I just go by what I see. When I saw Kemba I saw a good rebounder. The rebound stats are just for verification. I saw Kemba win games with his shooting, his defense, his rebounding, and his passing. If Kemba's shooting isn't on, he can still find ways to beat you. My only beef with Kemba is that he is a smaller guard, so you have to wonder about durability. But there have been big guards who were injury prone (Garcia) and smaller guards like Stockton that have been amazingly durable. Also, he had a major mid-season slump. Was it getting worn down in the games? Playing the big minutes? I dunno. But when he gets to the NBA he's going to have an even more games and more cumulative minutes. So that bears watching. At the beginning of the season when he was fresh he was absolutely torching teams, just obliterating them with his one-on-one display. Five straight games. It was absurd. He is still not finished in improving his shooting form. I think fatigue started to get to his newly fabricated form. Similar to Tyreke in a way. As time goes on, and he works to cement that form, fatigue should be less and less of a factor and his shooting should be more consistent.
With the 7th pick in the 2011 NBA Draft, the Sacramento Kings select .....
- Thread starter sterö
- Start date
Actually he had a little more than a mid-season slump. I think after the first 15 or 16 games he only had one real good outside shooting game. And, in my opinion, I do think some of it had to do with fatigue. I think Fredette suffered from the same problem, just not as severely. Both guys played a ton of minutes, and both guys never stop moving on offense. Even when off the ball, both of them are moving. I think toward the end of the season both guys had somewhat dead legs.
I thought of Curry as a comparison to Jimmer, but I don't think he'll turn out quite as good. Curry really surprised me with his PG skills in his final year at Davidson. Fredette, yeah...maybe a little, but it's nothing that standout. I actually couldn't find a real apt current NBA comparison to him...he won't be as good as Curry (Curry has an all-around game, shoots at an elite level, and can board and pass, and has quick hands; Jimmer only has at best 1.5 out of those 4, shooting and maybe some passing), and he's probably a worse passer than Bibby and a better shooter but has the same chunky frame. And that comparison to Redick was actually thought out, and wasn't just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks; I actually like Redick and his mutual exclusionist game, and I wanted to find a player of a similar frame who can slash and shoot the ball--he's the only one in the league doing that. So I had to throw Redick's name in there somewhere, since Fredette can draw fouls and shoot at an elite level as well. He's a better passer than Redick. So really I'm thinking an amalgam here--between Bibby and Redick. Look at my 20 mins scaled stats--I think Jimmer's a good offensive player. Not much else, yes, but really, it's delusional to think he's Stephen Curry since he just doesn't have that all-around game. Not even close, and he's not as NBA-ready as Curry was out of college.
As for Brandon Knight, he's 6'3", and the average wingspans for draftees that are of that height is about 6'8"ish. He's got a 6'6"3/4s wingspan, which isn't terrible, but not ok or standout either. Anyway, it's just a minor note--as you listed many players with poor wingspans go on to have great careers, and Knight has the leaping ability and quickness to do well regardless. You need to whole athletic picture. It's just documentation. I still think he's going the Brandon Jennings (maybe worse) route.
As for Kemba's rebounding, the final year was very good, and the other years were pretty mediocre. And besides, he might have slight knack, but he's really small on the court and I don't think it would translate as much to the NBA setting. He's got a slew of other things in his game so he should carve a nice career in the league regardless. I wouldn't quibble on that too much. Big picture.
As for Brandon Knight, he's 6'3", and the average wingspans for draftees that are of that height is about 6'8"ish. He's got a 6'6"3/4s wingspan, which isn't terrible, but not ok or standout either. Anyway, it's just a minor note--as you listed many players with poor wingspans go on to have great careers, and Knight has the leaping ability and quickness to do well regardless. You need to whole athletic picture. It's just documentation. I still think he's going the Brandon Jennings (maybe worse) route.
As for Kemba's rebounding, the final year was very good, and the other years were pretty mediocre. And besides, he might have slight knack, but he's really small on the court and I don't think it would translate as much to the NBA setting. He's got a slew of other things in his game so he should carve a nice career in the league regardless. I wouldn't quibble on that too much. Big picture.
My friend, everything their saying about Fredette right now, is the exact same thing they said about Curry. Identical!!!!! Its easy after the fact that say that Curry is this, or Curry is that. Hindsight is a 100% as they say. Fredette is an excellent ballhandler. He's just as good a shooter as Curry was in college. And contrary to the nonsense being spread around, Fredette is a very good passer. It doesn't help if you don't have anyone to pass the ball to. I've watched Fredette play over 40 to 50 times in the last two years. I have no idea where this having a chuncky body came from. If you've seen him with his shirt off, he's hardly chuncky. He simply has a very solid build. I swear to god, that some of the people that post, haven't even seen him play.
Tell me, just how do you know that Curry is quicker? As far as I know they haven't had a foot race. Fredette just came in second and third in the two lateral quickness tests at the combine. What was the big knock on Curry prior to the draft? I'll tell you. It was that he was a poor athlete, and people wern't sure if he was a true point guard, because he was more of an offensive player. They questioned his ability to play defense in the NBA. Sound familiar?
Tell me, just how do you know that Curry is quicker? As far as I know they haven't had a foot race. Fredette just came in second and third in the two lateral quickness tests at the combine. What was the big knock on Curry prior to the draft? I'll tell you. It was that he was a poor athlete, and people wern't sure if he was a true point guard, because he was more of an offensive player. They questioned his ability to play defense in the NBA. Sound familiar?
Fredette is not my top choice for our 7 pick, and I have him behind Irving and Knight as far as guards go.
But he has definitively shown that he can be a playmaker.
I don't have any doubts about his passing ability, and if Petrie decided that he's the best person for our pick, then Fredette would come in and instantly become the best pick-n-roll player on our team.
From a talent perspective, Fredette is an instant upgrade over Beno. Now, if we kept all four guards, then Fredette should be behind Beno in the rotation because Beno does bring stability to the team, but I would expect for Fredette to move past Beno or force a trade either at the deadline or the following year.
Thorton really changed this team, and I think most here would agree that one of the best players you can put next to Tyreke is a combo-guard. Well Fredette is the best combo guard in this draft, and though he could probably eventually run a team as a PG, his best fit is that of a combo guard, which is one of two types of guards we would need next to Tyreke. (The other being a Christie type)
As far as comparisons go, I'll accept Curry as an acceptable one. The interesting thing is that if Fredette can actually play defense in the manner that his agility tests indicate, then he probably has more upside than Curry just do to his body type. Someone mentioned 'chunky', but he's really solidly built, and that will give him a much better chance to finish through contact and fight through screens. He also does a very good job of using his body to wedge his defender away as he goes to the rim, similar to what Tyreke does on a consistent basis. Now, obviously he doesn't have the build and power of Tyreke, but as far as body types go, if he can move his feet on defense the way the tests suggest, then his body type is going to give him an advantage over Curry.
I watched Fredette a lot because he was just incredibly fun to watch play, but I'd be surprised if we ended up drafting him.
Now if Petrie knew for a fact which SF he was targetting in the offseason and felt confident that he could get that SF, then I guess I could see him going with Fredette if Knight is off the board.
I'm sure the upcoming face-off between Fredette and Walker will also play into it, and I hope that Fredette wins that matchup, as I really would be disappointed if we ended up with Walker.
But he has definitively shown that he can be a playmaker.
I don't have any doubts about his passing ability, and if Petrie decided that he's the best person for our pick, then Fredette would come in and instantly become the best pick-n-roll player on our team.
From a talent perspective, Fredette is an instant upgrade over Beno. Now, if we kept all four guards, then Fredette should be behind Beno in the rotation because Beno does bring stability to the team, but I would expect for Fredette to move past Beno or force a trade either at the deadline or the following year.
Thorton really changed this team, and I think most here would agree that one of the best players you can put next to Tyreke is a combo-guard. Well Fredette is the best combo guard in this draft, and though he could probably eventually run a team as a PG, his best fit is that of a combo guard, which is one of two types of guards we would need next to Tyreke. (The other being a Christie type)
As far as comparisons go, I'll accept Curry as an acceptable one. The interesting thing is that if Fredette can actually play defense in the manner that his agility tests indicate, then he probably has more upside than Curry just do to his body type. Someone mentioned 'chunky', but he's really solidly built, and that will give him a much better chance to finish through contact and fight through screens. He also does a very good job of using his body to wedge his defender away as he goes to the rim, similar to what Tyreke does on a consistent basis. Now, obviously he doesn't have the build and power of Tyreke, but as far as body types go, if he can move his feet on defense the way the tests suggest, then his body type is going to give him an advantage over Curry.
I watched Fredette a lot because he was just incredibly fun to watch play, but I'd be surprised if we ended up drafting him.
Now if Petrie knew for a fact which SF he was targetting in the offseason and felt confident that he could get that SF, then I guess I could see him going with Fredette if Knight is off the board.
I'm sure the upcoming face-off between Fredette and Walker will also play into it, and I hope that Fredette wins that matchup, as I really would be disappointed if we ended up with Walker.
The only difference between you and I is our order of ranking. Which we've discussed many times. I agree that Knight is my first choice. But I have Fredette ahead of Walker, simply because of consistency from the outside, and being bigger. They compare to each other skill wise fairly well. But I give Fredette the edge in those two areas. While Walker may be quicker down the floor, Fredette is more than quick enough, that the difference isn't significant.
Just to be clear. I'm not defending Fredette because I want the Kings to draft him. I'm fine if they do, but I have other players ahead of him. However, when I see someone state something about a player thats simply not true, I want to correct it as soon as possible. Because unfortunately, perception wins out over truth far too often. Both you and I have seen most of these guys play to the point of being bored at times. There were times early in the season, while watching Harrison Barnes, I had to fight to stay awake. But because I have seen them play, I can tell fairly quickly when someone hasn't, or if they did, it was only once or at best twice.
Just to be clear. I'm not defending Fredette because I want the Kings to draft him. I'm fine if they do, but I have other players ahead of him. However, when I see someone state something about a player thats simply not true, I want to correct it as soon as possible. Because unfortunately, perception wins out over truth far too often. Both you and I have seen most of these guys play to the point of being bored at times. There were times early in the season, while watching Harrison Barnes, I had to fight to stay awake. But because I have seen them play, I can tell fairly quickly when someone hasn't, or if they did, it was only once or at best twice.
Interestingly enough I thought that Fredette showed much better playmaking ability than Knight this last year. But I don't have doubts that Knight will end up being to distribute enough to be a point guard. Knight right now is a scoring guard, but he's so young that he should do well if groomed correctly.
It's my opinion that Knight will be looked at as a PG by teams, and his role will be groomed in that direction. For Fredette I think most teams will see him as scoring guard off the bench, and that the likelihood of him being groomed from the get-go by a team to be their primary PG is minimal. (Though I think he could excel there)
So in keeping with that perception of how I expect teams to view these two players, Fredette's ability to score as well as his playmaking ability gives him the edge as the better combo-guard, and the best one in the draft.
If I had a choice between the two at the 7 pick, I'm still going to pick Knight, because he's so much younger and has the potential to be an incredibly good defender. What will make either of them successful for the Kings is that they both have the shooting and ball handling skills that you'd want next to Tyreke, so if Petrie is truly confident about his plans in regards to a SF, then either of these two players could come and have a very large impact once they've reduced Beno's role for this team.
It's my opinion that Knight will be looked at as a PG by teams, and his role will be groomed in that direction. For Fredette I think most teams will see him as scoring guard off the bench, and that the likelihood of him being groomed from the get-go by a team to be their primary PG is minimal. (Though I think he could excel there)
So in keeping with that perception of how I expect teams to view these two players, Fredette's ability to score as well as his playmaking ability gives him the edge as the better combo-guard, and the best one in the draft.
If I had a choice between the two at the 7 pick, I'm still going to pick Knight, because he's so much younger and has the potential to be an incredibly good defender. What will make either of them successful for the Kings is that they both have the shooting and ball handling skills that you'd want next to Tyreke, so if Petrie is truly confident about his plans in regards to a SF, then either of these two players could come and have a very large impact once they've reduced Beno's role for this team.
Oh, I have Fredette ahead of Walker as well. I have Irving and Knight as the two guards ahead of Fredette, though Irving is completely out of the picture due to our draft position.
At the moment I'll take Knight if he's available.
If he's not available then it's a toss-up between Hamilton/Singleton/Fredette/Faried, with the edge going to the SFs if Petrie isn't sure what he's going to do with that position in the off-season. I'd only take Walker if all four of the guys I've listed are off the board, but of course we know that isn't going to happen.
At the moment I'll take Knight if he's available.
If he's not available then it's a toss-up between Hamilton/Singleton/Fredette/Faried, with the edge going to the SFs if Petrie isn't sure what he's going to do with that position in the off-season. I'd only take Walker if all four of the guys I've listed are off the board, but of course we know that isn't going to happen.
You know what's interesting with Barnes is what has me second-guessing myself in regards to Selby.
Barnes' play was just invisible early in the season and I was close to writing him off, but he just came on so strong in the second half of the season after hitting that game-winning shot against...Miami I think it was. I was questioning whether or not he was even a lottery pick, and he took his game to the point that I had him 3rd behind Irving & Williams.
So...it makes me wonder about Selby. I mean towards the end of the season I had to stop watching him because he was just so inconsequential coming off the bench for Kansas. He wasn't showing me anything which had him highly touted. Could he have made the same turn-around as Barnes if he had been giving a starting role and thrown out there for 30 minutes a game?
I remember in the middle of the year Barnes was the first guy subbed out, and it usually happened about 7-8 minutes into the game, but as his play improved, his minutes increased until he was out there for most of the game. I just wonder if Selby might have had the same improvement or if he really is as good as he showed coming off the bench. I didn't see anything to impress me, but he really didn't have that much opportunity to really show his game in my opinion, so it makes me wonder.
I had felt certain that he wouldn't declare due to the abysmal year, but here he is, in the draft and with a college outing which leaves a lot of questions.
It wouldn't surprise me for him to end up being a player who people wonder 10 years later how he fell out of the lottery, but at the same time, he's going to be a gamble unless he slips to the late 1st round.
Barnes' play was just invisible early in the season and I was close to writing him off, but he just came on so strong in the second half of the season after hitting that game-winning shot against...Miami I think it was. I was questioning whether or not he was even a lottery pick, and he took his game to the point that I had him 3rd behind Irving & Williams.
So...it makes me wonder about Selby. I mean towards the end of the season I had to stop watching him because he was just so inconsequential coming off the bench for Kansas. He wasn't showing me anything which had him highly touted. Could he have made the same turn-around as Barnes if he had been giving a starting role and thrown out there for 30 minutes a game?
I remember in the middle of the year Barnes was the first guy subbed out, and it usually happened about 7-8 minutes into the game, but as his play improved, his minutes increased until he was out there for most of the game. I just wonder if Selby might have had the same improvement or if he really is as good as he showed coming off the bench. I didn't see anything to impress me, but he really didn't have that much opportunity to really show his game in my opinion, so it makes me wonder.
I had felt certain that he wouldn't declare due to the abysmal year, but here he is, in the draft and with a college outing which leaves a lot of questions.
It wouldn't surprise me for him to end up being a player who people wonder 10 years later how he fell out of the lottery, but at the same time, he's going to be a gamble unless he slips to the late 1st round.
Alot of points to make, hopefully I can remember them all!
First off, my comparison of Jimmer to Redick was just saying that Jimmer could become a decent defender if he works at it, like Redick did. JJ was killed around draft time because no one thought he could play any defense .. I didnt think he could either, but he isnt a bad defender right now. Now, no two players are the same, so I'm not going to sit here and say Jimmer will be a fine NBA defender, but its possible. I wouldnt bet on it, but I'm not going to say it wont happen. He can be at least as good as Beno in that reguard, which isnt much of a compliment.
With the Curry/Jimmer comparisons .. eh. There Ok. I actually really liked Curry coming out of college. One of the few guys I really just felt would make it. Of course we cant have Curry and Jimmer race each other, but I do think Curry has better quickness/agility. I also think Curry showed a bit more playmaking ability than Jimmer... And just seemed like a more crafty player overall. Like Jimmer, a lot of people said Curry couldnt play point, and I always mentioned how he averaged 5.8 assists in college on a terrible team. That should improve with better players. You could say the same about Jimmer. 4.3 assists in college on a bad team is pretty good, and Jimmer should be a fine NBA point guard. Will he ever be as good as Curry can be? I dont know. I dont think so though. I expect Curry to get better once that team balances out a bit. Ellis is a good player, but he isnt a good fit with Curry, and If I could start a team with either guy I'd take Curry.
I also disagree that Jimmer would be our best pick and roll guy right out of the gate. I think Beno is a pretty good PnR player. Thornton too. He's probly better than Evans right now though.
With all this being said, I still dont think I draft Jimmer Fredette, but I suppose he is in the discussion now. Jimmer vs. Kemba is an interesting topic. Before we traded for Thornton, I would have went with Kemba for sure, now Its pretty close. I really love Kemba Walker. He was a great college player, and I also think he'll be a fine pro ... but like Jimmer, I dont love the fit with this team.
I have this draft tiered out right now like this.
Tier 1
Irving, Williams, Kanter
Tier 2
Knight
Tier 3
Walker
Valaciunas
Leonard
Hamilton
Singleton
Biyumbo
Fredette
Vesely
With no real ranking for the tier 3 guys, I think thats where you draft for need. And personally I think we need a small forward or a big man. Maybe its Valaciunas or Vesely. I dont know .. there is something intriguing about the unknown when you dont love any of the players you DO know. Kind of like the argument some were making for Jennings a few years back.
First off, my comparison of Jimmer to Redick was just saying that Jimmer could become a decent defender if he works at it, like Redick did. JJ was killed around draft time because no one thought he could play any defense .. I didnt think he could either, but he isnt a bad defender right now. Now, no two players are the same, so I'm not going to sit here and say Jimmer will be a fine NBA defender, but its possible. I wouldnt bet on it, but I'm not going to say it wont happen. He can be at least as good as Beno in that reguard, which isnt much of a compliment.
With the Curry/Jimmer comparisons .. eh. There Ok. I actually really liked Curry coming out of college. One of the few guys I really just felt would make it. Of course we cant have Curry and Jimmer race each other, but I do think Curry has better quickness/agility. I also think Curry showed a bit more playmaking ability than Jimmer... And just seemed like a more crafty player overall. Like Jimmer, a lot of people said Curry couldnt play point, and I always mentioned how he averaged 5.8 assists in college on a terrible team. That should improve with better players. You could say the same about Jimmer. 4.3 assists in college on a bad team is pretty good, and Jimmer should be a fine NBA point guard. Will he ever be as good as Curry can be? I dont know. I dont think so though. I expect Curry to get better once that team balances out a bit. Ellis is a good player, but he isnt a good fit with Curry, and If I could start a team with either guy I'd take Curry.
I also disagree that Jimmer would be our best pick and roll guy right out of the gate. I think Beno is a pretty good PnR player. Thornton too. He's probly better than Evans right now though.
With all this being said, I still dont think I draft Jimmer Fredette, but I suppose he is in the discussion now. Jimmer vs. Kemba is an interesting topic. Before we traded for Thornton, I would have went with Kemba for sure, now Its pretty close. I really love Kemba Walker. He was a great college player, and I also think he'll be a fine pro ... but like Jimmer, I dont love the fit with this team.
I have this draft tiered out right now like this.
Tier 1
Irving, Williams, Kanter
Tier 2
Knight
Tier 3
Walker
Valaciunas
Leonard
Hamilton
Singleton
Biyumbo
Fredette
Vesely
With no real ranking for the tier 3 guys, I think thats where you draft for need. And personally I think we need a small forward or a big man. Maybe its Valaciunas or Vesely. I dont know .. there is something intriguing about the unknown when you dont love any of the players you DO know. Kind of like the argument some were making for Jennings a few years back.
I have no problem with your tiers. Of course I can't indorse or reject the international player since I really haven't seen them play. But I understand that there's a consensus there, and I'm fine with that. I liked Curry as well, but my reservations about him had a lot to do with his physical makeup. I wasn't sure he could stand up to the rigors of the NBA, and be an everyday player. We all knew he could shoot the ball. And I wasn't worried, as some were, about him getting his shot off in the NBA. Like Fredette, he's very crafty with the ball, and only needs a glimpse of daylight to shoot.
As far as the pick and roll goes. Whether Fredette would be the best pick and roll player on the team or not, is subjective. But he can certainly run the Pick and roll very well, and unlike Beno, who really doesn't like to shoot from beyond the 3 pt line while coming off a pick, Fredette is excellent from there. Beno is decent to good spot up 3 pt shooter, but he's not very good off the dribble. He prefers to come off the pick and head toward the basket and then pullup for the midrange shot. Nothing wrong with that! Its his bread and butter. Just pointing out the difference.
As far as the pick and roll goes. Whether Fredette would be the best pick and roll player on the team or not, is subjective. But he can certainly run the Pick and roll very well, and unlike Beno, who really doesn't like to shoot from beyond the 3 pt line while coming off a pick, Fredette is excellent from there. Beno is decent to good spot up 3 pt shooter, but he's not very good off the dribble. He prefers to come off the pick and head toward the basket and then pullup for the midrange shot. Nothing wrong with that! Its his bread and butter. Just pointing out the difference.
Wish I could help you Vlade. I think there's a lot of talent to be had. And I think Burks is one of those talents. I think if the Kings were looking in the direction of a SG, they might take a bigger look at him. But apparently they're not. At least not yet. I think the majority of the talent available is good role player talent, which doesn't necessarly mean non-starting talent. And I'm fine with that. Sure, I'd love to land a superstar, but I don't think the team has a need for one. And I believe that the needs the team does have, can be partially filled by this draft.
As a note, I won't be surprised is a so called superstar does come out of this draft. Or at least a star player. And I'm not talking about the top three or four picks either.
As a note, I won't be surprised is a so called superstar does come out of this draft. Or at least a star player. And I'm not talking about the top three or four picks either.
This is certainly what makes this draft a tricky draft. In the end, I think the players will be picked on how they best fit the current team, which I don't think is the best strategy when you're picking top 5, but ultimately, I think each team in the top has a reason for why they wouldn't just go BPA, especially with what seems to be the general consensus regarding the quality of the picks.
I'm sure there will be hindsight moments a few years from now, and likely wailing/gnashing of teeth with people eager to call players "busts". This seems like one of those drafts where five years later you say, "how did this guy fall so far?" It's because we don't know.
Irving? Did well when healthy, but not much to go on.
Williams? Probably the best right now, but I don't know where he would have fallen in last year's or next year's draft.
Kanter? Big dude, really nice moves, but he probably won't be NBA-ready on day 1, which is kind of what you expect in a top three guy.
So on, and so forth, down the list. All of them have great positives, upside, and the dreaded "potential", but all of them bring concerns. I'm not saying it's a crap draft. What I'm saying (again, for those on the board that don't read too good) is that I think many of these players may end up taking more time to develop than lottery picks usually do.
I'm sure there will be hindsight moments a few years from now, and likely wailing/gnashing of teeth with people eager to call players "busts". This seems like one of those drafts where five years later you say, "how did this guy fall so far?" It's because we don't know.
Irving? Did well when healthy, but not much to go on.
Williams? Probably the best right now, but I don't know where he would have fallen in last year's or next year's draft.
Kanter? Big dude, really nice moves, but he probably won't be NBA-ready on day 1, which is kind of what you expect in a top three guy.
So on, and so forth, down the list. All of them have great positives, upside, and the dreaded "potential", but all of them bring concerns. I'm not saying it's a crap draft. What I'm saying (again, for those on the board that don't read too good) is that I think many of these players may end up taking more time to develop than lottery picks usually do.
I think Irving will definitely be a star player, while Williams I expect to be a borderline all-star. Other than that, I know there will be at least a couple more all-star caliber, or near caliber players, because that's typically the case in the draft, but it's hard to see who it's going to be at this point. I think Burks is going to be the surprise of this draft, but he's the only one out of the top 2 that I'm somewhat confident about. I really wish Terrence Jones had stayed in.
Well first you have to determine what "In our range" means? Certainly anyone that would fall below the 7th pick would fall within our range, and if your the GM and you think a player thats projected to go somewhere in the 20's is going to be a star, then you go ahead and take him at 7. I know the typical line of thought, is that you should trade down and not spend that high pick on him. But if you think he's going to be a star, then why wouldn't another GM think the same thing. We don't live in a vacume.
Now that I bored you with some worthless thoughts, I'll try and take a stab. I'll go with the obvious players that I think most people would list. Walker, Fredette, Burks, Hamilton, Leonard, and Knight, if he falls that far, could all turnout to be stars. Not saying that all these guys will be stars. Maybe none of them will. But I'm fairly sure that at least one or two will be a star player, or at the very least, a borderline star player. I would have listed Singleton, but he will have to do it from the defensive side of the ball, and the road to stardom it steeper there.
But if I were to predict a player or two in the bottom of the first round that may be better than any of them, I would go with Marshon Brooks, and Josh Selby. I watched Selby play in a couple of highschool games, and I didn't see that player on the floor for Kansas this season. With his 8 or 9 game suspension to start the season, and then getting injured just as he was starting to fit in, it was almost as if he was invisible. And trust me, he's not the type of player to be invisible.
Brooks, a 6'5.5" SG, had a terrific year, but played for Providence, a school that doesn't leap to mind when you think of basketball. And while it might be easy to overlook Providence, does Syracuse, UCONN, Georgetown, Louisville, St. Johns, etc. ring any bells. Yep, Providence is in the Big East conference. So it wasn't like Brooks played in some small insignificant conference. He played against the big boys.
And all he did was score 24.6 PPG, grab 7 RPG, Block 1.2 shots a game, and chalk up 1.5 steals a game. Yeah, he played both ends of the floor. His two biggest weaknesses are lack of strength. He certainly needs to add some muscle. And his inconsistent outside shot, which isn't terrible by any means. He shot 34% from the 3 pt line this past season. But he has a terrific mid-range game and is excellent at getting to the basket. He shot an excellent 48.3% overall.
So why you ask is he so far down in the draft. Damm good question. Typically, he was said to be a poor athlete. I'm starting to think that its the default term when you can't think of anything else. Strangely enough he went to the combine and turned in a 38.5 vertical. Then he finished in the top five in the lateral agility tests, and in the top five in the sprint. What happened there?
Earlier in the year after watching him play, I said he reminded me a lot of Kobe Bryant. Not implying that he was the next Kobe. But that the way he carried himself. His attitude on the floor. His confidence, all reminded me of Kobe. I could end up being dead wrong about him. But I don't think so.
Now that I bored you with some worthless thoughts, I'll try and take a stab. I'll go with the obvious players that I think most people would list. Walker, Fredette, Burks, Hamilton, Leonard, and Knight, if he falls that far, could all turnout to be stars. Not saying that all these guys will be stars. Maybe none of them will. But I'm fairly sure that at least one or two will be a star player, or at the very least, a borderline star player. I would have listed Singleton, but he will have to do it from the defensive side of the ball, and the road to stardom it steeper there.
But if I were to predict a player or two in the bottom of the first round that may be better than any of them, I would go with Marshon Brooks, and Josh Selby. I watched Selby play in a couple of highschool games, and I didn't see that player on the floor for Kansas this season. With his 8 or 9 game suspension to start the season, and then getting injured just as he was starting to fit in, it was almost as if he was invisible. And trust me, he's not the type of player to be invisible.
Brooks, a 6'5.5" SG, had a terrific year, but played for Providence, a school that doesn't leap to mind when you think of basketball. And while it might be easy to overlook Providence, does Syracuse, UCONN, Georgetown, Louisville, St. Johns, etc. ring any bells. Yep, Providence is in the Big East conference. So it wasn't like Brooks played in some small insignificant conference. He played against the big boys.
And all he did was score 24.6 PPG, grab 7 RPG, Block 1.2 shots a game, and chalk up 1.5 steals a game. Yeah, he played both ends of the floor. His two biggest weaknesses are lack of strength. He certainly needs to add some muscle. And his inconsistent outside shot, which isn't terrible by any means. He shot 34% from the 3 pt line this past season. But he has a terrific mid-range game and is excellent at getting to the basket. He shot an excellent 48.3% overall.
So why you ask is he so far down in the draft. Damm good question. Typically, he was said to be a poor athlete. I'm starting to think that its the default term when you can't think of anything else. Strangely enough he went to the combine and turned in a 38.5 vertical. Then he finished in the top five in the lateral agility tests, and in the top five in the sprint. What happened there?
Earlier in the year after watching him play, I said he reminded me a lot of Kobe Bryant. Not implying that he was the next Kobe. But that the way he carried himself. His attitude on the floor. His confidence, all reminded me of Kobe. I could end up being dead wrong about him. But I don't think so.
Last edited:
Do you think Brooks can play alongside Tyreke as a starter successfully or is he more a backup 2 on this team? Is he a good passer and/or can he be a playmaker eventually? As for Selby, is he capable of being a point guard (alongside Tyreke) or is he more an undersized shooting guard? Basically, do you think that these players could be good/great additions to this King's team? Would you select either of these players at the seven spot?
Last edited:
All good questions, and any answers are purely speculative on my part. Brooks, while not known for his passing ability, isn't a bad passer, but I'd hardly call him a playmaker. At Providence he was the man. He's a scorer, with a scorers mentality. But, he does play defense, and is pretty good at it. So his move to the NBA will be all about adapting. So I'm not going to say he's the perfect fit for the Kings. A lot of that would depend on how Tyreke's game advances in the next couple of years. Selby was considered more of a combo guard coming out of highschool. He's been compared to guys like Bradley from last years draft, or Westbrook. There's a lot of space between those two guys right now, and I think Selby can fit in that space somewhere. Like Bradley, your betting on a lot of raw talent thats going to take time to develop.
Of the two, the one I would be willing to gamble on at 7 would be Brooks. And I seriously doubt we would. It would be a gutsy move on Petrie's part, and I'm not sure the Kings are in a position to gamble right now. However, whether either of them would be a good addition is a different question. To that, I would answer yes. Especially Brooks. When you add a guy that can put points on the board, and play defense as well, its a win/win. I listed both Brooks and Selby as players that I think could end up being stars down the road. Not as players I think the Kings will take a flyer on at 7. But who ever heard of Peja before the Kings drafted him.
Here's a video of an interview with Brooks.
http://youtu.be/jw2cgO2ujWU
Of the two, the one I would be willing to gamble on at 7 would be Brooks. And I seriously doubt we would. It would be a gutsy move on Petrie's part, and I'm not sure the Kings are in a position to gamble right now. However, whether either of them would be a good addition is a different question. To that, I would answer yes. Especially Brooks. When you add a guy that can put points on the board, and play defense as well, its a win/win. I listed both Brooks and Selby as players that I think could end up being stars down the road. Not as players I think the Kings will take a flyer on at 7. But who ever heard of Peja before the Kings drafted him.
Here's a video of an interview with Brooks.
http://youtu.be/jw2cgO2ujWU
Last edited:
Through your recommendation, I have been watching some videos and reading opinions on Brooks and I have to admit he's a pretty fun player to watch. He does have a certain way he moves and shoots that's reminiscent of Kobe when you watch him. I understand that some of what your saying is speculation, but I still would like to hear your opinion on these prospects. I really value what you (and Uncia03) have to say about the draft.
As for Brooks, I was reading that some draft sites believe he could have struggles in the pros with his slow shot release. They also commented on how slow (or nonexplosive) he seemed "in games" and how that impacted his ability to finish at the rim. Do you think any of these things could be problematic for Brooks in the NBA? Nonetheless, I'm really starting to hope that GP works out Brooks at some point.
Brooks does have a somewhat slow release. But it didn't stop him from putting up big numbers in college. He's a very good ballhandler, and always finds a way to create space for himself. When I first saw Brooks drive to the basket, it almost looked in slow motion. Yet, he was able to get there and finish. And to be honest, I never saw him have a problem getting to the basket. I decided that what was happening, was that he's such a fluid athlete, that he appears slower than he really is. Anyway, thats the best I can come up with. I do know that in his last workout, they raved about his ability to get to the basket.
As for Petrie working out Brooks. I have Brooks going at the bottom half of the first round. Unless the Kings were to obtain another low first round pick, I doubt they'll bring him for a workout. But stay tuned, you never know.
As for Petrie working out Brooks. I have Brooks going at the bottom half of the first round. Unless the Kings were to obtain another low first round pick, I doubt they'll bring him for a workout. But stay tuned, you never know.
What makes this such a hard draft to pick is two-fold.
First, depending on the needs of the team, there are probably 15 guys who could go in any order. The fact that there isn't a lot of separation between players when you look at performance vs. potential makes it difficult to see what each team will do with their pick.
Secondly, there is the International factor. I haven't seen any of the International players play game after game after game to get a good feel for them, so I have to rely on scouting reports from other people, which makes it really hard for me to determine where these guys rank compared to the college players which I feel I have a very good read on.
Right now some mock drafts have 4 of the top 10 selections being International. When it comes down to it, are we really going to see that many International players go that high?
It certainly could happen, but since I can't really figure them into my equations it makes it difficult to ascertain who is going where, especially since most of these International players seem to have warts that prevent them from being slam-dunk candidates.
I mean, I got to see Kanter work at the Combine and he looked good, but you know also really looked good last year? Ryan Richards.
He looked very good in the combine last year and was selected by the Spurs with the 49th spot last season. He stayed overseas this last year, but he is a big man who was pretty much unknown and had a really good showing at the combine.
Who knows if he'll turn out to be a good player or not, but it's incredibly difficult to get a read on a player when you haven't had the time to watch them over and over again.
I have a feeling that the mock drafts are going to be all over the board and pretty incorrect this year due to the reasons I've mentioned above.
What all this does mean, is that it should be an exciting draft, so I'm looking forward to it. I hate that we slipped down to #7, but I've been saying for a long time that in this particular draft there are a lot of players who can come in and become a good rotation guy for a lot of teams. So I don't expect us to draft a star (once we lost the lottery again), but I do expect for us to draft someone who is going to be a valuable member of this team going forward.
First, depending on the needs of the team, there are probably 15 guys who could go in any order. The fact that there isn't a lot of separation between players when you look at performance vs. potential makes it difficult to see what each team will do with their pick.
Secondly, there is the International factor. I haven't seen any of the International players play game after game after game to get a good feel for them, so I have to rely on scouting reports from other people, which makes it really hard for me to determine where these guys rank compared to the college players which I feel I have a very good read on.
Right now some mock drafts have 4 of the top 10 selections being International. When it comes down to it, are we really going to see that many International players go that high?
It certainly could happen, but since I can't really figure them into my equations it makes it difficult to ascertain who is going where, especially since most of these International players seem to have warts that prevent them from being slam-dunk candidates.
I mean, I got to see Kanter work at the Combine and he looked good, but you know also really looked good last year? Ryan Richards.
He looked very good in the combine last year and was selected by the Spurs with the 49th spot last season. He stayed overseas this last year, but he is a big man who was pretty much unknown and had a really good showing at the combine.
Who knows if he'll turn out to be a good player or not, but it's incredibly difficult to get a read on a player when you haven't had the time to watch them over and over again.
I have a feeling that the mock drafts are going to be all over the board and pretty incorrect this year due to the reasons I've mentioned above.
What all this does mean, is that it should be an exciting draft, so I'm looking forward to it. I hate that we slipped down to #7, but I've been saying for a long time that in this particular draft there are a lot of players who can come in and become a good rotation guy for a lot of teams. So I don't expect us to draft a star (once we lost the lottery again), but I do expect for us to draft someone who is going to be a valuable member of this team going forward.
I agree 100%. I feel fairly sure that Kanter will fall somewhere in the top five. After that, its a crapshoot. When you add in that some of the international players have contracts that need to be bought out, and some with difficulty, its hard to predict where they might go in the draft. I've always found it interesting that if a US player can't jump high, or, in general, is somewhat athleticly challenged, or, is too thin, and needs to add strength, and I could go on, in many cases he's downgraded to a lower position in the draft.
But for some reason those same deficiencies seem to be less relevant when grading international players. Example: When grading Biyombo, his lack of offensive skills is mostly overlooked. But when grading Kenneth Faried, a player with similar defensive and rebounding abilities (all time leading NCAA rebounder) his lack of offensive skills are the constantly brought up. Lets not forget that the rules in international basketball and NBA basketball are different. Especially goaltending rules, and defensively, the ability of international bigs to live in the paint, which they can't do in the NBA. My point is, that in international basketball, a players deficienies on the defensive side of the ball can be somewhat hidden by the rules. Of course one could argue that a players offensive abilities are also being limited by those same rules.
The bottom line is, that when drafting an international player, there are a lot of grey areas. As a result, if I'm drafting an international player, I'm going with the guy that has the highest skill level, and I'm less prone to bet on a player thats raw. I guess you could say that I'm hedging my bet as much as possible. Which is why I would take Kanter over any of the other international players. He's skilled, and, he has an NBA body with decent to good athleticism.
From a selfish point of view, I hope all the teams picking in front of the Kings fall in love with an international player.. I'll stick with the players that I know.
But for some reason those same deficiencies seem to be less relevant when grading international players. Example: When grading Biyombo, his lack of offensive skills is mostly overlooked. But when grading Kenneth Faried, a player with similar defensive and rebounding abilities (all time leading NCAA rebounder) his lack of offensive skills are the constantly brought up. Lets not forget that the rules in international basketball and NBA basketball are different. Especially goaltending rules, and defensively, the ability of international bigs to live in the paint, which they can't do in the NBA. My point is, that in international basketball, a players deficienies on the defensive side of the ball can be somewhat hidden by the rules. Of course one could argue that a players offensive abilities are also being limited by those same rules.
The bottom line is, that when drafting an international player, there are a lot of grey areas. As a result, if I'm drafting an international player, I'm going with the guy that has the highest skill level, and I'm less prone to bet on a player thats raw. I guess you could say that I'm hedging my bet as much as possible. Which is why I would take Kanter over any of the other international players. He's skilled, and, he has an NBA body with decent to good athleticism.
From a selfish point of view, I hope all the teams picking in front of the Kings fall in love with an international player.. I'll stick with the players that I know.