Jayson Tatum

#61
so based off that, he is more along the lines of a Pierce or Beasley.
A pretty big difference in career trajectories there..........Pierce is likely a future hall-of-famer; he had a self-imposed chip on his shoulder toward teams that didn't draft him. He came in the year with Jason Williams if I remember. If Tatum is near Pierce's level coming into the league, he'd be worth drafting. Pierce willed himself to scoring....I could see the comparison, but don't know if it'll turn out as desired - similar to Fox and Conley comparison.
They are nice to ponder, but unknown as to the results.
 
#62
Tatum is plenty fluid. He's very smooth in his movements. But while he's athletic enough he's not physically overwhelming in any way. He's not extraordinarily quick or extraordinarily strong. That's a concern.
This is true. He seems to use his length a lot when finishing in traffic but it seems to work, even through contact. I think handles the ball well for a SF which IMO made him really good in transition. He definitely needs to get stronger but I have a lot of confidence in his work ethic. You don't have a repertoire like his without working hard at it.
 
#63
Let me tell you this about Tatum.... If we draft him I think he becomes our most talented player. Think about it.... the two guys on our roster with potential to be stars are Buddy and Skal. For sake of argument let's refer to them as our most talented guys. Look what Buddy and Skal did in freshman seasons relative to Tatum:
  • Buddy (8 PPG 39% FGs 15 PER)
  • Skal (6 PPG 3 RPG 18 PER)
  • Tatum (17 PPG 7 RPG 2 APG 21 PER)
Where Tatum comes into consideration is if the first 4 players of the draft are in any order:
  • Fultz
  • Ball
  • Fox
  • Jackson
It is reasonable conclusion at this point Fox is who the Kings want. If Fox is not there at #5, currently around 50% odds, coin flip basically, Kings are left with a decision between Tatum and Isaac. No way is Dennis Smith Jr a consideration here. Too damaged, too much defensive liability. Between now and draft day one of the most prominent questions for fans and front office....Who do you want as your new SF assuming Fox goes Top 4:

Tatum or Isaac?

Tatum has polish, length, footwork and touch. Isaac has even better length, fast twitch fibers and "bounciness" that Tatum sort of lacks. What I like about both guys is they can create space. Tatum is better but Isaac uses a jab step to get his man to back off. As an aside, you know this is something about Malachi. Malachi projects as 10 PPG next season because he has an effective jab step to get free on his shot or set up the drive.

If you exclusively look at needs of our team, the pick has to be TATUM. The Kings need to target and define their prominent scorers. Buddy and Skal project as 16-20 PPG scorers. Tatum would form a trio of guys who can give you 20 PPG on any night. Tatum could be a 25 PPG scorer in our league. If you take Isaac, there could be a scoring void on the team as Skal and Buddy develop and if Isaac develops as a utility specialist and combo forward.

One the other hand with Isaac you have a versatile defender and a guy who can switch a lot and provide imposing weak side help. Thats an awesome skill to have to go with Willie, Skal and Temple! These are the variables that are front office has to be debating. Isaac has simultaneously more risk AND upside. Tatum has less risk AND less defensive potential.

One reason to take Isaac is hope Ntlinka is around at #10. Then you have makings of a great defensive team with length at every position (when you play Temple at SG)! You can go Tatum then Frank and cover bases offensively and defensively. I am not going to declare definitively the Kings should Tatum over Isaac or vice versa. I don't have the data to make that assertion. I do think Fox goes over both if available. And I trust the front office to do their due diligence and confidently conclude one player over the other.

If I had to put on my prediction hat, subject to change over the next 4 weeks, I think we would take Tatum over Isaac if Fox is off the board. I think the differential in potential on offense favoring Tatum is greater that the differential in potential on defense favoring Isaac. That may be confusing to some but it makes sense to me. :cool:
Enjoyed reading this post. Although I can't imagine Isaac going fifth you paint an interesting picture. I get why you'd say no way Smith goes five, too many question marks there. But what about Monk? If we're relegated to Tatum or Isaac I feel like Monk should at least be in the discussion.
 

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#64
A pretty big difference in career trajectories there..........Pierce is likely a future hall-of-famer; he had a self-imposed chip on his shoulder toward teams that didn't draft him. He came in the year with Jason Williams if I remember. If Tatum is near Pierce's level coming into the league, he'd be worth drafting. Pierce willed himself to scoring....I could see the comparison, but don't know if it'll turn out as desired - similar to Fox and Conley comparison.
They are nice to ponder, but unknown as to the results.
I'm not necessarily comparing him to a HOFer in Pierce, simply trying to garner what kind of player he molds himself into. Pierce never relied on too much athleticism to get his but that doesn't mean that he wasn't a deceptive athlete, because he could dunk on you without even realizing he would do it.
 
#65
These comparisons to Gay are really frustrating. People hear a name and then associate it with that person as if they are identical clones and then it puts them off that player. Tatum is somewhat similar in style of play, but he is a better at every aspect of the game than Rudy was at the same age, and significantly so. Go look at what Rudy did in his first year at Duke compared to Tatum's first year. In fact, Tatum's first year was even better than Rudy's second year of college ball. Furthermore, Tatum has shown the ability to be a defender and good passer too. He's also much more athletic than people give him credit for which is going to become very clear once he steps onto an NBA floor. There really isn't anything he can't do, and it's not as if he is undersized or has question marks about his character. I actually think listening to Tatum speak, he is charasmatic and confident, something that pretty much every star player has going for them. I wouldn't be disappointed at all with Tatum if that's who we take at 5, I'd actually be very happy. He's going to be very good, and maybe even an All-Star.
 
#66
These comparisons to Gay are really frustrating. People hear a name and then associate it with that person as if they are identical clones and then it puts them off that player. Tatum is somewhat similar in style of play, but he is a better at every aspect of the game than Rudy was at the same age, and significantly so. Go look at what Rudy did in his first year at Duke compared to Tatum's first year. In fact, Tatum's first year was even better than Rudy's second year of college ball. Furthermore, Tatum has shown the ability to be a defender and good passer too. He's also much more athletic than people give him credit for which is going to become very clear once he steps onto an NBA floor. There really isn't anything he can't do, and it's not as if he is undersized or has question marks about his character. I actually think listening to Tatum speak, he is charasmatic and confident, something that pretty much every star player has going for them. I wouldn't be disappointed at all with Tatum if that's who we take at 5, I'd actually be very happy. He's going to be very good, and maybe even an All-Star.
I agree with you there. Personally I would be disappointed if we ended up with Tatum. Not because I don't like him, but because I think that Fox has the better chance of being the real game changer here that will not only up our PG play, but up the game of everyone else on the team. Tatum should up our SF production but I don't think he will elevate the team as a whole in the same way that Fox will so I have a feeling that we will be desperate to land that PG in next years draft if we are going to contend in a few years. To me, PG is the most important position on the court. You can get away with a 3&D SF but not a 3&D PG unless you have a freak of nature like Lebron or Harden on your team.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#67
I agree with you there. Personally I would be disappointed if we ended up with Tatum. Not because I don't like him, but because I think that Fox has the better chance of being the real game changer here that will not only up our PG play, but up the game of everyone else on the team. Tatum should up our SF production but I don't think he will elevate the team as a whole in the same way that Fox will so I have a feeling that we will be desperate to land that PG in next years draft if we are going to contend in a few years. To me, PG is the most important position on the court. You can get away with a 3&D SF but not a 3&D PG unless you have a freak of nature like Lebron or Harden on your team.
I agree that PG is the most important position on the court, but if you can land a player like Lebron, then it's not as important. Unfortunately, I don't see a Lebron in the draft. I want Fox, but if he's gone before we pick, then there's not much we can do at five except take the best player available, and I think that would Tatum, disappointing or not. The only other option to acquire a PG would be to take the 10th pick and trade up. We would probably have to take back some bad salary, and offer a player, like Malachi, but maybe that's what we need to do. The first team I would target would be the Sun's. Not likely they would trade down, but why not give it a try.
 
#68
Enjoyed reading this post. Although I can't imagine Isaac going fifth you paint an interesting picture. I get why you'd say no way Smith goes five, too many question marks there. But what about Monk? If we're relegated to Tatum or Isaac I feel like Monk should at least be in the discussion.
I think Monk is super talented but definitely NOT a PG. He's a cold blooded scorer and undersized SG. FWIW I project Monk as a Victor Oladipo type player with a better shot.
 
Last edited:
#69
Doncic, and I cringe saying this, looks like a mini-LeBron to me every time I watch him. Clearly he's not going to reach anywhere near that level. But the guy is a massive SG or normal SF, with very good athleticism, that handles the ball like a PG and can pick a pass anywhere on the court. He also has the ability to shoot the ball and is a very impressive ball handler for his size/position. This is next year, of course. I won't spam the thread. He had a rough game last night but even watching him, he's a terror in the open court with great size and he just looks like he's a QB out there.
 
#71
I agree that PG is the most important position on the court, but if you can land a player like Lebron, then it's not as important. Unfortunately, I don't see a Lebron in the draft. I want Fox, but if he's gone before we pick, then there's not much we can do at five except take the best player available, and I think that would Tatum, disappointing or not. The only other option to acquire a PG would be to take the 10th pick and trade up. We would probably have to take back some bad salary, and offer a player, like Malachi, but maybe that's what we need to do. The first team I would target would be the Sun's. Not likely they would trade down, but why not give it a try.
I can't really see the Suns dropping back to 10th if you're saying we trade the 10th and some players for their 4th and a bad contract. That would possibly land us Fox and Tatum, which would cause our entire fan base to rejoice, regardless of whoever we gave up in the process. I just don't see us having enough trade chips to pull that off. I think our best shot (if we took Tatum) would be to try and trade up from 10 to at least skip ahead of Dallas into 7th or 8th to see if we could try to get one of Smith or Frank N. (not looking up how to spell that last name for the umpteenth time). That should guarantee us a PG. I just know that they're probably going to require Skal, Hield or WCS to do that, plus unload a bad contract on us. I don't know if it's going to be worth it. All I know is that I don't want to be sitting at 10 with Markannen, Collins or Monk as the only top prospects left on the board. Nothing wrong with taking BPA but it's tough when you already have a bunch of young depth there. I could see Vlade trading back into the mid teens if that's the case so we can get a player of need without reaching. But Vlade has shown himself to be the most unpredictable GM we've ever had, so who knows what he does.
 
#74
Tatum, to me, is the closest thing to Gordon Hayward in this draft. He's more versatile/positionally flexible than was showcased at Duke - I'm certain of that. To pigeon-hole him as just a SF is a mistake.

His position is SF / SG and he can handle some small-ball PF too. IMO. His ball-skills/patience/scoring instincts are polished at off the charts levels for a wing his age, and he's got a ton of tricks up his sleeve. He's polished but has plenty of room for improvement too.

He'd be great value at 5. He's a certified stud and has been a known commodity for a number of years and did nothing to disappoint IMO at Duke this year.

I actually think he could end up a darkhorse for the ROY on the right squad.. I really don't think Lonzo is that much better of a prospect TBH.. Just my 2-cents though. I don't think Lonzo to the Lakers at #2 makes much sense either, that seems like posturing to me.
 
#76
@bajaden

Was a good read and definitely refined my perspective some on Tatum. If we draft him I would not be upset. I won't say he is my first choice. With this draft and our needs, it is hard to narrow it down without deeper knowledge we fans aren't privy to.
 
#77
@bajaden

Was a good read and definitely refined my perspective some on Tatum. If we draft him I would not be upset. I won't say he is my first choice. With this draft and our needs, it is hard to narrow it down without deeper knowledge we fans aren't privy to.
I enjoyed the article too and this is pretty much where I'm at with Tatum right now as well. Tatum seems like the kind of guy where five years from now if they did a redraft he'd probably go at about the same spot he ends up going in real life. Meaning I don't think he busts, just don't see the huge upside. But at the end of the day play making wings are probably the most valuable type of player in the league so based on that alone he has upside. We'll see.
 
#78
Tatum, to me, is the closest thing to Gordon Hayward in this draft. He's more versatile/positionally flexible than was showcased at Duke - I'm certain of that. To pigeon-hole him as just a SF is a mistake.

His position is SF / SG and he can handle some small-ball PF too. IMO. His ball-skills/patience/scoring instincts are polished at off the charts levels for a wing his age, and he's got a ton of tricks up his sleeve. He's polished but has plenty of room for improvement too.

He'd be great value at 5. He's a certified stud and has been a known commodity for a number of years and did nothing to disappoint IMO at Duke this year.

I actually think he could end up a darkhorse for the ROY on the right squad.. I really don't think Lonzo is that much better of a prospect TBH.. Just my 2-cents though. I don't think Lonzo to the Lakers at #2 makes much sense either, that seems like posturing to me.
I don't think he's a similar player to Hayward. None of these SFs resemble Hayward, but if I had to go with the most similar, it would be Justin Jackson.
 
#79
I would be cautiously optimistic about Tatum, but I just cannot get excited about a Duke player. I think they are terrible fits for our program and our city. Coach K attracts frontrunners. His sales pitch is great if you want to be a coach some day, or go to law school, but it is not tailored to the guys that are all about basketball. They are all great kids--just middling draft picks. The Duke guys are great as 4th options on their second contracts after they move to a playoff team in a cosmopolitan city. But, they are just poor bets for the team that drafts them.

Seems like Tatum will be the guy for us, and I just hope he joins Kyrie as the exceptions that prove the rule.
 
#80
I don't think he's a similar player to Hayward. None of these SFs resemble Hayward, but if I had to go with the most similar, it would be Justin Jackson.
I really think he is, the way he faces up on the perimeter/footwork is similar, Tatum has the most pro-ready faceup game (other than Fultz) in this draft..
Luke Kennard's offensive movements are reminiscent of Hayward too, IMO.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#81
I really think he is, the way he faces up on the perimeter/footwork is similar, Tatum has the most pro-ready faceup game (other than Fultz) in this draft..
Luke Kennard's offensive movements are reminiscent of Hayward too, IMO.
I think the fact that Tatum has an Iso game is being exaggerated a bit. There was a time when a player was touted for being able to Iso and score. It's actually a skill folks. But that doesn't mean he, or any player that has that tool is a ball stopper. he can be, or not! He's only 19 years old, and according to everything I've heard, he's very coachable. He's a very skilled player, and offensively maybe the most skilled aside from Fultz. Personally, I think he's a bit underrated on the defensive side. He always gave effort (are you listening Smith) and with proper coaching, I think he can be a decent to good defender.

Is he my first choice? No! But I wouldn't be heartbroken if we end up with him. He could easily be the best player on our team if taken. (sorry Buddy) Would I be just as happy if we took Isaac? Yep! Love the kid, and think he has a higher upside. But that means nothing until it happens.
 
#82
I really think he is, the way he faces up on the perimeter/footwork is similar, Tatum has the most pro-ready faceup game (other than Fultz) in this draft..
I am ambivalent on Tatum. He has polish to his moves. Sharp footwork. But look at the way he turns over his dribble. Bad habit. That's not going to get him far in the NBA. Defenders are going to poke ball away when he exposes it like that. The bottom line is would you take Tatum over Isaac if Fox is off the board? I was leaning one way then the other but I am resolute now in saying Isaac should be the choice at #5. Isaac has an incredible coordination for player of his length. He projects versatility and impact with hustle play. His defensive rating was stellar. He has a face-up game and jab step. He can develop as a low post player with half hooks and turnaround. He shoots an easy perimeter ball. He can defend two or three positions. I don't think Vlade should complicate this. Take Fox or Isaac at #5! Now the problem arises if both go Top 4. :eek:
 
#83
I think the fact that Tatum has an Iso game is being exaggerated a bit. There was a time when a player was touted for being able to Iso and score. It's actually a skill folks. But that doesn't mean he, or any player that has that tool is a ball stopper. he can be, or not! He's only 19 years old, and according to everything I've heard, he's very coachable. He's a very skilled player, and offensively maybe the most skilled aside from Fultz. Personally, I think he's a bit underrated on the defensive side. He always gave effort (are you listening Smith) and with proper coaching, I think he can be a decent to good defender.

Is he my first choice? No! But I wouldn't be heartbroken if we end up with him. He could easily be the best player on our team if taken. (sorry Buddy) Would I be just as happy if we took Isaac? Yep! Love the kid, and think he has a higher upside. But that means nothing until it happens.
Agree, what is intriguing about this draft is to suggest passing on a guy at #5 who could become the best player on our team! In fact, I made post in which I compared Tatum's stats with our two "potential stars" freshman stats in Buddy and Skal and Tatum came out far ahead. I think the ISO label regarding Tatum is somewhat earned because he often catches and holds for a 1-2 count before making decision what to do. This is a Rudy, Carmelo and Blake tendency to face up and see how defense reacts. Meanwhile his teammates can come to stop and become observers.

Whether this tendency to hold ball is encouraged some of the time or discouraged all of the time depends on his efficiency in drawing fouls, setting up teammates and finishing. In general it just seems like this is NOT a direction we want to go with our roster. We want superior scorers but in the flow of the offense. This is what was encouraging about Buddy and Skal. They put up their points without monopolizing possessions. Drafting Tatum and/or Smith brings the risk of adding players that ruin that synergistic flow prominent in the best games the Kings played post-Boogie.
 
Last edited:
#84
Tatum is for sure a stud. He is going to be a go to scorer in the NBA. Maybe I'm making this mo complicated than it needs to be, but i worry that both Tatum and Skal have the same sweet spots and that it would clog things up on offense. They both seem to like that high post area and they both seem to like to face up. Do we want 2 guys that do this as our feature players who are on the court at the same time?
 
#85
I think the fact that Tatum has an Iso game is being exaggerated a bit. There was a time when a player was touted for being able to Iso and score. It's actually a skill folks. But that doesn't mean he, or any player that has that tool is a ball stopper. he can be, or not! He's only 19 years old, and according to everything I've heard, he's very coachable. He's a very skilled player, and offensively maybe the most skilled aside from Fultz. Personally, I think he's a bit underrated on the defensive side. He always gave effort (are you listening Smith) and with proper coaching, I think he can be a decent to good defender.

Is he my first choice? No! But I wouldn't be heartbroken if we end up with him. He could easily be the best player on our team if taken. (sorry Buddy) Would I be just as happy if we took Isaac? Yep! Love the kid, and think he has a higher upside. But that means nothing until it happens.
Spot on. It is being exaggerated, and it's in part due to how he was showcased at Duke. I'm certain he's a well rounded player and has been for quite some time... pretty sure he's been like 6'8" for several years now. Back when I first heard about him the sell was more "He's a stud who can do it all" Seeing him at Duke only reinforced that to me.

I've been following his story for a while now, he piqued the UK recruiting radar very early... I watched this game in real time.


He obviously should've taken it up with his left hand but still I'm sure he's quite smart and will learn from his mistakes and I'm rather certain he's gonna find his niche in the league. He's incredibly polished, there;s a reason why Grant Hill comparisons were being thrown around (before he ever got to Duke).

There's really not much to nitpick with his game IMO.. The only real negative things I'll say is he's not Michael Porter Jr. and his wingspan could be a little longer.

It is worth noting that Tatum is a full year younger than Josh Jackson and only a few months older than Porter Jr tho.

In a perfect scenario I really do believe Tatum can score comfortably in the double digits as a rookie.

I love Isaac too I've followed his story since he blew up from a consensus 70's rankings by the services, to me, I'm taking Tatum everytime though. They're different tho, biggest being ones a late-bloomer and Tatum's been a well known commodity for several years. Isaac definitely has a better nose for boards/ball-hawking.
 
Last edited:
#86
Spot on. It is being exaggerated, and it's in part due to how he was showcased at Duke. I'm certain he's a well rounded player and has been for quite some time... pretty sure he's been like 6'8" for several years now. Back when I first heard about him the sell was more "He's a stud who can do it all" Seeing him at Duke only reinforced that to me.

I've been following his story for a while now, he piqued the UK recruiting interest very early. I watched this game in real time.


He obviously should've taken it up with his left hand but still I'm sure he's quite smart and will learn from his mistakes and I'm rather certain he's gonna find his niche in the league. He's incredibly polished, there;s a reason why Grant Hill comparisons were being thrown around (before he ever got to Duke).

There's really not much to nitpick with his game IMO.. The only real negative things I'll say is he's not Michael Porter Jr. and his wingspan could be a little longer.

It is worth noting that Tatum is a full year younger than Josh Jackson and only a few months older than Porter Jr tho.

In a perfect scenario I really do believe Tatum can score comfortably in the double digits as a rookie.

I love Isaac too I've followed his story since he blew up from a consensus 70's rankings by the services, to me, I'm taking Tatum everytime though. They're different tho, biggest being ones a late-bloomer and Tatum's been a well known commodity for several years.
With Isaac we'd have a very talented guy with a ton of upside on both ends who doesn't need a bunch of touches and who likes to keep the ball moving. I think he's a better fit with just as much upside. Being at #5 is looking really good right now as we're gonna be making a choice between two of Fox, Isaac, Jackson, or Tatum.
 
#87
I am ambivalent on Tatum. He has polish to his moves. Sharp footwork. But look at the way he turns over his dribble. Bad habit. That's not going to get him far in the NBA. Defenders are going to poke ball away when he exposes it like that. The bottom line is would you take Tatum over Isaac if Fox is off the board? I was leaning one way then the other but I am resolute now in saying Isaac should be the choice at #5. Isaac has an incredible coordination for player of his length. He projects versatility and impact with hustle play. His defensive rating was stellar. He has a face-up game and jab step. He can develop as a low post player with half hooks and turnaround. He shoots an easy perimeter ball. He can defend two or three positions. I don't think Vlade should complicate this. Take Fox or Isaac at #5! Now the problem arises if both go Top 4. :eek:
Watching the Jazz-Warriors series, they defended Gordon Hayward just like that. They attacked his dribble whenever possible, even David West was swiping at it.

I'm so glad the consensus here is to take Fox tho. Thats the dude. The General!! The spearhead of the attack!!

 

dude12

Hall of Famer
#88
With Isaac we'd have a very talented guy with a ton of upside on both ends who doesn't need a bunch of touches and who likes to keep the ball moving. I think he's a better fit with just as much upside. Being at #5 is looking really good right now as we're gonna be making a choice between two of Fox, Isaac, Jackson, or Tatum.
Isaac doesn't belong with those other 3 you listed. I'd love, love him at 10 but at 5, not at the expense of passing on Fox, Jackson, Tatum or D Smith.
 
#89
Isaac doesn't belong with those other 3 you listed. I'd love, love him at 10 but at 5, not at the expense of passing on Fox, Jackson, Tatum or D Smith.
I dunno man, the more research I do on this draft the more love I see for Isaac. I've seen comparisons from a heavier Brandon Ingram to Nerlens Noel with a jump shot to Paul George all the way to KD. His upside might be as high as anyone else's in this draft.
 

dude12

Hall of Famer
#90
I dunno man, the more research I do on this draft the more love I see for Isaac. I've seen comparisons from a heavier Brandon Ingram to Nerlens Noel with a jump shot to Paul George all the way to KD. His upside might be as high as anyone else's in this draft.
I agree and think highly of him but I think the supposed first 5 guys are more sure things....they don't suck. I think the reality is we won't know until the draft. A guy like Monk, Isaac, Smith, Markannen, could go anywhere between 5-9.... And Frank N could sneak in there but I doubt he jumps these guys....Zach Collins is top 11. Who knows, maybe a team wants to trade up to us at 5 if our guy is gone (talking the next couple of picks trading up) and we still get a Isaac and or Smith.