| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dtsnms
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 18815
Back to top |
 Posted: 03/29/16 1:15 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| root_thing wrote: |
| J-Spoon wrote: |
Also in regard to Copper, this board seems to love her, but she seems to be very under the radar with a lot of the folks who report on the W and make mock drafts, best players lists, etc, could our board be wrong about her? What is it about her game that so many people hear like? Is she simply a victom of Rutgers not having a lot of success this season? (that didn't stop Hamby from being drafted high) or could she fall in the draft to a lower spot that this board is preditcing then become the steal of the draft, sort of the Hayes or R. Williams proving the board was right all along? |
On the Lynx site, Copper is one of 15 people with her picture shown. Most of the other players are widely being discussed as 1st Rounders, so I assume they're suggesting Copper is likely to be a top 15 pick.
http://lynx.wnba.com/draft-central/
The players who usually get attention are either on good teams or put up huge numbers. Copper doesn't fall into either category. Looking at the players you mentioned, Hamby led the ACC in scoring and rebounding as a junior and was near or at the top in her senior year. She was hard to ignore. Williams hurt her stock by getting kicked off the team right before the NCAA Tournament. Hayes was a complicated situation. Hartley struggled with an injury that season and didn't play well. This caused Geno to move the ballhandling duties over to Hayes. Tiff isn't a PG, so at times it made her look bad. That's probably not the only reason Hayes dropped, but I think it was a factor. |
Every year somebody becomes the RebKell superstar. The person this boards swears is unbelievably talented and is being overlooked by everyone.
I believe Smith from Illinois was one. I'm sure pilight & Queenie can remember more.
Copper is this year's RebKell Superstar. Whether she has a pro career superior to other RebKell Superstars is to be determined.
However I think many here overestimate her skill level and ability to improve. And I thought she was going to be a star this year.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 67130
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/29/16 1:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| root_thing wrote: |
On the Lynx site, Copper is one of 15 people with her picture shown. Most of the other players are widely being discussed as 1st Rounders, so I assume they're suggesting Copper is likely to be a top 15 pick.
|
Last year they included Elem Ibiam, who went undrafted, but left out Cheyenne Parker and Ally Malott, both first rounders.
_________________
I'm sick and tired of the stories that you always tell
Shakespeare couldn't tell a story that well
See, you're the largest liar that was ever created
You and Pinocchio are probably related
Full of criss-crossed fits, you lie all the time
Your tongue should be embarrassed, you're a threat to mankind
|
|
TotalCardinalMove
Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1467
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/29/16 1:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| dtsnms wrote: |
| toad455 wrote: |
| PUmatty wrote: |
| Shades wrote: |
| The commentator for tonight's UConn game said "all reports have [Tuck] coming out this year." |
If that's true, I wonder if the UConn players go 1, 2 and 3. I would guess they do. |
possibly, but I think San Antonio would benefit more with Banham, then Tuck & Jefferson could go #3 & #4 to Connecticut. |
Look, let's get this out of the way once and for all (not just toad).
After 23 pages of good, bad and ugly ideas....
Stewart and Jefferson are 1-2. Period. End of story. Anyone thinking to the contrary is mistaken. Especially with Robinson having surgery.
Not one person I have spoken to says anything other than Jefferson at two.
In fact many I spoke to don't have Banham in the top four. She could still be there and as a Sun fan it's okay with me, but she is not going 1 or 2 or everything I have heard from everyone is totally wrong. |
X_______________ THIS!
|
|
UofDel_Alum
Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Posts: 3979
Location: Delaware
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/29/16 2:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
This is only my fourth draft that I have gone thru. It seems to me that the first round is the deepest in talent that I have seen. I am excited to see the top six pics are really going to help teams that need the talent and as a result is going to make the WNBA just better and interesting to watch.
Am I mistaken about this years draft. Would like to hear other views.
|
|
lynxmania
Joined: 18 Feb 2011
Posts: 10697
Location: Minnesota
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/29/16 2:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| dtsnms wrote: |
Stewart and Jefferson are 1-2. Period. End of story. Anyone thinking to the contrary is mistaken. Especially with Robinson having surgery.
Not one person I have spoken to says anything other than Jefferson at two.
In fact many I spoke to don't have Banham in the top four. She could still be there and as a Sun fan it's okay with me, but she is not going 1 or 2 or everything I have heard from everyone is totally wrong. |
Agreed about Stewart and Jefferson going 1-2.
Just curious, who they have as the 4th player? I'm assuming it's the UConn Trio and someone? Mitchell?
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 67130
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/29/16 2:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| UofDel_Alum wrote: |
This is only my fourth draft that I have gone thru. It seems to me that the first round is the deepest in talent that I have seen. I am excited to see the top six pics are really going to help teams that need the talent and as a result is going to make the WNBA just better and interesting to watch.
Am I mistaken about this years draft. Would like to hear other views. |
This is a good, deep draft.
_________________
I'm sick and tired of the stories that you always tell
Shakespeare couldn't tell a story that well
See, you're the largest liar that was ever created
You and Pinocchio are probably related
Full of criss-crossed fits, you lie all the time
Your tongue should be embarrassed, you're a threat to mankind
|
|
TotalCardinalMove
Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1467
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/29/16 2:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| lynxmania wrote: |
| dtsnms wrote: |
Stewart and Jefferson are 1-2. Period. End of story. Anyone thinking to the contrary is mistaken. Especially with Robinson having surgery.
Not one person I have spoken to says anything other than Jefferson at two.
In fact many I spoke to don't have Banham in the top four. She could still be there and as a Sun fan it's okay with me, but she is not going 1 or 2 or everything I have heard from everyone is totally wrong. |
Agreed about Stewart and Jefferson going 1-2.
Just curious, who they have as the 4th player? I'm assuming it's the UConn Trio and someone? Mitchell? |
I would think Williams from USF
|
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18066
Location: Queens
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/29/16 6:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Same old kvetches with the Excelle draft: Fagbenle is not a first-round pick, Podkowa shouldn't go that high, we don't know if Powers is coming out, there's at least one red-flagged player in the first round who will drop like a rock, that's not how you spell Tabatha, and that's not how you spell Moseley.
_________________
Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/29/16 7:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| root_thing wrote: |
On the Lynx site, Copper is one of 15 people with her picture shown. Most of the other players are widely being discussed as 1st Rounders, so I assume they're suggesting Copper is likely to be a top 15 pick.
|
Last year they included Elem Ibiam, who went undrafted, but left out Cheyenne Parker and Ally Malott, both first rounders. |
I didn't say they would be right. J-Spoon asked why sources outside of Rebkell were not mentioning Copper, so I provided an example. Also, I seem to remember last year's information went up a lot earlier, and it was not regularly updated -- if at all.
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22478
Location: NJ
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/29/16 7:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| lynxmania wrote: |
| dtsnms wrote: |
Stewart and Jefferson are 1-2. Period. End of story. Anyone thinking to the contrary is mistaken. Especially with Robinson having surgery.
Not one person I have spoken to says anything other than Jefferson at two.
In fact many I spoke to don't have Banham in the top four. She could still be there and as a Sun fan it's okay with me, but she is not going 1 or 2 or everything I have heard from everyone is totally wrong. |
Agreed about Stewart and Jefferson going 1-2.
Just curious, who they have as the 4th player? I'm assuming it's the UConn Trio and someone? Mitchell? |
I would think Williams from USF |
nope. should be Powers if she's entering the draft. Otherwise the Top 4 should be: Stewart, Jefferson, Banham, Tuck.
_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
TotalCardinalMove
Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1467
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/29/16 7:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| toad455 wrote: |
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| lynxmania wrote: |
| dtsnms wrote: |
Stewart and Jefferson are 1-2. Period. End of story. Anyone thinking to the contrary is mistaken. Especially with Robinson having surgery.
Not one person I have spoken to says anything other than Jefferson at two.
In fact many I spoke to don't have Banham in the top four. She could still be there and as a Sun fan it's okay with me, but she is not going 1 or 2 or everything I have heard from everyone is totally wrong. |
Agreed about Stewart and Jefferson going 1-2.
Just curious, who they have as the 4th player? I'm assuming it's the UConn Trio and someone? Mitchell? |
I would think Williams from USF |
nope. should be Powers if she's entering the draft. Otherwise the Top 4 should be: Stewart, Jefferson, Banham, Tuck. |
I don't think Powers is coming out, she could but she's not as likely as Tuck. Also, what makes Banham a lottery pick and not USF Williams? Williams is more athletic, can score just as well, has tremendous elevation, and has actually played in a man to man defense on the regular. There's more to evaluating a prospect than the points she puts up.
The question was, if most don't even have Banham in the top 4, then who else could it be? Courtney Williams is someone that could very well end up being taken at 4, will she for sure? Who knows, but she has just as good of a chance as Mitchell or Banham, if not a better one.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63942
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/29/16 8:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| dtsnms wrote: |
| root_thing wrote: |
| J-Spoon wrote: |
Also in regard to Copper, this board seems to love her, but she seems to be very under the radar with a lot of the folks who report on the W and make mock drafts, best players lists, etc, could our board be wrong about her? What is it about her game that so many people hear like? Is she simply a victom of Rutgers not having a lot of success this season? (that didn't stop Hamby from being drafted high) or could she fall in the draft to a lower spot that this board is preditcing then become the steal of the draft, sort of the Hayes or R. Williams proving the board was right all along? |
On the Lynx site, Copper is one of 15 people with her picture shown. Most of the other players are widely being discussed as 1st Rounders, so I assume they're suggesting Copper is likely to be a top 15 pick.
http://lynx.wnba.com/draft-central/
The players who usually get attention are either on good teams or put up huge numbers. Copper doesn't fall into either category. Looking at the players you mentioned, Hamby led the ACC in scoring and rebounding as a junior and was near or at the top in her senior year. She was hard to ignore. Williams hurt her stock by getting kicked off the team right before the NCAA Tournament. Hayes was a complicated situation. Hartley struggled with an injury that season and didn't play well. This caused Geno to move the ballhandling duties over to Hayes. Tiff isn't a PG, so at times it made her look bad. That's probably not the only reason Hayes dropped, but I think it was a factor. |
Every year somebody becomes the RebKell superstar. |
Did you intend to quote J-Spoon, because you're quoting one of the several people that like her.
| dtsnms wrote: |
| The person this boards swears is unbelievably talented and is being overlooked by everyone. |
There's more than one voice to "this board".
| dtsnms wrote: |
| I believe Smith from Illinois was one. |
I only remember one person liking her. Myrtle, I think it was. And maybe bullsky since he's an Illinois fan. I hope you're not going down that "this board has been wrong before" route. (Angel Robinson)
| dtsnms wrote: |
| Copper is this year's RebKell Superstar. |
I don't believe thinking a player is worthy of bottom first round, upper second makes them a claimed "superstar". And what does Lynx Central have to do with this board? I've only seen two places that don't care for Copper. One is Draftsite.com, and they overlook a lot of things. They're really not into the WNBA. They only cover the WNBA so they can claim complete professional sports coverage. [edit: I just noticed that draftsite.com now has Copper at #9. They initially had her at like #37] The other one that doesn't seem to care for Copper is your buddy Megdal, and most people agree he's greener than the Liberty's new uniforms. He doesn't give a rhyme or reason why he has her ranked so low. For all we know, he used draftsite.com as a reference and deferred to their "expertise". In general, Megdal's mock drafts have improved, but probably because he's been hanging around here or else he's getting A LOT of negative feedback on his previous mocks.
| dtsnms wrote: |
| However I think many here overestimate her skill level and ability to improve. And I thought she was going to be a star this year. |
If she had a better team around her, she'd probably be considered a star.
Her senior stats aren't all that dissimilar to Weisner, who people are going gaga over.
As far as improving, I remember saying that if she added a three point shot to her game, I'd really like her as a prospect. That's what she did. That's not improving? She's been very selective about taking them, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63942
Back to top |
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22478
Location: NJ
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/30/16 8:41 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| I've noticed both Tuck & Powers have been added. I guess they must have inside info that Powers is set to declare for the draft. Also, why list Jones, Hamblin & Bulgak & not Boyette??
_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63942
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/30/16 9:21 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| toad455 wrote: |
| I've noticed both Tuck & Powers have been added. I guess they must have inside info that Powers is set to declare for the draft. |
Was that sarcasm? They're probably making an assumption, just like anybody else who has put her in a mock draft.
| toad455 wrote: |
| Also, why list Jones, Hamblin & Bulgak & not Boyette?? |
It either means they don't really appreciate her, or she's the one they really want. Perhaps they don't have much hope of her being there at #10. No Stewart, no Jefferson, no Banham.
We also don't know if Pokey is supplying these names or if it's some intern doing his own research. I suppose some more names could be added closer to the draft.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22478
Location: NJ
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/30/16 9:27 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| toad455 wrote: |
| I've noticed both Tuck & Powers have been added. I guess they must have inside info that Powers is set to declare for the draft. |
| Shades wrote: |
| Was that sarcasm? They're probably making an assumption, just like anybody else who has put her in a mock draft. |
no, I just assumed a WNBA team would have info on players declaring early.
_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
dtsnms
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 18815
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/30/16 9:49 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
| dtsnms wrote: |
| root_thing wrote: |
| J-Spoon wrote: |
Also in regard to Copper, this board seems to love her, but she seems to be very under the radar with a lot of the folks who report on the W and make mock drafts, best players lists, etc, could our board be wrong about her? What is it about her game that so many people hear like? Is she simply a victom of Rutgers not having a lot of success this season? (that didn't stop Hamby from being drafted high) or could she fall in the draft to a lower spot that this board is preditcing then become the steal of the draft, sort of the Hayes or R. Williams proving the board was right all along? |
On the Lynx site, Copper is one of 15 people with her picture shown. Most of the other players are widely being discussed as 1st Rounders, so I assume they're suggesting Copper is likely to be a top 15 pick.
http://lynx.wnba.com/draft-central/
The players who usually get attention are either on good teams or put up huge numbers. Copper doesn't fall into either category. Looking at the players you mentioned, Hamby led the ACC in scoring and rebounding as a junior and was near or at the top in her senior year. She was hard to ignore. Williams hurt her stock by getting kicked off the team right before the NCAA Tournament. Hayes was a complicated situation. Hartley struggled with an injury that season and didn't play well. This caused Geno to move the ballhandling duties over to Hayes. Tiff isn't a PG, so at times it made her look bad. That's probably not the only reason Hayes dropped, but I think it was a factor. |
Every year somebody becomes the RebKell superstar. |
Did you intend to quote J-Spoon, because you're quoting one of the several people that like her.
| dtsnms wrote: |
| The person this boards swears is unbelievably talented and is being overlooked by everyone. |
There's more than one voice to "this board".
| dtsnms wrote: |
| I believe Smith from Illinois was one. |
I only remember one person liking her. Myrtle, I think it was. And maybe bullsky since he's an Illinois fan. I hope you're not going down that "this board has been wrong before" route. (Angel Robinson)
| dtsnms wrote: |
| Copper is this year's RebKell Superstar. |
I don't believe thinking a player is worthy of bottom first round, upper second makes them a claimed "superstar". And what does Lynx Central have to do with this board? I've only seen two places that don't care for Copper. One is Draftsite.com, and they overlook a lot of things. They're really not into the WNBA. They only cover the WNBA so they can claim complete professional sports coverage. [edit: I just noticed that draftsite.com now has Copper at #9. They initially had her at like #37] The other one that doesn't seem to care for Copper is your buddy Megdal, and most people agree he's greener than the Liberty's new uniforms. He doesn't give a rhyme or reason why he has her ranked so low. For all we know, he used draftsite.com as a reference and deferred to their "expertise". In general, Megdal's mock drafts have improved, but probably because he's been hanging around here or else he's getting A LOT of negative feedback on his previous mocks.
| dtsnms wrote: |
| However I think many here overestimate her skill level and ability to improve. And I thought she was going to be a star this year. |
If she had a better team around her, she'd probably be considered a star.
Her senior stats aren't all that dissimilar to Weisner, who people are going gaga over.
As far as improving, I remember saying that if she added a three point shot to her game, I'd really like her as a prospect. That's what she did. That's not improving? She's been very selective about taking them, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
|
Final thought. Shades if you spent as much time really doing your homework as you did dissecting other people's posts and looking for some secret dark innuendo you might actually get somewhere.
|
|
dtsnms
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 18815
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/30/16 9:51 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
It either means they don't really appreciate her, or she's the one they really want. Perhaps they don't have much hope of her being there at #10. No Stewart, no Jefferson, no Banham.
|
Or it means something totally unrelated to anything and you're busy looking for mysterious dark innuendo again.
|
|
jlight
Joined: 26 Feb 2014
Posts: 2516
Location: minny
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/30/16 2:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
@shades Minnesota played man 2 man defense before 2014-2015 season right?
some peeps here actin like banham never played man 2 man defense.
_________________
#DosLynx
#mayaclinic
"It's not necessarily about out-working the person across from me. It's out-working that voice inside me that says, "I'm too tired. I don't feel like doing it. I can settle." - Maya Moore.
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/30/16 4:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Here is my state of confusion as it stands now. Instead of trying to figure out who goes where, I just put in the range where I think a player will fall. For example. Stewart will go first, Jefferson 2nd or 3rd. Beyond that its very hard to call, but here it is. I'm assuming Powers does not enter the draft. If she does, she is a 4-6 and most of the players below that move down a notch. (I've made no effort to see that this is mathematical possible).
1. Stewart 1
2 Jefferson 2-3
3. Tuck 3-4
4. Banham 4-9
5. Mitchell 4-6
6. C Williams USF 5-11
7. Jones 5-11
8. Boyette 5-10
9. Hamblin 9-13
10. Copper 9-16
11. Niya Johnson 11-16
12. Weisner 11-16
13. Bulgak 14-18
14. C. Walker 10-18
15. Holmes 12-18
16. Alston 13-18
17. Alleyne 11-18
18. Graves Over 15
Note that the order is only indicative of the players rank compared to all the rest, but doesn't necessarily mean they go in that order since teams draft on need to some extent.
|
|
PRballer
Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 2562
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/30/16 4:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Ruth's performance on Sunday against UConn will have a direct correlation to where she gets drafted, IMHO.
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/30/16 7:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| PRballer wrote: |
| Ruth's performance on Sunday against UConn will have a direct correlation to where she gets drafted, IMHO. |
Probably true for Weisner as well. UConn has a way of shutting down the opposing team's best player(s).
Then again, if Boyette is the competition for Hamblin, she did not have much of a game against UConn either.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63942
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/30/16 8:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Randy, there are no spreads in Mock Draft.
There's a flaw in putting 2-3 on Jefferson. What happens if Jefferson goes 3? You have nobody covering 2.
_________________
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: 03/30/16 8:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Randy wrote: |
Probably true for Weisner as well. UConn has a way of shutting down the opposing team's best player(s). |
People were dazzled by Weisner's 38 points against DePaul, but they forget she only scored 2 points against Troy in the first round. I like Weisner, but she tries to do too much. The risk for Jamie is shutting herself down -- taking bad shots and dribbling into traffic. All season long, she has gone one-on-one, dribbled into the paint, then picked up her dribble. Mostly she got away with it, but as we saw on Monday it's deadly against good teams (7 TOs). It will be even deadlier against UConn. She needs to be a lot smarter on Sunday.
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911
Back to top |
|
|
|
There are spreads if I want to put them in. I could instead post about 5-10 mocks. As I said, this represents my current state of confusion....