Some things to remember about the Collier pick: 1) Jason Collier was ***NOT*** the #9 pick - he WAS the 15th pick. (Say it again a little more slowly.... fifteenth pick)! 2) Jerome Moiso is surely more athletic than Collier. But, Collier can play BOTH C & PF in the NBA and Moiso is a PF almost exclusively. Colliers 3pt% in college smokes Moiso's - 36.9% ti 22.7%. Otis Thorpe was a #9 pick who started 23 games and avg'd 12.8 pts & 6.8 rebs his rookie year. Although they are similar in height and weight, those #'s will be a stretch for Moiso this season. 3) IMHO, the Rocks really had there focus on Etan Thomas at 15, but when the Mavs picked him at 12, Collier was the Rocks next choice. 4) In the 21 year history of the NBA Draft Lottery, there have been 105 players selected at 9 thru 13. ONLY 7 players of the 105 have made All Star status. I just don't see any Dale Ellis's, OTs, Reggie Millers, Oakleys, Eddie Joneses or Karl Malones in this years group. Apparently, the Rocks didn't either (say it one last time - the FIFTEENTH pick). Later, ------------------ GATER [This message has been edited by GATER (edited October 13, 2000).]
Gater: You can think of it that way if it makes you feel better, but we *did* expend the 9th pick... it's nothing but SEMANTICS. We went into the draft with the 9th pick, and came out with Collier (ugh) and a future PROTECTED #1 (ugh). This is hardly what we expected, and we probably could have done better. It really does seem like we could have traded up for Mihm-it would have made MORE sense for Chicago. I'm not the biggest Mihm fan, but he would have been better than what we got. About Moiso... there are questions about him, but he could also *light it up*. There were times when he could completely dominate games... although he also disappeared upon occasion. THat said... why not take a chance? Collier, at BEST, is a back-up center. Moiso could have been a solid PF... and at the time, nobody knew we'd sign Mo. We certainly don't need Collier this year-Hakeem and Cato should tag team at center. Remember: Collier was expected to be a SECOND ROUND draft pick. He was an awful deal even at #15... and he has only affirmed these views by his poor play at the revue and the season. Yes yes... he was hurt at the revue, but then.. do we really want a rookie C burdened by injuries? ------------------ Shandon Anderson rocks. The lottery sucks. Playoffs 2001. [This message has been edited by haven (edited October 13, 2000).] [This message has been edited by haven (edited October 13, 2000).]
Gater, thanks for the facts/research. It's nice to have those to back up your arguments. Haven, what the hell do you mean "do we really want a rookie C burdened by injuries?" Does that mean we can get do-overs if our draft picks get injured? ------------------
Holden: No team would trade their next year #1 for the 9 pick... except someone like LA, or Portland. I do agree, however, that at the #9 you should take the best available player. Collier has yet to have a *single game* where he has played well. That's sort of frightening. I agree that a shooting guard would have been a mistake... I just think we should have taken Moiso. Also, I don't see why we couldn't have arranged something with the Bulls, as was previously suggested for Mihm. Cleveland certainly wasn't going to take another PG, absent that trade... and Chicago would have had better leverage with us, as we were a pick lower than Cleveland, AND would have been able to pay Crawford a bit less. For all the good trades that CD has pulled off, the Collier trade was a dud. ------------------ Shandon Anderson rocks. The lottery sucks. Playoffs 2001.
Baqui99, Collier is way better than McClintock. Maybe McClintock has a little range and is big like Collier, but his hands are like stone and he does not have the touch around the basket Collier has. The importance of a big guy's hands on this team should not be overlooked with the way our offense is built around guards dishing the rock. I get kind of tired of seeing Los fumble pass after pass. Collier's not going to jump right out at you as somebody making a ton of stuff happen, but as I watch him, I see him do a lot of little things to help the team out. He seems to be a smart, skilled big man who should have a home here as a rotation player if he can avoid becoming too Danny Ferryish. ------------------ [This message has been edited by Oatdog (edited October 14, 2000).]
I don't remember seeing any pre-draft report that said Moiso could "light it up", or "dominate games". If I recall correctly, he scored 16 a game in college, and was considered raw but athletic offensively. So far, he's been very raw, but that's based on only a couple of games and summerleague writeups. On the current roster, Moiso would be locked in a battle with Matt Bullard and Carlos Rogers for garbage time minutes behind Mo Taylor and Kenny Thomas. j ------------------
Silent j: What I was specifically referring to was Moiso's game vs Stanford, when UCLA upset them. Before he fouled out, Moiso was close to unstoppable in the 4th quarter of that game. Anyone can score... but he had a sort of grace that was impressive. Collier's injuries: The excuse that I always hear for Collier's pathetic RMR debut is that he was hurt. You can't have it both ways... either he was hampered with back spasms before his first true pro game, or he just sucked without an excuse. Frickin' Collier apologists ;P! ------------------ Shandon Anderson rocks. The lottery sucks. Playoffs 2001.
Haven, You have obviously missed the subleties of my post, so I will try again. 1) It would have been nice for the Rocks to move up in the Draft. The problem is that the cost was prohibitive. Use your imagination. My personal favorite was DerMarr Johnson. I think he is loaded with upside. The cost? The Hawks want Sprewell and more for the aging Mutombo - you can bet they would want Cuttino and a pick for Johnson. Please, don't insult us both with Walt and KT, or Bryce and 'Los and a 2nd rounder. We are talking the #6 pick here. As for Mihm, he was the #7. The Bulls will wind up giving us 2 second rounders for Drew. The Bulls would have taken no less than Shandon, or Cuttino, or Cato AND a pick. If you think fans are screaming about Collier, imagine the noise if we gave up ANY starter or quality backup to move up 2 slots. (Sorry, Moochie & KT for Mihm wouldn't entice Krauss - bet on it). If there was a DECENT offer on the table, I am sure Rudy and CD would have moved up. 2) You need to reread my point about #9 picks. The ONLY valuable #9 pick is one who can step in and make an impact for you immediately (hence the reference to OT, Reggie, Malone, etc). Pryzbilla is a project even for the Bucks. I wouldn't waste a Lottery pick on someone who will play 2nd string behind ERVIN JOHNSON. Maybe you consider that a good use of a #9. For 3 preseason games, Pryzbilla is averaging 24.7 min, 6 rebounds, 2.3 blocks and a WHOPPING 5 points. While this is so far more productive than Collier, these are not numbers I want from my #9. They BOTH are likely to be busts, but it's better to waste a 15 than a 9 - especially when the 15 has a conditional 1st rounder attached!! 3) You now have the luxury of hindsight which Rudy and CD did not have on Draft night. Find one player who the Rocks could have had that is making a SIGNIFICANT impact in the preseason. (You will lose ALL credibility if you say Najera - all 29 teams passed in round 1, that's not a coincidence or a conspiracy - that's 29 different opinions with the same conclusion). ------------------ GATER [This message has been edited by GATER (edited October 16, 2000).] [This message has been edited by GATER (edited October 16, 2000).]
:To add to Gators point; Collier doesn't NEED to be an impact player to be a good pick! All he needs to do is grab some rebounds and set some screens and make his outside shot. If he can do those things then he could pan out to be a 10-20 mpg player. Now Cato is going to be our starting center as of next season at the latest. Kelvin will need to sit down every now and then, and imagine having a guy who can come on and keep the opposition centers honest while Cato gets a breather. For mine, a player who is able to do that is worth a #15 pick. And if Collier can't do it, then never mind, we've got a chance at picking another one next year with the Bucks first round pick!! Just because Collier isn't athletic enough for you, or because he isn't going to be an all star, or because he's not going to dominate a game doesn't mean that he's not a solid player and a decent pick. ------------------
Gater: Let me try to explain this again... Cleveland was *not* going to pick Jamal Crawford in a normal world. They already *have* clutter at the 1 spot. They picked Jamal Crawford because they *already had a deal*, once Mihm was available at the #7. Now, this means that, barring that deal, Crawford slides to us at the #9. The advantage of the Bulls making a trade with Houston instead of Cleveland are obvious. First, they have to pay Crawford a bit less, as he's a pick lower. Secondly, they don't give up a player to a division rival. Sure, Chicago probably won't make the playoffs this year... but imagine if they trade Fizer for a good 3, Crawford works out. Suddenly, they're set with good players at 4 of 5 positions... not half bad. In the weak east, there's a chance they'd make the playoffs in a couple years. Better to make a more intelligent trade with Houston, rather than Cleveland. We wouldn't have had to give up anything more than Cleveland gave... and we'd have a real center, instead of Collier. At the #9, I would have selected Moiso. Instead of Collier, I probably would have gone for Mason, Richardson, or Alexander. yes, these guys would be a bit redundant, but might have decent trade value later all... and Richardson could play the 3, fairly easily. Collier should have been a 2nd rounder, as most figured him to be. ------------------ Shandon Anderson rocks. The lottery sucks. Playoffs 2001. [This message has been edited by haven (edited October 16, 2000).]
Haven, 1) It's pointless to discuss the Crawford/Mihm situation. It's done and in the history books. And the Rocks were not a part of it - fact. 2) Mason - 1 for 5 shooting in 46 preseason minutes with Seattle. Not exactly lighting it up. 3) Alexander - 8 0f 27 in 36 preseason minutes. 4) Richardson - had 1 BIG preseason game against the Grizz. Even with that he's still shooting 37% from the field. You MIGHT be able to build a case for Q, but the jury is still out on all of the them (Collier included). The G/F's you have mentioned are all redundant for the Rockets and then you face the problem of getting them enough PT to display them to other teams. Collier filled a bigger need - especially with Dreams situation being really unknown on Draft day. Jason doesn't have to be outrageous - just adequate. And we still don't know what the Bucks pick will turn into. ------------------ GATER [This message has been edited by GATER (edited October 17, 2000).]
haven, don't be blinded by your hatred for Collier. We needed a guard like a hole in the head. There was no point in picking a rookie guard who would be sitting on the bench and whining. You say they would've had trade value. How? Does a team normally make a trade to acquire an undersized SF who can't shoot and hasn't played a minute in the NBA? That seems to sum up both Q and Mason. If you'll remember, we DID trade our draft pick, for 2 first round picks! The first one was the number 15, with which we took Collier. There are many people who believe the Rockets were looking to take Etan Thomas there and thus semi-fulfill a void we had at PF. That didn't work out thanks to the Mavs, but we got Mo, so who cares. Our next weakest position was C. Sounds silly when you've got Hakeem and Cato playing there, but the move was made to find a player who will be a serviceable backup for Kelvin Cato in years to come after Hakeems retired. I like the move for this year too! It gives us that someone who can step in and be a full-sized center who is useful at both ends of the court. Looking at the injury records of both Hakeem and Cato, one might imagine that we'll need that extra big body sooner or later, plus it gives Collier a year to adjust to playing NBA without lumping a lot of pressure on him. Wait till the season. Watch how he contributes. Don't get angry because he's not an all-star, be happy because he makes life easier for Francis and Mobley!! ------------------
Jason Collier is a rookie, but he's gotta get tougher. He won't last long if he continues to play this way. I know alot of people are saying it's only preseason, but that's when alot of rookies get their opportunities to dispay their talents. I don't really care if he scores or not but he's gotta be able to come up with rebounds in critical times. Phyiscal toughness is what's gonna be required if he's gonna contribute to this team. ------------------
Physical toughness can take a while to develop. There's a lot of players who ride the pine for a long time until they decide that they need to "get tough" to make it in the NBA. I doubt that Collier will be seen as "physically tough" this season, but if he works at it then there's every chance that he can become tough! ------------------
Gater: Your points are all good... I'll let it drop after this last post. 1. Yes, this is history. That doesn't disallow me from arguing we should have done something else 2. It is true we really didn't need another guard. Fine, Quentin Richardson could have been taken. We could have kept Najera that way, as well. Najera would have been a 3/4 and Richardson a 3/2... sounds good to me. Well, a little iffy, but still better than Collier. DrNueger: I didn't hate Collier initially... I was skeptical. And I DO ACCEPT THE NEED he fills. We need a jump shooting center... i agree all the way there. However, Collier's jump shot isn't quite good enough to be the threat we need to take pressure away from the lane. Also, his defense is so abysmal it renders the rest irrelevent. Also, I know that we got an additional pick for next year... but it's protected. Sure, it's possible that in a deep draft that we'll find a gem of a player... I just don't think it's something you want to take a risk on... I haven't completely given up on Collier. Unlike others, I'm not suggesting we give up on the guy. What I am saying, is that there were better options available. I also don't tink you need an all-star for every position... if you'll look at many of my previous posts, I actually attack those who seem to imply that a prototypical player is necessary for every position. I'd be perfectly fine with a player LIKE collier... but he'd need to play average defense, and have a bit better shot. ------------------ Shandon Anderson rocks. The lottery sucks. Playoffs 2001. [This message has been edited by haven (edited October 18, 2000).]
I wanna know who is gonna make the team? We have 14 players and we have to cut 2 to slim it down to 12. Everyone knows Boseman will be cut now the final 3 on the bubble are: Collier Bullard Langhi Is there anyway we can cut all 3?
LilFrancis, We don't have to cut two spots, and I'd bet the bank that we won't. We can only have 12 players on the bench, but have you forgoten the "injured" reserve? It's insurance. ------------------ "Liberalism not only legitimizes envy, jealousy, ignorance, and the lack of moral standards, but it also makes these attributes virtues." --Drake Raft
