Love the Roy pick. Injuries are a concern, but he has a very good chance to become a special player. A question about his D - his stats on D look pretty poor, but I remember liking his D in the few Portland games that I've watched, and I even remember an analyst praising it.

Just for the record, I disagree with just about everybody about Al Horford. He may have been a minor reach, but not Bynum or Marbury-level bad. I think 15/10 is about the floor for him when he hits his peak, barring injury. He doesn't have a high chance of becoming a superstar, but I will be very very surprised if he isn't a very solid player for many years.

I think Alex's team is my favorite so far. Sick offense, and with Haitian Sam and potential improvements from Big Al, the potential is there for a good defense as well.

I will be out of town this weekend, with sporadic internet access. I will try to get my pick in if it comes up, but it may take longer than usual for me.

Don't mean to sound like an attention whore of Epeen's level or anything, but this is theargument I'm using with Marbury. Barkley and Willis on the block will be tough for most teams to handle, so they are going to be the ones taking shots. Marbury will obviously take some shots, but they wil be more of the drive-to-the-basket variety and not the long jump shot variety. Plus he will have the option of kicking it out to Kukoc and the player I plan to take next round.

agree with this.

depending on how far we get tomorrow, would you be down to make a short list and PM someone before you leave? if not, its cool of course. we generally dont make a ton of progress on the weekends anyway.

also, would you be interested in trading your 5/6/7th for my 5/6/7th? you move down 5 spots in the 5th, move up 5 spots in both the 6th and the 7th.

Getting to the finals in an ultra weak conference by winning two game 7s and then losing handily in the finals isn't really proof that he is a huge winner, although people seem to use it as such(not saying you are here) all the time.

AI is tough to build around because:

1. He plays SG on offense, yet is too short to guard SGs on defense a lot of the time.

2. He shoots the ball a ton

Roy is solid value here imo.

amazing number of picks made today btw

I see a lot of his games, since I live in Portland. Roy is an above average defender, but not a guy I expect to make any all-nba defensive teams. He is not a lockdown individual defender but rotates well and is generally committed to good team D.

Alex: Roy is not a natural point guard but his skill set does allow him to play the position well. Considering wing players at this stage in the draft seem to be better than the point guards left, having a 2 who can play some minutes at point allows me to have a stronger bench, rather than having to single out a backup point to only play the 10-15 minutes a game when Isiah is on the bench.

i think 16 after Victor picks right now. very solid

Marbury reigning himself in for the good of the team, you must be dreaming.

Yeah, if this keeps up, Ima have to figure out who the **** I want to pick soon.

Leaving tomorrow morning, so I don't think there will be enough progress made where I could make a short list. I will think about that offer - I want to get a better sense for what kind of value will be left in round 5 before I make that decision.

yeah you dont have to worry, nich wont pick until tomorrow morning at the earliest, so you have a little time

fair enough, i'll be gone as well anyway. have fun.

Isn't the main reason he shot a lot was that he didn't have anyone else on those Sixers teams? His FGA has dropped to a more reasonable level since joining Denver. I do think the first point is a major problem, and, if anything, his defense is overrated. Aside from the size issue, he tends to go for too many steals which leaves him way out of position if he misses.

taking ron harper. could use a defensive presence in the middle or lights out shooter but harper is just better than anyone out there.

Damn I was hoping Ron Harper would fall, solid pick. Not a very efficient scorer but did everything else well/very well.

This is true. If you pick up another slasher later, you'll be in good shape.

Its not just the shots, its the way he manipulates the ball so much and is still a shoot first player. Tons of players on the team don't even touch the ball on many possessions. Its tough to build around that imo because you need players that are ok with that.

I'm pretty sure Bynum has a much higher ceiling than Horford, - and I thought the Bynum pick was really bad. The point is that we're talking about players who have played basically one season, and there is so much uncertainty there because a lot of players have played over their heads for short stretches and even a full season. Look at guys like Terrell Brandon and Kemp Coleman and Petrovic, they're all different positions obviously but perfect exaxmples why you can't just assume that someone is going to have a long career and a long peak based one year, plus at one they were all far higher rated than Horford has ever been.

Marbury is someone who has had a mostly full career of solid productivity despite dealing with unfathomably pathetic Knick teams the last four years, with coaches and GMs who didn't give two ****s about trying to win any games. I think it's pretty much impossible to argue that he wouldn't have been a better player on my team with Barkley, Willis, and Kukoc, than on the Knicks teams that everyone is judging him on. The only people on any of those teams that have been drafted so far besides him are a washed up Houston, a washed up Deke, and a really washed up Penny, and all of them were gone after Marbury's second year there.

I agree that Bynum has a much higher ceiling than Horford. But I think that Horford has a much higher floor, and he was also picked a round later. With Marbury, the problems are entirely different. We already know how his career turned out. Some of your arguments for how it could turn out differently in this hypothetical are actually pretty decent - they are just tough to buy because we know how it turned out in real life. I think the biggest problem with your case for Marbury is the fact that for a PG, more so than for any other position, decision-making is a very critical skill. And Marbury is awful at that. You could argue that some of that is coaching, but I think that that's something that's difficult to improve once you are 24. And it's not like all his coaches were awful - Larry Brown is hardly a bum.

PIX PIX PIX!!!! I'll offer up my analysis.

Samuel - At first glance, I really like it. His lack of a consistent jumper is a bit worrysome, but his length and garbage effectiveness all but nullify that, much like Nance does for Ewing. This would be contingent on Big Al's ability to pass out of the double, but I could see lots of easy buckets for Samuel on this team. Defensively I've always thought he's one of the best, actually the best C in the league right now... imo of course.

Vin B - I dunno. Excluding his injuries, I'm just not quite sure I like the fit. He wasn't a good team guy, and I'm worried about his ability to set screens and play as a teammate, especially with a guy like Rip who depends on these guys to get looks. You've got a great creator in Chris Paul, and the rest of your team are good creators, but not neccesarily "get me the ball in my spot and I'll knock it down" guys... it just seems like an odd pairing. I think taking a shooter here would have been better.

Mark Jackson - I'm really not digging this fit either. Mark J was never a jump-shooter, and that's extremely important to running the PnR. Mark's passing adeptness came off the break, perimeter, and out of the post. He was at his most effective playing with guys who move great w/o the ball, guys who cut when he's posting a guy down, or snipers who leak out on his drives... I'm just not sure your team is built for right now, and think you would have been better off taking any guard who is auto from 3 or just inside as that's really all Malone needs to be effective. As it stands, both defenders are going to go after Karl on a PnR, and MJ2 won't be able to hit the outside shot at a high enough clip to make this double penal enough, imo...

Toni Kukoc - I think he's the type of player that fits with any team. The only concerns are injury's, but at this spot it's hard to find players without question marks.. overall I'd say it's a nice solid, yet unspectacular pick

JET - Perfect for this squad at the point. Good defender and good 3 point shooting, and can create a bit if needed (won't be that often.)

Richard Jefferson - I couldn't get passed the girl... Seriously, I like him given your lack of a previous pick. He was at or near the top of BPA, and doesn't have any glaring weaknesses.

Allan Houston - I echo an earlier post's (think it was Bobbo) sentiments that this pick is better for Clark's team than Steve Smith, despite SS being a better overall player. See Clark's explanation, which is spot on imo.

Steve Smith - Like the pick for value, and like the pick for his team. I might have went after a little better guy from 3 though.

Dan Majerle - He's pretty good for this team, imo. He's a bit of a chucker, but his %'s were just at the point where they don't hurt you. I think a lot of the young guys don't realize how much of a freaking beast he was on defense, and could guard 1-3, sometimes 4.... I think he's the best wing defender taken thus far, serious... My concern is that he might shoot enough to hurt the team's efficiency, but my guess is he wouldn't get as many open looks in this system, and he wasn't the type of player to take too many bad shots, despite what his stats say. I think he'd have made a better fit on one of those "all defensive" squads, but w/e...

PJ Brown - Hmm.... I'm REALLY high on him but am concerned with the fit. He's a decent jumpshooter on offense, and was an all-world post defender on defense. So now he's teamed with another guy who does virtually the same thing? I think swapping PJ and Dalembert make both their teams better, but w/e.. Either way I think he's one of the unsung heros over the past few years.

Corey Maggette - Good solid value. I like one or two guys ahead of him in this spot, but not bad.

Brandon Roy - Great value, and I like how he fits with this team. Recurrent injuries seem to be a bit of an issue, but I wouldn't be too concerned just yet. I don't think he'll get much better (he's already a sicko), but I don't think he'll get much worse either.

Ron Harper - This depends on your last selection, but so far I really like Ron in that spot. Say what you want about his offensive efficiency, but screw that he's on a team that will have no problems putting up efficient numbers. I'm quite sure he'd be happy to do the dirty work on this team, and only shoot when he's very open and pressed to do so. Really good fit for this team imo.

Larry Brown is one of the most reviled coaches around the league. He screwed over the Olympic team by whining incessantly, barely playing LeBron, talking **** about his own players, and playing a ******ed style that might work for a stingy team in the NBA but not when you're coaching the best players in the world. He got paid huge bucks by Detroit and New York JUST TO GTFO. He's probably the most full-of-himself coach in the NBA's modern era.

Also, AI doesn't use picks. If I'm a big man on that team, I'd want to wring his skinny neck every time I lug my big azz out there to set a screen, only to watch him go the opposite direction.

/Nugz homer rant.

Also, I kinda agree with Sergz about Horford and having a high floor. Brandon Roy is a pick that strikes me as such, as well.

SHIPPPP!

I also think Bird/Divac/Cassell/Davis rules, and that's not just because he liked my team. Call me crazy, but I for some reason I just love high efficiency, high IQ, unselfish guys who love to do dirty work and win a lot of games... go figure.

I was a little disappointed that KC didn't make a reach and pick someone that was hideous to look at. Davis is no Ricky Martin, but he's no Sam Cassell either.