Poll on AJC.com

[exodus]

The poll asks whether we should draft for needs first, take the BPA or trade the picks for veteran help. right now drafting the BPA is a distant third. Drafting for need is first. That means Conley.

[oiatlhawksfan]

yeah, we'll see if we can get him at 11.

[Lascar78]

I will be disgusted if we fail to get the only player that can really fill a void for us. There is no chance of getting Conley at 11. If you can't find a good trade down, take him at 3.

[oiatlhawksfan]

then what do you take at 11, with Hawes certainly going to Minnesota, Noah will probably be gone by then.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

I will be disgusted if we fail to get the only player that can really fill a void for us. There is no chance of getting Conley at 11. If you can't find a good trade down, take him at 3.

---

I am hoping that stuckey does well in his workout.

One of the possible reasons for passing on Conley at 3 is that there aren't any good options for the 11th pick if we take Conley. But if Stuckey helps himself then they could see him fitting into Childress' role fairly easily.

[Lascar78]

First of all, it really doesn't matter. This isn't football where talent kind of adds up. One great player for your team is infinitely more valuable that two pretty good players. You have to do the right thing at 3 regardless of what it will mean at 11. At worst, you trade the 11 if need be.

Having said that, I think the 11 will leave us with lots of options. Guys like Hawes or Yi or Noah might drop down and allow us to take a big. You can also draft a backup SG like Stuckey to backup JJ. Or you can gamble on Splitter. There are lots of options here, for depth, or to allow us to trade now or later. There is only one player that can be our long term starter and that's conley. There are no starting C's available.

[oiatlhawksfan]

SO we're gonna REACH for a player, and have no plans for the 11th, thats not exactly maximizing your picks. You can get the BPA at 3, and fill your need at 11.

[Lascar78]

you will not be able to fill the need at 11. Law is not a distributor, and Crittenton is a major gamble that may never pan out. You have no picks next year. So we will have ended our 5 years of rebuilding drafting having gotten nothing but forwards and one backup PG. Great.

Looking to maximize multiple picks is a recipe for TOTAL DISASTER in the NBA.

[vdunkndunk]

I really don't think there's that big a gap potential-wise between Conely and Critt or Law or maybe even Stuckey. Just depends on what kind of PG you want.

Conely seems like your typical pure-PG-who-can't-shoot, kind of like a mixture of Tony Parker and TJ Ford with better passing ability. Maybe a smaller but quicker version of Jason Kidd.

Then you have Critt, who you could compare to someone like Chauncy Billups - or maybe Marbury but with a better attitude and more pure-PG instincts. He'll be great in transition and he'll be able to score right away, but it may take him a while to learn how to run a team in the half-court.

And then there's Law, who many compare to a Sam Cassell type of PG. He can score, he can get to the basket and has a midrange game, and he performs well under pressure, he's bigger than most PGs, but he may not have the pure-PG insincts of some of the others here.

And Stuckey is apparently a poor-man's Dwayne Wade. About the same size but less athletic and doesn't have quite the same wing-span. But he handles the ball well, has an instinct for scoring and a great midrange game, and great size. Plus he suppossedly does have some PG instincts as well and can play two positions.

[AtLaS]

Quote:

---

you will not be able to fill the need at 11. Law is not a distributor, and Crittenton is a major gamble that may never pan out. You have no picks next year. So we will have ended our 5 years of rebuilding drafting having gotten nothing but forwards and one backup PG. Great.

---

What else does your crystal ball say?

[Lascar78]

Quote:

---

I really don't think there's that big a gap potential-wise between Conely and Critt or Law or maybe even Stuckey. Just depends on what kind of PG you want.

---

I agree on Law. I think he might be great, but he's a score first guy, and we need someone to get our other weapons involved, as they currently just stand there on the perimeter waiting for something to happen.

As for Crittenton, I agree on his potential, and I think it's as high as Conley's. I think the difference is that Crittenton is much more of a gamble. We saw him make many mental mistakes at GT, including the walking up the court (when he should have been sprinting) and the 5 second count in the last seconds of the tournament game. The offense never really looked good even when he was playing at GT, although his individual skills looked great. He just has a long way to go in terms of running an offense , but he has size on his side. Conley seemed to get better when there was more pressure on him, and when Oden was out of the game. There is also no doubt that his speed will translate, he will instantly be one of the fastest players in the league, period. I think his poor shooting is greatly overstated, but that would be the main concern I suppose.

Long story short, I think the gap between Conley and Critt is much bigger than you make it out to be, not in tems of potential, but in terms of Crittenton's bust potential that isn't really there for Conley IMO.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Then you have Critt, who you could compare to someone like Chauncy Billups - or maybe Marbury but with a better attitude and more pure-PG instincts.

---

Marbury was drafted at 4 after his freshman season. Ray Allen was drafted right after him. Billups went 3rd.

Crit isn't considered a top 10 pick by anyone. You are being pretty generous with your comparisons.

[Peoriabird]

Quote:

---

I agree on Law. I think he might be great, but he's a score first guy, and we need someone to get our other weapons involved,

---

Excuse me for asking this question but What freaking weapons are you talking about??????

[Lascar78]

Primarily Joe Johnson, Josh Smith, Marvin Williams, and Josh Childress. Although I'm sure Shelden or Zaza or whoever else is on the inside will also get easy buckets off his penetration.

These guys aren't bad. We have 3 slashers with no offensive system / PG to get them the ball in rhythm as they cut to the rim, and 2-3 jump shooters with no offensive system / PG to get them open jumpers in rhythm.

[exodus]

A total of 14,800 have voted. Conley is in the lead by far with 41%, Yi is second at 26%.

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

Primarily Joe Johnson, Josh Smith, Marvin Williams, and Josh Childress. Although I'm sure Shelden or Zaza or whoever else is on the inside will also get easy buckets off his penetration.

These guys aren't bad. We have 3 slashers with no offensive system / PG to get them the ball in rhythm as they cut to the rim, and 2-3 jump shooters with no offensive system / PG to get them open jumpers in rhythm.

---

I agree that without a good pass first point guard the Hawks wing players and big men will never reach their full potential. The Hawks desperately need someone who can drive and dish because Woodson refuses to install an offensive system.

[vdunkndunk]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Then you have Critt, who you could compare to someone like Chauncy Billups - or maybe Marbury but with a better attitude and more pure-PG instincts.

---

Marbury was drafted at 4 after his freshman season. Ray Allen was drafted right after him. Billups went 3rd.

Crit isn't considered a top 10 pick by anyone. You are being pretty generous with your comparisons.

---

Billups played two seasons and was drafted third in one of the worst drafts ever. Keith Van Horn was the second pick, Antonio Daniels was the fourth pick, followed by Tony Battie, Ron Mercer, Tim Thomas, Adonal Foyle, Tracy McGrady (straight out of high school in a time when that was as common), Danny Fortson, Olivier Saint-Jean, Austin Croshere, Derek Anderson, and so forth, in that order. I think after Critt's sophomore season he would easily be in the top 5 of that draft.

And as for the Marbury draft, after Ray Allen you have Antoine Walker, Lorenzon Wright, Kerry Kittles, Samaki Walker, Erik Dampier, Todd Fuller, and Vitally Potapenko. Not exactly impressive, although there was some great talent that got passed up outside the lottery in that draft. Looking back now, I'd actually say the picks from 13 to 26 were better than the picks from 1-13 in that draft, including Steve Nash at number 15 (another PG who was seen as "slow" and not in anyone's top 10, by the way).

But regardless of where Critt is drafted this season, I feel fairly confident that he would be a lock for the top 10 if he stayed at Tech another season or two. So while he may be a bit of a stretch at 11 for us, I think he'll eventually show he was worhty of a top 11 pick. And he's not much more of a stretch at 11 than Conely would be at 3, since most people think that 3 is a little too high for Conely, also.

And on a side note, Sam Cassell was a number 24 pick, so comparing Law as an 11 pick to Cassell as a 24 pick really isn't being too generous either. And Tony Parker was a late first round pick.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

I feel fairly confident that he would be a lock for the top 10 if he stayed at Tech another season or two.

---

People were saying the same about Gibson after he was Conference Freshman of the Year. Since so many great pgs came out that year (2005) he decided to stay in school. It landed him in the second round in 2006.

How did Noah's staying in school effect his draft stock?

Quote:

---

And on a side not, Sam Cassell was a number 24 pick, so comparing Law as an 11 pick to Cassell as a 24 pick really isn't being too generous either.

And Parker was a late first round pick.

---

I didn't mention either. I only mention the Crit comparisons.

[vdunkndunk]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And on a side not, Sam Cassell was a number 24 pick, so comparing Law as an 11 pick to Cassell as a 24 pick really isn't being too generous either.

And Parker was a late first round pick.

---

I didn't mention either. I only mention the Crit comparisons.

---

That's why I said it was a side note.^ Mainly I'm just trying to say that where a guy is projected doesn't necessarily determine how good he'll be. Especially with guards.

Anyway, of course not everyone who stays in school increases their draft stock, and we'll never know what would have happened.

But PG's are especially likely to have their stock increase over time, because PG's in particular need experience to run a team. Just look at Deron Williams and Acie Law - at the beginning of his junior season Deron was seen as a second round pick, same with Law at the beginning of his senior season.

And PG's in general often get pushed down further in the draft because 5'11 to 6'4 guys just aren't as rare as big men. Every year a couple of marginal big men like Hawes or Patrick O'Bryant or Saer Sene or Robert Swift get pushed into the top 10 out of a team's desparation, while guards get pushed back a little bit. There is a long history of big men not taken inside the top 5 who never pan out.

At any rate, I feel fairly confident that a lot of teams in the 10-20 range are looking at Critt as a legit mid-first round prospect right now, after only one season. And if Critt did happen to improve his turnover problems next season - which often happens as young PG's improve - he'd probably have a good shot at going in the top 10.

[NJHAWK]

I didnt realize we NEEDED a 4th string point guard.