John Henson the best fit next to Cousins?

[Gilles]

People do not appreciate to what degree Kentucky was a well oiled machine and how disfunctional was UConn. The way Connecticut played actually reminded me of Kings especially at the start of this past season. Selfishness and lack of spacing were main symptoms of their offense.
Yes, Drummond's season wasn't inspiring but do a little math and look at the fact that Kentucky had higher pace (16% higher) and Davis spent more time (12%) on the floor. Drummond's stats after 31%(1.16*1.12) bump? 13p+10r+3,5bl. Care to find the last prospect with such freshman stats and an NBA ready body (guys with broken knees don't count since Drummond have different body type - much stronger legs of the same length and lower body)? The one you can put both at PF and C and not get slaughtered on D. Petrie usually calls that versatility.
You know what might be the biggest thing going for him? He might have eat a lot of humble pie in UConn. He came to Calhoun as #1 player in the country and became an afterthought, 5th or 6th option for his team. By now he must have an idea that nothing will be given to him on a silver platter.
Yeah, I would take him at #2.

 

[BMiller52]

Doing our due diligence on the shotblockers int he draft, since we need one.

I know this is an old post but I'm really starting to think that we've been frozen out of the top 5 players destinations by their agents because they're afraid of our ownership/front office/arena situation/coaching. Hopefully we can start to get things together here, Maloofs or no Maloofs(hopefully no Maloofs), but I can see why people around the league would be skeptical.

 

[roasthawg]

College ball is a seductress, but like most seductresses not everything she is selling is real. Of course you, and any good college ball watcher, is going to be sure that guys who did well in college are going to do well in the pros, because as an avid college watcher you just got done watching them do well all season long. You're used to them doing well. Used to thinking of them as stars.

But it goes without saying the pros are a different level, and college competence does not always directly translate. Many a college star has turned out to be nothing in the NBA. Many a lesser college player has been able to carve out a lengthy NBA career simply because they have the size and body for it, so their own game does not degrade from the crossover the way the games of college sized guys do. And of course its a rampantly inexcat science predicting how it will work out. If it was easy there would be no draft busts, and it wouldn't be much fun.

You absolutely know these guys' games better than I or most people do. I only start making prognosticating noises once they start approaching the NBA level, where I know the requirments and history far better than I do the NCAA. You get a guy like Drummond, he's kind of the classic "built for the pros" type of player, so I get interested. Somebody shows me a 6'2" shooting guard or a 6'6" big man, and my interest dwindles. Rapidly.

This is a good post. On one spectrum you have a guy like Jimmer who was wildly successful in college but who's game figured to translate down a few notches due to a lack of protypical size/athleticism for the nba. The question with him is how far down would his game go? I think he ends up a JJ Redick type of player if not a little better but there was never any doubt that he wouldn't be a 28ppg guy in the nba.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is a guy like Drummond who struggled in college given the expectations but who's game translates beautifully to the nba based on elite size/athleticism combo. The expectation is that he should at least match his cbb average of 10ppg, 7.6rpg, and 2.7bpg. Pretty decent numbers although not spectacular by any means.

Then there's a guy like Cousins who is the best of both worlds... ideal size and excellent cbb production.

 

[Uncia03]

People do not appreciate to what degree Kentucky was a well oiled machine and how disfunctional was UConn. The way Connecticut played actually reminded me of Kings especially at the start of this past season. Selfishness and lack of spacing were main symptoms of their offense.
Yes, Drummond's season wasn't inspiring but do a little math and look at the fact that Kentucky had higher pace (16% higher) and Davis spent more time (12%) on the floor. Drummond's stats after 31%(1.16*1.12) bump? 13p+10r+3,5bl. Care to find the last prospect with such freshman stats and an NBA ready body (guys with broken knees don't count since Drummond have different body type - much stronger legs of the same length and lower body)? The one you can put both at PF and C and not get slaughtered on D. Petrie usually calls that versatility.
You know what might be the biggest thing going for him? He might have eat a lot of humble pie in UConn. He came to Calhoun as #1 player in the country and became an afterthought, 5th or 6th option for his team. By now he must have an idea that nothing will be given to him on a silver platter.
Yeah, I would take him at #2.

Any GM who is willing to take Drummond top 10 is going to be taking a huge risk.

And you can't just artificially bump up someone's production by 30% to help support an argument that a player will be successful.

That's the same thing as taking a single 10 minute stretch in garbage time for a bench player, then taking that 1 good game and posting stats Per 36 to show how productive that bench player could be if they only got consistent playing time. It just doesn't work that way.

As you mentioned, UCONN was a mess last year. And Drummond wasn't an innocent by-stander to the mess, but rather part of the mess, and he certainly didn't do much to help straighten things out on the court.

And you mentioned selfishness and lack of spacing being one of the problems at UCONN, but I don't think anyone really cares much about Drummond's offense. It's all about his defense and his impact (Hustle/Rebouding/Energy) on the floor, and both were underwhelming.

I only watch college ball for the players. I don't really care much about the teams and who wins and loses. And when I watch a college game I basically look for impact players. Players who are on the court and catch my attention.
If a player has the size/athleticism to play their proper position in the NBA and they stand out on the court while playing good college competition, I typically slot them in as potential NBA caliber players.

With Drummond, he just didn't stand out on the court, and I kept hoping that he would. I don't think that I can break it down any other way.

Think of watching Haslem playing for the Heat. Sure he's playing solid ball and playing his role, but when watching that team, he's a bench player that gets middling minutes and doesn't stand out as a major impact guy.

That's sort of what it was like watching Drummond all year long. I kept on hoping to see Dwight Howard out there and instead I got a role-player.
From a defensive role-player perspective Jeff Withey and Bernard James impressed me far more with their big-man defensive games than did Drummond. Both of those bigs stood out and had big impacts on the court.

So Drummond just scares me. If MKG is off the table, the absolute best possible outcome is that we draft Drummond, and Drummond proves why he was the top candidate coming out of high-school. But the absolute worst outcome would be to take a chance on Drummond and he ends up proving that his college performance was going to be more indicative of his NBA career than what he showed in high school.

I'll be trusting Petrie on this one. If he drafts him, I'll be rooting heavily for Drummond to succeed, because he could be perfect. But if Drummond is on the board and we end up selecting one of the other top 6 players, I'll completely understand why we passed on him, and I'll be hoping that we don't regret it.

 

[Uncia03]

This is a good post. On one spectrum you have a guy like Jimmer who was wildly successful in college but who's game figured to translate down a few notches due to a lack of protypical size/athleticism for the nba. The question with him is how far down would his game go? I think he ends up a JJ Redick type of player if not a little better but there was never any doubt that he wouldn't be a 28ppg guy in the nba.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is a guy like Drummond who struggled in college given the expectations but who's game translates beautifully to the nba based on elite size/athleticism combo. The expectation is that he should at least match his cbb average of 10ppg, 7.6rpg, and 2.7bpg. Pretty decent numbers although not spectacular by any means.

Then there's a guy like Cousins who is the best of both worlds... ideal size and excellent cbb production.

I want to comment quickly on Jimmer. I think you nailed it well when you said that there was no doubt that he'd never be a 25+ ppg player in the NBA, and no-one should have had those sort of expectations for him.

I really enjoyed watching him play his senior year, he was just fun to watch.

With that said, going through the season I was hoping that we wouldn't draft him because I expected him to be a mid-1st round pick, and it looked as if we were going to get a top 5 pick or so, and there was a lot more talent on the board to choose from to reach for him at such a good spot.

When we made the Beno/Salmons trade, it became clear to me that we were going to be drafting Jimmer (provided he was still on the board).

Once we drafted him, the only thing to do was to root heavily for his success as an NBA player, because he's a King now, and the King's will be more successful the better their acquisitions are.

His biggest issue really is with his confidence, which took a major beating last year. He needs to continue to work on his ball-handling (which was fine in college and tentative/liability in the NBA) and he needs to have confidence in his shot.

I still expect him to be a better player than J.J. due to his ball-handling and instincts, but he's going to have to work hard and improve on his defense if wants to see time on the court next season.

He wasn't a bad pick-up if you consider him a mid-1st round talent, the issue is that when you have the 7th pick, then move your position to pick him up later, it's hard to forget that you initially had the 7th pick.

 

[Gilles]

Any GM who is willing to take Drummond top 10 is going to be taking a huge risk.

And you can't just artificially bump up someone's production by 30% to help support an argument that a player will be successful.

That's the same thing as taking a single 10 minute stretch in garbage time for a bench player, then taking that 1 good game and posting stats Per 36 to show how productive that bench player could be if they only got consistent playing time. It just doesn't work that way.

As you mentioned, UCONN was a mess last year. And Drummond wasn't an innocent by-stander to the mess, but rather part of the mess, and he certainly didn't do much to help straighten things out on the court.

And you mentioned selfishness and lack of spacing being one of the problems at UCONN, but I don't think anyone really cares much about Drummond's offense. It's all about his defense and his impact (Hustle/Rebouding/Energy) on the floor, and both were underwhelming.

I only watch college ball for the players. I don't really care much about the teams and who wins and loses. And when I watch a college game I basically look for impact players. Players who are on the court and catch my attention.
If a player has the size/athleticism to play their proper position in the NBA and they stand out on the court while playing good college competition, I typically slot them in as potential NBA caliber players.

With Drummond, he just didn't stand out on the court, and I kept hoping that he would. I don't think that I can break it down any other way.

Think of watching Haslem playing for the Heat. Sure he's playing solid ball and playing his role, but when watching that team, he's a bench player that gets middling minutes and doesn't stand out as a major impact guy.

That's sort of what it was like watching Drummond all year long. I kept on hoping to see Dwight Howard out there and instead I got a role-player.
From a defensive role-player perspective Jeff Withey and Bernard James impressed me far more with their big-man defensive games than did Drummond. Both of those bigs stood out and had big impacts on the court.

So Drummond just scares me. If MKG is off the table, the absolute best possible outcome is that we draft Drummond, and Drummond proves why he was the top candidate coming out of high-school. But the absolute worst outcome would be to take a chance on Drummond and he ends up proving that his college performance was going to be more indicative of his NBA career than what he showed in high school.

I'll be trusting Petrie on this one. If he drafts him, I'll be rooting heavily for Drummond to succeed, because he could be perfect. But if Drummond is on the board and we end up selecting one of the other top 6 players, I'll completely understand why we passed on him, and I'll be hoping that we don't regret it.

1. It seems like in evluating production you are only looking at raw stats and not interested in pace or minutes played, right?
2. You favor the eye test. Well, fair enough, but I would like to know the last few freshman bigs who had impact in college in your eyes? I hope you didn't expect to see 7 year NBA veteran instead of college freshman and I don't think it's fair to expect said college freshman to play with the same poise as 22-year old junior or 27-year old senior. Though I saw a few Florida St games I wasn't looking at James at all but in Kansas games I don't recall Withey to go out to the perimeter and not look like fish out of the water. Drummond didn't look lost. It's very much relevant in the pros.

 

[Uncia03]

1. It seems like in evluating production you are only looking at raw stats and not interested in pace or minutes played, right?
2. You favor the eye test. Well, fair enough, but I would like to know the last few freshman bigs who had impact in college in your eyes? I hope you didn't expect to see 7 year NBA veteran instead of college freshman and I don't think it's fair to expect said college freshman to play with the same poise as 22-year old junior or 27-year old senior. Though I saw a few Florida St games I wasn't looking at James at all but in Kansas games I don't recall Withey to go out to the perimeter and not look like fish out of the water. Drummond didn't look lost. It's very much relevant in the pros.

1.) To be honest I rarely look at college player's stats. And usually just to verify what I'm seeing. So for instance if someone tells me that player X is a bad 3-point shooter, and I watch 10 games and I see this player knocking down 3s at a good clip, I'll take a look at the stats. See if perhaps the player shot poorly but has improved their 3-pt shot as they develop their over-all game.
This is just an example btw. I don't really care how many points a player has at the end of the day, but rather, are they able to get good scoring opportunities, and will those scoring opportunities translate to the next level.
I'm not a fan of Sullinger because I'm skeptical that he'll be able to translate his fantastic post-game to the NBA. So he is productive in college, but I'll be surprised if he can continue that at the NBA level.

2.) And yes, I do favor the eye-test. When you're watching college players, that's really all you can do, because nothing is guaranteed at the next level.
And I think it is fair to say that evaluating a college players defensive and rebounding potential in college is infinitely easier than judging a college player's offensive potential.
If a player is able to dominate in rebounding and defense, it's easier to see that sort of stuff translate to the NBA. MKG is going to be a great defender as will Jeff Taylor. When Aaron Craft comes out (probably next year) he's going to be a phenominal defensive PG. Anthony Davis is going to be a great defender.
Henson is will be a good defender if he can put on weight. (I don't think he will, which is why I don't think he'll ultimately be a good defender at the PF position)
You could tell that Favors was going to be a good defensive player even though his year at G.Tech wasn't that great.
I wasn't at all surprised about Faried this year. I loved him last year, and his heart, hustle, energy, and rebounding all translated.

I was watching Drummond from a defensive/rebounding/energy perspective, and not so much an offensive perspective. His offensive game was mediocre last season, but that didn't bother me all that much. What bothered me was the lack of energy/hustle/rebounding he displayed.
He averaged 28 min/game but ended up with barely over 4 defensive rebounds a game. Since we know that he's an explosive athlete with good length, that speaks directly to his energy/hustle.

Let's me be clear here. I'm not saying that he's going to be a bust by any means. What I am saying is that there was a huge difference between the kid's performance his last year in High School and his performance in college.
He wasn't an impact player in college, and therefore I'm not going to say definitively that he's going to hit that switch and turn it all around in the NBA. He may very well hit that switch and compete at the next level due to his understanding that he has to put everything he has into the game in order to impact it at the highest levels.

So if Petrie thinks this kid can flip the switch and become an impact player on the court, I'll be rooting heavily for this kid's success. But if we pass on him I won't be surprised.
I should mention that the best day I've had in years as a sports fan was the day Demarcus slipped past the Wolves and we took him with the 5th pick. In that case I know people were concerned about his character issues, but I would never had forgiven Petrie for passing up on Demarcus.
With Drummond it's a different situation, and if we pass on him, regardless of how Drummond performs in the future, I'll understand exactly where Petrie is coming from.

 

[Gilles]

Actually offensive rebounding speaks directly to energy/hustle and he was fine there. Defensive rebounding is more about positioning and boxing out which Drummond is not good at.

 

[Uncia03]

Actually offensive rebounding speaks directly to energy/hustle and he was fine there. Defensive rebounding is more about positioning and boxing out which Drummond is not good at.

No question that boxing out is a skill, and it's something that Drummond has probably not had to learn as well as other people due to his athleticism and length, but that still doesn't excuse the poor defensive rebounding.
Thomas Robinson had about the same number of offensive rebounds/game but had more than twice as many defensive rebounds a game (9) when compared to Drummond. Robinson has the body and the athleticism to match Drummond, but what he showed at Kansas was a heart/energy/hustle that completely outclassed what Drummond showed.

Fighting to get proper position and fighting to box out other players has a lot to do with energy & hustle, which were things lacking in Drummond's game all year long. I will also comment that if a player has all the tools be a great rebounder, but ends up being a poor defensive rebounder while almost matching his offensive rebounds to his defensive rebounds, that's not a good thing. I'm not saying it's the end of the world, but it is definitely not a mark in favor of the player.

I just don't know how you could watch Drummond through-out the entire year and not question his heart/hustle/energy. It just wasn't good enough. Now if we draft him, hopefully the entire college process will have been a humbling experience for him, and he'll show the energy/dedication/hustle that is required at the NBA level. I just wish it wasn't something I had to worry about.

 

[Gilles]

If it wasn't something to worry about, Davis would go to the Bobcats.

 

[The_Jamal]

If it wasn't something to worry about, Davis would go to the Bobcats.

Davis showcased his heart/hustle/energy, the ability to develop a polished offensive game, and to be a major game-changer on the defensive end at the NBA level.

Drummond showcased he's an athletic freak who relies soley on his athleticism to play basketball. If he displayed the same level of hustle/ernergy/effort as the other top 6 picks in this draft, he would have absolutely dominated the college game; no matter what team he played for. And for that reason alone, I don't trust this guy as a top 5 pick. Even if he didn't dominate the college game, you could still point to his size, athleticism, work ethic, potential, and have something you'd be willing to develop for a couple years.

Give me the PF who's just as athletic, a much harder worker, has a polished offensive game, would operate well with Cousins offensively (and defensively for that matter), and a player who's effort/motor we will never have to question in Robinson

 

[Telemachus]

1. It seems like in evluating production you are only looking at raw stats and not interested in pace or minutes played, right?
2. You favor the eye test. Well, fair enough, but I would like to know the last few freshman bigs who had impact in college in your eyes? I hope you didn't expect to see 7 year NBA veteran instead of college freshman and I don't think it's fair to expect said college freshman to play with the same poise as 22-year old junior or 27-year old senior. Though I saw a few Florida St games I wasn't looking at James at all but in Kansas games I don't recall Withey to go out to the perimeter and not look like fish out of the water. Drummond didn't look lost. It's very much relevant in the pros.

I am a big fan of watching college basketball and seeing who stands out during a game. If a player is going to be a high draft pick, it would make sense that he should be noticeable on the court even if I don't know who he is while watching the game. I watched UCONN play 4 times this season, and Drummond never stood out once in those games. He would make a nice play once in a while, but had almost no impact on the game (on either end of the floor). That throws up a huge reg flag for me if he is considered a lottery pick. This was one of the reasons I was never high on Thabeet. In all the games I saw Thabee play in college, he was never even the best player on his own team (much less in the game).

As for other freshman bigs that stood out their first year of college, I would point out Anthony Davis as an obvious choice. Cousins had a huge impact on the floor for Ky. And even Favors showed signs of how good he could be despite his poor situation at Georgia Tech. I would bring up Dwight Howard (since Drummond has been compared to him), but that doesn't seem fair since Howard made a big impact and did it in the NBA. There are a lot of big men who come into college and make an immediate impact and many who don't. However, when you come out of HS ranked as the best (or 2nd best) player, then you are supposed to make an immediate impact.

 

[Gilles]

Remember when Amare was hopping across the country and never finding good enough situation, remember all the labels that were thrown at him? Drummond got into bad situation except you can't change college unless you're willing to sit out another year. When asked why he declared, he mumbled "situation was presented to me", when he wanted to say "I coudn't wait to get out of there".
Now look at any Kentucky game, and how much fun they were having. Drummond should've suck it up and played like professional anyway? Guess what he's a kid and not a pro. Environment affects player production a great deal and it was the opposite for these two young man. Their bodies are the opposites as well as far as NBA readiness goes.

 

[Gilles]

I am a big fan of watching college basketball and seeing who stands out during a game. If a player is going to be a high draft pick, it would make sense that he should be noticeable on the court even if I don't know who he is while watching the game. I watched UCONN play 4 times this season, and Drummond never stood out once in those games. He would make a nice play once in a while, but had almost no impact on the game (on either end of the floor). That throws up a huge reg flag for me if he is considered a lottery pick. This was one of the reasons I was never high on Thabeet. In all the games I saw Thabee play in college, he was never even the best player on his own team (much less in the game).

As for other freshman bigs that stood out their first year of college, I would point out Anthony Davis as an obvious choice. Cousins had a huge impact on the floor for Ky. And even Favors showed signs of how good he could be despite his poor situation at Georgia Tech. I would bring up Dwight Howard (since Drummond has been compared to him), but that doesn't seem fair since Howard made a big impact and did it in the NBA. There are a lot of big men who come into college and make an immediate impact and many who don't. However, when you come out of HS ranked as the best (or 2nd best) player, then you are supposed to make an immediate impact.

Favors had Shumpert to take best perimeter player from other teams (that's why GT were were top-30 defensive team in the country) and Gani Lawal to take pressure inside on offense. Drummond had wooden Alex Oriakhi who was always getting the ball in post-up situations and no perimeter defenders, more so he was arguably the best perimeter defender for his position on the team.

 

[Telemachus]

Favors had Shumpert to take best perimeter player from other teams (that's why GT were were top-30 defensive team in the country) and Gani Lawal to take pressure inside on offense. Drummond had wooden Alex Oriakhi who was always getting the ball in post-up situations and no perimeter defenders, more so he was arguably the best perimeter defender for his position on the team.

You entirely missed my whole point. I couldn't care less who they played with or against. What I care about it what they DID while on the floor that makes an impact on the game. In 4 games this season, I NEVER saw Drummond have any impact on the game. Now he may have in games I didn't watch, but I would expect a player that is hoping to be a NBA all-star would have an impact on every game he plays. If he is that talented and good, it doesn' matter who he is playing with because he will find a way to incert his will on the game. All those other players I mentioned found a way to make an impact on games in college. The fact that Drummond didn't (in the games I watched) would scare me to death if I was a GM pickng him as a high lottery pick.

 

[Prince_XY]

Now, just watch this to hopefully alleviate your fear of Drummond as being the next biggest BUST. Remember that the kid is only 18 years old and maybe he had a bad year in College because he was finding it hard to adjust to the recent growth spurt he had the past years.

I know I did this to another thread, but let me do it again:

Compare this young player (Dwight Howard):

1.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNU65...eature=related

and this young player (Demarcus Cousins):

2.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEYFAfk8M3M

with this young player (Andre Drummond):

3.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXB6v...feature=relmfu

 

[The_Jamal]

Now, just watch this to hopefully alleviate your fear of Drummond as being the next biggest BUST. Remember that the kid is only 18 years old and maybe he had a bad year in College because he was finding it hard to adjust to the recent growth spurt he had the past years.

I know I did this to another thread, but let me do it again:

Compare this young player (Dwight Howard):

1.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNU65...eature=related

and this young player (Demarcus Cousins):

2.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEYFAfk8M3M

with this young player (Andre Drummond):

3.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXB6v...feature=relmfu

High school highlight films do absolutely nothing to alleviate my fears of certain players. The great thing about the one and done system is we get to see a lot of the high school kids who would declare for the NBA go against stiffer competition and while having to deal with more personal responsibility in their lives (school, living on their own, etc)

 

[beb0p]

Don't know if anyone caught this, but the Bucks' Director of Scouting was drooling over John Henson. Said he is hands down the best player he brought in this year, and that he'll be long gone by the #12 pick. Also mentioned they might explore ways to move up the draft to pick him (curious statement because they already have a guy like Henson, his name is Larry Sanders, but whatever. When you're in love, you're in love). This is interesting in a couple of ways:


1. The Bucks also worked out Tyler Zeller, Meyers Leonard, Jared Sullinger, Perry Jones, Arnett Moultrie and Terrence Jones. And Henson bested them all, not just a little but hands down! Yes, I found that hard to believe too! There's some pretty good players that Henson outshone, might that put him now solidly in the mid-lottery range? Like, say, in the Kings' radar? Furthermore, if you buy into the rumor that Detroit has given a promise to Arnett Moultrie (and I kinda leaning towards believing), then Henson should go before Moultrie, placing the skinny dude around #5 to #8.

2. Will the Bucks trade their #12 + something for the Kings' #5? I really like Larry Sanders and if the Bucks include him, what do you say?

3. Or maybe this is just a smokescreen?

Anyway, just random rambling on a slow day.

 

[Bricklayer]

Don't know if anyone caught this, but the Bucks' Director of Scouting was drooling over John Henson. Said he is hands down the best player he brought in this year, and that he'll be long gone by the #12 pick. Also mentioned they might explore ways to move up the draft to pick him (curious statement because they already have a guy like Henson, his name is Larry Sanders, but whatever. When you're in love, you're in love). This is interesting in a couple of ways:


1. The Bucks also worked out Tyler Zeller, Meyers Leonard, Jared Sullinger, Perry Jones, Arnett Moultrie and Terrence Jones. And Henson bested them all, not just a little but hands down! Yes, I found that hard to believe too! There's some pretty good players that Henson outshone, might that put him now solidly in the mid-lottery range? Like, say, in the Kings' radar? Furthermore, if you buy into the rumor that Detroit has given a promise to Arnett Moultrie (and I kinda leaning towards believing), then Henson should go before Moultrie, placing the skinny dude around #5 to #8.

2. Will the Bucks trade their #12 + something for the Kings' #5? I really like Larry Sanders and if the Bucks include him, what do you say?

3. Or maybe this is just a smokescreen?

Anyway, just random rambling on a slow day.

Given the Bucks acumen regarding bigs I wouldn't get too excited -- they specilize in small, wekak, undersized guys guaranteed to get you a wonderful 35-47 record every year.

That said Henson still looks to me like the fallback position for us if we trade backward, but who knows.

 

[vikinginferno]

Don't know if anyone caught this, but the Bucks' Director of Scouting was drooling over John Henson. Said he is hands down the best player he brought in this year, and that he'll be long gone by the #12 pick. Also mentioned they might explore ways to move up the draft to pick him (curious statement because they already have a guy like Henson, his name is Larry Sanders, but whatever. When you're in love, you're in love). This is interesting in a couple of ways:


1. The Bucks also worked out Tyler Zeller, Meyers Leonard, Jared Sullinger, Perry Jones, Arnett Moultrie and Terrence Jones. And Henson bested them all, not just a little but hands down! Yes, I found that hard to believe too! There's some pretty good players that Henson outshone, might that put him now solidly in the mid-lottery range? Like, say, in the Kings' radar? Furthermore, if you buy into the rumor that Detroit has given a promise to Arnett Moultrie (and I kinda leaning towards believing), then Henson should go before Moultrie, placing the skinny dude around #5 to #8.

2. Will the Bucks trade their #12 + something for the Kings' #5? I really like Larry Sanders and if the Bucks include him, what do you say?

3. Or maybe this is just a smokescreen?

Anyway, just random rambling on a slow day.

God. Why is it that so many people are infatuated with trading down and picking up a mediocre at best player with a lower pick? We are in the position to pick up a potentially very, very good player and I've seen dozens of people saying we should consider trading it back and pick up some "meh" filler along with the lower pick.

 

[ParniValjak]

God. Why is it that so many people are infatuated with trading down and picking up a mediocre at best player with a lower pick? We are in the position to pick up a potentially very, very good player and I've seen dozens of people saying we should consider trading it back and pick up some "meh" filler along with the lower pick.

Simply because those players are pretty much proving to us that they don't want to be here but refusing to workout for us, or cancelling their workout.

So you say, cool we can just draft then anyway and show them who is the boss but it is NOT that simple because they can always pull a Steve Francis or Fran Vasquez on us and put us in a position where we HAVE to trade them to salvage some value at which point you are selling at a much lower price than you would have to start off with.

Just because we have a nice pick does not mean we have all the control. This is a players league which ever way you look at it. We could quite easily walk away from this draft with nothing to show for pick 5. I for one would not be happy with that scenario.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

God. Why is it that so many people are infatuated with trading down and picking up a mediocre at best player with a lower pick? We are in the position to pick up a potentially very, very good player and I've seen dozens of people saying we should consider trading it back and pick up some "meh" filler along with the lower pick.

How are you so certain that a player acquired after trading down will be mediocre at best? Who are you and what are your qualifications? Even the experts are wrong more than they are right.

Furthermore, do some research on previous drafts. It's not at all uncommon to find players drafted outside the lottery that are better than many drafted in the top 14. It doesn't matter how you find impact players or how high/low they are drafted. It's about finding them period.

While you may not care for Henson or his game, the truth is that you have no factual idea what kind of player he will be. It's one thing to say that you don't believe a player will develop into a good player and an altogether different thing to make a blanket statement and position it as fact. It is in no way a fact that Henson or any other player you feel isn't worthy of a top 5 pick will be a mediocre at best player.

 

[Vlade4GM]

God. Why is it that so many people are infatuated with trading down and picking up a mediocre at best player with a lower pick? We are in the position to pick up a potentially very, very good player and I've seen dozens of people saying we should consider trading it back and pick up some "meh" filler along with the lower pick.

Because this draft isn't very good and there isn't a ton of difference between a lot of players in the top 10 vs. the top 20

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Btw, for those interested, here's what David Thorpe had to say about Henson a year and a half ago in one of his "insider" articles. While his opinion is far from fact, it does offer another POV. I know I'm not supposed to post the entire article, so here are some parts of it:

One of the most debated points among draftniks each spring is, "Which skillsets are most transferable from college to the pros?" Is it pure scoring? Great perimeter shooting? Ability to get to the free throw line? Rebounding? Defense?

But there is no debating the impact extremely long players can make defensively. The defensive changes the league went to a few years back, coupled with the evolution of defensive-minded coaches combine to make NBA Ds tougher to score against, provided they have the right material on the floor. And the strategies overwhelmingly value freakishly long players who know how to use their length (having quick feet helps) to change the shots of offensive players and inhibit dribble/passing penetration. What does all this mean? Well, for one, it means that John Henson is rated too low on everyone's mock draft board.


Watching Henson play, it's not hard to envision him being a force on the defensive end much quicker than most experts are thinking now. For starters, he's not going to be weak forever. The NBA is filled with stars who were not strong when they were 20 years old (like Kevin Durant and Joakim Noah).

College kids do not have anywhere near the time, compared to NBA players, to properly train their bodies. It does not seem that Henson is a lazy kid who won't work on gaining strength, but if he is, a year or so of getting overpowered inside by men should do wonders for his work ethic. It should be noted that Noah, in need of extra work on his body two summers ago, moved his strength coach into his home. Again, with the will to work, gaining strength is a foregone conclusion. Henson at 22 will be much stronger than the guy we see today.

Henson does some things, naturally, that are not easy to teach to anyone, much less a player close to 7 feet with extra-long arms. His nimbleness as he covers ground is good, but I'm more intrigued with his defensive stance and overall posture. It's very easy for him to get low and wide, with his arms spread. When defending on the perimeter, he looks like a world-class goalie in soccer getting ready to stop a penalty kick, spreading out to make the goal look smaller. His length is so surprising to players facing him for the first time that they suddenly put extra arc on their shots off drives just to get them off, which means they will almost always leave them short. And though he does not yet have the confidence to really step out and guard perimeter guys who are behind the line with no fear of getting beat, he projects to be able to do just that quite well too. He understands how to use angles to cut off guys and he's aware of his help responsibilities more so than many young NBA players I've watched. Undoubtedly, he's been coached up well on that subject.

Henson has a high release on his face-up jumper, like Rasheed Wallace, which is quite literally the best way possible to shoot for a big inside. Over time I'd expect big improvement on this, but the important fact is that it's very difficult to get someone to learn to shoot that way, and he's already doing it before his 20th birthday.

People who know him and have watched him for years suggest that he has the skills of a small forward. I've not seen evidence of that, and his poor free throw shooting makes me suspicious. But his agility is excellent for someone with his build and it would not surprise me to see him develop an attacking dribble move from the perimeter against NBA competition. I love the fact that even though he was a perimeter-based player for much if his prep career, he's bought into the Tar Heels' plan and plays in the paint for the most part.

 

[DesertFox]

Because this draft isn't very good and there isn't a ton of difference between a lot of players in the top 10 vs. the top 20

I'm gonna disagree and say it's because of the opposite. There aren't a lot of stars, but there is good value, especially vs last year.

 

[Glenn]

God. Why is it that so many people are infatuated with trading down and picking up a mediocre at best player with a lower pick? We are in the position to pick up a potentially very, very good player and I've seen dozens of people saying we should consider trading it back and pick up some "meh" filler along with the lower pick.

I. Don't. Know. Buddy! Man am I on your wavelength on this one. It's like my DNA prohibits me from trading down. Trading down works well in football but not in basketball where skill is prime and not volume. Let us say you have traded down and come up with Henson and made some useless trades to make that balance. It essentially breaks down to a trade of MKG to get Henson and probably someone worse. What's the point?

 

[roasthawg]

I. Don't. Know. Buddy! Man am I on your wavelength on this one. It's like my DNA prohibits me from trading down. Trading down works well in football but not in basketball where skill is prime and not volume. Let us say you have traded down and come up with Henson and made some useless trades to make that balance. It essentially breaks down to a trade of MKG to get Henson and probably someone worse. What's the point?

Agreed... the only way I'd ever trade down is if I have some guy rated so much higher than everyone else that I know he'll still be there if I trade down a few spots. Even then if you like him that much you might just want to pick him where you are and not risk it.

 

[Uncia03]

Btw, for those interested, here's what David Thorpe had to say about Henson a year and a half ago in one of his "insider" articles. While his opinion is far from fact, it does offer another POV. I know I'm not supposed to post the entire article, so here are some parts of it:

The issue is that the article actually hurts Henson.

Thorpe says that Henson right now doesn't have the body, but since he appears to have a good work ethic, he should get there in 2 years or so after putting in the work. Well...it's a year-and-a-half later and Henson still hasn't filled out enough.
It's going to be incredibly difficult for him to put on the needed weight to actually compete as a PF in the NBA.

Do I think he can get there? Maybe....but I think the odds are against him, and I'd rather take a player with less risk, especially since we have a developing shotblocker already on the team in Whiteside.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

The issue is that the article actually hurts Henson.

Thorpe says that Henson right now doesn't have the body, but since he appears to have a good work ethic, he should get there in 2 years or so after putting in the work. Well...it's a year-and-a-half later and Henson still hasn't filled out enough.

I think you overlooked this part of the article, which is spot on and something I brought up earlier in the thread .....

College kids do not have anywhere near the time, compared to NBA players, to properly train their bodies. It does not seem that Henson is a lazy kid who won't work on gaining strength, but if he is, a year or so of getting overpowered inside by men should do wonders for his work ethic. It should be noted that Noah, in need of extra work on his body two summers ago, moved his strength coach into his home. Again, with the will to work, gaining strength is a foregone conclusion. Henson at 22 will be much stronger than the guy we see today.

 

[Uncia03]

I think you overlooked this part of the article, which is spot on and something I brought up earlier in the thread .....

That can be more easily said for Freshmen, but he's a 3rd year player, and again it has nothing to do with his work ethic and everything to do with his frame and his very genetics working against him to put on the kind of mucle mass he'll need to compete 30+ minutes a night at the PF position.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's a realistic risk that has to be considered and is also relevant when we have another young shotblocker that we're trying to also develop.