Andre Drummond

AustinCarr said:

Though I agree with the base sentiment, Drummond was saying who his favorite player is, not who he thinks he plays like. This quote seems to get taken out of context by Chad ford.

Click to expand...

That DX interview came afterwards and he was backtracking from comments he made earlier in the day.

The original comment was not on video, but it's been reported from a few different channels that Drummond said that he thought his game could be like Durant's.

Never draft a big man who doesn't think he's a big man! You end up being frustrated the entire time you have him on your team because they don't use their physical skills to the level you'd want. Sure, players can be coached but ultimately, they have to WANT to be a physical player and play down on the block.

I'm with a few other guys with Drummond, i don't mind the kid and think he might turn out to be good in the long run....but i want MKG or Barnes or Beal ahead of him. If we move in the draft to 6, i'd take Drummond and call it a day.

I saw something about the Cavs talking with Golden State for their 7th pick... involving AV and #24 and whatever else

The top-6 could easily go: Davis, Barnes, Beal, MKG, Robinson, Lillard

Which leaves us to take Drummond at 7. An MKG/Drummond draft could be phenomenal.

This isnt a traditional big man league anymore with the rule changes. I would go MKG 4 then either rivers or waiters 7 and sign that Turkish guy from chicago.

catfish said:

This isnt a traditional big man league anymore with the rule changes. I would go MKG 4 then either rivers or waiters 7 and sign that Turkish guy from chicago.

Click to expand...

Yeah, as long as you have a James, Durant, Garnett, Duncan, Bosh etc, etc.

You want Asik? You want to add yet another big man that cant shoot, score and be an offensive option?

Douglar said:

That DX interview came afterwards and he was backtracking from comments he made earlier in the day.

The original comment was not on video, but it's been reported from a few different channels that Drummond said that he thought his game could be like Durant's.

Click to expand...

I may be wrong but from what I remember, the comments from writers came after those couple of interviews where he mentioned Durant as one of his favourite players. If that was not the case, first of all he may have been backtracking because he heard what it may have sounded like, i,e, sounded like he wanted to be a wing player and not a bigman, and corrected that by stressing Durant was his favourite player.

Second of all, all of Drummond's interviews have involved him expressing that he can do alot more things than he showed at UConn, specifically putting the ball on the floor a bit and shooting the mid-range jumpshot. In that respect, there is a great possibility he meant he sees himself a a multifaceted player "like Durant," and not that he sees himself as a 3point-shooting, penetrating, playmaking wing player.

Those interviews that come out are just to appease the fans and are a combination of trained media-savvy players like Barnes, and mentally immature kids like Drummond who lose their words in front of the camera and do not really know what they are saying...only for those words to be jumped on by fans and the media due to the fact that neither of those parties have a clue what GMs are actually thinking and they need something to put in the news.

Thankfully, GMs and scouts aren't so superficial in their analyses that they take comments like that with any meaning.

One other thing, i don't like the Amar'e comparission's. Amar'e even as a youngster knew some back to the basket moves, where it seems this kid is raw ala' Tristan Thompson in regards to that part of his game.

Reading too much into what these kids can say though, i agree is pretty ridiculous. The bottom line ends up being , can they play and grow into the kind of player you want.

This guycouldvprobably benefit immensley from half a season or so in the D-League. Which is kind of sad for a lottery pick.

sam_slam911 said:

Second of all, all of Drummond's interviews have involved him expressing that he can do alot more things than he showed at UConn, specifically putting the ball on the floor a bit and shooting the mid-range jumpshot. In that respect, there is a great possibility he meant he sees himself a a multifaceted player "like Durant," and not that he sees himself as a 3point-shooting, penetrating, playmaking wing player.

Click to expand...

But that's still a problem. It doesn't do you any good to be 275 and strong as an ox if you don't intend to throw that weight around down low. And no matter how agile he is for a 275 lb guy, he's going to be outquicked by guys that are 50 lbs lighter.

What we are not hearing scouts, media, or even from Drummond himself is that he wants to dominate down low. Shaq enjoyed punishing people and using his strength, and without that mindset he'd never have been as dominant as he was.

I don't doubt that Drummond's a high character kid. Seems like a very nice guy, and I think he'll work fairly hard. But the only thing that makes him a risk worth taking that high is the prospect that you might end up with a monster, and Drummond doesn't seem to want to be that monster. And if he's not going to be that, the tremendous upside doesn't exist.

catfish said:

This isnt a traditional big man league anymore with the rule changes.

Click to expand...

I don't think it has anything to do with the rule changes. The only reason it isn't a traditional big man league anymore is that there are so few traditional big men. Most guys leave school too early to develop the kind of sophisticated back to the basket game it takes to be that traditional big man. But there's nothing in the game preventing any player who does have those skills from being successful. So now, "traditional big men" seem more limited to athletic freaks like Howard, who can use their strength and quickness even if they don't have Kevin McHale skills. And that's really what makes Drummond so intriguing. He may be bigger, stronger, and quicker than Howard, and if he had that mindset to use that down low, would be something that many teams just don't know how to handle. He'd be a horrible mismatch requiring double-teams, etc.

But he's got to want to be that kind of guy. If the Cavs don't get that out of the interviews, I'd definitely pass, at least at No. 4.

I have more hope for Tristan Thompson on the offensive end than I do for Drummond. Nothing he does on offense comes naturally to him; it will take years for him to become a scoring threat (outside of alley-oops and offensive rebounds), if he even does develope like you'd hope.

LukeWitte said:

I don't think it has anything to do with the rule changes. The only reason it isn't a traditional big man league anymore is that there are so few traditional big men. Most guys leave school too early to develop the kind of sophisticated back to the basket game it takes to be that traditional big man. But there's nothing in the game preventing any player who does have those skills from being successful. So now, "traditional big men" seem more limited to athletic freaks like Howard, who can use their strength and quickness even if they don't have Kevin McHale skills. And that's really what makes Drummond so intriguing. He may be bigger, stronger, and quicker than Howard, and if he had that mindset to use that down low, would be something that many teams just don't know how to handle. He'd be a horrible mismatch requiring double-teams, etc.

But he's got to want to be that kind of guy. If the Cavs don't get that out of the interviews, I'd definitely pass, at least at No. 4.

Click to expand...

To be fair to Drummond, nobody wants to be that guy. Howard doesn't want to bang in the post, he wants to fly over and block shots. Andrew Bynum wants to shoot three-pointers. Even Shaq was only happy doing it when he was getting 30+ touches per game.

Getting into the post and getting position is thankless work, as more often than not those sissy little perimeter players pull some Sidney Deane BS then jack up their off-balanced jumpers instead of feeding the big man. It's only worse when the big fights for position for 10 seconds, then the prissy little guard calls for a screen.

None of this means that the Cavs should draft Drummond, but if you're looking for a guy who loves working in the post, you're never going to find one.

Lumthemad said:

One other thing, i don't like the Amar'e comparission's. Amar'e even as a youngster knew some back to the basket moves, where it seems this kid is raw ala' Tristan Thompson in regards to that part of his game.

Reading too much into what these kids can say though, i agree is pretty ridiculous. The bottom line ends up being , can they play and grow into the kind of player you want.

Click to expand...

With Drummond I'd say absolutely. We need to remember when Andrew Bynum was drafted by the Lakers. Bynum was 17 when he was drafted to LA, Andre Drummond is currently 18. I'm sure we all remember Kobe's famous "Andrew Bynum? are you fucking kidding me?" quote around the time Bynum was 18-19.

At that point in time, Bynum was a lumbering, sloppy underwhelming player. It took Andrew about 3-4 years to really come into his own. He was a very similar case to Drummond, generally looking clueless and invisible on the court. That's about where the similarities end. I believe that Drummond has natural athletic abilities that guys like McGee, DeAndre and Hollins don't have. Yes they all have hops, but Drummond has the best feet of any of those aforementioned guys. His lateral quickness is remarkable for such a tall muscular guy, not even to mention his straight line speed.

Drummond is light years more athletic than Bynum. He has a better build, is 10x's more fluid than Bynum, he's a huge threat in transition, he has tremendous lateral mobility to guard the pick and roll, and he's got a special combination of quickness and explosion for a big guy.

I understand the risk with Andre, I really do, but in a place like Cleveland we need to take some necessary risks if we want to build a championship contender. Say we draft Harrison Barnes or even Brad Beal, yep we'd probably make the playoffs but do you really think we'd be a championship contender? We'd be the Atlanta Hawks or Indiana Pacers at best. I just don't see how Cleveland, on short notice is able to acquire the necessary pieces to round out into a true championship contender. Barnes or Beal I believe puts the Cavaliers into the playoffs, maybe not this coming year, but in 2013 we could possibly be in the post-season.

Bottom line is I don't care if next year is "the year of the center". You should never be looking at next years draft to make a decision about this years draft. We are staring at a rare physical specimen who by all accounts is a respectable, high character guy. If we bring Drummond on board, I have no doubts that Tristan Thompson would be a great influence for the big fella. I think Tristan's work ethic and Kyrie's leadership could finally point Andre's compass in the right direction. Their first few years on the court might be rough for us fans to watch, but we really need to be patient putting this thing back together. You win in this league with supreme skill and overwhelming athleticism.

We are lucky enough to have already found supreme skill in Kyrie Irving. Watching Westbrook this finals has made me appreciate Kyrie so much more. We have a guy that is already a lights out shooter, has crossovers for days and an uncanny ability to hang in the air and finish off the glass with either hand.

By all accounts Drummond is a good seed, he has just been lacking the appropriate coaching and environment for him to reach his enormous ceiling. We are the perfect place for him to grow, we have the leaders and personalities in place to reap the potential of this rare athletic specimen.

2 things...
I DO NOT want another version of Thabeet on this team.
and
I miss Z.

That being said, I believe Drummond can be a monster, if in the right system. If we get MKG, Drummond would be working with Kyrie, MKG, TT, and Andy. Those 4 are extremely hard working players and Drummond would benefit from that environment IMO.

NoTitleTown said:

You're continuing to be overly simplistic.

So the only players who develop into superstar are the one's who are difficult to develop?

And the players that are easy to develop won't be superstars?

I disagree. The best players are both easy to develop, and they have potential.

Click to expand...

It's not simplistic. It's realistic. There's always a trade off between draft position, talent, upside and risks. In almost every draft you have to deal with the fact that the player with the most upside may not be the player with the fewest risks. Do you identify, accept, and come up with a plan to deal with those risks and perhaps end up with a great player? Or do you run from those risks, and likely end up with a good player.