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

[exodus]

Quote:

---

How can I answer what Walter and Diesel were wrong or right about? What am I answering? What statement did they make that I am judging?

They said Paul and Deron were better picks than Marvin. They said Marvin was overrated and that Pau/Deron played a much more important position that we desperately needed. They were pissed when Marvin was picked.

[Admin]

I also said that Deron was a much better pick so obviously I agreed with them.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

I also said that Deron was a much better pick so obviously I agreed with them.

Thank you.

Now do you think we need several years to decide whether or not Marvin was the wrong pick, as sturt claims?

As you know i have defended Marvin as much as anyone here. He didn't pick himself but i think people forget that.

As to your question of need vs talent they both have to be considered.

Looking at positional value C > PG,PF > SG/SF not taking the actual roster into account. Then you have to look at the players already on the roster and what the needs are.

Is the talent gap between two players enough to override the roster/positional value considerations? In the case of someone like Lebron the answer is obviously yes.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

I didn't say Marvin would average that for his career.

Oh really?

Quote:

---

In my mind you can't be hypocritical about drafting. You either believe in taking the best player available, which Marvin was generally considered to be, and not risk losing the next big thing from UNC, or you draft for need. Drafting for need is what caused us to take Shelden, which was a MUCH bigger mistake than not drafting Paul or Deron.

At least Marvin looks like he will be a 20/7 SF for his career

, whereas Shelden will likely never develop into anything useful.

[Admin]

Obviously in hindsight the right pick was Paul and then Deron. Unless Marvin becomes a superstar nothing will change that.

People also forget that at the time Smoove was extremely raw and we knew that Al Harrington wasn't in our long term plans and Childress was never likely to be a starter. If Marvin was going to be the best player from that draft then you couldn't not draft him if your reason was because of the SFs we already had on the roster. If Paul and Deron didn't have questions surrounding them then they had to be the pick, but both had questions that they have obviously answered, whereas Marvin hasn't answered his questions yet.

[Admin]

Yes really, where is the word average in there?

I also further explained my point in my previous post.

Quote:

---

When Marvin is at his peak he will be a 20/7 (or better) player.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Obviously in hindsight the right pick was Paul and then Deron

. Unless Marvin becomes a superstar nothing will change that.

People also forget that at the time Smoove was extremely raw and we knew that Al Harrington wasn't in our long term plans and Childress was never likely to be a starter. If Marvin was going to be the best player from that draft then you couldn't not draft him if your reason was because of the SFs we already had on the roster. If Paul and Deron didn't have questions surrounding them then they had to be the pick, but both had questions that they have obviously answered, whereas Marvin hasn't answered his questions yet.

Obvious to you and me but not sturt. He thinks we need to wait years to make a final judgment. Hence this thread and his 911 comparison.

BTW you actually did say Marvin would be a 20/7 for his career, not his peak. There is no other way to interpret what you wrote.

If you had said he will become a 20/7 player then i would have understood.

[Admin]

I didn't say he would average that for his career. I said he would be a 20/7 guy for his career, which could be confused for average, but I didn't mean it that way. I only meant that at his best that's what he would be, for a few years.

[exodus]

Getting back to the thread we both agree that we don't need years to determine that Marvin was the wrong pick, as sturt singularly claims.

[AHF]

Isn't this argument purely semantics?

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Isn't this argument purely semantics?

which one are you talking about? Are you talking about our "for his career" thing or sturts thread.

Sturts positition is nothing but denial of the obvious. Everyone can clearly see now that Marvin was the wrong pick.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Isn't this argument purely semantics?

which one are you talking about? Are you talking about our "for his career" thing or sturts thread.

The "for his career" issue of average v. peak numbers. I think you guys are on the same page at this point.

[Atlantaholic]

I love how the only people that keep bringing CP3 up after BK has finally left are the people defending the Marvin pick.

Who are you guys trying to convince, every sane person on earth or yourselves????

The thing I love is that the same people that defend the Marvin pick defended the Shelden pick...

"hey, we drafted the consensus "best" player in Marvin, so it was the right pick at the time" (turned out to NOT be the best player by a longshot)

"Hey we drafted our biggest need in Shelden, so, you know, definitely the right pick at the time" (Shelden was a PF and filled NO need... Brandon Roy would have filled a greater need at PG than Shelden could at Center.)

Not only do your arguments contradict the hell out of each other... neither of them even SUCCEEDED in fulfilling their intention... I mean, we are talking about picks that were TOTAL COMPLETE failures from every angle imaginable, and you guys defend them despite the fact that our GM is no longer employed.

Please guys, do everybody a gigantic favor and remove BK's balls slowly out of your esophagus and refrain from bringing up the painfully incompetent past of the GM we are all trying to forget.

Thanks.

[bronnt]

Quote:

---

I love how the only people that keep bringing CP3 up after BK has finally left are the people defending the Marvin pick.

Who are you guys trying to convince, every sane person on earth or yourselves????

The thing I love is that the same people that defend the Marvin pick defended the Shelden pick...

"hey, we drafted the consensus "best" player in Marvin, so it was the right pick at the time" (turned out to NOT be the best player by a longshot)

"Hey we drafted our biggest need in Shelden, so, you know, definitely the right pick at the time" (Shelden was a PF and filled NO need... Brandon Roy would have filled a greater need at PG than Shelden could at Center.)

Not only do your arguments contradict the hell out of each other... neither of them even SUCCEEDED in fulfilling their intention... I mean, we are talking about picks that were TOTAL COMPLETE failures from every angle imaginable, and you guys defend them despite the fact that our GM is no longer employed.

Please guys, do everybody a gigantic favor and remove BK's balls slowly out of your esophagus and refrain from bringing up the painfully incompetent past of the GM we are all trying to forget.

Thanks.

I wasn't here at the time, but I defend the Marvin pick without defending the Shelden pick. I mean, I defend it by saying that it was the wrong pick, but over half the GMs in the league would have made the same mistake. So even though it's brought up again and again, it isn't the worst error BK ever made, and in retrospect, it's pretty forgivable. I mean, we'd just come off a 13 win season, so it wasn't like "We've got loads of talent, now just get us a point guard and we're good."

But drafting Shelden was an egregious error-20 other guys in that draft who went lower would have helped more. Brandon Roy and Rudy Gay both went within a few picks of Shelden, and again, it wasn't like Shelden was the one missing piece. And his measurables weren't all that great, he was undersized for what we wanted him to do, he had a four year career in which he was good but not dominant...etc. His ceiling in the NBA is probably as a high quality reserve, and that's certainly no given.

I repeat myself on this issue a lot. I'm gonna call it quits, now.

[Admin]

I honestly believe that if Roy didn't have the major injury concerns that BK mentioned about "a player he couldn't name" then he would have been our pick. He seemed to really like Roy, but he would have taken a lot of grief for drafting him. He had just been proven wrong about Joe being able to be a full-time PG and that's what Roy would have had to have been here, unless we were moving Joe to SF, where we already had Marvin and Smoove.

He couldn't have drafted Gay because he would have been blasted again for taking a SF.

Foye was probably the guy that he should have picked since he was the best player available that was also mostly a PG, but I would still rather have Acie than him going forward.

If Shelden ever becomes the double-double player that he was the last month or so of his rookie season that pick won't look nearly as bad, although he won't be doing it in a Hawk uniform of course.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

The thing I love is that the same people that defend the Marvin pick defended the Shelden pick...

"hey, we drafted the consensus "best" player in Marvin, so it was the right pick at the time" (turned out to NOT be the best player by a longshot)

"Hey we drafted our biggest need in Shelden, so, you know, definitely the right pick at the time" (Shelden was a PF and filled NO need... Brandon Roy would have filled a greater need at PG than Shelden could at Center.)

Not only do your arguments contradict the hell out of each other... neither of them even SUCCEEDED in fulfilling their intention

.

Sturts determination to rationalize BKs moves knows no boundaries. Here is the "logic" that sturt says BK used in 3 consecutive drafts.:

2004 least likely to bust.... childress. Of course he doesn't explain how Childress is the least likely to bust given his slow feet and unorthodox shot, but whatever.

2005 BPA or best potential player available.

2006 the player who fills a need.

3 different drafting standards in 3 consecutive years, each time yielding the inferior pick. And yet sturt is absolutely convinced (just like BK's other notorious nuthugger) that BK (and of course sturt himself ) somehow know better than the unwashed masses that he consistently talks down to.

Quote:

---

Please guys, do everybody a gigantic favor and remove BK's balls slowly out of your esophagus and refrain from bringing up the painfully incompetent past of the GM we are all trying to forget.

Thanks.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

He couldn't have drafted FILL IN THE BLANK because he would have been blasted

I don't get this rationale. BK really ruled people out who he thought were the best pick because of the idea that he would be criticized in the media? I am pretty skeptical of that. Not that he wouldn't have been criticized (he would have been criticized no matter who he drafted unless he got someone who was obviously the best pick) but I don't buy that that he passed on the guy he really wanted (and hence "couldn't" take them) because he would probably be blasted in the media until that player proved themselves the best pick.

[Admin]

I'm sure BK wouldn't have cared what the media said about him, I'm just saying that he would have been blasted for it so therefore he "couldn't" do it. Not that he couldn't have actually done it.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

I'm sure BK wouldn't have cared what the media said about him, I'm just saying that he would have been blasted for it so therefore he "couldn't" do it. Not that he couldn't have actually done it.

Gotcha. I have seen that in the past as an actual explanation as to why players weren't selected and I have never understood it.

[Admin]

If a GM ever did that I would hope that they would be fired immediately. I would never worry about that with BK though since he never really cared about the media anyway LOL.