Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: MrMichaelLee and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Morning Buzz: Lining Up for Blake packaged its power rankings with a look at the teams who are most in need of Oklahoma's Blake Griffin, the logical No. 1 pick if the sophomore decides to declare for the draft. The Wizards, of course, come up in the discussion.

Not to spoil the whole piece, but interestingly, writer Dave Del Grande specifically says the Wizards are not one of the six worst teams in the league, then ranks them 28th in the power rankings below.

By Keith McMillan  |  April 1, 2009; 11:15 AM ET
 | Tags: Blake Griffin, draft pick  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Crittenton Getting Tough Love
Next: Arenas Is a Game-Time Decision


This CBS Sports piece is silly. It denounces Oklahoma City, even though the Thunder have among the best young talent in the NBA. It loves Memphis, even though Mayo has regressed as the season has worn on and Conley hasn't shown anything yet. Meanwhile, a Clippers team with Camby, Kaman, Randolph, Griffin, Thornton, Gordon, and Davis would be disgusting.

Posted by: Dellis2 | April 1, 2009 11:45 AM | Report abuse

The Clippers could land Griffin and they would still be in the lottery next season -- that franchise is a in disarray.

The difference between Memphis and Ok City is minimal. Both have solid young talent -- the piece did not denounce Ok City -- it specifically said that its young 3 tops Memphis' top 3. The problem at Ok City is that after those 3, the cupboard is bare. Ok City is like the Wizard with Hughes, Arenas and Jamison -- it was big three or nothing (still might be) which is why if one went down the team really struggled. You can have 3 very good players but if there is a huge drop in talent after that the margin of error for that team is razor thin.

A healthy Wizards' team is a playoff team battling for the 4-6 spot, so they are the team that least needs Griffin. However, Griffin could rapidly change the future of the Wizards by helping the Wiz go from a 4-6 seed to challenging Orlanda and Cleveland. With the Wizards, health is primary concern until proven otherwise. But as far as talent, the Wizards are far better than the other teams battling for the last spot.

Posted by: Chad32 | April 1, 2009 11:55 AM | Report abuse

A healthy Arenas puts Washington on the fringe of the playoff chase, according to this guy?

Washington was the five seed last year, when Gil barely played.

Posted by: rodeoclown | April 1, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

The reason for the poor ranking this year is because of the injuries. With Arenas still working his way back the Wiz are a team that is going to continue to struggle -- especially when he isn't in the line-up. This second half of this year has been about developing young talent -- that should pay dividends next year.

With a healthy roster the Wizards are a good team. If they get lucky and land Griffin, they'll have a chance to be a really good team.

As far as OKC goes, my take from the piece was that the writer likes the team. Their three young guns are a great base of talent to build on. Even if OKC doesn't land Griffin, they can find ways to fill in the gaps through the draft and free agency -- in a couple years its not hard to see them notching the bottom 8 spot in the Western Conference playoffs. OKC is on the rise; franchises like Phoenix; and even Dallas are in decline. In a couple years with Duncan getting older it's likely that San Antonio will slip too.

Memphis is a poor man's OKC right now. Mayo has the potential to be an All-Star; Durant has the potential to be a future HOFer. I like some of the pieces on the Memphis team, but I like OKC building blocks much better.

The Clippers, on the other hand, desperately need new ownership.

Posted by: JPRS | April 1, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

That was coldblooded!

Posted by: jeremydvid | April 1, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

I hope CBS didn't pay for that write-up. Not worth the cite, Keith.

Posted by: Izman | April 1, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I would just take it to mean that the power rankings take a current view of the team, while the other references are to a long-term view of the team. Isn't that why there are weekly updates to power rankings, to capture today's view of the pecking order of teams?

Posted by: VeCente115 | April 1, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company