Rockets draft grades

Patterson sounds like a mix of Battier, Landry and Hayes.

 

ESPN writer has absolutely no idea that Hayes was never drafted.

 

B+
I would give

 

Well, I'll add that Hayes was an undrafted free agent. So he should get by on a technicality.

 

CBSports: C
Quote:
Analysis: If this means the Rockets aren't serious about re-signing restricted free agent Luis Scola, they're making a monster-sized mistake.

I hate it how everybody picks on luis just because he looks like a monster, he's a sweet boy, people should just leave him alone.

 

For all the people giving ranking it less than A, who do you think would have warranted an A? what would our ratings have been if we reached for someone?

 

I voted B in the poll. I don't think you give a team "A" because the player you wanted fell in your lap. I'd have given the Rockets an A if they were able to maneuver themselves into the top 5 without sacrificing too much of their s&t assets -- one of their goals before the draft (though pretty ambitious).

It was a solid draft, but there is work left to do.

 

Not necessarily that pick was not worth an A, but it's the overall draft we are talking about. He would have gotten an A if he could have acquired another pick for cash or make some other lopsided trade.

 

CBS seems to be grading the pick on the assumption that the Rockets picked him in order not to have to re-sign Scola. I seriously doubt that is the case, but why not just grade the pick on its value at #14? Their 'analysis' provided absolutely no insight, so you might as well ignore their grade.

 

I dont think they're talking about Luis being a Monster....i think they're talking about the Rockets' decision to keep Scola... if they decide NOT to resign him, then its a BIG MISTAKE on the Rockets part..

 

I would have graded it an A but we didn't get to rape Pritchard like i expected, but a lot of teams are not going to do "big" trades until Lebron chooses his next destination.

B

 

ok that makes sense. my approach was if he made the right decision at the time of the pick. So i rank the pick an A-, because it was the BPA. but I rank the overall draft a B, since we were not able to get projects to try to fill our voids.

Think about it. If you were a GM, would you really want to deal with Morey. His myth and mystery may be his downfall. He needs to make some average trades so people will think he's human.

 

sorry, i forgot to put won of these after the post, i was totally dogging on luis. i just think he looks like a monster sometimes and sometimes like a teenage girl, but just sometimes. most of the time he's real handsome...

 

Love the pick, another very nice asset for Morey to dangle for another star. I gave it a B+ only because an A for me would have been something like Cousins or Johnson. Overall, dam good pick that could turn into a very important piece to the Morey puzzle.

 

I really just wish we got Ryan Richards, and equally important San Antonio didn't.

 

CBS is r****ded if they think we're not re-signing Scola. They must've been reading this thread.

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=188328

 

Maybe they deserve an A for shrewdly NOT trading up to grab PP, especially if they were prepared to do so. Depending on what they were possibly going to give up to move up to grab Patterson, those assets we get to now keep or use in some other move, then it should be counted an an added bonus in this draft itself.

This is why DM is a black hole of information leading up to the draft. If any of those 7-12 teams had known how much DM coveted Patterson, I am sure they would have used that knowledge to try to fleece us out of some of our assets.

Pick gets an A for that reason.

 

I think people are off base with this "his ceiling is low" talk. Look, he was one of the top prospects year in and year out as a freshman and sophomore. Then his stock dipped because he took on a diminished role due to Wall and Cousins and Bledsoe entering the picture. Does that mean that he got any worse? No, on the contrary he even added an outside shot to his game.

Did it mean that his post-game slipped? No, his true-shooting was 63% for the year, second highest out of all PF's listed on DraftExpress. He committed almost no turnovers also. This kid was too good for college and had enough humility to let his rebounds, assists, blocks, steals, etc. take a dip so that the team could be better. I think Morey and co. would call this an opportunity to take advantage of a case when the stats don't match the player, kinda like when Carl Landry was injured his junior year.

Speaking of Landry, Patterson measures out as longer and faster than him in all the combine exercises. We never knew Carl's outside shot was so good; well Patterson's may be better. Patterson has a great array of post moves and should be an explosive finisher just like Carl. In essence, we replaced Carl Landry through the draft, with a bigger faster Carl Landry and one who performed better in college as well. There's no telling if he'll make the leaps in play that Carl did his first two years, but I have to think that from where he's starting and how his motor looks and how his mental composure appears (both incredibly good), that he's got just as much a chance if not a probable chance to be better than Landry and starting for this team.