Good Kings Podcast

Capt. Factorial

Cantry Member
Staff member
#6
I have a tough time calling this a "good" podcast. Same old national media stuff as far as I could tell (which was basically the first five minutes or so before I gave up). You know the drill, they come from the attitude that the Kings are a laughing stock of a franchise, there's no chance the kings will actually do anything right because they're dumb, etc. They say, or at least imply that the roster is poorly constructed but don't actually point to any flaws in roster construction, the typical lazy anti-Kings national attitude as far as I could tell. When one of the guys said that he had Bagley NINTH on his draft board I didn't figure I had much more to learn from them.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#8
Cole zwicker is nonsense on a lot of things. He lives and dies by his projections and just craps on anyone who doesnt pop off in his model.

Smart guy, but hes hard to listen to most of the time
I have a lot of respect for both these guys, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything they say. I listen to them and many others to get a different perspective on the prospects. Many times I agree with most of Zwicker's analysis, but not with his rankings. Doesn't mean I'm right or he's wrong, just that we might prioritize different things. Sam is more middle of the road in his analysis. James Ham has had Zwicker on his podcast many times. Remember that no one see's things exactly like everyone else. You can have 10 witnesses to an accident and they'll all have a slightly different story.
 
#9
These guys obviously are not confident in the Kings coaching staff. They think the Kings have talent, they just don't think they will be used properly.

This is a big year for the coaching staff IMO. They have a chance to turn this around and look like geniuses. And the great thing for them is that it doesn't even mean they have to win games, all they have to do is polish up the young guys and allow them look good.
 
#10
Cole zwicker is nonsense on a lot of things. He lives and dies by his projections and just craps on anyone who doesnt pop off in his model.

Smart guy, but hes hard to listen to most of the time
I don't post a lot anymore but here I have to. As far as analyzing prospects go, Cole is probably one of the best in the business.

And I'd rather have someone defend his unpopular opinion with good analysis (e.g. Bagley at 9) than just agreeing with what everyone else says without going into detail.
(By the way I agree with pretty much everything he has to say about Bagley)
 
#12
The thread title is an oxymoron. There are no good Kings podcasts. This one however I thought was good and fair.
I thought it was fair except for a couple areas:
  • didn't talk much about Beli's fit with the team.
  • thought the part of Giles was worthless, they haven't done any research on it.
  • I think Bagley at the 3 offensively is a disaster but I thought they could have explored him defensively at a 3 and offensively as a 4-5. Beli and Skal both have potential as stretch 4's / 3's offensively so the fit might not be as bad at first blush.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#13
I thought it was fair except for a couple areas:
  • didn't talk much about Beli's fit with the team.
  • thought the part of Giles was worthless, they haven't done any research on it.
  • I think Bagley at the 3 offensively is a disaster but I thought they could have explored him defensively at a 3 and offensively as a 4-5. Beli and Skal both have potential as stretch 4's / 3's offensively so the fit might not be as bad at first blush.
Yep. The lack of nuance in their analysis didn't impress me.
 
#14
I thought it was fair except for a couple areas:
  • didn't talk much about Beli's fit with the team.
  • thought the part of Giles was worthless, they haven't done any research on it.
  • I think Bagley at the 3 offensively is a disaster but I thought they could have explored him defensively at a 3 and offensively as a 4-5. Beli and Skal both have potential as stretch 4's / 3's offensively so the fit might not be as bad at first blush.
They didn't focus on Bjelica individually likely because it was a focus on "prospects," but I do recall hearing them mention him in a couple instances where they'd like to see him more in lineups to help space the floor.

They seemed quite concerned with the Kings being able to find sufficient opportunities to develop all four of their big prospects -- which is a fair concern I've seen echoed here.