Reply With Quote
A player willing to eat a referee right on the court is undeniably attractive.
He's not a sexy pick at the moment but could be a smart one.
BUMP.
can't believe this fell down 10 pages.
ok, no spectacular news here.
Pondexter hired Bob Myers.
Myers compares him to Gerald Wallace and Desmond Mason. let's hope he is right with the 1st one. (ok, Mason in his Seattle and early Bucks days wasn't bad either)
and I like this picture:
A player willing to eat a referee right on the court is undeniably attractive.
He's not a sexy pick at the moment but could be a smart one.
nbadraft has him at #32 and DX has him at#29. Some players can still withdraw from the draft and/or Pondexter can rise but he seems to be quite a reach at #20 for the moment.
A SF without a reliable 3 point shoot also doesn't sound as a that good fit for Spurs.
nbadraft had George Hill at #39 in their final mock and DX had him at #44. (DX/Givony didn't add him to the mock before mid of June 2008)
I don't think we can talk about reaching at this point, when Spurs were that successful with reaching for Hill two years ago.
about his shooting. if his shot looked that bad, I would agree. but it doesn't look bad at all. and he has improved his midrange shot a lot over the last 2 seasons and he has a reputation to be a very hard worker, so I see hope that he can develop a somehow reliable 3pt shot.
he was compared to James Posey and Posey for example didn't shoot many 3s as well before his final college year. and when Posey came into the league he was pretty average from downtown, but became better to the point that he was a pretty good 3pt shooter.
Indeed. Going from 68% to 82% from the stripe is a testament to this also. There is also this:
Those two things lead me to believe he should be able to extend his range. TBQH, it's the only thing he really needs to work hard on as he is already an NBA level ball handler, defender and can create his own shot(while turning the ball over at a very low rate). The Spurs desperately need a player like this that can come off the bench and take some pressure off of Manu and Parker on the perimeter.
Agreed 100%. I think Pondexter is our guy. He might be missing a consistent 3 point shot, but hes got everything else. And if the plan really is to bring in Nando De Colo, a very fluid shooter, then this point might be moot anyways.
Is Pondexter really an upgrade over hairston or Gee? He may be an inch taller but I almost feel his skillset is about the same as Hairston's and if that is the case we really do not need pondexter. I really hope one of the main focus's of the coming offseason is too upgrade perimeter shooting.
Pondexter is a college senior. It's likely that he has still worked a lot on his 3 point shooting without success. Maybe he will become a good shooter one day but it's not a good sign that he isn't at this stage of his career.
Given Spurs roster, spacing from the SF spot will be really important. Spurs could decided not to draft some players like Pondexter or Ebanks because of that.
that's true of course. but isn't perimeter defense as important as 3pt shooting?(probably a more urgent need than the 3pt shooting) considering the defensive abilities, Pondexter clearly brings in most of all SF prospects. at 20 we won't get a player without any flaws. otherwise this player would be a lottery player anyhow.
SF's need to be able to hit the 3 on this team and given the Spurs closing championship window I doubt the Spurs are interested in waiting around to see if Pondexter can develop one. Without a J that needs to be respected defenders will just back way off of him which not only takes away his opportunities to drive, it also puts that defender in a far better position to help double on Duncan or cut off drives into the paint by other players.
I don't think Pondexter is very high on the Spurs wish list.
Players at #20 will have some flaws but all flaws won't hurt Spurs equally. For example Paul Geaorge's flaws (ballhandling, passivity...) would hurt way less Spurs than a player with a poor jump shoot.
If Spurs really like Pondexter, they will of course draft him but I'm quite sure that his lack of range is somethign that will significantly lower his chances to be drafted by the Spurs.
I agree with all who say 3pt shooting is an improtant quality for a SF, who wants to play for the Spurs.
I disagree with all who say it is the very quality to qualify or disqualify for a Spurs career.
2 summers ago the Spurs wanted to acquire Maggette, who of course then would have become their starting SF. well, Maggette isn't exactly a prime example for competent 3pt shooter. he is more of the opposite. so, if soemone without a relieable 3pt shot was good enough to be candidate for a major role for this team, why couldn't another player, who's role would be a minor role, at least be an option, if he provides a big amount of many other typical Spurs qualities? (defense, toughness, focus, effort, clutchness, work ethic, leadership, scoring efficiency, play within his abilities, low turnover ratio)
and about his jump shot. during the summer 2009, Pondexter changed his technique. worked hard for the whole summer on this. his shot became significantly better. it's just not true that he doesn't have a jump shot. he has a pretty good jump shot from mid range.
I'm all for the idea of trading the 20 & 49 to get the 25 and 28. Then draft Pondexter at 25 and BPA at 28.
Not a bad idea at all. Would probably eliminate any real chance of lottery-type talents falling to the Spurs (if there ever was one), but #28 picks in recent years have done as well as #20 picks. Not sure I would use those two picks on Pondexter and BPA(?) though.
Last edited by BronxCowboy; 05-05-2010 at 08:01 AM.
I'm less of a fan of trading down. It seems #20 is a good spot to spread a net for a guy falling just outside the lottery. This year is no exception to the rule of several project big guys getting taken, and this year it will be guys like Whiteside and Orton. Of course they may have in place a trigger so that if they're player is/is not available they trade down, but teams just in front of them may already have grabbed that; i.e. multi picks may have multiple bidders.
In all, I'd be surprised to see the Spurs trade down. Their tactics are generally finesse-oriented and not scatter-shot. They target a very small number of players, and if those players aren't available, they trade completely out. Blair wasn't ideal for them, IMO, but they couldn't pass when he fell.
Important to note though that 2 summers ago Maggette was coming off a year in which he shot 38% on his 3's. Maggette isn't a great 3 point shooter, but he still needs to be respected out there.
I think it's also important to look at who the Spurs have taken looks at over the years at the SF position, be it draft, free agents or d-league callups. The history suggests that the Spurs are far more willing to overlook defensive ability (as long as the effort is there) than they are willing to overlook the lack of a 3 point shot. The guys the Spurs brought in who are good defenders could shoot the 3 (Bowen, Udoka, Bogans). The guys the Spurs brought in who weren't good defenders could shoot the 3 (Finley, Barry, Devin Brown). The guys the Spurs take looks at from the D-league could shoot the 3 (Tolliver, Desmond Farmer, Jeremy Richardson). IMHO that's some pretty telling evidence that the Spurs do indeed look at the 3 point threat as a dealbreaker.
I'm also skeptical about Poindexter's shot improving because his 3 point stats as a senior are basically identical to what his stats were as a freshman. That being said, Poindexter will get his chance to prove himself. The Spurs aren't going to be the only team in the league wondering if this guy can hit the 3, so via the draft camps and workouts he's going to get several opportunities to show that he can hit that shot. Word will get out whether or not he's better at it than what his college statistics suggest. But if he doesn't shoot the 3 well in those workouts & camps, I can't see the Spurs taking him over one of the other SF types who is a 3 point threat.
His draft stock could rise with workouts if he can show consistency with a perimeter jumper, but if his projected value stays at the bottom of the first round, the Spurs may still be able to trade back and nab him if they like him.
As far as "fit" is concerned, the Spurs thrive off penetration to the basket so adding a slasher isn't a bad thing. The only issue for me is that Hairston seemingly brings the same skill set at the same position.
With the Spurs struggling from 3pt range, it's entirely possible they make a point to target shooters first and foremost in the draft and free agency. If that's the case, I can see them passing on him in favor of a guy like Hayward, Babbitt, George or Anderson.
Agree 100%..Spurs are set up perfectly to nab some shooters this offseason with hairston and gee already here for the summer.
Quincy P. or Stanley Robinson...both are available at 20....who would you take and why?
I agree. Robinson has more upside because of his athleticism and size, but he was extremely inconsistent in college. I could see him turning into a poor man's Michael Beasley in the NBA.
I know this is the Pondexter thread, but I had to comment on your Robinson comparison...
Michael Beasley absolutely dominated college basketball on his way to becoming the second pick in the draft. His biggest strength is his offensive versatility and aggression.
Robinson flashed some perimeter skills, but there's A LOT of projection to him being a poor-man's Michael Beasley.
I think his upside is probably Julian Wright.
Agreed. I liked what I"ve read about this guy. Sounds like sn explosive athlete with limited shooting range, but with fantastic defensive potential. The Spurs already have one SF (RJ) with very limited range. They don't need, and likely don't want, another one.
I would rather James Anderson or Xavier Henry over Pondexter or stanley robinson. Outside shooting should be a pretty high priority right now and Pondexter and Robinson shoot it pretty poorly.
I'm not sure where this idea that Pondexter can't shoot is coming from. He may or may not(very small sample size) have 3pt range, but he has a very good mid-range jumper.
point.
a small number of attempts doesn't prove the inability to shoot. it's often a result of better, high % options this player offers. (drive, draw fouls, shot inside).
none will claim he was a great shooter or could ever be. but he is not automatically bad, just because he doesn't shoot often.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
