Someone explain to me how Brook Lopez was a good pick at number 10?

[QUOTE=fefe]Yes, Mihm was a steal in 2000!!
even at no7. he would be even bigger steal had he slipped to 10.

If I redid the draft today, he would go no5, after Mike Miller, K-Mart and Hedo (and of course Redd, but he went no40:)).

check the draft if you don't beleive:
[URL="http://www.nbadraft.net/nba_draft_history/2000.html"]http://www.nbadraft.net/nba_draft_history/2000.html[/URL]

Stro, Crawford, Przybilla, Dooling, Ethan Thomas, Des Mason, Q-Rich, Magloire, Mo-Pete, DeShawn Stevenson Brian Cardinal and Marko Jaric are the only competition...
This years draft may not be much stronger than 2000 was, unfortunately.

And Brook will probably get more chance to shine than Cris did.
Lopez might easily become a starter in NJ in his rookie year.[/QUOTE]

Chris Mihm wasn't hands down better than 6 other players. He was about average as far as even that draft was concerned. And certainly a Chris Mihm type player wouldn't be called a steal in a draft like the 2008 one.

[QUOTE=Sharas]seeing how half teams in the league don't have a 12-7 true center, yes he would be a steal.[/QUOTE]

Do I need to list all of the teams that have 12 and 7 centers? Because easily more than half of the teams have them.

Why do Brook and Robin talk like they are around some serious hot chicks or something? All deep you know? Especially Brook. Hoffa part 2 sounds good F**K NJ. The best center in the draft will turn out to be one of those potential packed big men McGee, Jordan, Speights, Ajinca (this is my pick), Jawai (homer, but they do call him Aussie Shaq)

yeh

[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]Yes and would anyone call him a steal?

I don't care, I just don't want to hear about him being a steal in the lottery when he'll probably be an average player at best.[/QUOTE]
So now the point goes from you wanting to know [I]"how Brook Lopez was a good pick at number 10"[/I] to you wanting to know if Lopez was "a steal in the lottery"?!?

Stop moving the goalpost and maybe you'll get a real answer. :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=Da KO King]So now the point goes from you wanting to know [I]"how Brook Lopez was a good pick at number 10"[/I] to you wanting to know if Lopez was "a steal in the lottery"?!?

Stop moving the goalpost and maybe you'll get a real answer. :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]

Yes answer how he was a "good" or a above average pick at number 10 in a deep draft.

I'd love to hear that answer.

By the way about 17 or 18 teams have centers who can give you 12 and 7.

[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]Chris Mihm wasn't hands down better than 6 other players. He was about average as far as even that draft was concerned. And certainly a Chris Mihm type player wouldn't be called a steal in a draft like the 2008 one.[/QUOTE]

list 6 players that he is not hands down better (same level is good too, since you take the big man, so Jaric, DesMason types wont work.)


[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]
Do I need to list all of the teams that have 12 and 7 centers? Because easily more than half of the teams have them.[/QUOTE]
Yes please! list them (only true centers please, no 6-9 guys, like Horfold)

whatever, these days 12-7 center is more than worth the 10th pick if you aren't passing on a potential all star (and i do think he could turn out to be better than that)
al horford got drafted 3rd. shelden williams and tyrus thomas went fourth. rafael araujo went 8th. channing frye too. ike diogu ninth. patrick o'bryant 12th.
big men are just much harder to find than perimeter players, and therefore more valuable. it's just the logic of the market. the demand is simply bigger than the supply. 12-7 big men get salaries in the 7-9 millions range nowadays.

the best player on the board was most probably bayless, but the're set at the PG so they passed. don't really know why you don't like the pick, especially considering he may have gone as high as third pick. it's more than decent value pick even if he turns out just alright.

Well I think he was a good pick because NJ needed bigs and the highest rated oen in the draft fell to them at number 10.

THE HIGHEST RATED BIG MAN IN THE DRAFT WAS AVAILABLE AT NUMBER 10.

Past highest rated big men included Okafor, Shaq, Bargnani, Kwame, Webber, Joe Smith, Yao, Kandi man, Kenyon, Oden, Bogut, Brand, Duncan, Milicic, Camby

ya know? its 50-50 hell be solid. But if he busts I cant say Id be mad. Raps and Wolves have had their share

[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]

By the way about 17 or 18 teams have centers who can give you 12 and 7.[/QUOTE]

Ok then don't have to list them.

So you say 12-13 is not about half the league??

taking a guy at 10, who might be better then 12-13 starting centers in the league is a very very good pick.

I can't believe this turned into a Chris Mihm lovefest. A guy whose best season was 9.8 ppg/6.7 rpg. Spare me

bust.

[QUOTE=Posterize246]I can't believe this turned into a Chris Mihm lovefest. A guy whose best season was 9.8 ppg/6.7 rpg. Spare me[/QUOTE]

Nobody said Mihm is a good player. Only that he was a very good pick at no7 in 2000.
That's why Lopez was a great pick at 10...

[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]Yes answer how he was a "good" or a above average pick at number 10 in a deep draft.

I'd love to hear that answer.

By the way about 17 or 18 teams have centers who can give you 12 and 7.[/QUOTE]
Again go look at recent draft history. It's become the norm for 7' centers with [I]at least[/I] average athleticism and post moves to be drafted in the top half of the first round.

It's really that simple. Whether or not Lopez will stink is irrelevant. His draft placement is in the range you would expect him to be selected.

[QUOTE=fefe]Nobody said Mihm is a good player. Only that he was a very good pick at no7 in 2000.
That's why Lopez was a great pick at 10...[/QUOTE]

How so considering this is a MUCH better draft and there is no guarantee Lopez will even be as good as Mihm.

[QUOTE=fefe]list 6 players that he is not hands down better (same level is good too, since you take the big man, so Jaric, DesMason types wont work.)[/QUOTE]

6 players from the 2000 draft that Mihm isn't hands down better than?

Easy


Kenyon Martin, Michael Redd, Mike Miller, Jamal Crawford, Hedo Turkoglu Joel Pryzbilla and even guys like Darius Miles and Quentin Richardson had seasons as good or better than Mihm.

There are plenty of scrubs who are 7 feet and have decent skills who are scrubs. Lopez is painfully slow, doesn't have a good vertical and he is as soft as a 7 footer can be.

[QUOTE=Da KO King]Again go look at recent draft history. It's become the norm for 7' centers with [I]at least[/I] average athleticism and post moves to be drafted in the top half of the first round.

It's really that simple. Whether or not Lopez will stink is irrelevant. His draft placement is in the range you would expect him to be selected.[/QUOTE]

Well if I don't see him being anything above a decent player and see a good chance he'll be a scrub then what's wrong with me saying I don't see how he's a good pick at 10?

[QUOTE=Da KO King]Again go look at recent draft history. It's become the norm for 7' centers with [I]at least[/I] average athleticism and post moves to be drafted in the top half of the first round.

It's really that simple. Whether or not Lopez will stink is irrelevant. His draft placement is in the range you would expect him to be selected.[/QUOTE]
That only gives a reason why he was picked at 10, not a "good" reason why he was picked at 10 like VC asked.

[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]Well if I don't see him being anything above a decent player and see a good chance he'll be a scrub then what's wrong with me saying I don't see how he's a good pick at 10?[/QUOTE]
Because you're talking about the future without even letting him play Summer League ball let alone real NBA ball. At this point only thing that can be discussed logically and fairly is his draft placement versus his ranking as a prospect.

I didn't like the pick, but Bill Cartwright is an absolute fantastic big man coach. I'm sure he'll find a way to patch up Brook's holes somewhat.

It's not a horrible pick. Not a great one with Bayless being available, but Thorn always drafted players who have high perceived value. I don't think we'll regret the pick anymore than Antoine Wright over Hakim Warrick.

We won't know for another few years, if he was a good pick or not.

I think we did explain pretty well, why people think he was a good pick at 10:

-was projected top3
-best big in the draft
-number 10 is not a high pick, and even if his ceiling is Chris Mihm (like the op suggested), he is still worth a no10 pick in a weak draft.
-he fills a need for new jersey, Lopez will get PT from the start (Bayless wouldn't)
-Nets need cap space for 2010, and taking Lopez will let them not have to sign Krstic. (they gave him a 2,7 mill qualifying offer, but probably wont match if someone offers anything close to MLE. If Krstic played well this year for the 2,7 he would warrant even more next summer.)

So was this a good explanation?

[QUOTE=Posterize246]That only gives a reason why he was picked at 10, not a "good" reason why he was picked at 10 like VC asked.[/QUOTE]
The wording of his subject is not the same as the tone of his initial post.

The initial post questioned why Brook Lopez was regarded as a good pick in the top 10. Questioning why New Jersey would do it was not done.

[QUOTE=wang4three]I didn't like the pick, but Bill Cartwright is an absolute fantastic big man coach. I'm sure he'll find a way to patch up Brook's holes somewhat.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but can you teach toughness? That's one of my biggest problems with Brook. If he isn't tough enough to dominate college big men inside and shoot over 50% then I don't know if he'll be tough enough to be the low post player the Nets need.

I think people are forgetting a couple things about Brook...

The kid is 20 years old coming off of his Sophmore year, only Freshman have more "potential".

Stanford was expected to suck. Brook was the one of the only offensive options on the team and was constantly double teamed, hurting his FG%.

It's the #10 pick... the Nets both filled a need and took arguably the BPA or the best big BPA. I wouldn't have minded Bayless, but Brook is still a good pick.

Starting calibur centers are rare, and the Nets did not arguably have one given Boone's limitations and Krstic's injury history and FA status. The rest of the bigs on the Nets are PFs. Brook is a rare "true" center.

All say and done the Nets added 3 players that combined for around 60 points and 25 rebounds in college... not a bad draft.

With the 3 draft picks, the Nets will now have NINE players on their roster who have been with the team less than 12 months. Actually only VC and Nenad will have been with the team more than 2 years.


Now THAT's an overhaul.

[QUOTE=ChuckOakley]I think people are forgetting a couple things about Brook...

The kid is 20 years old coming off of his Sophmore year, only Freshman have more "potential".

Stanford was expected to suck. Brook was the one of the only offensive options on the team and was constantly double teamed, hurting his FG%.

It's the #10 pick... the Nets both filled a need and took arguably the BPA or the best big BPA. I wouldn't have minded Bayless, but Brook is still a good pick.

Starting calibur centers are rare, and the Nets did not arguably have one given Boone's limitations and Krstic's injury history and FA status. The rest of the bigs on the Nets are PFs. Brook is a rare "true" center.

All say and done the Nets added 3 players that combined for around 60 points and 25 rebounds in college... not a bad draft.[/QUOTE]

True centers shouldn't shoot under 47% against much smaller players regardless. I don't care how much he's doubled. There is no reason why a big man who was picked in the lottery couldn't have shot 50% or better.

[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]True centers shouldn't shoot under 47% against much smaller players regardless. I don't care how much he's doubled. There is no reason why a big man who was picked in the lottery couldn't have shot 50% or better.[/QUOTE]

The Pac10 waa arguable the best conference in the country last season, especially for big men:

USC
Cal
Arizona
UCLA
Stanford
Washington State

[QUOTE]

Regardless the players were smaller than brook and only 1 or 2 of them had legit NBA talent so for him to shoot under 47% is pathetic for a lottery pick.

[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]Regardless the players were smaller than brook and only 1 or 2 of them had legit NBA talent so for him to shoot under 47% is pathetic for a lottery pick.[/QUOTE]

Dude whatever.. I almost look forward to the day VC is traded so his fair-weather fans can leave the Nets bandwagon.

[QUOTE=ChuckOakley]Dude whatever.. I almost look forward to the day VC is traded so his fair-weather fans can leave the Nets bandwagon.[/QUOTE]

I look forward to the day when retards who try to justify a 7 footer shooting under 47% against smaller D-League level players just give up and end their life. Seriously there is no way to justify that, big men are supposed to dominate smaller players not get pushed around by them and shoot poor %.

Seriously, what bandwagon? A team that won 34 games last year and 41 the year before? A team that missed the playoffs in the East?

[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]I look forward to the day when retards who try to justify a 7 footer shooting under 47% against smaller D-League level players just give up and end their life. Seriously there is no way to justify that, big men are supposed to dominate smaller players not get pushed around by them and shoot poor %.

Seriously, what bandwagon? A team that won 34 games last year and 41 the year before? A team that missed the playoffs in the East?[/QUOTE]
Which Pac-10 teams have D-League level big men?

[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]I look forward to the day when retards who try to justify a 7 footer shooting under 47% against smaller D-League level players just give up and end their life. Seriously there is no way to justify that, big men are supposed to dominate smaller players not get pushed around by them and shoot poor %.

Seriously, what bandwagon? A team that won 34 games last year and 41 the year before? A team that missed the playoffs in the East?[/QUOTE]

No, the Nets have VC bandwagon, where the fans think the team revolves around VC and getting him a ring now, despite how unrealistic it may be.

And I'm trying to at least educate you on one stat you seem fixated on, while the reality is Brook Lopez was a good pick for the Nets on so many levels. Maybe you have unrealistic expectations for a #10 pick or a young Center?

[QUOTE=Posterize246]Jerryd Bayless, Anthony Randolph, Brandon Rush were all better. Even if they don't fit a need of your team, you can always trade them for something that does. Hibbert and Speights were also better big men. I don't like Koufos that much, but I have him higher than Lopez. No way I respect a 7 footer who shot under 47% in college.[/QUOTE]

I disagree with that, anthony randolph way to soft, brandon rush only has a shot, nets dont need another scorer, dey got harris carter, hibbert is sooooooo slow and sucks, speights is alright, bayless...they dont need another pg. They have boone and kristic...aka "WHO"?

They needed a center badly, main point, he might not be as good but he can def. evolve into a better player then boone and kristic. You guys really havent gave him a chance, but thats just my opinion...By the way hey waz good im new lol

[QUOTE=statman32]Which Pac-10 teams have D-League level big men?[/QUOTE]

Most college players can't make the NBA. Only the best of them do. The NBA is the best of the best so if Brook shoots under 47% against those guys then what do you think he'll do against the best in the world in the NBA.

Name big men in the pac-10 that are legit NBA starters or key bench players?

[QUOTE=ChuckOakley]No, the Nets have VC bandwagon, where the fans think the team revolves around VC and getting him a ring now, despite how unrealistic it may be.[/QUOTE]

You honestly think I believe the team can win a ring now? They'll be lucky to win 40-42 games.

[QUOTE=ChuckOakley]And I'm trying to at least educate you on one stat you seem fixated on, while the reality is Brook Lopez was a good pick for the Nets on so many levels. Maybe you have unrealistic expectations for a #10 pick or a young Center?[/QUOTE]

I'm fixated on it because it's pathetic, 46.8 FG%? The Nets need a big man who is reliable inside.

dhdfhdfhdfhdfahdfhdhdhhlpofyuoyulk

[QUOTE=ChuckOakley]dhdfhdfhdfhdfahdfhdhdhhlpofyuoyulk[/QUOTE]

qft

[QUOTE=ChuckOakley]dhdfhdfhdfhdfahdfhdhdhhlpofyuoyulk[/QUOTE]


:oldlol:

Sorry, I guess that's what happens when I stay logged in at my cousin's house and his kids are bored. (or maybe he was)

[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]Most college players can't make the NBA. Only the best of them do. The NBA is the best of the best so if Brook shoots under 47% against those guys then what do you think he'll do against the best in the world in the NBA.

Name big men in the pac-10 that are legit NBA starters or key bench players?



You honestly think I believe the team can win a ring now? They'll be lucky to win 40-42 games.



I'm fixated on it because it's pathetic, 46.8 FG%? The Nets need a big man who is reliable inside.[/QUOTE]

Allright.. first off, sorry VC, didn't mean to make the original insult about fair-weather fans... I'm having a male-PMS day today I think. The Nets need as many fans as possible (moreso at the arena) and given the wave of Yi fans about to hit I should be ready for it.

But back to the topic at hand...
The Pac10 was the TOUGHEST conference and big man conference in college with the Lopez', Kevin Love, Devon Hardin, Ryan Anderson, etc...
And as this article points out POSSIBLY THE BEST THE CONFERENCE HAS EVER BEEN.
Think of the other names... Mayo, Bayless, Budinger, Collisson.... the list goes on and on.
College basketball in tough divisions can be highly competitive and quality ball.

[url]http://www.pe.com/sports/breakout/stories/PE_Sports_Local_D_pac-10_prev.347ad0e.html[/url]

[QUOTE]"This league is the best it's ever been," UCLA coach Ben Howland said. "This league has the best players in the country, top to bottom. For sure, there are 10 to 12 first-round picks in this conference out of the starting 50, probably more. There's no weakness anywhere." [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][B]Their arrival signaled the onset of a defensive shift in the league: Five teams are holding their opponents under 40 percent shooting this year, [/B]and programs that were once perennial Pac-10 lightweights are now NCAA tournament contenders. [/QUOTE]

I feel like no matter what, even though you asked for an explantion for the FG%, nothing can sway your opinion on why this was still a good pick.
I think you are fixated too much on it.

I'm also psyched about Ryan Anderson

[QUOTE]Sophomore (2007-08): Earned first-team All-Pac-10 honors after becoming the seventh Cal player in the last 15 years to [B]lead the conference in scoring (21.1 ppg) ... also third in rebounding with 9.9 per game [/B]... named a second-team All-American by The Sporting News ... [B]reached double figures in every game and scored at least 20 points 18 times [/B]... had 30 points or more in four games - career-high 36 at Nevada, 33 at Washington, 32 vs. Arizona State and 30 against Arizona ... named Pac-10 Player of the week Dec. 3 and Feb. 4 ... also selected National Player of the Week by espn.com, The Sporting News and foxsports.com Feb. 4 when he led Cal to a pair of road wins at Washington State and Washington and averaged 30.0 ppg and 12.5 rpg ... voted to the Golden Bear Classic all-tournament team after finishing with 27 points and 12 rebounds vs. North Dakota State in the title game ... finished with 22 points and 16 rebounds in a win over Washington in the Pac-10 Tournament, getting 16 points and 13 boards in the second half ... had 26 points in the NIT opener vs. New Mexico ... named team MVP following the season. [/QUOTE]

21.1 PPG
49% FG%
41% 3pt
87% FT%
9.9 RPG

And he just turned 20.

double post

My prediction for Brook's peak:

16 PPG
9 RPG
1.5 BPG
48% FG

I have no idea how he'll do next season, given Frank's dislike of rookies, bigs, and good decision making.

[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]10 and 6 with a block and an assist and average defense is not "really good". It's average.[/QUOTE]


I'd say for the numbers centers put up these days it's slightly above average. Really good is a stretch but I still think those numbers would be a tad better than average.

[QUOTE=ChuckOakley]My prediction for Brook's peak:

16 PPG
9 RPG
1.5 BPG
48% FG

I have no idea how he'll do next season, given Frank's dislike of rookies, bigs, and good decision making.[/QUOTE]

I don't think going number 10 in a draft not considered one of the great drafts of our time those numbers would be bad nor do I think many expect more from him. I see his peak Brad Miller but he could also be Eric Montross.

I saw him at the airport in Dallas on Friday standing there with his friend and holding an NBA basketball trying to practice spinning it on his finger, he sucks at it. I guess it was Brook, it was the one with short hair

[QUOTE=VCMVP1551]Yeah but can you teach toughness? That's one of my biggest problems with Brook. If he isn't tough enough to dominate college big men inside and shoot over 50% then I don't know if he'll be tough enough to be the low post player the Nets need.[/QUOTE]

I don't see why not. Yao went from an unaggressive twig to being a fairly aggressive supposed trash talker big man. His rebounding improved too... So I don't see why not. Now I will never say Brook will be like Yao, but I do not think you cannot change your attitude if you have the right ambition. I see it all the time, from my friends to my co-workers. If you want to succeed you'll need the right attitude. It's up to Brook to decide that and nothing he has shown me indicates that he's lazy or unwilling to improve.