What's new
By:

How Jazz mistakes first prevented then made the Pacers and Spurs. AKA--Recent Jazz Draft Screw-ups

mellow

mellow

Well-Known Member
By Zach Lowe

https://www.grantland.com/story/_/i...nard-george-hill-trade-2013-conference-finals

"The Pacers had nearly traded for (George) Hill during the 2010 draft, with their no. 10 pick as bait, but backed out when their preferred draft target — Paul George — was still on the board. "


"When the Jazz took Alec Burks with the no. 12 pick, Lindsey told Morway simply, "We're still alive." ...Indiana loved Kawhi Leonard. The Pacers had him about no. 5 or no. 6 on their draft board, and they thought very hard about scrapping the Hill deal and just taking a guy they never expected to be alive at no. 15."

Pacers and Spurs must have been laughing at Jazz during those drafts. Save us Dennis, save us.
 
You win some you lose some. No point dwelling on what ifs. Let's just hope Lindsey can replicate some of those picks here.
 
Putting this in the title "How Jazz mistakes first prevented then made the Pacers and Spurs" makes it seem like that's part of the article........
 
Hindsight is 20/20.

Burks and Hayward are still both considered good picks. People need to get over what could have been.
 
mellow said:
By Zach Lowe

https://www.grantland.com/story/_/i...nard-george-hill-trade-2013-conference-finals

"The Pacers had nearly traded for (George) Hill during the 2010 draft, with their no. 10 pick as bait, but backed out when their preferred draft target — Paul George — was still on the board. "


"When the Jazz took Alec Burks with the no. 12 pick, Lindsey told Morway simply, "We're still alive." ...Indiana loved Kawhi Leonard. The Pacers had him about no. 5 or no. 6 on their draft board, and they thought very hard about scrapping the Hill deal and just taking a guy they never expected to be alive at no. 15."

Pacers and Spurs must have been laughing at Jazz during those drafts. Save us Dennis, save us.
Click to expand...

FWIW this contradicts Chad Ford who claims Pacers had no idea who they were drafting until 5 minutes before the selection. George was a last second Larry Bird selection not a "preferred draft target".
 
The Jazz are building according to a blueprint. I wanted Paul George at the time we picked Hayward, but I understand the Hayward pick. Hayward has intangibles that make him a fairly rare player and that make him a great facilitator on the wing, even though George has the better tangibles right now. The Jazz had gotten their a**** handed to them by the Lakers three years in a row and knew they had to build around interior defense and rebounding to be elite. So Hayward is a complementary player who plays off of guys like Favors and Kanter. Paul George is surpassing expectations to be sure, but I don't think you can build an offense around him. All of the Pacers can shoot and defend, and it all starts with Hibbert in the middle.

The Jazz need a PG and a physical scoring wing, but it might actually be easier to get those pieces than a versatile 6'9" swingman like Hayward.
 
Oh, and Leonard is a nice player. He's definitely a good pick at #15, but the Spurs are run by Parker, Duncan, Manu and Popovich, same as always. Leonard is basically a good role player for the Spurs like Bryon Russel was for the Jazz years ago.
 
Catchall said:
Oh, and Leonard is a nice player. He's definitely a good pick at #15, but the Spurs are run by Parker, Duncan, Manu and Popovich, same as always. Leonard is basically a good role player for the Spurs like Bryon Russel was for the Jazz years ago.
Click to expand...
The point being made is that he's better than Burks, which certainly seems to be the case thus far.
 
If Burks were playing for the Spurs and Leonard were playing for the Jazz, we might feel the opposite.

Burks has a lot of talent.
 
Catchall said:
If Burks were playing for the Spurs and Leonard were playing for the Jazz, we might feel the opposite.

Burks has a lot of talent.
Click to expand...
I doubt the team switch would make that big a difference. The deeper you dig into Kawhi's stats, the better he looks.
 
Leonard has been a very nice addition for the Spurs, but I've always felt (since before he played a minute) that the Spurs would help him become the best player he could be. In fact, there's an article about this from the very site that the OP's article comes from and I highly encourage everyone read it if they envy Leonard (in addition to the article linked in the OP).

https://www.grantland.com/blog/the-...awhi-leonard-conundrum-and-why-life-is-unfair

And I'm not taking away from Leonard, it's more about credit to the Spurs.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Leonard has been a very nice addition for the Spurs, but I've always felt (since before he played a minute) that the Spurs would help him become the best player he could be. In fact, there's an article about this from the very site that the OP's article comes from and I highly encourage everyone read it if they envy Leonard (in addition to the article linked in the OP).

https://www.grantland.com/blog/the-...awhi-leonard-conundrum-and-why-life-is-unfair

And I'm not taking away from Leonard, it's more about credit to the Spurs.
Click to expand...
meh on that article (or at least the Kawhi/Jan comparison). The Spurs would have picked Kawhi ahead of Vesely if they had been given the chance. I never understood the Vesely love. His body/athleticism left him unable to defend any position on the floor, and he had virtually no basketball skills. Dude can run and jump. That's it. Kawhi, at the very least, was going to be able to defend, likely multiple positions, at the NBA level. He could also run and jump. The J is a nice surprise, and the Spurs deserve a lot of credit for giving coaching him well, and correctly recognizing his work ethic, but Kawhi was a far better prospect than Jan.
 
GVC said:
meh on that article (or at least the Kawhi/Jan comparison). The Spurs would have picked Kawhi ahead of Vesely if they had been given the chance. I never understood the Vesely love. His body/athleticism left him unable to defend any position on the floor, and he had virtually no basketball skills. Dude can run and jump. That's it. Kawhi, at the very least, was going to be able to defend, likely multiple positions, at the NBA level. He could also run and jump. The J is a nice surprise, and the Spurs deserve a lot of credit for giving coaching him well, and correctly recognizing his work ethic, but Kawhi was a far better prospect than Jan.
Click to expand...

Look beyond the Vesely comparison, because I thought Vesely was junk as well. But if Kawhi Leonard isn't given every possible chance to succeed as a shooter, he wouldn't be able to impact the game nearly as much as he does now (because he might be a liability that hurts his team or can't be kept on the floor for as many situations as he is now), and I think it's obvious the Spurs have helped him in ways that most teams just wouldn't. The Spurs acknowledged the shooting weakness before the draft and embraced it because they knew that would be the thing that might enable them to acquire him. One of the first things they did once they got him was get him started on a regimen, and then they had him employed in a system built around getting guys shots in their spots and putting a premium on the corner 3. He landed in the best place he possibly could've and I am all but positive he wouldn't be quite the same player here or anywhere else.
 
I think this goes to show if you give a guy a defined role with limited responsibility, he can succeed (provided he has the tools/talent to do that of course).

Matthews had a pretty good team when he came in, DWill was at the point, Kirilenko at SF, Boozer, Okur... all he had to do was defend his position, cut for occasional layups and knock down corner 3's.

I would argue he did that just as effectively as Kawhi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top