Chris mullin at Duke game

Entity

Hall of Famer
#1
I am watching the Alabama vs Duke game and I thought I saw him in the background. Then they just showed him and said who it was.
 

Entity

Hall of Famer
#2
I don't watch much college ball. But I see now why players get so overrated coming out. These announcers act like Parker can walk on water. Everything he does they break it down into how special it is like nobody else could do it. No mention ever of a mistake. They act like they don't see those lol
 
#4
They showed him in the stands at the Kansas vs. Duke game too. I assume he's scouting for us since he's employed by our front office. ;)
 
#5
I don't watch much college ball. But I see now why players get so overrated coming out. These announcers act like Parker can walk on water. Everything he does they break it down into how special it is like nobody else could do it. No mention ever of a mistake. They act like they don't see those lol

Hype machine in full effect again. I'm excited as everyone else is about draft night but i'm also not crowning any future mvp's either.
 
C

Cold

Guest
#8
Im a diehard ncaa guy. The freshman class this year is the most impressive I have ever seen. The hype is well deserved.

Not just wiggins parker randle smart exum and embiid. There are another dozen kids who look like they have the tools to do well at the next level. Its pretty amazing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#9
Im a diehard ncaa guy. The freshman class this year is the most impressive I have ever seen. The hype is well deserved.

Not just wiggins parker randle smart exum and embiid. There are another dozen kids who look like they have the tools to do well at the next level. Its pretty amazing.
To me, I haven't seen anything yet in recent memory that topped the 1996 draft, but this one will definitely be challenging it.

Right now I am wanting Randle more than any other player in this draft. Him and Cuz would be the Kentucky connection (a good Kentucky connection, not like Patterson). It would be one of the best big man duos in the league. I would also like Wiggins, but he's definitely going to be #1. I doubt we will be so lucky.
 
Last edited:

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#10
I don't watch much college ball. But I see now why players get so overrated coming out. These announcers act like Parker can walk on water. Everything he does they break it down into how special it is like nobody else could do it. No mention ever of a mistake. They act like they don't see those lol
I can't speak for everyone, but I watch a lot of college basketball, and what I look for are the things a player can do. And the more things a player can do well, the higher I rate him. Its easy to find faults in a player, and that's any player, including Lebron. Its consistency that I look for. Can he do those things every game. In Parker's case, he does a lot of things very very well. He's shooting over 60% overall and close to 60% from the three. He's averaging close to 10 boards a game. He can score from anywhere on the floor, including the post. He's an excellent passer, and he has great BBIQ. In other words, he's consistent. Now if you want to nic pic the few mistakes he makes, and make them an issue, then I think your being very short sighted.

Parker is special, and if you can't see that, then there's nothing I can do to change your mind.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#11
To me, I haven't seen anything yet in recent memory that topped the 1996 draft, but this one will definitely be challenging it.

Right now I am wanting Randle more than any other player in this draft. Him and Cuz would be the Kentucky connection (a good Kentucky connection, not like Patterson). It would be one of the best big man duos in the league. I would also like Wiggins, but he's definitely going to be #1. I doubt we will be so lucky.
Right now, if I had the choice, it would be Parker. Wiggins may end up being the best overall down the road, but right now, Parker is definitely the best player. There's nothing he can't do. Don't get me wrong, I'd take Randle in a heartbeat, but Parker just keeps putting up the same numbers every single night. There are five players that look to be pure studs, and I can think of another 5 to 8 players that could be impacts on whoever drafts them. No guarantee's on those, but I'd place a lot of money on Parker, Randle, Wiggins, Exum, and Smart. That said, players like Embiid and Cauley Stein could have a huge impact on a team like the Kings, as could Rodney Hood. This is a very very deep draft.
 
#12
To me, I haven't seen anything yet in recent memory that topped the 1996 draft, but this one will definitely be challenging it.

Right now I am wanting Randle more than any other player in this draft. Him and Cuz would be the Kentucky connection (a good Kentucky connection, not like Patterson). It would be one of the best big man duos in the league. I would also like Wiggins, but he's definitely going to be #1. I doubt we will be so lucky.

It's far from certain. At this point, I doubt he'll go first. More likely to be second or third. That could change as the season goes on but he's definitely NOT a lock for the first pick.
 
#13
A lot of this is going to come down to which teams are in line for those top 5 picks. It's hard to see Utah passing up Parker for instance for on court reasons (they're desperate for scoring) and off court reasons (LDS church). So if Utah finishes with the worst record and wins the lotto, it's almost a lock that Parker goes first. I think there are GMs out there though who would still go with Wiggins potential as a freak athlete with the #1 pick if he continues to be productive and contribute to wins. Or if they don't need a SF, maybe they go with Randle in the post or Smart/Exum at the point. Everyone says they pick the best player available but even a casual glance at the results of past drafts will tell you that need and fit both play a huge role in these decisions. All things being equal, I think Parker gets more #1 votes right now than any other player though.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#14
A lot of this is going to come down to which teams are in line for those top 5 picks. It's hard to see Utah passing up Parker for instance for on court reasons (they're desperate for scoring) and off court reasons (LDS church). So if Utah finishes with the worst record and wins the lotto, it's almost a lock that Parker goes first. I think there are GMs out there though who would still go with Wiggins potential as a freak athlete with the #1 pick if he continues to be productive and contribute to wins. Or if they don't need a SF, maybe they go with Randle in the post or Smart/Exum at the point. Everyone says they pick the best player available but even a casual glance at the results of past drafts will tell you that need and fit both play a huge role in these decisions. All things being equal, I think Parker gets more #1 votes right now than any other player though.
In most drafts, if the best player is a PG, then you take him whether you need a PG or not, and that would apply to any position. But in this years draft, I think there may be a tendecy to draft for need. If you take the top five players, there doesn't seem to be a huge gap between any of them. So I think that whatever the needs of the first five teams picking are, especially the first two, they could take Exum or Smart if they need a PG, or Wiggins or Parker if they need a SF, and Randle if they need a PF. So I agree, there's no clear cut choice for number one. There simply isn't that much talent difference between these guys. Everyone of them has star potential.

And don't be surpirsed if someone picking at five takes Embiid on pure potential alone. Whats disturbing is that Parker has been talking about staying another year to play with Okafor. There will be a lot of disappointed tanking teams if he does.
 
#16
Right now it's cupcake time for elite with occasional marquee match-up. Let's wait for conference play. Wiggins is playing fantastic team ball though - not forcing anything, turning over less than one time per game and just picking his spots. Parker is basically PF/C for Duke right now, so just raw stats should be taken with a grain of salt (almost 3 TOpg is bit problematic). Don't like Randle as a fit for sure, his main strength is scoring inside, and Kings already have a big fella for that. Plus his length is average which limits his defensive potential. Overall none of PF crop looks like impactful defender. At least Vonleh is an excellent rebounder.
Embiid is very intriguing. Marcus Smart cleaned up his handle and shot selection. These two would be my favorites right now outside of #1 pick.
 
C

Cold

Guest
#17
Parkers handle is fantastic. I have zero issues with his turnovers considering the number of touches hes getting and the willingness to attack. He has no fear driving the lane.
 
#18
Duke is a great shooting team, which gives them excellent spacing. Parker's handles should look great against college PF/Cs. Against Kansas Parker didn't do anything inside other than impressive drive through in transition, all the damage he's done was from the perimeter.
 
#21
To me, I haven't seen anything yet in recent memory that topped the 1996 draft, but this one will definitely be challenging it.

Right now I am wanting Randle more than any other player in this draft. Him and Cuz would be the Kentucky connection (a good Kentucky connection, not like Patterson). It would be one of the best big man duos in the league. I would also like Wiggins, but he's definitely going to be #1. I doubt we will be so lucky.
About that 96 draft, let's keep in mind that while two hall of famers went in the top 5 (Allen iverson and ray Allen), two more went at 13 and 15 (some guys named Kobe Bryant and Steve Nash). We squeezed Peja in at 14 (which almost looks bad squeezed between Kobe and Nash). Another all star, jermaine oneal (it's hard to recall, but he was really good) went at 17. Rounding out the top 6 were camby, Marbury, and Antoine walker (not sure if camby or shareef made all star teams, but both were impact players).

Link to that draft. It was quite good. Only a couple flat out busts in that whole first round. I had forgotten how good that draft was.

http://www.nbadraft.net/nba_draft_history/1996.html
 
C

Cold

Guest
#22
He measured under 8'10" in standing reach in spring. Randle is wide, hence occasional Zach Randolf comparison, but not really long.
This spring or at the nike camp 2 summers ago? On another forum they said he measured 6'10 in shoes this year at various camps. Not sure about accuracy. We will see what he measures at combine. Standing reach can be misleading. Harrison barnes has varied as much as 6 inches in standing reach at different times. Some say he dipped his shoulders to increase his vertical. Randle tips a whole lot of balls to himself. Has never struck me as a guy with length problems. However he doesn't block a lot of shots which could attribute to lack of wing span.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#25
He measured under 8'10" in standing reach in spring. Randle is wide, hence occasional Zach Randolf comparison, but not really long.
We'll find out for sure at the NBA combine, but at the Nike skills Academy, which was the last time he was measured, he measured at 6.10", with a 7 ft wingspan, and a 8'10" standing reach. What makes Randle stand out is number one, his confidence, and his ability to score from the outside as well as inside. He's an excellent ballhandler as well. Most of his turnovers come from trying to make passes that just aren't there, but he was a good passer in highschool. Now you may not see him do much scoring from the outside, but that's by design in Calapari's system. No on knew that Cousins could shoot the ball either, because Calapari wouldn't let him leave the basket on offense.

As for Parker, if your finding things about him you don't like, then I just don't know what to say. He's without a doubt, the most skilled player of his size I've seen in a very long time. He's an outstanding ballhandler by the way. He can score inside, outside, midrange. He has turnaround jumpers, fall away jumpers, he can score with hook shots with either hand. He has excellent dropsteps in the post, and moves to go with them. He can pullup on a dime and score with a jumpshot, or at times a floater. Add in that he's an excellent rebounder, and I frankly don't know why anyone would be critical of him offensively. Five years from now, Wiggins may be the better player, but if you pick Parker now, you'll have one of the best SF's in the NBA the minute he sets foot on the floor. Just because he's playing a lot of center and PF for Duke, doesn't mean he can't play the SF position. Which is what he played most of his highschool career.

By the way, I'd be very happy with Wiggins as well.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#26
About that 96 draft, let's keep in mind that while two hall of famers went in the top 5 (Allen iverson and ray Allen), two more went at 13 and 15 (some guys named Kobe Bryant and Steve Nash). We squeezed Peja in at 14 (which almost looks bad squeezed between Kobe and Nash). Another all star, jermaine oneal (it's hard to recall, but he was really good) went at 17. Rounding out the top 6 were camby, Marbury, and Antoine walker (not sure if camby or shareef made all star teams, but both were impact players).

Link to that draft. It was quite good. Only a couple flat out busts in that whole first round. I had forgotten how good that draft was.

http://www.nbadraft.net/nba_draft_history/1996.html
By the way, it became widely known that Petrie had every intention of drafting Kobe. West got wind of it and made a deal to move up just in front of the Kings so he could take Kobe. While Nash sounds good right now, he wasn't that valued as a draft pick at that time, so taking Peja didn't sound as bad then, especially considering who most of the fans wanted the Kings to draft.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#27
Glad I'm not a scout because I never understood the nuances you pick up from watching prospects live as opposed to on film
You can't beat live. You can really judge a players quickness much better in person than on TV. Plus, when watching a PG, you can see the whole floor much better, and you see what the PG either see's, or fails to see. In the post, you get a much better idea of the physical strength of a player, and how or whether he can fight through contact. Its just entirely different. For instance, its much easier to watch a player away from the ball in person than on TV. There's just no comparison.
 
#28
Right now, if I had the choice, it would be Parker. Wiggins may end up being the best overall down the road, but right now, Parker is definitely the best player. There's nothing he can't do. Don't get me wrong, I'd take Randle in a heartbeat, but Parker just keeps putting up the same numbers every single night. There are five players that look to be pure studs, and I can think of another 5 to 8 players that could be impacts on whoever drafts them. No guarantee's on those, but I'd place a lot of money on Parker, Randle, Wiggins, Exum, and Smart. That said, players like Embiid and Cauley Stein could have a huge impact on a team like the Kings, as could Rodney Hood. This is a very very deep draft.
So we don't have to lose a lot of games to get a good one. If we don't, just think what their presence does to the market for existing players. Even the NBA champions could be helped by effect on the league's players.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#29
So we don't have to lose a lot of games to get a good one. If we don't, just think what their presence does to the market for existing players. Even the NBA champions could be helped by effect on the league's players.
When a watching a Kings game, I never root for the team to lose. Just not in my nature. However, being realistic, I just don't expect to win a lot of games with this team, so when we do end up losing, I can take some joy in the fact that we will eventually be rewarded with a good player. Taking a logical approach, you don't have to intentionally tank, so to speak, in order to end up with a bad win/loss record. Just by going through the process of a total rebuild, and that's what were doing, your not going to win a lot of games, and thus, you will end up with a fairly high draft pick. And, if for once you get lucky in the lottery, you'll end up with a top three pick.

A top three pick in this draft would be incredible, but you can't plan on it. So you've go to do your homework, and prepare for any scenario. Even picking as low as 13th, you should still get a good player, perhaps a star, if the planets align properly. Its very possible to change the culture of the team, and still not win. Talent wins games, and at the moment, we don't have the talent, or if we do, it hasn't yet developed fully enough to get us over the hump. So when we lose, be disappointed in that particular loss, but take heart in the fact that there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, despite the losses.
 

Glenn

Hall of Famer
#30
With the addition of Williams we may not have improved our w/l record for this year and, who knows, the trade that cost us Mbah a Moute, may increase the number of losses but clearly the addition of Williams has given us a piece for the future - the kind of future where the players barely of drinking age will mature as a group. Add a player like Embiid, if he shows improvement this year, and we fairly suddenly have a great nucleus for the future. Assuming Ben and Williams become far better than average players and Embiid (7 footer who is very raw) becomes a major defensive force, there isn't a whole lot more we could hope for. You can insert many other names in the place of "Embiid" but I am thinking we won't be so bad as to get the top three.

Then there's the ping pong balls. Everyone has a certain percentage chance of getting the top pick. I have been very much like pshn80 in when I get concerned about the draft but this year is unique. Although picking the player who is left when it comes our turn may turn out great, I would rather that we have more of a choice in the matter. The luck of the past has nothing to do with the future when it comes to odds.