Westphal on 1140

[OnYouLikeGlue]

I'd just like to point out that Isiah Thomas fits all those criteria

Hilarious. Well said sir.

Clearly those qualities don't guarantee some will be good at evaluating talent, but in general those who work around basketball for an entire career know more than basketball fans. I think that was the guys point.

 

[Smills91]

If that is his intent, then I don't see how that explains Evans as your 1.

I'd LOVE to see Tony Parker get a shot off against Tyreke, it won't happen. That's the point. He has a 7'0 foot WING SPAN and the quickness to keep up with the blurs. He'll GOBBLE up these little PG's defensively.

 

[Smills91]

It will probably be this way for years. Detroit fans still probably talk about not drafting Carmello. When you make tight controversial choices in the draft, it links the two players and teams for years. It won't go away unless both players turn out to be busts.

The Kings this time, passed on the 'Jason Williams' caliber talent in this draft, and opted for the 'Paul Pierce' talent of this draft.

 

[Bricklayer]

I'd LOVE to see Tony Parker get a shot off against Tyreke, it won't happen.

Er...I think Evans defensive potential as much as anything about him, but that is a ridiculous statement.

 

[fnordius]

Most superstars have incredible 1-1 ability and are typically unguardable by one player. Kobe, Lebron, Wade, CP3, Dirk, even Deron Williams.

That's usually true of a team's #1 go-to offensive guy. It's totally untrue about defensive stars like Ben Wallace, and it's not always true of star PGs, either. It mostly applies to offensive players in the middle positions (2-4).

And, as Artest and Salmons reminded us, guys with great 1-on-1 skills can also kill the team's chemistry and ball movement. Iverson's an example of a truly great 1-on-1 player who you'd be better off not having on your roster. A player's 1-on-1 performance shows very little about whether or not he'll make your team better, and a lot of the time they don't.

 

[swisshh]

I really didn't see this pick as a "get better faster" pick. I think it's a pick the guy with the highest ceiling. When you have the worst record in the league it's not about drafting for needs, its about getting a potential superstar.

I am not sure Evans ceiling is that high. His athleticism isn't at the level of a Wade or Kobe. He has to develop a shot and better passing. For example, Wade was more athletic and a far better passer when he came into the league.

And I don't see Rubio's ceiling as being lower. Both have many parts of their game to work on. Also note that being a superstar PG requires different qualities than being a superstar off guard. Evans has the superstar scoring guard qualities, but Rubio has the PG qualities required.

 

[Vlade4GM]

That's usually true of a team's #1 go-to offensive guy. It's totally untrue about defensive stars like Ben Wallace, and it's not always true of star PGs, either. It mostly applies to offensive players in the middle positions (2-4).

And, as Artest and Salmons reminded us, guys with great 1-on-1 skills can also kill the team's chemistry and ball movement. Iverson's an example of a truly great 1-on-1 player who you'd be better off not having on your roster. A player's 1-on-1 performance shows very little about whether or not he'll make your team better, and a lot of the time they don't.

Agreed. 1-on-1 skills definitely have their value, but you're not a championship focal point of an offense if you can't make quality decisions with the ball and create for others.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

That's usually true of a team's #1 go-to offensive guy. It's totally untrue about defensive stars like Ben Wallace, and it's not always true of star PGs, either. It mostly applies to offensive players in the middle positions (2-4).

And, as Artest and Salmons reminded us, guys with great 1-on-1 skills can also kill the team's chemistry and ball movement. Iverson's an example of a truly great 1-on-1 player who you'd be better off not having on your roster. A player's 1-on-1 performance shows very little about whether or not he'll make your team better, and a lot of the time they don't.

That's true, but before we put Evans into the Artest/Salmons camp, let's remember that the main concerns with Evans aren't that he is a selfish player or unable/unwilling to pass, but that he is not a true PG. He's not a player who was hated by his teammates or who put up stats on an underachieving team. He was the primary ball handler on a team that made it to the Sweet 16 and finished the season winning 27 of their final 28 games.

 

[swisshh]

let's remember that the main concerns with Evans aren't that he is a selfish player or unable/unwilling to pass,

That sort of is one of the main concerns with Evans and why he's not seen as a true PG.

 

[OnYouLikeGlue]

That's usually true of a team's #1 go-to offensive guy. It's totally untrue about defensive stars like Ben Wallace, and it's not always true of star PGs, either. It mostly applies to offensive players in the middle positions (2-4).

And, as Artest and Salmons reminded us, guys with great 1-on-1 skills can also kill the team's chemistry and ball movement. Iverson's an example of a truly great 1-on-1 player who you'd be better off not having on your roster. A player's 1-on-1 performance shows very little about whether or not he'll make your team better, and a lot of the time they don't.

I wasn't saying guys with 1-1 skills are superstars, I was saying all superstars have incredible 1-1 skills in their arsenal.

If Evans never becomes anything other than a great individual player then he won't come anywhere close to being a superstar. But as a Kings fan I hope he can, and comparing his college numbers as a freshman to others that have become very good multi-dimensional players in the NBA I think there are signs he can become that player if he keeps developing.

 

[OnYouLikeGlue]

Agreed. 1-on-1 skills definitely have their value, but you're not a championship focal point of an offense if you can't make quality decisions with the ball and create for others.

Couldn't agree more. A true superstar has the ability to make teammates better.

 

[IDidntDoDat]

It always makes me laugh when fans say things such as "<insert managers name here> is stupid! How could he pick that guy? I would have done better, for gods sake..what an idiot!"

There's a reason for Petrie, for example, being the manager, and not the ranting fan. Fans really shouldn't complain when it comes to draft picks or trades that were made. The manager/owner of the team KNOW BETTER than an average fan regarding who the team needs. That's my opinion, just saying..

 

[OnYouLikeGlue]

I am not sure Evans ceiling is that high. His athleticism isn't at the level of a Wade or Kobe. He has to develop a shot and better passing. For example, Wade was more athletic and a far better passer when he came into the league.

And I don't see Rubio's ceiling as being lower. Both have many parts of their game to work on. Also note that being a superstar PG requires different qualities than being a superstar off guard. Evans has the superstar scoring guard qualities, but Rubio has the PG qualities required.

I'll give you that Wade is more athletic, but I'm not sure you can call him a superior passer when they were the same age. Wade first year at Marquette he was a year older than Evans and averaged less assists. Clearly Wade has developed into a very good passer, so who's to say Evans can't do the same?

And pigeon holing someone into a specific position or qualities required to play that position seems kinda silly. Evans can handle the ball well and has shown he has some willingness to pass. Sounds like decent qualities of a PG, a position he played for one year. Give him a chance to develop at the position before judging him as uncapable of performing PG duties.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

That sort of is one of the main concerns with Evans and why he's not seen as a true PG.

He over dribbles and needs to work on his shot selection, but was on a very successful team and was liked by his coach and teammates. He was not in the Salmons/Marbury zone of simply trying to put up his own stats even at the expense of the team.

 

[steelevt]

It always makes me laugh when fans say things such as "<insert managers name here> is stupid! How could he pick that guy? I would have done better, for gods sake..what an idiot!"

There's a reason for Petrie, for example, being the manager, and not the ranting fan. Fans really shouldn't complain when it comes to draft picks or trades that were made. The manager/owner of the team KNOW BETTER than an average fan regarding who the team needs. That's my opinion, just saying..

if that were the case, there would be no such things as a bad draft or a bad trade. did isaiah truly know what was best for the knicks, or the sonics after they drafted project Cs year after year, did matt millen know what was best for the lions when he drafted WR over and over. fans are allowed an opinion on what happens to their teams. if its bad, they have the right to point it out. i agree that calling for a GMs head after a pick they dont like is over the line, but if its a horrible pick then they should be called out. even though i wanted rubio, evans was my second choice. i was slightly disappointed but ok overall. but if we would have reached and picked someone like jordan hill, i would have been upset and voiced my opinion.

 

[fnordius]

I wasn't saying guys with 1-1 skills are superstars, I was saying all superstars have incredible 1-1 skills in their arsenal.

I guess it depends on how one defines "superstar." Iverson was officially labelled as one (NBA MVP), and had amazing 1-on-1 skills, although he didn't usually make his team better. I'd say that Nash is a superstar, but his 1-on-1 skills aren't a very big part of what he contributes. And when it comes to bigs, it's often the same. Ben Wallace and Dikembe Mutombo made themselves a real PITA to any team they were playing against, despite never outscoring anyone. But maybe you don't feel that great team defense, great team offense, or a combination of the two, can ever make one a superstar. I'm sure that many people look at it that way. Myself, I don't consider anyone a superstar unless they make their team a lot better.

It's all a matter of your own personal definition.

EDIT:

Couldn't agree more. A true superstar has the ability to make teammates better.

I guess your personal definition requires that superstars both have astounding 1-on-1 skills and make their teammates better. Mine doesn't, but reasonable minds may differ, as they say.

 

[Telemachus]

I guess it depends on how one defines "superstar." Iverson was officially labelled as one (NBA MVP), and had amazing 1-on-1 skills, although he didn't usually make his team better. I'd say that Nash is a superstar, but his 1-on-1 skills aren't a very big part of what he contributes. And when it comes to bigs, it's often the same. Ben Wallace and Dikembe Mutombo made themselves a real PITA to any team they were playing against, despite never outscoring anyone. But maybe you don't feel that great team defense, great team offense, or a combination of the two, can ever make one a superstar. I'm sure that many people look at it that way. Myself, I don't consider anyone a superstar unless they make their team a lot better.

It's all a matter of your own personal definition.

EDIT:

I guess your personal definition requires that superstars both have astounding 1-on-1 skills and make their teammates better. Mine doesn't, but reasonable minds may differ, as they say.

I think that "Superstar" is a label given to way too many players. IMO, there are on average anywhere from 2-6 superstars in the league at any given time. Of the players above, I don't consider any of them to be superstars.

 

[Fear the Putin]

It always makes me laugh when fans say things such as "<insert managers name here> is stupid! How could he pick that guy? I would have done better, for gods sake..what an idiot!"

There's a reason for Petrie, for example, being the manager, and not the ranting fan. Fans really shouldn't complain when it comes to draft picks or trades that were made. The manager/owner of the team KNOW BETTER than an average fan regarding who the team needs. That's my opinion, just saying..

except the GM of the Grizzlies of course....but, right on point regardless

 

[fnordius]

I think that "Superstar" is a label given to way too many players. IMO, there are on average anywhere from 2-6 superstars in the league at any given time. Of the players above, I don't consider any of them to be superstars.

And yet a lot of fans would say that a 2x NBA MVP would almost have to be a superstar. Definitions vary like mad.

 

[Kingster]

I'd LOVE to see Tony Parker get a shot off against Tyreke, it won't happen. That's the point. He has a 7'0 foot WING SPAN and the quickness to keep up with the blurs. He'll GOBBLE up these little PG's defensively.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Guys like Tony Parker can get their shot off against anybody. But on the other side of the ball, Tony Parker is going to wish he could wear pads after Evans gets through with him.

 

[Kingster]

If that is the case who is going to play point? Because if we are going off strengths then we don't have a distributor and we are back to iso and 1 on 1 play which all the Kings fans loved when Salmons, and Artest did it. You pack the zone and you take away Evans strengths, because he had troubles hitting a college 3.

Defensively I just re-watched the Syracuse Memphis game, and Evans was on Flynn and vice versa for 20+ minutes and there were a ton of issues with Flynn's speed and his ability to get around Evans. Mack played about 25 minutes.

Define "playing the point".

 

[VF21]

heck, for that matter, define "point."

 

[Vlade4GM]

While we're at it, why don't we define "definition."

 

[VF21]

It all depends on what your defnition of "is" is...

 

[Sac.1989]

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Guys like Tony Parker can get their shot off against anybody. But on the other side of the ball, Tony Parker is going to wish he could wear pads after Evans gets through with him.

Its brilliant, how many kings guards could you say that about in recent years, actually how many kings players. Were getting tougher guys, all these picks have a common characteristic and thats they all bring a degree of toughness which is more then needed.

 

[fnordius]

It all depends on what your defnition of "is" is...

Sorry if I deprived all y'all of a few pages of righteous & adamant miscommunication.

 

[dbfish]

Whatever else may be made of yesterday's events, one thing that is very evident is that our front office and coaches believe in Evans, and believe HARD. It was the closest thing to enthusiastic I have ever heard from Petrie, and Westphal sounded the same way (don't get me going about Gavin). They really truly think he's going to be a star. And at a certain point you just have to go with that. They may be right, they may be wrong, but the pick was made for the right reasons (with the single proviso that he wowed them in workouts, which as you recall was how Douby got his job too -- body of work has to matter more than a good showing in 1 on none or 3 on 3). If they are right then all of Gavin's ranting might actually look prophetic.

Point being they really truly think they have a tiger by the tail here, and you can't ask somebody to make the popular pick when they really think they've found a special player instead.

Any mention of QUINCY DOUBY should now and forever more be stricken from ANY Kings blogs along with Pervis Ellison.

 

[Telemachus]

Any mention of QUINCY DOUBY should now and forever more be stricken from ANY Kings blogs along with Pervis Ellison.

Who???

 

[6th]

Who???

Exactly!!!

 

[Kingster]

if that were the case, there would be no such things as a bad draft or a bad trade. did isaiah truly know what was best for the knicks, or the sonics after they drafted project Cs year after year, did matt millen know what was best for the lions when he drafted WR over and over. fans are allowed an opinion on what happens to their teams. if its bad, they have the right to point it out. i agree that calling for a GMs head after a pick they dont like is over the line, but if its a horrible pick then they should be called out. even though i wanted rubio, evans was my second choice. i was slightly disappointed but ok overall. but if we would have reached and picked someone like jordan hill, i would have been upset and voiced my opinion.

Petrie has a stellar track record drafting players. It's ridiculous to compare him to I. Thomas or to Matt Millen. Therefore, you're argument has no basis whatsoever. Anybody that has Petrie's track record deserves the benefit of the doubt and some respect, not the total lack of respect that it's getting from some on this board. Petrie and his staff had more information at their disposal on these players than ALL of this board collectively. They saw hundreds of hours of tape, saw their games in person, interviewed them personally, interviewed those who knew them, saw all of their private workouts, and did background checks on them. Sure, fans can disagree, and some fans might be right in their disagreement, but they should at least show some respect for the general manager's ability to draft players. He deserves it.