Hidden in the midst of the Chicago Tribune's Marion piece was another interesting nugget:
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...smith,1,3623168.column?coll=cs-home-headlines
It's not impossible Noah could fall to #24. Considering his skill set, he might not be of much interest to more than two or three teams.
IMHO, he's a bad pick in the lottery, but worth taking at #24.
At 7'0" with shoes, 8'10" standing reach and a max verticle of 37.5; Noah is the kind of long thin player that can be very useful on defense. Very very high energy, Draft Express says his upside is that of Camby and his downside is that of Varejao. He's a very good rebounder at 8.4 rpg and shot blocker. He's also an unusally good perimeter defender who can give wing shooters trouble without being easily beaten on drives.
Offensively, he averaged 12 ppg on 60.5% shooting because he makes mostly layups. Unfortunately, he has no jump shot and at 225 pounds is not strong enough to be a stop low post defender.
Without the strength of a classic PF and just average footspeed (he runs hard but is not quick enough to be an SF even if his shooting improved), he's not a good fit for most teams.
Early in the first round you look for guys who can either start or have the potential to be a future star. At the end of the first round, you look for rotation players. IMHO, he's not a future star but could be a rotation player on the Suns.
Can the Suns live without much shooting from Noah as a backup. My guess is that his high energy style might be more valueable. That's not a sure thing, but D'Antoni is always concerned about the team's energy lapses.
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...smith,1,3623168.column?coll=cs-home-headlines
Noah's arc
I was talking to an NBA big man's coach and asked about Florida's Joakim Noah, whom the Bulls looked at Friday. "I see him as a mid- to low first-round pick," the coach said. That's not exactly where most of the mock drafts—which Noah generally scorns as uninformed—have the Florida center. The coach likened Noah to Mark Madsen, the Timberwolves reserve. And though Madsen is listed two inches shorter, they did have similar statistics in college with Madsen averaging 10.9 points and 7.9 rebounds in his Stanford career and Noah 12 points and 8.4 rebounds. "Their skill is energy," the coach said. If given the choice between Noah and Hawes, the coach said he'd want Hawes for his NBA potential. He likened Hawes to Clippers center Chris Kamen.
It's not impossible Noah could fall to #24. Considering his skill set, he might not be of much interest to more than two or three teams.
IMHO, he's a bad pick in the lottery, but worth taking at #24.
At 7'0" with shoes, 8'10" standing reach and a max verticle of 37.5; Noah is the kind of long thin player that can be very useful on defense. Very very high energy, Draft Express says his upside is that of Camby and his downside is that of Varejao. He's a very good rebounder at 8.4 rpg and shot blocker. He's also an unusally good perimeter defender who can give wing shooters trouble without being easily beaten on drives.
Offensively, he averaged 12 ppg on 60.5% shooting because he makes mostly layups. Unfortunately, he has no jump shot and at 225 pounds is not strong enough to be a stop low post defender.
Without the strength of a classic PF and just average footspeed (he runs hard but is not quick enough to be an SF even if his shooting improved), he's not a good fit for most teams.
Early in the first round you look for guys who can either start or have the potential to be a future star. At the end of the first round, you look for rotation players. IMHO, he's not a future star but could be a rotation player on the Suns.
Can the Suns live without much shooting from Noah as a backup. My guess is that his high energy style might be more valueable. That's not a sure thing, but D'Antoni is always concerned about the team's energy lapses.
Last edited: