Feeling Nos_sturt_damus-like

[frosgrim]

Even using that model, which is a more complex way of saying what I said you said, then how is not getting Howard not bad luck? It wasn't fully under the Hawks control, yet they tried to set themselves up to make it. By all rights, Orlando lucked out to get Howard, as they jumped several lotto teams. Which, by the transitive property, makes all other teams in the lotery unlucky or they had bad luck. See isn't that simple and not controvesial?

[exodus]

Quote:

---

ex, we've reached the point where seemingly every thread reaches when it involves you... You begin to fall back to the only ammunition you have left, which is to attempt to assasinate the competency of the other side... yep... you are the ONLY competent, knowledgeable, coherent person in the discussion, and it's just a dang shame that no one else seems to understand that.

---

Convenient dodge. let me be more specific. When has BK ever gotten unlucky in the lottery?*waits for next dodge*

Quote:

---

As a rule, when a team is mostly bad and needing talent at multiple positions, should they draft for need or for BPA?BPA. That's conventional wisdom, anyway.

---

So why would a guy, in the first year of rebuilding, draft a skinny, slow tweener who shoots from the chin when two players with obviously higher upside are available?

Quote:

---

As a rule, when a team is mostly bad, but essentially stocked with young talent at several positions, should they draft for need or for BPA?Need. Again, conventional wisdom.

---

So it was conventional wisdom to take a much less talented player who played the same position as the second best player on the roster? OKWe have drafted Horford and Shelden but Smith is still the starting 4 in case you haven't noticed. And remember that we are only talking about a difference of a year or two. It isn't like we went from a bare team to a stocked team overnight. In one year the Hawks went from drafting for the BPA to drafting for need and you are trying to say this makes sense. LOLDetroit is a stocked team. The hawks aren't even now.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

By all rights, Orlando lucked out to get Howard, as they jumped several lotto teams. Which, by the transitive property, makes all other teams in the lotery unlucky or they had bad luck.

---

*sigh*If you buy a lottery ticket and it isn't a winner does that make you unlucky? No it just means that the probabilities held true. Just because you don't get lucky doesn't mean you are unlucky. The Hawks won a place in the lottery twice in 3 years. That isn't unlucky at all. If they had not gotten any top 3 picks then you could say they were unlucky.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

It was unlucky to not land Howard, as it would have been lucky to land him.

---

It doesn't work like that. Even if the Hawks had the worst record in the league that year they would have had only a 25% chance to land the top pick. So even then if they didn't land him they wouldn't have been unlucky. Now if you want to say that BK would have been able to trade for Howard with a higher pick that is a completely different argument. It was BK's fault that the team didn't lose enough games (i think they wound up tied with the Clips), ironic because he has been so good at losing games throughout his career.

[sturt]

Quote:

Quote:

ex, we've reached the point where seemingly every thread reaches when it involves you...

You begin to fall back to the only ammunition you have left, which is to attempt to assasinate the competency of the other side... yep... you are the ONLY competent, knowledgeable, coherent person in the discussion, and it's just a dang shame that no one else seems to understand that.

Convenient dodge....

...*waits for next dodge*

ex, seriously, this is so juvenile. There's a real question every time I've ever engaged you in a discussion about practically anything as to whether there's anything rational or productive about the pursuit... condescension toward an argument is legit and reasonable... repeated, hypocritical (in the exact meaning of that word as contrasted w/ hypercritical) condescension toward another person is not... it belongs on a middle school playground. Makes one pause to even think about whether it is worthwhile to respond to you, or if it's ultimately more shameful to come down to that level.

You accuse me of "dodging." So, when I explain carefully why I consider your question to be full of presumption, and thus, is irrelevant to what I'd stated... and when you choose to not respond directly to that counterpoint, what term should we use to fit that? Avoidance? Escapism? Desertion?

Quote:

...let me be more specific. When has BK ever gotten unlucky in the lottery?...

I'm not your research department. In the future, bring your own.

2007: Finished w/ 4th worst record, but received the 3rd pick; IND finished tied for 11th worst record, we received the 11th pick.

Net = Received one pick better overall

2006: Finished tied for 3rd worst, received 5th pick.

Net = Received two picks worse overall

2005: Finished with the worst record in the league, received 2nd pick; Lakers finished w/ 10th worst record, thus eliminating by one slot the opportunity for ATL to get the #18 selection which BOS used to select Gerald Green

Net = Of two possible 1st round picks, received one pick at one slot worse than should have, and did not receive the second pick at all.

2004: Finished tied for 5th worst record, received 6th pick; MIL finished tied for 15th worst record, and ATL received 17th pick

Net = Of two 1st round picks, recieved one pick at one slot worse that could have, and received second pick at two slots worse than could have

Quote:

Quote:

As a rule, when a team is mostly bad and needing talent at multiple positions, should they draft for need or for BPA?

BPA. That's conventional wisdom, anyway.

So why would a guy, in the first year of rebuilding, draft a skinny, slow tweener who shoots from the chin when two players with obviously higher upside are available?

Evidently because he thought the "skinny tweener" was less likely to be a bust than the other two... Was he wrong? Perhaps so. But in any event, he was drafting BPA, not for need.

Quote:

Quote:

As a rule, when a team is mostly bad, but essentially stocked with young talent at several positions, should they draft for need or for BPA?

Need. Again, conventional wisdom.

So it was conventional wisdom to take a much less talented player who played the same position as the second best player on the roster? OK

We have drafted Horford and Shelden but Smith is still the starting 4 in case you haven't noticed.

So, just to stay on topic (...I'm sure you remember that the discussion is BPA vs. need...), you'd then suggest that Shelden was a BPA pick???

Oh, really.

Don't be absurd.

Shelden was selected b/c Shelden offered a different skill set... a role that no current-roster Hawk could fulfill at that time... and in BK's greatest dreams, he could even emerge as an NBA "landlord" as he had in college.

And for the record, any of us can argue with him, but BK has always been known to regard Shelden as a 5 who can play the 4, not the other way around... at the end of last season, there was some quote to that effect, and a statement that in 07-08, there would be a greater effort to keep Shelden exclusively at the 5.

Quote:

And remember that we are only talking about a difference of a year or two. It isn't like we went from a bare team to a stocked team overnight. In one year the Hawks went from drafting for the BPA to drafting for need and you are trying to say this makes sense. LOL

Diaw (2003), Childress (2004), Smith (2004), and Marvin Williams (2005) were BPA drafts.

In the meantime, Johnson and Pachulia were obtained through other means.

Shelden Williams (2006) represented the first attempt at drafting for a specific role on the team; at that point, the only other vital role was PG. Between the two positions, SWill was, in BK's judgment, the most capable of filling a role and concurrently, BK thought there were free agent PGs that made sense.

So, yes. There came a point in the 2006 off-season when the decision clearly was made that the team... young by design, and sure to endure growing pains... nonetheless had filled enough roster slots with BPA draftees, and it was time to take aim at more-stringently defined roles.

What's so difficult to believe about that?

Answer: Nothing, unless you're trying to salvage your sinking ship position in a debate.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

2007: Finished w/ 4th worst record, but received the 3rd pick; IND finished tied for 11th worst record, we received the 11th pick.Net = Received one pick better overall 2006: Finished tied for 3rd worst, received 5th pick.Net = Received two picks worse overall2005: Finished with the worst record in the league, received 2nd pick; Lakers finished w/ 10th worst record, thus eliminating by one slot the opportunity for ATL to get the #18 selection which BOS used to select Gerald GreenNet = Of two possible 1st round picks, received one pick at one slot worse than should have, and did not receive the second pick at all.2004: Finished tied for 5th worst record, received 6th pick; MIL finished tied for 15th worst record, and ATL received 17th pickNet = Of two 1st round picks, recieved one pick at one slot worse that could have, and received second pick at two slots worse than could have

---

In other words not one time. The the way the lottery is set up the odds are that ANY team that finishes with one of the 5 worst records will most likely drop 1 or 2 spots in the draft. The probabilities have been posted here many times. Last year Memphis, Boston, and the Bucks all dropped 3 places. The year before Portland finished with the worse record and picked 4th.Nothing like that has ever happened to BK. The only way to get a top 3 pick is if your number is picked. BK's number was picked twice in 4 years which isn't even remotely unluckly. The ONE TIME the Hawks dropped 2 places in the draft the ROY (who is outperforming every player on the Hawks roster, leading his team to 13 straight wins) was still available.it is pretty funny how you say (net 1 spot lost, net 1 spot gained) as if that has any mathematical significance at all.

Quote:

---

Lakers finished w/ 10th worst record, thus eliminating by one slot the opportunity for ATL to get the #18 selection which BOS used to select Gerald Green

---

This again shows a complete lack of understanding about basketball on several levels. First of all the Lakers didn't have a chance to reach the playoffs so it only made sense for them to lose intentionally to insure keeping their pick. Secondly the 18th pick was no prize anyway. Greens option wasn't picked up by Minny so he will be a UFA this summer and BK can still get him if he wants to. It isn't like there were any prizes drafted after him either, as if BK would have found one if there was. Lastly, and most importantly, the Hawks kept the pick for another year WHICH WAS THEN USED IN THE JJ TRADE TO BRING IN OUR BEST PLAYER. DO YOU REALLY THINK IT IS UNLUCKY THAT WE HAD THAT PICK AVAILABLE?Duh

[TroyMcClure]

Do you guys realize you are arguing about what "luck" is? I mean, come on! Just to stir the pot a little though; It is said that luck is the residue of design. Imo, if your design involves drafting the way he has, your "luck" will invariably be what we've experienced. This all could have been happening last year or possibly the year before. Don't forget that his decision to hire and stay with Woody and his decisions in player aquisition are not mutually exclusive. He's a stubborn guy with a plan that will yield low end results. He's put the bar so low as to have no chance of failing.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Diaw (2003), Childress (2004), Smith (2004), and Marvin Williams (2005) were BPA drafts.

---

Really? Well i guess it is time for you to get specific again.

Let's look specifically at the 2005 draft and Marvin. I actually think we can agree on this point.

Please choose either A or B.

The BPA logic applies here because

A) Marvin was seen as being the best player AT THAT TIME.

or

B) Marvin was seen as the guy who would eventually be the best player down the road (say 5 years).

My opinion is that BK's position was B, that Marvin would eventually be the best player several years down the road. Since the rebuilding process was in the early stages it made more sense to go with the guy with the highest upside rather than drafting for need.

So what say you, is it A or B?

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Shelden was selected b/c Shelden offered a different skill set... a role that no current-roster Hawk could fulfill at that time...

---

And one that he couldn't fill either given the fact that his standing reach is 4" shorter than our small forward.You talk about BK's plan to build a "long, athletic team" but when BK reaches in the draft to take a player which is the exact antithesis of his vision (not long but very short and unathletic) you still applaud it like an obedient lap dog. It was very predictable that Shelden wouldn't live up to what BK envisioned. In fact it was so obvious that the pick was boo'd at Phillips, trashed on this board and mocked in the press.

[TexasPete]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Shelden was selected b/c Shelden offered a different skill set... a role that no current-roster Hawk could fulfill at that time...

---

And one that he couldn't fill either given the fact that his standing reach is 4" shorter than our small forward.You talk about BK's plan to build a "long, athletic team" but when BK reaches in the draft to take a player which is the exact antithesis of his vision (not long but very short and unathletic) you still applaud it like an obedient lap dog. It was very predictable that Shelden wouldn't live up to what BK envisioned. In fact it was so obvious that the pick was boo'd at Phillips, trashed on this board and mocked in the press.

---

The Shelden pick was the worst thing BK has ever done in the draft because we blew the 5th pick completely. Chill and Marvin were the wrong choices but they still are solid NBA players, and Marvin is still developing.I will never get the Shelden pick as long as I live. EVERYBODY saw this coming. He has a skillset that is totally underwhelming and it's also not NBA quality. Add in the fact that BK the genius didn't even work out Roy, nor even consider him, and its just a ludicrous situation.

[DrReality]

Nothing like starting the New Year off by rehashing some of the hotest topics over the past year. Yawn.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

In other words not one time.

---

Wrong again.

Only you, my dogged, final-word-hungry friend, could look at those results and conclude "not one time."

Laughable.

The math is what it is. Odds are that if you move backwards x-number of times, you should see some balance to that emerge at some point. And, needless to say (?), that's what just happened in 2007.

And it is just as laughable to make light of the significance of one draft slot, particularly when it is so high in the draft.

It's not that your intelligence about basketball is screwed up... it's that your desire to win an argument is screwed up... putting you out on these indefensible planks where you just make stuff up and see what sticks.

Quote:

---

...Lastly, and most importantly, the Hawks kept the pick for another year WHICH WAS THEN USED IN THE JJ TRADE TO BRING IN OUR BEST PLAYER. DO YOU REALLY THINK IT IS UNLUCKY THAT WE HAD THAT PICK AVAILABLE?

Duh

---

How easy to forget YOUR original question when it suits YOUR purposes.

As I recall, it concerned "luck" and drafting. Certainly, we retained the asset and were able to make a decision on how to use that asset later on. But that's NOT what YOU asked.

"Duh" back at ya.

Quote:

---

My opinion is that BK's position was B, that Marvin would eventually be the best player several years down the road. Since the rebuilding process was in the early stages it made more sense to go with the guy with the highest upside rather than drafting for need.

So what say you, is it A or B?

---

I'm not sure what the mystery is here, but indeed, B is correct.

By BPA, particularly in a rebuilding situation and/or when drafting underclassmen like Marvin, it should not be taken to mean "best RIGHT-NOW player available."

Quote:

---

You talk about BK's plan to build a "long, athletic team" but when BK reaches in the draft to take a player which is the exact antithesis of his vision (not long but very short and unathletic) you still applaud it like an obedient lap dog.

---

Ahhh... your favorite technique... flip-flop things around on the surface in hopes that you can make enough ripples so that no one can see the shalllowness of the point. And add a nice little zinger on the end to attempt, again, connote the other person's myopia.

The deeper truth is not that deep... heck, my wife could probably tell you that BK's goal of a "long, athletic" team was mission-accomplished at this point. BK had drafted Chill, Smoove, and Marvelous, and SNT'd for Johnson, and the pre-draft media jokes about him targeting another clone of those weren't funny.

(Can I hear another "Duh"....???)

...which fits with the proposition that Shell marked a turning point from drafting BPAs to drafting for specific roles... it makes sense that the "long athletic" BPAs were the core of BK's plan, and then there comes a point where any GM, "real" or "fantasy," is going to have to fill-in with other body types to fill certain roles.

And, though it's really beside the point, while Shell's lenghth isn't debateable, his atheticism is.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Add in the fact that BK the genius didn't even work out Roy, nor even consider him, and its just a ludicrous situation.

---

Honest question, just looking for an honest answer, TPete... and from you, I know I can expect that...Rewind and imagine that BK drafts Roy.In light of his position on the depth chart, then, how many minutes per game do you think he gets?Then, while it's a given that SWill didn't set the world on fire, who gets his minutes instead?Neither of those are trap questions, but just looking to satisfy my curiosity about your perspective.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

The math is what it is. Odds are that if you move backwards x-number of times, you should see some balance to that emerge at some point. And, needless to say (?), that's what just happened in 2007.

---

Balance? The fact is that there wasn't one time where BK got unlucky based on what the pre lottery probabilities were. One spot forward does not equal one spot backwards. it doesn't work like that. If the Hawks hadn't won the lottery this past offseason that pick would have been postponed until next year which apparently doesnt fit into your luck equation.

Quote:

---

How easy to forget YOUR original question when it suits YOUR purposes.As I recall, it concerned "luck" and drafting. Certainly, we retained the asset and were able to make a decision on how to use that asset later on. But that's NOT what YOU asked. "Duh" back at ya.

---

So you want to focus solely on draft and ignore the trade that brought in our best player? FineYet again you fail to mention how it was unlucky that the Lakers missed the playoffs. They were bad and did the reasonable thing (tanking) to insure keeping their pick.And lets say they did make the playoffs. Who was the great prize that BK missed out on?*crickets*

Quote:

---

The deeper truth is not that deep... heck, my wife could probably tell you that BK's goal of a "long, athletic" team was mission-accomplished at this point.

---

I guess that explains why this "long, athletic team" is one of the shortest in the league at the 4-5 spots, where length is most important.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

I'm not sure what the mystery is here, but indeed, B is correct. By BPA, particularly in a rebuilding situation and/or when drafting underclassmen like Marvin, it should not be taken to mean "best RIGHT-NOW player available."

---

So the BPA agrument really means, in a rebuilding situation, the guy who is expected to be the best player several years down the road?*scratches head*Strange that you would say that considering you said the BPA argument was used to take childress in the FIRST year of rebuilding. Childress was slower, smaller, older and weaker than Iggy/Deng and shoots a highly unconventional shot so there is no way he could be considered as having a higher upside than Deng or iggy.i guess the BPA means whatever you want it to mean at any given time. One year it can mean the best player at that time and the next year it can mean the best player in 5 years time. Let me try out this sturt logic about the BPA and see how it works. 2004 the Hawks were in their first year of rebuilding so it was natural for them to take the player deemed to have the highest upside since it would be awhile for the Hawks to be competitive. Therefore Deng is the obvious choice, possibly Iggy but certainly not Childress. 2005 Paul and Deron were much better players than Marvin at that time so (using sturts ameoba BPA argument) they should have been picked over Marvin. This is fun. I should try this more often.

[sturt]

(Since you enjoy sound effects...)

*quiet but ominous sound of submerging ship as captain ex gurgles and suffocates under his ebb-and-tide dissent*

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The math is what it is. Odds are that if you move backwards x-number of times, you should see some balance to that emerge at some point. And, needless to say (?), that's what just happened in 2007.

---

Balance? The fact is that there wasn't one time where BK got unlucky based on what the pre lottery probabilities were. One spot forward does not equal one spot backwards. it doesn't work like that.

---

Is it, or is it not "unlucky" to have to move down from the slot where, otherwise you would have drafted?

(Now, really, how hard is it to answer that question...???... unless you're splashing around, desperate for something to hold onto.)

Quote:

---

If the Hawks hadn't won the lottery this past offseason that pick would have been postponed until next year which apparently doesnt fit into your luck equation.

---

First, I'm flattered that you think so highly of my impact on the universe, but the "law of averages" just isn't "my" equation.

The Hawks were due for some better draft luck... they got it, but to entertain your proposition, had they not, eventually the law of averages would have corrected that misfortune as well... albeit, unfortunately for BK, sometime after he'd been fired (LOL).

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How easy to forget YOUR original question when it suits YOUR purposes.

As I recall, it concerned "luck" and drafting. Certainly, we retained the asset and were able to make a decision on how to use that asset later on. But that's NOT what YOU asked.

"Duh" back at ya.

---

So you want to focus solely on draft and ignore the trade that brought in our best player? Fine

---

Again, you attribute too much to me... this wasn't MY question, but YOURS:

Quote:

---

When has BK ever gotten unlucky in the lottery?

---

(Pardon me for reading "lottery" as "draft position," but, correct me if I'm wrong, that seems to be no stretch of your question.)

And, to your credit, the question, while fairly elementary, was at least on-topic when you asked it... obviously, now at this point, you'd prefer to slant it differently.

But let me humor you for the sake of humoring my own imagination...

Had the JJ trade not happened, and had we have kept the asset, BK would have been looking at the #21 2006 pick, as opposed to that #18 2005 pick... more bad draft luck, at least in terms of position, but more-bad-luck-avoided thankfully.

Quote:

---

And lets say they did make the playoffs. Who was the great prize that BK missed out on?

*crickets*

---

Reminder... again... I was answering... YOUR question... that BK turned it into something of significance after all is (a) not relevant to your question, and (b) a feather in his cap anyhow, but © again, not relevant to your question.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The deeper truth is not that deep... heck, my wife could probably tell you that BK's goal of a "long, athletic" team was mission-accomplished at this point.

---

I guess that explains why this "long, athletic team" is one of the shortest in the league at the 4-5 spots, where length is most important.

---

*more ripples in the shallow pond*

[exodus]

Quote:

---

*more ripples in the shallow pond*

---

LOL that says it all right there. BK's plan was to build a "long, athletic team" yet they one of the shortest teams in the league at the 4/5 spots. Mission accomplished? Hardly

Quote:

---

Is it, or is it not "unlucky" to have to move down from the slot where, otherwise you would have drafted?

---

Absolutely not. The only question is where you drafted relative to where you were most likely to draft given the pre-lottery possibilities.

Quote:

---

Reminder... again... I was answering... YOUR question... that BK turned it into something of significance after all is (a) not relevant to your question, and (b) a feather in his cap anyhow, but © again, not relevant to your question.

---

Another dodge.In order for BK to have gotten unlucky by not being able to use that LA pick in 2005 that would have to mean that he missed out on something of value in the 2005 draft.What did he miss out on?

[sturt]

Dr. Re is right... and I didn't really want to re-hash EVERYTHING, but when ex latches onto something, I should've known, this was bound to occur.

Rewind.

My assertions were that BK had a plan, he

executed the plan, and the plan is paying dividends. #1 and #2 are clearly the case, and for the time being, #3 is as well.

ex, you are attempting to debate with me #1 and #2, and in that, you are looking for me to defend every detail of what BK did.

I'm not BK, obviously. I think I can see what led him to do what he did, and can see the logic in practically all of it, though not every individual decision was exactly the one that was best... in hindsight, at least.

Deng appears to have been the best choice. No one here, at least not me, is debating that.

But the factor that ex fails to acknowledge is that drafting wisely is often as much a challenge to not strikeout as it is to hit a home run.

I recall reading media draft-niks suggesting that Deng, but much more so, Iggy, having a wide range of potential both up and down. For the most part, Childress was considered to be neither high in potential nor particularly at-risk to bust.

Like it or not, BK apparently considered all three, and ultimately thought Childress represented the least risk of blowing up... and at an early stage in the rebuilding process, one can argue that it's more affordable to get an "okay" contributor than it is to seriously whiff.

I'm not sure what other theory makes any sense than that... BK isn't professionally masochistic.

Why wasn't the selection of Marvin, at the #2 pick, seen in the exact same light?

Best theory is that Marvin's worst-case-scenario was deemed fairly high by comparison... no surprise, given such a high slot... and, all things being equal and given a choice between whiffing on a 6-8 player and two point guards, heighth wins out.

Again, I'm not BK and I could be wrong, but putting all of the factors together, this drafting-from-a-conservative-paradigm seems most plausible of any of the theories I can see.

Quote:

---

This is fun. I should try this more often.

---

LOL... yeah, I was just saying to myself earlier today, "ex just has 10,000 posts?... geez... slacker... doesn't Diesel have double that by now???"

[sturt]

More hypocritical dodge accusations... more re-defining terms like "plan" or "unlucky in the draft" to suit own purposes...

and indeed...

More ripples in the shallow pond, of exodus' making.

BK *did* have a plan--to tear-down and re-build with long, athletic guys at the core.

BK *did* execute that plan.

And, we're watching now to see if the plan works or not... and will know with more certainty in about 3 months.

Points made, points defended.

While ex will, no doubt, feel abandoned now and will remark with some last words accordingly (probably several, in fact) .... there's no new ground being covered here, and the thought and effort expended, at least where I'm personally concerned, is almost completely non-productive at this point... better things to do, so see ya later...

[exodus]

Quote:

---

But the factor that ex fails to acknowledge is that drafting wisely is often as much a challenge to not strikeout as it is to hit a home run.

---

Absolutely not. It isn't about hitting the home run.

Neither Deng nor Iggy were the best players available at 6 in the 2004 draft. In hindsight Jefferson and Kevin Martin are the top 2 players that BK could have picked.

However i haven't mentioned either player.

You have said time and again both the Childress and Marvin picks made sense using the BPA theory. That has been officially debunked.

You can use that argument for Marvin but not Childress. And even in the case of Marvin it is still weak given that we had harrington, Smith, childress, Diaw and Donta already on the roster and desperately needed a pg.

Now as to the lottery. let me give you an example to hopefully make things clear, again using 2005 as an example.

The Hawks had the worst record in the league. Does that mean they were unlucky to get the second pick? No

Their proablities for the top 2 picks were

1st 25%

2nd 21.48%

There was a 46.48% chance for them to get a top 2 pick. Therefore there was a 53.52% chance for them NOT to get a top 2 pick.

In your mind you probably believe the Hawks were unlucky to drop a spot. In reality that isn't the case.

Quote:

---

LOL... yeah, I was just saying to myself earlier today, "ex just has 10,000 posts?... geez... slacker... doesn't Diesel have double that by now???"

---

Ironically i have certainly made more posts defending Marvin, as a player, than anyone on this site. Marvin didn't pick himself at number 2 just like Shelden didn't pick himself at number 5.

I think Marvin was clearly the wrong pick but i still think he can be a very good player. I hated the Shelden pick but if it was up to me he would get all of Zaza's minutes.

I don't blame them for where they were picked.