Wow! Given our discussions earlier in the year I didn't expect you to join me in the Fox over Ball camp Baja, but I like it! He's got a tenacity on defense and an explosiveness with the ball on offense that you just can't teach. 2nd overall over Josh Jackson? That's a tougher sell for me because I really like Jackson but our need at PG is dire and Fox definitely has everything I'm looking for from an intangibles point of view in addition to his skills on the court so I could be sold on that. I tend to cultivate two different lists when I evaluate the draft -- the list of guys ranked in order of how likely they are to become stars in my estimation and the list of guys ranked based on how much I like them as players and what I can tell of their personalities (based on their interaction with teammates and interviews and such). Fultz is a clear #1 for me on the overall potential list and I've got Josh Jackson #2 and DeAaron Fox #3. But on my second list, there's nobody I like more than Fox in this draft. Fultz and Jackson are two-way players with some fantastic skills but everything I've seen from Fox says 'born leader' and those are the types of guys we need to be bringing to this team more than anything else.
Who do we draft?
- Thread starter Folsomkingsfan
- Start date
- Status
I'm also trying to be as open as possible to all the lottery projected players as 8 and 10 could easily be 9 and 11 or worse.
I was listening to a Cowbell Kingdom Podcast last night and both Leo Beas and Matt George believe we absolutely need to take Markkanen at 8 if we are lucky enough that he is still on the board. They don't believe he will get past the Wolves
and think he along with Buddy would give us a great shooting team. They did agree PG and SF are positions of need, so not totally oblivious to our roster.
I'm not sure what anyone here thinks of their analogies?? and I for one have hoped the Wolves are enamored with Markkanen. Zach Collins caught my attention in the NCAA tournament, am I missing something on Markkanen.
I was listening to a Cowbell Kingdom Podcast last night and both Leo Beas and Matt George believe we absolutely need to take Markkanen at 8 if we are lucky enough that he is still on the board. They don't believe he will get past the Wolves
and think he along with Buddy would give us a great shooting team. They did agree PG and SF are positions of need, so not totally oblivious to our roster.I'm not sure what anyone here thinks of their analogies?? and I for one have hoped the Wolves are enamored with Markkanen. Zach Collins caught my attention in the NCAA tournament, am I missing something on Markkanen.
I'm also trying to be as open as possible to all the lottery projected players as 8 and 10 could easily be 9 and 11 or worse.
I was listening to a Cowbell Kingdom Podcast last night and both Leo Beas and Matt George believe we absolutely need to take Markkanen at 8 if we are lucky enough that he is still on the board. They don't believe he will get past the Wolves and think he along with Buddy would give us a great shooting team. They did agree PG and SF are positions of need, so not totally oblivious to our roster.
I'm not sure what anyone here thinks of their analogies?? and I for one have hoped the Wolves are enamored with Markkanen. Zach Collins caught my attention in the NCAA tournament, am I missing something on Markkanen.
I was listening to a Cowbell Kingdom Podcast last night and both Leo Beas and Matt George believe we absolutely need to take Markkanen at 8 if we are lucky enough that he is still on the board. They don't believe he will get past the Wolves
and think he along with Buddy would give us a great shooting team. They did agree PG and SF are positions of need, so not totally oblivious to our roster.I'm not sure what anyone here thinks of their analogies?? and I for one have hoped the Wolves are enamored with Markkanen. Zach Collins caught my attention in the NCAA tournament, am I missing something on Markkanen.
Interesting. They seem like OK guys but I now remember listening to them once before and thought wow that could have been summed up in a third the time.
When I left the states I no longer had my basketball group of friends to have meaningful conversations about the game. We all had different favorite teams but still, it kept me from listening to podcast...
When I left the states I no longer had my basketball group of friends to have meaningful conversations about the game. We all had different favorite teams but still, it kept me from listening to podcast...
uhm wtf? the Dennis Smith JR thread was deleted... so I'll just post this here.
https://twitter.com/t1m_nba made an amazing system where he compared offensive possessions of prospects to NBA players(15 matches).
Here's Dennis Smith Jr top 5 matches. It's extremely impressive:
Those comparisons continue to make me think that he can have a very high impact in the league. His game is modeled to fit today's NBA.
https://twitter.com/t1m_nba made an amazing system where he compared offensive possessions of prospects to NBA players(15 matches).
Here's Dennis Smith Jr top 5 matches. It's extremely impressive:
Those comparisons continue to make me think that he can have a very high impact in the league. His game is modeled to fit today's NBA.
I'm also trying to be as open as possible to all the lottery projected players as 8 and 10 could easily be 9 and 11 or worse.
I was listening to a Cowbell Kingdom Podcast last night and both Leo Beas and Matt George believe we absolutely need to take Markkanen at 8 if we are lucky enough that he is still on the board. They don't believe he will get past the Wolves and think he along with Buddy would give us a great shooting team. They did agree PG and SF are positions of need, so not totally oblivious to our roster.
I'm not sure what anyone here thinks of their analogies?? and I for one have hoped the Wolves are enamored with Markkanen. Zach Collins caught my attention in the NCAA tournament, am I missing something on Markkanen.
I was listening to a Cowbell Kingdom Podcast last night and both Leo Beas and Matt George believe we absolutely need to take Markkanen at 8 if we are lucky enough that he is still on the board. They don't believe he will get past the Wolves
and think he along with Buddy would give us a great shooting team. They did agree PG and SF are positions of need, so not totally oblivious to our roster.I'm not sure what anyone here thinks of their analogies?? and I for one have hoped the Wolves are enamored with Markkanen. Zach Collins caught my attention in the NCAA tournament, am I missing something on Markkanen.
I watched their video breakdown on Markkanen, and he admits at the beginning that he's been watching and reading up about Markkanen for the past 2 days before the video. Nothing wrong with this, but something "new comers" tend to do is just watch highlight videos and fall in love with a prospect. I don't know if CBK did that in this case, but with the way he talks about Markkanen, it makes me assume that a bit. One thing he did quite a bit was hit on his weaknesses, but then gently brush them away.
I don't have anything against them or their video, but it was less of a breakdown, and more of a "Why the Kings need to draft Markkanen". Even with that, they should've dug deeper into their strengths because their arguments weren't compelling at all.
I did lol a little bit at the end where he said "At worst, Markkanen will be Ryan Anderson barring injuries". That's certainly a high praise.
Chris Paul is an anomaly. The overwhelmingly majority of point guards with small wingspans and reach are not good defenders. It's kind of like saying we shouldn't pass on a 5'9" guy because IT is good.
I would take Smith over Nitiklinkinkina even if he winds up with Kyrie Irving defense because we need that go to guy. It's easier to hide them with 3&D guys than it is to win without a go to scorer on the wing.
I would take Smith over Nitiklinkinkina even if he winds up with Kyrie Irving defense because we need that go to guy. It's easier to hide them with 3&D guys than it is to win without a go to scorer on the wing.
It's an interesting idea, especially when you throw Bogdan into the mix. Basically operating without a traditonal PG and letting 3 combo wings run the show. And the offensive potential of a Monk-Buddy back-court is pretty tantilizing and has a proven track-record (GSW/Portland/Washington/Toronto) of doing well in today's NBA.
It can certainly work if the backcourt is good enough. What all those teams have in common as well is that they have 6'8 wing defenders at the 3 and 4 to hide their backcourt. GSW has Iggy/Draymond, Portland has Harkless/Aminu, Washington has Oubre/Porter and Toronto has Carroll/Tucker. So if we'd be going that way we could go with Anunoby #10 and a guy like Iwundu/Robinson at #34.
Another guy to look at, if we want to go the combo guard route, is Donovan Mitchell. I think he is about the same height as Monk, but longer, stronger, a better defender and a better playmaker than Monk. He didn't show it a lot at Louisville, but he really has a nice handle, solid vision, and is a very good passer on the move.
As he is playing more the 2 than the 1 you can't see it often, but in the game against Boston College it was on full display:
0:44 throws a nice alley-op in transitions
0:50 crossover to reject the ball screen, gets in the lane, kicks out
0:57 nice in-and-out dribble with his right, draws the help, kicks out again
1:15 change of directions through the legs
1:35 Now it gets interesting: He brings the ball up, gives it to the high post, spaces out, gets the ball back, gets screen to his left, in an-out-dribble with his left, gets to the rim and finishes with the right. I could see him running that on the Kings in Joerger's offense all day.
2:03: end of shot click pull up 3.
2:10 through the legs into crossover + drives and draws a foul
2:28 amazing instincts: gets the steal after turning his back and denying his man, immediate in-and-out + layup and-one
3:01 step-back 3
Here's another video pre college focusing more on this elite athleticism.
With that said, he is not the volume scorer or shooter that Monk is. He worked really hard on shooting this summer and now is at least capable, however he needs to get way more consistent. He shot ~30% the first half of the season and ~40%+ in the second half. His decision-making also needs work, especially if you want him to be a primary decison maker.
Currently I have him at #14 on my overall big board. I really like him for the Kings as a fall back option. If you look at the first video, it seems like he could really develop into a high post/triangle point guard. Especially the possesion from 1:35-1:50 in the first video looks like its taken straight from Joergers playbook. Bring the ball up. Give it to your wings or bigs. Wait for a kick out or get it back and run a well spaced pick and roll after motion.
Another guy to look at, if we want to go the combo guard route, is Donovan Mitchell. I think he is about the same height as Monk, but longer, stronger, a better defender and a better playmaker than Monk. He didn't show it a lot at Louisville, but he really has a nice handle, solid vision, and is a very good passer on the move.
As he is playing more the 2 than the 1 you can't see it often, but in the game against Boston College it was on full display:
0:50 crossover to reject the ball screen, gets in the lane, kicks out
0:57 nice in-and-out dribble with his right, draws the help, kicks out again
1:15 change of directions through the legs
1:35 Now it gets interesting: He brings the ball up, gives it to the high post, spaces out, gets the ball back, gets screen to his left, in an-out-dribble with his left, gets to the rim and finishes with the right. I could see him running that on the Kings in Joerger's offense all day.
2:03: end of shot click pull up 3.
2:10 through the legs into crossover + drives and draws a foul
2:28 amazing instincts: gets the steal after turning his back and denying his man, immediate in-and-out + layup and-one
3:01 step-back 3
Here's another video pre college focusing more on this elite athleticism.
With that said, he is not the volume scorer or shooter that Monk is. He worked really hard on shooting this summer and now is at least capable, however he needs to get way more consistent. He shot ~30% the first half of the season and ~40%+ in the second half. His decision-making also needs work, especially if you want him to be a primary decison maker.
Currently I have him at #14 on my overall big board. I really like him for the Kings as a fall back option. If you look at the first video, it seems like he could really develop into a high post/triangle point guard. Especially the possesion from 1:35-1:50 in the first video looks like its taken straight from Joergers playbook. Bring the ball up. Give it to your wings or bigs. Wait for a kick out or get it back and run a well spaced pick and roll after motion.
Last edited:
I havent seen much of Mitchel, but i agree he looks like a solid NBA big combo guard. Watcbing the 3 players of jimmer BMac has made me appreciate the value of ball handling to success. This kid has solid ha dles and a nice 3pt shot. With just tbat he will have a career. When you add in his court vision and ability to score at the hoop he could be special.
Ball is a paradox: he's a low usage playmaking point guard. He actually does not need the ball in his hands a lot because he makes very quick decisions with the ball; he's the opposite of "dribble, dribble, dribble" that we've come to know and love over the last decade. I really don't have much against Fox other than his shot and his so-so playmaking skills. If you don't have a consistent outside shot in the NBA you're the definition of a PG project in my book. His basketball IQ is middling, so he's going to take longer, just from that aspect. I think that for a good long time teams are go under all of the screens set for him, which is going to inhibit his effectiveness on the floor. He might become very good over time because of his quickness and speed. But my inclination is to go with the extremely high BBIQ guy like Ball because a guy like that figures it out, usually fairly quickly, and the high BBIQ PG is a force multiplier on the floor, which I don't see in Fox's future for a good while.
Regarding Monk, I see as a smallish SG, which could work because of his athletic ability, defensive potential, and certainly his shooting ability. The best comps I can come up with for him is Ben Gordon or Eric Gordon. If the Kings pick him I'll be surprised if a trade isn't in the works.
Regarding Monk, I see as a smallish SG, which could work because of his athletic ability, defensive potential, and certainly his shooting ability. The best comps I can come up with for him is Ben Gordon or Eric Gordon. If the Kings pick him I'll be surprised if a trade isn't in the works.
Monk averaged 2.3 apg while primarily playing off the ball at Kentucky. And Calipari has a well deserved reputation for putting his players in boxes which limits their ability to show off their all-around skills.
Can Monk play PG full time? I don't know.
But it's certainly in his best interest to show teams he's closer to Damian Lillard than Lou Williams.
To me Monk still just makes so much sense in Philadelphia.
Ideally Monk goes to the Sixers, Thibs nabs Markkanen to space the floor for Wiggins and Towns (and Rubio and Dunn and Mohammed and - can anybody shoot in Minnesota?) and Phil falls in love with Ntilikina. If Fultz, Tatum, Jackson & Ball are off the board it would leave Isaac, Fox and Smith at 8 and another of those three at 10.
Fox & Isaac or Smith & Isaac would be a fantastic draft for the Kings.
Can Monk play PG full time? I don't know.
But it's certainly in his best interest to show teams he's closer to Damian Lillard than Lou Williams.
To me Monk still just makes so much sense in Philadelphia.
Ideally Monk goes to the Sixers, Thibs nabs Markkanen to space the floor for Wiggins and Towns (and Rubio and Dunn and Mohammed and - can anybody shoot in Minnesota?) and Phil falls in love with Ntilikina. If Fultz, Tatum, Jackson & Ball are off the board it would leave Isaac, Fox and Smith at 8 and another of those three at 10.
Fox & Isaac or Smith & Isaac would be a fantastic draft for the Kings.
Last edited:
He's not just a good stretch four - he's the best shooting big I've ever seen on the college level.
For me that's not enough as he's not a great rebounder and poor defensively but in today's NBA he can be a valuable player.
My hope is that Thibs sees him as plug and play vs having to develop another young player.
For me that's not enough as he's not a great rebounder and poor defensively but in today's NBA he can be a valuable player.
My hope is that Thibs sees him as plug and play vs having to develop another young player.
Well, I tend to change my opinion as the year goes on. And recently I've been going back and watching game film on Fox, Ball, Jackson, Fultz, and Smith. The reason I like Fox over Jackson, is like you said, he's a PG, and we need a PG. Two, Fox is really good at a couple of things and has athleticism off the charts. Jackson is pretty good at a lot of things, but not really great, skill wise at anything. He's a walking box of potential. If he becomes great at a couple of things, then he becomes a superstar. If not, he's still a very good player, but never reaches that next level. I think Fox is closer to the next level, and he'll have the advantage of having the ball in his hands.
Fultz is in a different category. He has no obvious weakness and is good at just about everything. So I have him ranked ahead of Fox on my personal list. But after going back and watching some early games with Fox, I've come to the conclusion that, as I said, he has that "It" factor. He would give the Kings a dynamic they haven't had in a while. Put him at the point, and you have a team that can run with anyone. And eventually, should be a good defensive team as well. By the way, I wouldn't turn down Jackson. Josh that is...
Fultz is in a different category. He has no obvious weakness and is good at just about everything. So I have him ranked ahead of Fox on my personal list. But after going back and watching some early games with Fox, I've come to the conclusion that, as I said, he has that "It" factor. He would give the Kings a dynamic they haven't had in a while. Put him at the point, and you have a team that can run with anyone. And eventually, should be a good defensive team as well. By the way, I wouldn't turn down Jackson. Josh that is...
I'm also trying to be as open as possible to all the lottery projected players as 8 and 10 could easily be 9 and 11 or worse.
I was listening to a Cowbell Kingdom Podcast last night and both Leo Beas and Matt George believe we absolutely need to take Markkanen at 8 if we are lucky enough that he is still on the board. They don't believe he will get past the Wolves and think he along with Buddy would give us a great shooting team. They did agree PG and SF are positions of need, so not totally oblivious to our roster.
I'm not sure what anyone here thinks of their analogies?? and I for one have hoped the Wolves are enamored with Markkanen. Zach Collins caught my attention in the NCAA tournament, am I missing something on Markkanen.
I was listening to a Cowbell Kingdom Podcast last night and both Leo Beas and Matt George believe we absolutely need to take Markkanen at 8 if we are lucky enough that he is still on the board. They don't believe he will get past the Wolves
and think he along with Buddy would give us a great shooting team. They did agree PG and SF are positions of need, so not totally oblivious to our roster.I'm not sure what anyone here thinks of their analogies?? and I for one have hoped the Wolves are enamored with Markkanen. Zach Collins caught my attention in the NCAA tournament, am I missing something on Markkanen.
Mitchell is not tall but hes built solid and does have a nice all around skill set. If we weren't so damn loaded with guards I think he would be a good pickup as a 3rd guard. Workouts will be interesting for him, will he rise into a lottery pick? It would be fun to see him up against Monk and see how they compare all around.
Regarding, 206Fan question about CBK and Markkanen, I think they get into it midway in their podcast just after they lose their guest speaker. I just remember them raving about his shooting and that he should be able to produce right away..
Regarding, 206Fan question about CBK and Markkanen, I think they get into it midway in their podcast just after they lose their guest speaker. I just remember them raving about his shooting and that he should be able to produce right away..
I have to admit that your spelling of Ntilikina gave me a chuckle....I can't pronounce his name either. So to me, he's Frank. I agree on Paul. What makes Paul great is what's between his ears. And, I might add, that's the area I question with Smith. And he could easily prove me wrong. Actually not prove me wrong, but remove my worries. A long time ago the Kings drafted a player that was supremely talented, named Billy Owens. A player that I was sold on. He had it all. Superstar was written all over him. Much to my chagrin, they immediately traded him to the Warriors for Mitch Richmond.
That ended up being a steal for the Kings. Richmond went on to a couple of all star games, and eventually was traded for Webber, and Owens became a good player, but never the great player everyone thought he would be. Why? Mostly because he didn't have the desire. Lamar Odom is another player, similar to Owens in skill set, that never became as great as everyone thought he would be. So I'm not saying that Smith won't be a good player, but might not ever be as good a player as he's capable of being. On the other hand, he's so talented, he's certainly worth the gamble if no one else is on the board that you have ranked above him.
Let me add one more thing. In fairness to Smith, his coach who recruited him got fired halfway through the season after a couple of blow out losses. One of which was to North Carolina. That one in particular was bad. I think the final score was something like 81 to 42. Don't quote me, or put money on it. But it was a terrible game for NC. St. It was at about that point in the season when Smith's game started to fall off. So maybe to some extent he let all that affect him mentally. After all, he is still a kid, so maybe I'm being a bit harsh on him. Take that for what it's worth.
That ended up being a steal for the Kings. Richmond went on to a couple of all star games, and eventually was traded for Webber, and Owens became a good player, but never the great player everyone thought he would be. Why? Mostly because he didn't have the desire. Lamar Odom is another player, similar to Owens in skill set, that never became as great as everyone thought he would be. So I'm not saying that Smith won't be a good player, but might not ever be as good a player as he's capable of being. On the other hand, he's so talented, he's certainly worth the gamble if no one else is on the board that you have ranked above him.
Let me add one more thing. In fairness to Smith, his coach who recruited him got fired halfway through the season after a couple of blow out losses. One of which was to North Carolina. That one in particular was bad. I think the final score was something like 81 to 42. Don't quote me, or put money on it. But it was a terrible game for NC. St. It was at about that point in the season when Smith's game started to fall off. So maybe to some extent he let all that affect him mentally. After all, he is still a kid, so maybe I'm being a bit harsh on him. Take that for what it's worth.
You lost me with Fox having a low BBIQ. As for Ball making quick decisions, you right, but the ball was in his hands up to that point. Just so you know, UCLA and Kentucky were at the top of the list in time of possession. Kentucky's time of possession was something like 14 seconds. So Fox makes quick decisions as well. And Fox outplayed Mr. BBIQ in their final match up. Not that it matters that much. I'm pretty tough on players that can't shoot, if I think they'll never be good shooters. One of the things I hammered Marcus Smart over. Not so with Fox. His form is good and he has good rotation on the ball. His problem is that he took a lot of off balance shots, and too may shots while traveling at light speed. Those things are correctable.
Ball's shooting stroke is horrible, but hey, it goes in. So I won't criticize his results. I might add that most of Ball's shots were wide open shots, although some were from a distance I wouldn't recommend. So at this point, I'm not worried about the shooting of either player. Aside from that, their two entirely different PG's. So pick the one that fits your needs the best. One looks like a young Jason Kidd, and the other looks like a young John Wall. My apologies to both those players.
Ball's shooting stroke is horrible, but hey, it goes in. So I won't criticize his results. I might add that most of Ball's shots were wide open shots, although some were from a distance I wouldn't recommend. So at this point, I'm not worried about the shooting of either player. Aside from that, their two entirely different PG's. So pick the one that fits your needs the best. One looks like a young Jason Kidd, and the other looks like a young John Wall. My apologies to both those players.
I don't get where you are coming from when you say Fox has an Ok/low bbiq. He made quick decisions with the ball while playing at lightning speed and still had a low TO rate. As for players playing off him, they already did that in college (he got to the basket at will anyway). And it is much easier to clog the paint in college than in the NBA. There's a reason players like Westbrook and Wall, who have both struggled with their outside shot over the years, still get into the paint without any problems. Even Rondo doesn't seem to have much trouble getting into the paint, and he can't shoot and is nowhere near as quick or athletic as Fox.
If that's who's on the board I say take Isaac and whichever PG is left at 10.
Obviously the lottery could change things but if the Kings and Knicks stay put I'd definitely see if they'd be open to swapping #7 for #10 and if so, what they'd want to make that move.
Depending on who is left on the board and if Phil Jackson and crew really like Ntilikina (who I think could likely be there at 10) I'd be okay with an aggressive move by Vlade to get his guys.
Trade Richardson? Sure. Hield? Hmm.
Obviously the lottery could change things but if the Kings and Knicks stay put I'd definitely see if they'd be open to swapping #7 for #10 and if so, what they'd want to make that move.
Depending on who is left on the board and if Phil Jackson and crew really like Ntilikina (who I think could likely be there at 10) I'd be okay with an aggressive move by Vlade to get his guys.
Trade Richardson? Sure. Hield? Hmm.
Last edited:
- Status