NBA Draft: Guys That are being Overvalued/Undervalued

There are always some guys that get drafted too high or too low. For whatever reason it seems to me that there are a few guys being pigeonholed according to their draft stock. It is understood that some guys are going in the lottery and that some are going later. Right now I'm going to get into 4 guys I think are being undervalued and 2 guys I think are being overvalued.

Undervalued

1. Eric Maynor 6-3 PG VCU - It can be easy to get lost in a draft when you're a point guard in a point guard heavy draft and you're from a small school and that seems to be exactly what has happened to Maynor. This kid has a very high basketball IQ and 4 years of experience. He has excellent court vision and has the potential to be a great distributor in the league. No character concerns either which is especially important from the PG position. Looks like a late lottery pick to me, but scouts seem to think differently. Either way I think this kid can stay in the league for 10 years.

2. Ty lawson 6-0 PG UNC - Another PG with 4 years of experience, but this is against a higher level of competition. Lawson's Assist to turnover ratio is off the chart. He's lightning fast, but showed he can play in control of himself this year. This is a guy that can be a starting PG and would thrive in a fast offense. In John Hollinger's new article he graded Lawson as the prospect with the most potential in the draft (just a shade above Blake Griffin). Now while that is certainly going overboard, it does make you wonder if he is slipping because of overanalysis of his weaknesses, which happens to seniors quite often.

3. Terrence Williams 6-6 SF Lousiville - There seems to be a trend here...anyway, yes, another senior makes the list. This guy pops out as a late bloomer. This is a guy that scouts are talking about playing PG in the NBA. Williams is a player that can score, rebound, and pass the ball. Reminds me of a Josh Howard lite. I think he will be a valuable piece to a team as he will be something of a point forward. He shouldn't be on the board when the draft gets into the 20s.

4. Nick Calathes 6-5 PG Florida - Say what you will about my Gators (I'd prefer you didn't unless the words amazing or dynasty are coming out of your mouth) but Calathes is legit. At 6-5 he has excellent size for a PG. He is a pure point guard and makes excellent reads and passes. Definitely a guy that makes his teammates better. Not to mention the kid can shoot all the way out to the NBA 3. Questions about where he wants to play, either in the NBA or Greece, where he just signed a contract, seem to be moving his stock down to the late first early second round. He might not make an impact in his first year, but I believe he can after that.

Overvalued

1. Brandon Jennings 6-1 PG USA - Fuck this kid and his stupid hair (pictured above) lookin like the love child of Kid & Play. He's gonna sit there and rag on my boy Rubio when he was too stupid to get into college? Even Derrick Rose got in man. Take a page out of his playbook and have someone sit in for your SATs and you're all set. This kid will never be able to run a team and he's too small to be a SG. So while he's looking good in drills at involve one-on-one games against other PGs everyone seems to be forgetting that you need your PG to distribute. This kid might be able to score, but you know who else can score? Stephon Marbury, and personality wise that's who he reminds me of. At least Stephon got into school. To draft this kid in the lottery is outrageous to me.

2. Jrue Holliday 6-4 PG UCLA - Holliday seems to be a surefire top 10 pick and I'm confused as to how he got there. He had a disappointing season at UCLA where he didn't even play PG. Now he's supposed to play like a top 10 pick at PG in the pros? There's no denying this kid has skills and could be in an NBA rotation in the future, but he doesn't wow me. His defense will be a good addition and he's crafty, but he's not a guy who is going to make his teammates better. Looks like a role player to me.

NBA Draft Mock 1

Well the playoffs are over and the deadline for players to pull out of the draft has passed so I figured that it's a good time to unveil my first mock draft. For now it will just be a basic list of the teams and picks, but as we get closer to draft day I will start to elaborate on why I think a team might choose a player, my opinion of the player, and more.

I believe that this draft is definitely a weak one, not as weak as the dreaded 2000 draft, but it could be the weakest since then. A couple reasons why is because last years high school class wasn't very good, with the last few years producing much better than average classes. The disparity is obvious. Also a lot of people did not come into the draft this year even though they would have been lottery picks.

Next year's class will be better and I will talk about it after the draft, but as for now, it's time to put up my first mock draft!

1. L.A. Clippers - Blake Griffin

2. Memphis - Hasheem Thabeet

3. Oklahoma City - James Harden

4. Sacramento - Ricky the Spanish Sensation Rubio

5. Washington - Jordan Hill

6. Minnesota - Tyreke Evans

7. Golden State - Brandon Jennings

8. New York - Stephen Curry

9. Toronto - Demar Derozan

10. Milwaukee - Johnny Flynn

11. New Jersey - James Johnson

12. Charlotte - Gerald Henderson

13. Indiana - Eric Maynor

14. Phoenix - Jrue Holliday

15. Detroit - B.J. Mullens

16. Chicago - Dejuan Blair

17. Philadelphia - Jeff Teague

18. Minnesota - Earl Clark

19. Atlanta - Ty Lawson

20. Utah - Tyler Hansbrough

21. New Orleans - Terrence Williams

22. Dallas - Nick Calathes

23. Sacramento - Chase Budinger

24. Portland - Sam Young

25. Oklahoma City - Omri Casspi

26. Chicago - Wayne Ellington

27. Memphis - Dejuan Summers

28. Minnesota - Jonas Jerebko

29. L.A. Lakers - Austin Daye

30. Cleveland - Derrick Brown

The Hangover Review

So I just saw this movie last night. Everyone who has seen it has said they love it and would see it again so I had to check it out. You can tell what kind of movie it's going to be from the first five minutes. The movie is about a guy who's getting married and his three friends (pictured above) planning him a bachelor party in Vegas a couple days before. Anyway they wake up the next day and can't remember anything and that's when the madness ensues.

Bradley Cooper (the dude in the middle), better known as the Sack from Wedding Crashers is kind of the main character and leader of the group. I thought he was pretty funny, but his job was mostly to facilitate the plot. The comedic parts were leaned on to the two guys adjacent to him. Zach Galifinakis is the fat bearded guy and people seem to think he's really funny. To me his humor is a bit on the dumb childish side, but I am someone that loves smart sarcastic comedy (think Juno) so I already knew he would only get a few snickers from me. The dude with the glasses, who's name I am not looking up, was slightly funnier to me and made me laugh a few times, but I think the cast was lacking someone with a higher level of humor (Jonah Hill comes to mind, the fat kid from Superbad). The funniest character by far was probably on screen for 10 minutes and it was the Asian guy from Knocked Up (played the doctor) and Role Models (the King of Laire). He definitely made me crack up a few times.

All in all it was a decent movie to me. It didn't live up to all the hype it was getting and it's not a movie that is going to stand out to me. There was a few plot holes as well. Year One looks much funnier. If this is your type of humor than I am sure you will enjoy it more than I did, but throughout the movie I was more amused and chuckling than laughing out loud. One more thing I have to mention was that the ending was awesome. 1-10 scale I give it a 6 however fans of this kind of humor might give it an 8.

Roger Federer is NOT the Best Ever

Ok I wasn't planning on writing about tennis again so soon, but I feel as though I need to get this off my chest. Roger Federer is NOT the greatest tennis player ever. Just because he won the French Open does not make him the best ever. Sure, on paper you can definitely make an argument for him. He has made it to 20 consecutive Grand Slam semifinals, which is unprecedented. He is also now tied with Pete Sampras for most Grand Slam titles with 14. He won the French Open this year to complete his career Grand Slam of winning them all. at the age of 27 (turning 28 in August). He is still in his prime and definitely has at least 2 more years of prime tennis left in him before we begin to see any small decline. On paper you can definitely make a case for him being the best of all time. But tennis is not played on paper it's played on the court.

All these tennis critics calling Federer the best of all time because he won this tournament seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room. Sure he won the tournament. His opponent was on a roll and playing the best tennis of his career. Then Robin Soderling remembered he was Robin Soderling and completely crumbled into a shell of the player we saw just a week before take out Nadal. It was obvious his nerves got to him as he had never been to a final in a Grand Slam, but hey, Roger Federer did what he was supposed to do.

So my question is this. Can you call someone the greatest player of all time in their sport if their is one guy that has his number? Back when Michael Jordan was playing we already knew he was the best of all time and it still holds true today. If you could take anyone on your basketball team for one game isn't almost everyone taking Jordan? If you had to pick a golfer to win a major tournament aren't most people taking Tiger? Which brings me back to my original question. If there was a tennis match on a major stage and you had first pick of your tennis player and your buddy had second do you think most people would take Roger? If you do take Roger you know your buddy is taking Nadal. Would you really feel confident in your pick now?

Rafael Nadal has won three different Grand Slam titles (6 in all) with the exception of the U.S. Open. If he wins that tournament this year then he will already have a career Grand Slam at the young age of 23 (which he just turned a week ago). Not to mention he is still ranked #1 in the world! If Rafael Nadal never came around we would all be in agreement that Federer is the greatest of all time, but as the old adage goes, to be the best you have to beat the best. So until Federer shows he is better than Nadal on the big stage while they are both in the prime of their careers, then this best ever discussion should remain on hold.

Star Trek Review

Just saw the big blockbuster of the summer. Let me start by saying I have never liked any of the old Star Trek movies or shows. Clearly Star Wars was where it was at. So I went into this movie with minimal knowledge of the characters, only knowing that crazy old dude who had a weird/unintentionally funny version of the song Rocket Man at some award show was Captain Kirk and Professor Xavier was the captain on the TV show, which always seemed to be on when I was younger and I hated it. I remember watching like 10 minutes of it once hoping it was something like Star Wars and just remembering nothing happened ever. The only thing I remember from that crappy show is some funny looking white dude who I think was a robot and the black dude who wore space glasses that wrapped around his head (these would later evolve and become a trend known as stunna shades and be acceptable to wear in any setting).

But let's talk about this movie, the NEW Star Trek. I remember seeing this trailer a few months before it came out and thinking, wow that movie doesn't look that bad, too bad it's Star Trek. Then it started marketing itself as the Iron Man of this year (which I loved) and continued to say that "this is not your father's Star Trek" All the right things to say in order to get me to see it. Let me just say I was not disappointed.

The movie is action packed right from the beginning. The action scenes are intense and every scene seems to have you clenching your fists, even the small parts. Visually the movie is quite stunning. Some have called it a space opera. The plot was also very good and left you at the edge of your seat.

Whoever casted this movie did a brilliant job. Chris Pine, who stars as Captain Kirk, oozes charisma. It's really hard not to like him in this movie and reminds me a bit of the iconic Maverick character. Zachary Quinto, who some might recognize from Heroes, plays Spock and plays him well. His character might be the most interesting as he is half human half vulcan which is a race that only acts on logic. Watching his character battle with which side to act on is fascinating and a storyline that evolves throughout the movie. Everybody else did a really good job as well, one that sticks out to me is the young quirky Russian aboard the U.S.S. enterprise.

This is the best movie I have seen this year. I am even considering seeing it again in theaters. I would suggest it to anyone who likes movies in the action/thriller genre and if you thought it looked like a good movie from the trailers, i can assure you it is. There are three big movies coming out this summer that may have a chance of one-upping it, but I'm not sure they can. The Three movies I speak of are Transformers 2 (the first one was awesome), G.I. Joe, and the comedy Funny People. I don't know if those movies can top this one, but what I do know is Star trek surpassed my expectations and is the type of franchise that will command 2 more sequels. 1-10 scale I give it a 10.

Biggest Upset in Tennis History?

I don't know how many of you watch tennis, but I do know that you must have heard about Rafael Nadal's astonishing loss in the French Open this year to the 23rd seeded Roger Soderling. I don't know if there was a more sure thing in sports than Rafael Nadal winning on the clay at Roland Garros (French Open). Actually I do know that there was nothing in sports that was more of a sure thing, especially in the first week of the tournament.

Nadal's first French Open came five years ago when he was 18 years old. It was then that he took out Federer in the semifinals and what people will remember as the beginning of two things. Nadal's dominance on clay and a rivalry that might have started pretty evenly, but has now become one-sided. All Rafael has done since that tournament is win every match at Roland Garros. He was 31-0 in the French Open and tied the record of most consecutive French Open titles won at four. He even had an 81 match winning streak on clay which is a record that might not ever be broken unless he himself does it. Last year's French Open was his most dominant yet. He didn't drop a single set! Then he dismantled Federer in the finals in his worst loss ever (6-1, 6-3, 6-0).

So the question that was being asked this year wasn't if Rafael Nadal would win the thing, rather how many sets would he drop along the way. Most people said anywhere from 0-3. It was assumed he would win because he never lost. He was the surest thing in sports on the highest level and you know what? I bet by this time next year he will still be a lock to win it all. So maybe the story next year will be 'will he rebound from last year's unimaginable upset?'. I know he will. In fact, it's a sure thing.

One Final Adam Lambert Note

I know this is old news, but I would just like to say for the record,

I voted for Adam Lambert. Nothing against Kris Allen, but Lambert

is the most talented person they have had on the show, though he

did scream a bit much. After the competition iTunes released some

song from a musical that Lambert was in about a year back. It was

the Ten Commandments Musical starring Val Kilmer aka Iceman.

What?!? Yes his career has clearly fallen off. Funny tangent about

Iceman here that I am taking from Bill Simmon's latest column on

espn.com.

"Anyway, there was a really funny moment at a Lakers game. Near

the end of a third-quarter timeout, the camera caught Val Kilmer

and three of his chins on the JumboTron, punctuating the moment

by playing "Danger Zone" by Kenny Loggins. You know, a Thursday

that could have only happened"Top Gun" homage. He took a

second or two to get the joke, then unleashed one of those "Very

funny, you got me, just know that I'm on a lot of meds right now"

smiles. And this would have been enjoyable on its own, but they

cut to someone else in the stands. ...

That's right. ...

Tom Cruise!

He caught on a little quicker and did the Tom Cruise Over-Laugh.

And this would have been great on its own, but the Lakers

pushed it to another level: They went split-screen with Kilmer

and Cruise with "Danger Zone" still blasting. As far as I was

concerned, this was the most emotional reunion in Lakers

history. Cruise kept laughing; Kilmer looked mildly perturbed.

(After all, he's an actor, dammit! That was 23 years ago!

He's made a lot of movies since then!) At this point, I was

praying they'd cut to Anthony Edwards in Section 312 but he

wasn't there. Still, I couldn't have enjoyed the sequence any

more, and it dwarfed the remainder of the game for me.

Can you top seeing Mav and Ice reunited on a JumboTron?

I don't know. But here's what I do know: This could only

happen at a Lakers game."

Anyway I found the video performance of this solo Adam

Lambert did in the play and it was incredible. His voice is

one of the best I have ever heard. The high notes he can

hit, the power of his voice to continue a note and the

control he has is amazing. You really need to check

this clip out. It's about 4 minutes, but if you can't bear it

(although you should try because it's all good) the 2:50

mark is when he really shows what he can do. I promise

you will be blown away. Latest news I'm hearing is that

Queen is considering asking him to be their new front

man. I hope that doesn't happen. I would rather see him

go solo and work with people who know how to contain

that massive voice and turn it into some kind of catchy

pop music. As JT would say, Queen is dead and gone,

dead and gonnneeeee oooOOOooo.