Isn't jc just as good or not even better than buddy hield? It just doesn't make sense to draft yet another guard when we obviously need a sf aka Ingram!!! We have 3 guards that can shoot, Dlo,jc and Lou... now hield?? If Mitch passes on Ingram I'm done
None of us are NBA scouts. None of us have a track record of making excellent draft picks. Very few of us have watched more than a couple of highlight videos for most of these draft prospects. We're mostly just influenced by what the media pundits say. Obviously, there's a large basis of truth to what the "draft experts" in the media think, but they're not infallible. I'm sure the GM's that passed on Steph because they worried about their fanbase revolting against picking a player who the "media experts" had lower on their mock drafts, are now pissed off at themselves. Again, like I said, I know nothing about Hield. But if Mitch picks him, I'm sure it'd be for a good reason. With that said, I still want Ingram SOOOOO badly.
lol. steph was considered a mediocre ballhandler, unable to defend or get to the basket at the next level. the scouting reports were eerily similar. too small and slow for the projected position, might find a role in the right circumstances... point is, folks are often wrong and tend to underestimate work ethic and heart in the draft process. does this mean hield should go #2? probably not. does it mean the dismissive, terse, and frankly disrespectful commentary regarding the pick is warranted? definitely not.
Funny enough, you read that scouting report on Steph, it's almost 100% right. They whiffed on him getting better at driving and finishing and of course didn't mention "will eventually become the greatest shooter of all time". But aside from that they got all the rest pretty right: -Good (now great) ball handler -Uses change of direction and shiftiness rather than athletic explosiveness to get open -Prefers step back jumpers if at all possible -Not a great on ball defender, but gives effort and willing to contest drives -Fantastic off ball defender, reads passing lanes and is elite at stealing passes -Can get abused defending post play
I agree that the tone of some of these posts isn't conducive to dialogue and mutual truth-seeking. Draft.net: Hield vs. Curry Athleticism 8 >7 Size 8 > 6 Defense 8 > 7 Strength 7 = 7 Quickness 7 < 9 Leadership 9 > 7 Jump Shot 9 < 10 NBA Ready 9 > 8 Ball Handling 8 = 8 Potential 7 < 8 Passing 8 > 7 Intangibles 9 > 8 Overall 97 > 92 BTW, I'm in the position to say that I thought I saw Curry's awesomeness long ago. I wanted to trade Gasol for him in the 2010/11 season. CL posters mocked me. I'm also in the position to say that I think Hield is going to be a very average SG in the NBA. It's not a popular view right now, but I've seen that BBBreakdown sees him as a "secondary scorer" and was thinking he's worth a 10-14 pick in the draft. Double BTW, I've been wrong before. I thought Redick would be a scrub, but he has gotten better with age, and he's an adequate SG for his career. I think Hield will reasonably be about what Redick is.
Don't worry about the Ford thing, he was just trying to justify why the Lakers are looking at guys like Brown, Skal, Hield, etc. He was speculating they want another pick, and if they are going to trade for one logically Russell is the piece that other teams would want. Media outlets ran with it as the Lakers shopping Russell, but I don't believe that's what Ford was saying. In fact, he just hopped on Sports Center and said that he isn't sure why the Lakers are working out guys like Hield, and that he's speculating that it could mean they are moving Russell. If players are willing to work out there is no reason for the Lakers NOT to have them come in, regardless of what pick they have. Things change every day, and a trade opportunity may appear that requires them to know how valuable prospects outside the top two are. They absolutely could move Russell, but looking at players outside Ingram/Simmons isn't an indication of that happening.
I don't think I'm being disrespectful to Hield and I hope I'm not. I just honestly worry about his fit in the NBA. I understand and appreciate that he's got a great attitude and work ethic, but I'm pretty sure Steph is an outlier. I'm not sure Buddy will be one. I hope he is, I like him and hope the best for him. There's no real rational way you take him at #2 though with Ingram on the board. If you like Buddy, you can trade down to get him and get the #4 or #5 and then grab a future pick or something with it. At #2 you've really got to take Ingram and let the chips fall where they may.
Well if hield is the target then trade down with pho for #4 and a 2017 1st top 5 protected and lowers over the year. They also have 13th and if skal is still on the board id ask for that pick instead of 2017 1st
I think buddy will be pretty good, but if we were to acquire another pick (which I don't expect), I'd be very tempted to double down at the SF position and take Brown too.
I actually am a Buddy fan. If they take him I'm okay with that. He's gonna be a hell of a player and he may be an even better fit than Ingram or Simmons.
Yeah I'm not sure how he can be a better fit either. We have two glaring holes: the 3 and 5 spot. Buddy can't play either, but Ingram can play the 3 effectively. Ingram also brings all the things Buddy can: shooting, scoring, and making the right play. Ingram also brings defensive versatility, length, and greater potential in all facets. I like Buddy a lot, but he'd be a speculative #3 pick over a #2 pick.
let's all face it we're scared because we might get bamboozled by Mitch and Jim again on draft day. It's tiring emotionally to again convince ourselves that who the FO picks is better than those they passed on.
there's no rationale to take him at 2. but there's a rationale to trade the #2 for the draft rights to hield and a player you like. my guess is that the lakers are just going to have their ducks in a row in case someone calls on draft day desperate to get into the top 2. if the kings decide they don't want to roll with cousins, and they offer some deal involving a pick swap and cousins (plus something else from the lakers, probably...randle?), you want to be sure you've had a great look at who might be available a few spots down. anyway, although ingram looks better on paper than the guys behind him, would it shock anyone if one or more of them ends up being better? this is my point to the "only an idiot would not draft ingram #2" argument. chances are, someone drafted later is going to be better. maybe you feel like you know who that is; maybe you can trade down to get him and pick up another asset. the only idiotic thing is putting too much stock in these projections. if you want a humbling experience, just look at the success rates of draft picks over the years. it's not a total crapshoot in terms of draft position predicting future success, but it's...not great. btw, my comment regarding being disrespectful wasn't about buddy hield. it was about some fairly juvenile forms of argumentation being utilized in this thread.
