Worst. Draft. Ever.

The jokes for this draft write themselves. I mean seriously, do I really need to try to make up something funny, when this dastardly basketball killer to your right from UIPUI was picked in the first round? It's as if roughly after the lottery, every GM had a stroke at the same time, and let their kids pick people whose "name sounded funny". It was a contest of one-uppery of retardation one pick after another well into the night. Half the people picked in the first round were second round talent.

And let me say this: for a while there I thought Darrell Arthur was going to be taught to drive a truck by his mom for the rest of his life. Ma and Son trucking would really take off then. I feel bad for the possibility of having serious health condition, but other than, it was uncomfortably entertaining to see his discomfort.

As a Cavs fan, with so many players still on the board, when they picked JJ Hickson I had no reaction. I wasn't upset. I wasn't happy. I was caught so far off guard by this ridiculous pick that I just stared at my television. No matter how you spin it, it was just not a great pick.

My favorite part had to come with the 26th pick, when Accountant/Basketball player George Hill was selected. I watch 500 college basketball games a year, and not once have I heard his name called. And I'm possitive that David Stern snickered a little when he said, "George is not here."

There's so much to talk about within these draft picks, that it would take all day to go over. But the most insteresting has to be Detroit's 2nd round draft pick Walter Sharpe. Let's get this out of the way: who the fuck is this guy. DSC's a big fan. Free Press finds some information about your local sports hero:

I'll fill you in on a few details: Yes, he really has struggled with narcolepsy. He was academically ineligible last semester, presumably for spelling "Sharp" wrong. And maybe the best sign that he is ready for pro sports is that he already has his first nightclub arrest under his belt.

You say what now? He's narcoleptic? That doesn't stop him from getting arrested apparently. This guy should love Det-riot. Yeah, I would assume that narcolepsy would make it difficult to concentrate in school. But maybe, and I'm just spit balling here, it might also make it difficult to play basketball. Undeterred Pistons. Good thing they didn't take local undefeated basketball superstar CDR. That would have been foolish, and not at all fan-friendly.

I woke up this morning, hoping that last night was a big joke. Unfortunately, I still have JJ Hickson for next year.

[FreeP] Don't assume Pistons blew the draft

Rose v Beasley

This NBA draft is centered around two players that have switched more places than there have been Mock Drafts. Derrick Rose and Michael Beasley have generated more fanfare than even Oden-Durant debates a mere year ago. So, who's better? Who's got more upside? Which team will choose who?

Derrick Rose - The quintessential offensive minded, yet mentally collaborative and athletic point guard needed for today's NBA. To say that he led his team to the NBA finals would be a bit of a stretch, seeing how that team had other extremely good players, but when a basket needed to be made it was CDR only marginally ahead of Rose in line to get the ball. Athletically, he's as gifted as any guard that's ever entered the NBA. He has tremendous size for a point guard, incredible jumping ability, and an even more amazing amount of body control to contort himself for baskets in traffic. I can go on and on about his abilities, but I think the best example was his extremely efficient carving session of Michigan State in the NCAA tournament. He does a great job handling the ball, and there's no limit for how fast he can force the game at.

Michael Beasley - What's not to like about his floor game? Nearly nothing. His athleticism pushed KSU to something they haven't done in some 20 years. But it's not just that, it's the total package of his inside-out game, and his aggressive yet feathery touch around the basket. He wants the ball, he demands the ball when his team needs it, but seemingly does not force something that isn't there, and passes well out of double teams. He can move all the way to the three-point line, and he has a variety of post moves under the basket. Here's a guy you can build around, even if he's got the Tracy-McGrady-I'm-high stare.

The order of these two was relatively known until the NCAA tournament, where Derrick Rose was able to lengthen his audition all the way to the title game. The unanomous #1 pick was now split into two camps. But anyone who believes it wasn't cemented on Lottery Night is a fool. Chicago is picking Rose. It's not like they have to take a longshot and be nice to a homegrown kid. You've got a future star right there for you - and not like they need to put asses into seats - but he's also got great PR written all over him. In that sense, he's in the mold of LBJ.

It's a mystery to me why Miami is so in love with Rose that they reportedly want to trade out of the #2 spot because they aren't going to get him. Beasley fits flawlessly into the front-court. Moreover, Wade is a point guard; sure you can shift him over to the 2, but why get another player who does exactly the same thing. Even if they were first, conventional wisdom would have Beasley as their pick.

More and more history tells us that in the NBA draft, you get the best player available, because when you draft for need you get Bowie over Michael Jordan, and Darko over 'Melo. Chicago has some three point guards on the roster right now, and none of them can hold Rose's jock strap and he hasn't even played an NBA game yet. I still think that Beasley is the better overall player, but much like his end to the season, we're left with that as the lasting memory of him not being able to get over the hump.

But, who can pass up on a young athletic point guard? Just Atlanta.

Please, not Roy Hibbert

As a fervent fan of my almost-home town NBA franchise, I often check what other people think is going to happen in the upcoming draft. Speaking of which, is it just me, or has this draft been the most unpredictable in recent memory? It went from knowing the first pick, to knowing the first 2 picks, to not knowing what the hell is going to happen 1-10. There are just so many options, it's like a carnival game of popping balloons with darts. We'll look over the top 10 picks later, but I want to speak specifically of the 19th pick in Chad Ford's Mock Draft 6.0. Cleveland picks... Roy Hibbert. Uh, what? For the life of me, I can't understand why the Cavs - or anyone - would pick Roy Hibbert to play for them.

I guess, he's tall. And you can't teach tall!

First of all, from the Cavaliers side, they don't need some sluggish clone of Zydrunas Ilgauskas. I thought the whole idea, was to get an athletic scoring center. Okay, even a slightly unathletic one, I said scoring, right?

Second of all, from a league perspective, this guy is a terrible prospect. He's got tall, and he's somewhat efficient, and unspectacular, on both the defensive and offensive ends of the floor. But here's my biggest issues with him: 6.4 rebounds a game. That's right, this guy is seven feet tall and he's only managed to average 6.4 rebounds per game. I can't even understand how that works. How can he not average nearly 10 rebounds per game. I mean, he's taller than everyone on the floor. He's also bigger, so they can't get around him. I'm puzzled, perplexed, and confused.

That really has to be disconcerting for teams. That the one thing he should be able to do because of his unteachable quality he can't do all that well. In fact, what's really scary is that he only got double-figured rebounds five times all year, against such stalwarts as ODU (10), Depaul (11), Pittsburgh (10), and West Virginia twice (10, 13). What's more? He got 3 or less rebounds seven (!!) times. That's inexcusable no matter how you slice it.

Alright, so his rebounding is apparently not that great, but apparently neither is his work ethic, and personal basketball growth:

SEASON	MIN	PTS	REB	STL	BLK	PF	FG%	FT%
2004-2005	15.8	5.1	3.5	.3	1.3	2.3	.469	.662
2005-2006	24.0	11.6	6.9	.2	1.6	2.1	.590	.723
2006-2007	26.4	12.9	6.9	.5	2.4	2.8	.671	.686
2007-2008	26.3	13.4	6.4	.5	2.2	2.7	.609	.646

Throughout his career, Roy Hibbert has clearly been an average player at best, but why did he not get more than marginally better in his last 3 years? The jump from his freshman to his sophomore season is encouraging, he doubled just about every significant category; increased his free-throw and field-goal percentage, as well as points, and rebounds. But from then on he managed just under 2 points a game more and half a rebound less. His senior campaign by far was the most discouraging because his shooting, blocks, and rebounds all suffered while his offensive output was microscopically larger with nearly identical playing time.

I don't think he was any good at Georgetown. I don't think he'll be any good in the Pros, and I don't want him on my team.

It was over before they got up this morning

The Lakers are being humiliated on national television. And what's more? They deserve it. I have no desire to watch the rest of this game, the NBA is just lucky that there's nothing else on TV tonight, that casual fans can have this disaster on.

Can we stop comparing this epic battle to those that happened in the 80s? This is nothing close to compelling basketball, and only approximately five minutes of this series have been. The NBA got what it wanted, and that's a revival of love for the playoffs, but what's been shown on TV is a snoozer, except for Boston fans, and I can understand that.

The Lakers are down nearly 30 points, and they don't look like they care all that much, so add me to that. This has been nearly as boring as the Cleveland-San Antonio series last year, except I care even less. Kobe Bryant looks asleep in an elimination game, and while a lot of that falls on the Celtics defense (and rebounding!) the fact that he's jacking up shots, and doesn't have one layup or dunk speak volumes about his "closer" abilities. Maybe too much hubris about not being desparate bit them in the ass.

Game 5 is just a rubber stamp

It's nice for the ratings that the NBA Finals are going to have a 6th game so that they can rake in some more advertising dollars from a prime time slot. But even the most enthusiastically blinded fanatics can't believe in the Lakers' chances of doing something that's never been done before: come back from a 3-1 deficit to win the Finals.

The Lakers stand a slim chance of winning Game 6 in Boston, and even a more minuscule one of winning two in a row in the Boston TD Banknorth Garden. It's not because they supposedly have the best player on the planet, the ultimate closer, but it's because their defense is flat out atrocious. The fact that they've won two games with such a lax defensive effort is amazing, and even at that pace they needed a huge stroke of luck - non call on the wrap-around foul, and two intense Garnett free throw clanks - to pull out an elimination game at home. With everything riding on the line, the Lakers couldn't come up with a pitiful excuse for a defensive possession late in the game. And Paul Pierce, as unbelievable as he's been in the Finals looked effortless in getting to the rim time after time. It was constantly the path of least resistance.

But I think the real story has to be the ineffectiveness of Kobe Bryant in this series. He's looked magnificent and masterful in stretches, at times when the Lakers were up by double digits. He found open players, hit tough shots, all the things that a player of his caliber has to do. But when the Boston defense tightens up, he's been unable for the most part to get a basket when it counts. It isn't the first time that the Celtics have handcuffed a one-man show, but the worrysome part has to be that Bryant has still not solved the puzzle. LeBron James, for all his struggles shooting in the first couple of games progressively got better against that defense. His final shooting percentage is nothing to gloat about, but after shooting in the teens the first two games, he shot nearly 50% over the next 5. Kobe hasn't done that. He hasn't adjusted his game, he hasn't been aggressive; and while a lot of the credit has to go to the Boston defense, not enough scrutiny falls on the Black Mamba.

As if his offensive possessions of the 2nd half weren't disappointment enough, his defense has been incredibly porous. This is the guy that used to be on the All-Defensive first team right? All those skills, and all that tenacity seems to have gone the way of his rings. He couldn't stop Paul Pierce when it counted, he couldn't stay in front of him, and most of the time, never even tried. All those comparisons to Michael Jordan have fallen apart, because for all his offensive talents MJ consistently worked on both sides of the floor.

The Celtics are the more poised team both physically and mentally, and it's become blatantly clear that they're the better one. What was originally billed as clash of the Titans, has turned out to be a colossal mismatch.

When did Doc Rivers become a good coach?

Oh yeah. He didn't.

It pains me to no end that Boston might win the title this year with completely inept Doc Rivers at the helm. It may be one of the reasons why I'm forced to want LA to win, although even saying that makes me feel dirty. Look, I like KG a lot, I enjoy his, uh, ferocity. Ray Allen is one of the sweetest shooters, and that's nice. I hate Paul Pierce, but I'm quite certain I'm not the only one. But Doc Rivers is the part that annoys me the most, everything is coming up aces for him, and he doesn't know his ass from his elbow.

I think one of the most telling parts of his lack of basketball coaching acumen came with a side-interview, one where I can't find quotes from. He was asked how it's different coaching last year and coaching this year. His response? No difference, he coaches exactly the same way last year as he does this year. What a completely moronic response showing your utter ineptitude. You didn't have a KG, Ray Allen, or PJ Brown last year, savvy veterans, so you can't possibly believe that coaching the same way could work with a bunch of guys aged 20. That's idiotic and it's pathetic. Why not put a puppet out there?

What drives the point home though, is those Wired-In spots that they have in the huddle. And all I hear from Doc Rivers is "Hey guys, let's play some great defense. Don't let them score. Let's build the lead!" Yeah, you think?! Thanks for the great help, coach, I thought by not building the lead, or letting them score at will we could win. That is brilliant coaching. You never here anything about strategic mismatches, offensive or defensive plans, or attacking style. It's basically cheer leading styles of a 5 year old John Madden. "Let's outscore them guys, then we can." Just because he has a team that knows how to run itself, he's going to get the accolades, just like Larry Coker did with his '01 Miami team. They don't need a coach - they're that good. What this reminds me of is Homer from You Only Move Twice, an episode where the Simpsons move to Cypress Creek, a company town for Globex. He's put in charge of people, and this is what happens:

Homer: [to staff] Are you guys working?
Man 1: Yes, sir, Mr. Simpson.
Homer: Could you, um... work any harder than this?
Man 2: Sure thing, boss.
[they do]
Homer: Hey, call me Homer.

You guys playing defense hard? Yes sir, coach. Can you... play it harder? Sure thing, Doc.

[SNNP] You Only Move twice