Daily Thunder.com

Count me in for Harden and Blair! That would be a SWEET draft.

@Joe
Excellent post and if we can't get the top two picks, I would absolutely love to have Harden and Blair. I think it'd be the coup of the draft.

Well said.

Living here in Oregon I get most of the Pac 10 games, where I assume most of you get the big 12. I've seen Harden play maybe 8-10 times, and I've seen Henderson probably the same amount since Duke always gets on TV.

Here's a thing I see. When Harden gets the ball on the wing, probably 50% of the time the opposing defense doubles him on the catch. As soon as he has the ball in his hands he's got two defenders on him. Even with that pressure, he is able to find the open man, which really shows court vision, and, that dude can get to the rack. He may not have the fastest first step, but he's got the freekin ball on a string. He does crossovers, fake crossovers, jab steps, fall aways, you name it. And when he goes, he likes to go left, and everybody knows it, yet he still gets there and finishes even with contact. Much like a poor man's Ginobli.

GH on the other hand seems like a very nice team player on a very structured and disciplined team. He was never the focus of the opposing team this year from what I saw, Singler was.

Gerald Henderson may surprise and be a great NBA player, but my money is on Harden to be the much better player. I see a lot of Mitch Richmond in him, or Ricky Pierce.

My draft preference is what I wrote on that hoops china thing: I would like to get Harden (assuming we don't have the top pick) and then work a trade up with our second first round pick to move up and get DeJuan Blair.

Study after study has shown that rebounding is one of the most transferable skills in basketball. If a guy rebounds in College well, he will rebound in the pros well; same with shot blocking. DeJuan Blair is the best offensive rebounder in the nation this year (yes, better than Blake), and he is second in the nation in TRB per 40, and 1st in PER. I know he's short, but so was Paul Milsap when he led the nation in rebounding twice. It's the heart of the lion.

I think those two would really cover up some warts with this team this year. We get some tough interior play and inside game (Blair would be a big off the bench like Malik Rose or Collison)and Harden should start.

That would give you a second unit of Collison, Blair, Thabo, Weaver and Livingston. Great defense there. You could mix and match to get a little more offense as well.

I'm not sold on Rubio because I just haven't seen him.

@Kev
Thanks and I agree with you completely, but ironically even the raw stats (every statistical category but turnovers) all lean in Harden's favor considerably. Not to mention every NBA scout and GM, but hey, who's counting?

Hence why this really isn't even a debate.

you cannot use raw stats as a basis for justification - Harden's the better player - he was basically another PG for ASU; again he is very unselfish - and good passing is contagious - I think he would be a GREAT fit here . . . nice posts JG . . .

@G.A.P
We are going to have to agree to disagree because, honestly, I have no idea how you can even believe or try to argue that Henderson is in anyway better than Harden other than raw athleticism.

Especially since you said Henderson finished at the rim in the tournament, but his 11 of 44, 25% FG percentage in the tournament proves that finishing is the last thing he did. Henderson's jumper is certainly mechanically sound but the elevation is part of the problem with his consistency issues: the higher you jump on a jumpshot, the more legs you put into it and the greater the possibility for variation, especially late in games when fatigue becomes a factor.

Lastly, you're putting way too much stock into "first step." Brandon Roy does not have the best first step and he's probably the second best SG in the Western Conference. Why? Because of his all-around game and skill-set. Thus, Harden's higher basketball IQ, deeper and more consistent jumpshot, diverse skillset and court vision will all translate better to the NBA than simple athleticism does.

Oh, and to imply that Henderson can "take over" and "make big shots" better than Harden can is, I'm sorry, laughable at best. The biggest knock on Henderson is that he's never put it all together and lived up to his potential because of his inconsistency and his tendency to disappear throughout his entire career at Duke.

Like I said, great backup SG who can really contribute defensively and finish in an up-tempo system, but Henderson's limited jumpshot range will hurt his stock as a SHOOTING guard in the pro's. So yeah, vehemently agree to disagree.

@J.G.
You gotta be kidding me when you compare Henderson and Harden to Blake and Tyler. The real difference is the fact that Harden doesn't have any real explosive first step or has he shown himself to be a great let alone good athlete by any stretch of the imagination. I guess Harden in your comparison is actually Tyler and Henderson is Blake.

You say that "Harden had more turovers because he had to create for his teamates and force the issue, all Henderson had to do is finish", but i've seen more than just Hendersons last tournament game to justify my opinion. Harden wasn't playin like a 3rd pick the whole tournament if really watch him he's too passive to be a starting 2 gaurd and if his jumpshot isn't falling then what he can't beat anyone to the basket. No lateral movement to really have potential to develop into a defensive player at all. I know, he has all the tools to be ... but we all know he'll get shreaded on the defensive side of the ball in the NBA's speed driven leauge. Not a go to guy in any since of the word more of a facilitator at best...thus the "forced to create" because he's not ready to take over and make the big shots when it counts.

Now on the other hand I like Hendersons defensive potential and the prowess he already displayed this year. Finish at the rim he did on plenty of occasions in the tournament and throughout the season, but he showed a nice mid range game that displayed pull up jumpshots and catch and shoot ability. His textbook form on his jumpers and his nice elevation on those shows a potential to possibly become a great shooter if the work is put in, but all in all i'll agree to disagree from one fan to another.

@J.G.
I definitely agree with you...I have no idea where Henderson better than Harden came from...

1.2 less on turnovers, typo

@G.A.P
Couldn't disagree more and the facts support Harden big time. I don't even think you can compare the NBA potential of Harden and Henderson because it'd be like comparing Blake Griffin's potential to Tyler Hansbrough's.

And you're falsifying your stats to prove your point. Harden had 3.4 turnovers a game (not 4) and Henderson had 2.2 turnovers a game. That's not half as few, that's only .8 less. Harden had the better Assist to turnover ratio at 1.3/1 (4.2 assists a game) than Henderson. Henderson had a A/T of 1.1 (2.5 assists a game). Harden averaged more rebounds at 5.6 to Henderson's 4.9. Also, the area you'd expect Henderson to win, steals, Harden actually averaged more steals at 1.7 to Henderson's 1.2 a game.

Bottom line is that Henderson is not a starting 2 in the NBA, mainly because he does not shoot consistently at all from the college 3 point line and he has extremely limited range on his jumpshot. Toss on the fact that Henderson has been one of the most inconsistent players in his first two years at Duke and it's really not a fair fight. If Henderson goes in the lottery I'll be shocked.

And if we're going to talk about the "tournament failures" of Harden, did you not see what Henderson did in the tourney? He went 11 for 44 from the field, 1 for 11 from three and then went a whopping 1 for 14 against Villanova in the biggest game of the season. And here's the kicker, Nova wasn't putting all of their defensive focus on Henderson like every team did against Harden.

Also, even though it was only a difference of .8 turnovers a game, the fact that Harden served as both shooting guard and playmaker for ASU and had way less talent on his team than Henderson had at Duke more than makes up for the turnovers, especially since he still had a better assist to turnover ratio. You can see why Harden had more turnovers: Harden has to create for his teammates and force the issue, all Henderson has to do is finish.

Henderson would make a great energy, backup SG in the NBA but that's it. Harden's positives and production speak for themselves.

That Kyle Weaver video was great. Kyle's dad looks like a down to earth, laid-back kind of guy (which is probably where Kyle gets it). I love how Weaver always has that smile going. It's different from Russell's who is kind of bubbly and excited. Kyle's is more sly and mischevious. Just a great character guy on a team full of 'em.

I would like to see more videos of player's parents, family, home town folks, etc. reacting to their Thunder career. Let's see what KD, Jeff, and Russell's family have to say.

Never draft a Tar Heel or Dookie. Period.

I think one thing to keep in mind, concerning our draft picks and how they affect the team offensively, is that the NBA is a game of matchups. No matter who our draftee is, there will be some matchups in the NBA that they will thrive against, and some they will not. The flow of the offense and the pace of the game play into this as well. Blake for example, will probably be much better at a fast paced game due to his athleticism compared to other centers. The night we play a fast paced team, maybe he's the second option. Maybe he's the 4th option when we play the Spurs. The same would be true for most any player we draft. This is true of our team as it is now, for the exception of our franchise player, Durant. We always want Durant as our first option, but there are times when other guys just have better games, and they get the rock instead.

Off topic..but, Malik Rose was also in the least productive players pool.

I can see why alot of people think that Harden might be the pick, but let's compare a couple of his stat's from this season to my pick at gaurd Henderson.

First, Harden recorded 20ppg in about 36mpg and shot a very nice 49fg%. Now that's some good numbers for a gaurd, but let's take a look at his most glaring stat he recorded close to (4) turnovers a game which I don't think the Thunder need anymore of. Some say don't look at the tournament performance because he's been good all year, but I say it's the most important part of his evaluation because it's the biggest stage he's played on and he didn't want or faild to show that he has those pro starter qualities.

Now with Henderson, 30mpg atleast 6 mins less mpg than Harden, 17ppg, and still shooting a respectable 45fg%. Not only that but he's recorded about half the turnovers as Harden and they're both the same hight and weight. I believe the 2yrs (Henderson 21)and (Harden 19)makes Henderson the more mature and NBA ready to come in and start at the 2 spot.

@kev
I think in time he should take that role, but as a rookie on a team with Durant, a shoot-first PG, and lovable Uncle Jeff, I have a hard time seeing him get there right away. The team will first need to work him in and realize his potential in the lineup. Then again, the last two years the method of developing rookies has been giving them the keys to the offense and just letting loose. I guess it depends on where Brooks and Presti seem the team next year. If they think they can make the playoffs, they'll ease Blake in gently, so he can keep his focus straight. If they expect another lottery year, they'll probably force feed Blake the ball in hopes that he can use it to progress quicker.

@Keith

good post, but I disagree about Blake being the third option - if he's as good as I think, he'd be the second option after Durant . . .

Harden seems a good shooter, and shouldn't be judged entirely on two tourney games. I like him as well, I just wish Turner was in the draft. Also, just because he said he was returning after the loss doesn't mean he won't change his mind if a top 10 team or two shows real interest. He'd be remiss not to at least get a projection before the deadline.

As for Griffin not being a franchise post player, I would disagree. Beasley was talked about as a once in a generation talent last year, and I think this year's Blake is better than him. That is due in large part to the fact that Blake actually plays the post, unlike Beasley and Green, PFs who prefer to shoot mid-range shots. I agree that he is better than Horford, but I think if he lands here he'll find a very similar role. Horford is not highly used on offense, but instead focuses on rebounding, rotating, setting screens, and doing all the little things big men should do. Blake will certainly get more offensive touches than Horford simply because the Thunder are starved for a low post scorer, but he'll still be the third option at best. As a rookie, that could really do a lot to benefit him.

Judging from what I read about him on Draftexpress, I think that Harden would be a good fit.

@J.G.

excellent comment . . .

I think Harden is the only true "best fit" for the Thunder in the draft if they don't get #1 since his court vision and passing ability would help relieve the pressure off of Westbrook and enable him to drive more (as Joe discussed recently) and I think his almost limitless range would open the floor up a ton for Durant and Green, plus his jumpshot would force other teams to play Durant more honestly and simply space the floor better.

@KingGondo

Why? I haven't seen him, but from what I've read, he is a below average shooter and defender - that's more of what we already have . . .

I'm intrigued by Greivis Vasquez. He's a great all-around player, and he would help fill the scoring need we have at SG. Plus, he and KD played together in high school, so it seems like a natural fit. Maybe we take him with the #25 pick?

yes, I'm biased (OU alumnus), but I think Griffin is a notch below a franchise post player. He's no Duncan or Shaq or Robinson, BUT he's much better than Joe Smith and Kwame Brown. Horford wasn't a top pick, but I think Blake is better than Al. What people fail to mention when assessing Blake's chances is that his intangibles (work ethic, intelligence) are TOP-NOTCH . . .

I like James Harden too. Forget his lackluster tourney performance. He had teams completely keying on him.

Evan Turner is going back to school, so I think we should forget about him. But you're right, this is really a two man draft and the rest is a crapshoot.

My preference (in order)

1. Griffin - no brainer

2. Rubio - natural PG (on BOTH ends of the floor) that we lack

3. Curry - best shooter (by far) in the draft

4. Harden - has a total game that Presti should love; is smart and unselfish; would step in and start at the two from day one

I'd love to see some tape on Mullens -

So besides Blake and Ricky, is there anyone in the draft that we are in love with? I'm a big Evan Turner fan, and would enjoy Curry or Mullens with the San Antonio pick (low risk, even if uninspired, Mullens is better than Swift, Petro, or Sene ever were).

Obviously I also keep pushing to trade a non-top 2 pick to land a solid veteran at a position of need, but there's almost too much guessing going on with who will be available and who won't.