Mike Conley to Declare
- Thread starter HighFlyingMonkey
- Start date
To summarize this YJL vs Mike Conley debate,
Mike Conley is a medium risk and medium reward kind of pick whereas YJL is a high risk and high reward kind of pick.
Given that the Kings have no star-caliber big man right now. YJL is the better pick for the Kings.. A star-caliber big man is always worth than an above average point guard.
Mike Conley is a medium risk and medium reward kind of pick whereas YJL is a high risk and high reward kind of pick.
Given that the Kings have no star-caliber big man right now. YJL is the better pick for the Kings.. A star-caliber big man is always worth than an above average point guard.
Last edited:
Dime Dropper
All-Star
I didn't think my resurrection of this thread would get so many responses!
I really think the YJL vs Conley argument is pointless as I can't see YJL being available when we pick. If it came down to the two, I would take YJL simply for his potential. He's unbelievably quick and athletic and can shoot (he does have many queston marks, though - age, strength etc). However, the reason I brought up Conley is because it's not unreasonable to think that all the desirable bigs will be gone when we pick. In that case, I like Conley alot. I think he may surprise a few peoploe, very good quickness and ballhandling along with being a good distributor and leader while only being 19. He also shows a desire to be as good as he can be. We need players like him. If we truly are rebuiling then we are going to need a PG (people here are regularly screaming for a distributor PG who is a great defender to replace Bibby) so we may as well grab a promising one if there is no big left.
I do not want to feel cheated a few years down the line, I want the player with the most promise and I think Conley has more upside than someone like Hawes. At the same time, I'd be fine if GP went with potential and picked someone like JWright.
The picking of Conley would also help K-Mart develop even more with a PG that doesn't score first playing beside him.
I really think the YJL vs Conley argument is pointless as I can't see YJL being available when we pick. If it came down to the two, I would take YJL simply for his potential. He's unbelievably quick and athletic and can shoot (he does have many queston marks, though - age, strength etc). However, the reason I brought up Conley is because it's not unreasonable to think that all the desirable bigs will be gone when we pick. In that case, I like Conley alot. I think he may surprise a few peoploe, very good quickness and ballhandling along with being a good distributor and leader while only being 19. He also shows a desire to be as good as he can be. We need players like him. If we truly are rebuiling then we are going to need a PG (people here are regularly screaming for a distributor PG who is a great defender to replace Bibby) so we may as well grab a promising one if there is no big left.
I do not want to feel cheated a few years down the line, I want the player with the most promise and I think Conley has more upside than someone like Hawes. At the same time, I'd be fine if GP went with potential and picked someone like JWright.
The picking of Conley would also help K-Mart develop even more with a PG that doesn't score first playing beside him.
Fixed - the kid's gonna be good. Better than Tony Parker IMO.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
nbrans
All-Star
Very good comparison actually, and their college stats are somewhat similar, shooting wise and they have similar games.
I don't see it as a ringing endorsement of Conley. Andre Miller's been a solid player, but nowhere near a star. And, of course, I'm sure people said Andre Miller would learn how to shoot when he got into the league, and that hasn't happened.
Conley is quicker, a better ball handler, and a better defender. The only similarities are that they can both pass and can't shoot but Dre Miller has range out to the free throw line, Conley's already a better shooter than him and has more range on his J(not really NBA 3 point range yet but 18 feet, his college 3 pointer got better as the season went on).
I agree Andre Miller isn't a All-Star, but the 6ers traded AI for him right? Who else did they trade for AI? Miller lives in El Dorado Hills so maybe we could convince him to come back to Cali to play for us if Bibby is set packing for hopefully a big and some picks and/or $.
nbrans
All-Star
Conley's quicker, Conley's the better ball handler, and has the potential to be a better defender, but Miller is the better passer. They're pretty similar players though, they rely on penetration and can't shoot but are scoring-oriented. Maybe Conley has more upside, but still, it's not a mold I love for a point guard.
And actually, if you look at Conley's game log, his 3 point range got worse or at best stayed the same as the season went on, not better.
He's still only 19 right? How much are you guys putting on the shooting of a 19 year old? Even guys like Bibby who are regarded as good shooters, have horrible years. I'd take a Nash type pass 1st, shot 2nd anytime, especially next to KMart who has a high % shot. If the guy is fast/athletic and a good defender I'd go from there. I really think a shot can be developed, but you are either fast and athletic or you aren't. Many players rely on their shot because they aren't going to beat you off the dribble and rather launch a shot, then work hard to beat their guy and go the hoop and either score themselves or dish off to a teamate, that I feel is the better player, but with how much GP loves a shooter I don't think we'd get that guy. We could of had good PGs in Rondo, Rodrigues, and maybe even the kid the Lakers drafted last year. We instead went with the shooter of the group and trying to make him into a combo guard, like Bibby he looks to be a short SG.
nbrans
All-Star
I agree with you about the athleticism, but I really don't agree that you just learn to shoot like it's something you pick up in the supermarket. Shooting is in large part an innate activity -- there are some guys who with thousands and thousands of shots never become good shooters. But for some reason people think everyone can get better, when actually very very few people get better, even with huge amounts of practice.
By the time guys are 19 they've been playing basketball for 14 years and have played thousands and thousands of hours. If you can't shoot by the time you get to college, what are the odds you're all of a sudden going to learn to shoot a year or two in the NBA? For instance, when Bibby was 19 he was shooting 40% from three for Arizona.
Go pull out Michael Redd college tape..he LEARNED to be a good shooter...I think the difference between being a great shooter and an average shooter is more due to WILL and WORK ETHIC than sheer talent. Talent or "innate activity" as you call is definitely a factor, but that can be overcome. I had a TERRIBLE shot in HS and now I'm a pretty decent outside shooter just due to repetition. I have no doubts that if Conley has the "greatness" coming his way, that his shot will get better with that. That's what separates the greats from the goods, is their ability to improve EVERY aspect of their game.
Entity
Hall of Famer
I agree with you for the most part. Then I look at the players that came throught the Kings system recently. Bobby Jackson couldn't get it to the rim from 3 when he came in and now look at him. Matt Barnes was almost out of the NBA then he suddenly developed and nice stroke with hard work and the right teacher. But that is like 1% of the players in the NBA and I am not willing to take chance that Conley might be that 1%
If a guy is playing the point guard position and he can handle the ball very well with either hand, run a team well enough to make it to the NCAA finals in his freshman year, penetrate the lane at will, finish at the hoop with either hand, see the floor well enough to set up his teammates for open jumpers and layups, play great pressure defense on the ball, and play the passing lanes for steals and deflections I don't mind all that much that he's got a shaky jumper with limited range. If he couldn't do all of that you'd be looking at a risky pick to run your team but what you've got in Mike Conley Jr. is more or less the perfect PG prospect minus the dependable jumpshot. Some players never develop their jumpshot after making the jump to the NBA but enough do to suggest it's a learnable skill. And he's already so highly developed in the rest of his game that he'll be a useful player whether or not he ever improves the jumpshot.
Personally I don't think the jumpshot should be the measure of a point guard's worth to the team. Limiting turnovers, directing the offense, and playing good defense on the opponents PG are the primary skills I'd be looking for. Shooting is a bonus. I guess a relatable question is whether you'd rather have John Stockton or Allen Iverson as your PG. Iverson is more exciting, but Stockton is more dependable. It's maybe just a matter of personal preference.
Personally I don't think the jumpshot should be the measure of a point guard's worth to the team. Limiting turnovers, directing the offense, and playing good defense on the opponents PG are the primary skills I'd be looking for. Shooting is a bonus. I guess a relatable question is whether you'd rather have John Stockton or Allen Iverson as your PG. Iverson is more exciting, but Stockton is more dependable. It's maybe just a matter of personal preference.
Last edited:
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
You mean the scrawny helpless little twerp that Baron Davis is blowing off the floor right now?
HighFlyingMonkey
Starter
Difference being that Harris has the Bbal IQ of a bag of rocks, while Conley became the best in his class at what he does in his first year. Athletically, Harris is one of the most gifted PGs in the game, so physically they are similar.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Lest we lose all perspective, Mike Conley went 11pts 6ast this year. That's very nice for a frosh, and may in fact indicate a nice career in the NBA.
On the other hand:
Kenny Anderson as a freshman: 20.6ppg 4.0reb 8.1ast 2.3stl
Stephon Marbury as a frosh: 18.9ppg 3.2reb 4.5ast 1.8stl
etc.
All perspective is being lost. 11 and 6 looks promising. But it is so far from a guarantee of being an impact guy in the NBA its not even funny. And actually...impact PG in the NBA is a toughie. I chose Kenny and Starbury on purpose -- great college frosh, good pro PGs, and have never won squat. And they both looked a lot more impressive at Conley's age. Just no guarantees.
We've drafted PGs Conley's size before in the lottery -- sits next to Chuck in the TNT studio now. We've fooled around with multiple college "winners"...and gee Bobby Hurley and Mateen Cleaves sure were special. There is much downside there, just as there is with the bigs. Except we already have a decent PG, and have no true bigs at all.
Last edited:
nbrans
All-Star
I don't dislike the guy personally. I just agree with Bricklayer that his hype outstrips his achievements. People are trying to make him out like more of a sure thing than a guy like Jianlian -- Conley's really not a sure thing at all. He could put it all together and be a strong NBA player, or he could be just another point guard with good but not spectacular athleticism who can move the ball but can't shoot and bounces around and out of the league.
It's more about what kind of a risk you want to take, and especially given the number of promising bigs in the draft I'd much rather hope we get one of those than the best of a really mediocre point guard class.
No, it's not that some here dislike Conley. What they're objecting to is the assumption, based on one fairly decent year in college, that he'll be able to make the transition to being a successful PG in the NBA.
This happens every year. People get all puffed up because their particular favorite possible draft pick is criticized by others.
Bottom line, it's a crap shoot. Nobody knows for sure how any of these kids will do in the NBA if they even make it in the draft.
We don't need a PG in training right now. We desperately need a big man. If we draft another guard when there are DECENT bigs left on the board I may just expel my spleen through my nasal passages. Honestly...
LPKingsFan
All-Star
The thing is there probably won't be any of the good bigs left. The guys with star potential like the Jianlins, Brandan Wrights, Horfords, they'll probably be gone. We probably get stuck picking between a PG like Conley or a 2nd tier big man like Splitter. If we get lucky and Hibbert or Jianlin falls to us then that's great. But it probably won't happen. And IMO Conley has star potential so I guess I disagree with people here about him, and I would definitely rather have him than Splitter or Hawes who do nothing to fix our problems defensively and they don't have star potential either. But hey, this is what we get for losing the Clippers game.
HighFlyingMonkey
Starter
Too much stock into stats, IMO. Sure you can say 11 and 6 throughout the year wasn't all too impressive, and Stephon's and Kenny's stats look better on paper. But you have to look deeper than the stats suggest. Conley was the captain of the #1 ranked team througout the year, and one that went all the way to the National title game. Really, what impresses people most about him is the intangibles that he brings; dictating tempo, motivating teammates, making the timely drive/steal/assist, knowing when to take over, etc. You really have to watch the games to guage his impact on the floor.
Stephon put up nice stats during his freshman campaign, but they were almost hollow because his team didn't win anything, and he jumped into the NBA right afterwards. Kenny was a good NBA PG, but was very injury prone and had off-court issues and eventually became a journeyman.
I'm not going to say that Conley's going to become a superstar for us, but he's more than a great pick at the #10 spot.
nbrans
All-Star
You could have said the exact same thing about Mateen Cleaves after MSU won the championship.
Stats are important. They're not everything, but they're important.
BTW, here's the old NBADraft.net profile for Mateen Cleaves:
NBA Comparison: Mo Cheeks
Strengths: Consumate leader/floor general. A winner. Plays for one thing- winning it all. Great strength, toughness. Great point skills. Hits shots when it counts.
Weaknesses: Has had some off the court distractions but nothing drastic. Ugly shot, needs to work on mechanics.
I'm not saying Conley = Cleaves, but still, success in college doesn't really count for much in the NBA. http://nbadraft.net/profiles/mateencleaves.htm
Last edited:
ParniValjak
All-Star
I still think that Petrie will pick what he sees as the best available safest bet type player and it might well end up being a swingman type player.
As long as we get a good young prospect, regardless of the position, I will be happy. I don't want us to go big just for the sake of going big and let a stud "small" slide past us.
As long as we get a good young prospect, regardless of the position, I will be happy. I don't want us to go big just for the sake of going big and let a stud "small" slide past us.
nbrans
All-Star
And nbrans wins the annual Mateen Cleaves Out of Nowhere Reference Award for 2007.
Brick actually beat me to it, but I will take this opportunity to post this picture of Mateen at his best:
HighFlyingMonkey
Starter
Difference in Conley and Cleaves is that Mateen had 4 years at MSU, and was the captain from his Sophomore season onwards; there really was no talent on that MSU squad in his early years. Conley became the leader of OSU as a freshman on the #1 ranked team in the country. Big difference in the potential of a Freshman and that of a Senior coming out of college.
Of course, I know what you're saying that we'd be better off with a big. My only contention is that Conley would be a solid pick at #10, better than picking an unathletic skilled big like Hawes who has limited upside and doesn't fix anything on this team.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA - Sacramento Kings News
- Kings News Links
- NBC Sports Bay Area & California
- Kings News Links
- Locked
- Poll
