Re: [Fwd: Delk at PG?]

[jwt2@lehigh.edu (jwt2@lehigh.edu)]

Steve Huffman wrote:
>
>Greg Odegaard wrote:
>
>> Thank you for this education into the NBA playing abilities of Delk at GS.
>>
>> My only question remaining is what are the opinions regarding Derek
>> Anderson at Cleveland?
>>
>>
>
>  I think from reading all of the criticism about Chauncy Billups on this list
>that Boston should have drafted Derek Anderson instead of Billups.

Why would we have taken Anderson over Billups?  Anderson is a shooting guard
and Pitino wanted a point guard.  Taking Anderson and Mercer wouldn't have
addressed the team's need for a point guard.  If you want to say that we
should have taken Anderson over Mercer then maybe you could have an argument
because we still would have had the #3 pick to take Billups with.  If you
don't like Billups, you could argue that we could have taken Brevin Knight or
Antonio Daniels instead of Billups.  But arguing that we should have taken
both Anderson and Mercer isn't logical because neither of them is a point
guard and a point guard was what Pitino wanted.

>Everyone seems to like and appreciate the play of Ron Mercer.  Last year
>at Kentucky when Derek Anderson and Ron Mercer were seniors,
>Anderson was just a little bit better at doing most things than was Mercer.
>Don't get me wrong, Ron Mercer played great, especially after Anderson
>fell and injured his leg.  Up to that point in the season, Derek Anderson
>was the go to guy, and the team's leader.  Ron Mercer was playing
>good but just not quite as good as Anderson.  They would both score
>about the same amount of points, have about the same number of
>rebounds and assists, but Anderson always just seemed to do something
>that was just a little bit better than what Mercer did.  When Anderson
>fell and hurt his leg, everyone at Kentucky thought the season was over
>and that Kentucky had absolutely no chance to advance in the NCAA
>Tournament.  That's when Ron Mercer stepped up his game, really
>excelled, and helped take Kentucky all the way to the NCAA final
>game, losing in overtime to Arizona.

A agree with you that before he got hurt, Anderson was a more complete player
than Mercer and was having an excellent season for Kentucky.  As college
players, I liked Anderson's game better than Mercer's.  The only
question was how he would come off of his injury.  But from a standpoint of
strictly potential, Mercer was the better pick.  He's taller than Anderson and
younger than him also.  He's not even near the point where he's the best
player that he can be, while Anderson is closer to being the best player he
can be.  Anderson was a good fit for a team that wasn't doing a total
rebuilding job, but for a team like the celtics who are thinking more long
term than short, Mercer was the better pick.

>    I know Derek Anderson was a draft risk because of his injury,
>but he seems to be healed and healthy.  I saw him in limited action
>against the Lakers last week end and he did a good job both
>offensively and defensively.  He is the type of player who could
>learn to play the point quickly and could get things done.

I've already agreed that at this point, Anderson is a more complete player
than Mercer.  But he is not a point guard and he most likely never will be.
Developing into an NBA point guard is hard enough for those who played point
in college.  Why would we make it even harder by trying to develop someone who
hasn't played point guard at any level into an NBA point guard?  It Doesn't
make sense.

Jeff