Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2014 20:20:38 GMT
The pride of Kentucky has finally arrived.
1. Hawks: Dan Issel
Dan Issel PF 20 6'9'' 235 B+ B- C B- B- A
Dan Issel PF 11 35.8 26.2 9.4 2.7 1.3 1.5 1.8 .426 .805 .341
While I paid less attention to this draft than usual, the Issel pick caught me off guard a bit when it was first made. Then after taking a look at the other rookies, it started making a little more sense. Now with a solid TC under his belt, Issel looks to be the favorite for ROTY. Before Mirotic comparisons get thrown at him, consider he only blocks 1.5 shots a game and he is shooting 42% on a very bad team to get those 26 ppg. While he will never be at the level of Mirotic, he looks like he can be a solid all-around big man for many years. Compared to the looks of the other rookies pre-TC, this was probably the pick most would have made though.
Grade: A-
2. Magic: George Yardley
George Yardley SF 20 6'5'' 190 B- B+ C- B- C B
George Yardley SF 10 20.9 7.7 3.9 1.3 0.5 0.3 1.2 .443 .857 .300
The most disappointing of the top five rookies may be George Yardley. Yardley is supposed to be a dynamic scorer, but in pre-season at least he didn't show anything special there. While I'm not sure you could take Maravich or Lanier over him still even now, I think it is clear Cousy would have been the right pick here. It seems like the Magic may have drafted more for need here which is never a good thing this high in the draft especially when you just lost so many games the year before. Yardley still looks solid though and reminds me of Michael Ray Richardson, and if he ends up being just the second best selection that could have been made here, that's not so bad. Second and third overall picks usually are a toss-up and if Yardley can become an option scoring wing the Magic will have no regrets.
Grade: B
3. Grizzlies: Pete Maravich
Pete Maravich SG 20 6'5'' 197 C B+ A- C D+ B
Pete Maravich SG 10 24.9 10.9 2.4 2.3 1.1 0.0 0.9 .446 .700 .545
A shooting guard who is not a great inside scorer or defender and thrives most as a ball handler usually doesn't work out too well. Early returns are in and Maravich has some encouraging stats such as his low turnovers and steal a game, and his scoring does not look that bad. You just have to wonder how much he can really improve though. In TC players rarely improve from a C so he is likely near his peak at both inside scoring and defense, and if he even hits A outside for example is he really any better than a Klay Thompson with better handles? Klay just got a big max contract so Maravich likely won't have many problems feeding his family but I'm not so sure he can ever be more than just a good not great scorer who gives you nothing else.
Grade: B
4. Grizzlies: Bob Cousy
Bob Cousy PG 20 6'5'' 189 C A- B B D+ B
Bob Cousy PG 10 35.2 20.7 4.3 9.5 1.4 0.0 3.1 .486 .867 .277
The only flaw from Cousy so far that can be seen is his turnovers being at three a game. You obviously want him to get those more under control, but by no means are they a major problem. You could say the problem for him much like with Miravich is with that C inside scoring he is likely near his peak there and he's unlikely to improve a lot more anywhere else. Still, he looks to be a solid point guard and while the odds of him being a star seem low, he should be an option scorer caliber player who can do his job next to two other perimeter scorers shooting a likely high percentage and hopefully limiting his turnovers to closer to two than three a game. Pick wise, he looks to easily be the second best player from the top five picks and sans maybe one other player I'm not sure anybody will pass him in the future from this lotto so it was obviously a good pick. Since the Grizzlies picks were back to back though you don't know if they put them in order so they very well could have just put him at third overall which is about exactly where he should have been taken.
Grade: A-
5. 76ers: Bob Lanier
Bob Lanier PF 21 6'11'' 250 B C- C- B B+ B
Bob Lanier PF 16 34.6 12.0 12.6 2.1 0.9 1.0 1.9 .370 .709 .000
While Lanier looks good on paper, sadly games are not played on paper. Throughout the years there have been many bigs like him who look like they could be stars with a bit more work but when they actually play the games they just don't produce. I'm not saying he can't get better but when you shoot 37% at any point in your career for any stretch the odds of you ever being a good scorer are usually low. His rebounding is solid but with only a block a game you have to worry about if he may be destined to be a sixth man. When you're a role playing big such as Lanier you need to block at least close to two shots a game and while that number is not unreachable, it will take some time for him to get there. When it comes to the couple players showing more promise drafted later in the lotto, it's unlikely sans one that they were in the discussion here. Lanier having no notes is interesting though and is why it feels like he may have already peaked.
Grade: B
Tiny fits his name well as his positive impact on a team is microscopic.
6. Lakers: Tiny Archibald
Tiny Archibald PG 21 6'1'' 150 B- C A- C+ D B
Tiny Archibald PG 17 35.7 9.3 3.6 7.6 1.8 0.2 2.5 .384 .563 .250
When this pick was first made, it felt like a very early April Fool's joke. After the past few times a point guard with C outside was drafted high in the lotto went so poorly, you would think teams would learn to stay away, especially when they combine their poor outside with an average inside game. When you make a pick in the lotto you usually are looking for the highest potential player, or the safe pick who is already well developed. Tiny is neither of those and he wasn't even in the top five when it came to either one. Where is the upside here? At best Tiny can become a clone of Michael Carter-Williams and at worst he is out of the league within five seasons. When you look at the players drafted after him, you have to wonder why exactly Tiny would even be in the discussion at this pick. Simply put, this is the worst pick of the lotto by far.
Grade: F-
7. Rockets (Traded to Hornets): Antawn Webber
Antawn Webber PF 21 6'9'' 248 B- C C A- C+ B
Antawn Webber PF 12 29.7 5.4 9.7 2.5 0.8 2.0 1.0 .455 .722 .500
One of those better players to pick than Tiny is Antawn Webber. Webber was quickly dealt after TC in a disastrous deal to the Hornets likely because of his body odor we can assume. His notes put him as an elite defender who is strong, which is always a nice player to have. His scoring is not very good and his rebounding needs some work, but if that work can be done he could peak as a very good role playing big but at worst should be a good player off the bench. While that is all fine and dandy, Raines was very likely the better pick to be made here. While role playing big men are nice to have, good scoring wings who can block shots are usually more valued around the league and there was not only Raines but another one available at this pick.
Grade: C
8. Grizzlies: Alonzo Raines
Allonzo Raines SF 23 6'3'' 198 C+ A- C B C- B
Allonzo Raines SF 10 23.8 16.1 3.0 0.9 1.2 0.9 1.2 .541 .724 .364
Raines falling as far he did is a bit confusing, and you have to wonder if the below average inside scorer but a good leaper bit scared some people off. After DeAndre Kane came from Europe and had similar notes when it comes to being called an elite scorer, you would think Raines notes saying the same would at least make a team willing to take a leap of faith with him over drafting a role playing big or a terrible point guard. Raines overachieved in pre-season but he still shows some good scoring ability and low turnovers and a block and steal a game is always nice to have on a wing player. His inside scoring is what will likely hold him back from being on the level of Kane, but he should still be a solid option scorer who has no real flaws elsewhere in his game. It was the obvious pick but it was the obvious pick since Cousy was drafted so obviously not so obvious heh.
Grade: A
9. Grizzlies: Ermaudo Marino
Ermaudo Marino SF 20 6'11'' 227 C B+ B- B B- B
Ermaudo Marino SF 10 29.5 7.2 9.4 1.6 1.3 2.1 1.5 .467 .636 .409
Marino looks to be an interesting player, but his lack of scoring even if he played at power forward is worrisome. He looks to be too poor of a scorer to start on the wing and too poor of a rebounder and scorer to be a good big man. Because of that, he will likely end up being a role playing big much in the mold of Webber who went a few picks earlier and they are similar in a lot of ways. Most would just prefer their role playing big to have B- inside and not C inside and since bigs do not take many outside shots not matter their outside scoring that B+ is not as helpful as it looks. It is still helpful though and is what will keep his scoring at least respectable as a big man where he really should spend his career. Charlie Scott seemed like the obvious pick here though and while the Grizzlies had a good draft is could have been better.
Grade: C+
Cowens is not very good at anything when it comes to the game of basketball.
10. Pacers: Dave Cowens
Dave Cowens PF 20 6'9'' 230 C+ D+ C C A- B
Dave Cowens PF 11 19.8 6.1 6.5 2.3 0.5 0.1 1.6 .433 .652 .000
There is not much to talk about with Dave Cowens. He is not a very good scorer nor is he good at anything at all defensively. He is a good rebounder though but that is really the only positive that can be found here. Passing on Charlie Scott here is about as bad as the Tiny pick but considering Cowens was at least drafted at ten and not six it is not as bad, but it is still really bad. Luckily for the Pacers they barely escape the honor of making the worst pick in the draft and only made the second worst pick. It could always be worse.
Grade: F
11. Hawks: Charlie Scott
Charlie Scott SF 19 6'7'' 227 B- B- C+ B+ C B
Charlie Scott SF 16 37.3 17.9 7.3 3.3 1.3 2.0 2.4 .417 .611 .386
Simply put, Raines and Scott should have gone fifth and sixth in this draft and a few of the players drafted before them are just inexcusable. Scott is on a very poor Hawks team so clearly his stats are inflated offensively but those two blocks a game on a small forward are just sexy. If he can become an option scorer while adding that defensive ability he could become the best player in this draft honestly, but he has a long way to go offensively still. The more you look at Scott and Raines you can almost make a case for Scott going before Raines but because Scott's notes said he was a big leaper with a broken jump shot, you can give some leeway for going with Raines over him and most probably would have made the same pick. Scott is still the biggest steal of the draft though.
Grade: A
12. Nuggets: Rudy Tomjanovic
Rudy Tomjanovich PF 20 6'8'' 231 C+ C- C B- C+ C
Rudy Tomjanovich PF 13 18.8 3.2 5.2 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.6 .364 .692 .000
Not even why it is worth even typing anything about Tomjanovic. Simply put, he is not good at anything and is already a bad contract as just a rookie. There was not much left at this point in the draft though and Tomjanovic did look to be a top player left on the board. Sadly, things did not work out in his first TC and he is likely done but it is hard to find anybody who they will really regret having passed on here. Like most drafts it seems like this was the troll player of the draft as it was said he had big upside offensively and defensively which was obviously a lie. Can't really fault the Nuggets too much for just believing what was written.
Grade: C
13. Wolves: Bill Sharman
Bill Sharman PG 21 6'1'' 175 C+ B- B C- C- B
Bill Sharman PG 14 23.7 7.0 2.4 5.0 0.6 0.4 1.9 .430 .821 .412
If the Wolves wanted to go PG they probably should have went with Calvin Murphy. Sharman does not look to be very good at all and his C- defense kills any value he would really have for the time being. The turnovers considering he doesn't score much are worrying as well. If he ever becomes starting caliber it will be a miracle but maybe he can make it work as a backup. Usually you aim for higher at thirteenth overall though but considering the lack of options you can't fault them too much. That does not make Sharman any good of a player though.
Grade: C
