2009 NBA draft analysis

2009 NBA Draft

Here’s the weekend draft analysis, just like I promised. Some may claim it late, I consider it a way to keep the masses intrigued. Plus, I had my wife’s b-day, a Sunday lesson to prepare, and a family reunion all going on this weekend. There wasn’t much time to break it down, but you better believe it was in my head, waiting to be released to my many adoring readers. So, once again, here it is and enjoy!

Winners

Bobcats: Gerald Henderson (12th); Derrick Brown (40th)

While I certainly think Gerald Henderson will have a productive NBA career (think a poor man’s Raja Bell/more skilled Dahntay Jones), the reason the Bobcats come out winners is because of their second-round pick, Derrick Brown. Brown has first-round talent and the versatility/athleticism (plays the 3 and 4) you crave on your team.

Rockets: Jermaine Taylor (32nd); Sergio Llul (34th); Chase Budinger (44th)

Rumors suggest the Rockets made numerous attempts to get into the first round, but ultimately they didn’t need to as they got some good prospects late in the draft. Budinger graded out as a lottery pick just six months ago, and has some eye-popping athleticism (he once placed a 47-inch vertical). Jermaine Taylor could fill the role of cheap scorer off the bench that the outgoing Von Wafer filled last season.

Clippers: Blake Griffin (1st)

Duh…even if he proves to be more Boozer than Malone, Griffin was still the most sure thing in the draft. Dude has sick athleticism for a PF and can handle the ball like a guard. He’s going to be good, it’s just a matter of finding out whether he’ll be just all-star good or hall-of-fame good. Defense is a question mark, but you could say the same thing about 90% of NBA players.

Thunder: James Harden (3rd); Mullens (24th); Robert Vaden (54th)

The Thunder withheld the temptation to pick the hype (Rubio), and instead went with the more established product (Harden). Comparisons to Brandon Roy are a bit much, but Harden is a solid player who will fit in well with the nucleus of Durant, Westbrook and Green. Mullens has project written all over him, but so did DeAndre Jordan (Clippers 2nd round pick 2008) in last year’s draft, and he showed well in his limited playing time during the season. Just sayin’…

Spurs: DeJuan Blair (37th); Jack McClinton (51st); Nando de Colo (53rd)

There’s a reason the Spurs didn’t even use 10 seconds of their two-minute limit when picking Blair. He was a steal and they knew it. He’s a rebounding machine that will play well off the bench, typical Spurs’ find. McClinton is supposedly an Eddie House clone, and Nando de Colo is an intriguing 6’5 PG, who could be the eventual heir to “you know who” (think Mr. Eva Longoria) at the PG spot.


Losers

Pacers: Tyler Hansbrough (13th); AJ Price (52nd)

For a team in desperate need of an exciting player; a player who can bring hope to a struggling franchise, it couldn’t have drafted any one more bland than Hansbrough. He’ll work hard, but he offers little potential, and will probably be nothing more than a solid bench man. Can’t say there was much better available at 13, though.

Hawks: Jeff Teague (19th); Sergey Gladyr (49th)

The Hawks replaced a defenseless, scoring PG (Bibby) with a defenseless, scoring PG (Jamal Crawford). So what did they do in the draft? They drafted a defenseless, scoring PG. What’s that saying again? “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.” I don’t even know what a Sergey Gladyr is, so I won’t even try…

Pistons: Austin Daye (15th); DaJuan Summers (35th); Jonas Jerebko (39th)

I actually think Summers and Jerebko are potential steals in the second round. Summers is another ultra-athletic, versatile player (can play 3 or 4), who has some maturity issues. If he figures it out, watch out…..Jerebko is thought by many to be the best Euro talent in the draft not named Rubio. My beef is with Daye at 15. He wasn’t strong enough to play in the WCC (that’s the West Coast Conference, for those who are wondering), and he’ll be at a huge physical disadvantage in the NBA. Charmin Soft is the best description. Can you say Nikolov Tskitishvili?

Cavaliers: Christian Eyenga (30th); Danny Green (46th)

The Cavs were exposed defensively in the playoffs when trying to guard the versatile likes of Rashard Lewis and Turkoglu. So what have they done to improve so far? They traded for an aging, 320+ lb center, and drafted a guy they’ll stash overseas for the next 3-4 years in the first round. Way to go Cleveland, LeBron + NY is only a year away! Oh…and I love how every scout or “draft expert” will tell you Danny Green is going to be a player in the NBA, yet not a one of’em could tell you why he should have been drafted earlier than the second round in a weak draft. Sounds like too many have been fooled by the Tar Heel hype to me.

Spring Break and The Big Hate

Spring Break is here! I thought I'd write a post while I have some free time. Warning: It's long and it's about sports, women may lose interest. Enjoy!

The Big Hate
By: Matt Andreason

These are perilous times we live in aren’t they? We have an economic recession costing millions of people their jobs; we’ve got a president with unprecedented socialistic ideals leading a republican government; and who can forget we’ve got millions of Muslim radicals primed to literally blast the American population at any given time?

Pretty sucky world isn’t it? Luckily, one segment of the population unfazed by a world of grief seems to be our beloved professional athletes. Protected by heaps of money, a well-paid entourage and buoyed by a president whose most glaring achievements thus far are that he’s black and he's “cool,” athletes have little to complain about these days. That is if your name isn’t Shaquille O’Neal.

What perilous times could an athlete possibly face who’s amassed the amount of money of a small country during a surefire 18-year hall-of-fame career? How about irrelevance. Welcome to Shaqville. That’s right, the Big Aristotle is on a direct course to the land of triviality and he’s not taking it very well.

The new guys, who’ve waited so patiently to take the reins of basketball’s elite, have officially taken the mantle. The process hasn’t been easy on the big guy, as it seems no one can escape his unforgiving wrath as he tails off into the wind; not even squeaky-clean Dwight Howard who idolized Shaq as a toddler.

Howard, Shaq’s literal heir apparent, crafted his game and personality so carefully after his idol he even dubbed himself “Superman” as a tribute to his hero. How does one react to such glowing admiration?

"When it's all said and done, I'll have four or five titles," Shaq said. "It doesn't matter to me who tries to take my (Superman nickname). We all know who the real (Superman) is."

He wasn’t done either. After a recent game against Howard, Howard’s coach, Stan Van Gundy, called Shaq out for “flopping,” a defensive technique that Shaq has abhorred in the past. It was Van Gundy’s way of protecting his guy (Dwight) who’d been under constant fire from Shaq as shown in the quote above. As you can imagine, Shaq wasn’t amused and had some heated words for his former coach.

"When a bum says some (stuff) and I respond, you can (expletive) cancel that 'cause I know how he is in real life. We'll see when the playoffs start and he (expletive) panics and quits like he did when he was here. Do I look soft to you like you can say something and I'm not going to say something?

"I said this a long time ago but I was actually talking about him (Van Gundy). When the general panics, the troops will panic . . . All the players hate him.

"Usually, I let (stuff) go. Not that. Not him."

Consider this your “I feel better about myself today” medicine. Remember that even though we all don’t have superstar money or in some cases even a job, most of us (my few readers) do have character. Shaq’s recent example shows all the money in the world doesn’t buy a cent of happiness. It’s the smaller things (family, religion, etc.) that prove our true character.

How to take the fantatic out of the fan pt. 2

How to take the fanatic out of the fan

Matt Andreason

There’s a reason the word fanatic was shortened to fan. It’s my belief the move was symbolic, with fanatic representing the extreme, and fan representing the condensed version of our rooting behavior. If you’ve been to a sporting event recently, you’ll see my perspective is not always the majority. As a self-proclaimed "professional sports observer" I’ve broken down fanatics into four distinct groups. These four groups can disturb, annoy, drink, and do a number of other things to poorly represent a fan base. The only question is how do we eliminate the fanatics and welcome them back as simple fans? Let's find out how one might do it.

Group 2

Contradictory Fanatics: Years ago I attended a BYU football spring training game as part of a family function. As the game progressed there were some inflammatory comments made by a fan a few rows back. You see, BYU’s backup QB was making some poor throws, and this particular fan was letting his displeasure be known, loudly. Every bad play, you would hear comments such as, "Go back to Junior college!" "There was a guy wide open, why’d you throw it to the other guy!" "How are we going to win any games if Beck goes down and this guy has to step in?!" As fate would have it, this quarterback had a sudden change of luck as the game proceeded. His errant throws from before became long touchdown passes that delighted the partisan crowd. At one point this quarterback had thrown 15 straight completions. As you can imagine, our fan from the beginning suddenly had a change of heart and couldn’t seem to praise the quarterback enough. His previous disparaging comments were replaced with remarks of heaping adoration. "Is there a quarterback controversy on the horizon!" " I promise there isn’t another team as deep at quarterback as us!" "Put him with the first team starters!" A convenient reversal of position for our contradictory fanatic. The fate of him and other contradictory fanatics?


Solution for fanatic cleansing: Randomly turn and comment on this gentleman’s or woman’s dress attire. Do so throughout the entire event while switching comments from disgust to flattery. These efforts can be rude (yet wildly entertaining), but believe me, for the sake of getting back to true fan ethics it’s worth it; and most importantly, it works.

How to take the fanatic out of the fan pt. 1

I admit it. My well of new blogging ideas has run dry. So I've decided to do something a little different. I've been a journalism student for the past few years and I thought it might be fun to share a few of the stories I've written for classes, newspapers, etc. The first I am publishing is a column written for a magazine writing class. The assigned topic was a how-to article. Being a major sports fan, naturally, I catered my column to sports, hence the title, "how to take the fanatic out of the fan." The column as a whole is a bit long so I decided to break it up into four parts. I'll release a new part every week or so. This particular piece isn't great writing, but it sure was fun to create. I hope my one follower enjoys it as much as I did.

How to take the fanatic out of the fan
Matt Andreason

There’s a reason the word fanatic was shortened to fan. It’s my belief the move was symbolic, with fanatic representing the extreme, and fan representing the condensed version of our rooting behavior. If you’ve been to a sporting event recently, you’ll see my perspective is not always the majority. As a self-proclaimed "professional sports observer" I’ve broken down fanatics into four distinct groups. These four groups can disturb, annoy, drink, and do a number of other things to poorly represent a fan base. The only question is how do we eliminate the fanatics and welcome them back as simple fans? Let's find out how one might do it.

Group 1

Jersey fanatics: In sixth grade my friends and I had what we called Jersey Monday. Every Monday we’d come to school adorning our favorite jersey that usually represented our favorite player. Back then, pretending to be Reggie Miller and hitting a corner three on the playground was always the highlight of my week. Soon, seventh grade was upon us. It took me about thirty seconds that first morning of middle school to realize putting on a jersey would be my first attempt at societal suicide. Apparently, thousands of 40-year old men and women didn’t get the same memo. Too often when a sporting event is held, we’re surrounded by fully-grown men whose days of pretending to be someone else have embarrassingly been prolonged. Worse yet, many of these adults can be spotted next to aspiring children who are wearing a pair of nice jeans and a faded T-shirt. Shouldn’t those roles be reversed?

Solution for fanatic cleansing: I’m all for a free-market economy, but the best way to combat this group of fanatics is to set some limits on the sports’ store consumer. There must be a strict age limit for buying jerseys, and it shouldn’t surpass the age of 15. Identification checks should be administered for every purchase as well. It might start a whole new revolution of fake Ids, but for the sake of a mature adult society, it’d be more than worth it.

Random thoughts on the day after...

The excitement was palpable. Considering the forum, a little too palpable if you ask me. Along the many routes of campus, teachers and students alike gleamed unabashed smiles everywhere they went. News of Obama's victory had been heard and overwhelmingly accepted. In class, teachers and students alike freely shared their optimistic visions for the future. However, mere victory wasn't enough for some. One teacher couldn't resist taking a few last parting shots at the Bush administration. One teacher and a few of her students were still displeased with the undecided results on proposition 8. Some students blamed the close vote on the influence of Utahns and the LDS church. Most classmates agreed. How could they not? We all know California voters are incapable of reasoning for themselves, right?

A classmate and I tried to exonerate our fellow Utahns and the LDS church. After all, this was a California proposition was it not? Our opinions were scoffed at; ignored. It was the first time I felt myself a minority. Do I get a scholarship now?

The Democrats won last night. As they say, "a new sheriff is in town." Change is supposedly on the way. However scary that may be to some, it's good to know good ole' fashined political bias among our educators isn't going anywhere, right?

"Work that kills"

I squirm every time I hear it. My breathing becomes irregular, forehead veins perk up, my face always reddens. What do you all think could elicit this type of reaction from a normally even-tempered customer such as myself? A Steelers' loss, maybe? The latest shooting incident involving a Pacers' player? Thinning hair on the left side of my head?

How about when a teacher announces a group project as part of the curriculum for a class? Better yet an upper-level college course?

Let's move away from sports for a moment and address what I consider the most pointless teaching method issued by teachers today; group work.

Don't get me wrong, group work has its benefits. I remember it being the perfect ploy to socialize with friends during class or a non-intrusive way of introducing yourself to a guy or girl you might fancy. But that was high school. I'm talking about college now. Some of our most skilled and innovative educators are not only issuing it to their students, but they're lauding it and justifying it as a meaningful teaching tool.

What's funny is their attempts to hide it behind a cloak of professionalism. How many of you have heard this before, "I understand group work can be difficult, but it really helps to prepare you for real-life work scenarios."

Ugh. You'd think it's a joke, but it's not. Watching a flaky group member knock my grade down a few notches because of indifference does little to prepare me for "real-life" group scenarios.

You see, in the real world, the ultimate motivator is on the line; money. Livelihoods are at stake. Career growth or career stagnation is your path. Most are going to choose the former.

School, on the other hand, is a subjective pursuit. Students' motivation levels vary at inestimable rates. Some care about A's, some B's and some couldn't care less just as long as they pass.

School should be about individual performance, not how hard you work on someone else's behalf. Otherwise, provide group majors for those incapable of self-motivation. Am I being harsh? Probably. Am I speaking the truth? I'll let you, as individuals, decide for yourselves.

Little league sports conundrum

I listened to an interesting discussion on the radio a few days ago. Two local sports personalities were discussing the quality of high school football in Utah. They were referring to how in states such as Florida, Georgia and Texas, many of their high schools have NFL-quality equipment and some of their coaches make upwards toward 200K a year. Their discussion evolved into what Utah can do to bring its own high school programs up to that level. One personality, mentioned it has to start at the little league level by improving playing fields, equipment, uniforms, organization and coaching. Doing so, he argued, would enhance the products funneled into Utah’s high school football programs.

Now, I may be out of line here, but what happened to little league sports? Since when did it change from introducing our kids to healthy competition into an organized minor-league system for high school sports?

I have two major issues with this personality’s proposal. For one, he can stop referring to kids as “products.” They shouldn’t be thought of as raw goods manufactured to perfection at some sketchy warehouse in a foreign country. Secondly, this type of minor-league system would seem to hamper the chances of untapped or the late-blooming potential of kids outside of the system.

What happens to those not entrenched in the system at an early age? What happens to those kids whose parents don’t have enough money to plant their kids in the system?

This topic is of special interest to me personally. Years ago, through some well-connected friends, I was invited to a tryout for an eighth-grade AAU basketball team, coached by the freshmen high school coach. Needless to say, I was thrilled. I had worked hard all of my life for this type of opportunity. I’d shot hoops every day, while also attempting to perfect my left hand and dribbling abilities. I was confident I could compete with any kid my age and felt my efforts had warranted such confidence.

Tryouts began and we started with a few simple drills. The problem was they weren’t easy for me. I’d never been taught the three or five-man weave before. My countless hours on the driveway didn’t prepare me for the foreign spider drills and rebounding drills I was being asked to perform now. There was no instruction from the many coaches assembled in the gym, either. They watched stoically as I butchered every drill imaginable. Drills ended and scrimmages commenced. At that point, my confidence was shot. I was hesitant and passive during the scrimmages. A good mix of over thinking and an errant jump shot eventually sealed my demise.

After scrimmages ended, the coaches began pulling certain kids aside into a huddle. I, along with two others were never asked to join the group. And what do you know? We were the only three not asked to return for a second day. I was heartbroken and felt blindsided. It was my first taste of sport politics and I despised it. I later found out every kid that made the team had played for one of the coaches at the tryout. They’d been playing for some of these guys since second grade. Perfecting at a young age all of the fundamentals and drills we were asked to perform that day. In this case, they were manufactured goods ready to be bought and sold by their future employer.

If the tryout had been about raw talent, I can definitively say I belonged on that AAU team. But because I wasn’t a part of a contrived system, I don’t feel I ever had a chance. My performance in the drills proved that.

My drive to play organized sports fizzled after this experience. Part of it is my own fault, rather than persevering; I gave up and let intimidation get the best of me. But part of me wonders what would have happened that day, had I been a part of the “system” from the beginning.

Why create an ultra-competitive system which would allow coaches to weed out the inferiors at a young age and bypass undeveloped talent? What’s worse is it would all be for the sake of competing at the high school level years in the future. Is that what sports represent? As idealistic as it sounds, sports is a platform for kids to learn how healthy competition applies to real-life scenarios. Perseverance, teamwork, work ethic, self awareness, and even overachievement despite certain limitations are a few of the things kids can learn by participating in sports at a young age. The last thing we need is our kids vying for a shot at making the high school team at the age of five.