Ed Weiland's Draft Grades
by jianfu on Jul 2, 2009 9:46 PM CDT
Email
Print
B: Minnesota Timberwolves: They get the grade for nabbing Rubio. While there appears to be some drama to be played out here, Rubio is a great talent that no team should be taking a pass on if the opportunity to draft him is there. Select him, get his rights and deal with whatever follows. That he came for a couple of players who weren’t really wanted anyway makes it that much better. The rest of the draft was rather weak. Lost in the puzzlement over the selection of Flynn at #6 is that he’s way overvalued as a prospect. That’s a bigger problem than drafting 2 PGs. I’ll never get too down on a team for taking the best player, even if he plays a position the team already has filled. My issue with Flynn is he’s nowhere near the best player available here. That he plays the same position as Rubio just magnifies the gaffe. Adding a Curry, Williams, Derozan, Hill or even a Mullens would have been a much better move. Ellington was a nice late round one pick up, until we realize that the pick they selected him with was part of the Garnett trade. I also give the Wolves some points for a general backcourt reshuffling. This team needed a new look and they got it.
He also does an interesting comparison of the PGs in this draft with the famous quarterback draft the NFL had in 1983, with Rubio, as the first chosen, playing the role of John Elway; Flynn, the second, playing the role of the bust Todd Blackledge; and Lawson, the sixth PG taken, playing the role of Marino, the 6th QB taken that year.
It should be noted he's not all that high on ANY of the alternatives he suggests above. He just really doesn't like Flynn as a prospect, and I think he's suggesting they should have just drafted a finisher once Rubio fell into their laps.
I pretty much agree with his points, FWIW, although I think grabbing a future first rounder might be a slick move. Or maybe not, as Weiland and Hollinger both see Lawson as an awesome prospect. OTOH, scouts and analysts who consider body type (Richard Lu) think Lawson was probably picked about where he should have. Guess we'll see. Depends on how good Lawson is and where that Charlotte pick ends up being.
18 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This why there
are horse races. I would speculate if one could wander around Flynn’s heart and mind, JF has some serious motivational juices flowing based upon all this, “Oh Ricky you’re so fine you’re so fine you blow my mind, Hey Ricky!” talk. Summer league will be interesting. From my non-exepert perch, I like Flynn’s attitude, mental toughness.
The stats based argument would
favor Lawson and Curry over Flynn, no doubt about it. The eye test/electricity argument favors Flynn. Hmmmm, didn’t McHale tend to use this sort of gut feel approach all too often in picking players? However, perhaps there is more than just gut feel going on here. In the DX write-up of Flynn, Synergy Sports numbers showed how he did quite well in the types of situations that he may encounter more often in the pros, such as isolations and getting to the rim. And Kahn also emphasized Flynn’s defense, which is half the game, isn’t it?
And Kahn also emphasized Flynn’s defense, which is half the game, isn’t it?
Weiland thinks that Flynn’s defense sucks.
It would be interesting....
….to see how Weiland accounts for Syracuse’s 2-3 zone and if there is any way to translate numbers in such a system to the NBA.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
I don't really get the claims that he'll be a great defensive player.
Has there ever been a great defensive player six feet or under? Can somebody give me an example? Because none come to mind, for me.
by princelyfrank on Jul 4, 2009 1:00 AM CDT up reply actions
Brevin Knight
comes to mind, and he’s smaller than Flynn. Derek Fisher might be a stitch taller than Flynn, but he was a great on the ball defender when younger. His ability to defend well will come from pressuring the ball-handler and preventing dribble drive penetration. He’ll have a difficult time contesting pull-up J’s and post-ups by taller PG’s, but I don’t mind giving up 2-point jumpers and turnarounds.
That being said, it appears that Kahn and Co. fell in love with this kid through the interview and workout process. So much so that they clearly had him as one of their top 3 or 4 players overall. That to me is the scary part. It’s as if they were struck by lightning when in this kid’s presence and just threw the cold, hard data out the window. Now I will be the first to agree that leadership and character counts….big time. But it’s not as if Stephen Curry is lacking in this department either.
by Rascal Flatts on Jul 4, 2009 7:31 AM CDT up reply actions
Curry
may have cost himself some money by not trying out for the wolves after all.
Will the Real Thor Please Stand Up ... ?
by the Real Thor on Jul 4, 2009 7:47 AM CDT up reply actions
Raymond Felton would be another good example.
One thing I would point out is that Flynn is built pretty sturdy for a 1. So much of being able to post up is about establishing good position. I think Flynn will be OK in this area due to his build.
by Jose Cordoba on Jul 4, 2009 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions
In regards to Curry
It’s just a difference in how you measure potential. I think Curry has a great pedigree and knows the hard work that its going to take to continue to develop your game. Flynn by all accounts seems to be a mature and charismatic leader who like Curry will put in the hard work.
If Flynn can put in the reps to continue to develop his Shot, which isn’t broken, he shows good form, I think his elite vertical, long wingspan, and quickness all give him a physical advantage over Curry in that Flynn plays bigger than Curry. If Flynn can develop his shot, and if Curry can handle the increased compeition, Flynn’s ceiling is higher.
but if you look at history, Flynn will never be the shooter Curry is. the great shooters have always at least had great FT%‘s. Flynn’s shot may improve, but he’ll always at best be a streak shooter and not the pure shooter Curry is. who the better NBA player remains to be seen, but in terms of pure shooting, you could probably bet your life savings that Curry will always be a much better shooter than Flynn.
by homer simpson on Jul 4, 2009 4:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Thankfully
Flynn is more athletic, commits fewer trunovers, creates more assists, plays taller, is quicker, and is more experienced against better competition. I don’t think anyone will argue that Curry’s a better shooter, Flynn ceiling is just as a better all around player than Curry.
Ever?
Norm Van Lier was 6’1 and was All-Defense 8 times. Mookie Blaylock was 6’ and made 6 teams. Mo Cheeks and John Stockton were 6’1 and made 5 teams each. There aren’t many but there are some.
I don’t know if Flynn will be a great defensive player, but I think the NBA overrates the big guys when it comes to defense. They can erase mistakes, which is very valuable, but it’s a lot tougher with the current rules to stay in front of a quick player than a strong player. Plus, bad perimeter defense reflects badly on the big guys.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jul 4, 2009 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions
but I think the NBA overrates the big guys when it comes to defense.
there’s a reason that from ‘99 to ’07 (or 9 NBA seasons) Shaq or Duncan appeared in every single NBA finals winning all but 1. that 1 featuring an all defensive big man in Sheed & a DPOY in Big Ben. ’08 featured KG. this past season is the 1st since Jordan years that the NBA champion didn’t feature someone who at the time was considered a great defensive big.
by homer simpson on Jul 4, 2009 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions
But those are historically great talents..
….regardless of their size. It would be interesting to see a study with more players involved. For every Shaq and Duncan, there is a Camby or another big who can block shots from the weak side but is completely ineffective against the p-n-r or in transition. Shaq and Duncan won all those championships because they were arguably the two best players in the game during that stretch and they played with elite talent like Kobe, Manu, Robinson and Parker. Were they defensively capable? Of course but they won because they were absurdly talented players…and more so on offense than defense.
I wonder how we could determine whether or not front offices overrate bigs. Any ideas?
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Perhaps the Best Solution
Would be to compare players Wins Produced vs Contract Value. This could be carried over into looking at Pre-NBA numbers in comparsion to slot taken in the draft.
I tend to think scorers (OJ Mayo, Amare) tend to be most overvalued.
You'd still need to take into account..
….something related to defense and that would still leave out the motive of the front office….which is pretty much impossible to gauge. I think that’s a start however. Maybe we could break it down with offensive and defensive win shares as the starting point.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
This is what I was getting at
Even a team like the Spurs needed defensive-oriented perimeter guys like Mario Elie and Bruce Bowen. In addition, the Bulls were always formidable defensively despite rotating unathletic white guys at C. In essence, the great defenses are complementary in that they force missed shots and turnovers.
As for whether front offices overrate bigs, a statistical overview would be interesting. Beyond that, though, the wallets of Jim McIllvaine, Mark Blount, Adonal Foyle, and Erick Dampier give some indication.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Jul 4, 2009 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
