Sekou's new blog - puts in link to Hawksquawk

[coachx]

I think you have to balance the thought process when considering who the Hawks will take with the 19th pick. You have to take into account the fact that the chances of getting a starting player with this pick are slim to none, but you have to balance that with the idea that anything can happen.

I think the point of Sekou's article is that the Hawks need role players. I agree with that point. If the Hawks find themselves looking for a starting point guard or a starting center with this pick, then they are more liable to make a mistake with the pick.

Agree with you 100%.

Sekou made that same point last week in a different article too. http://www.hawksquawk.net/community/index....howtopic=336875

Most guys taken at pick #19 are hoping to be productive role players and not stars. If you swing for the fences on a gamble at pick #19, your chances of hitting a homerum are not very good. Take the solid role player staring you right in the face. Picking at #19 is a different philosophy then picking in the top 10 where you have much better odds at hitting that homerun. We see that with the history of picks at #19 where guys were taken, due to youth and upside, while solid players and safer picks were taken a few picks later.

Good to see you back around these parts KB, its been a while.

Edited May 27, 2009 by coachx

[frosgrim]

I agree that at 19 the Hawks will get a bench player, and that is a good thing. The club needs more role players that can spell the starters, but not start themselves.

As far as Douglas, maybe, though most mocks have him as a 2nd round pick right now.

I wouldn't mind taking a chance on Mullins if there isn't anything else more sure than him at 19. However, if Lawson is there, you really have to strongly consider it. The other guys being bantied about also make some sense.

When all is said and done, I do think the Hawks need to retain the pick to build much needed bench depth. That is what these mid round picks do for a club and they can be a difference maker in both the regular season record and what the team does in the playoffs.

Also, welcome back KB! Hope you keep posting.

[KB21]

I agree that at 19 the Hawks will get a bench player, and that is a good thing. The club needs more role players that can spell the starters, but not start themselves.

As far as Douglas, maybe, though most mocks have him as a 2nd round pick right now.

I wouldn't mind taking a chance on Mullins if there isn't anything else more sure than him at 19. However, if Lawson is there, you really have to strongly consider it. The other guys being bantied about also make some sense.

When all is said and done, I do think the Hawks need to retain the pick to build much needed bench depth. That is what these mid round picks do for a club and they can be a difference maker in both the regular season record and what the team does in the playoffs.

Also, welcome back KB! Hope you keep posting.

Exactly. These mid round picks were the picks that Pete Babcock continually blew, and as a result, his teams lacked the depth needed to make a run in the playoffs.

[TheDude]

So, Toney Douglas anyone? I didn't get to see much of him even though he played in the ACC along with my GT Jackets. I'll have to take another look at this guy. I don't recall hearing much about him prior to now.

as an FSU fan i watched almost every game last year...Douglas is the real deal...However he's a flip murray type in that he's a combo guard...However he took a team full of freshmen and some sophs to the big dance and FSU hadnt been there in a decade. Al Thornton couldn't do it, Von Wafer couldn't do it but Douglas did.

As far as his skill level goes....He is an incredible defensive player. He has the knack of stealling the ball and is able to swipe at the ball without fouling. He's also extremely quick and can stay in front of his man. He's a playmaker, he's a scorer. He can drive, hit the floater, shoot the 3. He's also an EXTREMELY hard worker and also confident and was said to be a great leader/mentor to the young guys. he kept all this going into a season noone expected us to do well at all due to our youth. He would not go the route of Acie Law. He will be a true professional also in that his brother is Harry Douglas of the Atlanta Falcons. The reason he is a 2nd round pick is that he's 6'0 or 6'1 and he's a ballhandling SG, much like Flip.

The end of the first round may be too much, not because of talent but because he can be had later. but our 2nd round pick may be too low in the 2nd round to be able to get him. So not sure how we would get him. But i would be happy to have him on our team because we need a defensvie perimeter player who also has an array of offensive skills.

[Kimsey]

Douglas is not worth the 19th overall much less a first round pick. Try to purchase one of Portland's pick or Denvers pick in the early 2nd round. Can't see how a second round pick can help either team when they are just about set at every position especially Denver.

[Anansi]

as an FSU fan i watched almost every game last year...Douglas is the real deal...However he's a flip murray type in that he's a combo guard...However he took a team full of freshmen and some sophs to the big dance and FSU hadnt been there in a decade. Al Thornton couldn't do it, Von Wafer couldn't do it but Douglas did.

As far as his skill level goes....He is an incredible defensive player. He has the knack of stealling the ball and is able to swipe at the ball without fouling. He's also extremely quick and can stay in front of his man. He's a playmaker, he's a scorer. He can drive, hit the floater, shoot the 3. He's also an EXTREMELY hard worker and also confident and was said to be a great leader/mentor to the young guys. he kept all this going into a season noone expected us to do well at all due to our youth. He would not go the route of Acie Law. He will be a true professional also in that his brother is Harry Douglas of the Atlanta Falcons. The reason he is a 2nd round pick is that he's 6'0 or 6'1 and he's a ballhandling SG, much like Flip.

The end of the first round may be too much, not because of talent but because he can be had later. but our 2nd round pick may be too low in the 2nd round to be able to get him. So not sure how we would get him. But i would be happy to have him on our team because we need a defensvie perimeter player who also has an array of offensive skills.

I like what I have heard about him.

Douglas is not worth the 19th overall much less a first round pick. Try to purchase one of Portland's pick or Denvers pick in the early 2nd round. Can't see how a second round pick can help either team when they are just about set at every position especially Denver.

It seems like Denver is trying to sell their picks every other year so that makes sense.

[Diesel]

After doing some research, I think Flynn would be the way to go even if we have to trade up to get him.The guy just has that "it" factor.

I don't think Flynn has that "it" factor.

The dunks that he gets against small college frontlines, he won't get in the pros.

His assists to TO ratio isn't great.

The worst thing is that you have to guard somebody. That's not easily done for Flynn.

He's going to be like Nate Robinson. if he's lucky. However, he still has to work on his shooting.

[coachx]

If we go in a different direction, other then PG, at pick #19 there will be some solid 2nd round PG talent.

Not all but some of these guys will last to the 2nd round:

Collison

AJ Price

T. Douglas

Calathes (Sp ? / kid from UF)

Mills

AJ Price seems to be the most talented guy who we are hearing nothing about. Not saying he is the most talented guy in the list above. Just saying we are hearing less about him right now. He has solid role player written all over him. Dude has some serious range on his jumper too.

Edited May 27, 2009 by coachx

[Diesel]

If we go in a different direction, other then PG, at pick #19 there will be some solid 2nd round PG talent.

Not all but some of these guys will last to the 2nd round:

Collison

AJ Price

T. Douglas

Cathlelese (Sp ? / kid from UF)

Mills

AJ Price seems o be the most talented guy who we are hearing nothing about.

I'm looking for a draft of Hansbrough and Price.

I just don't have much belief that Sund will come up with the right move.

I also think Sund will move heaven and earth to bring back Bibby. To The detriment of the team.

[hawkman]

I don't think Flynn has that "it" factor.

The dunks that he gets against small college frontlines, he won't get in the pros.

His assists to TO ratio isn't great.

The worst thing is that you have to guard somebody. That's not easily done for Flynn.

He's going to be like Nate Robinson. if he's lucky. However, he still has to work on his shooting.

I don't know Diesel, Flynn played in the highly competitive(and physical) Big East and thrived. He's EXTREMELY explosive and is an actual PG who can also score when called upon. I guess I'm just looking at guys who have the "motor' and leadership qualities this team needs right now. To me, Maynor, Lawson, and Flynn seem to have something that the other PG's in this draft seem to lack. Maybe it's leadership? Flynn sticks out because of his enthusiasm for the game and his having a chip on his shoulder about being a smaller PG, if you can call 6'0" small for a PG. Plus he looks to be the most explosive of the group. He also doesn't have Lawson's strange release. Getting back to this "small" issue, I thought Mookie was only 5'10" himself and that didn't stop him from being a solid scorer and tenacious defender. I also remember everyone making a big deal out of CP3's supposed lack of height. I believe if you can play the game, you can play the game, and that belief seems to apply more to the PG postion more than any other.

[coachx]

Getting back to this "small" issue, I thought Mookie was only 5'10" himself and that didn't stop him from being a solid scorer and tenacious defender. I also remember everyone making a big deal out of CP3's supposed lack of height. I believe if you can play the game, you can play the game, and that belief seems to apply more to the PG position more than any other.

I think Mookie was 6'1'' but had really long arms which helped him be great defender. The lack of length, for both Lawson and Flynn, would give them some limitations on man defense. However, they both posses elite quickness that will give them an advantage over the larger but slower PGs. Lawson has the natural ability to play passing lanes like Chris Paul has, for example. Both of them have the quickness to keep the opposition out of the paint even though they can be shot over.

I agree on the size thing. Both Lawson and Flynn will be starters even though they are short. Physical size mean less at the PG position then at other positions since its played more so with your head then the other positions (especially offensively). Heck, look at Bibby's physical limitations, for example. I see Flynn as a smaller version of Baron Davis. A PG that relies on athleticism more then I.Q. He is a highlight waiting to happen. I do worry that he has not played man on man defense since high school b/c Syracuse only runs a zone. I am more comfortable with Lawson's true PG attributes that, I think, make him a more complete player.

Edited May 27, 2009 by coachx

[Duff_Man]

In other words, you know when you've been touched by the great one.

I feel more like I was touched by a creepy uncle.

[Admin]

I don't think Flynn has that "it" factor.

The dunks that he gets against small college frontlines, he won't get in the pros.

His assists to TO ratio isn't great.

The worst thing is that you have to guard somebody. That's not easily done for Flynn.

He's going to be like Nate Robinson. if he's lucky. However, he still has to work on his shooting.

You clearly have not watched Flynn play if you don't think he has the "it" factor. Being a Syracuse fan I can tell you that he is the closest thing to be a star with the "it" factor that we've had since Carmelo. Flynn has the ability to completely take over a game anytime he wants but his failure this past season was trying to get his teammates involved too much and outside of Flynn and the hot/cold Devendorf we didn't have a whole lot of experienced talent and he should have tried to score more than he did. I will agree that he needs to work on his outside shooting though but that's true of most college guards coming into the NBA.

Flynn will be an All-Star in the NBA at some point, you can mark it down.

[Admin]

I feel more like I was touched by a creepy uncle.

Well done sir!

Garland Greene: He's a font of misplaced rage. Name your cliché; Mother held him too much or not enough, last picked at kickball, late night sneaky uncle, whatever. Now he's so angry moments of levity actually cause him pain; gives him headaches. Happiness, for that gentleman, hurts.

[AHF]

I think you have to balance the thought process when considering who the Hawks will take with the 19th pick. You have to take into account the fact that the chances of getting a starting player with this pick are slim to none, but you have to balance that with the idea that anything can happen.

I think the point of Sekou's article is that the Hawks need role players. I agree with that point. If the Hawks find themselves looking for a starting point guard or a starting center with this pick, then they are more liable to make a mistake with the pick.

I disagree with this approach to drafting. I always want my GM to look for the best player available. Period. If that player projects as a potential starter (Andrei Kirilenko #24; Jamaal Magloire #19; Michael Redd #43; Zach Randolph #19; Gerald Wallace #25; Samuel Dalembert #26; Tony Parker #28; Gilbert Arenas #30; Mehmet Okur #39; Tayshaun Prince #23; John Salmons #26; Carlos Boozer #34; Kendrick Perkins #27; Josh Howard #29; Jameer Nelson #20; Kevin Martin #26; Jarret Jack #22; David Lee #30; Monte Ellis #40; Rajon Rondo #21; Paul Millsap #47; etc.) all the better! You take the guy with the best combination of high upside and low downside for your team.

The impact of getting a Rondo or Parker is so much greater than landing 10 Mo Evans types, I do not have any hesitation going for one of them and missing. Going for a known role player like JJ Reddick or Tony Allen certainly adds to your depth but it won't take your team anywhere it wasn't already going with a low dollar free agent in their place.

[coachx]

I disagree with this approach to drafting. I always want my GM to look for the best player available. Period.

I'm sure every GM thinks they are taking the best player available. They are just not alwayse right on who that is.

Taking the best player availble means different things to different people. How do you define it ?

Is it the player with "potential" who could one day be the best player if A, B, and C happen ? Normally these guys are 19 or 20 and are projected to need 2 years to develop in order to contribute. Think BJ Mullens here who is definately not the best player available but may have the most potential to one day become the best player of the guys left available if everything works out in his favor.

or

Is it the player that is the best players on the day you draft ? Normally these guys are projected to have the more immediate impact..... Think Jeff Teague here.

Which guy would you take or which guys do you have in mind. I'm sure every GM thinks they are taking the best player available. They are just not alwayse right about who that is.

There are examples where each case has succeeded or back fired. Sund's run of drafting project centers (area of need) over more developed players is a case of where it back fired. The Lakers pick of Bynum is one where it eventually paid off.......or at least we think it has paid off. He still needs to stay healthy.

Its easy to cherry pick the draft lists of the past and say look at all these great players taken after 20. Its just so much more difficult to see into the future then into the past.

Edited May 27, 2009 by coachx

[mrhonline]

You clearly have not watched Flynn play if you don't think he has the "it" factor.

I agree with Diesel and don't see the "it" factor either. I see the great scoring ability in college, but I also see the sloppiness and poor defense. I think he'll be even more streaky in the NBA.

I'm not sold on him as a star yet. I have no problem taking him at #19, of course, but he's got some growing to do in a number of areas before he becomes a star.

Edited May 27, 2009 by mrhonline

[AHF]

I'm sure every GM thinks they are taking the best player available. They are just not alwayse right on who that is.

Taking the best player availble means different things to different people. How do you define it ?

Is it the player with "potential" who could one day be the best player if A, B, and C happen ? Normally these guys are 19 or 20 and are projected to need 2 years to develop in order to contribute. Think BJ Mullens here who is definately not the best player available but may have the most potential to one day become the best player of the guys left available if everything works out in his favor.

or

Is it the player that is the best players on the day you draft ? Normally these guys are projected to have the more immediate impact..... Think Jeff Teague here.

Which guy would you take or which guys do you have in mind. I'm sure every GM thinks they are taking the best player available. They are just not alwayse right about who that is.

There are examples where each case has succeeded or back fired. Sund's run of drafting project centers (area of need) over more developed players is a case of where it back fired. The Lakers pick of Bynum is one where it eventually paid off.......or at least we think it has paid off. He still needs to stay healthy.

Its easy to cherry pick the draft lists of the past and say look at all these great players taken after 20. Its just so much more difficult to see into the future then into the past.

For me, the simplest way of explaining it is to take the player with the best combination of high upside and low downside. Easier said than done but this is absolutely what you pay a GM and your scouting staff for, IMO.

BJ Mullens has a HUGE downside and a good upside. At some point he becomes the right pick on the board, but not in front of a player with a better ratio of upside/downside. It is not something where you always take the young player with the highest upside, nor is it the situation where you ignore upside and just draft the guy who can come in and fill a role today. There is no one size fits all approach - you draft the best prospect with the best combination of potential and low risk.

The point of listing some of the many All-Stars and starters that have been drafted #19 or later in recent years is to show that there are impact players coming out of every draft and that we should be putting ourselves in position to get those guys whenever possible. The idea that we should write off Tony Parker so we can take Speedy Claxton or discount Rashard Lewis so you can get a Morris Peterson doesn't make sense to me. If the risk/reward ratio leans that way, then make the call. As a GM, if you can't properly ID the best prospects you get fired. It is your job to ID the right upside/downside ratio for players and get the right prospects on your team.

You should never shoot for role players, though, unless there simply is nothing worth taking over them. In this draft, there will be a starting PG picked 19 or after, IMO. Find that player.

[buckeye242424]

For me, the simplest way of explaining it is to take the player with the best combination of high upside and low downside. Easier said than done but this is absolutely what you pay a GM and your scouting staff for, IMO.

BJ Mullens has a HUGE downside and a good upside. At some point he becomes the right pick on the board, but not in front of a player with a better ratio of upside/downside. It is not something where you always take the young player with the highest upside, nor is it the situation where you ignore upside and just draft the guy who can come in and fill a role today. There is no one size fits all approach - you draft the best prospect with the best combination of potential and low risk.

The point of listing some of the many All-Stars and starters that have been drafted #19 or later in recent years is to show that there are impact players coming out of every draft and that we should be putting ourselves in position to get those guys whenever possible. The idea that we should write off Tony Parker so we can take Speedy Claxton or discount Rashard Lewis so you can get a Morris Peterson doesn't make sense to me. If the risk/reward ratio leans that way, then make the call. As a GM, if you can't properly ID the best prospects you get fired. It is your job to ID the right upside/downside ratio for players and get the right prospects on your team.

You should never shoot for role players, though, unless there simply is nothing worth taking over them. In this draft, there will be a starting PG picked 19 or after, IMO. Find that player.

Yup!

Stay away from him. Mullins' daily hate from me is done...

[AHF]

Here is Mullen's quote:

"I can do work inside or outside...I can get compared to Kevin Garnett, his inside game/outside game, Dirk Nowitzki...uhh...explosive like Amare. Those three guys I like to compare myself and mix them all together. Do a little bit of triple threat."

http://blogs.hoopshype.com/blogs/videos/20...itzki-or-amare/

Sounds like he has his ego in check at least.

Edited May 27, 2009 by AHF