Lonzo Ball

Lonzo is not not lasting until #5. There is VERY little chance he is not selected by Lakers. Even if they overlook him he is not getting overlooked by both Philadelphia and Phoenix. It's just not happening.

The groups of players that might be available at #5 are in no particular order Fox, Jackson (unlikely), Tatum, Isaac and Smith. Fultz and Ball will be long gone.

@hrdboild

You and I are in agreement regarding the importance of having a lead guard who can defend at a high level. When you allow opposing PG's to implement their offense with little resistance, you start sliding heavily towards hoping you can simply outscore every opponent. This has and will get us no where meaningful. It's why I prefer Fox to DSJ and Ball.

Prior to us jumping up in the lottery, I was hoping we would get Frank Ntilikina at 8 and take OG Anunoby at 10. Health and offense aside, I see that combo cementing an elite defensive identity. Both of their physical profiles also complement a PNR, uptempo offense with Skal's jumper and Willie's speed and length providing easy targets. Not to mention Buddy's shooting.

I hate the argument that defense from the PG is unnecessary. Makes zero sense to me. An elite defender at PG is worth their weight in gold to me.

I don't think many will disagree but you look at the best PGs in the league and not many of them are elite defenders or even very good at it. Curry is an average defender, Paul a good defender, Parker was never a good defender, Kyrie is not a good defender, neither is Westbrook despite having excellent tools to be one. The list goes on. Interestingly teams that have excellent defenders at PG have not been able to get to the NBA finals (Memphis, Houston, Clippers, Raptors etc...)

There really is no correlation between elite defenders at PG with being a genuine contender. If anything its seems to be the opposite. Ideally you want elite defenders at every position and some great two way players but you are unlikely to get that so you get your offensive stars and work around them.

Defense is hugely important but scoring is more important. Better to have lots of guys who can shoot with a Temple or 2 mixed in there as opposed to a bunch of defense first guys. PGs need to score and create offense.

Of course if you can get a player who can play at a high level on both sides of the ball like Kawhii Leonard, then you got a MVP candidate

He's talking about point guards only though. How many lock down defenders are there at that position? How many dpoy have ever been pgs? How many point guards on the league start because of their defense in spite of having sub par offense? It's probably the most offensively driven position on the court

He's talking about point guards only though. How many lock down defenders are there at that position? How many dpoy have ever been pgs? How many point guards on the league start because of their defense in spite of having sub par offense? It's probably the most offensively driven position on the court

Defense is hugely important but scoring is more important. Better to have lots of guys who can shoot with a Temple or 2 mixed in there as opposed to a bunch of defense first guys. PGs need to score and create offense.

Of course if you can get a player who can play at a high level on both sides of the ball like Kawhii Leonard, then you got a MVP candidate

Gary Payton is the only PG to win DPOY so far but that award has only existed since 1983 and the voting is heavily skewed toward shotblocking bigs whether that's fair or not. But my point is, why should it matter what other teams are doing or what has or hasn't worked historically? Every generation is different than the one that came before. If you would acknowledge that having a monster defender in the backcourt who can switch onto SGs and SFs and lock them up would make us a better team than it shouldn't matter that no current contending teams have that. Who else in the league even fits that description? Maybe John Wall? Take a look at who the leading scorers are right now -- they're almost all perimeter oriented. If I tell you that you can have 1 elite defender on your team, just 1 guy who is a proven stopper, do you want somebody who can match up with Cousins, Davis, and Towns for the 6-8 times you'll play them per year or someone who can help to check Westbrook, Harden, Curry, IT, Lillard, Wall, Butler, etc? Of the top 40 scorers in the NBA last season, only 8 of them played PF or C. Or heck, look at an All-Star roster. Half the team is made up of PGs with nary a center to be found. Three-point shooting is a bigger part of the game than it's ever been. Don't you think this situation demands some changes in the way we think about defense?

I'm not even talking about one on one defensive prowess because we all know that these guys can't be stopped one on one with hand-checking outlawed (there goes Payton's DPOY award ) and illegal screening very loosely enforced. I'm talking about a perimeter defense with no weak links -- with 3 long-limbed athletes all capable of guarding the PG, SG, and SF positions all committed to helping each other who rotate quickly and efficiently, who aren't susceptible to extreme size/strength mismatches, who close out properly on shooters and don't give up easy shots. How many defensive possessions have we seen end with one of our guards or wings weakly flailing at a three point shooter as they knock down a back-breaking three? I feel like that describes at least half of them at this point. Especially when you play a good team. I'm sick of seeing this team lose in the exact same way year after year and I'm ready for something different.



I couldn't disagree more with this statement. Defense isn't less important than scoring, it's the difference between a decent team and an elite one. Obviously you're not going to get very far if you only have defensive specialists who can't score a lick but the principles of offense haven't changed all that much. Move the ball until you get a good shot and then knock it down. That's really all there is to it, abstracted to millions of different strategies of accomplishing that. And for this team specifically, we've always had guys who can shoot with a Temple or 2 mixed in and the results speak for themselves. If we're actually serious about putting together a winning team we're not going to get there without a roster plan that involves constructing an above-average team defense. San Antonio has 1 primary scorer surrounded by role-players who can knock down open shots and defend. That's what they've always had and it works.

@hrdboild

You and I are in agreement regarding the importance of having a lead guard who can defend at a high level. When you allow opposing PG's to implement their offense with little resistance, you start sliding heavily towards hoping you can simply outscore every opponent. This has and will get us no where meaningful. It's why I prefer Fox to DSJ and Ball.

Prior to us jumping up in the lottery, I was hoping we would get Frank Ntilikina at 8 and take OG Anunoby at 10. Health and offense aside, I see that combo cementing an elite defensive identity. Both of their physical profiles also complement a PNR, uptempo offense with Skal's jumper and Willie's speed and length providing easy targets. Not to mention Buddy's shooting.

I hate the argument that defense from the PG is unnecessary. Makes zero sense to me. An elite defender at PG is worth their weight in gold to me.

Gary Payton is the only PG to win DPOY so far but that award has only existed since 1983 and the voting is heavily skewed toward shotblocking bigs whether that's fair or not. But my point is, why should it matter what other teams are doing or what has or hasn't worked historically? Every generation is different than the one that came before. If you would acknowledge that having a monster defender in the backcourt who can switch onto SGs and SFs and lock them up would make us a better team than it shouldn't matter that no current contending teams have that. Who else in the league even fits that description? Maybe John Wall? Take a look at who the leading scorers are right now -- they're almost all perimeter oriented. If I tell you that you can have 1 elite defender on your team, just 1 guy who is a proven stopper, do you want somebody who can match up with Cousins, Davis, and Towns for the 6-8 times you'll play them per year or someone who can help to check Westbrook, Harden, Curry, IT, Lillard, Wall, Butler, etc? Of the top 40 scorers in the NBA last season, only 8 of them played PF or C. Or heck, look at an All-Star roster. Half the team is made up of PGs with nary a center to be found. Three-point shooting is a bigger part of the game than it's ever been. Don't you think this situation demands some changes in the way we think about defense?

I'm not even talking about one on one defensive prowess because we all know that these guys can't be stopped one on one with hand-checking outlawed (there goes Payton's DPOY award ) and illegal screening very loosely enforced. I'm talking about a perimeter defense with no weak links -- with 3 long-limbed athletes all capable of guarding the PG, SG, and SF positions all committed to helping each other who rotate quickly and efficiently, who aren't susceptible to extreme size/strength mismatches, who close out properly on shooters and don't give up easy shots. How many defensive possessions have we seen end with one of our guards or wings weakly flailing at a three point shooter as they knock down a back-breaking three? I feel like that describes at least half of them at this point. Especially when you play a good team. I'm sick of seeing this team lose in the exact same way year after year and I'm ready for something different.


I couldn't disagree more with this statement. Defense isn't less important than scoring, it's the difference between a decent team and an elite one. Obviously you're not going to get very far if you only have defensive specialists who can't score a lick but the principles of offense haven't changed all that much. Move the ball until you get a good shot and then knock it down. That's really all there is to it, abstracted to millions of different strategies of accomplishing that. And for this team specifically, we've always had guys who can shoot with a Temple or 2 mixed in and the results speak for themselves. If we're actually serious about putting together a winning team we're not going to get there without a roster plan that involves constructing an above-average team defense. San Antonio has 1 primary scorer surrounded by role-players who can knock down open shots and defend. That's what they've always had and it works.

Have to disagree with you. Most PGs in the NBA are average to below average defenders. You don't need defense from PGs imo, because you can easily hide them.
Curry, Westbrook, Harden, Thomas, Lillard, Irving, and Walker are all top 10 PGs, but they're all average defenders..at best. Curry has always been hidden on defense behind Klay, Barnes, Draymond, and Bogut. Westbrook has always been hidden by Roberson, Durant, and Adams. Thomas is lol. Lillard isn't hidden at all...

So as you kinda see, you really don't need defense from your PG in today's game. Of course you'd 10000% prefer it, but it is not important from PGs as long as your PG can score. I hate it, but that's just the way modern NBA is. And on top of this, elite offense always beats elite defense anyways.

If anything, you need elite wing defenders. It's very very important in today's game. I think that's why you see a defensive role player like OG Anunoby being ranked as high as he is.

I think you miss the point in that there is no team currently that has long solid defenders at all the perimeter spots. The copycat league has many teams stacking their offense in the guard spots and for good reason with modern NBA rules.
BUT as hrdboild points out a counter to that is having no weak link defenders on the perimeter. Long lanky actibe defenders who are not mismatched at tje 3 pt line after switches and can rotate with more speed negates the advantages all the PnR and drive and kick offenses create.
Then, on offense, these guys are facing weaker defenders when it is our team with the ball we would be able to score while giving the other teams fits.

This post needs an award attached to it. My feelings exactly just dont have the ability to write it down so coherently.

This is why i think if Fox is gone at 5 Isaac should be the pick and we hope F. N. Is there at 10 I think is more and more likely all tje time. Frank will go after DSJ Monk and Marken. Marken is very underrated here. Too many questions surround Franks ability to creat or be a lead guard for teams to pick him first. Dallas heavily scouting him is just good due diligence not a stamp on him as their pick.

I think you miss the point in that there is no team currently that has long solid defenders at all the perimeter spots. The copycat league has many teams stacking their offense in the guard spots and for good reason with modern NBA rules.
BUT as hrdboild points out a counter to that is having no weak link defenders on the perimeter. Long lanky actibe defenders who are not mismatched at tje 3 pt line after switches and can rotate with more speed negates the advantages all the PnR and drive and kick offenses create.
Then, on offense, these guys are facing weaker defenders when it is our team with the ball we would be able to score while giving the other teams fits.

Even if we drafted Fox to be a defensive PG, we'd still have major defensive holes at SG and SF, so Hrdboild's points are valid, but I don't think they'd work out for the Kings. Buddy will always be more of a liability on defense.. same for Bogdanovic. I see what he's saying, but the Kings won't be that type of team either.. purely due to Buddy and Bogdanovic being bad lol.

I don't want to derail the thread on Ball so I won't harp on it.

I will say that every few years, a team seperates itself and becomes the new fad. There has been a constant playoff contender however for 2 decades now in San Antonio. Every year they are in the top % on defense.

I will never agree with the argument "well no one else cares about defense from the PG so why should we?". No one is saying you don't need good offense. I will take Frank or Fox over a DSJ or Ball in most cases. When a defensively inept PG gets shut down by a good defender, he brings nothing else to the team.

To bring it back to Ball, I question his value if his wonky shot doesnt translate and he struggles to defend quicker guards.

Exactly! The meta of the league is changing. We're used to thinking of defense as an inside-out proposition. You get your Rudy Gobert in the middle and you use your guards and wings to funnel ball-handlers into your shotblocker and bask in their interior dominance. This doesn't work anymore if everyone would prefer to hang out on the perimeter and hoist threes anyway. The last two seasons have made it abundantly clear that this is not a short-term fad, it's the new direction of the league. We're going to have to find a way to fight through all those screens and chase guards off the three point line. You're not going to make Steph and KD and Klay miss but you can try to limit how many clean looks they get. Our guards and wings should be aggressively fighting over the top of screens or anticipating them and switching before the screen can even happen. The good thing about this new offensive direction is that you don't need to double-team a shooter, you just have to stick close to him without fouling. I don't think you can do that with one stopper on the perimeter, you need three guys who are all capable of defending all three positions in the backcourt.

Remember how that George Karl led team got murdered on all the defensive switches a year ago? That's because he was playing two PGs and a SG at the same time most of the fourth quarter. We had nobody on the floor who could guard SFs and we were switching our tiny guards onto bigs. That's a recipe for disaster. But apply the same logic with better defenders. Let's say Frank Ntilikina is the PG, Buddy Hield is the SG and we draft OG Anunoby at SF. All three of those guys can guard the 1-3 positions. Buddy might not be great individually but you put two defenders like that next to him and I think he can learn to perform his role well. Anunoby can probably guard most present-day 4s as well. In the interior we have Skal and Willie who are both very mobile. Willie is one of the best bigs in the league at moving his feet and containing dribble penetration. Skal is a good shotblocker and defensive rebounder. The primary goal in this current 3pt obsessed NBA should be to prevent shooters from getting open shots. That means denying them easy passes (which would allow them to shoot in rhythm), fighting over screens without getting stuck (to deny them space to get their shot off), and refusing to overreact to dribble penetration with multiple help defenders (so there is always a defender close enough to contest every shooter). If Steph Curry breaks free of the perimeter contain and drives to the basket at least they're getting a two instead of a three and you hope Willie or Skal will be there to make him work for it. What you don't want to do is collapse and leave a shooter wide open. This is where having bigger defenders really matters. Ntilikina has a 7 foot wingspan, Buddy has a 6'9" wingspan, Anunoby has a 7'2" wingspan. That's a lot of limbs Steph is going to have to avoid for his pass to find a shooter. That's a half step further away the defense can be while still managing to bother the shot.

I just used those players as examples, it doesn't specifically have to be Ntilikina and Anunoby. But this is a defensive strategy that only works if you have three guys on the perimeter who can guard multiple positions and expend max effort on that end of the court. Frank Ntilikina when you watch him play looks kind of slow and deliberate on the offensive end but he's an absolute terror of moving arms and legs on defense. You're not going to get that level of activity from Lonzo Ball no matter who the coach is. I don't know that this would work, but it seems like it has a chance to. Any why should there be only one way to build a team? We may not be able to get Fox and Isaac in this draft at 5 and 10 but we should be able to get Ntilikina and Anunoby and if we've got the best perimeter defense in the league surely that would count for something. That's an identity we can build on.

You're assuming Bogdanovic is the starting SF? I think he's more than likely backing up Buddy and maybe playing a little SF off the bench at times as circumstances allow. Our SF position is a blank slate right now. Who we slot into that position long-term is going to determine what our potential is. I wouldn't draft or trade for any wings who aren't standout defenders at this point. The PG and wing positions are where 80% of the scoring is coming from now and the defense should be built accordingly. Buddy isn't a bad defender at SG, he's just average. Which makes it that much more important that we focus on bringing in strong defenders at PG and SF. There are a lot of guys in this draft that I would pass on simply because I don't like the fit defensively. And that's what it's going to take to change our personality and actually win some games with our defense for a change.