Cousins isn't a winner?

#31
Again, I'm not blaming the coach or Cousins or anybody. Nowhere did I even say Cousins was a failure so I don't know where you got that from. The alternative to it being Cousins' fault is that its' the organization's fault, fair enough. As you said, quit fighting Cousins' greatness right? So if the franchise continues fighting this supposed greatness, keeps insisting on offense-first small ball or whatever your choice dislike of the day is, do you as a Sacramento Kings fan say FINE TRADE COUSINS, SMALL BALL IT IS, JUST WIN (which is a realistic scenario - you can win playing small ball pace etc with the right roster), or do you as a Kings fan continue to beg the FO to hire the right coach and assemble the right roster? Keep in mind the base assumption that we're not winning, we're not making the playoffs by what would be the 10th or 11th season straight or something, 7ish of them with Cousins as the centerpiece.

Hey if all works out and we're winning, then all will be well and you won't hear any complaints from me. Or maybe if it doesn't it will be Cousins who wants out first and we won't have to discuss whether we should trade him.
-have we ever gave cuz a competent coach? Where's Westphail? Smart? Corbin? Answer is no
-have we built a solid team around cuz? No again (you can say this team, but look we have a coach that's way past his glory years)

lets say we do trade cuz what are we actually going to get back? It's going to be an Orlando and shaq episode all over again.

I can tell you were not going to get the 2guard you think we can get, we're not going to get a big that put in work like boogie does
 
#32
Tell me who the coach is.

And that's a ridiculous question anyway.

LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.

Not the numbers with Cousins on the floor, since so many people are just lost in their biases when it comes to Cousins. Look at that 2nd number, the number with Cousins OFF the floor. That's not on Cousins. he can't possibly be blamed for his team's play when he's not on the court, although I imagine some fool will gleefully make the effort. I'm just not dishonest enough to be unfair like that. So I say, LOOK at that 2nd number. The number withOUT Cousins. That is who the Kings are sans DeMarcus Cousins. It is the very worst number of ANY of the 21 stars teams' listed there. He's being asked to do something that no other star in the NBA is being asked to do. Then when he fails, or only succeeds in ways people can't spot easily, its his fault? I dare you to bring in Paul George or James Harden and have them make this group win. That's not the way it works.

Quit fighting Cousins's greatness. not only you, I mean, the franchise. You get a great bigman, you get a big man coach and great big man teammates. And while I dislike the breed, the opposite is true. If we had prime Steve Nash, go find me a Mike D'Antoni clone. Don't hire Jeff Van Gundy to coach my Steve Nash, and then blame Nash when he looks bad. There is synergy to every great player winning, and its something we have barely tried because of stupidity and ridiculous ideology in our front office. Its time for that to end. Get Cuz a coach who will use him correctly. See how the rest of the roster responds. Then we can talk about "failure".

Calling this Cuz's "failure" is like me giving you a '77 Pinto and entering you in the Indy 500, then blaming you when you come in last and saying you can't drive. We haven't done our part as a franchise. The very first time we do and there is still failure, THEN we can start pointing fingers elsewhere. Right now they should all be pointed in a series of air conditioned offices.

Thanks brick for again and again and again putting this out there!
 
#33
I'm judging the entire body of work, not just a 15 game stretch. He also just did have a 5 game winning streak until that blew up. Everybody around here thought that was the turning point where he finally "got it" and we were gonna cruise to the playoffs.
-Dislike button chosen-
 
#34
-have we ever gave cuz a competent coach? Where's Westphail? Smart? Corbin? Answer is no
-have we built a solid team around cuz? No again (you can say this team, but look we have a coach that's way past his glory years)

lets say we do trade cuz what are we actually going to get back? It's going to be an Orlando and shaq episode all over again.

I can tell you were not going to get the 2guard you think we can get, we're not going to get a big that put in work like boogie does
Oh for goodness sake stop avoiding the question and answer it. Why do you keep bringing up old coaches? I'm asking a simple question - if we don't win under the next coach will you consider trading Cousins? That's a question you can answer regardless of what you think about Cousins or the FO! I take it your answer is no.
 
#36
Now we're gonna hire another coach. If we still don't win, will you be willing to trade Cousins then? Or will it still be wrong coach, wrong roster etc? At what point do you conclude that either that this organization can't build around Cousins or that you can't build around Cousins anyway and trade him? I just want to get this clear so that if we continue losing next season I know how objective people are going to be.
Cousins might be the next carmelo. A great player who never wins.
 
#38
Oh for goodness sake stop avoiding the question and answer it. Why do you keep bringing up old coaches? I'm asking a simple question - if we don't win under the next coach will you consider trading Cousins? That's a question you can answer regardless of what you think about Cousins or the FO! I take it your answer is no.
What's the answer you keep demanding? Should we get rid of Cuz if the front office continues to stay incompetent? Really?
 
#39
Oh for goodness sake stop avoiding the question and answer it. Why do you keep bringing up old coaches? I'm asking a simple question - if we don't win under the next coach will you consider trading Cousins? That's a question you can answer regardless of what you think about Cousins or the FO! I take it your answer is no.
I'll trade cousins only if the next coach maximized the team and were still losing, but we all know what this team is capable of maxed out, we can hang with anybody not named the Warriors
 
#41
It would be so sad if Cousins' great three weeks in January was solely for that All-Star push. They do have financial incentives to make all star games including getting paid more on their next contract. Is it a coincidence that Cousins' effort and energy took a huge plummet once he was named an All Star? I sure hope not but its a question that has to be asked. Aside from that great three weeks Cousins has had a poor season.
 
#42
I'll trade cousins only if the next coach maximized the team and were still losing, but we all know what this team is capable of maxed out, we can hang with anybody not named the Warriors
Alright thanks! How will you define whether the team is being maximised?
 
#43
What's the answer you keep demanding? Should we get rid of Cuz if the front office continues to stay incompetent? Really?
If you attribute it to the front office that is. But yes, really. So assuming FO is incompetent in building around Cuz, do you get rid of him and try to build around something else? This makes a lot of logical sense to me, I don't understand why it doesn't to you. You think it's a better idea to keep Cuz if the FO can't build around him? Note I haven't said its Cousins' fault or anything.
 
#44
If you attribute it to the front office that is. But yes, really. So assuming FO is incompetent in building around Cuz, do you get rid of him and try to build around something else? This makes a lot of logical sense to me, I don't understand why it doesn't to you. You think it's a better idea to keep Cuz if the FO can't build around him?
If they can't competently build around the right system with Cuz what makes you think they'll manage a different system better? This is the weirdest argument ever.
 
#45
If they can't competently build around the right system with Cuz what makes you think they'll manage a different system better? This is the weirdest argument ever.
Let's say they hire Mike D'Antoni (heaven forbid). Or some other coach that wants to play small and fast. Viveks preference is as such as well. That's an example of them not building around Cousins. But that system could still succeed with a centrepiece that isn't Cousins.
 
#46
Half of the league will be capable of putting a winner around him, unlike this franchise so it's best for both parties to do the inevitable within the next year if things don't work out.
This.
This franchise is addicted to mediocrity. They will screw up a good thing 100% of the time.
This all starts at the top.
If we can't figure out a way to make this cousins thing work we owe it to cuz to release him from this mess. I think back to what could have become of Barry Sanders if he hadn't been handcuffed to the horrible Detroit Lions his entire career.
Cousins is our barry sanders.
 
#47
I don't this year's fiasco is on DeMarcus -- it's on Karl. We surprisingly saw that the Nuggets had the same problems with Karl as we do. We're losing because of Karl's schemes -- the switches, doubling every post up, etc., not because of Cousins. DMC has flaws in his game, but he is not a net negative for this team. In fact, Brick showed us that he is a net positive for this team. Cousins hasn't shown that he is a winner yet, but he is for sure not a loser.
 
#48
I'm just going to say this once....

All of you who like the "how many coaches does he need, how many years are we going to put up with this" argument are taking the lazy approach. Yes, the LAZY approach. Take a little time to assess Cousins tenure here year by year, and you'll find just how absurd, embarrassing & incorrect some of your comments are.

You do not give up on a talent like Cousins UNTIL you surround him with teammates that compliment him, UNTIL you find a coach that matches the personnel/style of play that fits him, and UNTIL you give it a couple of years for chemistry to set in. We have yet to do all three at one given time, and until we do, it's flat out absurd to even fathom the idea of trading Cousins.
 
#49
It would be so sad if Cousins' great three weeks in January was solely for that All-Star push. They do have financial incentives to make all star games including getting paid more on their next contract. Is it a coincidence that Cousins' effort and energy took a huge plummet once he was named an All Star? I sure hope not but its a question that has to be asked. Aside from that great three weeks Cousins has had a poor season.
Pretty much. The best you can say is it has been an underachieving or disappointing season with Rondo as his set-up man. The raw production by Boogie (27/11) masks inefficiency and sporadic defense that contributed significantly to 2 losses in every 3 games.

If you take out his magnificent stretch of 12 games (8-4 record) his TS% drops to around 50% to 51%. With a 33% usage rate, it is difficult to overcome games in which he shoots poorly and subsequently lets it effect his defense. Any serious fan knows when things aren't going well for Boogie offensively he lets it carryover to the other end.

This is how you can have a playoff caliber roster and fall apart in winnable games with best player dragging you down tangibly (low efficiency) and intangibly (mood issues). You can't grind out wins on off night. You can't "win ugly". You can't ride the hot hand because the hot hand (whoever it may be) is not allowed enough opportunity to heat up.

Only one win do I recall in which Boogie did not have to have a huge scoring output (14 FGAs and 19 points in road win against LAC). This leads to a chicken-egg question: "Does Boogie launch as much as he does because he doesn't have help or does he NOT rely upon (trust) the help he has?" I would contend the latter and add a lot of his production occurs trying to rally the team from double digit deficits.

His struggles outside of the 12 game stretch occurs in context of team TS% of 54.6% on season. So it is not like he is shooting because he is surrounded by brick layers. The team is #9 in 3 point shooting (with Boogie contributing). These stats support fact Boogie has yet to find optimal balance between passing and shooting, or playing like LeBron did tonight (16 shots and 10 assists).

The larger issue that the team and Vlade and fans have to ultimately face is this: Boogie does not make teammates better. Maybe he will but he hasn't yet. He's not a unifying force. He is an island. The team doesn't play better with him on the floor synergistically. It is his personal exploits that make the plus/minus difference. Until proven otherwise, this statement is self-evident and reflects the predicament of team.

Boogie has missed 9 games in which the team is 2-7. They were 8-4 when he was all-world. In games in which Boogie struggled with efficiency and defensive focus, the team is 11-20 or 2 losses in every 3 games. This is why we are where we are. Not the sole reason, but a big reason. The MVP season we hoped for from Boogie never materialized. And outside the three week stretch, he hardly performed like an all-star.

The counterargument is "'We don't play defense!" Why don't we play defense? Well besides dubious perimeter defenders, a coaching staff that sucks and about to pay for it with their jobs, when Boogie is not scoring well, bad offense leads to bad defense. How much attribution you assign to each is debatable but to pretend Boogie is not complicit in departure of head coach would be mistaken.

In other words Karl made his own bed but Boogie could have prevented this sorry outcome if he performed better quantitatively (efficiency) and qualitatively (leadership, maturity) as appeared to be happening until the Troy Daniel Shot that torpedoed our season and broke our hearts.
 
#50
Mitch Richmond suffered through a lot of losing in Sacramento and was never part of a Kings team that finished at or above .500. During his 7 seasons in Sac, the team lost 50+ games 4 times.

Most consider Mitch a damn good player. His jersey is hanging in the rafters. But his greatness wasn't enough to overcome instability, dysfunction, poor team management, or the lack of talent to compliment him. The only time the team showed a pulse was when they had an infusion of young talent and saavy veterans in 1994/95. Even then, they were a sub.500 team.

Funny thing is, Mitch had no problem being part of a "winner" while he was with a talented Warriors team early in his career. Obviously the problem wasn't him. It was the franchise he played for and the talented he played with.

Need another example? How about Chris Webber.

CWebb's Washington Bullets/Wizards weren't exactly lighting up the league while he played there. They were largely a .500 team with a couple 20 win seasons mixed in. However, as soon a Webber came to Sacramento and had a stable of talent around him that all fit together, the guy was suddenly able to become the best player on several 50, 60 win teams.

Strange how both Mitch and CWebb weren't "winners" until they were surrounded with better talent and stability in the FO.
 
#52
At what point do we just throw in the towel and admit our total and absolute incompetence? Trade the best talent we have ever seen (or are likely to see again) so we can go back to hoping to hit the big time again (won't happen again in my lifetime, and if it did, we obviously won't know what to do with it) I only toy with the idea because what we are doing is really not fair to DeMarcus. The hatred and frustration of a collective fanbase are centered on him. His talent is hidden beneath the landslide of, at first deliberate, sabotaging old owners, then bungling, learning new ownership. Loyalty? He showed it. At what point do we no longer deserve it?
 
K

KingMilz

Guest
#53
Cousins might be the next carmelo. A great player who never wins.
Carmelo won a college title (with a team no where near as stacked as Cousins) and for nearly a decade straight starting from his rookie season was in the playoffs, I'm not seeing the comparison. Melo has won way more than he's lost while he's not quiet elite he's had a excellent career and in his prime years was a legit #1 option. I think prior to him coming to Denver they were in a playoff drought and the Knicks made it to the 2nd round for the first time in ages, he's won plenty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#54
of course demarcus isnt a winner.

you cant win on your own and we've done sweet F all to surround him with anything that looks like a team talent wise capable of winning more games then losing. Add to that the inability to put a coach in place and there you have us.

demarcus cousins is a future HOF'er he is the best big man in the league and at the end of the day there are 29 other teams that would want him because he will turn them into perennial winners.

all this cousins talk and questioning is ridiculous - ask yourself what have we given him ? we've given him nothing but a burning platform and the kid is still here, he hasnt jumped. There's expectations and then theres the segment of the fan base that holds him to the ridiculous notion that he is not a winner, all he cares about is winning, it consumes him, thats why he's god dam still here and its why these bs threads really pee me off.
 
#55
I'm just going to say this once....

All of you who like the "how many coaches does he need, how many years are we going to put up with this" argument are taking the lazy approach. Yes, the LAZY approach. Take a little time to assess Cousins tenure here year by year, and you'll find just how absurd, embarrassing & incorrect some of your comments are.

You do not give up on a talent like Cousins UNTIL you surround him with teammates that compliment him, UNTIL you find a coach that matches the personnel/style of play that fits him, and UNTIL you give it a couple of years for chemistry to set in. We have yet to do all three at one given time, and until we do, it's flat out absurd to even fathom the idea of trading Cousins.
Which at this point would mean how many seasons of not winning with Cousins (giving time for chemistry, assembling the perfect roster and coach)..?
 
#57
of course demarcus isnt a winner.

you cant win on your own and we've done sweet F all to surround him with anything that looks like a team talent wise capable of winning more games then losing. Add to that the inability to put a coach in place and there you have us.

demarcus cousins is a future HOF'er he is the best big man in the league and at the end of the day there are 29 other teams that would want him because he will turn them into perennial winners.

all this cousins talk and questioning is ridiculous - ask yourself what have we given him ? we've given him nothing but a burning platform and the kid is still here, he hasnt jumped. There's expectations and then theres the segment of the fan base that holds him to the ridiculous notion that he is not a winner, all he cares about is winning, it consumes him, thats why he's god dam still here and its why these bs threads really pee me off.
The whole "we don't deserve him" talk really humors me though. It's a frikin sport and people make it sound like something way more. We haven't given Cousins much, that's fair. What has Cousins given us? Any playoff hunts? If one player can't possibly do it all on his own, then why is it such a great deal if we lose him? Because we give up the POTENTIAL of being perennial winners? The same potential we've been talking about for 7 seasons? Ever consider the possibility that both parties would be better off without each other? I for one don't think many already winning teams would swap their centrepieces for Cuz. They'd love to have him no doubt, but not necessarily as a centrepiece to build around.
 
#58
I seriously question some people in here. Funny how DMC trade guys disappeared when he was cause hell in The paint and we were winning.
Who takes the best center and plays away from his weakness it's no coincidence that his rebounding has also suffered under this gimmick.

If DMC gets traded the same people will be bitching when he's dominating in the playoffs.
 
#59
Which at this point would mean how many seasons of not winning with Cousins (giving time for chemistry, assembling the perfect roster and coach)..?
I don't care how many seasons it takes. You don't give up a player like Cousins until you get to that point.

The several seasons of losing is not on Cousins. It is on the FO. There's really no other logical conclusion after looking into everything that has happened.

The funny thing is that the hard part is done. Finding a player like Cousins is truly rare. The easy (or easier) part is building around him and hiring a coach that will run a system that plays to his strengths. However, our FO up to this point has botched this 'easier task' from the start which leads me to believe they probably picked a name out of a hat the year they drafted Cousins judging by this consistent incompetency that has been on display ever since he was drafted.
 
#60
The whole "we don't deserve him" talk really humors me though. It's a frikin sport and people make it sound like something way more. We haven't given Cousins much, that's fair. What has Cousins given us? Any playoff hunts? If one player can't possibly do it all on his own, then why is it such a great deal if we lose him? Because we give up the POTENTIAL of being perennial winners? The same potential we've been talking about for 7 seasons? Ever consider the possibility that both parties would be better off without each other? I for one don't think many already winning teams would swap their centrepieces for Cuz. They'd love to have him no doubt, but not necessarily as a centrepiece to build around.
we wouldnt be better of without demarcus - just like the other teams in the league. Every single team in the league is better with Demarcus. Every single one.

Those that arent looking to give up their centerpieces are in the same boat as ours because we sure as hell are not shopping Demarcus, our very own centerpiece.

I honestly dont trade him unless he demands a trade and you know what even at that point with years left on his contract i try to smooth it out and keep him here.

Cousins have given us our record which is substantially worse without him. We cant catch a lick with him out and we arent that far off the playoff race had it not been for some adequate coaching we'd be there.

Rookie big men take years to mature - you cant sit here and legitimately expect that he was to lead us to the promised land in his first 3 seasons. Last season was the first step getting there and we screwed that up with Malone exiting. This year he's ready and we are on his shoulders but again mangement has dropped the ball. There is a common theme here and its not demarcus its us as an organisation failing over and over again.