Evans dominated the PG's in Minny

[HighTopKicks]

One point that is starting to bother me about the PG issue is so many statements that the Kings need "a pure PG" to get better. Is it not true that the Kings need a "LEADER", a player who can bring the ball up and distribute and make others better by utilizing their skills? Scotty Pippen, Labron, Kobe and a host of other 2/3 position players lead their teams and start the play process. If a PG is there to do it, great. If not, there are other solutions as long as the player has great court vision, can distribute and can draw a double team.

If Kings don't get Rubio (his buyout is a very real deal-killer), it just may be that Evans or Flynn are the best solutions depending on their leadership abilities.

Question: who can help the Kings in the first year to at least double their wins? Rubio or Evans? Where would Flynn or Holiday fit in that argument?

Your point is well made. The Magic made it to the Finals with Hedo being the point SF/ Distributor. But, why only Evans or Flynn? Why not Harden? Retorical, because Evans can do what Harden can do, just not as well right yet. But, Harden isn't the ballhandler/distributor that Evans is.

So, IMO, it comes down to 'Do you take the best PG?' or "Do you take a guy who can play PG but could be your next SG?'. Evans upside to me is that he could be the next Jordan or Kobe at the SG position. But, can fill a need at PG until then. Flynn's upside is that he could be the next CP3. So, roll the dice, and hope we have better luck then we did in the lottory.

 

[Bricklayer]

Your point is well made. The Magic made it to the Finals with Hedo being the point SF/ Distributor. But, why only Evans or Flynn? Why not Harden? Retorical, because Evans can do what Harden can do, just not as well right yet. But, Harden isn't the ballhandler/distributor that Evans is.

So, IMO, it comes down to 'Do you take the best PG?' or "Do you take a guy who can play PG but could be your next SG?'. Evans upside to me is that he could be the next Jordan or Kobe at the SG position. But, can fill a need at PG until then. Flynn's upside is that he could be the next CP3. So, roll the dice, and hope we have better luck then we did in the lottory.

Unfortunately neither guy's upside is either. Saying Evans could be the next Jordan or Flynn the next CP3 is like saying that Douby is the next Iverson. Not quite that bad, but just off the charts unlikely to say the least. Probably upside wise you're talking do you want an 18pt 5ast one on one guy as your PG or a 14pt 7ast Jameer Nelson level leader guy as your PG. Either one of them emerging as a HOF level talent is...not likely.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I doubt Flynn would ever be an all-star, maybe a borderline all-star. I see him as a stronger T.J. Ford with a better jump shot and less playmaking ability. I could totally live with that at 4 in this draft, especially with his character points seemingly being off the charts.

Evans could be a very good player, but I don't know if he's an explosive enough to put his upside anywhere towards franchise player class, and that's what worries me. He's got similar concerns to Brandon Jennings in that he's very ball dominant and doesn't really know how to run an offense. He definitely looks the part of a guy with huge upside, 6'5, long, strong, and a good athlete, but he's one of those guys where it might be hard to justify him being so ball dominant when he doesn't quite have the IQ or skills to justify it. He still has a long way to go IMO, and I don't know if when he gets there he's really going to be a guy you can really center your offense around.

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

Evans or Flynn? easy, curry.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Evans or Flynn? easy, curry.

Curry is actually the safest bet to succeed among the top PG's at our pick in my eyes. World class shooter, can play on an off the ball well, high IQ, and solid-good creator/playmaker.

 

[Dustinlikestodance]

Curry is actually the safest bet to succeed among the top PG's at our pick in my eyes. World class shooter, can play on an off the ball well, high IQ, and solid-good creator/playmaker.

This. Curry seems to be impressing at out workout as well judging by Amick's twitter. Let's see if he can defend at least decently. But yeah, after Rubio, Curry is definitely my pick. Maybe trade down with Minnesota for the #6 and #18/23 pick swap if they want Evans.

 

[HighTopKicks]

Unfortunately neither guy's upside is either. Saying Evans could be the next Jordan or Flynn the next CP3 is like saying that Douby is the next Iverson. Not quite that bad, but just off the charts unlikely to say the least. Probably upside wise you're talking do you want an 18pt 5ast one on one guy as your PG or a 14pt 7ast Jameer Nelson level leader guy as your PG. Either one of them emerging as a HOF level talent is...not likely.

Your right about them not reaching the star stature of Kobe or Jordan, but no one in the draft looks to be the guy that will be a franchise player. But, someone will eventually rise out of this draft to be a star. I don't see a more likely candidate that fills our needs, than one of these two guys. Rubio,yes, but the premise was that he wouldn't be available.

It's a tough call, but I'll take Evans and his size & upside. There are good PG's available in FA (Session & Felton), and there will be others after the draft. I think GP likes the flexiblity with guys that play multiple positions, and Evans fills the bill in that sense. But, it may come down to who helps the defense the most, since that's one of the priorities for Westphal.

 

[bajaden]

Evans or Flynn? easy, curry.

Now there's a surprise..

 

[dbfish]

The more I hear about Jennings the more he reminds me of this guy

I thought it was illegal to clone humans.

 

[bajaden]

Well at least I'm glad that were all in agreement here. I'm glad thats settled...

 

[funkykingston]

One point that is starting to bother me about the PG issue is so many statements that the Kings need "a pure PG" to get better. Is it not true that the Kings need a "LEADER", a player who can bring the ball up and distribute and make others better by utilizing their skills? Scotty Pippen, Labron, Kobe and a host of other 2/3 position players lead their teams and start the play process. If a PG is there to do it, great. If not, there are other solutions as long as the player has great court vision, can distribute and can draw a double team.

Question: who can help the Kings in the first year to at least double their wins? Rubio or Evans? Where would Flynn or Holiday fit in that argument?

Well, we're getting to that phase in the draft process when GMs start talking themselves into guys and Evans is a prime example. In most drafts he's on the outside of the lottery looking in. To me he looks like a bigger but not quite as quick Larry Hughes.

As for which of the two, Rubio or Evans would help the Kings double their win total? Neither. I like Evans, I don't think he's going to be a star, but I like him. That said, he's a poor match for this Kings team especially with Martin at the 2 who can't assume any of the passing, ballhandling or decision making responsibilities to take the pressure off a weak shooting combo guard at the point.

And Rubio will not elevate a team next year. In fact, I think he will struggle - badly. His reaching in on defense will garner him a ton of fouls before he adjusts, he'll turn the ball over too often and he'll have to prove he can hold up physically over an 82 game season. And he may have to do it after missing all or the majority of training camp. I think his rookie year will be alot like Dirk Nowitzki's. Largely disappointing but with just enough flashes to give fans hope, especially his ability to run the pick and roll.

In my mind Flynn has the biggest impact on this team next season. He upgrades them at their weakest position and is ready to play on the NBA level. I don't like Holiday at all. And even if I did, expecting a guy with one season of college ball playing the 2 to come in an run an NBA team right away is unrealistic even if Russell Westbrook did something somewhat similar. I don't see him as an instant impact player and personally I don't see him being a success long term either.

Brandon Jennings is a wild card. He scares me to draft him and he scares me to pass on him. Outside of being built too slight/weak and needing a more consistent shot the only fears with him are all about what's between his ears. He could be a star or a Starbury - maybe without the good years in Minny.

Thabeet scares me, but if he really panned out he could make a huge difference, shoring up interior defense for the first time in a long time in Sacramento. But while I don't see him being a "bust" I could very easily see him being a role player off the bench rather than an impact player.

I wouldn't want to be a GM with the fourth pick in this draft because it is so full of uncertainty and potential busts. But that's why Geoff is getting paid and I'm not. I've come to question a lot of his methods and moves, but I still have a lot of faith in Petrie as a talent evaluator.

 

[Kingster]

Lets assume for a moment that Rubio is either not available or, his buy out presents a problem. To me, the choice then becomes between Flynn and Evans. Can we set aside for a moment, who is a point guard and who isn't. There seems to be a mindset that its a point guard or nothing. I understand. We need a point guard. But if a potential Dwayne Wade was sitting there, would you pass on him just to get the next best point guard.

The judging critiera for Evans seems to be whether he has point guard skills or not. Well lets assume for a moment that he doesn't. Does that automaticly exclude him from being picked. What if, he's the next Michael Jordan. Or the next Kobe. Or the next LeBron. Yeah, I know, I'm going for the extreme here. But its possible he could be special. Of the three I mentioned, only LeBron was thought of as and absolute when he was picked. Everyone knew that Jordan was going to be a good player. But I don't remember anyone at the time predicting the future he had. Kobe was a raw kid with a huge upside. In many ways similar to Evans. Except that Evans doesn't speak French. At least I don't think he does. And I might add, that Kobe didn't really do much his first couple of years in the league.

I like Flynn. I have stated so. He's the safest pick. And, I wouldn't be disappointed if we choose him. But I've also stated that Evans has more star potential than anyone in the top ten other than Rubio and Griffin. If I were to rate players strictly on star potential and nothing else they would be.

1. Griffin
2. Rubio
3. Evans
4. Curry
5. Harden
6. Flynn

Why these guys? Because their all very talented, and their all very confident in their game. They all have, as said in the Rocky movies, the eye of the tiger. Will they all become stars? No probably not. But I think they have the best chance. And most of them will probably be in the running for rookie of the year. Depending on which team they go to.

So back to our problem. Flynn or Evans? Its a hard choice. It really is! My brain tells me to pick Flynn. And my gut tells me to pick Evans. And, almost every time in my life that I've gone against my gut, I've been wrong. But I'm going to think about it a little longer.........

I'm with you on a lot of this. I also think this point guard-no point guard debate is kind of ridiculous. I probably I have a different top six though. I think Evans has the highest ceiling of anyone in this draft, including Griffin. My picks for highest ceiling would be:

1) Evans
2) Harden
3) Griffin
4) Teague
5) Flynn
6) Hill

I just don't think Curry has a very high ceiling at all, because ultimately he's limited athletically.

Here's one more reason to pick Evans: How many times do you think the Kings are going to have the opportunity to draft a flat-out star? We're always talking on this board about how it's very difficult to get one when you're out of the top 10 on the board. Well, we may have one more year of lottery, and then probably (hopefully), we're out of it because our youngins will be more experienced and we'll have made a FA acquisition or two. Then that window of opportunity to get a star is basically closed. So, even though he may be higher risk, you've got to take Evans because he does give you a shot at a star, a very rare shot. And if Evans is a bust and he sets the Kings back one more year from getting out of the lottery, so be it - it gives you one more shot at getting a star.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I'm with you on a lot of this. I also think this point guard-no point guard debate is kind of ridiculous. I probably I have a different top six though. I think Evans has the highest ceiling of anyone in this draft, including Griffin. My picks for highest ceiling would be:

1) Evans
2) Harden
3) Griffin
4) Teague
5) Flynn
6) Hill

I just don't think Curry has a very high ceiling at all, because ultimately he's limited athletically.

Here's one more reason to pick Evans: How many times do you think the Kings are going to have the opportunity to draft a flat-out star? We're always talking on this board about how it's very difficult to get one when you're out of the top 10 on the board. Well, we may have one more year of lottery, and then probably (hopefully), we're out of it because our youngins will be more experienced and we'll have made a FA acquisition or two. Then that window of opportunity to get a star is basically closed. So, even though he may be higher risk, you've got to take Evans because he does give you a shot at a star, a very rare shot. And if Evans is a bust and he sets the Kings back one more year from getting out of the lottery, so be it - it gives you one more shot at getting a star.

Eh, I don't see star upside with Evans. Those shot mechanics can only take him so far, and he's not an elite athlete. He's a good all around athlete; good body control, good strength, good change of pace/direction, good first step and lateral quickness. However, he's not in the Wade, McGrady, Penny, Francis, Kobe, LeBron level athletically. He doesn't have their explosiveness IMO. I think if you're just talking pure upside, I'd say Jennings has the most.

 

[Kingster]

As for which of the two, Rubio or Evans would help the Kings double their win total? Neither. I like Evans, I don't think he's going to be a star, but I like him. That said, he's a poor match for this Kings team especially with Martin at the 2 who can't assume any of the passing, ballhandling or decision making responsibilities to take the pressure off a weak shooting combo guard at the point.

Evans is a very good complement for this team. He can handle the ball very well and he can pass the ball; he's just not a Chris Paul creator. The strongest point of Evans's game is getting to the basket and finishing. The weakest is outside shooting. He would be playing on the court with four other outside shooting players, all of whom will spread the court and give him mega-room to drive to the hole. That's a dream for him. He doesn't have to be constrained by a center and pf who would clog the middle and make it much harder to drive to the basket. And when he proves that he's a big threat to going to the hole, teams have to back off their man, making it much easier for him to make passes. Moreover, on defense he's a perfect complement because Martin and he could just switch on screens, as they are both pretty much the same size. That means Martin won't be rubbed off on screens like he always is.

 

[bajaden]

Well, we're getting to that phase in the draft process when GMs start talking themselves into guys and Evans is a prime example. In most drafts he's on the outside of the lottery looking in. To me he looks like a bigger but not quite as quick Larry Hughes.

As for which of the two, Rubio or Evans would help the Kings double their win total? Neither. I like Evans, I don't think he's going to be a star, but I like him. That said, he's a poor match for this Kings team especially with Martin at the 2 who can't assume any of the passing, ballhandling or decision making responsibilities to take the pressure off a weak shooting combo guard at the point.

I don't propose to know whats in Petrie's mind, but if I were to make a guess, its that he see's Evans as a Christie type player. Someone who can bring the ball up when needed to and who can play tough defense at the two position or perhaps at the one. Last year Martin played in 51 games. The year before he played in 61 games. As his minutes have risen, so have his injuries. It could just be a coincidence, but maybe not.

As a first year player he would probably get more playing time because of being able to play two positions, and would be insurance against another Martin injury. There would also be times when Martin could play a little three when the matchups allow. Like against the Warriors when they go small. Oh wait, they're always small.

Logic tells me that if Rubio isn't available at #4, then we take Flynn. And I'm OK with that. I really like Flynn. But I wouldn't be surprised if Petrie selects Evan's. He's a Petrie type of player. But hey, Curry could come in tomorrow and just blow Petrie's socks off. Only the shadow knows....

 

[Sptsjunkie]

I don't propose to know whats in Petrie's mind, but if I were to make a guess, its that he see's Evans as a Christie type player. Someone who can bring the ball up when needed to and who can play tough defense at the two position or perhaps at the one. Last year Martin played in 51 games. The year before he played in 61 games. As his minutes have risen, so have his injuries. It could just be a coincidence, but maybe not.

As a first year player he would probably get more playing time because of being able to play two positions, and would be insurance against another Martin injury. There would also be times when Martin could play a little three when the matchups allow. Like against the Warriors when they go small. Oh wait, they're always small.

Logic tells me that if Rubio isn't available at #4, then we take Flynn. And I'm OK with that. I really like Flynn. But I wouldn't be surprised if Petrie selects Evan's. He's a Petrie type of player. But hey, Curry could come in tomorrow and just blow Petrie's socks off. Only the shadow knows....

I think of all the players, Curry is the most Petrie-esque. High basketball IQ, great shooter, good character, good fundamentals and understanding of how to play a team game. I have a gut feeling that if Curry comes in tomorrow and puts on the type of shooting display he is capable of, we could easily be seeing him in a Kings uniform next season assuming Rubio is off the board.

 

[Kingster]

Eh, I don't see star upside with Evans. Those shot mechanics can only take him so far, and he's not an elite athlete. He's a good all around athlete; good body control, good strength, good change of pace/direction, good first step and lateral quickness. However, he's not in the Wade, McGrady, Penny, Francis, Kobe, LeBron level athletically. He doesn't have their explosiveness IMO. I think if you're just talking pure upside, I'd say Jennings has the most.

Fair enough. I don't think he has the explosiveness of Kobe or LeBron either. I haven't seen Jenkins play so I can't really agree or disagree on that. And I haven't seen Rubio either, so I left him out. But of the guys that I have seen (my list), I think Evans has the highest ceiling.

 

[Kingster]

I think of all the players, Curry is the most Petrie-esque. High basketball IQ, great shooter, good character, good fundamentals and understanding of how to play a team game. I have a gut feeling that if Curry comes in tomorrow and puts on the type of shooting display he is capable of, we could easily be seeing him in a Kings uniform next season assuming Rubio is off the board.

I hope not. We'd have the All-NBA Athletically Challenged team wrapped up if we picked him. All we'd have to do then is pick Hansbrough at #23 to continue to be the most pathetic defensive team in the NBA.

 

[Kingster]

I don't propose to know whats in Petrie's mind, but if I were to make a guess, its that he see's Evans as a Christie type player. Someone who can bring the ball up when needed to and who can play tough defense at the two position or perhaps at the one. Last year Martin played in 51 games. The year before he played in 61 games. As his minutes have risen, so have his injuries. It could just be a coincidence, but maybe not.

As a first year player he would probably get more playing time because of being able to play two positions, and would be insurance against another Martin injury. There would also be times when Martin could play a little three when the matchups allow. Like against the Warriors when they go small. Oh wait, they're always small.

Logic tells me that if Rubio isn't available at #4, then we take Flynn. And I'm OK with that. I really like Flynn. But I wouldn't be surprised if Petrie selects Evan's. He's a Petrie type of player. But hey, Curry could come in tomorrow and just blow Petrie's socks off. Only the shadow knows....

I like Flynn too. If we're talking about who Petrie will pick, and not should pick, I think it's Harden (if available) or Flynn. And maybe Rubio if he's available. I pray he doesn't pick Curry. Sorry, but I've had enough of short, athletically challenged shooters at the guard position. With Flynn, at least you get the potential of really having someone who could play some good D down the line. Also, I really get this pseudo-confidence schtick from Curry that I don't like. He's not good enough to think he's that good. And I think in the NBA he will have a Redick experience where he finds out he's not that good.

 

[gunks]

Evans is kinda giving me those star player on a bad team vibes.

Maybe he'll get rookie of the year and we use him to trade up and grab Wall next draft, haha.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

I hope not. We'd have the All-NBA Athletically Challenged team wrapped up if we picked him. All we'd have to do then is pick Hansbrough at #23 to continue to be the most pathetic defensive team in the NBA.

I've gone back and forth on this one, but at the end of the day I don't think it matters if we are the worst defensive team in the league next year. If Curry is the best player, than I am all for picking him. We are not a playoff team next season regardless of whether or not we pick a good defender. If we get back to being an explosive offensive team and put up good stats, then Petrie can tinker with the team and get us some good defenders. Our '99 team was pathetic defensively, but Petrie was able to add guys like Christie, Jackson, Clark, J. Jackson, etc and our less athletic guys committed to defense to win as well. Right now we just need talent.

 

[bajaden]

I like Flynn too. If we're talking about who Petrie will pick, and not should pick, I think it's Harden (if available) or Flynn. And maybe Rubio if he's available. I pray he doesn't pick Curry. Sorry, but I've had enough of short, athletically challenged shooters at the guard position. With Flynn, at least you get the potential of really having someone who could play some good D down the line. Also, I really get this pseudo-confidence schtick from Curry that I don't like. He's not good enough to think he's that good. And I think in the NBA he will have a Redick experience where he finds out he's not that good.

Well I will say this. Curry is better at getting his own shot than Redick is. I also think he's a better athlete than him. That is by no means an endorsement. As a general statement, I find it interesting how people will get attached to a certain player, and will ride to hell with him. Hey, I've done it myself. I try not to, so as to be as objective as possible and also, not to set myself up for disappointment.

One common error that a lot of people make, is that they take the human element out of the equation. They judge players by their athleticism, and now, by their one year of college. I'm not saying you shouldn't pay attention to those things. But what if the system in college didn't allow the player to show all his skills. What if he was a point guard, but his coach told him he needed him to be one of the leading scorers.

What made Larry Bird such a great player. Yeah, he was a great shooter. But he wasn't very athletic. He couldn't run that fast or jump that high. Yet he was a superstar. I just think that when we look at an Evans or a Curry or a Holiday, we should be careful with our judgements. There could be something between their ears that seperates them from the rest. Hell, DeRozan could end up being the best player in the draft 5 years from now.

The biggest obstacle that anyone faces in his/her life is the mental one. Overcoming your fears, whatever they might be. I won't delve any futher into this because it would take too long. But give me a athletic, highly skilled basketball player that hates to lose and can't understand why his team just lost, and can't wait for the next time they play the same team, and you have a winner. Or, as Vince Lombardi said. Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser..

 

[Gary]

But that begs the question. Do you think he "dominated" the ball because he's a selfish bastard, because it's in his DNA, because he can't pass worth a darn, because he didn't have anybody to pass to, because his coach told him to, or all or some of the above, or none of the above? If he's in the NBA, in a different system, surrounded by different players do you think he might perform differently?

I know they don't really compare much, but I really thought of John Salmons when I saw Evans controlling the ball.

 

[Gary]

Oh also... What irritates me the most lately is all these players coming out that are undersized that cannot distribute the ball or make anyone around them better.. What happened to the REAL point guards? It's like everyone is out there to get their own points, and to hell with the rest of their teammates. I do not want that type of player coming anywhere near this team. It's like Iverson created a whole generation of ME-boys.

It sucks that most of the people that are being talked about as PGs have little to no ball handling or distribution abilities.

If it came down to drafting one of them or selling the pick I would rather sell the pick. I just don't like people trying to turn undersized SGs into crappy PGs.

 

[Kingster]

Well I will say this. Curry is better at getting his own shot than Redick is. I also think he's a better athlete than him. That is by no means an endorsement. As a general statement, I find it interesting how people will get attached to a certain player, and will ride to hell with him. Hey, I've done it myself. I try not to, so as to be as objective as possible and also, not to set myself up for disappointment.

One common error that a lot of people make, is that they take the human element out of the equation. They judge players by their athleticism, and now, by their one year of college. I'm not saying you shouldn't pay attention to those things. But what if the system in college didn't allow the player to show all his skills. What if he was a point guard, but his coach told him he needed him to be one of the leading scorers.

What made Larry Bird such a great player. Yeah, he was a great shooter. But he wasn't very athletic. He couldn't run that fast or jump that high. Yet he was a superstar. I just think that when we look at an Evans or a Curry or a Holiday, we should be careful with our judgements. There could be something between their ears that seperates them from the rest. Hell, DeRozan could end up being the best player in the draft 5 years from now.

The biggest obstacle that anyone faces in his/her life is the mental one. Overcoming your fears, whatever they might be. I won't delve any futher into this because it would take too long. But give me a athletic, highly skilled basketball player that hates to lose and can't understand why his team just lost, and can't wait for the next time they play the same team, and you have a winner. Or, as Vince Lombardi said. Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser..

There's an exception to most every rule, but they have rules for a reason. The Bird example is way overplayed. People use Bird as an example to support the case from drafting a non-athlete, but Bird was quick, he just wasn't fast. (And he was 6'9"). And quickness is probably the most important attribute in basketball. I really don't know any short guards who aren't very quick that are very good in the NBA. And when I looked very closely at Curry during the college season, he struggled against the athletic teams. I wouldn't want to take him because he might be the exception; I'd rather stick to the rule.

 

[Pangloss]

There's an exception to most every rule, but they have rules for a reason. The Bird example is way overplayed. People use Bird as an example to support the case from drafting a non-athlete, but Bird was quick, he just wasn't fast. (And he was 6'9"). And quickness is probably the most important attribute in basketball. I really don't know any short guards who aren't very quick that are very good in the NBA. And when I looked very closely at Curry during the college season, he struggled against the athletic teams. I wouldn't want to take him because he might be the exception; I'd rather stick to the rule.

While I agree with the bolded, I can't help but wonder why you don't apply to 'rules of thumb', when it comes to Evans. How many lottery selected big point guards actually make a successful transition as points in the NBA? Every couple of years a big point guard prospect emerges and is subsequently hyped to the moon, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/2004/draft/players/18931.html yet inevitably fails to make the transition, whether do to failing to develop as a play maker; failing to develop a consistent jumper; being unable to advance the ball against pressure defense; or lacking the quickness to adequately defend their position. Far more guys who fit the profile of Evans washout or become role-players (Jamal Crawford) than not.

So bajaden may be rejecting the conventional wisdom or "rules" with his paticular player preference, but can you say you are not guilty of the same?

As for the second bolded:

1. Curry is not small. (although he does have T-Rex arms). At 6' 2" barefoot and 6'3" in shoes, his size shouldn't be an issue.

2. Point guards who are successful in the NBA without great quickness include: Andre Miller, Jose Calderon, and Mike Bibby.

 

[KingsCitizen]

I know they don't really compare much, but I really thought of John Salmons when I saw Evans controlling the ball.

That's what scares me with Evans coz I just don't think he have good enough handles to efficiently control the PG position. We already had 2 guys on this team before that have flexibility to play PG from time to time (see Cisco and Salmons) but neither was able to even put Beno as a backup. I see Evans as more of a tweener to PG but who will not be totally efficient to be a floor general. He will dominate any PG as Salmons or Garcia could also provided they are too big for any PG. But when it comes to managing a team on the floor, I just don't thing he is what the Kings will need.

 

[ElRey]

While I agree with the bolded, I can't help but wonder why you don't apply to 'rules of thumb', when it comes to Evans. How many lottery selected big point guards actually make a successful transition as points in the NBA? Every couple of years a big point guard prospect emerges and is subsequently hyped to the moon, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/2004/draft/players/18931.html yet inevitably fails to make the transition, whether do to failing to develop as a play maker; failing to develop a consistent jumper; being unable to advance the ball against pressure defense; or lacking the quickness to adequately defend their position. Far more guys who fit the profile of Evans washout or become role-players (Jamal Crawford) than not.

So bajaden may be rejecting the conventional wisdom or "rules" with his paticular player preference, but can you say you are not guilty of the same?

As for the second bolded:

1. Curry is not small. (although he does have T-Rex arms). At 6' 2" barefoot and 6'3" in shoes, his size shouldn't be an issue.

2. Point guards who are successful in the NBA without great quickness include: Andre Miller, Jose Calderon, and Mike Bibby.

I agree with you that Big point guards have not done well in the NBA. But I think what's unique about Evans is his handles and his ability to "juke" point guards, that we haven't seen in these other big point guards in the past. The big point guards in the past cannot get by NBA pt guards, so they can't create for their team. From what I've seen of Evans, he's the only draft prospect that I've ever seen that looks like he CAN shake the crap out of NBA point guards like Derrick Rose, etc. Some support of this is in how there have been reports of him dominating against other top PG prospects in workouts (like Flynn, Teague, Jennings, etc) . In 1 on 1 (assuming you can't post up), usually it's a smaller guys who dominate because they are much quicker. I think Evans does well in these workouts b/c he has that special ability to create and get by his man. And in a real game situation, once you get by your man on offense, you can either create a shot for yourself or for your teammates. That is why I'm intrigued by Evans and his potential. People compare Evans to Francisco Garcia and John Salmons, but I don't think their handles and penetration ability even compare to Evans.

If we are going to draft Evans, of course we will also need to get a more traditional pg on the team that we can throw in for specific matchups.

 

[bajaden]

There's an exception to most every rule, but they have rules for a reason. The Bird example is way overplayed. People use Bird as an example to support the case from drafting a non-athlete, but Bird was quick, he just wasn't fast. (And he was 6'9"). And quickness is probably the most important attribute in basketball. I really don't know any short guards who aren't very quick that are very good in the NBA. And when I looked very closely at Curry during the college season, he struggled against the athletic teams. I wouldn't want to take him because he might be the exception; I'd rather stick to the rule.

Your right, there is an exception to every rule. And thats exactly my point. To be careful and not overlook one of them. We have a tendecy to always compare a draftee to someone thats played before. Either positively or negatively. People want to compare Evans to either Douby or Magic, depending on how extreme you want to go in either direction.

I brought up Bird because he's a recognizable name and a perfect example. I have very clear memories of when Bird was drafted and there were just as many negative reports about him as there were positive. Everyone knew he could shoot the ball and that he was a good passer. But they all said he wasn't very athletic and that he couldn't jump. He was thought to be a defensive liability by many. Sure, with hindsight, we can now expound on how he was a good rebounder and a very good defensive player, but few thought that at the time.

By the way, my post was a generalization and not about Curry. But there have been point guards that weren't great athletes and were very sucessful. Mark Jackson comes to mind along with John Stockton. Steve Nash isn't a great athlete. Neither was Timmy Hardaway. But they all had something that made them special.

I just think that you can't just discard someone because maybe his lateral quickness isn't above average. Or he can't jump as high as most to the others can. Or perhaps he wasn't a very good shooter in college. You have to consider the whole package as it is, and what you think it can become. Its not an exact science. If it were, we wouldn't even have to look at the players. We could just do it all on a computer.

 

[Kingster]

While I agree with the bolded, I can't help but wonder why you don't apply to 'rules of thumb', when it comes to Evans. How many lottery selected big point guards actually make a successful transition as points in the NBA? Every couple of years a big point guard prospect emerges and is subsequently hyped to the moon, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/2004/draft/players/18931.html yet inevitably fails to make the transition, whether do to failing to develop as a play maker; failing to develop a consistent jumper; being unable to advance the ball against pressure defense; or lacking the quickness to adequately defend their position. Far more guys who fit the profile of Evans washout or become role-players (Jamal Crawford) than not.

So bajaden may be rejecting the conventional wisdom or "rules" with his paticular player preference, but can you say you are not guilty of the same?

As for the second bolded:

1. Curry is not small. (although he does have T-Rex arms). At 6' 2" barefoot and 6'3" in shoes, his size shouldn't be an issue.

2. Point guards who are successful in the NBA without great quickness include: Andre Miller, Jose Calderon, and Mike Bibby.

To answer your last question, no, I'm not. You're assuming I buy into to your rule. I'm using one rule: small non-athletic guys typically don't make it in the NBA, or if they do, they certainly aren't stars. Nash is one exception. The guys you mentioned are mediocre to good players. Hardaway and Stockton, who Bajaden mentions, were exceptionally quick, not just kinda quick, but exceptionally quick.

Now, leaving aside rules, I've already said that Evans has more risk associated with him than say Flynn. Why? Because he's not a very good shooter. Now if you want to say that's a rule, go for it: guys who can't shoot very well are higher risk than guys who can. But to me, I'd rather look at in terms of degrees of probability rather than an absolute. Why? Because with shooting, that's something that we've seen definitely has the possibility of getting better with practice. It's hard for short non-athletic guys to get taller or more athletic with practice.