What's new
By:

Following potential 2015 draftees

Catchall said:
Regardless of whether teams go small or not, we want our bigs to be able to switch and guard on the perimeter in order for our schemes to work. This is what I wonder about with Kaminsky and Lyles.
Click to expand...
Not a problem for Looney. He also brings the outside shooting. He should definitely be in the mix at 12.
 
silesian said:
The flaw in the logic is that it is only in hindsight that we know that Jordan would be "best ever" and Drexler would "only" be a "top 50 of all time." And we did not know that Bowie was going to be a "pretty decent Center" and not an "elite NBA Center" The pick was only criticized years later in hindsight. The Blazers likely had ranked Bowie and Jordan about the same, in which case they pick for need. In hindsight, they were wrong, but given what they knew at the time, it was not a stupid pick. Remember this was Dr. Jack Ramsay-coached team, who certainly had a major say in the pick -- hardly a basketball mental midget. This is especially true because a really important part of what made Jordan "great" to "best" was mental. His drive, work ethic and mentality were amazing (see Kobe, Stockton, very few others.). Hard to forecast the mental part of the game.

--------------------

And the Gobert analogy seems really off the mark. Which teams do you believe passed on Gobert because they already had a dominant rim protector? Seems more likely that it was because they did not believe he was going to be a dominant rim protector and had high bust potential. Interesting, what differentiates Gobert is the mental game that complements his physical tools. Put Ostertag's brain on Gobert's body, you get something pretty close to Ostertag.
Click to expand...

Bowie was hurt at UK. He had leg problems when he was in college. It was a huge gamble especially since the Blazers already had experience with a big guy with bad wheels. Of course no one thought Jordan would be the "greatest" but he was a better player than Bowie and If you watched Jordan drill the game winning shot as a freshman you could tell he was going to be great. Portland took Bowie because in the day size won out. It was a dumb decision and one would think they would have remembered history when deciding between Durrant and Oden.
 
Re: Myles Turner.

Word is that he's a bit of a gamble (as are all prospects) but the reason given is that he runs funny? Is that it? I'm kinda baffled.
 
BENTLEY said:
Re: Myles Turner.

Word is that he's a bit of a gamble (as are all prospects) but the reason given is that he runs funny? Is that it? I'm kinda baffled.
Click to expand...

He used to run in small choppy steps and indeed it used to look extremely weird and quite possibly not very conducive to good long-term health. Some people have suggested that it was due sudden growth spurt and him not having grown into his body and not gotten used to it. According to some new sources he's hired a running coach and his running technique right now is markedly better. I personally haven't seen it, but his mobility when he doesn't need to run is good, if his running and medical concerns are cleared, he will be a great prospect.

I personally didn't like him at all at the beginning of the season, but I've become much higher on him now to the point where I'd want us to pick him before pretty much any other prospect who is projected to be available at our spot. I think he will be a great prospect to have and develop for the future.
 
Yeah, at first glance Turner kinda looks pretty great. Like, I'm surprised he might fall to 12. I think people maybe over think it with him. I mean, his offense is promising although not on Kaminsky's level. His defense is far superior to Kaminsky's though (although I like Kaminsky too).

I started out in love with Turner and then I fell in love with a bunch of other prospects. But a lot of the other prospects seem to have some unfixable negatives. Whereas Turner's negative seems minor and he's actively fixing it. Minus that little running issue, Turner looks like a complete 2 way player.
 
Turner looks like a good rim protector, but doesn't have very good lateral movement.

I'd be fine with him, but I don't think he's clearly better than the other prospects where we're picking.
 
ONE LOVE said:
So all another team has to do to get Kaminsky off the floor is go 'small ball' then?
Click to expand...

That brings a risk though. Kaminsky is a very polished back 2 the basket scorer. Being defended by a 6'7 without advanced counter strats will include inherent risks that some coaches may not want to take.
Also having Favors on the floor at the same time offers the possibility to cross match on defense. Favors is good as a perimeter defender, unless he randomly decides to add 20 lbs of muscle(or fat) over the summer...
 
Good teams trot out worse STARTING defensive frontcourts than Kaminsky/Gobert OR Kaminsky/Favors. And honestly, if Turner can protect the rim but can't guard on the perimeter for **** and Kaminsky is the opposite, I think Kaminsky might be a more effective team-defender in that context.

IDK.
 
More and more hyped on Stanley Johnson. He'd give the jazz a dynamic they don't currently have (a small-ball 4 who can get out on the break and handle) AND fix some long-standing problems (a big physical wing who can defend when Hayward should be spared for the offensive side). High ceiling. High floor.

I love that he played down low in high school, where he developed the beginning of a post game, and then played on the wing at Arizona, where he nailed the fundamentals of good perimeter D.

GET HIM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top