De'Aaron Fox:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kingsfan23 said:
I'm not the biggest Fox guy, but I appreciate that he genuinely seems to want to play here. Working out here first, tweeting that Kings quiz thing, talking with Joerger at the draft.. it's big points for me that someone would want to play here in the current climate of things
Click to expand...

What climate are you referring to? The old climate in which teammates were "scared of being punked" by "our franchise player", annoyed by chronic distraction of his ego, temper and self-entitlement, or the current one? The Kings are drama-free with best training facility and arena in NBA. Please tell me what the problem could be and why a player would have an issue signing with us or drafted by us? Boogie was the problem. An antiquated arena was the problem. A meddling owner was the problem. Those problems have been corrected or subsided. If you think otherwise I contend you are living in the past. A team with a history of losing is a problem only if you have a negative outlook. A team with history of losing but improving culture and competency represents opportunity, hence the show of interest on part of De'Aaron Fox.
 
Last edited:
ESP47 said:
Seriously. We're all high on Hield and he led last years rookie crop by only scoring 10ppg. Tatum would have easily been ROY.
Click to expand...

Buddy scored 15 PPG on 60% TS and 6th best 3% at 43% after being acquired mid-season without training camp. He showed good rebounding to tune of 4.2 RPG and nearly 2 APG. This is future All-Star level player with normal development. Nice try misrepresenting his skills. FYI I would not so strongly defend Buddy if I was not high on him before draft. I knew he had star potential. It was obvious. And let me tell you Tatum is nowhere near Buddy. Now granted Tatum did more than Buddy as a freshman. But Tatum's scoring prowess is predicated on jab steps and step backs. What is that?! That's called bailing out the D taking low percentage shots. This is a guy you project as ROY?! I don't think so! He also has funky shot mechanics, dropping his forearm past 90 degrees, average speed and average power. What is there to get so excited about? When Isaac is drafted before Tatum, possibly Lauri and DSJ too ( a player I don't even like) this will reflect what I am saying about him. The scouts know this guy is flawed. He's fools gold for teams hoping to find a diamond.
 
Blob said:
Buddy scored 15 PPG on 60% TS and 6th best 3% at 43% after being acquired mid-season without training camp. He showed good rebounding to tune of 4.2 RPG and nearly 2 APG. This is future All-Star level player with normal development. Nice try misrepresenting his skills. FYI I would not so strongly defend Buddy if I was not high on him before draft. I knew he had star potential. It was obvious. And let me tell you Tatum is nowhere near Buddy. Now granted Tatum did more than Buddy as a freshman. But Tatum's scoring prowess is predicated on jab steps and step backs. What is that?! That's called bailing out the D taking low percentage shots. This is a guy you project as ROY?! I don't think so! He also has funky shot mechanics, dropping his forearm past 90 degrees, average speed and average power. What is there to get so excited about? When Isaac is drafted before Tatum, possibly Lauri and DSJ too ( a player I don't even like) this will reflect what I am saying about him. The scouts know this guy is flawed. He's fools gold for teams hoping to find a diamond.
Click to expand...

I took his average for the entire season and said that Tatum would have done better to win himself ROY honors if he was drafted last year.

You're comparing a guy with 4 years of college and a year of professional basketball under his belt to a kid who has only played one year in college. At the same age, these two guys aren't even close. Give Tatum a couple years and he will be much better than Buddy. Personally, I think Buddy is going to crash back down to earth as far as his shooting percentages go. He's a good shooter, don't get me wrong, but he's not going to be a 50% from the field type of player.

Tatum does do a lot of step backs but he has a ton of tools in his arsenal. Buddy has a nice fadeaway in the lane and a move or two that works once in a while to get him to the hoop. Other than that he's basically running off screens to get open. Tatum has a dozen more tools than that. Maybe 18 year old Tatum did a lot of step backs but 23 year old Tatum could be an absolute handful for any team. He has so many tools that are there to be developed, it's insane. I think he has a good shot at becoming a lot more than a guy who takes contested jumpers.

Either way I hope this is all moot. Draft Fox and none of this matters anyway.
 
ESP47 said:
I took his average for the entire season and said that Tatum would have done better to win himself ROY honors if he was drafted last year.

You're comparing a guy with 4 years of college and a year of professional basketball under his belt to a kid who has only played one year in college. At the same age, these two guys aren't even close. Give Tatum a couple years and he will be much better than Buddy. Personally, I think Buddy is going to crash back down to earth as far as his shooting percentages go. He's a good shooter, don't get me wrong, but he's not going to be a 50% from the field type of player.

Tatum does do a lot of step backs but he has a ton of tools in his arsenal. Buddy has a nice fadeaway in the lane and a move or two that works once in a while to get him to the hoop. Other than that he's basically running off screens to get open. Tatum has a dozen more tools than that. Maybe 18 year old Tatum did a lot of step backs but 23 year old Tatum could be an absolute handful for any team. He has so many tools that are there to be developed, it's insane. I think he has a good shot at becoming a lot more than a guy who takes contested jumpers.

Either way I hope this is all moot. Draft Fox and none of this matters anyway.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you if Tatum had above average athleticism, solid shot mechanics, and propensity to move ball without holding and stalling out offense. He doesn't. It is interesting prognosticators want to compare Tatum to Rudy. You know Rudy had more polish AND more explosiveness at comparable age. Yet Rudy has had a disappointing career relative to his talent before he hurt his Achilles. I project Tatum as a lesser Rudy. That's nothing to get excited about whether you are the Kings or another team. Of course the guy is going to get better. But the starting point for a guy like Isaac is far more appealing and enticing. It is not even close. This will bear out next Thursday with the order these players are selected.
 
Blob said:
I would agree with you if Tatum had above average athleticism, solid shot mechanics, and propensity to move ball without holding and stalling out offense. He doesn't. It is interesting prognosticators want to compare Tatum to Rudy. You know Rudy had more polish AND more explosiveness at comparable age. Yet Rudy has had a disappointing career relative to his talent before he hurt his Achilles. I project Tatum as a lesser Rudy. That's nothing to get excited about whether you are the Kings or another team. Of course the guy is going to get better. But the starting point for a guy like Isaac is far more appealing and enticing. It is not even close. This will bear out next Thursday with the order these players are selected.
Click to expand...

I'd definitely agree that Rudy was more athletic/explosive AND he has a freakish wingspan (Tatum is very good at 6'8" with a 6'11" wingspan but Rudy was the same height with a crazy 7'3" wingspan and a 40" vertical) but Tatum is more polished as a freshman than Gay was as a sophomore at UConn.

One of the stats that I look at from college players is blocks and steals. They don't translate well to the next level, but they are decent approximation of defensive potential - how well guys (especially wings) anticipate and are focused on that end. Gay often was not fully engaged in defense in college (well in the NBA too) but he had better block and steal rates than Tatum who both isn't always engaged AND doesn't have special tools. Gay has never been all that interested in defense but he had the ability to be if he wanted. Tatum will have to make up for not being elite physically with MUCH better effort to avoid being a Gay/Carmelo-lite/smaller Jabari Parker type player.

I think he can be coached to move the ball and be more active on defense. If so he's still not likely to be great defensively but he could become more of a young Shareef Abdur-Rahim type player who also used good skill, craftiness and body control to score efficiently. Lots of IFs with Tatum though. I don't want him at 5 but if the Kings grab Fox at 5 and Tatum slips all the way to 10 I'd love for the Kings to scoop him up. I think if that were to happen you need a veteran SF who can start and force Tatum to make adjustments to his game before he sees the floor. Malachi Richardson was one of my absolute least favorite prospects last year, but between Reno and Joerger's staff in Sacramento they got him to change his game and focus on good, quality shots. I'd think they could mold Tatum into something very positive.

  1. Fultz
  2. Jackson
  3. Ball
  4. Isaac
  5. Fox
  6. Smith
  7. Collins (maybe Markkanen?)
  8. Monk
  9. Ntilikina
  10. Tatum

I could see that happening.
 
ESP47 said:
I took his average for the entire season and said that Tatum would have done better to win himself ROY honors if he was drafted last year.

You're comparing a guy with 4 years of college and a year of professional basketball under his belt to a kid who has only played one year in college. At the same age, these two guys aren't even close. Give Tatum a couple years and he will be much better than Buddy. Personally, I think Buddy is going to crash back down to earth as far as his shooting percentages go. He's a good shooter, don't get me wrong, but he's not going to be a 50% from the field type of player.

Tatum does do a lot of step backs but he has a ton of tools in his arsenal. Buddy has a nice fadeaway in the lane and a move or two that works once in a while to get him to the hoop. Other than that he's basically running off screens to get open. Tatum has a dozen more tools than that. Maybe 18 year old Tatum did a lot of step backs but 23 year old Tatum could be an absolute handful for any team. He has so many tools that are there to be developed, it's insane. I think he has a good shot at becoming a lot more than a guy who takes contested jumpers.

Either way I hope this is all moot. Draft Fox and none of this matters anyway.
Click to expand...

You have nothing to substantiate this but your feelings. I don't know on what substantive basis you contend he will "crash back down to Earth? His performance was independent of training camp or experience in new team or system. How can you claim he "over-achieved" if he was thrown out there without any time to acclimate to new environment? There seems to be doubters and "haters" from the day Buddy was acquired because Vivek showed an affection for him. No matter what he does is seen through this negative lens. I don't know if this bias includes you but it is unfair to the kid. There were those who said all he could do was shoot, couldn't dribble or pass. He proceeded to do all of the above including clutch shots, midrange game, lefty layups, drive and kicks and tough rebounds. I am done defending him. Buddy doesn't need defending. His play will speak for itself.
 
funkykingston said:
I'd definitely agree that Rudy was more athletic/explosive AND he has a freakish wingspan (Tatum is very good at 6'8" with a 6'11" wingspan but Rudy was the same height with a crazy 7'3" wingspan and a 40" vertical) but Tatum is more polished as a freshman than Gay was as a sophomore at UConn.

One of the stats that I look at from college players is blocks and steals. They don't translate well to the next level, but they are decent approximation of defensive potential - how well guys (especially wings) anticipate and are focused on that end. Gay often was not fully engaged in defense in college (well in the NBA too) but he had better block and steal rates than Tatum who both isn't always engaged AND doesn't have special tools. Gay has never been all that interested in defense but he had the ability to be if he wanted. Tatum will have to make up for not being elite physically with MUCH better effort to avoid being a Gay/Carmelo-lite/smaller Jabari Parker type player.

I think he can be coached to move the ball and be more active on defense. If so he's still not likely to be great defensively but he could become more of a young Shareef Abdur-Rahim type player who also used good skill, craftiness and body control to score efficiently. Lots of IFs with Tatum though. I don't want him at 5 but if the Kings grab Fox at 5 and Tatum slips all the way to 10 I'd love for the Kings to scoop him up. I think if that were to happen you need a veteran SF who can start and force Tatum to make adjustments to his game before he sees the floor. Malachi Richardson was one of my absolute least favorite prospects last year, but between Reno and Joerger's staff in Sacramento they got him to change his game and focus on good, quality shots. I'd think they could mold Tatum into something very positive.

  1. Fultz
  2. Jackson
  3. Ball
  4. Isaac
  5. Fox
  6. Smith
  7. Collins (maybe Markkanen?)
  8. Monk
  9. Ntilikina
  10. Tatum

I could see that happening.
Click to expand...

You think he could fall that far? Would be a godsend as far as I'm concerned but I feel like Orlando is going to be a lock to pick him up at 6.

Gay is such a shame because he has one of the biggest wingspans in the game, equal to Kawhi. But Rudy has never really been too interested in being a defender. We've seen him do it when he wants to but he spends 95% of the game coasting on that end of the floor. I think he could have been a perennial all star but I feel like he basically got by on his natural abilities instead of putting in the work to get to that next level.

I watched some interviews and he's not a dumb guy. He's going to work on his weaknesses. I think he knows that straight ISO basketball isn't going to work in the NBA on a play to play basis. I don't see all the IFs that you're talking about. They seem like very correctable weaknesses to me. He's shown he can pass and defend. He's not Luke Kennard with a wingspan that will never allow him to be a good defender. To me, Isaac is one the with the very big IF. Can he be an offensive player? Like I said previously, people are hoping he builds this offensive game from almost nothing because I haven't seen very many tools there. We've seen Tatum do nearly everything. I'd go as far as saying that he will probably be the most surefire non bust of the 2nd tier players in the draft.

Blob said:
You have nothing to substantiate this but your feelings. I don't know on what substantive basis you contend he will "crash back down to Earth? His performance was independent of training camp or experience in new team or system. How can you claim he "over-achieved" if he was thrown out there without any time to acclimate to new environment? There seems to be doubters and "haters" from the day Buddy was acquired because Vivek showed an affection for him. No matter what he does is seen through this negative lens. I don't know if this bias includes you but it is unfair to the kid. There were those who said all he could do was shoot, couldn't dribble or pass. He proceeded to do all of the above including clutch shots, midrange game, lefty layups, drive and kicks and tough rebounds. I am done defending him. Buddy doesn't need defending. His play will speak for itself.
Click to expand...

I'm going off of the statistics of pretty much every SG I've ever looked into. Most just aren't that efficient so the odds are that those numbers will go down. We saw a small sample size in 25 games. Promising but it doesn't tell us the whole story. Stauskas' first 25 games this year were probably pretty solid looking but his final stats are mediocre. He was just hitting his shots to begin the year.

I'm not a Buddy hater at all, I'm just realistic. I'd be ecstatic if he was a 45% overall, 40% shooter from 3. I don't think he's going to be 50/40 like he was with us but that certainly doesn't mean he's not going to be a good player for us. I just wouldn't bet anything on him having the same TS% next year. He could still be a fantastic offensive player for us but odds are that the efficiency will drop a bit.
 
ESP47 said:
I'm going off of the statistics of pretty much every SG I've ever looked into. Most just aren't that efficient so the odds are that those numbers will go down. We saw a small sample size in 25 games. Promising but it doesn't tell us the whole story. Stauskas' first 25 games this year were probably pretty solid looking but his final stats are mediocre. He was just hitting his shots to begin the year.

I'm not a Buddy hater at all, I'm just realistic. I'd be ecstatic if he was a 45% overall, 40% shooter from 3. I don't think he's going to be 50/40 like he was with us but that certainly doesn't mean he's not going to be a good player for us. I just wouldn't bet anything on him having the same TS% next year. He could still be a fantastic offensive player for us but odds are that the efficiency will drop a bit.
Click to expand...

So you are basing projection of Buddy next season based on other SGs? And comparing his performance to Stauskas as point of reference and predictor of future performance? Why would you limit what he can do based on limitations of players before him? Is he not allowed to carve his own path? Is he not able to build upon degree of success he already experienced? There's NO logic to this assessment. There is something to be said when league learns of a player and his strengths and weaknesses and there is "a book out on him" and defenses are designed to stop him. But Buddy showed a lot of counter moves when defenders would take away his first shot. Buddy is a extremely active off the ball. But this is something that I already knew before he was drafted. He is constant motion. Giving the ball up and resetting to get ball back in better spot. He's not relying solely on nailing the "3" to get his points. Putting the ball on floor and being 3D scorer along with constant motion (unlike Stauskas who does a lot of standing on offensive with not same confidence or skill) means he will be formidable when teams start paying him more attention. Add to this more familiarity with teammates and coaching staff and summer league and training camp and knowing after 25 games what he needs to do to come back even better and there is more reason to think he will take step forward as a player than regress.
 
There is a ton of logic in my assessment. Lonzo ball shot 73% or something stupid like that from 2 in college. The odds of him repeating that in college (if he stayed there) are extremely low because it's basically never been done before. At least by someone his size. Sometimes guys just get hot and put up crazy numbers for a bit. Derrick Williams shot over 50% from 3 in college. I think pretty much everyone knew that he wasn't going to continue that kind of shooting in the NBA but they didn't think he would be a 30% shooter either.

I'm just saying that when you look back at history and what other players have accomplished at the position, the odds of some guy coming in and all the sudden being up there among the best are pretty low and I certainly wouldn't count on it after a 25 game sample size.
 
Blob said:
What climate are you referring to? The old climate in which teammates were "scared of being punked" by "our franchise player", annoyed by chronic distraction of his ego, temper and self-entitlement, or the current one? The Kings are drama-free with best training facility and arena in NBA. Please tell me what the problem could be and why a player would have an issue signing with us or drafted by us? Boogie was the problem. An antiquated arena was the problem. A meddling owner was the problem. Those problems have been corrected or subsided. If you think otherwise I contend you are living in the past. A team with a history of losing is a problem only if you have a negative outlook. A team with history of losing but improving culture and competency represents opportunity, hence the show of interest on part of De'Aaron Fox.
Click to expand...

ESPN ranked our management 29 out of 30 for the 2017 rankings, and I think we may have only finished above the Knicks due to coaching. This past year our management was highly questioned about the Cousins trade, which fueled further uncertainty around Divac. When I go to the Knicks forum to check about what their fans want to do I see some mimicking Vivek about Stauskas in regards to their fears about Phil taking Kennard.

We have a lot of things going for us, a good arena, fanbase, Vivek is stepping back now etc. But IMO it may take some time to get back to normalcy. But this is a subjective thing.

When someone like Smith doesn't work out, at this point my personal inclination is to believe it was his choice. But that is just me, personally. Which is why the kids who show me initiative now get thumbs up.

Again, no right or wrong. I'm going to withhold going further on this in the next few days as it's bad vibes now. Hopefully the draft works out
 
ESP47 said:
There is a ton of logic in my assessment. Lonzo ball shot 73% or something stupid like that from 2 in college. The odds of him repeating that in college (if he stayed there) are extremely low because it's basically never been done before. At least by someone his size. Sometimes guys just get hot and put up crazy numbers for a bit. Derrick Williams shot over 50% from 3 in college. I think pretty much everyone knew that he wasn't going to continue that kind of shooting in the NBA but they didn't think he would be a 30% shooter either.

I'm just saying that when you look back at history and what other players have accomplished at the position, the odds of some guy coming in and all the sudden being up there among the best are pretty low and I certainly wouldn't count on it after a 25 game sample size.
Click to expand...

He didn't get hot. The reason Lonzo shot 73% from 2 is because he only took 3s and mostly open layups or dunks. He had no mid range game and made no attempt to shoot the midrange shot. And he barely got to the rim unassisted in the HC (less than 1 FGA per 40 minutes) so it is not as if he was an unstoppable force attacking multiple defenders. It is not unusual to shoot 73% when most of those FGAs are layups and dunks in transition or backdoor cuts.

Screen Shot 2017-06-17 at 8.47.07 AM.png
 
Blob said:
He didn't get hot. The reason Lonzo shot 73% from 2 is because he only took 3s and mostly open layups or dunks. He had no mid range game and made no attempt to shoot the midrange shot. And he barely got to the rim unassisted in the HC (less than 1 FGA per 40 minutes) so it is not as if he was an unstoppable force attacking multiple defenders. It is not unusual to shoot 73% when most of those FGAs are layups and dunks in transition or backdoor cuts.

View attachment 6749
Click to expand...

I'm most intrigued by that single red dot directly BEHIND the basket. I saw a lot of UCLA games and I don't remember Lonzo shooting that one . . .

Whether it's because his funky motion makes it very hard to pull-up from midrange or because Lonzo is always looking for the most efficient shots or both, the end result is the type of player Darryl Morey would build in a lab.
 
Kingsfan23 said:
Again, no right or wrong. I'm going to withhold going further on this in the next few days as it's bad vibes now. Hopefully the draft works out
Click to expand...
I agree we need to be collectively positive until draft day so Fox falls to #5!!!! Positive vibes for Fox!!! Then we can go back to being negative and shooting down each others opinions ;)
 
The_Jamal said:
What's supposed to scare me? No context in the video. What if the coaches said, "Hey, try doing this" and he was experimenting with his form?
Click to expand...

Not only that, from what I've read, his shot has been pretty good in most the workouts. If that video was from one of the workouts where he made everything -- would we need to then believe that his shot is perfect?

Even if that video segment was the norm, I'm still not worried. Shooting is one of the easiest things to improve upon once you're working with a professional staff 24/7. And the kid seems to be a hard worker.

I remember Gerald Wallace's early years with the Kings and how much they worked with him on his shot. You'd always see him putting in the work well before game time even though he rarely played. He developed into a decent shooter. I'm more than confident Fox will do the same.
 
Last edited:
KingsFanSince85 said:
Not only that, from what I've read, his shot has been pretty good in most the workouts. If that video was from one of the workouts where he made everything -- would we need to then believe that his shot is perfect?

Even if that video segment was the norm, I'm still not worried. Shooting is one of the easiest things to improve upon once you're working with a professional staff 24/7. And the kid seems to be a hard worker.

I remember Gerald Wallace's early years with the Kings and how much they worked with him on his shot. You'd always see him putting in the work well before game time even though he rarely played. He developed into a decent shooter. I'm more than confident Fox will do the same.
Click to expand...

Shooting 100% is the easiest thing to learn in the NBA. How do you think 85% of big men added a 3-ball in the past 2 years? As long as your form isn't janky like Rondo/MKG/Rubio, you can get to 33-35%
 
sidney said:
He shouldn't be shooting 40% uncontested.

Look at Tatum shooting 3's uncontested in comparison:
https://twitter.com/ComplexSports/status/867073705096212480

Honestly, I'm still pretty worried about Fox's shot. There are plenty of guys (Rubio, Rondo, Tyreke) who don't just fix it no matter what they try or the coaching they get.
Click to expand...

I think Fox somewhere became the sure shot in the draft for Kings fans, but his flags, weighing 170/shooting/playmaking numbers certainly point to him being fallible.

He has flags like the other prospects, and I can see a scenario where the Kings pass on him if he is there at 5

With that being said there might be some back context to that shooting clip, given potential circumstances
 
sidney said:
He shouldn't be shooting 40% uncontested.

Look at Tatum shooting 3's uncontested in comparison:
https://twitter.com/ComplexSports/status/867073705096212480

Honestly, I'm still pretty worried about Fox's shot. There are plenty of guys (Rubio, Rondo, Tyreke) who don't just fix it no matter what they try or the coaching they get.
Click to expand...
It was 12 shots bro... Sample size. I agree his shot is a major issue. It's the reason we'll probably be able to get him at #5. But this video isn't proving anything.
 
Kingsfan23 said:
I think Fox somewhere became the sure shot in the draft for Kings fans, but his flags, weighing 170/shooting/playmaking numbers certainly point to him being fallible.

He has flags like the other prospects, and I can see a scenario where the Kings pass on him if he is there at 5

With that being said there might be some back context to that shooting clip, given potential circumstances
Click to expand...
I really hope Phoenix takes Isaac at #4, I'd love to see Vlade with a choice between Tatum and Fox.
 
sidney said:
He shouldn't be shooting 40% uncontested.

Look at Tatum shooting 3's uncontested in comparison:
https://twitter.com/ComplexSports/status/867073705096212480

Honestly, I'm still pretty worried about Fox's shot. There are plenty of guys (Rubio, Rondo, Tyreke) who don't just fix it no matter what they try or the coaching they get.
Click to expand...

I am a bit concerned about Fox's shooting too.

But, I would be fine if we drafted Fox too. I looked up his high school stats and he shot a respectable 34% from 3. He also shoots a good free throw percentage, so there is hope his shot will improve.

Because of concerns about Fox's shot, I am leaning Tatum at 5 with Fox a close second option.
 
Fox's mechanics are pretty good but I can see part of the issue.

His set point is in too tight and he's pushing the ball a bit. That's going to make it tough for him to be consistent.

And I think that is partly a form issue and partly a strength issue. As he gains leg strength he'll get more lift/push and to a lesser extent more arm strength will make it easier to have a pure stoke instead of incorporating chest muscles to help push the shot.

It will take time and work both on the court and in the weight room. And a good shooting coach.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
[Rumor] Trade rumor: Spurs reportedly 'positioning' for Kings' De'Aaron Fox; Says he's a Manu Ginobili fan
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Caccia
Caccia
Y
Kings blow out De'Aaron Fox and Spurs in PG's return to Sacramento
Replies
0
Views
130
Yahoo Sports
Y
C
De'Aaron Fox gives blunt response to mistake that lost Kings game
Replies
1
Views
210
AaronPDX
AaronPDX
R
De'Aaron Fox aims to continue torrid run as Kings host Hawks
Replies
0
Views
156
Reuters
R
A
De'Aaron Fox scores 49 points to lead Kings to 121-117 over Jazz
Replies
0
Views
153
Associated Press
A
Back
Top