Kings 2009-2010 NBA Draft:

The IQ deficiency is a killer. No way do you want to draft a project who has a low BB IQ.

Well if you draft him, you do so knowing that he's a project that could pay dividends down the road. You have to remember that he was a freshman and 7 feet tall. He's a kid that in highschool probably didn't have to do much more than just stand under the basket. He's not unlike a lot of very athletic highschoolers that were able to get by on thier athletic talent alone, because there was no one to challenge them.

I don't think it should necessarily be a disqualifier, but you need to know what your getting and not have your immediate expectations too high. Hopefully we stay in the third position or move up, and it becomes a moot point.
 
So who do you all think this years Joe Alexander will be?


Someone who looks good on paper but turns out to be all hype...

I have a feeling it might be Wesley Johnson.. I actually like his game a LOT! But.......... I just cant see him making a big dent in the NBA. I see him settling for jump shots when being guarded by an elite level NBA defender.. Can't see him mixing up his game which might cause him to just disappear during games...

On the other hand I think Patrick Patterson might be the surprise of the draft.. I don't see him as top 2 or 3 in talent, but I can see him building a solid "Brian Grant" type career putting up 13/10 or 12/9 and offering toughness. He is a natural leader as well which will be great down the road on an NBA team.

I think everyone knew that Alexander was a potential only pick. His skill level was very lacking, but he was, and still is a great athlete. Remember that he came to basketball late and very little organized basketball experience. On the other hand Johnson is a very skilled player. So I don't see a comparison between the two. Doesn't mean Johnson can't be a bust in his own right, but it will be for different reasons if so. I really doubt it though.

If I had to pick one player thats ranked as a lottery pick, but might be a bust, it would be Aminu. I certainly think he'll have a better rookie year than Alexander, but I don't think he'll live up to the expectations of whoever drafts him. At least in the short term.
 
Yesterday I stumbled across Cousins measurements from the NIKE tournament prior to this season. He measured 6' 10.5" without shoes and 6' 11.75" with shoes. He also had a 7' 2" wingspan. I'll be curious to see if those measurements hold up at the combine. It would help reinforce his position if they do.
 
On paper Joe Alexander was a bad pick. Seriously, look at his stats. Poor dribbler and defender who's a solid mid range scorer. Not a great scorer, just a solid one. Why is he a top 10 prospect but Chase Budinger is a 2nd rounder? I never understood the hype at all. Seems like he got overrated due to one dominant performance against Duke.

Wesley Johnson has a much more well rounded game. Good shooter, rebounder and defender. He could be a Richard Jefferson/Josh Howard type 3...the question is, can he be more?

The guys I think of in the top 10 with the most bust potential are Aldrich, Monroe, Davis and Aminu. A lot of which we can probly tell more about when the measurements come. If Ed Davis is 6'9" 215 I'm passing. If Greg Monroe or Cole Aldrich is 6'10" in shoes I'm not as interested.

I deffinetly agree with you on Aminu and Davis. I don't see how those guys will live up to were they are projected to go. Monroe might figure it out.

Were I disagree with you is on Aldrich. He's kind of my safe pick of the draft. I feel like you know what your going to get with Cole. Of all the players in this draft, it seems like his talents will have the easiest transition to the pro's. He should be able to contribute right away. I like him, and if Cousins, Favors, Wall, and Turner were gone I'd be ok with Aldrich. Hes in my group with Johnson and and Udoh after those top 4.
 
Yesterday I stumbled across Cousins measurements from the NIKE tournament prior to this season. He measured 6' 10.5" without shoes and 6' 11.75" with shoes. He also had a 7' 2" wingspan. I'll be curious to see if those measurements hold up at the combine. It would help reinforce his position if they do.

I thought he had measured with a 7'6" wingspan...seems to be the number that gets tossed out there. 7'2" is a bit of a damper.
 
Yesterday I stumbled across Cousins measurements from the NIKE tournament prior to this season. He measured 6' 10.5" without shoes and 6' 11.75" with shoes. He also had a 7' 2" wingspan. I'll be curious to see if those measurements hold up at the combine. It would help reinforce his position if they do.

According to DX it was 7'6" at the 2008 LeBron James skills academy.
 
I deffinetly agree with you on Aminu and Davis. I don't see how those guys will live up to were they are projected to go. Monroe might figure it out.

Were I disagree with you is on Aldrich. He's kind of my safe pick of the draft. I feel like you know what your going to get with Cole. Of all the players in this draft, it seems like his talents will have the easiest transition to the pro's. He should be able to contribute right away. I like him, and if Cousins, Favors, Wall, and Turner were gone I'd be ok with Aldrich. Hes in my group with Johnson and and Udoh after those top 4.

I like Cole. I think if he measured at 6'10.5 or greater barefoot with a nice wingspan then he's a safe prospect. If he's 6'10" or under I'm a little more wary because most of his game is predicated off skillfully using his size.
 
According to DX it was 7'6" at the 2008 LeBron James skills academy.

Yeah, I had read that too. Thats why I'll wait until the combine to see where the truth lies. He was listed at 6'9" in highschool, but has been listed at 6'10" or 6'11" all year long, depending on where you read the info. Same with Favors, who was listed at 6'9" in highschool, but has been listed at 6'10" in college.

These kids do tend to grow a little between years 18 and 21. Dwight Howard measured 6'9" at the combine, but I think we can safely say that he taller than that now. If the height I listed is correct, then I'm satisfied. I do prefer the 7'6" wingspan though, and from watching him play, I tend to think that the 7'6" is accurate. But we'll see..
 
Well if you draft him, you do so knowing that he's a project that could pay dividends down the road. You have to remember that he was a freshman and 7 feet tall. He's a kid that in highschool probably didn't have to do much more than just stand under the basket. He's not unlike a lot of very athletic highschoolers that were able to get by on thier athletic talent alone, because there was no one to challenge them.

I don't think it should necessarily be a disqualifier, but you need to know what your getting and not have your immediate expectations too high. Hopefully we stay in the third position or move up, and it becomes a moot point.

Well, we might be disagreeing somewhat on semantics. For me, BB IQ is like regular IQ, except it applies to basketball. That means it can't be improved, except in a marginal way. It is what it is. If you mean that he does have the innate BB IQ, but just hasn't had enough experience to manifest it on the court, then yes, this player could be very interesting.
 
Well, we might be disagreeing somewhat on semantics. For me, BB IQ is like regular IQ, except it applies to basketball. That means it can't be improved, except in a marginal way. It is what it is. If you mean that he does have the innate BB IQ, but just hasn't had enough experience to manifest it on the court, then yes, this player could be very interesting.

I think some people, not you, tend to think that a lack of basketball IQ means that they're stupid or incapable of learning. In some cases that may be true. But when I refer to lack of Basketball IQ, I mean a lack of understanding of how to play the game.

Now if I'm dealing with a 26 year old player thats had four years of college and 3 years of NBA under his belt, and he still shows a lack of basketball IQ, then I start leaning heavily toward his being incapable of learning. But when I'm dealing with an 18 year old in his freshman year of college, then I give him the benefit of the doubt. I chalk it up to immaturity and not realizing how much he needs to learn to play at the NBA level. This is part of the risk when you draft a kid one year removed from highschool.

Now having said that. There have been stories implying that Whiteside has a lack of dedication and not the greatest work ethic. Now I think you can also chalk some of that up to his age and immaturity. But I do think its something you need to look at very seriously.
 
When/where is the combine?

To be honest its not really called the combine. I believe the official name is the " NBA Predraft Camp ". I just call it that because thats what the NFL calls theirs and its essentially the same thing. Its where invited players come in and get weighed, have their height measured along with their standing reach, wingspan etc. Up untill a few years ago they used to have games. But with the agents worrying about injuries and as a result, pulling out a lot of the big names, they canceled the games.

As far as the date for the camp. I know I saw it somewhere and I'm sure someone will answer that question. But last year it started somewhere around the 26th or 27th of may. Some of it is televised on ESPN. A true junkie wouldn't miss it.
 
I think some people, not you, tend to think that a lack of basketball IQ means that they're stupid or incapable of learning. In some cases that may be true. But when I refer to lack of Basketball IQ, I mean a lack of understanding of how to play the game.

Now if I'm dealing with a 26 year old player thats had four years of college and 3 years of NBA under his belt, and he still shows a lack of basketball IQ, then I start leaning heavily toward his being incapable of learning. But when I'm dealing with an 18 year old in his freshman year of college, then I give him the benefit of the doubt. I chalk it up to immaturity and not realizing how much he needs to learn to play at the NBA level. This is part of the risk when you draft a kid one year removed from highschool.

Now having said that. There have been stories implying that Whiteside has a lack of dedication and not the greatest work ethic. Now I think you can also chalk some of that up to his age and immaturity. But I do think its something you need to look at very seriously.

Yeah, I don't confuse the two. For me, BB IQ is the ability to learn basketball: to see the floor, react to the game in a fluid way, add to one's game moves, shots, etc. So for me, if I'm a GM and I see a *raw* talent with a high BB IQ, that's a diamond in the rough. That's a guy who other GMs might undervalue because they don't see the BB IQ that I do. That's a guy who can in a relatively short period of time manifest his talent on the floor, even though his basketball skills are currently very unpolished.

PS That's what sooooo scary about Tyreke. He has a very high BB IQ, which I believe means that you will see extraordinary growth from him over the next three or four years.
 
Yeah, I don't confuse the two. For me, BB IQ is the ability to learn basketball: to see the floor, react to the game in a fluid way, add to one's game moves, shots, etc. So for me, if I'm a GM and I see a *raw* talent with a high BB IQ, that's a diamond in the rough. That's a guy who other GMs might undervalue because they don't see the BB IQ that I do. That's a guy who can in a relatively short period of time manifest his talent on the floor, even though his basketball skills are currently very unpolished.

PS That's what sooooo scary about Tyreke. He has a very high BB IQ, which I believe means that you will see extraordinary growth from him over the next three or four years.

I think that's such a hard thing to quantify in an 18-20 year old that its almost pointless to try. Sure take into account if a player is raw and doesn't really understand how to play in your evalutation. But there are going to be varying levels of that in pretty much all draft prospects and its pretty tough to say this player can figure it out and this player can't.

For instance: I think Josh Smith would have been considered a low b-ball IQ heading into the draft and all the way through last year. Now it seems like he could end up being a very high b-ball IQ guy.

I think you're right in that some people will just never get it (Hey Gerald Green! How are you?), but I don't have any clue how to pick that guy out. I think if somebody has the work ethic and athletic skills they can figure it out if they're put with good coaching and/or teammates they can follow. Perkins and Rondo playing with KG, Pierce and Allen I think was a great example of that with players. G-Wallace understanding of the game with Larry Brown now being an example of coaching helping a players IQ.

On the other hand, when a player shows a pretrnatural understanding of the game at a young age I think that's something you CAN see and a definite plus in the scouting report. Physical gifts aside, I saw that understanding more with Wall as a freshman than Rose. Its why I knew Stephen Curry was going to be better than Quincy Douby last year (lot of people on the boards saying Curry was just a douby). Its why Jason Kidd was so thrilling at Cal a long time ago. And relevant to this year its probly the #1 reason that you might think Evan Turner could be a potential superstar. That guy gets it.
 
I think that's such a hard thing to quantify in an 18-20 year old that its almost pointless to try. Sure take into account if a player is raw and doesn't really understand how to play in your evalutation. But there are going to be varying levels of that in pretty much all draft prospects and its pretty tough to say this player can figure it out and this player can't.

For instance: I think Josh Smith would have been considered a low b-ball IQ heading into the draft and all the way through last year. Now it seems like he could end up being a very high b-ball IQ guy.

I think you're right in that some people will just never get it (Hey Gerald Green! How are you?), but I don't have any clue how to pick that guy out. I think if somebody has the work ethic and athletic skills they can figure it out if they're put with good coaching and/or teammates they can follow. Perkins and Rondo playing with KG, Pierce and Allen I think was a great example of that with players. G-Wallace understanding of the game with Larry Brown now being an example of coaching helping a players IQ.

On the other hand, when a player shows a pretrnatural understanding of the game at a young age I think that's something you CAN see and a definite plus in the scouting report. Physical gifts aside, I saw that understanding more with Wall as a freshman than Rose. Its why I knew Stephen Curry was going to be better than Quincy Douby last year (lot of people on the boards saying Curry was just a douby). Its why Jason Kidd was so thrilling at Cal a long time ago. And relevant to this year its probly the #1 reason that you might think Evan Turner could be a potential superstar. That guy gets it.

Excellent post. I think you summed it up perfectly...
 
Hey Baja I left you a visitor post on your profile, I have not figured out how to PM people on the iPod yet. Get back to me if you get a chance, thanks.
 
I think that's such a hard thing to quantify in an 18-20 year old that its almost pointless to try. Sure take into account if a player is raw and doesn't really understand how to play in your evalutation. But there are going to be varying levels of that in pretty much all draft prospects and its pretty tough to say this player can figure it out and this player can't.

For instance: I think Josh Smith would have been considered a low b-ball IQ heading into the draft and all the way through last year. Now it seems like he could end up being a very high b-ball IQ guy.

I think you're right in that some people will just never get it (Hey Gerald Green! How are you?), but I don't have any clue how to pick that guy out. I think if somebody has the work ethic and athletic skills they can figure it out if they're put with good coaching and/or teammates they can follow. Perkins and Rondo playing with KG, Pierce and Allen I think was a great example of that with players. G-Wallace understanding of the game with Larry Brown now being an example of coaching helping a players IQ.

On the other hand, when a player shows a pretrnatural understanding of the game at a young age I think that's something you CAN see and a definite plus in the scouting report. Physical gifts aside, I saw that understanding more with Wall as a freshman than Rose. Its why I knew Stephen Curry was going to be better than Quincy Douby last year (lot of people on the boards saying Curry was just a douby). Its why Jason Kidd was so thrilling at Cal a long time ago. And relevant to this year its probly the #1 reason that you might think Evan Turner could be a potential superstar. That guy gets it.

You don't quantify it. You have to see it, and it's much much more intuition than analysis. It's much more of an art rather than a science, which of course means there is larger room for error. Regarding Josh Smith, he's the definition of low BB IQ. Why? Because it took him such a long, long time to learn NBA basketball (the definition of low BB IQ), and even now I'm not sure he's entirely gotten it. High BB IQ implies a sharp high learning curve, not a gradual one that rises in small increments over years and years.
 
You don't quantify it. You have to see it, and it's much much more intuition than analysis. It's much more of an art rather than a science, which of course means there is larger room for error. Regarding Josh Smith, he's the definition of low BB IQ. Why? Because it took him such a long, long time to learn NBA basketball (the definition of low BB IQ), and even now I'm not sure he's entirely gotten it. High BB IQ implies a sharp high learning curve, not a gradual one that rises in small increments over years and years.

Josh Smith is 24 and leads all PFs in blocks, steals, and assists. I think he gets it.

If you're going to use it in evalutation of draft value you have to quantify it to some extent. Otherwise how can you use it in comparison to other tangible scouting tools like size, athleticism and talent?

So that's my point, if you can't quantify it I don't think you can use it against somebody. Worry more about things like, is he coachable, has he improved, do his teammates like him...
 
I thought I would try to move some of the conversation back to the draft thread.

A kid I really like and got to see play a lot is starting to get a lot looks now thanks to his performance in the Portsmouth Invitational Tournament. He was voted the MVP of the tournament. I'm talking about the diminutive pt guard from Cal, Jerome Randle. Its possible that Randle will slip into the second round, and its also possible that he'll go undrafted.

If he were to go undrafted, I would certainly try to get him onto my summer league team and a invite to our preseason camp. Yeah, I know he's only 5'10" in shoes. But the kid can really play. He's lightning quick and a very good outside shooter. He averaged 40.5% from 3pt land for four years of college. He's a great ballhandler and finisher around the basket. Defensively, despite his size, he's very good. He has quick hands and quick feet. He has the ability to irritate the opposing pt guard to death. He also plays under control, which is rare for a college pt guard with his speed and quickness.

Don't get me wrong. He's not John Wall. But the Kings will need another pt guard on the bench for emergencys. If undrafted he would come cheap, and has the potential to be pretty good down the road. And he would certainly be a change of pace off the bench. Just a thought..
 
I thought I would try to move some of the conversation back to the draft thread.

A kid I really like and got to see play a lot is starting to get a lot looks now thanks to his performance in the Portsmouth Invitational Tournament. He was voted the MVP of the tournament. I'm talking about the diminutive pt guard from Cal, Jerome Randle. Its possible that Randle will slip into the second round, and its also possible that he'll go undrafted.

If he were to go undrafted, I would certainly try to get him onto my summer league team and a invite to our preseason camp. Yeah, I know he's only 5'10" in shoes. But the kid can really play. He's lightning quick and a very good outside shooter. He averaged 40.5% from 3pt land for four years of college. He's a great ballhandler and finisher around the basket. Defensively, despite his size, he's very good. He has quick hands and quick feet. He has the ability to irritate the opposing pt guard to death. He also plays under control, which is rare for a college pt guard with his speed and quickness.

Don't get me wrong. He's not John Wall. But the Kings will need another pt guard on the bench for emergencys. If undrafted he would come cheap, and has the potential to be pretty good down the road. And he would certainly be a change of pace off the bench. Just a thought..

Thanks for bringing him up, i had forgotten all about Randle. You're right, hes a great prospect for the Kings. Especially in the second round. In my opinion acquiring Randle would allow the Kings to use Beno as trade bait. Unless you plan on keeping Beno for his entire contract, now is the perfect time.
 
I thought I would try to move some of the conversation back to the draft thread.

A kid I really like and got to see play a lot is starting to get a lot looks now thanks to his performance in the Portsmouth Invitational Tournament. He was voted the MVP of the tournament. I'm talking about the diminutive pt guard from Cal, Jerome Randle. Its possible that Randle will slip into the second round, and its also possible that he'll go undrafted.

If he were to go undrafted, I would certainly try to get him onto my summer league team and a invite to our preseason camp. Yeah, I know he's only 5'10" in shoes. But the kid can really play. He's lightning quick and a very good outside shooter. He averaged 40.5% from 3pt land for four years of college. He's a great ballhandler and finisher around the basket. Defensively, despite his size, he's very good. He has quick hands and quick feet. He has the ability to irritate the opposing pt guard to death. He also plays under control, which is rare for a college pt guard with his speed and quickness.

Don't get me wrong. He's not John Wall. But the Kings will need another pt guard on the bench for emergencys. If undrafted he would come cheap, and has the potential to be pretty good down the road. And he would certainly be a change of pace off the bench. Just a thought..

I like him. DX just did a nice little write up on him as well. Skillwise it seems like he could do a lot of what Aaron Brooks brings to the table. On paper and in college, there's not much separating the two.

I'm a Cal fan who's followed him a few years and one thing in addition to all the athletic and skill things you mentioned is that he seems to be extremely focused and driven.

http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Jerome-Randle-I-Can-Compete-3442/

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=4763316
 
I just went and watched some highlights of Jerome Randle. My goodness, he can really shoot some 3pt bombs. I recall him being a really good defender as well. Actually, hes an excellent all around player. I cant imagine him going undrafted.
 
I just went and watched some highlights of Jerome Randle. My goodness, he can really shoot some 3pt bombs. I recall him being a really good defender as well. Actually, hes an excellent all around player. I cant imagine him going undrafted.

Well its possible that he will be drafted. Remember that it was a down year for the Pac 10, so there was less press. Add in that he's only 5'10" and didn't play on the east coast where everything is inflated, and it wouldn't surprise me if he went undrafted. I've always liked Randle. He plays with a lot of composure. Unlike, say Sherron Collins, who plays out of control a lot and at times becomes a black hole. Randle is very unselfish, and your right. He'll put daggers through your heart if you don't guard him. He's just a terrific shooter.

Hammystyle's comparison to Aaron Brooks is a good one. Dead on...
 
Well its possible that he will be drafted. Remember that it was a down year for the Pac 10, so there was less press. Add in that he's only 5'10" and didn't play on the east coast where everything is inflated, and it wouldn't surprise me if he went undrafted. I've always liked Randle. He plays with a lot of composure. Unlike, say Sherron Collins, who plays out of control a lot and at times becomes a black hole. Randle is very unselfish, and your right. He'll put daggers through your heart if you don't guard him. He's just a terrific shooter.

Hammystyle's comparison to Aaron Brooks is a good one. Dead on...

I think more teams are getting smart with the draft, and I think Randle will likely get drafted. Particularly because he apparently just showed out as the smartest, quickest, best shooter at Portsmouth. He killed it there against decent competition. Who knows? Maybe even a late first. Aaron Brooks wasn't projected to go first round either because of his size, but Houston realized he was extremely quick and can really shoot...that's a nice combo on anyone.

Collins is a great example of a guy not well suited for the NBA.
 
I think more teams are getting smart with the draft, and I think Randle will likely get drafted. Particularly because he apparently just showed out as the smartest, quickest, best shooter at Portsmouth. He killed it there against decent competition. Who knows? Maybe even a late first. Aaron Brooks wasn't projected to go first round either because of his size, but Houston realized he was extremely quick and can really shoot...that's a nice combo on anyone.

Collins is a great example of a guy not well suited for the NBA.

OK, how about for selfish reasons I hope he doesn't get drafted.:D I don't really mean that of course. It would be great for him to be drafted in the first round.
 
Josh Smith is 24 and leads all PFs in blocks, steals, and assists. I think he gets it.

If you're going to use it in evalutation of draft value you have to quantify it to some extent. Otherwise how can you use it in comparison to other tangible scouting tools like size, athleticism and talent?

So that's my point, if you can't quantify it I don't think you can use it against somebody. Worry more about things like, is he coachable, has he improved, do his teammates like him...

Josh Smith will show whether he gets it in the playoffs. As far as quantification is concerned, how do you quantify "IT". And the "it" I'm referring to is: When you see Tyreke, you just know he has "it". There are things like fluidity and reaction and vision and court awareness that you can't quantify. At least not yet. Maybe down the road there will be some very sophisticated brain testing to be able to measure these things, but right now they are just imponderables.
 
Josh Smith will show whether he gets it in the playoffs. As far as quantification is concerned, how do you quantify "IT". And the "it" I'm referring to is: When you see Tyreke, you just know he has "it". There are things like fluidity and reaction and vision and court awareness that you can't quantify. At least not yet. Maybe down the road there will be some very sophisticated brain testing to be able to measure these things, but right now they are just imponderables.

I think you're treating it like its some magical thing that's either there or not, and I really don't think that's how it works. I think a lot of it just comes down to good coaching, good peers and repetition. You get good lessons from coaching and they are reinforced in game play. You did it the way coach told you to, it worked better than the way you did it before...now rinse, repeat. If you see a veteran teammate who's not as gifted as you continually make plays you struggle with, learn his tricks. Ask him how he thinks as he sees the play unfolds. Simply by playing more and more you recognize situations, defenses, offensive players moves and you can antcipate. The game slows down.

Like anything there will be some who it comes naturally to, and some who it will take longer. But if you can't measure that ability, its hard to give it to much weight in evaluation. You seem to think you can decipher that just by watching a guy, but I think that's a narrow minded way to view a 19-20 year old basketball player.

Josh Smith clearly got it this year. You're behind the curve in your evaluation of him.
 
Last edited:
I think you're treating it like its some magical thing that's either there or not, and I really don't think that's how it works. I think a lot of it just comes down to good coaching, good peers and repetition. You get good lessons from coaching and they are reinforced in game play. You did it the way coach told you to, it worked better than the way you did it before...now rinse, repeat. If you see a veteran teammate who's not as gifted as you continually make plays you struggle with, learn his tricks. Ask him how he thinks as he sees the play unfolds. Simply by playing more and more you recognize situations, defenses, offensive players moves and you can antcipate. The game slows down.

Like anything there will be some who it comes naturally to, and some who it will take longer. But if you can't measure that ability, its hard to give it to much weight in evaluation. You seem to think you can decipher that just by watching a guy, but I think that's a narrow minded way to view a 19-20 year old basketball player.

Josh Smith clearly got it this year. You're behind the curve in your evaluation of him.


It used to be easier in the old days when everyone was a senior. You had a body of work to look at. You could judge the progress from his freshman year to his senior year. And if there wasn't much progress, you might look elsewhere. Were not robots. Everyone learns at their own speed. And everyone has a different way of learning. There are those gifted ones that can read how to do something in a book and just go out and do it. But others need to repeat a hands on process over and over again. If both get from point A to point B it doesn't matter how they got there. The only advantage one has, is he might get there quicker. I say might, because sometimes the one's that it comes easy to, don't put in the work to refine it, and in the end, may not be as good a player as the one that took longer to get there.

Judging todays athlete's is harder with so many underclassmen entering the draft. You have little in the way of a body of work to look at, so it becomes more of crystal ball type of thing. Granted that when a Evans or a Wall, Rose, LeBron comes along its a lot easier. They're young and they're already very good players. You know they didn't get that way by accident. But its the DeRozens and Gerold Green's of the world that make it difficult. All the natural gifts are there. But will they learn to apply them?

Another consideration is that sometimes the young player just gets recruited into a bad system which ends up being regressive for him. Gerold Wallace fell into that trap when he was forced to play center in college. It certainly didn't help him prepare for playing SF in the NBA. A kid I really like, Kenneth Faried suffered the same fate at his school, having to play Center and PF. The kid averaged 16.9 ppg, 13 rpg, 1.9 bpg, and 1.6 Spg. And yet he's buried in the middle or bottom of the second round. Despite the fact that he's a freak athlete. Reason being that he played in a small conference and he's a turnover machine. Long term though, he could be another Wallace. Or not..

Whether we like it or not, a lot of emphasis is placed on the athletic ability of players. I understand why. Its a great game for athleticism. The truth is though, that a lot of very athletic players fail and a lot of average athlete's suceed. So how do you decide which is which? And by the way, I'm talking about an average NBA athlete. Not the man on the street. Lets take two players that are both centers. They both played in a small conference, against similar competition. One is a great athlete and a tremendous shotblocker. However the rest of his game leaves something to be desired. The other is a 25pt, 12 rebound, 2 blocks a game guy, but just an average athlete. The first one is a freshman and the second one is a senior.

I'm talking about Hasson Whiteside and Art Parakhouski. My guess is that most would draft Whiteside simply because of his shotblocking ability and his upside. Parakhouski is a senior, and although he's a better all around player right now, most would consider his upside limited. But, Parakhouski has only played organized basketball for 5 years, and his game really took a giant leap forward in the last two years. So maybe he has more upside than we thought. I have no idea who will eventually be better. Probably the one that works on his game the hardest. When it comes down to it, the players that put in the most time working on their games are usually the ones that rise to the top. Chris Mullins wasn't a gifted athlete, but he was a workahaulic and made himself into a very good player. Larry Bird wasn't a great athlete, but he worked hard on his game. When you combine the hard work with great athleticism, then you have Jordan, LeBron, etc. Gerold Wallace has turned into a very good basketball player. Not because he's a great athlete, but because he applied that athleticism through hard work.

So its my opinion that every player doesn't necessarily wear the It facter on his sleeve. I didn't see the It factor in Steve Nash when he came into the league or when he was in college. But he's one of the best in the game right now and has been for quite a while. But it took him a while. It wasn't a quick study for him. If your lucky enough to get a player like Evans or Curry, consider yourself blesssed. Impact players don't grow on trees. It should be fun to watch both these guys grow and develop. Lets hope were lucky again this year.
 
So its my opinion that every player doesn't necessarily wear the It facter on his sleeve.

I totally agree. With young players, some of whom are freshman and never touched a basketball before 10th grade, you ARE relying on a crystal ball. The (*gag*) Lakers have Bynum and that Bryant guy because they were successful with their crystal ball. In this year's draft, nobody's going to pick a Jan Vesely, Larry Sanders or Solomon Alabi based on how they play now, none of those guys are NBA worthy now. But in 2 years, any of them could be on their way to being great. Those of you who remember watching Gerald Wallace as a rookie will know what I'm talking about.

BTW, agree about Randle. 5'10" is a Brevin Knight, Damon Stoudamire or (barefoot) Bobby Jackson sort of height, I have no problem with picking up a player like that, and wouldn't even rule out doing it with a very early second rounder, if he looks good enough working out. Assuming we didn't draft Wall and decide to keep Beno, anyway. :D
 
Last edited:
I think you're treating it like its some magical thing that's either there or not, and I really don't think that's how it works. I think a lot of it just comes down to good coaching, good peers and repetition. You get good lessons from coaching and they are reinforced in game play. You did it the way coach told you to, it worked better than the way you did it before...now rinse, repeat. If you see a veteran teammate who's not as gifted as you continually make plays you struggle with, learn his tricks. Ask him how he thinks as he sees the play unfolds. Simply by playing more and more you recognize situations, defenses, offensive players moves and you can antcipate. The game slows down.

Like anything there will be some who it comes naturally to, and some who it will take longer. But if you can't measure that ability, its hard to give it to much weight in evaluation. You seem to think you can decipher that just by watching a guy, but I think that's a narrow minded way to view a 19-20 year old basketball player.

Josh Smith clearly got it this year. You're behind the curve in your evaluation of him.

BB IQ isn't magical; it's innate. It's just like any other form of intelligence. Some have very high mechanical aptitude (innate). Others have incredible math aptitude (innate). And some have great BB IQ (also innate). How would one determine BB IQ without a quantifiable test? How about repeated observations of behavior on the basketball floor to see a player's propensity to learn over the course of games, months, or years? Last year I saw amazing stuff from Tyreke. A mid range game here; a floater there; a post up; a running hook. He's not there in his game where those are consistently parts of his game, but just the fact that he introduced those elements into his game in one season is freaking incredible to me. THAT's what I call high BB IQ.
 
Back
Top