Blazer Draft Prospects: Ty Lawson

by Dave on Jun 20, 2009 12:05 AM PDT Comment 96 comments

We continue our look at draft prospects the Blazers could potentially (and reasonably) move up to get. Today we're examining the teammate of Tyler Hansbrough, Ty Lawson.

Ty Lawson 6'0" 190lb projected point guard from UNC (DraftExpress Profile)

Why He Might Be the Guy

Lawson has an impressive dossier encapsulating most of the things the Blazers are looking for. He's experienced. He's played at a high level against high level competition. He's a genuine point guard who can handle the ball and pass. His assist-to-turnover ratio is high. He had excellent shooting percentages from the field and three-point range in college. He draws and makes plenty of free throws. He's efficient with his offense. He's quick. He's strong. He's reliable. He can run and finish at the rim. His added steals are a bonus. He reportedly has a good work ethic and it's hard to find a bad word said about him anywhere. He's not considered to have star potential in the NBA but most are banking on him being a good complementary player, which is more or less what the Blazers need.

As we're been refining how the Blazers need to approach this draft decision it's become apparent to me that there's a distinction between point guard and other positions, especially if the Blazers intend to move up to get their man. I stated it in the podcast the other day and I'll restate it here. With any other position the Blazers are fine moving up to take a chance on a home run player even if that player doesn't end up making it big. You have enough coverage at other positions that you can take that risk. Should the Blazers move up to take a point guard, because of their current situation and their draft history at that position there are only two things that matter: this guy has to be a real point guard and this guy has to be able to play. Portland has already taken chance after chance filling that spot through the draft with no tangible success so far. Jerryd Bayless is the next guy on the runway. If he's not the answer then the guy after that had better pan out if you spent a pick on him. He doesn't need to be all-world. He may not even be a career starter. But he better be someone you want on the team for a decade and he better be able to play productively. That sounds like a Lawson-esque description.

Because other teams are in more of a position to take a chance on point guard, not having Portland's history and perhaps not needing to win and/or fill that position as soon, a steady, productive guy like Lawson could well fall into the teens as projected. The cost to get him could turn out to be marginal, another factor perhaps in his favor over more decorated or exciting point guards.

Why He Might Not Be the Guy

First of all, he's a point guard. That same lack of success in finding good points through the draft might indicate that Portland needs to take another tack. If you couldn't manage it all those years in the lottery how are you going to manage starting with the 24^th pick? In many corners, including this one, there would be a sigh of relief if the Blazers didn't select a point guard this year and acquired more veteran help instead.

(To be clear for podcast listeners, when I made a prediction of picking Lawson on the ‘cast I was asked what will the Blazers do, not what should the Blazers do. I'd rather have Hinrich or another veteran point myself, but if I had to pick a point guard from this year's draft crop I think Lawson would be inexpensive and a smart percentage move compared to most.)

Second, Lawson is small for an NBA point guard. Plenty of almost-six-footers have made it but the Blazers would probably be more comfortable with a guy 6'3", all things considered. Also you have to ask if his size will make it harder for him to get free for that offense he relies on.

It's hard for me to tell because UNC ran a bunch when I saw them this year, but DraftExpress has Lawson's mid-range game as a question mark. He can shoot and he can finish at the rim but he can't combine the two. Right now this isn't a big issue for Blazer point guards, as none of them play a mid-range game the way we have the position laid out. But it would be nice to have that option at least. Steve Blake can probably shoot better off the catch. Jerryd Bayless can certainly score better off the drive. Why acquire a hybrid that doesn't match either of them?

Defensively Lawson could well have trouble in the NBA, given that man-to-man wasn't a priority for him in college, factoring in his smaller frame. It's hard to imagine him matching up against a Jason Kidd or Deron Williams, for instance. Who does, really? But you'd like to at least believe there's a chance.

That brings up the old bugaboo of not drafting back-up players intentionally. At the end of the day, that's probably what Lawson is. One of the attractions to the Blazers might be specifically that he's going to be fine no matter where he ends up in the point guard hierarchy. You'd love him to be the second guy but you wouldn't mind if he were third either. But that sounds like a job description for a veteran, not a rookie. Add the fact that you're trading up to get your probable back-up and the deal starts to look less sweet.

What are your thoughts? Would Lawson be worth moving up 6-8 spots for? Would you burn the trade exception and an extra million and change in cap space this summer even if you could get him for nothing else? How would he fit on this team? Could you ever envision him starting? Does he bring anything different than the current Blazers point guard corps?

Comment to your heart's content below.

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

1 recs | Comment 96 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I would like to see this

I could see a PG rotation of Bayless and Lawson being very, very effective in 3 years. Enough contrast in their games to make them hard to prepare for.

I buy Dave’s point that you draft for starters, but to be honest, we’re loaded with talent. Blake is a starter on half the teams in the league, Bayless will be a legit starter next year or the year after, Roy and Rudy are both starter-quality, we have three SFs who might be starters on a lot of teams, and we’ve got two centers who could start on a lot of teams.

When you’ve got that, and your GM collects draft picks the way some people collect stamps, you try to leverage some of those assets into what you need. Most people think we need a PG upgrade. If we can get one by trade, all to the good. If not, Lawson would be a good option.

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Jun 20, 2009 12:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

+1: I can't help but see Aaron Brooks-esque abilities to translate into NBA...

Ty Lawson, to me, is a very exciting prospect. He isn’t so physically gifted that he is a “no-brainer” in the top-10… nor is he a youngin with that “upside” tag… which allows others at his same position to be ranked higher. But Ty Lawson to me has the speed gears, handles, leadership, clutch play and shooting ability to be a good NBA starting PG in the mold of Aaron Brooks. Lawson put up great numbers all season… great numbers over his entire career at UNC for that matter so why are there so many draft-haters? He is 6’0" tall…. uhmmm, we are talking about a PG right? 6’0" is perfectly acceptable. Maybe it is because he stayed in college too long (he is a junior) but reasonably stayed at it because he had missed games due to injury both fresh and soph seasons, leaving more to prove in college before he made the jump. Now at age 21 he is ready, fresh off a National Championship where LAWSON was clearly the cog that held the UNC title-wave in tact.

What does he have? For starters, in a draft full of “point guards” Ty Lawson is about as pure a point guard as you could pick. Huge ups if you want a backup PG to run unit 2. You know, when Houston Drafted Aaron Brooks they weren’t planning on that kid being thier starter.., but a few years in he is money. The other thing that Lawson brings is effective shooting (47% 3-point shooting as a junior). It is uncanny to me how much he looks like Terry Porter when he is pulling the trigger… that wierd flat-arching shot of his that simply goes in!

So Lawson is a pure point guard who can drain the 3-pointer…. What can he not do? Well the biggest knock on him is his height… which supposedly means he “can’t” defend other point guards… However the point guards Portland has trouble guarding right now are the small fast gaurds… So I don’t think Lawson would really be a liablility on this roster. All in all, I think Lawson is a GREAT prospect to become a good to solid contributor on any team. Portland doesn’t need a home run, they need a solid base hit. I say, we trade #24 in some other deal, but buy a pick (#21 N.O.?) that enable us to draft Lawson as well.

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 20, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A couple of observations

Avery Johnson is the only 6’ PG who has won a championship as starter in the last 20+ years

Rondo is 6’1"

Both played on teams with future hall of famers. The jury is still out on Roy and Oden

Taurean Green started at PG for a couple of recent NCAA championship teams. Sure, Lawson is better than TG, but the PG skills required to win it all at the NBA level don’t necessarily translate

Did I mention Lawson is 6’?

KP may surprise me and draft another PG in 2009, but I have a feeling he’ll have to lock Nate in a closet at the PF, first

by two4larue on Jun 20, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If we had a chance to aquire Chris Paul

Would you reject him because he is only 6’?

by trk on Jun 20, 2009 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nope

I put a trade proposal together for CP3 (involving LMA as the key piece) and it was shot full of holes, last month

But if CP3 ever wins a title “on his own” then it will be earth-shattering-NBA-history-making news

I’d take him alongside Roy and Oden in a heartbeat. But you don’t draft 6’ PGs “hoping” they’ll become CP3s, that’s my point re: Lawson

by two4larue on Jun 20, 2009 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I may have to rethink my "Nate doesn't really like little PGs" take

I just remembered that McMillan had kind words for Taurean Green coming out of training camp in ‘07. Something to the effect of "he’s going to win 2-3 games for us down the stretch with his clutch shooting" etc

But afterwards Nate didn’t play TG much and he was dealt for Wafer. So maybe my “Nate doesn’t really like little PGs” take is still safe?

by two4larue on Jun 20, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

wow

you are rejecting a player on the basis of a couple of inches? Your thumb from middle joint to tip is a couple of inches and then you put that in comparison with their total height and you get a diff of <3 for a 6’2" v a 6’ player. That is not really a worrisome difference when there is no standard measurement procedure for height and just changing shoes can give you +/- 1"

I would be more concerned with things like standing reach and wingspan than height.

Also, add the caveat that Phil Jackson, who runs a triangle offense that does not need a traditional pg, has won 10 of the titles in the last 20 years and you can start to see that having a pg over 6’ is correlation and not casuation.

Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.

by jonestr on Jun 20, 2009 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The argument that short PGs seldom win NBA titles

Goes back longer than 20 years and is certainly not something I just came up with last week. It’s been observed and debated by sportswriters and scouts for decades. Go ahead and draft then depend on 6 foot (and under) PGs at your own risk

I would think that Blazer fans learned something from the Damon Stoudemire era. Maybe too much time has passed since then? That team’s lack of success wasn’t all due to tin foil at the airport scanner and weed stashed in crawl spaces.

Size. Matters.

by two4larue on Jun 20, 2009 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

appealing to the majority

is of no help in this argument. The point is that having a 6’ pg is totally arbitrary and fairly worthless. It is yet another example of confusing causation with correlation. If you look hard enough you can probably find other casual correlations that have no real substance when constructing a championship contender.

Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.

by jonestr on Jun 20, 2009 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unless you have a crystal ball

and can look 10 years into the future and confirm that a large percentage of upcoming NBA championships will be won with 6’ and under starting PGs, I’ll stick with the data that’s currently available

Let’s say you draft a 6’ or under PG and I draft one with similar ability who’s 6’3" or taller. You’ll have to surround your PG with better talent than mine to get the same results, and your odds of winning a title will be about 5%, based on recent NBA history (1970-present)

Now, it’s “OK” to draft a short PG if you’re only planning to use him as a change-of-pace reserve. But I submit that the Blazers already drafted a player who fits that category last year (the only difference being: Bayless is 6’3" and has a chance to develop into a starter)

KP drafted Taurean Green back in ‘07 so I can’t say he’d never do it again, but I feel pretty confident in predicting that Portland won’t use the 24th pick to draft Lawson (or Collison) this year,or trade up to draft a 6’ (or under) PG in this year’s draft.

by two4larue on Jun 21, 2009 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

the problem

is still that you are confusing correlation and causation

none of what you have said has addressed that issue or has addressed any inherent flaws in measuring players. For an example of this go look at height with and without shoes at draftexpress. If I can just add a bit of height to a 5’11" player with a some Kevin Love shoes then all of a sudden my chances of winning a title go up 5%. Wow what a bargain for the cost of a pair of shoe inserts.

If you cant come up with some reason that having a pg over 6’ tall gives you an advantage then you are stuck with what you have had for the last few posts, correlation.

Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.

by jonestr on Jun 21, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

how about

“because it does”?

The burden of proof is “on” you to come up with a reason why short starting point guards haven’t won more championships. Let’s see…is it because they play in a league where players have been getting bigger, stronger and more skilled over the last 30 years? Is it because “the (big) man” has been keeping them down? Or, are the new hand-checking rules going to usher in a new NBA era of waterbug dominance, where every GM “has” to have a 6’ and under PG in order to compete?

Frankly, I’d rather stick with what’s worked in the past. You can go ahead and be innovative. But when my taller guard checks your shorter guard’s shot in a key moment of the game, no amount of stats or analysis will correlate that ball into the basket.

by two4larue on Jun 21, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the question is

would the Lakers have lost in the playoffs this year if Derek Fisher were 2" shorter? The answer is, of course, that no, it wouldn’t have mattered nearly enough. The Lakers won because of Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom and Trevor Ariza; roughly in that order. Saying they won because of a 6’2" PG seriously disrespects their team (I can’t believe I just had to type that, but whatever).

You could apply the same to most championship teams in recent memory, I don’t recall many of them relying on the size of their PG.

Jonestr is 100% correct, correlation != causation; and he’s also correct in pointing out that the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim of short PGs not being able to win titles.

by wepto on Jun 21, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

nope

I’ve got nothing to prove because if you could make a clone of Fish that’s 2 inches shorter, the “real” Fish would’ve beaten him out for an NBA job, years ago

I also have 40 years of NBA championship rosters as my data, and you won’t find many 6’ and under PGs who started for those teams.

Avery Johnson
Isiah Thomas 6’1
Rajon Rondo 6’1

Did I leave anyone out?

The PG position “grew up” back in the ‘70s. If Bob Cousy had come along 20 years later? Sorry, but the “best” contemporary career “the Couz” could’ve hoped for was John Stockton (but he probably would’ve had to settle for a career like Jerry Sichting) Cousy’s coach and GM was Red Auerbach, and by the mid-70s even old Red knew he needed 6’4+ guards (Ainge, DJ) to compete with LA/Magic.

So explain to me why short PGs haven’t won more championships, if you can. I’ve already observed that they haven’t.

by two4larue on Jun 21, 2009 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jason Williams Heat 6’1"

But that’s not really the point. No one is disputing that short point guards haven’t won many rings.

Correlation does not equal causation. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it.

Until Bush beat Gore, the taller President had won every single election. That doesn’t mean that people vote based on height. Correlation does not equal causation. I can’t say it any better and I won’t say it any more.

by wepto on Jun 21, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe because there is a behavioral scouting bias against players who are smaller?

How many blog posts would drafting Allen Iverson today generate? He is listed at 6’0’’ but is probably a bit smaller (I’m 6’0’’ – 6’1’’ and I think I was taller when I stood next to him). A decade later most pundits would have labelled him “too small” for a #1 pick.

Tiny Earl Boykins stood in the way of a number of much taller players, now Petteri Koponen.

To increase the sample size, maybe we should look at point guards who made the finals. Then AI would get added, Mark Jackson, Greg Anthony, …

Also we should get to listing players by something like standing reach. How high your head can go is important for soccer players (and even there are some very small defenders), not so much for basketball players. If a player grows big hair, is that added to his height and listed as an additional asset because on defense his fro blocks the view for shooters? Bring me more Shaun Livingstons and Josh Childresses.

by Norsktroll on Jun 21, 2009 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

nice post

I didnt think about scouting bias…very good

I think you are onto something with your Fletch height.

Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.

by jonestr on Jun 21, 2009 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You make some great points

but there are so many largely irrelevant assumptions that TwoForLaRue is making that render the whole argument pointless. If the players are of exactly equal ability, of course you take the taller player. Height is an inherent physical advantage, just like speed, leaping ability, agility, et al. In actuality, though, we’re never talking about players of exactly equal abilities and equal makeup; the shorter player is almost always quicker/more skilled/a slightly better basketball player, and the debate should be whether his height renders that skill/speed advantage pointless.

Obviously, it doesn’t. How much did Derek Fisher’s height help him against Aaron Brooks? Did being 6’1" or shorter prevent 4 of the 6 PGs in the ASG from being all stars (Mo, CP, Jameer, and AI)? Each of the four best teams in the league started a guy 6’1" or shorter (Fisher is indeed 6’1" according to BB-R), so we’re supposed to believe that guys 1 inch shorter than that are excluded from winning titles?

by Royster on Jun 21, 2009 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with jonestr... and not with two4larue....

two4larue is confusing CORRELATION and CAUSATION….

“because it does” is just an un-smart response and doesn’t gleen any insight into how/why a 6’0" point guard can’t win… yet 6’1" Rajon Rondo can at just slightly an inch taller.

Height is the most over-rated number to look at in all of pro basketball. When two4larue was talking about Chris Paul (who is only 6’0") he had to put the clarification on there of “If CP3 ever wins a title on his own…” Well, buddy-boy, this is a team sport. True CP3 is the leader of his team, and don’t doubt that he is the best PG in the NBA and has the game to win on the biggest stages.. but no PG or any player for that matter has to “win a title on his own”.

If you put a 6’0" PG next to Brandon Roy, who is constantly double-teamed because of his ability to score in the paint, that PG, regardless of his height, will have a great opportunity to succeed in that role… simply because who he is playing with. Portland also has one of the biggest and longest teams in the NBA… Height is an attribute, so is wing-span, so is work-ethic, so is toughness, etc. If Portland lands a “short” PG with decent wing span, great work ethic and toughness I would be more than confident that Portland could win a title with a 6’0" or shorter PG.

This comment about height is competely absurd.

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 21, 2009 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your point about Phil Jackson might need revising

For none of his Chicago championship teams even list a player under 6’2" and only Derek Fisher at 6’1" has played minutes in his LA championship teams (Lue = 127 minutes and 468 minutes with a PER of 8.7 both years). Phil seems to prefer very tall guards.

This is not to invalidate your excellent point about wingspan and reach.

by lee3022 on Jun 20, 2009 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

my point with LA/Chicago

is that the triangle is built for point forwards and uses the “pg” to knock down shots, and not run an offense

Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.

by jonestr on Jun 20, 2009 10:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

worth noting that Hollinger's projection system, which has been pretty good the last few years

Loves Lawson (Insider).

The system has Lawson as the top collegiate prospect in this class. Obviously, he won’t go top 10, but it does make me more confident in what I already felt— that Lawson could be a great value for a team drafting in the teens, or a steal if he gets to 24.

Currently playing the role of Phoenix Suns GM Steve Kerr in the 2009 BlazersEdge Mock Draft.

by jksnake99 on Jun 20, 2009 12:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The only way you don't take him at 24

in my opinion, is if Hansbrough falls that far. If he drops that far, and we’re still picking at 24, you have to grab him.

I’ll be surprised if we pick at 24, though.

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Jun 20, 2009 12:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lawson is a better prospect than Hansbrough, in my opinion, and I don't think its close.

Good seeing you around, Jscot— how are things?

Currently playing the role of Phoenix Suns GM Steve Kerr in the 2009 BlazersEdge Mock Draft.

by jksnake99 on Jun 20, 2009 12:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hi, Snake

I’m still very busy, but a slight lull for a week here. Doing ok.

I agree that Lawson is probably a better prospect, but IMO Hansbrough is a better fit for us right now.

I would be happy going into the next season with Blake and Bayless as our PGs — our most pressing need is the backup 4. And I think Psycho has the exact mentality that we need at that position.

I would be over the moon if we got either of these guys at 24, and I would back KP trading up for either of them, too, within reason.

Of course, part of my thinking here is that Bayless is likely to be starting by the end of next season. So either way, we are drafting a backup, at the one or the four. We have Blake to back up the point, for now anyway.

When you are drafting a backup, go where you are thinner. That’s the 4.

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Jun 20, 2009 4:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lawson could be our future starter at 1 (its far from guarenteed that Bayless will)

The backup 4 is so, so much easier to fill— why, I think Pendergraph could be had at 33 and be better than Hansbrough right away.

Currently playing the role of Phoenix Suns GM Steve Kerr in the 2009 BlazersEdge Mock Draft.

by jksnake99 on Jun 20, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Adding both Lawson and Hansbrough through the draft would be killer....

Both of those collegians fit the two pivotal roles that we could stand to gain depth in via this draft. As far as instant Role Players who have enough upside to be more than solid starters… targeting both PG Ty Lawson and PF Tyler Hansbrough would be nice…. of course I would also expect that KP does something to bring in at least ONE solid veteran with those two rookies and keeping at least Steve Blake in this scenario (using Travis, Sergio as chips?)

I would like a future PG combo of Jerryd Bayless and Ty Lawson…. either one could emerge as the starter. Personally I like the idea of a penetrator next to Roy (i.e. Bayless) and a true facilatator runing the 2nd unit.

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 20, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Psycho T over Lawson?

You’ve got to go with Lawson. Better value, better player, more important position, better skill set.

by as11osu on Jun 20, 2009 12:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My reasoning is just above

in my answer to Snake. I don’t disagree with your points, just with your conclusion.

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Jun 20, 2009 4:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

what if we want a vet for the PF spot?

I think I would grab Lawson as he is BPE, most likely, at that point.

Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.

by jonestr on Jun 20, 2009 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Aquiring Lawson-

To answer your question, no hes not worth moving up 6 – 8 spots for. But to totally contradict myself- he is the only player in the draft (in our range) worthy of picking. I said it awhile ago because he was on the NCAA Championship team, that he was worthy. He has a lot of exp for young guy. Ask BRoy what 4 years of college will do for your game. I like Lawsons game and his ability to create. But our team has Bayless, and he is going to be huge. Bayless can barely contain himself- hes like Popeye on Spinach! We need a vet to come in a prep him out to be our future pg. In my opinion, we need more exp and not youth. Lawson is a great player, but he would be third string at best on our team. Let him go to someone who will play him. We should do what we gotta do to get an all star pg and a bangin back up pf i wish- and if wishes were Blazer tickets i’d be a season ticket holder by now. I just know that KP wont hear any boos on dday like the NY fans do whenever their gm does something. I trust in KP to get the best players available- whether that be draft, trade, or free agent or even standing pat with who we already got and let them have 1 more go at it. 5 days to go until DDAY! I cant wait!

by cavejunctionblazer on Jun 20, 2009 12:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Can someone explain to me why Lawson isn't a top 10 pick?

Hollinger’s formulas that attempt to project a player’s success in the NBA based on college stats rank him as the #1 prospect in the draft. I can’t see any real reason to believe that his game won’t translate to the NBA the way Hollinger’s formulas predict that they will. Lawson isn’t just putting up empty stats either, he is a winner who lead his team to an NCAA championship last year.

What really impresses me about Lawson is that his weakness are better than many player’s strengths. He is supposed to be bad at shooting mid-range shots or shooting off the dribble, but it seems like that assessment of his abilities is outdated. When I was watching him play this season I remember watching him hitting pull-up 15-foot jumpers on several possessions in a row and making it look effortless. Lawson is supposed to be a player who only knows how to run and would struggle in the half-court, yet he is by far the most efficient PG in the draft when it comes to scoring in half-court situations. The only real legitimate knock on Lawson seems to be his height, which really shouldn’t be that big of a deal considering there are lots of successful PGs in the NBA that are about the same height as Lawson, including the best PG in the NBA.

Lawson was the best PG in college basketball last year, and has a track record of rapid improvement in all aspects of his game. He appears to project to be a player who can come in and contribute immediately, with a fairly good chance of becoming a star in a few years (I think that the people who are saying that Lawson doesn’t have star potential are about as ridiculous as the people who said Brandon Roy didn’t have star potential). Lawson just seems to be so obviously good that I really can’t understand why he isn’t being projected as a top 10 pick in a weak draft like this one.

by trk on Jun 20, 2009 3:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hollinger’s formulas that attempt to project a player’s success

The NFL GMs don’t always agree with Mel Kiper Jr’s formulas, either. You’ll see a guy who he’s rated highly hang around a draft board for a couple of rounds.

Diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks

by two4larue on Jun 20, 2009 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying that GMs should just use statistics to evaluate prospects

I have always though that the best way to evaluate prospects was to combine statistical methods with first-hand observation. Sometimes after watching a player play, you will come up with an evaluation that is significantly different from the evaluation you would get just using stats.

What i was trying to get at is that usually when there is a big difference between how a player ranks statistically and how they are ranked by GMs there is a reason for it. Maybe the player played against weak opposition, or is really unathletic, or is terrible defensively, or is a “tweener”, etc. With Ty Lawson, there is a very big difference between how he is ranked by GMs and how he is ranked based on his stats, and I can’t see any aspect of his play that would justify such a large discrepancy between how he is rated by statisticians and GMs. I mean, sure he is short, but its not like he is Nate Robinson or anything and Jonny Flynn is still being ranked pretty highly despite a similar lack of height.

by trk on Jun 20, 2009 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

agree

I think Lawson is the underrated pick in this draft. Lots of weird group-think lowering his value that I can’t understand. The guy has the stats and played in the ACC under lots of pressure his whole career.

by blazingjim on Jun 20, 2009 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

he seems like a jameer nelson

but at least with nelson GMs could hide behind the fact that he was more of scorer and therefore could say his size concerned them, but that is not a valid knock on Lawson as he is reasonably sized for a pg and happens to be a legit pg

Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.

by jonestr on Jun 20, 2009 7:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Preposterous to me

There is no legitimate reason why, in a weak draft, a guy with the following characteristics isn’t a top ten pick:

*Elite athlete
*Smart
*6’0 – not NEARLY as small as he is being perceived
*Highly recruited out of HS (much more so than Conley, who was in the same class)
*47% three-point shooter
*Insane assist-to-turnover ratio
*Dominated college bball
*Does well in all statistical categories that project to the pros (per Hollinger – the number one prospect in this draft, statistically)

It is unfathomable why this kid is possibly not going in the lottery. Would love to see the Blazers pick him up, from a pure value standpoint. I agree with Dave that Hinrich would be preferred, but Lawson is a phenomenal value for where he’s slipping. And I don’t think he projects as a back up, necessarily, at all. He’s bigger than Jameer Nelson, just as strong and athletic, about the same as a college player… how are NBA teams making the same mistake with Lawson they made with Jameer?

Q: Is Greg favoring his knee?
Frye: He favors dunking on your head, that's what he favors.

by KP Corleone on Jun 21, 2009 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1 Ty Lawson should be a top-10 Pick...

Late in the NCAA season, Ty Lawson started to creep up draft boards from late 20’s to high teens and into the top-10’s because he was doing SOOOOOO much for North Carolina. Winning games late, taking over games, running amazing breaks that hit highlight reel after highlight reel….. then he went on to dominate the tourney and win the Trophy…..

Oh, but then people start talking about upside of players like Brandon Jennings and Johnny Flynn? PUH-Leeze! That is a joke, it is a wasted fricking pick if you grab one of those busts-in-waiting over the Champ, Ty Lawson.

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 21, 2009 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If KP drafts a point guard and keeps the guy, then KP should be fired

by tominhawaii on Jun 20, 2009 3:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

tominhawaii.... look below at my posts

The player I’m suggesting isn’t listed as a PG but,
he would be a perfect compliment to Roy.
And, you wouldn’t have to fire KP

(pssst… I’m talking about Jerel whose listed as a SG now)

by spencerbutte on Jun 20, 2009 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hopefully

KP will just draft a PG for another GM and escape the falling axe

FWIW, I think Nate agrees with you, about the “not drafting another rookie PG” part, not about KP’s job (in)security

by two4larue on Jun 20, 2009 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Word

Another drafted PG is a sign that Bayless is a failure. If they don’t get one through free agency or a trade, then KP has messed up big time.

by tominhawaii on Jun 21, 2009 3:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sergio-slot replacement

If Sergio gets moved and your NOT trying to disregard Bayless’s potential,

it’s far more logical to use a draft pick on the 3rd PG than to get a veteran through trade or FA.

by spencerbutte on Jun 21, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

not on this team

drafting a 3rd PG was “the strategy” for the last 5 years while the team was in rebuilding mode. Now that they’re ready to compete deep into the playoffs they’ll need a veteran backup PG, for post season experience or in case Blake goes down

Or, even better, they should keep Steve around in case their new starting PG gets hurt

by two4larue on Jun 21, 2009 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

BUT, you gotta get in where you fit in bro....

This years draft is totally heavy on Point Guards and if the best available players for either A.) the future of this team or B.) future trade value then KP will go ahead and draft that PG3 player.

I can’t stand anyone who thinks they know better than KP and Blazers Brass… Portland doesn’t need a veteran backup PG if they are going to go deep into the playoffs… KP is our leader and what he does is what I will back and believe in. It is far more logical to find another PG prospect in this draft strictly because of the numbers, it will be much easier for KP to confuse other GM’s and manuever to grab the guy he is targeting because of the depth at PG in this draft.

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 21, 2009 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Underrated

This guy has been nothing short of excellant since coming back from his injury. He would be a great value and I hope the Blazers make a play for him. Besides being a little short and having T-Rex arms he will make a great “Thunder/Lightning” combo with Bayless for years to come.

by Dep H on Jun 20, 2009 4:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If you had a choice?

If you had a choice between signing Ramon Sessions with MLE or drafting Lawson at 24, which would you do?

by RIP CITY on Jun 20, 2009 6:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

For this team

and at that price you go with Sessions. There’s zero doubt about that, IMO. He’s a veteran, proven, and a probable starter. Lawson is none of those things.

I fear Sessions will cost more than that though, which is where the conversation becomes interesting.

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 20, 2009 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

As you have pointed out yourself, Sessions can't cost more than that (Gilbert Arenas provision)

But maybe we could draft a point guard and then do a sign and trade for Sessions in a package that includes another player. Though the teams would need to be pretty tricky in advance, since the Bucks can of course do that themselves at #10 picking the PG who drops (one of them is bound to go there) and then let Sessions walk.

by Norsktroll on Jun 20, 2009 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If I understand correctly

The Bucks are in a cost-cutting mode. I’m being lazy here by not substantiating the comment, but it is highly probably that Sessions is THE hot free agent commodity.

by blacknoiseNW on Jun 20, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

They are somewhat (averse to the luxury tax), but it's unclear if they would rather sacrifice Sessions, Villanueva or Jefferson

by Norsktroll on Jun 20, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is ONE other question to consider when pitting MLE Sessions vs. #24 Lawson....

IF you do one or the other…. what is then available with the other? For instance, If Portland signs Ramon Sessions to the MLE, then what does Portland do with the #24? Flip side, If Portland can draft Ty Lawson at #24, would signing Ron Artest with the MLE be a greater overall plan than Sessions & #24?

That is the thing about these off-season moves…. there are a lot of moving pieces and lots of different end game scenarios. All I care about is the End Game scenario and how Portlands roster looks when the dust settles. The SUM is greater than its parts…

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 20, 2009 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

who would we really be competing with on the open market

It seems like a lot of teams with cap space are trying to parlay it into 2010 cap space or are reasonable set at the pg.

FWIW If I am MIL I would let Charlie V go and resign Sessions, but they may go the other way in pg heavy draft.

Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.

by jonestr on Jun 20, 2009 7:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, first of all

The Blazers won’t have the MLE, since they’ll be under the cap. (They could easily use up most of their available cap-space to sign RS to an offer sheet that Milwaukee would fail to match, but that means KP would have to pursue a backup PF using other “means”)

I think Sessions would be an “OK” acquisition, as I’ve written elsewhere. He can penetrate and run the P&R better than Blake, and he has more experience than Bayless. The thing that makes Ramon “less desirable” is his defense, he’s not all that great. If you could morph Hinrich and Sessions together, then you’d have someone worth overspending to get and keep around

Someone like…Devin Harris?

by two4larue on Jun 20, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sessions

is not RFA so there is no matching and offer sheets to sign

Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.

by jonestr on Jun 20, 2009 7:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Uh, Ramon Sessions is a restricted free-agent.

by AK1984 on Jun 21, 2009 5:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He is not listed as RFA

on storytellers website

how would he be RFA anyhow since he is working off a second round pick contract

Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.

by jonestr on Jun 21, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

2nd rounders fall under the "Arenas Rule" RFA type

Brew Hoop has an excellent write up on this

Apparently, the Blazers (and any other team besides the Bucks) can only offer Sessions a contract up to the value of the MLE, unless they happen to be $10M under the cap, and teams can then put escalator clauses up to 8%.

The Bucks are in the driver’s seat, but for the fact that they cannot afford both Villanueva and Sessions.

by blacknoiseNW on Jun 21, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

stupid Memphis

I don’t disparage Darius Miles for wanting to continue his NBA career, but there had to be a lot of other options for the Griz to bring in to be their 12th man and play 3mpg

The more we delve into deals and FAs this offseason, the more clear it becomes how limited KPs options are now because of those 10 blasted days

by two4larue on Jun 21, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Miles situation shouldn't affect free agency too much

Not many free agents, restricted or otherwise, are real good fits in Portland, backup PF notwithstanding. Unless you consider Kidd to be a worthwhile target as a mentor to Bayless and “proven veteran” backup to Blake.

by blacknoiseNW on Jun 21, 2009 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

I knew they had bird rights and there were some cap restrictions, but I did not know that they are RFA like a first rounder coming off a rookie contract.

Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.

by jonestr on Jun 21, 2009 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Designated Aaron Brooks Defender

Unless the Blazers do something dramatic and move up into the lottery why not draft Lawson to have a quick guard for defensive duty on the other quick guards, such as Aaron Brooks, Chris Paul, etc.?

by Original Blazer Fan on Jun 20, 2009 8:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think Bayless may be underrated as a defender

He had an annoying tendency to play defense with his hands, instead of his feet, but he can learn to play the angles to cut off the dribble drive then recover for putting the hand in the face for pull up jumpers.

I think the biggest misnomer regarding defense on the Parker’s and Brook’s is that pure quickness is the catchall defensive solution. Such is not the case. Skilled players will get by the individual defender every time. Team defense is the solution now, and in the future – regardless of who is playing the point. The concept of a “lock down” point guard defender is a fallacy.

Don’t get me wrong – I was just as frustrated watching Parker and Brooks torch the Blazers as anyone else. But if you want a solution to that problem, just look for better help defense and better defensive rotations. Team defense must be consistent and constant to be effective.

by blacknoiseNW on Jun 20, 2009 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

C. Paul et al as a defenders

Chris Paul had an insane Net PER due to his incredible offensive production. However, opponent PG’s performed slightly better than league average against him. Parker also had an outstanding Net PER, but again – that stat was driven by his offensive efficiency. Defensively, opposing PG’s played substantially better against Parker than against Paul. Devin Harris was not quite as good as Parker offensively, and worse defensively – but the superior offensive play gave him a significant Net PER vs. his opponents.

Rajon Rondo – widely credited with effective defense – allowed opposing PG’s to play at slightly above league average while dominating them on the offensive end. Brooks, for all his “quickness” was a below average offensive player and allowed opponents to play at well above league average. Lowry was actually the better PG for Houston – both offensively and defensively.

Deron Williams (not often mentioned in the “quick” category) had a nice offensive game, but also allowed PGs to play well above average against him. However, he is better than most of his opponents, and it shows in his Net PER.

Steve Blake, of all the PG’s I looked at, was the only one that played exactly even with his opponents, on average. He was above average on offense and correspondingly below average on defense.

Now we get to Sessions. Opposing PG’s played worse against Sessions than any of the PG’s listed above, plus he was very effective offensively. From a defensive perspective, he may fly further under the radar than anyone, but I only write that because I’ve never heard anyone talk up his defense.

by blacknoiseNW on Jun 20, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

That is verrry interesting

I too, have never seen an look at the stars of that position in this way. Kudos

"You're welcome friend
I love you."
- Tom "Dragline" inHawaii

by 92wastheyear on Jun 20, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice take

I think Blake gets too much heat for his (lack of) defensive quickness. It would be great to have a spectacular point guard, but there’s precious few around. Blake is steady, I like steady.

by hellsfrozenover on Jun 20, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's news to me

All I’ve heard re: Ramon’s defense was negative, and the (few) games I’ve seen him play he didn’t exactly stand out on that end of the floor.

I agree about your “team defense” take. You need to “wall up” to stop penetration, nobody (no matter how quick his lateral movement) can hope to stay in front of a world-class penetrator. I saw the Blazers do a good job against Parker earlier this year at the RG using the “it takes a village” approach, and that’s how all of the great defensive teams do it. It requires all 5 players on the court to have superior BBIQ and “buy into” the defensive rotations on every possession to make this work, though. One weak link (I’m looking at you, Outlaw…) and there will be a seam left “open” that will get exploited, to the detriment of your center’s foul total.

But if the stats bear out that Ramon Sessions is great at neutralizing opposing PGs, then I’m all for KP making every effort to acquire him. The only remaining weakness of his game is 3 point shooting, but that’s a skill that can be improved with reps and wide-open feeds from Brandon

by two4larue on Jun 20, 2009 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

can you put your source for this

not doubting you, but just seems like that would be fun info to have around.

Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.

by jonestr on Jun 20, 2009 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

82games.com

i’m not sure why my first reply didn’t stick, but if posting my source is offending someone, it ain’t my site.

by blacknoiseNW on Jun 21, 2009 1:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Must have been a glitch...

you haven’t had anythiong deleted and there’s nothing wrong with posting a website like this one.

Mod. Moderate. Moderation. Moderator.

by -ken on Jun 21, 2009 7:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I had a reply in this thread that didn't stick, too

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Jun 21, 2009 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice work

although average might need to be adjusted for Western vs Eastern schedule. It would seem accurate when compared with Rondo while the rest are Western.

by lee3022 on Jun 20, 2009 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you're small, you'd better have a great shot

I don’t think his game will translate that great unless the team is up and down the court, which is definitely not Blazer ball- at this time.

I still like Terrence Williams much better- he could turn into a very sweet playmaker with excellent size, strength, and agility.

by ralphzillo on Jun 20, 2009 8:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

His numbers are undoubtedly good. The big question for him is if it is intrinsic or if he is just a product of UNC's highly effective system and roster in the last years

I understand that is a critique you could use for all players from top programs, but in his case it’s a question especially raised by scouts and NBA executives.

Statistically he and Curry are leading many categories: Free throw attempts per possession, true shooting, assists to turnovers, assists per 40 only behind Rubio, pure point guard rating, top 3 PER, etc.
http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Just-By-the-Numbers-This-Years-Point-Guard-Crop-3262/

One other thing: There have been negative comments about him regarding his leaderships skills/basketball IQ and questions whether he is injury prone due to his frame. Last but not least he dropped out of the 2008 draft because no team wanted to give him a first round guarantee after he got a DUI. Yeah it’s old news and nothing dramatic, but it became part of his profile and could still be a reason why his stock isn’t higher.

Lawson was charged with driving after consuming alcohol, violating a local noise ordinance and driving with a suspended or revoked license.

by Norsktroll on Jun 20, 2009 9:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

To come to Lawson's defense...

He didn’t actually get a DUI. He was charged with driving after consuming alcohol. The reason that was a charge was that it was two weeks (i think) until his 21st birthday, and he was still underage. He wasn’t legally drunk when he was stopped. Still shouldn’t have done it, but not a DUI.

I didn’t want his rep damaged by a misunderstanding.

by Steve The Hedge on Jun 20, 2009 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for clarifying. I only know it was part of why he went back to school, since it's not wise to have things like that as the last impression a team has of you before the draft

by Norsktroll on Jun 20, 2009 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cheaper $$$s and a better defender:

Jerel McNeal can bring the ball up the court on the fast brake (and than distribute to Roy).
McNeal’s true shooting percentage was 61%, connected on 50% of his 2-point attempts, and
46% from 3-point range.

In a league where you can never have too many shooters and with his toughness and ability to defend, he’s going to draw some very long looks considering his play at the highest level of college basketball this season.

DraftExpress
And KP has had him in for that “look/see”.

Best yet… McNeal is currently a middle second round pick.

by spencerbutte on Jun 20, 2009 12:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Jerel: 6'3" - 195# - 6'7+" wingspan - 10.61 lane agility

STRENGTHS:
- Transition play
- Ball-handling skills
- Commitment to playing defense
- Pressure defense
- Physical Toughness
- High-level productivity
- Solid passer
- Athleticism
- Wingspan
- 3-point range
- Ability to catch and shoot
- Ability to come off screens
- Ability to shoot off the dribble
- Quick release
WEAKNESSES:
- Off-ball defense
- Size for position

by spencerbutte on Jun 20, 2009 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

WEAKNESSES:

- Size for position

Compared to who?

(6’3" 195# 6’7+ wingspan) Huh?

If that’s a “weakness” then Collison and Lawson are weally in trouble

by two4larue on Jun 20, 2009 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

DraftExpress quote

“Size of position” I assume that they was referring to SG.
The position he played most at in college.

Jru Holiday was a SG in college next to Darren Collison but,
everyone is talking about Jru as a PG.
Why not apply the same logic to Jerel?

by spencerbutte on Jun 20, 2009 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow, how does anyone with 14 strengths and 2 weaknesses get rated so low?

by pualo on Jun 20, 2009 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you Ben!

You had Jeral McNeal listed as a 1 (PG) in your Post and I questioned it (I should know better next time).

Ben, you made me think of how McNeal could work as a Point next to Roy.

Jerek brings it all.

by spencerbutte on Jun 20, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

good players can be found in the 2nd round

Sessions; Arenas, etc. Need we say more?

by blacknoiseNW on Jun 21, 2009 1:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK, l'll make an exception

KP can draft a PG in the mid-2nd round, if he hasn’t dealt those picks already and moved up to draft Blair

McNeal would have to play SG at summer league, though. At least while Bayless is in the games

Jerel sounds like a “poor man’s” Steph Curry. And Paul Allen is not a poor man, by anyone’s standards

by two4larue on Jun 20, 2009 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Defense Defense Defense

The only reason to change PG prospects now is defense. Nate will not play him without it. Only part of the story is in the measurements but they are presented here for comparison:

Wingspans:

Lawson: 6’ 0.75"
Bayless: 6’ 3.5"
Sessions: 6’4.25"

3/4 Court Speed:

Lawson: 3.12
Bayless: 3.07
Sessions: 3.27

No-Step Vertical:

Lawson: 29.0"
Bayless: 31.0"
Sessions: 29.5"

Steals per 40 min:

Lawson: 2.5
Bayless: 1.1
Sessions: 1.5

These numbers do not say that Lawson is not great on defense – only that Bayless is already the more physically gifted of the two. Sessions with two years experience should be better and yet is the poorest in measurements of the three (except for the very important wingspan). Bayless in college had a PER of 35.7 and Lawson 30.5 while Sessions was 20.6.

If Bayless is Rex does that make Lawson Rex Jr? My gut is that Bayless will still be the best pro and we will stick with what we have.

by lee3022 on Jun 20, 2009 11:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You said Defense

3/4 Court Speed is a good measure for fast-brake ability (offense) but
AGILITY is a better measure for staying in front of an opponent (defense).

Another comparison:
NAME…………..Wingspan………Agility……….No-Step Vert…….Steals/40min
Bayless………..6’ 3.5" ………….. 11.26 ……… 31.0" ………………. 1.1
McNeal…………6’ 7 1/4" ……….. 10.61………. 31.5" ………………. 2.2

by spencerbutte on Jun 21, 2009 12:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, The discussion was for those arguing we need Lawson for more speed

and my point was Lawson was not faster than Bayless and not a better potential defender by the measurements.

Lane agility is somewhat misleading because of the propensity of players to rush the test (per Draft Express) and thus actually slow themselves down.

I love the measurements of McNeal and appreciate your including him above. I don’t know that I have seen him play and don’t know how the Blazers will rate him. In general, however, I agree with the prevailing opinion that the Blazers do not need to draft another rookie point guard and would do better, if Sergio is traded, to acquire a veteran to serve as 3rd PG backup. Bayless still deserves an opportunity to grow and adapt.

Just for fun I will post a couple other measurements:

Chris Paul:

Height: 6’1", Wingspan: 6’ 4.25", Agility 11.09, No-Step Vertical 32", Steals/40 min: 2.8 (Wake Forest), 3/4 court: 3.22
Draft Express calls Paul one of the quickest in the league in the lane.

Randy Foye:

Height: 6’ 3.25" Wingspan 6’ 6.25" Agility 10.53 No-Step Vertical 32.0, Steals/40 min: 1.1 (Villanova), 3/4 court: 3.23
So comparable in most ways to McNeal arguing your point that by these measurements McNeal is undervalued.

There is more to defense than just having good physical tools

You also have to avoid stupid fouls, anticipate what the offense is going to do, know when to rotate, know when it is OK to gamble and when it isn’t, etc. Those are areas where Lawson excels and Bayless does not (at least right now).

Also, Bayless had a college PER of 23.7, not 35.7. He was decent in college, but nowhere near as productive or efficient as Lawson was this year (granted, Bayless was a freshman while Lawson was a junior).

by trk on Jun 21, 2009 1:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree - see my comments just above

and my bad on the PER – Bayless was a 23.7 and played 35.7 minutes! Thanks for the correction.

by lee3022 on Jun 21, 2009 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lawson's college stats are not equivalent to NBA stats

by blacknoiseNW on Jun 21, 2009 1:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

True - I used college comparisons except Sessions steals averaged 1.6 in college

They actually are pretty comparable for Bayless as well (1.1 vs 1.0 in the NBA).

by lee3022 on Jun 21, 2009 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dave, I'm not getting the point about Portland's failure with drafting PG's.

I can recall only one lottery pick (other than last year) spent on a PG – Telfair. Jack was taken with with something like the 22nd pick. There is Koponen, but he was like 31st pick. Taurean Green was a second rounder.

So POrtland has drafted:

Telfair – 11th pick ; HS kid
Jack – 22nd pick ; Jr
Koponen – 31st pick ; 18 yr Euro
Green – second round ; Sr
Bayless – 11th pick ; Soph

I’d say it’s too early to evaluate the success of picking Bayless, particularly considering his age. The same applies to Koponen. Green doesn’t really count, as no one really expects to draft a starting PG in the second round. It can be argued that Jarret Jack is actually panning out, particularly in light of his being a low mid-round pick (just not with Portland). That leaves Telfair, which, as far as I’m concerned, just about anyone who can differentiate between a basketball and a soccer ball could have predicted as a lousy pick.

The only way I see you having any sort of argument on a failure with drafting PG’s is if you include not drafting either Paul or Williams. Not really the strongest argument as it ;
a) is an act of omission rather than commision
b) is impacted by the fact they had just drafted Telfair
and most importantly
c) is rumored that KP really pushed for drafting Paul

The only two PG’s that Portland has expended 1st round picks on since Pritchard has been in charge have been Bayless and Koponen, two very young players. I’d argue that it is far too premature to state that Portland’s recent history is one of relative failure at drafting and developing a starting PG.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Jun 22, 2009 8:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I forgot Sergio.

Rodriguez – 21st pick (?) ; 20 yr Euro

You could possibly include Sergio on the failure side. I wouldn’t, simply because I believe that it is rare to find a young player who is a starting caliber NBA PG right out of the box.

There definately appears to be a trend for selecting very young PG’s. I believe you increase the risk of failure with that strategy. However the resulting return is potentially higher. Considering age, the only guy with enough time in the league to properly evaluate is Telfair and even he has managed to hold on to a starting spot (alibet barely and with the Timberpups).

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Jun 22, 2009 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs