Chad Ford ESPN Mock 5

by Hoops916 on Jun 17, 2008 9:51 AM PDT Comment 18 comments

(From the FanPosts. Worth noting that DraftExpress agrees with the Randolph pick, which is a no-brainer if he's there. -- TZ)

Chad Ford just posted his 5th in a series of mock-drafts.

He's got the Kings grabbing Anthony Randolph this time. Which is an interesting "take" considering he had us grabbing Arthur the first 3 mocks, and DJ in the 4th.

I likey though!! An athletic 4 is exactly what we need (among other things!).. Also note that Andy Katz (who knows his hoops) is going to have a live-chat at 11 on espn.com.

(This is a FanPost from a member of the Sactown Royalty community. The views expressed come from the member, and not Sactown Royalty staff.)

0 recs | Comment 18 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Take a center?

Assuming the PGs are gone and someone doesn’t drop, do we consider taking a center and moving SHawes to PF? We know SHawes has offensive moves. He can score, pass, and play some D. But he is not a shot blocker or big time rebounder. So why not take a true center who can block, rebound, and play with his back to the basket, and use SHawes in what would seem to be a more natural position?

"Being loquacious and being right aren't necessarily always the same."
GP, the man, the myth, the legend, puts the smackdown on Reggie

by SavageBeast on Jun 17, 2008 12:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Don't see it

Happenin Savage. Although Hawes has a nice Basketball IQ, he simply can not hang at the 4.

And most importantly…. I can’t think of any C in the draft that I would rather have that Hawes right now!

Ive stated on here before that i like Hawes’s game but he doesnt have 4 ability. He seemed to have trouble throughout his rookie campaign defending/boxing out 5’s. Too many 4’s in the league will simply eat him up. And he isnt an explosive enough player (or strong enough) on offense to use his height to his advantage with 4’s guarding..

I think he will grow to be a “good” player for the Kings in the upcoming years…but soley as a 5!

by Hoops916 on Jun 17, 2008 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So then do we

need to look for a PF that is primarily a shot blocker/rebounder to clog the lane? Because I don’t see SHawes spending a lot of time playing under the basket.

"Being loquacious and being right aren't necessarily always the same."
GP, the man, the myth, the legend, puts the smackdown on Reggie

by SavageBeast on Jun 17, 2008 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hmmm

I think we need a 4 who who can rebound and can play with his back to the basket. (which really isnt asking too much??)I believe the Kings most blatant problem is our inability to have a 4 or a 5 who can play with the “big-boys”.

I tend to disagree slightly wth you, in that I believe Hawes can develope a “decently” good post-up game. He showed flashes of potential underneath the hoop throughout the rookie year. More than I can say for Mr. Miller in all the years he’s been here. He does show flashes of Miller in his game, but I certainly disagree with the notion that he is a young Brad Miller, as many claim.

However, for the Kings to be effective on the defensive end going forward, we’ll need a 4 with athletic ability who can rebound. Hence why I was giddy this morning with the predictions of the Kings possibly getting Randolph at 12. I believe he and Hawes can develope into a formitable combo. (On both sides of the ball)

by Hoops916 on Jun 17, 2008 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hibbert? what the $#%@!

Ford also mentions Hibbert, you’ve got to be kidding. The Kings are already loaded with players I can’t watch, why add another? Especially, another unathletic big man (regardless of b.b. iq). I’ve been questioning Petrie’s decisions for a long time, I think adding a player like Hibbert, or Love would just confirm his ineptitude.

by deepnu666 on Jun 17, 2008 1:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Slow down a bit...

Not sure why you through Love in with your comments re: Petrie and Hibbert. Love is not only a much better player than Hibbert, he’s a completely different player. Not only is he a knockdown shooter out to the NBA 3pt range, he likes to get underneath and use his size to bang and rebound – something I’ve never seen HIbbert do, unless you consider that hook of his ‘banging underneath’.

I’d be on the fire Petrie bandwagon if he decided to go with Hibbert, but I think that’s all fluff . If Love somehow fell to us, I’d be pretty damn pleased, and judging from the draft votes, I think a lot of others around here would be as well.

by cabz on Jun 17, 2008 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I don’t think you can even mention Love and Hibbert in the same sentance. I’d be willing to see a Hawes/Love front court. Or a Hawes/Lopez front court for that matter. I think Hibbert will be a quality NBA player. But it’s going to have to be for a team like the Jazz that focus on the half court game. Just please don’t give me another swingman, no matter how talented.

"Being loquacious and being right aren't necessarily always the same."
GP, the man, the myth, the legend, puts the smackdown on Reggie

by SavageBeast on Jun 17, 2008 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's funny

I don’t think you can even mention Love and Hibbert in the same sentance.

I think you just did! ;p

I understand your point, and agree.

Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott

by Kfan in Korea on Jun 17, 2008 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, Hawes is slightly more versatile than just a C

Adding Love or Lopez might not be that bad but I would be a little weary of the rebounding and shot blocking numbers from those two. Hawes/Lopez is also intriguing, passing and soft hands are not easy things to teach and both Hawes, Lopez and Love all have very good hand eye coordination. If the Kings went this way, they would need to deal for a small forward in the Shawn Marion mold of rebounding, defensive player with shot blocking ability (maybe a Josh Smith type).

Maybe Moore, Salmons and a #2 (veteran leadership) for Smith and Pachullia?

Hot dogs, get your hot dogs.

by jjham15 on Jun 17, 2008 3:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

seriously?

“Maybe Moore, Salmons and a #2 (veteran leadership) for Smith and Pachullia?”

Would never happen, no matter how much I’d love having Pachulia on the Kings. Anytime he does anything, I’ll immediately turn to my friends and scream:

“Zaazaaaaa!!!!”

I mean, I do it already – imagine how insane I’d get if he was wearing purple and black.

Mikki Moore in the skills challenge! - LPA

by iashwash on Jun 22, 2008 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ZaaaZaaa!!!

Thats pretty much the whole reason I WOULD want him. A guy named Zaza just seems right on the Kings.

eternal skeptical optimist

by lietothegirls on Jun 23, 2008 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK

First, from Chad Ford (and DraftExpress’) mock drafts to God’s ears. Randolph is #5 on my chart. To grab him at #12 would be tremendous. True, we won’t see much of him to begin with (at 197 lbs. someone might break him!), but put some weight on this kid and I start having visions of Chris Bosh dancing through my head. Hawes/Randolph? Yes, please!

Second, Hawes at PF. This is not impossible, depending on who you pair with him. That is, if you wound up with a guy like Speights or Jordan and they developed well, then that guy would cover (for example) Bynum while Hawes covered Gasol. But against the other LA team Hawes would cover Kaman while Speights/Jordan would draw Brand. So it could work on the defensive end. On the offensive end it’s the old Vlade/C-Webb game if both Hawes and his partner have enough passing ability they can both play high and low. Your concept is very interesting, SB. I think it has some merit.

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Jun 17, 2008 4:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

randolph

if he ever develops a strong motor he could be a poor man’s Kevin Garnett

BOOK IT!

by kingme18 on Jun 19, 2008 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That term motor is a dumb phrase

It tells me nothing about a player and everything about those attempting to describe him.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Jun 20, 2008 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Its better...

...than “long,” “linear” and “upside.”

by Red Reign on Jun 20, 2008 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What the bejesus?

Lordy Lord Lord Lord lord lord lord.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Jun 20, 2008 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"good basketball i.q."

wtf does that mean? iq is supposed to be a measure of natural intelligence outside of academic definitions, how can ones basketball sense be natural, or ingrained? Basketball is a defined game with “arbitrary” rules (in an evolutionary sense), you can’t be born with a better understanding of the game. Are they trying to say the player has been coached well, and therefore not only does he know post moves, but understands why they are there, what their purpose is and how to best take advantage of many scenarios? because that sounds more like good basketball knowledge, which means the player is a student of the game, which makes sense. Player Anonymous has spent most of his life studying the game and thus has a deeper, clearer understanding of the complexities of the game and is continually learning more (more about plays, about player tendencies, about ballhandling, about post-maneuvering, about negotiating the court) is not only a more definitely correct statement, but it also acknowledges the time and effort the player has put in. It’s like replacing “this kid has spent so much time studying the playbook, he knows the positions of all five players on his team all the time, he’s spent so much itme studying game tape that he knows how defenses react, and has a good idea where all ten players are on the court at all times” with the miraculously intelligient “he pass good.”
So, saying a player has good basketball I.Q. refuses us the info of a) whether it’s cuz he got coached well or he’s dedicated, and b) in what ways is he knowledgeable? It is also just a stupid thing to say. No one is born a mechanic, a scientist, a politician, a lawyer. Why should somebody be born a three point shooter?
Garbage, I say – garbage!

Mikki Moore in the skills challenge! - LPA

by iashwash on Jun 22, 2008 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs