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

2017 WNBA Mock Draft
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 35, 36, 37  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 42811



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/07/16 6:39 pm    ::: 2017 WNBA Mock Draft Reply Reply with quote

Draftsite.com has a first round up for 2017 WNBA Draft

http://www.draftsite.com/wnba/mock-draft/2017/



Some guy named Gentry Worthington has been doing these for Draftsite.com. I think he comes from the SEA fan base. I agree about DeShields declaring early. She fits the mold. I'm not too focused on this draft yet to get too mad at anything yet. His draft order projections are pretty feasible. I'm a little skeptical at this point about Cooper as a first rounder, and certainly not above Jones.

Prominent eligibles:
Lexie Brown
Jordin Canada
Rebekah Dahlman (if she improves)
Kaela Davis
Diamond DeShields
Allisha Gray
Rebecca Greenwell
Kelsey Mitchell
Jamie Nared
Mercedes Russell
Victoria Vivians
(Any underclassman born in 1995)


2017 1st Round Order
1. San Antonio
2. Chicago (via Washington)
3. Dallas
4. Dallas (via Los Angeles)
5. San Antonio (via Phoenix)
6. Washington (via Seattle)
7. Atlanta
8. Indiana
9. Chicago
10. Dallas (via New York)
11. Los Angeles (via Dallas)
12. Minnesota




Last edited by Shades on 02/17/17 3:23 pm; edited 7 times in total
Lib Fan



Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 4106
Location: New York City


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/07/16 6:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Might this be a tad early ?



_________________
Go Liberty 2011
toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 13457



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/07/16 6:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

by doing this, he's also predicted his standings for 2016.

EAST
1. New York
2. Connecticut
3. Chicago
4. Indiana
5. Washington
6. Atlanta

WEST
1. Phoenix
2. Los Angeles
3. Minnesota
4. Dallas
5. Seattle
6. San Antonio



_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 14928
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/07/16 6:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Way too early, but I still don't want Cooper. Seems like every time I heard her name last season it had to do with her being a jackass.



_________________
If you can't see, stand up.

If you think it's too loud, you're not loud enough.
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 19933



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/07/16 7:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Weise homecoming to Phoenix would make her very happy I'm sure.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
colt13



Joined: 25 Sep 2009
Posts: 616



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/07/16 7:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Lib Fan wrote:
Might this be a tad early ?


It is, but I will admit my sleeper for next year is Ellen Nystrom from Colorado State aka the one who is breaking Becky Hammon's records.


root_thing



Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 3764
Location: Underground


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/07/16 8:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It's relevant in a general way. If you're thinking of packaging picks to use in a trade or if you're a team that has a crowded roster and you're considering swapping this year's pick for one next season, then it's good to know the overall quality of the 2017 draft class. I put together a quick and dirty list of 30 players recently, and my initial take is that the 2017 draft will be similar to 2016 -- minus the one superstar. There will be interesting players all the way down to the 3rd Round, but there aren't likely to be people who generate a huge amount of excitement.


NYL_WNBA_FAN



Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 11050



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/10/16 4:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Scaife is good. Very good.



_________________
The poster formerly known as LibWNBAFan.
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 42811



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/09/16 12:17 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Eager beaver bump



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 13457



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/09/16 9:00 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If San Antonio gets the #1 pick, they better draft Coates. Appel's on her way out.



_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11075



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/09/16 9:12 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

toad455 wrote:
If San Antonio gets the #1 pick, they better draft Coates. Appel's on her way out.


I'm not clear on why Coates would be ahead of Maryland's Jones, much less nine spots ahead.

Well, we (and the teams) get another full year of watching them before they need to decide.


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 19933



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/09/16 10:22 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
toad455 wrote:
If San Antonio gets the #1 pick, they better draft Coates. Appel's on her way out.


I'm not clear on why Coates would be ahead of Maryland's Jones, much less nine spots ahead.

Well, we (and the teams) get another full year of watching them before they need to decide.


agreed



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 19933



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/09/16 10:25 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

...and unless something major changes Nina Davis is not a first round pick. She's way too small for the PF and hasn't shown any kind of a shot for a SF.



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 42811



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/09/16 11:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

toad455 wrote:
If San Antonio gets the #1 pick, they better draft Coates. Appel's on her way out.


They're probably hoping to get the #2 pick so they don't have to decide between DeShields and Coates. With #1, maybe they go DeShields and wait for Wilson in 2018. SAN is going to be down awhile so they can plan ahead like that.

What's a better combination, Coates and Kelsey Mitchell or DeShields and Wilson?



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



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 42811



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/09/16 11:58 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

myrtle wrote:
...and unless something major changes Nina Davis is not a first round pick. She's way too small for the PF and hasn't shown any kind of a shot for a SF.


No way she's not a first rounder. Mark this post, myrtle.

Your reasoning isn't that bad, but this isn't a great draft and Davis is one of the top college talents. She has unquestionable hustle. Somebody definitely takes a shot at her in the first round.

With Mulkey adding starter quality Cox to her lineup, and improvement coming from her freshman bigs, Davis will definitely have to earn her keep at the SF. I anticipate Mulkey has given Davis instructions on what to work on in the offseason.



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



Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 990



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/09/16 12:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
toad455 wrote:
If San Antonio gets the #1 pick, they better draft Coates. Appel's on her way out.


They're probably hoping to get the #2 pick so they don't have to decide between DeShields and Coates. With #1, maybe they go DeShields and wait for Wilson in 2018. SAN is going to be down awhile so they can plan ahead like that.

What's a better combination, Coates and Kelsey Mitchell or DeShields and Wilson?


I know she had she an injury, but I'll have to see how well DeShields plays in a halfcourt offense. From what I've seen, there were times she looked rather average and others where she looked great. Could just be the team she's on? Coates isn't that great offensively yet, that can be learned but I'm not sure she'll be taken first. I'd rather DeShields. But, in our offense she would have to play the 3 in order to start. If SA gets the first pick, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to trade it for a good offer.

I also think Wiese is going to surprise some and have a solid senior campaign stats wise, wouldn't be surprised to see her go a little bit higher than 12.


Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 5676



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/09/16 1:55 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I agree about SA might make a trade (should the lottery actually give them the first pick.). Diamond may stay another year, though I'd guess its reasonable to think she might come out. She hasn't really impressed me that much though and SA already has a good trio in Robinson, McBride and Jefferson. They have far greater needs than she can fill.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 8028



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/09/16 5:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So the Coates-Jones comparison is interesting:

Coates: 63.4% shooting, 56.3% FT, 10.1 rpg, 31/50 A/TO, 43 blocks
Jones: 66.5% shooting, 63.5% FT, 9.8 rpg, 39/84 A/TO, 40 blocks

So Jones shoots it a little better but turns it over a bit more.

The only thing that I get from the eye test is that Coates looks longer as well as taller -- that is, I think she's close to the 6-4 she's listed at, and has a wide wingspan. Jones doesn't look to be 6-3, and doesn't have those long arms.

Coates looks like she can gain strength as time goes on, and Jones looked a little soft, so there may be weight issues.

I would go with Coates because of size, I think, but really, there's not much to choose here. Steak or ice cream ...



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
blaase22



Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 3399
Location: Paradise


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/09/16 6:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
myrtle wrote:
...and unless something major changes Nina Davis is not a first round pick. She's way too small for the PF and hasn't shown any kind of a shot for a SF.


No way she's not a first rounder. Mark this post, myrtle.

Your reasoning isn't that bad, but this isn't a great draft and Davis is one of the top college talents. She has unquestionable hustle. Somebody definitely takes a shot at her in the first round.

With Mulkey adding starter quality Cox to her lineup, and improvement coming from her freshman bigs, Davis will definitely have to earn her keep at the SF. I anticipate Mulkey has given Davis instructions on what to work on in the offseason.


I could see her getting picked late in the first, but I see her having a hard time making a roster as a 5' 10ish wing with no type of outside shot.


TotalCardinalMove



Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 990



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/16 12:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Isn't Rebecca Greenwell eligible for this draft?


Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 42811



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/16 2:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TotalCardinalMove wrote:
Isn't Rebecca Greenwell eligible for this draft?


I wouldn't think so unless she was born in 1995.



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



Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 990



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/16 3:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.


Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 42811



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/16 3:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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?



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
readyAIMfire53



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 5170
Location: Durham, NC


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/16 4:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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.


Actually she's a redshirt junior, senior academically. There is no way in the world she stays at Duke. Only question is whether she wants a year of paid grad school somewhere else before going to the WNBA. Think of Greenwell like Karima Christmas: you have no way of knowing how she'll do in the WNBA by looking at her Duke stats. Becca's been forced into a variety of roles based on players not sticking at Duke. This year, Duke will be very thin in the post so Becca might be nudged into playing some PF. She's as suited for PF as she is for PG, which means she's neither a PG nor PF. She's excellent at the wing, if she ever gets to play there. NOTE: she did play wing this past season, but the team was imploding so not much can be learned from this. Both Azura' Stevens and Angela Salvadores were completely and thoroughly miserable - and they're not the only ones. Lexie Brown was really the only truly happy player on the roster - and she wasn't playing in games. Becca is one of those Duke players who stayed to get the Duke degree. She won't be playing for McCallie for even one second after getting that degree. Take that to the bank.

I hope that I'm done receiving snarky remarks after posting about the extreme misery at Duke. If I post it, I know it's true. Period. Regarding the coach remaining at Duke, the only thing we know is JPM had a top of the line lawyer negotiating her air tight contract. We also know this contract is sending the DWB program down the tubes and dragging the quality of play of other teams down with it - due to Duke not helping other teams improve by putting them on their schedule.



_________________
Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.

~rAf
root_thing



Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 3764
Location: Underground


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/16 4:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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. Whether she's a 1st Round pick is another story. 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.


TotalCardinalMove



Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 990



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/16 4:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 11075



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/16 4:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 5341
Location: Chicago-ish


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/16 5:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 42811



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/16 5:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 990



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/16 6:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 42811



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/16 6:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 3764
Location: Underground


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/16 6:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 990



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/16 6:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 990



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/16 6:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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 Laughing


Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 42811



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/16 8:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 990



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/16 9:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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. Laughing 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. Laughing Rolling Eyes 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: 42811



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/16 11:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

[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: 990



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/10/16 11:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades, I wish you would've never initiated a discussion in the first place. Laughing 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. Rolling Eyes


sigur3



Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Posts: 5341
Location: Chicago-ish


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/11/16 12:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Laughing Not much has changed around here, I see.



_________________
chicago sky tankwagon 2017
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 42811



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/11/16 1:58 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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? Surprised

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



Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 17253



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/11/16 4:12 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

sigur3 wrote:
Laughing Not much has changed around here, I see.

Not a great deal, although I've been putting on weight for some reason.



_________________
Seems rike no one takes me serirousreee
UofDel_Alum



Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Posts: 3776
Location: Delaware


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/11/16 7:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Luuuc wrote:
sigur3 wrote:
Laughing Not much has changed around here, I see.

Not a great deal, although I've been putting on weight for some reason.


Laughing


stever



Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Posts: 6160
Location: Ann Arbor


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/11/16 12:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

sigur3 wrote:
Laughing Not much has changed around here, I see.


Nope, same punch bowl, same turd.



_________________
Women's Basketball Daily
Celebrating the Women's Game Since 2005
WBBDaily Mobile Edition
Nixtreefan



Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 1123



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/17/16 10:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 1025



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/16 9:08 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 1123



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/16 9:21 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 42811



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/16 9:39 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 11075



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/16 10:42 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
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?


Razz Laughing Laughing Laughing


Jet Jaguar



Joined: 11 Feb 2014
Posts: 1025



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/16 7:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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: 42811



Back to top
PostPosted: 09/04/16 10:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

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
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 1, 2, 3 ... 35, 36, 37  Next
Page 1 of 37

 
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