KINGS PICKING 4TH IN 2022 NBA DRAFT!

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ESP47

All-Star
#1,231
#1,231
tyguy said:
How many guards that only score end up having elite impacts? Donovan Mitchell might be the closest thing but he’s not quite elite. Even if Murray turned out to be a role player I’d still rather have that than a guard that scores, but isn’t a good playmaker. Very few guards 6’4” and under have big defensive impacts and we know he was terrible in college so it isn’t happening in the nba. The 6’4” and under guard that scores but can’t be your primary playmaker just isn’t all that valuable to winning basketball. 33 points per 100 possessions isn’t elite scoring volume either.

For what it’s worth my three favorite players in this draft are Chet, Murray and Eason.
Click to expand...
Weird thing is that Donovan was touted as a really good defender coming out of college and kind of flipped the script on his scouting report once he got to the NBA. His impact stats aren't quite as good as his numbers would make you think but he would still be up there with Sabonis.

I've compared Murray and Eason a bit because I really like Eason. I think Eason is going to be a much better defender than Murray. I think Murray will be average while Eason will be upper echelon in that department. Murray is a much better shooter but I think Eason will hold his own. The one thing that Eason is really bad at is playing out of control and turning the ball over and that is something Murray is elite at. Eason can take some really terrible Russell Westbrook type shots and make some really out of control drives and passes that will leave you scratching your head. Eason is also pretty elite at getting to the FT line. Murray is no slouch in that department but Eason is better than even Fox was.

An interesting observation:

Eason 806 minutes played
Murray 1116 minutes played

Eason 62% TS
Murray 64% TS

Eason 27.7ppg per40
Murray 29.5ppg per40

Makes you wonder if Eason would have been up there with Murray offensively if he was allotted the minutes or if Eason's per40 numbers are inflated because he mostly came off the bench and played less minutes. Usually per36/40 numbers are inflated for bench players but Eason was still averaging 24mpg so his numbers will inflate by a bit but not as much as a guy playing half that.
 
EIM86

EIM86

Starter
#1,232
#1,232
NiNetNiNe said:
I don't get the dog mentality. Why? Because he goes fast? Nevermind the fact that Murray was, quite literally, a one man wrecking crew on his team. Everyone knew he was their whole offense and he still put up crazy numbers efficiently.

Additionally, people bash Murray for his age when Ivey is only a year younger. Somehow Murray is too old to learn new tricks but somehow, magically, someone a year younger has all the neuroplasticity in the world.
Click to expand...
He only played 2 years of D-1 ball.
He’s a college senior with only the experience of a college Sophomore.
 
EIM86

EIM86

Starter
#1,233
#1,233
ESP47 said:
Weird thing is that Donovan was touted as a really good defender coming out of college and kind of flipped the script on his scouting report once he got to the NBA. His impact stats aren't quite as good as his numbers would make you think but he would still be up there with Sabonis.

I've compared Murray and Eason a bit because I really like Eason. I think Eason is going to be a much better defender than Murray. I think Murray will be average while Eason will be upper echelon in that department. Murray is a much better shooter but I think Eason will hold his own. The one thing that Eason is really bad at is playing out of control and turning the ball over and that is something Murray is elite at. Eason can take some really terrible Russell Westbrook type shots and make some really out of control drives and passes that will leave you scratching your head. Eason is also pretty elite at getting to the FT line. Murray is no slouch in that department but Eason is better than even Fox was.

An interesting observation:

Eason 806 minutes played
Murray 1116 minutes played

Eason 62% TS
Murray 64% TS

Eason 27.7ppg per40
Murray 29.5ppg per40

Makes you wonder if Eason would have been up there with Murray offensively if he was allotted the minutes or if Eason's per40 numbers are inflated because he mostly came off the bench and played less minutes. Usually per36/40 numbers are inflated for bench players but Eason was still averaging 24mpg so his numbers will inflate by a bit but not as much as a guy playing half that.
Click to expand...
Definitely seems like there’s gonna be a lot of steals pick value wise but no superstars in the draft
 
Kingster

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#1,235
#1,235
ESP47 said:
It's improbable that any college player develops a skill in the NBA that they didn't have in college. I think it's wishful thinking to just assume that they'll develop any type of skill if they haven't shown any of it by draft time.

I'd say he has a better shot at developing into a good defender since he's athletic and has good lateral foot speed over a slow unathletic player but I still wouldn't say he has anything other than improbable odds of getting there since he hasn't shown much of anything on the defensive end other than a possession here and there.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? You don't think many college players get better at shooting in the NBA? You don't think many get better defensively? Come on. It's not a guarantee that they develop the skill, but it's certainly possible. And with all the time and coaching available to them to develop, many do.
 
E

ESP47

All-Star
#1,236
#1,236
Kingster said:
Are you serious? You don't think many college players get better at shooting in the NBA? You don't think many get better defensively? Come on. It's not a guarantee that they develop the skill, but it's certainly possible. And with all the time and coaching available to them to develop, many do.
Click to expand...
I said improbable, not impossible. I don't even think this point is really even disputable. Most poor shooters in college do not become good shooters in the NBA. Some do but I've never said it was impossible. Just improbable. Otherwise you could just pick the player with the coolest hair and wish all his skills into existence.
 
SacTownKid

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#1,241
#1,241
Kingster said:
Sabonis and Fox are barely entering their prime. I'm not worried about being cemented into anything at this point, especially with the 4th pick in the draft that will either net a 19 or so year old or a young vet in trade. You're trying to get to the top of Mt. Everest before you even reach Mt. Whitney.
Click to expand...
Once the cap is cemented on role players, it's pretty much done.
 
SacTownKid

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#1,242
#1,242
Noble said:
There is no way college players are complete players, give me a break
Click to expand...
True, but it should be said, sometimes you are as complete as your athletic gifts can make you. Especially at the NBA level. Last year people convinced themselves that someone like Kai Jones was an elite athlete. Sure, he's terrific in a sprint, but as an athlete overall, go ask any Hornets fan about that and they'll tell stories about the bill of goods they were sold. Lateral mobility, acceleration, and burst are paramount.
 
Spike

Spike

Subsidiary Intermediary
Staff member
#1,243
#1,243
SacTownKid said:
True, but it should be said, sometimes you are as complete as your athletic gifts can make you. Especially at the NBA level. Last year people convinced themselves that someone like Kai Jones was an elite athlete. Sure, he's terrific in a sprint, but as an athlete overall, go ask any Hornets fan about that and they'll tell stories about the bill of goods they were sold. Lateral mobility, acceleration, and burst are paramount.
Click to expand...
What good is speed, if you're always running in the wrong direction? Every year people go crazy over athleticism, but in the NBA, everyone (except Jokic) is an elite athlete. Given everything else being roughly equal, I'll take the player smart enough to understand complex team concepts.

No one on this draft board is so athletically head and shoulders above anyone else that they simply out-talent their competition. Everyone has had moments of being shut down, so I'm looking for the player that will provide the most impact in a team structure on both sides of the ball. Ivey is the best guard on the board, at a position where we have quality depth. He's not better on defense than Mitchell, and he's not better than Fox on offense. I like Ivey - he's a good athlete, and if he's as smart as his mom, then he's a great pickup for someone who needs that. But, as much as I'd like to see Niele in purple, it's not Sacramento.

In terms of who I think is best for this team, it would be Smith. If he's there at 2, see what it takes to trade up. If it's too much, then Murray is there at 4. I don't think it's a reach, given the quality of players in the top 4. I don't think Banchero is a good fit, because he'll occupy a lot of the similar space that Sabonis would, and I don't think Holmgren is available at 4, who is probably as stretchy as a 5 could be.

If the Kings want to defy logic, I would be ok with Sharpe at 4. Yeah, he's young, but this coaching staff looks built to actually coach and develop players, and that has me excited. I'm ok with Sharpe here, seeing as it's not Walton and Co. running the show.

TL;DR: (order of preference, not skill)
Smith
Murray
Holmgren
Sharpe
Ivey
Banchero
 
Noble

Noble

Bench
#1,244
#1,244
Athleticism, and mental makeup, are the two most important qualities to me. Everything else can be worked on. Everyone is bigger, faster, stronger, more skilled, in the pros. If you have the right mindset and great athletic traits, the odds are good to be successful.
 
J

jiimbob

Starter
#1,245
#1,245
Spike said:
What good is speed, if you're always running in the wrong direction? Every year people go crazy over athleticism, but in the NBA, everyone (except Jokic) is an elite athlete. Given everything else being roughly equal, I'll take the player smart enough to understand complex team concepts.

No one on this draft board is so athletically head and shoulders above anyone else that they simply out-talent their competition. Everyone has had moments of being shut down, so I'm looking for the player that will provide the most impact in a team structure on both sides of the ball. Ivey is the best guard on the board, at a position where we have quality depth. He's not better on defense than Mitchell, and he's not better than Fox on offense. I like Ivey - he's a good athlete, and if he's as smart as his mom, then he's a great pickup for someone who needs that. But, as much as I'd like to see Niele in purple, it's not Sacramento.

In terms of who I think is best for this team, it would be Smith. If he's there at 2, see what it takes to trade up. If it's too much, then Murray is there at 4. I don't think it's a reach, given the quality of players in the top 4. I don't think Banchero is a good fit, because he'll occupy a lot of the similar space that Sabonis would, and I don't think Holmgren is available at 4, who is probably as stretchy as a 5 could be.

If the Kings want to defy logic, I would be ok with Sharpe at 4. Yeah, he's young, but this coaching staff looks built to actually coach and develop players, and that has me excited. I'm ok with Sharpe here, seeing as it's not Walton and Co. running the show.

TL;DR: (order of preference, not skill)
Smith
Murray
Holmgren
Sharpe
Ivey
Banchero
Click to expand...
I like your last paragraph. I’m also excited that we have what’s looking like a competent coaching staff.
I’m not hearing much feedback about Sharp or his being in the top four consideration. Not sure, whats that about, the not enough data on him makes sense for the general public but I would think with workouts etc.. there would now be more of a read. Sharp has the size to play some SF as well as guard so was intrigued by the fit.
 
Capt. Factorial

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#1,248
#1,248
Tetsujin said:
https://twitter.com/statuses/1535675032646696960
Click to expand...
If OKC wants to take Sharpe at 2, then that leaves one of the "big three" for us - and I'd say we should take whichever one it is that falls and not look back. If we were to pass on Sharpe, I'd have some pretty serious FOMO. If somebody takes him in front of us, well, nothing we could do. If we have to make Banchero or Holmgren-flavored lemonade, so be it.
 
SacTownKid

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#1,249
#1,249
Spike said:
What good is speed, if you're always running in the wrong direction? Every year people go crazy over athleticism, but in the NBA, everyone (except Jokic) is an elite athlete. Given everything else being roughly equal, I'll take the player smart enough to understand complex team concepts.

No one on this draft board is so athletically head and shoulders above anyone else that they simply out-talent their competition. Everyone has had moments of being shut down, so I'm looking for the player that will provide the most impact in a team structure on both sides of the ball. Ivey is the best guard on the board, at a position where we have quality depth. He's not better on defense than Mitchell, and he's not better than Fox on offense. I like Ivey - he's a good athlete, and if he's as smart as his mom, then he's a great pickup for someone who needs that. But, as much as I'd like to see Niele in purple, it's not Sacramento.

In terms of who I think is best for this team, it would be Smith. If he's there at 2, see what it takes to trade up. If it's too much, then Murray is there at 4. I don't think it's a reach, given the quality of players in the top 4. I don't think Banchero is a good fit, because he'll occupy a lot of the similar space that Sabonis would, and I don't think Holmgren is available at 4, who is probably as stretchy as a 5 could be.

If the Kings want to defy logic, I would be ok with Sharpe at 4. Yeah, he's young, but this coaching staff looks built to actually coach and develop players, and that has me excited. I'm ok with Sharpe here, seeing as it's not Walton and Co. running the show.

TL;DR: (order of preference, not skill)
Smith
Murray
Holmgren
Sharpe
Ivey
Banchero
Click to expand...
But who's running the wrong direction? If a player is devoid of any and all talent or skill then they aren't in the discussion when it comes to topics like this. If anyone thinks that Ivey is without clear and obvious skill and ability they're tricking themselves. The question is what happens when someone like that taps into their potential.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.