De'Aaron Fox:
- Thread starter bajaden
- Start date
- Status
But...but....He's the next Dirk!!! Right, Mark Cuban??! Guy with the 9th pick 
@kingdivac
That is my point. Higher score wins through a combination of successful offensive possesions and defensive stops. The more stops your team gets on defense the less number of successful offensive possesions needed to end with a higher score.
In relation to Fox (or Lauri etc) defensive potential weighs highly for me. Just about every NBA prospect was at least decent at scoring on the other rungs of the basketball world. The same can not be said of defense.
It's one thing to be able to do what you want offensively on the court. Stopping others from doing what they want offensively is a valuable x-factor to me. It is why I hope we can land a Fox or a Ntilikina so we can finaly defend at the initial point of attack for opposing offenses. When the opposing point guard beats ours through penettration,positioning, passing etc then we are already adjusting our defense and are at a disadvantage on that possesion. This is why I also like the idea of Fox/Frank + Jackson/Isaac/Tatum/OG. Defense matters.
That is my point. Higher score wins through a combination of successful offensive possesions and defensive stops. The more stops your team gets on defense the less number of successful offensive possesions needed to end with a higher score.
In relation to Fox (or Lauri etc) defensive potential weighs highly for me. Just about every NBA prospect was at least decent at scoring on the other rungs of the basketball world. The same can not be said of defense.
It's one thing to be able to do what you want offensively on the court. Stopping others from doing what they want offensively is a valuable x-factor to me. It is why I hope we can land a Fox or a Ntilikina so we can finaly defend at the initial point of attack for opposing offenses. When the opposing point guard beats ours through penettration,positioning, passing etc then we are already adjusting our defense and are at a disadvantage on that possesion. This is why I also like the idea of Fox/Frank + Jackson/Isaac/Tatum/OG. Defense matters.
I like Isaac but at 5 that is a stretch IMHO especially since there is a clear group of 4 players after Fultz that make the top 5. Tatum is just a better, safer prospect. In fact any of the top 5 are better, safer picks.
I like Isaac but at 5 its a reach. Top 5 pick should be more than a role player, especially in a draft as good as this one in the top 10. A lot of "experts" see him more as a 4 than a 3 and I think the last thing the Kings need to look for with a top 5 pick is another PF that might get there.
At least with Tatum you get a scorer. Someone who will be good for 20ppg in the NBA with his polished skill set. Those guys don't really grow on trees and always have some trade value.
I like Isaac but at 5 its a reach. Top 5 pick should be more than a role player, especially in a draft as good as this one in the top 10. A lot of "experts" see him more as a 4 than a 3 and I think the last thing the Kings need to look for with a top 5 pick is another PF that might get there.
At least with Tatum you get a scorer. Someone who will be good for 20ppg in the NBA with his polished skill set. Those guys don't really grow on trees and always have some trade value.
People keep saying that Tatum is the safe pick and I just don't see that. He struggled against bigger, more athletic defenders - the kind he'll face each night in the NBA. If Tatum can be a go to scorer in the NBA then he can be a very good player, maybe even a star. If he can't then I don't see how helps a team. Right now he's a ball stopping, midrange focused ISO scorer who didn't give a ton of effort on defense. He's become a better distance shooter and he's a solid rebounder and ballhandler for a SF. But his success in the NBA is predicated on him being a high level scorer. That doesn't always translate.
And for what it's worth per 40 minutes Isaac put up 16.4 ppg and 10.8 rpg to Tatum's 18.2 ppg and 7.9 ppg. Tatum was Duke's primary option while Isaac was asked to play a supporting role. Maybe if their situations are reversed Isaac would have stuggled as the go-to scorer. Or maybe he puts up the same scoring numbers. He seemed passive at times so I could believe the former but he also showed enough flashes that I could believe the latter.
I think individual workouts will help or hurt Isaac more than most.
And for what it's worth per 40 minutes Isaac put up 16.4 ppg and 10.8 rpg to Tatum's 18.2 ppg and 7.9 ppg. Tatum was Duke's primary option while Isaac was asked to play a supporting role. Maybe if their situations are reversed Isaac would have stuggled as the go-to scorer. Or maybe he puts up the same scoring numbers. He seemed passive at times so I could believe the former but he also showed enough flashes that I could believe the latter.
I think individual workouts will help or hurt Isaac more than most.
I just dont like saying "x" guy only shoots and doesnt do anything else when evaluating 18 year olds. Khawai came into the league as a strictly defense guy, Booker came in as a strict spot shooter, similarly foe Curry. Klay Thompson was a good shooter that would struggle defensively. Hard work and professionalism will always separate the good ones from the bad ones at this level. For someone like Markanen he already has an elite skill at age 19, if you think he is going to be a hard worker there is no reason to believe he cant improve his all around game with time. I cringe whenever "draft experts" act like they know exactly who a player will be in year 1, 4, 6, and 10 when there are so many variables that will ultimately determine who a player is.
That is the thing though. That "passive" approach is not something that I feel comfortable drafting at 5 unless the player in question could be a perennial all-star. With Tatum I know he is a high character guy who is a hard worker as evidenced by the improvement in his long range shot and passing as the season went on. With Isaac I am not seeing that. I am seeing a lot of tool but "passive" nature and not a great deal of improvement as the season went on. I could be wrong but I would stop and pause before I selected him in top 5. There is a whole lot of Anthony Randolph about him and that makes me somewhat uneasy at 5. At 5 I either want someone who is a high character kid, hard worker and "hungry" with upside to be an all-star level player. I love Fox at 5 but suspect he will be gone. I like Tatum because he is a high character guy who works hard and is a polished scorer. Is he flawless? No! But hell there is a hell of a lot to work with there and he is a hard working kid with hunger to get better. To me that is a good start.
Here's the honest truth - this is the first draft in years where I like some guys more than others but don't feel very confident in my opinions.
At five the Kings could possibly draft Ball, Jackson, Fox, Tatum, Smith, Isaac or Monk and I could see any one of them being the best player in this draft.
I prefer Isaac but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Tatum is far better.
At five the Kings could possibly draft Ball, Jackson, Fox, Tatum, Smith, Isaac or Monk and I could see any one of them being the best player in this draft.
I prefer Isaac but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Tatum is far better.
Last edited:
Not sure if it's been posted somewhere here, but found this scouting report on Fox using advanced stats.
https://medium.com/@jzmazlish/deaar...th-a-point-guard-who-can-t-shoot-37bcbc77f9c7
.
https://medium.com/@jzmazlish/deaar...th-a-point-guard-who-can-t-shoot-37bcbc77f9c7
.
I have to admit, the article was too long, Readers Digest version for me please, and I'm not a statistical type. Was it Fox favorable or not?
From what I have seen and heard from Fox he's one of two players, Fultz the other, that I would try to move up if that's what it takes to get him.
A Buddy, Fox back court with Bogdan and Malichi shoring it up sounds like a great scenario.
From what I have seen and heard from Fox he's one of two players, Fultz the other, that I would try to move up if that's what it takes to get him.
A Buddy, Fox back court with Bogdan and Malichi shoring it up sounds like a great scenario.
Last edited:
I'm definitely on board with Fox if he's there. But I'm really getting to the point where I would take Smith at #5 if Fox is gone. Yes, his body language and inconsistent effort at times concerns me. A fair amount actually. But the Kings need a star and he's got the potential to be the best or 2nd best player in this draft.
In fact, I think Fox is safer but Smith could be better long term.
In fact, I think Fox is safer but Smith could be better long term.
Smith is an interesting wildcard. They don't make em like that kid every year, or even every few years. I couldn't complain if he's the pick. I remember when he first flew up the recruiting rankings and just being awestruck at the quality of the footage, he passes the eye test with flying colors as far as I'm concerned, and always has.
He's not 6'3" I can tell you that with great certainty. Actually, he's not even 6'2"...
He's got both the skillset of a P'n'R Dynamo and an Iso scorer. Definitely reminds me of Steve Francis, I feel like he's got some minor bits of Chris Paul to his game too..
He's not 6'3" I can tell you that with great certainty. Actually, he's not even 6'2"...
He's got both the skillset of a P'n'R Dynamo and an Iso scorer. Definitely reminds me of Steve Francis, I feel like he's got some minor bits of Chris Paul to his game too..
Let's remember, though, that Tony Parker was picked #28 and Schroeder #17, not in the top 5. So, if we are trying to compare apples to apples, what makes Fox so much more special than either Parker or Schroeder to warrant him being drafted in the top five? Is this draft so incredibly poor and the Parker and Schroeder drafts so filled with talent, respectively, that we are left with a #5 pick that in a "normal" draft actually belongs somewhere between #17 and #28? That seems highly unlikely, given the talent in this draft. So what then is the reason?
No, I really don't.
How many years was Dirk in the league before he developed any semblance of a post game?
Early on Markkanen will be looking to find his place in the league and he will go to his strength, catching and shooting from outside, running off screens for open jumpers, pick and pops and attacking the rim on overplays or aggressive closeouts.
Right now he routinely gets outrebounded by smaller guys, largely due to a lack of strength, length, and aggressiveness. If he can't rebound against smaller guys I don't see how he's going to be able to establish post position against opposing bigs. And having a drop step, jump hook, up & under etc are completely different shots than a jumpshot. The only tool he'll have immediately is his turnaround jumper. Rasheed Wallace did pretty well in the post with pretty much just his turnaround so if Markkanen can get a higher release and a bit more elevation (or a fadeaway) he could conceiveably have that tool.
How many stretch fours came into the NBA without a post game and then developed one? Not Patterson. Not Frye. Not Bonner. Not Teletovic. Ryan Anderson came into the league with a very solid post up game and now only really posts up when he's got a big mismatch.
I'm not saying Markkanen can't. Dirk eventually got pretty solid. Porzingis will likely add it to his game as he gets stronger. Durant can now post up pretty well. It's possible. But I certainly wouldn't say it's highly likely.
Most guys who are halfway decent post players in the NBA played in the post in high school and college. Banging away down low takes a lot of work and it isn't glamorous. And it certainly isn't a skill set that I'd want to start developing at the highest level of basketball in the world.
How many years was Dirk in the league before he developed any semblance of a post game?
Early on Markkanen will be looking to find his place in the league and he will go to his strength, catching and shooting from outside, running off screens for open jumpers, pick and pops and attacking the rim on overplays or aggressive closeouts.
Right now he routinely gets outrebounded by smaller guys, largely due to a lack of strength, length, and aggressiveness. If he can't rebound against smaller guys I don't see how he's going to be able to establish post position against opposing bigs. And having a drop step, jump hook, up & under etc are completely different shots than a jumpshot. The only tool he'll have immediately is his turnaround jumper. Rasheed Wallace did pretty well in the post with pretty much just his turnaround so if Markkanen can get a higher release and a bit more elevation (or a fadeaway) he could conceiveably have that tool.
How many stretch fours came into the NBA without a post game and then developed one? Not Patterson. Not Frye. Not Bonner. Not Teletovic. Ryan Anderson came into the league with a very solid post up game and now only really posts up when he's got a big mismatch.
I'm not saying Markkanen can't. Dirk eventually got pretty solid. Porzingis will likely add it to his game as he gets stronger. Durant can now post up pretty well. It's possible. But I certainly wouldn't say it's highly likely.
Most guys who are halfway decent post players in the NBA played in the post in high school and college. Banging away down low takes a lot of work and it isn't glamorous. And it certainly isn't a skill set that I'd want to start developing at the highest level of basketball in the world.
By that logic the 2011 draft must have been the best draft ever since the 60th pick is an all-star PG who led his team to the ECF.
In 2001 international scouting consisted of grainy VHS tapes and seeing a kid in person. Parker was a blur with the ball but he was also a very young kid with no jumper from a country that had yet to produce a great basketball player. If that draft were done over in hindsight, Parker goes no later than #2 after maybe Pau Gasol.
If Fox turned out to be the level of player for the Kings that Parker is for the Spurs I'd be ecstatic. If Fox turns out to be the level of player Schroeder is or less, I'd be disappointed.
But if you want a reason, here are three:
(1) Fox is bigger than either of those two players
(2) Fox has better mechanics on his jumper at the same age even if the results weren't great last season
(3) Fox is statistically elite at getting to and finishing at the basket despite the fact that teams are playing off of him knowing he can't shoot
The hope is that Fox gets stronger and gets consistent from outside and then is fairly unguardable.
That said, I think Smith has more star potential. I think Fox will at least be a starter quality PG. I can't say that for sure about Smith. But if DSJ reaches his potential he could be the best player from this draft.
In 2001 international scouting consisted of grainy VHS tapes and seeing a kid in person. Parker was a blur with the ball but he was also a very young kid with no jumper from a country that had yet to produce a great basketball player. If that draft were done over in hindsight, Parker goes no later than #2 after maybe Pau Gasol.
If Fox turned out to be the level of player for the Kings that Parker is for the Spurs I'd be ecstatic. If Fox turns out to be the level of player Schroeder is or less, I'd be disappointed.
But if you want a reason, here are three:
(1) Fox is bigger than either of those two players
(2) Fox has better mechanics on his jumper at the same age even if the results weren't great last season
(3) Fox is statistically elite at getting to and finishing at the basket despite the fact that teams are playing off of him knowing he can't shoot
The hope is that Fox gets stronger and gets consistent from outside and then is fairly unguardable.
That said, I think Smith has more star potential. I think Fox will at least be a starter quality PG. I can't say that for sure about Smith. But if DSJ reaches his potential he could be the best player from this draft.
The article used Schroeder as his floor if I am not mistaken.
Unless we are picking first somehow, it's a pick your what-if-he-gets-better at BLANK situation with most every prospect. Each one has a red flag or two that needs to turn green for them to be the best choice. All comes down to where we place our bet.
Unless we are picking first somehow, it's a pick your what-if-he-gets-better at BLANK situation with most every prospect. Each one has a red flag or two that needs to turn green for them to be the best choice. All comes down to where we place our bet.
But that doesn't make sense. We don't know what Foxs' draft position would be now if we did the draft several years into the future because he hasn't played any NBA games several years into the future. Here we have a draft without knowledge of Foxs' NBA future performance, as it is prior to his NBA career. Similarly, in the Parker and Schroeder drafts we had no knowledge of what their careers would be. We did not have access to their future performance at the time of their respective drafts, just as we do not have access to Foxs' future performance in this draft. Parker went #28 and Schroder went #17. So why, without being privy to Foxs' future performance, is he warranted the #5 or higher draft position?
- Status