Yesterday, 11:45 AM
(Yesterday, 07:54 AM)Smitty Wrote: Agree with nearly all of this! The word "fit" has been thrown around here ad nauseum. I've never talked about fit when talking draft stuff with any sport. I've always used the term need. And I'm a big believer in don't draft for need. Free agency is for need. Draft the best player available on your board at the time and you will be more successful. Trust your scouts. Trust all the work that led to you stacking your board the way you did. Us fans aren't privy to a lot of information. The work done by several to get all the information they can on these kids. Character, intangibles, work ethic, desire, etc.. Just because someone is more talented, doesn't mean he's the best available, if that makes sense. A lot of the 'best talent' prospects were busts for a lot of 'other' reasons.
And one last thing. Example: Just because I think Wilson is a better prospect than Flemings (or others) doesn't mean the Mavs do. So, when I say things like I would take X over Y, it's because I have that person higher. The Mavs may have it differently, and maybe that's when we can all argue they took need over best available, because in the end, we'll never know how their board was stacked...
I will say that when I use the term "fit" its not just about fit with Flagg, its about fit on a contending NBA roster. I recognize that Boozer is an insanely elite college player, but a player that does not protect the rim and will struggle defensively on the perimeter is a red flag to me. I have similar fit concerns with Wilson, who I recognize has elite athleticism and motor, but he is a perimeter player who can't shoot. For me its not just about talent, its also about how that talent can fit in a lineup.