Who is available as 6th-7th pick
- Thread starter andjel
- Start date
I think MCW will be a disruptive defender that may be able to guard smaller PGs. With Mike Malone now the coach, I think MCWs chances of being drafted by the Kings went way up. I watched a lot of Warriors basketball last season, and they went with a 1-2-2 zone quite often, and MCW would cause havoc at the top or wing in that scheme.
I'm not really worried about his shot, but it does have to improve for him to be a better than average pro. He's already there as a passing/slashing playmaker on offense, and athletic enough to make some outstanding plays on the break.
Does that remind anybody else of Doug Christie?
I'm not really worried about his shot, but it does have to improve for him to be a better than average pro. He's already there as a passing/slashing playmaker on offense, and athletic enough to make some outstanding plays on the break.
Does that remind anybody else of Doug Christie?
You should also note that in most cases where the PG is a primary scorer the SG plays off the ball or isn't a scorer at all. Lawson with Iggy, Westbrook with Thabo, Conley and Allen... GS is the obvious exception but its still worth noting that Klay Thompson is a pretty good off the ball player. Milwaukee is barely a playoff team and Harden does a lot of the ball handling for Houston. The teams that got past the first round all have much better balance, with the exception of GS. We certainly need a good PG, but not necessarily a scoring one.
I like Schroeder far more than MCW, and I'd be very tempted to take him at 7. I don't think he'll drop much lower than that even if we don't take him. Ya, PG isn't our biggest need, but it IS a need. We don't have a starting caliber PG unless you move 'Reke back there. Quantity does not equal quality and some of the spare parts can be moved. Schroeder has very high potential as a two way player.
I know most people have seen the Hoop summit highlights, but this video is interesting because you hear the world team's coach speak about him. To be taken with a pinch of salt given that he coached him, but still encouraging because he's worked with many great players on those teams in previous years:
(Interview starts at around 2.25)
I know most people have seen the Hoop summit highlights, but this video is interesting because you hear the world team's coach speak about him. To be taken with a pinch of salt given that he coached him, but still encouraging because he's worked with many great players on those teams in previous years:
(Interview starts at around 2.25)
Last edited by a moderator:
Either he needs to work on his English or I need to work on my German. All I got was that he had to work hard to get into the NBA - something like that. Draft him and unload IT and there has already been a step in the right direction. I prefer other positions to be filled but lets see who's available when the #7 pick comes around. That's the decision point.
Schroeder is growing on me, but I worry about his shot. It starts from so low. Gives long defenders a chance to catch up to it. I criticized Jimmers shot before he was drafted for taking too long because he tends to shoot on the way down. Which means he will have to be wide open to get any shot off. Turned out to be true and it has affected him. Getting off quick shots is extremely important in the NBA. That being said, I like everything else about Schroeder that I see. He has so much speed that defenders may not be able to play him as tight, giving him a little extra room to shoot. I wouldn't be upset if we drafted him.
Personally I think Schroder will be the player with the most natural talent by the time we draft (whether any of it materializes is up in the air), but a lot can happen between now and then and you don't know who might drop etc. A lot of people I know don't like drafting on raw talent potential capability, but the safe % that a player will ever contribute at quality NBA level. He should struggle a tad getting used to being a playmaker at this level, but aside from that the tools are there to be who we need next to Reke
Last edited:
If you had a choice between Schroder, Len, and Porter, who would you pick? All of them could be available although maybe that's a bit of wishful thinking with Porter. All fill a position of need for the Kings. I certainly think Len will be available as he will fall because of his stress fracture and I doubt if Schroder will climb that high but who knows. I would pick Porter but I doubt he will be available.
Porter would be a very exciting pick for me... I also doubt he'll be available but the thought of him and Reke possibly being paired together would open things up I think for Jimmer to get a bunch of minutes and really shine offensively. I really like the thought of those three guys on the floor at the same time together.
Schroder. Your big men just are not as effective without a pg who can get them the ball in the right situations. As good as Tim Duncan is, Tony Parker is the key for him being successful throughout his career. Stockton and Malone. You want that guard big man combo. Don't think Porter will be an option.
I don't like Porter. He's the position we need, but still a "Jack-of-all-trades" type, and doesn't do anything brilliantly... Maybe it's just me, but I have an issue with those players. They have huge bust potential, simply because the coaching staff rarely knows where to start with them.
Example: MCW - Issue is, can't shoot. That's easily coachable. Noel - Same thing. Anthony Bennett - No defense, so spend time working on that. Porter - He's 'okay' at everything, so they expect him to be 'okay' making the jump to the NBA. Same with Cody Zeller... Someone before said he's just 'that guy', and I'm probably being paranoid, but that's all I see when I read/watch Porter.
Example: MCW - Issue is, can't shoot. That's easily coachable. Noel - Same thing. Anthony Bennett - No defense, so spend time working on that. Porter - He's 'okay' at everything, so they expect him to be 'okay' making the jump to the NBA. Same with Cody Zeller... Someone before said he's just 'that guy', and I'm probably being paranoid, but that's all I see when I read/watch Porter.
There is no accent, just some nice and clearly pronounced german language from Niedersachsen, a federal state in northern Germany.
The interview isnt very interesting. He talks about the game, the experience to play with some of the best talents in the world and the possibility to pick up the legacy of Dirk Nowitzki as a german player in the NBA.
It is sad, that there isnt much footage of the german basketball league in TV over here, so i cant give you more informations about Schröder.
The interview isnt very interesting. He talks about the game, the experience to play with some of the best talents in the world and the possibility to pick up the legacy of Dirk Nowitzki as a german player in the NBA.
It is sad, that there isnt much footage of the german basketball league in TV over here, so i cant give you more informations about Schröder.
Soooooooo, your telling me that if you had to choose between Parker and Duncan, you'd take Parker! Good luck with that one. I understand where your coming from, but!!!!!!! Any scout worth his salt would tell you right now, that if he had to pick one player in this draft thats has the least chance of being a bust, it would be Porter. There's not one scout that would tell you that Schroeder is a can't miss player. Potential yes, but still a risk. The old saying is, if you have to choose between a good big man and a good little man, always, and I mean always, choose the good big man, because little men are a dime a dozen.
By no means am I trying to belittle Parker, who I think is a very good player, but to say that Duncan's success is a result of Parker is nonsense. Its more likely the other way around. By the way, Duncan won his first ring in 1999, and Parker was not on that team. Some bum named David Robinson was.
By no means am I trying to belittle Parker, who I think is a very good player, but to say that Duncan's success is a result of Parker is nonsense. Its more likely the other way around. By the way, Duncan won his first ring in 1999, and Parker was not on that team. Some bum named David Robinson was.
So your saying that Duncan owing his success to Parker isn't taking anything away from him? Right! Try again! Duncan is a HOF player, and its doubtful that Parker gets a sniff of the HOF. To use Stockton as a sounding board is insulting to Stockton. Stockton is the all time leader in assists with 15,806 assists in his career. Parker isn't even in the top 30, with his 5,247 assists. The fact is, no one player wins a championship by himself. It takes a team. If you want to say that perhaps the Spurs wouldn't have won one, or perhaps two of their championships without Parker, its possible. But it can't be proven anymore that I can say there are no elephants in my livingroom because I use elephant spray.
One thing I can guarantee you, the Spurs definitely wouldn't have won those championships without Duncan.
One thing I can guarantee you, the Spurs definitely wouldn't have won those championships without Duncan.
I agree with the rest of your post, but you have to keep in mind, that Duncan changed his style of play almost completely and was able to do so, cause Parker was on his team.
Today Tim Duncan hardly ever plays in the post and get his points mostly out of catch-and-shoot-situations set up by Parker. I think the Spurs decided to play that way, cause with defenses rotating much quicker in todays NBA it is very difficult to run a 1vs1 low post-play. The western conference finals showed that, it is almost impossible to get points out of the low-post, when the opposing team swarms your big-man and denies the entry-pass.
Therefore it isnt wrong, that you need a effective PG able to set up your bigs in the right spots, to suceed in todays NBA.
Today Tim Duncan hardly ever plays in the post and get his points mostly out of catch-and-shoot-situations set up by Parker. I think the Spurs decided to play that way, cause with defenses rotating much quicker in todays NBA it is very difficult to run a 1vs1 low post-play. The western conference finals showed that, it is almost impossible to get points out of the low-post, when the opposing team swarms your big-man and denies the entry-pass.
Therefore it isnt wrong, that you need a effective PG able to set up your bigs in the right spots, to suceed in todays NBA.
Disagree on the HOF thing. I think Both Parker and Ginobili are likely future HOFers because of their being international players. Parker is also arguably the best PG in the league now, so it's not like he's some scrub. As for Duncan/Parker - it's not a competition. Take either of those guys away and the other probably has at least one less ring. Don't forget that Parker was the finals MVP in their last championship, but also realise that even at his age now Duncan's ability to anchor the defense and his adapting on the offensive end has allowed the Spurs to be a successful team with Parker as their primary offensive option. Nevertheless when it's all said and done, Duncan is one of if not the greatest PF in NBA history thus far while Parker is just a pretty good superstar.
On the other hand Indiana took a superior Miami team to 7 games relying heavily on Hibbert's and West's low post scoring with Hill, who's far from being a pure pg, running the offense.
The Spurs were able to swarm Randolph because they could afford to ignore Memphis' perimeter bricklayers, not because low post offense suddendly became obsolete.
The Spurs were able to swarm Randolph because they could afford to ignore Memphis' perimeter bricklayers, not because low post offense suddendly became obsolete.
