Now that I've watched the first round of the NBA Draft, and read a bunch of the draft winners and losers columns, I think I've concluded on an easy way to wrap up this draft: They're all losers. I'm not really excited about anybody in this draft class. I have a feeling that in a few years, we'll be talking about this draft class in the same breath with the 2000 draft as the worst since the lottery.
If you listen to the analysts, every player in this draft was a monster, everyone has a wingspan 8 inches longer than their height, everyone is either a freakish athlete or a smart player with a high basketball I.Q. Just once, especially late in the second round, I'd like to see Jay Bilas or somebody say, "You know, this guy just sucks. He's slow, plays no defense, has horrible shot selection. Sure, he scored 20 points per game on the last place team in the SEC, but he had to fire up 30 shots a game to do it." How can everybody in the draft be a superstar in the making? Obviously, they all have some skills or they wouldn't even be considered, but come on, most of these guys out of the top 15 or 20 have just average skills. Stop talking them up like they can all be Hall of Famers.
In five years, if there's more than a half dozen guys out of this draft making a major impact on an actual contending team, I'll be surprised. There are a few guys who'll probably put up big numbers on perpetual lottery teams (I'm looking at you, OJ Mayo) but those guys are basically useless if you want to win.
How good will Derrick Rose be? Who knows, but does it matter? A team led by an elite point guard hasn't won a title since Isiah Thomas in 1990, 18 years ago! All this talk of needing an elite point guard is so much BS. And don't try to tell me that Tony Parker is a point guard. LeBron James is more of a point guard than Tony Parker is. Don't get me wrong, Parker's great and his game is perfectly suited for championship contention, but he's not a pure point guard.
How good will Michael Beasley be? An undersized power forward. For some reason, the name Kenyon Martin comes to mind. It's also a bad thing, in my mind, if you're a guy coming into the draft and there's more than one person out there comparing you to Derrick Coleman. Sure, Coleman had skills, but is there a better example of a waste of superstar talent than Coleman? Probably, but he'd be in the argument any way around it. Plus, Pat Riley doesn't like him. You could tell by the look on his face as he was doing an interview after the pick. I wouldn't be surprised to see a trade at some point soon if anyone comes calling.
Both these guys have an abundance of talent, and in the right situation with the right guidance and the right attitude, they could be stars. I think Beasley has a better chance if he stays with the Heat because of Riley and Dwayne Wade. But Rose coming into a dysfunctional situation with a first-time-at-any-level head coach? Has anyone ever wasted their potential as much as the Bulls have over the past three years. They were overloaded with sought-after talent and high draft picks thanks to the Knicks. It looked like all the pieces were in place for a trade or two for an established veteran to pair with some youth and be a contender. But they did nothing useful, except dumping Tyson Chandler (who just helped the Hornets to the second best record in the West) for P.J. Brown (who just helped the Celtics win a title) and J.R. Smith (who now scores points in bunches off the Nugget bench), and that trade was useful to everyone involved but the Bulls. What a waste. A 19-year old point guard's gonna clean this mess up? Unless he's got a post up game I haven't seen, good luck to him.
I guess the draft is all about possibility and potential. But I'm just not feeling this one at all. Usually, there are a handful of guys that I feel like have a chance to be solid pros and possibly stars, but I don't see it with any of these guys. I'm sure somebody will pop up and become a good player, but I'm guessing its not going to be the Kevin Love's, Russell Westbrook's or the token-Italian-guy-drafted-by-Mike-D'antoni. (It is reassuring to see that, no matter who's running the Knicks, they still know how to screw up a draft.) After all, the best player out of the 2000 draft by far was second round pick Michael Redd.
My guess is that a small school, relatively unknown player's going to have a bigger impact that the big name, primetime school guys. (Say, Courtney Lee for instance). Anyway, I guess we'll all just have to wait and see.
spanishjam
I liken the NBA draft to the Miss Universe pageant. No one gets crowned but everyone would like to think of themselves as winners. And there we have front and center hosting the duties none other than the laconic David Stern.
I'd like to thank the fans and let 'em know that they've nothing to worry about. I won't be asking D-Wade to sniff my butthole. Well at not yet at least until after I've made my first $50m in the NBA.
well stated why??? hype!!!! anyone can have (ON PAPER)!!!! a really nice resume!~!!!!! but lets see how they do ON THE COURT!!!!!! KEVIN LOVE, OJ MAYO??? GREAT PLAYERS (IN COLLEGE)!!!! a very big step from college play to pro!!!! just like going from high school to college!!!!!!!
Very nice insight man. But I have one issue. The Pistons had that amazing run with Chauncey at the helm. Though you could make a case that he wasnt a true PG, like Steve Nash.
Every player has potential, let's call it a ceiling. Let us assume if any player was to work his hardest(a work ethic like Kobe lets say), that that player can reach his 'ceiling'. Which is more important? The 'ceiling' or the work ethic?
To answer in no particular order, I would go for the work ethic before the ceiling. Both would be great but very rare, natural talent has a way of making people lazy. Chauncey Billups has been fantastic for the Pistons, as has Tony Parker for the Spurs, but I still don't think of either as true point guard. I actually prefer that kind of combo guard with a good handle, nice passing and good scoring skills to a traditional point guard, unless that point guard is Chris Paul or somebody like that. I have never bought into the theory that you need a point guard to win. All you need is guys who can handle ball pressure and find the open man when necessary, whether that's a small, quick point guard or a big strong power forward (LeBron). If I was the Bulls, I would have taken the guy who could score in the post. If there's one thing most all champions have in common, they could score in the paint. Fast break teams almost never win, and jump shooting teams almost never win. Like baseball where you build a team up the middle and football where you build a team in the trenches, winning basketball teams are built from the inside out, although not necessarily with prime time centers as there are so few of them, and they tend to be a little slow in this day and age.
I am an actual professional writer (hard to believe, I know, but I do earn a living at it) who even owns my own publishing company in Maryland. I am a proud drop-out from the University of Maryland and still a life-long Terp fan. My blog is named in honor of my favorite former NBA player, Tim Hardaway, without all the homophobia. I just loved the guy and his game. I only hope he doesn't kick my #### for saying that.
