2011 CB Historical Draft - Draft Thread

[Moranis]

Memphis:  Do you think choosing Pierce from 01-02 where he was in a mindset of that he is the main guy and more a offensive "hog" (shot 6 3's that year while at a good % albeit) will be a detriment to the team?  Will his effectiveness be limited by playing next to LeBron.  Pierce was a different player then than compared to 2008 where he knew how to play with other greats.

For me, Pierce just wants to win.  He wanted to win in 2001, he wanted to win in 2008.  Yes, he was the man in 2001, but everyone's starting five (and benches) have a lot of players that were the man for their respective teams.  Thus, I don't think it is any more of a "problem" for my team then any other team.  

I also firmly believe that James and Pierce have a very nice mix of skills and would actually be a pretty nice fit next to each other on the wing.  Both are able to create their own shot and both are able to hit the open jumper when presented.  They are also a nice fit defensively as well.

[indeedproceed]

Just answer the question Senator. My point about Iverson (and I'm not making this stink about many other players) is that there is a clear pattern of him putting his own boxscore ahead of or at least on par with the basketball team's success in terms of priorities. Iverson is not a team-first guy, and because of that, and the fact that he's shown he is unwilling to come off the bench even when his game clearly dictated he do so, I think considering the 'chemistry' is a very valid concern

Just so we're on the same page - You're asking me to answer the question I've debated for two pages should be merit-less?

Yes. Answer the question of based on the empirical data, Iverson's quotes, stories written about Iverson's ego and his own ideal of self, would MVP-era Iverson accept coming off the bench for anyone?

Based off of all of this information I say he starts off angry, then has a GREAT talk with one of his team leaders and realizes he's been living his life all wrong. He then replaces Neil Young as a member of Crosby, Stills, Nash & Iverson.

On court, he remains an incredibly talented, yet often inefficient scorer who frequently holds the ball for too long. Because of this I think you plan to use him each night but as a coach are ready to give the quick leash. But he's totally cool with that because he's got his music now.

So basically you're just dodging the whole "That guy's a real butthole and I don't think he'd be able to play nice with the other kids unless he gets to pick the game" argument and going NBA2k on me.

[StartOrien]

So basically you're just dodging the whole "That guy's a real butthole and I don't think he'd be able to play nice with the other kids unless he gets to pick the game" argument and going NBA2k on me.

I've used that exact phrasing multiple times.

EDIT: not today, but when the subject of how things should be judged.

[33-00-32]

Some questions:
Boston: You chose a lot of bench players that had high scoring averages.  They obviously all won't be able to match the averages from the years you've chosen, how do you see them gelling? Do you ever think to limit the bench play a bit more and increase the minutes of your top players (wings mostly) a little more?

I chose bench players who were very good players. I'm currently playing 10 guys leaving 3 very talented players who will only play if needed. I'm pretty sure that most of the players in this draft will have a hard time matching their numbers given the competition. My starting lineup is full of leaders who are unselfish, they will gel into the finest team defense and they have 3 guys who can run the offense with the high low work of Ewing and Duncan moving in and out of the paint. I have tweaked my roster a little bit with some more time to think about it. The deadline Nick set was Noon today so I think it is probably where it will have to stay now.

[indeedproceed]

So basically you're just dodging the whole "That guy's a real butthole and I don't think he'd be able to play nice with the other kids unless he gets to pick the game" argument and going NBA2k on me.

I've used that exact phrasing multiple times.

EDIT: not today, but when the subject of how things should be judged.

So what are you saying there George Lucas, that you got in on the merchandising rights and now I owe you 3 tommy points?

No but seriously, if that's the way people are looking at their teams the roster construction makes more sense.

[StartOrien]

Last point - at the professional level it is MUCH more likely for a player to significantly develop or "improve" mentally than it is for a player to significantly alter his physical ability or skill set.

That's why I don't like to bring the locker-room chemistry part of it into the game.

[Roy H.]

No but seriously, if that's the way people are looking at their teams the roster construction makes more sense.

I think you and I had this particular debate earlier, but I'm not sure it makes sense in even that context.  I think Iverson's size and inefficiency hurt him as a 6th man in this exercise, even if you get rid of the attitude issues.

Sure, Iverson could score a lot, but a ton of guys could score a lot.  However, other guys could score more efficiently, and added better passing, rebounding, etc.

For instance, look at a guy who didn't get drafted:  1989 Dale Ellis.  He averaged 27.5 points, shot 50% from the field, and 47.8% from three.  Who fits better in this format -- even if it's NBA2K -- Iverson or Ellis?  Give me Ellis all-day, every day.

(Seriously?  Undrafted?  What's up with that?)

[indeedproceed]

Last point - at the professional level it is MUCH more likely for a player to significantly develop or "improve" mentally than it is for a player to significantly alter his physical ability or skill set.

That's why I don't like to bring the locker-room chemistry part of it into the game.

I don't get that. A player is the best player on their Biddy team. Then they go to Modified Basketball and find out that being the best scorer on the VFW team doesn't mean much. Sometimes that kid learns to be a team guy and a better player, sometimes he doesn't.

Best guy on a highschool team goes to college and finds out that scoring 28ppg for a class C school in po-dunk NY doesn't mean much at St. Bonaventure, and he either learns to be a better team player and adapt or he doesn't.

Best guy at Texas A&M finds out that everyone in the NBA has his athleticism and skillset at the 2 guard position, and he either embraces being a role player, or he doesn't, and goes to play in Europe.

Allen Iverson finds out that he's not a starting caliber guard anymore, and would rather go play in Turkey than come off the bench in the NBA. And he's not some cocky 25 yr old, he's freakin 34!

Yes, there's a chance that he'll be alright, but there is also a larger chance that there will be some friction.

[33-00-32]

No but seriously, if that's the way people are looking at their teams the roster construction makes more sense.

I think you and I had this particular debate earlier, but I'm not sure it makes sense in even that context.  I think Iverson's size and inefficiency hurt him as a 6th man in this exercise, even if you get rid of the attitude issues.

Sure, Iverson could score a lot, but a ton of guys could score a lot.  However, other guys could score more efficiently, and added better passing, rebounding, etc.

For instance, look at a guy who didn't get drafted:  1989 Dale Ellis.  He averaged 27.5 points, shot 50% from the field, and 47.8% from three.  Who fits better in this format -- even if it's NBA2K -- Iverson or Ellis?  Give me Ellis all-day, every day.

(Seriously?  Undrafted?  What's up with that?)

I think I had Ellis on my list I gave you when you selected AI for me, so it's all your fault!  

[indeedproceed]

No but seriously, if that's the way people are looking at their teams the roster construction makes more sense.

I think you and I had this particular debate earlier, but I'm not sure it makes sense in even that context.  I think Iverson's size and inefficiency hurt him as a 6th man in this exercise, even if you get rid of the attitude issues.

Sure, Iverson could score a lot, but a ton of guys could score a lot.  However, other guys could score more efficiently, and added better passing, rebounding, etc.

For instance, look at a guy who didn't get drafted:  1989 Dale Ellis.  He averaged 27.5 points, shot 50% from the field, and 47.8% from three.  Who fits better in this format -- even if it's NBA2K -- Iverson or Ellis?  Give me Ellis all-day, every day.

(Seriously?  Undrafted?  What's up with that?)

You've played the NBA2k games when Iverson was good, right?

[Roy H.]

No but seriously, if that's the way people are looking at their teams the roster construction makes more sense.

I think you and I had this particular debate earlier, but I'm not sure it makes sense in even that context.  I think Iverson's size and inefficiency hurt him as a 6th man in this exercise, even if you get rid of the attitude issues.

Sure, Iverson could score a lot, but a ton of guys could score a lot.  However, other guys could score more efficiently, and added better passing, rebounding, etc.

For instance, look at a guy who didn't get drafted:  1989 Dale Ellis.  He averaged 27.5 points, shot 50% from the field, and 47.8% from three.  Who fits better in this format -- even if it's NBA2K -- Iverson or Ellis?  Give me Ellis all-day, every day.

(Seriously?  Undrafted?  What's up with that?)

You've played the NBA2k games when Iverson was good, right?

Haha.  I wasn't talking about the real NBA2K that wildly exaggerates certain players.  Similarly, if we do an all-time football draft, I'm not taking Vick #1 overall because he crushed Madden that one year.  (However, if we're playing Techmo rules, give me Bo Jackson and Lawrence Taylor, and I'll play with 51 scrubs.)

[StartOrien]

Indiana: What are your thoughts on Steve Nash's defensive liability coupled with the size advantage many teams will have over Barkley?

I'll first point out that Barkley's size inefficiencies didn't seem to hurt him as a player. He went toe to toe with the best and consistently  beat or fought hard against them. He counters the greats size advantage with his own speed advantage and I think given his supporting cast - more often than not he wins that battle.

As far as Nash goes, I can't make an argument that he's a great or good defender. He's not. On his best day, he's got the legs to try his best. But there's two things I'd like to point out.

1. He's surrounded by some pretty good, and very fast defenders. As I pointed out in my presser 2-5 everyone of my starting lineup averages 1.3 steals and 1.3 blocks per game. That's a talented, very fast, and opportunistic offense that can puts Nash in his comfort zone on the other end.

2. If there was a spot to take some defensive deficiencies, PG is the one. Its not the best stat because we don't know how often they're matched up together, but it's not like the elite PG's are killing Nash. Here's CP3 and D-Will's numbers in head to head match ups:

D-Will
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=nashst01&p2=willide01

CP3
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=nashst01&p2=paulch01

If those are the gaps between him and the elite, I'll definitely take his ability to run an offense - particularly in transition - and his ability to spread the floor with his (statically the greatest) shooting ever*.





*Didn't fact check that, but I'm pretty sure I've heard the blogfather drop that. 

[indeedproceed]

(However, if we're playing Techmo rules, give me Bo Jackson and Lawrence Taylor, and I'll play with 51 scrubs.)

2 things:

1) You callin Pepper Johnson a scrub?

2) Derrick Thomas and Christian Okoye FTW.

[StartOrien]

No but seriously, if that's the way people are looking at their teams the roster construction makes more sense.

I think you and I had this particular debate earlier, but I'm not sure it makes sense in even that context.  I think Iverson's size and inefficiency hurt him as a 6th man in this exercise, even if you get rid of the attitude issues.

Sure, Iverson could score a lot, but a ton of guys could score a lot.  However, other guys could score more efficiently, and added better passing, rebounding, etc.

For instance, look at a guy who didn't get drafted:  1989 Dale Ellis.  He averaged 27.5 points, shot 50% from the field, and 47.8% from three.  Who fits better in this format -- even if it's NBA2K -- Iverson or Ellis?  Give me Ellis all-day, every day.

(Seriously?  Undrafted?  What's up with that?)

You've played the NBA2k games when Iverson was good, right?

Haha.  I wasn't talking about the real NBA2K that wildly exaggerates certain players.  Similarly, if we do an all-time football draft, I'm not taking Vick #1 overall because he crushed Madden that one year.  (However, if we're playing Techmo rules, give me Bo Jackson and Lawrence Taylor, and I'll play with 51 scrubs.)

Off-topic, but how hilarious is 2k's interpretation of Kobe?

[Roy H.]

(However, if we're playing Techmo rules, give me Bo Jackson and Lawrence Taylor, and I'll play with 51 scrubs.)

2 things:

1) You callin Pepper Johnson a scrub?

2) Derrick Thomas and Christian Okoye FTW.

Bo and LT welcome the challenge.