I just can't bring myself around on Green or Suggs... This all ties back to Porter and wanting to turn him loose... Green is undersized for a 2. Porter has decent size but isn't a great defender yet. I worry about Green playing off the ball and having success. Suggs can play off the ball and defend but i feel you're wasting some of his talent not putting the ball in his hands. The #2 pick is a lot to get a 3 and D backcourt player. I feel their later picks could find a spot up shooter who can defend. If we didn't have Porter I would prefer Green or Suggs over Mobley but since we have him i think Mobley represents a greater need. I think he and Wood could play together. I wouldn't deal Wood. But you have to consider Wood has never played 75 games in a season. If Wood is injury prone then Mobley gives you more depth. I think it's clearly Mobley or trade. I would lean Mobley for value of the rookie contract helping keep max cap space lined up for a couple years out... If an allstar under 25 is on the table i would have to consider...
Lol, since when is 6’5 with a 6’8 wingspan undersized for a 2 guard? I almost stopped reading your post right there because it shows u don’t know what you’re talking about I guess Harden and Beal are also undersized for 2 guards… If Green were a bit taller or had a larger wingspan, that would be great, but undersized? Please, unless he’s about to go to the Combine and actually be like 6’2 with a 6’5 wingspan… read a little further, and now I see you’re talking about fit…fit and need for a 17 win team…
Damn dude, Clutchfans, where 6‘6 is undersized for a 2 guard. Y’all are so concerned with size and wingspan, it’s unreal lol. you are the type of guys to pass on Steph Curry because he is too small.
It’s perfectly fine to think that Mobley is the right pick because there definitely is a lot of potential in him but the reasons I’m reading here every day get weirder and weirder.
My bad, not sure where i read it but i swear it said he was 6'3". You can disregard my size comment. Still concerned about him operating without the ball...
Starting to come around on Mobley as well, if the Rockets scouts believe he can control the paint on defense and significantly improve our rebounding. To win playoff games, you need a great defense. Mobley can be the centerpiece who can block and alter shots all night long, throwing the offense off it's game plan. He's also agile enough to defend the perimeter on switches. Offensively, I think he gives you 20+ppg WITHOUT needing to design the offense around him. Could be a Tim Duncan type of player -- we all hate Duncan, but he's got 5 rings.
Interesting read on the evolution in height by position in the NBA over the last 69 years or so; may sway a person one way or another or solidify their stance.......... Just the facts https://runrepeat.com/height-evolution-in-the-nba I'm with team Green........Green shall reign supreme
I'm inclined toward Mobley due to his ability to defend the paint and his potential upside, but it's an error to draft him solely based on positional need.. We need help literally everywhere.
Agreed, positional need should only be used in the event of a tie that needs to be broken. If I thought Green had the higher upside, that's who I'd be wanting.
You can google it, most result I got is 6'4" barefoot, 6'5" in shoes, 6'7.5" wingspan. Believe that's measurement is back in high school.
Nah, we are looking for the all-star guard you can build around in a guard driven league in a deep guard draft.
What's the last example of a team built around a traditional SG that found success? Is it Kobe more than a decade ago? With a team that was going nowhere without their dominant bigs...
You mention negatives on the Jalens but not on Mobley. They're all flawed players, and we'll be back in the lottery next year no matter what.
Mobley has higher bust potential I think, but this team is so horrible defensively, and Wood is so fragile, that I think the upside is worth the limited risk. I like all 4 options and would be happy with any of them, but put me on team Mobley.