Your Reactions to Past Drafts

[1kingzfan]

I have no idea who has more upside because I haven't studied the players, but without any other knowledge I'd bet on the 19 year old to have greater potential over the 22 year old.

And you would bet wrong.

And this is the flaw in the reasoning. Never will two players be judged identically in athleticism, talent, skills, demeanor, etc, etc. such that it could possibly boil down to a "flyer" that the unknowns for a player at a very young age could somehow make a difference. Well, they could, both positively and negatively.

If it's "all things being equal, I'll take the younger guy", well, things are never equal.

Perhaps it's that folks had their "lists" when we were picking at #12 (I know I had mine and Thompson was NOT on it), and the list included Randolph, Jordan, Speights, etc. and folks said any of those guys would be great. Then Petrie picks a college senior, somewhat out of the blue for most, and then we get the "age card" threads, and that JT cannot possibly have the same upside as one of the younger bigs available at #12 who were populating most lists.

And, after all, the mocks are always right....

 

[1kingzfan]

No one is makng a blanket statement that the younger player has a greater chance to be a superstar than the older. It's simply the younger player has the greater chance of significantly improving their game because he has more room to grow, the older player has already gone through that time period, and it's known what happened.

But read what you just wrote above, really, and see that it makes no case whatsoever for what you strongly believe.

Between 18 and 21 is A three-year period, not THE ONLY 3-year period where significant growth as a player can be realized.

I do realize that that players can (may or may not) still grow physically in that period of time, but I don't think we are talking about another inch or two or three or a few pounds more of muscle mass.

 

[Vlade4GM]

But read what you just wrote above, really, and see that it makes no case whatsoever for what you strongly believe.

Between 18 and 21 is A three-year period, not THE ONLY 3-year period where significant growth as a player can be realized.

I do realize that that players can (may or may not) still grow physically in that period of time, but I don't think we are talking about another inch or two or three or a few pounds more of muscle mass.

Where did I say it was the only 3 year period significant player growth can take place? My argument is that it's the most critical timeframe for a player to reveal the physical potential of their frame and reveal more of the extent of their "harder to teach" abilities. Now growing from 19 to 21 isn't as significant as growing from 16-19, it's still far more significant than any other time frame post 21. My bottom line is basically that during this time period a player generally reveals more about his physical abilities and his game than any point after. So, it's not a blanket "they significantly improve their game during this timeframe more than any other" it depends a lot on what the player's game is built on.

 

[uolj]

And you would bet wrong.

And this is the flaw in the reasoning. Never will two players be judged identically in athleticism, talent, skills, demeanor, etc, etc. such that it could possibly boil down to a "flyer" that the unknowns for a player at a very young age could somehow make a difference. Well, they could, both positively and negatively.

If it's "all things being equal, I'll take the younger guy", well, things are never equal.

Sorry, you're still missing the point entirely. When assessing any singular criteria for evaluation, you must determine which option is better if all other criteria are equal. Otherwise, there is no point in ever discussing any criteria.

You wouldn't be able to say that LeBron James is a better pick than Jerome James because you wouldn't be allowed to say that more athleticism is better than less, more court vision is better than less, more accurate shooting is better than less, greater work ethic is better than worse, etc.

Of course when making an individual decision all the other factors are important, but I just want you and others to understand and/or admit that all other factors being equal a younger player has a better chance of being great than an older player (even if he also has a better chance of being horrible). That's what I'm talking about, plain and simple.

 

[Bricklayer]

I laid out the logic of the uolj (correct) argument before.

It is absolute. Its not even an opinion we are arguing. It is absolute. There is just somehow, someway, a lack of understanding.

1kingzfan you keep on introducing, and reintroducing and reintroducing the indidividual. That is not relevant. Or rather, that is a given for any and all arguments about average. Students at Berkeley may on average score 1320 on their SATs, students at the local community college 1040, but that does NOT mean that Susie from Berkeley MUST have a higher score than Bob from the J.C.. Susie could be one of the lower scores at Berkeley with a 1000, Bob could be a child prodigy slumming at the J.C. with a 1500. All that individual stuff is a given.

However to take the individual argument above, and to then try to say that if you wanted to hire somebody with a high SAT score you would not NORMALLY, ON AVERAGE be better off hiring a Berkeley kid than the J.C. kid is simply wrong. Not debatable. Wrong.


Applied to the basketball context, if the group of Players A are not currently superstars, and the group of Players B are not currently superstars, and we know nothing else about them except that the Players B group only has x years to become a superstar, while the Players A group has x+3 years to become a superstar. x+3 > x. Always.

Does not mean that any single Player B might not have more superstar potential than Player A. DOES mean that ON THE WHOLE, ON AVERAGE, the Players A who are not superstars have a greater chance, due to having more time to develop, to become superstars than do the Players B.

Assuming that we call a superstar a "10", and assuming (just for a number) that all non-superstar 22 yr olds are "5"s, and all non-superstar 19yr olds are "3"s, we KNOW that 0% of the 22 yr olds are superstars at 22. But with three extra years of development any normal deviation is going to find the 19 yr olds all over the chart. Some will end up being worse than 5s, some will end up being equal to 5s, and some MAY end up beign superstars. That MAY, that %, WHATEVER IT IS, just so long as it exceeds the 0% of the 22 yr olds, means that a random 19 yr old non-superstar baller has a greater chance of becoming a superstar than a random 22yr old non-superstar baller. From 22 years old onward, they both have ths same chance. But from 19-22 the 22yr old has a 0% chance, while the 19yr old has SOME chance > 0%.

 

[NewMonkey]

I laid out the logic of the uolj (correct) argument before.

It is absolute. Its not even an opinion we are arguing. It is absolute. There is just somehow, someway, a lack of understanding.

Cutting out some algebraic equations, quantum mechanics, theories on the Large Hadron Collider, etc.

Summarizing: Young players are better than old ones.

 

[Bricklayer]

Summarizing: Young players are better than old ones.

Well...at least have more potential.

Summarizing another way:

any percentage > 0%

 

[1kingzfan]

Assuming that we call a superstar a "10", and assuming (just for a number) that all non-superstar 22 yr olds are "5"s, and all non-superstar 19yr olds are "3"s, we KNOW that 0% of the 22 yr olds are superstars at 22. But with three extra years of development any normal deviation is going to find the 19 yr olds all over the chart. Some will end up being worse than 5s, some will end up being equal to 5s, and some MAY end up beign superstars. That MAY, that %, WHATEVER IT IS, just so long as it exceeds the 0% of the 22 yr olds, means that a random 19 yr old non-superstar baller has a greater chance of becoming a superstar than a random 22yr old non-superstar baller. From 22 years old onward, they both have ths same chance. But from 19-22 the 22yr old has a 0% chance, while the 19yr old has SOME chance > 0%.

Brick, I have completely understood your point here. But you and the others have missed mine completely. What you have typed up above here is unarguably true, BUT IT DOES NOT MATTER!

If you are a GM and you are comparing draftee choices, the REAL question is what is the likelihood that the 18 turned 21 will be better than the 21 turned 24? What is the likelihood that the 18 becomes a superstar in 3 or 6 years versus the 21 year old becoming a superstar in 3 or 6 years?

It does not matter that 1, 5, 10 out of a 100 or whatever number of 18-year olds might be better than a comparative 21-year old draftee, comparing stats, performance, impact at exactly age 21. It's an interesting exercise, but it has no usefulness in the real world.

The key flaw in the assumption is that whatever percentage of 18-year olds get better upon reaching 21, get even better afterwards and thus obviously surpass the 21-year old draftee ultimately, and thus have more "upside". That is only one possible outcome of several, and to boot, it ignores the progression of the 21-year old altogether in that 3 years. So I will merely argue that the 21-year old is doing bigger and better things after 3 years too and always stays ahead of the 18-year old draftee. He may keep progressing well into his 30's but the 18-year old draftee runs out of gas at 21...again, one possible outcome, but in this example, the 21-year old had more upside.

In sum, if you are a GM, all that matters is where you think a draftee may be, regardless of draft age, in 3-5 years (keeping in mind a 1st round pick may fly the coop after his rookie contract is done). What will he contribute, what will be his skill set, what will he mean to the team, and how does he fit in contributing to a title run.

That's why Jerry's comment that "youth upside" could be "no side" is quite relevant.

 

[uolj]

Brick, I have completely understood your point here. But you and the others have missed mine completely. What you have typed up above here is unarguably true, BUT IT DOES NOT MATTER!

I'm glad you agree... that's all I was looking for.

Of course, it does matter greatly. It's one more factor to consider.

The key flaw in the assumption is that whatever percentage of 18-year olds get better upon reaching 21, get even better afterwards and thus obviously surpass the 21-year old draftee ultimately, and thus have more "upside". That is only one possible outcome of several, and to boot, it ignores the progression of the 21-year old altogether in that 3 years. So I will merely argue that the 21-year old is doing bigger and better things after 3 years too and always stays ahead of the 18-year old draftee. He may keep progressing well into his 30's but the 18-year old draftee runs out of gas at 21...again, one possible outcome, but in this example, the 21-year old had more upside.

Oops... you're making the same mistake again.

Because the 21 year old has already been through two extra years of development, we know his likely peak level will be somewhere between 6 and 8. The 19 year old, though has a likely peak level between 4 and 10. Sure, they both have equal chance at being a 7, but the goal is not to try and draft the best peak number, the goal is to draft the guy most likely to be a 9 or 10. I thought you agreed to that earlier.

 

[1kingzfan]

I'm glad you agree... that's all I was looking for.

Of course, it does matter greatly. It's one more factor to consider.

Regardless, it has no bearing on comparative "upside".

Because the 21 year old has already been through two extra years of development, we know his likely peak level will be somewhere between 6 and 8. The 19 year old, though has a likely peak level between 4 and 10. Sure, they both have equal chance at being a 7, but the goal is not to try and draft the best peak number, the goal is to draft the guy most likely to be a 9 or 10. I thought you agreed to that earlier.

Wrong. Wrong.

The likely comparative peak between two players is indeterminant.

The goal is to draft a guy with the highest possible rating while you have control over his future, not when he reaches his prime years, whenever that is, and when he is likely to be with another team by then.

 

[uolj]

Wrong. Wrong.

The likely comparative peak between two players is indeterminant.

I know it's indeterminate, I even said that, "Sure, they both have equal chance at being a 7." The average range is not. (For an individual, of course it cannot be determined, but then, we're not talking about individuals. We're talking about a bell curve of possible outcomes, and the significant portion of the bell curve for a 21 year old is under 6-8 and for a 19 year old is under 4-10. Obviously these are made up numbers but no matter what numbers you pick you've even agreed that the average 19 year olds range will be higher.)

The goal is to draft a guy with the highest possible rating while you have control over his future, not when he reaches his prime years, whenever that is, and when he is likely to be with another team by then.

I disagree. The Kings need a superstar. That's is a much more important goal than getting someone to be a good player over the next three years. You take the chance that he will blossom for you and win the championship somewhere else, because how else will you get that superstar?

 

[Bricklayer]

Brick, I have completely understood your point here. But you and the others have missed mine completely. What you have typed up above here is unarguably true, BUT IT DOES NOT MATTER!

If you are a GM and you are comparing draftee choices, the REAL question is what is the likelihood that the 18 turned 21 will be better than the 21 turned 24? What is the likelihood that the 18 becomes a superstar in 3 or 6 years versus the 21 year old becoming a superstar in 3 or 6 years?

It does not matter that 1, 5, 10 out of a 100 or whatever number of 18-year olds might be better than a comparative 21-year old draftee, comparing stats, performance, impact at exactly age 21. It's an interesting exercise, but it has no usefulness in the real world.

The key flaw in the assumption is that whatever percentage of 18-year olds get better upon reaching 21, get even better afterwards and thus obviously surpass the 21-year old draftee ultimately, and thus have more "upside". That is only one possible outcome of several, and to boot, it ignores the progression of the 21-year old altogether in that 3 years. So I will merely argue that the 21-year old is doing bigger and better things after 3 years too and always stays ahead of the 18-year old draftee. He may keep progressing well into his 30's but the 18-year old draftee runs out of gas at 21...again, one possible outcome, but in this example, the 21-year old had more upside.

In sum, if you are a GM, all that matters is where you think a draftee may be, regardless of draft age, in 3-5 years (keeping in mind a 1st round pick may fly the coop after his rookie contract is done). What will he contribute, what will be his skill set, what will he mean to the team, and how does he fit in contributing to a title run.

That's why Jerry's comment that "youth upside" could be "no side" is quite relevant.

If that were all true then we should be picking up exclusively 32 year old players, because everybody constantly improves and there is no way any younger players could compete against such a constant arc.

But that's not the way it works, and I know you are going to try to argue it since it is an essential underpinning of your main argument. But its simply not the way it works. And in PARTICULAR with superstar level players. The only player who even arguably deserved that title to have ever pulled off that arc might be Steve Nash -- and that is highly highly questionable -- both as to whetehr he was a superstar, and as to whether he actually grew that much (over one summer even) or just suddenly got put into a perfect system for his skillset.

It doesn't work that way for lesser players either, but their improvement or lack thereof can be more easily disguised by the different roles and systems and teammates they are burdened with. Superstars don't have that issue. 25 is the rough cut off point. If not an absolute one, then a nice plummet point after which it gets extremely rare. The prime years ae roughly 18-24 or so. Its how Paul "caught" Baron and Nash, how Bosh "caught" Dirk and Pau.


The other obvious point about 22 yr olds vs. 19yr olds would be this:

The 19yr olds represent ALL of the 19 yr olds out there (under the new rule). So you are drafting from amongst every 19 year old on the planet. That includes every level of 19 year old, from scrub to one day superstar.

The 22yr olds only represent the LEFTOVER 22 yr olds. They have already been strained of many of their elite talents as 18yr olds (under the old rule), 19yr olds, 20yr olds and 21 yr olds. Rudy Gay is already gone from that class. So is Al Horford etc. That alone, ignoring everything else, means your odds of nabbing a superstar with a 19yr old are higher than those with a 22yr old simply because all of the 19 yr old superstars are still there and avaiulable...if you can just figure out who they are.

 

[Gary]

Kevin Martin - What the heck, we have Christie!! Best available though so it was OK with me..

Francisco Garcia - Another wing? Why do we need another wing player? Also why did we draft someone that's already 50 years old when we have no immediate need?

Quincy Douby - Why the hell didn't Petrie draft Marcus Williams!?

Ricky Minard - Not going to last past training camp.

Spencer Hawes - WHY DIDN'T YOU TRADE UP AND GET NOAH!? (although I retracted this statement since then)

 

[1kingzfan]

If that were all true then we should be picking up exclusively 32 year old players, because everybody constantly improves and there is no way any younger players could compete against such a constant arc.

And if what you are arguing is true, we should only draft the youngest players possible becasue they have the hidden, mysterious humongous upside because they have not entered the "typical years" of major development. Just not true.

This desparation to get a superstar, including that other ludicrous thread on tanking again, is getting kinda hilarious.

I think we will have to agree to disagree and save some bandwidth now.

Except for this one....(and to display that I am an honorable debater)...

The other obvious point about 22 yr olds vs. 19yr olds would be this:

The 19yr olds represent ALL of the 19 yr olds out there (under the new rule). So you are drafting from amongst every 19 year old on the planet. That includes every level of 19 year old, from scrub to one day superstar.

The 22yr olds only represent the LEFTOVER 22 yr olds. They have already been strained of many of their elite talents as 18yr olds (under the old rule), 19yr olds, 20yr olds and 21 yr olds. Rudy Gay is already gone from that class. So is Al Horford etc. That alone, ignoring everything else, means your odds of nabbing a superstar with a 19yr old are higher than those with a 22yr old simply because all of the 19 yr old superstars are still there and avaiulable...if you can just figure out who they are.

This one hit me like a ton of bricks...no pun intended.

I just cannot refute this in any way, shape, or form.

Why did Jason Thompson, or any other player worthy of a lottery selection, for that matter, not declare before senior year?

1. Just wanted to finish that degree..education is paramount
2. Late bloomer...not ready in earlier college years
3. Having too much fun in college; money/big time not the biggest driver
4. Dedicated to school, coach and/or teammates, so that they do not have a major fall-off in performance from an early exit
5. Plain and simple...not good enough.

The answer for any player is not that important, but I DO agree that it means that the crop of seniors is indeed likely more restrictive and then possibly, if you take the next leap, potentially more devoid of future NBA stars. That does not mean Jason or any other senior cannot achieve stardom in the NBA, but to me, with early entrants, the senior class has gone through a bit of a strainer. This does not affect any one-on-one comparison between any two players but applies to the general population.

I do not concede any of my previous arguments about realistic drafting of a player and the one-on-one comparisons that must be made and where age fits in there in the real world of the GM. But I guess, without knowing the answers (#1 to #5) for most of the college seniors drafted in recent years, I am kind of painted into the corner about the general population issue. If I am a GM, I do not shy away from drafting a senior, but I do look closely at what he did over the course of his college career and perhaps ask some pointed questions.

I think I must have fallen for a sneaky lawyer trick...

Brick, you related to Denny Crane?

 

[NME]

He's a little bit raw, but his ceiling is off the charts!

 

[Bricklayer]

He's a little bit raw, but his ceiling is off the charts!

No. Way.

An NME sighting??

 

[NME]

No. Way.

An NME sighting??

Who's NME? Kind of rings a bell.

 

[Bricklayer]

Crap.

Everybody... RUN AWAY!!!!!!!!

I can find no explanation for this event other than an imminent apocalypse.


So NME....how's life?

 

[NME]

So NME....how's life?

Pretty good. I guess I got a bit burnt out on basketball microanalysis and also message boards in general. I find myself getting sucked in by TDOS for some reason.

 

[Bricklayer]

Pretty good. I guess I got a bit burnt out on basketball microanalysis and also message boards in general.

Pfft -- don't get worried about any of that stressful nonsense in these later days, we've found better ways to spend our offeasons now: http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27381

 

[Aenadin]

ive seen a lot of points taken here and there bout the draft picks and frankly im quite pleased that theres a lot of ideas and opinions flowing about who was good and who was bad as a pick...

the picks geoff made were quite fair in my opinion though the douby pick still needs to prove me wrong...

had doug christie stayed with us along with kevin martin he could have been a mentor on the kid regarding defense and ball handling... regardless if he is healthy or not..

regarding about the age and potential.. i think maturity also plays a role here... jason thompson lead the rider university... he was unselfish and kind of a likeable person according to some articles.. being a senior athlete means he had 4 years of college and maturity thus discipline and work ethic.. hes a late bloomer and considering he has that work ethic he can surpass even our expectations...

randolph or a young kid on the other hand my question will be his discipline and maturity... will his confidence and ego be banged up if some one in the nba just flat out embarassed him in one game... or so.. i mean rookies go through that wall and slump in their career but the question is will you let it affect your growth?

age wont matter here (not unless the guy you drafted is 27 or 30 year old lol that would have been a questionable pick)

so the big factor here will be work ethic and mental toughness.. late bloomers are a plus too...

and wasnt work ethic and mental toughness a knock on the young randolph?

 

[bajaden]

ive seen a lot of points taken here and there bout the draft picks and frankly im quite pleased that theres a lot of ideas and opinions flowing about who was good and who was bad as a pick...

the picks geoff made were quite fair in my opinion though the douby pick still needs to prove me wrong...

had doug christie stayed with us along with kevin martin he could have been a mentor on the kid regarding defense and ball handling... regardless if he is healthy or not..

regarding about the age and potential.. i think maturity also plays a role here... jason thompson lead the rider university... he was unselfish and kind of a likeable person according to some articles.. being a senior athlete means he had 4 years of college and maturity thus discipline and work ethic.. hes a late bloomer and considering he has that work ethic he can surpass even our expectations...

randolph or a young kid on the other hand my question will be his discipline and maturity... will his confidence and ego be banged up if some one in the nba just flat out embarassed him in one game... or so.. i mean rookies go through that wall and slump in their career but the question is will you let it affect your growth?

age wont matter here (not unless the guy you drafted is 27 or 30 year old lol that would have been a questionable pick)

so the big factor here will be work ethic and mental toughness.. late bloomers are a plus too...

and wasnt work ethic and mental toughness a knock on the young randolph?

Some of the reports had him showing up at some of the workouts out of shape and unprepared. That along with his age and weighing only 198 pounds at 6'9" or 6'10". He may develop into a very good player, or become just a good support player. He needs to live in the weight room and get stronger. I still think he'll be a SF in the NBA.

 

[VF21]

He's a little bit raw, but his ceiling is off the charts!

Welcome back. You have absolutely NO idea how often you've been mentioned, especially with all the contract stuff being discussed.

I've missed you and your wonderful, succinct takes.

 

[carmichaeldave]

I read this entire thread, which started out awesome and then got nerdy quick.

The thing that's funny is this: In all the draft opinions, pretty much everyone was either "happy" with the Kevin Martin pick, "trusted Petrie", or "had them in their draft".

Really?

R-E-A-L-L-Y??!@?!?

I seem to remember a town that damn near went crazy. Saying things like "he's too skinny", or he's a "mini Doug Christie, but not good". I also seem to remember Kevin damn near being run out on a rail in his second season, with damn near EVERYONE wanting to trade him.

I also seem to remember 99 percent of everyone hating the Hawes pick (that might be slightly high).

Also, in reading this thread, it seemed everyone also knew that Douby was going to suck, although I also don't seem to remember NEARLY the hate for Douby that there was for Martin or especially Hawes.

I guess hindsight is 20/20. I call shenanigans on the Martin thing though. Sorry.

 

[NME]

The thing that's funny is this: In all the draft opinions, pretty much everyone was either "happy" with the Kevin Martin pick, "trusted Petrie", or "had them in their draft".

Really?

R-E-A-L-L-Y??!@?!?

Believe it or not, there was actually quite a bit of sentiment in favor of Kevin on this particular board in the weeks BEFORE the draft. He was even the Kings pick in our official Mock Draft.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Didn't really follow the draft much pre-2006. I was really irked that we picked Douby, it wasn't so much that I was against him as a player, I liked his shooting ability and his scoring moves, but he was never going to be a starter because he was stuck as a combo. I wanted Rondo the most, I was really big on Rondo that draft and I thought he easily should've been a lottery pick. Lowry, Marcus Williams, and Farmar were next on my list in that order; would've been fine with any of those picks. We needed a PG and there were plenty of solid PG prospects on the board at that point, not to mention Sergio Rodriguez.

I liked the Hawes pick very much, couldn't complain at all. He was my second choice after Julian Wright, and I still think Wright is going to be a really good player once he gets playing time and he was pretty good in the limited minutes he played last year. Hawes was the best big available and I thought he was much better than he showed in his freshman year, not a defensive presence we needed, but definitely very good value for the pick, and it was a position of need.

 

[Bricklayer]

1) Kevin Preseason First Year Thread (Our Server went down that summer after he was drafted, so original draft thread is lost): http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=599&highlight=Kevin+Martin

Me:

Spoiler

Guys/gals, we're getting just a tad ahead of ourselves here.

In 3 preseason games so far Martin has averaged:

22.7min 7.0pts (.400, --, .750) 3.7reb 1.0ast 0.0stl 0.3blk 1.0TO 4.3FL

He looks to be a legit NBA player, which is great. But he's really not ready yet. And its going to take a while to see how good he is, and at what (can he hit an NBA three? Be disruptive defensively? How good a passer is he?). He's athletic and sticks his nose in there, but right now he's a foul with legs.

What he could really use is a breakout game where he's flowing and getting off the shots he wants to take. Or at least we as fans could really use it so we could get a feel for his game. Its been a little ragged so far. But its early.

2) Garcia Draft Thread: http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6201&highlight=Francisco+Garcia&page=2

Me:

Spoiler

Garcia is NOT that great an athelete. Everyone sees the size and assumes, but its not true. The Reggie comparisons are apt in that regard.


He fits our system. He at least cares. He's not shutting down anybody int he NBA, and lacks the physical skills to maybe ever do ti really.

3) Douby (decidedly mixed) Draft thread: http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13564&highlight=Quincy+Douby

Me:

Spoiler

Eh...I think Douby jockers are being silly. But as I was not sold on anybody in this draft, it may not be any worse than anybody else we could have gotten. At least he a) is tough minded; and b) has a calling card (scorer)

My biggest problem is that Quincy Douby played like Allen Iverson -- he COMPLETELY dominatyed the ball. Every possession, half the shot clock. Not like he scored prolifically in a way that you can duplicate in the pros. He needed to have the ball, a LOT. And in the pros, just nto goign to happen. Combine that with a 1:1 A/T ratio (and about an 8-9/1 pts/ast ratio) and I have real questions whether he can be a PG in any true sense of the word. People complain about Bibby shooting too much, and then are excited about Douby?

4) Spencer draft thread: http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21187&highlight=Spencer+Hawes

Me:

Spoiler

I think he;s clever enough to score int eh NBA -- he has a LOT of moves.

But clever doesn't help you on defense or the glass when guys with twice your strength and athleticsm run right around and through you.

 

[6th]

NME???????

It's so good to see you!!!

 

[BMiller52]

I read this entire thread, which started out awesome and then got nerdy quick.

The thing that's funny is this: In all the draft opinions, pretty much everyone was either "happy" with the Kevin Martin pick, "trusted Petrie", or "had them in their draft".

Really?

R-E-A-L-L-Y??!@?!?

I seem to remember a town that damn near went crazy. Saying things like "he's too skinny", or he's a "mini Doug Christie, but not good". I also seem to remember Kevin damn near being run out on a rail in his second season, with damn near EVERYONE wanting to trade him.

I also seem to remember 99 percent of everyone hating the Hawes pick (that might be slightly high).

Also, in reading this thread, it seemed everyone also knew that Douby was going to suck, although I also don't seem to remember NEARLY the hate for Douby that there was for Martin or especially Hawes.

I guess hindsight is 20/20. I call shenanigans on the Martin thing though. Sorry.

Eh I was indifferent towards the Martin pick(not on this board at the time though), disliked the Garcia pick, hated the Douby pick, and disliked Hawes.

 

[Löwenherz]

I read this entire thread, which started out awesome and then got nerdy quick.

The thing that's funny is this: In all the draft opinions, pretty much everyone was either "happy" with the Kevin Martin pick, "trusted Petrie", or "had them in their draft".

Really?

R-E-A-L-L-Y??!@?!?

I was really high on the Kevin Martin pick for all the wrong reasons. Mainly, because I thought he was a Doug Christie clone. But ultimately, I was rather indifferent because he was a late pick and we still seemed to have our core in place at the time.

Garcia I felt the same way.

I was upset about Douby because we skipped Williams who slide right into our laps. But I told myself *Petrie knows what he's doing"* and I thought Douby could be an energetic offensive force eventually.

I hated the Hawes pick and have been slowly warming up to him kicking and screaming the whole way.

The Thompson pick utterly disgusted me, but I think that was a result of my frustration that's been building for the last few years with Petrie's sit-on-hands draft strategy.