What are our future needs?
- Thread starter bajaden
- Start date
A
AriesMar27
Guest
tony parker isnt athletic? he's probably on of the top 5 quickest players in the league.... i didnt say that i disliked martin.... i love kevin but he isnt strong enough to attack the basket and finish in traffic or defend most athletic sg's like kobe...
Gary
All-Star
Parker is quick, but not the most athletic specimen playing the game. There is a difference between quickness and athleticism. But I wouldn't say he wasn't athletic either.. Parker is about average athletic wise, but quick as hell.
You saying Martin can't attack the basket? WTH? You not serious with that remark right? Martin is one of the best at attacking the basket in the league.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
You've got to be kidding about Martin attacking the basket. How do you think he gets to the foul line so often? Its not often that I agree with FakeInjury, but he's right about Tony Parker. He's very quick but not overly athletic. There are a lot of things that go into being extremely athletic. Quickness is certainly one of them. So is hand eye coordination, lateral quickness, jumping ability, etc. Its possible to have some of those but not all. When you have all, you're special.
Using Peja as an example. No one would accuse him of being an exceptional athlete. But he had great hand/eye coordination and very good lateral quickness. In contrast to his lateral quickness, he had only average full court speed. In Larry Bird's prime, he wouldn't have beat too many people in a foot race. But he too had very good lateral quickness, so he was a pretty good defender
Telemachus
Starter
Quickness and athleticism are not the same thing. Parker has great speed and quickness, but I would consider him an average athlete. Have you ever seen him jump very high, or make an athletic move? It is always his quickness that seperates him IMO.
Telemachus
Starter
Great post players do it with skill, NOT Athleticism. Don't get me wrong, it helps to be athletic; but skill is what gives you a post game. Some of the best post players I have seen play the game were average athletes. I think that the more athletic players often lack good post skills because they were always able to rely on their athleticism most of their lives. Then they get into the NBA and find out that just being a great athlete won't cut it anymore. A good example of this is Chris Webber. He relied on his athleticism most of his life, and had to adjust his game in the NBA because it wasn't enough anymore. He had to develope his baby hook to be effective in the post. Even then, when his legs were gone he became primarily a perimeter player on offense. He just never developed enough post skills to still get the job done.
I guess I won't even get into how to classify "superstar".
The first player that comes to mind is Tim Duncan. I know some will disagree here, but is NOT a great athlete. I would classify him as slightly above average as an athlete. He just knows how to play the game the right way. He uses all his skills and his knowledge of the game to be the most effective player he can be. They don't call him the "Big Fundamental" because of his athleticism.
Secondly, Dirk Nowitzki not the most athletic player IMO. I'm not sure I would call him a superstar either, but that is another debate.
If you look back on the history of the NBA, there are a lot of great players who are not great athletes. Larry Bird has been mentioned, but I would throw out there a few more names off the top of my head: Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, Magic Johnson, and John Stockton. I am sure I could come up with others, but don't feel like putting a lot of time into it.
Obviously, it helps being a great athlete to become a superstar. Unfortuneately, it is rare to find a great athlete who also will put in the time and effort to become a great skill player as well. When that happens, you get a player like MJ or the Big O.
hammystyle
Starter
You seem to be defining athleticism as jumping high, which is just wrong. Quickness is part of athleticism, and probly the most fundamental. Quickness indicates a combination of speed and agility. If you're fast and agile, there really isn't a sport you won't be good at, and ify you're good at sports, you're a good athlete, and if you're a good athlete....ou'e athletic.
Basketball is a game of skill and athleticism, and purely skill-wise TP is average at best. Its his exceptional athletic gift of speed and quickness that makes him an elite PG.
Gary
All-Star
When classifying an athletic player in NBA terms they usually mean jumping high. They put quickness in a whole other category. You will see announcers use both terms when talking about players. Nash has a quick first step, but he's far from athletic in NBA terms. But I think you put Parker against a slough of weekend warriors and he will be called athletic. Even Bibby would be athletic compared to most of us here.
When it comes to me though I will put quickness and athleticism in different categories because most guard players are quick, but not all are athletic.
JerN820
Bench
That's a tough call and I am glad that is why I am not the GM. But I think I would go with a center. Great centers are hard to find. When you do find one though, they are the prototype to build your team around, as it opens up the perimeter.
NME
Starter
I guess it depends on how top five the center or PG is. If we're talking about one of the couple dominant centers that turn up each decade, it's a no brainer, but there's usually a bigger gap between Center #1 and Center #5 than there is between PG #1 and PG #5.
If the choice is between Shaq in his prime and Tony Parker, it's easy to go Center. If the choice is between Chris Paul and Chris Kaman, then it's PG.
Löwenherz
Starter
I guess it depends on how top five the center or PG is. If we're talking about one of the couple dominant centers that turn up each decade, it's a no brainer, but there's usually a bigger gap between Center #1 and Center #5 than there is between PG #1 and PG #5.
If the choice is between Shaq in his prime and Tony Parker, it's easy to go Center. If the choice is between Chris Paul and Chris Kaman, then it's PG.
How about between Shaq or Paul, which way do you go there?
I understand the immense importance of the PG, especially in this league. But I think I'd have to go with the big man.
As a little game, with our young guys as the nucleus, if you could add any player to them who would make them contenders.
I gotta say I think Shaq would. Paul, I have my doubts.
NME
Starter
Yeah, when you're talking about that rare truly dominant center, you always go with the big man. If all else is equal, you also go with the big man. My point with the "top five" premise was that there probably aren't five centers in the league at any given time that would all make for an automatic choice. A lot of times the 5th best center may be closer to the 10th or 15th guy than he is the #1 center.
Löwenherz
Starter
I agree, I've just been trying to think about this thread topic for a while and it's really rather difficult. Right now I feel like we're rebuilding a car with its engine in pieces on the garage floor, and the OP is asking which parts with think we need to make it run.
I think the likelihood of us getting a dominating center/pf is so low it's not even worth discussing. So I'm guessing if we focus our hopes on getting superior all-star level talent upgrades at the 1 and 3, we can survive with Thompson and Hawes as our big men even if they develop a shade below our already tempered expectations.
Then again, if the mythical big man does fall in our laps I'm all for that too.
I think the likelihood of us getting a dominating center/pf is so low it's not even worth discussing. So I'm guessing if we focus our hopes on getting superior all-star level talent upgrades at the 1 and 3, we can survive with Thompson and Hawes as our big men even if they develop a shade below our already tempered expectations.
Then again, if the mythical big man does fall in our laps I'm all for that too.
Telemachus
Starter
I tend to classify athleticism as a combination of quickness, agility, speed, jumping ability, and coordination. However, most people I have talked to (and this tends to include most analysts, etc.) tend to separate speed from athleticism. If an NBA player does a high-flying dunk, then he is a great athlete (if you know what I mean).
With Parker, I see his overall speed and quickness. He also seems to have good coordination. He doesn't seem to have good leaping ability, nor has he shown great agility IMO (body control, etc.).
When I think of a great athlete, I think of someone who does extraordinary things that most others can't do. I don't see that with Parker. He uses his speed and quickness in combination with his passing and mid-range shot to be a very effective player. Usually the player on San Antonio who does extraordinary things is Ginobili.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
Yeah, I think sometimes what you may need and who you pick in the draft end up being quite different. The Kings got themselves in trouble when they first came to sacramento by drafting for need. Joe Kleine is an example of that, and even when they got lucky and had the first pick in the draft, once again they drafted for need, instead of picking the best player available.
Unless you get very lucky, such as Portland did, and the player they needed happened to be the best player available, your better off trying to fill that need in other ways. Such as a trade or free angency. I do think that the situation is somewhat different though, if all your drafting for is depth. In that case I think taking a gamble is more warranted. Once again, that depends on how some of the young players develop this coming year.
A
AriesMar27
Guest
have you seen some of the layups that he makes? and how can you not include quickness when determining athleticism? that must mean that you think that usain bolt isnt athletic because you havent seen him dunk on somebody....
Telemachus
Starter
If you would actually bother to read my entire post, you would notice that I do include quickness and speed when measuring athleticism. They are only a part, not the whole I look at.
There is no doubt that Usain Bolt is a great athlete when it comes to track and field, but that doesn't mean he would be when measuring his athleticism for the NBA (simply don't know without seeing all he can do).
I think most who watched Phelps would call him a great athlete as well, but I know a lot of people who don't look at swimmers as being athletic. In a debate a few years ago about the best athlete around, Lance Armstrong was brought up. Some agreed, and others said he wasn't an athlete at all. This is why I look at athletes and their athleticism based on what sport they play. You develop different aspects of your overall athleticism depending on what sport you play.
Gary
All-Star
I am talking NBA standards not track and field.. You are generalizing athleticism.. Is Bibby athletic? You throw him in with my friends and I when playing some ball and he sure as hell is athletic.. But put him up against NBA players and he is not..
So by NBA standards Parker is quick, but is not an explosive athlete when it comes to judging him based on all things needed to be an NBA caliber athlete.
"4. 1 unathletic NBA superstar = TONY PARKER“
You guys are using the word superstar too loosely. Tony Parker is not a superstar. He is at best an all-star level player. NBA superstars are players like Lebron James, Chris Paul, Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, KG, Dwayne Wade, Steve Nash, Dwight Howard, Shaq (4 years ago), and Yao Ming (when he is healthy).
You guys are using the word superstar too loosely. Tony Parker is not a superstar. He is at best an all-star level player. NBA superstars are players like Lebron James, Chris Paul, Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, KG, Dwayne Wade, Steve Nash, Dwight Howard, Shaq (4 years ago), and Yao Ming (when he is healthy).
FakeInjury
Bench
You are wrong about Tony Parker. He IS a superstar. In france. Eat some snails, it may increase your ability to identify superstars, because CP3, Howard are borderline considering they havent won a championship yet. You actually have to accomplish something to become a superstar, its not all name recognition.
A
AriesMar27
Guest
how many pg's can you name that are more athletic than parker? true he's not as athletic as gerald wallace (not a pg but still very athletic) but damn.... i really cant think of that many if any pg's that are more athletic than parker.... he can do just about anything that anyother pg can do physically... unless jumping really high is your definition of nba athleticism. because he can do everything else, he probably could dunk i havent seen him do it but im sure he can.
nevermind....
take that back, i just saw a clip of parker dunking during a rockets game on youtube....
Last edited by a moderator:
FakeInjury
Bench
I think the spurs are going to sit on tony parker for a little while, so he can be crossed off the future needs list. We dont need an athlete, steve francis type guard who happens to play the point. We need a big body, preferably with a nick name similar to "baby shaq" or "big baby"... you know, a banger. to be more specific, eduardo najara with a 7 ft. frame, and a talent for offensive glass.
A
AriesMar27
Guest
isnt glen davis like 6'7? he's like a fat kenny thomas....
CruzDude
Senior Member sharing a brew with bajaden
(What are our future needs?) Not Gooden and Noah as in the other thread.
I think the Kings are set for the time being with Brad and BJax being the key Vets on the team to bring along the "kids". At some point you have to quit fiddling and get on with it. I think they have as good a core as possible considering all the factors. If Mikki gets pushed out by all-star break, he gets traded. KT and SAR are the big ?? If SAR retires, then he just goes away and the salary cap gap gets bigger. KT on the other hand the King may be stuck with as no one in the league wants a 6-7 center or PF who can't bang and is a horrible ball handler, especially if they are making $7m a year!!
Who knows, the core of 13 could all see minutes early on then the Kings settle down to a core of 10 with spot inserts for the end of the bench. But don't think any trade helps at this point. Just need to get into training camp to see what develops.
I think the Kings are set for the time being with Brad and BJax being the key Vets on the team to bring along the "kids". At some point you have to quit fiddling and get on with it. I think they have as good a core as possible considering all the factors. If Mikki gets pushed out by all-star break, he gets traded. KT and SAR are the big ?? If SAR retires, then he just goes away and the salary cap gap gets bigger. KT on the other hand the King may be stuck with as no one in the league wants a 6-7 center or PF who can't bang and is a horrible ball handler, especially if they are making $7m a year!!
Who knows, the core of 13 could all see minutes early on then the Kings settle down to a core of 10 with spot inserts for the end of the bench. But don't think any trade helps at this point. Just need to get into training camp to see what develops.
I think you need to eat the snails--raw. Without Tim Duncan, Tony Parker is not even an all-star. Tony Parker without Tim Duncan, is just like Bibby, near all-star level but not quite. No NBA GM will say that Tony Parker is a franchise player. However, NBA GMs can build a very good team around either CP3 or Dwight Howard because they are superstar talents.
There are many superstar players who didn't win a championship. Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, and Patrick Ewing just to name a few. On another hand, there are also lots scrub players who have a championship ring. So, I don't think your championship argument works.
There are many superstar players who didn't win a championship. Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, and Patrick Ewing just to name a few. On another hand, there are also lots scrub players who have a championship ring. So, I don't think your championship argument works.
Last edited:
bloom
Starter
I think our two main issues going into the future is the back-up PF and Center position. Neither Mikki nor Brad is going to be in our long-term plans (I think). Those two are good mentors for Jason and Spencer, but we need more. Sheldon isn’t good enough (not a good piece for this team, his game doesn’t translate for our team. Also, I’ve said this before, but he needs to lose some pounds – but that’s my opinion) and nobody is going to back-up Spencer when Brad’s gone.
Our point guard position is okay, for now. I’d like to see how Bobby Brown’s game works with this team. I can’t wait to see him play.
I’d also like to see our bench become an energizer bunny group. A unite of guys that come in bring this intense energy and make the game that much more fun. Right now, I only see Cisco and probably Bobby Jackson in that role. Donte Greene is an unknown, I can’t wait to see how he plays and Quincy has yet to show us if he can be that spark. But I would like to see more fire in his all around game.
And this team needs to continue to jell and think as one and not as individuals.
Our point guard position is okay, for now. I’d like to see how Bobby Brown’s game works with this team. I can’t wait to see him play.
I’d also like to see our bench become an energizer bunny group. A unite of guys that come in bring this intense energy and make the game that much more fun. Right now, I only see Cisco and probably Bobby Jackson in that role. Donte Greene is an unknown, I can’t wait to see how he plays and Quincy has yet to show us if he can be that spark. But I would like to see more fire in his all around game.
And this team needs to continue to jell and think as one and not as individuals.
CruzDude
Senior Member sharing a brew with bajaden
For the Center position, I agree. And for a Hawes backup Jason did play the 5 position for 4 years in college. But beyond Brad, the Kings do need another big whose name is not Mikki. If SAR does not retire and can play 100%, then he becomes the backup 4-5 as he has played both and played well, when he was healthy. The SF, SG and PG slots seem covered for this year and next, if Brown and Greene are able to step up.
FakeInjury
Bench
Championships and other hardware like FINALS MVP cannot be argued against. You are wrong about Tony Parker, you don't need to admit it, but i would recommend not arguing against it.
LPKingsFan
All-Star
So is Chauncey Billups a superstar?
