Some Draft Grades...

[mexicanjunior]

I guess some of them havent been updated with the Phoenix trade...

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/8288054

San Antonio Spurs
First round: George Hill, PG, 6-2, 180, IUPUI
Second round: Goran Dragic, G, 6-4, 200, Slovenia
Second round: James Gist, F, 6-9, 220, Maryland

Certainly one of the most interesting drafts the Spurs have had in recent years. Hill was the Summit Conference Player of the Year, but how does that translate to the NBA? Dragic will likely stay in Europe and Gist looks like good NBDL fodder.

Grade: C.

http://www.slamdunkcentral.com/2008/06/27/grading-the-2008-nba-draft-the-good-the-bad-and-what-were-they-thinking/

San Antonio Spurs select: George Hill, Guard, IUPUI: A very strange pick, especially with Mario Chalmers still on the board

Grade D-

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/25400111/?pg=34#spt_NBA_draft_reportcard2008

San Antonio Spurs
George Hill is a guard and shot over 50 percent from the field. Pretty nice. Still, there were bigger point guard names in the draft, like Mario Chalmers and Sean Singletary. It’s the Spurs, so they get the benefit of the doubt.

Grade: C


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=DraftGrades-080627


San Antonio Spurs Grade: C

Round 1: George Hill (26)

Round 2: Goran Dragic (42), James Gist (57)

Analysis: The Spurs are one of the best-drafting teams in the league, so I'm wary of criticizing them. But sometimes a team can be too clever for its own good. Hill is a nice player, but I don't believe he's a better point guard than Mario Chalmers.

I do like Dragic at No. 42 as a guy who could eventually find his way here to play an important role on a team. Gist is a great athlete, but I'm not sure he's got what it takes to stick.

Post more as you find them...

[K-State Spur]

I think it takes a special kind of arrogance for these 'gurus' to give out grades less than 24 hours after their mock drafts were proven utterly worthless.

[timvp]

No one knows if Hill is going to be a stud or a huge bust. He played at IUPIUPUIP. Even if someone sat and watched him play every game, the person still wouldn't know because of the major jump in talent he'll face heading into the NBA.

Summer league is when we'll start figuring it out.

[Supergirl]

What's the rap on Chalmers? Is he a poor defender or known to have a poor work ethic? Those would be my first two suspicions as to why they might have taken Hill instead. Pop seems pretty clear that he was the guy they wanted.

[K-State Spur]

is there such a thing as a "huge bust" at 26? it couldn't certainly prove to be a wasted pick and a mistake, especially if guys taken behind blow up. but, when drafting that late, it's almost like playing with house money at the same time.

[K-State Spur]

What's the rap on Chalmers? Is he a poor defender or known to have a poor work ethic? Those would be my first two suspicions as to why they might have taken Hill instead. Pop seems pretty clear that he was the guy they wanted.

chalmers is a very good defender. the rap on him was that KU tried to make him a PG for a year and a half, and the experiment failed rather miserably.

any success he had at the collegiate level came playing off the ball.

Pop must feel that Hill has a better chance of translating his game to that position. in addition, one of Chalmers strengths was that he had a large wingspan for a tweener. Well, Hill has him matched and then some in that regards.

[timvp]

is there such a thing as a "huge bust" at 26? it couldn't certainly prove to be a wasted pick and a mistake, especially if guys taken behind blow up. but, when drafting that late, it's almost like playing with house money at the same time.If Hill never gives the Spurs solid minutes and Chalmers and/or Arthur become good players, I think it'd be safe to call the pick a "huge bust". Especially considering RC's KU connection.

[Supergirl]

chalmers is a very good defender. the rap on him was that KU tried to make him a PG for a year and a half, and the experiment failed rather miserably.

any success he had at the collegiate level came playing off the ball.

So he's not really a PG?
That would explain why we wouldn't take him. We need a capable back up PG. And a long 3. Seems like we got some good prospects.

[coopdogg3]

/shrug Draft day grades are part of the package these days. They know that it's impossible to grade a draft this early, but people read them, so they write them. I think a C is a fair grade concerning who was available. I expect the Spurs to make them look silly in a couple years, but for right now, C is probably a fair grade.

[Russ]

If Hill never gives the Spurs solid minutes and Chalmers and/or Arthur become good players, I think it'd be safe to call the pick a "huge bust". Especially considering RC's KU connection.

Absolutely -- a bust and/or a reach.

The Spurs wanted a PG at 26 and the comparison through the years with Chalmers will be inevitable. Hill may have a bigger upside than Chalmers but I like players who come up big in front of 40,000 like Chalmers did.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that the upgrade in competition from mid-major to NBA will be that problematic for someone who plays like Hill. Hill could be a great pickup for the Spurs but I think he could been had "cheaper" in this draft. And that might have meant the aquisition of a second contributor rather than two fellows who will likely be selling insurance (or something else) soon.

[Harry Callahan]

If Hill never gives the Spurs solid minutes and Chalmers and/or Arthur become good players, I think it'd be safe to call the pick a "huge bust". Especially considering RC's KU connection.

You're right. If anyone is going to have a finger on the pulse of KU players, it would be the Spurs FO with their many ties to KU.

I liked Chalmers, but he has been called a tweener, and not a totally "Pure" point guard. He did last until the 34th pick. Boston picked another guard with so called attitude problems at 30.

[oligarchy]

So he's not really a PG?
That would explain why we wouldn't take him. We need a capable back up PG. And a long 3. Seems like we got some good prospects.

Hill isn't really a PG either, in that case.

[oligarchy]

You're right. If anyone is going to have a finger on the pulse of KU players, it would be the Spurs FO with their many ties to KU.

I liked Chalmers, but he has been called a tweener, and not a totally "Pure" point guard. He did last until the 34th pick. Boston picked another guard with so called attitude problems at 30.

Boston doesn't need a young point, and the upside of Giddens could be much higher than Chalmers. It's not an unreasonable pick by any stretch of the imagination.

[BiZNicK]

I'll give it three grades

W

T

F

[wildbill2u]

If Hill never gives the Spurs solid minutes and Chalmers and/or Arthur become good players, I think it'd be safe to call the pick a "huge bust". Especially considering RC's KU connection.

Talk about stating the obvious. I think it'd be safe to day "Duh" here.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

What's the rap on Chalmers? Is he a poor defender or known to have a poor work ethic? Those would be my first two suspicions as to why they might have taken Hill instead. Pop seems pretty clear that he was the guy they wanted.

Chalmers isn't really a point and is undersized at the 2.

Ignorant analysts saw him hit a shot in March so they gush over the kid, but there was a lot of times Russell Robinson was cleaning up the messes Chalmers made during his time on the floor.

[manufor3]

If Hill never gives the Spurs solid minutes and Chalmers and/or Arthur become good players, I think it'd be safe to call the pick a "huge bust". Especially considering RC's KU connection.

don't forget CDR

[K-State Spur]

If Hill never gives the Spurs solid minutes and Chalmers and/or Arthur become good players, I think it'd be safe to call the pick a "huge bust". Especially considering RC's KU connection.

I guess it depends on anyone's definition.

IMHO, to be a 'huge bust', you not only have to be outproduced by players drafted behind you, but also have to have had money/expectations heaped on as well.

Here, there won't be much money (relatively speaking) and the expectation is a second string player.

[bigdog]

Hill isn't really a PG either, in that case.

but at the same time, Hill is a much, much more solid PG than Chalmers.

[Mr. Body]

but at the same time, Hill is a much, much more solid PG than Chalmers.

That's not true.

[leemajors]

isn't hill a tweener? regardless, he can work on ball handling, gino and brent handle the ball plenty when tony's not in.

[T Park]

That's not true.

Really?

You've watched George so many times know it all?

[T Park]

isn't hill a tweener? regardless, he can work on ball handling, gino and brent handle the ball plenty when tony's not in.

Hes a point/shooting guard.

Ala Antonio Daniels.

he can handle the ball, he will be the backup point.

[leemajors]

Hes a point/shooting guard.

Ala Antonio Daniels.

he can handle the ball, he will be the backup point.

so, he's a tweener. glad we established that. some are just worried about his assist:turnover ratio, which is why i mentioned we don't need him to handle the ball all the time. if he shoots well it doesn't matter.

[T Park]

so, he's a tweener. glad we established that. some are just worried about his assist:turnover ratio, which is why i mentioned we don't need him to handle the ball all the time. if he shoots well it doesn't matter.

Well hes gonna be the back up point.

The only time he doesn't handle the ball will be in small ball sets where hes in with Parker.

[Tully365]

I'd bet none of the draftniks giving grades have ever watched Hill play an entire basketball game or ever watched him work out privately. It's their job to give grades ten seconds after the draft, but their "evaluatons" have zero substance, and are akin to gossip columnists using the most recent photos of Angelina Jolie taken by the paparazzi to determine the current state of her pysche, her relationship with Brad, and how much she loves her children, etc. Just plain silly.

[Mr. Body]

I'd bet none of the draftniks giving grades have ever watched Hill play an entire basketball game or ever watched him work out privately. It's their job to give grades ten seconds after the draft, but their "evaluatons" have zero substance, and are akin to gossip columnists using the most recent photos of Angelina Jolie taken by the paparazzi to determine the current state of her pysche, her relationship with Brad, and how much she loves her children, etc. Just plain silly.

Most of the draft graders follow the players pretty damn closely. It's their job, after all, and they speak closely with teams, agents, and scouts throughout the process. They can only grade versus the present, of course, and so draft grades can look silly down the line, but they're meant to be grades according to current expectations and power of draft position. These aren't winos off the street.

[Tully365]

Most of the draft graders follow the players pretty damn closely. It's their job, after all, and they speak closely with teams, agents, and scouts throughout the process. They can only grade versus the present, of course, and so draft grades can look silly down the line, but they're meant to be grades according to current expectations and power of draft position. These aren't winos off the street.

They follow guys from Kansas, Memphis, UCLA, and Duke closely. I doubt they watched any IUPUI Jaguars games.

[mrspurs]

i honestly thought this draft was overrated...so many commercials, with so many writers and readers how deep this draft was....maybe cos i wait till around the summer league to start grading players...i already forgot who the first pick was....ive seen to many or im getting old.....go spurs go