Poll: Wall or Turner ?

[Prince_XY]

Isn't it true or realistic to believe that a team in our draft position is limited in it's options on selecting a player. For example, if we're first we will pick Wall, if we're second we pick Turner, if we're third or fourth we have to pick either Favors or Cousins, if we're fifth or sixth the above four will be gone and we then have some choices. Of course we need something to do while we're waiting for the ping pong balls.

I can see where you are coming from. But I think it will be a lot harder picking the BPA if we get #1 or #2 pick. When it comes to the potential to become a star, there is a very thin line separating Wall and Turner and that line is not black and white. The line is multi-colored and it will really depend on what colors you want the team to have when picking between the two, especially that you have to take into account that we have our future Superstar Evans on hand already.

It would be very much like picking between Cousins and Favors at the #3 and #4.

 

[Kingster]

Oh, and no surprise. I voted for Turner. And I kind of agree with Bricky. It might be better if we get the second pick. Of course if that happens, then Minny will end up with the first pick and take Turner..

Exactly. It's not a foregone conclusion that Wall is the #1 pick.

 

[Rookie]

Turner not only do I think he will work great with Evans but will be the next ROY.

 

[Padrino]

I agree with most of this, but I'd still rather we get the number one pick than the the number two pick. When you draft, you take the best player available, no matter what. Even if it (Wall/Evans back court) doesn't work out, the lesser superstar is still a huge trade piece going forward. It would certainly be easier moving forward with the second pick, but I think it represents a significantly weaker hand. If Geoff feels that Turner is the better long term prospect, then buck conventional wisdom, man up, and take him first overall. In these type of situations, having the second overall pick is only a good thing in the way that you are judged by history, but it does absolutely nothing to help us win titles in the immediate future. If you want to win, you have to take some risks, we receive no tangible benefits picking second overall as opposed to first overall.

All that being said, I think the E-Squared back court (Evans/Evan) would be more conducive to long-term success.

geoff petrie is definitely the type of GM who drafts BPA, but i think petrie's perception of the BPA often differs from other GM's. he very clearly wanted tyreke evans in '09, and the kings got him at #4, which turned out to be an incredible stroke of luck. it would have been interesting to see what he would have done had he gotten the first pick. at the time, it would have been difficult to explain passing on blake griffin. likewise, i'm interested to see where the kings pick this year, and what petrie does with it. should the kings get the number 1 pick, it would be difficult to explain passing on the consensus BPA, and this time that's john wall. but if wall's not petrie's guy, and evan turner is, or demarcus cousins is, then i'd think that he might just pick one of them. i like derrick favors, as well, but i'm not sure that he's in the same class as the other three, and it'd be one helluva stretch to take him at 1 or 2. he's a 3rd or 4th pick, at best, in this particular class. regardless, petrie really likes the draft. he likes picking his guy at whatever spot he can get him. and he's not real keen on moving up or down the draft board in the first round. i am, of course, hoping for one of those top two picks, and i can only speculate as to what petrie's got on his mind. he's a big fan of working out individual players, so if it doesn't become much clearer to us as draft day approaches, it will certainly become clearer to petrie as he gets the top prospects in the gym for a closer look...

its also worth noting that most GM's don't like to admit failure. it took petrie and the maloofs a lotta years after the chris webber trade to admit that the mediocre assemblage of kings players taking the court were just not gonna get it done. the rebuild has finally begun properly, but it took them some time to get here, and it cost them a lotta fans along the way, as well. should petrie get the first pick, and draft john wall, i wouldn't really expect him to trade either wall or evans anytime soon. sure, from a fans' perspective its rather easy to call john wall or tyreke evans a trade chip should a pairing of the two not work out. but GM's don't like to admit when the construction of their team has failed. its their job to construct and assess the competitive and financial future of that team, after all. trading kevin martin, a solid player and former 26th pick, is one thing, and i've just got a feeling that a lot of pressure had to be applied from outside sources to get petrie to trade one of his golden boys. but drafting john wall or tyreke evans, both top-4 picks and potential superstars in the nba, and then feeling forced to trade one or the other due to poor chemistry, is something else entirely...

all this is just to say that its not a terrible problem to have AT ALL, but it might effect the way petrie drafts, should he be presented with the opportunity to pick first. given that an evans/martin backcourt was a large target for criticism immediately after martin returned from injury, and given that they received very little time to develop together due to martin's trade (rightfully so, in my opinion), perhaps petrie gets a little nervous about the potential of his future backcourt to fail. if he doesn't perceive a valley of difference between john wall's level of talent and evan turner's level of talent, maybe he drafts turner at 1, provided, once again, that the kings were lucky enough to receive that first pick. and maybe he really does feel the pressure to bolster his frontcourt rebounding/scoring, in which case drafting demarcus cousins would make a lotta sense. it'd be tough to justify picking cousins first over his more-hyped teammate, but BPA for petrie could mean just about anything, at this point. should be fun to watch unfold, regardless, as long as the kings get a little luck later this month...

 

[Prince_XY]

geoff petrie is definitely the type of GM who drafts BPA, but i think petrie's perception of the BPA often differs from other GM's. he very clearly wanted tyreke evans in '09, and the kings got him at #4, which turned out to be an incredible stroke of luck. it would have been interesting to see what he would have done had he gotten the first pick. at the time, it would have been difficult to explain passing on blake griffin. likewise, i'm interested to see where the kings pick this year, and what petrie does with it. should the kings get the number 1 pick, it would be difficult to explain passing on the consensus BPA, and this time that's john wall. but if wall's not petrie's guy, and evan turner is, or demarcus cousins is, then i'd think that he might just pick one of them. i like derrick favors, as well, but i'm not sure that he's in the same class as the other three, and it'd be one helluva stretch to take him at 1 or 2. he's a 3rd or 4th pick, at best, in this particular class. regardless, petrie really likes the draft. he likes picking his guy at whatever spot he can get him. and he's not real keen on moving up or down the draft board in the first round. i am, of course, hoping for one of those top two picks, and i can only speculate as to what petrie's got on his mind. he's a big fan of working out individual players, so if it doesn't become much clearer to us as draft day approaches, it will certainly become clearer to petrie as he gets the top prospects in the gym for a closer look...

its also worth noting that most GM's don't like to admit failure. it took petrie and the maloofs a lotta years after the chris webber trade to admit that the mediocre assemblage of kings players taking the court were just not gonna get it done. the rebuild has finally begun properly, but it took them some time to get here, and it cost them a lotta fans along the way, as well. should petrie get the first pick, and draft john wall, i wouldn't really expect him to trade either wall or evans anytime soon. sure, from a fans' perspective its rather easy to call john wall or tyreke evans a trade chip should a pairing of the two not work out. but GM's don't like to admit when the construction of their team has failed. its their job to construct and assess the competitive and financial future of that team, after all. trading kevin martin, a solid player and former 26th pick, is one thing, and i've just got a feeling that a lot of pressure had to be applied from outside sources to get petrie to trade one of his golden boys. but drafting john wall or tyreke evans, both top-4 picks and potential superstars in the nba, and then feeling forced to trade one or the other due to poor chemistry, is something else entirely...

all this is just to say that its not a terrible problem to have AT ALL, but it might effect the way petrie drafts, should he be presented with the opportunity to pick first. given that an evans/martin backcourt was a large target for criticism immediately after martin returned from injury, and given that they received very little time to develop together due to martin's trade (rightfully so, in my opinion), perhaps petrie gets a little nervous about the potential of his future backcourt to fail. if he doesn't perceive a valley of difference between john wall's level of talent and evan turner's level of talent, maybe he drafts turner at 1, provided, once again, that the kings were lucky enough to receive that first pick. and maybe he really does feel the pressure to bolster his frontcourt rebounding/scoring, in which case drafting demarcus cousins would make a lotta sense. it'd be tough to justify picking cousins first over his more-hyped teammate, but BPA for petrie could mean just about anything, at this point. should be fun to watch unfold, regardless, as long as the kings get a little luck later this month...

Nice long post and analysis of what could be swirling in Petries' mind.

Now, may I know who YOU think ( between Wall and Turner only ) should wear the Kings uniform comes 2010-2011 season?

Just curious on how you voted.

 

[Henkel]

Turner is probably a better fit, but its still not a ideal situation for him or Evans. I like Turner, last year when people were posting their top 5 prospects I was one of the few giving the kid his due. Trouble is Turner is not a off the ball player. Over the last two season no one player has had as much responsibility on offense as Turner. He excelled with all that responsibility and that's why he is challenging for the number one pick, but he did dominate the ball. I think Turner needs the ball in his hands to be great just like Wall does.

 

[bajaden]

The year Portland drafted Oden, he was the consensus number one pick. I think very few would have had Durant ahead of him on their draft board. I must admit that he was my number one pick that year. I knew that Durant would be good, but I honestly didn't know he would be this good. I went for size and athleticism over a very skilled player. I mean come on, Oden looked like he could kick Atlas in the butt.

I looked at Durant and saw a guy with a body that looked like he should be a professional bowler. I should have remembered that I got my butt kicked at tennis by a guy, who shall remain nameless, because some in sacramento would recognize it, who had a body you would find under the definition of couch potato. Point is, he was a hell of an athlete. He just didn't look like one.

Its not really fair to pick on Oden. He's had nothing but bad luck so far. But knowing what we now know about Durant, I think its fair to say that a lot of us would revise our opinion about who should have been number one. Oden's injuries aside.

The picture seemed pretty clear at the time. Not so anymore. That brings me to Wall and Turner. You knew I was going there. Here's a situation where the picture isn't that clear. Yeah, there are things that define each player. But putting that aside for the moment. There is a similarity between Durant and Turner. Both are very skilled players. But the biggest similarity is that Durant took a Texas team and carried them on his back into the tourney. Turner took an Ohio St. team and carried them on his back into the tournery. It could be argued that Texas had a little more talent than Ohio St. did. But not much. They both had huge impacts on their team. They both had tremendous pressure on them, because there wasn't anyone else that could get the job done.

Not true with Wall. Now thats not his fault. He may have been able to rise to a similar challenge. But there's no denying that Wall had a lot of talent around him. And that certainly didn't hurt. All I'm saying, is that its not a given that five years from now Wall is the better player. I think its a very fine line between them.

 

[EHandel]

Turner is probably a better fit, but its still not a ideal situation for him or Evans. I like Turner, last year when people were posting their top 5 prospects I was one of the few giving the kid his due. Trouble is Turner is not a off the ball player. Over the last two season no one player has had as much responsibility on offense as Turner. He excelled with all that responsibility and that's why he is challenging for the number one pick, but he did dominate the ball. I think Turner needs the ball in his hands to be great just like Wall does.

This year, Turner did definitely dominate the ball, but last year he played a lot more off the ball. He was still quite effective. In addition, this season his midrange game has drastically improved. OSU ran numerous sets especially later in the year, when defenses would key on him, where someone else would run the point and Tuner would play off the ball. He had no trouble getting open on cuts to the basket or getting open off of down screens and knocking down midrange jumpers.

The main weakness I see in Turner's game that could hurt us, in regards to Turner's playing off the ball is his outside shooting. He got better later in the season at hitting the college three, but he has a very flat shot, and I don't ever see him becoming extremely adept from NBA range. Factor in the narrower ridges of the NBA ball, and honestly I think Tyreke will become the better outside shooter, although Evan has a extremely relaible midrange jumper.

 

[Henkel]

This year, Turner did definitely dominate the ball, but last year he played a lot more off the ball. He was still quite effective. In addition, this season his midrange game has drastically improved. OSU ran numerous sets especially later in the year, when defenses would key on him, where someone else would run the point and Tuner would play off the ball. He had no trouble getting open on cuts to the basket or getting open off of down screens and knocking down midrange jumpers.

The main weakness I see in Turner's game that could hurt us, in regards to Turner's playing off the ball is his outside shooting. He got better later in the season at hitting the college three, but he has a very flat shot, and I don't ever see him becoming extremely adept from NBA range. Factor in the narrower ridges of the NBA ball, and honestly I think Tyreke will become the better outside shooter, although Evan has a extremely relaible midrange jumper.

Turner has always had a mid range game and has improved moving without the ball, it really compliments his greatest asset which is his ability to get into the lane. You are wasting his considerable talent if you don't put the ball in his hands and let him make plays going to the basket. Wesley Johnson is just as good if not better then Turner off the ball and has better range. Turner is getting picked higher and will be the better player because of his on the ball skills. My point is if you take Turner with a top 2 pick you have to give him the ball, otherwise he is going to disappoint.

 

[bajaden]

Turner has always had a mid range game and has improved moving without the ball, it really compliments his greatest asset which is his ability to get into the lane. You are wasting his considerable talent if you don't put the ball in his hands and let him make plays going to the basket. Wesley Johnson is just as good if not better then Turner off the ball and has better range. Turner is getting picked higher and will be the better player because of his on the ball skills. My point is if you take Turner with a top 2 pick you have to give him the ball, otherwise he is going to disappoint.

Look, all good players have to have the ball in their hands in order to be revelant. But they don't have to have it all the time. I've watched Turner for three years, and there were plenty of times he didn't have the ball in his hands. He's excellent at sliding under the defense without the ball. I will admit that the last couple of years, especially this last season, he had the ball more than anyone else on his team. But it was because there wern't any other options.

I also disagree about Turners shot. I think its very correctable. It is a little flat, but his form is better than Evans, and he gets good elevation on his shot. So I don't see a problem with tweeking it. He did shoot 36.4% from 3pt land, which is better than some of the touted 3pt shooters coming out of college this year. James Anderson only shot 34.1%, and Willie Warren fell off the map at 30.9% when he found out what it was like to be the focus of the defense. John Wall only shot 32.5% from 3pt range. To be fair to Anderson, he did shoot over 200 three pointers this year compared to Turners 50 something. As a matter of fact, almost 50% of Andersons shots were three pointers.

 

[Henkel]

Look, all good players have to have the ball in their hands in order to be revelant. But they don't have to have it all the time. I've watched Turner for three years, and there were plenty of times he didn't have the ball in his hands. He's excellent at sliding under the defense without the ball. I will admit that the last couple of years, especially this last season, he had the ball more than anyone else on his team. But it was because there wern't any other options.

I also disagree about Turners shot. I think its very correctable. It is a little flat, but his form is better than Evans, and he gets good elevation on his shot. So I don't see a problem with tweeking it. He did shoot 36.4% from 3pt land, which is better than some of the touted 3pt shooters coming out of college this year. James Anderson only shot 34.1%, and Willie Warren fell off the map at 30.9% when he found out what it was like to be the focus of the defense. John Wall only shot 32.5% from 3pt range. To be fair to Anderson, he did shoot over 200 three pointers this year compared to Turners 50 something. As a matter of fact, almost 50% of Andersons shots were three pointers.

Turner has a decent looking shot. I think if he works on it he has a chance to become a good long range shooter.

I have also watch Turner for the last three seasons, maybe we just see things a bit differently or maybe I'm doing a poor job of making my point. People in this thread are acting like Turner is the perfect compliment to Evans in the back court and I don't see it that way. Just like Wall he is going to need to see the ball more then a player like Beno or Wesley Johnson. Turner, Wall, and Evans are all at their best in my opinion in isolation or one on one play. like you stated "all good players have to have the ball in their hands in order to be revelant", so if a back court of Evans and Turner or for that matter Evan and Wall is going to be successful Evans and his new back court mate are going to have to adjust their games.

Just to be clear, even with my concerns I still take Turner or Wall if possible. Both guys have to much talent to pass up for what could be considered a better fit for this team.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I don't think anyone is trying to say that you can only have one ball handler, that's not the point. The point is that when Evans has the ball, Turner can contribute off the ball much more than Wall can. You don't want your two main talents not being able to compliment each other in any way.

Turner is not a perfect compliment to Evans, I don't think anyone has said that, but he's a much better compliment to him than Wall. When you consider that Turner is the better player right now, and that their ceilings aren't significantly different, then you have to lean towards Turner.

 

[wazzups]

Take the bpa!!!!

You take the bpa....regardles of position other guys on the team etc... etc... just like when we took Evans last draft. If we can get Wall and hes the bpa you just do it. There is nothing wrong with having equal or greater talent than you already have no matter the position. If you miss out on the star that you didnt pick it will be like Utah passing on MJ. Let's see where we pick if we are lucky enough to get first dibs we take the bpa (Wall or Turner). Of course this will be after workouts.....player postion be damned.

 

[Bricklayer]

You take the bpa....regardles of position other guys on the team etc... etc... just like when we took Evans last draft. If we can get Wall and hes the bpa you just do it. There is nothing wrong with having equal or greater talent than you already have no matter the position. If you miss out on the star that you didnt pick it will be like Utah passing on MJ. Let's see where we pick if we are lucky enough to get first dibs we take the bpa (Wall or Turner). Of course this will be after workouts.....player postion be damned.

this is true when you have nothing going, when you do its gets complex. There's a value added thing going on. If you have a team with a PG who is a 8, a SG who is a 5, several SFs who are 4s on the way up, a PF who is a 6, and a C who is a 4, then even if you draft a PG who is a 9, you are only just barely gaining. And even with spillover -- you shift the PG ove to SG, where he;s not quite as effective and is replacing the guy who is a 5 anyway, and in the end, maybe you've gained 2-3 ranks -- 1 at PG, 2 at SG or something.

Alternately if you draft a center who is an 8, then that's just a flat out gain of 4 ranks at that position, and you may actually gain more than oyu do the other way. Its a tight thing. You don't pass on superstars -- they almost don't have a ranking scale. But drafting one where you already have one is a real mess. And really eveybody knows this. The only reason we are even talking about this is because Reke might be able to slide over to the SG, even though there is little off the ball about his game. If Chicago got the #1 pick there wouldn't even really be a question of them drafting Wall with Rose in town. They'd do something else.

 

[bajaden]

this is true when you have nothing going, when you do its gets complex. There's a value added thing going on. If you have a team with a PG who is a 8, a SG who is a 5, several SFs who are 4s on the way up, a PF who is a 6, and a C who is a 4, then even if you draft a PG who is a 9, you are only just barely gaining. And even with spillover -- you shift the PG ove to SG, where he;s not quite as effective and is replacing the guy who is a 5 anyway, and in the end, maybe you've gained 2-3 ranks -- 1 at PG, 2 at SG or something.

Alternately if you draft a center who is an 8, then that's just a flat out gain of 4 ranks at that position, and you may actually gain more than oyu do the other way. Its a tight thing. You don't pass on superstars -- they almost don't have a ranking scale. But drafting one where you already have one is a real mess. And really eveybody knows this. The only reason we are even talking about this is because Reke might be able to slide over to the SG, even though there is little off the ball about his game. If Chicago got the #1 pick there wouldn't even really be a question of them drafting Wall with Rose in town. They'd do something else.

By god, I think you explained that pretty well.. Well done!!

 

[Kingster]

this is true when you have nothing going, when you do its gets complex. There's a value added thing going on. If you have a team with a PG who is a 8, a SG who is a 5, several SFs who are 4s on the way up, a PF who is a 6, and a C who is a 4, then even if you draft a PG who is a 9, you are only just barely gaining. And even with spillover -- you shift the PG ove to SG, where he;s not quite as effective and is replacing the guy who is a 5 anyway, and in the end, maybe you've gained 2-3 ranks -- 1 at PG, 2 at SG or something.

Alternately if you draft a center who is an 8, then that's just a flat out gain of 4 ranks at that position, and you may actually gain more than oyu do the other way. Its a tight thing. You don't pass on superstars -- they almost don't have a ranking scale. But drafting one where you already have one is a real mess. And really eveybody knows this. The only reason we are even talking about this is because Reke might be able to slide over to the SG, even though there is little off the ball about his game. If Chicago got the #1 pick there wouldn't even really be a question of them drafting Wall with Rose in town. They'd do something else.

I agree with all of the above if in fact you know whether a player is a 9,8, 7, etc. But we all know drafting is an art, not a science, so we know that we don't know. We know that we can't calibrate whether Tyreke is a 10 or a 9 or even an 8 and that's after one year in the NBA. (There is no certainty Tyreke will develop an outside shot; that's our best speculation). And with Wall, what if Wall is a 10? What if he is the best point guard in a decade? In two decades? What if he is in fact a superior player to Tyreke? So do you pass on Wall because you "think" he's a 9 like Tyreke, or do you draft the best player because you don't know if he could become a 10?

 

[bajaden]

I agree with all of the above if in fact you know whether a player is a 9,8, 7, etc. But we all know drafting is an art, not a science, so we know that we don't know. We know that we can't calibrate whether Tyreke is a 10 or a 9 or even an 8 and that's after one year in the NBA. (There is no certainty Tyreke will develop an outside shot; that's our best speculation). And with Wall, what if Wall is a 10? What if he is the best point guard in a decade? In two decades? What if he is in fact a superior player to Tyreke? So do you pass on Wall because you "think" he's a 9 like Tyreke, or do you draft the best player because you don't know if he could become a 10?

Well since were playing what if. What if Turner is the next coming of M. Jordan? There are a lot of NBA scouts that have Turner as the best player on their board. The difference between the two isn't that great. Perhaps I should ask what does the term, best player available mean? Does it mean the player with the biggest upside? Or does it mean the best player available right now? Because Turner is the best player in college basketball right now.

I was reading an interview with Westphal and he was asked if his philosophy was to always take the best player available, or to draft for need. He said you always take the best player, unless two players are very close together, and then you draft for need.

The Kings have quite a few needs. The biggest one's are at center and at the SG position. If Kings management firmly believes that Evans is their point guard, then I don't see them drafting Wall. At least not to keep him. Of course this could all change after the combine and the team workouts. Who knows? Cousins may come in and just blow everyone away.

 

[Nighthawk1]

Well since were playing what if. What if Turner is the next coming of M. Jordan? There are a lot of NBA scouts that have Turner as the best player on their board. The difference between the two isn't that great. Perhaps I should ask what does the term, best player available mean? Does it mean the player with the biggest upside? Or does it mean the best player available right now? Because Turner is the best player in college basketball right now.

I was reading an interview with Westphal and he was asked if his philosophy was to always take the best player available, or to draft for need. He said you always take the best player, unless two players are very close together, and then you draft for need.

The Kings have quite a few needs. The biggest one's are at center and at the SG position. If Kings management firmly believes that Evans is their point guard, then I don't see them drafting Wall. At least not to keep him. Of course this could all change after the combine and the team workouts. Who knows? Cousins may come in and just blow everyone away.

I would say you base it on upside where we are picking. When there isn't a lot seperating the players currently you must look at who you think has the most upside. I'm with you though on Cousins shouldn't be discounted if he blows everyone away with workouts.

 

[Kingster]

I was reading an interview with Westphal and he was asked if his philosophy was to always take the best player available, or to draft for need. He said you always take the best player, unless two players are very close together, and then you draft for need.

And that's logical. If you can't discern a difference, then sure go with need. But the point is that if you can discern a difference, then go with the better guy. It's hard enough to figure out who is better. What's ridiculously hard is to figure out exactly how much better they are so that you are performing a calibration of 9, 8.5, 8.0, etc. That seems to be so unrealistic as to be a pointless exercise.

 

[rainmaker]

Call me crazy, but I think Cousins might help this team more than either Wall or Turner. Will he be as good as either? Who knows. I think Cousins will be an allstar, and eventually one of the top 5 centers in the league. Don't know if he'll be a flat out star like I think Wall and Turner will, but I think he'll be right behind them.

In ranking Wall, Tuner, and Cousins, obviously I would put Cousins behind the other two talent wise. But impact wise with our roster, is it really that far-fetched to think he would help more than either Wall or Turner? Our frontcourt play is atrocious. Looking forward, an improved Tyreke, along with a healthy Cisco, and the continued improved play of Beno, IMO, makes our backcourt the surest aspect of our lineup going into next season. I think Donte and Omri will return better than they were last season, and will duke it out for our future starting sf position.

It's our 4 and 5 I have zero confidence in. I like Landry, but not as a longterm starter. But put Cousins next to Landry, and our frontline improves bigtime. Adding Cousins to our frontline improves it to the point it wouldn't even be comparable to last years frontline, IMO. Add Wall or Turner to our backcourt, and it gets better, but it's nowhere near the upgrade that Cousins would bring to our frontline.

I agree with taking the BPA to a certain extent. But I also believe you have to think about the BPA for your teams system and needs. You can draft the BPA, and ignore whether or not he fits, and the system and surrounding players might not help maximize that players talent in a given situation.

I would say, for example, Bosh is a superior player to Joe Johnson. Hypothetically, if Dallas were to go after one this offseason, which would fit better going forward. I would say hands down, Joe Johnson would add more to that team, eventhough if I was starting a team, I would pick Bosh over Johnson without hesistating.

So, while Turner and Wall are both more talented than Cousins, I really do think Cousins might help more than either. Going into next season, I would say our backcourt, as it is, with a healthy Cisco, is above average. Meanwhile, our frontcourt, the 4 and 5 inparticular, are below average. Far below average.

 

[Prince_XY]

In ranking Wall, Tuner, and Cousins, obviously I would put Cousins behind the other two talent wise. But impact wise with our roster, is it really that far-fetched to think he would help more than either Wall or Turner? Our frontcourt play is atrocious. Looking forward, an improved Tyreke, along with a healthy Cisco, and the continued improved play of Beno, IMO, makes our backcourt the surest aspect of our lineup going into next season. I think Donte and Omri will return better than they were last season, and will duke it out for our future starting sf position.

Adding Cousins to our frontline improves it to the point it wouldn't even be comparable to last years frontline, IMO. Add Wall or Turner to our backcourt, and it gets better, but it's nowhere near the upgrade that Cousins would bring to our frontline.

I agree with taking the BPA to a certain extent. But I also believe you have to think about the BPA for your teams system and needs. You can draft the BPA, and ignore whether or not he fits, and the system and surrounding players might not help maximize that players talent in a given situation...........


So, while Turner and Wall are both more talented than Cousins, I really do think Cousins might help more than either. Going into next season, I would say our backcourt, as it is, with a healthy Cisco, is above average. Meanwhile, our frontcourt, the 4 and 5 inparticular, are below average. Far below average.

Some very good points worth considering on this coming draft. Actually, I myself believe we need Cousins more than we need Wall or Turner. But how do you find the courage to pass on such potential superstar like Wall and Turner?

 

[rainmaker]

Some very good points worth considering on this coming draft. Actually, I myself believe we need Cousins more than we need Wall or Turner. But how do you find the courage to pass on such potential superstar like Wall and Turner?

That is where Petire comes in. I honestly think Petrie is one of a handfull of gm's that would pass on Wall or Turner to get Cousins, if he trully felt Cousins would be the best fit in the long run. Either that or draft Wall and look to trade him immediatly. I don't see Petire falling for the hype. That isn't to suggest that Wall doesn't deserve the hype. But there are a few gm's out there who have been asked if Cousins is worth the #1, and they said yes, they would take him #1.

While I think both Wall and Turner can help this team, and are better players than Cousins, I could see some of us wishing we had Cousins if he ends up somewhere else, and other teams continue their uncontested marches to the basket. IMO, Cousins would change the attitude of our frontline immediatly, would be intimidating, much more physical, and give us an immediate low post presence both offensively and defensively. I just don't see Wall or Turner having the same impact on this team, eventhough they might be more talented.

 

[Kingster]

That is where Petire comes in. I honestly think Petrie is one of a handfull of gm's that would pass on Wall or Turner to get Cousins, if he trully felt Cousins would be the best fit in the long run. Either that or draft Wall and look to trade him immediatly. I don't see Petire falling for the hype. That isn't to suggest that Wall doesn't deserve the hype. But there are a few gm's out there who have been asked if Cousins is worth the #1, and they said yes, they would take him #1.

While I think both Wall and Turner can help this team, and are better players than Cousins, I could see some of us wishing we had Cousins if he ends up somewhere else, and other teams continue their uncontested marches to the basket. IMO, Cousins would change the attitude of our frontline immediatly, would be intimidating, much more physical, and give us an immediate low post presence both offensively and defensively. I just don't see Wall or Turner having the same impact on this team, eventhough they might be more talented.

The "intimidating" stuff is way overblown. Cousins doesn't have great defensive prowess, so I fail to see any intimidation there. He's not going to be a great shot blocker. If he gets fist-fight physical with anybody he's going to get kicked out of the game, several games, or the season and all of a sudden (like Artest) nobody is going to be concerned with him. He's a big body with a long reach and no great athleticism. If you think that's intimidating, then we should trade for Dampier.

 

[rainmaker]

The "intimidating" stuff is way overblown. Cousins doesn't have great defensive prowess, so I fail to see any intimidation there. He's not going to be a great shot blocker. If he gets fist-fight physical with anybody he's going to get kicked out of the game, several games, or the season and all of a sudden (like Artest) nobody is going to be concerned with him. He's a big body with a long reach and no great athleticism. If you think that's intimidating, then we should trade for Dampier.

I could care less what your opinion is on Cousins, because you already have your mind made up. You don't like him. You don't want him. So of course what you see through your eyes will be different than what an objective person would see.

You think the intimidating stuff is overblown. I think the crap about his attitude is overblown. If you think the only way Cousins can intimidate would be a fist fight, you haven't watched enough of him. It's also funny how arrogant you are in determining what every gm in this league would do with a top 2 pick, or how you channeled your psychic abilites and were able to dicover that Cousins won't be a good shot blocker in this league. If all you think is he's a big body with a long reach, your words not mine, then we should have kept Dorsey, also just a big body with long arms, and forget about drafting a big in this draft.

 

[Kingster]

I could care less what your opinion is on Cousins, because you already have your mind made up. You don't like him. You don't want him. So of course what you see through your eyes will be different than what an objective person would see.

You think the intimidating stuff is overblown. I think the crap about his attitude is overblown. If you think the only way Cousins can intimidate would be a fist fight, you haven't watched enough of him. It's also funny how arrogant you are in determining what every gm in this league would do with a top 2 pick, or how you channeled your psychic abilites and were able to dicover that Cousins won't be a good shot blocker in this league. If all you think is he's a big body with a long reach, your words not mine, then we should have kept Dorsey, also just a big body with long arms, and forget about drafting a big in this draft.

Please tell me what there is to be intimidated about with Cousins. I'm all ears...

 

[Bricklayer]

Please tell me what there is to be intimidated about with Cousins. I'm all ears...

Big physical post player with a temper? That's often a pretty good formula for it.

 

[William Blake]

Last night i dreamed we took Turner with the 2nd pick.

 

[PurpleHaze]

Last night I had another Kings nightmare that we got #6 pick. Not the 47% chance of landing 1-3 but the worst of 53% chance of drawing 4-6

 

[Kingster]

Big physical post player with a temper? That's often a pretty good formula for it.

And if that's the case, then he gets a few technicals, a few suspensions. He's not so intimidating after that. Players know that if the guy gets physical, he can get kicked out of the league. I don't see guys quaking in their basketball shoes when they play Artest. If that's the case for Cousins being intimidating, I just don't think it has a lot of weight.

The guys that have real intimidation in my view have the size and the quicks to make them intimidating basketball players. Shaq in his younger years. Howard currently. They don't intimidate because guys are afraid they are going clobber them. They intimidate because they were (Shaq)or are (Howard) so good on the defensive end. Their opponents start to see ghosts out there. Shaq becomes ten feet tall and able to make up ten feet in milli-second in their eyes. Same with Howard.

I will grant you though that Shaq's infamous elbow has got to be somewhat intimidating. But it sure didn't stop Boston last night.

 

[Kingster]

Last night i dreamed we took Turner with the 2nd pick.

Seems apropos that William Blake would have a mystical, and maybe prescient dream...