Pollin': Draft Strategy
With 54% of the vote, you chose DeShawn's dagger to beat New Orleans as the best non-playoff shot of the year. In honor of the selection, here's is DeShawn's much less heralded Dagger: Part II.
In a lot of ways, this dagger was just like the first one except it was much less dramatic, less people were on their feet, the game was already decided, and Buck forgot was constituted a safe lead. But other than that, very similar.
For this week's poll, we focus on a question that has haunted GMs of all sports. In the draft, should you focus on getting the best talent available or filling a specific need? The inspiration for this week's post comes from the Salt Lake Tribune, who asked Jerry Sloan about the how he feels about the issue
[...] Jerry Sloan, meanwhile, told a story from his days coaching the Chicago Bulls and a mistake they made in the 1979 draft.
The Bulls missed out on the chance to draft Sidney Moncrief because they already had Reggie Theus on the roster and felt they needed a forward. They used the No. 2 pick on UCLA's David Greenwood; Moncrief went on to become an All-Star.
"We felt like we had to have a forward so we took a forward and passed on a guy who's an All-Star player," Sloan said. "That doesn't help the value of your franchise, in my opinion, when you make decisions that way."
In that case, I'd agree with Jerry that it's better to take the player with more talent. When you have a top-5 pick, you're looking at someone that you can build a franchise around, so I say the more talent you have to build around, the better. However, since the Wizards don't have the luxury of a top-5 pick, I don't think the decision to go with the best talent is as clear cut. With the 18th pick, you're most likely going to find a role-player level talent, so I say take the player that's best going to fit a role that can benefit the team rather than a player that might have more talent, but doesn't fill any area of need. Of course, if a lottery-level talent falls to #18, or if you have to make a big reach to find someone that can your needs, the circumstances change, but I'd say those two scenarios are the exceptions rather than the rule.
That's just my two cents on the issue. You can either go with that, or agree with the coach that's had a winning record 19 of the last 20 seasons. The choice is yours.
0 recs |
3 comments
Comments
There's a difference between need and fit
I’m never a huge fan of this question because of this distinction. A need implies drafting to fill a position, while a fit implies drafting someone who works with your team’s style of play. Save for drafting a superstar, you always need to draft for fit. Everybody has talent, but you need a specific type of talent that works with what you’re trying to do.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Jun 17, 2008 1:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I went for Best Available
I think this is a fairly deep draft and there could be some top talent sleepers available at 18.
Trust the scouts and pick the player with the best potential.
Because honestly, you could make a case that the Wizards need some sort of help at every position.
by Truth About It on Jun 17, 2008 1:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
No one answer
A GM has to weigh the players available (at 18 and 47). At one point I was for drafting Lopez at 18 because he would address what I consider the team’s biggest weakness, back up Center. Looking at this draft I think we could draft Sasha Kahn at 47 and get most of the skills that Lopez brings with even more maturity. Kahn may never be able to start in the NBA whereas Lopez will, so be it.
I also think draft boards are going to be weighted by need anyway. So drafting the best available player is usually the best formula as long as the guy fits, or will get minutes. Collect talent and you will be able to move chips to address needs.
by Jheiser3 on Jun 17, 2008 2:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 

















