2012 NBA Draft

[Starter]

I think Morrison was a pretty terrible draft pick to begin with. He shot 37 percent as a rookie before his knee went, and it was pretty fair to assess he was athletically challenged from the start. That said, it was legitimately one of the worst drafts ever. Trust me, I was there. Gay and Roy would have obviously been better picks, but I don't think either was really held in the regard Morrison was coming out of college. Past that, you have virtually no stars and surprisingly few contributors at all. So it's not like they passed on a slew of franchise-changing talents.

I agree with Henderson being a shaky pick. Not that he's the worst player in the league or anything, but I did think he'd be a better pro than he is. That said, the Bobcats made the same mistake the Knicks did with Jordan Hill and the Bucks did with Joe Alexander: They passed on point guards in a draft loaded with them. It doesn't matter if you have a couple guys at the position -- which the Knicks didn't even have -- with like five credible starting-caliber point guards still on the table, you should pick one, whether it be Lawson, Holiday, Maynor, etc.

[FerryFor50]

I think Morrison was a pretty terrible draft pick to begin with. He shot 37 percent as a rookie before his knee went, and it was pretty fair to assess he was athletically challenged from the start. That said, it was legitimately one of the worst drafts ever. Trust me, I was there. Gay and Roy would have obviously been better picks, but I don't think either was really held in the regard Morrison was coming out of college. Past that, you have virtually no stars and surprisingly few contributors at all. So it's not like they passed on a slew of franchise-changing talents.

I agree with Henderson being a shaky pick. Not that he's the worst player in the league or anything, but I did think he'd be a better pro than he is. That said, the Bobcats made the same mistake the Knicks did with Jordan Hill and the Bucks did with Joe Alexander: They passed on point guards in a draft loaded with them. It doesn't matter if you have a couple guys at the position -- which the Knicks didn't even have -- with like five credible starting-caliber point guards still on the table, you should pick one, whether it be Lawson, Holiday, Maynor, etc.

I don't think Henderson was that bad of a pick. He's been improving since he was drafted and is a serviceable defender and has proven he can score at an NBA level - averaged 15ppg this past season.

Ty Lawson was the only other player I'd consider better than Henderson right now.

[superdave]

I think Morrison was a pretty terrible draft pick to begin with. He shot 37 percent as a rookie before his knee went, and it was pretty fair to assess he was athletically challenged from the start. That said, it was legitimately one of the worst drafts ever. Trust me, I was there. Gay and Roy would have obviously been better picks, but I don't think either was really held in the regard Morrison was coming out of college. Past that, you have virtually no stars and surprisingly few contributors at all. So it's not like they passed on a slew of franchise-changing talents.

I agree with Henderson being a shaky pick. Not that he's the worst player in the league or anything, but I did think he'd be a better pro than he is. That said, the Bobcats made the same mistake the Knicks did with Jordan Hill and the Bucks did with Joe Alexander: They passed on point guards in a draft loaded with them. It doesn't matter if you have a couple guys at the position -- which the Knicks didn't even have -- with like five credible starting-caliber point guards still on the table, you should pick one, whether it be Lawson, Holiday, Maynor, etc.

Bringing this conversation back to this year's draft, what do you think of the point guards?

Damian Lillard is the only one projected in the top 10. Kendall Marshall is rated about 20th. The rest are likely shoot-first guards, combo guards or undersized 2's - Rivers, Waiters, Lamb and Lamb.

I understand the importance of having a point, but do you stretch and pick one of these guys in the top 10 to fill a need, or do you draft the best guy available?

[FerryFor50]

Bringing this conversation back to this year's draft, what do you think of the point guards?

Damian Lillard is the only one projected in the top 10. Kendall Marshall is rated about 20th. The rest are likely shoot-first guards, combo guards or undersized 2's - Rivers, Waiters, Lamb and Lamb.

I understand the importance of having a point, but do you stretch and pick one of these guys in the top 10 to fill a need, or do you draft the best guy available?

In the top 10, I am of the opinion you always go best available instead of reaching for a player that isn't elite.

There is no Kyrie Irving out there this year. Heck, there isn't even a Norris Cole.

I think Marshall will get a reality check in the NBA once he sees how fast the game is played. I don't know enough about Lillard to make a judgement call on him.

[COYS]

I don't think Henderson was that bad of a pick. He's been improving since he was drafted and is a serviceable defender and has proven he can score at an NBA level - averaged 15ppg this past season.

Ty Lawson was the only other player I'd consider better than Henderson right now.

I'd also add that Henderson has quietly become one of the best defenders at his position in the league. I'm not surprised that his offense has taken a while to come around, as he doesn't shoot well from distance and doesn't have the best handle, relying instead on his turnaround jumper (which is good, but not the highest percentage shot). He has improved, steadily and if he can continue his upward trend on the offensive end, his superior defense will make him a very valuable player. He's not a star, no, but he will be very, very valuable to someone (possibly the Bobcats) if they can put him next to a star or two.

[Starter]

I don't think Henderson was that bad of a pick. He's been improving since he was drafted and is a serviceable defender and has proven he can score at an NBA level - averaged 15ppg this past season.

Ty Lawson was the only other player I'd consider better than Henderson right now.

I do agree with COYS that Henderson plays good defense, which will keep him in NBA rotations for some time, like Dahntay Jones. But as a shooting guard who doesn't have a lot of range, I just don't see a lot of other teams G would start for, if any. (If advanced stats are your thing, he ranked 172nd in the league in efficiency rating.) In that sense, given how bereft of talent Charlotte has been, it actually was a pretty good place for him to land; where else could he have shot the ball 13 times a game? He has the opportunity to grow on the court, which he wouldn't have gotten elsewhere. Still, I think with the five point guards that went Nos. 17-21, I'd take any of them over Henderson with the exception of Maynor -- whose game I like, it's just he's behind Westbrook and suffered a catastrophic knee injury. The other four are starting point guards on playoff teams. I particularly like Holiday, who's primed to blow up next year.

Bringing this conversation back to this year's draft, what do you think of the point guards?

Damian Lillard is the only one projected in the top 10. Kendall Marshall is rated about 20th. The rest are likely shoot-first guards, combo guards or undersized 2's - Rivers, Waiters, Lamb and Lamb.

I understand the importance of having a point, but do you stretch and pick one of these guys in the top 10 to fill a need, or do you draft the best guy available?

I think your best value is with those two-guards, hoping you can work on their skills and make them into Jason Terry-esque combo PGs. I like Waiters in particular, though I am biased since I know him a little. But I think he has an NBA-ready game and will be a superb defender. Considering the weak crop of guards, this was definitely the right year for Rivers to go pro and get drafted in the lottery, especially if he sells his own combo potential. With Marshall, who knows? I think if his shot gets a bit better and he works on his athleticism, he can stick based on his superior vision and handle. But I wouldn't pick him thinking for sure he was going to be my starting point guard anytime soon, if at all.

[FireOgilvie]

I think Morrison was a pretty terrible draft pick to begin with. He shot 37 percent as a rookie before his knee went, and it was pretty fair to assess he was athletically challenged from the start. That said, it was legitimately one of the worst drafts ever. Trust me, I was there. Gay and Roy would have obviously been better picks, but I don't think either was really held in the regard Morrison was coming out of college. Past that, you have virtually no stars and surprisingly few contributors at all. So it's not like they passed on a slew of franchise-changing talents.

I agree with Henderson being a shaky pick. Not that he's the worst player in the league or anything, but I did think he'd be a better pro than he is. That said, the Bobcats made the same mistake the Knicks did with Jordan Hill and the Bucks did with Joe Alexander: They passed on point guards in a draft loaded with them. It doesn't matter if you have a couple guys at the position -- which the Knicks didn't even have -- with like five credible starting-caliber point guards still on the table, you should pick one, whether it be Lawson, Holiday, Maynor, etc.

I agree with you for the most part, but I still believe he wasn't a terrible draft choice at the time given the weak draft, which you mentioned. We all know that Morrison's stats show he was completely inefficient his rookie year. But, he averaged over 50% fg in college and shot an absurd 42.8% from 3 his junior year. He had multiple 40 point games and he's a 6'8" small forward. No one expects high percentage shooters to suddenly forget how to shoot. That's why they drafted him. No one expected him to compile the poor overall stats like he did his rookie year, but he still had a 30 point game as a rookie and multiple 20 point games. He absolutely showed flashes of potential. Give him a few healthy seasons in the right system and he's a Danny Granger type (he has had 42% fg for the last 3 seasons). Almost every rookie has a huge jump in FG% after their first year.

Also, back to this year - I'm not that impressed with any of the PG prospects. Lillard could be solid, but he's more of a combo guard in my opinion.

[FerryFor50]

I do agree with COYS that Henderson plays good defense, which will keep him in NBA rotations for some time, like Dahntay Jones. But as a shooting guard who doesn't have a lot of range, I just don't see a lot of other teams G would start for, if any. (If advanced stats are your thing, he ranked 172nd in the league in efficiency rating.) In that sense, given how bereft of talent Charlotte has been, it actually was a pretty good place for him to land; where else could he have shot the ball 13 times a game? He has the opportunity to grow on the court, which he wouldn't have gotten elsewhere. Still, I think with the five point guards that went Nos. 17-21, I'd take any of them over Henderson with the exception of Maynor -- whose game I like, it's just he's behind Westbrook and suffered a catastrophic knee injury. The other four are starting point guards on playoff teams. I particularly like Holiday, who's primed to blow up next year.



I think your best value is with those two-guards, hoping you can work on their skills and make them into Jason Terry-esque combo PGs. I like Waiters in particular, though I am biased since I know him a little. But I think he has an NBA-ready game and will be a superb defender. Considering the weak crop of guards, this was definitely the right year for Rivers to go pro and get drafted in the lottery, especially if he sells his own combo potential. With Marshall, who knows? I think if his shot gets a bit better and he works on his athleticism, he can stick based on his superior vision and handle. But I wouldn't pick him thinking for sure he was going to be my starting point guard anytime soon, if at all.

To your point about the PGs and Gerald getting an opportunity to play...

Don't you think that, if Charlotte took a PG, they'd just end up rotting on the bench? Especially with Larry Brown coaching, who hated playing rookies? Didn't we learn from Minnesota that it's a bad idea to keep drafting the same position year in and year out?

I can see why Charlotte didn't take PGs. I had forgotten about Westbrook and Holiday - I would have taken them over Henderson, even before we knew how good they were all going to be, though Holiday was a bit more of an unknown at the time since he rode the pine behind Westbrook at UCLA.

[Greg_Newton]

According to Draft Express, Harrison Barnes jumped 38 inches flat-footed, which they say is by far the best result this year and the 4th best since they started tracking it.

Obviously, vertical leap is not necessarily an indicator of future success.

But how in the world was this guy not taking over games on the regular?!? To be the shooter he is and have those sort of athletic tools? My word.

First of all, I agree - an 11'7.5" no step vert reach is really, really good (no other wing came within 3").

However, I think Barnes - clever as he is - manipulated the testing a little bit. I watched them measure his standing reach, and he didn't extend at all, which the numbers support; there's simply no way he truly only has a 8'5.5" reach. That's 0.5" higher than Rasheed Sulaimon's a 4.5" lower than Kyle Singler, for reference; in real life, I'd guess he's more like 8'9-8'10", which would put his no-step vertical in the still-very-impressive-but-more realistic 33-35" range.

Smart move on his part, though; he knows teams are concerned about his athleticism, not his size or reach for a SF.

[COYS]

First of all, I agree - an 11'7.5" no step vert reach is really, really good (no other wing came within 3").

However, I think Barnes - clever as he is - manipulated the testing a little bit. I watched them measure his standing reach, and he didn't extend at all, which the numbers support; there's simply no way he truly only has a 8'5.5" reach. That's 0.5" higher than Rasheed Sulaimon's a 4.5" lower than Kyle Singler, for reference; in real life, I'd guess he's more like 8'9-8'10", which would put his no-step vertical in the still-very-impressive-but-more realistic 33-35" range.

Smart move on his part, though; he knows teams are concerned about his athleticism, not his size or reach for a SF.

Clever analysis. I hadn't thought of that. I did not see the workouts, but I'll take your word for it.

[luvdahops]

First of all, I agree - an 11'7.5" no step vert reach is really, really good (no other wing came within 3").

However, I think Barnes - clever as he is - manipulated the testing a little bit. I watched them measure his standing reach, and he didn't extend at all, which the numbers support; there's simply no way he truly only has a 8'5.5" reach. That's 0.5" higher than Rasheed Sulaimon's a 4.5" lower than Kyle Singler, for reference; in real life, I'd guess he's more like 8'9-8'10", which would put his no-step vertical in the still-very-impressive-but-more realistic 33-35" range.

Smart move on his part, though; he knows teams are concerned about his athleticism, not his size or reach for a SF.

Very interesting. Though I don't think anyone doubts he is a good leaper - his trunk is very powerful, and I recall seeing at least several no step, two-footed dunks from under the hoop by him (not as easy as it may sound for a 6-8 guy). The bigger question marks around Barnes when it comes to athleticism have to do with quickness. Laterally and, especially, with his first step. Not sure those were answered at the combine.

[FerryFor50]

Very interesting. Though I don't think anyone doubts he is a good leaper - his trunk is very powerful, and I recall seeing at least several no step, two-footed dunks from under the hoop by him (not as easy as it may sound for a 6-8 guy). The bigger question marks around Barnes when it comes to athleticism have to do with quickness. Laterally and, especially, with his first step. Not sure those were answered at the combine.

Didn't you know? Athleticism is only how high you can jump...

[BD80]

First of all, I agree - an 11'7.5" no step vert reach is really, really good (no other wing came within 3").

However, I think Barnes - clever as he is - manipulated the testing a little bit. I watched them measure his standing reach, and he didn't extend at all, which the numbers support; there's simply no way he truly only has a 8'5.5" reach. That's 0.5" higher than Rasheed Sulaimon's a 4.5" lower than Kyle Singler, for reference; in real life, I'd guess he's more like 8'9-8'10", which would put his no-step vertical in the still-very-impressive-but-more realistic 33-35" range.

Smart move on his part, though; he knows teams are concerned about his athleticism, not his size or reach for a SF.

I can see someone like Barnes thinking he can manipulate the system - if he tried to, he is a fool.

This would be different than "working the system" by training specifically for measurables even if just short term and even at the expense of ones overall game. The league is setting an importance on these measurables, and training specifically for them is a sign of coachability and work ethic.

If Barnes thinks he can "fool" GMs who are about to invest millions of dollars in their 1st round pick, maybe he took too many classes with unc football players.

What does the attempt say about his character to those deciding whether to invest millions in him?

The result is that he looks like a stand-still player. He doesn't jump much better on the move than standing still - only 1 1/2 inch difference.

[Greg_Newton]

I don't know... I haven't heard a peep from anywhere else accusing him of doing so, and even what I'm saying is just conjecture. I don't know that GMs will be watching the measurements in slow-mo to see if his shoulders didn't lift or anything; I think the main takeaway from the testing was that Barnes was far and away the champ, which is all that really matters from Barnes' standpoint. His listed reach is still fine for an NBA SF.

I don't want to take away from what he did accomplish - the highest, by far, standing vert reach among wings and the fastest sprint time in the combine is impressive enough on their own for a player perceived as not a great athlete. However, given his penchant for branding, I have no doubt that he was aware that his draft stock depended much more on athletic testing than measurements. And if you can subtly manipulate the numbers so that "good athlete, great size for a wing" turns into "terrific athlete, good size for a wing", why not do it?

I think a lot of guards/wings try to do that, actually, because they want to seem more athletic (Rivers did it himself, to some extent). I just think it's particularly noticeable with Barnes's vertical/reach numbers.

[Newton_14]

According to Draft Express, Harrison Barnes jumped 38 inches flat-footed, which they say is by far the best result this year and the 4th best since they started tracking it.

Obviously, vertical leap is not necessarily an indicator of future success.

But how in the world was this guy not taking over games on the regular?!? To be the shooter he is and have those sort of athletic tools? My word.

This is hard to believe actually. He has never shown a jumping ability anywhere close to that. Something does not add up. Guys with hops (like Miles, Hendo, Carter) standout. HB has never stood out or wowed us with leaping ability. Color me confused.

[UrinalCake]

This is hard to believe actually. He has never shown a jumping ability anywhere close to that. Something does not add up. Guys with hops (like Miles, Hendo, Carter) standout. HB has never stood out or wowed us with leaping ability. Color me confused.

Maybe because he never attacked the basket? It's hard to impress anyone with how high you can leap on a jump shot.

[Jderf]

This is hard to believe actually. He has never shown a jumping ability anywhere close to that. Something does not add up. Guys with hops (like Miles, Hendo, Carter) standout. HB has never stood out or wowed us with leaping ability. Color me confused.

I don't know... I remember at least a few times when I saw Harrison Barnes explode to the rim for a mostrous putback dunk. Don't get me wrong, it didn't happen all that often, because he simply was never engaged enough to do it at every opportunity. But it still did happen from time to time. So while I by no means think Barnes is the most agile or athletic guy on the court, he has at times shown a pretty decent ability to jump. Not other-worldly, no, but impressive nonetheless.

I didn't see the actual testing, so I can't say whether or not HB smudged the numbers a bit. But I would expect that his real jumping ability is at least somehwat close to those numbers. And it still doesn't change the fact that his general agility is fairly lacking.

[superdave]

Chad Ford draft chat. I have not read it yet, but I guarantee it's full of rumors, innuendo and rumors of rumors. Always entertaining this time of year.

[Starter]

Thanks for posting. From that chat, without comment:

Chris (Palo Alto)

I would think Beal should be lock at No. 2 because the Bobcats need guys who are guaranteed scorers. Why even consider MKG or Robinson...are their upsides that much better than Beal's?
Chad Ford (1:03 PM)

I think the Bobcats are happier with Gerald Henderson than they are most of the other players on their roster. I think they feel they need a bigger upgrade at the 3 or the 4. I still believe the Bobcats most likely trade this pick for either 2 draft picks or a player and a pick. They need to get multiple players out of this and aren't in love with anyone at No. 2.

[superdave]

Thanks for posting. From that chat, without comment:

Would Charlotte be willing to trade the #2 to Portland for #6 and #11? If so, Portland could get a starter and Charlotte could upgrade at two positions. Portland is not far away from being a playoff team again with Aldridge at the 4, Matthews at 2. They have a ton of cap space available and could get either MKG or Robinson and plug him in tomorrow.

Charlotte ought to go with a wing and a big if they get #6 and #11. I'd take Lillard, Barnes or Waiters at 6, then Henson, Zeller or Leonard at #11. That's a good deal for the #2.

Otherwise Cleveland has the #4, #24, #33, #34. If Charlotte is agnostic on Robinson vs. Beal vs. MKG, then getting any of the three at #4 is just as good as at #2, and you could get a few players.