Kawhi Leonard

[joemama]

Wesley Johnson and Fredette

We should offer the 7th pick for Wesley Johnson, then Cassipi/Greene for 15-19 range for Faried or Fredette

Minnesota has Beasley taking massive quantities of minutes, Johnson could really be our another great threat from down town to compliment Thorton (if resigned)

This would basically give us a four "combo guard" rotation

Tyreke/Beno
Thorton/Fredette
Johnson/Greene
Cousins/35th pick
Dalembert/Thompson

 

[bajaden]

What Love has is something I understand from personal experience. It was the thing I said about him from the first time I saw him -- he just has a brute strength about him that goes beyond testing. He's a lousy athlete, but every time a ball touches his hands, its just his. When he establishes positoon in the post, he's not moving. And its not something you can necessarily test. Certainly not something that always shows up visually. Chris Bosh or Amare have considerably more defined muscles, but if they ever fought Love he would dismember them and use one of the feet as a backscratcher.

If you've ever seen a world's strongest man competition some of those tests might be the way to ferrret that out, rather than something simple and limited like bench reps. Have these guys all try to pull a car with their teeth or something, you'd separate the men from the boys pretty quick

Add in the factor that Love is very skilled. He's fundamentaly sound. He also has great instincts, that you just can't teach. Dennis Rodman was a very good athlete, but so what? So is Tyrus Thomas! So why can't Thomas do what Rodman did? The answer won't show up on paper, or in combine testing results. All players are individuals with different physical abilities, and desires. You can have quick lateral movement, but have poor reflex action, and as a result, your wasting your quickness. Duane Causwell was a very good athlete, but he came in last in hand to eye coordination in rookie testing the year he was drafted. That small thing is what prevented him from being a good player instead of an average one.

I really like the new test they had at the combine this year. Its the modified lateral agility test where you have to react to the lights. It tests the players reflex abilities. Its much easier to put up good numbers in a test when you know where your susposed to go, as opposed to having to react to lights without knowing the light pattern.

Bottom line is, if you like what you see in the games, I don't think you throw all that out the window because of some testing at the combine. I think you use all the information you can find, including the interview process. Even the players college results can sometimes be misleading. If he's a center or a PF, did his college team have a decent PG that could get him the ball, or was his PG a shoot first PG that was looking for his own stats. Was he a player that was best suited for an up tempo game, but played on a team the played a slow halfcourt game. Did he have a coach that tried to use his strengths, or did he have a coach that was very restrictive, and forced him to play in a system that didn't allow him to showcase all his abilities.

You can't just look at a stat sheet and make a judgement. All the stat sheet is, is a visual of the final result with no history of how that result was obtained. And thats the important part.

 

[bajaden]

I've always taken issue with the NFL combine drastically changing a player's stock one way or another but I think the NBA combine is even less relevant. I actually agree with your whole post Bajaden but there's a bit of irony here as you are using the bench press numbers to try and compare strength.

Not that the bench press numbers are useless, but one issue is that guys with really long arms (like Leonard) have a harder time with it. The guys that can really put up weight are barrel chested guys with T-Rex arms. Again, just my issue with giving undue weight to combine numbers vs game tape, especially in the NBA.

That said, I've never got why Leonard has been compared to Marion or Gerald Wallace. He's not that kind of explosive leaper or that quick twitch movement that makes him look like he's playing at a different speed than everyone else. What he does have is an unending motor and tenacity. I'd agree he's a better than average athlete and a smooth one but he's not as explosive as people want him to be. Somewhere between Artest and Marion is a good way to look at it.

I probably shouldn't have even mentioned the bench press, but Leonard didn't really fare well in that test with just 3, while Singleton did around 14 or so. But having seen both guys play quite bit, it doesn't take much time to realize that Singleton is a physical specimen, and is just bigger and stronger than Leonard. I would compare Singleton more to Gerald Wallace than I would Leonard, and I don't think he's as good an athlete as Wallace was coming out of college. Wallace was a freak athlete in just about every aspect that can be measured. All he lacked were the skills to go along with those abilities. Wallace is a perfect example of a player not advancing his skill level in college because of being forced to play out of his natural position.

Ironicly, Leonard does have longer arms than Singleton. 7'3" to 7'1". Not a huge difference, and I'm not sure its a big enough difference to let Leonard slide on his bench press results. However, I doubt the Larry Bird was the winner of the bench press coming out of the combine. Durant sucked at his bench press, and he's doing just fine. So unless your a 7 foot, 280 pound center, and you can only do 1 bench press, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

 

[funkykingston]

Ironicly, Leonard does have longer arms than Singleton. 7'3" to 7'1". Not a huge difference, and I'm not sure its a big enough difference to let Leonard slide on his bench press results. However, I doubt the Larry Bird was the winner of the bench press coming out of the combine. Durant sucked at his bench press, and he's doing just fine. So unless your a 7 foot, 280 pound center, and you can only do 1 bench press, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

They've got different frames, but that's a bit beside the point. I can argue that the bench press is a poor indicator of overall strength but I wouldn't argue that Singleton isn't stronger than Leonard. I think he's better athletically in a lot of ways. For me the question is about future potential with each of them and my gut says Leonard will develop more on the next level.

Yeah, interesting thing about Durant. One website (I forget which, maybe nbadraft.net?) ranked players athletically based on their combine numbers, weighting each of the different drills to get to a "overall score". I remember Durant's being VERY low, in large part due to his poor bench. And I remember Monte Ellis actually being ranked as the "worst" athlete in his draft class by the same measure. Kind of shows the value of those combine numbers.

 

[bajaden]

This is the part where I have a conflict with myself. We want people who are "cut" like Howard but Kanter, for instance, against guys his age mind you, just wades through the opposition. If he wants a position, he's got it. I presume it won't be as easy against NBA talent but he has put on a lot of muscle in the last year - what else does he have to do? I am not abdicating anything for Kanter but he seems a bit like that strong bull that can't be moved.

This "Love factor" is what makes Kanter the big unknown with the accent on big. I had heard very little about Love before the draft but knew the name. I didn't hear that he was an unstoppable force. Was anyone surprised at what he became in the NBA? I suspect many except the people who REALLY watched and could translate that properly to the NBA. Not easy. We know less about Kanter.

You also can't test Rodman's nose for rebounding or anyone's for that matter. In an interview, Dennis said he could see where the ball would rebound from when the shot was taken. That makes sense to me as it is physics but how do you measure what made his rebounding different than others? How do you know who can make the instantaneous mental calcualtions and know where the ball will go after it hits the rim AND get there?

The Combine adds extra data to be used with what one sees. That's all. The more we know, the better. The great analysts know how that translates to the court in the NBA.

David Thompson nicknamed Skywalker for his 44" vertical had a brief career destroyed by alcohol and drugs. Maybe now it could have been predicted but back then, no way. He could jump though. Rather remarkable. It didn't define his career.

If we use the 7th pick, and I mean IF and that it isn't used in a trade, we have many options and although there is no guaranteed star available at that position, we don't need a star and as to offense, maybe don't want an offensive machine as a starter. There are enough options that I am sure I will be happy with who we get. They will contribute in one way or another. Just a final paragraph to indicate I am very happy where the Kings are and only Dime Dropper knows that this is a HUGE change in attitude.

David Thompson was one of my favorite players in the NBA at one time, and its a shame how his career ended, by falling down a flight of stairs at his home while under the influence of whatever. He was famous for quite a few things including, susposedly taking a quarter off the top of the backboard. He could however, do more than just jump.

As for Kevin Love, I can only speak for myself, and, I think Gary, who loved Love so much, that I'm not sure sex would have been out of the question. Just kidding! But I was fairly sure that Love would be a good player coming out of college. He was without a doubt the best passing big man in college, and was also a terrific rebounder and good scorer. There's always a question how that will translate to the NBA, and in Love's case, his lack of athleticism was the biggest question mark. Once again, the intangibles that are hard to measure came into play. Strength, desire, instincts, toughness, etc.

If I said I knew he would be this good, I'd be lying. He's far exceeded my expectations. And considering his physical limitations, he's turned out to be a better defensive player than I expected. He'll never be on the all NBA defensive team, but he's not the liability everyone thought he would be. And his other abilities far outweigh whatever other liabilities he has.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I think you're arguing against a straw man, baja. No one argues that you get by on athleticism alone, so you can't just play off athleticism like it's an overrated factor just because you can't solely determine a player's outcome based off of it. You can't do that with skills either.

Also, on Tyrus Thomas, his problem has always been his attitude. It has little more to do with that.

 

[bajaden]

They've got different frames, but that's a bit beside the point. I can argue that the bench press is a poor indicator of overall strength but I wouldn't argue that Singleton isn't stronger than Leonard. I think he's better athletically in a lot of ways. For me the question is about future potential with each of them and my gut says Leonard will develop more on the next level.

Yeah, interesting thing about Durant. One website (I forget which, maybe nbadraft.net?) ranked players athletically based on their combine numbers, weighting each of the different drills to get to a "overall score". I remember Durant's being VERY low, in large part due to his poor bench. And I remember Monte Ellis actually being ranked as the "worst" athlete in his draft class by the same measure. Kind of shows the value of those combine numbers.

One more point on the bench press, and then I'll let it go. I've always wondered who came up with the idea of the bench press as the, be all, end all, way of testing overall strength? Basicly your only testing one part of your body. And while the upper part of your body is certainly important, I would say that at least for post players, their core strength or lower part of their body is just as, if not more important. Anyway, I think the bench press is more of a test to see whose been in the weight room and who hasn't than anything else.

 

[Dr. Spaceman]

Wesley Johnson and Fredette

We should offer the 7th pick for Wesley Johnson, then Cassipi/Greene for 15-19 range for Faried or Fredette

Minnesota has Beasley taking massive quantities of minutes, Johnson could really be our another great threat from down town to compliment Thorton (if resigned)

This would basically give us a four "combo guard" rotation

Tyreke/Beno
Thorton/Fredette
Johnson/Greene
Cousins/35th pick
Dalembert/Thompson

I think Kahn is as big a moron as they come in this league, but even he would laugh in your face if you asked for his #3 overall draft pick from last season for this year's #7 straight up.

 

[bajaden]

I think you're arguing against a straw man, baja. No one argues that you get by on athleticism alone, so you can't just play off athleticism like it's an overrated factor just because you can't solely determine a player's outcome based off of it. You can't do that with skills either.

Also, on Tyrus Thomas, his problem has always been his attitude. It has little more to do with that.

And I think your reading between the lines too much. I wasn't making an arguement for either athleticism or skills. I thought I was being very clear in that you can't judge a player on just one thing, be it athleticism or skill level. I mentioned intangibles, that are immeasurable. Tyrus Thomas didn't have those intangibles, and thats why he is what he is today. If there was a way to measure those, I doubt he would have been drafted as high as he was.

Yes, I value skills coming out of college, because if a player has skills, athleticism aside, I at least know he has dedication and most likely a good work ethic, because he's making the most of the athleticism he has. If he happens to be an above average athlete, then so much the better. I certainly don't downgrade a player because he's athletic. But if he's a four year player coming out of college, and he's blessed with great athleticism, and there's been little improvement in his game from his freshman year to his senior year, then a giant red flag springs up.

There in lies the rub in todays NBA. Unfortunately a large percentage of the players coming into the NBA are one year players, and thats just not enough time to make a good judgement on some of them. So there's more risk involved. Thats why I pointed out you need to look at the system they played in, or the players they had around them. I hate to keep beating the Derrick Favors drum, but he played on a team with one of the worse backcourts in college, and as a result, he hardly touched the ball, unless it was a rebound, and his game didn't improve very much. So now you have a highly touted, and physically gifted athlete, that didn't live up to expectations. Was his year in college an abberation, or an indication of what his career will be like?

I believe it to be an abberation. But its never a good sign to be drafted that high, and be traded that soon. Granted, he was traded for a very good player. So the jury is still out.

 

[Glenn]

If I said I knew he would be this good, I'd be lying. He's far exceeded my expectations. And considering his physical limitations, he's turned out to be a better defensive player than I expected. He'll never be on the all NBA defensive team, but he's not the liability everyone thought he would be. And his other abilities far outweigh whatever other liabilities he has.

Thompson was 6'4"for those who don't know.

I high lighted the last paragraph because we talk about athleticism and physical ability as if it has one meaning. I assume to know the general meaning as it is used in describing a basketball player. The irony is that we can discuss an almost dominant rebounder/scorer as having physical limitations. Just a thought and not a criticism at all. Was Shaq athletic or just big? A little of both I suppose. Mere size has its place as long as there are sufficient muscles underneath the size.

I am curious as to your one shot view of Kanter: didn't it look like a man among boys? He seemed to be able to go wherever he wished. Shaq of course looked that way but I recall having this reaction to Bill Walton, of all people, when he was in college. Maybe it was the red 'fro.

 

[Kingster]

Thompson was 6'4"for those who don't know.

I high lighted the last paragraph because we talk about athleticism and physical ability as if it has one meaning. I assume to know the general meaning as it is used in describing a basketball player. The irony is that we can discuss an almost dominant rebounder/scorer as having physical limitations. Just a thought and not a criticism at all. Was Shaq athletic or just big? A little of both I suppose. Mere size has its place as long as there are sufficient muscles underneath the size.

I am curious as to your one shot view of Kanter: didn't it look like a man among boys? He seemed to be able to go wherever he wished. Shaq of course looked that way but I recall having this reaction to Bill Walton, of all people, when he was in college. Maybe it was the red 'fro.

Like you imply, it depends what you mean by athleticism. From what I've seen and heard, people tend to incorrectly weight the wrong things more highly than the right things. They focus first and foremost on jumping ability, but other than Jordan, who in the top 50 was a fantastic jumper? Cousins isn't very athletic in terms of jumping ability. But he is very coordinated. Do we measure coordination? No, we don't, even though it is an incredbly important aspect of basketball. By the same token, you can measure quickness and speed, but can you measure "fluidity"? No, you can't. Even though you know it when you see it. Even though guys like Ray Allen and Paul Pierce and Michael Jordan and Kobe and Wade had and have great amounts of it, and it contributed greatly to them becoming excellent basketball players. Do we we measure "balance"? No, even though it is important measure of strength in finishing at the basket. Do we measure BB IQ? No, we don't, even though we know a guy like Larry Bird had it in abundance and it contributed greatly to his greatness. There are a lot of "immeasurables" that are very important to a guy being a good basketball player. It's like the author of the Zen and the Art of Motorcyle Maintenance concluded: When it comes to "quality", you know it when you see it; in the ultimate sense one can't determine quality through analysis.

 

[kennadog]

If you've ever seen a world's strongest man competition some of those tests might be the way to ferrret that out, rather than something simple and limited like bench reps. Have these guys all try to pull a car with their teeth or something, you'd separate the men from the boys pretty quick

And the men from their teeth.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I thought I was being very clear in that you can't judge a player on just one thing, be it athleticism or skill level.

Hence, straw man. No one argues against that.

 

[SacTownKid]

And the men from their teeth.

HAHAHAHAHA! classic!

 

[bajaden]

Thompson was 6'4"for those who don't know.

I high lighted the last paragraph because we talk about athleticism and physical ability as if it has one meaning. I assume to know the general meaning as it is used in describing a basketball player. The irony is that we can discuss an almost dominant rebounder/scorer as having physical limitations. Just a thought and not a criticism at all. Was Shaq athletic or just big? A little of both I suppose. Mere size has its place as long as there are sufficient muscles underneath the size.

I am curious as to your one shot view of Kanter: didn't it look like a man among boys? He seemed to be able to go wherever he wished. Shaq of course looked that way but I recall having this reaction to Bill Walton, of all people, when he was in college. Maybe it was the red 'fro.

In regards to Kanter, I think I mentioned that he dominated Jared Sullinger, a player that many had slotted as a top five pick if he had stayed in the draft. Look, I like Kanter, and would have no problem with the Kings selecting him if he's available when we pick. But I do think his performance in that one game has to be qualified and taken in prespective. It was an all star game made up of highschool players, many who had never played together before. So while both teams were very talented, they lacked the team play you would normally get, especially on the defensive side. I'm by no means trying to denigrate his performance, but I do think you have judge it for what it was.

As for Shaq, he was more than just a little bit of both. He was a lot of both. In measurements taken from the 1992 NBA combine, Shaq measured 7'1" without shoes, which means he was at least 7'2" with shoes. He weighed 303 pounds and had a 7'7" wingspan. He also had an impossible, 36" max vertical jump. In all my years of watching basketball, I can't remember anyone that big, that was able to jump that high. Shaq was literaly a freak of nature.

 

[bajaden]

Hence, straw man. No one argues against that.

You just said I was arguing against it. You've got me confused!

 

[Glenn]

As for Shaq, he was more than just a little bit of both. He was a lot of both. In measurements taken from the 1992 NBA combine, Shaq measured 7'1" without shoes, which means he was at least 7'2" with shoes. He weighed 303 pounds and had a 7'7" wingspan. He also had an impossible, 36" max vertical jump. In all my years of watching basketball, I can't remember anyone that big, that was able to jump that high. Shaq was literaly a freak of nature.

Yikes. The only person even close to that was Wilt but he weighed about 260 coming out of college and eventually hit around 300 pounds. It would be interesting to see the two of them go at it. Wilt held back his power game, assuming he had one, as he said "no one roots for Goliath" and he didn't want to humiliate mere mortals. He did well anyway.

 

[rainmaker]

In regards to Kanter, I think I mentioned that he dominated Jared Sullinger, a player that many had slotted as a top five pick if he had stayed in the draft. Look, I like Kanter, and would have no problem with the Kings selecting him if he's available when we pick. But I do think his performance in that one game has to be qualified and taken in prespective. It was an all star game made up of highschool players, many who had never played together before. So while both teams were very talented, they lacked the team play you would normally get, especially on the defensive side. I'm by no means trying to denigrate his performance, but I do think you have judge it for what it was.

As for Shaq, he was more than just a little bit of both. He was a lot of both. In measurements taken from the 1992 NBA combine, Shaq measured 7'1" without shoes, which means he was at least 7'2" with shoes. He weighed 303 pounds and had a 7'7" wingspan. He also had an impossible, 36" max vertical jump. In all my years of watching basketball, I can't remember anyone that big, that was able to jump that high. Shaq was literaly a freak of nature.

I saw Kanter play a few times with his club a few years ago. Saw him go up against Valanciunus, and he was damn impressive. It is tough though not having seen him on the court in a couple years, when those years are prime for development.

I will say passing, especially for a big, and the timing and awareness needed, is not something you can always teach. A lot of it you're born with, and Kanter has that awareness IMO. Same for a soft touch. You can turn from a poor shooter into a good one. Many guys have done it. But that soft touch isn't always something you can learn. Kanter has that as well. Both are probably products of him having great hands, again something you can't teach. Webb had them. Cousins appears to have them. Both had/have very good all around talents. I'm confident I've seen more than traces of those elements with Kanter, things you either have, or don't, and if you do, makes the game a whole lot easier for you down the road.

I will say this though about the Hoops Summit you bring up, where Kanter dominated. Number one, he was injured, and played right after taking 4 painkillers. He didn't think he would of been able to play until right before, and didn't practice much with the team leading up to the game. Also, those games are usually highlighted by the small guys, the guys with the ball. Guards don't want to post up bigs in an allstar game. They want to dance with the ball and jack up jumpers. Normally, centers don't stand out in these games, especially after not practicing with the team. For him to put on that kind of peformance, in an allstar game, as a center, is more impressive than a pg,sg, or sf doing it IMO.