Players that I would target with the 9th pick:
- Thread starter bajaden
- Start date
That's true about Walton, haha, and they eventually did that by going zone more and more often. A lot of that had to do with the help scheme but a lot of it had to do with a lack of size on the wing as well because that meant an even more limited ability when it came to switch defense. You have to switch now, there is no other option against teams like the Suns, Bucks, Clipps, Nuggets, Lakers, etc. The Kings are not without decent defenders individually but when these legit teams come at you bigger and faster at every position you are going to struggle to keep up. I don't think that Mitchell wouldn't overall give the team an elite defender, he's clearly that, but the combination isn't super complimentary so that means someone is getting the short end quite literally. Fox, Haliburton, and Mitchell could somehow overcome those odds but it's a gamble to expect that. And when you have a shot to add a piece in this draft that brings you up to snuff in terms of team build I'm not sure that's a risk worth taking. If Mitchell were the size of Marcus Smart I'd be down probably, but if he were that size he wouldn't be close to in the discussion at 9 anyway.
Lets see what he actually does in the NBA first. Right now the numbers are there but in time, he'll get the "is he more than numbers" treatment as well. In the end any team that didn't think that the ability to run pick and roll combined with the ability to shoot is the cheat code then they were overthinking this thing. The NBA game has never been so one dimensional and one sided. If you give players like that your offense they'll produce. Look at Fox last year for example. This team finally commits to running pick and roll through him like it's going out of style and he shows flashes of superstardom? Not a coincidence.
Here's the crux of the argument for me:
Conventional wisdom says you defend the new meta of pick-heavy perimeter oriented offenses with versatile multi-positional defenders and frequent switching. But when offenses are currently enjoying their best results in the last 50+ years leaguewide I think it's time for conventional wisdom to take a seat and make room for any and all unconventional approaches instead. These current offenses are designed to exploit zone switching schemes. Golden State's offense came into fashion partially because they drafted two long range snipers but also because ICE defense rook over the NBA and you can't run that defense without helping.
How do you beat an aggressive defense? You get them to beat themselves. When teams like GS set picks they're not trying to free up scorers, they're trying to exploit the half second or so of uncertainty that happens every time you ask a defender to make a choice about who they are going to defend. This is the complete inverse of what used to work in the NBA. Teams running the triangle or the flex offense were trying to create second or third step opportunities by baiting man-to-man defenders out of position. Everything now is point of attack because they know in certain places on the floor a help defender is coming. So you get stagger screens and ghost screens which pull in help defenders and then you pass over or around them and attack the defender who is out of position. If it doesn't work initially, here's 5 more screens in a row, see if you can keep up. Eventually someone misses a rotation and the result is an open basket. All it takes is one weak link in the defense and you're in for a very long night.
I think there's a pretty obvious solution to this problem -- stop switching! There's no rule that says you can't play man-to-man defense anymore. And while the offenses now are specifically designed to exploit zone defenses, the skills which were used in the past to beat man-to-man defenses have atrophied. Let's take Dirk Nowitzki for instance. Sure he would occasionally spot-up at the three point line but the bulk of his offense came with him catching the ball in range for his favorite turn around mid-range jumper and then using his size to create just enough separation to get the shot off. Guards had two jobs... get the ball to your post or midrange scorer in their favorite spot and spot-up at the three point line in case they kick it back out. Someone like AI was a unicorn back in the day, now pretty much every guard needs to attack off the dribble like that because you first need to force the switch to be able to exploit it.
When talking about positional matchups, bigger and faster are almost oxymorons. There are some exceptions like Zion Williamson but for the most part a smaller player is going to be quicker and I don't know that strength is that much of an asset offensively once you venture more than 10 feet from the basket. Is strength going to allow you to power up a jump shot through a weaker defender? Not really. All they need to do is get a hand on the ball and having an extra 8 inches of reach could help there but not any more than getting their feet 8 inches closer would. Until/unless someone shows they can dominate a game with midrange turnaround jumpers and hook shots again I think we should stop caring about length, reach, wingspan, and positional flexibility and start caring about one thing: can you stop dribble penetration on your own without a help defender? If the answer is yes, you get to be on the team. If the answer is no, we can't use you. If you actually want to field an effective defense in 2021 when even the 7 footers can handle, pass, and shoot, that's the only way to do it in my opinion. Stop helping, stop icing, stop your guy one on one and force them to either hold the ball or pass it in the direction of another defender.
Conventional wisdom says you defend the new meta of pick-heavy perimeter oriented offenses with versatile multi-positional defenders and frequent switching. But when offenses are currently enjoying their best results in the last 50+ years leaguewide I think it's time for conventional wisdom to take a seat and make room for any and all unconventional approaches instead. These current offenses are designed to exploit zone switching schemes. Golden State's offense came into fashion partially because they drafted two long range snipers but also because ICE defense rook over the NBA and you can't run that defense without helping.
How do you beat an aggressive defense? You get them to beat themselves. When teams like GS set picks they're not trying to free up scorers, they're trying to exploit the half second or so of uncertainty that happens every time you ask a defender to make a choice about who they are going to defend. This is the complete inverse of what used to work in the NBA. Teams running the triangle or the flex offense were trying to create second or third step opportunities by baiting man-to-man defenders out of position. Everything now is point of attack because they know in certain places on the floor a help defender is coming. So you get stagger screens and ghost screens which pull in help defenders and then you pass over or around them and attack the defender who is out of position. If it doesn't work initially, here's 5 more screens in a row, see if you can keep up. Eventually someone misses a rotation and the result is an open basket. All it takes is one weak link in the defense and you're in for a very long night.
I think there's a pretty obvious solution to this problem -- stop switching! There's no rule that says you can't play man-to-man defense anymore. And while the offenses now are specifically designed to exploit zone defenses, the skills which were used in the past to beat man-to-man defenses have atrophied. Let's take Dirk Nowitzki for instance. Sure he would occasionally spot-up at the three point line but the bulk of his offense came with him catching the ball in range for his favorite turn around mid-range jumper and then using his size to create just enough separation to get the shot off. Guards had two jobs... get the ball to your post or midrange scorer in their favorite spot and spot-up at the three point line in case they kick it back out. Someone like AI was a unicorn back in the day, now pretty much every guard needs to attack off the dribble like that because you first need to force the switch to be able to exploit it.
When talking about positional matchups, bigger and faster are almost oxymorons. There are some exceptions like Zion Williamson but for the most part a smaller player is going to be quicker and I don't know that strength is that much of an asset offensively once you venture more than 10 feet from the basket. Is strength going to allow you to power up a jump shot through a weaker defender? Not really. All they need to do is get a hand on the ball and having an extra 8 inches of reach could help there but not any more than getting their feet 8 inches closer would. Until/unless someone shows they can dominate a game with midrange turnaround jumpers and hook shots again I think we should stop caring about length, reach, wingspan, and positional flexibility and start caring about one thing: can you stop dribble penetration on your own without a help defender? If the answer is yes, you get to be on the team. If the answer is no, we can't use you. If you actually want to field an effective defense in 2021 when even the 7 footers can handle, pass, and shoot, that's the only way to do it in my opinion. Stop helping, stop icing, stop your guy one on one and force them to either hold the ball or pass it in the direction of another defender.
To whatever extent Luka is going to struggle over the next 2-5 seasons it is going to fall on horrible GMing by Dallas.
I have a feeling he will get multiple rings midway through his career, but it will take a change of scenery to do it.
unless another horrible GM wants to gamble on KP and send Dallas a gift in the form of complementary player and multiple draft picks.
I have a feeling he will get multiple rings midway through his career, but it will take a change of scenery to do it.
unless another horrible GM wants to gamble on KP and send Dallas a gift in the form of complementary player and multiple draft picks.
That's probably true but one way to try and make it happen would be to go after undervalued defenders -- like guys who lack ideal size or quickness for the multi-positional switching defense most teams employ. If we're planning on matching up one-on-one more they really only need to be able to guard a couple positions each. You're still going to need that one mobile big who can chase players out to the three point line and still recover and contest in the paint without getting lost on screens. That's probably the hardest piece to find but once you find them they're only going to cost you a fraction of what a knockdown shooter would so the salary cap shouldn't be the reason you have to break up your winning team at least.
No, just laughing at the idea that the majority of NBA front offices didn't have him in their top 10 that year. I don't know if that's accurate or not, but the assertion was made and I just think if it is accurate than these people haven't got a clue what they're doing and would be better off pulling names out of a hat (or more accurately, they should be doing something else with their time).
I was curious about this, so today I listened to the relevant portions of the Russillo pod with Ford. Sure enough, Russillo asks Ford what rumors he’s hearing and the first thing Ford mentions is the quote in the Ham post. I have no clue whether Ford is still connected now that he’s taken his talents to substack, but it was interesting that the Wagner/Kings connection was the first rumor that he thought to mention.
There is a rule, it's called no hand checking. There are only two ways to handle a screen. Help up or switch. A zone switch scheme isn't what you run, it's a pressure switch scheme that consistently brings you back into man to man. That's how the Mavs beat the first team to ram it down others throats with a super team in the Heat. There are some super teams now that are built in much a similar way. Those teams are your target unless you are just playing pretend.
Last edited:
and that gets pretty challenging. Can you think of examples of a trade where both teams came away with a star level player? I'm sure there are examples but it's been a long day and I'm too tired to google 
The more likely scenario is we would end up with an emerging talent and some draft picks which would change our timeline again.
The more likely scenario is we would end up with an emerging talent and some draft picks which would change our timeline again.You can defend a ballhandler without hand checking. Whether the refs are calling excessive touch fouls or not the goal isn't to steal the ball it's to move your feet to cut off the drive and get into the offensive player's space just enough that they can't dictate when and where to start their attack. Also help defense isn't necessarily the problem, but aggressive trapping and double-teaming on the perimeter or predictably switching assignments on every screen or leaving shooters open to collapse in the paint are all ways that defenses are beating themselves right now.
What I want teams to recognize is that they have a choice whether to go over, go under, or switch on every screen and the goal should be to always go over when possible so you contain the ballhandler and only switch when doing so will put the defense at an advantage such as when the screener is not a threat on the perimeter. Some teams are using zone switching to apply pressure but more often than not what I see happening in the NBA is that guys are defending open space rather than defending players and that makes it very easy for the offense to spread you out and attack your weakest defenders.
What I want teams to recognize is that they have a choice whether to go over, go under, or switch on every screen and the goal should be to always go over when possible so you contain the ballhandler and only switch when doing so will put the defense at an advantage such as when the screener is not a threat on the perimeter. Some teams are using zone switching to apply pressure but more often than not what I see happening in the NBA is that guys are defending open space rather than defending players and that makes it very easy for the offense to spread you out and attack your weakest defenders.
I love Bouknight's scoring potential. He's a legit 3 level scorer with high end athleticism and shot creation and his hesitation is an elite skill, even at the NBA level. He currently offers no secondary playmaking (and I think he'll need to add that in time to be successful on the next level) but I believe he'll be solid on defense so he is very attractive to teams that need a primary or secondary scorer. I think his best fit might be next to Morant on the Grizzlies if they can make a move to trade up for him.
Sengun is a guy I absolutely love watching, and given his level of success already I can't see him failing in the NBA. The biggest question with him is whether he can he be a starting center and defend the rim well enough to not be a liability. If he can't and you have to play him next to a rim protecting center, how valuable is he in today's NBA? Even if he's a better player than Domantas Sabonis or a better defending and passing version of Enes Kanter, can you win with him? We've already seen the trouble the Pacers have had with Sabonis and Turner and Kanter's flaws have relegated him to being a bench scorer.
My biggest questions with Davion Mitchell are (1) was his outside shooting this year for real or an anomaly? His FT% makes me worry that it's the latter and (2) what does he become if he develops fully? Is he a starting caliber, even upper eschelon PG? Or is he more of an off the bench, defensive specialist who can score when needed?
My favorite target at #9 is probably still Jalen Johnson because of the value a big creator has at the NBA level but of course there are questions about his shot and his physical and mental toughness.
Of the top 5 or 6 "consensus" guys I think the one most likely to slip is Kuminga and I'm not sure how I feel about that. He has all the physical tools but he's a developmental pick that I think is more boom or bust than widely acknowledged.
Sengun is a guy I absolutely love watching, and given his level of success already I can't see him failing in the NBA. The biggest question with him is whether he can he be a starting center and defend the rim well enough to not be a liability. If he can't and you have to play him next to a rim protecting center, how valuable is he in today's NBA? Even if he's a better player than Domantas Sabonis or a better defending and passing version of Enes Kanter, can you win with him? We've already seen the trouble the Pacers have had with Sabonis and Turner and Kanter's flaws have relegated him to being a bench scorer.
My biggest questions with Davion Mitchell are (1) was his outside shooting this year for real or an anomaly? His FT% makes me worry that it's the latter and (2) what does he become if he develops fully? Is he a starting caliber, even upper eschelon PG? Or is he more of an off the bench, defensive specialist who can score when needed?
My favorite target at #9 is probably still Jalen Johnson because of the value a big creator has at the NBA level but of course there are questions about his shot and his physical and mental toughness.
Of the top 5 or 6 "consensus" guys I think the one most likely to slip is Kuminga and I'm not sure how I feel about that. He has all the physical tools but he's a developmental pick that I think is more boom or bust than widely acknowledged.
Not hardly once the screen comes. You literally can't impede a player going into screens anymore. We have to see what these supposed leaning in rules change but I think it's puffery the same way the technical rules and flopping rules were. And yes you play defense with your feet but guarding 220 pound athletes with a lack of size across all 3 of your positions is going to see you picking up fouls because at some point you're going to be reaching in. And double teaming isn't an option against the elite teams with shooting all over the floor. It will work for awhile and it should be mixed in that's hardly a bridge to making up for those shortcomings. Since Joerger we've literally seen almost every type of half court, zone, help, etc. you can run. Both Walton and Joerger over relied on help and we've seen that without size or length to recover you are toast. Joerger was demanding players go over, even Walton early on, but with so many quick trigger shooters coming over screens that didn't work either. You have to meet players over that screen otherwise they'll eat you alive like the Suns are now in mid-range pick and roll. The way I see it is by next year the Warriors are likely back to at least the middle of the pack. The Clipps with Kawhi if he stays are probably the team to beat in the west. The Lakers with LeBron will certainly look to add more size to their wing and probably realize AD is a full time C at this point. The Mavs will do something. You can't come in against these monsters undersized, you just can't. At least not THAT undersized. It barely worked with a 220-230 pound Buddy Hield. Replacing him with a 6' PG is crazy on it's surface, which leads us back to the initial argument, if they can't be full time components in tandem, then someone is getting the bench duty in the end potentially. Yes, not terrible but not ideal when there are ideal options at the pick.
Last edited:
Great post. And with these type of considerations I keep thinking that trading Fox for Ben Simmons makes a ton of sense from a team building approach. Then you are free to draft the guard with the highest ceiling to play next to Haliburton (Moody or Bouknight). Barnes and Simmons work well together. Then you have to figure out whether to flip Bagley or start him as a 5.
But part of me loves the HaliFox backcourt and hopes we draft Wagner to move Barnes to the 4 full time and increase our BBIQ. I’m conflicted.
But part of me loves the HaliFox backcourt and hopes we draft Wagner to move Barnes to the 4 full time and increase our BBIQ. I’m conflicted.
He could easily be one of the best players to come out of this draft. With ball handling ability like that you have so many advantages in todays league. He'd be someone I wouldn't regret seeing the Kings pick even at 9 if it came to that.
Any one of Wagner, Jalen Johnson, Moody, or Giddey and I think the Kings come out with someone that can play with their back court core for the next 4-5 years. Of course fingers crossed Barnes drops.
Any one of Wagner, Jalen Johnson, Moody, or Giddey and I think the Kings come out with someone that can play with their back court core for the next 4-5 years. Of course fingers crossed Barnes drops.
Much of what I have seen about his defense does not concern me for a couple reasons, one being that he is still young and has time to put on muscle to keep up with bigger wings, and two being that he has a very solid foundation having played pro basketball already in one of the more competitive leagues in the world that by the way has produced some quality prospects in recent years. For me as well, defense is important but finding a guy who can fill up the stat sheet and make others around him better is always what I look for in a prospect and the fact that he is 6’8 means he can play 3 for us and split ball handling duties with Fox and Hali which makes them both more effective from an off the ball stand point. I think if we’re going for a true impact pick and player Giddey is about as exciting as a pick as it gets around that range
Fox
Hali
Wagner
Barnes
Holmes
If things break right, that's a legit playoff starting 5. Lots of playmaking, dominant lead ball-handler that gets to the FT line, excellent spacing, dominant rim runner in the dunker spot, switchability at all 5 spots on defense. You'd need Wagner to be your Joe Ingles and Hali to blossom more as a secondary scorer, but that's pretty damn close to a perfect team construction around Fox's talents.
Hali
Wagner
Barnes
Holmes
If things break right, that's a legit playoff starting 5. Lots of playmaking, dominant lead ball-handler that gets to the FT line, excellent spacing, dominant rim runner in the dunker spot, switchability at all 5 spots on defense. You'd need Wagner to be your Joe Ingles and Hali to blossom more as a secondary scorer, but that's pretty damn close to a perfect team construction around Fox's talents.
