Another Draft Miss: Rodney Hood

[Snakehead]

Looking at that list makes me think that Ainge is an average to slightly above average drafter. He seems really good at finding rotation players with middling picks, which is a useful skill.

This is it.  It's why I get tired going on about it in these threads.  If you're calling a second round player a "bust" I don't know what to tell you.  The expectations are off.

I am still very high on Smart so I think he hit that pick too but time will tell.   Olynyk has a lot of potential as well and his recent shooting accuracy has been really good to see.  I was happy with all three picks this year so far, even if the roster has totally kept them off the court (they seem like they could contribute to me).

I don't think he's perfect.  JR Gidden is certainly one where I ask what he was doing.  I have liked all his recent picks though I would say and I'm excited about them.

[KG Living Legend]

 
 The recent criticisms are Young and Rozier. Terry appears to be Danny's guy and I like Terry's potential, but it was an odd pick so he better pan out
 Same goes for Young, I hope he's not a bust.

 At picks 16 and 17 you can't have two bad misses there. That could have easily been Hood and Portis, so let's hope Rozier is the next Iverson.

[oldtype]

 The recent criticisms are Young and Rozier. Terry appears to be Danny's guy and I like Terry's potential, but it was an odd pick so he better pan out
 Same goes for Young, I hope he's not a bust.

 At picks 16 and 17 you can't have two bad misses there. That could have easily been Hood and Portis, so let's hope Rozier is the next Iverson.

Young is just a swing on a miss on a high-risk high-return pick. I can live with that.

Rozier is completely inexplicable. It's not like he was super young and raw, but he doesn't seem at all ready for NBA minutes either.

[Csfan1984]

Young is defendable Rozier is a stretch. Though after draft you could  say you see some potential now in Rozier. We all saw Young had potential already in college and championship game.

[PhoSita]

The point I'm going to continue making is that you can't assess drafting in a vaccuum.  You have to also look at how the team chooses to develop those players.

You can show a list of Celts draft picks over the last 5-8 years, but acknowledge that during that time, development of young players has never really been the chief priority.  Even during the lone tanking season, we gave an awful lot of minutes to guys like Jeff Green, Brandon Bass, Kris Humphries, Rajon Rondo, Courtney Lee, etc.

[ssspence]

The point I'm going to continue making is that you can't assess drafting in a vaccuum.  You have to also look at how the team chooses to develop those players.

You can show a list of Celts draft picks over the last 5-8 years, but acknowledge that during that time, development of young players has never really been the chief priority.  Even during the lone tanking season, we gave an awful lot of minutes to guys like Jeff Green, Brandon Bass, Kris Humphries, Rajon Rondo, Courtney Lee, etc.

It comes thru loud and clear. And I agree it hasn't been the top priority -- Stevens is not tanking or prioritizing the "rebuild". But we play lots of guys on rookie deals. Zeller, Sullinger, Smart,
Olynyk, Pressey, Crowder and others have been played pretty heavily, in some cases through growing pains.

So for me, the retort is this: if the Cs thought they could play Young over Turner without it destroying James' confidence, reputation and trade value (and presumably hurting the team in the process -- less important but still a factor), wouldn't they?

[PhoSita]

So for me, the retort is this: if the Cs thought they could play Young over Turner without it destroying James' confidence, reputation and trade value (and presumably hurting the team in the process -- less important but still a factor), wouldn't they?

No, I don't think they would.


I'm with Bill Simmons on this one -- at the least I'd like to see Stevens do what Popovich does sometimes: every once in a while, just say, "OK James, tonight is your night.  Evan is going to sit out and you're going to play 20+ minutes."  Give Isaiah a night off (or play him like 20 minutes) occasionally and tell Rozier, "Let's see what you can do."


Playing guys is not the same as prioritizing their development, either.  Stevens has played Smart plenty, but he's played him for his defense.  Smart has played a fairly small role in the offense and been groomed like they see him as a purely complementary player.  That may be due to the fact that he's not ready to step into a larger role without having some really bad games and hurting the team, but I think that more often than not, players need to be given the chance to play above their current level if you want them to do more than simply refine their role player skills.

Take Avery for instance -- I don't think he ever reaches the point he has offensively if the team had never been forced to rely on him to be one of the top scoring options.

[KG Living Legend]

 Good point Pho, Tp.

[guava_wrench]

So for me, the retort is this: if the Cs thought they could play Young over Turner without it destroying James' confidence, reputation and trade value (and presumably hurting the team in the process -- less important but still a factor), wouldn't they?

No, I don't think they would.


I'm with Bill Simmons on this one -- at the least I'd like to see Stevens do what Popovich does sometimes: every once in a while, just say, "OK James, tonight is your night.  Evan is going to sit out and you're going to play 20+ minutes."  Give Isaiah a night off (or play him like 20 minutes) occasionally and tell Rozier, "Let's see what you can do."


Playing guys is not the same as prioritizing their development, either.  Stevens has played Smart plenty, but he's played him for his defense.  Smart has played a fairly small role in the offense and been groomed like they see him as a purely complementary player.  That may be due to the fact that he's not ready to step into a larger role without having some really bad games and hurting the team, but I think that more often than not, players need to be given the chance to play above their current level if you want them to do more than simply refine their role player skills.

Take Avery for instance -- I don't think he ever reaches the point he has offensively if the team had never been forced to rely on him to be one of the top scoring options.

The Simmons idea sounds good until you remember how good and experienced the top talent is on the Spurs. They are guaranteed the playoffs every year. When Pop rests guys, it feels like preparing for the playoffs. If Stevens rests guys, it feels like tanking.

Avery is a good example though, but we need to go back farther. Avery had his breakout when Ray Allen got hurt. When Allen returned, AB continued to start and Allen went to the bench.

On the other hand, guys get chances all the time due to injury but don't perform like Avery did. Maybe AB succeeded when he got the opportunity because he is AB, not just because he had an opportunity. There is no shortage of guys using their opportunities to stink up the arena.

[ssspence]

Gonna bump this thread until at least one of the lead homers admits maybe Hood would have been not just the better, but the smarter, pick. And no, I don't buy the argument that Hood couldn't crack the Cs SG / SF rotation over Young / Turner / Jerebko AT ALL. He's a legit NBA player -- period.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Gonna bump this thread until at least one of the lead homers admits maybe Hood would have been not just the better, but the smarter, pick. And no, I don't buy the argument that Hood couldn't crack the Cs SG / SF rotation over Young / Turner / Jerebko AT ALL. He's a legit NBA player -- period.

OK.

[ssspence]

Gonna bump this thread until at least one of the lead homers admits maybe Hood would have been not just the better, but the smarter, pick. And no, I don't buy the argument that Hood couldn't crack the Cs SG / SF rotation over Young / Turner / Jerebko AT ALL. He's a legit NBA player -- period.

OK.

Agreed? But I don't consider you one of the homers, bud.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Gonna bump this thread until at least one of the lead homers admits maybe Hood would have been not just the better, but the smarter, pick. And no, I don't buy the argument that Hood couldn't crack the Cs SG / SF rotation over Young / Turner / Jerebko AT ALL. He's a legit NBA player -- period.

OK.

Agreed? But I don't consider you one of the homers, bud.

Oh, I don't care about this debate. I just thought it pointless to bump the thread for this purpose.

[ssspence]

Gonna bump this thread until at least one of the lead homers admits maybe Hood would have been not just the better, but the smarter, pick. And no, I don't buy the argument that Hood couldn't crack the Cs SG / SF rotation over Young / Turner / Jerebko AT ALL. He's a legit NBA player -- period.

OK.

Agreed? But I don't consider you one of the homers, bud.

Oh, I don't care about this debate. I just thought it pointless to bump the thread for this purpose.

Is there a point to any thread on a basketball blog?! Besides, this was a bit tongue-in-cheek -- no one on Celticsblog ever admits when they've been wrong.

[TheSundanceKid]

Hood is a solid player sure. Still don't see how you can definitively say he's a better pick when there's a 3 year age gap. Sounds a lot like the people who used to write off Bradley's potential in his first few years. Short sighted