Emeka Okafor thread

[Chris_Sanders]

I agree with you...

I am just looking at the Suns and it is evident that there #1 need is a true center (just like most teams in the NBA)

I believe BC will see it as such as well and draft accordingly.

I believe I smell a bet coming on. I am more than willing to bet the Suns won't pass on him if he is there for the above stated reasons.

BTW...Amare and Marion were largely regarded as huge gambles when they were selected in the lottery.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Let me also say that I don't believe any player under 6'10 is the Suns answer at center. At that rate, they may as just move Amare over.

 

[slinslin]

Also Lampe is 7' and they say he is expected to grow 1-2 inches.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Originally posted by slinslin
Also Lampe is 7' and they say he is expected to grow 1-2 inches.

Now that is the rub. If Lampe can show to be a good option at center than the Suns will probably go best athlete.

I think we will all have a pretty good idea in the coming months what Lampe brings.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Originally posted by Chris_Sanders
Now that is the rub. If Lampe can show to be a good option at center than the Suns will probably go best athlete.

I think we will all have a pretty good idea in the coming months what Lampe brings.

Lampe's just way to young to really know right now.

Jermaine O'Neal was in the league nearly 4 years before he broke out. We need to keep the kid and develop him, but he is still a project (in a legit sense, most teams use the term "project" to mean a shot in the dark gamble on a player with some physical tools).

If Lampe gets some minutes, and doesn't look totally lost, I'd be thrilled. At 18, he still has a baby's body. While he might not grow more (he might add an inch or two though), most males don't completely mature in their bone structure and musculature until 25.

 

[elindholm]

The only time in the last decade that a team won a championship without a legit seven footer was because the best player ever to play the game was playing at the time.

The only three times in the last decade...

 

[SirStefan32]

Two of those times, the other team didn't have a legit 7- footer either. (Suns and Jazz)

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Originally posted by elindholm
The only time in the last decade that a team won a championship without a legit seven footer was because the best player ever to play the game was playing at the time.

The only three times in the last decade...

My point was the only team that has won a championship in the last decade without a legit seven footer had Jordan.

I believe everyone outside of some school teacher in California grasped what I was saying.

EDIT: Music teacher in California. I think an English teacher might have grasped the concept.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Originally posted by SirStefan32
Two of those times, the other team didn't have a legit 7- footer either. (Suns and Jazz)

They didn't win the Championship, they just made it to the finals.

However, perhaps the better way of stating it is either you need to have a legit seven footer or the best player in the NBA that year.

Barkley's season that year we went to the finals was just unreal. Malone was nearly as dominant the year the Jazz went as well.

 

[elindholm]

EDIT: Music teacher in California. I think an English teacher might have grasped the concept.

That's mighty testy. My point, which apparently was subtler than yours, is that it's not so much of a rarity as one might think.

The board has had this discussion countless times. It is simply a myth that you must have a dominant seven-footer to win a title. You need a dominant player, but that player can play small forward (Bird), shooting guard (Jordan), or point guard (Thomas).

Getting a second-tier center won't help a team win the title unless that team already has a dominant player at another position. So if the Suns have a choice between a second-tier center and a (potentially) dominant player at another position, they should go with the non-center.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Originally posted by elindholm


Getting a second-tier center won't help a team win the title unless that team already has a dominant player at another position. So if the Suns have a choice between a second-tier center and a (potentially) dominant player at another position, they should go with the non-center.

Again I agree, I just have a feeling that if he was there, that is who Colangelo would select barring Lampe showing us something.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by elindholm
EDIT:
The board has had this discussion countless times. It is simply a myth that you must have a dominant seven-footer to win a title. You need a dominant player, but that player can play small forward (Bird), shooting guard (Jordan), or point guard (Thomas).

Getting a second-tier center won't help a team win the title unless that team already has a dominant player at another position. So if the Suns have a choice between a second-tier center and a (potentially) dominant player at another position, they should go with the non-center.

I'm not sure what you think this means.

Here are some basic rules:

1. A great player is always better than a very good one even if the very good one better meets your need.

2. A great big man is always more valuable than a great small man unless his name is Jordan.

3. A player with the potential to be "great" is only better than a player who is certain to be immediately very good, is if the team can afford to wait three or four years. (Darko and Carmelo come to mind).

4. When two guys are just likely to be immediately "very good" but not great, then taking the one that meets the team's needs is the better option.

Here is my read on the draft:

Howard has the potential to be great

Okafor is certain to be very good and immediately productive

Podkolzine meets the Suns needs but no one knows how good he might become.

 

[elindholm]

Here are some basic rules:

Thanks for providing basic education. Obviously I lack it.

1. A great player is always better than a very good one even if the very good one better meets your need.

This is a tautology. Of course a "great" player is better than a "very good" one; it is intrinsic in the implied applications of those categorizations.

2. A great big man is always more valuable than a great small man unless his name is Jordan.

Why? Since 1980, seven franchises have won the title. Three of those were led by big men (Olajuwon, O'Neal, Duncan) and three were led by not-so-big men (Bird, Thomas, Jordan). The Abdul-Jabbar/Johnson Lakers could arguably be placed in either category, but even if you want to call them "big-man-led," that's still only four franchises out of seven. So where's the "always"?

3. A player with the potential to be "great" is only better than a player who is certain to be immediately very good, is if the team can afford to wait three or four years. (Darko and Carmelo come to mind).

Almost no player is "certain" to be immediately very good. You're always playing a guessing game, trying to balance the player's "potential" with the likelihood that he'll achieve it.

And the less that is known about a player, the more "potential" he has -- which means that potential should very often be a big warning.

4. When two guys are just likely to be immediately "very good" but not great, then taking the one that meets the team's needs is the better option.

Sure, if the team's intermediate-term needs are that clearly defined, which they almost never are.

Howard has the potential to be great

Okafor is certain to be very good and immediately productive

Does that mean that Okafor does not also have the potential to be great?

Podkolzine meets the Suns needs but no one knows how good he might become.

No, they don't, but people who know a lot more about basketball than you or I or on-line gossip columnists aren't too sanguine about his prospects.

Drafting large unathletic project centers with unspecified "potential" has a very, very low success rate. Basically it is a sucker's bet. In fact, I can't think of a single instance when a team drafted such a player for need and ended up solving their problem.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by elindholm
[B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is a tautology. Of course a "great" player is better than a "very good" one; it is intrinsic in the implied applications of those categorizations."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need is a huge issue. Having two great players at the same positon causes problems. Some people question taking Okafor because they think he will have to play PF and we already have Amare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. A great big man is always more valuable than a great small man unless his name is Jordan.

Why? Since 1980, seven franchises have won the title. Three of those were led by big men (Olajuwon, O'Neal, Duncan) and three were led by not-so-big men (Bird, Thomas, Jordan). The Abdul-Jabbar/Johnson Lakers could arguably be placed in either category, but even if you want to call them "big-man-led," that's still only four franchises out of seven. So where's the "always"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this proves what?

Obviously defining "great" is the issue, but the reason a great big man is more valuable is because the big man does more: defend the interior, block shots, rebound, etc. that can control the direction of the game. Great small guys do a lot more than just score, but it is harder for them to dominate on the defensive end.

Smaller guys may lead the team, but they need some very strong interior guys or else they become the Orlando Magic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost no player is "certain" to be immediately very good. You're always playing a guessing game, trying to balance the player's "potential" with the likelihood that he'll achieve it.

And the less that is known about a player, the more "potential" he has -- which means that potential should very often be a big warning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain may be a bit strong, but absolutely no one doubted that Carmelo would be instantly productive. Most scouts were extremely confident that LeBron, Bosh, and Wade would be instantly productive and they are.

Generally, potential is based on athletic ability as opposed to proven performance. Collison was not drafted as high as Darko inspite of a great college career because he is not as good an athlete (he is injured so no one knows who was right). They can measure athleticism easier than they can measure basketball smarts, so it gets more attention.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Howard has the potential to be great

Okafor is certain to be very good and immediately productive

Does that mean that Okafor does not also have the potential to be great?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I think Okafor could be great, but my point is that I am sure he would be immediately productive. Howard almost certainly would not be, even if he is going to be the next Kevin Garnett.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Podkolzine meets the Suns needs but no one knows how good he might become.

No, they don't, but people who know a lot more about basketball than you or I or on-line gossip columnists aren't too sanguine about his prospects.

Drafting large unathletic project centers with unspecified "potential" has a very, very low success rate. Basically it is a sucker's bet. In fact, I can't think of a single instance when a team drafted such a player for need and ended up solving their problem. [/B]

I agree completely. I would certainly hate wasting an early lottery pick on a third string role player, which I fear is what he would become.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

The problem Eric is that you are assuming that Podkolzine isn't athletic.

According to nearly every scout that was at his workout, his athleticism was amazing for his size.

Heck in the latest ESPN Article his coach talked about how he liked to hang out on the perimeter and use the cross over on his man.

Now I can't imagine how silly a 7'5 guy doing a crossover must look, but it was not remotely implied that he can't.

Like I said, supposedly he is agile and runs well for his size. This is the words of people who have scouted him and seen him. I haven't so I can only go by word of mouth.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Here is a copy of that ESPN Insider from his workout...or part of it anyway:

CHICAGO -- The giant is out of the bag.


Sleeping Giant
Until last December, when Insider Chad Ford heard the tale of a mysterious big-man discovered in Siberia and stashed in Varese, Italy, to develop, few people in the NBA had even heard of Pavel Podkolzine.

But between Ford's story then and his visit to Italy for a first-hand look last month, Podkolzine went from anonymous to the top of the charts.

Dec. '02: Big men, tall tales

May '03: Meet goliath

Two hundred NBA scouts and GMs crammed into the Gold Coast Multiplex on Friday to watch 7-foot-4, 300 pound Siberian center Pavel Podkolzine's first workout. The obscure 18-year-old big man whom no one had heard of six months ago went from the ultimate sleeper to a top-10 lock in slightly more than 40 minutes.

"Holy sh--!" one NBA GM told Insider. "He's amazing."

"I don't believe what I just saw," another GM told Insider. "That's the most potent combination of size, strength and agility I've seen since Shaq."

"I was a skeptic when I read all the reports about him on Insider," another GM began. "I love the international kids, but I thought things were getting out of hand with Pavel. I'm converted now. That's one amazing prospect right there."

"What does Yao Ming do that he doesn't?" another GM said. "Yao's feel for the game at this point is much better, but from a physical standpoint, he's more explosive."


Podkolzine
Podkolzine aced his first test in the NBA. He shot the ball extremely well, threw coach Billy Bayno around in the post like a rag doll and ran the floor like a guard.

Almost everyone in attendance quickly drew comparisons between Pavel and a young, agile Arvydas Sabonis.



Sounds stiff and unathletic to me. Slow too.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

You must be registered for see images attach

He has over a 10' reach.

 

[PhxGametime]

Darko was described as most athletic European bigman ever (7ft) and yet he was only in 45-50 ranking at combine overall in a weak class of athleticism... and not all prospects even participate. Believe Pavel was in the 100's - Amare was top 10-15 his draft class and Okafor will be no lower than 30.... Darko I mentioned last year was overated but well he's dropped so low - I could see atleast Okur production out of him.

I would be disappointed for drafting a player based on athleticism (with low 100 rankings) - which means Chris_Sanders is right - I prefered Boris Diaw over Cabarkapa and Zarko has played great (although don't understand such a great shooter in 20% 3PT shooting, atleast last time checked - and the constant bashing of JJ and Marion 3PT shooting) but Zarko is now my 5th favorite player and next year Pavel could be decent pick?

 

[Joe Mama]

For the record Darko was taken before Collison because he is 3 in. taller. If Collison was 7 ft. tall with all of the same skills he has at 6'9" he almost certainly would have been the second player taken. Actually, he would have come out of college a couple years ago.

Another correction is that almost nobody thought Chris Bosch would be very productive at first because he is pretty thin. At least none of the "experts" were predicting he would be as productive as he has been.

I figure if the Phoenix Suns look at this Pavel guy they are not going to take him unless they are sure he is going to be worth the pick. It's the same thing many of us were saying last year about Cabarkapa when people were claiming it would be a huge mistake. I think we have to trust people that actually watched him in workouts and seen him play. That said, I doubt they'll take him.

People thought Amare Stoudemire would not contribute for several years. Granted he was probably more physically mature than Howard, but it sounds like Howard is a more skilled player.

Joe Mama

 

[elindholm]

But Chris Sanders, the word now is that Pod. isn't nearly as high on GMs' lists as he used to be. Of course I haven't seen him play either -- but if there was something to the hype, how could his stock have dropped so much?

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by Joe Mama
For the record Darko was taken before Collison because he is 3 in. taller. If Collison was 7 ft. tall with all of the same skills he has at 6'9" he almost certainly would have been the second player taken. Actually, he would have come out of college a couple years ago.

Heigth is a common basis for assuming "potential". Pavel is almost certainly going to be taken ahead of Diogu (if he comes out this year) because of the size difference. The claim is that at 7'5" he has more "potential". Diagu will be late first round pick because he is probably too small to be a starter - although they said the same thing about Boozer.

 

[elindholm]

Yes, and "they" said that Elton Brand was too short to be a real force in the league.

 

[slinslin]

I wouldn't call Brand a force. Offensively he isn't that good anyway.

He seems like one of the guys who wil get stats but it never translates into wins when he has big numbers.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by elindholm
Yes, and "they" said that Elton Brand was too short to be a real force in the league.

It wasn't just "they", the Bulls traded him for the rights to Chandler. This was after Brand had already proven himself in the NBA.

DUMB, DUMB, DUMB.

 

[F-Dog]

Originally posted by Joe Mama
For the record Darko was taken before Collison because he is 3 in. taller.

I thought the height difference was closer to 5 in.

6'8.5" vs. 7'1" and still growing, right?


Podkolzine doesn't seem like a typical Suns pick to me--guys the Suns target seem to really know how to play 5-on-5. The Suns just had a 'workout warrior' in Trybanski, and they didn't show much enthusiasm for developing him.


If the Suns pick Podkolzine, I'll trust their judgment over my own. In the meantime, I promise you that he'll be a B-U-S-T.