Yes, but the purpose of this thread seems to be "So with these facts now in tow, who would you have chosen?" As it is, only one player can be chosen.
I think you're alone on thinking this is a strict procedure. I sincerely doubt anyone else cares if somebody lists more than one prospect they'd have preferred to draft. I even think it makes things more interesting, personally. It shows that they believe there was more than one prospect on the board better than the one we took. The most interesting part is then you've potentially made yourself look even smarter or more foolish on down the road. If in three years we revisit this thread and find that all three of the prospects you'd have chosen in place of Head have become better pros than Head, you're going to look pretty damned astute. However, if Head becomes a hell of a player and all three of the players you;ve chosen aren't as good, are out of the league, etc. then you've basically served yourself a great big glass of STFU. That's entertaining, isn't it?
Nope, Panda is right on. We (including me) tend to look back and list all the people who were available and say we missed Parker, we missed Lewis, we missed Ginoble, pick another Mobley, here is a list of quality people taken after 24 over the last ten years, and we SHOULD get a contributor at 24. Too easy. The GM can only pick one person. Take the heat. Pick one person. Give yourself the same criteria the GM has to. Go on record and make it public, I do accept the answer of "we don't see the scouting reports". Fine, but don't be telling us later how good Badiane (Boke - Span) is, and who the coaches should be giving playing time to, if you are not seeing what the coaches are seeing. The whole point of this thread is to put people on the spot. I mean this thread as a put up or shut up challenge. BTW, I don't watch college ball. I am completely ignorant on who to draft and say so often. I trust the Rockets brain trust to make the best choice available. From what I have read, I am excited about Head.
I don't see how suggesting three prospects as opposed to one changes that. You have an increased chance of picking a prospect who would be better, but also an increased risk of being wrong. Even if you get one out of three right, there is considerably less glory in it than had you guessed one and been right. If every prospect you choose is better (which is highly unlikely unless Head is the second coming of Reece Gaines), you deserve that much more credit. Hell, I even mentioned the prospects I hoped would fall to us because when I come back to this in a few years, I want to see if I was right or wrong to want them to fall to us. Perhaps a compromise would be that should you name more than one, you put them in the order you'd have taken them. I said I'd have chosen Wayne Simien or gambled on Chris Taft, but added the disclaimer that I now believe Head was the player most likely to be a contributor now. However, I'll play the game! My choice of those left on the board: Chris Taft - the attitude may be in question, but the upside is enough for me to gamble on at 24. Honorable mention: Wayne Simien P.S. I find it interesting how few people are willing to put their choice on the line considering how many people complained when Head was drafted.
OK, if I am going to pick one player to shine #24 or later and be better than Head: Salim Stoudamire. But I'll see how my other predictions come out for the fun of it too.
let alone playing him let alone STARTING him let alone giving him Mobleys Minutes... Drew,,, what a scrub.
Bryce Drew was a badass in college. He didn't pan out - but watch him absolutely destroy a pretty stocked Ole Miss team if that game ever shows up on ESPN Classic. I'm going to go on record supporting the Rockets pick of Luther Head. Second best would've been: Daniel Ewing. I'd be surprised if Taft comes to camp in shape, and I think Golden State will regret their draft almost as much as Toronto.
I pick Luther Head. Immediately when it happened I was shocked, but I am at peace with the pick. I think we got the guy.
I would have traded the #24 for GSW's 2 second rounders, and then drafted Ukic and Blatche. They are certainly bigger gambles than Head, but the potential is huge.
from Pat: Yeah, and there's a laundry list of lottery picks in the last 10 years that have been cannon fodder. Pat, I've seen your posts but I think this is the first one I've seen that's ridiculous. We SHOULD get a contributor at 24? This was a deep draft but that comment is just insane, there was a thread here several years ago that had a statisictical analysis of players drafted after 17 (I think) and sure there were "hits" but there were enough misses to make every GM in the league look like an idiot. Even West, the former teflon Don, has been hosed as of late. Man, I don't think Head will be a bust, but if he is, big frikkin' deal. The Pistons didn't build their team through the draft. Most teams don't now. SA might be the relevant exception but they should get credit for their finds, and the other 29 GM's in the league shouldn't get slaughtered when someone else hits paydirt. And face it, realistically most of us would be hard pressed to come up with more than six real championship contenders in a given year. The GM has to know our guys better than we do and try catch lightning in a bottle from elsewhere. Head has a motor. He'll be like Scotty Brooks only with real speed and a better jump shot. No matter what we do I think Head is a major need (and I can't seem to clean any of my comments up).
Declan - I'm not sure we are on the same page. I think the 24th pick is hit or miss under the best of circumstances. All of those comments above are examples the type of thing I am tired of hearing people say in hind site.
Hence the word "or." I would concur with those picks, but, as you said, they were already gone. And, of course you are correct -- my choices are based on what I have read and not on, with some exceptions, what I have seen. However, isn't that true for the vast majority of us? Only time will tell, but if you ever chose to review old threads, you will note that I was an early champion for drafting Amare Stoudemire, Joe Johnson, Mike Miller and some others like Troy Murphy and Zach Randolph. Of course, too, you will find that I hoped we could acquire DeSagana Diop and Eddie Griffin. My big disappointment is not in Head the player, but rather, in not going for a player who fills one of our cavernous voids -- a PF we can develop, a PG we can develop or a SF to give JVG the flexibility to play T-Mc at SF or SG. By drafting a smallish SG who maybe, possibly can be taught to play PG, IMO we allowed Memphis, Denver and Utah to close the gap on us.
Head does address our most pressing need, the need to get quick inj the backcourt, so we can defend and help keep little gnat guards from running into Yao and picking up fouls.
I would have gone with Simien. He's a great rebounder and he can knock down his free throws. Not knowing the status of Howard, it's an area we could use some depth at even if we pick up another PF via free agency. People says he's smallish, but Rodman was 6'8 and Barkley was about 6'5. You don't have to be tall to rebound. Bob Sura was probably the Rockets' best rebounder last year. Definitely the best rebounder that was regularly in the starting line up. Hopefully Head will pan out. I don't feel nearly as bad about this pick as I did Bryce Drew or Bostjan Nachbar. If he's as good about moving without the ball as I've read, I think I'll be happy with the pick.
Our trade record is good. (Francis, TMac- 'nough said) Our FA signings and drafts are weak (anyone could pick Dream and Yao) Cassell, Horry, Mobley are the exceptions. Having said that- Luther Head will be an exception and an 'exceptional' pick. Simien will be an OK journeyman one day. But we need a veteran PF badly. We must sign a solid veteran PF. Crisis if we fail! I would get this FA thing done soon (or a sign and trade) Any FA we get on our 4-5 man wish list will be better at least this season than Simien.
1. I would have desperately tried to get Gerald Green (the Logo was pissed he missed by one, so pissed he gave Warrick a Princeton education) 2. If that didn't work out, I would have dropped back a couple spots if possible and taken Stoudamire. 3. But if stuck at 24, I would still have taken Stoudamire.
