Pelicans will regret not drafting...

[Pelicanidae]

No, you’re either hedging or you’re really good at purposely avoiding the foundation of an argument...

Griffin should have drafted Darius. You’re critique broken down to its very core is that he shouldn’t have.

So when December comes and you realize Griffin should have drafted him, none of this “I said he was a good shooter” matters. Your argument at its foundation is that passing on him was the smart move.

Thank you for telling me what you THINK my argument is, and also demonstrating how very wrong you have it.

Picks are not taken in isolation. When you take a pick, you make it for a team. Now, it's very true that often, you draft best player available, but in the case of this draft we were lucky as a team to have already secured the best player available in the entire draft. That meant that our priorities were not necessarily to find the highest source of immediate talent, but to select the players to provide talent across our roster, which is currently in need of a lot of patching up.

If you have a roster like Cleveland, which is in desperate need of patching but also stunningly devoid of raw talent, then it's true that you should just pick whoever you have the most faith in, in terms of upside. If you have a roster like ours, which already possesses a bunch of raw talent and is in need of depth and versatility, then it makes a lot of sense to trade down (like Griff did) and get more than one swing of the axe at filling out the roster. Which is what he did.

It may be the case that Garland ends up, in a year or two, or three, being better than either Hayes or Alexander-Walker. In terms of shooting, he almost certainly will be, unless he undergoes some kind of Markelle Fultz situation. But will he be better in tandem with Zion Williamson, Jrue Holiday, and Lonzo Ball? Very probably not, because he is lacking in several key areas that are clearly the areas of focus for this team: namely in passing, and in defense.

If you have trouble understanding that, then that's fine, but don't act like everyone on this board has just said Garland is garbage and moved on. We haven't. Get over it.

[RobertM320]

Not sure how him being a good shooter and Griff passing on him are mutually exclusive. Its very possible for him to be an excellent shooter and still not be the right pick FOR US and what WE'RE trying to do.

[Taker597]

Not really. Never said any of you. Weird and things people should hate are these threads after the fact. I’m making the statement now.

I said Griffin. Time and time again he shows me that he really doesn’t know how to spot talent.

Griffin isn't the one scouting. It's Langdon. Griff job is to get assets.

[Pelicans78]

The draft showed me the front office knows what it's doing. Hayes has as much upside if not more compared to the guys drafted 4-7 and the Pels played it right by not reaching and trading down to get more assets, plus getting rid of Solo's contract.

[Wowowowow]

Thank you for telling me what you THINK my argument is, and also demonstrating how very wrong you have it.

Picks are not taken in isolation. When you take a pick, you make it for a team. Now, it's very true that often, you draft best player available, but in the case of this draft we were lucky as a team to have already secured the best player available in the entire draft. That meant that our priorities were not necessarily to find the highest source of immediate talent, but to select the players to provide talent across our roster, which is currently in need of a lot of patching up.

If you have a roster like Cleveland, which is in desperate need of patching but also stunningly devoid of raw talent, then it's true that you should just pick whoever you have the most faith in, in terms of upside. If you have a roster like ours, which already possesses a bunch of raw talent and is in need of depth and versatility, then it makes a lot of sense to trade down (like Griff did) and get more than one swing of the axe at filling out the roster. Which is what he did.

It may be the case that Garland ends up, in a year or two, or three, being better than either Hayes or Alexander-Walker. In terms of shooting, he almost certainly will be, unless he undergoes some kind of Markelle Fultz situation. But will he be better in tandem with Zion Williamson, Jrue Holiday, and Lonzo Ball? Very probably not, because he is lacking in several key areas that are clearly the areas of focus for this team: namely in passing, and in defense.

If you have trouble understanding that, then that's fine, but don't act like everyone on this board has just said Garland is garbage and moved on. We haven't. Get over it.

Drafting for need is quite possibly the dumbest thing in the world...in essence, that’s my real argument.

After example after example after example of that theory being a flat out dumb plan, when will people realize that the theory of drafting need versus talent is just a 2009 GMs scapegoat to stay respected and employed when they should be laughed out their office, walked to the door, and their badge snatched off for not selecting Steph Curry.

[Wowowowow]

The draft showed me the front office knows what it's doing. Hayes has as much upside if not more compared to the guys drafted 4-7 and the Pels played it right by not reaching and trading down to get more assets, plus getting rid of Solo's contract.

This in business is what’s called “job security” so they can sell to their owners and fans why they missed a star that they passed on. By the hoops your willing to jump through to fall for the excuse that Solomon’s contract dump was worth passing on a star means they are doing a great job personally at keeping their zero sum reputation in tact.

Small market teams build through the draft. Finding a star in the draft is waaaay better than have 31 million in a small market.

[Mount Zion]

Griffin isn't the one scouting. It's Langdon. Griff job is to get assets.

And it's also Griffin's job to establish the vision and roadmap to a championship. He obviously believes, as I do, that creating a firm foundational defensive core is a key element in forging a consistently competitive team. It isn't the only element for sure, but a strong defensive team that plays fast, transitional basketball (Gentry's desired offensive scheme) has a chance to compete. As the young pieces mature, Griffin and Langdon can fill in where necessary with the assets he has acquired, either by using the picks or trading for a desired target who fits what they are trying to do. Building a team with players that fit a vision gets you the Warriors; stargazing gives you rosters that look like the Wizards, Knicks or Lakers. For that matter, the Pelicans had a player that is one of the best in the NBA in Anthony Davis and it got them nothing because the overall vision was flawed. Wowowowow just sees a shiny new toy in Garland because there is a lot of flash to a guy who can hit the deep three. He may be proved right, but I believe following Griffin's vision is the right path and if that means passing on a couple of fan anointed stars, so be it.

[Silver Nail]

This in business is what’s called “job security” so they can sell to their owners and fans why they missed a star that they passed on. By the hoops your willing to jump through to fall for the excuse that Solomon’s contract dump was worth passing on a star means they are doing a great job personally at keeping their zero sum reputation in tact.

Small market teams build through the draft. Finding a star in the draft is waaaay better than have 31 million in a small market.

Your argument that we should have taken Garland with the 4th pick in lieu of making the trade because he was best player available just doesn't hold water. Hunter was the pick at that spot and rightfully so.

[NMThreeMVP]

Nope, I’m not Darius.
Nope, not bitter fan or sticking it to anyone.

When players come along and know how to shoot that compact and fluid with a better than average handle AT 18-19 years old, you take them!

Steph, KD, Klay, Ray, etc...Find me a player with an amazing shooting form that wasn’t worth a top 5 pick with high FG% from 2 and 3 in college that wasn’t a star! Find one!

Then actually understand and look at the idea that there could be an argument that Darius at point might have the greatest shooting form ever...who I don’t care how small the sample size is PERFORMED WITH HIGH SHOOTING PERCENTAGES and then you will come back to this thread in December and January and say “hey...yeaa...guy was right”.

Ty Lawson

[Wowowowow]

And it's also Griffin's job to establish the vision and roadmap to a championship. He obviously believes, as I do, that creating a firm foundational defensive core is a key element in forging a consistently competitive team. It isn't the only element for sure, but a strong defensive team that plays fast, transitional basketball (Gentry's desired offensive scheme) has a chance to compete. As the young pieces mature, Griffin and Langdon can fill in where necessary with the assets he has acquired, either by using the picks or trading for a desired target who fits what they are trying to do. Building a team with players that fit a vision gets you the Warriors; stargazing gives you rosters that look like the Wizards, Knicks or Lakers. For that matter, the Pelicans had a player that is one of the best in the NBA in Anthony Davis and it got them nothing because the overall vision was flawed. Wowowowow just sees a shiny new toy in Garland because there is a lot of flash to a guy who can hit the deep three. He may be proved right, but I believe following Griffin's vision is the right path and if that means passing on a couple of fan anointed stars, so be it.

Let me let you in on a secret....

...The Pelicans loss their course because Anthony Davis quit on the team. They swept the Blazers last season going into the playoffs as an underdog. Pelicans did not lose because of poor frame work or a flawed vision. Anthony Davis quit. Did not want to win in New Orleans.

There is no proper building framework. It’s one thing - my guys are better than your guys. You put talent out there on the floor and if they are better than the other guys, that now becomes the identity of the team.

Your theory at its core is that a Steph Curry wouldn’t fit in Griffins “defensive” vision. I’m telling you straight out, throw Griffins vision in the trash if that’s his mindset.

I could narrate it that Zion and Darius could have grown together. Don’t need to be a great PG passer when in halfcourt you can dump it to Zion in the post. You can narrate a vision any way you want.

[NMThreeMVP]

Nope, I’m not Darius.
Nope, not bitter fan or sticking it to anyone.

When players come along and know how to shoot that compact and fluid with a better than average handle AT 18-19 years old, you take them!

Steph, KD, Klay, Ray, etc...Find me a player with an amazing shooting form that wasn’t worth a top 5 pick with high FG% from 2 and 3 in college that wasn’t a star! Find one!

Then actually understand and look at the idea that there could be an argument that Darius at point might have the greatest shooting form ever...who I don’t care how small the sample size is PERFORMED WITH HIGH SHOOTING PERCENTAGES and then you will come back to this thread in December and January and say “hey...yeaa...guy was right”.

Jerryd Bayless

[13 - 3]

Someone missing Solomon Hill on this board.

[Wowowowow]

Your argument that we should have taken Garland with the 4th pick in lieu of making the trade because he was best player available just doesn't hold water. Hunter was the pick at that spot and rightfully so.

Darius and Hunter could have gone either way. My cup that I feel will hold water is that Garland was the best player in the draft not named Zion or JA.

Like I said, bump the thread later.

[Primetime]

And you’ve seen him play?

[RobertM320]

Don’t need to be a great PG passer when in halfcourt you can dump it to Zion in the post. You can narrate a vision any way you want.

Except halfcourt offense isn't Gentry's style of play. In Gentry's style (running and transition) your point guard needs to have great vision and passing skills. Shooting isn't the main thing. That's why the 2017-18 season worked so well with Rondo.

[NMThreeMVP]

Nope, I’m not Darius.
Nope, not bitter fan or sticking it to anyone.

When players come along and know how to shoot that compact and fluid with a better than average handle AT 18-19 years old, you take them!

Steph, KD, Klay, Ray, etc...Find me a player with an amazing shooting form that wasn’t worth a top 5 pick with high FG% from 2 and 3 in college that wasn’t a star! Find one!

Then actually understand and look at the idea that there could be an argument that Darius at point might have the greatest shooting form ever...who I don’t care how small the sample size is PERFORMED WITH HIGH SHOOTING PERCENTAGES and then you will come back to this thread in December and January and say “hey...yeaa...guy was right”.

Kerry Kittles

[Wowowowow]

Except halfcourt offense isn't Gentry's style of play. In Gentry's style (running and transition) your point guard needs to have great vision and passing skills. Shooting isn't the main thing. That's why the 2017-18 season worked so well with Rondo.

All that sounds great until you realize:

1: Half court offense is as much apart of every offense in basketball as taking the ball out of bounds is. You can’t avoid it, and despite what Gentry’s “style” is, with throwing numbers out my rear I could bet that his “style” still has Pelicans having a 90/10 halfcourt versus transition outcome because again....Halfcourt basketball ...unless you’re averaging 30 blocks and 30 steals a game as a team...IS BASKETBALL.

2. Who cares what his style is if a player is a halfcourt weapon? Are you telling me if Jeff Van Gundy coached the Warriors they wouldn’t shoot 3s? If Zion can kill his man and help defense in the halfcourt, guess what...Gentry’s style is magically going to wake up with a new wrinkle.

[NMThreeMVP]

Nope, I’m not Darius.
Nope, not bitter fan or sticking it to anyone.

When players come along and know how to shoot that compact and fluid with a better than average handle AT 18-19 years old, you take them!

Steph, KD, Klay, Ray, etc...Find me a player with an amazing shooting form that wasn’t worth a top 5 pick with high FG% from 2 and 3 in college that wasn’t a star! Find one!

Then actually understand and look at the idea that there could be an argument that Darius at point might have the greatest shooting form ever...who I don’t care how small the sample size is PERFORMED WITH HIGH SHOOTING PERCENTAGES and then you will come back to this thread in December and January and say “hey...yeaa...guy was right”.

Todd Day

[NMThreeMVP]

Nope, I’m not Darius.
Nope, not bitter fan or sticking it to anyone.

When players come along and know how to shoot that compact and fluid with a better than average handle AT 18-19 years old, you take them!

Steph, KD, Klay, Ray, etc...Find me a player with an amazing shooting form that wasn’t worth a top 5 pick with high FG% from 2 and 3 in college that wasn’t a star! Find one!

Then actually understand and look at the idea that there could be an argument that Darius at point might have the greatest shooting form ever...who I don’t care how small the sample size is PERFORMED WITH HIGH SHOOTING PERCENTAGES and then you will come back to this thread in December and January and say “hey...yeaa...guy was right”.

Malik Monk

[Mount Zion]

Let me let you in on a secret....

...The Pelicans loss their course because Anthony Davis quit on the team. They swept the Blazers last season going into the playoffs as an underdog. Pelicans did not lose because of poor frame work or a flawed vision. Anthony Davis quit. Did not want to win in New Orleans.

There is no proper building framework. It’s one thing - my guys are better than your guys. You put talent out there on the floor and if they are better than the other guys, that now becomes the identity of the team.

Your theory at its core is that a Steph Curry wouldn’t fit in Griffins “defensive” vision. I’m telling you straight out, throw Griffins vision in the trash if that’s his mindset.

I could narrate it that Zion and Darius could have grown together. Don’t need to be a great PG passer when in halfcourt you can dump it to Zion in the post. You can narrate a vision any way you want.

Wait! What? Anthony Davis quit on the team!?!? Why was I not informed?

Not to question your basketball IQ, but you are speaking strictly as a fan with a limited perspective. Lemme guess. The whole world of basketball began in the last 10 years and Steph Curry, Lebron and whoever else is your favorite are the best to ever play the game, right?

There are many ways to build a team. I have seen many ways be successful over the years and no way is inherently better than the rest. I have my preference and it happens to coincide with what I believe Griffin is trying to do in New Orleans. I could be misreading what he is doing and I may not see the whole picture of how he intends to build the team, but I believe he is attempting to first establish a framework and foundation of good character, high energy players who take pride in playing quality defense and those who have the skills to work in Gentry's transitional fastpaced offense. It's not the old Suns or Nuggets teams that scored, but played no defense. Vision does matter in building a team, because you know what kind of player you want and you aren't just snatching up the shiniest (and often most expensive) toy that you can get. It's about basketball, not agents, not endorsements and not markets. It's not even about putting fans in the seats as much as it is putting a quality team on the court that people want to come see play.

You know what? I grew up a Celtics fan, because little kids often latch onto winning teams when they are young. But the Celtics didn't have all of the shiny toys -- those guys played in Philadelphia, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Yes, the Celtics had some big names, but the thing that made them consistent contenders was the way the players fit their roles on the team. Most of the flashier players were on those other teams; the Celtics just won. You have to have talent, but the team concept is still better to me than just plugging in a guy because you like his stats better, which you would seem to prefer.

[Wowowowow]

Kerry Kittles

All these players you’re naming still doesn’t deter from the fact that my main argument is that I feel Darius is a star.

You’re focused more on hoping and proving I’m wrong when I’m making a firm statement out of the same Ms Cleo bag that you are pulling all of these names from.

You don’t know as much as I know yet.

Let his game prove me right or wrong.

[Wowowowow]

Wait! What? Anthony Davis quit on the team!?!? Why was I not informed?

Not to question your basketball IQ, but you are speaking strictly as a fan with a limited perspective. Lemme guess. The whole world of basketball began in the last 10 years and Steph Curry, Lebron and whoever else is your favorite are the best to ever play the game, right?

There are many ways to build a team. I have seen many ways be successful over the years and no way is inherently better than the rest. I have my preference and it happens to coincide with what I believe Griffin is trying to do in New Orleans. I could be misreading what he is doing and I may not see the whole picture of how he intends to build the team, but I believe he is attempting to first establish a framework and foundation of good character, high energy players who take pride in playing quality defense and those who have the skills to work in Gentry's transitional fastpaced offense. It's not the old Suns or Nuggets teams that scored, but played no defense. Vision does matter in building a team, because you know what kind of player you want and you aren't just snatching up the shiniest (and often most expensive) toy that you can get. It's about basketball, not agents, not endorsements and not markets. It's not even about putting fans in the seats as much as it is putting a quality team on the court that people want to come see play.

You know what? I grew up a Celtics fan, because little kids often latch onto winning teams when they are young. But the Celtics didn't have all of the shiny toys -- they played in Philadelphia, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Yes, the Celtics had some big names, but the thing that made them consistent contenders was the way the players fit their roles on the team. Most of the flashier players were on those other teams; the Celtics just won. You have to have talent, but the team concept is still better to me than just plugging in a guy because you like his stats better, which you would seem to prefer.

Not the case at all. I get this “vision” thing you are trying to proclaim.

My argument is that as great as a “team” the Celtics were, what if they had the chance to draft Zeke at point? Yea sure, Dennis Johnson fit the team and in hindsight after winning rings...yea he was a good fit. But don’t sell me this story that the Celtics would and SHOULD turn down drafting Zeke if they had the chance. That’s dumb. Instead of 3 rings the could have gotten 5-6, that’s how Inlook at it. NEVER turn down a star.

[Mount Zion]

You don’t know as much as I know yet.

That's a pretty strong statement. So how long have you been observing NBA basketball to obtain this vast depth of knowledge?

[Wowowowow]

That's a pretty strong statement. So how long have you been observing NBA basketball to obtain this vast depth of knowledge?

I know as much as the next guy. Professional GMs let Kobe get drafted at 13. Professional GMs drafted Kawhi at 15.

If you were a Celtics fan, I know as much to know that Danny Ainge used and still may use Jon Niednagel as his behind the scenes consigliere to make his picks.

[Mount Zion]

NEVER turn down a star.

There are lots of cases where teams didn't "turn down a star" and it didn't work out well. The fit wasn't good. Ask the Knicks, OKC or the Rockets if they wish they hadn't signed Carmelo (to name a recent example). Each of those teams grabbed for a star and regretted it.