Jump to content

2nd Round Picks: High Potential Project or Finished Product?


Built Ford Tough
 Share

Recommended Posts

With a second round pick would you rather take a chance on a high potential project with a high likelyhood of busting (obviously, or else he would've been drafted by now) or a player who is a finished product but, best case scenario, projects as a 8th man?

 

Just to use an example to make this a bit more clear...

 

Would you rather take a chance on a raw big like, say, Solomon Alabi who has a very high chance of being a huge bust, but also has a chance of being a solid rotational player, maybe even starting center, or would you pick somebody like, say, Robert Sacre from Gonzaga, who is never going to be anything more than a 9th man (at best) but you know should give you solid energy, physicallity and hustle?

 

Another way of looking at this is would you rather swing for the fences with a 2nd round pick or take more a of a sure thing, despite that player never being more than a 15 minute bench guy?

 

I know some of this will depend on the team in question, but just on average, ignoring team needs and what not, which would you prefer to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to the second round, I'm a fan of prospects with high bball IQ's, have winning mentalities, and bring either defense or scoring to the team. This draft is loaded with good talent, it's not top heavy, and I think there's a good chance teams find productive rookies in the second round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to the second round, I'm a fan of prospects with high bball IQ's, have winning mentalities, and bring either defense or scoring to the team. This draft is loaded with good talent, it's not top heavy, and I think there's a good chance teams find productive rookies in the second round.

 

I agree. A great example is Danny Green. He was the 16th pick in the 2nd round by the Cavs. He was a leader and a winner at UNC, winning a championship there and playing all four seasons (part of the most wins in UNC history). However, in the NBA, he barely played for the Cavs his first year. Next thing you know, he's starting shooting guard for the Spurs in the Western Conference Finals.

 

I'd prefer to take a player with leadership to accompany his tangible talents. It provides another useful dimension of the player, as opposed to just raw talent with no experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...