Garland was not judged as BPA at that time. Shading it that way is revisionist. The debate at that time was Hunter or Culver. If we went PG (which wasn't a need with us having both Ball and Holiday), it was between White and Garland. The overwhelming favorite on the board was White.

My whole point on this is that White, Culver and even Hunter have all been disappointments. Garland has not. It's not a great debate that we should have taken him or that it's a huge mark against Griffin. It's somewhat luck.

Culver was a stud. It was a bit of a flash in the pan. But a lot, myself included, saw it as an ascension. He was supposed to have a high floor and be an awesome defender at SG. We had Ingram, so SF was locked down. The need was a SG, which is why we threw stupid money at Reddick. I have followed Culvers situation and it is a shame. But it happens. Rehashing Garland over and over accomplish anything and it's a disingenuous take.

Hayes is a bust. It sucks. Lots of blame to go around. But the trade wasn't awful. Griffin played the %s and lost..

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Bronc

Member since Sep 2018

12646 posts

Posted on 12/20/21 at 7:19 am to brmark70816

quote:
Garland was not judged as BPA at that time. Shading it that way is revisionist.

Yes he was, on many boards

LINK
4, Hunter, 5, Garland

LINK /
4.) Darius Garland, 5.) Hunter

LINK /
4.) Hunter, 5.) Garland

LINK
4.) Garland

LINK /

4.) Garland

LINK /
4.) Hunter, 5.) Garland

Me: after the pick

quote:
quote:

Yep. Griff really fricked this up. I’m shocked we didn’t take Garland. Even if we want to keep Lonzo and Jrue, let Garland be our sixth man guard just like CJ was initially for Portland. Darius could have played alongside Lonzo or Jrue in the backcourt for stretches and it would have worked.

I'd even accept taking Hunter, as you don't know what Ingram will be or whether he can even stay healthy.

Yeah, I feel completely at odds with the rest of the board because I think this was Griffin's first swing and miss and it is a doozy, and it seriously makes me concerned with how he will utilize those incredible assets he received in the Lakers trade.

And you can check the receipts, I was shouting at the rooftops about Garland before the draft and how his offensive skillset perfectly compliments Zion and the modern game, you could even argue with his pull up shooting and ability to be an off-ball chaos shooter, a more natural fit than Morant. If we didnt have out scouts in place, then it made ZERO sense to not just take BPA.

As a side note you'll notice Jaxson Hayes often around 10.

It just blows my mind the defenders still popping up for that move.

This post was edited on 12/20/21 at 7:31 am

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by TeddyPadillac

Member since Dec 2010

25991 posts

Posted on 12/20/21 at 8:03 am to brmark70816

quote:
Griffin played the %s and lost.

The %'s that Griffin played weren't good at all, b/c he's a terrible GM when it comes to the draft and history has proven that.

First of all, you don't trade down in the draft. It's rarely ever worked out for the team trading down. So his percentages immediately went down when he decided to trade down based on the history of teams trading down.

He doubled down on that by taking a very raw athletic 5 in the lottery, something that also rarely ever works out. I'm not going research the post I had months ago about that, but i showed how rare it is for a raw 5 to be anything but a bust when taken in the lottery.

So yeah he did play the %'s, like a dumbass, and he lost, as expected, so yes the trade absolutely was awful.
Had we drafted Culver and he end up a bust, i could almost live with that. yeah it sucks, but it happens. But trying to outsmart the analytics and failing miserably, that's i can't live with.

0 ...

Report Post

Pelicans Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board