It's early, but anybody have a draft wish list yet?
- Thread starter bluntsnbball
- Start date
I listed all those guys on purpose to protect myself from jsut sucha claim. It is not me calling him undersized, it was the league.
However as of today he measured up another half inch at 6'7.75, which moves the line a bit. And you know what, he is STILL a little shortish, but its only a little. He's about the same size as Udonis Haslem, who has always been slightly small. But just slightly. Haslem can play. Boozer is about the same size too and he can play. To give you an idea, he is the same height as Carl Landry. Weren't we all calling Landy small just a year ago? Robinson's size is fine, he's big enough he can comepte in the NBA. If he had come out even a half inch shorter you are beginning to talk about one of the smallest starting PFs though.
However as of today he measured up another half inch at 6'7.75, which moves the line a bit. And you know what, he is STILL a little shortish, but its only a little. He's about the same size as Udonis Haslem, who has always been slightly small. But just slightly. Haslem can play. Boozer is about the same size too and he can play. To give you an idea, he is the same height as Carl Landry. Weren't we all calling Landy small just a year ago? Robinson's size is fine, he's big enough he can comepte in the NBA. If he had come out even a half inch shorter you are beginning to talk about one of the smallest starting PFs though.
C-Webb measured 6'9" ins ocks. Its a whole other class jump up. And Webb was only about average sized even at that.
Only 2-3 years ago though the playoffs were an absolute minefield of 6'10" to 6'11" guys in Pau and Dirk and KG, and Aldridge and Duncan etc. but I think the PF position is dying back a bit in the league right now, with the best of the young guys being guys less than an inch taller than Robinson (Griffin, Love). So I don't think Robinson's size is goign to be a huge impediment for him to at least be a strong player. Its still true though that VERY few of the star PFs have been that size or smaller. And people who keep mentioning Barkley have no idea just how huge a physical freak that monster was.
But none of that truly matters for us. First, we don't need a star PF. And 2nd, Robinson doesn't do the things we do need (block shots, protect the rim).
Only 2-3 years ago though the playoffs were an absolute minefield of 6'10" to 6'11" guys in Pau and Dirk and KG, and Aldridge and Duncan etc. but I think the PF position is dying back a bit in the league right now, with the best of the young guys being guys less than an inch taller than Robinson (Griffin, Love). So I don't think Robinson's size is goign to be a huge impediment for him to at least be a strong player. Its still true though that VERY few of the star PFs have been that size or smaller. And people who keep mentioning Barkley have no idea just how huge a physical freak that monster was.
But none of that truly matters for us. First, we don't need a star PF. And 2nd, Robinson doesn't do the things we do need (block shots, protect the rim).
I'm one of those thats been following Gilchrist for the last few years. I predicted before he even played one college game, that he would be one of the best college players this year. I think folks are overblowing his lack of an outside shot. He has a very good midrange shot, and is very consistent with it. His shot isn't broken, like Wroten's is. Now thats a terrible outside shot. Gilchrist's problem is very fixable. He tends to release the ball on the way down on his jumpshot. Probably habit more than anything else. From midrange, it doesn't seem to matter, but once out beyond the three point line, it causes his shot to be flat, and therefore have a lesser chance of going in.
He's a good freethrow shooter, and thats always a good indicator of whether a player has a feel for shooting the ball. I seldom see a terrible freethrow shooter become a good jump shooter. They simply don't have a feel for shooting. Of course there aren't any guarantee's. But, we were having this same conversation about K. Leonard last year, and he turned out fine.
He's a good freethrow shooter, and thats always a good indicator of whether a player has a feel for shooting the ball. I seldom see a terrible freethrow shooter become a good jump shooter. They simply don't have a feel for shooting. Of course there aren't any guarantee's. But, we were having this same conversation about K. Leonard last year, and he turned out fine.
My king's ranking:
1. Davis
2. MKG
3. Drummond
4. Robinson
5. Barnes
6. Beal
Would love to land MKG as he's both low risk and plays a position of need. Drummond wouldn't be a bad consilation. Robinson would still be exciting although admittedly not a great fit. Barnes has upside. Beal will hopefully go top 4 giving us a choice between two of the higher ranked guys.
1. Davis
2. MKG
3. Drummond
4. Robinson
5. Barnes
6. Beal
Would love to land MKG as he's both low risk and plays a position of need. Drummond wouldn't be a bad consilation. Robinson would still be exciting although admittedly not a great fit. Barnes has upside. Beal will hopefully go top 4 giving us a choice between two of the higher ranked guys.
The second best player has nothing to do with it. Do you think the Bobs should build around their 2nd best player because he's their 2nd best player? (Heck, with the Bobs you could make a good argument they shouldn't build around their first best player). It's inconsequential. If you think he's going to realize a high ceiling, fine. But 2nd best doesn't mean anything.
With all due respect your example is just plain stupid! Your dislike of Evans is well documented so there is no point in arguing why your argument is just post if just empty baseless dribble. Fact is if Charlotte had a player of Tyreke's talent, they would not be as bad as they are and you can guarantee that he would be their building block going forward.
A guy that isn't getting a lot of attention that really impressed me last year is Moe Harkless. He had to play out of position at St. John's because they didn't have any true centers on the roster but he still ended up being one of the most productive freshmen in the country. If he lasts until the 20th pick like he's currently projected to, he's going to be a steal for somebody. I've been a big fan of both Barnes and MKG for a long time, but I actually think there's a chance Harkless develops into the best SF in this draft down the line. He's still got a long ways to go -- he's got to work on his jumpshot and ballhandling and put on some weight but athletically he matches up well with those other two guys. What stands out to me is that he's a very good rebounder for his size and he's got great defensive instincts. His energy level on the court is up there at the top of the list with Davis and Gilchrist. Offensively he can post up or attack the basket off the dribble but doesn't have 3pt range yet.
If we miss out on Barnes, Kidd-Gilchrist, and Drummond it might be worth trading the 5th pick to Houston for Kyle Lowry and the 14th pick. Then again there's no guarantee he's still on the board at 14 so it's risky. And we might be better off just taking Robinson or Beal and shuffling some pieces to make them fit. Maybe we can just buy a mid first-round pick if he's still on the board like Portland did to get Batum in the 2008 draft.
Realistically -- we never buy picks, he's not going to work out for us, and he's probably not even on Petrie's radar but I really think he has a chance to be something special. He's one of the rawest prospects in the draft but his basketball IQ is about as good as it gets I think. I've said this before and I don't know who it's going to be, but I guarantee you someone in this draft that gets picked outside the lottery is going to be an All Star. There's just so many uniquely talented players this year.
If we miss out on Barnes, Kidd-Gilchrist, and Drummond it might be worth trading the 5th pick to Houston for Kyle Lowry and the 14th pick. Then again there's no guarantee he's still on the board at 14 so it's risky. And we might be better off just taking Robinson or Beal and shuffling some pieces to make them fit. Maybe we can just buy a mid first-round pick if he's still on the board like Portland did to get Batum in the 2008 draft.
Realistically -- we never buy picks, he's not going to work out for us, and he's probably not even on Petrie's radar but I really think he has a chance to be something special. He's one of the rawest prospects in the draft but his basketball IQ is about as good as it gets I think. I've said this before and I don't know who it's going to be, but I guarantee you someone in this draft that gets picked outside the lottery is going to be an All Star. There's just so many uniquely talented players this year.
Being the second best player has absolutely nothing to do with anything. It's meaningless. It gets you nowhere because the second best player could be outstanding or the second best player could be mediocre. Get it? What is more helpful is to describe exactly why you think a guy should be "built around." Otherwise, you're supporting an argument with empty air. Rather than insulting me, I think you better reconsider whether you read the post, or just scanned something and did a knee-jerk. I'm waiting for an apology.
OK, I apologize! Oh wait, it wasn't me. Its hard to keep track of people you offend. By the way, if memory serves, you along with myself and a few others were supporting the Kings drafting Tyreke. No? Well, if so, then it would be fair to say that you haven't always hated Tyreke. And I doubt you hate him now. You simply want him to reach his potential.
Exactly. And if they want to go way back when in the records they will see that I initiated a post: Why We Should Draft Tyreke Evans. And they will also see that that post was written before the "leaks" started coming out that Petrie was interested in Evans and before the bandwagoners got on the train. And that I thought Evans had a superstar ceiling.
I'm not happy with Evans because he hasn't developed his outside shot. And I'm not happy with him because he hasn't done the proper work to get his outside shot. Why? Because he's not coming close to his ceiling, imo. So all this "you hate Tyreke Evans" lingo is simplistic and incorrect and maybe just flat-out disingenuous. If I hated the guy I'd want for him to continue down the path to mediocrity; just continue what he's been doing. I could then be fabulously happy with his slow path to: "Whatever happened to that Tyrek Evans guy?" I don't hate Evans. I hate that the guy is on the precipice of not coming close to realizing his potential. To my mind, that would be a considerable shame if that happened, to Evans, the franchise, and the fans. That's why for the last two years I have been making numerous inquiries/posts concerning his training regiment: I understand that realizing his potential is not a foregone conclusion. He may never realize it. So, despite the fact that I was at least one of the conductors of the Evans' train, I'm not going to unconditionally say that I want him to remain a King forever. His stay with the Kings is conditional upon his performance, just like everybody else.
Exactly. And if they want to go way back when in the records they will see that I initiated a post: Why We Should Draft Tyreke Evans. And they will also see that that post was written before the "leaks" started coming out that Petrie was interested in Evans and before the bandwagoners got on the train. And that I thought Evans had a superstar ceiling.
I'm not happy with Evans because he hasn't developed his outside shot. And I'm not happy with him because he hasn't done the proper work to get his outside shot. Why? Because he's not coming close to his ceiling, imo. So all this "you hate Tyreke Evans" lingo is simplistic and incorrect and maybe just flat-out disingenuous. If I hated the guy I'd want for him to continue down the path to mediocrity; just continue what he's been doing. I could then be fabulously happy with his slow path to: "Whatever happened to that Tyrek Evans guy?" I don't hate Evans. I hate that the guy is on the precipice of not coming close to realizing his potential. To my mind, that would be a considerable shame if that happened, to Evans, the franchise, and the fans. That's why for the last two years I have been making numerous inquiries/posts concerning his training regiment: I understand that realizing his potential is not a foregone conclusion. He may never realize it. So, despite the fact that I was at least one of the conductors of the Evans' train, I'm not going to unconditionally say that I want him to remain a King forever. His stay with the Kings is conditional upon his performance, just like everybody else.
Your disappointment however has turned you into a fuillblown hater unable to see what he DOES do well because you are too blinded by what he doesn't. I am quite sure if you were held up to a simiilar standard everybody in your life would consider you an abysmal failure too. Fortunately most people in real life are far more rational than sports fans when trying to evaluate people.
Exactly. And if they want to go way back when in the records they will see that I initiated a post: Why We Should Draft Tyreke Evans. And they will also see that that post was written before the "leaks" started coming out that Petrie was interested in Evans and before the bandwagoners got on the train. And that I thought Evans had a superstar ceiling.
I'm not happy with Evans because he hasn't developed his outside shot. And I'm not happy with him because he hasn't done the proper work to get his outside shot. Why? Because he's not coming close to his ceiling, imo. So all this "you hate Tyreke Evans" lingo is simplistic and incorrect and maybe just flat-out disingenuous. If I hated the guy I'd want for him to continue down the path to mediocrity; just continue what he's been doing. I could then be fabulously happy with his slow path to: "Whatever happened to that Tyrek Evans guy?" I don't hate Evans. I hate that the guy is on the precipice of not coming close to realizing his potential. To my mind, that would be a considerable shame if that happened, to Evans, the franchise, and the fans. That's why for the last two years I have been making numerous inquiries/posts concerning his training regiment: I understand that realizing his potential is not a foregone conclusion. He may never realize it. So, despite the fact that I was at least one of the conductors of the Evans' train, I'm not going to unconditionally say that I want him to remain a King forever. His stay with the Kings is conditional upon his performance, just like everybody else.
Gary on the other hand, was furious when we picked Evans, but still comes across as supporting Evans and the Kings. He's critical too, but actually shows that he wants the Kings to use Evans in a better way.
If you are waiting for an apology you will be waiting for your life time because you are not going to get one.
You argument is severely flawed and irrational to the point of it being just some vindictive dribble. The fact that you can't see what Tyreke brings to the table after having it spelled out to you continuously says a heck of a lot about you than anyone else.
You continue hating, you are entitled to that but there is no point for me to get into a pissing contest with someone that has such a strong and irrational dislike of a player that many teams would love to have. You are so blinded by he doesn't do that you are blind to what he does do at an elite level and how those skills are required on contending teams. So if you are going to make ridiculous statements on a player then prepare to accept the criticism that comes with the territory. Otherwise, if you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen and leave the debates to people who are prepared to stand up and not get their knickers in a knot if they get called out. Just man up!
You argument is severely flawed and irrational to the point of it being just some vindictive dribble. The fact that you can't see what Tyreke brings to the table after having it spelled out to you continuously says a heck of a lot about you than anyone else.
You continue hating, you are entitled to that but there is no point for me to get into a pissing contest with someone that has such a strong and irrational dislike of a player that many teams would love to have. You are so blinded by he doesn't do that you are blind to what he does do at an elite level and how those skills are required on contending teams. So if you are going to make ridiculous statements on a player then prepare to accept the criticism that comes with the territory. Otherwise, if you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen and leave the debates to people who are prepared to stand up and not get their knickers in a knot if they get called out. Just man up!
Funny, because you just a couple days ago labelled everyone an IT hater in another thread for any level of criticism directed his way.
What's funny is both you and Kingster act like you've always been completely objective when posting about Reke and are unfairly labelled "haters", yet you both are among the first to call anyone who critiques IT a hater.
Not that I really care one way or the other, but the double standard is amusing.
What's funny is both you and Kingster act like you've always been completely objective when posting about Reke and are unfairly labelled "haters", yet you both are among the first to call anyone who critiques IT a hater.
Not that I really care one way or the other, but the double standard is amusing.
Funny, because you just a couple days ago labelled everyone an IT hater in another thread for any level of criticism directed his way.
What's funny is both you and Kingster act like you've always been completely objective when posting about Reke and are unfairly labelled "haters", yet you both are among the first to call anyone who critiques IT a hater.
Not that I really care one way or the other, but the double standard is amusing.
What's funny is both you and Kingster act like you've always been completely objective when posting about Reke and are unfairly labelled "haters", yet you both are among the first to call anyone who critiques IT a hater.
Not that I really care one way or the other, but the double standard is amusing.
I tend to disagree with you on that statement. You know how hard it is for a college player at a big name school to average 10 assists a game? Have you seen how good Marshall sees the floor? Now his shooting isn't up to par but does our PG really need more than a few shots a game? Marshall's D is OK, not great not good, but OK. He's got the size to be able to switch if needed. He sees the floor better than any college player I have seen in the last 5-10 years. Will that translate to the NBA? We shall see. I have no doubt it will. He will always be looking to pass since he's not a shooter. That might be a blessing in disguise for Marshall, and whoever drafts him. Too many "me first" PGs in the league when the definition of a PG is to get shots for your teammates first.