Analyzing the Murray pick (Split from the Welcome thread)
- Thread starter KainLear
- Start date
The Kings reportedly interviewed 33 prospects at the draft combine.
https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/k...interview-whopping-33-draft-prospects-combine
Not all were named in that article, but of the 10 that were, 4 went in the lottery and 2 went just outside the lottery. 3 of the interviewed prospects went well outside the lottery or undrafted (though in my eyes Moore probably should have gone in/near the lottery) and 1 pulled his name out of the draft. Then there were 23 guys that were interviewed whose names we don't know. Were they lottery guys? Second round picks? We don't know.
Ivey of course did say he hadn't met with or talked with the Kings. However, he also said that his agent/team was running all the draft process for him, and it's entirely possible, even likely, that Ivey's team steered him away from the Kings due to the fit issue. We've even got Givony making the somewhat silly claim that Ivey might not sign in Sac if they drafted him - doubtful but nonetheless a pretty strong indication that Ivey's team did not want him to land in Sac. It's hard to interview a guy who won't visit.
So the Kings, who did their utmost NOT to tank, and who had to jump in the lottery to even get into position to draft Murray, were heavily scouting Murray at a time that they were not in position to draft him? That sounds like good preparation to me. Do you honestly think that during the college season they scouted ONE player? And then just got lucky enough to jump into #4 to get him?
They interviewed 33 candidates at the combine. The scouting staff attended college games. Do you think that Murray's games were the only ones that they attended because they were the only ones they mentioned in the presser following drafting Murray? I mean, is Monte really going to sit down at Murray's presser and talk about how the scouting staff was spending lots of time at Banchero's and Holmgren's and Smith's games? Is he going to say, yeah we went to Ivey's games and watched Daniels in the G-League, and we scouted Eason and Sochan and Duren and Williams and Griffin and did our due diligence on Sharpe as best we could but those guys just didn't measure up?
That's not how these pressers go. You talk about your guy. You praise your guy. You say you were confident he was the best player available when you drafted. You don't talk about all the other guys you scouted because it's your guy's day. You don't go into details about the draft process. And the media and the public learn very little, except cutesy stuff like what Murray's favorite hamburgers are.
Well, outside of the above, we also brought in Sochan, didn't we?
Clearly the Kings had two preferred (likely) outcomes from this draft after moving up in the lottery. 1) Get Murray in the 4-6 range. 2) Trade down farther and get Sochan in the 8-11 range. That second outcome probably required a pretty substantial Godfather offer for us to move down so far. And it would appear that we were not confident that we could achieve the first outcome without taking Murray at #4.
Should the Kings have brought in Ivey? Yes, even if they were dead set on Murray - if only as smokescreen. But if Ivey's handlers said no (and given the situation and the things we've heard from Ivey, they probably did), what are you going to do? And yes, perhaps that took away some of the strategic advantage that the Kings would have had to leverage Detroit (if they had traded down to #6, Murray was gone by #5 anyway). So it goes.
But to somehow blame the franchise for being "locked in" on a guy who had one of the best statistical college seasons in the last 20+ years and is likely (at least very plausibly) BPA, is a high-character guy who is happy to be in Sac, and who fits a Kings need both positionally and timeline-wise, that seems silly. And keep in mind, the Kings did interview at least two other candidates in that 5-6 range in Sharpe and Daniels, and we don't know whether they interviewed Mathurin or not.
Anyway, the "locked in" accusation basically seems to suggest that the Kings scouting department just didn't do their jobs - just came into the '21-'22 college season saying "we're going to draft this kid from Iowa some way somehow, and just not do any other work" - and obviously that's not the case.
https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/k...interview-whopping-33-draft-prospects-combine
Not all were named in that article, but of the 10 that were, 4 went in the lottery and 2 went just outside the lottery. 3 of the interviewed prospects went well outside the lottery or undrafted (though in my eyes Moore probably should have gone in/near the lottery) and 1 pulled his name out of the draft. Then there were 23 guys that were interviewed whose names we don't know. Were they lottery guys? Second round picks? We don't know.
Ivey of course did say he hadn't met with or talked with the Kings. However, he also said that his agent/team was running all the draft process for him, and it's entirely possible, even likely, that Ivey's team steered him away from the Kings due to the fit issue. We've even got Givony making the somewhat silly claim that Ivey might not sign in Sac if they drafted him - doubtful but nonetheless a pretty strong indication that Ivey's team did not want him to land in Sac. It's hard to interview a guy who won't visit.
So the Kings, who did their utmost NOT to tank, and who had to jump in the lottery to even get into position to draft Murray, were heavily scouting Murray at a time that they were not in position to draft him? That sounds like good preparation to me. Do you honestly think that during the college season they scouted ONE player? And then just got lucky enough to jump into #4 to get him?
They interviewed 33 candidates at the combine. The scouting staff attended college games. Do you think that Murray's games were the only ones that they attended because they were the only ones they mentioned in the presser following drafting Murray? I mean, is Monte really going to sit down at Murray's presser and talk about how the scouting staff was spending lots of time at Banchero's and Holmgren's and Smith's games? Is he going to say, yeah we went to Ivey's games and watched Daniels in the G-League, and we scouted Eason and Sochan and Duren and Williams and Griffin and did our due diligence on Sharpe as best we could but those guys just didn't measure up?
That's not how these pressers go. You talk about your guy. You praise your guy. You say you were confident he was the best player available when you drafted. You don't talk about all the other guys you scouted because it's your guy's day. You don't go into details about the draft process. And the media and the public learn very little, except cutesy stuff like what Murray's favorite hamburgers are.
Well, outside of the above, we also brought in Sochan, didn't we?
Clearly the Kings had two preferred (likely) outcomes from this draft after moving up in the lottery. 1) Get Murray in the 4-6 range. 2) Trade down farther and get Sochan in the 8-11 range. That second outcome probably required a pretty substantial Godfather offer for us to move down so far. And it would appear that we were not confident that we could achieve the first outcome without taking Murray at #4.
Should the Kings have brought in Ivey? Yes, even if they were dead set on Murray - if only as smokescreen. But if Ivey's handlers said no (and given the situation and the things we've heard from Ivey, they probably did), what are you going to do? And yes, perhaps that took away some of the strategic advantage that the Kings would have had to leverage Detroit (if they had traded down to #6, Murray was gone by #5 anyway). So it goes.
But to somehow blame the franchise for being "locked in" on a guy who had one of the best statistical college seasons in the last 20+ years and is likely (at least very plausibly) BPA, is a high-character guy who is happy to be in Sac, and who fits a Kings need both positionally and timeline-wise, that seems silly. And keep in mind, the Kings did interview at least two other candidates in that 5-6 range in Sharpe and Daniels, and we don't know whether they interviewed Mathurin or not.
Anyway, the "locked in" accusation basically seems to suggest that the Kings scouting department just didn't do their jobs - just came into the '21-'22 college season saying "we're going to draft this kid from Iowa some way somehow, and just not do any other work" - and obviously that's not the case.
That’s not how it read to me, obviously. Thank you for clarifying.
I’m not suggesting that they didn’t need to or shouldn’t do any of those things. Rather I just outlined possible reasons why they haven’t worked out many of the top prospects since Monte McNair has been in charge of the draft process. Reasons that make sense to me, especially given how the past 3 drafts have turned out.
Also, I’m specifically talking about years of film outweighing private workouts. Attending games is an extension of watching film. It’s part of the scouting process.
I wasn’t talking about or discounting getting to know the prospect personally via dinners and such. IIRC Marvin Bagley had a pre-draft visit/dinner with Swipa and Harry Giles as did #77 with Vlade and Peja.
I think they should do those kinds of things, if they deem it necessary.
I’m only saying game performances >>> workouts and could be a prime reason they don’t conduct as many with prospects they feel they have a good feel for. That’s all.
I clearly was not part of their team and draft process thus not privy to any inside info. So I have nothing to offer beyond speculation. But neither does Sam Amick or any other reporter. It’s pretty clear Monte McNair didn’t lay out his plans to outsiders, despite whatever conclusions they’ve drawn.
We also don’t know what the KINGS may have done had Smith, Holmgren, or Banchero slipped and been available. Or what types of trades they were offered or what they may have agreed to had someone been willing to meet their price.
All we know for certain is that — with no trade materializing — they preferred Murray over the other prospects on the board at 4. But that doesn’t mean they were 100% locked in no matter what.
I’m not suggesting that they didn’t need to or shouldn’t do any of those things. Rather I just outlined possible reasons why they haven’t worked out many of the top prospects since Monte McNair has been in charge of the draft process. Reasons that make sense to me, especially given how the past 3 drafts have turned out.
Also, I’m specifically talking about years of film outweighing private workouts. Attending games is an extension of watching film. It’s part of the scouting process.
I wasn’t talking about or discounting getting to know the prospect personally via dinners and such. IIRC Marvin Bagley had a pre-draft visit/dinner with Swipa and Harry Giles as did #77 with Vlade and Peja.
I think they should do those kinds of things, if they deem it necessary.
I’m only saying game performances >>> workouts and could be a prime reason they don’t conduct as many with prospects they feel they have a good feel for. That’s all.
I clearly was not part of their team and draft process thus not privy to any inside info. So I have nothing to offer beyond speculation. But neither does Sam Amick or any other reporter. It’s pretty clear Monte McNair didn’t lay out his plans to outsiders, despite whatever conclusions they’ve drawn.
We also don’t know what the KINGS may have done had Smith, Holmgren, or Banchero slipped and been available. Or what types of trades they were offered or what they may have agreed to had someone been willing to meet their price.
All we know for certain is that — with no trade materializing — they preferred Murray over the other prospects on the board at 4. But that doesn’t mean they were 100% locked in no matter what.
Last edited:
I watched many of Keegan Murray games and he was always around the ball. Always making the smart play and had to be accounted for on both ends of the floor. Keegan can score on all three levels. He did all the little and big things to help his team win. He had the uncanny ability to be at the right place at the right time, but that is BBIQ for you.
When I watched Jaden Ivey's games, he almost seemed to disappear unless he had the hands on the ball and was driving to score. He seemed to disappear to me, when he wasn't scoring. Definitely disappeared on defense for large chunks of games. He's definitely not a point guard in the NBA. The problem I had with Ivey, is actually the same issue I had with watching Bagley. All of their scoring seems to be at the rim with the occasional 3 pointer. Not much of a mid-range game. It will be tough to thrive in the NBA without that mid-range game. I suppose he may develop one, but Keegan is the complete package now.
When I watched Jaden Ivey's games, he almost seemed to disappear unless he had the hands on the ball and was driving to score. He seemed to disappear to me, when he wasn't scoring. Definitely disappeared on defense for large chunks of games. He's definitely not a point guard in the NBA. The problem I had with Ivey, is actually the same issue I had with watching Bagley. All of their scoring seems to be at the rim with the occasional 3 pointer. Not much of a mid-range game. It will be tough to thrive in the NBA without that mid-range game. I suppose he may develop one, but Keegan is the complete package now.
Last edited:
While I disagree with the dissenters about De’Aaron Fox, I did hate losing Tyrese. Nothing against Sabonis, but it just hurt losing a player as intelligent and loyal as he was.
I’d really like to have seen how Keegan Murray fit with Tyrese. But hopefully it’s just as good or better fit with Domas, Swipa, Davion and the rest of the bunch.
I’d really like to have seen how Keegan Murray fit with Tyrese. But hopefully it’s just as good or better fit with Domas, Swipa, Davion and the rest of the bunch.
This board, the ringer, the athletic, and CBS all loved Woodard. It was the same argument we are hearing now “”first round value,” “ranked in my top 30,” “athleticism,” “potential 3 and D rotation player,” and “NBA body.” I have no idea what ESPN said because I don’t follow them.
I don’t ever track second round prospects. too much work and too many to track. So I remember when pundits and this board think we hit a good one because it is my only source of info on the second round. And people LOVED Woodard, liked Queta, and were mostly neutral on Swag.
I don’t ever track second round prospects. too much work and too many to track. So I remember when pundits and this board think we hit a good one because it is my only source of info on the second round. And people LOVED Woodard, liked Queta, and were mostly neutral on Swag.
The 2nd round is never really about the "result" persay of any individual guy. It's more so about giving yourself the CHANCE of finding a franchise swinging piece for no investment. It's not even finding the Jokic/Dray/Brog types that are such large outliers. The Pelicans found a defensive anchor and 10+ year starter in Herb Jones for pick 35. Ayo Dosunmu was a great role player for the Bulls all year that started 40 games at pick 38. That's the kind of find that swings a team very quickly and a lot further ahead than normal. Gary Trent, who we traded for 2 future seconds, has become a quality NBA starter.
Just because Ramsey/Woodard didn't work out, doesn't mean that Hardy/Liddell/Brown or a few other prospects in that slot won't. Give yourself more darts to throw.
Just because Ramsey/Woodard didn't work out, doesn't mean that Hardy/Liddell/Brown or a few other prospects in that slot won't. Give yourself more darts to throw.
Yep and even though the odds of finding a player in the 2nd round is pretty low....it's much lower once you get out of the top 40 or so picks. If you're 50+, like the Kings likely traded for, the odds are extremely low that you will even find a 12th man.
Now please, no one respond saying that IT was picked at 60. We all know this but there's no point in rehashing an argument about odds and probability again.
Now please, no one respond saying that IT was picked at 60. We all know this but there's no point in rehashing an argument about odds and probability again.
Agree completely. I was responding to the posts further up this chain disputing that people have loved our recent second round picks. Saying that people didn’t love the Woodard pick is pure fiction/revisionist history. I am not sure there has been more recent hype around here for any second round pick (On draft day) as Woodard. I was just clarifying the record. But I agree totally with your post.
We need a dog out there. Every good team has an enforcer. Remember when metu got cheap shot. Not one team mate can to his defense. I imagine the same thing would happen next season. Tristan was closest we've had in a while. Doesn't have to be best player we just need someone to set the tone. Trade Barnes. Too many nice guys on this team especially with Murray now.
I feel like Murray can affect the game in many more ways that Horry did, Horry was decidedly a 4man, Murray has guard skills and I think is going to get the bulk of his minutes at the 3.
He can dribble the ball up the court on the break and utilize the 'eurostep'.. He's much slipperier, hes got an idea of how the defense wants to play him and the patience to wait for them to overcommit, n then he changes direction last second to open up a quality look.
When a smaller defender is switched onto him he can back him down into a dropstep going either way...
When he catches a defender biting on his shotfake from 3pt range he can take it all the way to the rack whereas Horry more of a 1dribble then pullup type of guy. There's plenty of plays where Murray gives you a fake on the catch, then dribbles, then fakes again, on the move, to open up a good angle/look for himself in the lane.
I think Murray has a good feel of where the help defense is coming from and how much time he's got til it arrives, which played a big part in his being so consistent putting up monster statlines. He's got good instincts on when to leak out and 'cherry pick' aswell.
He catches everything.. You obviously have to have a really good set of hands to put up those kind of stats on such few turnovers.
Also just with his handle, Keegan Murray is no stiff, he can get low while driving the ball.. He's got a better first step..
Keegan Murray can catch the ball, shot fake, drive 2 dribbles, then crossover to the opposite direction to create big space and then hit the J..
He's got the step-back J in his repitoire. IDK I dont think Robert Horry is a very flattering comparison, they are similar size and some of the things that Horry was good at so is Murray, both have a solid hook shot and are solid defenders with good instincts for passing lanes for example but I just think we're in the 2020's here, the players are practicing more advanced moves at younger ages, this is the era of the stepback jumper Steph Curry a pedestrian sized player rules this era, Horry was from the days of Shaq and Olajuwon, and that Murray can give us much more in many aspects of todays game.
There's an aspect of the game where your asked to stack actions one after the other very quickly and Murray has a very advanced even calculated way navigating thru that, there's really a mountain of footage to demonstrate that.. I think of Horry more as a complimentary player who's game excelled in orbit of players like that.
He can dribble the ball up the court on the break and utilize the 'eurostep'.. He's much slipperier, hes got an idea of how the defense wants to play him and the patience to wait for them to overcommit, n then he changes direction last second to open up a quality look.
When a smaller defender is switched onto him he can back him down into a dropstep going either way...
When he catches a defender biting on his shotfake from 3pt range he can take it all the way to the rack whereas Horry more of a 1dribble then pullup type of guy. There's plenty of plays where Murray gives you a fake on the catch, then dribbles, then fakes again, on the move, to open up a good angle/look for himself in the lane.
I think Murray has a good feel of where the help defense is coming from and how much time he's got til it arrives, which played a big part in his being so consistent putting up monster statlines. He's got good instincts on when to leak out and 'cherry pick' aswell.
He catches everything.. You obviously have to have a really good set of hands to put up those kind of stats on such few turnovers.
Also just with his handle, Keegan Murray is no stiff, he can get low while driving the ball.. He's got a better first step..
Keegan Murray can catch the ball, shot fake, drive 2 dribbles, then crossover to the opposite direction to create big space and then hit the J..
He's got the step-back J in his repitoire. IDK I dont think Robert Horry is a very flattering comparison, they are similar size and some of the things that Horry was good at so is Murray, both have a solid hook shot and are solid defenders with good instincts for passing lanes for example but I just think we're in the 2020's here, the players are practicing more advanced moves at younger ages, this is the era of the stepback jumper Steph Curry a pedestrian sized player rules this era, Horry was from the days of Shaq and Olajuwon, and that Murray can give us much more in many aspects of todays game.
There's an aspect of the game where your asked to stack actions one after the other very quickly and Murray has a very advanced even calculated way navigating thru that, there's really a mountain of footage to demonstrate that.. I think of Horry more as a complimentary player who's game excelled in orbit of players like that.
Last edited:
