If CP3 was "elite," MWill must've been "elite-er"

[sturt]

It's like 9/11 in a way.

Remember how a loud few got so upset about the clues that, in hindsight, seemed to make perfect sense, and how that the conclusion was that the FBI and CIA had bungled things and should have known exactly what the terrorists had planned, when, who, and how...?

It made perfect sense until the talking heads began to think about the other side of that and the presumptuousness therein -- just how much information the agencies gather, and how, effectively, one could take umpteen-million clues beforehand, piece them together in umpteen-billion ways, and end up with infinite numbers of scenarios.

And yet... indeed... they're paid to do the job. So, yes, they failed.

Fast forward to a much more mundane conversation about sports.

As I look back, I find only one writer alleging that CP3 was an "elite" talent... odds are, there's probably a second out there... maybe even a third.

On the other hand, if Oscar Robertson is coming out of college, or Jerry West, or Isiah Thomas, or... well, you get the idea... and if I consider Paul to be THAT kind of player, I'm a fool to think about slotting Bogut or MWill ahead of him in my mock draft. Or, even if my mock draft is constructed according to who I think a team WILL select instead of who they OUGHT to select, to be sure, you're going to find me saying as much. And, if others agree that makes me more than just an outlier... that puts me at the center of a developing consensus.

But, in point of fact, the sports talking heads were disagreeing about who should go first... and at first, there was a consensus that the Bucks OUGHT to take.... not Chris Paul... but Marvin Williams. There was even some reason to hope up to the last day or two, until the came out publicly and confirmed that Bogut would be their choice, that the Bucks may surprise everyone and pass on the center for this young forward who seemed to have... dare I say... elite talent.

What CP3 hindsighters, as I think most (not all) deserve to be called, really have to wrestle with is not even why Marvin was ahead of him by the measure of the vast majority of sports talking heads... but... why Deron was ALSO ahead of CP3 as often as he was.

d*ck Vitale, on the draft night show, was making his public plea for BK to take Paul. He went crazy. He was certain that CP3 should be the Hawks pick. In hindsight, d*ck had a better point than anyone tended to give him credit at that moment. But here's the question no one seems to ask even now.... why wasn't the same enthusiastic endorsement passed to Milwaukee, who, in hindsight, apparently would have been soooo smart to have passed on Bogut for CP3? I mean, if there was such a collective wisdom about CP3, it begs reason to think Milwaukee wouldn't do what they did when they had a choice of having Flynn Robinson or Oscar Robertson at the controls... ditch the former because of what you see in the latter.

(http://www.nba.com/bucks/news/MB_080219.html)

It might help for us to come to some agreement (yeah... I snickered as I wrote that) on what "elite" means.

For my part, when I use the word "elite," I mean the kind of talent that was seen in a Larry Bird or a Magic Johnson or an Isiah Thomas or a Patrick Ewing or a Akeem (as he was known then) Olajuwon or a ... well, you get the idea. Not just someone with the talent to make an all-star game or two, but a player whose game appears to be so advanced, the real question isn't how many all-star games, but how many HoF ballots it will take.

Sorry... I have yet to see anyone who said any such thing about anyone in the 2005 draft, Bogut and MWill included. But, of the four most commonly names in the top 4 of mock drafts, MWill's talent was almost always rated ahead of CP3's... that is, even when you find CP3 getting incredible reviews, you see those same people writing that MWill would go ahead of Paul.

Which brings us back to the point where I started some of this thinking... had BK chosen Paul, he would not have been doing so under the EXPECTATION that he was obtaining a core player... though, he certainly would have been doing so under the HOPE that he might be, just as he was doing when he drafted Smoove.

If, on the other hand, it was BK's strategy to obtain the best talent above the most need, then it's patently ridiculous to, now, pretend that BK made a choice that had NO merit. Was it wrong? Time will tell. The best predictor of future outcomes is past history... but, then, it all depends on WHAT history you'd like to cite in support of the argument you like... there have been some young players who started hot and continued for their entire career... others who started hot and fizzled.... some young players who have ended up with injuries and fizzled... some who took a few seasons to rise to their pre-draft-predicted heights... and some who never got untracked. I can look up some names, but you know that that's the case...

So, it's all a matter of appealing to the history that best serves your Tigger-ish-ness... or your Eeyore-ish-ness.

[Packfill]

Milwaukee doesn't get as much of a bad rap in the 2005 draft because they didn't have a desperate need for a point guard like the Hawks and they didn't draft two small forwards in the first round of the 2004 draft. That much is obvious.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

why wasn't the same enthusiastic endorsement passed to Milwaukee,

The fact that you would ask this question shows how little you understand about the game. The center spot is the hardest spot to fill. When you get a chance to get a quality center you take it. Case closed.

This is understood by people who understand the game.

Quote:

---

On the other hand, if Oscar Robertson is coming out of college, or Jerry West

So are you saying people were putting MW on that level?

Speaking of Isiah...

This is from NBAdraft.net at the time

Quote:

---

NBA Comparison: Isiah Thomas

Strengths: Paul is the consummate point guard. He is a mature leader, wise beyond his years. He can score and get into the paint and drop the catchable pass with the best of them. A 3 point marksman that will knock it down if given room. His foot quickness makes him a capable ball hawk on defense when he picks his man up. To lead the ACC in steals as a freshman tells you a little about his defensive ability. His character and heart on and off the court make him a GM's dream.

Will have a chance to be a star in the league

, and it will be his passion for the game that will keep him from falling off.

Draft express

Quote:

---

Dynamic, Explosive, Electric, Dominant only a few of the words used to describe Chris Paul's game.

Paul is one of the better all-around PG prospects to come along in the past decade,

and there isn't much about his game that isn't a strength.

Chad Ford

Quote:

---

He's lightning quick, has unbelievable court vision, is a superb decision-maker and shoots the lights out from the field and the 3-point line. He pushes the ball relentlessly on offense and already is one of the best penetrators in the game. Despite the pace he plays out, he keeps turnovers to a minimum. His defense is also top notch. He'll be one of the steals leaders in the NBA when he gets there.

I guess these guys fall into the hindisight brigade according to your revisionist history.

Not all teams needed a pg as badly as we did. We had Harrington, Diaw and the Joshs. We had Lue at the point.

This is where positional considerations come into play which you clearly don't undertand judging from your comments about Bogut.

[exodus]

This from draft express

Quote:

---

Offensively, Marvin has only shown that he can score in one of four ways: open stand still jumpshots, lay-ups / dunks on fast breaks, put-backs and free throws.

Marvin hasn’t shown he has the ability to put the ball on the floor and create his own shot consistently

, whether it’s driving around a defender to get all the way to the rim or merely shooting off the dribble. If Marvin is going to be a great small forward in the NBA he will need to develop this part of his game. Also, Marvin has shown no post moves outside of trying to overpower his opponents with a drop-step toward the basket. When surrounded by defenders in the paint Marvin often gets his shot blocked because he has yet to show a jump hook, a fadeaway or an up-and-under move.

In fact, Marvin’s best offensive move in the paint is trying to get to the free throw line.

[Cwell]

Quote:

---

This from draft express

Quote:

---

Offensively, Marvin has only shown that he can score in one of four ways: open stand still jumpshots, lay-ups / dunks on fast breaks, put-backs and free throws.

Marvin hasn’t shown he has the ability to put the ball on the floor and create his own shot consistently

, whether it’s driving around a defender to get all the way to the rim or merely shooting off the dribble. If Marvin is going to be a great small forward in the NBA he will need to develop this part of his game. Also, Marvin has shown no post moves outside of trying to overpower his opponents with a drop-step toward the basket. When surrounded by defenders in the paint Marvin often gets his shot blocked because he has yet to show a jump hook, a fadeaway or an up-and-under move.

In fact, Marvin’s best offensive move in the paint is trying to get to the free throw line.

describes how horrible Marvin is to a T.what's funny is after 3 years it's the same thing.Yet people say he's improved his game lol

[bronnt]

Well, I pretty much have to agree with what you're saying sturt. No one predicted that Chris Paul would come in and quickly become a top 5 player in the association. ALL the talk going into the draft was about Bogut and Williams, who most people though were can't-miss. This is despite exodus pulling the most positive things said about Chris Paul and putting up the most negative things said about MWill before the draft. DraftExpress did turn out to be insightful, but they were hardly the only source in the world.

BK did botch the pick '05, but I'm sure that about half the GMs in the league would have botched it also. Most people were so enamoured with Williams that they would have been more than happy to take him with the second overall pick.

Of course, BK did horribly and irrevocably mess up in 2006. There wasn't a true center in that draft, so BK thought he was getting the next best thing. Guaranteeing to draft Shelden killed us-there were about 20 guys taken after Sheldon who would have been better for us, and it's painful that Roy and Gay both went very soon after. I'm sure he'd have been killed in the media/fanbase for taking Gay, but Shelden was a horrible pick.

I still believe he did exactly the right thing in 2007, though. He turned Harrington in a high pick for us, and we got Acie Law and Al Horford, which is as good as you could hope for. Should-have-been ROY plus a PG, and the second rated PG in the draft.

So when you look back at BK's tenure, he had some pretty good moves, some that were just okay, and some that were just horrible. It's tough to grade out the job he did over the course of his career in Atlanta. I do know this, though, he could have done worse.

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

Well, I pretty much have to agree with what you're saying sturt. No one predicted that Chris Paul would come in and quickly become a top 5 player in the association. ALL the talk going into the draft was about Bogut and Williams, who most people though were can't-miss. This is despite exodus pulling the most positive things said about Chris Paul and putting up the most negative things said about MWill before the draft. DraftExpress did turn out to be insightful, but they were hardly the only source in the world.

I don't think anyone talked about Bogut and Marvin as can't miss prospects in the same way people talked about Oden and Durant last year, or will talk about Beasley and Rose.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

After it was pretty much a foregone concluson that Bogut would be the first guy taken, it didn't make a difference to me which one we took . . . Marvin or Chris. My only 2 points of concern were these:

- if we take Chris, you damn well better be certain that he is the 2nd coming of Isaiah, because guards that small usually aren't taken that high, unless they are truly great. And to see if he is, you have to give him complete control of the offense, even to the point that he's our leading scorer and not passing as much ( ala Iverson ).

- if you take Marvin, you immeadiately ship Harrington's azz outta here, so that Marvin, Smith, and Childress can get the majority of the minutes at the forward spots. The #2 pick in a draft shoud be immeadiately playing 30+ minutes from day 1 on a bad team, not brought along slowly.

Keeping Harrington after we drafted Marvin and traded for JJ, delayed the development of Smith at the 4 and Marvin at the 3, for almost a full season.

I'm one of the ones that think that the Marvin draft picked spured BK to go all out for JJ, and try to sell him to us as being our PG, to justify passing on Paul. Either that, or BK has planned to go after JJ even before the draft, and wanted another athletic wing on the team, if the decision wasn't made to re-sign Harrington after the 05 - 06 season.

You can even make the case that the Salim pick was used to justify passing on Paul. He opted to go with the college vet in Salim, instead of the HS phenom in Monta Ellis. I won't fault him too much for passing on Monta, because a ton of teams could've used that kid as a 1st round pick. But Salim was also sold to us as a guy who was "a player", with Salim himself saying that he was a "lead guard".

Having said all of that, this is the 05 - 06 Hawks starting lineup, if we'd taken Paul AND if we'd still gone after JJ:

G - Paul

G - JJ

F - Smith

F - Harrington

C - Zaza

That's actually not a bad squad at all. Instead of 27 wins, that team maybe could win 33 - 37 games. Chill, Lue, and Salim ( or the big man we might've chosen in rd 2 ) would be vital on that team. With Collier dying, spot minutes from Edwards would be crucial. We'd probably have to play a lot of small-ball for stretches.

Even if we lost Harrington, we could slide Chill in at the 3 and move Smith to the 4 . . . and still probably take a guy like Shelden @ #10 if he fell that far.

But like I said earlier, do we go after JJ as hard as we did, if we take Paul. If not this is the squad.

G - Paul

G - Chill

F - Smith

F - Harrington

C - Zaza

That lineup would force Paul to become more of a scorer and force Woody to go with a Paul - Lue backcourt a lot for more offense. Diaw couldn't be passive off the bench either. But that team without JJ, and the prospect of losing Harrington would be ugh . . .

While many people wail away on Marvin, you have to remember that he does have the ability to play both the 3 and the 4. On a team void of a lot of quality big men, his importance to us is kind of undervalued in that regard.

[Admin]

Roy Williams

Quote:

---

"I think he's the most unique individual I've ever been around to be that gifted, yet that caring, that humble, that appreciative," said his college coach, Roy Williams. "He's an unbelievable young man who is going to be a big, big pro for a long time."

Jay Bilas

Quote:

---

ESPN draft analyst Jay Bilas praised the pick and Williams:

"The sky is the limit as far as his potential is concerned," Bilas said. "Marvin Williams is the real deal and the complete package.

"We may look back in

five or six years

and say that Marvin Williams was the player out of this draft."

ESPN Insider Profile on Marvin

Quote:

---

Draft Projection: No. 1 to 3 overall

Notes: Williams flirted with declaring for the NBA draft after his senior season of high school. Insider projected him as a late lottery pick at the time. After one year of coming off the bench at UNC, he's now a top-three pick in the draft.

Positives: In a draft bereft of players with star potential, Williams is one of the few guys scouts are universally excited about. Williams is an unbelievable specimen. He has a great NBA body, top-notch athleticism and the ability to play just about anywhere on the court. He has one of the most developed inside-outside games of any prospect, something the Tar Heels rarely took advantage of. He also possesses a fantastic basketball IQ and work ethic.

Negatives: Williams is still young and inexperienced. He came off the bench all season for the Tar Heels and played in a supporting role to Sean May, Raymond Felton and Rashad McCants. He let his nerves get the best of him during North Carolina's run in the Final Four and didn't have the impact you'd think from such a highly-rated player. There were no Carmelo Anthony-like shining moments for Williams.

Summary: Williams is Insider's No. 1-ranked player in the draft. He's a versatile forward who can play both inside and out. Still developing but has the trappings of a superstar.

Chad Ford's Analysis

Quote:

---

The Hawks were tempted to draft Chris Paul because of their need at the point, but at the end of the day they took the best player available. Marvin Williams is an upgrade over Al Harrington and Josh Smith. It will be interesting to see what the Hawks do from here. Obviously they're going to have to clear up a logjam at the forward position. Maybe they'll be able to trade Harrington in an effort to acquire the team's real needs at point guard and center.

Andy Katz

Quote:

---

Williams has only scratched the surface of his talent. He might end up being the best talent in this draft long-term.

d*ck Vitale

Quote:

---

Has explosiveness and a great first step, but as "Mr. Potential," he's still learning.

Fran Fraschilla

Quote:

---

Not physically strong enough for the 4, so will play on the wing. Athleticism and skills are there to be a great one ... in time.

[DrReality]

It's too bad we don't have a draft pick this year. . . . then we could talk about it instead of rehashing years past. Makes HS boring this time of year.

[Dsinner]

Quote:

---

Roy Williams

Quote:

---

"I think he's the most unique individual I've ever been around to be that gifted, yet that caring, that humble, that appreciative," said his college coach, Roy Williams. "He's an unbelievable young man who is going to be a big, big pro for a long time."

Jay Bilas

Quote:

---

ESPN draft analyst Jay Bilas praised the pick and Williams:

"The sky is the limit as far as his potential is concerned," Bilas said. "Marvin Williams is the real deal and the

complete package

.

ESPN Insider Profile on Marvin

Quote:

---

Draft Projection: No. 1 to 3 overall

Notes: Williams flirted with declaring for the NBA draft after his senior season of high school. Insider projected him as a late lottery pick at the time. After one year of coming off the bench at UNC, he's now a top-three pick in the draft.

Positives: In a draft bereft of players with star potential, Williams is one of the few guys scouts are universally excited about. Williams is an

unbelievable specimen

. He has a great NBA body,

top-notch athleticism

and the ability to play just about

anywhere on the court

. He has one of the most

developed inside-outside games of any prospect

, something the Tar Heels rarely took advantage of. He also possesses a fantastic basketball IQ and

work ethic

.

Negatives: Williams is still young and inexperienced. He came off the bench all season for the Tar Heels and played in a supporting role to Sean May, Raymond Felton and Rashad McCants. He let his nerves get the best of him during North Carolina's run in the Final Four and didn't have the impact you'd think from such a highly-rated player. There were no Carmelo Anthony-like shining moments for Williams.

Summary: Williams is Insider's No. 1-ranked player in the draft. He's a versatile forward who

can play both inside and out

. Still developing but has the

trappings of a superstar

.

Chad Ford's Analysis

Quote:

---

The Hawks were tempted to draft Chris Paul because of their need at the point, but at the end of the day they took the best player available.

Marvin Williams is an upgrade over Al Harrington and Josh Smith

. It will be interesting to see what the Hawks do from here. Obviously they're going to have to clear up a logjam at the forward position. Maybe they'll be able to trade Harrington in an effort to acquire the team's real needs at point guard and center.

Andy Katz

Quote:

---

Williams has only scratched the surface of his talent. He might end up being the best talent in this draft long-term.

d*ck Vitale

Quote:

---

Has explosiveness and a great first step, but as "Mr. Potential," he's still learning.

Fran Fraschilla

Quote:

---

Not physically strong enough for the 4, so will play on the wing.

Athleticism

and skills are there to be a great one ... in time.

Sounds like a lot of guys getting paid big $$$ to not know much about basketball (see highlighted).

[TheDude]

it's very simple to me:

Although we needed a point, we were still in the stage where we didnt know what we had..we didnt have JJ, and we didnt know how smooth and chill were going to develop...we were STILL at the point of obtaining talent. People act as if we were a complete club and all we needed was that point guard. And that was not the case. Sure we needed a point guard. But also we needed a center (remember many people hoping Bogut would fall?). And we also needed a SG. But what we needed more than anything, was talent. What is it that Walter always says about talent. We needed to get real superstar talent in here. And MOST thought Marvin was that player. 8 our of 10 GMs (maybe 9 actually) would have made the same call. So I have never felt that BK should have been bashed for that call, especially since players drafted below others consistently come and outperform. Those things happen.

HOWEVER if you want to be realistic about what BK should be bashed for, it was the Shelden pick. That pick was horrendous because noone would have done it, it was really a boneheaded pick, made even dumber by the promise. You do NOT promise a player when you are going to pick him several slots higher than ANYONE thinks he'll go. Even if you think he is a lock and you are definitely going to draft him, you don't promise him. Because when you do that, you not only tip off other GMs but more importantly, YOU CEMENT YOUR OWN OPINION ON WHO YOU WILL PICK. Anyone could come into a workout and blow folks away but at that point you have already become defensive towards other opinions and are not going to be open-minded. BK should be bashed for that pick.

But not for the Chris Paul pick.

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

it's very simple to me:

Although we needed a point, we were still in the stage where we didnt know what we had..we didnt have JJ, and we didnt know how smooth and chill were going to develop...we were STILL at the point of obtaining talent. People act as if we were a complete club and all we needed was that point guard. And that was not the case. Sure we needed a point guard. But also we needed a center (remember many people hoping Bogut would fall?). And we also needed a SG. But what we needed more than anything, was talent. What is it that Walter always says about talent. We needed to get real superstar talent in here. And MOST thought Marvin was that player. 8 our of 10 GMs (maybe 9 actually) would have made the same call. So I have never felt that BK should have been bashed for that call, especially since players drafted below others consistently come and outperform. Those things happen.

HOWEVER if you want to be realistic about what BK should be bashed for, it was the Shelden pick. That pick was horrendous because noone would have done it, it was really a boneheaded pick, made even dumber by the promise. You do NOT promise a player when you are going to pick him several slots higher than ANYONE thinks he'll go. Even if you think he is a lock and you are definitely going to draft him, you don't promise him. Because when you do that, you not only tip off other GMs but more importantly, YOU CEMENT YOUR OWN OPINION ON WHO YOU WILL PICK. Anyone could come into a workout and blow folks away but at that point you have already become defensive towards other opinions and are not going to be open-minded. BK should be bashed for that pick.

But not for the Chris Paul pick.

The problem is the Hawks couldn't find out what they had in Smith and Childress until obtaining a decent point guard. That is part of the reason why they are still figuring out what those two guys bring to the table and how best to utilize them.

[AHF]

There is no question at this point that:

(A) Marvin was considered a significantly better prospect by the pundits coming into the draft than Paul; and

(B) Paul is a significantly better player, filled a more pressing need, and it was a mistake to pass on him.

I'm not sure how anyone can argue either of those points.

[bronnt]

Quote:

---

it's very simple to me:

Although we needed a point, we were still in the stage where we didnt know what we had..we didnt have JJ, and we didnt know how smooth and chill were going to develop...we were STILL at the point of obtaining talent. People act as if we were a complete club and all we needed was that point guard. And that was not the case. Sure we needed a point guard. But also we needed a center (remember many people hoping Bogut would fall?). And we also needed a SG. But what we needed more than anything, was talent. What is it that Walter always says about talent. We needed to get real superstar talent in here. And MOST thought Marvin was that player. 8 our of 10 GMs (maybe 9 actually) would have made the same call. So I have never felt that BK should have been bashed for that call, especially since players drafted below others consistently come and outperform. Those things happen.

HOWEVER if you want to be realistic about what BK should be bashed for, it was the Shelden pick. That pick was horrendous because noone would have done it, it was really a boneheaded pick, made even dumber by the promise. You do NOT promise a player when you are going to pick him several slots higher than ANYONE thinks he'll go. Even if you think he is a lock and you are definitely going to draft him, you don't promise him. Because when you do that, you not only tip off other GMs but more importantly, YOU CEMENT YOUR OWN OPINION ON WHO YOU WILL PICK. Anyone could come into a workout and blow folks away but at that point you have already become defensive towards other opinions and are not going to be open-minded. BK should be bashed for that pick.

But not for the Chris Paul pick.

Pretty much exactly what I was trying to say. Good post.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

There is no question at this point that:

(A) Marvin was considered a significantly better prospect by the pundits coming into the draft than Paul; and

(B) Paul is a significantly better player, filled a more pressing need, and it was a mistake to pass on him.

I'm not sure how anyone can argue either of those points.

To be clear, I for one don't. And haven't... that is, except for one phrase (see below).

To be clear, where there is disagreement is....

(A) the assertion that Paul will necessarily ALWAYS be a significantly better player... taking nothing away from Paul, there's still a LOT of history yet to be written, and those who are paid for a living to know, generally told us to expect that it may take Marvin longer to develop... and...

(B) that while Paul may have filled a "need" at the time, a GM has to figure out whether he wants to adopt a "fill needs now" philosophy in that 05 draft, given where the roster was in its progression... or draft to add to the talent base... which, in turn, could eventually be turned into a player or players who fill needs later (via trade).

That "it was a mistake to pass on him" is not unlike saying that it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq.... it will be a good 10-15 years before we can look back and see if something good for our cause was planted in that desert, and there's just too many what-ifs to write history when you're talking about 21 and 22 year old players... as suggested in my original post in this thread.

I'm not sure how anyone can argue THESE points.

But amazingly enough.......

[exodus]

Quote:

---

To be clear, where there is disagreement is....

(A) the assertion that Paul will necessarily ALWAYS be a significantly better player... taking nothing away from Paul, there's still a LOT of history yet to be written,

True, Paul could have a career ending injury. Then Marvin would be better.

Good point, Captain Hypothetical.

Quote:

---

That "it was a mistake to pass on him" is not unlike saying that it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq.... it will be a good 10-15 years before we can look back and see if something good for our cause was planted in that desert, and there's just too many what-ifs to write history when you're talking about 21 and 22 year old players

More hypothetical nonsense. Anyone who has a clue can see that drafting Marvin was a mistake.

Paul AND Deron are elite pgs. Marvin is just an ok sf. Our pg situation is still a mess (which you are incapable of acknowleging) and an expensive one at that.

It isn't debatable.

[Dsinner]

Quote:

---

To be clear, I for one don't. And haven't... that is, except for one phrase (see below).

To be clear, where there is disagreement is....

(A) the assertion that Paul will necessarily ALWAYS be a significantly better player... taking nothing away from Paul, there's still a LOT of history yet to be written, and those who are paid for a living to know, generally told us to expect that it may take Marvin longer to develop... and...

(B) that while Paul may have filled a "need" at the time, a GM has to figure out whether he wants to adopt a "fill needs now" philosophy in that 05 draft, given where the roster was in its progression... or draft to add to the talent base... which, in turn, could eventually be turned into a player or players who fill needs later (via trade).

That "it was a mistake to pass on him" is not unlike saying that it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq.... it will be a good 10-15 years before we can look back and see if something good for our cause was planted in that desert, and there's just too many what-ifs to write history when you're talking about 21 and 22 year old players... as suggested in my original post in this thread.

I'm not sure how anyone can argue THESE points.

But amazingly enough.......

Please don't start assuming the future with the phrase "to be clear" because the future is far from clear. No one CAN argue those points because it is hard to argue hypothetical points when they are hypothetical from your POV. I would like to comment on them... if you think Marvin is going to start progressing at a freakish rate while at the same time Paul is going to decline at a freakish rate you sir are hanging onto BK's plan a little to tight. I think it might be cutting off your oxygen.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There is no question at this point that:

(A) Marvin was considered a significantly better prospect by the pundits coming into the draft than Paul; and

(B) Paul is a significantly better player, filled a more pressing need, and it was a mistake to pass on him.

I'm not sure how anyone can argue either of those points.

To be clear, I for one don't. And haven't... that is, except for one phrase (see below).

To be clear, where there is disagreement is....

(A) the assertion that Paul will necessarily ALWAYS be a significantly better player... taking nothing away from Paul, there's still a LOT of history yet to be written, and those who are paid for a living to know, generally told us to expect that it may take Marvin longer to develop... and...

Paul has put together arguably the best PG season in history. I can't imagine Marvin putting together a season arguably even close to the best SFs in history, can you? Seriously, there is such a huge gap between the two guys can you honestly look in the mirror and think that it is realistic that Marvin will be better in a couple years than Paul? I will give you 10:1 odds over a 3 year time frame that Marvin doesn't surpass Paul absent injury issues.

Quote:

---

(B) that while Paul may have filled a "need" at the time, a GM has to figure out whether he wants to adopt a "fill needs now" philosophy in that 05 draft, given where the roster was in its progression... or draft to add to the talent base... which, in turn, could eventually be turned into a player or players who fill needs later (via trade).

I don't mind a BPA philosophy rather than a need philosophy. It just doesn't work well if you get a player who fails to address need and fails to be the better talent, which is what happened here.

Quote:

---

That "it was a mistake to pass on him" is not unlike saying that it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq.... it will be a good 10-15 years before we can look back and see if something good for our cause was planted in that desert, and there's just too many what-ifs to write history when you're talking about 21 and 22 year old players... as suggested in my original post in this thread.

I'm not sure how anyone can argue THESE points.

But amazingly enough.......

I can easily argue them. You are looking at a player who is a true superstar in Paul. Most superstars show that ability within 3 years of joining the league - even coming straight out of high school. We have seen that from Paul. We haven't seen anything resembling superstar talent from Marvin.

Look at the %s of players who show superstar ability in their first three years who maintain a superior level of play versus the % who don't show superstar ability within 3 years who later manifest it. It is not theoretically impossible for Marvin to become a star but the odds sure don't favor him surpassing Paul.

I don't think that this was BK's biggest draft error with Marvin but it was the most resounding ala taking Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan. No matter how many times you say to yourself that Bowie was a solid pro and an athletic 7 footer and the pick was understandable, Portland still has trouble getting over it 25 years later.

[Guest Walter]

1) for the most part don't know [censored]

2) write what they read and/or what they think people want to read

3) ...don't know [censored]

I could make up my own mind about MW despite the UNC title hype. I knew that MW wasn't as talented and/or motivated as Paul and Deron and that the Pg position value was greater than the Sf position where we had Diaw, Harrington, Childress, and JS. Imagine, if I can see past the film of hype regurgitated by the like of sports talk bafoons, you'd think such a remarkable GM as BK would have. Shocking he didn't.

W