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

2024 Mock Draft
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11289



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/24 10:33 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

To be clear, I'm not "blaming" Jackson -- just wondering if she will be as effective as a more traditional wing in the W. Obviously it worked really well for her to be in those spots at Tennessee, which doesn't say anything about whether she can operate as a perimeter player.

She's really good, no doubt, but I think the question is how good. If she can transition to a traditional wing position and still score like she has, she will be an all-star. I don't think it's unfair, though, to wonder if she will.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 64088



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/24 11:15 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

No wonder Angel Reese was so quiet about her plans. She gave Vogue the exclusive to the announcement. Business smart.

https://www.vogue.com/article/angel-reese-is-taking-her-talents-to-the-wnba



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



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24452
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/24 11:51 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

For the people that aren't totally convinced about Jackson, I think part of it is precedent. It's always easier to envision a player working out when a similar player, ideally from similar surroundings, has succeeded recently. The last few years we've had these big-ish wing forwards come out of Tennessee (Rennia Davis, Rae Burrell, Jordan Horston), and the results have been... ehhhhh. There've been some mitigating circumstances, but Davis basically has never made the league, Burrell has looked promising for maybe five minutes, and Horston looked okay on a dreadful team while shooting 36%. Jackson looks pretty clearly the best of the bunch, but if you're taking her top-three she better be significantly the best of the bunch.

There's a little bit of tweener to her as well (3? 4?) which always makes GMs a little nervous, and 34% from three this year on low-ish volume - the best outside percentage of her college career apart from her freshman season when she barely shot any - means she's still unproven from outside. So you can't necessarily just pencil her in as a good 3+D wing even if the star potential doesn't work out. I think she'll probably turn out to be pretty good, but I'm with Clay that it's far from a dead cert.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
Milks26



Joined: 25 Mar 2021
Posts: 830



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/24 12:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Richyyy wrote:
Jackson looks pretty clearly the best of the bunch, but if you're taking her top-three she better be significantly the best of the bunch.



Yep, Jackson is the better of the bunch. Honestly, the other 3 got drafted because of where they went to school



_________________
~College WBB & the "W' need other tv networks covering the important stuff...Espn is beyond tired~
Skyfan22



Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Posts: 528



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/24 1:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
To be clear, I'm not "blaming" Jackson -- just wondering if she will be as effective as a more traditional wing in the W. Obviously it worked really well for her to be in those spots at Tennessee, which doesn't say anything about whether she can operate as a perimeter player.

She's really good, no doubt, but I think the question is how good. If she can transition to a traditional wing position and still score like she has, she will be an all-star. I don't think it's unfair, though, to wonder if she will.


Maybe my point wasn’t clear. There is quite a bit of evidence in her 3 years at Miss State and even last year that she played at the 3 point line and although the 3 pointer wasn’t the best her one-2 dribble penetration pull up jumper was very good.

Jackson fans should just hush and hopefully she will be available at the wings at 5.


Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 64088



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/24 6:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

From the New York Post:

Quote:
Reese shared her decision with the magazine in mid-March, when the interview was conducted via Zoom from her off-campus apartment in Baton Rouge.

“Of course, I like to do everything big,” Reese said of her decision to announce the news with a fashion photoshoot with Vogue. “I didn’t want anything to be basic.”

Reese said she was inspired by retired tennis icon Serena Williams, who announced her retirement in the September issue of Vogue in 2022.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
hangtyme24



Joined: 21 May 2006
Posts: 2445



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/24 7:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Skyfan22 wrote:
ClayK wrote:
To be clear, I'm not "blaming" Jackson -- just wondering if she will be as effective as a more traditional wing in the W. Obviously it worked really well for her to be in those spots at Tennessee, which doesn't say anything about whether she can operate as a perimeter player.

She's really good, no doubt, but I think the question is how good. If she can transition to a traditional wing position and still score like she has, she will be an all-star. I don't think it's unfair, though, to wonder if she will.


Maybe my point wasn’t clear. There is quite a bit of evidence in her 3 years at Miss State and even last year that she played at the 3 point line and although the 3 pointer wasn’t the best her one-2 dribble penetration pull up jumper was very good.

Jackson fans should just hush and hopefully she will be available at the wings at 5.


No thanks, this Jackson fan wants Rickea in Hollywood. If the Sparks don't select her #2 I hope they do at #4



_________________
HERE 2 STAY!
WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 12692
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/24 8:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WNBA 09 wrote:
Of all 3 Reese , Beuckers & Clark ...Angel is the most certain to enter the upcoming draft more so than the other 2 based off her own comment's and word of mouth down south. She definitely has time to change her mind , but she won the Nati , become an overnight women's basketball phenom and has the bank account to match. Money sometimes does not matter to players her caliber they have it already .


Shout out to Angel I called this last May when the draft video came out of her saying this year would be her year . In the words of shades “BOOYAH”.



_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
LibFan25



Joined: 01 Sep 2012
Posts: 895
Location: NY


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/24 4:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

There are some good ones that are declaring for the Draft today

As a lib fan im cool with drafting any of these names;

Jefferson (Louisville)
Wheeler (MTSU)
Kitley (V-Tech) (injured)
Martinez (Arizona)
Scott-Grayson (Auburn)
McNeal (East Carolina)
Reese (LSU)
Sheldon (Ohio State)
Pili (Utah)
Jackson (Tennessee)
Correa (Florida)
Taylor (Ohio State)
Brink (Stanford)
Clark (Iowa)

Clark, Brink, Jackson are unrealistic cuz they will be gone. But most of the names I listed could potentially land at 11 for the Liberty 🗽


boogiezen



Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 1082



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/24 9:55 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It's a shame that W only has limited roster spot. Like we're in 2024 and this shit is still the same. I remember it was 2010(?) when they only had like 10 players allowed to play? And with 12 teams now, just simply ridiculous.



_________________
Queen Yuna!

"Kim Yu-Na. A living, breathing work of art from Korea" - Cam Cole, Vancouver Sun
okstateguy



Joined: 18 Feb 2021
Posts: 461
Location: Oklahoma


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/05/24 2:24 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If I'm the Sparks I'm going Cardosa #2 then taking the leftover of Brink or Jackson. They need a strong center, and Brink and Jackson both have games versatile enough to pair with Cardosa.



_________________
okstateguy
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16452
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/05/24 12:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

boogiezen wrote:
It's a shame that W only has limited roster spot. Like we're in 2024 and this shit is still the same. I remember it was 2010(?) when they only had like 10 players allowed to play? And with 12 teams now, just simply ridiculous.


Most teams choose to carry one fewer player than they are allowed.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5176
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/06/24 1:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

okstateguy wrote:
If I'm the Sparks I'm going Cardosa #2 then taking the leftover of Brink or Jackson. They need a strong center, and Brink and Jackson both have games versatile enough to pair with Cardosa.


+1


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11289



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/06/24 9:56 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Watching Aaliyah Edwards, she looks athletic enough, big enough, strong enough and physical enough to survive in the W. But in a small sample size, I haven't seen any midrange game, which will lower her ceiling.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
bballnut901



Joined: 28 Aug 2018
Posts: 50



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/06/24 7:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I feel like her midrange game has regressed compared to a year ago. I think it'll develop in the pros, but it doesn't look pro-ready based on last night


Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24452
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/06/24 9:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I've not seen much offense generally from Edwards, to be honest, outside of hustle points. She's averaged 16-17 points both the last two years, so I assume she has a bit more than that, but she's looked like an energy/defense/screening/rebounding role player to me at the next level. Maybe Naz Hillmon-ish but with an extra inch or two. That's not a useless player by any means, but it's one that has a fair way to go before being more than a low-end starter or good reserve. That's a reasonable result from a mid-first round pick, though, especially if you don't think her floor drops much lower than that.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
snlMINAJ



Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 1253



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/07/24 11:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

i think being the only post player this year has not helped her growth necessarily, but you guys are obviously not watching her for 30-35+ games because she has shown great reliability and comfortability with mid-range game.

she will definitely be all-rookie team barring injury.


mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19926



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/07/24 12:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Watching Aaliyah Edwards, she looks athletic enough, big enough, strong enough and physical enough to survive in the W. But in a small sample size, I haven't seen any midrange game, which will lower her ceiling.


She’s pretty good at hitting the open jumper. She was about 75% on her foul shots.

Aaliyah’s biggest issue at UConn has been That she’s often had to play the Center position where she’s undersized. I’m interested in seeing if the shift to forward will help her.

I’m hoping after her defensive effort, a team takes a shot on Muhl.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie


Last edited by mercfan3 on 04/07/24 2:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
singinerd54



Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 1822
Location: Missouri


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/07/24 1:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Edwards is clearly a power forward in the W, for better and for worse. I agree with mercfan3 and snlMINAJ above that playing as a center was not the ideal situation for her, even in college. She played quite well alongside Dorka.

Cardoso and Kitley are clearly centers. I would definitely take Brink before Edwards. Otherwise, the post competition is filled with tweeners: Are Pili and Jackson small forwards or power forwards? Is Reese a power forward or a center? Relatedly, like Richyyy alluded to, Edwards feels like she has a higher floor than all three of those. ESPN mock draft has her drafted after Jackson and before Pili and Reese, which makes sense to me. Somewhere in the 5-8 range feels reasonable, depending on team need/preference.


Rock Hard



Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Posts: 5477
Location: Chocolate Paradise


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/07/24 4:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Fans have a tendency to have the mentality of what have you done for me lately. What I am alluding to is how many Sparks fans on this board don't want their team to draft Brink. Yes, Brink did not have a dominating overall performance in the tournament, but she has performed well over the entire season. This is just my opinion but she is the best overall post player in this year's draft. She should be the first post taken in the draft. Cardoso is good but Brink is better. I love Cardoso by the way. As a Sky fan, I would be satisfied with any of the lottery quality players in this draft.



_________________
You can win, as long as you keep your head to the SKY! Be OPTIMISTIC!
J-Spoon



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 6833



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/07/24 10:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

LA with 2 and 4 is definitely in a great position to improve their team but will probably have to use some strategy as well

If the general consensus iss correct That Brink, Cardoso and Jackson will be 2, 3, and 4 in some order LA has to figure out what they value the most and what they are willing to risk. Good news any combo of the three will be a pretty good haul for picks 2 and 4, bad news no matter how you play it you are at risk of missing out on a player you want

looking at the three players in question I can make arguments for all 3 at #2

Brink up until very recently was consider the second best player not named Clark (or the 3rd best not named Clark or Bueckers)

Brink has size, great defense is a good two way player and has shown flashes of being able to score at all three levels. Some question her strength at the next level and she had a mid ending to her tourney and career that displayed possible flaws that could translate to the W while the other two were stepping up their game on the highest stage this year. Brink because of her advanced defense and varied offense game has the highest ceiling but you could argue has obstacles to overcome that the others don't

Cardoso looks like a legit center in the W with enough size and strength to compete with anyone. Her rebounding is elite, and she seems to have enough athleticism and speed to avoid the curse that seems to plague most players of her size which is being a little too slow to be useful all the time. It has taken K. Brown a few season to work it out as great as McCowan has been she brings limitations to her team as wel that keeps her minutes closer to 25 than 35 a gamel. Even Camabge who had a three point shot as well as post moves seem to waiver between dominant and not so dominant when player were able to use her size against her. If LA says every top contending team needs a true big center as an option taking Cardoso at #2 isn't a horrible idea. I do not think she has The top potential that Brink has but I also think she already has what she need to be a useful player at the next level and her true center size is undeniable.

Jackson Jackson seem like the least likely to go #2 but I can see LA talking themselves into Jackson's large wing three level scoring potential. There is a question is she a tweeter or a multi positional player but if LA convinces themselves that Jackson pro game is going to be big wing who can drop 20 a night and can post up, drive hit from the mid range and 3 point line or at least has show enough of all those skills that they can be developed there fullest potential I could see going with Jackson. the modern game that is evolving is built around large wings that score Jackson looks the part and can probably deliver that in the W and then you throw in strategy if you take Jackson at 2 you are guaranteed to get one of Brink or Cardoso at 4 I think the combos of Jackson/Brink or Jackson/Cardoso seem more complimentary than the combo of Brink/Cardoso (I am sure Brink Cardoso will be fine but it is easier to envision the Jackson combos.)

Then the final thing to wrestle with it what you think Chicago is looking for. IMO Chicago lost so much offense they should be targeting Jackson at 3, but If LA doesn't take Jackson at 2 (regardless of my opinion) Chicago having to choose between Brink/Jackson or Brink Cardoso seems impossible to predict. Therefor LA has to decide in a weird way who are the two they are most OK with getting either one of. If LA has Cardoso and Brink neck a neck picking Jackson at 2 make the most sense. If LA values one of Brink or Cardoso the most they have to pick them at 2. Or and weirdest of all if LA has them all really close on the boards it doesn't really matter what they do

If this was two week ago I would say

2. Brink
3. Jackson
4. Cardoso

now I really don't know and won't be shocked by any combo
My weird move would be to take Jackson at 2 and let Chicago decide which one of Brink or Cardoso I take at 4
And I can absolutely get on board with going the safe route and taking Cardoso at 2 as she has the fewest question marks and rebuilding around a true center who probably has a pretty safe (barring injury) 5-10 year career ahead of them .


Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24452
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/07/24 11:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

snlMINAJ wrote:
but you guys are obviously not watching [Edwards] for 30-35+ games

This is absolutely true in my case. As I often mention, I just don't watch that much college basketball. That's why I said I presume she has at least a slightly bigger offensive arsenal than I feel like I've seen, because the numbers suggest that. But I can only say what I actually have seen.

Personally, while in most mocks I've seen they're the other way around, I'd be tempted to take Reese ahead of Edwards. There's more risk, but I think the ceiling may well be higher too.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
J-Spoon



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 6833



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/08/24 2:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If Clark, Brink, Cardoso, and Jackson are the lottery picks then

Reese, Edwards and Sheldon are 5, 6 and 7 IMO but who goes where?

I think Reese and Edwards are slightly above Sheldon in terms of talent, W size and athleticism and posts are more valuable than and rarer than SGs but Sheldon has good size and two way game and can play the 1 or the 2. Sheldon IMO will be the next guard off the board after Clark but when does she crash the party?

Dallas has picks 5 and 9 but doesn't really need both picks as The Wings have a lot of depth and have Soares from lasts years draft joining the team as well. Dallas is also deeper up front than on the perimeter (unless Sabally is out for a while due to injury) with Sabally, Howard, McCowan, Brown, Cannon, Siegrist and Soares do they really need a rookie post. Sheldon seems similar to Mabrey who was a great fit with Ogunbowale and can probably fit in a rotation with Arike, Dangerfield, Lopez-Senechel, Burton pretty easily. So while you could argue for Reese or Edwards here Sheldon seems like a better fit and would likely be off the board by the time Dallas picks at 9

Washington TBH I could see Sheldon fitting really well with Washington as well Sheldon, Atkins and Sykes with SWK off the bench seems like a decent rotation. With that said If Dallas takes Sheldon or even if they don't Washington probably needs a young post more than they need Sheldon and both Reese and Edwards makes sense. Reese is a local product and might help with box office, actually Reese is probably the player who will bring the most eyes to any team outside of Clark so if you are trying to raise your teams profile Reese might be the best pick (because of this I could see Chicago at 3 or LA at 4 consider her but I think the other lottery picks still win out). I also think you can pair Reese with Austin, Austin is a center but with some perimeter and guard skill and Reese is really a big wing but with a PF/rebounding close to the basket game so they could probably work off of each other pretty well. The only sticking spot is Is Reese a Mike T/Eric T type of player or would they prefer the style team culture that Edwards brings. If you rank Edwards similar to Reese but question Reese's demeanor I could see just picking Edwards and going with it.

And Minny finds itself in the least stressful but least exciting position of taking whoever Dallas and Washington do not take. Reese and Collier seems like a very interesting pairing, Reese and Edwards also seems like an easy fit and if Dallas and Washington go post Sheldon seems like a nice rotational option ro add to a perimeter of C. Williams, McBride and D. Miller.

ATM I have
5. Sheldon
6. Reese
7. Edwards


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9904



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/08/24 3:52 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WNBA Mock Draft 2.0 - Hunter Cruse


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9904



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/08/24 3:53 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

2024 WNBA Mock Draft 4.0: South Carolina's Kamilla Cardoso moves up after leading Gamecocks to national title




Last edited by tfan on 04/08/24 6:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
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 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 12 of 16

 
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