Barnes/Beal/Drummond/Robinson still available...5th pick

[Capt. Factorial]

Well given that our franchise stacks up SGs and even PGs and calls them SFs, if Barnes is drafted all of a sudden Tyreke Evans, John Salmons, Terrence Williams and Francisco Garcia shift back into mroe SG minutes to compete with Marcus Thornton and Jimmer Fredette. but I'm sure it will all work out.

If the alternative is playing Tyreke at the 3, I'm all for this "logjam".

 

[captain bill]

Here are the FGA for the Kings last year, with notes:
Thronton 15.8 (would like more)
Cousins 15.6 (would like more)
Evans 14.3 (would like more)
Thomas 8.8 (would like more)
TWilliams 7.8 (only 18gms)
Salmons 7.5 (would like more)
Fredette 7.3 (would like more)
Thompson 6.9
Greene 5.0
Hickson 4.9 (would like more, but gone)
Garcia 4.7
Outlaw 4.5
Hayes 3.2
Honeycutt 1.6 (15gms)
Whiteside 1.5 (18gms)
---------------------
Total: 86.6 FGA/GM (1st in NBA)

Okay, so we already lead the lead in overall FGA. Meaning that its highly unlikely we can just expand the pool of shots available -- if anybody gets more shots than somebody else has to lose theirs. Meanwhile 6 of our 7 top FGA guys (and likely the 7th too, although in a smart world you would only have Twill or Salmons, one or the toher, not both next year) were chafing at shots already this past season. And the starting PF on the team, and virtually only roleplayer who understood the term, averaged all of 6.9 FGA last season.

And its not as if we were bizarrely hierarchal last year -- in fact quite the opposite. Of the four teams competing for a title right now, you know how many double figure FGA guys each team had? OKC had the obvious 3. Ditto for Miami -- their Big Three. teh Spurs, the famous share the ball Spurs? 4, and that's only if you count Patty Mills' 18 games of garbagetime chucking. Otherwise they had 3 as well. The Celtics had 5, more due to age than anything, and 3 of those 5 barely broke the 10 FGA limit (Allen 10.8, Rondo and Bass 10.7). Come playoff time they are back down to 3.

What does all this mean? It means this: we should not be looking for the "best player". We should be looking for the best player for US. And what that means given our already overstuffed offense and terrible defense is determing which guy can be the best player if he's going to get 8 shots or less. Because that's what we have to spare. And so for us the best player is the player is the best WITHOUT the ball. At #5 you still want to draft a star. But we need a DEFENSIVE star, not an offensive one. There are no shots. There is a desperate need for defenders that only Reke of our top guys has any chance of providing.

What this really shows, along with a little common sense from watching the games, is that this team is terribly constructed and poorly coached. Adding one guy who can only play defense isn't going to make our offense better; if we draft a guy like that to keep all the other chuckers happy, it will make the team worse.

I'd also add that we already have a lot of good defenders on this team. Whether we ever become a great defensive team will largely depend on whether Cousins ever decides to try on that end of the court or just continues to play turnstile. I've seen him play great D before so I have faith that with more experience and a better coach he'll become a good defender on a regular basis.

Even adding prime Ben Wallace would leave us as a pretty crappy team because we would still shoot ourselves out of games.

 

[Bricklayer]

What this really shows, along with a little common sense from watching the games, is that this team is terribly constructed and poorly coached. Adding one guy who can only play defense isn't going to make our offense better; if we draft a guy like that to keep all the other chuckers happy, it will make the team worse.

I'd also add that we already have a lot of good defenders on this team. Whether we ever become a great defensive team will largely depend on whether Cousins ever decides to try on that end of the court or just continues to play turnstile. I've seen him play great D before so I have faith that with more experience and a better coach he'll become a good defender on a regular basis.

Even adding prime Ben Wallace would leave us as a pretty crappy team because we would still shoot ourselves out of games.

1) we really don't have a lot of good defenders, not at this stage of their careers. TWill's late season addition gave a litle hope, but Thornton, Cousins, Jimmer, IT (size) and Hickson all sucked. And Reke sucked once you put him at SF. That's like 75% of your minutes right there.

2)

Adding one guy who can only play defense isn't going to make our offense better; if we draft a guy like that to keep all the other chuckers happy, it will make the team worse.

People are always saying things like this that fly directly in the face of everything winning teams do. Does Perkins scuttle OKC's offense? Or Joel Anthony Miami's? Of course they don'tl -- reason being that in basketball there is only 1 ball. You don't need 5 guys who are good with it. You need 1 guy who is good with it, or more realistically about 3 so you can attack the defense from different angles. And the other guys just have to be good at punishing the other team if the other team tries to double off of them (i.e to make the star's games easier). A defensive specialist or two on the Kings would 1) clarify roles and clean up that confusion; 2) help with unselfishness and ball momvent since the roleplayuers will move the ball and the stars no longer feel like they have to shoot it or they won't get it back, and 3) of course critically hopefully provide defensive backbone and leadership that will more than make up for any offensive deficiencies.

3) and on that front, while there was a smoke and mirrors aspect to it because we had to compeltely give up on defense in order to do it, we averaged 103.5ppg after the All Star break. We didn't lose those games due to offense. We lost them because we could not stop anybody at all.

 

[kingsnation]

Well given that our franchise stacks up SGs and even PGs and calls them SFs, if Barnes is drafted all of a sudden Tyreke Evans, John Salmons, Terrence Williams and Francisco Garcia shift back into mroe SG minutes to compete with Marcus Thornton and Jimmer Fredette. but I'm sure it will all work out.

Wait, so you're saying by drafting a solid 3 we can:

a) Actually play our guards as.. well, guards.

b) Play Reke at the 1 and 2.

c) Perhaps even move Salmons, Cisco and Jimmer out of the rotation.

Sounds amazing and dream-like.

 

[BMiller52]

If the alternative is playing Tyreke at the 3, I'm all for this "logjam".

Agreed.

 

[Anthony1]

I'd draft Beal and trade Reke for a SF or PF. Thorton would be my 6th man of the year

 

[Bricklayer]

I'd draft Beal and trade Reke for a SF or PF. Thorton would be my 6th man of the year

You would draft a 6'4" SG to put next to your 5'9" PG with another 6'4" SG coming off the bench? What are you goig to do, run Beal as a backup PG? Or do we get to see the wonders of Thornton as a SF? Hell, why don't we just draft a hobbit while we're at it. There's a new movie coming out full of them -- be a good scouting opportunity.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

Lol

 

[Mass]

I dont think the number of shots is a big issue. The more skills your players have, the better it is. Just remember the glory days. This team had Bibby, Christie, Peja, Webber and Vlade in the starting 5. All of those players demanded their shots, and everyone could (and did) drop 30+ points in a game.
Now, when we play with Hayes, Garcia, Outlaw, etc. the other teams know they don't have to worry about them. This means our big scorers will have to face more attention. That's the reason why I would grab Barnes if he's available. I still believe he can be a great SF, despite his poor play at the end of last season. He's 6'9 and he could be a decent defender. Drafting him, we'd have a more balanced team. You start Thomas and Evans in the backcourt, with Barnes, Thompson and Cousins. You bring Jimmer, Thornton, Williams, Hayes and Whiteside (or a big from free agency) off the bench, and there you have your rotation. I don't care about Garcia, Outlaw and Salmons, they don't deserve minutes on the court (maybe just Salmons if Jimmer doesn't improve).

 

[Kingster]

The other key similarity is that they both need the ball to be effective. Something that we can't have. What we need next to Cousins is a role player that excels at things that Cousins doesn't or a role player that does the dirty work and is not looking to score his fair share.

That is why Hickson was such a terrible fit. In no way am I comparing Robinson's game to Hickson's as they are obviously different but the key similarity is that both need the ball to be effective and they don't get it (as they won't with us) then they become the shell of their ability.

Its exactly the reason why JT was our most effective player next to Cousins and Hickson stunk it up as much as he did. It is not about who Robinson reminds me of as a player but what type of player is he. Its why Shaq won with guys like Haslem next to him but didn't with someone like Malone. The difference in talent level is obvious but so is the difference in "fit"! This is not a video game where you stack up with players that are better overall, this is real life business where fit at times is MUCH more important than talent level, especially if you have your talented guy already.

If you think Robinson has to have the ball a lot in order to be effective then you just haven't seen enough of him. Also, Cousins needs a guy to keep others honest. You don't want a nothing out there next to Cousins who can only blocks shots or only play D for that matter. It makes it too easy to double off him onto Cousins.

 

[Gilles]

There are other ways to keep defenses honest than simply drift past 3pt line and hoist shots from out there: cutting for an easy finish around the basket or setting screens to get wide open shots. And that's how playoff teams keep their defensive roleplayers on the floor. Unfortunately it requires team work that Kings avoid like plague.

 

[JB_kings]

Maybe Coach Willliams at UNC did make Barnes wear lead filled shoes or something. Barnes was best in the combine with 38.0 in the standing vertical jump and fastest in the 3/4 court sprint.

 

[Dime Dropper]

It's strange that we didn't get to see that athleticism in his time at UNC. He'll benefit from the extra space in the NBA as all athletes who surprise at the combine seem to do. Beal also posted a 39 inch vertical, something I wasn't expecting. However, sometimes the vertical testing just does not translate. Miles Plumlee has a 41 inch vertical, and I can guarantee that he's not going to be dunking on people like Griffin. Explosiveness is probably more important than just vertical.

I was not expecting Henson to have the worst standing vertical of all participants. That's because he's quick off his feet. No good being able to jump high if you have to gather yourself slowly beforehand. I'm not devaluing the vertical, it is important, but only to a certain point.

Teague and Jeff Taylor both measured very well with 40 inch verticals. Encouraging for them. I also think Moultrie is a great athlete for someone his size and it should become clear at the next level.

Perry Jones confirmed that he is an elite level athlete with great size to match.

 

[Kingster]

I just love when people say that this or that player needs the ball in his hands to be effective. Effective is a very general term, so you need to define what you mean my effective when making that statement. Effective on offense, or defense? I don't know too many players that are effective on offense without touching the ball at some point. You have to touch the ball to pass it. You have to touch the ball to shoot it. If you not going to do either of those two things, you might as well not even be out there on offense, unless you want a player that does nothing but stand at the top of the key and set screens. Here's a clue. If you can't score, you won't be guarded. That leads to having the other four players being guarded by five players.

Having said all that. Robinson is a very unselfish player, and if you don't think so, then you didn't watch him play. He has great hands and is a relentless rebounder. He's certainly didn't dominate the ball at Kansas, but he did have the ball in his hands a lot at times. Thats what happens when you rebound. Its very difficult to rebound the ball without touching it. He's also a very good passer averaging around 2 assists a game. I'll be honest. I'm not sure what kind of game of basketball some of you want. Do you want a team that just gives the ball to two players and no one else touches the ball, and if they do, they should go to the bench. All of this is the biggest bunch of nonsense I've heard in a long time. The more skills any player, and I mean any player has, is a benefit to the team. It then comes down to how a player uses those skills.

Because you can shoot, doesn't mean you have to shoot. If you put five very talented players on the floor together that are committed to team play, the best players will still end up taking the most shots. But it will happen within the flow of the game, and not be forced. Unselfishness and patience along with talent wins games. What I don't want on the team, is a player that thinks he's better than he is, who also has tunnel vision once the ball hits his hands. How many times did you see Hickson pass the ball once he had it? He almost always forced up some kind of shot. Thats not what Robinison does.

Robinson isn't my first choice, but I'll take him over Drummond 10 times out of 10. The same people that are lusting after Drummond, will be bitching about his play one year from now if we draft him. As one of the NBA GM's said when asked about Drummond. " My hope is that someone picks him before its my turn to pick. He's a GM's nightmare!"

This post gets my standing ovation!

 

[cuad]

Jimmer tested better than expected, athletically, at the Combine, didn't he? It didn't mean a thing.

 

[Dime Dropper]

Jimmer tested better than expected, athletically, at the Combine, didn't he? It didn't mean a thing.

Jimmer's problem isn't related to athleticism. If he was a PG, he'd be fine with what he is. Problem is, he's not a PG. He needs to drastically improve his ballhandling before he can play significant minutes there.

 

[Hallama]

I was not expecting Henson to have the worst standing vertical of all participants. That's because he's quick off his feet. No good being able to jump high if you have to gather yourself slowly beforehand. I'm not devaluing the vertical, it is important, but only to a certain point.

To be fair to Henson, he tweaked his ankle and didn't do the agility testing. Probably should've sat out the verticals too. He certainly looks like he gets off the floor a lot better than those numbers.

 

[beb0p]

Barnes is very good leaper with two feet. I've seen him time and again sky for dunks when he has time to gather himself and take off, and when he catches and elevate for a jump shot, the elevation (and the release) is high, that's how he managed to get his shots off over people, you rarely see his shots blocked.

But off one foot, he is much less explosive and his first step is not that quick.

 

[bajaden]

It's strange that we didn't get to see that athleticism in his time at UNC. He'll benefit from the extra space in the NBA as all athletes who surprise at the combine seem to do. Beal also posted a 39 inch vertical, something I wasn't expecting. However, sometimes the vertical testing just does not translate. Miles Plumlee has a 41 inch vertical, and I can guarantee that he's not going to be dunking on people like Griffin. Explosiveness is probably more important than just vertical.

I was not expecting Henson to have the worst standing vertical of all participants. That's because he's quick off his feet. No good being able to jump high if you have to gather yourself slowly beforehand. I'm not devaluing the vertical, it is important, but only to a certain point.

Teague and Jeff Taylor both measured very well with 40 inch verticals. Encouraging for them. I also think Moultrie is a great athlete for someone his size and it should become clear at the next level.

Perry Jones confirmed that he is an elite level athlete with great size to match.

Really no surprises, except for maybe Barnes 38" vertical, and Henson's lack of vertical. Of course Henson has such a long vertical reach, that it compensates for it. But everyone else came in where most expected them to.

 

[cuad]

Jimmer's problem isn't related to athleticism. If he was a PG, he'd be fine with what he is. Problem is, he's not a PG. He needs to drastically improve his ballhandling before he can play significant minutes there.

Now that you mention it, that's probably it. Harrison Barnes can't dribble either.

 

[bajaden]

Now that you mention it, that's probably it. Harrison Barnes can't dribble either.

While Barnes ballhandling needs work, I would say that ballhandling is more important to a PG than it is to a SF. And I'm not saying its not important at SF, just not to the same degree.

 

[Bricklayer]

While Barnes ballhandling needs work, I would say that ballhandling is more important to a PG than it is to a SF. And I'm not saying its not important at SF, just not to the same degree.

I think we saw in March just the effect of that lack of ballahndling. Saw it last year with Jimmer too. Barnes can possibly be a Peja style SF, minus the prolific 3pt shooting, but guys that can't create on their own are only as good as their teamamtes make them. Not the end of the world for us, assuming we keep Reke and Cousins to draw the attention. But if I were a team trying to draft a star I would be hugely wary.

Hoping the teams ahead of us aren't of course. The surprising athelticism should boost his stock. We can take Barnes, he sorta fills a need. But he's no better than the 4th best need fit out of the top 6 guys (Davis, Drummond, MKG), and he's the one that would virtually force a reasonable team to trade one of our scoring guards to make room.

 

[Glenn]

I may have missed it but how is Beal doing? If Beal is drafted in the top 4, we are guaranteed a very useful basketball player. Create a top 4 picking with Beal in there and assume Davis goes first. That leaves MKG, Barnes, Drummond, and Robinson. The worst we could do is have a choice of Robinson vs Barnes imo. Of course in a league that undervalues defense, the choice could very well be between Robinson and MKG. I have said it before but will say it again: we are unique among the lower depths of the league in that we don't need offense. That very well may leave us MKG and that would make me very happy. You get what you see with him. No surprises and no need for prayer as it would be if we got Drummond.

 

[vikinginferno]

I may have missed it but how is Beal doing? If Beal is drafted in the top 4, we are guaranteed a very useful basketball player. Create a top 4 picking with Beal in there and assume Davis goes first. That leaves MKG, Barnes, Drummond, and Robinson. The worst we could do is have a choice of Robinson vs Barnes imo. Of course in a league that undervalues defense, the choice could very well be between Robinson and MKG. I have said it before but will say it again: we are unique among the lower depths of the league in that we don't need offense. That very well may leave us MKG and that would make me very happy. You get what you see with him. No surprises and no need for prayer as it would be if we got Drummond.

Beal did quite well, I thought. Most people have thought of him as an "average" athlete, but he showed himself as actually a quite good athlete according to the combine results with a 39 inch vertical. Along with his height measurement at nearly 6'5" in shoes (when many thought he could be as low as 6'3") and a 6'8" wingspan, he had himself a nice draft combine. He's definitely a top 4 talent, but this is an interesting year with a large amount of talent. I think he should go either 3 to Washington or 4 to Cleveland. If we didn't have Tyreke and Thornton as SGs, I would love the chance to take Beal and I think he will be a very good player in this league.

No matter what (even if Beal isn't taken before us!) we will have the chance of taking a very, very good player, I am sure of that. Will we necessarily end up with one? Not necessarily, but there will be some very good options.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Beal is a good and fluid athlete, but he never struck me as explosive. I'm sure he can get up in contexts like the combine, but that's not the same as in-game explosiveness.

 

[Dime Dropper]

Beal is a good and fluid athlete, but he never struck me as explosive. I'm sure he can get up in contexts like the combine, but that's not the same as in-game explosiveness.

He is probably explosive in the same way as Harden is. Not very explosive, but a better athlete than he looks and well able to get up when needed. Both guys seem to only do what's required.

 

[Vlade4GM]

He is probably explosive in the same way as Harden is. Not very explosive, but a better athlete than he looks and well able to get up when needed. Both guys seem to only do what's required.

If he has an open lane, I'm sure he can get up, but he's not going to explode up like Eric Gordon can.

 

[bajaden]

He is probably explosive in the same way as Harden is. Not very explosive, but a better athlete than he looks and well able to get up when needed. Both guys seem to only do what's required.

Had these same discussions about Harden. Beal is one of those athletes thats so smooth that he appears to be moving slower than he is. Whether he's a better athlete or not than Gordon (Eric) is immaterial. He's a very good athlete, that many times played in a four guard lineup. I also sensed that he defered to his teammates a little more than he should have. But anyone that thinks he's not a very good basketball player just didn't watch him play enough. And to be honest, Beal was a player, very similar to Harden, that you had to see play a lot to really get a feel for what he could do.

 

[BMiller52]

Beal=the next DWade in my opinion.

 

[Gilles]

Had these same discussions about Harden. Beal is one of those athletes thats so smooth that he appears to be moving slower than he is. Whether he's a better athlete or not than Gordon (Eric) is immaterial. He's a very good athlete, that many times played in a four guard lineup. I also sensed that he defered to his teammates a little more than he should have. But anyone that thinks he's not a very good basketball player just didn't watch him play enough. And to be honest, Beal was a player, very similar to Harden, that you had to see play a lot to really get a feel for what he could do.

Harden is only above average if you think of raw athletic data like what draft combine measures but he has excellent body control that when coupled with very good handles and craftiness with the ball (hesitation moves and quick change of direction with the ball in his hands) allows him to be so potent offensively.
Draft Combine results are barely worthy: regarding jumping it gives no idea how quick player jumps(explosiveness) or if he has quick 2nd and 3rd jump which is very important in game situations; agility lane drill measures some very arbitrary ability that could be improved a lot by training; sprint is pretty straightforward but is still not very applicable to the game of basketball. Beal is very skillful for 18-year old and barring serious injury he should reach near all-star level at least but I don't think he has any chanceto be top-20 player. It's possible but it would require Steve Nash-level craftiness with the ball.