Who do we draft?

[John Galt]

I don't watch college ball but scored a free ticket to Sunday, so I will be watching the second round games. Looking forward to experiencing it even if I don't know any of the players!

You're in for such a treat. I went last time it was in Sac - had not heard of anybody and I think our highest cache teams were like WA and Vanderbilt. But watching those kids play single-elimination... many of them playing last big-time basketball of their lives... it's just really exciting. You'll see. I can't wait.

I'm going to the Regionals in San Jose the following weekend too - that should be awesome as well.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

If UK is the top or 2nd #2 seed, they could go out West, possibly.

They could go out West for the regionals, but they won't play the first two rounds in Sacramento. They'll most likely open up in Indianapolis.

 

[upinsmoke]

I think M.Monk could run the point guard for this team. Athletically he's exceptional and can flat out score. Give him SL and a Big Horn jersey to get him more comfortable with the ball and we could have deep threats all over the court.

 

[ovrush]

I think M.Monk could run the point guard for this team. Athletically he's exceptional and can flat out score. Give him SL and a Big Horn jersey to get him more comfortable with the ball and we could have deep threats all over the court.

Vivek?

 

[upinsmoke]

Vivek?

Instead of criticizing other people why don't you try contributing to the forum. If your just going to troll I have an excellent recommendation for you where I'm sure you'll fit in nicely.

Realgm.com

Your welcome and enjoy.

 

[Sactown ExPat]

I think M.Monk could run the point guard for this team. Athletically he's exceptional and can flat out score. Give him SL and a Big Horn jersey to get him more comfortable with the ball and we could have deep threats all over the court.

I agree. I think he could definitely be a PG in the Conley mold. He's very high on my wishlist.

 

[ovrush]

Instead of criticizing other people why don't you try contributing to the forum. If your just going to troll I have an excellent recommendation for you where I'm sure you'll fit in nicely.

Realgm.com

Your welcome and enjoy.

It was a joke about our owner not your post (I actually like Monk too just giggling at the shooting from everywhere comment sounding like something Vivek would say). Almost everything I post is long winded. I've been here since before the server reset something like a decade ago... so I appreciate the recommendation about what boatd i should go to... and the name calling you immediately jumped to, but maybe next time exhale first?

 

[upinsmoke]

It was a joke about our owner not your post (I actually like Monk too just giggling at the shooting from everywhere comment sounding like something Vivek would say). Almost everything I post is long winded. I've been here since before the server reset something like a decade ago... so I appreciate the recommendation about what boatd i should go to... and the name calling you immediately jumped to, but maybe next time exhale first?

Then say that then instead of a drive by snarky comment. There are many different opinions and most of them have merit but IMO your comment could easily be interpreted as trolling.

Go Kings!

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I think M.Monk could run the point guard for this team. Athletically he's exceptional and can flat out score. Give him SL and a Big Horn jersey to get him more comfortable with the ball and we could have deep threats all over the court.

I think the problem with that is that there doesn't seem to be a shortage of college 2-guards that get pointed to as prospective converts to the point (Eric Gordon is a prime example) but I can't think of any player off the top of my head that has actually made that transition. Unless Steph Curry was a SG in college, are there any good examples?

 

[upinsmoke]

I think the problem with that is that there doesn't seem to be a shortage of college 2-guards that get pointed to as prospective converts to the point (Eric Gordon is a prime example) but I can't think of any player off the top of my head that has actually made that transition. Unless Steph Curry was a SG in college, are there any good examples?

I hear what your saying but I think it could work because of the way the game is being played today where traditional pgs are less common.

 

[Jimbob]

I see nbadrft.net latest update has Jackson, Isaac, Tatum, now going 3-5. They have us taking Fox and Smith, two point guards with the 6th and 7th. Monk slotted at 8.

I know draftboards mean little at this point but I sure hope to see a top SF and PG available with our assumed picks.

 

[hrdboild]

I think the problem with that is that there doesn't seem to be a shortage of college 2-guards that get pointed to as prospective converts to the point (Eric Gordon is a prime example) but I can't think of any player off the top of my head that has actually made that transition. Unless Steph Curry was a SG in college, are there any good examples?

Westbrook and Harden -- neither one played PG in college though some would say they aren't really PGs now. There are signs that the NBA is evolving in a direction where the PG position and C position will no longer be relevant. You'll still need a lead guard/primary ball handler but they're probably looking for their own shot more than running an offense in any traditional sense. Everyone else is either a spot-up shooter or a defensive role-player. The one or two players left who get their points primarily through post-up situations already look like dinosaurs from a bygone era. Big guys are exclusively rolling to the hoop or popping out for jumpers now. You don't need a skilled facilitator to get them the ball in a picknroll or picknpop situation, you just need a ballhandler who can threaten the defense into over-committing and recognize where to throw the ball when they do. From what I can see, that's 90% of the game now (and that might actually be a conservative estimate).

In general I'm with you, the number of unsuccessful PG conversion attempts vastly outnumber the successful ones. But the trend seems to be moving in that direction. Westbrook has always been OKC's starting PG even though he doesn't really play like a PG (and that's probably why Durant left...) and this season Harden is Houston's starting PG even though he was already monopolizing their possessions before so it's more of a semantic distinction than anything else. Time will tell if this is a fad or a more permanent change. It does seem though that the age of the primary facilitator who isn't a scoring threat is already over. Ball-handling ability is as important as it's always been but knowing the playbook and getting the ball to your teammates in their favorite spots isn't recognized as a valuable skill anymore because nobody plays man-to-man defense. PGs now need to be a significant scoring threat or all these offenses we have which are built on exploiting defensive switches are going to stagnate.

 

[VF21]

It was a joke about our owner not your post (I actually like Monk too just giggling at the shooting from everywhere comment sounding like something Vivek would say). Almost everything I post is long winded. I've been here since before the server reset something like a decade ago... so I appreciate the recommendation about what boatd i should go to... and the name calling you immediately jumped to, but maybe next time exhale first?

Then say that then instead of a drive by snarky comment. There are many different opinions and most of them have merit but IMO your comment could easily be interpreted as trolling.

Go Kings!

Um guys? A few things:

1. The great server crash was in Sept 2004.
2. A lot of times snark is perceived when it's not really there.

You've both been here a long time. Maybe instead of sniping you could just admit you each took the other's comments wrong and give a big bro-hug?

 

[LPKingsFan]

Westbrook and Harden -- neither one played PG in college though some would say they aren't really PGs now. There are signs that the NBA is evolving in a direction where the PG position and C position will no longer be relevant. You'll still need a lead guard/primary ball handler but they're probably looking for their own shot more than running an offense in any traditional sense. Everyone else is either a spot-up shooter or a defensive role-player. The one or two players left who get their points primarily through post-up situations already look like dinosaurs from a bygone era. Big guys are exclusively rolling to the hoop or popping out for jumpers now. You don't need a skilled facilitator to get them the ball in a picknroll or picknpop situation, you just need a ballhandler who can threaten the defense into over-committing and recognize where to throw the ball when they do. From what I can see, that's 90% of the game now (and that might actually be a conservative estimate).

In general I'm with you, the number of unsuccessful PG conversion attempts vastly outnumber the successful ones. But the trend seems to be moving in that direction. Westbrook has always been OKC's starting PG even though he doesn't really play like a PG (and that's probably why Durant left...) and this season Harden is Houston's starting PG even though he was already monopolizing their possessions before so it's more of a semantic distinction than anything else. Time will tell if this is a fad or a more permanent change. It does seem though that the age of the primary facilitator who isn't a scoring threat is already over. Ball-handling ability is as important as it's always been but knowing the playbook and getting the ball to your teammates in their favorite spots isn't recognized as a valuable skill anymore because nobody plays man-to-man defense. PGs now need to be a significant scoring threat or all these offenses we have which are built on exploiting defensive switches are going to stagnate.

Good points. I'd add that, from what I recall, Curry was certainly more scoring focused during his early years in college, and focused on PG skills more as a junior.

 

[upinsmoke]

Westbrook and Harden -- neither one played PG in college though some would say they aren't really PGs now. There are signs that the NBA is evolving in a direction where the PG position and C position will no longer be relevant. You'll still need a lead guard/primary ball handler but they're probably looking for their own shot more than running an offense in any traditional sense. Everyone else is either a spot-up shooter or a defensive role-player. The one or two players left who get their points primarily through post-up situations already look like dinosaurs from a bygone era. Big guys are exclusively rolling to the hoop or popping out for jumpers now. You don't need a skilled facilitator to get them the ball in a picknroll or picknpop situation, you just need a ballhandler who can threaten the defense into over-committing and recognize where to throw the ball when they do. From what I can see, that's 90% of the game now (and that might actually be a conservative estimate).

In general I'm with you, the number of unsuccessful PG conversion attempts vastly outnumber the successful ones. But the trend seems to be moving in that direction. Westbrook has always been OKC's starting PG even though he doesn't really play like a PG (and that's probably why Durant left...) and this season Harden is Houston's starting PG even though he was already monopolizing their possessions before so it's more of a semantic distinction than anything else. Time will tell if this is a fad or a more permanent change. It does seem though that the age of the primary facilitator who isn't a scoring threat is already over. Ball-handling ability is as important as it's always been but knowing the playbook and getting the ball to your teammates in their favorite spots isn't recognized as a valuable skill anymore because nobody plays man-to-man defense. PGs now need to be a significant scoring threat or all these offenses we have which are built on exploiting defensive switches are going to stagnate.

Good Point I Believe Are Own D. Collison was the pg for that UCLA team.

 

[Sactown ExPat]

I see nbadrft.net latest update has Jackson, Isaac, Tatum, now going 3-5. They have us taking Fox and Smith, two point guards with the 6th and 7th. Monk slotted at 8.

I know draftboards mean little at this point but I sure hope to see a top SF and PG available with our assumed picks.

Of the different permutations to end up drafting two PGs, that is unequivocally the worst. I'm actually not opposed to doubling up at the position if it's right guys and they represent value at that slot though.

 

[AaronPDX]

I just hope Dennis Smith, Jr. is still there when the Kings pick. If you haven't watched this kid, there is a LOT of video out there and he's damn good.

 

[Section 101]

I think the problem with that is that there doesn't seem to be a shortage of college 2-guards that get pointed to as prospective converts to the point (Eric Gordon is a prime example) but I can't think of any player off the top of my head that has actually made that transition. Unless Steph Curry was a SG in college, are there any good examples?

How could your forget Quincy Douby?

 

[funkykingston]

To me Monk makes the most sense for the Sixers. He can guard opposing PGs but play his game on offense while Ben Simmons handles playmaking duties.

 

[funkykingston]

I went back and rewatched the Duke/Virgina game from last month. And Jayson Tatum really looked good. I'm not sure who I'd compare him to and I still worry about a midrange focused wing succeeding in today's NBA but I wouldn't mind the Kings giving him a shot at being the SF of the future. So skilled and so smooth.

I worry because the comps that spring to mind (Rudy Gay, Carmelo, etc) play a losing style of basketball but I'm coming around on Tatum.

This result (courtesy of Tankathon) would make me really happy:

But Tatum or Isaac and Ntilikina would be just fine with me too.

 

[Kingsfan23]

I haven't reviewed the draft extensively but typically if there isn't a glaring prospect that your into I'm for trading back, like sending that 7 to Portland for that 11/21/28

I also hope that we will be able to add a pick for taking on bad contracts at this stage of our build. Maybe a contender will send a first for Kosta if are still rebuilding

 

[funkykingston]

I haven't reviewed the draft extensively but typically if there isn't a glaring prospect that your into I'm for trading back, like sending that 7 to Portland for that 11/21/28

I also hope that we will be able to add a pick for taking on bad contracts at this stage of our build. Maybe a contender will send a first for Kosta if are still rebuilding

This draft is very strong up top but not especially deep. I wouldn't want to see the Kings trade down this year.

 

[Sactown ExPat]

I have the same misgivings regarding Tatum, but he would be hard to pass up at #6 or #7, assuming Isaac is off the board. There's just not likely to be better value there, and at a position of need to boot. Having said that, over the past week a couple of the reputable draft sites have slotted him at #4. His shooting touch could definitely push him above Isaac come June. But man, Duke is a basketball factory that just cranks out underwhelming pros; so many misgivings about drafting Duke players.

I want no part of Smith. Steve Francis Jr. Not interested.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

This result (courtesy of Tankathon) would make me really happy:

Where do I sign?

 

[LPKingsFan]

Wasn't sure which draft thread to post in, but this one seems to be getting more traffic of late, so here's a fairly deep dive into Tatum and Isaac, based on their head-to-head match ups: http://fansided.com/2017/03/02/jayson-tatum-jonathan-isaac-matchup-breakdown/

Here's the takeaway:

The way I currently view the two is this: if you’re a franchise who doesn’t have primary creators in place, Tatum is the choice. His creation ceiling is definitely higher than Isaac’s, and since the top of the draft is typically comprised of bad teams without primaries, it’s reasonable to draft for upside there. Think the Orlando Magic here.

However, if you’re a team that already has primaries in place, Isaac can be a superstar role player type who can provide incredible versatility as a defender swinging to the four spot with his ability to protect the rim some and hold down the glass, while chipping in spacing off the catch on 3-pointers with a semblance of off-the-dribble situational self creation from the four. Think a pairing next to Karl Anthony Towns at the four in Minnesota here. Isaac’s ceiling is weirdly given more accreditation than his floor, but it’s in fact the opposite that presents the allure with him.

What do you all think?

 

[funkykingston]

Wasn't sure which draft thread to post in, but this one seems to be getting more traffic of late, so here's a fairly deep dive into Tatum and Isaac, based on their head-to-head match ups: http://fansided.com/2017/03/02/jayson-tatum-jonathan-isaac-matchup-breakdown/

Here's the takeaway:



What do you all think?

That's pretty close to my view of things.

Isaac has gotten some Durant comparisons due to his build and skill set but while Isaac has a nice handle for his size and can shoot, Durant was elite in terms of quickness, agility, ballhandling and shooting for his size. Isaac is much more deliberate, lacks burst or explosiveness and his shot has some windup to it.

But I f Cousins was still on the team Isaac would be my pick. He can be a spot up shooter and is a good defender who offers rebounding and rim protection. Tatum wouldn't necessary help space the floor as well and needs the ball in his hands more.

Without Cousins the Kings need a go-to scorer. The risk with Tatum is that you're counting on him to be the main guy and star. If he's not then you get a Rudy Gay, Jabari Parker type - high volume, relatively low efficiency scorers who don't do much else. While they are very different players I thought it was interesting that Tatum's freshman stats match very, very closely with Paul George's sophomore year stats.

I don't see Isaac becoming a star. But I also have a hard time seeing him not be an effective player. With Tatum I don't see bust potential per se, but the important question is if he can be the best (or perhaps 2nd best) player on a good team. And I don't know the answer there.

But Tatum, Ntilikina (or Fox) in the 1st round and Jawun Evans in the 2nd round would be a draft I'd be happy with. They'd likely still struggle next season but two summers of smart FA signings and another likely lottery pick next draft and the team could finally be headed in the right direction.

 

[206Fan]

I haven't reviewed the draft extensively but typically if there isn't a glaring prospect that your into I'm for trading back, like sending that 7 to Portland for that 11/21/28

I also hope that we will be able to add a pick for taking on bad contracts at this stage of our build. Maybe a contender will send a first for Kosta if are still rebuilding

This draft is very strong up top but not especially deep. I wouldn't want to see the Kings trade down this year.

On personal preference, I would have to disagree with you here lol. I feel like there is a big drop-off after 6 (in no specific order);
1. Fultz
2. Jackson
3. Ball
4. Tatum
5. Smith Jr
6. Monk

If the Kings were able to get the 6th pick+7th pick, I really wouldn't mind trading the 7th pick and going back. I think the talent gap between 7 and 11 isn't big at all. In my scenario, from 7 to 11, there would still be one of Isaac, Fox, Ntilikina, Markkanen, or Bridges. Yea we would get the personal preference at 7, but the picks at 21 and 28 aren't too bad either..especially for a rebuilding team like us. I think talent runs deep in this draft.

 

[funkykingston]

On personal preference, I would have to disagree with you here lol. I feel like there is a big drop-off after 6 (in no specific order);
1. Fultz
2. Jackson
3. Ball
4. Tatum
5. Smith Jr
6. Monk

If the Kings were able to get the 6th pick+7th pick, I really wouldn't mind trading the 7th pick and going back. I think the talent gap between 7 and 11 isn't big at all. In my scenario, from 7 to 11, there would still be one of Isaac, Fox, Ntilikina, Markkanen, or Bridges. Yea we would get the personal preference at 7, but the picks at 21 and 28 aren't too bad either..especially for a rebuilding team like us. I think talent runs deep in this draft.

I'm not a big Dennis Smith Jr fan. He's a lot of fun to watch but I don't think he plays a winning style. I like Isaac, Ntilikina and Fox more than him.

I don't think any of those three will be left at 11. But in a trade down scenario I do like Bridges a lot - his size/wingspan in concerning but other than that there's a lot to like. Hartenstein also intrigues me a lot.

 

[Blob]

I know very little about these young players. Frank Ntilikina looks good in this video:

I really like this guy. His arms are crazy long!!! He can a beast on perimeter defense!!! And his long arms don't seem to negatively affect his shooting motion. One thing hard to ascertain with PG prospect is what level of quickness and burst of speed does the dude possess??? His quickness looks okay but not great. Mudiay and Dunn were guys who looked like they could take their man off the bounce, but when they got to Big Show it wasn't as easy as they thought. Making this determination is what scouts get paid for. Its hard to tell on video, easier in person.

Some of his moves remind me of Collison, fundamentally sound and smooth. The kid shows a lot of poise. He has body type of a Giannis which is intriguing. He's player to keep an eye on given our need at PG position and Vlade's propensity for foreign born players. One other thought that I have is that it would be nice to have a PG with size. With Willie and Skal you want your ball handler to be able to find passing angles when drives and dishes. A 6'5" guy with go-go-gadget arms can throw it over the top of the defense and the big guys can go get it.

 

[Blob]

I wouldn't be so quick to fall in love with Lonzo Ball. The guy is going to get torched on D. I don't know who he is going to guard. His body is terrible. He obviously has great instincts for the game but that schoolyard doesn't fly in NBA. He does have high confidence and swagger to his game but he is going to get humbled fast against guys who will crowd him. You know who he reminds me of and its not a flattering comparison....Austin Rivers! I still have to see more of him but these are my initial impressions.

P.S. He only has a 6'7" wingspan. For PG with "size" not good! And only 162 lbs??? That's Brandon Ingram level slight of build. P.P.S. So apparently he is 190 pounds now? Doesn't look it.