| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11192
Back to top |
 Posted: 04/08/24 9:06 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
The question, as always, is when a player will stop improving. We can all see where they are now, but the issue is how much more players can add to their game at the W level -- or how much might disappear.
Clark's game, from that perspective, looks complete. She is who is and likely who she will be, which is a more dynamic Sabrina. And since Sabrina's at the all-star level, Clark doesn't need to get a lot better to be very effective in the W. There will be an adjustment period, but shooters always can find a home.
Brink clearly has a position (power forward) and has improved throughout her career. She should get stronger as she gets older, and her shot-blocking is likely to remain elite. The question for her, as with most of the power forward types, is how much her mid-range and three-point game can improve, or regress, in the WNBA.
Cardoso, to me, has the highest ceiling. She has improved enormously in her time in college and is clearly a post. She is tall, strong, physical, reasonably fast and athletic, blocks shots, has good hands and finishes consistently. Since tall players tend to mature late, there's reason to believe she will get better at what she does, and at the highest levels, quality posts are not only the hardest to find, but the most important piece in an elite team. The only question is whether playing with Brazilian national team will interfere much, but in the past, Brazilian players haven't missed a lot of time.
Jackson is the biggest enigma. It's unclear whether the way she scores will translate to the WNBA, but it easily could be that she just took what was given to her, and will do more when faced with better defenses. She's clearly a small forward, and presumably could be a good defender. If Jackson can shoot threes off the bounce, she's going to very hard to guard, but if she's primarily a paint and mid-range scorer, she might have issues against the taller, stronger defenders she'll see. But she might not. Dawn Staley knows a little, and she thinks highly of her (unless she was just trying to make sure she turned pro).
I seldom think it makes sense to draft anyone but the best BPA, so I feel the picks should go in that order. Of course, who will be the best player of this quartet in 2027 isn't all that easy to figure out, but for me, that's what it comes down to.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19806
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/24 9:23 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
| 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. |
I would absolutely take Reese ahead of Edwards - and Edwards is one of my favorite UConn players ever.
IMO, people are nuts with Reese. I think some of her publicity and personality/marketing (and, imo, the girl is a marketing genius) have caused people to underrate her.
She had 20 rebounds on a bum ankle in the biggest game of her career. Like..
IMO, she’s gonna be, at least, the second best player from this draft.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24401
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/24 9:29 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| I seldom think it makes sense to draft anyone but the best BPA |
When you're drafting high, I hate drafting for 'need'. It's not like LA are anything close to being 'one player away' anyway, or that any of the top prospects in this class are particularly incompatible with each other. I don't think they should be worrying about what Chicago are going to do at 3 - just take whoever they consider the best player available at 2, and do the same at 4. I think their dream scenario would be adding Bueckers a year later anyway, so if it takes a while for them to develop their new youngsters, that'd work nicely. |
|
J-Spoon
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 6827
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/24 12:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| I seldom think it makes sense to draft anyone but the best BPA |
When you're drafting high, I hate drafting for 'need'. It's not like LA are anything close to being 'one player away' anyway, or that any of the top prospects in this class are particularly incompatible with each other. I don't think they should be worrying about what Chicago are going to do at 3 - just take whoever they consider the best player available at 2, and do the same at 4. I think their dream scenario would be adding Bueckers a year later anyway, so if it takes a while for them to develop their new youngsters, that'd work nicely. |
Which brings us back to what the last two pages are mostly about “who is the best available player at #2?”
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 67057
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/24 12:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
| When you're drafting high, I hate drafting for 'need'. |
But if you're not drafting high, you're unlikely to be able to fill a 'need' with your pick(s). If later picks work out, it's usually after a few years. The team needs will have changed by then.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24401
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/24 12:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Richyyy wrote: |
| When you're drafting high, I hate drafting for 'need'. |
But if you're not drafting high, you're unlikely to be able to fill a 'need' with your pick(s). If later picks work out, it's usually after a few years. The team needs will have changed by then. |
That's fair, although I don't think it changes my central point. It's only really more important with the higher picks because the opportunity cost there is greater. You're supposed to be getting something out of the #2 pick (in most classes); if you get anything much out of the #9 - and especially if you get anything out of, say, the #17 - you probably got lucky.
So if you're at #2, take the player you think is most likely to be a star; if you're at #9, and you really need a backup center or a role-playing wing, I can understand favouring the relevant type of player. Especially given how much the opportunity to play can affect development and value, and in this league even affect just making the roster. If you already have seven perimeter players locked in to make your roster, taking another with that late-first pick could be a complete waste. |
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16379
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/24 12:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I could be wrong about where the players end up in their careers, but I think it is wild to watch Cardoso play, and the look at the recent centers coming out of South Carolina, and to consider picking anyone else at No. 2.
|
|
singinerd54
Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 1817
Location: Missouri
Back to top |
|
boogiezen
Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 995
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/08/24 6:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| If I'm the Sparks GM, I will pick Cardoso @ 2 and Jackson @ 4. Brink will likely be taken @ 3.
_________________
Queen Yuna!
"Kim Yu-Na. A living, breathing work of art from Korea" - Cam Cole, Vancouver Sun
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9723
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/24 2:56 am ::: |
Reply |
|
2024 Mock Draft - Post March Madness
Be nice if there were exact height and reach measurements for NCAAW and WNBA players. How does Edwards compare in size to Ruthie Hebard? Angel Reese to Brianna Turner? Brink to Dorka Juhasz?
|
|
wnbafan
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 741
Location: Delaware
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/24 6:31 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| singinerd54 wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| She had 20 rebounds on a bum ankle in the biggest game of her career. Like.. |
And she shot 7-21 in the same game, against a team with minimal post presence who got destroyed by South Carolina in the paint.
For the season, she shot 42.65% (119/279) from the floor against teams in the NET Top 50. And it's not like she had to carry the load herself; her team had capable scorers at every starting position. That's not a cute shooting percentage for a guard, but for a post player with no perimeter game, it's terrible. And it's not an aberration, as she shot 42.7% (102/239) from the floor against teams in the NET Top 50 last season.
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| IMO, she’s gonna be, at least, the second best player from this draft. |
 |
I was really shocked at the number of chippies she missed.
_________________
Be kind, be careful, be yourself
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24401
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/24 9:46 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| singinerd54 wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| She had 20 rebounds on a bum ankle in the biggest game of her career. Like.. |
And she shot 7-21 in the same game, against a team with minimal post presence who got destroyed by South Carolina in the paint.
For the season, she shot 42.65% (119/279) from the floor against teams in the NET Top 50. And it's not like she had to carry the load herself; her team had capable scorers at every starting position. That's not a cute shooting percentage for a guard, but for a post player with no perimeter game, it's terrible. And it's not an aberration, as she shot 42.7% (102/239) from the floor against teams in the NET Top 50 last season. |
This stuff is part of why I think a key element deciding her success at the next level will be what type of role she's willing to accept. Because she doesn't have to be a scorer. As I said on Twitter during the tournament - not everyone can be A'ja Wilson their first year as a pro; mid-career Rebekkah Brunson would be an incredibly useful player. Reese is long, athletic, a great rebounder and good defender. She'd be a bit small as a 5 but there aren't too many giants left to worry about these days, so I won't be surprised if that's where she ends up playing a fair amount of the time. Then the lack of range becomes less of an issue.
But for that plan to be successful it will require sublimating her ego somewhat, and I imagine some GMs will have concerns about that given her profile in college. One way or another her pro career's going to be interesting. |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11192
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/24 10:33 am ::: |
Reply |
|
As is almost always the case, Rich hit the nail on the head.
Draymond Green -- my NBA comp for Angel Reese -- is not a scorer. But he's everything else. And from what I've seen of Reese, that's true for her as well.
She is a basketball player (forget the eyelashes and attitude) and she makes basketball plays. And when a player makes an idiotic decision/play in the final seconds of a huge game, then my trust level goes way down.
So I would take Reese over Edwards.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
singinerd54
Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 1817
Location: Missouri
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/24 1:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
Draymond Green -- my NBA comp for Angel Reese -- is not a scorer. But he's everything else. And from what I've seen of Reese, that's true for her as well.
She is a basketball player (forget the eyelashes and attitude) and she makes basketball plays. |
Oh wow, I don't see that comp at all. She is a great rebounder, though probably half of her offensive rebounds are a result of her missed layups. I don't see her contending for All Defensive teams and I've never seen any playmaking or particularly strong passing skills when watching her play. What have you seen that I'm missing (i.e., what basketball plays are you referring to)?
|
|
Milks26
Joined: 25 Mar 2021
Posts: 830
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/24 1:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| boogiezen wrote: |
| If I'm the Sparks GM, I will pick Cardoso @ 2 and Jackson @ 4. Brink will likely be taken @ 3. |
Yep, I'd take Cardoso over Brink
_________________
~College WBB & the "W' need other tv networks covering the important stuff...Espn is beyond tired~
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16379
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/24 2:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Milks26 wrote: |
| boogiezen wrote: |
| If I'm the Sparks GM, I will pick Cardoso @ 2 and Jackson @ 4. Brink will likely be taken @ 3. |
Yep, I'd take Cardoso over Brink |
Every day and twice on Sunday.
Though I still think Angie Welle was a good prospect, so what do I know ...
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 67057
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 67057
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/24 3:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Milks26 wrote: |
| boogiezen wrote: |
| If I'm the Sparks GM, I will pick Cardoso @ 2 and Jackson @ 4. Brink will likely be taken @ 3. |
Yep, I'd take Cardoso over Brink |
The biggest issue for Cardoso is availability. If she's going to spend every even numbered season with the Brazilian national team it reduces her value.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19806
Back to top |
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24401
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/24 4:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Milks26 wrote: |
| boogiezen wrote: |
| If I'm the Sparks GM, I will pick Cardoso @ 2 and Jackson @ 4. Brink will likely be taken @ 3. |
Yep, I'd take Cardoso over Brink |
The biggest issue for Cardoso is availability. If she's going to spend every even numbered season with the Brazilian national team it reduces her value. |
Brazilian players who've been wanted by WNBA teams have generally been pretty available. It's not like she's French. And players who were part of the NCAA system have also generally been more willing to show up and play in the US. I'm not really sure why this is suddenly coming up as a potentially significant issue. |
|
J-Spoon
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 6827
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/09/24 10:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
after Clark, Sheldon and Osborne
who are the 10 next best guards in this draft?
who are the sleepers out there that could get drafted and sneak onto a last roster spot?
Can D. Fair make it even at her height?
can Muhl or C. Taylor offer enough on defense to be an end of bench role player?
will the French PGs ever show up"
Will Borlase and Pouch come over in an Olympic year? or wait? Which would be better for getting drafted?
Is everyone who isn't a clear first round pick using their extra year of eligibility?
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22476
Location: NJ
Back to top |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11192
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/10/24 10:39 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| J-Spoon wrote: |
after Clark, Sheldon and Osborne
who are the 10 next best guards in this draft?
who are the sleepers out there that could get drafted and sneak onto a last roster spot?
Can D. Fair make it even at her height?
can Muhl or C. Taylor offer enough on defense to be an end of bench role player?
will the French PGs ever show up"
Will Borlase and Pouch come over in an Olympic year? or wait? Which would be better for getting drafted?
Is everyone who isn't a clear first round pick using their extra year of eligibility? |
Interesting questions in a theoretical sort of way.
One or two players will surprise us and maybe become rotation players, or even second-division starters. But no one can say who they are so it's just throwing darts at the draft board.
For the vast majority, they might make a roster or not, but if they're playing significant minutes, their team is in big trouble.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
ChasingRatDogmaSalade
Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Posts: 590
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/10/24 10:49 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Morning all,
Will RebKell be doing its own Mock Draft Challenge/Predictions that I can link to here ... ?
https://aces.wnba.com/2024-free-agency-draft-central/
Also, anybody aware of any major mock drafts that I am missing from this page?
Thanks.
~ giggy
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 67057
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
|
|
