Sacramento Kings
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
Off topic, but I just watched a newscast from the last game of the season a couple years ago when the Maloof's were owners and we thought we were going to lose our team. I had an epiphany. Every time I get angry about the current progress (everyday since the firing), I go back and think of how lucky we are we have a team. Sometimes you have to take a step back to realize how lucky we really are.
I completely disagree with the front office and know we should have kept malone as the coach as all of the players bought into the new defensive half court winning system. We are still lucky to have a team in sac. There is no denying that fact. I'm new to posting but have been on this site for many years.
Look at Pau Gasol. Guy is hoopin this year and just went out and dropped 46pts 18reb on the Bucks tonight.....
Back in LA, Mike D'Antoni had the dude hangin out on the perimeter shooting jumpers all day long and he eventually found himself on the bench because he wasn't good enough at run n gun....
sound familiar?
Back in LA, Mike D'Antoni had the dude hangin out on the perimeter shooting jumpers all day long and he eventually found himself on the bench because he wasn't good enough at run n gun....
sound familiar?
I disagree with that. I think differing philosophies among professionals is generally a good thing because it provides different perspectives and ways of combatting problems.
I'm not understanding the relevance of the mechanic example. But it seems that you are suggesting that it is ok to have different philosophies where there is only one correct way of accomplishing a task, but that you cannot have differing philosophies where there are multiple ways of accomplishing a task? If I have misunderstood, please let me know.
There are a myriad examples where healthy debate and different philosophies have led to good outcomes. Look at the founding of the United States where many different political views came together to form one of the most influential and powerful nations on the planet.
PDA and Malone had the opportunity to listen to eachother and to create a system that melded elements of both philosophies. How that would have worked, I can't say because that would have been up to both of them.
We still don't have full information as to the full nature of the dispute, but it would appear as though neither was willing to compromise or give credence to the other philosophy. that was the big issue: lack of open minds.
I'm not understanding the relevance of the mechanic example. But it seems that you are suggesting that it is ok to have different philosophies where there is only one correct way of accomplishing a task, but that you cannot have differing philosophies where there are multiple ways of accomplishing a task? If I have misunderstood, please let me know.
There are a myriad examples where healthy debate and different philosophies have led to good outcomes. Look at the founding of the United States where many different political views came together to form one of the most influential and powerful nations on the planet.
PDA and Malone had the opportunity to listen to eachother and to create a system that melded elements of both philosophies. How that would have worked, I can't say because that would have been up to both of them.
We still don't have full information as to the full nature of the dispute, but it would appear as though neither was willing to compromise or give credence to the other philosophy. that was the big issue: lack of open minds.
I do not support Pda. Honestly I don't understand, whatmakes you think that.
I only said, that there are reasons for the Malone firing, that could be viable (pls note that I didn't write they are viable) . Those reasons were all regarding our offense. So if the Malone firing was a basketball related decision, the person who executed the firing has fallen for the assumption, that our defense wouldn't suffer - which is clearly a misconception, wether this is because of players not buying in, lack of leadership, lack of effort or subpar defensive gameplans and schemes.
The offense on the other hand was one dimensional under Malone.
The contending teams all play a different brand of offense - way more fluid, more ballmovement, more screens, quicker and constant player movement - which to me, not familiar with the stat "pace", is described best with a well paced fluid offense.
Unlike the majority of the users I believe, that this is the offensive vision PDA has in mind.
And I support this vision, cause I personally believe, that an offense completely reliant on one player won't be successful in the long run.
All those statements that PDA or Vivek or Mullin want to turn us into Denver or GS are not convincing me.
The major problem right now is not the vision itself, it's the proper execution of this vision and PDA clearly failed to do that.
Therefore I don't support PDA and I don't support the Malone firing, cause correct Vision or not, it didn't lead to a different offensive approach and messed up our defense.
I only said, that there are reasons for the Malone firing, that could be viable (pls note that I didn't write they are viable) . Those reasons were all regarding our offense. So if the Malone firing was a basketball related decision, the person who executed the firing has fallen for the assumption, that our defense wouldn't suffer - which is clearly a misconception, wether this is because of players not buying in, lack of leadership, lack of effort or subpar defensive gameplans and schemes.
The offense on the other hand was one dimensional under Malone.
The contending teams all play a different brand of offense - way more fluid, more ballmovement, more screens, quicker and constant player movement - which to me, not familiar with the stat "pace", is described best with a well paced fluid offense.
Unlike the majority of the users I believe, that this is the offensive vision PDA has in mind.
And I support this vision, cause I personally believe, that an offense completely reliant on one player won't be successful in the long run.
All those statements that PDA or Vivek or Mullin want to turn us into Denver or GS are not convincing me.
The major problem right now is not the vision itself, it's the proper execution of this vision and PDA clearly failed to do that.
Therefore I don't support PDA and I don't support the Malone firing, cause correct Vision or not, it didn't lead to a different offensive approach and messed up our defense.
Last edited:
I want to throw a couple of other variables into the speculative equation. First, I think it's fairly well documented that Vivek is predisposed to the running game (pace, etc.). In that respect, he wasn't a blank slate. He in fact hired PDA with that predisposition. Yes, he also hired Malone, who is not that kind of coach, but that decision was made in a time-pressured situation and Vivek felt he needed to hire him because he had some, but not all the characteristics he wanted as a coach. Reading between the lines, Malone probably wouldn't have been the hire if he Vivek in fact had several months to consider the decision. So it seems reasonable to believe that PDA's influence over Vivek had as much to do with working with, preying on, manipulating, Vivek's already established biases. (Pick the verb of choice).
Your comparing us to teams with the roster to run some of these offenses. None of those teams have Cousins or even a Cousins/Gay twosome. None of those teams have Cousins. Repeat, none of those teams have Cousins. And one of those contending teams is Memphis who we were more similar to....half court grind it out defensive team. They are successful because their roster and depth of roster is good and they play 2 the strengths of their big men which is not pushing the pace.
If you watched the Denver game, you saw us push the pace about as well as we have all year and we got blown off the court in the second half.
If you watched the Denver game, you saw us push the pace about as well as we have all year and we got blown off the court in the second half.
I think that's where emotion must have come into it. They wanted to influence Malone to coach their way; he refused. Firing Malone in mid-season doesn't connote a well thought out plan. It connotes that Malone po'd Vivek and/or PDA when he refused to coach the game the way they wanted it coached and dismissed analytics in favor of defense in his press conference.
I didn't compare the Kings to any team. I wrote about very general visions how to set up a successful NBA offense. And i didn't even mention running the floor or pushing the pace - if you want to restrict this term to the actual statistic of posessions per game.
But hey if you really want to discuss about this - can you please answer me, why roleplayers like Humphries or Speights (just to name a few) are able to adapt to a more fluid offense without major problems? Is this because of coaching?
Why do role players actually role to the rim on those teams i mentioned? Why do they get open looks time and time again? Why is the amount of easy baskets out of ball movement and player movement higher on those teams, from my personal viewpoint?
And the fact, that we have Cousins doesn't mean, that we have to use him the way we do now - like running him into double and triple teams, while our players are just bystanders watching him. The fact we have Gay doesn't mean we need him to throw up bad, forced shots from the dribble all the time.
Did you notice how often Cousins sets screens and rolls or pops out and is overlooked by anyone not named Collinson (actually you could see him barking at Rudy for that a couple of times or shaking his head on Ben)? Did you notice how Ben or Nik are still standing in those corners without any successfull backscreens?
I repeat - this is not about turning our lowpost oriented Kings into Golden State.
This is about finding our own personal way to get everyone on our roster more involved into the offense. It's perfectly fine to play through Cousins in the low- or high post, but this can't be our only viable offensive strategy moving forward, cause teams will try to take away this option and we already know, what will happen if they are successful. Why does Cousins commit that many turnovers?
And to repeat it once again - Memphis isn't similar to us in my opinion. Memphis is always mentioned here, because of their defense and the fact they have a decent Center and i totally agree, that you can be a defensive minded team and be successful. But the offense of Memphis is not similar to the way we run our offense. If we would run our offense the way Memphis does, you wouldn't see any criticism from me around here.
And to prempt the usual argument - yes i know that Memphis has developed chemistry and i know they have different players. But the Kings need to start somewhere and the FO believed after 1 full season, 1 full training camp and a couple of games into this season, that Malone wouldn't be able to adress our weaknesses in ball- and playermovement on the offensive end.
And i tend to agree on this.
But this doesn't mean, that I support PDA or am fine with the firing, like it actually took place.
I am not! As long as the weaknesses of our squad aren't fixed and we watch our team regress on the defensive end the whole affair was a giant failure and I can understand why some fans call for the head of PDA.
But hey if you really want to discuss about this - can you please answer me, why roleplayers like Humphries or Speights (just to name a few) are able to adapt to a more fluid offense without major problems? Is this because of coaching?
Why do role players actually role to the rim on those teams i mentioned? Why do they get open looks time and time again? Why is the amount of easy baskets out of ball movement and player movement higher on those teams, from my personal viewpoint?
And the fact, that we have Cousins doesn't mean, that we have to use him the way we do now - like running him into double and triple teams, while our players are just bystanders watching him. The fact we have Gay doesn't mean we need him to throw up bad, forced shots from the dribble all the time.
Did you notice how often Cousins sets screens and rolls or pops out and is overlooked by anyone not named Collinson (actually you could see him barking at Rudy for that a couple of times or shaking his head on Ben)? Did you notice how Ben or Nik are still standing in those corners without any successfull backscreens?
I repeat - this is not about turning our lowpost oriented Kings into Golden State.
This is about finding our own personal way to get everyone on our roster more involved into the offense. It's perfectly fine to play through Cousins in the low- or high post, but this can't be our only viable offensive strategy moving forward, cause teams will try to take away this option and we already know, what will happen if they are successful. Why does Cousins commit that many turnovers?
And to repeat it once again - Memphis isn't similar to us in my opinion. Memphis is always mentioned here, because of their defense and the fact they have a decent Center and i totally agree, that you can be a defensive minded team and be successful. But the offense of Memphis is not similar to the way we run our offense. If we would run our offense the way Memphis does, you wouldn't see any criticism from me around here.
And to prempt the usual argument - yes i know that Memphis has developed chemistry and i know they have different players. But the Kings need to start somewhere and the FO believed after 1 full season, 1 full training camp and a couple of games into this season, that Malone wouldn't be able to adress our weaknesses in ball- and playermovement on the offensive end.
And i tend to agree on this.
But this doesn't mean, that I support PDA or am fine with the firing, like it actually took place.
I am not! As long as the weaknesses of our squad aren't fixed and we watch our team regress on the defensive end the whole affair was a giant failure and I can understand why some fans call for the head of PDA.
Since Malone was fired, the Kings have had the same record as the Lakers at 4-8. That's against one of the softer stretches of the schedule (7 home games including the Lakers and the Knicks, road games against Brooklyn, Boston and Minnesota) and with only one of those wins (OKC) being convincing. The Knicks are now the worst team in the NBA and it took the Kings OT to beat them at home.
If things don't change I wouldn't be surprised to see the Kings finish with a worse record than the Lakers. A month ago that thought never even entered my mind.
I can have a rational discussion about Malone's shortcomings as a coach especially as it pertains to the offensive end of the floor. I was of the opinion that Malone and the team would grow together and improvements would be made to the offensive as time went on. But it's also entirely possible that Malone just isn't a good offensive coach and could never be the guy to take the Kings to the next level. I can't pretend to know the answer.
But the issue to me isn't whether Mike Malone is a great coach or not. The issue is whether firing him 24 games in was the best move for the team. Clearly it wasn't.
I didn't expect much out of D'Alessandro's appearance on KHTK. But the one thing I was really hoping to hear from him was any logical reason for firing Malone in December instead of at the end of the season. And obviously I left disappointed.
What do I really want as a Kings fan? Not much. I want a team that competes each night and that I can be proud of. And I want a front office that gives me the sense they know what they are doing.
If things don't change I wouldn't be surprised to see the Kings finish with a worse record than the Lakers. A month ago that thought never even entered my mind.
I can have a rational discussion about Malone's shortcomings as a coach especially as it pertains to the offensive end of the floor. I was of the opinion that Malone and the team would grow together and improvements would be made to the offensive as time went on. But it's also entirely possible that Malone just isn't a good offensive coach and could never be the guy to take the Kings to the next level. I can't pretend to know the answer.
But the issue to me isn't whether Mike Malone is a great coach or not. The issue is whether firing him 24 games in was the best move for the team. Clearly it wasn't.
I didn't expect much out of D'Alessandro's appearance on KHTK. But the one thing I was really hoping to hear from him was any logical reason for firing Malone in December instead of at the end of the season. And obviously I left disappointed.
What do I really want as a Kings fan? Not much. I want a team that competes each night and that I can be proud of. And I want a front office that gives me the sense they know what they are doing.
That's cool; it turns out that D'Alessandro doesn't, either. And, either way, it doesn't translate to being smarter. You know who has "over 15 years of inside basketball knowledge"? Chris Mullin. Not even the apologists would try to argue that he's that smart.
Having "inside basketball knowledge" has **** all to do with being smart. It just means that you're connected.
Having "inside basketball knowledge" has **** all to do with being smart. It just means that you're connected.
Well, there you go with your faulty premises, again. There's no rational reason to conflate having "inside" knowledge with being actually knowledgeable about basketball. David Kahn has nearly twenty years of "inside" basketball knowledge, and he might be "real world" smart, but he's a ****ing idiot when it comes to basketball. Kevin McHale, Isiah Thomas, Michael Jordan, Ernie Grunfeld... I could give myself a cramp typing names of all the people who have years and years of experience and "inside" knowledge who are very bad at their jobs, and have shown no evidence at all that they're particularly knowledgeable about basketball.
D'Alessandro having "inside" knowledge proves that he has access to information that the rest of us don't; that's it. If he's bad at processing and interpreting that data, which is my contention, then he is not, in fact, smarter about basketball than the rest of us.
D'Alessandro having "inside" knowledge proves that he has access to information that the rest of us don't; that's it. If he's bad at processing and interpreting that data, which is my contention, then he is not, in fact, smarter about basketball than the rest of us.
what do you want the players to do? They have no leadership, no direction, nobody holding them accountable. They were headed in the right direction and the rug was pulled out from under them. They are confused and betrayed.
they are out there playing unorganized pickup ball against well coached NBA teams. What do you expect?
they are out there playing unorganized pickup ball against well coached NBA teams. What do you expect?