share

Why did Chase Budinger fall so far in last years draft?

Ebflo
Registered User
Joined: 01/12/2009
Posts: 90
Points: 23
Offline
Why did Chase Budinger fall so far in last years draft?

Till this day, I have no idea how Chase Budinger fell so far in the draft. He has all the tools to become an excellent NBA player. In addition to that, he can jump put the gym. So my question is.. how the hell did Budinger fall SO LOW in the draft?! I thought at worst he would be a late first round pick.

Here he is, playing for a really good Rocket team, averaging 8 ppg in around 20 min. Ok, I know he isnt the best defensive player around. but I feel this guy has the potential to become a very good OFFENSIVE player within the next few years. He can shoot and has 3pt range, has the athleticism to finish in traffic, and in addition to that he isnt a shabby passer. I think down the line alot of Gm's will regret not takinga chance on this guy.. maybe its just me that feels this way, but Chase COULD end of being a top15 player in this draft class.. your thoughts??


Ebflo
Registered User
Joined: 01/12/2009
Posts: 90
Points: 23
Offline
ps

he had ALL the attributes of a lottery type player, not only that.. he actually produced lottery type numbers.. not only that.. he did it in the Pac10 (when the pac10 was actually good) looking back on the draft, some players who got picked before him... gerald henderson? ok i am a huge gerald henderson fan, but what does he have that budinger doesnt have.. i think budnger is even a better shooter and passer than henderson, and i feel they are on the same level athletically (henderson a little more) but then other players...this Eyenga guy? i dont even know right now.. all i know is Budinger is not only producing in limited minutes but doing it for a DEEP. playoff team

RUDEBOY
RUDEBOY's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/24/2009
Posts: 626
Points: 670
Offline
I was surprised to see him

I was surprised to see him last until the 44th pick..Most people expected Charlotte to take him with their lottery pick..He sort of reminded me of Glen Rice...When Chase 1st came to Arizona the expectations for him were so high..The only place he could go was down...He had an outstanding freshman year..After Oden & Durant i thought he was the 3rd best freshman in the nation..I think if he had came out then,he might've been a top 10 pick..People expected him to progress instead his game regressed..He return and didn't take over games and was too laid back...He basically became just a 3-point shooter...And lacked great ball handling skills and a killer instinct..If he works on his ball handling and become a better defensive player he can still be a star in this league..Every year a guy with 1st round talent gets undervalued

Ebflo
Registered User
Joined: 01/12/2009
Posts: 90
Points: 23
Offline
good comparison

just keep in mind how athletic this guy is, so imagine how much better glen rice would have been if he had budingers athletic ability! and then he lasts till the 44th pick?! DAMNN lol. and as far as not taking over games, yeah thats true but when rudy gay was in college he was constantly scrutinized for not taking over games despite all this physical gifts and skills. I dont think he ever even averaged over 15 points per game while at UConn. Anyways, i think Budinger can develop into a glen rice type of player, maybe not as good a shooter but mix in his top notch atleticism and you have yourself a pretty good player

the I in win
the I in win's picture
Registered User
Joined: 11/28/2009
Posts: 2118
Points: 1532
Offline
He is very athletic and has

He is very athletic and has a great shot. at worst he is a good scoring option off the bench, not sure why he fell. must have been bad in private workouts.

inukawaii8
Registered User
Joined: 05/24/2009
Posts: 210
Points: 571
Offline
not trying to be racist, but

not trying to be racist, but i believe its bc hes white. look at how many good white american players are there in the nba. not much. therefore, not many ppl want to take the risk

Ebflo
Registered User
Joined: 01/12/2009
Posts: 90
Points: 23
Offline
sorry.. one more point i needed to a address

if freakin JOE ALEXANDER can be the 8th pick... how the helll.. well, you already know what im gonna say lol.. actually, maybe alexanders a reason bundinger fell so low? just how undersized power forwards are becoming more popular, maybe athletic white players (not to be racist!) are becoming more un-popular? just some food for though, because i just realized, alexander was the 8th pick, yet both are on similar levels athletically, but budinger has a better shot.. so wouldnt that mean budinger should be even higher than the 8th pick? mm.. interesting....

Ebflo
Registered User
Joined: 01/12/2009
Posts: 90
Points: 23
Offline
i bet,....

if joe alexander did remotely well, budinger would have been a first round pick.. if alexander exceeded explectations and became the kind of player the bucks thought he was gonna be when they drafted him, budinger would go top 10! if alexander ever averaged close to 20 a game, budinger just might have been the 2nd or 3rd pick LOL (well, not really but you get my drift..

the I in win
the I in win's picture
Registered User
Joined: 11/28/2009
Posts: 2118
Points: 1532
Offline
Their's nothing racist about

Their's nothing racist about it. It is genetically (sp) proven that black guys make for better athletes. Their are exceptions to the rule but it mostly stays true.

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
Why Budinger Fell So Low

First, let me start by saying "the I in win" often makes good basketball observations but his racial remark above is absurd and untrue.

Second, every year certain players are taken too high while others fall way too low. In last year's draft, almost everyone I spoke with agreed that D. Blair and C. Budinger falling so low was ridiculous. On the other side of the scoreboard, a guy taken too high was BJ Mullens.

If you subscribe to the stupid racial theory about Budinger falling low because he's white, how do you explain Mullens going in the first round and Joe Alexander being the 8th selection in the previous draft? It doesn't make sense because white guys are over hyped and often taken too high, not too low.

Now let's get back to the reality of Chase Budinger. When he came to Arizona head coach Lute Olson set the bar too high when he proclaimed Budinger was the best recruit ever at Arizona. In light of those expectations, he had a very mediocre college career, never coming close to matching the hype.

Here are some of the specific reasons he fell so low.

1. He rarely showed up in big games [He never took over when it counted].
2. Each season everybody was expecting to see a quantum leap but it never happened.
3. His defense was mediocre [but he wouldn't be the first shooter who didn't play defense].
4. His game lacked diversity, he fell in love with the 3 point shot.
5. In a couple of NBA workouts he was burned badly by other potential draftees.
6. NBA GMs felt he lacked the quickness to play SG.

If you've read my previous comments about NBA GMs, you know I have a very low opinion on the majority of them who make dumb draft day decisions every year. I don't think Budinger should have been in the top ten, but falling to number 44 was flat out absurd. He should have been a late first or very early second round selection. The same was true for D. Blair who also belonged in the first round despite his cartilage issue.

JoeWolf1
JoeWolf1's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/28/2009
Posts: 8102
Points: 15751
Offline
Race has nothing to do with

Race has nothing to do with it, in addition to the examples rtbt gave look at Tyler Hansbrough, he was taken at #13 last year.

Ebflo
Registered User
Joined: 01/12/2009
Posts: 90
Points: 23
Offline
in response to the white player remark

yes, both bj mulens and tyler hansbrough werer taken high, but keep in mind that they both play completely different positions than chase budinger, also, their skill sets are nthing alike. its not JUST a white thing, think of current nba players with similiar skill sets to hansbrough and mullens ( chris kaman and david lee?) the players skills set and SOMETIMES race can pave the way for how a player is drafted. sine budinger is doing alright i predict here will be alot more small forwards going in the first round in this draft and the next

Ebflo
Registered User
Joined: 01/12/2009
Posts: 90
Points: 23
Offline
btw the was a very bold

btw the was a very bold statement, i dont mean to offend anyone its just my opinion...

gatorheels
gatorheels's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/25/2009
Posts: 3232
Points: 1493
Offline
What is all the hype about.

What is all the hype about.  He was a 2nd round pick because he isn't that good.  You honestly would take him in the lottery? Over who? or even a 1st round pick..over who?

He is a smart player that can hit an open shot.  That is why he plays.  What does he do besides score?  He is a poor defender, mediocre rebounder & passer.

He really isn't even shooting it that well.  41%FG & 35% 3 point isn't anything to brag about. 

He has been better than I thought he would be as a rookie but lets not get carried away...he isn't doing anything special...at least not yet. 

JoeWolf1
JoeWolf1's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/28/2009
Posts: 8102
Points: 15751
Offline
I had him going to OKC on my

I had him going to OKC on my mock at 24 or 25 or whatever pick they had, he is a 2nd round steal so far, but I wouldn't go as far as saying he'll be a top 15 player in this draft. I agree with you gatorheels, a lot of lottery guys take a couple years to blow up, just because someone has a higher rookie scoring average doesn't mean they are the better player.

In my opinion, Budinger is in the same mold of NBA player as Eddie House, or Salim Stoudemire, or in his own draft class Jodi Meeks and Marcus Thornton. Guys who can step in and score in bunches, and because of this get immediate playing time, but they often don't really develop much more as players because they are brought in the league as specialists. Budinger's size and athleticism are unique to a lot of the current gunners in the NBA ( most are undersized combo guards ) so that being said I think he could have a higher ceiling than an Eddie House type bench scorer.

Glen Rice was a 3 time all-star and 18,000 point scorer. I can see some similarities in their size and style of game, but as far as a best case I think that comparison is too high for Budinger. I think for a current player he could be very similar to Anthony Parker, or Wesley Pearson for a possible career perspective.

Ebflo
Registered User
Joined: 01/12/2009
Posts: 90
Points: 23
Offline
ok...

name me all the attributes a gm (or even you) would look for in a lottery type talent. chase budinger has the athleticism and skill set to be considered one.. as for players I myself would have taken budinger over... chicago took james johnson, but one of chicago's main weaknesses are the lack of perimter game (shooting), budinger would have contributed more than johnson is. and johnson is s small forwrd, they already have deng.. budinger could easily switch to the 2 guard

another team, utah, who eventually traded their rookie, could have used budingers shooting, sergio llul who has selected by denver, as great as the nuggets are, who is the backup to anthony? budinger fits the bill once again i cold name other players and reasons but i thinks theres just so many different scenarios.. im not saying he DESERVED to be a first rounder or even a lottery pick, BUT what im trying to get at is that there are so many players (even now) who are claimed to have great upside/potential because they are athletic and can shoot. there are many current nba players who ALL they do is shoot (morrow for example) looking back on that draft, would u have passed on anthony morrow and let him slide to pick 44? in addition to that chase is wayyyy more athletic than morrow, im not trying to create any hype for budinger, but it just bogles my mind as to how he fell so far, because he IS getting solid minutes for a very good houston team and producing sold numbers when given the minutes

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
GatorHeels and JoeWolf1

In a previous post I listed my reasons why Budinger wasn't taken very high in the draft. However, I thought before the draft, and still do now, that number 44 was far too low. And I essentially agree with GatorHeels and JoeWolf1 about the current value of a Chase Budinger.

In my opinion, he's a nice guy to have on your bench if you need someone to play 15-18 minutes, and consistently hit jump shots that will keep the lane open for your big men. He wasn't a star in college and he won't be one in the NBA. The only area where he will probably succeed big time is if and when he gets into the dunk contest.

BothTeamsPlayedHard
BothTeamsPlayedHard's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2008
Posts: 3415
Points: 4668
Offline
8 points per game on 41

8 points per game on 41 percent shooting with mediocre defense? Is this really something where people are goin back and smacking themselves in the head over? Sam Young is giving 7.5 points in 16 minutes on 47 pecent shooting and playing great defense. Wes Matthews is doing what Sam Young is and was undrafted. A lot of guys who don't get drafted can play bit roles off the bench in the right situation. Devin Brown was playing in the Mexican league before San Antonio picked him up. Jamario Moon was on the Gary Steelheads. The Bird man did time with the Jiangsu Dragons. Michael Redd, Carlos Boozer, Gilbert Arenas, Monta Ellis, etc. Those are guys worthy of thinking back and wondering why they dropped, not Chase Budinger.

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
BothTeamsPlayedHard

BothTeamsPlayedHard, I think you made some good points but you talked about a lot of guys who weren't in the 2009 NBA Draft. I think the primary issue under discussion in this thread is where you think he should have gone in that draft.

Do you think Chase Budinger was an appropriate choice at number 44? Do you think that was just right for his talent level, was it too late, or do you think he should have gone even later in the 2nd round.

Obviously everyone has their own opinion. I think 44 was way too low for a guy with his talent and potential. On the other hand, I don't agree with those people who think he should have been a high 1st round selection. I think he should have fallen between #26-30 in the first, or #1-5 in the second round of the 2009 NBA Draft.

If you look at how he's played so far, I think being one of the last 5 choices in the first round or one of the first 5 in the 2nd round would have been just right. As for making final judgments on a rookie at the half-way point of his first year in the league, that's interesting, but premature.

the I in win
the I in win's picture
Registered User
Joined: 11/28/2009
Posts: 2118
Points: 1532
Offline
I would take budinger over

I would take budinger over christian eyenga. If my statement offended someone i sincerely opologize.

BothTeamsPlayedHard
BothTeamsPlayedHard's picture
Registered User
Joined: 06/13/2008
Posts: 3415
Points: 4668
Offline
The Bulls grabbed Taj Gibson

The Bulls grabbed Taj Gibson at #26. Hard to fault them for that one.

Memphis took two defensive-minded wings to come off the bench and be their "energy" guys with DeMarre Carroll and Sam Young. Once again, I cannot fault them.

The Knicks bought the pick from the Lakers to make sure they got Toney Douglas. Could one make the argument right now that they overvalued Douglas? Maybe, but I'm pretty sure Chase Budinger wouldn't see the floor in New York over Gallinari, Chandler, and Hughes.

Cleveland draft Eyenga because they didn't want to lock anyone into a salary when they wouldn't play, and Chase Budinger wouldn't be getting minutes in Cleveland in the place of Anthony Parker, LeBron, Jamario Moon, Delonte West, or Boobie Gibson. He'd be dancing on the bench with Danny Green.

Portland already has Rudy Fernandez, so I cannot see how adding Chase Budinger would have done anything for them. I think the absolute best someone can call Budinger is a another Rudy, and I certainly don't see how having two of him does a team any good.

Detroit took three SFs in Daye, Jerebko, and Summers despite already having Prince. You could make the argument that they should have had Budinger graded higher than Summers, but I'm not certain that if not for the presence of Prince, Jerebko, and Daye that Summers could not be an effective bit player.

Blair? I don't think San Antonio has regrets. Not that he is going to be anything more than what he is, he'll never do well against teams that are both strong, long, and skilled, but there are games where he is doing some nice things.

Brockman after Casspi and Evans. Sacramento is not complaining. Budinger would not see the floor there with Casspi, Nocioni, and Udoka at the 3.

Thornton has been better than Budinger. Nobody decries him going in the 2nd, but New Orleans isn't complaining about having him.

Has Derrick Brown getting big minutes? No, but you can't judge rookies on a Larry Brown team. Also, he hasn't been bad in the time that he has gotten.

Beverley was taken to be seasoned abroad. Miami didn't want to carry a 2nd rounder. I can't fault them for taking someone who would stay/go oversees so that they can retain their rights.

Meeks has been a surprising disappointment. I thought he'd have a smoother transition, but he hasn't really ever gotten consistent time. I don't know if Budinger would have seen a better shake in Milwaukee than Meeks. Skiles likes guys who play defense, rebound, and make those hustle plays. He is ready to ship off the #8 pick in the 2008 draft because he has been completely content to give all those minutes that could have gone to develop Joe Alexander to Luc Richard Mbah a Moute.

Houston took both Taylor and Budinger as well as buying the draft rights to Llull. Good for them. They are in last place in the Southwest division.

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
Draft Choices Late in First, Early In Second

As I stated earlier, I think Budinger should have gone late in the first [#26-30] or early in the second [#1-5]. I went back and looked at those ten players and Budinger could have helped several of those teams. I'm not saying he's necessarily better than all ten of those choices because he isn't. I'm only saying he could be as good as any of those guys taken ahead of him. And I think with some of those teams, he might have been a good fit.

If I had to select one team, even though I kind of like Toney Douglas, I think Budinger would have been an excellent selection for NY @ slot# 29. I'm only guessing, but if you asked D'Antoni today who he would rather have, Douglas or Budinger, I think it might be the latter.

gatorheels
gatorheels's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/25/2009
Posts: 3232
Points: 1493
Offline
I had Budinger going 40th to
I had Budinger going 40th to Charlotte in my mock draft.  So in my opinion he went about 4 picks too late ha.
sheltwon3
sheltwon3's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/30/2009
Posts: 6364
Points: 2607
Offline
Think there was question

Think there was question about his heart and if he had what he takes to be a NBA player and i do think that the other white players coming before him that did not do well may have hurt him. Morrison and Alexander, I am looking at you. BJ Mullen is an athletic and raw center which is why he went in the teens to a an OKC team that has drafted well and needed a Center. Harborough went high because he was drafted by Indiana enough said. Unfortunately race did play a factor but there was also question marks about his game as well but I did not think he would fall so low in the second round. I also though Blair an African American player would be a top 15 or 20 pick but hey it didnt happen. Also that remark about African American and genetics making us better athlete is not racist. African Americans during slavery time were bred a certain way to make better slaves. Slaves were not considered people. You see this kind of breeding in animal sports and it does tend to make better athletic animal and I guess this case can be applied to humans as well. African American also have denser muscle mass which is another thing that helps in giving an advantage in sports. Also in some country towns there are kids that are bred to play football not like slaves but people tend to mate with another person who they think will help produce a great football or sports player.

JNixon
JNixon's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/14/2009
Posts: 12959
Points: 11022
Offline
Budinger is not all that

Budinger is not all that people. He's a shooter with leaping ability. Not athleticism. Leaping ability. He's not quick at all. He's what I'd call a vertical athlete. He's good at making athletic moves that are in a straight line. He can run in a straight line well, and he can jump well vertically. Any other athletic thing he's not great at at the NBA level. I do think he can provide about 7-10 ppg consistently in his career and have some occasional outbursts scoring the ball because of his shooting and transition ability. But if you think he's an ideal starter in the NBA, you will be in for a rude awakening. Other than shooting and making transition plays, the only thing I think he's above average at is passing the ball. He's mediocre or below at everything else though.

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
JNixon-Iggy9

Hey JNixon-Iggy9, what do you think of Demar DeRozan's athleticism [9th selection in the first round] ? NBADraft.net wrote this about DeRozan, "Jaw dropping athletic specimen".

I'm asking because he and Budinger are about the same height and their NBA Draft Combine test results were almost identical. In fact, Budinger was slightly quicker than DeRozan in the agility drills. I don't put too much stock in those results, but sometimes I think they're interesting.

gatorheels
gatorheels's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/25/2009
Posts: 3232
Points: 1493
Offline
Kind of off-topic but I was

Kind of off-topic but I was just curious about something:  

Lets say a player is 6'0" with a 6'0" wingspan.  He is super quick running in a straight line or moving laterally.  However, his leaping ability is mediocre at best.  He can barely grab the rim.  He is a slow leaper. So basically how can a player be super fast moving in any direction but is a slow jumper & mediocre leaper?  Does that make sense. What causes this... Is it just genes or lack of leg strength, lack of flexibility, something else? 

JNixon
JNixon's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/14/2009
Posts: 12959
Points: 11022
Offline
I think Derozan is a great

I think Derozan is a great athlete. He plays much faster and quicker than Budinger does in games though, I base my thoughts on a players athleticism by what I see in games and very little into combine stuff. Derozan had a very mediocre at best combine, but we all know he's a very good all-around athlete when he plays basketball.

JoeWolf1
JoeWolf1's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/28/2009
Posts: 8102
Points: 15751
Offline
Very interesting

Very interesting gatorheels....my thoughts

That sounds a lot like Steve Nash. I certainly wouldn't think it would be a lack of leg strength, I used to run track and not every type of runner is a long lean guy who can jump really high, I think short legs may play a part to it, there was a guy on my track team who was an extremely fast 200m sprinter who also played basketball and wasn't a slow leaper but could barely touch the rim at about 5'11'' and was almost primarily a 2 footed jumper, his air on layups was very low. In my opinion, there are just so many types of athletes because there are so many variations of the human body and the muscles people develop as they mature.

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
JNixon-Iggy9

You wrote, "we all know he's a very good all-around athlete when he plays basketball." Hey JNixon-Iggy9, unless I misunderstood what you're saying, it sounds as if you're confusing athletic ability with basketball skills.

From my perspective, either you're a great athlete or you aren't. How you perform on the basketball court doesn't change one's athletic ability. There are many fantastic athletes on the planet who don't play basketball.

In other words, there were many great athletes who couldn't make it in the NBA because their skill level didn't match their athleticism. But even though they failed to make it in the NBA, they were still great athletes.

JNixon
JNixon's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/14/2009
Posts: 12959
Points: 11022
Offline
Yea, having a ball in your

Yea, having a ball in your hands and fatigue do have an affect on the amount of athletic ability a player can exhibit during the periods of a game. Have you heard of the term "workout warrior" before? There are a bunch of those players in the NFL and a few in the NBA. Some people test out well in combines and things like that, but when they have to dribble a ball or when fatigue comes into play or if they wear extra equipment and padding they aren't as high level an athlete. Chase Budinger isn't as quick moving laterally as Derozan and that is a very key compotent of athleticism. Nor is he as explosive a leaper. Budinger only seems to jump higher vertically. Even in that, it doesn't seem like he does because of Derozan's long arms in comparison to Budinger having "alligator arms" (he has a 6'6" wingspan, and he's 6'7"). But he's still the superior leaper nonetheless since length is not a factor

Ebflo
Registered User
Joined: 01/12/2009
Posts: 90
Points: 23
Offline
its not that im RAVING about

its not that im RAVING about chase budinger, its just that in recent drafts, players with budingers resume would be cosidered lottery picks. just pretend for a second we're talking about a MYSTERY player who wants to enter the draft. he has a 40 inch vert and averages 20 ppg in the pac 10. right off the bat, i think most ppl would be pencilling this mystery player in as a potential lottery pick. im not being biased, i dont think budinger will ever be that great of a player, i was just curious. take a player with his skill set and production at the college level (and he's only a sophomore!) it just confuses me.

rtbt
Registered User
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts: 1602
Points: 709
Offline
Budinger Was Quicker

JNixon-Iggy9, Budinger was much quicker than DeRozan in the agility drill and slightly faster in the sprint, but you keep insisting that DeRozan is faster laterally. Your logic doesn't seem to jive with reality. Even though Budinger had equal or better jumping, agility, and sprinting test results, you keep downplaying his athletic ability while saying DeRozan is a great athlete. Your argument doesn't register with me.

Now if you said DeRozan takes better advantage of his athletic skills on the basketball court, I could buy that. If you said DeRozan is a better basketball player, I would agree with that. But in the end, it still sounds as if you're confusing DeRozan's superior basketball skills with athleticism.

Ebflo
Registered User
Joined: 01/12/2009
Posts: 90
Points: 23
Offline
for example..

this guy paul george. this guy has the same type of physical gifts and skill set of chase budinger...he averages similar numbers except its in a league even worse than pac 10, NOT ONLY THAT.. fresno state's record isnt even good. despite all this.... he is STILL projected as a lottery pick.. i just dont get it? what is it about george that leads people to believe he is worthy of a lottery pick? when last year you had a guy (budinger) who posted better numbers in a better league, have similar skill sets and the same type of leaping ability? george is just ONE example. idk. its just weird to me. if budinger fell so far in the draft because he DIDNT take over big games, well, george cant even lead his team to a winning record..

Ebflo
Registered User
Joined: 01/12/2009
Posts: 90
Points: 23
Offline
for example..

this guy paul george. this guy has the same type of physical gifts and skill set of chase budinger...he averages similar numbers except its in a league even worse than pac 10, NOT ONLY THAT.. fresno state's record isnt even good. despite all this.... he is STILL projected as a lottery pick.. i just dont get it? what is it about george that leads people to believe he is worthy of a lottery pick? when last year you had a guy (budinger) who posted better numbers in a better league, have similar skill sets and the same type of leaping ability? george is just ONE example. idk. its just weird to me. if budinger fell so far in the draft because he DIDNT take over big games, well, george cant even lead his team to a winning record..

Ebflo
Registered User
Joined: 01/12/2009
Posts: 90
Points: 23
Offline
lol

i bet all the -1's i got was from one person.. thanks for taking the time to dislike all my recent posts lol but how about, instead of doing that, you make a post why you don't agree, instead of just clicking away with no reason

JNixon
JNixon's picture
Registered User
Joined: 04/14/2009
Posts: 12959
Points: 11022
Offline
"Now if you said DeRozan

"Now if you said DeRozan takes better advantage of his athletic skills on the basketball court, I could buy that."

That is basically what I'm saying.

gatorheels
gatorheels's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/25/2009
Posts: 3232
Points: 1493
Offline
jrdafilipino- great point
jrdafilipino- great point about Paul George. I think the difference is George is an even better shooter than Budinger, much better defender, & longer wingspan.  That being said I do think Paul George is too high in all the mock drafts I've seen.
sheltwon3
sheltwon3's picture
Registered User
Joined: 03/30/2009
Posts: 6364
Points: 2607
Offline
Lebron is a great athlete

Lebron is a great athlete and he actually came in the league with poor lateral movement. He has improved this though. I think defense is something you have to work on and Chase Buddenger to me is not all that great. There has been ton of guys who were just as athletic who did not get drafted. Marquis Daniels is not as athletic but he is athletic and is a an African American player and he went undrafted. It happens. It is all a race thing but I happen to know that race did factor in the decision to some degree because Joe Alexander and Morrison were picked high and made their Gm's look stupid so there are many factors in that and also whoever gave me minus points for stating fact grow up and also look up what I said. Don't base your views of opinions. Look up what I said and see if it is fact i can give you links to sources that will confirm everything I said.

Ebflo
Registered User
Joined: 01/12/2009
Posts: 90
Points: 23
Offline
gatorheels

i think its harder to base whether or not george is a better shooter/defender since he plays in a less competitive conference than budinger did. i still think with georges skill set and athleticism this merits him a mid first round pick, and im sure you would agree. but with that skill set and type of athleticism PLUS their upside/potential (sophomore) i just dont see why budinger would fall so low. i understand he isnt the next big thing but what annoys me is how he fell so low when there have been players (drafted and to be drafted) with the same skills/athleticism would NEVER fall that low in a draft. SOMEONE, name me one player who could shoot/jump similar to budinger who produced in one of the best conferences in college baskertball who even fell to the SECOND ROUND.. and then the worst part is, when their are like FRESHMAN who dont even do all that well at the college/international evel (marvin williams, gallinari, yaroslev koralev), , but can shoot and are athletic, they are projected as LOTTERY picks .. sometimes i works out and sometimes it doesnt but gm's seem to always take chances on player like that, but not budinger? who ( i know i say this alot) actually PRODUCED big time numbers . PS- i dont really care about how budingers career turns out, though i do think he will have a very long and successful career.

gatorheels
gatorheels's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/25/2009
Posts: 3232
Points: 1493
Offline
His overall impact on the
His overall impact on the game really isn't that positive.  Scouts knew this. Teams pretty much knew what they were getting from Budinger..a spot up shooter.  The fact that he can jump really doesn't matter because he doesn't rebound well & doesn't penetrate (play aggressive).  Would you draft someone in the 1st round that was purely just a shooter (not a great one at that) & had an above average IQ?..I wouldn't.  He had too many holes in his game.  
Ebflo
Registered User
Joined: 01/12/2009
Posts: 90
Points: 23
Offline
just a spot up shooter?

so he is just a spot up shooter, and not even that great of one? nevermind what he did in college (18 pts, 6 rebs 3 assists 80 ft% and 40% 3pt) i can agree he has just an average basketball IQ, but in the 1 start he had this season 16 pts 12 rebounds and 5 assists one three, he defense is terrible but he is not only a spot up shooter, he is an above average OFFENSIVE player, you dont get that type of stat line by just being a 'spot up shooter' and in regards to him not penetrating..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGdtJcP5kSg ( i know odoms D isnt all that great but still...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGdtJcP5kSg

when u say purely a shooter who comes to mind? ( maybe..korver, kapono, peja) when in their respective careers have they ever driven and dunked on someone like that? budinger can and does more than shoot, this site is can sometimes be wrong on player ratings such as potential (brandon roy for example) but for ratings like shooting and athleticism they are usually one the money and its not surprise that budingers was a 9

gatorheels
gatorheels's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/25/2009
Posts: 3232
Points: 1493
Offline
I was probably wrong when I

I was probably wrong when I said he was just purely a shooter. I know he can do more but the times I've watched him he just hasn't attacked the basket.  You are right though he does do more than Korver or Kapono. 

You bring up some solid points.  

Maybe scouts weren't thrilled with his personality?...they didn't know if he really wanted to win or really loved the game.

Maybe Budinger performed poorly up against other nba prospects in workouts?  They could've thought that he wouldn't be able to score effectively in the pros like he did in college.  They may have been right as you can see so far Budinger hasn't shot as well in the pros as he did in college. Plus the fact he can't defend well could've really hurt his stock as well. 

IndianaBasketball
IndianaBasketball's picture
Registered User
Joined: 05/09/2009
Posts: 12648
Points: 23813
Offline
Houston got a steal in

Houston got a steal in Budinger and their GM knows it. He has his flaws, but the kid can play lol. He definitely should've been a first round pick. Teams found reasons not to pick him in the first round.

RSS: Syndicate content