RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

2014 mock draft
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 65, 66, 67  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63711



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/13 4:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

noleman wrote:
Shades wrote:
noleman wrote:
Jeff Walz showed some love for Natasha howard (FSU) after their game today.

Quote:
"Natasha Howard fouled out and that's a big difference. She is a special player. There's no doubt that she will be a top five pick in the draft in April or May. She has 13 points and 14 boards and nine of them are offensive. She's something else. I wasn't pleased with our mental approach.


So did S.Schimmel...
Quote:
In overtime they did not have Natasha Howard, and it benefited us."


I think Walz is just looking for reasons his Top 5 team played so poorly. I'll track her stats, but there's nothing that screams "lottery" to me. Over Dolson or Gray?


He said it a few days b4 the game as well (I didnt say I agreed, although I do think she goes top10).

If you base her stock just off stats then no. She has to do a better job of staying out of foul trouble to average more than 24mins and cut down on To's. Hopefully FSU has a good season and she can prove herself throughout the year.

Over Dolson-Yes, Gray- Probably Not.


Howard would have to have a heluva season to get drafted ahead of Dolson.
Not only is Dolson in the best club for producing WNBA players, she's going up against the best competition and still producing. She's versatile: 31 assists in 7 games compared to Howard's 2 in 4 games. She can extend the defense. In my mind, it's not even close. At this point, I don't see Dolson dropping below #6, and Howard's not cracking that territory.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
#Occasionalwnbafan



Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Posts: 1380



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/13 4:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Natasha Howard could be a good fit for the Silver stars.
J-Spoon



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 6775



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/25/13 5:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I think Howard is someone to watch this season in the sense that after Ogwumike, and Thomas (if she is considered a post), and Dolson there is no clear next best post option. I haven't seen that much of her but she looks like a WNBA player to me.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11104



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/13 11:16 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howard is a WNBA player if she can play the four. She's not at Dolson's level, especially considering how good a passer Dolson is -- a post who can move the ball is incredibly valuable as it stretches the defense in a lot of ways.

And I haven't been that excited about Liston, but if she can make 43% of her threes at the WNBA level, she'll find a home, quickness deficit or not.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
mavcarter
#NATC


Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 5935
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/13 4:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

rykhala wrote:
Stefanie Dolson Connecticut Sun


And to harp on this a little bit more, why would you take a player who has the ceiling of role player #2?



_________________
wrote:
Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree?
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63711



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/13 5:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mavcarter wrote:
rykhala wrote:
Stefanie Dolson Connecticut Sun


And to harp on this a little bit more, why would you take a player who has the ceiling of role player #2?


I don't think I'd pick her #2 either, but why is role player her ceiling?



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
#Occasionalwnbafan



Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Posts: 1380



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/13 5:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I've been hot and cold on Dolson, but her stock has to be at an all time high right now. She's a true 6'5 and she played at uconn, if she is taken by the stars I give her 2 seasons before she's starting over Appel.
mavcarter
#NATC


Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 5935
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/13 6:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
mavcarter wrote:
rykhala wrote:
Stefanie Dolson Connecticut Sun


And to harp on this a little bit more, why would you take a player who has the ceiling of role player #2?


I don't think I'd pick her #2 either, but why is role player her ceiling?


Before this season she had a career average of 11.4 PPG. While this may not be a good indicator of how good she will ultimately turn out, players that weren't scorers in college have a bit of a hard time becoming good or even very good.

The school she attends will probably play a bigger role in where she gets drafted as opposed to on the court play.

She has a good IQ, can pass, and like you said can stretch the defense. She seems like a nice pick anywhere from #6-12, but taking her in the lottery might be a bit of stretch. Especially top 2.



_________________
wrote:
Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree?
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/13 6:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

#Occasionalwnbafan wrote:
She's a true 6'5 and she played at uconn, if she is taken by the stars I give her 2 seasons before she's starting over Appel.


Right, because 6'5 UConn players have always turned into such big stars...



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63711



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/13 7:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mavcarter wrote:
Shades wrote:
mavcarter wrote:
rykhala wrote:
Stefanie Dolson Connecticut Sun


And to harp on this a little bit more, why would you take a player who has the ceiling of role player #2?


I don't think I'd pick her #2 either, but why is role player her ceiling?


Before this season she had a career average of 11.4 PPG. While this may not be a good indicator of how good she will ultimately turn out, players that weren't scorers in college have a bit of a hard time becoming good or even very good.

The school she attends will probably play a bigger role in where she gets drafted as opposed to on the court play.

She has a good IQ, can pass, and like you said can stretch the defense. She seems like a nice pick anywhere from #6-12, but taking her in the lottery might be a bit of stretch. Especially top 2.


Do you consider McCarville a role player, even though she was the starting center for a WNBA Championship team?

She was able to become the #1 pick on a career 14.6 ppg, and she was a little more a focus of the offense than Dolson needs to be.

I'm sure Reeve would love if Dolson dropped to #12. Razz
Clay says Banham won't go in the Top 10 in 2015, so the Lynx are looking to have nice drafts the next couple of years.

I think it's time for Snow to retire from the WNBA. I see Dolson as a good fit in WAS. I don't think they'll be going SG for the top pick two years in a row.

I say Dolson top half of the first round...you say bottom. Let's see what happens.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned


Last edited by Shades on 11/30/13 3:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
mavcarter
#NATC


Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 5935
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/13 8:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
Do you consider McCarville a role player, even though she was the starting center for a WNBA Championship team?


Yes, I do. There's nothing wrong with being a McCarville type player, but I don't know why a GM would want that in the lottery unless they have an established front court.

Shades wrote:
She was able to become the #1 pick on a career 14.6 ppg, and she was a little more a focus of the offense than Dolson needs to be.


2005 was a very weak draft. I'm not as high on this year's as others but I think it's better.



_________________
wrote:
Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree?
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63711



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/13 9:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mavcarter wrote:

2005 was a very weak draft. I'm not as high on this year's as others but I think it's better.


Wasn't my fav year, but some steady WNBA players have come out of 2005.

2. Tan White
5. Sancho Lyttle
6. Temeka Johnson
7. Kara Braxton
12. Tanisha Wright
15. Roneeka Hodges
21. Erin Phillips
27. Catherine Kraayeveld

9 players still in the league after 9 years.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/13 10:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mavcarter wrote:
2005 was a very weak draft.


2005 was light on star power but it was very deep.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63711



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/13 10:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
mavcarter wrote:
2005 was a very weak draft.


2005 was light on star power but it was very deep.


Kinda like...this year? Very Happy



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
SpaceJunkie



Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 4241
Location: Minnesota


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/13 10:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
pilight wrote:
mavcarter wrote:
2005 was a very weak draft.


2005 was light on star power but it was very deep.


Kinda like...this year? Very Happy


But the one star player in this year's draft is pretty good. Very Happy


Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63711



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/13 11:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

SpaceJunkie wrote:
Shades wrote:
pilight wrote:
mavcarter wrote:
2005 was a very weak draft.


2005 was light on star power but it was very deep.


Kinda like...this year? Very Happy


But the one star player in this year's draft is pretty good. Very Happy



Some people have been saying its too early too declare a clear number one pick. I guess you're not one of those people.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
SpaceJunkie



Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 4241
Location: Minnesota


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/13 11:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
SpaceJunkie wrote:
Shades wrote:
pilight wrote:
mavcarter wrote:
2005 was a very weak draft.


2005 was light on star power but it was very deep.


Kinda like...this year? Very Happy


But the one star player in this year's draft is pretty good. Very Happy



Some people have been saying its too early too declare a clear number one pick. I guess you're not one of those people.


Ah snap, I thought you meant "2013" by "this year", not 2014. Very Happy


Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63711



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/26/13 11:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

SpaceJunkie wrote:
Shades wrote:
SpaceJunkie wrote:
Shades wrote:
pilight wrote:
mavcarter wrote:
2005 was a very weak draft.


2005 was light on star power but it was very deep.


Kinda like...this year? Very Happy


But the one star player in this year's draft is pretty good. Very Happy



Some people have been saying its too early too declare a clear number one pick. I guess you're not one of those people.


Ah snap, I thought you meant "2013" by "this year", not 2014. Very Happy


No, I meant 2014. 2013 had the Three to See, not just one.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
mavcarter
#NATC


Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 5935
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/27/13 12:36 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
mavcarter wrote:
2005 was a very weak draft.


2005 was light on star power but it was very deep.


You're right, very weak was a poor choice of words.



_________________
wrote:
Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree?
SpaceJunkie



Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 4241
Location: Minnesota


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/27/13 4:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
SpaceJunkie wrote:
Shades wrote:
SpaceJunkie wrote:
Shades wrote:
pilight wrote:
mavcarter wrote:
2005 was a very weak draft.


2005 was light on star power but it was very deep.


Kinda like...this year? Very Happy


But the one star player in this year's draft is pretty good. Very Happy



Some people have been saying its too early too declare a clear number one pick. I guess you're not one of those people.


Ah snap, I thought you meant "2013" by "this year", not 2014. Very Happy


No, I meant 2014. 2013 had the Three to See, not just one.


I thought it was a joke because Diggins didn't do much, and you're not a big Phoenix fan. Smile


Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/29/13 6:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Every year (almost) someone falls below the first round and outshines a lot of players drafter ahead of her:

2013 - Bentley
2012 - Hayes and R. Williams
2011 - Danielle Adams
2010 - Hightower
2009 - ?
2008 - Mitchell

So rather than trying to figure out the draft order, who will be the player that falls too far in the 2014 draft? Who will be Ms. Overlooked 2014?


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32326



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/29/13 8:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Randy wrote:
Every year (almost) someone falls below the first round and outshines a lot of players drafter ahead of her:

2013 - Bentley
2012 - Hayes and R. Williams
2011 - Danielle Adams
2010 - Hightower
2009 - ?
2008 - Mitchell

So rather than trying to figure out the draft order, who will be the player that falls too far in the 2014 draft? Who will be Ms. Overlooked 2014?


Don't forget Angel Goodrich this year too!

It's really hard to tell how a SG will make the transition, so it could be someone like Ellenberg, Schimmel, Fussell, or Simmons...or maybe someone like Coley or Newsome for real underdogs. I think it will be difficult to predict how any of them will actually do...and it also depends on where they go. Three or four of them will be total washouts, but which one(s) will succeed. I kind of like Ellenberg but it's very, very hard to tell...


J-Spoon



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 6775



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/30/13 12:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Randy wrote:
Every year (almost) someone falls below the first round and outshines a lot of players drafter ahead of her:

2013 - Bentley
2012 - Hayes and R. Williams
2011 - Danielle Adams
2010 - Hightower
2009 - ?
2008 - Mitchell

So rather than trying to figure out the draft order, who will be the player that falls too far in the 2014 draft? Who will be Ms. Overlooked 2014?


I'm not very familiar with these players but I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say Bias or Foggie. (Ellenberg would be my other guess, but Myrtle already threw it out there and I've seen her described to often by others as "undersized" and "volume scorer" to feel confident about that prediction, though I like her.)


Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/30/13 8:22 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
Randy wrote:
Every year (almost) someone falls below the first round and outshines a lot of players drafter ahead of her:

2013 - Bentley
2012 - Hayes and R. Williams
2011 - Danielle Adams
2010 - Hightower
2009 - ?
2008 - Mitchell

So rather than trying to figure out the draft order, who will be the player that falls too far in the 2014 draft? Who will be Ms. Overlooked 2014?


Don't forget Angel Goodrich this year too!

It's really hard to tell how a SG will make the transition, so it could be someone like Ellenberg, Schimmel, Fussell, or Simmons...or maybe someone like Coley or Newsome for real underdogs. I think it will be difficult to predict how any of them will actually do...and it also depends on where they go. Three or four of them will be total washouts, but which one(s) will succeed. I kind of like Ellenberg but it's very, very hard to tell...


Yes - Angel definitely should have been on the list!!


root_thing



Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/30/13 10:51 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Randy wrote:
myrtle wrote:
Randy wrote:
Every year (almost) someone falls below the first round and outshines a lot of players drafter ahead of her:

2013 - Bentley
2012 - Hayes and R. Williams
2011 - Danielle Adams
2010 - Hightower
2009 - ?
2008 - Mitchell

So rather than trying to figure out the draft order, who will be the player that falls too far in the 2014 draft? Who will be Ms. Overlooked 2014?


Don't forget Angel Goodrich this year too!

It's really hard to tell how a SG will make the transition, so it could be someone like Ellenberg, Schimmel, Fussell, or Simmons...or maybe someone like Coley or Newsome for real underdogs. I think it will be difficult to predict how any of them will actually do...and it also depends on where they go. Three or four of them will be total washouts, but which one(s) will succeed. I kind of like Ellenberg but it's very, very hard to tell...


Yes - Angel definitely should have been on the list!!


It's interesting because the majority of people on this board had Goodrich in the 1st round for most of the year, and then she slipped to the 2nd round right before the draft. Only the GM's had Goodrich as a 3rd rounder. Wink

I agree that the SG's are the hardest to evaluate -- especially the smaller ones. I don't really know the other players that well, but I've seen a lot of Schimmel and Simmons throughout their careers. They're streaky boom or bust players. They can look unstoppable when they're on or be a liability when they're off. I think if you can get a streaky player to adjust to coming off the bench, they can be very valuable. If they're having an off-night, you sit them back down. If they're on, it's like having an All-Star come off your bench -- Riquana Williams is the perfect example. However, the adjustment to playing off the bench is the hardest thing to do for young players who are used to being stars.

Maggie Lucas and Tricia Liston will also be interesting to watch. Is Lucas big enough or quick enough? Does she have enough diversity to her game? Is Liston athletic enough? You never know how GM's are going to weigh athletic ability vs. skill. Personally, Liston is beginning to grow on me. I used to look at that chunky body and the clumsy way that she moves and I'd think to myself, "No way!" But watching her closely, Liston isn't as slow as she looks. And you have to love a great outside shooter who doesn't mind contact and likes taking it to the hoop.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 65, 66, 67  Next
Page 9 of 67

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin