I liked the McGary pick. He was one of my steals.

 

 

 

Oklahoma City: Mitch McGary:

 

The Thunder typically draft well, and will likely use McGary and Steven Adams to solidify a frontline that needed a replacement for Kendrick Perkins and insurance against a Serge Ibaka injury. McGary is a big guy who screens well and is fundamentally sound in most aspects of the game. I’d expect him to jump ahead of Collison in the rotation just because he’s bigger, will be more useful in screening, and plays with just as much, if not more, energy.

 

Out of the Harden trade, the Thunder have now landed a year of Kevin Martin, Jeremy Lamb, Adams, and McGary. They’d probably rather have a mulligan with that one, but for now, they can only hope that Lamb, Adams, and McGary live up to their promise and play significant supporting roles to the Durant, Westbrook, and Ibaka trio. With the way the Thunder have hit out drafting guys like Adams and Reggie Jackson, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.a d McGary was damaged goods considering he spent most of last season injured and then was suspended for failing rug test (marijuana).

 

I just didn't think he was that worthy of a high pick regardless of those things

I just didn't think he was that worthy of a high pick regardless of those things

 

 

I will say that you aren't the only one who thought the McGary pick was a head-scratcher. I've read more than one analyst who didn't think it was a wise pick either.

 

When I saw the McGary selection, I was thinking it was basically an upgrade over Perkins and a guy they see as being the backup to Adams (or potentially even the starter according to need). The more I think about the Thunder, the more I think Perkins' days are numbered (as if they weren't already). Both Perkins and Collison are going to be free agents in 2015, and I'd be surprised if both end up back in 2016. There wasn't lots of depth at Center in this class, so it might have forced the Thunder's hand some.

As far as the backcourt goes, I don't see them replacing Westbrook, Reggie Jackson has been

improving, Thabo had a disappointing playoffs and is seeing his minutes decrease but may be kept around for his ability to defend. Regardless of what they do with Thabo though, I think Jeremy Lamb is the guy who ends up cracking the rotation, even winding up to be a player who, along with Adams, does a lot of important things for them.

 

With Napier, I think it'd be a situation where his talents aren't really best utilized there. With both he and Westbrook, you'd have two guards who want/need the ball in their hands to be effective. Maybe if the plan was to use him in a backup role and/or in some pick and roll with Durant, but I don't think Durant gets the ball enough as is, so I'm not really sure that adding another guard who'd need the ball and 2-man game to get his is really something that benefits the Thunder.

 

Napier was probably the best talent available at that time, but I'm not really sure if he was the best fit for them. I will agree that with the retirement of Derek Fisher and the erratic play of Russell Westbrook, they could use a backup point guard, but they got Semaj Christon out of Xavier in the 2nd Round and he could be a guy that I see ending up in that role.

 

Andre Roberson was a rookie last season, but I've read in a few places that the Thunder were high in him. They've got both him and now Josh Heustis out of Stanford at the wings as well. With Heustits coming on as a late first rounder, it could be a sign that Thabo's days are numbered.

 

At full strength, the Thunder played the Spurs very well this past season. They swept the Spurs in the regular season, and were 2-2 in the four playoff games that they had Ibaka. One of the two games they lost to them was in OT as well. As good as the Spurs were, it could have been a much different outcome if both teams were healthy.

Was there ever a reason stated as to why Cleanthony Early slid some?

Was there ever a reason stated as to why Cleanthony Early slid some?

I would like to know this too.

I would like to know this too.

 

I'm sure his age (23) is one reason.

I'm sure his age (23) is one reason.

 

Know what you mean, but I'm thinking it was deeper than that because he was still projected to go in the first round in lots of mocks. I'm wondering if it was maybe some bad workouts, not getting good reviews when they did background on him (i.e., talking to former coaches, academic counselors, etc.), or maybe something that turned up on a medical.

Regarding Early some may see him as a tweener, not big enough to play 4, not quick enough to play the 3.

 

I think he will be alright, I'm a fan of his game. But that along with his age, may have had something to do with it. Just speculation on my part.

I guess I don't understand the age issue with Early. What is the issue with him being 23?

I guess I don't understand the age issue with Early. What is the issue with him being 23?

 

I agree. If he can play he will be in the league 10+ years. I'm sure GMs think if we get them at 19 they will have a longer career but how many finish with the team that drafts them? I would go with the seasoned player late in the 1st round or in the 2nd round where they can help immediately.

I guess I don't understand the age issue with Early. What is the issue with him being 23?

 

I think the thinking is, at 18-19, they haven't reached the fullness of their potential. With guys that have played 4 years of school or who are older, they see them more of a "what you see is what you get". There's not really that unknown or they see their potential to grow their game as more limited.

I agree. If he can play he will be in the league 10+ years. I'm sure GMs think if we get them at 19 they will have a longer career but how many finish with the team that drafts them? I would go with the seasoned player late in the 1st round or in the 2nd round where they can help immediately.

 

I get it if we are talking drafting a franchise QB, but he was never projected to be a mainstay, just a hopeful above average role player.

I think the thinking is, at 18-19, they haven't reached the fullness of their potential. With guys that have played 4 years of school or who are older, they see them more of a "what you see is what you get". There's not really that unknown or they see their potential to grow their game as more limited.

 

I can see that side of it as well.