Printable View
Is it even possible that Portland might not draft Oden?
According to this article, it is. I've been hearing talk that there are some NBA GMs who are more sold on Durant being a stud for all time than they are on Oden. Hmmmm.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/story/77264.html
Anyway, vote in the poll.
By the way-- I will be doing a mock draft very, very soon. Details in the next couple days.
-Jason "the only thing set in stone right now... is that I get to draft for my Hawks ;) " Evans
If Portland takes Durant first over Oden, I will have to think that their minds must be going back to the blunder of taking Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan all those many years ago.
But Greg Oden is not a Sam Bowie. He played most of the year left handed and only at the end of the season did people begin to see what he is truly capable of doing. He will be a dominating force in the paint both offensively and defensively for the next 15 years (and that would only make him 34 years old) barring some Livingston-like injury.
Durant will score points but Oden will have an intimidating impact on games at
both ends of the floor.
Oden may only be 34 in 15 years, but my money is on him looking at least 60.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye Devil
Oden is the clear pick. To be short, I am convinced at this point that Oden is the sole reason OSU had such a successful season.
To clarify, in the last 10 games of the regular season, Oden had a net +27 point effect on his team over a 40 minute period of play. In total, his team scored 114 more points while he was on the floor than his opponents in 10 games, and scored 32 points less with him off the floor.
Ohio State was a decent team, but would have gone no where without Oden. Of course, Texas depended even more heavily offensively on Durant than Ohio State did on Oden - but Texas did finish 25-10 and lost in the 2nd round, afterall.
Greg Oden is not a Sam Bowie and Kevin Durant is not a Michael Jordon. I question Durant's stamina and durability. Durant appeared to fade at the end of games at the collegiate level. Specifically, when Texas blew a big lead and lost to Kansas, Durant struggled down the stretch. He appeared to be physically exhausted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye Devil
Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan
Well, two points. First, Durant was instrumental in Texas even being close at the end of the Big-12 final. Texas as a whole was a poor defensive team and Durant was not the defensive presence Oden was (he could basically single handedly make a bad defensive team into a good one). So don't blame Durant entirely because Kansas turned on their offense (which was streaky at times anyway).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Green
Second, even if Durant had fatigue problems late in the season - I don't blame him! He played 89% of the minutes as a freshman and only extremely rare freshmen would be immediately ready to put in those minutes and not feel some fatigue late in the season given the huge step up from the high school level. Oden, on the other hand, played substantially fewer minutes over the course of the season (and even got a 7 game break at the beginning).
I think the problem was just that for all of Durant's many talents, perimeter scoring is just less consistent than inside scoring, and that Durant didn't improve his team as much as Oden did because he wasn't the same defensive presence. I still think Durant performed fine near the end of the year. I mean, he had 30 points on 11 for 24 shooting (2 for 9 3s, so 50% eFG) and grabbed 9 rebounds. But aside from him and AJ Abrams, no one else played a decent game at all.
My god, that kid is rail thin. His showing at the predraft camp (another thread) is worrisome also. I find it difficult to beleive that he was not able to bulk up, or improve his stamina. Currently, he is at Texas, a school reputed to have one of the 10 best conditioning programs in college sports. You know he was on campus as soon as possible, and in the weight room soon after. Still, he was unable to bulk up. Not only that, but he has not improved since the season ended.
Also, it is not like this kid played at some podunk public high school with no weight program. KD has been fast tracked for several years, and has been at some of the best prep schools (from an athletics standpoint) for several years. Why is he not in better shape?
Like many of you, I also saw him wear down as games went on, and as the season wore on. He was very good down the stretch, but was definitely a step below his earlier season performance.
I hope the kid has nothing but success, but I see a lot of T-Mac in the kid. Super player, but prone to injury. He did not get injured in college, but his frame was not designed for a 80-game season. I can really see him breaking down during the season.
GO, now that guy was built for the pros. He is a safe bet all the way.
I see this debate as a Kobe vs Duncan type of Debate. No doubt, Kobe is a better individual player whose stats will eclipse Duncan, but who would you rather have on your team, Kobe or TD? Without Shaq, what has Kobe ever done? Lead the L in scoring on a middling Lakers squad. A squad that may have to be blown up in order to get back to excellance.
Best Case scenario, Durant has a better individual career than Oden. As Oden counts his multiple NBA Championship rings while Durant desparately chases his first (See Mailman, Barkely, and coming soon to the trade block, Garnett), the guy that Drafts Oden will thank lucky stars he chose Oden.
This is a debate for the sake of Debate. There is no merit to this discussion, what so ever.
Patrick Yates
I would love to have seen last year's Devils with Durant on the Duke roster.
Never thought that there was much of a question: everybody's been saying for at least 2 years, "Wait until Oden comes out." I think he will be the pick. Here are some considerations for the other side:
1. People play, and more importantly watch, this game to see the ball go in the hoop. Offense, both from an individual and team, perspective, is by far the more interesting and entertaining side of the ball.
2. Durant has an extremely rare array of offensive talents, seems very patient and coachable, and is supremely confident and joyous in his play. That means he not only will be a terrific offensive talent, but a very entertaining one too.
3. Now, here is an interesting one: which of the two do you think enjoys the game more, loves to be playing more, is suited to the game more? I think that listening to and watching each, the answer unquestionably is Durant.
Oden seems to be a young man of enormous gifts, including great character and resolve. Question is will the latter two be enough for him to be able to bring it through the grind that is the NBA. Also, will people want to watch.
Interesting, very.
Picking Oden over Durant is more like picking Olajuwon over Jordan than Bowie over Jordan, which seemed like the wise pick at the time.
Let's not forget that a lot of freshman who see big minutes tend to tire out at the end of the season, and Durant was carrying his team a la Morrison, maybe even more so. He's 6'10" running around screens and curls like JJ. You're gonna get tired. Even JJ did as a JUNIOR!Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Yates
Also, I don't think there are any tests at the pre-draft camp that measure stamina. For sure, the ZERO reps is worrisome, though.
He already looks 60!Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipsfan
He said that the funniest comment he received about his age came at Michigan State where someone asked him about his involvement in WWII.
As dominating as Oden was, it would be interesting to see a similar analysis on Conley's stats. I would guess that he had a bigger than expected impact on OSU's success than one might think. He was constantly breaking down defenses, handing off assists to Oden and others, shooting his floating jumper in the lane or getting to the hole himself. As good as Oden was, I think that OSU would have been far less effective without Mike Conley at the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by mepanchin
Oh Conley had a huge impact. In fact, he had some of the most amazing pure point guard stats I've ever seen, much less from a freshman.
Here's a quick (tempo free) comparison of Conley as a freshman to Hurley as a senior:
Assist rate (an estimated percentage of teammates' baskets made that the player assisted on)
Hurley 36.62%
Conley 36.65%
Turnover rate (an estimated percentage of individual possessions that the player turns the ball over)
Hurley 21.05%
Conley 19.54%
Steal rate (an estimated percentage of opponents' possessions that the player stole the ball on)
Hurley 2.35%
Conley 4.31%
Offensive rating (an estimated number of points produced individually per 100 possessions - very complicated formula, but also accurate - and takes into account assists)
Hurley 119.15
Conley 118.10
Now I'm not insinuating that Conley as a freshman was as good as Hurley. No, Hurley as a senior also scored a lot more on top of being an excellent point guard. However, given time, Conley could surely have been one of the great college point guards.
So, yes, Conley surely had a huge impact on Ohio State - but I still think Oden's was larger given the remarkable +/- disparity (it's one thing when the difference is small - but when it is consistently huge, it suggests something). For instance, Oden only played 59% of the total minutes but had 105 of 218 team blocks. He blocked over 12% of opponents' 2 point shots and just from watching him I know he altered or affected in some way a huge amount on top of that. I don't have numbers, but I'd love to see how OSU's opponents shot 2 pointers with Oden sitting compared to him on the floor.
Oden is faster than Durant. He can jump higher. He is quicker. He is stronger. He is clearly a better athlete than Durant. And regarding basketball ability, centers like him come along once in a generation. Durant? Is he better than Carmelo? LeBron? Shawn Kemp? Who knows?
There's no question about it. Pick Oden.
I am car guy, first and foremost. Well, OK, after Duke. I have certainly heard of a Durant, a famous car, but Oden??? Never!
I agree that Oden is the safe and the better pick (on top of all his known abilities, and the size that you can't teach, he is also proving to be an especially impressive athlete, really rare and amazing it seems.)
Nevertheless, the same point I've raised in the past re: Lance and Brian applies, chronological age matters when evaluating Durant and his potential. To me anyways, a scary and amazing fact re: his dominant performance this year is that he was an especially young Freshman. He's actually still 18 years old and will be until the end of September. He still has incredible room for physical development, and that is a scary thought.
As I've felt some bashing of Duke's weight training program (re: a young Lance and Brian) was partly unfair, Durant in this circumstance makes this even more clear. I'm sure that Texas has great training in this area due to their football program but there is often a significant difference between what a kid can (and perhaps, should) bulk up to until they get closer to 19-20 years old.
Perhaps Durant is destined to be rail-thin, and if so, that will at least partly diminish his NBA potential. But just as likely, though he's probably not meant to carry a ton of bulk, he still has a lot of growing and strengthening potential which is scary given that despite his thin-ness he was already an impressive rebounder against Upperclassmen when he had just turned 18 years old.
If projecting especially good things for them both, you're basically choosing between Bill Russell and Kevin Garnett with a better shooting stroke. Those are two pretty good options but we all know who won the Championships.
Go Duke!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not sure why people are so fussed up over Durant's "lack of strength" or bulk. The kid was amazing last year as he was, thin. It allows him to be quick, which along withe silky smooth shooting touch, and therefore dominate. Plus he was only 18, lots of guys don't start putting on weight for real until they are 21+, look at Karl Malone, he wasn't so huge coming out of college but he was enormously strong by the time he was older. Also, wasn't bulking up too much one of the main complaints people lobbed at K/Duke's staff concerning Shav? People like numbers for sure, but they don't tell you how good somebody will be, you still have to harness it. Look at Billy Beane, kid drafted in baseball a while back, could throw 100mph+. I don't know if he even made it to the majors cuz he couldn't throw a strike. People sure got hot and bothered by that 100+ fastball though.
I'm sure Durant will get stronger over time, but that shouldn't be anybody's main concern for him, it should be whether he can adapt to the NBA style of play, which from watching him at UT, i think he can. Look at Tayshaun Prince, he was a good player at UK, rail thin and tall. He never bulked up and he is arguably as good or better as a pro than he was as a college player. Weight room strength and on-the-court strength are two different things, and bulk just shouldn't matter in the debate. Durant showed that he has the type of strength that matters, a strong desire to get to the rack and score some frickin points.
As an aside, i would really love to see Henderson develop that strong desire to get to the rack this coming year. If he were to do that Duke might be super-special.
Run faster - jump higherQuote:
Originally Posted by gvtucker
This sounds like an ad for PF Fliers
God I'm old.