shoes' gauge because it can be deceptive. And it's so simple to compare w/o shoes, providing the player and his agent didn't chicken-out of being measured:

Ochai Agbaji 6' 4.50''
Paolo Banchero (chicken)
Kofi Cockburn 6' 11.00''
Dyson Daniels 6' 6.00''
Johnny Davis 6' 4.25''
Ousmane Dieng (chicken)
Jalen Duren (chicken)
Tari Eason 6' 6.75''
AJ Griffin (chicken)
Chet Holmgren (chicken)
Jaden Ivey (chicken)
Nikola Jovic 6' 9.50''
Bennedict Mathurin 6' 4.50''
Keegan Murray (chicken)
Shaedon Sharpe 6' 4.25''
Jabari Smith (chicken)
Jeremy Sochan (chicken)
Mark Williams 7' 0.00''
Click to expand...
Agreed. Everyone got excited about Mark Williams being 7'2", and that's fair, but you look at barefoot measurements and Kessler was a quarter inch taller than him. With shoes, he was an inch shorter! Kessler had 3/4" shoes, williams' added 2 inches!
 
RR7 said:
Agreed. Everyone got excited about Mark Williams being 7'2", and that's fair, but you look at barefoot measurements and Kessler was a quarter inch taller than him. With shoes, he was an inch shorter! Kessler had 3/4" shoes, williams' added 2 inches!
Click to expand...
wizenheimer said:
I'm not criticizing you with this:

I really don't like the height 'in-shoes' gauge because it can be deceptive. And it's so simple to compare w/o shoes, providing the player and his agent didn't chicken-out of being measured:

Ochai Agbaji 6' 4.50''
Paolo Banchero (chicken)
Kofi Cockburn 6' 11.00''
Dyson Daniels 6' 6.00''
Johnny Davis 6' 4.25''
Ousmane Dieng (chicken)
Jalen Duren (chicken)
Tari Eason 6' 6.75''
AJ Griffin (chicken)
Chet Holmgren (chicken)
Jaden Ivey (chicken)
Nikola Jovic 6' 9.50''
Bennedict Mathurin 6' 4.50''
Keegan Murray (chicken)
Shaedon Sharpe 6' 4.25''
Jabari Smith (chicken)
Jeremy Sochan (chicken)
Mark Williams 7' 0.00''
Click to expand...
players don't play barefoot, though.
 
illmatic99 said:
players don't play barefoot, though.
Click to expand...
I understand, and I'm happy for them to be listed at their shoe height. But looking at barefoot height gives a better comparison, IMO. I bet the guys with the 2 inch lifts don't generally play in those shoes.
 
RR7 said:
Agreed. Everyone got excited about Mark Williams being 7'2", and that's fair, but you look at barefoot measurements and Kessler was a quarter inch taller than him. With shoes, he was an inch shorter! Kessler had 3/4" shoes, williams' added 2 inches!
Click to expand...
pretty sure people were excited about mark williams because of his standing reach which was 9’9 - or the highest in combine history. Not because he was 7’2.
 
0 chance Keegan is available at 7 btw

don’t get your hopes up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top