Draft Prospect: Patrick Patterson

[Bruno]

http://collegebasketball365.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/patrickpatterson2.jpg
Height: 6-8
Weight: 235 lbs
Birthday: 03/14/1989
College: Kentucky

DraftExpress (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Patrick-Patterson-1225/)
nbadraft (http://www.nbadraft.net/players/patrick-patterson)

[mountainballer]

in the last weeks I noticed that in most mocks the stock of Patterson is constantly falling. he still is mostly expected in the lottery, but meanwhile most mocks have him in the 10-15 area. that's significant, considering he was ranked as a 5-8 pick for quite some time. likely reason is the limited upside teams see in him. (he's more a quality role player in the NBA than a star)
interesting is, that a few mocks meanwhile see him fall to our region. so, even if it is still likely he isn't on the board when we pick, it isn't totally unrealistic, that he will be there when we pick.
if he was, should we consider to pick him?
yes, he isn't a SF. we have a PF project in Blair. he is slightly undersized for PF. he isn't a defensive force or an outstanding shot blocker.
an the other hand: he is a very good and versatile player, very smart, good athlete, has developed nice range out to the 3pt line and doesn't have any significant flaws. bust danger is very small.
could replace Bonner immediately and would be an upgrade over him in most aspects. should work great as a high post compliment to Splitter.

any thoughts?
if he is there, should Spurs change their plans and pick him?

[Mr. Body]

I don't think the Spurs really like straight-up PFs who don't have range enough to hit 3s. This was one reason they let Luis Scola go relatively easily. They didn't think he could co-exist with Duncan, especially as a low post scorer.

McDyess has proven that a PF can do well with Duncan if he's very good at mid-range jumpshots in addition to being a good post defender. Patterson is really neither; lack of defensive accumen is one of his problems.

[coyotes_geek]

Interesting decision should the Spurs get the chance to make it. But I think they'd just see too much overlap with Blair and decide it's not worth it. I can definitely see the Spurs taking a PF with their 1st rounder, but it would have to be one who you wouldn't mind asking to guard guys like Gasol or Bynum.

[BronxCowboy]

He'll be gone by the time the Spurs pick, barring some late-breaking news like he doesn't have any ACLs or something like that...

[mountainballer]

wow. so you guys would pass, if he surprisingly is still there?
(I'm asking this, because in a tire system he very likely would be in a higher tire than all the discussed SFs)

[coyotes_geek]

It depends on how much more upside you see in him than you do in Blair. Since they play the same position, it would have to be a lot to justify the pick IMO.

Although I guess if you wanted to trade Dejuan, who would have some nice trade value, then it's not really an issue.

[mountainballer]

the intriguing thing is, that he and Blair play the same position, but they are different types of a player. Patterson could develop a Antawn Jamison/David West game, so they could fill different roles.
but my main question was: is Patterson a can't pass pick, if he falls to #20?

[Mr. Body]

So the question is do the Spurs pick Best Player Available or stick to their guns? I think last year they took BPA when Blair fell so far. Regardless of what the roster looks like, if Patterson does fall I think they take him - although I don't see him fall that far. I'm more hoping a dynamic upper-tier wing falls instead, like Henry.

[BronxCowboy]

the intriguing thing is, that he and Blair play the same position, but they are different types of a player. Patterson could develop a Antawn Jamison/David West game, so they could fill different roles.
but my main question was: is Patterson a can't pass pick, if he falls to #20?

I'm pretty confident that he won't fall that far, but if he is still out there at #20, it's real tough to pass him up (unless another top-10 type slips that far).

[coyotes_geek]

I certainly don't have a problem with taking the BPA, and if he's the BPA so be it. But in a can't-pass situation, it doesn't matter what the rest of the draft board looks like and I don't see Patterson as being a guy who would make me ignore the rest of the draft board.

What do you guys see Patterson's upside being? Because to me that's the key. Is he going to be an all-star? Part of some team's core? Or a guy who will have a productive 10+ year career but as a complimentary piece?

[Mr. Body]

c_g, you're on it. How is Patterson 'can't miss'? Is his upside right now "He might be as good as DeJuan Blair"?

A slide from 10 to 20 isn't unprecedented. A guy I liked a few years ago, Darrell Arthur with Kansas, sure hasn't set the world on fire in Memphis. He slipped quite a bit in the 1st round.

PF isn't a position of need, unless the profile is "incredible shotblocker".

[Bruno]

I don't see where the problem would be with drafting a player like Patterson.

Spurs biggest need would be a SF but they also could use another prospect bigman. Spurs won't have an overcrowded frontcourt even if they add Patterson and sign Splitter.

The only case where drafting the BPA would be problematic is if this player is a guard. Given that in the latest DX mock draft, the best guard behind Wall is Bledsoe at #24, It safe to say that Spurs won't have a hard time at avoiding drafting a guard.

[mountainballer]

agree.
after this PO I hope we can finally assume that Bonner is gone for good.
Ian's future with the team is between highly questionable and non existing.
this opens some holes in the frontcourt, even with Splitter and 4 bigs.
there will room for a shooting big and/or room for a mobile defender/shotblocker.
we won't get all this withing one player (otherwise this player would be a lottery player anyhow).
but if the draft offers a big, who could provide some of this and who is on a higher tire (regarding talent and/or upside), Spurs should pick him.
the addition of a talented big man would also open options for trade scenario's with Dice.

[Bruno]

Patterson is at #22 on Chad Ford latest mock draft. :wow

[mountainballer]

that's what I ment some weeks ago. Patterson is one of the potential losers in this draft. some scouts think that way. he might really become an option at #20.

[benefactor]

If he is there at 20 there is really nothing think about.

[scottspurs]

I wouldn't mind if the spurs picked him. He can contribute right away. Him and Blair would be a good young post duo off the bench.

[Mr Bones]

It really points to one of the shortcomings of the Spurs that some consider Patterson to be slightly undersized at PF, and he's 3" taller than Blair. The BPA vs specific need debate is always an interesting one, and I don't think there is a clear answer-- every situation is different and needs to be evaluated. Last year, I'd really hoped for defensive length but understood the decision to take Blair. Patterson could potentially become a guy who makes Blair a valuable trading chip... or vice versa.

[Mr. Body]

What r u talking about, they guy was known as a defender, is a good rebounder, has a solid post game and increased his jumper from 17ft to 20ft this year. Hes a good passer and can face up.

This guy is a D West clone....Rumor is he is sliding, we would be fools to let him pass us.

Here, I'll repost what I said:

I don't think the Spurs really like straight-up PFs who don't have range enough to hit 3s. This was one reason they let Luis Scola go relatively easily. They didn't think he could co-exist with Duncan, especially as a low post scorer.

[admiralsnackbar]

Here, I'll repost what I said:

I don't think the Spurs really like straight-up PFs who don't have range enough to hit 3s. This was one reason they let Luis Scola go relatively easily. They didn't think he could co-exist with Duncan, especially as a low post scorer.

I think the Spurs thought that given their then-current line-up, but the front-court looks different these days, and Tim will almost certainly be ceding minutes to other bigs in order to stay fresh. Based on what I've seen of Splitter and what little I know about Patterson's game, they could play well together.

That said, he's not going to fall to us, and DeJuan already seems like a more useful player at the 4 IMO.

[Mr Bones]

Here, I'll repost what I said:

I don't think the Spurs really like straight-up PFs who don't have range enough to hit 3s. This was one reason they let Luis Scola go relatively easily. They didn't think he could co-exist with Duncan, especially as a low post scorer.

But they drafted Blair last year, who has no three point ability at all. I can see a scenario where Patterson is available at #20 and the Spurs decide he's too good to pass up, especially if their 3 or 4 favorite SFs are gone.