Starting down to D-league? That's a little extreme. Thornton wasn't performing and Mclemore took his spot as a starter. Marcus has been playing better so a case could be made that he has earned his spot back rather than Ben being demoted as a failure. This was would remove some of the pressure while still allowing Ben to get his minutes.
Wow. I'm not sure what to think of this thread. Ben is a rookie finding his way amidst a franchise finding its way amidst a roster trying to gel with no practice time.
I admit I'm disappointed in both rookies. Disappointed in Ray because he hasn't come out with intensity for the few moments he's gotten.
Disappointed in Ben because he's listening to too many people. I don't think Ben has a low b ball IQ. I think he's taking in too much advice. All the talk about him needing to be more aggressive has led him to attack the rim even when he shouldn't. Coaching staff should have let him do his thing running around screens and spotting up. Perfect that part of the his game and then work on the rest little by little. Tell he doesn't have to shoot unless he's wide open. Will cut down on the rushed shots.
He needs to take a page out of Monta's book and just be Ben for a little bit. We dont need Ben to be a superstar. Just need him to play within himself. Even if that produces 8-10 pts a game.
I admit I'm disappointed in both rookies. Disappointed in Ray because he hasn't come out with intensity for the few moments he's gotten.
Disappointed in Ben because he's listening to too many people. I don't think Ben has a low b ball IQ. I think he's taking in too much advice. All the talk about him needing to be more aggressive has led him to attack the rim even when he shouldn't. Coaching staff should have let him do his thing running around screens and spotting up. Perfect that part of the his game and then work on the rest little by little. Tell he doesn't have to shoot unless he's wide open. Will cut down on the rushed shots.
He needs to take a page out of Monta's book and just be Ben for a little bit. We dont need Ben to be a superstar. Just need him to play within himself. Even if that produces 8-10 pts a game.
From the Spurs recap "Beyond his late critical turnovers Sunday night, McLemore has been having a tough time lately. He's fifth in scoring for all rookies this season with 8.8 points per game coming in. But he's gone four games without reaching double figures, including five points against the Spurs. In those games, he's 7-for-16 from the floor for 4.7 points a game, and he's failed to get to the foul line."
Four tough games in a row is probably a good consideration to put him on the bench. He is going to be a very good overall player someday, but he is making too many mistakes besides his shooting be starting
Four tough games in a row is probably a good consideration to put him on the bench. He is going to be a very good overall player someday, but he is making too many mistakes besides his shooting be starting
You know one way for him to become a wasted draft pick? You sit on him, have him running in a team structure and system where he can NOT succeed at what he was supposed to succeed at, and then watch him either not come around and lose all his trade value, or sputter to semi-life in a minor role that you could fill with 40 different guys around the league.
I am presuming we used a #7 pick and had idiots dancing around our draft war room on the assumption that Ben was going to be a major piece going forward. Hey! Who needs a guy who can go 20-5-5 as a rookie when we have a guy who can go 8ppg on 37% shooting as a rookie! Woot! And no, I am not referring to Jimmer.
Now, the thing is, in a Cousins/Gay/IT world, there is NO chance for Ben, nor ANY offensively minded player to be a major piece going forward. We are covered. As I said earlier in this thread we have room for maybe 1 6th man 10-12ppg bench scorer, and that is it. Roleplayers everywhere else. The Bench scorer is likely to be Landry. So what does that leave? Your #7 pick as a backup SG getting you a more efficient 8ppg eventually? If you look at our structure, if you look at the way we are built and headed now, just that quick Ben went from major piece of the future/we need him to be our #2, to guy who HIGH end, even if he blossoms, is scoring 10ppg for us. And if you are honest at that point, its quite possible that the only way that the Ben pick might end up resulting in a major piece for the future is if you use his lingering draft pick value to acquire another piece that DOES fit the new team structure. That CAN thrive in a shot starved environment.
I am presuming we used a #7 pick and had idiots dancing around our draft war room on the assumption that Ben was going to be a major piece going forward. Hey! Who needs a guy who can go 20-5-5 as a rookie when we have a guy who can go 8ppg on 37% shooting as a rookie! Woot! And no, I am not referring to Jimmer.
Now, the thing is, in a Cousins/Gay/IT world, there is NO chance for Ben, nor ANY offensively minded player to be a major piece going forward. We are covered. As I said earlier in this thread we have room for maybe 1 6th man 10-12ppg bench scorer, and that is it. Roleplayers everywhere else. The Bench scorer is likely to be Landry. So what does that leave? Your #7 pick as a backup SG getting you a more efficient 8ppg eventually? If you look at our structure, if you look at the way we are built and headed now, just that quick Ben went from major piece of the future/we need him to be our #2, to guy who HIGH end, even if he blossoms, is scoring 10ppg for us. And if you are honest at that point, its quite possible that the only way that the Ben pick might end up resulting in a major piece for the future is if you use his lingering draft pick value to acquire another piece that DOES fit the new team structure. That CAN thrive in a shot starved environment.
Last edited:
That was my point when talking about any Ben deals, especially this season. We need to be sold on IT-Gay-Cousins moving forward, before we go field a bunch of role players around them and looking for pieces that "fit" over talent.. . And we need to have those 3 locked in long-term before we do it. Miami didn't get Chris Anderson, Shane Battier, Ray Allen before they locked up Bron and Bosh.
Are you really all that certain IT is our PG going forward? I'm not. I agree with you in that if it's decided presently that IT is our PG going forward, that Ben a)does not fit with him nor our current system and b) we need to move him before his value reaches basement levels.
I however would not be surprised if PDA flips IT by the deadline, nor would I be surprised if IT stays through July, asks for more than our FO is willing to pay as they don't see him as the 3rd wheel in a Big 3 trio going forward and they thank him and let him walk.
I also think it's premature to think the success we've had the last couple weeks means that this is our planned structure going forward and the IT/Gay/Cuz trio is our big 3 going forward. It very well might be, I'm not in PDA's head. I could easily see PDA taking advantage of our recent competitive streak and looking to cash in by the deadline and packaging IT. It was all of two weeks ago rumors came out PDA was looking for a more pass first PG. Has that line of thinking really been tossed aside? Malone said a number of times he sees IT as a 6th man. Does recent play also change his thoughts on that? I don't think we/they have done enough to justify that and a larger sample size would be needed.
I just believe it's premature to say this is our system, IT is our PG, so let's surround our trio and IT at point with better fitting pieces. If IT is moved or isn't back next year which is a distinct possibility from where I'm sitting, this whole structure debate is turned on its head.
I however would not be surprised if PDA flips IT by the deadline, nor would I be surprised if IT stays through July, asks for more than our FO is willing to pay as they don't see him as the 3rd wheel in a Big 3 trio going forward and they thank him and let him walk.
I also think it's premature to think the success we've had the last couple weeks means that this is our planned structure going forward and the IT/Gay/Cuz trio is our big 3 going forward. It very well might be, I'm not in PDA's head. I could easily see PDA taking advantage of our recent competitive streak and looking to cash in by the deadline and packaging IT. It was all of two weeks ago rumors came out PDA was looking for a more pass first PG. Has that line of thinking really been tossed aside? Malone said a number of times he sees IT as a 6th man. Does recent play also change his thoughts on that? I don't think we/they have done enough to justify that and a larger sample size would be needed.
I just believe it's premature to say this is our system, IT is our PG, so let's surround our trio and IT at point with better fitting pieces. If IT is moved or isn't back next year which is a distinct possibility from where I'm sitting, this whole structure debate is turned on its head.
All the sudden we beat the Heat without Wade and give the Spurs a run for their money and the rebuild is over? Is that enough to erase the panic that was here after Malone said the Kings were "a bad basketball team", and people were picking up pitchforks to go after PDA?
There is a fine line between pressing fast forward and mortgaging the future. Although I'm happy things seem to progressed, I don't think we've seen enough of this "big three" of Cousins/Gay/IT to be convinced it will work long term. I hope it does, or at least improves the value of our assets so that the front office can continue to be opportunistic and improve the overall talent of the team both now and the future.
There is a fine line between pressing fast forward and mortgaging the future. Although I'm happy things seem to progressed, I don't think we've seen enough of this "big three" of Cousins/Gay/IT to be convinced it will work long term. I hope it does, or at least improves the value of our assets so that the front office can continue to be opportunistic and improve the overall talent of the team both now and the future.
Still premature on a lot of things. Like can Rudy maintain his improved efficiency, while taking the least amount of shots /game that he's had since his rookie year? Do IT-Gay-Cousins continue to display dominant offensive numbers?
Also, it's getting to the point where can't NOT resign IT, assuming he doesn't get some insane deal from somebody. How do you explain to Cousins that we let a 21.5 PPG 7.5 APG 3.6 RPG on 60% TS starting PG, who's entrance into the starting 5 has lead to the best play of his career, walk in FA and claim we're still trying to field a winning team around him? I don't care what some people try and claim, his offensive production he's displayed over the course of the year is not easily replaceable. We don't know everything that happened with the Evans situation, but Cousins was obviously on-board with the organization's decision. I'm not so sure he'd be so thrilled about letting the guy who's been his only help the whole year and elevated his game, walk without getting a significant asset in return.
But, as you said, the sample is still small with the trio. So it puts PDA in a pickle: Do we wait until we're in another Reke situation, if we really don't want to resign IT going forward and luck into getting an asset back like we did with GV, or do we try and maximize his value now and trade him before the deadline? Or do we commit to IT-Gay-Cousins moving forward and invest our current assets into role guys who fit around them? These are all factors that have to be played out before deciding what role Ben has with us in the future.
Also, it's getting to the point where can't NOT resign IT, assuming he doesn't get some insane deal from somebody. How do you explain to Cousins that we let a 21.5 PPG 7.5 APG 3.6 RPG on 60% TS starting PG, who's entrance into the starting 5 has lead to the best play of his career, walk in FA and claim we're still trying to field a winning team around him? I don't care what some people try and claim, his offensive production he's displayed over the course of the year is not easily replaceable. We don't know everything that happened with the Evans situation, but Cousins was obviously on-board with the organization's decision. I'm not so sure he'd be so thrilled about letting the guy who's been his only help the whole year and elevated his game, walk without getting a significant asset in return.
But, as you said, the sample is still small with the trio. So it puts PDA in a pickle: Do we wait until we're in another Reke situation, if we really don't want to resign IT going forward and luck into getting an asset back like we did with GV, or do we try and maximize his value now and trade him before the deadline? Or do we commit to IT-Gay-Cousins moving forward and invest our current assets into role guys who fit around them? These are all factors that have to be played out before deciding what role Ben has with us in the future.
Malone has to have Ben come off the bench. At this point in time, less is more. Yes, developing him is necessary, but not when it's destroying his confidence and destroying our chances to win. It should just be explained to him that he shouldn't consider it a demotion, but rather a chance to look at the game from the sideline and reflect on what he can do better.
Wait a minute, back up... This is either moving the goalposts, or stacking the deck, depending on your point of view. First of all, I said you can go back and see the trend over the past four decades, and you can, so just cherry-picking this season is a little disingenuous. Second, and more importantly, I didn't qualify my statement by defining "not being featured" as "averaging single digit scoring." Because, you know what? If you play 30+ minutes a game, and you only average 10 points, you're actually not featured in the offense. You want me to believe that Tyson Chandler, who averaged 5.5 shot attempts per game was "featured" in Dallas' offense, because he averaged 10.1 points? Yeah, right. You want me to believe that Michael Beasley, who is DNP-CD almost literally half the games Miami plays, is "featured" in their offense, just because he averages 11.2 points? To quote Johnny Mac, you cannot be serious. Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook and Serge Ibaka average a combined 48.1 shot attempts per game. That's literally more than the other eleven guys on the Thunder put together! But you want me to believe that Jeremy Lamb and his 10 points a game are "featured" in that offense?
What I'm saying is that your characterization of a featured offense is misleading; I'm subject to think that you're not really characterizing it at all, since you keep talking about balanced scoring, instead, which is sometimes, but not always, the same thing. Sometimes balanced scoring is just a reflection of offensive efficiency. I'll bet you lunch that Portland, for example, doesn't run a single play for Robin Lopez, which means that he's not featured in their offense, no matter how many points he averages. If you have a team where three guys combine to take 45-50 percent of the shots, then that's not really balance, even if Guy #4 is averaging 12 points a game. Look at the Showtime lakers: that offense was Magic, Kareem and Worthy. I will accept arguments for Byron Scott, but Mychal Thompson was not featured in that offense, no matter how balanced the scoring was. Michael Cooper was not featured in that offense, no matter how balanced the scoring was. They didn't run plays for A.C. Green.
When I talk about being featured in the offense, I mean you get the bulk of the shots, you get the bulk of the touches, you're one of the guys that the coach calls end-of-shot-clock/end-of-game plays for, designed for you to score. As the primary option. Not the, "if **** falls apart," backup plan. And that's not Robin Lopez, and it's not Wes Matthews, and it's not Nicolas Batum, no matter how balanced their scoring is.
I never said they were. I don't really think they are. I was just refuting the claim that featuring three guys in your offense doesn't lead to winning basketball.
What I'm saying is that your characterization of a featured offense is misleading; I'm subject to think that you're not really characterizing it at all, since you keep talking about balanced scoring, instead, which is sometimes, but not always, the same thing. Sometimes balanced scoring is just a reflection of offensive efficiency. I'll bet you lunch that Portland, for example, doesn't run a single play for Robin Lopez, which means that he's not featured in their offense, no matter how many points he averages. If you have a team where three guys combine to take 45-50 percent of the shots, then that's not really balance, even if Guy #4 is averaging 12 points a game. Look at the Showtime lakers: that offense was Magic, Kareem and Worthy. I will accept arguments for Byron Scott, but Mychal Thompson was not featured in that offense, no matter how balanced the scoring was. Michael Cooper was not featured in that offense, no matter how balanced the scoring was. They didn't run plays for A.C. Green.
When I talk about being featured in the offense, I mean you get the bulk of the shots, you get the bulk of the touches, you're one of the guys that the coach calls end-of-shot-clock/end-of-game plays for, designed for you to score. As the primary option. Not the, "if **** falls apart," backup plan. And that's not Robin Lopez, and it's not Wes Matthews, and it's not Nicolas Batum, no matter how balanced their scoring is.
I never said they were. I don't really think they are. I was just refuting the claim that featuring three guys in your offense doesn't lead to winning basketball.
I don't like lumping any player into one pile and then passing judgement on that one player because he fits that description. It always comes down to the individual. These players are human beings, and some are more coachable than others. Some have a greater passion to be great than others. Some have greater athletic ability than others. Some have played basketball since they were five years old, and some of them had fathers that were NBA players, or in some cases professional players in another sport, like Noahs father, who was a great tennis player. Then there are the players like McLemore, and now, another player I lust after Joel Embiid, that came to the sport late, and so their behind the curve. McLemore didn't play basketball until late in highschool, and only played one year of college ball. So its no surprise to me that he's struggling from time to time.
Its easy to look at players like Jordan, and Bird etc, and forget that they played four years of college ball and had been playing the game since they were young children. Be careful who you want to get rid of so quickly, and I'm not referring to you personally. At the moment, Paul George is considered a blooming superstar, and mostly what he had going for him coming out of college was his athleticism, and the ability to hit the outside shot. His first year in the NBA wasn't anything to blow your socks off.
George: 20.7 MPG - 7.8 PPG - 45.3% FGP - 29.7% 3PP - 3.7 RPG - 1 SPG
As you can see, he struggled with his 3 point shot. But all in all, it was a typical rookie year. Compare him to McLemore currently.
McLemore: 25.4 MPG - 8.7 PPG - 37.5% FGP - 35.3% 3PP - 3.0 RPG - 1.0 APG
As you can see, McLemore struggles more inside the 3 pt line than outside it. Obviously, his ballhandling needs to improve, but for the most part, he just needs to slow down and let the game come to him a little more. George was a better ballhandler coming out of college, and he had more experience defensively. Where do you people think BBIQ comes from? Experience, and the ability to retain what your learned. If you've played basketball since you were 5 years old, you should have more BBIQ than someone thats only played the game for 4 or so years. This comparison to Thomas Robinson is just nonsense. Robinson couldn't shoot the ball, and relied totally on his athleticism. Plus, he had 3 years of college. Robinson also had the problem of believing his press clippings to his detriment.
McLemore's coach at Kansas said that he was one of the most talented players he ever coached. That he was a humble kid who was very coachable, and that he picked up the game quickly. No doubt McLemore would have benefited from another year in college. As a result, he's a little like a fish out of water. But that doesn't mean you throw him away, especially for a role player. How would you like it if 2 or 3 years from now, he ended up being a star in the league, and we just traded him for role defensive player. One doesn't have to be at the exclusion of the other. You want a role player to start now, then go get one, but keep McLemore.
One final note. Anyone that wants to blame last nights loss on McLemore just didn't pay attention to the game, especially in the final 5 or 6 minutes of the game. By my count McLemore guarded Ginobili twice in that period of time. Gay spent more time guarding him than just about anybody, and Thornton got destroyed by Ginobili by playing off him. The Spurs are one of the best half court teams in the NBA. They throw double screens at you and you end up with one player guarding two players, and having to decide which one to guard. Early in the game, Belinelli cut from the top of the key straight to the basket with McLemore following (Belinelli didn't have the ball) As Belinelli went through the key, McLemore ran into a double screen, which stopped him dead in his tracks. Belinelli then ran right past Gay, leaving Gay with the decision of whether to stay with his own man, or head for the corner to contest Belinelli shooting a three. Not a good choice! He opted to stay with his own man since it was closer to the basket, and Belinelli got the ball for a wide open three. Now he missed that one, but you get my point. To think that our young team isn't going to be fooled by the Spurs, is ridiculous. The Spurs upped the defense at the end of the 4th, and won the game. Nothing new to them.
Its easy to look at players like Jordan, and Bird etc, and forget that they played four years of college ball and had been playing the game since they were young children. Be careful who you want to get rid of so quickly, and I'm not referring to you personally. At the moment, Paul George is considered a blooming superstar, and mostly what he had going for him coming out of college was his athleticism, and the ability to hit the outside shot. His first year in the NBA wasn't anything to blow your socks off.
George: 20.7 MPG - 7.8 PPG - 45.3% FGP - 29.7% 3PP - 3.7 RPG - 1 SPG
As you can see, he struggled with his 3 point shot. But all in all, it was a typical rookie year. Compare him to McLemore currently.
McLemore: 25.4 MPG - 8.7 PPG - 37.5% FGP - 35.3% 3PP - 3.0 RPG - 1.0 APG
As you can see, McLemore struggles more inside the 3 pt line than outside it. Obviously, his ballhandling needs to improve, but for the most part, he just needs to slow down and let the game come to him a little more. George was a better ballhandler coming out of college, and he had more experience defensively. Where do you people think BBIQ comes from? Experience, and the ability to retain what your learned. If you've played basketball since you were 5 years old, you should have more BBIQ than someone thats only played the game for 4 or so years. This comparison to Thomas Robinson is just nonsense. Robinson couldn't shoot the ball, and relied totally on his athleticism. Plus, he had 3 years of college. Robinson also had the problem of believing his press clippings to his detriment.
McLemore's coach at Kansas said that he was one of the most talented players he ever coached. That he was a humble kid who was very coachable, and that he picked up the game quickly. No doubt McLemore would have benefited from another year in college. As a result, he's a little like a fish out of water. But that doesn't mean you throw him away, especially for a role player. How would you like it if 2 or 3 years from now, he ended up being a star in the league, and we just traded him for role defensive player. One doesn't have to be at the exclusion of the other. You want a role player to start now, then go get one, but keep McLemore.
One final note. Anyone that wants to blame last nights loss on McLemore just didn't pay attention to the game, especially in the final 5 or 6 minutes of the game. By my count McLemore guarded Ginobili twice in that period of time. Gay spent more time guarding him than just about anybody, and Thornton got destroyed by Ginobili by playing off him. The Spurs are one of the best half court teams in the NBA. They throw double screens at you and you end up with one player guarding two players, and having to decide which one to guard. Early in the game, Belinelli cut from the top of the key straight to the basket with McLemore following (Belinelli didn't have the ball) As Belinelli went through the key, McLemore ran into a double screen, which stopped him dead in his tracks. Belinelli then ran right past Gay, leaving Gay with the decision of whether to stay with his own man, or head for the corner to contest Belinelli shooting a three. Not a good choice! He opted to stay with his own man since it was closer to the basket, and Belinelli got the ball for a wide open three. Now he missed that one, but you get my point. To think that our young team isn't going to be fooled by the Spurs, is ridiculous. The Spurs upped the defense at the end of the 4th, and won the game. Nothing new to them.
You know...I am rapidly no longer listening to the coach at Kansas. 
In fact I think the color commentator for Kansas, some big guy with funny hair we used to know, might have a better read on KU guys and the NBA (maybe because he played at this level). He warned us about TRob. And he wasn't exactly sold on Ben. If we ever make the mistake of taking another KU guy and Pollard turns out to be right again, I say we march on over to Sleeptrain and depose the gerbil and move in a bigger chair.
In fact I think the color commentator for Kansas, some big guy with funny hair we used to know, might have a better read on KU guys and the NBA (maybe because he played at this level). He warned us about TRob. And he wasn't exactly sold on Ben. If we ever make the mistake of taking another KU guy and Pollard turns out to be right again, I say we march on over to Sleeptrain and depose the gerbil and move in a bigger chair.
Last edited:
not sure what you were trying to say there, but actually while I don't put much stock in such things, Kansas actually has been pretty notorious over the years for not turning out quality NBA guys. You had Wilt 50 years ago, Paul Pierce, and Danny Manning was a good player, but a bit of a bust as a #1 pick. After that? It gets pretty grim quick.
Current Kansas players in NBA:
Cole Aldrich
Darrel Arthur
Mario Chalmers
Nick Collison
Drew Gooden
Xavier Henry
Kirk Hinrich
Ben McLemore
Marcus Morris
Markieff Morris
Brandon Rush
Thomas Robinson
Josh Selby
Tyshaun Taylor
All Stars all. A lot of those guys were lottery picks too.
Others of note:
Rick Calloway (played with Kings 1 season)
Sherron Collins
Greg Dreiling
Carl Henry (also played with Kings 1 season)
Darnell Jackson (played with Kings 1 season)
Raef LaFrentz
Clyde Lovellette
Paul Mokeski (yes, a veritable big white stiff factory)
Greg Ostertag (played with Kings 1 season)
Scot Pollard
Kevin Pritchard
Mark Randall
Ryan Robertson
Wayne Simien
Billy Thomas
Darnell Valentine
Jacque Vaughn
Rex Walters
Jo Jo White
Julian Wright
That's all just for what its worth. I am certainly not suggesting that Ben is a better or worse player for having come through there. perhaps suggesting that various Kansas coaches' predictions of stardom for their guys have been overwrought however.
Current Kansas players in NBA:
Cole Aldrich
Darrel Arthur
Mario Chalmers
Nick Collison
Drew Gooden
Xavier Henry
Kirk Hinrich
Ben McLemore
Marcus Morris
Markieff Morris
Brandon Rush
Thomas Robinson
Josh Selby
Tyshaun Taylor
All Stars all. A lot of those guys were lottery picks too.
Others of note:
Rick Calloway (played with Kings 1 season)
Sherron Collins
Greg Dreiling
Carl Henry (also played with Kings 1 season)
Darnell Jackson (played with Kings 1 season)
Raef LaFrentz
Clyde Lovellette
Paul Mokeski (yes, a veritable big white stiff factory)
Greg Ostertag (played with Kings 1 season)
Scot Pollard
Kevin Pritchard
Mark Randall
Ryan Robertson
Wayne Simien
Billy Thomas
Darnell Valentine
Jacque Vaughn
Rex Walters
Jo Jo White
Julian Wright
That's all just for what its worth. I am certainly not suggesting that Ben is a better or worse player for having come through there. perhaps suggesting that various Kansas coaches' predictions of stardom for their guys have been overwrought however.
Last edited:
Some of your points here are baffling to me. You took issue with one sentence out of my post and seemed to call for some elaboration so I was attempting to do just that. I know you said it's been a trend for 4 decades but that's not really a point I even want to get into. Partly because I've only been watching basketball for 2 decades and partly because it seems unprovable anyway. I'm talking about this team and these players and why we're not winning with them. I didn't "cherry pick" this season, how does that even make sense? Cherry picking would be picking some other specific season or team and then dismissing others for arbitrary reasons and trying to suggest that small sample somehow represents a trend. That was never my intention to begin with. I looked at every team in the league this year to see if any of them had a similar type of shot distribution to our team. PPG is just a convenient way of looking at who's taking shots without going game by game and adding it all up like I did for our guys. I talked about this season because it's obviously the most relevant and then I also looked at the past 7 NBA champions.
I also never made any statements about who is or is not featured in the offense. That sounds like your own pet argument and if you want to make it, that's fine. What I'm talking about here isn't the theoretical composition of a team, it's just plain black and white possessions -- who gets them and what they do with them. We seem to have assembled a team here in which three guys are more than just featured in the offense, they eat up 90% of the possessions. In my opinion that's not a sustainable system. And, looking around the league, it's completely unprecedented. In fact, the point you made about Portland only having two featured scorers is exactly the point I was trying to make. Add another guy into that offense taking 15+ shots a game and the whole thing falls apart.
I'd be fine if we were running an offense that features three guys and then allows for some other roles, for guys to space the floor and grab boards and cut weak side and all of that. Theoretically that's what we should be doing with these three guys. But that's not the situation at all. Every possession while they're on the floor is either a Cousins post-up, an IT drive, or a Rudy Gay isolation play. I can only reiterate here my original statement, the one that you took issue with:
That's where the emphasis was intended. Not on the idea of a three pronged NBA offense but on this team -- our team -- these 3 players, and the way that their shot selection is stunting the development of our other players and causing us to lose close games. In other words, not on the Platonic form but this one specific iteration. Mostly I'm saying to all of the people who think everyone on this team who is not averaging 20ppg is a worthless player because they're not contributing or that we need to trade these guys for someone who can give IT, Gay, and Cousins some support out there -- that the problem lies not with the players but the manner in which they're currently fit into our team offense.
McLemore in particular has been productive this season when he's been allowed to take shots that he is capable of making. He's not an isolation player. Asking him to create off the dribble and then getting angry at him when he can't, that is setting a guy up to fail (kindof like playing Tyreke off the ball spotted up on the three point line) and there's no reason for it. This particular big three is not so good that they're now bigger than the team. I'd like to see all three of them sacrifice some shots in order to keep the rest of the team involved. That way when it gets to be the end of a quarter, the end of a half, the end of the game we're not marching up the court playing 3 on 5 basketball against a set defense (or more often 1 on 4) and hoping that's enough for us to win.
EDIT: So apparently 'featured' was my word choice after all? Don't I have egg on my face. I'm pretty sure I only used it as a euphemism for "takes every bloody shot" though.
I also never made any statements about who is or is not featured in the offense. That sounds like your own pet argument and if you want to make it, that's fine. What I'm talking about here isn't the theoretical composition of a team, it's just plain black and white possessions -- who gets them and what they do with them. We seem to have assembled a team here in which three guys are more than just featured in the offense, they eat up 90% of the possessions. In my opinion that's not a sustainable system. And, looking around the league, it's completely unprecedented. In fact, the point you made about Portland only having two featured scorers is exactly the point I was trying to make. Add another guy into that offense taking 15+ shots a game and the whole thing falls apart.
I'd be fine if we were running an offense that features three guys and then allows for some other roles, for guys to space the floor and grab boards and cut weak side and all of that. Theoretically that's what we should be doing with these three guys. But that's not the situation at all. Every possession while they're on the floor is either a Cousins post-up, an IT drive, or a Rudy Gay isolation play. I can only reiterate here my original statement, the one that you took issue with:
That's where the emphasis was intended. Not on the idea of a three pronged NBA offense but on this team -- our team -- these 3 players, and the way that their shot selection is stunting the development of our other players and causing us to lose close games. In other words, not on the Platonic form but this one specific iteration. Mostly I'm saying to all of the people who think everyone on this team who is not averaging 20ppg is a worthless player because they're not contributing or that we need to trade these guys for someone who can give IT, Gay, and Cousins some support out there -- that the problem lies not with the players but the manner in which they're currently fit into our team offense.
McLemore in particular has been productive this season when he's been allowed to take shots that he is capable of making. He's not an isolation player. Asking him to create off the dribble and then getting angry at him when he can't, that is setting a guy up to fail (kindof like playing Tyreke off the ball spotted up on the three point line) and there's no reason for it. This particular big three is not so good that they're now bigger than the team. I'd like to see all three of them sacrifice some shots in order to keep the rest of the team involved. That way when it gets to be the end of a quarter, the end of a half, the end of the game we're not marching up the court playing 3 on 5 basketball against a set defense (or more often 1 on 4) and hoping that's enough for us to win.
EDIT: So apparently 'featured' was my word choice after all? Don't I have egg on my face. I'm pretty sure I only used it as a euphemism for "takes every bloody shot" though.
Last edited:
I never said that Cousins, Gay and Thomas are the right three guys in the first place, so I guess I don't know what we're arguing about, either. I do think that Cousins and Gay could be two of the three guys, but I'm not willing to put the mortgage on that, either.
I do tend to believe that offense is overrated, in general, and offensive "balance" is overrated, in particular. Offense sells tickets, but if you have a great pivot and a great wing, that's enough to win, as long as you play defense. We don't play defense, and I don't think that anyone is in disagreement on that. I do actually think that we can win with our offense featuring three guys, to the near exclusion of everyone else, if we play defense. Do we play defense? No. Do I think that these three guys are the three guys? Not really, but I never said otherwise.
I do tend to believe that offense is overrated, in general, and offensive "balance" is overrated, in particular. Offense sells tickets, but if you have a great pivot and a great wing, that's enough to win, as long as you play defense. We don't play defense, and I don't think that anyone is in disagreement on that. I do actually think that we can win with our offense featuring three guys, to the near exclusion of everyone else, if we play defense. Do we play defense? No. Do I think that these three guys are the three guys? Not really, but I never said otherwise.
But again, I think we're just circling around here and coming back to the same point. If those 3 guys are going to be our entire offense than they had better be on the court a lot. And that means playing both sides of the ball. As a group they're not nearly good enough defensively to get away with being 3/5ths of the lineup for 40 minutes per game. Not unless you've got the two best defenders on the planet playing next to them or some magic sauce on the sidelines. So that means that these three guys dominating all of the shots can't happen unless we're living in a theoretical world where they can also defend at a high level. You seem to agree with me that this is a fantasy scenario. So then what's left to disagree about?
And for the record, I'm totally on board with the idea of an offense that features 2 or 3 scorers. That is what wins in the NBA. One of those guys should be Cousins because we're unlikely to stumble across another franchise big man any time soon. IT is the most obvious piece to move because he has the least potential to defend his position. Until someone decides to gift us a credible starting PG alternative, we're more or less stuck with what we've got for the time being. The only immediate change I'd like to see is somebody (Coach Malone) stepping in and demanding some discipline from these guys regarding what kinds of shots they're taking and how often they're taking them.
If those 3 guys are going to be our entire offense than they had better be on the court a lot. And that means playing both sides of the ball. As a group they're not nearly good enough defensively to get away with being 3/5ths of the lineup for 40 minutes per game. Not unless you've got the two best defenders on the planet playing next to them or some magic sauce on the sidelines. So that means that these three guys dominating all of the shots can't happen unless we're living in a theoretical world where they can also defend at a high level. You seem to agree with me that this is a fantasy scenario. So then what's left to disagree about?And for the record, I'm totally on board with the idea of an offense that features 2 or 3 scorers. That is what wins in the NBA. One of those guys should be Cousins because we're unlikely to stumble across another franchise big man any time soon. IT is the most obvious piece to move because he has the least potential to defend his position. Until someone decides to gift us a credible starting PG alternative, we're more or less stuck with what we've got for the time being. The only immediate change I'd like to see is somebody (Coach Malone) stepping in and demanding some discipline from these guys regarding what kinds of shots they're taking and how often they're taking them.
Well, for starters, ideally you're not starting all three of those guys. Start Cousins and Gay with two "3 and D" guys, and a post defender. Bring Thomas off the bench and then, presuming that Malone actually goes by his word and doesn't ever sit Cousins and Gay at the same time (like he said he would), then you still have two scorers on the floor at all times, and you don't wear them all out.