If Not Austin Rivers, then who?

I keep seeing that Austin Rivers has been such a disappointment as a rookie. I also see numerous people saying that he was a reach as the 10th overall pick, that he was a project that maybe they would have considered at the end of the first or beginning of the second. This baffles me.

If he is a disappointment so far, then what do you call all the guys behind him that can't even get off the bench. Who drafted after Rivers is having a better start to his career? Who were these can't miss, NBA ready players that we passed up when we "reached" for Austin Rivers.

Seriously, take a look at picks 11-30 and how they are performing early in their career. I want to know if you could go back in time and select the 10th pick over again, who would you take?

I would have tried to trade with Toronto to trade the pick and go after Drummond. DET wasn't going to take Ross. Next on their board was Henson. I don't see why it couldn't have been 8. NOH - Drummond 9. DET - Henson 10. TOR - Ross

but at 10 Austin was probably the best pick there for us.

only person i would take out of the draft instead of austin was barnes but he got taken earlier

good observation

I knew I should have included this- no cheating. Don't say you would have traded up for this guy or that guy. You have no idea if those teams were open to it. Stick to the idea that you have number 10. Who do you take?

Great post, when I hear some people say that we shouldn't drafted AR with the #10 pick I say the same thing you just posted. But the way AR has played lately has stop alot of that talk.

I love Rivers i reckon his going to be great one day.
I would say Andrew Nicholson is the only one that is performing at a higher level then austin atm.

There are bigger disappointments than Rivers that were taken ahead of him. Heck, some love to complain about Anthony Davis.

I mean, has Thomas Robinson been doing much so far?

I am trying to be objective and really look at all the prospects and if you put me back on that day, 10th pick, same guys off the board ahead of him and I cant even think of another guy that I would consider taking. A couple of guys are playing slightly better, but none of those guys (Nicholson, Zeller, D. Green, etc.) have any real upside. If I couldgo back in time, it would still be Austin at ten for me

Was it you or Schwan that didn't like Rivers?

Also, in his last five games he's shooting 49% from the field and averaging 14 a game. At what point does he keep stringing games along and we say "ok this is Austin Rivers." Or is he just on a hot streak?

it was shawn MM has been a supporter of Rivers and so have i for months before the draft

*schwan*

I had Rivers coming here at 10 the minute that the lotto balls came up. Check the date and time on this article

http://www.hornets247.com/2012/05/30...ry-mock-draft/

It has always made sense to me and I took a lot of "stuff" from most of the other writers on our site, writers on other sites, our readers, etc. but I never stopped believing. Was the clear choice to me and still is

To be fair, Rivers probably wouldn't get off the bench on the teams picked behind the Hornets.

But here are the the PER, Offensive Rating/Defensive Rating and Win Shares per 48 minutes for Rivers and the guys behind him.

10. Austin Rivers - 7.7, 91/113, -0.025
11. Meyers Leonard - 13.0, 118/106, .116 (22 games)
12. Jeremy Lamb - 7.5, 95/111, 0.005 (8 games, 34 minutes)
13. Kendall Marshall - 2.8, 77/115, -0.105 (6 games, 34 minutes)
14. John Henson - 14.6, 99/104, 0.070 (14 games)
15. Mo Harkless - 10.9, 96/99, 0.084 (19 games)
16. Royce White -N/A
17. Tyler Zeller - 10.8, 99/108, 0.046 (20 games)
18. Terrence Jones - 17.8, 110/105, 0.130 (8 games)
19. Andrew Nicholson - 18.7, 111/101, 0.163 (21 games)
20. Evan Fournier - 8.7, 96/116, -0.017 (7 games)
21. Jared Sullinger - 12.7, 109/102, 0.121 (22 games)
22. Fab Melo - N/A
23. John Jenkins - 23.3, 115/103, .209 (7 games)

I'm not surprised Rivers metrics are that low since his college advanced metrics were lower than most of these guys when compared at the same age. Guys at the 10 spot who had the best metrics were Jared Sullinger, Terrence Jones, John Henson, Tyler Zeller, and Meyers Leonard. But its easier for big men to have better metrics since they usually shoot a higher FG% and do more things on the floor like defense and rebounding. Too early to decide who was the best pick. Usually takes about 3-5 years to determine.

With Sullinger's injury risk knocking him down, guys who I would have clearly picked over Rivers at that spot were Lamb, Terrence Jones, John Henson, and Meyers Leonard. I felt those guys brought more to the table especially long-term, but I had Rivers low in this draft anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornets78

With Sullinger's injury risk knocking him down, guys who I would have clearly picked over Rivers at that spot were Lamb, Terrence Jones, John Henson, and Meyers Leonard. I felt those guys brought more to the table especially long-term, but I had Rivers low in this draft anyway.

---

Fair enough, and after having this extra couple of months, if you could go back in time, who would you take?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

Fair enough, and after having this extra couple of months, if you could go back in time, who would you take?

---

After Sullinger went down I had TJones, Leonard, Henson, and Lamb in that order. But Jones would have been a reach since he was drafted much later but he had the most skills out of anyone at that point. Defense, rebounding, superb athleticism, high IQ, good ball-handler, and passer for a PF. Now this was before the team signed Anderson.

Its far too early to judge any of these kids from this draft, Rivers included.

Rivers has had to fight perception. Many analysts think he is going to be a failure, they believe he will have trouble adjsting to the pg position. He played tenetively and timidly when the season started. He also assumed that he would get fouls and tried to draw contact in a league with an obvious and subjective hierarchy. He just needs to keep adjusting and focus on fighting for respect through his play and nothing else. The only person I would have taken ahead of him is Meyers Leonard. However, I did believe Gordon would be healthy so I didn't see the need for another guard, with Henry already on the squad and the potential to get Crawford in free agency

Yeah I had lamb and TJ over Rivers. I really like TJ even still. I think Rivers' wall will be finishing over NBA bigs, they have much better lateral quickness and Rivers doesn't beat them to the rim.

Henson is intriguing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

I am trying to be objective and really look at all the prospects and if you put me back on that day, 10th pick, same guys off the board ahead of him and I cant even think of another guy that I would consider taking. A couple of guys are playing slightly better, but none of those guys (Nicholson, Zeller, D. Green, etc.) have any real upside. If I couldgo back in time, it would still be Austin at ten for me

---

It's a great point and I agree with you 100%. I think what got a lot of us kinda bummer is that we were so close to having Drummond fall to us and wow that a coup that would have been. It was kind of like missing out on the Powerball by one number and having to settle for a $100,000 prize (at least that's how I felt at the moment). But when you look at it a certain way, Austin fills a huge need and has all the tools and intangibles to be a lifelong Hornet. Great pick and I think he's more exciting/fun to watch than Anthony Davis. Davis is boring - I love him but he's so boring haha.

I think the general consensus is pretty much that there was no better pick we could have made at 10, obviously if we could have traded the pick for 2 lower 1sts that would have been better, but remember we supposedly tried that with Hou and it didn't work. The only way I could have been happier would have been to grab Terrence Jones in conjunction with someone like Jeremy Lamb or Andrew Nicholson.

Although with EG's ability to be permanently injured Austin is a good pick for the future. I initially hated the pick but having seen him play, I have no doubt he will develop into a good starter-quality combo guard. With the right pieces (AD, Randerson and maybe even EG) he will be more than good enough to give us 35 mins a night.

Only thing I'd do different is figure out who we'd need to kidnap or brainwash to trade up to draft Damian Lillard. Other than that, eh. I was a little worried going in. But I'm not as much now.

I'm an enormous Rivers supporter so I was ecstatic when he was the pick. Wouldn't change for me. If not Rivers though, probably Terrence Jones. Maybe put him at the 3 or spark off the bench.

Since everyone else is cheating though, I'd have found a way to trade up and get Harrison Barnes (considering how low he'd fallen at that point--7) and kept J-Jack.

That starting lineup would be nice. Jack, Gordon, Barnes, Davis, Lopez/Anderson.

Still stick by what we originally did, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eman5805

Only thing I'd do different is figure out who we'd need to kidnap or brainwash to trade up to draft Damian Lillard. Other than that, eh. I was a little worried going in. But I'm not as much now.

---

Well I was looking at Rivers' freshmen college stats and Lillard's. As freshmen against better compeition rivers has better stats all the way around the board. Lillard honed his skills against terrible competition so while it looks good now when rivers reaches the same age as lillard he will be better IMO

But to answers the posters original question if harrison barnes was there i'd take him because hes the perfect type of SF we need, an athletic scorer with an incredible jumpshot but he wasn't so thats not the way it works. For me it was between Rivers and Terrence Jones. Terence jones could definetly play the 3. He has great handles, promising improving jumpshot and great defender and athlete. He could be a josh smith with better handles and jumpshot but I absolutely love Rivers, will be an incredible scorer in 3 years, allen iverson type, quote me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HornetGuru

Well I was looking at Rivers' freshmen college stats and Lillard's. As freshmen against better compeition rivers has better stats all the way around the board. Lillard honed his skills against terrible competition so while it looks good now when rivers reaches the same age as lillard he will be better IMO

---

I don't understand why people don't take this into account when they compare the 2. Lillard has 3 years of college experience on Rivers. That means a lot. Rivers will be the better player in a few years.

For anyone that has watched lillard play. Does he remind you any of Marcus Thornton, as in shooting too much and having inflated stats?

I agree. I think Rookie of the Year is an outdated award. When it was first introduced, you didn't have some rookies who were 19 and others who were 26. In what world should Austin Rivers and Brian Roberts be competing for the same award?

Give me an under 21 Player of the Year Award. an over 21 year old first year Player of the Year award, and an international important first year player of the year award.

Just spitballing, but calling all of these guys rookies as if they are truly in the same class is just hilarious to me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bojangles837

For anyone that has watched lillard play. Does he remind you any of Marcus Thornton, as in shooting too much and having inflated stats?

---

MT relied upon the outside shot more and probably wasn't as explosive but very fluid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HornetGuru

But to answers the posters original question if harrison barnes was there i'd take him because hes the perfect type of SF we need, an athletic scorer with an incredible jumpshot but he wasn't so thats not the way it works. For me it was between Rivers and Terrence Jones. Terence jones could definetly play the 3. He has great handles, promising improving jumpshot and great defender and athlete. He could be a josh smith with better handles and jumpshot but I absolutely love Rivers, will be an incredible scorer in 3 years, allen iverson type, quote me.

---

I really wanted to trade up with SAC and snag Barnes. He would have fit so perfectly here, but as many already know, I'm a huge Rivers supporter. Given the players available with the 10th pick, and our positions of need, Rivers was the right call. He's only going to get better and better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bojangles837

For anyone that has watched lillard play. Does he remind you any of Marcus Thornton, as in shooting too much and having inflated stats?

---

Nooooooo. Lillard is really good. I do not see a chucker at all. Would love if he were a Hornet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceedee M

Nooooooo. Lillard is really good. I do not see a chucker at all. Would love if he were a Hornet.

---

You mean, besides the fact that he's shooting only 37% from the field over his last 10 games? OOoookay ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

I agree. I think Rookie of the Year is an outdated award. When it was first introduced, you didn't have some rookies who were 19 and others who were 26. In what world should Austin Rivers and Brian Roberts be competing for the same award?

Give me an under 21 Player of the Year Award. an over 21 year old first year Player of the Year award, and an international important first year player of the year award.

Just spitballing, but calling all of these guys rookies as if they are truly in the same class is just hilarious to me

---

I like this idea but I doubt it happens because sometimes the best rookie IS a 19 year old so having a separate over 21 rookie award would kind of be stupid.

4 out of the last 5 ROY's have been from one and dones. It is crazy though that a guy like Kyrie Irving who is tearing up the league is still two years younger than the rookie Damian Lillard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nolaslim213

You mean, besides the fact that he's shooting only 37% from the field over his last 10 games? OOoookay ;)

---

It doesn't have to be Rivers is a good player or Lillard is a good player. They can both be good in the long run. No need to bash Lillard, he's legit and will be a good player for a long time in this league. Rivers will too if I had to guess. No reason to bash either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. West

It doesn't have to be Rivers is a good player or Lillard is a good player. They can both be good in the long run. No need to bash Lillard, he's legit and will be a good player for a long time in this league. Rivers will too if I had to guess. No reason to bash either.

---

I'm not bashing Lillard. I'm just asking for people to stop gawking at the fact that he is averaging 19 points a game, and really look at how he is doing it. If you think 19 points per game on 37% shooting is great, then I don't know what to say to that....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nolaslim213

I'm not bashing Lillard. I'm just asking for people to stop gawking at the fact that he is averaging 19 points a game, and really look at how he is doing it. If you think 19 points per game on 37% shooting is great, then I don't know what to say to that....

---

He's playing almost 40 minutes to get those 19 points. He's GOT to be leading all rookies in minutes. 19pts on 15 shots just isn't very efficient. I think the only questions he has right now is his efficiency and his defense.

Also, the fact that he plays so many minutes could be what contributes to him leading all rookies in turnovers as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nolaslim213

I'm not bashing Lillard. I'm just asking for people to stop gawking at the fact that he is averaging 19 points a game, and really look at how he is doing it. If you think 19 points per game on 37% shooting is great, then I don't know what to say to that....

---

You do realize Lillards first season is pretty comparable to Paul's first season here ?
Lillards 18.9 ppg 42.6 fg %36.6 3 point % 3.4 rebounds 6.4 assist 1.1 stl 3 turnovers

Paul 16 ppg 43%fg 23% 3 point 5 rebounds 7.8 assist 2.2 stl 2.3 turnovers

Quit bashing the kid. He's having a pretty damn good season and is the rookie of the year. I'm happy for him and glad his skills translated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallSoHard

You do realize Lillards first season is pretty comparable to Paul's first season here ?
Lillards 18.9 ppg 42.6 fg %36.6 3 point % 3.4 rebounds 6.4 assist 1.1 stl 3 turnovers

Paul 16 ppg 43%fg 23% 3 point 5 rebounds 7.8 assist 2.2 stl 2.3 turnovers

Quit bashing the kid. He's having a pretty damn good season and is the rookie of the year. I'm happy for him and glad his skills translated.

---

I know they start the ASG voting early but I didn't know they done already gave out the ROY award.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HunnyB

He's playing almost 40 minutes to get those 19 points. He's GOT to be leading all rookies in minutes. 19pts on 15 shots just isn't very efficient. I think the only questions he has right now is his efficiency and his defense.

Also, the fact that he plays so many minutes could be what contributes to him leading all rookies in turnovers as well.

---

He is also averaging over 15 shots per game, but he's not a chucker :hihi:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallSoHard

You do realize Lillards first season is pretty comparable to Paul's first season here ?
Lillards 18.9 ppg 42.6 fg %36.6 3 point % 3.4 rebounds 6.4 assist 1.1 stl 3 turnovers

Paul 16 ppg 43%fg 23% 3 point 5 rebounds 7.8 assist 2.2 stl 2.3 turnovers

Quit bashing the kid. He's having a pretty damn good season and is the rookie of the year. I'm happy for him and glad his skills translated.

---

Dude, I'm not bashing anyone. Lillard isn't even close to Paul's calibre as a rookie. That's just a fact. Paul had no help, and Lillard has Mathews, Batum, and LMA. That's a lot of help. Plus, you are looking at raw statistics, which is a mistake.

Are you really going to try and tell me that Lillard isn't an inefficient chucker? That isn't me hating on the kid. That's just me reminding people to stop looking at just points per game, which doesn't mean ****. I've watched him play, and his passes rarely land where they should. Half of his assists seem to come from feeding LMA in the post. His shot selection is poor, but not as poor as his defense is. But sure, he's having the same rookie season as Chris Paul.

You people need to pump the breaks. Good Lord.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HunnyB

I know they start the ASG voting early but I didn't know they done already gave out the ROY award.

---

It's pretty clear at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nolaslim213

He is also averaging over 15 shots per game, but he's not a chucker :hihi:



Dude, I'm not bashing anyone. Lillard isn't even close to Paul's calibre as a rookie. That's just a fact. Paul had no help, and Lillard has Mathews, Batum, and LMA. That's a lot of help. Plus, you are looking at raw statistics, which is a mistake.

Are you really going to try and tell me that Lillard isn't an inefficient chucker? That isn't me hating on the kid. That's just me reminding people to stop looking at just points per game, which doesn't mean ****. I've watched him play, and his passes rarely land where they should. Half of his assists seem to come from feeding LMA in the post. His shot selection is poor, but not as poor as his defense is. But sure, he's having the same rookie season as Chris Paul.

You people need to pump the breaks. Good Lord.

---

We've all watched him play. you need to pump the brakes on the hate from a guy in his rookie season, dude hasn't figured it out yet. This dude is one year from playing in the big sky and is adjusting very well. I was very impressed with him the 4 or 5 games i've watched of him, and it's not his raw numbers that impress me. It's his ability to break down the defense at will. I'm impressed, you're not. I think he's going to be a very very solid player for a long long time.

Why people hating on Lillard. He's good. See what he did to the Spurs even though his FG is like .430%

Some of you people need to learn that constructive criticism and hate aren't synonmous.

I swear first the Vasquez craze and now this.....

Davis is averaging 18.8 pts, 9.9 rbds, 1 ast, 1.6 stl, 2.9 blk, on 51% shooting per 36

Lillard is averaing 17.9 pts, 3.2 rbds, 6.1 ast, 1 stl, 0.2 blk, on 43% shooting per 36

I know that's not what this is about, but I'm just saying...

Ahem*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallSoHard

We've all watched him play. you need to pump the brakes on the hate from a guy in his rookie season, dude hasn't figured it out yet. This dude is one year from playing in the big sky and is adjusting very well. I was very impressed with him the 4 or 5 games i've watched of him, and it's not his raw numbers that impress me. It's his ability to break down the defense at will. I'm impressed, you're not. I think he's going to be a very very solid player for a long long time.

---

See the post below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NOH2313

Some of you people need to learn that constructive criticism and hate aren't synonmous.

I swear first the Vasquez craze and now this.....

---

Jesus Christ, it's ridiculous. The ignorance astounds me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallSoHard

Ahem*

---

Lillard had a horrible game, Vasquez totally owned him, but he did hit the game winner. Again, that doesn't mean he had a good game. This further backs up the notion that your love for Lillard is only skin deep.

Lame :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AD23forMVP

Davis is averaging 18.8 pts, 9.9 rbds, 1 ast, 1.6 stl, 2.9 blk, on 51% shooting per 36

Lillard is averaing 17.9 pts, 3.2 rbds, 6.1 ast, 1 stl, 0.2 blk, on 43% shooting per 36

I know that's not what this is about, but I'm just saying...

---

No no, check with BallSoHard. It's obvious that Lillard is the ROY. It isn't even a race.