↓ Login/Logout ↓
Schedule/Results
↓ Roster ↓
Salaries
↓ Archives ↓
↓ About ↓

Detroit Pistons #DraftDreams: Andrew Nicholson

Discuss Draft Dreams on Twitter using the #DraftDreams hashtag

Info

  • Measurables: 6-foot-9, 240 pounds, senior forward from St. Bonaventure
  • Key Stats: 18.4 points, 8.5 rebounds, 1.0 assists, 2.0 blocks per game, 57 percent shooting, 43 percent 3-point shooting
  • Projected: Late first/early second round
  • Hickory High Similarity Score

Why I’m intrigued by this guy

Nicholson has improved just about every facet of his game tremendously in four years at St. Bonaventure, he’s known for his work ethic and he plays defense. Those things, combined with being tall, would make him a good bet to immediately contribute to the Pistons.

Pros for the Pistons

Nicholson is a high-energy player who doesn’t mind playing defense, is a solid shot-blocker and, most importantly for Greg Monroe-related reasons, has great hands. Monroe loves to pass around the basket and Nicholson is good at catching and quickly finishing. Check out this line from ESPN’s Chad Ford:

Wants to dunk everything in the paint

Yeah, that’ll work. Also, Nicholson has extended his range as a college player out past the 3-point line, He should an amazing 43 percent out there this season. The Pistons could use another shooter in their lineup, particularly if they use the amnesty clause on Charlie Villanueva.

Cons for the Pistons

The biggest knock on Nicholson seems to be that he’s only average or slightly above as a rebounder. I’m honestly not all that concerned about that. He rebounds well enough at the college level and the fact that he’s a hard-worker and is known for playing with a lot of energy makes me confidence it’s something he could improve. Also, if you remember, scouts weren’t wowed by Monroe’s rebounding ability when he was coming out of college and that didn’t end up being an accurate assessment of what he’s capable of. Nicholson has also had occasional turnover problems, as many young big men do.

Nicholson won’t rise high enough in the draft for the Pistons to take him with their lottery selection, but he’s one of several bigs (Festus Ezeli, Fab Melo to name a couple others) pegged for the late first/early second round who the team should definitely pounce on if he lasts on the board until their second round pick.

What others are saying

Chad Ford:

Nicholson continues to mature as a player. Every year, those David West comparisons look just a little bit closer to the mark. While there were questions about his toughness and basketball IQ early in his career, he just keeps getting better. In a losing effort against a swarming Florida State defense, Nicholson had 20 points and seven rebounds and was 4-for-5 from the 3-point line.

The 3-point shooting is especially noteworthy for Nicholson. For the first 22 games of the season, Nicholson hit a total of four 3-pointers. In his last 10 games he hit 19. Nicholson’s age keeps him from having a high ceiling, but it’s more likely than ever that someone takes him in the 20s.

DraftExpress:

Nevertheless, standing 6’9” with excellent length and big hands, Nicholson has some intriguing aspects of his game, both in terms of his physical profile and from a skills perspective—and is almost certainly not a finished product yet.

Offensively, Nicholson relies heavily on a very refined post game that’s tough to defend at this level, particularly when paired with the improving perimeter game he showed last year. With good footwork, counter moves, and an ability to finish with either hand, Nicholson has plenty of moves in the low post. According to Synergy Sports Technology, Nicholson is shooting 54% in post-up situations, while doing a solid job of drawing contact and getting to the line.

NBADraft.net:

After not getting off to the start many expected for his senior season, he ended his career on a high note, playing extremely well down the stretch and especially in the A-10 conference tournament while leading his team to their first NCAA Tourney appearance since 2000. While displaying more tenacity and an improved skill set during this time, his ceiling is very high and he still has room to grow, making him a very intriguing prospect.

ESPN:

Realizing that the demands of Division I college basketball and the hours of lab work required for a chemistry major wouldn’t necessarily jive, Andrew Nicholson decided he needed to change his major to something a little less demanding.

So he did.

To physics.

“It’s still very challenging, but I have the capacity to do it,” Nicholson said without a trace of arrogance. “I’m very, very, very, very good at time management. I’ve got it down to the millisecond.”

What is the best thing Andrew Nicholson does for his team?

Kyle Zamiara (follow him on Twitter) is the sports editor for The Bona Venture, St. Bonaventure’s student newspaper:

After an up and down start to his senior season, Nicholson put the team on his back the final nine games of the Bonnies’ season, eventually winning the Atlantic 10 Championship. His presence in the paint draws double teams and creates opportunity for teammates on the perimeter. Nicholson also is dangerous from long range as he hit 43 percent of his three-pointers this season. He’s a relentless workhorse that can take over games if he isn’t challenged.

Previously

30 Comments

  • May 7, 201212:05 pm
    by vic

    Reply

    the post moves and the millisecond time management & intelligence pretty much sold me. plus the work ethic.

    i’d take him round 2 if Jae Crowder isn’t available. 

    But looking at how much Javale McGee has improved with George Karl vs with Flip Saunders, and looking at the difference between the Rick Carslisle Mavericks with & without Tyson Chandler kind of solidifies the importance of coaching with talented 7-footers. So I’d have to stick with the 7-foot Center for the first round.
    The Pistons seem to have a good coach and management situation that will maximize the talent and physique of Meyers Leonard.

    Pick 1:
    7 foot center with size and talent Meyers Leonard
    Pick 2:
    skilled workhorse sf or pf – Jae Crowder or Andrew Nicholson or Kyle O Quinn
    Pick 3:
    pass first PG – Scott Machado

  • May 7, 20121:55 pm
    by djunak

    Reply

    I really like this series but the problem with it is it makes you like so many players, hard to decide on just a couple of players. 
    Pick 1:
    7 foot center with size and talent Meyers Leonard
    Pick 2:
    skilled workhorse sf or pf – Jae Crowder or Andrew Nicholson or Kyle O Quinn
    Pick 3:
    pass first PG – Scott Machado
    If that is our draft I’d say we had a good night.
    I also realy like Royce White but he will be long gone before the 2nd rd.

  • May 7, 20123:29 pm
    by Fennis

    Reply

    This guy looks perfect. I highly doubt he’ll be available in round 2. How often do you find a big with intelligence, athleticism, inside-outside scoring ability and a commitment to defense. They’d have to trade back in round 1 to land him. I’d love to see it.
     
    The thing about Meyers is that his size is largely neutralized in the NBA so he has to bring some other attribute to the table. He doesn’t seem particularly dominant in any area and those blocks will go way down.
     
    To me, Nicholson does more on the court than Moultrie and Meyers. If the big dogs are gone (Henson, Barnes), I’d consider trading back and getting Nicholson. I need more info on the guy but I really like his intangibles and wide ranging skill set.

    • May 7, 20125:28 pm
      by vic

      Reply

      I agree with you somewhat, but actually the knock on Nicholson is that he’s very offensive minded, but not too tough overall. He doesn’t rebound or block shots well like he should, especially at the level of competition he plays with, and how long he is, and after 4 years.
      Defense translates better in the NBA paint, so Nicholson is not really seen as a perfect PF. 

      Meyers and Henson however have played big 10 and acc level competition, and proven themselves somewhat defensively. 

      btw I checked the stats when Leonard played Nicholson. Leonard was 3/3 on fgs, 3/5 fts. His guards all had double digit shot attempts. Nicholson was 7/18. He led his team in shot attempts by a longshot. 

      So system and team and coaching definitely has a lot to do with production as well.

      In my opinion the only way size is neutralized in the NBA is if its overweight, too skinny, or unskilled. That’s why 7 footers are always at a premium, they’re just worth more on a basketball court.

      • May 7, 20129:26 pm
        by frankie d

        Reply

        yea…i guess that is why shawn bradley was such a stud.

        • May 7, 201211:12 pm
          by vic

          Reply

          shawn bradley was a weaker body type, and didn’t have a lot of skill.
          cute sarcasm though!-)
          #ignorethisguy

          • May 8, 20121:31 am
            by frankie d

            chasing seven footers at the expense of better BB players has to rank as the biggest mistake teams make in the draft.
            detroit fans should be well aware of that syndrome.
            darko, anyone?
            greg oden, over kevin durant?
            steve stepanovich?
            shawn bradley.
            michael olawakandi?
            patrick o’bryant?
            big country reeves?
            the list is long and ignomonious.
            imho, teams are better off drafting the better player and forgetting about chasing that size.
            it rarely, ever works out.

          • May 8, 201211:33 am
            by Chris H

            It’s true, but how many guards have truly anchored a team like a dominating front court player can?  Jordan, that’s really all I can think of.  Even then later in his career Rodman played power forward.  Magic Johnson had Kareem (and worthy for that matter), Spurs had TD and David Robinson, Rockets had Hakeem, Kobe has proven he is that much better with a big down low, hell Bird was the heart of the celtics, but they had a hall of fame front line.  Even with Detroit Laimbeer was a borderline all-star for a few years.  Finding players like that is absolutely necessary.  You mentioned Oden, but he could have been an all star, fact is injuries destroyed his career.  He wasn’t a horrible player.  That’s like saying the celtics should have picked another big instead of reggie lewis or Len Bias.  With injuries and other tragedies it works both ways.  The fact that this issues has bit the Blazers twice is the only funny part.

          • May 8, 20121:31 pm
            by frankie d

            oden is a perfect example.
            people knew about some of his medical issues before the draft, but ignored them.  one leg is longer than the other.  this was well-known before the draft, but it was something that they felt was manageable.  there is an indication that that issue may have contributed to his subsequent injuries.
            but the lure of the great big man caused them to ignore the problem.
            imho, the last couple of decades has shown that you don’t really need that great big man.  you need someone – or a couple of players – who can do certain things, but you don’t need a kareem or wilt or russell or shaq to win a title.  the game has evolved.
            how many rings does the best big guy in the league – howard – have?
            imho, teams too often reach for a big man prospect when there may be a smaller, more certain option staring them  in the face.
            no other situation illustrates that better than oden/durant.
            they passed on a guy who everyone knew was going to be a great player to pick a big guy with a questionable physical profile.
            we see the results.
            and i fail to see how bias – victim of drugs – or lewis – heart problem – fit into such a discussion at all.

          • May 8, 20124:45 pm
            by Josh

            Darius Miles, Adam Morrison, Marvin Williams, Wesley Johnson over Cousins and Monroe, Corey Brewer over Joakim Noah, and Rodney White. Don’t draft SFs. You can literally do this with any group of players if you ignore all successes and only look at failures. Want foreigners, high schoolers, one and dones, white guys, black guys, jump shooters, guys from major conferences, guys from small schools, tweeners, low energy guys, high energy guys, below the rim players, above the rim players, fast players, slow players shooting guards, power forwards, or point guards? There are busts in all of those groups, and if I only cherry pick the failures I can make them all look bad. The list of lists is quite long, and I missed a bunch of potential ways to break players into groups. Apparently the only way to not take a high risk player in some group where I only look at the failures of said grouping is to not pick anyone. Anecdotal evidence sucks.

          • May 8, 20125:10 pm
            by Josh

            By the way, your conclusion was sound, I just thought your argument sucked. Teams shouldn’t reach just to get size. That’s because they shouldn’t reach at all. Still, I can come up with some examples of where reaching for size was the right call, or would have been the right call. Noah, Amare Stoudemire, Andrew Bynum, and Kevin Love (I forgot Beasley in my bust list at SF) should have come off the board sooner. Kaman was a reach that panned out. Andrew Bogut wasn’t as good as Chris Paul or Deron Williams, but proved to be a good big man and got them into the postseason his rookie year. I think I get half credit for him since he probably should have been the 3rd pick that year. This just makes the point that only taking good examples is no better than only taking the busts. There are a lot of big men that are busts, but that is because they were often high risk high reward picks.

          • May 8, 20127:09 pm
            by frankie d

            gee…i guess kevin pritchard was lying when he said that he couldn’t pass on the chance to  draft a franchise big guy.
            i guess all those GMs who constantly talk about taking gambles on big men, because they are so rare…i guess all those guys are just lying also.
            i guess looking back on all of the blazers’s drafts, its just a coincidence that whenever they’ve had a top one or two pick they’ve always picked big guys, including such memorable reaches like larue martin instead of julius erving or bob mcadoo, michael thompson instead of larry bird, oden over durant, and of course, the all time reach, bowie over jordan.
            yep, just a coincidence.  
            teams reach on guards and forwards just as often as they reach for big, stiff seven footers.
            and all that jive they always talk about gambling on big guys…well, just so much nonsense.
            good to know….

          • May 9, 20129:12 am
            by Josh

            I don’t see how that is remotely relevant to my point. My point is twofold. 1: Your argument sucks. You list a bunch of big guys that teams reached for and ignored the fact that teams reach in other areas and get burned there too. You are also cherry picking cases like crazy, which leaves your argument open to attack. I’m showing why that is an inherently crappy way to make an argument. 2: I think the problem is reaching to fill a need, and I mean any need. Your argument is far too narrow. Minny had Love and Darko and felt they really needed to fill a need at SF so they took Wes Johnson over Cousins and Monroe. That was dumb. Maybe not Sam Perkins over Jordan dumb, but as dumb as the rest of your list. There are plenty of similar examples of small guys being who was reached for. Atlanta reached for Marvin Williams (over Paul and Williams), Shelden Williams, and Acie Law in back to back to back drafts. I know they are the Hawks, but still. To be fair, they also correctly took Al Horford in that Acie Law daft. The fact that 7 footers are what is more commonly reached for is besides the point. Teams reach for inferior prospects all the time, and it’s always the wrong way to go. When they have similar grades, find the guy who fits the best. If there is a real drop off you take the better player.

          • May 9, 20121:05 pm
            by frankie d

            not really sure what you are arguing about. 
            it seems as though you are simply arguing to argue.
            you make my point for me, but curiously dismiss it.
            you state: 
            “The fact that 7 footers are what is more commonly reached for is besides the point.”
            well, you are welcome to believe that, but that is exactly the point i was making and whether you believe that it is beside the point is irrelevant to me.  
            do teams reach for need?  but i never said that teams did not reach for other types of players and that is not the issue.
            the most common need that teams reach for, anecdoctal evidence to the contrary, is a seven footer who typically doesn’t justify being picked so high, other than the fact that teams are desperate for size.  
            again, that view is so commonly held, it is curious that anyone would argue against it.   most gms  admits that they do it.
            as to your contention that my argument “sucks”, well, you are welcome to that view also.  it is your opinion, and i really don’t give a hoot if you think my argument sucks.  that view, is after all, totally subjective, without any real reference to objective criteria, so…what the hey.  you’re welcome to think whatever you think.
            i suppose i could have gone through the history of the draft and come up with 40 years worth of specific examples, but again, imho, it is so non-controversial that it doesn’t warrant that kind of effort.
            for instance, this is what a guy like chad ford, who is obviously plugged into most nba gm thought, stated:

            “what will be the effect on the lack of success for Oden and Thabeet for future center draft picks?
            Chad Ford
            (1:57 PM)

            None. Teams will always reach for big guys. That’s why guys like Cole Aldrich and Solomon Alabi are so high on the board. It isn’t that they’re the most talented players on the Board, but every year teams reach hoping to hit a home run. In most cases, they strike out.
            http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/30208/nba-insider-chad-ford

            this was stated a couple of years ago, during one of his chats.  again, this is what happens.  everyone knows about it.  i don’t care if you don’t like my examples.  you even  stated that what i said was correct.   its a commonly held truism that often distorts drafts.   why you’d want to argue about such an obvious syndrome is curious.

          • May 9, 20123:14 pm
            by Josh

            Right. Big men are always an area of need, so someone always reaches for them. My point is the problem is they are reaching to fill a need instead of getting a good player. I do think the difference between teams reach for size and teams reach for need is a significant point of departure though. Reaching for big men is just a symptom of the team drafting on need and not on talent. I also didn’t really like my anecdotal evidence used to make my point, but the implications of your statement was that it was extremely rare for teams to reach for smaller guys in order to fill a need. It’s just not accurate to say teams reach for 7 footers way more than everyone else combined. Teams reach for PFs and shooters in just about every draft, not just for the elusive giant to man the middle. Admittedly there is some overlap when the power forward or shooter is right around 7 feet tall. Jan Vessely and Austin Daye respectively are recent examples of guys that fit both criteria. To be honest, Dumars seems quite fond of reaching for small forwards, which is why they were what I initially chose. Rodney White, Austin Daye, Walter Sharpe, DaJuan Summers… The point is that I feel just saying the problem is reaching for size is needlessly exclusionary.

          • May 9, 20124:28 pm
            by frankie d

            “ the implications of your statement was that it was extremely rare for teams to reach for smaller guys in order to fill a need. It’s just not accurate to say teams reach for 7 footers way more than everyone else combined. ”
            wow…i said nothing of the sort.  and my simple point implied nothing of that sort.
            i could get into a discussion of that issue, but that is certainly not what i was discussing.  i was discussing teams reaching for big men, not some sort of relative comparison between how often teams reached for big men as opposed to non-big men.
            my statements were my statements.  while it is reasonable to infer certain matters from any statement made, there has to be a basis for it.  i was thinking and writing strictly about big men.
            now, i do have an opinion about such matters, though i’ve not discussed them yet.
            imho, when teams reach for need – drafting say a SF because they need him, as opposed to drafting the SG who may have a higher rating – the differential is not that great.  the SF may have been  rated 3 or 4 spots down.   often, you could make a reasonable argument for taking a guy like that a bit higher than he should have been taken.
            what often happens with big guys is that they get taken far above where they should be taken, sometimes even landing in the lottery when they may have been rated from 15-30.  Fortunately, it appears that most teams have learned their lessons and you see fewer examples of that kind of reach, but for years it was something that happened on a fairly regular basis.  teams drafting guys who were essentially back up centers in the top 5. 
            i actually agree that the bigger issue is drafting for need.  i just think that the most egregious form of that problem arises when teams do it for size.

          • May 10, 20125:55 pm
            by Josh

            Wow, you totally gave me the basis for what may have been an erroneous inference. Yes, the simple point I started commenting on didn’t imply that, and that wasn’t what got me started. I started by a desire to point out how weak the argument was, even if I didn’t disagree with the argument in it’s entirety. It was later that the basis for the implication was made. In my second post, I say that I agree that teams shouldn’t reach for size. I had other things to say based on what you wrote, but I did agree with that part. Then you sarcastically call Pritchard a liar. You then finish with “teams reach on guards and forwards just as often as they reach for big, stiff seven footers. good to know.” I’d say when you consider the combination of your condescending tone with the words spoken after I already agreed that teams reach for big guys to be sufficient basis to think you were implying that the facts suggest 7 footers were reached for way more often than all other players.
             
            It seems obvious that this is a simple example of the medium being used for the conversation not being great at relaying the information. That said, it really doesn’t help that you’ve been so condescending in this thread already. Now I see your calling my inferences as baseless and combine it with the other stuff you’ve said and it seems like you are calling me dumb. Again, you might not be saying that. Considering the fact that you already came off as such a jerk and already talked down to me like I was an idiot, it makes it seem like you are trying to be insulting with that line too. This is what human beings do, they read into what is being said, and sometimes they find things that aren’t there. When doing so, we use context clues to help us figure out what people mean, and in a setting like this we look at everything that was said in the thread. I say, “Teams shouldn’t reach just to get size. That’s because they shouldn’t reach at all.” You talk down to me, so I assume you have a problem with the totality of my comment, including that part I just quoted. Maybe I should have realized that those sentences were buried by the weight of what else I had to say, but it’s still logical to come to the conclusions I did.
             
            I feel the need to add that that whole sarcastic response you gave to me was insulting, even if you weren’t using insults. I don’t appreciate snide comments like that one. This is generally a friendly forum, and I don’t think that comment was warranted. It’s not appropriate to just belittle everyone who says something you disagree with. I’d ask that you try to show a little more respect in the future instead of treating me like an imbecilic child that needs to put in his place.

          • May 10, 201210:22 pm
            by frankie d

            uhhh…
            let’s deal with the actual record, and not your characterization of the record.
            I’m being insulting?
            seriously?
            well, before i responnded to anything you had posted, this is what you stated:
            “By the way, your conclusion was sound, I just thought your argument sucked. ”
            describing what another poster has  written as having “sucked” does not appear to me to be “friendly” and not insulting.  imho, saying that someone – who has not even adfdressed you – “sucked” is about as insulting and as condescending and as unfriendly as it gets.
            so let’s deal with what actually happened.  if you want someone to respond in a certain way, saying that they “sucked” is probably not the way to initiate a discussion.
            my tone? you can characterize it in any way you wish.  but there is nothing in anything i’ve written that describes you as having “sucked”.

          • May 11, 20122:02 pm
            by Josh

            I was very clearly saying the argument sucked, not you. A criticism of an argument is not a criticism of a person. Snide condescension is insulting to the person and not just to that person’s idea. There is a clear difference there. Still, I do apologize for poor word choice. I should have said your argument was terrible. To me there is not much difference between the two comments since they were clearly directed at the quality of the argument and not being assigned to you as a person. Still, you have no way of knowing the idiosyncrasies of my speech, and if I offended you with that comment it was completely unintentional. I’m sorry for that. I’ll try to be more circumspect in my word choice going forward.

          • May 13, 20123:25 pm
            by frankie d

            “I was very clearly saying the argument sucked, not you. A criticism of an argument is not a criticism of a person. Snide condescension is insulting to the person and not just to that person’s idea. ”
            where do the rules of the universe so dictate this conclusion?
            you state a bunch of conclusions that you’ve conveniently brought forward to  justify your conduct, without any evidence supporting those conclusions, other than your own conclusions.  i guess one is supposed to take judicial notice and simply move forward.

            you have no idea what my tone was supposed to address.  i could have reacted with that tone, in response to your argument.  assuming that i was being condescending to you as a person is simply not supported by anything i’ve stated.   in fact, i repeatedly stated that you were more than welcome to maintain any ideas you liked.  that it was your prerogative.  i simply stated that i had a different view.  because of what i do for a living, i am very accumstomed to having knock-down, drag-out arguments with others, while still maintaining good relations.    arguing ideas is just that, arguing about ideas.  
            while i clearly understand the “rules” which state that a person’s argument and not their person can be attacked, often that is a distinction without a difference and fairly useless.  saying that someone’s argument “sucked” and then hiding behind the facade that you referred to the “argument and not person” is not in keeping with the spirit of the rule.
            thanks for the apology.  i do appreciate it.  and i am more than willing to engage, sometimes with great passion, on any subject pertaining to BB.  as anyone who reads my posts knows, i have an opinion on just about anything.  all i ask is that anyone who wishes to engage, do so with a modicum of respect.  i certainly didn’t find that in your initial response to my comments.

  • May 7, 20124:40 pm
    by frankie d

    Reply

    this guy will be a stud.
    saw a bunch of his games late season and he was extremely impressive.  
    i like him much better than henson.  while he might not be the shotblocker that henson is –  he is pretty good, though –  he is a much better offensive talent.  he is very skilled, both inside and out.  very aggressive also, he’s got a nose for the ball.
    nicholson is a big reason why i’d much rather trade out of the 9 spot – if that is where detroit lands – and get a couple of picks in the 15-30 pick range.  picking, say, nicholson and royce white would be much better than gambling on a project like henson, hoping that he gains weight.  add crowder with the first pick in the second round and you could set the team up for the next decade on the front line.  while nicholson is somewhat slender, he seems to have good strength and is capable of maintaining his position.  and even though he’s a bit shorter than monroe, he’s got a longer wingspan – 7’3″.
    nicholson is also supposed to be an extremely smart kid, which also helps. he’s a physics major.
    getting another st. bonnie would be a truly good thing for the pistons.  in a lot of ways, he’s like a skinny bob lanier, another st. bonnie,  a very versatile big guy, who can kill a team in lots of different ways.

  • May 7, 20125:15 pm
    by sop

    Reply

    Little too much Charlie V here for me, but I’d take him if he slips and is available in the 2nd round.

    • May 7, 201210:03 pm
      by frankie d

      Reply

      CV?
      how?
      nothing like CV.
      if CV had this kid’s heart, motor and smarts he’d be a borderline all-star. 
      he carried a nothing team quite a ways this ncaa tourney.
      CV never did that.  he only showed intriguing flashes of talent.

  • May 8, 20127:38 am
    by Mark

    Reply

    Nice find. Never heard of him before but he does look like a David West clone from the vid, especially his great footwork in the low post like West’s. And I’d gladly take that in the 2nd round. If we can get him at 39/44 it could be a steal.

  • May 8, 201211:09 am
    by DG

    Reply

    I’ve been wondering something.  With a lot of Pistons fans hoping the Pistons go for Leonard it doesn’t look like we see much difference between drafting 9th and drafting 20th (Leonard is currently projected between 15 and 19).  Is there any chance that the Pistons would contact either Houston or Boston and trade number 9 for both of their first rounders? 

    The big concern I have with trading with Houston is they probably want a big too, but Zeller would be available at 9.  Leonard would almost certainly still be on the board at 14 and then they could go after a second need like Marshall (pass first point currently projected 17th), Harkless (SF who would have been drafted higher next year), or this Nicholson guy (less of a need, but possibly a nice bench big).  Of course Houston would have to fall in love with Zeller for that to work.  But he would give them more immediate help than Leonard would.

    Boston, in particular has been known to covet Austin Rivers and woulc be much more likely to get him at 9 than 21 or 22.  Leonard would probably be gone, but Detroit could probably still get a defensive big (Melo, Ezeli) and an additional player as above.

    Personally I would love to see the Pistons get a Kendall Marshall and throw him into competition with Knight for the starting spot.  I think Knight, long term may be best as firepower off the bench who could play both positions (PG/SG) behind Marshall and Stuckey.  Then they’d really having a complimentary set of skills amongst their guards (passing – Marshall, shooting – Knight, penetrating – Stuckey).  Unfortunately I don’t really see Marshall lasting beyond the lottery.

    Guess I just want to see the Pistons get agressive about adding young talent and this is a nice deep draft to do it in.  I just don’t see much difference in drafting 9 and 21 in this draft especially given the Pistons needs.

    • May 8, 20124:10 pm
      by Mark

      Reply

      This is a strange draft in that I think I like the bigs projected to go in the 20′s more than the ones projected to go in 10′s.

      These guys like Leonard, Nicholson, Melo, Ezeli are the type of bigs I want. Yet, the analysts are telling us we have to chose only from guys like Henson, PJIII, Moultrie, Sullinger around 9.. 

      I hope Joe says screw what the analysts say and takes the player he likes best. I hate how there’s this stigma around drafts, where you can’t take the player YOU like at 9, because some analysts got together and agreed he should only be taken in the 20′s.

      The whole mock draft thing is ridiculous to begin with. There’s a reason those guys are writing mock drafts and not working in NBA front offices. I think the best case scenario is us trading 9 for 14/19, then trading 39/44 to move back up into the late 20′s, for a total of 3 1st round picks.

      We could then come away with Leonard, Melo, AND Nicholson and have rebuilt our entire frontcourt in one draft. I hope Joe doesn’t think all we need is 1 big man too, and just takes Henson at 9 and then a SF and PG in the 2nd. We need to come away with at least 2 bigs, hopefully all 3.

      • May 8, 20124:12 pm
        by Mark

        Reply

        But if we can;t trade down, Joe better not be afraid to take the big he feels is the best, just because some draft geek like Chad Ford told him he shouldn’t be taken that high.

  • May 8, 201210:50 pm
    by Anthony

    Reply

    If the Celtics brake up the big 3 next season can we trade the #9 pick and Daye to them for Garnett and one of their first, 1st round picks and hope for one of those “questionable” bigs in the lower end of the draft and let Garnett and Big Ben (i think he’ll come back one more year) tutor him a couple years? Then we still have 2 more pics in the second round to play with. With free agency and a couple moves were back to contender status in 2 years! Not to mention we can stop talking about Charlie V and BG… In a more perfect world we let Ben call Bullips and convince him to do another year here with him and get rid of bynum and let mr. bigshot teach Knight a thing or 2 and this year we can see ourselves back in the playoffs this year! Once again, wishful thinking lol

  • Apr 10, 201312:06 am
    by Debroah Alperin

    Reply

    Watch Sports Live On Your PC And Never Miss Another Game Again. No Contacts,No Hassles Just A One Off Payment For 24/7 Access To Your Favorite Sports. http://bit.ly/watch-sports-live

  • Leave a Reply

    Your Ad Here