I would say, "Damn, what a shallow draft this is." Which, until proven otherwise, it very well may have been. So then pray tell, since they were in position to swing for the fences, at whom should they have swung instead? Who would you have preferred to draft, since you are not saying Sanders, Whiteside, or those guy have it either?
I remember those reports too, and rolled my eyes after hearing them. I doubt it was little more then misdirection coming from the Morey camp. Unless he has done a 180 and prefer all raw, all athletic, all measurement, no skill, disappointing production, all potential prospects all a sudden. If anything, from his previous draft record, those are the things he puts little weight on, instead looking for skill and production. I would've been shocked if he didn't pick Cousins given the opportunity, not only as BPA but also considering our status at the 5.
cxbby, agreed. Neither Whiteside or Sanders have the mentality to put their team on their back like a Duncan or Hakeem. Of the rookies, Griffin and Wall are the 2 players that have the mentality to take over a game.
Because I am a gambler in this situation, I would have taken Whiteside....a guy with those skills and his length would have been worth a shot.... Especially considering Yao's history, get him in here to learn from Yao.....that is who I would have taken. DD
My dream scenario would have been to trade up in the top 5 and take Cousins. He's gonna be a star in this league.
1. You would have taken a guy who ended up in the second round with a 14th pick? Talk about asset management. It doesn't matter if Whiteside turns into Hakeem 2.0, you could have simply bought a pick with cash instead of wasting a lottery pick on him. 2. Whiteside has not been able to get on the court once yet. 3. A GMs job is to build a team, prudently. Gamblers post on internet forums and talk about how much better of a job they could have done.
CX, I am just saying whom I would have taken based upon what little knowledge I had about draft picks. Maybe if I had more info I would have switched my pick.. I like Patrick Patterson, but I would like a really high upside guy at 14...even if it means we have to Dleague him for 2 years while he develops. DD
And Yao's history is irrelevant. No rookie will rectify the situation, especially no "gamble" rookie you reach for 30 picks too early. You take the BPA, period. Otherwise, we would be stuck with Josh McRoberts instead of your golden boy Brooks. If we had considered the situation.
At this stage, Whiteside's kills are very limited and undeveloped. Anybody selecting him would be choosing him for his height and long arms. They would be choosing him with the hope that he develops great skills.
CX, There are no guarantees, especially past pick number 5ish......and in the Rockets situation, IMO, they should have swung for the fences.... They took a safe pick in Patrick Patterson, who is now 5th on the depth chart.... Not a bad pick, and probably will be a nice player, but I like Leebs comparison of Rodney McCray over Drexler..... IMO, the Rockets took the safe "Character" guy, when they could have dug in and swung from their heels... And Yao's situation absolutely plays into it, he is an expiring contract with glass feet.....if you can get a center with huge upside, why not? Also, Whiteside has a strained Patella tendon, that is why he is out right now, and BetterThanEver he has more skills than that: <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/byBhSZn2NfQ?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/byBhSZn2NfQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object> DD
Character doesn't mean suck. Look at McGrady and the 1997 draft. no character. Duncan was the safe character guy and the Spurs won. The Raptors, Magic, and Rockets wasted their time with the no character guy.
I agree, but even Morey has said they are now considering character, after guys like Artest and Ariza...I don't blame him. But this was a perfect storm, the team was stacked, it was the PERFECT time to take a shot at a guy that has all world athleticism and game changing height.... He may flop, but why not take a shot when you are drafting without a need? DD
I think in a recent interview, Morey said he would take a risk on character if a player had the talent. http://www.thedreamshake.com/2010/8/30/1659332/exclusive-quick-takes-with-rockets .
The #1 pick isn't even a guarantee. But there are odds of success. And you can bet that the Rockets have considered all the odds. In the end they decided on Patterson. Not because he is a safe pick, or that he is a risky pick. Just that, cumulatively, he had the highest chance of success. Aaron Brooks was 5th on the depth chart his rookie year. The Rockets knew who was going to be on the roster opening night, yet still selected a PF. Need holds no importance in their drafting philosophy. Obviously. Yes I would like Dwight Howard instead of Okafor. No ****. That is all after the fact. For now, we don't know who is the Rodney McCray and who is the Drexler. That's the point. There were no centers with huge upside. You'd think somebody would've taken a shot if there was. There were guys who were tall, but no basketball players.
You know, it's interesting… …I can't remember everybody being so divided on any Rockets player not named Aaron Brooks.... ...and that division, for all intents and purposes, is pretty even. Patrick Patterson, is prepared, in my mind, to be an excellent pro at this level for many years, God willing. I think Daryl Morey hinted at that much in his pre-draft assessments of him. I don't think that young Patrick's mindset or approach to playing is all that big a concern right now. Most rookies (even future hall of fame ones) have a period of adjustment they have to go through. Patterson isn't any exception. Precociousness and arrogance aren't necessarily prerequisites for greatness. Sometimes, you have to have a guy who is willing to contribute and do what's asked of him, before you ask him to do more than that. Carwling before walking, and all that. Look at a player like Zach Randolph. He's a player, no matter what team he plays for, tends to score 20 points and grab 10 rebounds. He commands a great deal of a team's offensive focus. He asserts himself, regardless of his teammates, team goals or circumstances. I don't remember Randolph ever winning anywhere, or even being though of as a player that would help your team win. Winning is what's important. Doing what your team needs you to do is what will get your team in position to win. Patterson is not like Shane Battier, to me. Battier was always an overrated offensive player; and even in his best offensive year, Battier was never what you would consider assertive...or even consistent offensively. I'm not saying that Patrick Patterson's upside is enormous. But he knows how to play a team game. i like the fact that, at least for a season or so, Patterson will study under Luis Scola and Chuck Hayes at the power forward spot. Both Hayes and Scola will show Patterson how to compete as a pro. Scola will teach Patterson how to score. Hayes will teach Patterson how to defend. And Patterson will be a plus. The good news is he doesn't have to be that right away. I sound like a broken record, but Patterson was picked instead of players with more "upside" because of Yao. If Yao holds up and can play a few more seasons, Patterson can be brought along at about the same pace that Aaron Brooks and Chase Budinger were. That's not a bad way to build a base of talent either....
Because then you would be wasting a 14th pick. An asset. Not a lotto ticket. Morey doesn't buy lotto tickets, because he doesn't need miracles to succeed.
Even if we are talking about franchise players, the Rockets have done better with high character than low character. Hakeem/Drexler>Francis/T-Mac.
I'm not holding my breathe on Patterson this season. The Rockets are stacked at the position thus far. The only way I see him getting any PT is if the Rockets make a trade... and that, I have mixed feelings about at this point. However, I'd really like to see Iguodala in a Rockets uniform.
DD, I understand the wanting to use a lottery pick to try to get the star, however risky that might be, since we do not expect Houston to have lottery picks very often (unless via trade...Bring Isiah back!!). However, the far majority of true, "I will carry my team" star players are drafted in the Top 10. Outside the top 10, you have very players who fall and most do so because of character/attitude issues. The only real exception I can think of to this would be foreign players draft when they are really young in the 2nd round. Most of the players who do fall, or show themselves to be diamonds in the rough are wings. It makes sense since most teams value size 1st, so wings are already pushed down the chart. If a big does make some noise, they are almost always undersized. There is always a chance that Whiteside or Sanders will become a star, but more than likely they will not be come a true super star. At most maybe a Carlos Boozer, who at best is a 2nd tier star. (Examples: Jermaine O'Neal, Zeke, Ben Wallace, Brad Miller, Al Harrington, Zach Randolph, Boozer, David West, David Lee, Carl Landry) Yes, no one would say no to that type of player, but the Rockets need the true superstar, not another 2nd tier star. There is more of a chance that James Anderson or Jordan Crawford will become a star player. However, can you name the last-diamond in the rough wing player who became a superstar player? Steve Nash from the 1996 NBA Draft. Since then there have been Rashard Lewis, Kirilenko, Artest, Michael Redd, Gilbert Arenas, Gerald Wallace, Mo Williams, Josh Howard, Jameer Nelson, Danny Granger, Rajon Rondo, Aaron Brooks, Daren Collison. What do all those players have in common? Almost none of them have led their team to title. Artest piggybacked. Howard, Lewis and Nelson helped another superstar get there to lose. Only Rondo may break away from this pack, but we will not know until the Big 3 of the Celtics leave or it becomes apparent that he is the best player on that team this year and they get close to winning the title. My point in all this is that with the No. 14 pick you are at best looking for a supporting star player or an above average role player. This team has pretty much only role and supporting star players (considering Yao's limit and until either Brooks or Martin shows they win consistently in crunch time). Since there is NO extreme benefit in the risky prospects, you are better off going with the prospect with better attitude, commitment, and character. The odds either will become a Tier 2 star small to begin with, but you have a better chance the one with his head on straight will be at least somewhat productive to help you win games or as a trading chip.
