RealGM

I mean they did amazing in these workouts and we still didn't draft them SMH

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTob75tQjhw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0vF7TSUPTs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmYcZR_J1Y0

:twisted: why?

Should have just posted in GB. No reason to post here since we all know how poor our drafting history has been.

you forgot to add in kawhi or klay

Yes, even keeping our unlucky drafting positions, we could have had:

(I) 2009:
(a) Instead of Tyreke -- Curry, Lawson, Teague, DeRozan, Jennings
(b) Instead of Casspi -- Taj Gibson, Demarre Carrol
(c) Instead of Jon Brockman -- Danny Green, Patrick Beverly, Jodie Meeks, Patty Mills

(II) 2011:
(a) Instead of Jimmer Fredette -- Kawhi Leonard, Jimmy Butler, Klay Thompson, Nikola Vucevic, Kenneth Faried, Nikola Mirotic, Reggie Jackson, Iman Shumpert, Tobias Harris, Donatas Motiejunas
(b) Instead of Tyler Honeycutt -- Chandler Parsons

(III) 2012:
(a) Instead of Thomas Robinson -- Damian Lillard, Andre Drummond, Draymond Green, Harrison Barnes, John Henson, Jared Sullinger, Khris Middleton

(IV) 2013
(a) Instead of McLemore -- Rudy Gobert, Michael Carter-Williams, Shabazz Muhammad, Giannis Anteokounmpo, Dennis Schroder, Gorgui Dieng

(V) 2014
(a) Instead of Stauskas -- Elfrid Payton, Zach LaVine, Jusuf Nurkic


Hindsight is 20/20 but this hurts. Even if we did draft the guys who ended up being the best, outside of Lillard, they all did not develop so quickly that we would have lost our draft positioning the following year. We would be contending if we got it right every year.

And all of those guys would have busted hard if they came to this team, or they would have been traded for Alex Oriaki by now.

Be Fair.

Tyreke was a solid pick

Jimmer was bs, we should have drafted Leonard, he slid sure, but many insiders thought it was gonna be our pick. Be interesting to see if he developed here or the Rudy situation.

Robison was gonna be someones bust, but we should have picked Drummond, remember some of us pissed off too.

McLemore is too soon, he was a known project.

Stauskas is looking bad, but too soon. Payton may have been the better call, but Sauskas still needs more time.

And give some credit for drafting Cousins too.

This thread is fine here:

Evans was a solid pick. Steph Curry was the 5th guard taken in that draft. We were talking about Ricky Rubio instead. 6 other teams passed on him as well.

Cousins is a hit!

Fredette - This was the single worst pick we have made. We got a bust of a player, who we knew was a bust as well. Forget who we could have got. We received nothing for that pick.

Robinson - We just got a guy who didn't hit anywhere near his projection. Then again he was traded for cash by the broke joke Maloofs. He's nowhere near his prime and it would be the Kings luck he works out well with the Sixers next year.

McLemore - There's no other star in the draft to say he's the guy we should have gotten. MCW has his flaws as well.

Stauskas - We don't have to say hindsight on this guy because we were expecting either Smart, Vonleh, Randall, or Gordon to fall here. If none did Payton was the choice. NOBODY picked Stauskas, and when his name was called you know you, too said "who's he?"

The other hit we had was Isaiah Thomas. I don't have a serious problem with any pick other than Fredette and Stauskas. The issue I have is all these picks turned into nothing significant in return. Rudy Gay could have been had with pure expirings. I don't want to hear how Tyreke's trade and Robinson's trade turned into Rudy Gay. If I'm being honest I would have been more patient with Robinson.

well these the only vids i could find for workouts

You know, every time we go barking up the "tank tree", I'm going to point to this thread right here.

It's always been and always will be woulda shoulda coulda when it comes to the draft. No one team has a crystal ball and can predict a players future. As a result, it's such a crap shoot to rely on the draft in order to improve the team. Praying to loose does not guarantee you more wins. Winning has a better chance of developing a winning team. This is why I'm always going cast my vote for growth via development, and not growth via gambling.

enderwilson wrote:You know, every time we go barking up the "tank tree", I'm going to point to this thread right here.

It's always been and always will be woulda shoulda coulda when it comes to the draft. No one team has a crystal ball and can predict a players future. As a result, it's such a crap shoot to rely on the draft in order to improve the team. Praying to loose does not guarantee you more wins. Winning has a better chance of developing a winning team. This is why I'm always going cast my vote for growth via development, and not growth via gambling.

If they drafted what the board here said, in the same situations.

We'd have Elfrid, Cousins, Drummond, Tyreke, Kahwi.

That tank would look pretty good.

I think most of us wanted McLemore though, and is a to be continued sort of pic.

blind prophet wrote:

enderwilson wrote:You know, every time we go barking up the "tank tree", I'm going to point to this thread right here.

It's always been and always will be woulda shoulda coulda when it comes to the draft. No one team has a crystal ball and can predict a players future. As a result, it's such a crap shoot to rely on the draft in order to improve the team. Praying to loose does not guarantee you more wins. Winning has a better chance of developing a winning team. This is why I'm always going cast my vote for growth via development, and not growth via gambling.

If they drafted what the board here said, in the same situations.

We'd have Elfrid, Cousins, Drummond, Tyreke, Kahwi.

That tank would look pretty good.

Realistically we didn't need to tank to get any of those players. Tanking never guarantees you're going to draft well. You only know if you've drafted well 2-5 years after the draft, after your players have been able to develop.

Even with all those players, they would need to develop and learn how to play together. That means learning what it takes to win games. That's called development. Tanking is never about development. It's about giving up and hoping the draft with somehow, miraculously make the next year better.

At this stage, it's more important to implement a system of development than count on the draft. Without that system, without actually figuring out how to get our players to play together and win games. The draft is pretty meaningless.

enderwilson wrote:

blind prophet wrote:

enderwilson wrote:You know, every time we go barking up the "tank tree", I'm going to point to this thread right here.

It's always been and always will be woulda shoulda coulda when it comes to the draft. No one team has a crystal ball and can predict a players future. As a result, it's such a crap shoot to rely on the draft in order to improve the team. Praying to loose does not guarantee you more wins. Winning has a better chance of developing a winning team. This is why I'm always going cast my vote for growth via development, and not growth via gambling.

If they drafted what the board here said, in the same situations.

We'd have Elfrid, Cousins, Drummond, Tyreke, Kahwi.

That tank would look pretty good.

Realistically we didn't need to tank to get any of those players. Tanking never guarantees you're going to draft well. You only know if you've drafted well 2-5 years after the draft, after your players have been able to develop.

Even with all those players, they would need to develop and learn how to play together. That means learning what it takes to win games. That's called development. Tanking is never about development. It's about giving up and hoping the draft with somehow, miraculously make the next year better.

At this stage, it's more important to implement a system of development than count on the draft. Without that system, without actually figuring out how to get our players to play together and win games. The draft is pretty meaningless.

You are saying this with some poor recent prospects taken.

It's obvious if you swing and miss tanking or rebuilding through the draft you won't get anywhere.

I don't think you are being sincere if it lead to 2-3 straight excellent draft choices.

It's easy to critique it when we've had one, that is still on the roster that was a good pick in the last 5 years.

We don't have enough talent to develop much of anything right now.

blind prophet wrote:You are saying this with some poor recent prospects taken.

It's obvious if you swing and miss tanking or rebuilding through the draft you won't get anywhere.

I don't think you are being sincere if it lead to 2-3 straight excellent draft choices.

It's easy to critique it when we've had one, that is still on the roster that was a good pick in the last 5 years.

We don't have enough talent to develop much of anything right now.

But essentially you're arguing that tanking = drafting well. It doesn't. If you can't recognize talent and develop it, then tanking for a better position in the draft is meaningless.

Remind me where Kawhi ended up again? Do you think he would be as good as he is now if he was with the Kings and not with a genius HOF coach and his system? Do you think the Spurs needed to tank in order to pick him up?

The other players you listed besides Tyreke and DMC were drafted after our pick. Hence, no need to tank. Unless we have some savant who absolutely knows how the prospects will turn out 5 years after the draft, no need to tank because all this thread shows is that no matter how hard you try, it's still going to be a gamble to land significant talent. And potentially a wasted one since the Kings have been unable to effectively develop talent (despite Cousins) even when we do draft well (see Tyreke Evans).

If we aren't winning, then we aren't developing. No team can develop if the plan is to lose. I sometimes feel that we've become so accustomed to losing that we actually look forward to getting that booby prize at the end of the season. As if people weren't tired of losing enough.

At a certain point you just get tired of hearing "we should have drafted _______ in _______". Its a lame, tired and depressing discussion.

well nik wasn't the consensus pick

Cruel_Ruin wrote:At a certain point you just get tired of hearing "we should have drafted _______ in _______". Its a lame, tired and depressing discussion.

+200. And if it isn't coming from a Kings fan it can almost be considered a form of ridicule (not knowing Watchlist's background)

Curry is a generational player, and Tyreke looked that in his first season, could have went either way. Other than that is Drummond needed with Cousins and would Lillard function with the rest of our team so much better than another 20 pt/below average defensive PG that we just had (not denying Lillard can be an all star caliber player)?

anyone else?

I have some other thoughts:

Aside from who we picked did we have a coaching staff that can develop talent? Kawhi Leonard went to a team with a culture of winning. Klay Thompson and Steph Curry not only have had NBA fathers but had Mark Jackson. I don't think there was much hope for Thomas Robinson as he "seems" to not want to get it. I don't think we drafted for the most part the wrong athlete, but we got guys who aren't high on the IQ scale. If we get Thompson, Curry, or Leonard are they even the same player? I'd say not really. They were drafted into better spots and developed accordingly.

The other thing I'm thinking is I feel the new ownership for the most part is trying this positionless thing out. One thing everyone on the Warriors can do is shoot at a high level. They have a high IQ. Looking at everything produced about Stauskas and looking at all the pre draft stuff on Klay Thompson they kind of look like the same player in terms of projection. I'm hoping the lack of coaching stability last season was the direct result of Stauskas laying a dud of a rookie campaign?

Hopefully both McLemore and Stauskas benefit from having a proven coach and stable system? If so it's an indication our lack of draft success can be tied partly to coaching.