Jonathan Isaac:

[bajaden]

Isaac is another one of my favorite players. It's my belief that we've only seen the tip of the iceberg with Isaac, because of how he was used at Florida St. When you watch the video I'm posting, you'll think wow, why did this kid only average 12 points a game with that skill set. Well, because the video, your looking at is the summation results of 32 games. Here are his stat's for the season.

Isaac: 26 mpg - 12.0 ppg - 8 apg - 50.8% fgp - 34.8% 3pp - 78.0% ftp - 7.8 rpg - 1.2 spg - 1.5 bpg - 1.2 assists

By comparison, here are Tatum's numbers for the year, which are very similar in many areas.

Tatum: 33.3 mpg - 16.8 ppg - 12.5 apg - 45.2% fgp - 34.2% 3pp - 84.9% ftp - 7.3 rpg - 1.3 spg - 1.1 bpg - 2.1 assists

Both are good free throw shooters, which usually bodes well for projecting their outside shot. The biggest disparity is Tatum taking 4.5 more shots per game. And, if you dig deeper into the details and look at a group of 15 games from the middle of the season, he took 101 shots, which breaks down to only 6.7 attempts per game. As you can see, Isaac was more of an afterthought on the offensive side of the ball. Why? I have no idea. A question for the coach.

However, if you had enough time on your hands to watch 10 to 12 games with Isaac, you would have seen him do most of what's on the video I'm posting. If you watched just one or two games, unfortunately, you might come away unimpressed, at least offensively. Defensively, it's another story. Where he was the 4th or 5th option on offense, he was the number one option on defense.

At one point or another, Isaac guarded every position on the floor. While Isaac's end to end speed is good to average, his lateral quickness is outstanding. It was not unusual to see him isolated on the perimeter against a Pg or a SG where he did an excellent job of keeping his man in front of him. If he has a weakness in this area, its lack of strength to fight through picks. Although at times, he did a fairly good job of it.

He was excellent as a weakside help defender, but also did a good job of man to man defense in the post. He made up for lack of weight and strength with great instincts and timing around the basket. But, make no mistake, he needs to live in the weight room once drafted. He was also a very good defensive rebounder, and wasn't afraid to get in and bang under the basket. 6 of his 7.8 rebounds were from the defensive side of the ball.

He's not without flaws. He had more turnovers than assists. While his lack of assists, or inability to pass the ball seems obvious, we have to remember that he didn't get many opportunities to touch the ball on offense. I can remember games where he went 4 to 5 minutes without the ball touching his hands. Hard to get assists when you don't touch the ball. He has a nice easy relaxed jumpshot, but his release is a bit slow. That said, when your 6'10.5" with a big wingspan, who cares.

Why Isaac wasn't a larger part of Florida St.'s offense remains a mystery to me, but he made the most out his free reign on defense. Here's the video...

 

[dude12]

Tremendous, tremendous upside in Isaac. I'd really like to add his length to the current bigs WCS and Skal. If we get him, I think we would be very lucky and happy.

 

[kingsboi]

one of my least liked prospects in the draft. He reminds me of Chris Singleton, former FSU player. Known as a defender in college, big body. Could never put it together in the NBA. Not saying he will be that, but when I watched Isaac, I didn't come away impressed. I'd go in another direction.

 

[ockingsfan]

Isaac is another one of my favorite players. It's my belief that we've only seen the tip of the iceberg with Isaac, because of how he was used at Florida St. When you watch the video I'm posting, you'll think wow, why did this kid only average 12 points a game with that skill set. Well, because the video, your looking at is the summation results of 32 games. Here are his stat's for the season.

Isaac: 26 mpg - 12.0 ppg - 8 apg - 50.8% fgp - 34.8% 3pp - 78.0% ftp - 7.8 rpg - 1.2 spg - 1.5 bpg - 1.2 assists

By comparison, here are Tatum's numbers for the year, which are very similar in many areas.

Tatum: 33.3 mpg - 16.8 ppg - 12.5 apg - 45.2% fgp - 34.2% 3pp - 84.9% ftp - 7.3 rpg - 1.3 spg - 1.1 bpg - 2.1 assists

Both are good free throw shooters, which usually bodes well for projecting their outside shot. The biggest disparity is Tatum taking 4.5 more shots per game. And, if you dig deeper into the details and look at a group of 15 games from the middle of the season, he took 101 shots, which breaks down to only 6.7 attempts per game. As you can see, Isaac was more of an afterthought on the offensive side of the ball. Why? I have no idea. A question for the coach.

However, if you had enough time on your hands to watch 10 to 12 games with Isaac, you would have seen him do most of what's on the video I'm posting. If you watched just one or two games, unfortunately, you might come away unimpressed, at least offensively. Defensively, it's another story. Where he was the 4th or 5th option on offense, he was the number one option on defense.

At one point or another, Isaac guarded every position on the floor. While Isaac's end to end speed is good to average, his lateral quickness is outstanding. It was not unusual to see him isolated on the perimeter against a Pg or a SG where he did an excellent job of keeping his man in front of him. If he has a weakness in this area, its lack of strength to fight through picks. Although at times, he did a fairly good job of it.

He was excellent as a weakside help defender, but also did a good job of man to man defense in the post. He made up for lack of weight and strength with great instincts and timing around the basket. But, make no mistake, he needs to live in the weight room once drafted. He was also a very good defensive rebounder, and wasn't afraid to get in and bang under the basket. 6 of his 7.8 rebounds were from the defensive side of the ball.

He's not without flaws. He had more turnovers than assists. While his lack of assists, or inability to pass the ball seems obvious, we have to remember that he didn't get many opportunities to touch the ball on offense. I can remember games where he went 4 to 5 minutes without the ball touching his hands. Hard to get assists when you don't touch the ball. He has a nice easy relaxed jumpshot, but his release is a bit slow. That said, when your 6'10.5" with a big wingspan, who cares.

Why Isaac wasn't a larger part of Florida St.'s offense remains a mystery to me, but he made the most out his free reign on defense. Here's the video...

Bajaden, happy to have you back!

We hope you're doing better.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

If Isaac is there at #8, I think we absolutely have to take him - there won't be anybody I like better who will fall that far. That said, I harbor my own strong doubts that Isaac will even be there at #8 - how many true two-way players do you see, particularly with his size?

 

[bajaden]

one of my least liked prospects in the draft. He reminds me of Chris Singleton, former FSU player. Known as a defender in college, big body. Could never put it together in the NBA. Not saying he will be that, but when I watched Isaac, I didn't come away impressed. I'd go in another direction.

Defensively, Isaac is better than Singleton. There's a reason why Singleton was projected to be a 2nd round pick and Isaac is ranked as high as he is. Singleton was a very good athlete, but had no touch on the ball with his jumpshot, and around the basket. Instinctively, Singleton wasn't anywhere near where Isaac is. As I said, if you haven't watched at least 10 to 12 games with Isaac, you will come away unimpressed.

 

[Jimbob]

From what I know I like Isaac. A bit old school, but as long as there are Durant, Giannis, LeBron types in the league I want that length and defensive ability to eventually take them on.
Thanks for your breakdown.

 

[One and Done]

Great breakdown, again! I'm not really crazy about Tatum (shot efficiency, defense) nor Jackson (jump shot, off court stuff) at 3 and 4...could see certain teams swinging for Isaac in the top 4 depending on how the lottery shakes out. The lack of assists, and the A/TO rate are a concern, as is his strength. However, excellent stretch 4 potential in today's NBA.

 

[Suicide King]

His assist/to ratio doesn't worry me. Turnovers are one of Joergers peevs so they would be cleaned up. Also if your barely getting touches you would be less inclined to pass as much.

He is definitely one of the players I would be happy we drafted. I am really hoping we continue adding tall and or lengthy players. Ball movement and smothering defense please.

 

[206Fan]

Isaac is a really intriguing player. I think his ceiling ultimately comes down to the Kings' development team and how bad Isaac wants it. He has all of the physical tools and solid skillsets to become a very very good player in the league.

Just starting at the base, his defensive upside is really promising too. He just needs to bulk up.

 

[King Baller]

His assist/to ratio doesn't worry me. Turnovers are one of Joergers peevs so they would be cleaned up. Also if your barely getting touches you would be less inclined to pass as much.

He is definitely one of the players I would be happy we drafted. I am really hoping we continue adding tall and or lengthy players. Ball movement and smothering defense please.

"Ball movement and smothering defense please." Plus winners and seeing the ball go thru the hoop

 

[Joshoua]

This is the guy I want at 8 he's proved that he'll play and fit in s system very unselfish. That length and athleticism in the front court when paired with Skal/WCS would be something else all 3 interchangeable and against most teams we'd be able to switch any picks set by those 3 players huge for defensive.

Getting Issac also helps at 10 because if we get Smith our other starters would fit with him being the alpha dog. We get Frank we'd be building s team first defensive team

 

[Kingster]

Isaac is another one of my favorite players. It's my belief that we've only seen the tip of the iceberg with Isaac, because of how he was used at Florida St. When you watch the video I'm posting, you'll think wow, why did this kid only average 12 points a game with that skill set. Well, because the video, your looking at is the summation results of 32 games. Here are his stat's for the season.

Isaac: 26 mpg - 12.0 ppg - 8 apg - 50.8% fgp - 34.8% 3pp - 78.0% ftp - 7.8 rpg - 1.2 spg - 1.5 bpg - 1.2 assists

By comparison, here are Tatum's numbers for the year, which are very similar in many areas.

Tatum: 33.3 mpg - 16.8 ppg - 12.5 apg - 45.2% fgp - 34.2% 3pp - 84.9% ftp - 7.3 rpg - 1.3 spg - 1.1 bpg - 2.1 assists

Both are good free throw shooters, which usually bodes well for projecting their outside shot. The biggest disparity is Tatum taking 4.5 more shots per game. And, if you dig deeper into the details and look at a group of 15 games from the middle of the season, he took 101 shots, which breaks down to only 6.7 attempts per game. As you can see, Isaac was more of an afterthought on the offensive side of the ball. Why? I have no idea. A question for the coach.

However, if you had enough time on your hands to watch 10 to 12 games with Isaac, you would have seen him do most of what's on the video I'm posting. If you watched just one or two games, unfortunately, you might come away unimpressed, at least offensively. Defensively, it's another story. Where he was the 4th or 5th option on offense, he was the number one option on defense.

At one point or another, Isaac guarded every position on the floor. While Isaac's end to end speed is good to average, his lateral quickness is outstanding. It was not unusual to see him isolated on the perimeter against a Pg or a SG where he did an excellent job of keeping his man in front of him. If he has a weakness in this area, its lack of strength to fight through picks. Although at times, he did a fairly good job of it.

He was excellent as a weakside help defender, but also did a good job of man to man defense in the post. He made up for lack of weight and strength with great instincts and timing around the basket. But, make no mistake, he needs to live in the weight room once drafted. He was also a very good defensive rebounder, and wasn't afraid to get in and bang under the basket. 6 of his 7.8 rebounds were from the defensive side of the ball.

He's not without flaws. He had more turnovers than assists. While his lack of assists, or inability to pass the ball seems obvious, we have to remember that he didn't get many opportunities to touch the ball on offense. I can remember games where he went 4 to 5 minutes without the ball touching his hands. Hard to get assists when you don't touch the ball. He has a nice easy relaxed jumpshot, but his release is a bit slow. That said, when your 6'10.5" with a big wingspan, who cares.

Why Isaac wasn't a larger part of Florida St.'s offense remains a mystery to me, but he made the most out his free reign on defense. Here's the video...

There does seem to be a certain chicken and egg problem with Isaac. His offense is paltry because his touches are minimal. Or is it his touches are minimal because his offense is paltry? His turnovers are more than assists because he didn't touch the ball very much, or he didn't touch the ball very much because his turnovers were more than his assists? When I saw him he was at the periphery of the game, rather than the center of the game. Was that because that's his nature, or was that due to a misdirected coaching design that had nothing to do with his nature? This is where scouting comes into play. Presumably, Divac and his crew have witnessed not only games of Isaac, but also practices. Also, presumably the Kings have talked to Isaac's coaches to get more insight into this chicken and egg problem. If there are valid concerns about Isaac's offense and you're really just guessing about whether he'll ever be a good offensive player, you'd normally want to nab this player down in the teens or lower. But if you found the Rosetta Stone to fully understand whether you were watching the chicken or the egg, and feel confident in his offense down the line, he'd be worthy of top 10 consideration.

 

[bajaden]

There does seem to be a certain chicken and egg problem with Isaac. His offense is paltry because his touches are minimal. Or is it his touches are minimal because his offense is paltry? His turnovers are more than assists because he didn't touch the ball very much, or he didn't touch the ball very much because his turnovers were more than his assists? When I saw him he was at the periphery of the game, rather than the center of the game. Was that because that's his nature, or was that due to a misdirected coaching design that had nothing to do with his nature? This is where scouting comes into play. Presumably, Divac and his crew have witnessed not only games of Isaac, but also practices. Also, presumably the Kings have talked to Isaac's coaches to get more insight into this chicken and egg problem. If there are valid concerns about Isaac's offense and you're really just guessing about whether he'll ever be a good offensive player, you'd normally want to nab this player down in the teens or lower. But if you found the Rosetta Stone to fully understand whether you were watching the chicken or the egg, and feel confident in his offense down the line, he'd be worthy of top 10 consideration.

I think your analysis is spot on. How you look at Isaac will depend on what you have read, and seen. If you've only read his stats, you won't come away impressed. Not that their horrible, but there's nothing there that separates him from a couple of dozen other players. And if you've only watched him play in a couple of games, you either come away impressed, or unimpressed, depending on which games you happened to see. Personally, I lost count of how many games I watched, but it was probably as many that were televised. So my opinion could be quite different from a person that only watched one or two games.

I'm sure the Kings had scouts at a lot of his games, and of course they talked to his coach, and probably his highschool coach as well. So I doubt there are any secrets that the Kings don't know about. I got a lot of info from the Florida St. campus newspaper. Most of it was fluff, but you start to get a feel for who the player is as a person. Despite all that, I can't answer your question as to why Isaac wasn't more of a part of Florida St.'s offense. You might go most of a game, and see very little from him on offense, and then suddenly he'll do something where you step back and go wow, where the hell did that come from. I think this kid is full of little surprises and all we have to do is take the lid off the box.

 

[206Fan]

There does seem to be a certain chicken and egg problem with Isaac. His offense is paltry because his touches are minimal. Or is it his touches are minimal because his offense is paltry? His turnovers are more than assists because he didn't touch the ball very much, or he didn't touch the ball very much because his turnovers were more than his assists? When I saw him he was at the periphery of the game, rather than the center of the game. Was that because that's his nature, or was that due to a misdirected coaching design that had nothing to do with his nature? This is where scouting comes into play. Presumably, Divac and his crew have witnessed not only games of Isaac, but also practices. Also, presumably the Kings have talked to Isaac's coaches to get more insight into this chicken and egg problem. If there are valid concerns about Isaac's offense and you're really just guessing about whether he'll ever be a good offensive player, you'd normally want to nab this player down in the teens or lower. But if you found the Rosetta Stone to fully understand whether you were watching the chicken or the egg, and feel confident in his offense down the line, he'd be worthy of top 10 consideration.

After trading Cousins, I was really unsure about Isaac as a draft target. Without Cousins, we're currently without a franchise player. With that in mind, I wanted to use both of our picks on players who showed the ability to take over games and become a #1 scoring options. Isaac just didn't pop out that way on tape. As you and Baja both discussed, it's a sticky scenario.
I took a step back, and looked at it this way. Isaac can always improve his offense. He can get quicker while improving his handles. Let's play fortune teller a bit, and assume he doesn't improve on his offense. Let's say he becomes more of a 3&D player. If we ended up with a Crowder, Aminu, Harkless, or Porter Jr type-player, would it be all that bad? Not a franchise player, but definitely a good player we'd need on the team regardless. I think Isaac has potential to be a #1 scorer. His shooting stroke alone is extremely promising.

I think your analysis is spot on. How you look at Isaac will depend on what you have read, and seen. If you've only read his stats, you won't come away impressed. Not that their horrible, but there's nothing there that separates him from a couple of dozen other players. And if you've only watched him play in a couple of games, you either come away impressed, or unimpressed, depending on which games you happened to see. Personally, I lost count of how many games I watched, but it was probably as many that were televised. So my opinion could be quite different from a person that only watched one or two games.

I'm sure the Kings had scouts at a lot of his games, and of course they talked to his coach, and probably his highschool coach as well. So I doubt there are any secrets that the Kings don't know about. I got a lot of info from the Florida St. campus newspaper. Most of it was fluff, but you start to get a feel for who the player is as a person. Despite all that, I can't answer your question as to why Isaac wasn't more of a part of Florida St.'s offense. You might go most of a game, and see very little from him on offense, and then suddenly he'll do something where you step back and go wow, where the hell did that come from. I think this kid is full of little surprises and all we have to do is take the lid off the box.

Evaluating Isaac solely in terms of a potential #1 scorer(nitpicking). Do you think that if Isaac bulks up, he'll lose some of his quickness on offense at SF? At FSU, they've had him playing PF a ton, and he had no problem punishing PFs off the dribble. However, I do notice that he'll occasionally struggle in the half-court against quicker defenders. Most of the struggles seem to tie in with lack of advanced dribbles and good, but not great quickness. If he does end up losing some quickness, do you think he could make it up by improving his dribbling? Or do you think he could just negate it all together by becoming a great shooter? ala Kevin Durant.

Here's just an example of what I mean:

Defender bites on his pump fake, and Isaac tries to drive right, however, defender quickly recovers. Isaac's 1st step isn't quick enough and he doesn't have any elite dribbles to counter him. He retreats back. We see Isaac going for a jab to try get the defender off balanced so he can attack the baseline, but this doesn't work either. He resets again, and settles for a jumper. (off note: that pull up jumper oozes a ton of potential)

Maybe this would be a better example?

He's being guarded by Amile Jefferson, and struggles to completely get by him. In the beginning, his cross-over gets Jefferson off balanced, but he doesn't have the first-step to blow by him. Ends up picking his dribble and letting Jefferson recover.

 

[bajaden]

After trading Cousins, I was really unsure about Isaac as a draft target. Without Cousins, we're currently without a franchise player. With that in mind, I wanted to use both of our picks on players who showed the ability to take over games and become a #1 scoring options. Isaac just didn't pop out that way on tape. As you and Baja both discussed, it's a sticky scenario.
I took a step back, and looked at it this way. Isaac can always improve his offense. He can get quicker while improving his handles. Let's play fortune teller a bit, and assume he doesn't improve on his offense. Let's say he becomes more of a 3&D player. If we ended up with a Crowder, Aminu, Harkless, or Porter Jr type-player, would it be all that bad? Not a franchise player, but definitely a good player we'd need on the team regardless. I think Isaac has potential to be a #1 scorer. His shooting stroke alone is extremely promising.


Evaluating Isaac solely in terms of a potential #1 scorer(nitpicking). Do you think that if Isaac bulks up, he'll lose some of his quickness on offense at SF? At FSU, they've had him playing PF a ton, and he had no problem punishing PFs off the dribble. However, I do notice that he'll occasionally struggle in the half-court against quicker defenders. Most of the struggles seem to tie in with lack of advanced dribbles and good, but not great quickness. If he does end up losing some quickness, do you think he could make it up by improving his dribbling? Or do you think he could just negate it all together by becoming a great shooter? ala Kevin Durant.

Here's just an example of what I mean:

Defender bites on his pump fake, and Isaac tries to drive right, however, defender quickly recovers. Isaac's 1st step isn't quick enough and he doesn't have any elite dribbles to counter him. He retreats back. We see Isaac going for a jab to try get the defender off balanced so he can attack the baseline, but this doesn't work either. He resets again, and settles for a jumper. (off note: that pull up jumper oozes a ton of potential)

Maybe this would be a better example?

He's being guarded by Amile Jefferson, and struggles to completely get by him. In the beginning, his cross-over gets Jefferson off balanced, but he doesn't have the first-step to blow by him. Ends up picking his dribble and letting Jefferson recover.

His handles aren't bad right now, but to answer your question, yes, I think improving his handles, along with some shake and bake could make him a much better player off the dribble. There were a few times where I thought he passed up shots against shorter players, when he had a clear height advantage, and I think that will be true in the NBA as well. He's much taller and longer than players like Haywood, in that 6'7" range. He has a high release, so there's no reason he can't just rise and shoot over them. There were times when he would penetrate, then step back and shoot a fall away jumpshot. While he shot it very successfully, I don't think he needed to fall away with his height and length. All things that are correctable.

Of course it's up to him. If puts in the work he can be as good as he wants to be. Offensively, I think he left Florida St. with what he arrived with, which is a shame. I think his floor is what you described, a 3 and D player. But I think he has a fairly high ceiling. His three point shot needs some tweaking, but in general, his overall form is fine. He's a good free throw shooter, which bodes well for his jumpshot. Give him the summer with a shooting coach, and I think he can become a 39 to 4o percent shooter from the three. Just a matter of instilling confidence at the NBA level, which could take a year or so. Then again, he might surprise.

 

[Jimbob]

Iv'e seen Isaac going as high as 6 to the Wolves to as low as 12 on draft boards. I hope he makes it past 6 and is one of our two picks.
Just curious though, and I'm sure if I dig back deep enough in these threads I would find some answers, if we end up in a position to draft Tatum over Isaac would you do it. Tatum is pretty much consensus going higher in the draft but his game draws comparisons to Rudy Gay. In my limited viewing of him I don't see it but I could easily be missing something.

 

[funkykingston]

I definitely worry about Isaac more offensively than defensively. Even if he's a full time SF in the NBA I think he moves his feet well enough to guard wings. And despite his frame, he mixes it up on the glass and blocks shots. On offense he's a bit stiff in his movements. He's actually pretty fluid for a 6'10" kid but he's not like Durant. I wouldn't even say he moves as well as Brandon Ingram.

Is he destined to be a 3&D guy? I don't know. He has the potential to be more, but I think he's got a decently high floor playing defense and hitting shots - if he can speed up his motion a bit and clean up his mechanics.

I like Isaac and Ntilikina a LOT but I also see that there's a good chance that both become very solid players but not stars. Is that enough? Is it better to gamble on Smith Jr playing hard every night and being an offensive star? Personally I think I'd rather have the long defenders and not worry about who the star is. If he's on the roster then great. If he's not, the Kings will struggle next season and have another chance to draft that guy. Maybe it's Porter.

 

[206Fan]

I definitely worry about Isaac more offensively than defensively. Even if he's a full time SF in the NBA I think he moves his feet well enough to guard wings. And despite his frame, he mixes it up on the glass and blocks shots. On offense he's a bit stiff in his movements. He's actually pretty fluid for a 6'10" kid but he's not like Durant. I wouldn't even say he moves as well as Brandon Ingram.

Is he destined to be a 3&D guy? I don't know. He has the potential to be more, but I think he's got a decently high floor playing defense and hitting shots - if he can speed up his motion a bit and clean up his mechanics.

I like Isaac and Ntilikina a LOT but I also see that there's a good chance that both become very solid players but not stars. Is that enough? Is it better to gamble on Smith Jr playing hard every night and being an offensive star? Personally I think I'd rather have the long defenders and not worry about who the star is. If he's on the roster then great. If he's not, the Kings will struggle next season and have another chance to draft that guy. Maybe it's Porter.

I think Baja hit on the points. I agree with you, I hink Isaac is stiff on offense, but if he can improve his ball handling and shooting ability, he should be ok. I don't think he'll ever be much of a driving/attack threat, but he's a guy who can make a living off of jumpers. He's shown the ability to just rise up in front of defenders and knock down the J. Doing it consistently will be hard part, but I think in his early career, he'll find a lot of success as an off-ball spot up player with occasional ISO opportunities. I think if we're looking at Isaac as both a franchise player and SF, it's going to come down to his jumper and shot creating. If Rudy sticks around, he would be a very good mentor.

I find myself up and down with the Kings' current roster and draft situation. We don't have a guy who's shown that they could legitimately be a franchise player yet. If end up with both Frank and Isaac, I assume the FO thinks Isaac, Buddy, Skal, Bogdanovic, or Richardson steps up to be our #1 scorer. Let's just play your scenario. What if that doesn't happen though? In the 2018 Draft, I feel like we'll end up with another mid-lotto pick. We'd be in some serious trouble if that were to happen. Would you rather play it safe in 2017, and have a final shot in 2018? Or would you rather gamble in 2017, and have a final shot in 2018? I look at the Orlando Magic situation from post-Dwight, and it's bad. From 2012 to 2017, they did an amazing job of acquiring young talented players: Vucevic, Harris, Oladipo, Fournier, Gordon, Payton, etc. However they couldn't find a franchise player among that group, and ended up torpedoing their team. They're looking at year 6 of post-Dwight rebuilding, and their future continues to look confusing. Roster full of misfits really hurt. Nuggets post-Carmelo were a better team that Orlando, but they were 1st round exists every year because they didn't have a real franchise player. After firing Karl, they missed the playoffs for 4 straight years. Their future was looking extremely bleak...and it hasn't been until they got Jokic that things have started to actually turn around for them. I think finding a franchise player is the most important thing for any NBA team.

Personally I think I'd rather have the long defenders and not worry about who the star is.

If you want long defenders, you can find them any day of the week. Stars though? Once in a blue moon.

 

[upinsmoke]

I don't totally agree with the concept that you need a "Star". Carmelo Anthony is a "star" so is Chris Paul and Westbrook. What we need is a full fledged team that can go deep into the bench and hit from 3 because of the refs IMO. That's Sacramento basketball at its finest. Isaac and Ntilikina would be excellent pickups the only thing that worries me is their ages doesn't line up with the rest of the guys.

 

[206Fan]

I don't totally agree with the concept that you need a "Star". Carmelo Anthony is a "star" so is Chris Paul and Westbrook. What we need is a full fledged team that can go deep into the bench and hit from 3 because of the refs IMO. That's Sacramento basketball at its finest. Isaac and Ntilikina would be excellent pickups the only thing that worries me is their ages doesn't line up with the rest of the guys.

The only team in history that went all the way without a star is the 2004 Pistons. 13 years ago.. every other team before and after, have had a star on the team. Look at the playoffs right now, or as a matter of fact, this year. There wasn't a single playoff team that didn't have a star. Simply put, you're just not going to win in today's game without a star. Show me another team that has gone all the way without at least 1 star? In today's game, you might even need multiple stars. I'm not saying Ntilikina and Isaac won't be stars, but I was just playing out his scenario. I think Isaac has a ton of potential.

Age shouldn't mean anything at all. Unless you're correlating their age to the speed of their development? I don't think Isaac's and Nitlikina's age should be a problem. Ntilikina is probably a guy who will need more developing than others though. Isaac? He'll step in and immediately be a contributor on both ends.

 

[upinsmoke]

The only team in history that went all the way without a star is the 2004 Pistons. 13 years ago.. every other team before and after, have had a star on the team. Look at the playoffs right now, or as a matter of fact, this year. There wasn't a single playoff team that didn't have a star. Simply put, you're just not going to win in today's game without a star. Show me another team that has gone all the way without at least 1 star? In today's game, you might even need multiple stars. I'm not saying Ntilikina and Isaac won't be stars, but I was just playing out his scenario. I think Isaac has a ton of potential.

Age shouldn't mean anything at all. Unless you're correlating their age to the speed of their development? I don't think Isaac's and Nitlikina's age should be a problem. Ntilikina is probably a guy who will need more developing than others though. Isaac? He'll step in and immediately be a contributor on both ends.

That's why I used quotations with the word star. The only true star in the league IMO is LeBron. A player that can almost single handedly take you to the promise land. Everyone else are role players to to different degrees.

 

[The Effort Police]

I think Baja hit on the points. I agree with you, I hink Isaac is stiff on offense, but if he can improve his ball handling and shooting ability, he should be ok. I don't think he'll ever be much of a driving/attack threat, but he's a guy who can make a living off of jumpers. He's shown the ability to just rise up in front of defenders and knock down the J. Doing it consistently will be hard part, but I think in his early career, he'll find a lot of success as an off-ball spot up player with occasional ISO opportunities. I think if we're looking at Isaac as both a franchise player and SF, it's going to come down to his jumper and shot creating. If Rudy sticks around, he would be a very good mentor.

I find myself up and down with the Kings' current roster and draft situation. We don't have a guy who's shown that they could legitimately be a franchise player yet. If end up with both Frank and Isaac, I assume the FO thinks Isaac, Buddy, Skal, Bogdanovic, or Richardson steps up to be our #1 scorer. Let's just play your scenario. What if that doesn't happen though? In the 2018 Draft, I feel like we'll end up with another mid-lotto pick. We'd be in some serious trouble if that were to happen. Would you rather play it safe in 2017, and have a final shot in 2018? Or would you rather gamble in 2017, and have a final shot in 2018? I look at the Orlando Magic situation from post-Dwight, and it's bad. From 2012 to 2017, they did an amazing job of acquiring young talented players: Vucevic, Harris, Oladipo, Fournier, Gordon, Payton, etc. However they couldn't find a franchise player among that group, and ended up torpedoing their team. They're looking at year 6 of post-Dwight rebuilding, and their future continues to look confusing. Roster full of misfits really hurt. Nuggets post-Carmelo were a better team that Orlando, but they were 1st round exists every year because they didn't have a real franchise player. After firing Karl, they missed the playoffs for 4 straight years. Their future was looking extremely bleak...and it hasn't been until they got Jokic that things have started to actually turn around for them. I think finding a franchise player is the most important thing for any NBA team.

If you want long defenders, you can find them any day of the week. Stars though? Once in a blue moon.

Orlando is the poster child for recent failed rebuilds and for good reason. While I agree on the star angle, just as much of their failure has to do with bleeding their young talent, aka the Harris trade and the Oladipo trade. Not saying they'd be a perennial playoff contender by now, but I think they'd be slightly better off.

I agree that the franchise player angle is important. Of the current players, Skal has the best chance of that IMO but he's the only one of the group with that upside (though there's something about Richardson and the way he plays, kinda with a higher ceiling, much lower floor when compared to Buddy.) But I'm not as convinced as you that we won't be in contention for being a bottom 3 team next year and thus in play for a Top 4 pick in 2018. And I gotta say, the 2018 draft class at the top looks nice. Doncic and Ayton in particular I am intrigued by, so if we're going to find a franchise player it might be there.

If we're that bad though, it opens its own can of worms. And I can embrace the tank for a month or so at the end of a season, but I don't think I can do it for a full 82.

 

[The Effort Police]

I don't totally agree with the concept that you need a "Star". Carmelo Anthony is a "star" so is Chris Paul and Westbrook. What we need is a full fledged team that can go deep into the bench and hit from 3 because of the refs IMO. That's Sacramento basketball at its finest. Isaac and Ntilikina would be excellent pickups the only thing that worries me is their ages doesn't line up with the rest of the guys.

That's why I used quotations with the word star. The only true star in the league IMO is LeBron. A player that can almost single handedly take you to the promise land. Everyone else are role players to to different degrees.

This makes no sense. You use Paul and Westbrook in a negative connotation, but I'd take a Paul or Westbrook led team any day over nothing but a deep bench and buzzwords like "Sacramento basketball". There's a reason teams don't rebuild with the mindset of prioritizing filling out the bench. You get your talented core first and worry about that later when you're ready to make the jump. It's secondary.

 

[upinsmoke]

This makes no sense. You use Paul and Westbrook in a negative connotation, but I'd take a Paul or Westbrook led team any day over nothing but a deep bench and buzzwords like "Sacramento basketball". There's a reason teams don't rebuild with the mindset of prioritizing filling out the bench. You get your talented core first and worry about that later when you're ready to make the jump. It's secondary.

In short basketball is a team game and having a star is great but if your putting all your chips in one player something as simple as a twisted ankle can derail you. Of course you need talent that's never been in question.

 

[Suicide King]

"Star" is way too subjective a term. It gets thrown around like "athleticism" and "upside". In the end it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Not to mention it is way too soon to put concrete labels on a lot of our roster. Not every star shined as a rookie. We will have at least this draft and the next to increase our odds of aquiring our franchise player, if he isn't already on the team.

 

[funkykingston]

I think Baja hit on the points. I agree with you, I hink Isaac is stiff on offense, but if he can improve his ball handling and shooting ability, he should be ok. I don't think he'll ever be much of a driving/attack threat, but he's a guy who can make a living off of jumpers. He's shown the ability to just rise up in front of defenders and knock down the J. Doing it consistently will be hard part, but I think in his early career, he'll find a lot of success as an off-ball spot up player with occasional ISO opportunities. I think if we're looking at Isaac as both a franchise player and SF, it's going to come down to his jumper and shot creating. If Rudy sticks around, he would be a very good mentor.

I find myself up and down with the Kings' current roster and draft situation. We don't have a guy who's shown that they could legitimately be a franchise player yet. If end up with both Frank and Isaac, I assume the FO thinks Isaac, Buddy, Skal, Bogdanovic, or Richardson steps up to be our #1 scorer. Let's just play your scenario. What if that doesn't happen though? In the 2018 Draft, I feel like we'll end up with another mid-lotto pick. We'd be in some serious trouble if that were to happen. Would you rather play it safe in 2017, and have a final shot in 2018? Or would you rather gamble in 2017, and have a final shot in 2018? I look at the Orlando Magic situation from post-Dwight, and it's bad. From 2012 to 2017, they did an amazing job of acquiring young talented players: Vucevic, Harris, Oladipo, Fournier, Gordon, Payton, etc. However they couldn't find a franchise player among that group, and ended up torpedoing their team. They're looking at year 6 of post-Dwight rebuilding, and their future continues to look confusing. Roster full of misfits really hurt. Nuggets post-Carmelo were a better team that Orlando, but they were 1st round exists every year because they didn't have a real franchise player. After firing Karl, they missed the playoffs for 4 straight years. Their future was looking extremely bleak...and it hasn't been until they got Jokic that things have started to actually turn around for them. I think finding a franchise player is the most important thing for any NBA team.

If you want long defenders, you can find them any day of the week. Stars though? Once in a blue moon.

There are what-ifs with every player. With Smith those are "what if he blows out his knee again?" and "what if he can't get to the rim as well on the next level?" and "can he operate in a team concept without the tunnel vision" and maybe most importantly, "what if he quits on his team?"

I like DSJ but he's almost certainly going to be a weak defender on the next level. Will he be brilliant enough offensively to make that a non-issue? He has the potential. But I have lots of questions.

I think Ntilikina actually has more star potential than Isaac. He's the youngest of all the top prospects and has intriguing tools. Is his lack of burst an athletic limitation or more mental in nature? I don't know.

But the reality is that the Kings are going to have limited options. I could see the draft going:

Fultz
Jackson
Ball
Tatum
Smith
Fox
Isaac

Leaving the Kings with their choice of Ntilikina, Monk, Collins, Markkanen etc. I like Ntilikina a lot but that's my worst case scenario as I have no idea who to take at 10

 

[ESP47]

Some are getting too caught up in the meaning of the word "star" and missing the original point. Almost all of the playoff teams have a very very good player on their team. Whether you want to call them a star or what, it doesn't matter. They pretty much all have it.

Utah and Memphis could be the only teams you could say don't have a really good star but they have a bunch of really solid players that are better than anyone we have at the moment. Plus they have Hayward and Conley who score over 20ppg and do a lot of other things well and they also have oddities in Gobert and Gasol that do a bunch of things very well that other big men don't do.

If Nitlikina turned out to be George Hill and Isaac turned out to be Jae Crowder, we still wouldn't be a good team unless 2 of the 3 in Skal, Hield or Malachi exploded into good players and not just by scoring, but they would need to become better at doing a bunch of other things on the court as well.

Smith is a gamble but intriguing because it would make the rebuild a lot easier if he turned into a 20pt 8ast type player. I feel like with Frank you'd need a lot of other things on the roster to go right where you might have a little more leeway with Smith if they both reached their ceilings.

 

[bajaden]

This is going to sound a but trite, but you don't know you have a star on your team until you have a star on your team. Seldom do you know you have a star when you draft him. Is Klay Thompson a star? And if so, did anyone think he would be when he was drafted? I know I didn't. If Buddy Hield was in that draft with Thompson, I would have put my money on Hield. And I liked Thompson. How about Kawhi Leonard. Did anyone think he was going to be a star?

My point is, we may already have that star, we just don't know it yet. A lot of people can lie now and say they thought Cousins was going to be a star. But many thought he was slow, couldn't jump, and had no low post skills. And to some extent, they were right. But he had that IT factor. It's possible that the Kings will get a star out of this draft, but it's more likely that they'll get a couple of solid starters. You just never know. But if you want to enhance your chances of getting a star, then you take the best player available regardless of position.

If we've learned anything from the last five or six years, it's that it takes more than a star to build a wining team. We had a star. One can argue that with Gay, we had two stars. And yet, winning eluded us. Yeah yeah, I know, I've heard all the reasons why. What we didn't do, was build a team! A good team is selfless. They don't care who scores, as long as the team scores. And, amazingly, stars emerge from that culture. Hopefully, that's the path were on. We may be surprised at who emerges. It may not be who we think. I like surprises...

 

[ockingsfan]

"Star" is way too subjective a term. It gets thrown around like "athleticism" and "upside". In the end it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Not to mention it is way too soon to put concrete labels on a lot of our roster. Not every star shined as a rookie. We will have at least this draft and the next to increase our odds of aquiring our franchise player, if he isn't already on the team.

Agreed.

I still think that Buddy and Skal can potentially develop into a "star" player with more experience.