I'm seeing Lillard go #6 to Portland in about 35-40% of the mock drafts. At latest in most of the mocks, #10 to NO. If we really want Lillard, I don't think we can use Bucks' #12.
DX Video on Damian Lillard
- Thread starter utahjazz107
- Start date
I'm seeing Lillard go #6 to Portland in about 35-40% of the mock drafts. At latest in most of the mocks, #10 to NO. If we really want Lillard, I don't think we can use Bucks' #12.
HaydizzleToFavors
Banned
I suppose that's true. I didn't really think that through...we could still probably get Marshall, or maybe a combo guard like Waiters or Rivers. I'm starting to think less of that trade the more I think of it haha.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Nobody thought Knight would slip to 8th, but he did. In a draft as stacked with Big men as this one, I fully expect some of the guard prospects (other than Beal) to drop.
I'd only do the trade if I knew it meant getting Lillard. Otherwise, no dice. Im just thinking that this Jazz team should consider many many ways to try and get into the lottery. I did enjoy the trade that someone proposed with the Kings in another thread.
I'd only do the trade if I knew it meant getting Lillard. Otherwise, no dice. Im just thinking that this Jazz team should consider many many ways to try and get into the lottery. I did enjoy the trade that someone proposed with the Kings in another thread.
You're aware that the youngest and best PG on the Jazz's roster is a shade under 30 and with one more year under contract, right? And that the Jazz have no PGs under contract after this year - let alone ANYONE to have grow with this team - right?
Maybe I need to dumb this down: what the **** are you talking about?
Even if Lillard or Marshall aren't the answer, the Jazz are going to need a backup at some point. It would sure be nice for an established but young player to fall into the Jazz's lap, but that simply is not going to happen. The only position the Jazz should be worried about is PG, and make no mistake, they should be worried about it.
I REALLY agree with this. I predicted last December that the Jazz would assemble all key their pieces through the draft, have tons of cap space, and go buy a stud PG as the last missing piece to a contending team. (whether we buy that PG now or in another year, I have no idea, but still think the landscape of things is speaking volumes that this is the direction)
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Dream:
Jazz trades: Devin Harris + future lottery-protected first + (something else small??)
NOLA trades: Ariza + #10
Jazz trade: Al
Cleveland trades: #24 + future first (top-10 protected)
(add some details to this trade if necessary)
Jazz sign Nash
Jazz draft: Lillard(10), JJenkins(24), Machado(47)
PG is fixed:
Nash/Lillard/Machado
Wings are looking good:
Hayward + Burks + Jenkins + Ariza + Carroll offer a great variety of skillsets
Jazz trades: Devin Harris + future lottery-protected first + (something else small??)
NOLA trades: Ariza + #10
Jazz trade: Al
Cleveland trades: #24 + future first (top-10 protected)
(add some details to this trade if necessary)
Jazz sign Nash
Jazz draft: Lillard(10), JJenkins(24), Machado(47)
PG is fixed:
Nash/Lillard/Machado
Wings are looking good:
Hayward + Burks + Jenkins + Ariza + Carroll offer a great variety of skillsets
GVC
Well-Known Member
I swear I've seen this somewhere before...
How do the more knowledgeable college bball fans feel about Machado? Dude played in an uptempo offense, led the nation in assists, and has decent shooting numbers. Seems like he might have the skillset to stick in the league, even if only off the bench.
Thee Idiotic Minivan K
Well-Known Member
After watching great pg play over the last 28 years I have Stockton-Williamsitis, and don't want to take a pg just to get one. If we have to wait a year or two then fine. If we draft Lillard and he doesn't pan out it could be 3-5 years before we have a chance to get our pg of the future.
Thee Idiotic Minivan K
Well-Known Member
Think Cj. Year after year the jazz didn't do anything, because they as well as a lot of jazz fans saw his potential, but year after year all he did was tease us. Say hello to the potential ride that is Lillard. I'm not saying he is Cj all over again, but there is that potential.
orangello
Well-Known Member
I think there is a lot of that going on around here. Braking the mold and playing to the strengths of the current players.
We don't have a great PnR PG, but we do have a PG that can run up and down the court pushing the tempo. We also have Hayward, Burks, Favors, Millsap, Carroll and even Howard to a certain degree that can do that. Hence, pick up the pace and run those teams out of the gym.
Yes, every draft pick has potential to not be that good considering most 1st round picks won't be in the league after their rookie contract.
HaydizzleToFavors
Banned
I'm sorry, but this post and the post you had above it are just ridiculous. You don't want to take a PG just to take a PG? Well, I kind of agree, but you've got to realize that there isn't anybody going to be a Stockton/Williams in quite a while (Maybe one of the Harrison twins, but that's a long ways off). Like Numberica said, we have Harris as our starter and Tinsley and Watson as our backups. We NEED a PG, if it turns out that Lillard is only a backup, I'm ok with that because at least we're trying to fix the problem.
Also, saying that he has the potential to tease us with his potential like CJ does every year? You could say the same about every single freaking player in the draft. Anthony Davis? He could tease people with what he might be. I mean, none of us know if these guys are going to be stars or busts...unless if you can predict the future, in which case, get your *** off the computer and go buy us some lottery tickets. I like the fact that he has potential, because that gives him a greater chance at being somebody great.
So if we draft Lillard and the next day Minnesota calls us up offering Rubio for Bell and GSW pick we turn it down? Good thinking. We can't have a guy like Lillard holding up us landing a good PG because he's "okay".
No one here has seen more than a game of Machado (more than likely, unless we have some hardcore Iona fans here/people in the area), as he only had 1 game all year on National TV, and that was on ESPNU I think. Anything anyone knows about him is just 2nd hand most likely.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Personally, I don't understand why we need a Stockton PG right now.
Why not a good shooter? For one, we need a shooter. Secondly, the NBA has changed to a more scoring type PG.... And thirdly, Burks and Hayward can create. In fact, I want to see more time and spaced dedicated to their ability to create. What's wrong with using Burks/Hayward as Ginobli/Harden in pick and rolls with our bigs?
I understand we couldn't do this when Keefe and Bruss were our SF/SGs.
But Burks and Hayward are great athletes and thrive when the ball is in their hands. They're not catch and shoot players. That's not their strength.
If anything, we need a PG who can nail the shots that Hayward/Burks create. I'm not sold in Hayward's or Burks nailing wide open shots created by PGs. They're better off creating, driving, and getting to the FT line rather than playing as Korver or Matt Bonner waiting to receive a pass.
So play to the strengths of our team. Get a PG that can shoot and create (decently). Then use Burks and Hayward to create and exploit matchups. If we had a number of shooters and catch and shoot players who couldn't create then a PG like Marshall would make sense. Unfortunately, we're a team of slashers, drivers, and creators rather than shooters.
Play to the strength of our team. Get a PG that can shoot.
Why not a good shooter? For one, we need a shooter. Secondly, the NBA has changed to a more scoring type PG.... And thirdly, Burks and Hayward can create. In fact, I want to see more time and spaced dedicated to their ability to create. What's wrong with using Burks/Hayward as Ginobli/Harden in pick and rolls with our bigs?
I understand we couldn't do this when Keefe and Bruss were our SF/SGs.
But Burks and Hayward are great athletes and thrive when the ball is in their hands. They're not catch and shoot players. That's not their strength.
If anything, we need a PG who can nail the shots that Hayward/Burks create. I'm not sold in Hayward's or Burks nailing wide open shots created by PGs. They're better off creating, driving, and getting to the FT line rather than playing as Korver or Matt Bonner waiting to receive a pass.
So play to the strengths of our team. Get a PG that can shoot and create (decently). Then use Burks and Hayward to create and exploit matchups. If we had a number of shooters and catch and shoot players who couldn't create then a PG like Marshall would make sense. Unfortunately, we're a team of slashers, drivers, and creators rather than shooters.
Play to the strength of our team. Get a PG that can shoot.
I think everyone needs a Stockton PG. That isn't the point though. You have to take what you can get. You can't afford to play the waiting game and hope something great falls into your lap.