Kings possible draft picks game
- Thread starter Glenn
- Start date
I’m not a “half cup empty” guy, I’m more of a “wait-and-see” guy. Its been two college games and while it’s enough to get a feel for a player’s style of play, its definitely not enough to make a judgment on how effective a player is going to be in the long run. He definitely had an impressive game but I’m going to hold off on starting the hype train for the time being 
I’m certainly not blaming Parker for having a good game, just trying to pump the brakes a little before his coronation
Living off of jumpers becomes more difficult every single level you jump. There are bigger and faster athletes in College than in High School, and likewise even bigger and faster ones in the NBA. Every shot becomes more contested, every defense more advanced. Its not a simple 1:1 transition for shooters.
Parker was a good shooter in high school, certainly. He was also in another class athletically and size-wise. Now, as he goes through college competition (and NBA competition in the future), that athletic and size advantage diminishes considerably. Thus there is a renewed emphasis on his jumper as the crux of his offensive arsenal. I’m waiting to see if his jumper really is that good or if this is just a hot streak.
Hence the Beasley comparison. Off-court issues aside, Beasley’s problem was that he was undersized for his position (although he had considerable athletic gifts) and his jumper wasn’t good enough to make up for it. Beasley dominated college much like Parker is doing now, but couldn’t live up to the superior athletes in the NBA. He hasn’t had a single good year scoring the basketball in his entire career. And that’s before we even get to his off-court issues. On-court, Beasley was a disaster.
Ultimately, when you are a Jabari Parker size-wise and athletically, your game has to be meticulously good elsewhere if you want to be a superstar. Because that’s the hype coming in, that there are at least three franchise-type players in this draft (possibly more). There’s no doubt in my mind that Parker could walk onto an NBA court today and average at least 14 points a game. The question is, how much better than that can he go? Are we talking about a future 20ppg scorer? 25ppg? 30? If he wants to live up to the hype, his jumper has to be great, and we’re not talking about in the Luol Deng-good range. His jumper needs to be in the Pierce, Kobe, Prime Brandon Roy stratosphere.
I’m not ruling him out, but I’m not anointing him yet either. It’s a long college season ahead.
I’m certainly not blaming Parker for having a good game, just trying to pump the brakes a little before his coronation
Living off of jumpers becomes more difficult every single level you jump. There are bigger and faster athletes in College than in High School, and likewise even bigger and faster ones in the NBA. Every shot becomes more contested, every defense more advanced. Its not a simple 1:1 transition for shooters.
Parker was a good shooter in high school, certainly. He was also in another class athletically and size-wise. Now, as he goes through college competition (and NBA competition in the future), that athletic and size advantage diminishes considerably. Thus there is a renewed emphasis on his jumper as the crux of his offensive arsenal. I’m waiting to see if his jumper really is that good or if this is just a hot streak.
Hence the Beasley comparison. Off-court issues aside, Beasley’s problem was that he was undersized for his position (although he had considerable athletic gifts) and his jumper wasn’t good enough to make up for it. Beasley dominated college much like Parker is doing now, but couldn’t live up to the superior athletes in the NBA. He hasn’t had a single good year scoring the basketball in his entire career. And that’s before we even get to his off-court issues. On-court, Beasley was a disaster.
Ultimately, when you are a Jabari Parker size-wise and athletically, your game has to be meticulously good elsewhere if you want to be a superstar. Because that’s the hype coming in, that there are at least three franchise-type players in this draft (possibly more). There’s no doubt in my mind that Parker could walk onto an NBA court today and average at least 14 points a game. The question is, how much better than that can he go? Are we talking about a future 20ppg scorer? 25ppg? 30? If he wants to live up to the hype, his jumper has to be great, and we’re not talking about in the Luol Deng-good range. His jumper needs to be in the Pierce, Kobe, Prime Brandon Roy stratosphere.
I’m not ruling him out, but I’m not anointing him yet either. It’s a long college season ahead.
I see that you, like me, have some concerns over whether Parker is a three or four at the NBA level. While I'd agree that he'd be undersized at the four spot, to say that he'd potentially be another Beasley is ignorant since Beasley (or Lebron or Carmelo for that matter) did not possess the all around game that Jabari has at this point in his life. Jabari is far and away a better rebounder than Beasley, unafraid to use his body to box out and fight for those contested boards that have been a point of discussion on this site in recent days. If he is indeed put at the power forward position in the NBA, I think he would be able to succeed (like Carmelo Anthony without the debilitating stupidity).
While his defensive game is nowhere near where it needs to be to be ubersuccessful in the NBA, I do believe that he has what it takes to improve that facet over the course of the year and his NBA career. All that said, he still wound up with three steals last night. While he doesn't have the explosiveness athleticism of Lebron, Parker does possess that same smoothness of motion and lateral reaction speed that makes it so difficult to score against King James when he is engaged in a game.
The way you were writing about him is almost verbatim what a lot of people have written about Tyreke Evans over the year. Is his shot good enough for the NBA? Yakitty yakitty yack. The thing is that it is. Sometimes things are not hyperbole. Sometimes players live up to the hype. This isn't to belittle Wiggins, who quietly put up an impressive showing of his own (the fact that he had a quiet night and still almost wracked up a 20-10 night in 25 minutes is impressive on its own). When it comes down to it, I think the pundits are right. This draft class really is that good.
Parker was hot in the first half and cooled down considerably in the second. Small sample sizes and all that jazz, but thats exactly what happened. It was a good game overall from him.
And I'm not sure if you remember how good Beasley was in college. If you're bored and have a lot of extra time, its always fun to go back to draft prospect threads in the past: http://kingsfans.com/threads/kings-select-in-the-2008-nba-draft.23771/page-4
And I'm not sure if you remember how good Beasley was in college. If you're bored and have a lot of extra time, its always fun to go back to draft prospect threads in the past: http://kingsfans.com/threads/kings-select-in-the-2008-nba-draft.23771/page-4
Parker was in foul trouble for most of the second half.
The thing that clearly separates Parker from Beasley is their brains. Beasley is a crazy person (probably hyperbole) while Parker, by almost all accounts, is an unassuming guy who is the son of a former NBA player and has displayed great basketball intelligence from a young age.
I'm assuming he's decided to pull a Jimmer or Ainge but does anyone know for certain whether or not Parker decided to forgo his Mormon mission?
The thing that clearly separates Parker from Beasley is their brains. Beasley is a crazy person (probably hyperbole) while Parker, by almost all accounts, is an unassuming guy who is the son of a former NBA player and has displayed great basketball intelligence from a young age.
I'm assuming he's decided to pull a Jimmer or Ainge but does anyone know for certain whether or not Parker decided to forgo his Mormon mission?
Speaking of Beasley, here's a good article about his recent resurgence in Miami (and quite possibly the first good article to come from Bleacher Report): http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1848381-michael-beasley-quickly-becoming-impossible-to-ignore
I watched Beasley play a ton at Kansas St. There is no comparison to their games. For one thing, Beasley exclusively played PF in college, and in highschool. The question mark about him, other than his lack of maturity, was what position would he play in the NBA. Parker has played SF his entire career up to now, and would probably still play that at Duke if not for Duke's lack of size. Beasley never had the handles or the complete skill set that Parker has. I've been watching college basketball for a long time, and its been a long time since I've been this excited about a player, or players for that matter. I never got excited about Beasley. Just a lousy comparison. Melo comes much closer, and Melo is a SF being asked to play PF. That's why the Knicks were interested in trading for Faried today, so they could move Melo back to the SF position.
C
The issue with Beasley dating back to college is that he never had a small forward game. He is an undersized 4 who didn't have a size issue at the college level.
Parker and Beasley play totally different games. One can score in a variety of ways. The other is really not a good shooter 12 feet out. It's not like teams are sending their best defenders on Beasley. He's just a mediocre shooter. He was never known as a shooter. Parker will make shots, no questions. We've been hearing about his shooting stroke since .... 2008, 2009? Shooters don't forget how to shoot. And Parker isn't like Steve Novak or Anthony Morrow who need someone to make plays for him. He won't have trouble getting his shots off. He has a bit of Steph Curry and Kevin Durant in him in that he can (and likes to) create his own shot. He can shoot spotting up, he can shoot off the dribble, he can shoot off screens. He can hit the running jumpers. He can post up. He looks fine driving the lane to keep the defense honest. The guy really has no hole in his game.
I really hate Beasley's game. He takes terrible shots, ignores teammates, and doesn't give a crap about defense. His IQ and Parker's IQ are on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Remember pre-draft, Pat Riley said publicly that he was not impressed with Beasley's work ethics and decision making. Dead on. Riley was trying hard to trade away that number 2 pick but nobody offered anything of value.
Parker and Beasley play totally different games. One can score in a variety of ways. The other is really not a good shooter 12 feet out. It's not like teams are sending their best defenders on Beasley. He's just a mediocre shooter. He was never known as a shooter. Parker will make shots, no questions. We've been hearing about his shooting stroke since .... 2008, 2009? Shooters don't forget how to shoot. And Parker isn't like Steve Novak or Anthony Morrow who need someone to make plays for him. He won't have trouble getting his shots off. He has a bit of Steph Curry and Kevin Durant in him in that he can (and likes to) create his own shot. He can shoot spotting up, he can shoot off the dribble, he can shoot off screens. He can hit the running jumpers. He can post up. He looks fine driving the lane to keep the defense honest. The guy really has no hole in his game.
I really hate Beasley's game. He takes terrible shots, ignores teammates, and doesn't give a crap about defense. His IQ and Parker's IQ are on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Remember pre-draft, Pat Riley said publicly that he was not impressed with Beasley's work ethics and decision making. Dead on. Riley was trying hard to trade away that number 2 pick but nobody offered anything of value.
Last edited by a moderator:
Anthony Davis comes close, but even he had question marks about him. . Its easy in hindsight to say yeah, I knew this player of that player was going to be a superstar, or just an all star, but to be honest, there are players that turned out that way that I wouldn't have given anyone a guarantee on. I'd love to say Lebron, but other than some highschool all star games, I didn't get much of a chance to see him play. I thought Durant was going to be good, but I never thought he be as good as he turned out. As most people know, I loved Cousins at Kentucky, but I, like many had some reservations about him. I never liked Beasley, and since someone mentioned De Von Harden, I was never that high on him either, but I was very high on his running mate, Ryan Anderson, who in my opinion was a better rebounder than Harden in college.
So rather than give you a list of names, I thought its better to just explain where I'm coming from. I'm very excited about Parker and Randle. I still love Wiggins, but right now, he's third on my list. I think both Parker and Randle are future all stars, but there are probably around 7 or 8 players in this draft that could be future all stars. And, there will always be the surprise player, such as Parsons, who I loved. Who knows, another player I loved last season may be the Parsons of this season, and that's Nate Wolters from South Dakota St. So far, he looks like the real deal. Doesn't surprise me.
Edit: There were a lot of question marks about Shaq coming out of college. He even played second fiddle to Stanley Roberts quite a bit at LSU, if my memory serves. He was a very large freak athlete, but with a limited skill set. Don't get me wrong, there was no way he wasn't going to be the top pick in the draft, but scouts did have some doubts about him.
So rather than give you a list of names, I thought its better to just explain where I'm coming from. I'm very excited about Parker and Randle. I still love Wiggins, but right now, he's third on my list. I think both Parker and Randle are future all stars, but there are probably around 7 or 8 players in this draft that could be future all stars. And, there will always be the surprise player, such as Parsons, who I loved. Who knows, another player I loved last season may be the Parsons of this season, and that's Nate Wolters from South Dakota St. So far, he looks like the real deal. Doesn't surprise me.
Edit: There were a lot of question marks about Shaq coming out of college. He even played second fiddle to Stanley Roberts quite a bit at LSU, if my memory serves. He was a very large freak athlete, but with a limited skill set. Don't get me wrong, there was no way he wasn't going to be the top pick in the draft, but scouts did have some doubts about him.
Last edited:
Yeah, the search function is strange on this site. I had to tinker with the advanced search feature since it seems like the limit for searches only goes up to 13 pages. So what I did was search "Beasley" and username "HighFlyingMonkey" and came across the old thread. It was funny to watch myself wax poetic about the merits of Darrell Arthur's game five years ago
Yeah, the search function is strange on this site. I had to tinker with the advanced search feature since it seems like the limit for searches only goes up to 13 pages. So what I did was search "Beasley" and username "HighFlyingMonkey" and came across the old thread. It was funny to watch myself wax poetic about the merits of Darrell Arthur's game five years ago
I was a big fan of Arthur too... At least I was just a 16 year old kid... What's your excuse?!
I'm starting to think Embid might be 4th ranked prospect for us behind parker, wiggins,band exum. At his size and quickness he will develop into a defensive anchor like Noah and chandler. What will rise him into a star will be his offense. He has shown in 1 game that he has great vision and passing for a big and he will be a good pick and roll finisher. If he can improve his shot to be a consistent shooter from 12ft he will be a star at like 12-10 and all nba definitive player. My comparison so far for him would be a 7'1 Noah which is a great fit next to cousins
Wouldn't be drafting Embiid for fit, would be drafting him for his sheer potential. The dude's length, athleticism, and simple instinct for the game despite having never played the sport until the age 16 (three whole years ago) has some pundits heralding him as the next Hakeem. If Parker, Wiggins, Randle, and Exum are gone and we're on the board, I'm taking a good hard look at Embiid and probably biting. Drummond had high bust potential and we passed him up for the guy with "less bust potential" and I've pretty much always been in the boat of drafting for size when all else fails (hence my passing over Gordon and Smart in this potential scenario, though I have to stop and think hard about picking Gordon).
Not really sure what you're using "drafting for fit" as a semi-derogatory term here. Just about any of the players in the top ten of this year's draft would "fit" our team so really drafting for talent/fit is going to be a given for us no matter what.
Not really sure what you're using "drafting for fit" as a semi-derogatory term here. Just about any of the players in the top ten of this year's draft would "fit" our team so really drafting for talent/fit is going to be a given for us no matter what.
Embiid is no Hakeen (blasphemy, Tetsujin! Those scouts are wrong) despite the similarity in being introduced to basketball very late, but I'm definitely eager to see a lot more of him this year. He does have potential and very good passing instincts for a big man. His hands look a little shaky to me, however. May have just been in that particular game. Need to see a lot more of him, but he's clearly a very intriguing prospect.
Also looking forward to seeing more of Marcus Smart this year. His numbers are a little down compared to last year but we're only 3 games in. He had nine steals last week, the guy has the potential to be one of the best defensive guards in the NBA.
Also looking forward to seeing more of Marcus Smart this year. His numbers are a little down compared to last year but we're only 3 games in. He had nine steals last week, the guy has the potential to be one of the best defensive guards in the NBA.
Yeah, I think the comparison is more to the lack of experience that both had prior to college. And to their athletic ability. That's where it ends though. At least for now. I agree on the hands. I saw Embiid play in one of the highschool all star games, and he looked the same way, although to be fair, he really didn't get many minutes in that game. He's definitely someone to keep an eye on. By all accounts, he has a good feel for the game, and is a quick learner.
That's why he interests me. Smart is a more natural PG than Tyreke and more of a leader. He also has the potential to be one of the best defensive PGs in the league. Has better form on his shot, though it needs a lot of work. Probably more athletic too. Not as strong, but still a bull. Also, why you would use him being similar to Tyreke as a bad thing is puzzling...