Tyreke Evans ROTY & 20/5/5 Watch
- Thread starter xrzn
- Start date
So if JT/Hawes improved and Evans is replaced with someone else our team would be just as good?
Remember most people are happy because like all rookies, Evans can still improved. If he's consistent at 20/5/5 for his rookie year and still have a lot of room for improvement, what's the chance of him becoming an all star? An all star player on a team is not a determining factor for the team success?
You don't think we're heading in the right direction with our rebuilding process?
Remember most people are happy because like all rookies, Evans can still improved. If he's consistent at 20/5/5 for his rookie year and still have a lot of room for improvement, what's the chance of him becoming an all star? An all star player on a team is not a determining factor for the team success?
You don't think we're heading in the right direction with our rebuilding process?
How anyone could possibly have a problem with a rookie point guard that averages 20/5/5 is beyond me. It doesnt make any sense. Garcia needs to start. Beno needs to be the 1st guard off the bench and come out gunning.
Another interesting thing about Evans is that hes stronger than almost every guard and hes only 20. This guys strength is going to increase.
Another interesting thing about Evans is that hes stronger than almost every guard and hes only 20. This guys strength is going to increase.
This is the kind of thing that makes me really uneasy posting on this board at times. I don't think anyone here "has a problem" with Tyreke, in the sense that they are unhappy with him being a King or they want him traded. But Tyreke, just like any basketball player, including LeBron, Kobe and MJ, is NOT perfect, and therefore is the subject of legitimate criticism from time to time.
To me, though, it seems like every time someone voices the least bit of criticism of Tyreke, that poster is immediately attacked and accused of having a secret agenda. I myself have felt the need to start any post with any hint of criticism of Tyreke with something "Tyreke is a great player and will undoubtedly be the next big superstar in basketball", just to avoid those kind of attacks.
I have just recently criticized Omri pretty harshly. Does that mean I "have a problem with him"? Of course not - he is the reason I am here in the first place. I also criticized PW in the whole Spencer incident. Does that mean I want him fired? Of course not!
Tyreke is a great player (there I go again), but he is young and needs to improve on many things. It is important that he is called out on those things while he is still a rookie, because in 4-5 years, if he keeps getting the royal treatment, some of these things will become unchangeable habits.
And for the sake of the atmosphere of these boards, I would strongly encourage everyone to not chastise people who think Tyreke should've passed the ball on a fastbreak, or that he was wrong to yell at Noc, or even if they think Tyreke's natural position is not PG. You are free to argue your case, but all of that "you must have an agenda", or "you don't know anything about how basketball works. let me explain this to you" condescending types of responses are completely unnecessary.
To me, though, it seems like every time someone voices the least bit of criticism of Tyreke, that poster is immediately attacked and accused of having a secret agenda. I myself have felt the need to start any post with any hint of criticism of Tyreke with something "Tyreke is a great player and will undoubtedly be the next big superstar in basketball", just to avoid those kind of attacks.
I have just recently criticized Omri pretty harshly. Does that mean I "have a problem with him"? Of course not - he is the reason I am here in the first place. I also criticized PW in the whole Spencer incident. Does that mean I want him fired? Of course not!
Tyreke is a great player (there I go again), but he is young and needs to improve on many things. It is important that he is called out on those things while he is still a rookie, because in 4-5 years, if he keeps getting the royal treatment, some of these things will become unchangeable habits.
And for the sake of the atmosphere of these boards, I would strongly encourage everyone to not chastise people who think Tyreke should've passed the ball on a fastbreak, or that he was wrong to yell at Noc, or even if they think Tyreke's natural position is not PG. You are free to argue your case, but all of that "you must have an agenda", or "you don't know anything about how basketball works. let me explain this to you" condescending types of responses are completely unnecessary.
You know what? 20 years ago they would have told you is you win championships with star bigs, not star wing players.
I think the lesson learned through the MJ years is you win championships with star PLAYERS, but forceful interior dominanting star players. The problem with PGs like Paul or Nash is that great as they are, they can't do it themselves. They are too little to dominate offensively (and mind you Paul is young and might have a number of runs ahead of him if he gets a team around them) and so depend on the Malones, Amares and Wests to take care of that interior scoring. If those bigs don't measure up, neither do the littles trying to feed them. Now you get a slashing mosnter like Reke at the point, and that dependency is no longer there. He will need excellent teammates, and another great player would be oh so nice, but when it comes time to win, he takes the ball and makes it happen himself, and its not some wussy jumper -- jumpers are for the lesser talented roleplayers you put around your star as a rule.
Last edited:
Well, I see your point, but I think Magic Johnson would have something to say about that...
I personally think all those formulas should be taken with a grain of salt. Almost every championship team redefined in some ways the "how to win a ring". The 1980 Lakers did it with Magic and Kareem. MJ started the mega-super-duperstar era. The Spurs won it with defense and Tim Duncan. Detroit won it with (SHOCK!) team basketball. Kobe and Shaq did the superstar small + superstar big thing.
If the Kings want to contend for a ring they will have to find a way that works for this team.
I personally think all those formulas should be taken with a grain of salt. Almost every championship team redefined in some ways the "how to win a ring". The 1980 Lakers did it with Magic and Kareem. MJ started the mega-super-duperstar era. The Spurs won it with defense and Tim Duncan. Detroit won it with (SHOCK!) team basketball. Kobe and Shaq did the superstar small + superstar big thing.
If the Kings want to contend for a ring they will have to find a way that works for this team.
You would think wrong.
Now if I amended that statement to incldude the words "without an agenda" after anyone here, you would be correct. Since I watch these boards closely I cna even describe 99% of the agendas ont he board or likely to develop.
1) wanted Rubio, still upset/need Reke to fail as PG to satisfy their pride.
2) related to the first, learned basketball from a textbook, have strongly delineated defnintions of each position, Reke does not fit their textbook defnintion of the position. Must fail or upsets their worldview.
3) basketball "purists", who hate the whole concept of the superstar. We can lump in European fans wiht little experience with it for the sake of brevity. We had those types even back in the golden years.
4) Kevin's leftover fans, who came to the Kings very late and only knew basketball via Kevin. Then he was shoved aside and traded becasue of this kid.
5) Player fans from other countries. Specifically Slovenia, and possibly Israel. There are only a few of these -- most of those fans are fine, but there will always be a few that see their guy's thunder/minutes/glory impugned. Oftne that line plays out as so and so (in this case Reke) is holding back so and so (in this case the star).
6) various trolls wiht Lakers, Golden State, or other sympathies. Also in theory at least peopel around Sacto who hate the Maloofs and Kings and want them to move and whatnot. Rarely get those talking basketball htough -- mostly contain themselves to haranguing arena efforts.
7) antis -- reactionary personalities that will not like anything that everybody else likes. This is a human trait that plagues all of our endeavors. Often they take on the coffeehouse superiority thing where they get it, nobdoy else does, and they will harp on it down their nose.
Many of the above get combined in individuals, but they are all out there. As an aside, the poster you responded to said how could anybody possibly have a problem with a 20-5-5 rookie PG. Its a good litmus test. There's a lot of room to think he has flaws before you have a problem with him. There's almost no room at all to have a problem with one of the greatest rookies to enter the league in a decade and not be suffering from one or more of the above syndromes. For a fan of the team wihtout issues, we just struck the franchise turning mother lode.
Now if I amended that statement to incldude the words "without an agenda" after anyone here, you would be correct. Since I watch these boards closely I cna even describe 99% of the agendas ont he board or likely to develop.
1) wanted Rubio, still upset/need Reke to fail as PG to satisfy their pride.
2) related to the first, learned basketball from a textbook, have strongly delineated defnintions of each position, Reke does not fit their textbook defnintion of the position. Must fail or upsets their worldview.
3) basketball "purists", who hate the whole concept of the superstar. We can lump in European fans wiht little experience with it for the sake of brevity. We had those types even back in the golden years.
4) Kevin's leftover fans, who came to the Kings very late and only knew basketball via Kevin. Then he was shoved aside and traded becasue of this kid.
5) Player fans from other countries. Specifically Slovenia, and possibly Israel. There are only a few of these -- most of those fans are fine, but there will always be a few that see their guy's thunder/minutes/glory impugned. Oftne that line plays out as so and so (in this case Reke) is holding back so and so (in this case the star).
6) various trolls wiht Lakers, Golden State, or other sympathies. Also in theory at least peopel around Sacto who hate the Maloofs and Kings and want them to move and whatnot. Rarely get those talking basketball htough -- mostly contain themselves to haranguing arena efforts.
7) antis -- reactionary personalities that will not like anything that everybody else likes. This is a human trait that plagues all of our endeavors. Often they take on the coffeehouse superiority thing where they get it, nobdoy else does, and they will harp on it down their nose.
Many of the above get combined in individuals, but they are all out there. As an aside, the poster you responded to said how could anybody possibly have a problem with a 20-5-5 rookie PG. Its a good litmus test. There's a lot of room to think he has flaws before you have a problem with him. There's almost no room at all to have a problem with one of the greatest rookies to enter the league in a decade and not be suffering from one or more of the above syndromes. For a fan of the team wihtout issues, we just struck the franchise turning mother lode.
Did anyone else get annoyed during the Lakers/Warriors introduction on ESPN stating that Curry is a rookie of the year candidate? It's not a contest in my opinion. Not taking anything from Curry, but it irritates me that Sacramento gets no national attention (which is key for the ROY). I hope the Warriors get exposed as the stat padders that they are.
Last edited:
Well, I think you just excluded about 90% of the posters here from haing any fruitful discussion with you. If that's the way you view things, then everyone has an agenda, including me and you. Here are some examples:
I confess, I really like team basketball. I would take the Detroit model or the old Kings model over the Lakers model any day. You prefer the superstar system. We both have different "agendas" here. If the fact that I would like to see a different style of play makes my opinion illegitimate in your eyes, then there's no reason to even discuss these things. And while I might not be as opposed to superstars as those you call "purists", I do think that a superstar should be subject to just as much, if not more, criticism than the other players. With leadership comes responsibility.
I am also a player fan. The only reason I became a Kings fan is because they drafted Omri Casspi. If that makes my views less valid then perhaps this should be an "Americans Only" board, although I think it would be beneficial even for "true fans" to listen and perhaps try to see if there is any knowledge you can gain by listening to what someone who has grown up in a different basketball philosophy has to say. I know I have learned a lot from other posters here, and I would like to think that my 2 cents might be of some value to others on this board.
You make very clear cut assumptions about people. Have you considered the fact that some people might think that the fact that Tyreke is a great player does not mean that Rubio isn't? Is it not possible that the Kings could've drafted Rubio and been just as satisfied with his contribution (assuming he would've come to the NBA)?
And as for the "antis", you might want to consider that some people do view basketball, and everything else in the world for that matter, quite differently than most people. I, for one, think they should be entitled for their opinions.
Having said all that, I am not saying that there are NO trolls or blind player fans on this board. I am just saying that most regular posters here, even if they do have what you perceive as an agenda, are intelligent enough to take other things into consideration and disagree with each other in a respectful manner. It is when you treat these posters in a condescending manner that the atmosphere on the board becomes unpleasant.
I confess, I really like team basketball. I would take the Detroit model or the old Kings model over the Lakers model any day. You prefer the superstar system. We both have different "agendas" here. If the fact that I would like to see a different style of play makes my opinion illegitimate in your eyes, then there's no reason to even discuss these things. And while I might not be as opposed to superstars as those you call "purists", I do think that a superstar should be subject to just as much, if not more, criticism than the other players. With leadership comes responsibility.
I am also a player fan. The only reason I became a Kings fan is because they drafted Omri Casspi. If that makes my views less valid then perhaps this should be an "Americans Only" board, although I think it would be beneficial even for "true fans" to listen and perhaps try to see if there is any knowledge you can gain by listening to what someone who has grown up in a different basketball philosophy has to say. I know I have learned a lot from other posters here, and I would like to think that my 2 cents might be of some value to others on this board.
You make very clear cut assumptions about people. Have you considered the fact that some people might think that the fact that Tyreke is a great player does not mean that Rubio isn't? Is it not possible that the Kings could've drafted Rubio and been just as satisfied with his contribution (assuming he would've come to the NBA)?
And as for the "antis", you might want to consider that some people do view basketball, and everything else in the world for that matter, quite differently than most people. I, for one, think they should be entitled for their opinions.
Having said all that, I am not saying that there are NO trolls or blind player fans on this board. I am just saying that most regular posters here, even if they do have what you perceive as an agenda, are intelligent enough to take other things into consideration and disagree with each other in a respectful manner. It is when you treat these posters in a condescending manner that the atmosphere on the board becomes unpleasant.
It annoys me that the national fan base just gets to see Curry and Jennings. With the majority of "sports writers" nowadays not doing their homework, there is a risk of a media bias towards the flashier player. I'm not hating on Curry (I like his game), I'm just annoyed with the way the NBA treats Sacramento and other small market teams. When people mention Reke, and the ROY award, it seems that the NBA "gushes" a little more about some of the other candidates not in Sacramento. ROY should be a lock, but extra games on the national spotlight might hurt Reke and the future of the Kings in Sacramento.
I am a european fan as well and I do appreciate team basketball. However, I have also realised that NBA is a completely different ball game. Quite simply, the NBA is a star driven system that has proven to win over and over and over again.
The recent Detroit model was an exception to the rule, it is NOT the rule. The Kings of late 90s and early 00s have not won it all. Yet on the other hand, the NBA history is littered with teams that have won with a star based system. Even the Kings version of team ball was based on a superstar and the only way they could have won it all was for that superstar to carry them over the line.
Now we can all have this fantasy that we can apply the european model to the NBA and it will work. It won't on a regular basis. It might get you to the play offs but it will not take you all the way.
The proven formula of success in the NBA is a superstar based system. You might not prefer the Lakers model but do take a quick look through the NBA history and tell us how many flags the Lakers have won with the superstar model. Then look for the rest of the teams that have won it based on the team model. You will find that the history is on Bricklayer's side in this case.
And quite frankly, I don't think anyone rational would give a rat's tossbag about how we win the championship as long as we win one. But in reality, you are building to challenge for a championship, there is a proven blueprint to follow and the european team concept is not that model.
The recent Detroit model was an exception to the rule, it is NOT the rule. The Kings of late 90s and early 00s have not won it all. Yet on the other hand, the NBA history is littered with teams that have won with a star based system. Even the Kings version of team ball was based on a superstar and the only way they could have won it all was for that superstar to carry them over the line.
Now we can all have this fantasy that we can apply the european model to the NBA and it will work. It won't on a regular basis. It might get you to the play offs but it will not take you all the way.
The proven formula of success in the NBA is a superstar based system. You might not prefer the Lakers model but do take a quick look through the NBA history and tell us how many flags the Lakers have won with the superstar model. Then look for the rest of the teams that have won it based on the team model. You will find that the history is on Bricklayer's side in this case.
And quite frankly, I don't think anyone rational would give a rat's tossbag about how we win the championship as long as we win one. But in reality, you are building to challenge for a championship, there is a proven blueprint to follow and the european team concept is not that model.
Oh no. As I very clearly stated from the beginning, not every person has an agenda, no matter what their background. But nearly every person who DOES have an agenda does fall into one of those categories.
And as an aside, liking one style of basketball over the other and favoring players one way or the other because of that is in fact an agenda. However I do not have any such agenda. Never have. My one and only agenda is my team winning. Every other agenda is a perversion of that ultimate goal. If the last 30 years of NBA history had pointed to perfectly balanced starless team basketball while playing smallball as the key to victory, that would be what I was looking for. If the last 30 years had indicated 5 guys wearing tutus and bows in their hair got it done then...ok, even I have my limits.
Last edited:
I am not opposed to superstars. Nor do I think the NBA should suddenly switch to the European model. European is a different game with different rules and it fits the mentality of players who grew up there.
So, I certainly don't think that the Kings should trade Tyreke. I also don't think it would be wise of the Lakers to get rid of Kobe, and the Cavs should probably think twice before they let go of LeBron.
I do, however, think that it would be beneficial to a team with a superstar to have that superstar play within a team frame. MJ was the best player in basketball pretty much since he set foot in the NBA. Still, it took him seven years to win his first ring because he needed to learn that he can't win it alone, even if he is Michael Jordan. One of the things I like about LeBron is that he is basically spending the entire regular season trying to involve his teammates as much as possible to get them to a place where they could help him win in the playoffs. He knows too that he can't do it alone.
There are many benefits to having a superstar, but putting that superstar on a pedestal so far above the rest of the other players inevitably leads to those players feel like replaceable "pieces", making them assume less responsibility in the frame of the game. I don't think that any of those teams who won championships with their superstar had so many posessions where the four other players just stood around waiting for him to do his thing like the Kings had with Tyreke this season. I don't believe that this kind of basketball can ever bring a team to title contention.
In the overtime loss to the Lakers, the Kings made a huge run and built up a 7 point lead, which was erased upon Tyreke's return. Is that because he is a bad or selfish player? Of course not. But in the current system, Tyreke isn't asked to fit into what works for the team. The team has to adapt to him. He went in, slowed down the pace, we lost the momentum, and the rest is history.
When he was out with an ankle injury, the Kings played some great team basketball. The question is - why can't he use his talent to fit in with that kind of team play? I mean, superstars have achieved their status because they are great players, so wouldn't it make sense for a superstar, especially if he is the Point Guard (the guy who is supposed to run the offense of the entire TEAM), adopt a style that would play to the strengths of their teammates?
Like I said, Tyreke is by far the best player on this team, but with this status should come responsibility. Just like he gets well deserved praise for the many good things he does, he should be subject to criticism for bad habits.
So, I certainly don't think that the Kings should trade Tyreke. I also don't think it would be wise of the Lakers to get rid of Kobe, and the Cavs should probably think twice before they let go of LeBron.
I do, however, think that it would be beneficial to a team with a superstar to have that superstar play within a team frame. MJ was the best player in basketball pretty much since he set foot in the NBA. Still, it took him seven years to win his first ring because he needed to learn that he can't win it alone, even if he is Michael Jordan. One of the things I like about LeBron is that he is basically spending the entire regular season trying to involve his teammates as much as possible to get them to a place where they could help him win in the playoffs. He knows too that he can't do it alone.
There are many benefits to having a superstar, but putting that superstar on a pedestal so far above the rest of the other players inevitably leads to those players feel like replaceable "pieces", making them assume less responsibility in the frame of the game. I don't think that any of those teams who won championships with their superstar had so many posessions where the four other players just stood around waiting for him to do his thing like the Kings had with Tyreke this season. I don't believe that this kind of basketball can ever bring a team to title contention.
In the overtime loss to the Lakers, the Kings made a huge run and built up a 7 point lead, which was erased upon Tyreke's return. Is that because he is a bad or selfish player? Of course not. But in the current system, Tyreke isn't asked to fit into what works for the team. The team has to adapt to him. He went in, slowed down the pace, we lost the momentum, and the rest is history.
When he was out with an ankle injury, the Kings played some great team basketball. The question is - why can't he use his talent to fit in with that kind of team play? I mean, superstars have achieved their status because they are great players, so wouldn't it make sense for a superstar, especially if he is the Point Guard (the guy who is supposed to run the offense of the entire TEAM), adopt a style that would play to the strengths of their teammates?
Like I said, Tyreke is by far the best player on this team, but with this status should come responsibility. Just like he gets well deserved praise for the many good things he does, he should be subject to criticism for bad habits.
This is where you get the concept all wrong. The superstar should not fit in the system. If you have a superstar you apply the system that fits to him. Thats what all great teams do.
Lakers are one of the top team (unfortunately) but Gasol has been complaining all season long that he doesn't get enough touches. This is the reigning champions we are talking about. You take Kobe out of the Lakers and they are no where near as potent.
The point is, that Tyreke IS involing his team mates. He is getting the defence to collapse on him and he is finding his team mates.
You say the team played some nice team basketball without Tyreke but tell me what is their record in those game?! IIRC, we have one only one of those games and it was against Denver without one of their best players (it was either Carmelo or Billups that was missing).
MJ had the system built around him to make the most out of his ability. Kobe had the system build around him. Shaq in his prime was the player that team build their system around. Look at the Magic, they run the system that is built around Howard. Those superstars should not be fitting into the system, the system should be built around them.
Now Tyreke is NOT a selfish player and if you compared his game in October or November to what he is displaying in March, you will notice that he IS involing his team mates more and more. In the last 2 months he is piling on the assist numbers and thats despite some of his team mates not being able to hit a wide side of the barn while completely open.
NBA is a superstar driven league and every one of the teams that has one, has developed a system with their superstar as the centrepiece.
You mention LeBron, but what is the Cavs' record when LeBron is rested or sits with injury?! Not very flattering!
This team will go only as far as Tyreke takes them. Its not a matter of favouritism or anything like that, its a simple fact of life in the NBA. We tried to build a "team play" team once and it failed miserably.
Lakers are one of the top team (unfortunately) but Gasol has been complaining all season long that he doesn't get enough touches. This is the reigning champions we are talking about. You take Kobe out of the Lakers and they are no where near as potent.
The point is, that Tyreke IS involing his team mates. He is getting the defence to collapse on him and he is finding his team mates.
You say the team played some nice team basketball without Tyreke but tell me what is their record in those game?! IIRC, we have one only one of those games and it was against Denver without one of their best players (it was either Carmelo or Billups that was missing).
MJ had the system built around him to make the most out of his ability. Kobe had the system build around him. Shaq in his prime was the player that team build their system around. Look at the Magic, they run the system that is built around Howard. Those superstars should not be fitting into the system, the system should be built around them.
Now Tyreke is NOT a selfish player and if you compared his game in October or November to what he is displaying in March, you will notice that he IS involing his team mates more and more. In the last 2 months he is piling on the assist numbers and thats despite some of his team mates not being able to hit a wide side of the barn while completely open.
NBA is a superstar driven league and every one of the teams that has one, has developed a system with their superstar as the centrepiece.
You mention LeBron, but what is the Cavs' record when LeBron is rested or sits with injury?! Not very flattering!
This team will go only as far as Tyreke takes them. Its not a matter of favouritism or anything like that, its a simple fact of life in the NBA. We tried to build a "team play" team once and it failed miserably.
The biggest superstars in basketball did not win titles until they became team players. Adapting is a two way street. If MJ kept on playing the same way he did before he started winning championships, he would have no rings on his finger today. Same goes for Kobe of the post-shaq era. And no, racking up assists does not make you a team player. It's pretty easy to get lots of assists when the ball is in your hand on every possession. This is something you can't see on a stat sheet. There is a huge difference between a star who trusts his teammates and passes to them because he believes that good things will happen when they have the ball, and a star that passes the ball because he's "supposed to" do that from time to time.
And like I said earlier, you can't go only by history. Every championship team has in a way redefined the "formula". We are not the Lakers. We can't get our hands on any star we want. We can't even get Bosh, and even he is far from bringing us to title contention. By your logic, the Kings can't ever win a championship, because when was the last time a small market team like us ever won anything? Modeling ourselves after the Lakers is doomed to failure. We can either try to redefine how we go after the ring, or we could try to get as lucky as the Spurs got with the draft, or we could try actually playing team ball (and by team ball I don't mean Brick's definition of 5 guys who take an exactly equal amount of shots. I mean a system in which every player will feel significant enough to make a contribution and not just wait around to see what the star will do). You can actually play team ball with superstars, you know (especially as a Kings fan I would think you would know). It's just that their ego has to take a little step back. Who knows, maybe if it wasn't for that infamous game 6, other teams would've been modeling their journey to the ring based on that Kings team?
And like I said earlier, you can't go only by history. Every championship team has in a way redefined the "formula". We are not the Lakers. We can't get our hands on any star we want. We can't even get Bosh, and even he is far from bringing us to title contention. By your logic, the Kings can't ever win a championship, because when was the last time a small market team like us ever won anything? Modeling ourselves after the Lakers is doomed to failure. We can either try to redefine how we go after the ring, or we could try to get as lucky as the Spurs got with the draft, or we could try actually playing team ball (and by team ball I don't mean Brick's definition of 5 guys who take an exactly equal amount of shots. I mean a system in which every player will feel significant enough to make a contribution and not just wait around to see what the star will do). You can actually play team ball with superstars, you know (especially as a Kings fan I would think you would know). It's just that their ego has to take a little step back. Who knows, maybe if it wasn't for that infamous game 6, other teams would've been modeling their journey to the ring based on that Kings team?