Official Discuss your CB Draft team

[wdleehi]

Come playoff time, what do people think of me giving Turkoglu some minutes at the PF to limit the amount of time my lottery rookies (Greg Monroe & Ed Davis) have to play?

If I was truly the coach of the team, it's not something I'd consider, but seeing as this is, for lack of a better team, a popularity contest I'd float it out there.

Thoughts?

Ignore the naysayers and play your rookies.

Greg Monroe and Ed Davis are quality players who make you a better team.

I don't know Who. Personally I think you put way, way, way too much stock in rookies and their abilities to make big differences. Especially on teams that are contending or going to the playoffs.

Rookies tend to possibly shine for part of the season and struggle for most of the rest of the season. And they tend not to be huge difference makers in the playoffs. That is even more true of players that are not chosen in the very top of the draft.

Davis might be NBA ready but he might be NBA ready to give what your average 10th player in the league gives. Monroe is very very young could become quite overwhelmed with the physicality of the NBA game.

Or not.

But history shows that very few rookies become real difference making players their first years and that some years, none do that first year.

I'm not so high on too many players in this class doing much this year except Wall, Blake Griffin, Cousins and maybe a guy on a real bad team that is NBA ready like Damion James in New Jersey or someone like that.

You can't count on rookies to help with the votes in this exercise unless you are going for team of the future and have them mixed in with some established 2nd, 3rd and 4th year players.

But don't you think it's better, on any team, to have a highly skilled, yet unproven rookie playing anywhere betwen 10-20 man than your average 8th-10th guy?

On a win now team, having one is good as long as there is a vet player behind him that can step up and be a role player to help him along. 


It is hard when you are loaded off the bench with out a vet option waiting there to help.  (in this exercise)

[Who]

Come playoff time, what do people think of me giving Turkoglu some minutes at the PF to limit the amount of time my lottery rookies (Greg Monroe & Ed Davis) have to play?

If I was truly the coach of the team, it's not something I'd consider, but seeing as this is, for lack of a better team, a popularity contest I'd float it out there.

Thoughts?

Ignore the naysayers and play your rookies.

Greg Monroe and Ed Davis are quality players who make you a better team.

I don't know Who. Personally I think you put way, way, way too much stock in rookies and their abilities to make big differences. Especially on teams that are contending or going to the playoffs.

Rookies tend to possibly shine for part of the season and struggle for most of the rest of the season. And they tend not to be huge difference makers in the playoffs. That is even more true of players that are not chosen in the very top of the draft.

Davis might be NBA ready but he might be NBA ready to give what your average 10th player in the league gives. Monroe is very very young could become quite overwhelmed with the physicality of the NBA game.

Or not.

But history shows that very few rookies become real difference making players their first years and that some years, none do that first year.

I'm not so high on too many players in this class doing much this year except Wall, Blake Griffin, Cousins and maybe a guy on a real bad team that is NBA ready like Damion James in New Jersey or someone like that.

You can't count on rookies to help with the votes in this exercise unless you are going for team of the future and have them mixed in with some established 2nd, 3rd and 4th year players.

But don't you think it's better, on any team, to have a highly skilled, yet unproven rookie playing anywhere betwen 10-20 man than your average 8th-10th guy?

On a win now team, having one is good as long as there is a vet player behind him that can step up and be a role player to help him along. 


It is hard when you are loaded off the bench with out a vet option waiting there to help.  (in this exercise)

Dwight Howard gives those guys a lot of protection.

[StartOrien]

But in real life, if you had one season to win and then was forced to blow everything up, would you rather have a player like Ed Davis (full of potential, unproven), or somebody like Zydraunus Ilgauskus who is a proven player, but almost inarguably on his last legs?

I selected Davis, but I'm interested in hearing what other people's philosophies are.

[indeedproceed]

But in real life, if you had one season to win and then was forced to blow everything up, would you rather have a player like Ed Davis (full of potential, unproven), or somebody like Zydraunus Ilgauskus who is a proven player, but almost inarguably on his last legs?

I selected Davis, but I'm interested in hearing what other people's philosophies are.

Ideally you'd have both, but if you had to choose one, I guess I'd say Davis.

The thing is, a championship now >>>>> a mediocre year next time as a rebuilding team.

[StartOrien]

But in real life, if you had one season to win and then was forced to blow everything up, would you rather have a player like Ed Davis (full of potential, unproven), or somebody like Zydraunus Ilgauskus who is a proven player, but almost inarguably on his last legs?

I selected Davis, but I'm interested in hearing what other people's philosophies are.

Just to be extra clear, in this scenario you woudln't be able to retain any players. 1 year only, would you rather have an Ed Davis type or a Z type.

(I only pick Z b/c he was selectd 4 picks after Ed Davis, and I think he fits this question perfectly)

[Who]

Hedo Turkoglu is a good option at power forward alongside a player like Dwight Howard.

--------------------------------------------

There are two main areas to be concerned about (1) touches + time spent on the ball (2) rebounds

(1) Hedo Turkoglu has only one high level skill and that his playmaking ability off the pick and roll. The rest of his game is fairly mediocre. He needs to be given the freedom by his coaches to be a playmaker + needs to be in a lineup that allows him a large number of touches and amount of time on the basketball. Without those two elements, he is unable to take advantage of one high level skill. Also, without the pick and roll he is unable to beat his man well enough to be a quality playmaker. 

If Hedo Turkoglu has these situations ... then he will give you a matchup advantage offensively because most power forwards lack both the athleticism and defensive skill-set to defend Turkoglu in a screen and roll offense.

If Hedo Turkoglu does not have the above ... then he will not give you a matchup advantage offensively + he is a liability defensively and on the boards. So your team will get beaten soundly in that matchup with regularity.

(2) Hedo Turkoglu is a poor rebounding small forward and a very poor rebounding power forward. You need to make sure the rest of your lineup is full of quality rebounders relative to their positions to try and make up for this inability. Dwight Howard's brilliance is a major key here but you also need strong rebounding perimeter players.

For example, you can't play John Salmons as a small forward alongside Hedo because you'll get trounced on the backboards. Opposing forwards will out-rebound you by about 5 boards per 36 minutes in that scenario which puts your team in a major hole that will be hard to recover from.

-----------------------------------------------------

Hedo Turkoglu started as a power forward for the Magic when Rashard Lewis initially came over and was defended by opposing power forwards.

SVG switched the defensive assignments when Lewis showed his class at the position + opposing coaches swapped their defensive assignments (SFs onto Hedo) when they realized Hedo was a larger threat than Rashard Lewis.

-----------------------------------------------------

Most opposing power forwards will have a tougher time defending Hedo than he will defending them.

[Who]

But in real life, if you had one season to win and then was forced to blow everything up, would you rather have a player like Ed Davis (full of potential, unproven), or somebody like Zydraunus Ilgauskus who is a proven player, but almost inarguably on his last legs?

I selected Davis, but I'm interested in hearing what other people's philosophies are.

The question would be better if the players played the same position.

Easier to compare and contrast their skill-sets. To value them.

[mgent]

Which team is most underrated right now (besides your own), and why?

Teams at risk of wrongly being left out in the cold? Los Angeles Clippers' roster full of taken-for-granted veterans. I have the team winning the Pacific - if not handily.

The Miami Heat? Easier to understand why the Heat are overlooked. But it's a shame Triangle talk has dominated the discussion around this team. Nash deserves more consideration per usual. Odom and Stephen Jackson baggage-and-all still win games.

The Golden State Warriors.

Which player (besides one on your team) will surprise people the most next season, and how much of an impact will he have on this draft?

I'm excited for Al Jefferson's season.

Finally.  Someone with some common sense!

[Roy H.]

The problem with rookies is that they *don't* always outplay veterans, and they certainly don't always live up to expectations.

Look at last year's lottery.  It had:

2. Haseem Thabeet
6. Jonny Flynn
8. Jordan Hill
9. DeMar DeRozan
11. Terrence Williams
12. Gerald Henderson
14. Earl Clark

Even James Harden, a guy people are high on, had a very subdued rookie season in terms of scoring.  It's easy to see, then, why people might not be giving the #7 and #13 picks this year a lot of credit.  They could very well be great as rookies, but there's at least a 50% shot that they're non-factors.

[indeedproceed]

Then I think its about role.

If you didn't have a backup center or a backup power forward and you knew that the next player you selected was going to fill the other void but be substantially worse, I'd pick Davis, because you might get more out of him, but Z is a known commodity who is known to not be that good anymore.

The problem with rookies is that they *don't* always outplay veterans, and they certainly don't always live up to expectations.

Look at last year's lottery.  It had:

2. Haseem Thabeet
6. Jonny Flynn
8. Jordan Hill
9. DeMar DeRozan
11. Terrence Williams
12. Gerald Henderson
14. Earl Clark

Even James Harden, a guy people are high on, had a very subdued rookie season in terms of scoring.  It's easy to see, then, why people might not be giving the #7 and #13 picks this year a lot of credit.  They could very well be great as rookies, but there's at least a 50% shot that they're non-factors.

I think if you're a win-now team picking rookies you want the late 1sts and early 2nds who are juniors and seniors with lower ceilings but higher initial value, and more mature basketball wise so they'll be more willing to not only accept but embrace a lesser role.

Note: This is also known as the "Glen Davis/Leon Powe" strategy.

[Donoghus]

If you're not going for "Team of the Future", you really need to pick & choose your spots when deciding to take a rookie.  I think they're fine if you have them coming off the bench and there is a bit of a college track record to go by.  I think it looks better to ween a rookie along coming off the bench than trying to draft and plug right into a starting lineup and then expect your team to get serious contender props.  I'm not saying it can't be done but it has to be done and justified extremely well.

[Who]

The problem with rookies is that they *don't* always outplay veterans, and they certainly don't always live up to expectations.

Look at last year's lottery.  It had:

2. Haseem Thabeet
6. Jonny Flynn
8. Jordan Hill
9. DeMar DeRozan
11. Terrence Williams
12. Gerald Henderson
14. Earl Clark

Even James Harden, a guy people are high on, had a very subdued rookie season in terms of scoring.  It's easy to see, then, why people might not be giving the #7 and #13 picks this year a lot of credit.  They could very well be great as rookies, but there's at least a 50% shot that they're non-factors.

Earl Clark was the only disappointment on that list. Em, maybe T-Williams too.

The rest performed as expected.

Jordan Hill improved considerably throughout the year and was performing above expectations by year's end.

[Donoghus]

If you're not going for "Team of the Future", you really need to pick & choose your spots when deciding to take a rookie.  I think they're fine if you have them coming off the bench and there is a bit of a college track record to go by.  I think it looks better to ween a rookie along coming off the bench than trying to draft and plug right into a starting lineup and then expect your team to get serious contender props.  I'm not saying it can't be done but it has to be done and justified extremely well.

Let me just add, also, that you'd have a lot better chance of succeeding with it if this league was contracted down to 22 or 24 teams.  Bunch up the talent a bit more and incorporate a rookie.  Talent is just too spread around with 30 teams to make it work, IMO.

[indeedproceed]

If you're not going for "Team of the Future", you really need to pick & choose your spots when deciding to take a rookie.  I think they're fine if you have them coming off the bench and there is a bit of a college track record to go by.  I think it looks better to ween a rookie along coming off the bench than trying to draft and plug right into a starting lineup and then expect your team to get serious contender props.  I'm not saying it can't be done but it has to be done and justified extremely well.

When was the last time a starting rookie had a prominent role on a contending team?

Tiago Splitter with San An will be the first time in a while I think.

[Who]

If you're not going for "Team of the Future", you really need to pick & choose your spots when deciding to take a rookie.  I think they're fine if you have them coming off the bench and there is a bit of a college track record to go by.  I think it looks better to ween a rookie along coming off the bench than trying to draft and plug right into a starting lineup and then expect your team to get serious contender props.  I'm not saying it can't be done but it has to be done and justified extremely well.

When was the last time a starting rookie had a prominent role on a contending team?

Tiago Splitter with San An will be the first time in a while I think.

Courtney Lee and the Orlando Magic