Looking ahead to the 2022 Draft
- Thread starter Tetsujin
- Start date
Not so fast. I think is we're sitting at 8 and Johnny Davis is on the board, then there's a non-zero chance that Monte passes on him. I just have a weird feeling that Monte isn't high on him. Duren by and large isn't above Davis on draft boards but it's not that rare. I'm just envisioning another draft situation where he goes BPA, and that BPA just happens to be Duren, despite the absolute ****show fit-wise behind Sabonis (See, Mitchell, Davion)
I seem to be the only person on Reddit thrilled about the idea of Davis and actually considers him a good fit. Everyone just seems to be screaming "GUARD!!!!!1!!!!" like we don't have a pressing need at the 2.
I seem to be the only person on Reddit thrilled about the idea of Davis and actually considers him a good fit. Everyone just seems to be screaming "GUARD!!!!!1!!!!" like we don't have a pressing need at the 2.
This is what I'm saying. I'm the biggest DDV fanboy on the forum, but he's certainly not someone I'd consider an absolute lock in the starting LU if a better option came along. And really, the only major qualm with Davis is the 3pt % (and at times willingness to pull), but it's just not an issue for me. That Wisconsin team was straight up bad; as many have said, they would have struggled to make the NIT without him. You can make the case he had the heaviest offensive workload in the country among the top college stars. And he STILL put in work on defense and on the glass. Once some of that defensive attention is taken off and he gets more open shots, I don't see any reason he doesn't give you at least average spacing. And the Kings just need another "go to" like Davis in the core. I still think he has the best chance in this class (either him or Paolo) to be an elite scorer.
I'm not so sure why you think he isn't a Monte player though? Had a real college jump in production (something he's looked towards with Hali/Davion) with a real versatile offensive scoring skill-set and plays with a ton of effort on defense.
I'm not so sure why you think he isn't a Monte player though? Had a real college jump in production (something he's looked towards with Hali/Davion) with a real versatile offensive scoring skill-set and plays with a ton of effort on defense.
He's a better scorer but I think DDV is twice the facilitator right now. He's the best at driving and kicking on the Kings. Davis has less than a 1:1 AST/TO ratio on only 2.1 assists per game. He's got a lot of work to do in that department but he has scoring skills, albeit he wasn't very efficient. But he did show a lot of flashes of what he could be with more work. I'm just not the type to give him a pass because he wasn't on a very good team. There's plenty of players that score efficiently despite their teammates not being the best.
Agreed. His game needs a lot of polish but I love his effort. I've got him at 7 behind Mathurin and Murray. Wouldn't be mad if we wound up with him but he doesn't really move the needle at the moment either. Probably going to be a lot of headache moments with him in his first year or two.
I'm kind of settling on Mathurin or Murray if the Kings stay put. They really need someone that can shoot from the outside. This team lacks shooting badly at the moment.
I'm kind of settling on Mathurin or Murray if the Kings stay put. They really need someone that can shoot from the outside. This team lacks shooting badly at the moment.
I've been back and forth for the last month on whether I'd rather have Murray or Mathurin. There's arguments to be made for either one and they're 1 and 2 on my draft wish list this year in some kind of order. Your thoughts here echo my own. Murray is a better player right now but I feel like Mathurin might have an edge in long-term potential.
Where we differ a bit though is that I feel so strongly about both Mathurin and Murray as the best possible picks for us that I would try and trade down for one of them even if we do land a top 3 pick. Smith and Holmgren are elite prospects who should succeed in the NBA but with Holmgren we'd be picking a big over a whole slew of talented wings and guards yet again and praying that injuries don't derail his career as they have so many talented big men. That just makes me nervous. With Smith, other than knocking down open jumpers I'm not convinced he can go out and get buckets in the NBA. He settles for so many tough contested jumpers already in college. Maybe he's the next Dirk Nowitzki and he'll earn a living on tough contested jumpers but how many times have teams looked for "the next Dirk Nowitzki" over the last 20 years and been disappointed? I just think if he busts we're all going to look back and say that the warning signs were there. On the other hand, with playmakers like Fox, Sabonis, Mitchell, and DiVincenzo on the Kings he wouldn't really need to create his own shots anyway.
I certainly won't be mad if we end up with Smith or Holmgren, I'm just nervous about them as top picks with (in my estimation) higher than usual bust potential.
Where we differ a bit though is that I feel so strongly about both Mathurin and Murray as the best possible picks for us that I would try and trade down for one of them even if we do land a top 3 pick. Smith and Holmgren are elite prospects who should succeed in the NBA but with Holmgren we'd be picking a big over a whole slew of talented wings and guards yet again and praying that injuries don't derail his career as they have so many talented big men. That just makes me nervous. With Smith, other than knocking down open jumpers I'm not convinced he can go out and get buckets in the NBA. He settles for so many tough contested jumpers already in college. Maybe he's the next Dirk Nowitzki and he'll earn a living on tough contested jumpers but how many times have teams looked for "the next Dirk Nowitzki" over the last 20 years and been disappointed? I just think if he busts we're all going to look back and say that the warning signs were there. On the other hand, with playmakers like Fox, Sabonis, Mitchell, and DiVincenzo on the Kings he wouldn't really need to create his own shots anyway.
I certainly won't be mad if we end up with Smith or Holmgren, I'm just nervous about them as top picks with (in my estimation) higher than usual bust potential.
Well in regards to Smith, one of the points I tried to make, is that in the NBA, he won't have nearly as many contested shots. He was the best scorer/shooter on the Auburn team, and was the focus of the other teams defense. That was especially true in the tournament. But on the Kings, if he's on the floor with Fox, DiVencinzo, Barnes, and Sabonis, who are you going to cheat off of to double on him. Remember, he's only 18 years old, he's going to get better and better.
I get your apprehension about Holmgren, and maybe there is an element of risk with him, but man he is so skilled and he could easily play next to Sabonis with his ability to spread the floor and defend the basket. It's a gamble I would love to take. I have to say, that when I watched Smith play, never once did Nowitzki spring into my mind. I would probably lean toward Garnett as a comp. But lets remember that Nowitzki was so bad his first year in the league that he was almost booed off the floor in Dallas. My point is, that passing judgement on 18 year old prospects is foolhardy. Mathurin could end up being the next Jerami Grant, or he could end up being the next Kawhi Leonard.
I get your apprehension about Holmgren, and maybe there is an element of risk with him, but man he is so skilled and he could easily play next to Sabonis with his ability to spread the floor and defend the basket. It's a gamble I would love to take. I have to say, that when I watched Smith play, never once did Nowitzki spring into my mind. I would probably lean toward Garnett as a comp. But lets remember that Nowitzki was so bad his first year in the league that he was almost booed off the floor in Dallas. My point is, that passing judgement on 18 year old prospects is foolhardy. Mathurin could end up being the next Jerami Grant, or he could end up being the next Kawhi Leonard.
I don't know, I'm just not as confident. This isn't really based on any hard line evidence, just an awful gut feeling.
Just because Monte valued a clear roleplayer in DDV with said archetype doesn't convince me he's going to transcribe that to his draft pick. For all we knew, searching for under-the-radar trades and making your high-end draft pick have a completely different mindset.
IDK, this just feels like the setup to last year's draft. Say what you want about the Mitchell pick, but it caught everyone off-guard. And Jalen Duren would hit the same way. I remember there being a lot of Moses Moody talk around here.
Honestly, I just hope Griffin and Duren go #5 and #6 so we can have our pick between Mathurin/Davis/Murray.
Just because Monte valued a clear roleplayer in DDV with said archetype doesn't convince me he's going to transcribe that to his draft pick. For all we knew, searching for under-the-radar trades and making your high-end draft pick have a completely different mindset.
IDK, this just feels like the setup to last year's draft. Say what you want about the Mitchell pick, but it caught everyone off-guard. And Jalen Duren would hit the same way. I remember there being a lot of Moses Moody talk around here.
Honestly, I just hope Griffin and Duren go #5 and #6 so we can have our pick between Mathurin/Davis/Murray.
All fair points. It isn't that Smith reminds me of Nowitzki at all -- rather that he's the first player who comes to mind when I think of a high level All Star who didn't need to beat people off the dribble or wait for other players to set him up to be absolutely deadly as a scorer. Mid or late career Paul Pierce I guess would be another example though he did have the athleticism to get to the basket early in his career. On the plus side, I see the ease with which Smith shoots and his size and high release point and there's a lot of reasons for optimism there. I like his NBA potential too, I guess I'd just like it more around the mid or late lottery than I would at #1 where he's going to get a very large first contract and have all the added pressure of franchise expectations on his back. But then you could say the same for every top pick and someone has to get picked there right? 
I think one big difference this draft is Monte knows his job is on a timer now. If he can't build a quick winner around Sabonis and he bolts; he knows he's out. You can be BPA and "trust the process" all you want, but my guess is he'd sacrifice some BPA to get a piece that can actually play with Fox-Sabonis.
If he drafted Duren, he'd have to believe in the long-term fit of them being able to start together. Just don't see it.
If he drafted Duren, he'd have to believe in the long-term fit of them being able to start together. Just don't see it.
All fair points. It isn't that Smith reminds me of Nowitzki at all -- rather that he's the first player who comes to mind when I think of a high level All Star who didn't need to beat people off the dribble or wait for other players to set him up to be absolutely deadly as a scorer. Mid or late career Paul Pierce I guess would be another example though he did have the athleticism to get to the basket early in his career. On the plus side, I see the ease with which Smith shoots and his size and high release point and there's a lot of reasons for optimism there. I like his NBA potential too, I guess I'd just like it more around the mid or late lottery than I would at #1 where he's going to get a very large first contract and have all the added pressure of franchise expectations on his back. But then you could say the same for every top pick and someone has to get picked there right?
I've seen the Rashard comp quite a bit. If you could add some more defense to a Shard Lewis offensive player, that'd be more than fine with me.
What's going to help Smith is the NBA is just so perfectly suited to his player archetype now. Stretch 4's with some ball-skills, elite measurables and defensive upside are just gold.
What's going to help Smith is the NBA is just so perfectly suited to his player archetype now. Stretch 4's with some ball-skills, elite measurables and defensive upside are just gold.
I think he gets comped to Lewis, because Lewis was never really able nor asked to create for himself. He was a straight line driver, could hit the three, and was good for a few highlight dunks a season. His defense was okay, but could’ve been better. So I think that’s a fair long term baseline for Smith. The thing that worries me about Smith’s transition is his lack of ball handling and shot creation beyond rising and popping. He got away with backing down defenders, turning, and shooting over them, but I foresee some Bags like SL highlights where he tries to back down his defender, gets stonewalled, but still tries and ends up turning the ball over. The upside is gigantic, but the downside is obvious as well.
Beyond comments on Kings Fans, a few takes on twitter, and some limited browsing on youtube, I haven’t watched any prospects this year. But like many here, I have sadly watched more Kings basketball than the Kings have deserved this year. A F/W who can catch and shoot, maybe move a little without the ball, and genuinely impact the defensive side of the ball is what we need. For that reason, Smith and Murray seem like the most appealing players to me. Tari Eason is interesting because he sounds like he fits the bill defensively and could develop his catch and shoot game – although overall spacing would still be an issue we would need to address with another move. I understand that the people who have actually watched him play do like Holmgren, so I’ll defer to them re his fit here, but his body does seem like it warrants at least some pause. I’m not convinced that missing out on him would be that bad.
I listened to the Durant interview on JJs podcast and they talked about how college basketball has run the same offenses since the 80s. It was brought up because some fan said NBA teams would score 70 points a game if the players played defense like they do in college. JJ countered by saying NBA players can’t defend because 1) the players are better and 2) there is more space. If the college game evolves to a more pro style offense, I wonder if it would be easier to see if players games would translate? Have to think there would be fewer wiffs in the draft.
College defenses thrive because of a lack of shooting. Especially zone defenses. Zones work in college. They get destroyed in the pros.
While ideal, I don’t see colleges adopting pro offenses. There isn’t enough practice time and it relies too heavily on stars. Elite players will go straight to the pros or jump ship within two years. Becomes a Kentucky or UCLA under Alfraud situation where teams vary year to year depending on the new recruiting class.
While ideal, I don’t see colleges adopting pro offenses. There isn’t enough practice time and it relies too heavily on stars. Elite players will go straight to the pros or jump ship within two years. Becomes a Kentucky or UCLA under Alfraud situation where teams vary year to year depending on the new recruiting class.
Well I would respectfully disagree. I think he's one of the best shooters in this draft, and when you look at the fact that 82% of his shots were contested, and he still shot a high percentage. I can't emphasis enough how bad the guard play was on his team. I lost count of how many times one of his guards dribbled away the shot clock and then passed him the ball with 3 ticks left on it. One shocking stat that I forgot to mention in that post, is that his team ran the pick and roll with Smith a total of two times the entire season. Smith has some work to do to polish his game, but shooting the ball isn't one of his issues.
The NCAA would have to change a few rules for teams to play a pro game. First, they would need to put in a 3 second defensive rule so college centers can't camp out under the basket. Players like Jaden Ivey will feel like they've been released from prison when they get to the NBA with it's spacing. Another change they need to make is to increase the fouls allowed to 6, like the NBA. It's hard to critique a player when he's sitting on the bench with two fouls for most of the 1st half.
I'd also like them to move the 3pt line out to NBA measurements. And while were at it, lets set the shot clock at 24 seconds. I think you would see College coaches get more innovative if those changes were made. You ever notice that you hardly see a college team run the pick and roll? I mean some do, but for the most part, no. I think you have to remember that most college coaches run their teams with an iron fist. Players are given roles, and if they stray out of that role, they'll find themselves on the bench. This is why people are surprised when a player suddenly show's off skills that you didn't see him display in college.
I remember watching Kevin Johnson play at Cal, and he had a coach that was a half court fanatic. He had Johnson walk the ball up the floor every time and go into a half court set. If you watched Johnson play just a few games, you wouldn't have been impressed. But then one night, Johnson exploded and took over the game. He displayed skills that no one knew he had. Of course, shortly he was on the bench. But after that, I made sure to watch as many Cal games that I could in hopes that I would see more of what Johnson had displayed.
Which is why I preach that you can't just watch a couple of games and pass judgement on a player. For all you know he might have had a tooth ache for those games. I wanted the Kings to draft Johnson that year, but alas, they took Kenny Thomas instead. Not a terrible choice, but Johnson was better.
I'd also like them to move the 3pt line out to NBA measurements. And while were at it, lets set the shot clock at 24 seconds. I think you would see College coaches get more innovative if those changes were made. You ever notice that you hardly see a college team run the pick and roll? I mean some do, but for the most part, no. I think you have to remember that most college coaches run their teams with an iron fist. Players are given roles, and if they stray out of that role, they'll find themselves on the bench. This is why people are surprised when a player suddenly show's off skills that you didn't see him display in college.
I remember watching Kevin Johnson play at Cal, and he had a coach that was a half court fanatic. He had Johnson walk the ball up the floor every time and go into a half court set. If you watched Johnson play just a few games, you wouldn't have been impressed. But then one night, Johnson exploded and took over the game. He displayed skills that no one knew he had. Of course, shortly he was on the bench. But after that, I made sure to watch as many Cal games that I could in hopes that I would see more of what Johnson had displayed.
Which is why I preach that you can't just watch a couple of games and pass judgement on a player. For all you know he might have had a tooth ache for those games. I wanted the Kings to draft Johnson that year, but alas, they took Kenny Thomas instead. Not a terrible choice, but Johnson was better.
After Murray and Mathurin, the door is wide open for me. There are several players that I like, and except for Griffin, most would be considered a bit of a reach, but I'm of the belief, that if you really like a player, and he's sitting there, don't play games, just grab him and go home. So, one of the players that's worked his way into my heart is Dyson Daniels. He's starting to get a lot of buzz of late and rightly so. I stumbled across him watching the G-League Ignite play, and obviously I wasn't watching the team play to see Daniels. At least not at first.
I was there to see Jaden Hardy, who didn't do much to impress me at that point in time. But other players started to stand out, and one of them wad Daniels. Another was Marjon Beauchamp. Both of them appeared to be good defenders, but both needed to work on their 3pt shot. Daniels apparently did. In his last ten games Dyson shot 43.4% from three, and that included a 0 for 7 game. Without that game, he would have shot over 50%. I believe he shot around 74% from the line.
So aside from that, what excites me. Well, he's basically a 6'7" point forward. He's a terrific passer with very good court vision. I'm not saying he's Cade Cunningham, but he has a similar skill set. He also comes with terrific handles and the ability to get anywhere he wants on the floor. He's very good at getting to the basket, and he has every floater you every imagined in his tool bag. He makes layups high off the glass look easy. Now for the best part. He may be the best defender in the draft. If not the best, he's certainly in the top 3.
His 3pt shot still concerns me, but if he can eventually average close to 37/38% in a year or two, you would have yourself a hell of a player. Some mocks look at him as a guard, and he certainly has guard handles, but I think he can play the wing, and having him on the floor with other good passers like Sabonis, Fox and DiVincenzo could be special. He's obviously not my first or second choice at seven, but he's a player with a high ceiling and could be a steal at seven.
Remember, Daniels was playing against grown men, some of which have played in the NBA and others that are fringe NBA players.
I was there to see Jaden Hardy, who didn't do much to impress me at that point in time. But other players started to stand out, and one of them wad Daniels. Another was Marjon Beauchamp. Both of them appeared to be good defenders, but both needed to work on their 3pt shot. Daniels apparently did. In his last ten games Dyson shot 43.4% from three, and that included a 0 for 7 game. Without that game, he would have shot over 50%. I believe he shot around 74% from the line.
So aside from that, what excites me. Well, he's basically a 6'7" point forward. He's a terrific passer with very good court vision. I'm not saying he's Cade Cunningham, but he has a similar skill set. He also comes with terrific handles and the ability to get anywhere he wants on the floor. He's very good at getting to the basket, and he has every floater you every imagined in his tool bag. He makes layups high off the glass look easy. Now for the best part. He may be the best defender in the draft. If not the best, he's certainly in the top 3.
His 3pt shot still concerns me, but if he can eventually average close to 37/38% in a year or two, you would have yourself a hell of a player. Some mocks look at him as a guard, and he certainly has guard handles, but I think he can play the wing, and having him on the floor with other good passers like Sabonis, Fox and DiVincenzo could be special. He's obviously not my first or second choice at seven, but he's a player with a high ceiling and could be a steal at seven.
Remember, Daniels was playing against grown men, some of which have played in the NBA and others that are fringe NBA players.
Last edited: