• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official 2013 NBA Draft Thread - That was great.

Chad Ford ‏@chadfordinsider 59s
CJ Leslie just recorded a ridiculous 10.19 sec lane agility drill. Top score at Combine and he's 6-9. #NBACombine

I'd want absolutely no part of CJ Leslie. He takes too many games/possessions off and lacks general awareness.
 
Chad Ford ‏@chadfordinsider 59s
CJ Leslie just recorded a ridiculous 10.19 sec lane agility drill. Top score at Combine and he's 6-9. #NBACombine

I'd want absolutely no part of CJ Leslie. He takes too many games/possessions off and lacks general awareness.

Red flags everywhere. Elite athlete with extreme consistency issues and a ten cent head.
 
I'll go on record to say I think Kelly is going to be garbage in the pro's (i.e. irrelevant). He's not very good at anything besides shooting and it's not like he's Steve Novak either. He could score in other ways in college because most college teams don't have the size and athleticism depth to guard him and Plumlee together. He's nowhere near as much of a match-up problem against NBA athletes.

+1. I think Ryan Kelly will be extreme garbage in the league. I will be shocked to see him give any team significant minutes.
 
Who's Ryan Kelly? Is he the white guy from Duke that always destroyed us?
 
Shabazz is a tweener. He plays like a SF but he is not that much bigger than Harden. He can't handle the ball very well and doesn't really have quick enough feet to guard 2's.
 
HoopIdea HoopIdea
Hilarious. RT @TBJ_soldier: How high can Z-Bo really jump? How agile is J-Kidd? NBA Vet Combine. #Hoopidea
about an hour ago
 
Just amazing that college coaches could scout Shane Larkin and choose Anthony Fields.
 
They didn't pick Fields over Larkin. They thought they didn't need another PG and stopped recruiting Larkin, and once the season started and it was obvious we needed another PG it was too late for most recruits and they got a late pick-up in Fields. That is dumb enough it its own right, but they didn't stop recruiting Larkin for Fields.
 
They didn't pick Fields over Larkin. They thought they didn't need another PG and stopped recruiting Larkin, and once the season started and it was obvious we needed another PG it was too late for most recruits and they got a late pick-up in Fields. That is dumb enough it its own right, but they didn't stop recruiting Larkin for Fields.

I stand corrected. In that event, it is hilarious that in 10-11 with only one true point guard (Chennault), this staff could think we would have no use for a backup PG and would bypass what they had seen out of Larkin previously.
 
Well back then the BS was that the PG in Bz's motion system was not that important. Then Chennault got hurt and CJ struggled at the point and they started recruiting Fields.
 
Last edited:
Good stuff from Grantland.

But anyway, that's not the point. We're not talking about real life. It's sports that are crushing our soul here, and we've got several factors working against mediocre NBA teams:

1. Aside from a handful of outrageous prospects who pop up every decade, most potential stars need great coaches to succeed.

2. Great coaches gravitate toward great players when they choose their next team. Stan Van Gundy is not signing on to coach the Sixers this summer.

3. Good management chooses the right players, but choosing the right players only gets you so far if you're dealing with the first two problems. (I.e., someone like Chris Singleton was a great pick at no. 18 in 2010, and he would probably help a good team, but on the Wizards the past two years, he's been more or less hopeless.)

4. Good management is rare on its own, and owners with bad players and bad coaching are generally reluctant to fire bad GMs and have to pay two contracts at once, because they're already spending plenty of money on a bad team.

It's something to keep in mind as you hear friends say "How was it EVEN POSSIBLE for Kawhi Leonard to fall to the Spurs?"

The NBA lottery is next week, and there's a reason we see the same teams there every year. The NBA has a reputation as a "players' league," while a sport like the NFL is supposedly dominated by management, but if you look at the most successful teams in the NBA, it's about more than just players. Look at the playoffs. For all the talk about major markets in the NBA, we're probably looking at a conference finals featuring teams from Indianapolis, San Antonio, and Memphis. The small markets can compete because even if they're not spending Knicks or Lakers or Nets money, the combination of good coaching and smart management gives them serious advantages over the rest of the league. (Also: The Spurs are pure fucking evil, which always helps.)

How does a terrible team get to that level? A lot of this is luck, which then leads to the rest of the organization getting better. Win the lottery and fall into the next superstar (Derrick Rose with Chicago, which ultimately helped the Bulls land grumpy genius Thibs), somehow stumble into a fantastic coach (Frank Vogel with Indiana, Gregg Popovich 17 years ago with San Antonio) who develops the rest of the roster, or get lucky taking a risk on borderline stars and project prospects (Z-Bo and Marc Gasol with Memphis). Otherwise? Teams like the Spurs and Pacers will keep turning potential stars into actual stars, while teams like the Wizards and Bobcats and Suns and Raptors remain stuck in lottery no-man's-land, hoping they strike gold somehow. In the meantime, fans of those terrible franchises have plenty of Kawhi Leonard highlights to drive us insane.
 
I also thought this was another good point in the article:

As Jeff Van Gundy said Thursday night while Leonard helped finish off the Warriors, "He knows who he is, and he plays to his role." On a bad team, Kawhi Leonard probably never finds out who he is or what he's supposed to do, and his role changes by the month.

I thought it brought up an interesting question that Bill Barnwell had on Grantland a few weeks ago regarding the NFL Draft. Are certain teams better than others at draft players or developing them? It would be interesting to see what Jan Veseley would have become if he had dropped to the Spurs.
 
Or as John Wooden used to say, "I'd rather have a player that makes a team great than a great player."
 
RJ missing the point again.

The article's point is that it takes a great system, a great organization, and a great player to produce a Kawhi Leonard rather than a Jan Veseley. There's no indication that Veseley lacks a work ethic, is a cancer in the locker room, or is unwilling to play a role. In fact, what we know is that, according to the press, none of things seem to be the case...

The article makes a great point, though, that's far more truthful than folks in the basketball world tend to say publicly. All of the talk about busts rarely takes into consideration the organizational contexts in which guys succeed and fail.

It's good to get this in writing before people start ragging on Thomas Robinson - to name one guy who fell into an awful organization and stagnated - as a bust...
 
Last edited:
You bitch when I hit back, but start with this :"RJ missing the point again."
 
Just to put all of this in perspective, I think Kevin Durant tested the weakest player in the history of the combine. He could barely bench press a kitten

Edit to add, Jan Veseley does not have hands the size of a waffle iron. Industrial-size waffle iron. The last 3 I can remember with hands Leonard's size was Dr. J.
 
I think you're (RJ) missing the point. That is not an insult. It's perfectly reasonable and I stated why. For the record, I think you're still missing the point. Plenty of guys wash out of the league because they've played for incompetent organizations, bad coaches, and poisonous locker rooms.
 
Back
Top