2010 NBA Mock Draft

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Correlation=/=causation.

The reason those guys left early is because they had the raw ability. Whereas the guys who stay and make it to the NBA only make it because of their high IQ, players like Battier. Rarely does a player have extreme athleticism and IQ. College would not necessarily raise that IQ. Eddy Curry wouldn't be any better just cause he went to college.

It's a good point.

I'd like to say that if a guy like Curry spent 4 years in college he could learn the finer points of being a post player... but in reality his physical talent would allow him to dominate without having to really learn the finer points, in which case college really wouldn't have helped him become a better player.

BUT, there is something to be said for the overall maturation process that occurs in college, even for basketball players. I might not have technically been "smarter" when I graduated school (higher IQ), but certainly I was more mature, had some decent life lessons, and was prepared for the "real world".

While Curry might not have been "better" at basketball with 4 years of college, he might have had the maturity and work ethic to work hard to develop his skills in the NBA.

[MerrittsMustache]

It's a good point.

I'd like to say that if a guy like Curry spent 4 years in college he could learn the finer points of being a post player... but in reality his physical talent would allow him to dominate without having to really learn the finer points, in which case college really wouldn't have helped him become a better player.

BUT, there is something to be said for the overall maturation process that occurs in college, even for basketball players. I might not have technically been "smarter" when I graduated school (higher IQ), but certainly I was more mature, had some decent life lessons, and was prepared for the "real world".

While Curry might not have been "better" at basketball with 4 years of college, he might have had the maturity and work ethic to work hard to develop his skills in the NBA.

+1

Very well put.

[nyg]

http://www.nbadraft.net/2010earlyentry

Check out the list for the early entries only and those who are expected to declare.  This is a serious list so far for this draft and doesn't even include the seniors. 

[Mayor McCheese]

I will give you that it's not as low as it was when he first entered the league but, he still has some learning to do.

LeBron is just one example though. Here is a list of drafted players since 2000 who played no more than 1 year in college (other than LeBron and Durant - I apologize if I missed any). How many of these guys would you consider to have a high basketball IQ?

Darius Miles, Ricky Davis, DerMarr Johnson, Jamal Crawford, Donnell Harvey, DeShawn Stevenson, Kwame Brown, Tyson Chandler, Eddy Curry, Eddie Griffin, DeSagana Diop, Rodney White, Zach Randolph, Gerald Wallace, Omar Cook, Ousmane Cisse, Alton Ford, DaJuan Wagner, Jamal Simpson, Ndudi Ebi, James Lang, Robert Swift, Kris Humphries, Dorell Wright, Marvin Williams, Martell Webster, Gerald Green, CJ Miles, Ricky Sanchez, Monta Ellis, Lou Williams, Andray Blatche, Amir Johnson, Tyrus Thomas, Shawne Williams, Dwight Howard, JR Smith, Greg Oden, Mike Conley, Brendan Wright, Spencer Hawes, Thaddeus Young, Javaris Crittenton, Daequan Cook, Derrick Rose, Michael Beasley, OJ Mayo, Kevin Love, Jerryd Bayless, Eric Gordon, Anthony Randolph, JJ Hickson, Kosta Koufos, Donte Greene, DeAndre Jordan, Bill Walker, Tyreke Evans, DeMar DeRozan, Jrue Holiday, BJ Mullens, Brandon Jennings, Carmelo Anthony.

EDIT: Somehow left off Carmelo.

Of this list... how many are STILL in the LEAGUE collecting millions of dollars?

Do they care about being a bench guy in the NBA, not with their millions of dollars for a paycheck.


I'm confused by a lot of people on here that state that Coach Cal's boys should stay in college to get "basketball smarts"... Isn't the smart thing to do is leave when your ceiling is HIGH, before people begin to realize your faults in the game, or worse, you get hurt.  Get the guaranteed contract, and maybe you break out in the NBA.


I would be surprised by the list of guys you think have "high basketball IQ".  If you look around the league, it is dominated by stars who play off raw talent.  The league has turned into a slasher league.  Drive to the hoop, go for the dunk, or get fouled.  If you have a great player, it's a one on one league, there are very few teams in the league that play a purely team game (The Bucks now being one, which is why they are good, because they didn't have a star to go to).  But teams like the Cavaliers, Magic, Lakers, Nuggets are very boring to watch because you know where the ball is going.

So really what I am asking is:  Do people on this board really think players shouldn't go one and done to receive a HUGE paycheck, one the likes of no one on this board will get... just so they can become "basketball smart"?  Really?  Thought this board had some intelligence.

[RawdogDX]

I'm not saying that he can guard every 3 in the nba but i think this 'lazar is too slow to guard the 3' mantra is overused.   

There are plenty of players that lazar could hold his own against especially once you start looking at bench players.  And with his strength and abilities to shoot, post up and rebound he'll be able to cause more match up problems on O than he'll ever be responsible for on D. 

Not to mention they won't find a harder working, more coachable or better character guy in the draft(possibly the world).

Any NBA GM who doesn't think he's worth a late 2nd round pick should be taken to the woodshed. 

[Mayor McCheese]

I'm not saying that he can guard every 3 in the nba but i think this 'lazar is too slow to guard the 3' mantra is overused.   

There are plenty of players that lazar could hold his own against especially once you start looking at bench players.  And with his strength and abilities to shoot, post up and rebound he'll be able to cause more match up problems on O than he'll ever be responsible for on D. 

Not to mention they won't find a harder working, more coachable or better character guy in the draft(possibly the world).

Any NBA GM who doesn't think he's worth a late 2nd round pick should be taken to the woodshed. 

But why take a 22/23 year old player whos ceiling is a roleplayer off the bench and floor is a roleplayer off the bench when you can go find an 18 year old european who's floor might be just terrible (calling Darko), however their ceiling could be an NBA all-star?

Thats what goes through GM's minds... You can make lousy pick after lousy pick, however once you hit it big, everyone forgets your lousy picks (Bucks...)

[RawdogDX]

But why take a 22/23 year old player whos ceiling is a roleplayer off the bench and floor is a roleplayer off the bench when you can go find an 18 year old european who's floor might be just terrible (calling Darko), however their ceiling could be an NBA all-star?

Thats what goes through GM's minds... You can make lousy pick after lousy pick, however once you hit it big, everyone forgets your lousy picks (Bucks...)

First of all, you need role players to win championships, especially shooters and rebounders who will gladly accept the role you give them.  Some teams already have their star or future stars set and are tyring to win now.

I'm not a bucks fan so i'm not sure what 2nd round pick you are talking about.  I know you can't possibly be comparing this situation to Jennings.  I also had no clue that there were 30 hyper athletic 18 year old euro's who will be going in the 2nd round.

I understand that what you are saying will go through some gm's mind, but you sound exactly like the people who said that deiner and novak would never be on an NBA roster.  If you can shoot and do one other thing well than you can find a spot on an NBA team.  If you can get a guy who will be able to shoot and out muscle guys for rebounds and play well in the post than he does enough to be on your team.

[MUBurrow]

those role players, though crucial to deep playoff runs, arent worth draft picks.  with draft picks, its much more advantageous to take a high risk/high reward player, or a euro you can stash.

role players are pretty cheap on the free agent wire, in the grand scheme of things.  plus, getting them after a few years of service gives teams a chance to see exactly what roles they fill in the NBA rather than trying to predict that based off their inflated college stats.  its really tough to correctly draft a guy that will fill your niche needs on the court, as well as provide the perfect personality in the locker room, etc.  in fact, you might use a pick on a role player, only to strike out on what kind of role player you were looking for.  the most overlooked fallacy of this board is that all glue guys/role players are created equal.  3pt shooters are not 3pt shooters, empty rebounders are not empty rebounders, etc.  to draft a role player is to guess exactly what way he will fill the cracks in your roster, which can be every bit as hit or miss as hoping to find a diamond in the rough.  at that point, you are better taking the higher ceiling risk/stashing a euro that doesnt count against your team and develops in europe.

[RawdogDX]

its really tough to correctly draft a guy that will fill your niche needs on the court, as well as provide the perfect personality in the locker room, etc

You are right.  Exactly spot on, which is why when one comes around you should draft him. 

at that point, you are better taking the higher ceiling risk/stashing a euro that doesnt count against your team and develops in europe.

Once agian, are there 30 of those?  You can say you are better off but that isn't what every team does.