NBA draft

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I totally disagree with the thinking that a point guard leading the draft is a sign that it's weak. I think it's a sign of how the rules of the game have changed. Nowdays, having a dominant point guard is HUGE. Look at Steve Nash, Deron Williams, Chris Paul, and Tony Parker. Baron Davis, Dwayne Wade, Gilbert Arenas, Chauncey Billups. All of these are dominant pg's that are adept at scoring as well as setting up their teammates. In my opinion, pg is the most important position on the floor in today's NBA.

I agree partially with you about the importance of the position.
However this year's finals disagrees with that stance. Rondo and
(Fisher/Farmar) were hardly on the level the group you mentioned.

And how many of those PG's mentioned were drafted 1st?

Zero.

Problem is it is hard to gauge if you got a star or a dud
because PG is such a difficult position. OUt of those above
the one with an MVP was drafted where?
No one had
any idea Nash was going to be the player he has been. Same
with Stockton, Parker, Paul, etc... Look at where these guys
were taken. Just because you are drafted #1 as a PG, does not
necessarily translate to success. If Rose does not get a decent
jumper going and be able to knock down a few 3's... it will be very
tough on him. It seemed like a weak draft to me, but we will have to
wait on that.

Hakeem, Duncan, Ewing, Shaq,
those are easy picks. Much clearer what
one is getting.

[Mortimer]

KG vs. PG.




This is great!

[King Glorious]

You don't HAVE to have a dominant PG to have success. The Celtics and Lakers don't. The Cavs don't. I'm not saying that it's a necessity. Just like back in the 90's, when the thinking was that a team needed a dominant center, it was the Bulls winning titles without one.

If the choice was a dominant big man or a dominant small man, I think in today's NBA, you take the small man. Now, if the big man is a franchise center, then that's different. But there were none of those in this draft. The dominant big man is under 6'8" so that made it nearly automatic on who was not only the best option but especially the best option for the team that had the top choice. Let's say that NO or Utah would have ended up with the first selection this year. Then obviously Rose wouldn't have been the first pick. So it was a combination of need and talent that put him there.

[Mortimer]

I'm not sure what they are saying.






But then I don't think they are either.

[Mortimer]

Phil is going to seguey into lane violations...pretending it's part of the discussion.






Let's watch.

Should be fun.

Originally Posted by King Glorious

You don't HAVE to have a dominant PG to have success. The Celtics and Lakers don't. The Cavs don't. I'm not saying that it's a necessity. Just like back in the 90's, when the thinking was that a team needed a dominant center, it was the Bulls winning titles without one.

If the choice was a dominant big man or a dominant small man, I think in today's NBA, you take the small man. Now, if the big man is a franchise center, then that's different. But there were none of those in this draft. The dominant big man is under 6'8" so that made it nearly automatic on who was not only the best option but especially the best option for the team that had the top choice. Let's say that NO or Utah would have ended up with the first selection this year. Then obviously Rose wouldn't have been the first pick. So it was a combination of need and talent that put him there.

No disagreement whatsoever.
Just think it is more difficult to assess PGs.

[jcs11204]

Originally Posted by pgardn

No disagreement whatsoever.
Just think it is more difficult to assess PGs.

i think rose has a lot bigger shot at being a bust, then beasley...
i think beasley has a solid career, at worst

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jcs11204

i think rose has a lot bigger shot at being a bust, then beasley...
i think beasley has a solid career, at worst