NBA Draft question

But they didn't enter the draft at the same "stage of their career". Love was drafted as a 19 year old, Hansbrough is a 22 year old senior. Those extra years make a big difference in how scouts evaluate a player. And Hansbrough was not better as a freshman than Love.

 

Griffin will make the Clips better, but how high is his ceiling? Josh Smith level? Certainly not Dwight Howard's level.

 

In other words, he's a white guy

 

See Ferry, Danny.

(the Ron Harper trade still makes me want to reach for the barf bag. Gordon Gund took any chance the Cavaliers had against the great MJ teams and threw it in the shitter. The trade of Harper allowed Jordan to rest on D because all he had to do to defend Ehlo was close out on the 3. As I covered all 6 games of the 1999-92 Eastern Conference Finals, that thought remained in the back of my cranium somewhere. Ugh)

 

Hansbrough is more skilled than the vast majority of college players he's facing, but he's not very athletic and he's going to have problems when he faces guys who are far more athletic and skilled than what he's faced in college.

I think Hansbrough will have a decent pro career, but he's not going to be more than a bench player or a borderline starter. You don't win championships by drafting bench players ... you win by swinging for the fences and trying to get a guy who has a chance to be a star.

Guys who tend to do well in the draft are athletic freaks. Skill can be taught/refined later, but you can't teach athleticism. Most famous draft day busts (like, say, Olowokandi) were fine athletic specimens who never learned to play basketball.

 

Mike Tirico and Ryan Rusillo were just talking about the NBA draft and Rusillo's take is that teams are rather limited in how much they can change their roster because if they trade a player, many times they have to take a bad contract in return. Free Agency also favors players resiging with their current teams. So that leaves the draft and teams would rather take a chance at a player with more upside, then taking someone they know could be a decent/role player right away. e.g. Dwight Howard vs. Emeka Okafor a few years back.

 

He's a lot like Jamison -- very nifty under the basket and seems to barely get his shot off. The biggest difference being that he's not nearly the athlete or outside shooter that Jamison was.

 

Problem is there isn't much of a chance to swing for the fences in this particular draft. The only "sure thing" is Griffin, and there's even questions about his offensive upside. Even drafting at No. 3, you've got a 50-50 shot of getting a total bust. So maybe you do draft for a specific need if you're in the 20s (No. 7 guy, 15 minutes, can get you some rebounds and defend.)

 

I think he could have a Matt Harpring-type career. Solid contributor off the bench, solid citizen, not a superstar.

 

Many have said it similarly, but I'll say it again: Hansbrough is just not going to be an offensive contributor in the NBA. He was all blood-and-guts in college and will get jammed up in the interior in the NBA. He's a great basketball player whose game will not translate well to the way the NBA game is played.

Any Hansbrough-Love comparisons are silly. Love is an incredibly polished offensive player with limited athleticism. Hansbrough is a better athlete and tougher than Love but just isn't as good at actually playing basketball.

I could see Blake Griffin having a Dwight Howard impact largely because his offensive skills are much better than Howard's. But that's just me ...

 

I could see Hansbrough being a 9 ppg/6 rpg tyle, seventh or eighth man in the NBA. Those funky shots of his won't cut it in the NBA and he's gonna be beat up by the quicker, more agile forwards that roam today's game.

 

Hansbrough may get swatted more often in the NBA but he's got a "motor" and teams can always use a motor guy. The problem is that in the NBA the guys are just bigger, taller and faster than in college.