Defensive Big Man Choices
- Thread starter Bricklayer
- Start date
There's a reason Fesenko was made out to be overweight. You're looking at a single, still picture from a relatively uninformative angle. Some of us were actually in Las Vegas at the Summer League and saw Fesenko play entire games. In person. In seats that would cost hundreds of dollars at a real NBA game.
Fesenko was very overweight.
I for one never brushed off Sim Bhullar's weight. Sim is more overweight than Fesenko. He's 7'5" and he's of Indian heritage, which is cute and all, but as of July he was so far removed from being in NBA game condition that he wasn't even in the same zip code as the back of the bench.
Keep in mind that this was a preseason game. Cousins is not going to be playing only 21 minutes in any game we actually hope to win, which does knock down the required minutes at the backup C spot. Also keep in mind that we have other options at the backup C than Reggie. There's Jason Thompson, and there's Ryan Hollins.
At any rate, Fesenko is currently in camp with the Timberwolves, so it's not as if we could even go after him until they cut him, which is not a certainty.
Fesenko was very overweight.
I for one never brushed off Sim Bhullar's weight. Sim is more overweight than Fesenko. He's 7'5" and he's of Indian heritage, which is cute and all, but as of July he was so far removed from being in NBA game condition that he wasn't even in the same zip code as the back of the bench.
Keep in mind that this was a preseason game. Cousins is not going to be playing only 21 minutes in any game we actually hope to win, which does knock down the required minutes at the backup C spot. Also keep in mind that we have other options at the backup C than Reggie. There's Jason Thompson, and there's Ryan Hollins.
At any rate, Fesenko is currently in camp with the Timberwolves, so it's not as if we could even go after him until they cut him, which is not a certainty.
K
As far as the frontline I think we might just wait till next year, once Rudy decides what he wants, to be fair even without a elite shot blocker which would help us a lot I reckon we got one of the most productive frontlines in the NBA when healthy. I don't think our frontline will cause us to lose games I think that's going to be more on the guards/wings.
Cousins is pretty much elite, Reggie is elite on the boards, JT does a bit of everything and Landry can score with and without the ball, it will be super rare when our whole frontline has a bad game since they all play with a lot of energy (except Cuz on occasions) and all do things without the ball.
Could our frontline be better off course but it's good, it's the strength of our team.
Cousins is pretty much elite, Reggie is elite on the boards, JT does a bit of everything and Landry can score with and without the ball, it will be super rare when our whole frontline has a bad game since they all play with a lot of energy (except Cuz on occasions) and all do things without the ball.
Could our frontline be better off course but it's good, it's the strength of our team.
I don't get it. Fesenko was made out to be a fat ass around here. Looks to be in decent shape to me. Also extremely motivated given the conflict in Ukraine and the ability to bring his family over, which relies on NBA success. I really don't get it when Sim showed up with a spare tire around his waist and some brushed it off.
Instead, we had Reggie at backup center today which just will not work.
Edit: Sorry, I didn't realize that the Capt had already responded. Here's my problem with Fesenko. He made the statement that he wanted to earn his way back into the NBA. Well if that's true, then why did he show up at summer league totally overweight? I've always sort of liked him as a player, but I do question his work ethic based on what I saw at summer league.
I don't get it. Fesenko was made out to be a fat ass around here. Looks to be in decent shape to me. Also extremely motivated given the conflict in Ukraine and the ability to bring his family over, which relies on NBA success. I really don't get it when Sim showed up with a spare tire around his waist and some brushed it off.
Instead, we had Reggie at backup center today which just will not work.
Hi guys, how many guaranteed contracts do you have? I would like to suggest checking a guy who's playing with the Bucks right now, but who will get cut soon (Bucks already have 15 guaranteed contracts). Micheal Eric played a really great game yesterday, and he was pretty good in the DLeague last year as well. Good rebounder, good size (6-11), really impressive defender, 26 years old, will play for a minimum contract and will do all the dirty work.
I don't know man would the front office be willing to go into free agency with Hibbert/Gay as free agents (hibbert has an opt out). We can't afford to lose both and Ben. Although we would have hella cap space if those 2 or just one left.
Just checked the salary we'd have 30mill open so is be willing to take the risk.
Just checked the salary we'd have 30mill open so is be willing to take the risk.
Well, for me the answer is yes, take the risk. Hibbert might not opt out playing to the best young C in the NBA, especially one that covers his weaknesses (offense). In theory the two make a lot of sense starting together. I don't consider Ben to be the next coming of MJ. In fact, I have little confidence that he can even become more than just a roleplayer. I am also tired of "waiting" for young kids to become vets so we can actually win some games. It's been close to a decade of waiting for some sign of life. I am all for rolling the dice at this point. You get Hibbert and you are immediately top 5 front court in the entire NBA, possibly the best. Collision - Stauskas - Gay - Cousins - Hibbert. That's a really solid 5. Also, with Hibbert in tow Cousins moves over to PF. Cousins would be a 6-11 270 lb PF. There isn't a PF that can stop him.
Who said PFs will be guarding Cousins?
See this is the problem I have with grabbing a C (who can only defend Cs) and pushing Cousins to PF. The opposing team will put the "best Cousins defensive player" on Cousins whether he is a PF or C. Meanwhile, you have a guy playing PF (Cousins) who does not matchup on defense against PFs as well as he does on Cs, but since their center (Hibbert) would be even worse guarding PFs, it forces them to put Cousins on these PFs. Not to mention that there are more skilled, offensive PFs in this league than there are Cs. This makes Cousins' defensive assignment more difficult night in and night out compared to Hibbert's which causes Cousins to use more energy defensively and makes him more probable to pick up fouls.
I'm not sure why so many people are on this bandwagon of bringing in a C that can only defend Cs. If you want to maximize our frontcourt potential and give us a better shot at a championship, you pair him with a shotblocking PF, a shotblocking C who can punish teams down low if they put a PF on him, or a shotblocker who can guard PFs or Cs. Obviously, the third choice is better than the first one since you can play matchups and have a better chance at keeping Cousins out of foul trouble, but the twin towers lineup can work as well IF you have two bigs who can punish teams on the offensive end (See Bynum and Gasol).
This whole argument is part of the reason why Thompson starts. He is able to guard both PFs and Cs to help keep Cousins out of foul trouble. Some of you might prefer Evans to start, but you must ask yourself, would you rather have 6 minutes of Thompson and 12 minutes of Cousins in the first quarter or 6 minutes of Cousins and 12 minutes of Evans in the first quarter?
See this is the problem I have with grabbing a C (who can only defend Cs) and pushing Cousins to PF. The opposing team will put the "best Cousins defensive player" on Cousins whether he is a PF or C. Meanwhile, you have a guy playing PF (Cousins) who does not matchup on defense against PFs as well as he does on Cs, but since their center (Hibbert) would be even worse guarding PFs, it forces them to put Cousins on these PFs. Not to mention that there are more skilled, offensive PFs in this league than there are Cs. This makes Cousins' defensive assignment more difficult night in and night out compared to Hibbert's which causes Cousins to use more energy defensively and makes him more probable to pick up fouls.
I'm not sure why so many people are on this bandwagon of bringing in a C that can only defend Cs. If you want to maximize our frontcourt potential and give us a better shot at a championship, you pair him with a shotblocking PF, a shotblocking C who can punish teams down low if they put a PF on him, or a shotblocker who can guard PFs or Cs. Obviously, the third choice is better than the first one since you can play matchups and have a better chance at keeping Cousins out of foul trouble, but the twin towers lineup can work as well IF you have two bigs who can punish teams on the offensive end (See Bynum and Gasol).
This whole argument is part of the reason why Thompson starts. He is able to guard both PFs and Cs to help keep Cousins out of foul trouble. Some of you might prefer Evans to start, but you must ask yourself, would you rather have 6 minutes of Thompson and 12 minutes of Cousins in the first quarter or 6 minutes of Cousins and 12 minutes of Evans in the first quarter?
I agree with you, but I don't consider that as realistic an option because those types of players are even more difficult to get. In an ideal world, absolutely a no brainer. In the real world, not exactly easy getting players like that because 1) teams don't want to give them up (unless they are having horrible seasons or a horrible rep aka Sanders) and 2) if they are willing to give them up, you best be prepared to give up a lot as well. Yes, Hibbert has difficulty scoring, but he isn't incapable of scoring. Teams focus on him down low as David West has become mostly a spot up jump shooter with some dirty work inside.
I want to do what you suggested, but who? Larry Sanders? Is he stable enough? Hensen? Is he proven enough? The type of players you mentioned are much more difficult to find and to trade for. Hibbert might be doable.
Edit: I also remember Cousins himself saying he wants to slide over to PF. Don't remember where I read it, I just know he said it somewhere.
I want to do what you suggested, but who? Larry Sanders? Is he stable enough? Hensen? Is he proven enough? The type of players you mentioned are much more difficult to find and to trade for. Hibbert might be doable.
Edit: I also remember Cousins himself saying he wants to slide over to PF. Don't remember where I read it, I just know he said it somewhere.
If you fight for your limitations, you get to keep them.
You can talk about thinking "realistic" until you're blue in the face. The fact is that you need to be very precise to build a championship basketball team. You can't have too many mistakes/inefficiencies to become that sort of team because you just don't have many roster spots and fewer of those players even see the floor.
If you want to label what I suggested unrealistic and go after a frontcourt mate that won't maximize our frontcourt's potential, be my guest. Personally, I only see sports as championship or bust. I understand not all fans are like that. Not all fans have the patience to watch season after season of losing to still have the goal of a championship when a winning record or 8th seed is all some fans are praying for at that point. I get it. Again, personally, I won't be satisfied until we win a championship but I'm okay with taking the patient road to get there if that's what it takes..
With all of that being said, it's not unrealistic, and I'll tell you why. You're only thinking of trades. That's not the only way to acquire a player of the caliber I suggested. You have free agency and the draft to acquire this type of player as well.
You can talk about thinking "realistic" until you're blue in the face. The fact is that you need to be very precise to build a championship basketball team. You can't have too many mistakes/inefficiencies to become that sort of team because you just don't have many roster spots and fewer of those players even see the floor.
If you want to label what I suggested unrealistic and go after a frontcourt mate that won't maximize our frontcourt's potential, be my guest. Personally, I only see sports as championship or bust. I understand not all fans are like that. Not all fans have the patience to watch season after season of losing to still have the goal of a championship when a winning record or 8th seed is all some fans are praying for at that point. I get it. Again, personally, I won't be satisfied until we win a championship but I'm okay with taking the patient road to get there if that's what it takes..
With all of that being said, it's not unrealistic, and I'll tell you why. You're only thinking of trades. That's not the only way to acquire a player of the caliber I suggested. You have free agency and the draft to acquire this type of player as well.
Last edited:
Your viewpoint is all fine and well, but you didn't toss any names out. Like I said, the real world is different. You think the Thunder wouldn't have loved to keep both Harden and Ibaka? That's a no brainer.
Free agency is difficult because you are assuming a player like that wants to come here. The Kings have a long history of not being able to acquire high profile players through free agency. I consider free agency to be the least reliable option for us. Now the draft is certainly a possibility, but I doubt that the FO wants to wait for yet another kid to develop. How many kids do we have to get until we start winning? Unless that kid is the next coming of Tim Duncan, it will be too long a process and Cousins will want out. A trade is the best way to go. The moves we have been making aren't indicative of a team that wants to wait for youngsters to grow up. They are the signs of a FO that clearly wants to try and win (as they have stated).
Free agency is difficult because you are assuming a player like that wants to come here. The Kings have a long history of not being able to acquire high profile players through free agency. I consider free agency to be the least reliable option for us. Now the draft is certainly a possibility, but I doubt that the FO wants to wait for yet another kid to develop. How many kids do we have to get until we start winning? Unless that kid is the next coming of Tim Duncan, it will be too long a process and Cousins will want out. A trade is the best way to go. The moves we have been making aren't indicative of a team that wants to wait for youngsters to grow up. They are the signs of a FO that clearly wants to try and win (as they have stated).
Well let me look at the list of just this year's free agents:
Marc Gasol - shotblocking C who can punish teams if they put a PF on him
DeAndre Jordan - shotblocker who can guard PFs and Cs
Kyle O'Quinn - shotblocker who can guard PFs and Cs
Ed Davis - unproven with upside, can block shots and defend PFs
Jordan Hill - decent to good shot blocker (1.5 per 36 for career), but can defend PFs and Cs
Not sure what this is in rebuttal to. This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I'm not saying that you need to have all stars at each position to win. The Thunder were in excellent position at that time. They drafted extremely well which allowed them to have 4 excellent players on their payroll, but as time goes on money will come into play sooner or later when you have so much young talent. This is where being precise comes into play.
Player X and player Y are of the same value and warrant a $6 mil/ year contract. However, player X does not compliment the team as well as player Y. Which one do you go with? Obviosuly, player Y. Player X just so happens to be Hibbert in this case. Now can you not be a "successful" team by not being precise with the players you bring aboard? No. You can make the playoffs, maybe get by the first round, but if you want to win it all, you better make sure you're getting the most for your money. I don't see Hibbert ever falling into that category for us.
Agreed. We haven't had success of bringing in all star level talent. But roleplaying shotblockers are much easier to attain than all star level talent. You also have to keep in mind that nobody wants to come to Sacramento when it's a losing team. As we continue to progress and get better, we will become a more attractive destination. Not to mention the Kings will be getting a brand new, state of the art arena. That also adds incentive.
Look, I'm not claiming that we're going to have a plethora of players wanting to come to Sacramento and we'll have to sit down and decide which one to go with. I'm saying when you take everything into account, it's not unreasonable to think that we can grab a player that fits the role we need.
Why does everything have to be in absolutes? We don't need the next rookie Tim Duncan to become a championship caliber team.
If we want to use the draft to grab this shotblocking big, it does not mean that we can't become good until he develops. Believe it or not, teams are not as strong as their weakest link. We can continue to get better while he get's acclimated.
There just so happens to be a plethora of bigs this year that could compliment Cousins very well. Towns, Turner, Porzingis, and Cauley-Stein are just a few that could work.
If we draft a rookie big man next year, ideally I would want us to go after a guy like Ed Davis, Jordan Hill, or Kyle O'Quinn. All three of these guys could very well be the guy we need next to Cousins, but if our rookie develops into a better compliment, we would move Davis, Hill, or O'Quinn to the bench (since they would likely be cheaper big man options in FA) and give us a big man rotation of Cousins, Turner*, Hill. However, in the meantime, Davis, Hill, and O'Quinn don't make us worse (a rebuttal to your argument that Cousins would leave if we develop another rookie). They would improve our team and help us continue to get better. Personally, that's better than trading for Hibbert, but maybe that's just me.
It's evident that they want to win now, and with a lot of the natural progression of their players and as chemistry builds, they will. But as much as they want to win now, they are not close to winning a championship. Continuing to get better while you have rookies developing in the background is a great way to take your team from good to great.
Marc Gasol - shotblocking C who can punish teams if they put a PF on him
DeAndre Jordan - shotblocker who can guard PFs and Cs
Kyle O'Quinn - shotblocker who can guard PFs and Cs
Ed Davis - unproven with upside, can block shots and defend PFs
Jordan Hill - decent to good shot blocker (1.5 per 36 for career), but can defend PFs and Cs
Not sure what this is in rebuttal to. This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I'm not saying that you need to have all stars at each position to win. The Thunder were in excellent position at that time. They drafted extremely well which allowed them to have 4 excellent players on their payroll, but as time goes on money will come into play sooner or later when you have so much young talent. This is where being precise comes into play.
Player X and player Y are of the same value and warrant a $6 mil/ year contract. However, player X does not compliment the team as well as player Y. Which one do you go with? Obviosuly, player Y. Player X just so happens to be Hibbert in this case. Now can you not be a "successful" team by not being precise with the players you bring aboard? No. You can make the playoffs, maybe get by the first round, but if you want to win it all, you better make sure you're getting the most for your money. I don't see Hibbert ever falling into that category for us.
Agreed. We haven't had success of bringing in all star level talent. But roleplaying shotblockers are much easier to attain than all star level talent. You also have to keep in mind that nobody wants to come to Sacramento when it's a losing team. As we continue to progress and get better, we will become a more attractive destination. Not to mention the Kings will be getting a brand new, state of the art arena. That also adds incentive.
Look, I'm not claiming that we're going to have a plethora of players wanting to come to Sacramento and we'll have to sit down and decide which one to go with. I'm saying when you take everything into account, it's not unreasonable to think that we can grab a player that fits the role we need.
Why does everything have to be in absolutes? We don't need the next rookie Tim Duncan to become a championship caliber team.
If we want to use the draft to grab this shotblocking big, it does not mean that we can't become good until he develops. Believe it or not, teams are not as strong as their weakest link. We can continue to get better while he get's acclimated.
There just so happens to be a plethora of bigs this year that could compliment Cousins very well. Towns, Turner, Porzingis, and Cauley-Stein are just a few that could work.
If we draft a rookie big man next year, ideally I would want us to go after a guy like Ed Davis, Jordan Hill, or Kyle O'Quinn. All three of these guys could very well be the guy we need next to Cousins, but if our rookie develops into a better compliment, we would move Davis, Hill, or O'Quinn to the bench (since they would likely be cheaper big man options in FA) and give us a big man rotation of Cousins, Turner*, Hill. However, in the meantime, Davis, Hill, and O'Quinn don't make us worse (a rebuttal to your argument that Cousins would leave if we develop another rookie). They would improve our team and help us continue to get better. Personally, that's better than trading for Hibbert, but maybe that's just me.
It's evident that they want to win now, and with a lot of the natural progression of their players and as chemistry builds, they will. But as much as they want to win now, they are not close to winning a championship. Continuing to get better while you have rookies developing in the background is a great way to take your team from good to great.
I would be utterly flabbergasted if we get either Gasol or Jordan. I am not against you or the way you think. My opinion is that I would like to go for an already proven defender, not one that could be or might be, or as you put it, very well might be (which is what a rookie big is). That's not a knock on you, it is just the fundamental difference between our ways of thinking. There is almost always an increased learning curve for big men, and that is why I don't want to pin my hopes on a rookie big developing into what we need. Personally, I want a proven NBA big that can defend. Marc Gasol would be a dream, and to be fair, that is likely what it will always be, just a dream.
My thunder comment was just in reference to the ideal vs realistic aspect I referred to previously. Ideally, the thunder would have kept both, but realistically (and financially), they couldn't. I don't consider the high profile players a very viable option for us (Gasol, Jordan), so what I aimed for was a player that I consider to be more available than others, but can still effectively provide what we need (defense). I believe Hibbert can do that (averaged 2+ blocks per game for 3 straight years). I realize his FG % is crap and has never went above .500, but then again neither has Cousin's %. Wouldn't stop me from wanting Cousins on my team.
The draft worries me mostly because of the Kings FO. I have next to zero faith they would select what we need most. We have had ample opportunity to select a player next to Cousins, most noticeably Drummond, who I was screaming for to get day of the draft in my house. It sure would be nice to have him now.
My thunder comment was just in reference to the ideal vs realistic aspect I referred to previously. Ideally, the thunder would have kept both, but realistically (and financially), they couldn't. I don't consider the high profile players a very viable option for us (Gasol, Jordan), so what I aimed for was a player that I consider to be more available than others, but can still effectively provide what we need (defense). I believe Hibbert can do that (averaged 2+ blocks per game for 3 straight years). I realize his FG % is crap and has never went above .500, but then again neither has Cousin's %. Wouldn't stop me from wanting Cousins on my team.
The draft worries me mostly because of the Kings FO. I have next to zero faith they would select what we need most. We have had ample opportunity to select a player next to Cousins, most noticeably Drummond, who I was screaming for to get day of the draft in my house. It sure would be nice to have him now.
I would be too, but I said nothing about us signing these high profile players. We are not in a position to sign high profile players yet. This is what I was referencing earlier. When we start being a more competitive team and move into our new arena, we will be much more attractive to high profile free agents.
I think you are misunderstanding. I'm not only open to going after a big man who might turn out to be a great compliment to Cousins. I'm open to bringing in a player who is already a great compliment to Cousins as well. Unfortunately, Hibbert is not a great compliment to Cousins so I don't want to settle knowing we have the potential to do better and make this team stronger down the road. When Gibson was being discussed, I was the biggest fan of trading for him because in my eyes he was the epitome of the kind of big man I want next to Cousins. Good shotblocker (2.0 blocks per 36 for his career), good post defender, good with defensive rotations and pick & roll defense, good jump shooter, good rebounder, and athletic. He has it all and would help maximize our frontcourt's potential something Hibbert would not be able to do.
Again, this doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about. That team was bound to lose someone. It's very difficult to keep 4 players of that caliber on your team. My argument is about after Harden is gone, who would be the best replacement for the money you have to spend. Using an analogy to explain how Hibbert coming here to me feels like, it would be like them replacing Harden with Martin (like they did). Yeah, he can score, but they needed a guy who could help run the offense in the 2nd unit like Harden did. Guys like Tyreke, Stephenson, Iguodala, Crawford, Afflalo, and Waiters could have been better options for them. Players who can give them a scoring boost off the bench, but can also help run the offense all while coming cheaper than Harden.
Back to the analogy, you're recommending that we should settle and get Hibbert (Martin) while I'm saying we should look for a player that will maximize our frontcourt's potential like Gibson (Stephenson).
Once again, I agree that the high profile players aren't a viable option for us this offseason, but like I mentioned before, the more competitive we get and once we move into our new arena, we will become more attractive to high profile targets. All you need is one to bite.
That's all good that he is more available, but if I'm trying to build a contender, I know the players I want, and I'm not going to settle because this less attractive option became available.
That is a horrible comparison to make. Cousins is the focal point of the offense. He faces double and triple teams on a nightly basis. His FG% should be lower than roleplayers who score with high percentage looks, putbacks, wide open jumpers, etc. as Hibbert does.
That's not really fair. Drummond was drafted in the Maloof era. Over the past two drafts (after new management had taken over), there have only been two shotblockers available where the Kings have picked that wouldn't have been considered a major reach at that time. The first one is Steven Adams, but McLemore (a projected top 3 pick at the time fell in our laps at 7), and it isn't like Adams was scooped up immediately after us. He ended up going 12th! The next shotblocker (if you can really call him that) was Vonleh. He was known to have the ability of being a good shotblocker but he wasn't necessarily known for being a good shotblocker.
Again, I don't think this is a fair assumption. If these two drafts had 2 or 3 shotblockers available every time we picked, then I think you can start to build an argument, but with this added context, it looks like a silly assumption.
I think you are misunderstanding. I'm not only open to going after a big man who might turn out to be a great compliment to Cousins. I'm open to bringing in a player who is already a great compliment to Cousins as well. Unfortunately, Hibbert is not a great compliment to Cousins so I don't want to settle knowing we have the potential to do better and make this team stronger down the road. When Gibson was being discussed, I was the biggest fan of trading for him because in my eyes he was the epitome of the kind of big man I want next to Cousins. Good shotblocker (2.0 blocks per 36 for his career), good post defender, good with defensive rotations and pick & roll defense, good jump shooter, good rebounder, and athletic. He has it all and would help maximize our frontcourt's potential something Hibbert would not be able to do.
Again, this doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about. That team was bound to lose someone. It's very difficult to keep 4 players of that caliber on your team. My argument is about after Harden is gone, who would be the best replacement for the money you have to spend. Using an analogy to explain how Hibbert coming here to me feels like, it would be like them replacing Harden with Martin (like they did). Yeah, he can score, but they needed a guy who could help run the offense in the 2nd unit like Harden did. Guys like Tyreke, Stephenson, Iguodala, Crawford, Afflalo, and Waiters could have been better options for them. Players who can give them a scoring boost off the bench, but can also help run the offense all while coming cheaper than Harden.
Back to the analogy, you're recommending that we should settle and get Hibbert (Martin) while I'm saying we should look for a player that will maximize our frontcourt's potential like Gibson (Stephenson).
Once again, I agree that the high profile players aren't a viable option for us this offseason, but like I mentioned before, the more competitive we get and once we move into our new arena, we will become more attractive to high profile targets. All you need is one to bite.
That's all good that he is more available, but if I'm trying to build a contender, I know the players I want, and I'm not going to settle because this less attractive option became available.
That is a horrible comparison to make. Cousins is the focal point of the offense. He faces double and triple teams on a nightly basis. His FG% should be lower than roleplayers who score with high percentage looks, putbacks, wide open jumpers, etc. as Hibbert does.
That's not really fair. Drummond was drafted in the Maloof era. Over the past two drafts (after new management had taken over), there have only been two shotblockers available where the Kings have picked that wouldn't have been considered a major reach at that time. The first one is Steven Adams, but McLemore (a projected top 3 pick at the time fell in our laps at 7), and it isn't like Adams was scooped up immediately after us. He ended up going 12th! The next shotblocker (if you can really call him that) was Vonleh. He was known to have the ability of being a good shotblocker but he wasn't necessarily known for being a good shotblocker.
Again, I don't think this is a fair assumption. If these two drafts had 2 or 3 shotblockers available every time we picked, then I think you can start to build an argument, but with this added context, it looks like a silly assumption.
My preference in order would be O'Quinn, Hill, and Davis.
I think O'Quinn could be a good starter in this league. Granted he only averaged 17.2 minutes per game last year, but these are his per 36 numbers:
.501 FG% / .687 FT% / 13.0 PPG / 11.3 RPG / 2.4 APG / 1.2 SPG / 2.7 BPG / 2.4 TOPG
That's quite a stat line and he fills up the entire sheet very well. Even has the steals and assists to match Cousins. Not to mention he shot 51% from 10-16ft and 40% from 16ft to the 3pt line which would help space the floor. He is a very underrated player who is a good shotblocker, rebounder, passer, and shooter. He's also big/strong enough to defend some Cs to help keep Cousins out of foul trouble. On top of that, he's the same age as Cousins. It would be cool to watch them grow together and build chemistry for years to come, and with them both being good passers, they could occasionally remind us of the Vlade/Webber days.
I think O'Quinn could be a good starter in this league. Granted he only averaged 17.2 minutes per game last year, but these are his per 36 numbers:
.501 FG% / .687 FT% / 13.0 PPG / 11.3 RPG / 2.4 APG / 1.2 SPG / 2.7 BPG / 2.4 TOPG
That's quite a stat line and he fills up the entire sheet very well. Even has the steals and assists to match Cousins. Not to mention he shot 51% from 10-16ft and 40% from 16ft to the 3pt line which would help space the floor. He is a very underrated player who is a good shotblocker, rebounder, passer, and shooter. He's also big/strong enough to defend some Cs to help keep Cousins out of foul trouble. On top of that, he's the same age as Cousins. It would be cool to watch them grow together and build chemistry for years to come, and with them both being good passers, they could occasionally remind us of the Vlade/Webber days.
K
I was actually somewhat impressed by him held his own against Pekovic today and has a sweet mid range jumper as well, kind of begs the question how this guy is not in the NBA for the past 3-4 seasons with that size/athletic ability and touch he must be really missing something. But he's impressive but at the same time does not make sense if he has all those things that he's not in the L.
As for the above post, after one of Kings posters on here pointed it out for me that Quinn is very talented and tough I really would like him on the roster. He's got nifty passing ability as well strange all around talent plus that beard is wonderful as well.
As for the above post, after one of Kings posters on here pointed it out for me that Quinn is very talented and tough I really would like him on the roster. He's got nifty passing ability as well strange all around talent plus that beard is wonderful as well.