No thanks.
No thanks to Burke? Really?
No thanks.
I have a feeling you like Fish & Chips.
Am I right?
Locke repeated something profound today. An NBA scout told him to stop looking for a starter in this draft. Look for a rotation guy and then you can evaluate this draft crop better. Locke also shared an original thought that most draft mistakes are made from 6-15 by teams looking for a potential star rather than a rotation player.
Which got me to thinking: If the Jazz are going to go young and run out a bunch of young players in hopes of adding by trades or FA next summer....well, why not draft three guys that can play right away and then the Jazz have a tradeable piece if they need it. Jazz have always seemed to try for the guy with a higher ceiling who may not be ready. This year, in this draft, with the new CBA changing the NBA landscape why not get Olynyk, Larkin, Plumlee and Jackson or the likes....a little older perhaps, a lower ceiling perhaps, clear deficiencies--yes. But guys that can play with the Core 4+3 next year.
Locke repeated something profound today. An NBA scout told him to stop looking for a starter in this draft. Look for a rotation guy and then you can evaluate this draft crop better. Locke also shared an original thought that most draft mistakes are made from 6-15 by teams looking for a potential star rather than a rotation player.
Which got me to thinking: If the Jazz are going to go young and run out a bunch of young players in hopes of adding by trades or FAscan't t.t t blem mmer....well, why not draft three guys that can play right away and then the Jazz have a tradeable piece if they need it. Jazz have always seemed to try for the guy with a higher ceiling who may not be ready. This year, in this draft, with the new CBA changing the NBA landscape why not get Olynyk, Larkin, Plumlee and Jackson or the likes....a little older perhaps, a lower ceiling perhaps, clear deficiencies--yes. But guys that can play with the Core 4+3 next year.
I look for NBA athletes, well suited to an NBA position, with raw talent, a bit of polish and the desire to get better. When a kid is 19 or 20, he's far from being developed as a player. Most guys take until they're 23 or 24 to show who they really are.
There are a bunch of starting caliber players in this draft though.
Aww **** it! Lets draft Tony Mitchell with 21st pick. Lets try to hit a homerun.
What do you say guys? You in?
I don't like Tony Mitchell.
But his physical attributes are high
Locke repeated something profound today. An NBA scout told him to stop looking for a starter in this draft. Look for a rotation guy and then you can evaluate this draft crop better. Locke also shared an original thought that most draft mistakes are made from 6-15 by teams looking for a potential star rather than a rotation player.
Which got me to thinking: If the Jazz are going to go young and run out a bunch of young players in hopes of adding by trades or FA next summer....well, why not draft three guys that can play right away and then the Jazz have a tradeable piece if they need it. Jazz have always seemed to try for the guy with a higher ceiling who may not be ready. This year, in this draft, with the new CBA changing the NBA landscape why not get Olynyk, Larkin, Plumlee and Jackson or the likes....a little older perhaps, a lower ceiling perhaps, clear deficiencies--yes. But guys that can play with the Core 4+3 next year.
U sayin he smokes the wacky stuff?
Solid points. I still just like the concept of taking whomever you think is the best player. I don't like it slanted toward game-ready because we're not contenders anyway.
And though I do like the sound of what Locke said, he didn't really say anything.
I'm not saying he don't, but that iznt what I'm saying.
I'm saying he is a man child. I think he plays hard. Maybe he can learn. What the problem iz?
I guess I don't even get it.. I could see it MAYBE if we were poised to contend and just wanted the most solid bench/rotation guys we could get for a title run. But re-building??
Locke just talks **** and hopes the ambiguity is seen as too smart to be fully understood. Like franklin, kinda.
I mean why should it be black and white? Either pick a potential All Star, or pick a contributor?
Why not pick guys like Kawhii who everyone can see has the potential to contribute right away as well as having some upside potential as well (albeit less than if we're looking at someone in top #5).
Locke can't say that, apparently.. because people would just say, duh.
Instead, he has to scrunch up a bunch of words and toss them around and say something he thinks sounds profound.
Btw, Catchall is one of my absolute favorite posters here, so no offense to you, personally, on your posting what Locke said.