Yeah, the idea that Cauley-Stein is some inept offensive player is ridiculous. No, he doesn't have the post moves of an Al Jefferson, and he isn't as strong as Cousins. But he is a freak athlete that knows what he can do, and what he can't do, and he can certainly score the ball in a variety of ways. Plus, once in the NBA where he can work on his game every day, he'll get better. Just give me Cauley-Stein out of this draft, and I go home happy. Draft Stein, and add one more solid defender, and the Kings defense will take a giant step forward.
2015 Draft Prospects:
- Thread starter bajaden
- Start date
Portsmouth Invitational standout
Bowling Green's Richaun Holmes looks like a great prospect
6'8.5" w/o - 6'10" w/shoes, 236 pounds, 9'0" standing reach, but 11'10" no-step jumping reach (Dwight Howard, Derrick Favors, WCS, JaVale Mcgee, Tyson Chandler territory)
was 6'6", 192 pounds coming out of HS, so grew into his body during college career
very young senior - will turn 22 only during NBA training camps, great progression year-to-year
.688 at the rim, including 53 made unassisted FG (can get to the rim on his own); .392 on 2pt jumpers (less than half assisted); .418 from 3 (18-43)(can shoot); .709 on FTs and excellent .539 FTA/FGA ratio (gets fouled a lot)
good, not great rebounder; excellent shotblocker with blk% of 11.
was relied too much upon to create offense though - a lot of TOs
PIT put all the games on youtube - Holmes played for Portsmouth Partnership there.
Watched 1st game (most impressive by a margin statistically): overall talent level of PIT is probably around D-League, but defense was intense.
So here's a breakdown of his play:
EDIT 1:
2nd game wasn't as good
3rd game was against by far the best team of the tournament.
Bowling Green's Richaun Holmes looks like a great prospect
6'8.5" w/o - 6'10" w/shoes, 236 pounds, 9'0" standing reach, but 11'10" no-step jumping reach (Dwight Howard, Derrick Favors, WCS, JaVale Mcgee, Tyson Chandler territory)
was 6'6", 192 pounds coming out of HS, so grew into his body during college career
very young senior - will turn 22 only during NBA training camps, great progression year-to-year
.688 at the rim, including 53 made unassisted FG (can get to the rim on his own); .392 on 2pt jumpers (less than half assisted); .418 from 3 (18-43)(can shoot); .709 on FTs and excellent .539 FTA/FGA ratio (gets fouled a lot)
good, not great rebounder; excellent shotblocker with blk% of 11.
was relied too much upon to create offense though - a lot of TOs
PIT put all the games on youtube - Holmes played for Portsmouth Partnership there.
So here's a breakdown of his play:
- defended in half court well: 3-12 FG against him (3 blocks) plus 3 help blocks and 3 deflections, though on 2 of those opponents scored eventually anyway
- with the shot in the air looks to box out
- made three good entry passes from behind the arc leading to a miss, pair of FTs, made FG.
- missed all 3 jumpers, and wasn't making any during shootarounds either, plus only 2-4 on FTs - shot is flattish
- scored 3-4 in the post with all 4 moves being different, but miss was the only one guarded by a true big
- made 4 drives - 3 baskets and a pair of FTs (3 were on a guy, who looks like solid NBA SF athletically)
- getting the ball under the rim (assisted or off of broken plays) - 4 baskets and a pair of FTs
- got 4 offensive rebounds: doesn't have lower body strength to move people, all were balls flying over defenders and he used length/no step jump combo to get the ball very high
EDIT 1:
- no one wanted to challenge him - 2-5 (2 blocks), still he knocked a ball off a driving player, and then just took away the ball on another drive, twice saved the ball jumping out of bounds and then bouncing it off of opponent, got two tied balls, that he obviously won
- offensively he was quiet and very passive not posting, even when small guys got stuck on him, went 1-2 on the post attempts and making 4 dunks, while missing both jumpers. Got the ball to his open teammates twice, but only one attempt ended in the basket.
- opponent had a lot of perimeter options and Holmes struggled a few times with polished perimeter guys, overall 3-6 (2 makes were tough shots) with him defending (1 block on the ball) plus 2 help blocks. Again a lot steals, pokes, saved ball going out of bounds and another tied ball, that he won on the jump.
- his guards played rather selfish game, not getting him the ball a few times, plus they were starting to overestimate his jumping ability with two bad lobs and bad inside pass - he was barely touching the ball, leading to two misses and a TO. Created a few problems of his own with a bad dribble and a couple of careless passes. Still produced offensively with 1 drive, 2 lobs, he connected on, plus FTs and And1 after offensive rebounds. Passing was solid with creating a basket and a couple of FTs, plus missed short jumper, and missed 3 with a kickout from a postup.
Last edited:
Don't disagree about Russell. Can't comment on Mudiay since I didn't get a chance to see him play. As a result, I can't put him in the same group as Russell. But for the hell of it here's my top six. (for us, or me, or whatever)
1. Towns
2. Russell (listen to offers)
3. WCS
4. Okafor (listen to offers)
5. Winslow
6. Mudiay
I realize I'm being unfair to Mudiay, but I have to project on what I've seen. I'm sure that in the real world he'll go top four. (maybe)
1. Towns
2. Russell (listen to offers)
3. WCS
4. Okafor (listen to offers)
5. Winslow
6. Mudiay
I realize I'm being unfair to Mudiay, but I have to project on what I've seen. I'm sure that in the real world he'll go top four. (maybe)
No, you're pretty much correct. My top 6, come to think of it, in terms of who I really want for us, looks more like yours than my own list does!
Towns and Russell are the only guys I'd personally take before WCS. Towns for obvious reasons, and Russell because I think he can be a legit start in the league. He might be the best player from the draft when it's all said and done.
But give me WCS and I will go home extremely happy.
Re Mudiay: I'm kind of giving credit to scouting reports - I haven't seen him a lot either. But he does have clear translatable skills (more to come in this with our project!).
Towns and Russell are the only guys I'd personally take before WCS. Towns for obvious reasons, and Russell because I think he can be a legit start in the league. He might be the best player from the draft when it's all said and done.
But give me WCS and I will go home extremely happy.
Re Mudiay: I'm kind of giving credit to scouting reports - I haven't seen him a lot either. But he does have clear translatable skills (more to come in this with our project!).
Just watching highlights you see a few passes, that arrive, where needed, at the right time like that 30 feet bounce pass. He clearly has vision to know, where the pass should go, and technical ability to execute. Shooting off the dribble is a problem, but he only has to get to 35% clip, which isn't that far.
I'm sure he's going to be a very good basketball player. There's certainly a lot of film on him and you can see what he's capable of. He appears to have excellent handles with a very nice crossover. Which allows him to get pretty much where ever he wants on the court. Not a lot of film showing off his passing skills, so one has to assume quite a bit there. While his outside shooting percentages aren't what you'd like them to be, he does have good form on his shot. He appears to shoot off balance at times which would lend itself to poor percentages. I don't think it would be that difficult to improve and at least be respectable. He looks like a very good athlete, but doesn't appear to have the hops that John Wall, to whom he's been compared, has. But hard to tell from just watching slected bits and pieces. Definitely has an NBA body. Defense? Who knows, but if he has the athleticism and is willing to put in the effort, shouldn't be that big a deal.
u don't need WCS to be a huge offensive option. put backs, oops, moving w/o the ball and the occassional mid range jumper would be more than adequate.
if we picked up payton in the draft instead of stauskas
we could potentially be looking at cuz, wcs, rudy, ben & payton. thats a pretty damn good looking team with long term potential.
if we picked up payton in the draft instead of stauskas
we could potentially be looking at cuz, wcs, rudy, ben & payton. thats a pretty damn good looking team with long term potential.
We drafted Stauskas because this team desperately needed shooters. Aside from Ben, the only real shooter we had was Collison who's better from mid js. Stauskas isn't a bad pick if you look at all of our needs. Shooting and defense was our biggest need. Payton wasn't a sure defender, but Stauskas looked like a sure shooter.
We can get a similar player to Payton this year. His name is Kris Dunn. Look him up
We can get a similar player to Payton this year. His name is Kris Dunn. Look him up
He won the defensive player of the year award in college basketball a month before the draft. Also, anyone who watched him play could tell you he was a sure thing as a defender if nothing else. The real decision there was whether you choose a shooter who might be able to grow into being a playmaker and likely won't ever be a plus defender or a defender/playmaker who might be able to grow into being a scorer but likely won't ever be a shooter. I'm happy with Darren Collison and Payton still has some significant weaknesses he'll have to continue working on so it's not like we're up a creek or anything, but knowing what we did at the time, I stand by Elfrid Payton as the smarter pick for us.
Look, I know your a big Payton fan, and I liked him quite a bit coming out of college, but I personally liked Stauskas better. Yeah, Payton had a great year with Orlando, but he got a lot of minutes he probably wouldn't have gotten on the Kings. The Kings didn't have a great need for a PG but they did have a need for shooters, thus, my liking of Stauskas. I think Stauskas will be just fine. Shooters don't forget how to shoot. If they get into a slump, they have to shoot their way out of it. Hard for a rookie to do that when he's trying to fit in on a team with a couple of very good players that dominate the ball.
If Payton was a good shooter, which he's not, I would have leaned more his way. Defense was his strength, and one could have made an argument for that. But all that aside, we didn't draft him, we drafted Stauskas. It's water under the bridge. I've moved on to deal with what's now, not what would have been. When a team has a lot of different needs, and goes in one direction to fill one of those needs, someone is always going to be upset that they didn't fill the other need. Just the way it is. If they had drafted Payton, I would have been a little disappointed, but OK with the decision. Then I would have started praying that he learned to shoot. Nik ended up shooting 32% from the three. Not great, but not horrible. Whats more concerning is the 36% he shot overall. However, half of his shot attempts were three point attempts. Lest that sound like a lot, bear in mind that he only averaged 4 shots a game.
So most of his shots were assisted shots and spot up three point shots. Put the ball in his hands more and let him create for himself, and his overall shooting percentage will go up. That will probably happen next season, if he isn't traded. Nik will never be the defender that Payton is, but he can definitely play like a point forward and average 4 to 5 assists a game. If given the chance. Just my opinion of course, and if it was Payton on the team, I'd be looking for his strengths as well.
If Payton was a good shooter, which he's not, I would have leaned more his way. Defense was his strength, and one could have made an argument for that. But all that aside, we didn't draft him, we drafted Stauskas. It's water under the bridge. I've moved on to deal with what's now, not what would have been. When a team has a lot of different needs, and goes in one direction to fill one of those needs, someone is always going to be upset that they didn't fill the other need. Just the way it is. If they had drafted Payton, I would have been a little disappointed, but OK with the decision. Then I would have started praying that he learned to shoot. Nik ended up shooting 32% from the three. Not great, but not horrible. Whats more concerning is the 36% he shot overall. However, half of his shot attempts were three point attempts. Lest that sound like a lot, bear in mind that he only averaged 4 shots a game.
So most of his shots were assisted shots and spot up three point shots. Put the ball in his hands more and let him create for himself, and his overall shooting percentage will go up. That will probably happen next season, if he isn't traded. Nik will never be the defender that Payton is, but he can definitely play like a point forward and average 4 to 5 assists a game. If given the chance. Just my opinion of course, and if it was Payton on the team, I'd be looking for his strengths as well.
I think I was one of the first to petition him to the Kings when draft boards around the world had some crazy haired guy from Lousianna undrafted, so I've seen a fair chunk of game last season 
.
Defense was his biggest upside, but I wouldn't say it was 10000% translatable. I honestly though his playmaking ability was his biggest +.
I think we will see a lot more of what Nik can bring to the team next year. It would be interesting to see what Nik would do with an opportunity like Payton. Not to mention the only real ISO player on the Magic is Tobias Harris
.Defense was his biggest upside, but I wouldn't say it was 10000% translatable. I honestly though his playmaking ability was his biggest +.
I think we will see a lot more of what Nik can bring to the team next year. It would be interesting to see what Nik would do with an opportunity like Payton. Not to mention the only real ISO player on the Magic is Tobias Harris
Of course we wouldn't take Dunn with the 6th pick in the draft. I like Dunn. I don't think he's quite the athlete that Payton is, but he's certainly a better shooter. The only PG that I might be interested in is Russell, and that's because he has star written all over him. He does things so effortlessly that at times he looks like he's on a stroll in the park. Even then, I lean harder toward Towns or Cauley-Stein with Turner coming in a close third. A chance to draft a legit big man that can protect the rim and play excellent overall defense doesn't come often. Teams that have them don't give them up easily. This draft has two elite big man defenders, maybe three. And one has the potential to be an elite offensive player as well. When the brass ring comes around, you have to grab it while the grabbing is good.
I think I was one of the first to petition him to the Kings when draft boards around the world had some crazy haired guy from Lousianna undrafted, so I've seen a fair chunk of game last season .
Defense was his biggest upside, but I wouldn't say it was 10000% translatable. I honestly though his playmaking ability was his biggest +.
I think we will see a lot more of what Nik can bring to the team next year. It would be interesting to see what Nik would do with an opportunity like Payton. Not to mention the only real ISO player on the Magic is Tobias Harris
.Defense was his biggest upside, but I wouldn't say it was 10000% translatable. I honestly though his playmaking ability was his biggest +.
I think we will see a lot more of what Nik can bring to the team next year. It would be interesting to see what Nik would do with an opportunity like Payton. Not to mention the only real ISO player on the Magic is Tobias Harris
I get where your coming from, but the old adage is, when you have to choose between a good big man, and a good little man, you always take the big man. I love Russell, but if I have the number one pick, I take Towns. We have a greater need at the center/PF position. And if it was a choice between a decent big man and a good little man, then I take Russell. But I value Towns talent just as much as I value Russell. So its not like I'm sacrificing talent for need. I love both these guys, and one really fills a need. So it's a no brainer for me. But I have to admit, Russell is very very tempting.
Yeah, we've always heard this. But I was wondering whether it's really true or not. As a first pass, I went through 20 recent drafts, 1992-2011 (using 2011 as the "start" point going backwards because the players from that draft class have played out their entire rookie contract so I think we can start to make a good judgment on whether they are successful picks or not). From those 20 classes I divided everybody taken in the top five by success/bust and by general position: guard/wing/post.
It does look like front offices follow this adage. In this period 49% of top-five picks were post players, 31% were guards, and 20% were wings. This would appear to be a big excess of post players being taken since the normal distribution of heights skews heavily towards guards - there simply ought to be a lot more talented guards out there than talented big men. So indeed, front offices do go for the big man.
But the success of those picks is a different story. 74% of guards taken top-five had successful careers (to my arbitrary judgment), as opposed to 55% of big men and 50% of wings.
So this is just a quick, simple look, but it really does suggest that maybe going for the guard is the safer play. Obviously it doesn't account for overall value (you'd rather have Shaq than Ray Allen, even though both rated as "success" in this binary categorization) but it certainly seems to speak to risk. When you're the Kings, and you're already sitting on one of the best big men in the league and your PG is certainly not all-star level, if you jump into the top-three do you try to build a twin-towers scenario and accept a 45% chance that your pick is going to be wasted, or do you try to pair the dominant big man you already have with a great PG - who has only a 25% chance of busting? I haven't made up my mind on this by any means, but in some ways it's really tempting to look at that PG, especially when you would be able to trade down and get some additional assets on top of that PG in all likelihood.
It does look like front offices follow this adage. In this period 49% of top-five picks were post players, 31% were guards, and 20% were wings. This would appear to be a big excess of post players being taken since the normal distribution of heights skews heavily towards guards - there simply ought to be a lot more talented guards out there than talented big men. So indeed, front offices do go for the big man.
But the success of those picks is a different story. 74% of guards taken top-five had successful careers (to my arbitrary judgment), as opposed to 55% of big men and 50% of wings.
So this is just a quick, simple look, but it really does suggest that maybe going for the guard is the safer play. Obviously it doesn't account for overall value (you'd rather have Shaq than Ray Allen, even though both rated as "success" in this binary categorization) but it certainly seems to speak to risk. When you're the Kings, and you're already sitting on one of the best big men in the league and your PG is certainly not all-star level, if you jump into the top-three do you try to build a twin-towers scenario and accept a 45% chance that your pick is going to be wasted, or do you try to pair the dominant big man you already have with a great PG - who has only a 25% chance of busting? I haven't made up my mind on this by any means, but in some ways it's really tempting to look at that PG, especially when you would be able to trade down and get some additional assets on top of that PG in all likelihood.
I would guess, big over small mantra is exactly, what drives this statistic: you rather take a 50% chance of getting a dominant big, than 75% of getting impactful guard.
Russell is a talent, but guys with his physical profile do not come in and take the league by storm. Actually, who are the elite players with his physical profile/playing style? Curry, who still spent two more years in college, and was a member of a massive loser for another 3 in the NBA? Who else? I guess, you better believe, that Russell is gonna be next Steph.
Russell is a talent, but guys with his physical profile do not come in and take the league by storm. Actually, who are the elite players with his physical profile/playing style? Curry, who still spent two more years in college, and was a member of a massive loser for another 3 in the NBA? Who else? I guess, you better believe, that Russell is gonna be next Steph.
I don't buy the adage taking big over small. It still comes down to: Who is going to have the "bigger" impact on the game, regardless of whether the guy is a pg or a center. And I do believe that the 3 point play and the rules on hand checking also should be taken into account when making the decision. If the guards have rules that benefit them over (typical) centers, then of course that should be part of the equation. Looked at from a different perspective: If you couldn't hand check Cousins and he got 3 points for every shot in the key and guys outside what is now the 3 point line only got 2 points, don't you think his value might go up exponentially? In today's game if I couldn't make up mind on who is better, a center or guard, I'd take the guard.
Driving guards aren't as much in demand as 3 point shooting driving guards.
But where I do agree with you is that the rules changes have also changed what one looks for defensively in big men. WCS, for example, is more valuable now than the old days because his mobility as a big man allows him to influence defensively guards on the perimeter, as well as guards driving to the hole. In the old days, the hierarchy of needs for a big guy just didn't conceive of having to go out to the 3 pt line to guard people.
But where I do agree with you is that the rules changes have also changed what one looks for defensively in big men. WCS, for example, is more valuable now than the old days because his mobility as a big man allows him to influence defensively guards on the perimeter, as well as guards driving to the hole. In the old days, the hierarchy of needs for a big guy just didn't conceive of having to go out to the 3 pt line to guard people.
Well, he is a better passer than Curry. He's a special passer who will make the guys around him better. If people want a guy who can get Cousins the ball, he'll do that in spades, and I would be surprised if he couldn't do it on Day 1. He's definitely going to have to get better defensively, but he's not in the Jimmer category.
If you watch all the impressive passes he made, they came, when the opponents went into "containment" mode - shadowing, but not pressing him. Arizona didn't double-team him or did anything special - for the last 30 minutes of the game they just rotated 3 guys, who were pressuring him all the time. Curry learnt to deal with that, improving his handles massively, Russell's answer at this point is a step back jumper.
And no, he's not a better passer, than Curry. Russell and Scott, who was collecting double-digits assists early in the season, just happen to play on a team with good finishers, who can't create anything for themselves - perfect setup for ball-dominant guards. Playing strictly off the ball Curry collected 4 apg per 40 as a freshmen, Russell had just under 6 apg per 40 spending a lot of time on the ball.
Defensively he's in Kevin Martin territory, and that'll be after he learns some subtleties to defensive schemes.
And no, he's not a better passer, than Curry. Russell and Scott, who was collecting double-digits assists early in the season, just happen to play on a team with good finishers, who can't create anything for themselves - perfect setup for ball-dominant guards. Playing strictly off the ball Curry collected 4 apg per 40 as a freshmen, Russell had just under 6 apg per 40 spending a lot of time on the ball.
Defensively he's in Kevin Martin territory, and that'll be after he learns some subtleties to defensive schemes.
There's no doubt that the three point shot has affected how a team might look at who their taking in the draft. Of course the old adage isn't that you always take a big man over a little man, its that when the abilities are considered equal, you then take the big man over the little man. The reasons are quite simple. There just aren't that many players over 6'11"tall, that are athletic, and skilled. Whereas players that range from 6' to 6'5' that can handle, and shoot are a dime a dozen. There are big men playing in the NBA, with their current skills, that if they were 6'4", wouldn't be playing in the NBA. You wouldn't find a 6'4" Ryan Hollins on any team in the NBA. Thus, big men with skills are hard to find, and when you do find one, you usually take him. That doesn't mean you won't find a small player that's better than him, it just means that he's more rare.
It's for that reason that I think Frank Kaminsky is going to go higher than he's now projected.
It's for that reason that I think Frank Kaminsky is going to go higher than he's now projected.
Last edited:
I don't want to get into a discussion over who is the better passer between Curry and Russell. Both are very good passers, and coming out of college, I would give the edge to Russell for seeing passes that Curry wouldn't have seen coming out of college. But at the moment, with the current Curry, I have to give the edge to Curry. He's improved tremendously since college. They share athletic ability. I think when Russell make the effort, he's better than Martin, but early on in the season, there were times when he didn't appear to try. He got his share of steals, but he usually gambled to get them.
