With the 7th pick in the 2011 NBA Draft, the Sacramento Kings select .....
- Thread starter sterö
- Start date
I'm not sure that resembling JJ reddick would be a reason to draft Jimmer. 
That's the long long standing problem with big college scorers -- it just doesn't translate in any consistent way. NBA draft history is just littered with guys who averaged mid 20s+ppg in college, and then hit the pros and turn into pumpkins. Adam Morrison, and JJ Reddick, and Quincy Douby and Dajuan Wagner and Eddie House and Steve Alford and just etc. (most of them undersized scoring guards without an NBA position). Jimmer might succeed, but if he does he's actually in the minority. Certainly intentionally drafting a JJ Redick level career 7.7ppg scorer with the #7 pick wouldn't exactly be called an a positive.
That's the long long standing problem with big college scorers -- it just doesn't translate in any consistent way. NBA draft history is just littered with guys who averaged mid 20s+ppg in college, and then hit the pros and turn into pumpkins. Adam Morrison, and JJ Reddick, and Quincy Douby and Dajuan Wagner and Eddie House and Steve Alford and just etc. (most of them undersized scoring guards without an NBA position). Jimmer might succeed, but if he does he's actually in the minority. Certainly intentionally drafting a JJ Redick level career 7.7ppg scorer with the #7 pick wouldn't exactly be called an a positive.
I'm not sure that resembling JJ reddick would be a reason to draft Jimmer.
That's the long long standing problem with big college scorers -- it just doesn't translate in any consistent way. NBA draft history is just littered with guys who averaged mid 20s+ppg in college, and then hit the pros and turn into pumpkins. Adam Morrison, and JJ Reddick, and Quincy Douby and Dajuan Wagner and Eddie House and Steve Alford and just etc. (most of them undersized scoring guards without an NBA position). Jimmer might succeed, but if he does he's actually in the minority. Certainly intentionally drafting a JJ Redick level career 7.7ppg scorer with the #7 pick wouldn't exactly be called an a positive.
That's the long long standing problem with big college scorers -- it just doesn't translate in any consistent way. NBA draft history is just littered with guys who averaged mid 20s+ppg in college, and then hit the pros and turn into pumpkins. Adam Morrison, and JJ Reddick, and Quincy Douby and Dajuan Wagner and Eddie House and Steve Alford and just etc. (most of them undersized scoring guards without an NBA position). Jimmer might succeed, but if he does he's actually in the minority. Certainly intentionally drafting a JJ Redick level career 7.7ppg scorer with the #7 pick wouldn't exactly be called an a positive.
Fair enough. I don't think drafting best player available is ever a bad decision. Trying to hit a homerun by reaching for a guy that's theoretically a perfect fit to the point of losing objectivity is how GMs make mistakes in the draft. At this point in the year I've second guessed myself on half of these prospects so many times that I'll admit I'm losing objectivity too.
I don't think getting the best four guards on the team that you can get is a bad thing either, but having three of the top four scorers on the team all play the same position is going to create some problems for any coach. That Westphal already has a history of poor decision making in this regard doesn't help matters. But it's nit picking at this point -- I think you understand my position and I understand yours. I don't want to drag it out any further needlessly.
The only thing I would add is that the personality of a team is defined by the players you acquire. How well the next season plays out is going to depend a great deal not just on our ability to add talent, but to add talent that works together. Last season was one long series of square pegs mismatched with round holes until we finally settled on a rotation that works for the last two months. This is a pretty critical season for the franchise and I'd hate to see a replay of last November/December derail the fan interest we built this year. If Petrie believes in a guy enough to draft him or trade for him, I hope he and Westphal are on the same page about how they should best be used.
I don't think getting the best four guards on the team that you can get is a bad thing either, but having three of the top four scorers on the team all play the same position is going to create some problems for any coach. That Westphal already has a history of poor decision making in this regard doesn't help matters. But it's nit picking at this point -- I think you understand my position and I understand yours. I don't want to drag it out any further needlessly.
The only thing I would add is that the personality of a team is defined by the players you acquire. How well the next season plays out is going to depend a great deal not just on our ability to add talent, but to add talent that works together. Last season was one long series of square pegs mismatched with round holes until we finally settled on a rotation that works for the last two months. This is a pretty critical season for the franchise and I'd hate to see a replay of last November/December derail the fan interest we built this year. If Petrie believes in a guy enough to draft him or trade for him, I hope he and Westphal are on the same page about how they should best be used.
Another thing we should consider is that players are never truly static in their abilities. IMO our success in the last two months didn't simply have to do with the pieces suddenly fitting better, but also that the players got more comfortable with each other and knew their roles better. For example, Beno started the season as a significant part of our offense and had the ball in his hands quite a bit. This was especially so when Tyreke was out with the injury. On Tyreke's return and the addition of Thornton however, Beno adjusted his game, playing more off the ball to get passes from DMC and setting up guys. We also saw him put in more effort on defense on several occasions.
The point of this is that the personality of the team isn't just based on the players we acquire, but also how the players adapt and mature or become better. We can look at players' strengths and try our best to match them up so that we have a good balance of post players, outside shooters, role players and slashers, but it pretty much ends there IMO. Even if the team looks deadly on paper, how they eventually perform depends on their chemistry and ability to execute to their strengths. These kind of things can't be predicted solely based on whether a guy is more of a shooter or slasher.
The point of this is that the personality of the team isn't just based on the players we acquire, but also how the players adapt and mature or become better. We can look at players' strengths and try our best to match them up so that we have a good balance of post players, outside shooters, role players and slashers, but it pretty much ends there IMO. Even if the team looks deadly on paper, how they eventually perform depends on their chemistry and ability to execute to their strengths. These kind of things can't be predicted solely based on whether a guy is more of a shooter or slasher.
Believe me, mi amigo, I understand exactly where your coming from. I'm just a believer in treating the cause of a problem instead of the symptoms. If the cause is the coach, and I'll qualify that by saying I'm willing to give Westphal some rope to prove otherwise, then you change the coach, and not the roster. Where the roster is concerned, coach aside, would you rather have Head or Jeter coming off the bench, or would you rather have Walker or Fredette coming off the bench? I know what my choice would be, if that were the choice.
On objectivity, I'm sometimes between a rock and a hard place. Its hard to watch some of these players all year long, and in some cases for more than a year, and not get attached to their games. So I do question myself at times. At the same time I have to keep reminding myself that there was a reason I got attached to their games. I think I've been right more than I've been wrong, but, I have been wrong.
On objectivity, I'm sometimes between a rock and a hard place. Its hard to watch some of these players all year long, and in some cases for more than a year, and not get attached to their games. So I do question myself at times. At the same time I have to keep reminding myself that there was a reason I got attached to their games. I think I've been right more than I've been wrong, but, I have been wrong.
Last edited:
Look at OKC. They use Westbrook, harden, maynor, sefelosha(although more role-player), and cook on most occasions. They also have Durant who is essentially a SG in a SF's body. I think we would be fine using four good guards. And what we have that OKC doesn't have is a legit low post presence who can also run the offense and find cutters or shooters around the court in Cousins.
Westbrook yes. Harden...possibly over hyped. But nonetheless, he has talent. And the thing is, if because of his talent he starts playing 35 min a game, they'll only have time for 3 guards themselves. Its a simple question of minutes. No more magic than that. A 38min starter + a 35 min starter means grand total of 23min for all the backups. Only way to play 4 guys minutes where they can do anything is if 3 of the 4 are all muddling around as 15-20 something minute platoon players. As soon as somebody steps forward to seize that starting spot, then its a three guard rotation, not because your 4th guy suddenly forets how to pay, but simply because there aren;t minutes for all 4. Not too different then how our frontcourt mess cleared up after Landry got traded away and Cousins settled in as a starter.
If we're taking a PG, I have to go with Walker if he's available (and there's a decent chance he will be. I think Toronto is the only team ahead of us that might take him.) I think he has the ball handling, the explosiveness, the shooting ability (I think you'll see his percentages go up without so much pressure on him to score), and the passing ability to be a pretty sure thing at the NBA level. He may not be a great player, but I think you have a safe bet as a solid player with good lead guard intangibles, which is something we could use. I worry about Walker's finishing ability due to his poor length, and also that he was a volume shooter last year and how that might change his former pass-first mentality, but I don't see how it would be hard for him to at least mimic what Lawson and Brooks have done in the league. I think Walker is a good value get at our pick, I actually rate Walker ahead of Knight.
Walker and Burks are my favorites in this draft, I'm not really that high on anyone else at our range.
Walker and Burks are my favorites in this draft, I'm not really that high on anyone else at our range.
http://basketball.realgm.com/wireta...se_To_Buyout_But_Wont_Play_In_NBA_Next_Season
If he's available at the 7th pick, we have to draft him!
And let him another season in Europe, like we did with Peja.
If he's available at the 7th pick, we have to draft him!
And let him another season in Europe, like we did with Peja.
That's true, but I think Motiejunas and Vesely won't be as good as Valanciunas in the NBA.
I mean, Motiejunas is by far the most skilled player in this group, good passer, great moves around the basket, nice touch and nice shot from outside too. He scares me as a rebounder, he got worse stats than Bargnani when he was playing here in Italy.
5.6 rpg in 24.4 minutes for Bargnani
4.4 rpg in 25.7 minutes for Motiejunas
About Vesely, are we sure he can play SF? I don't know. At best, he could become a weak version of Kirilenko, shooting with 30% from three and 40% from the free throws ( ).
I mean, Motiejunas is by far the most skilled player in this group, good passer, great moves around the basket, nice touch and nice shot from outside too. He scares me as a rebounder, he got worse stats than Bargnani when he was playing here in Italy.
5.6 rpg in 24.4 minutes for Bargnani
4.4 rpg in 25.7 minutes for Motiejunas
About Vesely, are we sure he can play SF? I don't know. At best, he could become a weak version of Kirilenko, shooting with 30% from three and 40% from the free throws (
).
Thornton made assists last year. Did you watch the games? He has some playmaking ability in his game, just like Jimmer. Why is calling a player a hybrid a knock, anyway? You say that I said Jimmer has no playmaking ability? Look "hybrid" up in the dictionary; look "combo guard" up for that matter. You're arguing against a phantom argument that you've created from your own imaginings.
I really like Valanciunas, but it's difficult to ask a team to draft a player at 7 when they'll have to wait a year for him. I'd understand it if they passed on him because of that, but I'd be happy if they picked him too. He's got very good upside, and he's a rebounder and energy guy off the bench at worst.
If there isn't, then he'd actually have an advantage over the other draft prospects, but there's no way of knowing whether there will or won't be on draft night. The funny thing about getting players that you have to wait a bit for, teams are always wary of them on draft night, but in hindsight, it never ends up being a big of a deal if they're good. Do you think the teams ahead of OKC in the 08 draft would mind having to wait for Ibaka to come over now?
I think the hard part about Valanciunas having to play overseas though, is that he still needs a lot of development, and he'd be much better off with an NBA team.
I think the hard part about Valanciunas having to play overseas though, is that he still needs a lot of development, and he'd be much better off with an NBA team.
Don't give me that crap. To label Jimmer as the same player as Thornton, and then to tell someone who disagrees with that that they are arguing against a phantom arguement which they created from their own imaginings, is simply stupid. So now anyone who can tell the differences between a player like Jimmer and Thornton is fabricating arguements? It also shows you no longer have the ability to debate facts, or basketball, and don't have any more of an arguement. You're using your own defense mechanism. You're losing an argument, and since you can't come up with a defense, you're now labeling my arguement as a phantom arguement.
You said Jimmer is Thornton. You don't think Jimmer has any more pg attributes than Thornton, and simply list them both as combo guards? That's rediculous. You're telling me to look up the definition? You're the one sitting here labeling any pg with an outside shot a combo guard.
If you can't tell the difference between Jimmers game and Thorntons, I suggest watching some film. The differences are blatant and obvious, yet fly right over your head. If you think Thornton has as much pg in him as Jimmer, there really isn't anything else for me to say. I'm not wasting my time going over all the difference again. I can't change the mind of someone with an agenda.
By your arguement, and going by how you critique players, Monta is Curry, and both are combo guards, simple as that. That's rediculous. Monta and Thornton are scorers, while Jimmer and Curry are pg's that can shoot. Yet going by your simplistic view, since any guard that can shoot is a combo guard, Monta,Thornton, Curry, Jimmer are all the same player.
You said Jimmer is Thornton. You don't think Jimmer has any more pg attributes than Thornton, and simply list them both as combo guards? That's rediculous. You're telling me to look up the definition? You're the one sitting here labeling any pg with an outside shot a combo guard.
If you can't tell the difference between Jimmers game and Thorntons, I suggest watching some film. The differences are blatant and obvious, yet fly right over your head. If you think Thornton has as much pg in him as Jimmer, there really isn't anything else for me to say. I'm not wasting my time going over all the difference again. I can't change the mind of someone with an agenda.
By your arguement, and going by how you critique players, Monta is Curry, and both are combo guards, simple as that. That's rediculous. Monta and Thornton are scorers, while Jimmer and Curry are pg's that can shoot. Yet going by your simplistic view, since any guard that can shoot is a combo guard, Monta,Thornton, Curry, Jimmer are all the same player.
Last edited:
Strengths: Soft touch around the basket, good hands, excellent pick and roll finisher, good free throw shooter (91.7% on 1.7 attempts in 14.9 mpg), very good rebounder (avg'd 14.6 per40), good motor, good 7 foot frame that he's filling out w/ 9'3 standing reach, constantly active off the ball, tough competitor, can run the court, and has fairly good mobility. Everyone says he's just a really good kid.
Weaknesses: Not a poor jumper but not very explosive either, an okay all-around athlete but nothing special, not polished on the defensive end, outside of finishing around the basket he doesn't have much of an offensive game, not much of a passer that I saw, he shows some shot blocking potential but he doesn't seem like a natural on that end, and not particularly strong at the moment, he needs to fill out more (he's about 230-240).
He's someone that can really go either way with his development since it's difficult for big men to develop those offensive skills (the free throw shooting is a good sign though), but since everyone speaks highly of his character, and he's such a tough competitor on the court, I think he's a solid bet as far as project big men go. He's raw, but he's got the tools to be a good center if he can add the necessary offensive skills to his game and continue to fill out. He reminds me a lot of Noah with his rebounding and energy level.
Weaknesses: Not a poor jumper but not very explosive either, an okay all-around athlete but nothing special, not polished on the defensive end, outside of finishing around the basket he doesn't have much of an offensive game, not much of a passer that I saw, he shows some shot blocking potential but he doesn't seem like a natural on that end, and not particularly strong at the moment, he needs to fill out more (he's about 230-240).
He's someone that can really go either way with his development since it's difficult for big men to develop those offensive skills (the free throw shooting is a good sign though), but since everyone speaks highly of his character, and he's such a tough competitor on the court, I think he's a solid bet as far as project big men go. He's raw, but he's got the tools to be a good center if he can add the necessary offensive skills to his game and continue to fill out. He reminds me a lot of Noah with his rebounding and energy level.
Last edited:
To be honest, I've seen very little of the guy. So I really can't give an educated opinion on him. When I did see him, he looked a little flat-footed and not very mobile. In other videos he looks more mobile. He does have good fundamentals and size, and I know he has a good motor and attitude. So I'll defer to you on Valanciunas. I think I've heard the Noah comparison before, and if he can be the same type of player, some team will get a good player.
From CBS sports
"Kings officials are split between Fredette (beloved by ownership) and Alec Burks (favored by the basketball staff). "
And Givony is reporting today the Kings are trying hard to trade the pick, and are under fire to improve the team as much as possible. Kings want a vet.
Thur can't come soon enough. I don't know what to believe anymore. A lot of misdirection.
"Kings officials are split between Fredette (beloved by ownership) and Alec Burks (favored by the basketball staff). "
And Givony is reporting today the Kings are trying hard to trade the pick, and are under fire to improve the team as much as possible. Kings want a vet.
Thur can't come soon enough. I don't know what to believe anymore. A lot of misdirection.
Last edited:
He reminds me of Wade in the sense that he was also a shot creating SG who was underrated in his draft (he was not projected to go as high as he did) because of a lack of a jump shot, but had all the innate tools to be a very good 2-way SG. Burks has a skill that you can't teach, and that's the ability to create his own shot, and he can do it going left or right. He also has the frame, length and athleticism to be a good finisher and defender, and the passing ability to create for others. The things is with Burks, you have to believe in him personally more than anything, he's got the tools, he just needs to put it all together.
As far as a style of play comparison, he's more like Brandon Roy.
As far as a style of play comparison, he's more like Brandon Roy.
Last edited:
The only data you have on Jimmer's playmaking ability is his college experience. And yet you are so sure that the college experience translates to an NBA game. I'm not. I'm not going to say by any means that he's better than Thornton in his playmaking when I'm comparing Thornton - a proven NBA guard - to Jimmer - an NBA draft pick, for gawd's sake. Heck, I'm giving Jimmer the benefit of the doubt in that comparison. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt in his playmaking AND his shot making ability in the NBA, because with Thornton I've seen him do both in the NBA, and with Jimmer I haven't.
As for the last bolded part, that's just a bunch of fabricated BS. You've come up with your own "theory" of the way I make comparison's, and I find it highly ironic that you call my view "simplistic" when it's coming directly from your own brain, not mine.
As for the last bolded part, that's just a bunch of fabricated BS. You've come up with your own "theory" of the way I make comparison's, and I find it highly ironic that you call my view "simplistic" when it's coming directly from your own brain, not mine.