Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > NBA Team Forums > Detroit Pistons Forum

Detroit Pistons Forum Detroit Pistons message board - pistons fan forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-07-2012, 09:22 PM   #1
Aussie Dunker
Local High School Star
 
Aussie Dunker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,513
Default If we are drafting a big at #9

Who entices you more out of:

Perry Jones,
Jared Sullinger
John Henson


Personally, I love the defense, length and upside to Henson and could see a very, very good playing chemistry with him and Monroe...
Aussie Dunker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 02:01 PM   #2
dd24
College superstar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,992
Default Re: If we are drafting a big at #9

I definitely don't want Sullinger. There's plenty of bigs available so I have to still think the Pistons will potentially draft big. Out of who you listed I like Henson the best. It is still early though and there will be a lot of evaluating pretty soon. There's guys like Zeller, Leonard, Moultrie, or even Harrison Barnes could fall there (even though he's a SF). If Joe D is reading this, please don't draft Sullinger!!!
dd24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 07:28 PM   #3
Aussie Dunker
Local High School Star
 
Aussie Dunker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,513
Default Re: If we are drafting a big at #9

Yes - Totally agree with avoiding sullinger, I think he has already peaked? Perry is just too risky... I do indeed like moultrie, but he will be lucky to go top 15, wouldn't mind taking him if we had a pick around there, but whilst Henson will probably be available it wouldn't make sense drafting him at #9.

Also want to avoid terrence jones.

If Barnes falls to #9, it would be very hard to pass him up...
Aussie Dunker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 09:20 PM   #4
Aussie Dunker
Local High School Star
 
Aussie Dunker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,513
Default Re: If we are drafting a big at #9

And even though this is very, very far fetched, I wonder how high a pick we could get if we package stuckey, with some picks. Stuckey and future 1st picks, would say Portland at pick#6 be interested? Because I would love to have in this draft a high enough pick to draft Beal and then take Henson with our #9. Or, trade Stuckey and a 2nd rounder for say Portlands pick #11, and with #9 and #11 draft lamb and henson. Either way, Stuckey has had the keys to this franchise for about 4 years now and really has shown he can't be a true 1 or a true 2. Whilst very talented, I would prefer heading into the future with:

PG - Knight
SG - Beal / Lamb
SF - Prince
PF - Henson
C - Monroe

With that lineup, we have the youngest crop of talent in the entire NBA, and in 3 years time, we are a top 3 team in the east...

I am a dreamer....

But seriously, what do you think we could get for Stuckey and future picks?...
Aussie Dunker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 10:22 PM   #5
dd24
College superstar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,992
Default Re: If we are drafting a big at #9

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Dunker
And even though this is very, very far fetched, I wonder how high a pick we could get if we package stuckey, with some picks. Stuckey and future 1st picks, would say Portland at pick#6 be interested? Because I would love to have in this draft a high enough pick to draft Beal and then take Henson with our #9. Or, trade Stuckey and a 2nd rounder for say Portlands pick #11, and with #9 and #11 draft lamb and henson. Either way, Stuckey has had the keys to this franchise for about 4 years now and really has shown he can't be a true 1 or a true 2. Whilst very talented, I would prefer heading into the future with:

PG - Knight
SG - Beal / Lamb
SF - Prince
PF - Henson
C - Monroe

With that lineup, we have the youngest crop of talent in the entire NBA, and in 3 years time, we are a top 3 team in the east...

I am a dreamer....

But seriously, what do you think we could get for Stuckey and future picks?...

I don't want to trade Stuckey. He may just end up better than any of the SG's in this draft. Why would we trade Stuckey and another potential first for a guy who will at best have a similiar career. The Pistons suck right now. We really really need all of our first round picks. Without some key FA moves and/or trades of BG or Villaneuva I don't see this team being better next year. We could be drafting higher.... It'll probably take another draft after this year before we're good again. Then once we're good we'll still need another solid pick to try to get back to the top. If we could have just played our young guys this year and had a chance at landing that #1 pick to grab Davis we'd be all set. We would've developed the younger players and would've been able to see if there's any future with them. Jerebko and Daye needed way more PT.... If we draft another big man then one of them will have to go more than likely.
dd24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 11:30 PM   #6
Aussie Dunker
Local High School Star
 
Aussie Dunker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,513
Default Re: If we are drafting a big at #9

OK - I hear ya mate, totally agree with Daye and Jerebko's playing time. Damn, how many guys have the skill set Daye has at his 6'10 size? Give the kid a chance, and Jerebko should of been starting when he came back from injury, not maxiell....

But on Stuckey, I am a huge fan, but how long do we keep on with him? I feel that we have stuck (no pun intended) with him for long enough now, and just like the idea of getting someone who is more of a traditional SG, who is 5 years younger, who's ceiling is yet to be determined, who will compliment Knight better, such as one of the two guards I mentioned?... I guess you could look at it either way... I think I am just over waiting for Stuckey to become an absolute beast like I have been predicting for the past 4 years...

But I guess if you look at it like:
Stuckey + future 1st + lets say Henson
vs
Beal / Lamb + Henson...

I guess I am just a sucker for traditional 2 guards, but lets be honest, this aint happening....

I am more than happy to move on with Stuckey, but he needs to become more consistent, and even more potent, to be a real go to guy...
Aussie Dunker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 11:58 PM   #7
dd24
College superstar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,992
Default Re: If we are drafting a big at #9

I don't really look at Beal as a traditional 2 guard either though. Isn't he only like 6'4"? He's no D-Wade. Lamb isn't any bigger than Stuckey either. He's only 6'5". If there were a two guard who was 6'6" or 6'7" with a high ceiling I may be for it. The short ones just don't seem to win ships (besides Wade of course). They're typically 6th man kind of guys. That's why I think we have to stick with Stuckey for at least one more year. I just don't see a clear upgrade. We're not a contender next year anyhow. I'd rather see them with another top 5 pick. If we can go big again this year then next year I'd like to see a SG or SF.
dd24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2012, 12:08 AM   #8
Aussie Dunker
Local High School Star
 
Aussie Dunker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,513
Default Re: If we are drafting a big at #9

Lamb although 6'5 (will probably grow to 6'6) is one of the longest shooting guards in history, he has a 7'1 wingspan, which is one inch shorter than Monroe and the exact same as the lanky Tay Prince. He is a pure shooting guard with one heck of a quick release, and his long size will create nightmares on defense... I like this kid better than Beal... I agree with Beal being a tweener, would rather Lamb, who might be there at #9 if we decide to go a guard (which would make no sense if we keep stuckey, right?)
Aussie Dunker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2012, 12:17 AM   #9
dd24
College superstar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,992
Default Re: If we are drafting a big at #9

Lamb definitely is the best SG in the draft. I would have to think both Portland and Washington would be looking at SG's too though and both of those guys might not be available. I still want to see some of the pre-draft workout stuff before I completely make up my mind. It's just there's so many talented big men in this draft it'll be really hard to pass one up. Every year there's talented SG's. It's a lot harder to get big guys than small ones.
dd24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2012, 01:12 AM   #10
Aussie Dunker
Local High School Star
 
Aussie Dunker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,513
Default Re: If we are drafting a big at #9

Yeah exactly, that is why I was so happy to land Monroe, and even though someone like Paul George was drafted at #10, there are more Paul georges of the world than Monroes, right?... We have drafted extremely good the past 2 years I think, we just need another strong draft now to get us well and truly on track with a starting lineup with 3 or 4 absolute studs, hoping one blossoms into a superstar, or atleast have sevral into all-star caliber players..

I think Knight is going to take a HUGE leap next year, confidence is they key and with a season under his belt as a starter, he will begin to loosen up and really start burning teams, still not sure to who he compares too yet?...
Aussie Dunker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2012, 01:24 AM   #11
dd24
College superstar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,992
Default Re: If we are drafting a big at #9

I too look for Knight to improve quite a bit next season. I think he really needs an off season to work on his game. Right now he's more of a scorer than a creator but I think he can work on that.
dd24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2012, 01:37 AM   #12
Aussie Dunker
Local High School Star
 
Aussie Dunker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,513
Default Re: If we are drafting a big at #9

Yeah definitely, some games when he is looking to get others involved, his vision and execution in the passing game is amazing, but at the same time, he can outright drain them from down town... Next season, don't care how many points he scores, but will be looking for 7+ assists from him. Stuckey and Monroe can shoulder the scoring load.

What are your thoughts on Gordon and Charlie V?...
Aussie Dunker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2012, 02:22 AM   #13
dd24
College superstar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,992
Default Re: If we are drafting a big at #9

I think those signings are what killed this team. I think it's a far bigger mistake than when Joe D drafted Darko. I'd like to see them both traded. I think Charlie is of more value. He's a big guy with a nice outside touch and his contract isn't that terrible. The problem is I'd rather just develop Jerebko, Daye, and our potential rookie big at this point. BG definitely needs a change of scenery. I'm not exactly sure why he couldn't do in Detroit what he did in Chicago. Sure he's had some injuries. But this clearly isn't going to work out. I've never been a fan of small SG's (besides Dumars of course, lol). I would think a team like Utah (who has a ton of big men) could use someone like him. Portland has to be looking for a SG too. I'm just not sure what their cap space situations are like. I wouldn't want to necessarily take back all that salary in another mediocre player. I'd want another 1st round pick.
dd24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2012, 02:27 AM   #14
Aussie Dunker
Local High School Star
 
Aussie Dunker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,513
Default Re: If we are drafting a big at #9

Yeah I hated both of those signings so much, our days of contending were over, why not go back down to the bottom and rebuild from the ground up, instead Dumars got in two middle of the range players who were never going to fit into our rebuilding plans, just didn't make sense?!?!?

Jerebko >>> Charlie V, and younger too...

I would personally like to see Daye get more time at SG. Has a great outside touch, and with a bit of work on his defensive footwork, could be an absolute beast on defense guarding players 4 inches shorter than him!
Aussie Dunker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2012, 02:32 AM   #15
dd24
College superstar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,992
Default Re: If we are drafting a big at #9

My thoughts are, if they actually traded BG then Daye would have to get more minutes at SG. I really like the idea of him out there too. I could see him playing 10-15 there backing up Stuckey and maybe getting a little playing time at SF and PF too so he could get over 20 minutes per game.
dd24 is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:31 AM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site













Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy