Who should become the first person to be drafted to the pelicans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greewe

Yes, Burke hit the big shot. Does hitting the big shot mean you are carrying your team?

---

Yes.

He is avg 12/8/1 in the tourney.


I'll take that from our current pg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eman5805

Yes.

---

You have a very surface-level understanding of basketball then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greewe

You have a very surface-level understanding of basketball then.

---

If you saw the last 3 minutes, plus that big shot, plus overtime, then that surface becomes multi-layered. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greewe

You have a very surface-level understanding of basketball then.

---

But here is the thing. You could say "oh he is only a chucker!" Like you could Bazz, but you would be wrong as he is much more consistent.
You could say "well all he does is pass to better players!" Like MCW, but you would be wrong as Burke has the best Asst/ TO ratio in the country at 3.31.
You can say, "Well he doesn't cause turnovers!" But he has one of the lowest st/PF ratios at .35.

He does a lot more good than bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greewe

Not buying it. Burke is great, but Michigan has a lot of talent around him. This isn't a Georgetown situation. One player isn't responsible for Michigan's success.

We've seen plenty of players who can put forth elite effort on both ends of the floor. So I'm also not buying that Burke has to choose one or the other.

I really do like Burke. But Michigan's defensive efficiency, given their team talent, is worrisome to me. Burke may have all the tools to be a fine defender, but like I say about Shabazz, I would feel way more comfortable if he actually was a great defender at this point in his career. There are plenty of guys in this league who have the physical tools to be a great defender, but for whatever reason end up being one way players.

---

You clearly have not watched this team all year. No Burke = NIT for UM he was that important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UNO Gracias

But here is the thing. You could say "oh he is only a chucker!" Like you could Bazz, but you would be wrong as he is much more consistent.
You could say "well all he does is pass to better players!" Like MCW, but you would be wrong as Burke has the best Asst/ TO ratio in the country at 3.31.
You can say, "Well he doesn't cause turnovers!" But he has one of the lowest st/PF ratios at .35.

He does a lot more good than bad.

---

Read my posts. I've said repeatedly that Burke is a fine player and that I would be fine with the Hornets drafting him.

All I'm saying is that he had an inefficient game until Johnson came in, who clearly couldn't guard him. He took great advantage of a Kansas coaching error. However, his inability to do anything against Tharpe concerns me, as does his questionable defensive reputation.

I'm just trying to cool some of the hyperbole here. He went 9-21 against a porous defender. If it weren't for a talented supporting cast, including an elite performance from McGary, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. It was a very nice performance from Burke, but not some sort of generational game that should shoot him to the top of our draft board. That is all.

I think we've gotten all the mileage out of this particular discussion as we're going to get. This is getting repetitive. Thanks for the discourse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UNO Gracias

But here is the thing. You could say "oh he is only a chucker!" Like you could Bazz, but you would be wrong as he is much more consistent.
You could say "well all he does is pass to better players!" Like MCW, but you would be wrong as Burke has the best Asst/ TO ratio in the country at 3.31.
You can say, "Well he doesn't cause turnovers!" But he has one of the lowest st/PF ratios at .35.

He does a lot more good than bad.

---

I agree with most of this besides the last one. Could you elaborate more on how causing turnovers and steal to foul ratio disproves that? Or are you saying at least he's not fouling instead of stealing?

I am saying he is more calculated in his steels than just swiping at the ball like an animal reaching for something enticing. He is smart about how he has gone about doing things. So fewer fouls= longer you can keep him on the court helping you.

Kansas is saying the same thing that North Dakota St said, like such and such team before him said which is "Oh well he didnt perform well against us." Well he performed well enough to put a W on the ledger as the captain of the team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greewe

He didn't even have the best game on his team. McGary put up 25/14 on 4 fewer shots than Burke, all against arguably the best defender in the country in Withey.

Yes, Burke hit the big shot. Does hitting the big shot mean you are carrying your team?

Look, I like Burke. I just hate the hyperbole that comes after this kind of game. Burke is a great player. But he had help from a poor KU performance down the stretch, and great teammates. I don't think this performance vaults him to the top of the board. That's all.

---

Wait, is anyone saying he got vaulted to the top of the board? I may have missed it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallSoHard

Wait, is anyone saying he got vaulted to the top of the board? I may have missed it

---

At least 4 different people in this thread. Several more on the other site.

I never said he got vaulted to the top, matter of fact, I believe we can move down a spot or two and still get him while netting us something extra.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greewe

You have a very surface-level understanding of basketball then.

---

Hardly. Rather I'm tired of belaboring the point. You made it clear your thoughts on the matter. "Yes" will suffice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greewe

Read my posts. I've said repeatedly that Burke is a fine player and that I would be fine with the Hornets drafting him.

All I'm saying is that he had an inefficient game until Johnson came in, who clearly couldn't guard him. He took great advantage of a Kansas coaching error. However, his inability to do anything against Tharpe concerns me, as does his questionable defensive reputation.

I'm just trying to cool some of the hyperbole here. He went 9-21 against a porous defender. If it weren't for a talented supporting cast, including an elite performance from McGary, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. It was a very nice performance from Burke, but not some sort of generational game that should shoot him to the top of our draft board. That is all.

I think we've gotten all the mileage out of this particular discussion as we're going to get. This is getting repetitive. Thanks for the discourse.

---

The problem with your post is it's a surface-level analyst based on the last few games.

You say you don't buy his reputation as a below average defender based on his need to carry the team on the other end when he has a high usage rate and mins per game rate. You praise his teammates many of whom were m.i.a. on any given game all season long.

You talk about his slow start against Kansas which he only attempted 4 shots but fail to account for his 5 1st half assist. Again if you followed Burke all season you would know starting slow and ending strong is something he's done multiple times this season. You say one big shot isn't carrying the team but he scored the 13 of UM last 21 points.

To think that is as if the only thing he did all game was hit one shot.

Burke looks good but I think Rivers is our future point guard. If we got rid of Vasques maybe but I think mony would want a veteran backup PG behind Rivers. I think we look at 2,3, or 5 in the draft unless we fall to pick 8 and McLemore, smart(combo guard who I think will play more 2), Porter, and Shabazz are gone then we may take a look at Burke or trade down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tdcreator

Burke looks good but I think Rivers is our future point guard. If we got rid of Vasques maybe but I think mony would want a veteran backup PG behind Rivers. I think we look at 2,3, or 5 in the draft unless we fall to pick 8 and McLemore, smart(combo guard who I think will play more 2), Porter, and Shabazz are gone then we may take a look at Burke or trade down.

---

That is something I'm curious about. If we draft Burke have we already given up on Rivers and relegated him to a 6th man after him only playing 3/4 of a single season? I understand you take BPA but if someone like Bennett or Bazz are sitting there do you really take Burke? If we draft slightly higher and Smart is there do you take Burke over him? I'm not really judging either way, I'm just curious what people think.

Burke would help us more long-term than Shabazz or Bennett since PG is a huge need and Rivers is most likely gonna project as a 6th man type. This is all assuming Gordon will be here long-term. Burke can play off the ball with his shooting and can run the point much better than GV or Rivers ever could. Now, if Gordon is not here long-term than we're gonna need a SG or a perimeter score who can create his own shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicans78

Burke would help us more long-term than Shabazz or Bennett since PG is a huge need and Rivers is most likely gonna project as a 6th man type. This is all assuming Gordon will be here long-term. Burke can play off the ball with his shooting and can run the point much better than GV or Rivers ever could. Now, if Gordon is not here long-term than we're gonna need a SG or a perimeter score who can create his own shot.

---

Im just curious what's that based off of? If my understanding is correct Rivers played mainly SG in college and with Gordon's injury earlier this year he played the large majority of his minutes at SG this season. Dude hasn't had even half a season of playing PG yet.

Rivers was a ball dominant 2 in college.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greewe

He didn't even have the best game on his team. McGary put up 25/14 on 4 fewer shots than Burke, all against arguably the best defender in the country in Withey.

Yes, Burke hit the big shot. Does hitting the big shot mean you are carrying your team?

Look, I like Burke. I just hate the hyperbole that comes after this kind of game. Burke is a great player. But he had help from a poor KU performance down the stretch, and great teammates. I don't think this performance vaults him to the top of the board. That's all.

---

I love your post and I hate hyperbole too.

It's not hyperbole. I've been on this train for a long time. The kid has PUT Michigan in this spot. Without Burke that team is barely in the tourny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallSoHard

Rivers was a ball dominant 2 in college.

---

I'm sorry but BULL____. As a UNC fan I know much better than this. He was NOT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Haze

I love your post and I hate hyperbole too.

It's not hyperbole. I've been on this train for a long time. The kid has PUT Michigan in this spot. Without Burke that team is barely in the tourny.

---

And it's MORE impressive that he did it with good players on his team who weren't willing to step up to the moment. Not only that, but they've all accepted him as their leader.

Monty seems to like combo guards. I think Smart fills that role where I believe Burke is more a PG only.

If we did get burke, Rivers and Gordon would be on the first unit and Burke would be first off the bench. He would definately be instant offense for the second squad and rivers could slide to the 2.

I'll be happy with most any pick except Len, Zellers, or Plumlee. I think all these are overrated but just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tdcreator

Monty seems to like combo guards. I think Smart fills that role where I believe Burke is more a PG only.

If we did get burke, Rivers and Gordon would be on the first unit and Burke would be first off the bench. He would definately be instant offense for the second squad and rivers could slide to the 2.

I'll be happy with most any pick except Len, Zellers, or Plumlee. I think all these are overrated but just my opinion.

---

Burke would easily start over Rivers at the point right now. No real debate about it. Plus he's a better fit next to Gordon because of his shooting and he doesn't need the ball in his hands as much as Rivers to be effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

Im just curious what's that based off of? If my understanding is correct Rivers played mainly SG in college and with Gordon's injury earlier this year he played the large majority of his minutes at SG this season. Dude hasn't had even half a season of playing PG yet.

---

You don't think Burke can play off the ball better? Rivers can't play off the ball at all. He needs the ball in his hands so he can get to the basket because he's a below average shooter. Burke is a tremendous shooter.

Burke handles the ball better and can see the floor better as a point guard compared to Rivers.

I don't like the pairing of Burke and Gordon. I understand the mindset of having both guys being good with the ball and both good spot up shooters, but the sheer lack of size puts us at a huge disadvantage IMO. Both mostly if Burke becomes the PG that I think he will I'll want the ball in his hands predominantly like a Chris Paul, Steve Nash, or Kyrie Irving type fashion.

Of course my solution would be to trade Gordon as it's been for a while now and hasn't changed one bit based on his health or production.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicans78

You don't think Burke can play off the ball better? Rivers can't play off the ball at all. He needs the ball in his hands so he can get to the basket because he's a below average shooter. Burke is a tremendous shooter.

Burke handles the ball better and can see the floor better as a point guard compared to Rivers.

---

Who's talking about right now. You said "ever could be". That was what I was asking about. We drafted Rivers as a project and asked him to switch positions, and then turned around and told him hey btw go back to playing the position you originally were because of Gordon's injury. Burke has had two years of college ball playing one position and we havent seen how well his game will transition over. I simply think its a little early to already say Burke will be a better PG than Rivers will ever be. Lets let Rivers get two full years playing the same position first at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

Who's talking about right now. You said "ever could be". That was what I was asking about. We drafted Rivers as a project and asked him to switch positions, and then turned around and told him hey btw go back to playing the position you originally were because of Gordon's injury. Burke has had two years of college ball playing one position and we havent seen how well his game will transition over. I simply think its a little early to already say Burke will be a better PG than Rivers will ever be. Lets let Rivers get two full years playing the same position first at least.

---

I agree we can't say with any certainty who will be better and to say otherwise isn't wise or fair. However we can project, and having watch both I don't think it's close. To me being able to balance your production with getting others involved may be the most difficult skill to master. So if your Demps and do all your homework on Burke and you think without a doubt his PG skills will translate then why gamble that a project will work? Especially when you can move Rivers into a role he's more naturally suited for anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

I agree we can't say with any certainty who will be better and to say otherwise isn't wise or fair. However we can project, and having watch both I don't think it's close. To me being able to balance your production with getting others involved may be the most difficult skill to matter. So if your Demps and do all your homework on Burke and you think without a doubt his PG skills will translate why gamble that a project will work? Especially when you can move Rivers into a role he's more naturally suited for anyways.

---

I agree with this. Its easy to project Burke as a true PG while Rivers as a combo guard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

I agree we can't say with any certainty who will be better and to say otherwise isn't wise or fair. However we can project, and having watch both I don't think it's close. To me being able to balance your production with getting others involved may be the most difficult skill to matter. So if your Demps and do all your homework on Burke and you think without a doubt his PG skills will translate why gamble that a project will work? Especially when you can move Rivers into a role he's more naturally suited for anyways.

---

I'm not necessarily against that however I thought the entire reason for taking Rivers at 10 was because they not only thought he was BPA but that he would make a good NBA PG. In a cut and dry situation I might agree with you about Burke over Rivers. However if you're Dell and have a guy you believed 12 months ago as your future PG and have a chance to improve another position do you still give up on that guy and take Burke?

I certainly wouldn't be upset if we took Burke. I'm just thinking if he's the best answer long term. A lot of people who seem to want Burke want him because we need an upgrade over Vasquez. That seems a little short sighted to me because I thought Rivers would be him. Also, I think an upgrade at SF would help our PG play no matter who is there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

Also, I think an upgrade at SF would help our PG play no matter who is there.

---

Maybe, but by the same token, an upgrade in PG play would help our SF play no matter who is there. I'm not saying Rivers isn't that guy, but Vasquez isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mythrol

I'm not necessarily against that however I thought the entire reason for taking Rivers at 10 was because they not only thought he was BPA but that he would make a good NBA PG. In a cut and dry situation I might agree with you about Burke over Rivers. However if you're Dell and have a guy you believed 12 months ago as your future PG and have a chance to improve another position do you still give up on that guy and take Burke?

I certainly wouldn't be upset if we took Burke. I'm just thinking if he's the best answer long term. A lot of people who seem to want Burke want him because we need an upgrade over Vasquez. That seems a little short sighted to me because I thought Rivers would be him. Also, I think an upgrade at SF would help our PG play no matter who is there.

---

This train of thought says we "give up" on Rivers. I said move him to a position more natural. We've seen several players play different position than what they were drafted for. If Demps is as smart as many think he is he won't be pigeon "held" by a past decision. When we draft if Trey Burke is the BPA(I think he's the best player in this draft anyways) you take him and worry about what you'll do with Rivers or anybody else when that time comes.

I say draft Burke, make him your starting 1.
Move Rivers to st, that's his natural position.
Trade Gordon and GV, and net a sf worth a damn.
Move Davis to 5, move Anderson into your starting 4 spot.
Profit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UNO Gracias

I say draft Burke, make him your starting 1.
Move Rivers to st, that's his natural position.
Trade Gordon and GV, and net a sf worth a damn.
Move Davis to 5, move Anderson into your starting 4 spot.
Profit

---

You know you say that about Rivers at the 2 being natural, but he's looked more natural as a PG in the NBA IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicans78

Burke would easily start over Rivers at the point right now. No real debate about it. Plus he's a better fit next to Gordon because of his shooting and he doesn't need the ball in his hands as much as Rivers to be effective.

---

I believe this too....I just wish I had an idea what the organization was thinking....

But he was a HS all American as a sg.
He helped Duke win a lot of games as a sg.
He comes here and we make him a pg?

It's like:
You have been a great comedian.
You wrote some great comedies.
Now they want you to direct.

Personally I see Rivers as the ideal 6th man in the Jamal Crawford mold. He'll get the majority of his mins where he can play free not worrying about making mistake or getting others involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UNO Gracias

But he was a HS all American as a sg.
He helped Duke win a lot of games as a sg.
He comes here and we make him a pg?

It's like:
You have been a great comedian.
You wrote some great comedies.
Now they want you to direct.

---

I'm not sure position in high school and college should be indicative to where he will be most natural in the NBA though. He was a 2 in high school because he was the best scorer on the team and 6'3 isn't undersized. He was a 2 in college because he was the best (the only) scorer on that team and 6'3 isn't undersized there. Now that he's no longer the best scorer and is undersized for his position, why place him in that position? I feel like it's setting him up to fail. He's a good sized 1 and a undersized 2. Even Gordon as a 2 is undersized but he's at least built like a tank. Rivers is a pretty trim guy. I don't know the right answer, just saying what I think he looks more comfortable doing in the NBA.

Davis and Rivers both could use some time at a gym and at Golden Corral. Their thickness is sad.

With the way the game is changing, I don't think height as much as athletecism is the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by da ThRONe

Personally I see Rivers as the ideal 6th man in the Jamal Crawford mold. He'll get the majority of his mins where he can play free not worrying about making mistake or getting others involved.

---

I think hes capable of being either. Rivers has shown since the allstar break that he is capable (not saying he is) of being an elite ball handler. He can make plays purely because of the attention he requires attacking the basket. He and Gordon would be a nightmare for defenses, ntm he would be a big PG. If you add his solid on ball defense, and potential jumpshot he can be a real menace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UNO Gracias

Davis and Rivers both could use some time at a gym and at Golden Corral. Their thickness is sad.

With the way the game is changing, I don't think height as much as athletecism is the issue.

---

I agree. They both really impressed me after the break. Nba ready bodies would help them drastically.

I truly wonder where Burke is on demps's radar. I dont see him as a cant miss prospect, but he has really impressed all season. I am a little worried with his struggles in the tourney. He made plays when it mattered, but he wasnt necessarily dominant like i had hoped he would be. Id pick him over Zeller Len and Oladipo (only bc hes last on our list of needs).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UNO Gracias

Davis and Rivers both could use some time at a gym and at Golden Corral. Their thickness is sad.

With the way the game is changing, I don't think height as much as athletecism is the issue.

---

Height isn't rivers problem, like i said, it's the bulk. If you're not a long player at least have some girth. TWSS.

If there is a legitimate gripe about Burke, it's his tendency to fall in love with the 3 ball. Everything else is just nitpicking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nola Hornet

If there is a legitimate gripe about Burke, it's his tendency to fall in love with the 3 ball. Everything else is just nitpicking.

---

He's a lil' like Jimmer Ferdette in his shot selection. Only he's a better athlete than Jimmer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nola Hornet

If there is a legitimate gripe about Burke, it's his tendency to fall in love with the 3 ball. Everything else is just nitpicking.

---

It may sound crazy but it's another reason I love Burke as a player. He still has a ton of growth left in his game. The NBA drafts for potential just as much if not more than production. Trey has a high level of both.

Nice steal and layup at the end of half. Burke is good

If it's one thing we need, it's someone who is willing to get his own shot at times. And as I type this Burke goes HAM with the on ball steal and finish.

just used the lottery machine, we took trey burke let's hope he doesn't play himself out of our range.