DraftExpress: Situational Statistics: the 2013 Point Guard Crop

I like Burke because everything today is pick and roll, and he runs it better than anyone on the team or in the draft. Plus he's fills the other big need - deep shooting.

I am not a scout, but based on history and the little I have seen of others available, I don't think anyone else we are projecting at 6 is ready to contribute more than spot minutes off the bench.

I don't have advanced statistics to prove it, but I feel like the utter putridity of the Hornets offense last year ended up making other aspects of the game - defense, transition game -- worse than they should have been. When you have to execute almost perfectly for 20 seconds on offense to get a good shot, take a lot of scramble end of the shot clock shots, and you shoot a poor percentage, it hurts the teams ability to set up the defense and it takes away from defensive intensity. I think Burke is a fix because he is going to get you 10-14 points off of transition and pull up J's early in the shot clock when they previously got none of that -- easy points. Plus the damage he will do passing out of the pick and roll. I think that improved offense will help defense too.

I think Burke is probably an 8 rather than a 9 or 10 PG. Its not like the 6th pick is supposed to be sure fire all star. But I think he can add what the team most sorely lacks on offense. And that could be enough to make a difference in the W/L statistic. The other prospects wont have the same impact. Maybe Len or Porter develop into stars, but how long will it take? And would they even be able to reach their potential with the stagnant guard play currently offered by the roster?

Burke fixes the areas of play that are most holding the team back.

Doesn't sound like they are picking him. Oh well. At least I will be able to get up and go grab a beer from the fridge without missing anything at the start of every Pelican's possession.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NOLa.

There was a month where the Burke lovefest was getting out of control on the forums. There are quite a few people on here that truly have been following him since the college season, but a lot just went bandwagon by the tournament.

---

I'm not really sure what the difference would be. Burke was possibly the most consistent player in all of college basketball. He's been exceptional the last couple of seasons. If anything, he had a couple of very out of character games on the poor side in the tournament.

And about his flaws, for me it's less I think he'll improve than I think his positives will outweigh his negatives. Unless he comes to the NBA and can't shoot, can't run the PnR, you know, all the things he did at a high level in college, and he is Vasquez bad on defense, don't think I can envision him being anything less than an above average player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

Well, the data says differently. In fact, Chris Paul was the ONLY young point guard in the last 9 years to make a major defensive impact

http://www.hardwoodparoxysm.com/2013...guard-defense/

I know this will be dismissed, and your eyes tell you differently. I can tell that objectivity is out the window with Burke, has been for a while for some reason. But Gerry V's points were valid on CP3 when you look at the cold, hard data. But that shouldn't even matter. Nobody should be compared to CP3. The point is that there are some flaws in his game that people tend to overlook or just give him the benefit of the doubt and assume they will improve. Based on that, why can't every player in the draft just improve their flaws, and then we will have 60 perfect players drafted in 8 days? Why does he get the benefit of the doubt?

---

Where has there been a lack of objectivity concerning Burke? What weakness has not been addressed? The difference is some think those weaknesses are bigger than others. Offensively he's one of the more complete prospects in a while. Plus he still has much room for improvement. Defensively he has a long way to go, but traditionally most young guards do. He has one of the most publicized work ethics as any other prospect has entering the draft. So saying we expect him to get better at a few aspects that most players struggle with isn't a stretch.

It funny because we had this same discussion last year about Davis' weaknesses.

So, we are going to go with the fact that he has "one of the most publicized work ethics" as the reason we will give him the benefit of the doubt that he will improve while others, not so much?

I just don't know what to say anymore. I really don't.

To be clear, I think Burke is a fine player. An upgrade over Vasquez and more of a sure thing than Rivers. If he is the pick, I will cheer him on and hope for the best. But I really fear for the level of expectations some have for the kid. If he was half as good as some think, he would go 2nd. Heck, someone would try to trade up and take him 1st in this draft.

For some reason, on him and him only in this draft, I have seen objectivity fly out the window. I have seen people (mostly on nola.com) say that if we pass on him, they won't be a Pelicans fan anymore. What?!?!?!

I fear that if we draft him, expectations will be too high, and god help the kid who we take if Burke is still on the board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

So, we are going to go with the fact that he has "one of the most publicized work ethics" as the reason we will give him the benefit of the doubt that he will improve while others, not so much?

I just don't know what to say anymore. I really don't.

---

You ignore the entire post to focus on that? Not giving him the benefit of anything. He may never improve at all. However when evaluating prospects their willingness to get better is just as important(if not more) than their ability to get better. I'm basing my want to draft Burke on his talent level now and the one I think he can eventually get to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

So, we are going to go with the fact that he has "one of the most publicized work ethics" as the reason we will give him the benefit of the doubt that he will improve while others, not so much?

I just don't know what to say anymore. I really don't.

---

This is really confusing. Are we no longer judging players by work ethic, character, moxy, etc etc.? There are thousands of tall, athletic people sitting at home right now. Isn't this a major part of the equation? Isn't this the "Spurs" way?

Especially when talking about a PG, I think it would be incomplete not to talk about the person and leader Burke is. Kid has a fire in him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spaniard

This is really confusing. Are we no longer judging players by work ethic, character, moxy, etc etc.? There are thousands of tall, athletic people sitting at home right now. Isn't this a major part of the equation? Isn't this the "Spurs" way?

Especially when talking about a PG, I think it would be incomplete not to talk about the person and leader Burke is. Kid has a fire in him.

---

I will judge players by work ethic, but just because Burke's is more "Publicized" doesn't make his work ethic stronger. Who gets more coverage: Lehigh or Michigan? Of course Burke's going to be more publicized. That means nothing.

If we were in practices everyday, then we have a right to have an opinion on whose work ethic is better, but to say we know one has a better work ethic because there were more stories or video on Burke than others is just so crazy to me. Its such a reach. Why not stick to things we can see in game tapes or measure?

I thought it was Oladipo who had the best work ethic.

(You never really know)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NOLa.

I thought it was Oladipo who had the best work ethic.

(You never really know)

---

Exactly. It is a trait you can't possibly put in the plus or minus column as a fan. Dell will be calling every person every one of these prospects every met, and even he won't truly know until the kid comes in and faces adversity in the NBA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

I will judge players by work ethic, but just because Burke's is more "Publicized" doesn't make his work ethic stronger. Who gets more coverage: Lehigh or Michigan? Of course Burke's going to be more publicized. That means nothing.

If we were in practices everyday, then we have a right to have an opinion on whose work ethic is better, but to say we know one has a better work ethic because there were more stories or video on Burke than others is just so crazy to me. Its such a reach. Why not stick to things we can see in game tapes or measure?

---

See, this is where I think things tend to get off track in these discussions. Good discussions too by the way. You like to just try to write off something simply because it goes against that side of the discussion. No one said he had more work ethic than everyone else. Certainly didn't say Burke has an obvious better work ethic than CJ, etc. But it's most definitely worth mentioning that everyone who has followed Burke, that has evaluated him to any degree, has talked about his stellar work ethic and drive. If we are evaluating Burke as a player, it is more than fair to say this was an exceptional college player, that has been widely lauded for his work ethic. And it's a fair leap to at least hope that work ethic will help him succeed and improve throughout his career.

I don't know much about CJ's work ethic. No clue to be honest. Doesn't change anything that was posted above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

Well, the data says differently. In fact, Chris Paul was the ONLY young point guard in the last 9 years to make a major defensive impact

http://www.hardwoodparoxysm.com/2013...guard-defense/

I know this will be dismissed, and your eyes tell you differently. I can tell that objectivity is out the window with Burke, has been for a while for some reason. But Gerry V's points were valid on CP3 when you look at the cold, hard data. But that shouldn't even matter. Nobody should be compared to CP3. The point is that there are some flaws in his game that people tend to overlook or just give him the benefit of the doubt and assume they will improve. Based on that, why can't every player in the draft just improve their flaws, and then we will have 60 perfect players drafted in 8 days? Why does he get the benefit of the doubt?

---

In that same link they had a link for offensive side it said:
http://www.hardwoodparoxysm.com/2012...t-guard-speed/

"For primary ball-handlers, of the pre-draft measurements, three-quarter-court sprint speed served as the truest barometer of future offensive success."

Burke's highest finish was in the three-quarter sprint. Finished 8th. Just more fuel for argument sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

I will judge players by work ethic, but just because Burke's is more "Publicized" doesn't make his work ethic stronger. Who gets more coverage: Lehigh or Michigan? Of course Burke's going to be more publicized. That means nothing.

If we were in practices everyday, then we have a right to have an opinion on whose work ethic is better, but to say we know one has a better work ethic because there were more stories or video on Burke than others is just so crazy to me. Its such a reach. Why not stick to things we can see in game tapes or measure?

---

This is where you make a reasonable debate go wrong. Who is comparing Burke's work ethic to McCollum's? You are telling me I'm giving Trey the benefit of the doubt(which I am not), but I believe he will improve and his work ethic is why. The same reason when I discussed Davis and people(including you) would always point to his work ethic and IQ. Now we are discussing a much more complete player in Burke and now things like work ethic and IQ has no barring in the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NOLa.

I thought it was Oladipo who had the best work ethic.

(You never really know)

---

Who said anything about best? I'm a huge fan of Oladipo by the the way. He's 2nd on my big board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

To be fair, they said they like his ability to set up the offense quicker. That is all, and that is true. Meanwhile, there is one local guy who has been trying to tell people what the Pelicans really think of Burke, but when he does it, people say he is wrong and get defensive. That person talks to the decision makers more than everyone else in the media combined, but people kind of blew him off on here when he posted a few days ago.

---

Are you speaking of GerryV? Why does he talk to "decision makers" more? He is not associated with the organization any longer. He also simply stated his opinion of how Burke compares to Chris Paul (one of the best in the game). I do not recall him saying that was what the Pelicans thought of Burke. V is not even a sportscaster any longer, but more of a Chris Rose type/morning news host.

What's interesting about this particular draft is that there there 3
Point guards who represent different ends of the spectrum between offense and defense.

Burke is clearly the most capable PG on offense because of his proven passing and scoring ability; but his height and par atheticism make him nearly a defensive liability.

CJ is in the middle of the three guards, showing great scoring instincts but limited passing ability. No matter what he proclaims in his interviews, he will have trouble transitioning into a passer role. Conversely, he has the speed, size, and athleticism to become a good perimiter defender.

MCW is anti Burke in every way except passing. Offensively, all Williams can do effectively is pass, scoring will be an issue for him. On the other hand, he is a terror on the defensive end using his nearly freak-like physical qualities.



So the question everyone will debate up to and even after draft day is which of these three is right for the Pels. It ultimately depends upon the direction the team chooses to head in; but my favorite is CJ because of his two-way potential. Him, Gordon, and Rivers would make one of the most interchangeable set of guards the NBA has ever seen before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

This is where you make a reasonable debate go wrong. Who is comparing Burke's work ethic to McCollum's? You are telling me I'm giving Trey the benefit of the doubt(which I am not), but I believe he will improve and his work ethic is why. The same reason when I discussed Davis and people(including you) would always point to his work ethic and IQ. Now we are discussing a much more complete player in Burke and now things like work ethic and IQ has no barring in the discussion.

---

Davis was a freak and a complete prospect. If I ever did mention work ethic, it was the 30th thing on the list, if I mentioned it at all.

My problem with the whole "He has great work ethic" thing is that when you say that, you are essentially saying that others don't have it by ommission. Here is the form of the argument:

Burke is good + great work ethic = He can be great

So, then every player that was ever good and didn't become great must have had a poor work ethic by default, right? It's simple math and logic.

I just don't buy that. And I honestly don't think we have any clue about the work ethics of Len ( a former gymnist, so I would argue it is probably great), Noel, McLemore, etc.

There is just such an obsession with Burke that every good thing about him is sought out and therefore "publicized". Honestly, how many tried to seek out Len's work ethic and what his coaches had to say? Not fans on a blog, coaches or media members that went to all the practices?

That is where I see the lack of objectivity and the bias. You can tell me everything ever said about Burke and call him #1 on your board, but did you do the same amount of research and digging with Len or Porter, etc? In a moment of honesty, I think you say no. And that is where I believe the lack of objectivity lies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smow-

What's interesting about this particular draft is that there there 3
Point guards who represent different ends of the spectrum between offense and defense.

Burke is clearly the most capable PG on offense because of his proven passing and scoring ability; but his height and par atheticism make him nearly a defensive liability.

CJ is in the middle of the three guards, showing great scoring instincts but limited passing ability. No matter what he proclaims in his interviews, he will have trouble transitioning into a passer role. Conversely, he has the speed, size, and athleticism to become a good perimiter defender.

MCW is anti Burke in every way except passing. Offensively, all Williams can do effectively is pass, scoring will be an issue for him. On the other hand, he is a terror on the defensive end using his nearly freak-like physical qualities.



So the question everyone will debate up to and even after draft day is which of these three is right for the Pels. It ultimately depends upon the direction the team chooses to head in; but my favorite is CJ because of his two-way potential. Him, Gordon, and Rivers would make one of the most interchangeable set of guards the NBA has ever seen before.

---

The one thing I would disagree with is MCW defense. Again that zone has made a lot of sub par defender look really good. I think his defensive potential should be the focus not his production.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

Who said anything about best? I'm a huge fan of Oladipo by the the way. He's 2nd on my big board.

---

Second part kind of clears it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

Are you speaking of GerryV? Why does he talk to "decision makers" more? He is not associated with the organization any longer. He also simply stated his opinion of how Burke compares to Chris Paul (one of the best in the game). I do not recall him saying that was what the Pelicans thought of Burke. V is not even a sportscaster any longer, but more of a Chris Rose type/morning news host.

---

I don't care what his job is. I am telling you facts. He speaks with those guys a ton. More than any BSS guys, more than any WDSU guys, TP, etc. It is what it is.

You have made it crystal clear from the beginning that you were not on the Burke bandwagon and that there was no chance the Pelicans would take him. It is also pretty clear that a majority of Pelicans fans would be happy with the selection of Burke. I don't understand why you try so hard to convince those that like him that they are all wrong. It will eventually all play out in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

I don't care what his job is. I am telling you facts. He speaks with those guys a ton. More than any BSS guys, more than any WDSU guys, TP, etc. It is what it is.

---

Where did he state that that was how the Pelicans felt about Burke?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

You have made it crystal clear from the beginning that you were not on the Burke bandwagon and that there was no chance the Pelicans would take him. It is also pretty clear that a majority of Pelicans fans would be happy with the selection of Burke. I don't understand why you try so hard to convince those that like him that they are all wrong. It will eventually all play out in the future.

---

This is the only thing that bothers me. Because I was saying his NBA comp was Terrell Brandon when draft sites said TJ Ford.

The "no chance the Pelicans would take him" comes from what Dell has said numerous times he wants. Burke doesn't fit that profile.

What I am actually trying to do is prevent fans from killing whoever we pick at 6 when Burke is still on the board. That kid doesn't deserve that. The second we pick someone else, all the Burke convo should stop and that kid should become the only one from this draft we talk about.

And if we do pick Burke, I don't want people to have unrealistic expectations. Not fair to the kid, at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

Where did he state that that was how the Pelicans felt about Burke?

---

Okay, I forgot. You talk to Gerry V more than I do.

By the way, Gerry V will be on the podcast tonight. Hope you guys enjoy! Should be up around 9 or 10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

This is the only thing that bothers me. Because I was saying his NBA comp was Terrell Brandon when draft sites said TJ Ford.

The "no chance the Pelicans would take him" comes from what Dell has said numerous times he wants. Burke doesn't fit that profile.

What I am actually trying to do is prevent fans from killing whoever we pick at 6 when Burke is still on the board. That kid doesn't deserve that. The second we pick someone else, all the Burke convo should stop and that kid should become the only one from this draft we talk about.

And if we do pick Burke, I don't want people to have unrealistic expectations. Not fair to the kid, at all.

---

That will never happen no matter who we pick (Burke or another player). Many prefer other players. If we draft him, many will talk about who we passed on or compare him to MCW and/or CJ. If we pass on him, the Burke fans will complain. It is the nature of the beast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

Okay, I forgot. You talk to Gerry V more than I do.

By the way, Gerry V will be on the podcast tonight. Hope you guys enjoy! Should be up around 9 or 10.

---

Where did Gerry ever say that was how the Pelicans felt about Burke? I respect that he has his opinions about Burke and his comparisons to Paul. However, I do not assume his opinions are those of the Pelicans management.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

Where did Gerry ever say that was how the Pelicans felt about Burke? I respect that he has his opinions about Burke and his comparisons to Paul. However, I do not assume his opinions are those of the Pelicans management.

---

Gerry V is smart, unlike others (me included). The reason he has these relationships is because he can talk to these guys off the record for an hour, they tell him stuff but he never says "Source tells me X" or "Dell says Y"

He just keeps it to himself and then states his thoughts and beliefs based on these conversations. Its why he has kept all those relationships for all these years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

Davis was a freak and a complete prospect. If I ever did mention work ethic, it was the 30th thing on the list, if I mentioned it at all.

My problem with the whole "He has great work ethic" thing is that when you say that, you are essentially saying that others don't have it by ommission. Here is the form of the argument:

Burke is good + great work ethic = He can be great

So, then every player that was ever good and didn't become great must have had a poor work ethic by default, right? It's simple math and logic.

I just don't buy that. And I honestly don't think we have any clue about the work ethics of Len ( a former gymnist, so I would argue it is probably great), Noel, McLemore, etc.

There is just such an obsession with Burke that every good thing about him is sought out and therefore "publicized". Honestly, how many tried to seek out Len's work ethic and what his coaches had to say? Not fans on a blog, coaches or media members that went to all the practices?

That is where I see the lack of objectivity and the bias. You can tell me everything ever said about Burke and call him #1 on your board, but did you do the same amount of research and digging with Len or Porter, etc? In a moment of honesty, I think you say no. And that is where I believe the lack of objectivity lies.

---

1st dealing with Davis he was considered a once a decade type prospect, but he is far far from a complete player even a year later. He still needs to gain weight, get stronger, become a better post defender, develop a post game, put the ball on the floor much better, gain more consistency on his jumper, added 3pt range, show consistent effort, work on his perimeter defense, etc. So saying he was a complete player leaving college is not a very objective opinion.

Now on to my following of the prospects. I have definitely followed Burkes career way more than any other player. Which may be relevant to the discussion if I was denying his flaws. I realize he has some flaws to his game. However I think those flaws are few and at worse case salvageable.

I've given far too much of my free time watching game vids, highlights, pre-draft vids, and reading scouting reports on most of the prospects. If I was GM I would make moves to get a late 1st to draft Allen Crabbe. I would love to have Steven Adams many of the things that jumped out at me about Andre Drummond I see with Adams I like Adams better than Len.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

That will never happen no matter who we pick (Burke or another player). Many prefer other players. If we draft him, many will talk about who we passed on or compare him to MCW and/or CJ. If we pass on him, the Burke fans will complain. It is the nature of the beast.

---

You are probably right, but it doesn't mean I can't try to help that young man out using any platform I have at my disposal. That's all I want - whoever we pick at 6 to come in with realistic expectations and fans to have an open mind and objectivity. I gotta try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

Gerry V is smart, unlike others (me included). The reason he has these relationships is because he can talk to these guys off the record for an hour, they tell him stuff but he never says "Source tells me X" or "Dell says Y"

He just keeps it to himself and then states his thoughts and beliefs based on these conversations. Its why he has kept all those relationships for all these years.

---

Value his opinion yet I don't have to agree with all of it all the time. Human nature. I don't want to discredit him, but I watch Paul entire career and he didn't start playing high level defense until after his 1st Olympics team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

1st dealing with Davis he was considered a once a decade type prospect, but he is far far from a complete player even a year later. He still needs to gain weight, get stronger, become a better post defender, develop a post game, put the ball on the floor much better, gain more consistency on his jumper, added 3pt range, show consistent effort, work on his perimeter defense, etc. So saying he was a complete player leaving college is not a very objective opinion.

Now on to my following of the prospects. I have definitely followed Burkes career way more than any other player. Which may be relevant to the discussion if I was denying his flaws. I realize he has some flaws to his game. However I think those flaws are few and at worse case salvageable.

I've given far too much of my free time watching game vids, highlights, pre-draft vids, and reading scouting reports on most of the prospects. If I was GM I would make moves to get a late 1st to draft Allen Crabbe. I would love to have Steven Adams many of the things that jumped out at me about Andre Drummond I see with Adams I like Adams better than Len.

---

I agree with you on Crabbe, but not Adams.

But more than anything, I respect you saying you followed Burke's career more than any other. While I don't often agree with you, I respect that you never seem to lie just to win an argument. That is rare. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

You have made it crystal clear from the beginning that you were not on the Burke bandwagon and that there was no chance the Pelicans would take him. It is also pretty clear that a majority of Pelicans fans would be happy with the selection of Burke. I don't understand why you try so hard to convince those that like him that they are all wrong. It will eventually all play out in the future.

---

I'm ok with him talking Burke down it's his opinion. My problem is when he tries to address something that I or somebody else didn't say to make his point. Or worse making conflicting statements for one prospect that doesn't apply to others.

I've seen Burke make some big impact defensive plays. It's enough to build on, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

I agree with you on Crabbe, but not Adams.

But more than anything, I respect you saying you followed Burke's career more than any other. While I don't often agree with you, I respect that you never seem to lie just to win an argument. That is rare. Thank you.

---

It's wasn't just Adams combine workout either. He may not get great results but his offensives and defensives based look BIG time to me. The way he defends the pick and roll is outstanding for a big.

Yeah the last time I've followed a college player career this much was Chris Paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eman5805

I've seen Burke make some big impact defensive plays. It's enough to build on, I think.

---

If you are talking about him getting to above average level, I agree. But Dell and Monty seem to want a dog at the point of attack. A defender that makes the primary ball handler give the rock up to someone else to initiate offense.

Now, I think Gordon came close to fitting that profile 2,3 years ago and might again. Iggy could fit that profile. So, if those guys are on the roster, Burke is fine. Put Iggy on Parker while Burke sticks to Green. Done. That is the one way I can see Burke being on this team and Dell and Monty being happy.

If that's who he wants then we probably aren't looking for that in the draft.

Sounds like Bledsoe or Avery Bradley.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eman5805

If that's who he wants then we probably aren't looking for that in the draft.

Sounds like Bledsoe or Avery Bradley.

---

Oladipo has that potential, but heard his turnover proneness (is that a word) really scares us. Like I said - Iggy. He fits. He can be the Shawn Marion of this team. Put him on the other teams primary ball handler, hide Burke a bit on that end until he becomes an above avg defender 3,4 years down the road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eman5805

If that's who he wants then we probably aren't looking for that in the draft.

Sounds like Bledsoe or Avery Bradley.

---

Yeah those kind of guys are rare and never have the energy to have the same effect on offensive end. I think having a cookie cutter idea of how to build a team is recipe for failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

To be fair, they said they like his ability to set up the offense quicker. That is all, and that is true. Meanwhile, there is one local guy who has been trying to tell people what the Pelicans really think of Burke, but when he does it, people say he is wrong and get defensive. That person talks to the decision makers more than everyone else in the media combined, but people kind of blew him off on here when he posted a few days ago.

---

Who is the local guy you are refering to?

As much as I would love to get CJ. All indications seem like that are zeroed in on Burke, MCW, and Len for the sixth pick. Personally, I think they want Burke the most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

Yeah those kind of guys are rare and never have the energy to have the same effect on offensive end. I think having a cookie cutter idea of how to build a team is recipe for failure.

---

Its not about having a cookie cutter approach. Its about matching skills and abilities to your philosophy. If you want a bulldog at the point of attack.. are you willing to sacrifice that for a talent like Trey Burke. I think no.. he's not special..in the Chris Paul, Steve Nash vein...and history has shown us you can get a Mark Price, Terrell Brandon, Jameer Nelson type without using a lottery pick. Some of you seem to think Trey Burke is worth reworking your entire philosophy...some don't. It's all good. We all love the Pels and whoever we draft we will wish nothing but the best for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DefensiveMind

Its not about having a cookie cutter approach. Its about matching skills and abilities to your philosophy. If you want a bulldog at the point of attack.. are you willing to sacrifice that for a talent like Trey Burke. I think no.. he's not special..in the Chris Paul, Steve Nash vein...and history has shown us you can get a Mark Price, Terrell Brandon, Jameer Nelson type without using a lottery pick. Some of you seem to think Trey Burke is worth reworking your entire philosophy...some don't. It's all good. We all love the Pels and whoever we draft we will wish nothing but the best for.

---

How would it be reworking the philosophy? No one here knows what the team's philosophy is with its PG. It is obvious that a PG who plays P&R is important (what Burke does well). It is an assumption that the PG should be a bulldog at the point of attack. It also has been rumored that Demps likes Jennings and has tried to get him in the past. If that is the case, does he fit that philosophy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

How would it be reworking the philosophy? No one here knows what the team's philosophy is with its PG. It is obvious that a PG who plays P&R is important (what Burke does well). It is an assumption that the PG should be a bulldog at the point of attack. It also has been rumored that Demps likes Jennings and has tried to get him in the past. If that is the case, does he fit that philosophy?

---

Actually, he does. We have had Bucks writers on podcast several times and they said he loves to pick up from 3/4 court and Bucks were at their best when Skiles let him do that. New coach didn't let him do that as much.

People talk a lot about Jennings offense and its flaws, but my belief is that Dell has inquired about him in the past because of what he saw Jennings do when Skiles let him pressure 70 feet out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

How would it be reworking the philosophy? No one here knows what the team's philosophy is with its PG. It is obvious that a PG who plays P&R is important (what Burke does well). It is an assumption that the PG should be a bulldog at the point of attack. It also has been rumored that Demps likes Jennings and has tried to get him in the past. If that is the case, does he fit that philosophy?

---

I definitely qualified that statement. "IF you want a bulldog at the point of attack.."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DefensiveMind

Its not about having a cookie cutter approach. Its about matching skills and abilities to your philosophy. If you want a bulldog at the point of attack.. are you willing to sacrifice that for a talent like Trey Burke. I think no.. he's not special..in the Chris Paul, Steve Nash vein...and history has shown us you can get a Mark Price, Terrell Brandon, Jameer Nelson type without using a lottery pick. Some of you seem to think Trey Burke is worth reworking your entire philosophy...some don't. It's all good. We all love the Pels and whoever we draft we will wish nothing but the best for.

---

Seriously who in their right minds thought Nash was a HOF top 10 at his position leaving Santa Clara? Hindsight is truly 20/20.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

Seriously who in their right minds thought Nash was a HOF top 10 at his position leaving Santa Clara? Hindsight is truly 20/20.

---

That's not the point. He was drafted 16th out of SANTA CLARA. Clearly he was talented. WCC PGs don't drafted in the 1st rd unless they are talented... but that's not the point. The point is he was passed on TWICE and teams only took the chance on him when the risk was mitigated by the potential reward. Little PGs will never get the benefit of the doubt.. trying to be the GM who tries to get cute and be the one who can see the pretty girl without her glasses for lack of a better analogy, will just get you fired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DefensiveMind

Its not about having a cookie cutter approach. Its about matching skills and abilities to your philosophy. If you want a bulldog at the point of attack.. are you willing to sacrifice that for a talent like Trey Burke. I think no.. he's not special..in the Chris Paul, Steve Nash vein...and history has shown us you can get a Mark Price, Terrell Brandon, Jameer Nelson type without using a lottery pick. Some of you seem to think Trey Burke is worth reworking your entire philosophy...some don't. It's all good. We all love the Pels and whoever we draft we will wish nothing but the best for.

---

Terrell Brandon was a lottery pick.

And it's really confusing to see Michael continually bringing him up(though I think he's using the comparison to show that he likes Trey). Terrell was considered one of the best PG's in the NBA, he made a couple of all-star games, and he was smaller than Trey Burke is. Unfortunately injuries ended his career. But if that's who Trey Burke is, holy hell don't we want to take him? What else are we asking for?

People act like Terrell Brandon was a scrubb. He was a very good, All-Star caliber PG in his career.

Who acts like Brandon was a scrub? Very good player. He was an All Star but that PG position wasn't as stacked back then. Wouldnt be a year in, year out AS today IMO, but maybe once or twice.