Mock WNBA Draft

[diggerfoot]

There is a massive difference between talent evaluation for the college game and for the pro game.

......

In terms of both talent and fit, I believe DeShields (#1 to SA) and Plum (#2, to Chicago) are right where they are supposed to be.

You may be right in your assessment. I know and respect your abilities in this manner. I also know how much you admire Taurasi; I'm going to use that against you.

You are no doubt aware of the battles on the BY over who is GOAT, Taurasi or Moore (or now Stewart). I've always favored Taurasi, but not because she's the best talent. Frankly, I think Moore is the better talent. What Taurasi is best at, however, is enabling players to do their best. This is not just my opinion; I've seen it expressed by a few WNBA players; I've seen it expressed by you.

I respect anyone who differs in thinking that should be the most important criteria for a GOAT. It does not even matter if others think Moore or Stewart does a better job at making their teammates better. I know how much you value Taurasi for this very reason. That calls into question your sentiment that DeShields should be the #1 pick.

I haven't watched Tennessee play; I don't know if DeShields deserves the criticism she gets on the BY. I suspect not. I do know, however, that she plays on a very talented team. A Larry Bird she is not. Remember Bird and Indiana State? Bird took a mid-major mediocre coach (probably less than mediocre) with mid-major mediocre talent (probably less than mediocre) and brought them to an NCAA championship game.

I don't expect DeShields to be a Taurasi or a Larry Bird (or a Sue Bird); I don't expect Plum to be any of those either. However, while 5'8" may be a liability in the WNBA, if that 5'8" player can also make a 6'5" player play better than that's a huge compensation. Given their respective rosters, there is at least circumstantial evidence that Plum is much more of a Taurasi in making her teammates better than is DeShields. Once again, this is not to assume any of the negatives the BY assigns to DeShields, only that it's clear she's not able to compensate for whatever handicap in talent or coaching that surrounds her.

 

[Geew1992]

In the WNBA the tallest player thus far is 6'7". There are several 6'4", 6'5" and 6'6" players but not alot of them. Minnesota right now don't have a player over 6'2" tall. I don't believe Brionna Jones height will be an issue in the WNBA. If she's on the right team she could be an impact player. I don't think San Antonio is that team. The perfect team for her (and Diamond Deshields) is the Mystics. With Jones, the Mystics have 6'5" EDD and 6'4" Meesseman who like to play on the wing. Plus they just signed Kristi Toliver. Those three will spread the floor and Jones will have plenty of room to operate down low. With Deshields, she won't drop that low but she would be with a great coach and surrounded by great players. That means she don't have to be the savior right away and be properly coached which hasn't happened to her in college thus far. Perfect situation for her.

You are mistaken. Fowles is 6'4-6'5.

 

[1-of-the-6]

I'd say Plum is going to have a rough time dealing with the speed and physicality at the next level.

Lindsay Whalen has had an exceptional career for the Minnesota Lynx. She also played for the U.S. in the Rio Olympics. Both she and Plum are listed at 5'9". I'd say that Whalen is a bit heavier than Plum, and she's a tough kid with rare finishing skills.

Plum is every bit as tough. She's faster, quicker, and has a better handle. She's become a terrific finisher. Her mid-range game is at least as good as Whalen's and she's a better three-point shooter. She's a better passer than Whalen, and will improve in that area once she has better players around her.

Sure, she's not going to go into the WNBA and be an immediate star. But she works very hard, and after some adjustment to find exactly what her role will be, she'll do just fine.

 

[nwhoopfan]

I'd say Plum is going to have a rough time dealing with the speed and physicality at the next level.

I don't know about the speed, but I think the physicality is a non-issue. She's strong and tough. She's been finishing well in traffic her entire career. She often dishes out more punishment than she receives. Opponents don't bounce off her quite the same as they do when they run into Osahor, but I've seen her send other guards sprawling many times.

 

[GoCardinal]

Hmmm, I don't agree with that statement at all. Have you actually watched her play in many games?

She sometimes struggles with turnovers when she's being defended by quick and physical players, or against teams that actually play defense. Did you watch the Oregon State game when she was primarily defended by Hanson? 9 turnovers. Against ND? 6 turnovers. Last year against Syracuse she struggled with the pressure they were applying. She's improved with it a lot, but it's something she still has to work on.

She's got a great work ethic, so I'm sure once she notices what she needs to work on she will. In terms of DD vs Plum at #1, DD is probably the better fit with what they already have. The pro game vs college is extremely different, so players are evaluated and viewed differently.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Sounds like you're describing a ball handling issue. To me physicality is something else.

Teams that actually play defense? Arizona St. is known for their defense throughout Charlie Turner Thorne's tenure. She lit them up twice. Stanford has played some stingy defense this year. In their conference tourney they held their opponents to 36, 56 and 43. I can assure you they were TRYING to play defense against Plum. She torched them for 44, more than an entire TEAM scored against Stanford in 2 of their last 3 games.

 

[stwainfan]

It's a mock draft. It doesn't mean that it's how the draft will go.

 

[HumblePie]

In the WNBA the tallest player thus far is 6'7". There are several 6'4", 6'5" and 6'6" players but not alot of them. Minnesota right now don't have a player over 6'2" tall. I don't believe Brionna Jones height will be an issue in the WNBA. If she's on the right team she could be an impact player. I don't think San Antonio is that team. The perfect team for her (and Diamond Deshields) is the Mystics. With Jones, the Mystics have 6'5" EDD and 6'4" Meesseman who like to play on the wing. Plus they just signed Kristi Toliver. Those three will spread the floor and Jones will have plenty of room to operate down low. With Deshields, she won't drop that low but she would be with a great coach and surrounded by great players. That means she don't have to be the savior right away and be properly coached which hasn't happened to her in college thus far. Perfect situation for her.

You're assuming Brittney Griner (6'9") won't be playing in the WNBA this year?

 

[hoophuskee]

You may be right in your assessment. I know and respect your abilities in this manner. I also know how much you admire Taurasi; I'm going to use that against you.

You are no doubt aware of the battles on the BY over who is GOAT, Taurasi or Moore (or now Stewart). I've always favored Taurasi, but not because she's the best talent. Frankly, I think Moore is the better talent. What Taurasi is best at, however, is enabling players to do their best. This is not just my opinion; I've seen it expressed by a few WNBA players; I've seen it expressed by you.

I respect anyone who differs in thinking that should be the most important criteria for a GOAT. It does not even matter if others think Moore or Stewart does a better job at making their teammates better. I know how much you value Taurasi for this very reason. That calls into question your sentiment that DeShields should be the #1 pick.

I haven't watched Tennessee play; I don't know if DeShields deserves the criticism she gets on the BY. I suspect not. I do know, however, that she plays on a very talented team. A Larry Bird she is not. Remember Bird and Indiana State? Bird took a mid-major mediocre coach (probably less than mediocre) with mid-major mediocre talent (probably less than mediocre) and brought them to an NCAA championship game.

I don't expect DeShields to be a Taurasi or a Larry Bird (or a Sue Bird); I don't expect Plum to be any of those either. However, while 5'8" may be a liability in the WNBA, if that 5'8" player can also make a 6'5" player play better than that's a huge compensation. Given their respective rosters, there is at least circumstantial evidence that Plum is much more of a Taurasi in making her teammates better than is DeShields. Once again, this is not to assume any of the negatives the BY assigns to DeShields, only that it's clear she's not able to compensate for whatever handicap in talent or coaching that surrounds her.

As usual digger- I love your posts. They are too infrequent.

We do have our disagreements and mostly we agree. In this case there is no way imo DD should be taken 1. I thought the exact reasons camrncruz gave as negative for Mitchell are what is negative for DD. I am not a Tenn hater. I just cannot see DD being drafted 1st unless she does something spectacular in the tourney. If your job was on the line, which it would be for the GM, there is no way you should draft such a hit or miss player and have to hope your coach could "turn her around."

I haven't seen the players enough - but I know one thing- Mitchell was a big time handful. Not that there was fear UCONN would lose but she's freak the way she can get tot he basket. DD has lost more in college than she should have won. That is not only anti-DT but more importantly anti-reliable. I've seen the NBA make horrible mistakes because they chose to roll the dice with players that underperformed at the college level. IMO it's not worth it for the top 2 picks.

I haven't seen much of Plum or even the Cuse guard. But I would think at leats the 1st two picks would be Plum and Mitchell.

 

[1-of-the-6]

As usual digger- I love your posts. They are too infrequent.

We do have our disagreements and mostly we agree. In this case there is no way imo DD should be taken 1. I thought the exact reasons camrncruz gave as negative for Mitchell are what is negative for DD. I am not a Tenn hater. I just cannot see DD being drafted 1st unless she does something spectacular in the tourney. If your job was on the line, which it would be for the GM, there is no way you should draft such a hit or miss player and have to hope your coach could "turn her around."

I haven't seen the players enough - but I know one thing- Mitchell was a big time handful. Not that there was fear UCONN would lose but she's freak the way she can get tot he basket. DD has lost more in college than she should have won. That is not only anti-DT but more importantly anti-reliable. I've seen the NBA make horrible mistakes because they chose to roll the dice with players that underperformed at the college level. IMO it's not worth it for the top 2 picks.

I haven't seen much of Plum or even the Cuse guard. But I would think at leats the 1st two picks would be Plum and Mitchell.

I still don't think Mitchell will come out this year. If she does, though, I personally would not take her very high. I believe that she's a good kid, but likely due to poor or absent coaching she's not improved much since high school. Getting her to play within a team concept will be a real chore for her coach at the next level. Not because Mitchell will be against it, it's just that she's never done it before.

 

[hoophuskee]

I still don't think Mitchell will come out this year. If she does, though, I personally would not take her very high. I believe that she's a good kid, but likely due to poor or absent coaching she's not improved much since high school. Getting her to play within a team concept will be a real chore for her coach at the next level. Not because Mitchell will be against it, it's just that she's never done it before.

I don't know if she'll come out. Maybe you're right but to really know if a player can play within a team concept is a wild guess. My anti-DD is that I think the team was set up for her to shine the past two years and she's been erratic. I think Ohio State was nothing before Mitchell came and is at least something now.

What I saw vs UCONN was a player that can go where she wanted. She is so darn quick and crafty. But if is known she is not going to be a team player, I'd pass too. I just know what I saw vs UCONN. And what I saw was a force. Then I saw the game OSU beat MD. I didn't see her bad games such as the 3-22 vs Purdue.

What do you think of Peterson from Cuse?

 

[MilfordHusky]

You are mistaken. Fowles is 6'4-6'5.

Actually, Sylvia is listed at 6'6", which I think is accurate. She's way beyond 6'2".

Natasha Howard is 6'3". Brunson and McCarville are 6'2".

 

[1-of-the-6]

I don't know if she'll come out. Maybe you're right but to really know if a player can play within a team concept is a wild guess. My anti-DD is that I think the team was set up for her to shine the past two years and she's been erratic. I think Ohio State was nothing before Mitchell came and is at least something now.

What I saw vs UCONN was a player that can go where she wanted. She is so darn quick and crafty. But if is known she is not going to be a team player, I'd pass too. I just know what I saw vs UCONN. And what I saw was a force. Then I saw the game OSU beat MD. I didn't see her bad games such as the 3-22 vs Purdue.

What do you think of Peterson from Cuse?

I think someone quoted Geno on here saying something like, 'DeShields' play can keep both teams in the game at once.' Loved that, and I think it also pertains to Mitchell, except without any attitude. She's super talented and super wild. Will shoot her team into and out of games. And I don't know if she can be tamed.

I haven't seen Peterson play since last year's tournament. Too busy watching the teams that I like.

 

[Reypl21]

I feel bad for the San Antonio Stars GM. If they had the No. 1 pick next year (which they could still probably get, but for some unlucky reason I feel like they won't) it would be a no-brainer pick of A'ja Wilson. She would help them a lot because her college team lacks the necessary guards to free her up. She is going to be a beast in the W. But this year's No. 1 pick isn't nearly as valuable. I wouldn't be surprised if they trade it away or draft a specific player in order for a trade.

 

[Volup1]

The Stars recently acquired 6'3" Center Isabelle Harrison, from Phoenix, so they do have some help in the post position.

 

[Bliss]

As I posted on another thread, I really like Tori Jankoska's game and I think she'll contribute immediately for the team that drafts her and be a draft steal. The kid probably shot baskets in a snow-covered MI back yard until her fingers were numb, then went inside to warm up and went back outside to do it all over again. If the Lynx get her they'll continue to be winners for years.

 

[CTisballers]

If I'm San Antonio and K. Mitchell(Ohio State) is still going to be around at #5 I'm taking her and B. Jones (Maryland) #1 cus that backcourt would be crazy good with her and Mo.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

There is a massive difference between talent evaluation for the college game and for the pro game.

DeShields is a 6-1 guard/wing who is uber-athletic and can create her own shot. You cannot teach those things. You can work on shooting mechanics (which she needs) and defensive effort, but her ceiling is much higher than that of Plum. Plum has had an amazing college career. She is, however, much closer to her ceiling than DeShields.
...
But DeShields is - and should be the top pick - for a franchise that believes its coach can develop her on both ends of the court to reflect the conversion of her limitless tools into tangible basketball skills and consistent performances. And San Antonio has a huge need at the SF position. Diamond has also never played collegiately with a PG as good as Jefferson (or even a playmaker who was better at that skillset than Diamond), so this will help her overall game. In terms of both talent and fit, I believe DeShields (#1 to SA) and Plum (#2, to Chicago) are right where they are supposed to be.

I am resurrecting this thread, as I am re-thinking my own analysis, in light of analyzing draft prospects for the NBA Draft and my Phoenix Suns.

I would be more comfortable with Diamond DeShields at #1 if this were within the NBA framework. If DeShields were a male player, with her phenomenal athletic gifts, she would have been in the draft pool at 19, having gone to college for one year (and just one year removed from HS and AAU).

But Diamond is 22 years old. She has been to two colleges in four years. Even if you do not think much of Sylvia Hatchell and Holly Warlick as Xs and Os coaches or as coaches who can develop players, i agree that she should be a more polished product at this stage of her career. In other words, she should be further along in terms of her development.

She rebounds incredibly well for her size. She is excellent at using her physical strength and athleticism to get to the line (over five attempts per game), where she shot over 79 percent there this year. But her outside (three point) shot has never been consistent. She shot her best percentage this year 33.3 percent (her only college season over 28 percent), and she wisely took far fewer attempts from distance this year (81) than she previously had (145 last year, 172 in her freshman season at UNC).

Certainly, this is a step in the right direction - she attacked the basket more and got to the line (her strength) and took far less outside shots (a weakness). Maximizing strengths, minimizing weaknesses. But the fact remains that she is a 6-1 guard/wing. As tantalizing a prospect as her athleticism makes her, I would feel more comfortable if her 2016-2017 was her first year removed from high school, rather than her fourth year (third season).

Additionally, in looking at the TN roster and comparing it to say, Washington, DeShields has (in terms of active players who played this year) MCDAA teammates in Russell (former #1 recruit), Reynolds, and Nared. Washington's MCDAAs, besides Plum? Katie Collier and Deja Strother. As someone put it, a bit like DeShields herself, her teams seem to look great occasionally, but flatter to deceive on a far more regular basis.

Tamika Catchings, also 6-1 (though a combo forward not a guard), was never a great outside shooter, shooting 33.3 percent for her college career and 35 percent in the WNBA. Catchings shot over 50 percent from the floor in college, but just 41.5 percent in the WNBA for her career. BUT what separates the two 6-1 TN players is that Catchings was one of the best-ever defensive players in the history of the women's game and re-defined versatility, being one of the few players to be an elite player at both the small and power forward positions on the offensive and defensive ends of the floor (Delisha Milton-Jones is another, though DMJ is still behind Catchings in that category). Catchings is the all-time WNBA leader in total rebounds and total steals, and she is 12th in total blocks.

If DeShields were 19 or if she were as an elite defender as Catchings, the debate over the top draft selection would be over. But she is not.

So am I recommending that San Antonio take Plum #1 (assuming DeShields declares)? Plum can come in and contribute, but she is still closer to her ceiling than DeShields. And I have concerns about Plum's defensive abilities (but she also was asked to do so much on offense that she would not have to do in the W, which would free up energy and effort on the defensive end; also, her work ethic is tremendous). But will DeShields get the coaching to help her REACH that tantalizing potential? Difficult to say (though I like Vickie Johnson for SA). A Jefferson/Plum/McBride backcourt would be small (leaving the 5-11 McBride having to defend small forwards), but it could be excellent offensively. And for a team that needs scoring help, it may be worth the risk. And with the #5 pick, San Antonio can pick up size.

It is a fascinating debate, and I am no longer sure of my previous choice. I am going back and forth.

That being said, given the rumors that Angel McCoughtry wants out of Atlanta (and she has said she would miss the beginning of Atlanta's season to rest), if I were Ruth Riley (San Antonio's GM), I would offer the #1 pick for McCoughtry. Maybe a package of the #1 and #5 picks and for McCoughtry and the #7 pick.

 

[JordyG]

I am resurrecting this thread, as I am re-thinking my own analysis, in light of analyzing draft prospects for the NBA Draft and my Phoenix Suns.

I would be more comfortable with Diamond DeShields at #1 if this were within the NBA framework. If DeShields were a male player, with her phenomenal athletic gifts, she would have been in the draft pool at 19, having gone to college for one year (and just one year removed from HS and AAU).

But Diamond is 22 years old. She has been to two colleges in four years. Even if you do not think much of Sylvia Hatchell and Holly Warlick as Xs and Os coaches or as coaches who can develop players, i agree that she should be a more polished product at this stage of her career. In other words, she should be further along in terms of her development.

She rebounds incredibly well for her size. She is excellent at using her physical strength and athleticism to get to the line (over five attempts per game), where she shot over 79 percent there this year. But her outside (three point) shot has never been consistent. She shot her best percentage this year 33.3 percent (her only college season over 28 percent), and she wisely took far fewer attempts from distance this year (81) than she previously had (145 last year, 172 in her freshman season at UNC).

Certainly, this is a step in the right direction - she attacked the basket more and got to the line (her strength) and took far less outside shots (a weakness). Maximizing strengths, minimizing weaknesses. But the fact remains that she is a 6-1 guard/wing. As tantalizing a prospect as her athleticism makes her, I would feel more comfortable if her 2016-2017 was her first year removed from high school, rather than her fourth year (third season).

Additionally, in looking at the TN roster and comparing it to say, Washington, DeShields has (in terms of active players who played this year) MCDAA teammates in Russell (former #1 recruit), Reynolds, and Nared. Washington's MCDAAs, besides Plum? Katie Collier and Deja Strother. As someone put it, a bit like DeShields herself, her teams seem to look great occasionally, but flatter to deceive on a far more regular basis.

Tamika Catchings, also 6-1 (though a combo forward not a guard), was never a great outside shooter, shooting 33.3 percent for her college career and 35 percent in the WNBA. Catchings shot over 50 percent from the floor in college, but just 41.5 percent in the WNBA for her career. BUT what separates the two 6-1 TN players is that Catchings was one of the best-ever defensive players in the history of the women's game and re-defined versatility, being one of the few players to be an elite player at both the small and power forward positions on the offensive and defensive ends of the floor (Delisha Milton-Jones is another, though DMJ is still behind Catchings in that category). Catchings is the all-time WNBA leader in total rebounds and total steals, and she is 12th in total blocks.

If DeShields were 19 or if she were as an elite defender as Catchings, the debate over the top draft selection would be over. But she is not.

So am I recommending that San Antonio take Plum #1 (assuming DeShields declares)? Plum can come in and contribute, but she is still closer to her ceiling than DeShields. And I have concerns about Plum's defensive abilities (but she also was asked to do so much on offense that she would not have to do in the W, which would free up energy and effort on the defensive end; also, her work ethic is tremendous). But will DeShields get the coaching to help her REACH that tantalizing potential? Difficult to say (though I like Vickie Johnson for SA). A Jefferson/Plum/McBride backcourt would be small (leaving the 5-11 McBride having to defend small forwards), but it could be excellent offensively. And for a team that needs scoring help, it may be worth the risk. And with the #5 pick, San Antonio can pick up size.

It is a fascinating debate, and I am no longer sure of my previous choice. I am going back and forth.

That being said, given the rumors that Angel McCoughtry wants out of Atlanta (and she has said she would miss the beginning of Atlanta's season to rest), if I were Ruth Riley (San Antonio's GM), I would offer the #1 pick for McCoughtry. Maybe a package of the #1 and #5 picks and for McCoughtry and the #7 pick.

Plum to SA. Interesting. So just how does two guards who need the ball work? For four years Plum hasn't played off the ball, now as a pro that will be her role? I don't see that working just as Bird and Lloyd doesn't work in Seattle. Seattle trading Lloyd for Chicago's #1 and SA taking Coates or Jones works better for both IMO. Bird isn't young like Mo.

But yeah as I've said, I don't think DD will ever be a consistently great shooter. Again, she over jumps on her shot. Sometimes she wrong foots. Her release point changes on every shot. Some days the ball will drop, some days not. Some coaches and administrators will be enamored by her athleticism, some won't. I think coaches and administrators will become frustrated and fired for this beguilement. Her kind of talent vs. production will divide certain lockers rooms. If I were in need of a consistent and clutch scorer with developing off ball and defensive skills I'd take Plum all day, every day over DD.

 

[Kaizen]

I can name at least 10 players are better than DD:
Plum, Coates, Peterson, Walker-Kimbrough, Kelsey Mitchell, Brionna Jones, Brittney Sykes, Tori Jankoska, Sydney Wiese, Brionna Jones, Lindsay Allen, Nina Davis, and Adrienne Motley.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

Plum to SA. Interesting. So just how does two guards who need the ball work? For four years Plum hasn't played off the ball, now as a pro that will be her role? I don't see that working just as Bird and Lloyd doesn't work in Seattle. Seattle trading Lloyd for Chicago's #1 and SA taking Coates or Jones works better for both IMO. Bird isn't young like Mo.

Plum needs the ball in her hands, and yet she does not. Given what an excellent shooter she is, with Jefferson there, she will not have to constantly create for herself, but can run around screens for the catch-and-shoot attempts. She need the ball in her hands in Washington, because she was the primary scorer and primary facilitator. That will not be the case in SA. With her shooting range, she will be the recipient of many more assists than she ever was in college. Plus, Plum is a very good ball distributor, which will complement Jefferson and allow McBride more open looks. It gives SA two scorers and playmakers in the backcourt, plus much-needed outside shooting.

As for Seattle, it actually HAS worked really well. Bird, Loyd, and Stewart led the team to the playoffs, with a team that had very little depth. With Bird turning 37 this year, the situation is very different than SA, where Jefferson will be part of the present-to-future core in a way that Bird is not in Seattle.

But yeah as I've said, I don't think DD will ever be a consistently great shooter. Again, she over jumps on her shot. Sometimes she wrong foots. Her release point changes on every shot. Some days the ball will drop, some days not. Some coaches and administrators will be enamored by her athleticism, some won't. I think coaches and administrators will become frustrated and fired for this beguilement. Her kind of talent vs. production will divide certain lockers rooms. If I were in need of a consistent and clutch scorer with developing off ball and defensive skills I'd take Plum all day, every day over DD.

But if you can develop players, you draft the ones with the most potential. That is the way the professional game works.

Vickie Johnson could be that coach in SA. Difficult to say at this point.
Amber Stocks is not going to be that coach in Chicago at #2. She has never been a head coach in college or the pros, which will be a major adjustment.
Fred Williams is not that coach in Dallas at #3. But assistant Bridget Pettis DEFINITELY is. I say this with first-hand knowledge. When Pettis was an assistant with the Mercury, she stayed in Phoenix during the offseason and conducted individual coaching for all sorts of individuals, including high school talents. But she also did this for other people just wanting to improve...INCLUDING ME! I had weekly one-on-one lessons with her, working on finishing with both hands, shooting form, release position, ballhandling, etc. I could definitely see her working with Diamond and doing this.

 

[UcMiami]

Cam - I agree with your re-evaluation. Physical gifts for Diamond are absolutely #1 worthy, but everything else about her, and especially her shooting percentage through her 3 years of college are big red flags. And on top of that she has a spotty injury history and when the legs go on an athlete it is game over. If I were a GM (and depending somewhat on who does forgo a final year of eligibility, I am not touching her before #6 and if lots come out early, #10. Maybe you get a home run, but chance are you get a wash-out.

SA is in an interesting situation - I think Plum is worthy but not a high need, and I am not convinced on the post players - you don't have a Tina Charles type of can't miss prospect - Jones is nice but limited offensively and will get eaten alive until she develops more diversity I think. Again, the difference between college competition and going up against Tina and Sylvia, and BG nightly. Don't really have a handle on the forwards because I think that is the other big need in SA.

 

[Willie E.Gold]

Stars need a center.

 

[DefenseBB]

DeShields played for two very passive coaches - Hatchell and Holly. Hatchell does not do any Xs and Os or player development. Holly let Diamond run the team.

With a team as young as SA (Jefferson in her second year, McBride in her first year, DeShields in her rookie year), you have the three best players being the youngest players. This is where the head coach will be the leading force and will have to rule the roost to develop the players. The coach will have to be the leader.

Put Diamond under Vickie Johnson, and things will change. VJ played in New York with Hampton, Weatherpoon, Witherspoon, etc. and had to deal with players with big personalities who clashed. With all of that around her, she was fantastic. She was the first player in WNBA history to record 4,000 points, 1,000 rebounds, and 1,000 assists in a career. She is one of only seven players in league history to rank in the top 30 in career points, rebounds and assists. She played in five WNBA Finals. And she was an assistant for six years before becoming a head coach. She has the resume, the experience, and the temperament to demand the best out of Diamond and to get it.

I love your optimism and do think the Diamond Deshields is "a cancer" is over blown. I also think she has shown she could play defense if and when she put her mind to it. That said, you can't teach desire, you can't coach attitude and I think there is a reason DD selected two passive coaches. If she wanted to be coached, she could have gone to Connecticut. I also want to see why USA Basketball hasn't made her a "core" player vs. Wilson, Samuelson, Collier, Dangerfield, Cox, Walker etc. So yes, she's super athletic but just because she has a high ceiling doesn't meant she will or has tried to attain it. Why all of a sudden at age 22 will she show that?
Evidence, evidence and more evidence is the best predictor of future performance...

 

[rugbymate]

I am resurrecting this thread, as I am re-thinking my own analysis, in light of analyzing draft prospects for the NBA Draft and my Phoenix Suns.

I would be more comfortable with Diamond DeShields at #1 if this were within the NBA framework. If DeShields were a male player, with her phenomenal athletic gifts, she would have been in the draft pool at 19, having gone to college for one year (and just one year removed from HS and AAU).

But Diamond is 22 years old. She has been to two colleges in four years. Even if you do not think much of Sylvia Hatchell and Holly Warlick as Xs and Os coaches or as coaches who can develop players, i agree that she should be a more polished product at this stage of her career. In other words, she should be further along in terms of her development.

She rebounds incredibly well for her size. She is excellent at using her physical strength and athleticism to get to the line (over five attempts per game), where she shot over 79 percent there this year. But her outside (three point) shot has never been consistent. She shot her best percentage this year 33.3 percent (her only college season over 28 percent), and she wisely took far fewer attempts from distance this year (81) than she previously had (145 last year, 172 in her freshman season at UNC).

Certainly, this is a step in the right direction - she attacked the basket more and got to the line (her strength) and took far less outside shots (a weakness). Maximizing strengths, minimizing weaknesses. But the fact remains that she is a 6-1 guard/wing. As tantalizing a prospect as her athleticism makes her, I would feel more comfortable if her 2016-2017 was her first year removed from high school, rather than her fourth year (third season).

Additionally, in looking at the TN roster and comparing it to say, Washington, DeShields has (in terms of active players who played this year) MCDAA teammates in Russell (former #1 recruit), Reynolds, and Nared. Washington's MCDAAs, besides Plum? Katie Collier and Deja Strother. As someone put it, a bit like DeShields herself, her teams seem to look great occasionally, but flatter to deceive on a far more regular basis.

Tamika Catchings, also 6-1 (though a combo forward not a guard), was never a great outside shooter, shooting 33.3 percent for her college career and 35 percent in the WNBA. Catchings shot over 50 percent from the floor in college, but just 41.5 percent in the WNBA for her career. BUT what separates the two 6-1 TN players is that Catchings was one of the best-ever defensive players in the history of the women's game and re-defined versatility, being one of the few players to be an elite player at both the small and power forward positions on the offensive and defensive ends of the floor (Delisha Milton-Jones is another, though DMJ is still behind Catchings in that category). Catchings is the all-time WNBA leader in total rebounds and total steals, and she is 12th in total blocks.

If DeShields were 19 or if she were as an elite defender as Catchings, the debate over the top draft selection would be over. But she is not.

So am I recommending that San Antonio take Plum #1 (assuming DeShields declares)? Plum can come in and contribute, but she is still closer to her ceiling than DeShields. And I have concerns about Plum's defensive abilities (but she also was asked to do so much on offense that she would not have to do in the W, which would free up energy and effort on the defensive end; also, her work ethic is tremendous). But will DeShields get the coaching to help her REACH that tantalizing potential? Difficult to say (though I like Vickie Johnson for SA). A Jefferson/Plum/McBride backcourt would be small (leaving the 5-11 McBride having to defend small forwards), but it could be excellent offensively. And for a team that needs scoring help, it may be worth the risk. And with the #5 pick, San Antonio can pick up size.

It is a fascinating debate, and I am no longer sure of my previous choice. I am going back and forth.

That being said, given the rumors that Angel McCoughtry wants out of Atlanta (and she has said she would miss the beginning of Atlanta's season to rest), if I were Ruth Riley (San Antonio's GM), I would offer the #1 pick for McCoughtry. Maybe a package of the #1 and #5 picks and for McCoughtry and the #7 pick.

I respect your post and what you were trying to get at but the only similarity between Catchings and DD is that that both went to Tenn and are 6'1". Catchings was one of the greatest basketball players in history. in addition, she was a great teammate and a class act. There is not one category where DD compares favorably to TC and IMO there never will be. In other words, what separates the two is everything. Sorry for the negative post but my respect for Catchings is at the top of the charts and to see her in the same paragraph being compared to DD was a bit disheartening.