| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24348
Location: London
Back to top |
 Posted: 09/27/16 10:30 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
Having seen a little of both of them leading up to this year's draft, I don't think Plum has the same level of clear limitations as Banham. She's more viable as a defender, and more capable as a primary ballhandler. I'd have taken her above Banham without any hesitation this year, never mind with another year of development under her belt.
I kept saying in the build up to the draft that someone like Tiffany Mitchell was more likely to have an immediate impact in the WNBA than Banham, because you could see how the skills would translate. She hit the 'rookie wall' hard eventually, but there were a whole raft of analogues for Mitchell while you had to think hard for anyone who worked out in the WNBA that matched to Banham. It might take Plum a little while to translate to the pros as well, but I like her more than Banham. |
|
#Occasionalwnbafan
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Posts: 1380
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/27/16 10:56 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Nia Coffey and Makayla Epps are the two players I expect to be sleepers in the draft. |
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/27/16 10:59 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
Having seen a little of both of them leading up to this year's draft, I don't think Plum has the same level of clear limitations as Banham. She's more viable as a defender, and more capable as a primary ballhandler. I'd have taken her above Banham without any hesitation this year, never mind with another year of development under her belt.
|
Agree with both of these things. I think that she can/will translate but yeah, it could take time as it does for almost all rookies. She's actually perhaps closer to a Courtney Williams - with a better handle and a better three ball, but not as much 'lift'. She does have the feisty competitiveness like Banham which will help both of them.
As for Weiss, I think she has the size and strengths to be a SF with an extraordinarily good handle, but not the speed needed for a PG.
JMO
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/27/16 11:06 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| #Occasionalwnbafan wrote: |
| Nia Coffey and Makayla Epps are the two players I expect to be sleepers in the draft. |
True. They're interesting. Epps is an amazing bulldog competitor, but doesn't have a great three ball. If she had the three, I would rate her higher. For that matter her teammate Akhator will likely get drafted somewhere 2nd or 3rd round.
Coffey I don't really expect to be a sleeper since I think she'll be drafted top six.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/27/16 11:14 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| I expect Plum to be a lottery pick. I wish Wiese would fall to Atlanta.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/27/16 3:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| I expect Plum to be a lottery pick. |
Might be, which will merely manifest again that some WNBA GMs are better at reading press clippings than assessing talent, a la Banham and Mosqueda-Lewis.
Lots of people here were raving about both of them for months pre-draft too while ignoring their evident shortcomings. And sure enough, both were lottery picks.
In my view the notion that Plum is materially different or better than Banham is largely wishful thinking, and I'd be surprised if anyone here expressed such a view a year ago as Banham was being over-hyped. They're both fairly short, not overly quick or athletic, 2 guards with limited ball handling and defensive skills who rely a lot on three pt shots. Banham should be a lesson, but probably won't be.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63762
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/27/16 3:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| I wish Wiese would fall to Atlanta. |
She'll be there!
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
TotalCardinalMove
Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1466
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/27/16 3:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| I expect Plum to be a lottery pick. I wish Wiese would fall to Atlanta. |
How high do you see her possibly going since you want her to fall? Or, how low did you have her going at this point? Like I said, I think she has a really interesting case.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63762
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/27/16 4:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Might be, which will merely manifest again that some WNBA GMs are better at reading press clippings than assessing talent, a la Banham and Mosqueda-Lewis. |
Oh, Banham is comparable to KML? That's a good one. KML's biggest problem is conditioning, which she hasn't acknowledged as a problem. That's Banham? Miller was coaching Big Ten and got a better view of Banham than you.
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| In my view the notion that Plum is materially different or better than Banham is largely wishful thinking |
Very much so.
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| I'd be surprised if anyone here expressed such a view a year ago as Banham was being over-hyped. |
By Kobe? What's he know about basketball? The 60 pt single game and 3093 career pts weren't real.... just products of hype.
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| They're both fairly short |
Banham listed as 5'9. Plum listed as 5'8. I'd be surprised if Banham is any shorter than Whalen.
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| not overly quick or athletic |
She can bench 200 lbs. Is Whalen athletic to you?
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| 2 guards with limited ball handling and defensive skills |
She was a PG in high school and her freshman and senior years in college. She was the best ball handler on the Gophers and I haven't seen anything that would tag her as a poor ball handler.
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| who rely a lot on three pt shots. |
No, they're both versatile scorers.
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Banham should be a lesson, but probably won't be. |
What would be the lesson: You should have known Banham was going to be injured for most of her rookie year? Is that your prediction for Plum?
In all this analysis of Banham that for some reason has cropped up, nobody seems to acknowledge that Banham was injured for most of the season. And before she was officially tagged as injured (cartilege), she was trying to play through the injury. It's tough enough to make the transition to PG in the WNBA when you're healthy. When you're injured, you can imagine how it would be. Not great analysis to say a player that got injured had a terrible season performance-wise and therefore wasn't worthy of her draft position.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/27/16 4:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
Oh, Banham is comparable to KML? That's a good one. KML's biggest problem is conditioning, which she hasn't acknowledged as a problem. |
If you think for one millisecond that's Lewis's " biggest problem" there is zero point in even trying to discuss this with you.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/27/16 4:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| I expect Plum to be a lottery pick. I wish Wiese would fall to Atlanta. |
How high do you see her possibly going since you want her to fall? Or, how low did you have her going at this point? Like I said, I think she has a really interesting case. |
I really don't know. I haven't put much thought into this draft. I like Wiese.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/27/16 5:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
Having seen a little of both of them leading up to this year's draft, I don't think Plum has the same level of clear limitations as Banham. She's more viable as a defender, and more capable as a primary ballhandler. I'd have taken her above Banham without any hesitation this year, never mind with another year of development under her belt.
I kept saying in the build up to the draft that someone like Tiffany Mitchell was more likely to have an immediate impact in the WNBA than Banham, because you could see how the skills would translate. She hit the 'rookie wall' hard eventually, but there were a whole raft of analogues for Mitchell while you had to think hard for anyone who worked out in the WNBA that matched to Banham. It might take Plum a little while to translate to the pros as well, but I like her more than Banham. |
I do think she's a little quicker than Banham, but I'm not sure she's enough quicker to make a difference. She's still likely to struggle defending an opposing shooting guard.
That she's marginally better than Banham doesn't really translate to her prospects being enough better to warrant a lottery selection.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63762
Back to top |
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63762
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/29/16 4:22 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Wings receive third pick in WNBA draft but chance for Dallas to trade up remains
http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/other-sports/wnba/2016/09/28/wings-receive-third-pick-wnba-draft-chance-dallas-trade-remains
| Quote: |
| “You never know how the balls are going to bounce,” coach Fred Williams said, “but we can get a nice pick there at the three position.” |
| Quote: |
| The Wings also hold the 10th and 11th picks in the draft due to trades with New York and Los Angeles last offseason. |
| Quote: |
| “We’re coming off an 11-win season. The mandate is to improve,” general manager Greg Bibb said. “If that means we need to be aggressive, so be it. We demonstrated that last year when we made a trade to move up a spot to improve our chances to select Aerial Powers.” |
They really want to move up? Do they want to arbitrarily move up or do they have somebody they rate higher than #3 already in mind? This Bibb guy seems to blow a lot of smoke to make it sound like he knows what he's doing. He moved up one spot last year. Big deal.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63762
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/29/16 6:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
2017 1st Round Order
1. San Antonio
2. Washington
3. Dallas
4. Los Angeles (via Connecticut)
5. Phoenix
6. Seattle
7. Atlanta
8. Indiana
9. Chicago
10. Dallas (via New York)
11. Dallas (via Los Angeles)
12. Minnesota
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22474
Location: NJ
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/29/16 6:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| If Kelsey Mitchell enters, she the #1 lock. Then DeSheilds at #2, Coates at #3. What LA does is a mystery.
_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
TotalCardinalMove
Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1466
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/29/16 7:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| toad455 wrote: |
| If Kelsey Mitchell enters, she the #1 lock. Then DeSheilds at #2, Coates at #3. What LA does is a mystery. |
Mitchell? Since when was she eligible to enter? How old is she?
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22474
Location: NJ
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/29/16 7:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| toad455 wrote: |
| If Kelsey Mitchell enters, she the #1 lock. Then DeSheilds at #2, Coates at #3. What LA does is a mystery. |
Mitchell? Since when was she eligible to enter? How old is she? |
from the "Draft Lottery" thread:
| Richyyy wrote: |
Mitchell's eligible to come out next year anyway, judging by what I can find for her birthdate.
On a separate note, the lottery draw itself - ping-pong balls, machine, accountants and all - is on the website in full: http://www.wnba.com/video/draft-lottery-results-2017/ . Why they didn't show it last night, I have no idea. It's only five minutes long, and it's at least as interesting as Ruth Riley avoiding answering any questions. |
_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
basketballologist
Joined: 05 Aug 2013
Posts: 354
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/29/16 11:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
2017 1st Round Order
1. San Antonio
Kelsey Mitchell, Ohio State
2. Washington
Diamond DeShields, Tennessee
3. Dallas
Alaina Coates, South Carolina
4. Los Angeles (via Connecticut)
Victoria Vivians, Mississippi State
5. Phoenix
Kelsey Plum, Washington
6. Seattle
Mercedes Russell, Tennessee
7. Atlanta
Makayla Epps, Kentucky
8. Indiana
Shatori Walker-Kimbrough, Maryland
9. Chicago
Sydney Wiese, Oregon State
10. Dallas (via New York)
Brionna Jones, Maryland
11. Dallas (via Los Angeles)
Nia Coffey, Northwestern
12. Minnesota
Nina Davis, Baylor |
|
|
TotalCardinalMove
Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1466
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/30/16 12:36 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| toad455 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| toad455 wrote: |
| If Kelsey Mitchell enters, she the #1 lock. Then DeSheilds at #2, Coates at #3. What LA does is a mystery. |
Mitchell? Since when was she eligible to enter? How old is she? |
from the "Draft Lottery" thread:
| Richyyy wrote: |
Mitchell's eligible to come out next year anyway, judging by what I can find for her birthdate.
On a separate note, the lottery draw itself - ping-pong balls, machine, accountants and all - is on the website in full: http://www.wnba.com/video/draft-lottery-results-2017/ . Why they didn't show it last night, I have no idea. It's only five minutes long, and it's at least as interesting as Ruth Riley avoiding answering any questions. |
|
Highly doubt she'll declare. Probably a better chance Vivians declares compared to Mitchell.
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24348
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/30/16 12:57 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| toad455 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| toad455 wrote: |
| If Kelsey Mitchell enters, she the #1 lock. Then DeSheilds at #2, Coates at #3. What LA does is a mystery. |
Mitchell? Since when was she eligible to enter? How old is she? |
from the "Draft Lottery" thread:
| Richyyy wrote: |
Mitchell's eligible to come out next year anyway, judging by what I can find for her birthdate.
On a separate note, the lottery draw itself - ping-pong balls, machine, accountants and all - is on the website in full: http://www.wnba.com/video/draft-lottery-results-2017/ . Why they didn't show it last night, I have no idea. It's only five minutes long, and it's at least as interesting as Ruth Riley avoiding answering any questions. |
|
I think he means she's eligible for 2018. |
No, he doesn't. Only thing I could find listing a birthdate for Mitchell was here - http://pressprosmagazine.com/and-a-child-shall-lead-them/ - which puts it in 1995, which makes her eligible for the 2017 draft if she wants to declare. Her page at USA Basketball has her at 20 in May this year, which fits with that, although obviously isn't conclusive.
Bizarre how hard it was to find a date. Kelsey Mitchell from Michigan would've been much easier, funnily enough. |
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22474
Location: NJ
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/30/16 6:00 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| so the only things to possibly make this draft interesting is if Mitchell, Vivians & DeShields declare early.
_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
TotalCardinalMove
Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1466
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/30/16 7:44 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| toad455 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| toad455 wrote: |
| If Kelsey Mitchell enters, she the #1 lock. Then DeSheilds at #2, Coates at #3. What LA does is a mystery. |
Mitchell? Since when was she eligible to enter? How old is she? |
from the "Draft Lottery" thread:
| Richyyy wrote: |
Mitchell's eligible to come out next year anyway, judging by what I can find for her birthdate.
On a separate note, the lottery draw itself - ping-pong balls, machine, accountants and all - is on the website in full: http://www.wnba.com/video/draft-lottery-results-2017/ . Why they didn't show it last night, I have no idea. It's only five minutes long, and it's at least as interesting as Ruth Riley avoiding answering any questions. |
|
I think he means she's eligible for 2018. |
No, he doesn't. Only thing I could find listing a birthdate for Mitchell was here - http://pressprosmagazine.com/and-a-child-shall-lead-them/ - which puts it in 1995, which makes her eligible for the 2017 draft if she wants to declare. Her page at USA Basketball has her at 20 in May this year, which fits with that, although obviously isn't conclusive.
Bizarre how hard it was to find a date. Kelsey Mitchell from Michigan would've been much easier, funnily enough. |
Yeah, I did some more searching and Ohio State's Mitchell turned 18 in November of 2013.
|
|
Davis4632
Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 861
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/30/16 8:09 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Why would SA take Mitchell when they already have Jefferson and as for moment Robinson? That's short backcourt.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63762
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/30/16 8:41 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Davis4632 wrote: |
| Why would SA take Mitchell when they already have Jefferson and as for moment Robinson? That's short backcourt. |
More teams would likely be interested in Mitchell in a trade. Higher trade value. She could play off the ball too. That would put McBride back at SF, and DRob on the definite trade block unless she's cool with being a backup. Having DRob and Currie off the bench and suddenly SAN has great perimeter depth. But SAN really could use some help at the post, although I'm not sure how much this draft helps address that. If Russell has a great year and declares, she may be too hard to pass up (trade down?). Maybe SAN is better off addressing the post situation through free agency? Maybe with Hughes gone and the hype of having #1 pick, SAN becomes a more attractive FA tatget? A bit of a stretch, I know.
|
|
|
|
