| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TotalCardinalMove
Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1466
Back to top |
 Posted: 08/10/16 4:37 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| Shades wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| Isn't Rebecca Greenwell eligible for this draft? |
I wouldn't think so unless she was born in 1995. |
Just checked her Duke bio. Born in Feburary 27, 1995. This is her redshirt senior year. |
Okay, I guess so, but how excited should people be about this?
Liston proved that she could shoot in the WNBA. Still no respek.
Why Greenwell? |
I get the comparison, so I did a quick check of both of their career stats.
Liston - 12.2 ppg, 1.4 apg, 4.1 rpg, 0.9 steals. 48% overall and 46% from 3.
Greenwell - 14.5 ppg, 2 apg, 5.7 rpg, 1.7 steals. 42% overall and 38% from 3.
While Liston has better shooting percentages, Greenwell has the advantage in every other major statistical category. I think the biggest knock on Liston (besides defense) is she couldn't create her own shot (or didn't show she could at least), she was more of a spot up shooter. From what I've seen of Greenwell, she can create her own off the dribble, all while being Duke's primary 3 point threat. I'd say Greenwell is a playmaker, and has played PG/SG/SF while at Duke, and IMO she's more versatile than Tricia.
With this being a weaker draft, if she were to leave a year early, I'd say she'd be in the discussion to be a lottery pick. Would San Antonio pick her if it got the first pick? Doubtful, but considering she'd fit a huge hole there, it's possible. Especially with no consensus #1, depending on how you feel about DeShields. I think this year if she, or anyone has a tremendous year, they'd be in the convo to be picked 1st, and in the first round in general. So we will just have to see.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/10/16 4:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| root_thing wrote: |
| I actually see next year's player pool as being similar to this year's draft minus Stewart. A lot of interesting players, but all of them flawed and sort of bunched up together at this point. We'll just have to see who steps forward and distinguishes herself during the season. |
If that list above is actually the top 12, 2017 actually looks significantly worse than 2016.
|
|
sigur3
Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Posts: 6191
Location: Chicago-ish
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/10/16 5:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| root_thing wrote: |
| Greenwell is a better athlete than Liston -- although not as good a shooter. Still, what held Liston back was her defense. Greenwell is quicker and more fluid, which gives her a better chance to defend at the next level. |
It's like looking only at basic college stats when determining whether or not a player's game will translate to the WNBA is a bad idea.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63759
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/10/16 5:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| With this being a weaker draft, if she were to leave a year early, I'd say she'd be in the discussion to be a lottery pick. |
Only if you were unrelenting about bringing her up as a lottery pick. I can't see it at this point.
I don't believe Greenwell's defense is a significant upgrade over Liston's.
Liston was 40%+ from three both years in the WNBA. Didn't matter. Good luck, Greenwell.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
TotalCardinalMove
Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1466
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/10/16 6:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| With this being a weaker draft, if she were to leave a year early, I'd say she'd be in the discussion to be a lottery pick. |
Only if you were unrelenting about bringing her up as a lottery pick. I can't see it at this point.
I don't believe Greenwell's defense is a significant upgrade over Liston's.
Liston was 40%+ from three both years in the WNBA. Didn't matter. Good luck, Greenwell. |
Like RootThing said, all these players are pretty bunched up at this point. There's no clear #1. As ReadyAimFire said before, Greenwell is fantastic out on the wing. With that being said, what else did Liston provide to Minnesota besides good shooting? She's not a good playmaker, rarely creates her own shot, and isn't a very good defender. Greenwell is way more athletic and versatile. However, maybe Minnesota just wasn't a good fit for Liston.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63759
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/10/16 6:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| Greenwell is way more athletic and versatile. |
Those are just words to me. Do you even realize Liston was used as a PG as a senior? Doesn't sound like it. And you're comparing a #12 pick with somebody you think could be a lottery pick. Could Greenwell be better than than Liston? Maybe, if she gets an opportunity with the right team. Is she lottery pick? Don't think so.
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| maybe Minnesota just wasn't a good fit for Liston. |
Liston won a WNBA Championship, so it couldn't have been that bad of a fit. She definitely filled a need with Jarry not showing up for a couple of years. Never got an explanation on Liston's departure, so it's all conjecture.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/10/16 6:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| root_thing wrote: |
| I actually see next year's player pool as being similar to this year's draft minus Stewart. A lot of interesting players, but all of them flawed and sort of bunched up together at this point. We'll just have to see who steps forward and distinguishes herself during the season. |
If that list above is actually the top 12, 2017 actually looks significantly worse than 2016. |
You have to think back to what people believed before the 2015-16 college season started -- not how we view the 2016 draft class today. For instance, Banham's stature completely changed once she began putting up crazy numbers. The stock of Powers and Copper also went up significantly during the season. On the other hand, a lot of big names fell: Courtney Williams TAM, Alston, Graves... even Mitchell, Boyette, Hamblin, and Bulgak. Opinions about Jonquel Jones were all over the place. We also had a season-long debate about whether Jefferson is too small. Even now, a lot of people don't think Morgan Tuck should've been anywhere near the 3rd overall pick. So really, how much did people actually like the 2016 class outside of Stewart? Now, take the 2017 pool and boost the stock of a few players based on their 2016-17 performance. Is the resulting draft all that different from 2016 minus Stewart? I'm also sure that there are other names out there that people like who aren't on the list above. For instance, I think Erica McCall, Leticia Romero, and Kalani Purcell can all develop into very interesting prospects.
|
|
TotalCardinalMove
Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1466
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/10/16 6:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| Greenwell is way more athletic and versatile. |
Those are just words to me. Do you even realize Liston was used as a PG as a senior? Doesn't sound like it. And you're comparing a #12 pick with somebody you think could be a lottery pick. Could Greenwell be better than than Liston? Maybe, if she gets an opportunity with the right team. Is she lottery pick? Don't think so.
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| maybe Minnesota just wasn't a good fit for Liston. |
Liston won a WNBA Championship, so it couldn't have been that bad of a fit. She definitely filled a need with Jarry not showing up for a couple of years. Never got an explanation on Liston's departure, so it's all conjecture. |
By versatile I mean she has way more to her game than Liston. Tricia is primarily a catch and shoot type player. Greenwell can do that, all while creating for herself off the dribble. Something Liston can't do, or at least she didn't show. And really? I think her winning a championship has more to do with who else is on the team, as opposed to her major "contributions". Shae Kelley is also a WNBA champion, so what is your point?
Last edited by TotalCardinalMove on 08/10/16 6:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
TotalCardinalMove
Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1466
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/10/16 6:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| root_thing wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| root_thing wrote: |
| I actually see next year's player pool as being similar to this year's draft minus Stewart. A lot of interesting players, but all of them flawed and sort of bunched up together at this point. We'll just have to see who steps forward and distinguishes herself during the season. |
If that list above is actually the top 12, 2017 actually looks significantly worse than 2016. |
You have to think back to what people believed before the 2015-16 college season started -- not how we view the 2016 draft class today. For instance, Banham's stature completely changed once she began putting up crazy numbers. The stock of Powers and Copper also went up significantly during the season. On the other hand, a lot of big names fell: Courtney Williams TAM, Alston, Graves... even Mitchell, Boyette, Hamblin, and Bulgak. Opinions about Jonquel Jones were all over the place. We also had a season-long debate about whether Jefferson is too small. Even now, a lot of people don't think Morgan Tuck should've been anywhere near the 3rd overall pick. So really, how much did people actually like the 2016 class outside of Stewart? Now, take the 2017 pool and boost the stock of a few players based on their 2016-17 performance. Is the resulting draft all that different from 2016 minus Stewart? I'm also sure that there are other names out there that people like who aren't on the list above. For instance, I think Erica McCall, Leticia Romero, and Kalani Purcell can all develop into very interesting prospects. |
I LOVE McCall and her chances as a prospect. And that's just not due to my Stanford bias 
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63759
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/10/16 8:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| Greenwell is way more athletic and versatile. |
Those are just words to me. Do you even realize Liston was used as a PG as a senior? Doesn't sound like it. And you're comparing a #12 pick with somebody you think could be a lottery pick. Could Greenwell be better than than Liston? Maybe, if she gets an opportunity with the right team. Is she lottery pick? Don't think so.
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| maybe Minnesota just wasn't a good fit for Liston. |
Liston won a WNBA Championship, so it couldn't have been that bad of a fit. She definitely filled a need with Jarry not showing up for a couple of years. Never got an explanation on Liston's departure, so it's all conjecture. |
By versatile I mean she has way more to her game than Liston. Tricia is primarily a catch and shoot type player. Greenwell can do that, all while creating for herself off the dribble. Something Liston can't do, or at least she didn't show. And really? I think her winning a championship has more to do with who else is on the team, as opposed to her major "contributions". Shae Kelley is also a WNBA champion, so what is your point? |
She's got so much to her game, she could probably put Duke on her back and carry them to the NCAA tournament. Oops. Are you expecting great things from Duke this year? I guess you didn't think of that.
You can argue the debatable notion that Greenwell is better than Liston until you're blue in the face. That doesn't explain your contention that Greenwell is a lottery pick. I don't think there's much hope of that if nobody declares. What if most of the eligibles declare? Would most GM's take Greenwell before Russell? How about Kaela Davis?
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
TotalCardinalMove
Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1466
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/10/16 9:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| Greenwell is way more athletic and versatile. |
Those are just words to me. Do you even realize Liston was used as a PG as a senior? Doesn't sound like it. And you're comparing a #12 pick with somebody you think could be a lottery pick. Could Greenwell be better than than Liston? Maybe, if she gets an opportunity with the right team. Is she lottery pick? Don't think so.
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| maybe Minnesota just wasn't a good fit for Liston. |
Liston won a WNBA Championship, so it couldn't have been that bad of a fit. She definitely filled a need with Jarry not showing up for a couple of years. Never got an explanation on Liston's departure, so it's all conjecture. |
By versatile I mean she has way more to her game than Liston. Tricia is primarily a catch and shoot type player. Greenwell can do that, all while creating for herself off the dribble. Something Liston can't do, or at least she didn't show. And really? I think her winning a championship has more to do with who else is on the team, as opposed to her major "contributions". Shae Kelley is also a WNBA champion, so what is your point? |
She's got so much to her game, she could probably put Duke on her back and carry them to the NCAA tournament. Oops. Are you expecting great things from Duke this year? I guess you didn't think of that.
You can argue the debatable notion that Greenwell is better than Liston until you're blue in the face. That doesn't explain your contention that Greenwell is a lottery pick. I don't think there's much hope of that if nobody declares. What if most of the eligibles declare? Would most GM's take Greenwell before Russell? How about Kaela Davis? |
Sigh....and this is where the conversation ends. Please read. I already said Greenwell has as good a chance as anyone else. As others too have said before, she's an interesting prospect. There's no consensus top 4 (or even #1) at this point, it could literally be anyone depending on who steps up this year. Greenwell, DeShields, McCall, Plum, Coates, among others can make a solid case for the lottery this year depending on the type of year they have. I never said she was sure fire the top pick, but that she should be in the early discussion. And considering what's on San Antonio's roster, if they get the first pick, any one of those said players would probably provide help.
Funny how you bring up the NCAA tournament (as if it matters), something the player you advocated the most for in the 2016 draft failed to do. Oops. Yet, according to you, she should've been the #2 pick over Jefferson (aka someone who won four straight titles). If NCAA tournaments matter that much (they don't), how come it didn't effect Banham's stock? Having the ability to carry your team to the tournament, or not probably doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things.  GMs care about talent.
As said before, all of these prospects have their own flaws, so it's hard to put one over the other. At this point, they are all jumbled up together. So it's hard to put anyone in order.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63759
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/10/16 11:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
[quote="TotalCardinalMove"]
| Shades wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| Greenwell is way more athletic and versatile. |
Those are just words to me. Do you even realize Liston was used as a PG as a senior? Doesn't sound like it. And you're comparing a #12 pick with somebody you think could be a lottery pick. Could Greenwell be better than than Liston? Maybe, if she gets an opportunity with the right team. Is she lottery pick? Don't think so.
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| maybe Minnesota just wasn't a good fit for Liston. |
Liston won a WNBA Championship, so it couldn't have been that bad of a fit. She definitely filled a need with Jarry not showing up for a couple of years. Never got an explanation on Liston's departure, so it's all conjecture. |
By versatile I mean she has way more to her game than Liston. Tricia is primarily a catch and shoot type player. Greenwell can do that, all while creating for herself off the dribble. Something Liston can't do, or at least she didn't show. And really? I think her winning a championship has more to do with who else is on the team, as opposed to her major "contributions". Shae Kelley is also a WNBA champion, so what is your point? |
She's got so much to her game, she could probably put Duke on her back and carry them to the NCAA tournament. Oops. Are you expecting great things from Duke this year? I guess you didn't think of that.
You can argue the debatable notion that Greenwell is better than Liston until you're blue in the face. That doesn't explain your contention that Greenwell is a lottery pick. I don't think there's much hope of that if nobody declares. What if most of the eligibles declare? Would most GM's take Greenwell before Russell? How about Kaela Davis? |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| Sigh....and this is where the conversation ends. |
Good, I wish it would have ended before "I'd say she'd be in the discussion to be a lottery pick." Did you really expect no one to disagree with that?
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| Please read. I already said Greenwell has as good a chance as anyone else. |
Please read. I disagree. The draft is on the weak side, but not weak.
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| As others too have said before, she's an interesting prospect. |
"Interesting" doesn't make her a lottery pick. I don't think her "versatility" is all that amazing either.
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| There's no consensus top 4 (or even #1) at this point, it could literally be anyone depending on who steps up this year. |
I disagree that there's no consensus #1. I've seen a few people agree that DeShields is liking to declare early (unlike Greenwell), and would be the #1 pick if she declares. Draftsite.com has DeShields #1. But what does consensus have to do with anything? I'm not someone who relies on consensus. A person can't have an opinion on whether a player is a likely lottery pick unless there's a consensus? That doesn't make much sense.
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| Greenwell, DeShields, McCall, Plum, Coates, among others can make a solid case for the lottery this year depending on the type of year they have. |
Greenwell would have to have an amazing year to reach lottery status. I've seen enough to anticipate that not happening. Plus when you add in the factor that there a good number of early declarers that could enter this draft, that lowers the probability even more. The high school class of 2013 was a big one for transfers and injuries.
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| I never said she was sure fire the top pick, but that she should be in the early discussion. And considering what's on San Antonio's roster, if they get the first pick, any one of those said players would probably provide help. |
That's interesting, because you said Liston could probably help SAN. You wanted Liston on your team, but that didn't keep you from throwing her under the bus in the deluded hopes of selling Greenwell as a lottery pick. Greenwell as SAN's lottery pick would virtually assure them as a lottery team in 2018 (a great draft, especially without Greenwell). Is at your game plan?
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| Funny how you bring up the NCAA tournament (as if it matters), something the player you advocated the most for in the 2016 draft failed to do. Oops. |
Okay, if Greenwell has scoring games of 52 & 60 pts this season, maybe she could make the lottery next year. We all know she won't reach Top Ten in all time scoring in three seasons (or ever).
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| Yet, according to you, she should've been the #2 pick over Jefferson (aka someone who won four straight titles). If NCAA tournaments matter that much (they don't), how come it didn't effect Banham's stock? |
You must be mis-remembering. I remember analyzing other peoples' mocks that had Banham as #2, and saying that I thought it was over-exuberant. I may have at one point thought that SAN should have traded down for somebody else. But that was probably before Lonely DRob ended up with a serious injury, so sticking with Jefferson made sense.
Again, Banham had games of 60 & 52 pts (among other high amounts) and ended up #6 in NCAA All-time scoring. If you're relying on that kind of year for Greenwell to be a lottery pick, you are really really really really really rolling the dice.
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| GMs care about talent. |
I know. That's why Hughes traded Perkins for Gwathmey.
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| As said before, all of these prospects have their own flaws, so it's hard to put one over the other. |
Not hard for everybody.
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| At this point, they are all jumbled up together. So it's hard to put anyone in order. |
This is getting repetitive. There's players I would want ahead of Greenwell, so it was an easy call for me. I'm also with rAf that Greenwell's not likely to declare early. I haven't been great at guessing who declares early for the draft (I tend to think players will stay, but I guess that's old school thinking). I guess you can cling to that hope.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
TotalCardinalMove
Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1466
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/10/16 11:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Shades, I wish you would've never initiated a discussion in the first place. You're literally the only person that said anything negative about Greenwell. And that's because you still feel the need to bring up Liston whenever possible. You also are bringing up useless points to make an argument. Banham scored 52 and 60 points. Cool, but where did that lead her? On the bench in CT, whether she was injured or not.
And yes, I think Liston could've helped SA only due to her 3 point shooting. Something we need. But, that's not saying much. I think Coates, Greenwell, DeShields, SWK, McCall, and Plum could all help SA in their own ways. Also, no matter who SA picks, we are probably bound for the 2018 lottery anyway.
Also, you always have the most to say about others' ideas, thoughts, and mock drafts of players. But, you rarely post your own (unless you're being critical of someone else's). Maybe I'm just reading the wrong threads.
|
|
sigur3
Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Posts: 6191
Location: Chicago-ish
Back to top |
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63759
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/11/16 1:58 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| Shades, I wish you would've never initiated a discussion in the first place. |
This thread was buried for two months before somebody posted "Isn't Rebecca Greenwell eligible for this draft?" That wasn't me.
Now if you would have stated a good reason why you're suddenly excited about Greenwell, it would have made more sense. Did you see her make two half court shots in a row in practice? Did you find out she got a hard core trainer over the off season? There's gotta be something. If it's just a random assertion, then my opinion stands.
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| You're literally the only person that said anything negative about Greenwell. |
Sorry if being realistic about Greenwell's lottery prospects is seen as negative. Am I not supposed to state how I feel?
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| And that's because you still feel the need to bring up Liston whenever possible. |
No, it's because I don't feel she's a lottery pick. I brought up Liston because she's a similar-sized wing player that's on a similar team that's coached by the very same person. So comparisons are actually valid and useful... unlike comparisons to a record-shattering Banham.
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| You also are bringing up useless points to make an argument. |
See above.
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| Banham scored 52 and 60 points. Cool, but where did that lead her? On the bench in CT, whether she was injured or not. |
Who's being negative? Do you know exactly when Banham was injured? If you do, feel free to share. I'd be happy to have Banham sitting on the Lynx bench. CON seems to feel the same way, but we'll see what happens. Do you expect Greenwell to be a starter? 
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| And yes, I think Liston could've helped SA only due to her 3 point shooting. Something we need. But, that's not saying much. |
I just can't get a handle on why you'd want to add a player that you're negative about. Who else have you wanted to add this season (that you could have actually added)?
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| I think Coates, Greenwell, DeShields, SWK, McCall, and Plum could all help SA in their own ways. Also, no matter who SA picks, we are probably bound for the 2018 lottery anyway. |
I would take Alexis Jones over Greenwell. I'd take Nina Davis over Greenwell. People seem to be down on Davis because of her height, but I think she has at least the ceiling of Clark. Coffey? Want her over Greenwell. Post players are at a premium in this draft, so I'd want Coates over Greenwell. If Russell declares, even though I'm skeptical about her prospects, you gotta roll the dice on her height. If you like Greenwell over all these players, I guess we have to agree to disagree.
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| Also, you always have the most to say about others' ideas, thoughts, and mock drafts of players. But, you rarely post your own (unless you're being critical of someone else's). |
Are you saying you only want my opinion if I agree with you? Sorry. There's no pouting in Mock Draft. Keep things to a basketball discussion instead of resorting to personal affronts.
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| Maybe I'm just reading the wrong threads |
Did you notice in the "Hot Seat" topic, I made a very comprehensive list of coaches in order in order of heat. I was criticized by a couple of people who didn't offer their own lists, but that's okay. I feel confident in my arguments.
And it's just opinions, right? People can have different opinions.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
Luuuc
#NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21925
Back to top |
|
UofDel_Alum
Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Posts: 3979
Location: Delaware
Back to top |
|
stever
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Posts: 6916
Location: https://womensbasketballdaily.net
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/11/16 12:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| sigur3 wrote: |
| Not much has changed around here, I see. |
Nope, same punch bowl, same turd. |
|
Nixtreefan
Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 2539
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/17/16 10:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I actually agree with Shades, don't see Greenwell as an asset in the W, too slow since her injury and not that great from 3 when you consider she has to step out another couple of feet to shoot.
This draft has no superstars, inc DD who has had trouble everywhere and is enamored with her own rhetoric instead of playing the game on the court.
There are some good role players to be had from this draft but I doubt from some of those on that list. i.e. McCall is too small and not smart enough. Johnson is a better defender on Stanford.
|
|
Jet Jaguar
Joined: 11 Feb 2014
Posts: 1111
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/18/16 9:08 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Personally I'm glad this draft is pretty weak. It'll give a chance for some players from past drafts who aren't on team now but are better than the players from this year's class a chance to maybe make a roster.
_________________
Oderint dum metuant - Let them hate, so long as they fear
|
|
Nixtreefan
Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 2539
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/18/16 9:21 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Not sure it works that way. Just because there are no superstars i.e. Stewie, etc, doesn't mean that they are worse than some of those other players.
The problem with drafts is what are they based on unless you have a Stewie. It's very subjective. This is where real GMs earn their money on the guys side as there are real good role player gems to be found. If you think about the weaknesses of the W teams thats what they should be looking for. Taking a player who is for example undersized and doesn't do anything exceptionally well would be a mistake over taking a player who is smart and understands their role and can spread the floor on 3, is a good passer etc.
On the women's side fans tend to get caught up in their own teams and don't watch enough to see the value of different players. Just because a player scores a lot on a WA for example does not mean that player could play a role in the W.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63759
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/18/16 9:39 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Jet Jaguar wrote: |
| Personally I'm glad this draft is pretty weak. It'll give a chance for some players from past drafts who aren't on team now but are better than the players from this year's class a chance to maybe make a roster. |
Any examples?
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
|
Jet Jaguar
Joined: 11 Feb 2014
Posts: 1111
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/18/16 7:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Nixtreefan wrote: |
| Not sure it works that way. Just because there are no superstars i.e. Stewie, etc, doesn't mean that they are worse than some of those other players. |
It doesn't mean they aren't worse either.
_________________
Oderint dum metuant - Let them hate, so long as they fear
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63759
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/04/16 10:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
As of end of 9/04/16
Losses 2016 2015
SAN ..... 22 .. 26
DAL ..... 21 .. 16
CON .... 18 .. 19
WAS .... 17 .. 16
SEA ..... 17 .. 24
PHX ..... 16 .. 14
IND ..... 15 .. 14
ATL ..... 14 .. 19
CHI ..... 13 .. 13
NYL ....... 9 .. 11
MIN ....... 5 .. 12
LAS ....... 5 .. 20
Total '15 & '16
SAN 48
SEA 41
CON 37
DAL 37
WAS 33
ATL 33
PHX 30
IND 29
CHI 26
LAS 25
NYL 20
MIN 17
Currently missing playoffs
SAN 48 - Locked in at best odds 44.2%
CON 37
DAL 37
WAS 33
--------
SEA 41 - Currently 8th seed in playoffs. Second best lottery odds (27.6%) if they fall out of playoffs
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
|
|
