With the 7th pick in the 2024 NBA Draft, The Portland Trailblazers select. . .

[Hoopguru]

We must get used to the fact we are now a junior training ground for professional hoopers.

 

[beast blazer]

When he puts on muscle he puts on weight and loses a large part of his mobility.

That's an old myth. Muscle is what makes you move. Look up pictures of Usain Bolt. He's not skinny.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I wouldn't trade up to get him but if he's there at 7 they may give serious consideration to draft him. I have confidence in Mike to recommend the right player at 7 that fits their plan, if they have one? lol

Yet at the same time, they took Murray at 23 last year, and I really haven't seen anything from him to suggest that pick to have been worthwhile, so as much as I want to espouse the "In Schmitz we trust" mantra, I'm not quite there yet.

 

[beast blazer]

which part of his mobility does he lose: the slow part, or the really slow part?

He's actually regarded as being very mobile for his size. That's why he's rated much higher than Edey, who is bigger and much better offensively.

 

[Hoopguru]

Yet at the same time, they took Murray at 23 last year, and I really haven't seen anything from him to suggest that pick to have been worthwhile, so as much as I want to espouse the "In Schmitz we trust" mantra, I'm not quite there yet.

I get that...But I would think he has more insight on these players than anyone on this board. When teams draft second rounders they are probably hopeful within a couple years or so they are role players with some trade value?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

He's actually regarded as being very mobile for his size. That's why he's rated much higher than Edey, who is bigger and much better offensively.

Which is funny, because Edey outperformed Clingan in all the speed and agility drills at the combine.

 

[beast blazer]

He's not that rare... just in the last few drafts

Edey
Mark Williams
Kessler
Koloko
Queta
Bamba

Thank you for that nice demonstration of poor logic. Men of his height literally are super-rare. There are less than 3,000 people in the world 7 feet or taller, and only a small subset of that would be athletically capable of playing in the NBA. And he's in a special category of that elite group, being almost 7-2 barefoot with a huge win span.

 

[beast blazer]

Which is funny, because Edey outperformed Clingan in all the speed and agility drills at the combine.

I actually want the Blazers to take Zach Edey, but most draft evaluators seem to think Edey is too slow but Clingan is mobile enough to be a really good defender.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I actually want the Blazers to take Zach Edey, but most draft evaluators seem to think Edey is too slow but Clingan is mobile enough to be a really good defender.

It's interesting how little the "evaluators'" opinions on Edey were impacted by his testing performance at the combine.

 

[BigGameDamian]

#2 would be a disaster... I'm not fond of either option but everyone is a crap shoot in this draft and if our front office likes Clingan the best then I'll be scratching my head but if our front office doesn't pick a direction with this roster I'm going to be pretty damn pissed.

Well then you might want to prepare for buying a new TV after smashing your old one.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Yet at the same time, they took Murray at 23 last year, and I really haven't seen anything from him to suggest that pick to have been worthwhile, so as much as I want to espouse the "In Schmitz we trust" mantra, I'm not quite there yet.

I did not want Murray either before the draft, but realistically how many players that were drafted after Murray have proved to be substantially better? And how many of those did several other teams miss on as well? I am sure there are a few, there are always are. But was it that much of a miss? I honestly don't know

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I did not want Murray either before the draft, but realistically how many players that were drafted after Murray have proved to be substantially better? And how many of those did several other teams miss on as well? I am sure there are a few, there are always are. But was it that much of a miss? I honestly don't know

The "how many other teams missed" argument is completely irrelevant to me, so I'm going to dismiss that without discussion.

As to other players proving to be substantially better...first of all, Murray was 47th in VORP in the draft, behind several players drafted after him. Even so, that's really only relevant if we were expecting a player at 23 who would contribute substantially as a rookie. Which, based on Murray's age/profile, he should have if he was a decent pick. Given that he didn't contribute as a rookie--despite clear opportunity--it suggests that a higher-ceiling prospect would likely have been a better investment. Even though we wouldn't have seen better immediate returns, the potential eventual return would still be higher.

I wanted (higher ceiling) Leonard Miller, and though he only played 17 games, he was better in his few minutes than Murray was in his many. Can we say with any degree of certainty how they might have performed in switched roles? No. Or how either will perform in the next 5 years? No. But I can certainly say that Murray hasn't shown anything in year 1 to substantiate the "Schmitz picks are awesome" mindset.

 

[Ed O]

I wanted (higher ceiling) Leonard Miller, and though he only played 17 games, he was better in his few minutes than Murray was in his many. Can we say with any degree of certainty how they might have performed in switched roles? No. Or how either will perform in the next 5 years? No. But I can certainly say that Murray hasn't shown anything in year 1 to substantiate the "Schmitz picks are awesome" mindset.

I was so happy we took Scoot that I kind of forgave the Murray pick (Miller definitely seemed like a sexier pick to me, too) and I am in a similar spot to you: I don't get the "Schmitz picks are awesome" hype just yet. Sharpe and Scoot... I'm a big fan of each (although I am less sure about Sharpe now than I was at the time of the pick) but there really hasn't been much else for me to get excited about and I'm definitely in "wait and see" mode this draft.

 

[Hoopguru]

The "how many other teams missed" argument is completely irrelevant to me, so I'm going to dismiss that without discussion.

As to other players proving to be substantially better...first of all, Murray was 47th in VORP in the draft, behind several players drafted after him. Even so, that's really only relevant if we were expecting a player at 23 who would contribute substantially as a rookie. Which, based on Murray's age/profile, he should have if he was a decent pick. Given that he didn't contribute as a rookie--despite clear opportunity--it suggests that a higher-ceiling prospect would likely have been a better investment. Even though we wouldn't have seen better immediate returns, the potential eventual return would still be higher.

I wanted (higher ceiling) Leonard Miller, and though he only played 17 games, he was better in his few minutes than Murray was in his many. Can we say with any degree of certainty how they might have performed in switched roles? No. Or how either will perform in the next 5 years? No. But I can certainly say that Murray hasn't shown anything in year 1 to substantiate the "Schmitz picks are awesome" mindset.

Goodpoints however, cant always determine how all player evolves with 1 season? Sure there are a few that pop right away but its smaller percentage of those draft second round. I mean, we used the 3rd pick to draft a PG that struggled for most of the season last year and we had an All Star pg. Going to take a a few years to determine if that was a good move or not?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Going to take a a few years to determine if that was a good move or not?

Yes, which is exactly what my original post was saying. You "have confidence in Mike to recommend the right player at 7 that fits their plan." I don't believe we have enough actual results to support my having that same confidence.

 

[Ripcity4life77]

This draft is exciting in a different way then last years was cause there was will we won't we trade 3 to help Dame etc but this year I think will tell us more of what the future might hold. The reason i say this who they draft at 7 for sure and prolly 14 will tell us who will be in a Blazer uniform as a future piece and who might be gone in a year or less. I mean if they take a guard at 7 this must mean Ant and/or Sharpe will be gone and of course Brogs prolly gone for sure but what if they take a center. This has to mean they are not confident in Ayton being the full time starter and might think he will not even re-sign in two seasons once he is a free agent ( I think he is gone ) .

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

I did not want Murray either before the draft, but realistically how many players that were drafted after Murray have proved to be substantially better? And how many of those did several other teams miss on as well? I am sure there are a few, there are always are. But was it that much of a miss? I honestly don't know

No idea if Chicago was interested but I wanted us to satisfy our outstanding pick to them instead.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Yes, which is exactly what my original post was saying. You "have confidence in Mike to recommend the right player at 7 that fits their plan." I don't believe we have enough actual results to support my having that same confidence.

There are a lot of good SFs in the draft, just take the best one available, and I'll be happy.

 

[handiman]

Which is funny, because Edey outperformed Clingan in all the speed and agility drills at the combine.

View attachment 64753

Which ought to tell you how useless rehearsed movements are to game speed improvised actions.

 

[Hoopguru]

Yes, which is exactly what my original post was saying. You "have confidence in Mike to recommend the right player at 7 that fits their plan." I don't believe we have enough actual results to support my having that same confidence.

That's cool. So since he was involved with Sharp, Rupert?, Scoot, Walker, Camara, Ayton, Murray, Banton, & Duop what grade would you give him based on performance to date? Id go with C

 

[CJ_is_Gone]

Which ought to tell you how useless rehearsed movements are to game speed improvised actions.

They are pointless.

However, even at game speed - there is not a lot of difference between Edey and Clingan.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

That's cool. So since he was involved with Sharp, Rupert?, Scoot, Walker, Camara, Ayton, Murray, Banton, & Duop what grade would you give him based on performance to date? Id go with C

Sharpe--B
Rupert--C (seemed like an obvious pick; he was rated by many as a first-rounder)
Scoot--N/A (he was the consensus pick at that spot; I wouldn't give Schmitz credit for taking the same guy everybody else would take)
Walker--A (great to get a rotation player at the end of the 2nd)
Camara--N/A (traded for him [yes, I know the conventional wisdom that Schmitz was high on him, and that's why we insisted on his inclusion])
Murray--D (and that might be generous)
Ayton/Banton/Duop--if we're assessing draft acumen, these aren't relevant.

Consensus, I'd also give a C (+, maybe B-), but we also have no idea what other players he liked or didn't. Still, my position remains the same: Schmitz has not done enough in his 2 years here to justify blanket confidence in his evaluations.

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[BIG Q]

Which ought to tell you how useless rehearsed movements are to game speed improvised actions.

So what you are saying is, despite the NBA requiring every draftee to participate in these tests and measurements, they do not mean anything and should be discarded? I find it interesting that when a teams scouts will get together with their management team, they will be citing these tests and measurements as part of the basis player X should be drafted before player Y. Quite honestly, the way I looked at the Clingan/Edey measurements was that Edey put in the work to get drafted as high as possible because he has been called slow and a dinosaur for four years. I thought Edey's numbers were very impressive, especially after Edey ate Clingan's lunch in the title game and then his dinner at the combine. Just my perspective but at this moment, Edey seems to be putting in the work and is getting the desired results. I still want Ware over him, but I would take Edey over Clingan as long as his legs are uniform in length, has good feet and good knees.

 

[handiman]

So what you are saying is, despite the NBA requiring every draftee to participate in these tests and measurements, they do not mean anything and should be discarded? I find it interesting that when a teams scouts will get together with their management team, they will be citing these tests and measurements as part of the basis player X should be drafted before player Y.

They're a crutch. It's a well established fact that the NBA draft is an inexact science. You'd think with only ~30 players in the first round each year, there'd be easily 30 "can't miss" guys worldwide. But no, there are as many failures as there are successes, and even the lottery has a high percentage of whiffs. Talent evaluators are only moderately better than couch potatoes, so they too lean on the measureables that don't have much correlation to career arc.

The only things of importance from the combine, IMO, are physical measurements and interviews.

Quite honestly, the way I looked at the Clingan/Edey measurements was that Edey put in the work to get drafted as high as possible because he has been called slow and a dinosaur for four years. I thought Edey's numbers were very impressive, especially after Edey ate Clingan's lunch in the title game and then his dinner at the combine. Just my perspective but at this moment, Edey seems to be putting in the work and is getting the desired results.

Okay, let's think that through a bit further... If Edey is putting in the work, and that somehow improves his standing as a prospect, then what does that say about his work ethic the past 3.5 years when he was unanimously thought of as too slow? Doesn't that basically make him a contract year player, not to be counted on the other years?

I'll wager he hasn't actually improved his athleticism [significantly]. He's just excelling at meaningless drills through repetition.

 

[Hoopguru]

Sharpe--B
Rupert--C (seemed like an obvious pick; he was rated by many as a first-rounder)
Scoot--N/A (he was the consensus pick at that spot; I wouldn't give Schmitz credit for taking the same guy everybody else would take)
Walker--A (great to get a rotation player at the end of the 2nd)
Camara--N/A (traded for him [yes, I know the conventional wisdom that Schmitz was high on him, and that's why we insisted on his inclusion])
Murray--D (and that might be generous)
Ayton/Banton/Duop--if we're assessing draft acumen, these aren't relevant.

Consensus, I'd also give a C (+, maybe B-), but we also have no idea what other players he liked or didn't. Still, my position remains the same: Schmitz has not done enough in his 2 years here to justify blanket confidence in his evaluations.

Im not sure I have blanket confidence in anything these day?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Okay, let's think that through a bit further... If Edey is putting in the work, and that somehow improves his standing as a prospect, then what does that say about his work ethic the past 3.5 years when he was unanimously thought of as too slow? Doesn't that basically make him a contract year player, not to be counted on the other years?

I'll wager he hasn't actually improved his athleticism [significantly]. He's just excelling at meaningless drills through repetition.

Given that he's a two-time unanimous player of the year, it seems that he wasn't "too slow" for the NCAA game. I'd say that he was doing what his coach at the college level wanted him to do to be successful at that level, and he is now doing the things his agents and advisors are telling him he needs to do to be successful at the NBA level. It tells me that he's versatile and coachable and willing to do what is necessary to succeed.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Murray--D (and that might be generous)

I think that's harsh. Also, I think Murray was a pick that was taken on the assumption that Dame stayed. He was supposed to be a plug-and-play player (like his twin), and kind of there to placate Dame for us taking BPA with Scoot. He would probably look better if surrounded by talent because he can fill a role and not have to create for himself. (I think his shooting will come around.)
I wonder if we'd've taken him if we knew Dame was gone. (Maybe we would've taken Rupert there...)

 

[beast blazer]

Donovan actually kind of reminds me of Joel Pryzbilla. He'll be a good shot blocker, rebounder, and interior defender. But he doesn't seem to have much offensive skill.

Or perhaps like Hasaan Whiteside without a jumper.

 

[inconceivable]

Donovan actually kind of reminds me of Joel Pryzbilla. He'll be a good shot blocker, rebounder, and interior defender. But he doesn't seem to have much offensive skill.

Or perhaps like Hasaan Whiteside without a jumper.

I also said Vanilla Gorilla 2.0