Comparing Playoff Supporting Casts To Our Own

[rainmaker]

Thought this might be interesting and a visual aid for some, so they can see and compare our supporting cast outside of Reke/Cousins versus the supporting casts of other duos, and those who if the playoffs started today, would be playing postseason ball.

This does not excuse poor play of inconsistency from Reke and Cousins, but is more to show how little they have to work with.

So here, for the top 16 teams in the league, I'll post the top two players for each, followed by the rotation spots 3-8, assuming a tighter 8 man rotation.

SC=supporting cast

Eastern

Chicago-
Big two-Rose, Noah
SC-Deng, Boozer, Hamilton, CJ Watson, Korver, Asik

Miami-
Big two-Lebron, Wade
SC-Bosh, Chalmers, Battier, Haslem, Miller, J Anthony

Phily
Big two-Iggy, Williams
SC-Holiday, T Young, Hawes, Brand, Turner, Meeks

Atlanta
Big two-Johnson, Smith
SC- Horford, Teague, Williams, Pachulia, Hinrick, McGrady

Orlando
Big two-Dwight, Hedo
SC-Anderson, Richardson, Nelson, Reddick, Big Baby, Duhon

Indiana
Big two-Hibbert, Granger
SC-West, Collison, George, Hill, Hansbrough, Jones

Boston
Big two-Rondo, Pierce
SC-Garnett, Allen, Bass, Pietrus, Wilcox, J O'neal

New York
Big two-Amare, Melo
SC-Lin, Chandler, Fields, Shumpert, Douglas, Walker

Western

OKC
Big two-Durant, Westbrook
SC-Ibaka, Harden, Cook, Sefolosha, Perkins, Collison

San Antonio
Big two-Parker, Duncan
SC-Ginobili, Jefferson, Splitter, Leonard, Blair, Neal

Clippers
Big two-Paul, Griffin
SC-Jordan, Butler, Billups, Williams, Kenyon Martin, Foye

Mavericks
Big two-Dirk, Terry
SC-Kidd, Marion, Carter, West, Odom, Haywood

Lakers
Big two-Kobe, Gasol
SC-Bynum, Artest, Fisher, Blake, Barnes, Murphy

Houston
Big two-Lowry, Scole
SC-Martin, Daly, Budinger, Lee, Dragic, Parsons

Denver
Big two-Gallinari, Lawson
SC- Nene, Afflalo, Harrington, Miller, Fernandez, Brewer

Portland
Big two-Aldridge, Wallace
SC-Felton, Matthews, Batum, Camby, Crawford, K Thomas

Obviously, some of these teams don't qualify as having a big two, as some have four or five interchangable guys who can light you up, and others it's more of a big three. Again, this doesn't excuse off night/inconsistency from Reke and Cousins, but when comparing their supposed supporting cast to those of team in the current playoff race, it's no wonder the other teams are much more successful. Not only do they have two, three or four guys stepping up if the top two aren't having a good night, but the supporting casts are stacked with consistent players who also generally have years more experience.

Kings
Big two-Cousins, Tyreke
SC-Thornton, Salmons, JT, Thomas, Hickson, Hayes

Now, when comparing our supporting cast to those of the 16 current playoff clubs, would any of you prefer our supporting cast to a single one of those? Sure we have pieces I like, imo especially IT and JT, and Thornton some nights, but our supporting cast is one of the worst in basketball, and don't offer much help many nights.

On nights we win, Cousins and Reke generally play very well. But at their age, we can expect inconsistency, although Reke needs to improve in that area more than Cousins. But when they aren't playing well, who can we turn to? Look at how this roster if filled up compared to playoff teams. It's terrible. Start fixing the supporting cast, and give our big two some consistent help, and this team looks much better. Also figure that while many are bashing Reke inparticular for being inconsistent, which is a problem, it is not nearly the only problem, and I expect both he and Cousins to be considerably more consistent at 23 and 24, compared to 21 and 22. it's not good when our 21 year old center, who's played less than 115 games in the league, is more consistent than every single player on the roster, including the more seasoned vet leaders who make 2-3 times as much as he does, yet show up once or twice per month.

 

[Bricklayer]

Put another way, take our Top Three guys and swap them in for Miami's Top three guys. You get:

C- Cousins
PF- Haslem
SF- Battier
SG- Thornton
PG- Evans
6th Chalmers
7th Miller
8th Anthony

think that's not better, and better balanced than what we have?


Take our Top 3 and sub them in for Rose/Deng/Boozer in Chicago, you get:

C- Cousins
PF- Noah
SF- Korver
SG- Thornton
PG- Reke
6th Hamilton
7th Watson
8th Asik

again, shooting, size, defense all improved

Do it in Dallas (stretching a bit to call Kidd a star at this point):

C- Haywood
PF- Cousins
SF- Marion
SG- Thronton
PG- Reke
6th- Carter
7th- Odom
8th- West

and just etc. Our kids are yougner than any of these other team's core guys, and on top of it, they have lesser supporting players. Its a double whammy. Give our core kids one of these tough, defnsive minded vetran supporting crews and watch how much better they, and we, look as a result.

 

[Glenn]

People don't want to believe this from either of you. Maybe it's too complex. Talking about team structure takes more effort than slamming one individual and as one poster did, even went back and re-ran the game to find Tyreke's problems. Amazing.

 

[mac]

Guys like Kyle Korver, Cook, Ryan Anderson etc. may be one-dimensional scorers, but at this point I really think we could use their 3 point shooting. All the run and gun (Warriors/Suns)/ kick out from post for 3s (Orlando) teams have had 3 point shooters that are good enough to make a run for the 3 point shootout. I don't think anyone outside the Kings even considers any of our players a 3 point shooter, other than Jimmer. And don't give me the "they make their shots because of good passes" crap. An open shot is an open shot for a good shooter.

 

[Spike]

I was going to start a thread with something to this effect. Nice. If you also look at the teams atop each division and in some cases, the top two teams, they are all loaded with vets, OKC being the notable exception. Youth should be an advantage soon, as older players seem to be wearing down, but this should also help to point out the need for consistent veterans as they can assimilate a game plan bette, and help to mentor kids through a shortened season containing fewer practices.

 

[Lockehead]

Guys like Kyle Korver, Cook, Ryan Anderson etc. may be one-dimensional scorers, but at this point I really think we could use their 3 point shooting. All the run and gun (Warriors/Suns)/ kick out from post for 3s (Orlando) teams have had 3 point shooters that are good enough to make a run for the 3 point shootout. I don't think anyone outside the Kings even considers any of our players a 3 point shooter, other than Jimmer. And don't give me the "they make their shots because of good passes" crap. An open shot is an open shot for a good shooter.

The good passes thing does play a part. The better a man gets set up the higher chance they make the shot. The more times they get set up the more consistent they'll become. Obviously consistency has been an issue for the Kings.

 

[mac]

The good passes thing does play a part. The better a man gets set up the higher chance they make the shot. The more times they get set up the more consistent they'll become. Obviously consistency has been an issue for the Kings.

I'm not disagreeing that it plays a part. What I am saying is if a good shooter catches the ball at his feet and by the time he brings it to his waist level is still wide open, he should make the shot. And there have been multiple times where the shooters catch it in pretty good position off kick outs IMO. End result? Airballs, shots hitting the side of the board. You can't blame those on poor passes. Trust me, if we could loan Kyle Korver for a day, he'd easily make half the exact shots our 3 point shooters miss off whatever pass it is. Heck, just a season or two ago we had Omri converting on a lot of those exact plays. Now we have Salmons.

 

[Lockehead]

I'm not disagreeing that it plays a part. What I am saying is if a good shooter catches the ball at his feet and by the time he brings it to his waist level is still wide open, he should make the shot. And there have been multiple times where the shooters catch it in pretty good position off kick outs IMO. End result? Airballs, shots hitting the side of the board. You can't blame those on poor passes. Trust me, if we could loan Kyle Korver for a day, he'd easily make half the exact shots our 3 point shooters miss off whatever pass it is. Heck, just a season or two ago we had Omri converting on a lot of those exact plays. Now we have Salmons.

That's where consistency would come into play. I think our guys can hit the 3 pointer, Garcia, Salmons et al. It only took Salmons 26 shots for him to get comfortable making them.

 

[KevinSalvadori]

The good passes thing does play a part. The better a man gets set up the higher chance they make the shot. The more times they get set up the more consistent they'll become. Obviously consistency has been an issue for the Kings.

Didn't Larry Bird say "good shooters usually try and create their own shot?" Even if it means setting up the position for the PG, their vision is as essential as anyone. We have a guy coaching on our bench that pioneered that mantra in Denver.

 

[The_Jamal]

Finally! I'e been meaning to start a thread like this for awhile. People seem to think that an NBA team or individual stars can be successful without a dominant supporting cast. It just doesn't happen in the NBA, and we see time and time again that depth and team basketball is what wins in the NBA

 

[VF21]

Props to the OP for the thread! Unfortunately, I predict the naysayers will find some way to try and refute the clear logic.

 

[IfAt1st]

Is this Bizarro World?

Or do you guys forget ridiculing me for pointing this very thing out in my "What Kings players are NBA starters?" thread before the season started?

I guess I'll take this as a "I'm sorry and you were right" from KF....

BTW - unless Tyreke learns an outside shot, the Kings will not be competitive with him as the PG initiating the offense.

 

[mac]

Is this Bizarro World?

Or do you guys forget ridiculing me for pointing this very thing out in my "What Kings players are NBA starters?" thread before the season started?

I guess I'll take this as a "I'm sorry and you were right" from KF....

BTW - unless Tyreke learns an outside shot, the Kings will not be competitive with him as the PG initiating the offense.

Again bro, you were being ridiculed for your criteria of what makes an NBA starter. And in any case, this thread is more about the bench than our starters, other than Salmons. Of our current starters, Cousins and Evans would certainly start on most teams (which I believe you kind of alluded to, or said the jury was out etc). Thornton can certainly start for a lot of teams as well, he just wouldn't be the leading scorer like he is here. Note: Keith Bogans can start in the NBA. JT is similar to Udonis Haslem in that he's a starting role player. Most of us here would prefer him off the bench anyway, but we don't have anyone better at that position. Salmons was also a legit starter in the league prior to this season. Just ask the Bucks or Bulls. His performance this year is really abysmally off the charts.

Now if your thread had been that our bench players wouldn't be rotational players on good teams, I would totally agree with you (after seeing how Garcia's production has dropped off and how Jimmer isn't very ready yet).

I finally agree with you on something though, that is Tyreke really needs to get an outside shot.

 

[IfAt1st]

Again bro, you were being ridiculed for your criteria of what makes an NBA starter.

No, bro -
I was being ridiculed because of what OTHER people's criteria was for an NBA starter, who put words in my mouth and Straw Man'ed the discussion. Remember all the digressing about scrubs who were "starters" on teams alongside HOF'ers?

I tried to have a pre-season DISCUSSION, wherein KF's could put up reasonable comparisons to other lineups in the league this year (gee, kinda like what was just done here) and see how we really stacked up before the season instead of hanging onto delusional optimistic projections of how everyone might best-case scenario fit together.

But now the thread gets props, and "only naysayers will find some way to try and refute the clear logic."

 

[VF21]

No, bro -
I was being ridiculed because of what OTHER people's criteria was for an NBA starter, who put words in my mouth and Straw Man'ed the discussion. Remember all the digressing about scrubs who were "starters" on teams alongside HOF'ers?

I tried to have a pre-season DISCUSSION, wherein KF's could put up reasonable comparisons to other lineups in the league this year (gee, kinda like what was just done here) and see how we really stacked up before the season instead of hanging onto delusional optimistic projections of how everyone might best-case scenario fit together.

But now the thread gets props, and "only naysayers will find some way to try and refute the clear logic."

You're really trying to make this about yourself? The OP has brought FACTS to the discussion, by comparing CURRENT players and teams. Your thread was simply your assessment. If you really feel the need to pat yourself on the back, feel free to do so but do you really need the recognition this badly?

Here. I'll help you out...

REVISED COMMENT FROM VF21:

Props to the OP for the thread! Unfortunately, it's not valid or worth discussing because the renowned IfAt1st brought up a similar topic before the season started and was ridiculed, making all further discussion moot.

 

[Bricklayer]

No, bro -
I was being ridiculed because of what OTHER people's criteria was for an NBA starter, who put words in my mouth and Straw Man'ed the discussion. Remember all the digressing about scrubs who were "starters" on teams alongside HOF'ers?

I tried to have a pre-season DISCUSSION, wherein KF's could put up reasonable comparisons to other lineups in the league this year (gee, kinda like what was just done here) and see how we really stacked up before the season instead of hanging onto delusional optimistic projections of how everyone might best-case scenario fit together.

But now the thread gets props, and "only naysayers will find some way to try and refute the clear logic."

No, your argument incldued Reke/Cousins and Thornton, three guys who would clearly start for numerous teams around the league. It also included Hayes and Salmons, two guys who in fact started for teams just last year. You could throw Hickson into that category too.

And this thread isn't about who would start around the league, its really about fit and ability to contribute as roleplayers.

 

[IfAt1st]

No, your argument incldued Reke/Cousins and Thornton, three guys who would clearly start for numerous teams around the league. It also included Hayes and Salmons, two guys who in fact started for teams just last year. You could throw Hickson into that category too.

And this thread isn't about who would start around the league, its really about fit and ability to contribute as roleplayers.

No, I exempted Reke and Cousins, and concluded that Thornton was close to/probably a starter.

And what the heck do you think a starter is?
Someone who can compete on the floor in the NBA against non-scrubs.
My only listed criteria in that thread was: "Someone who has, or would, start and play over 30 minutes a game on a competitive NBA team."
You guys were the ones that said it had to be an All-Star.

Starter, roleplayer, big diff - my thread was trying to point out (using different terms) that this Kings team, THIS YEAR, doesn't have enough reliable contributors on it. And I was called a troll for that, yet this thread pointing out that same thing is elevated as a fact.

It shows that this board is too reliant on picky language and bias (i.e. who starts the thread or makes the comment).

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Is this Bizarro World?

Or do you guys forget ridiculing me for pointing this very thing out in my "What Kings players are NBA starters?" thread before the season started?

I guess I'll take this as a "I'm sorry and you were right" from KF....

BTW - unless Tyreke learns an outside shot, the Kings will not be competitive with him as the PG initiating the offense.

I was thinking the exact same thing. I took heat myself for starting a similar thread not long ago. Just goes to show that it's all politics around here, just like high school. It's not WHAT is said but WHO says it that matters.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

You're really trying to make this about yourself? The OP has brought FACTS to the discussion, by comparing CURRENT players and teams. Your thread was simply your assessment. If you really feel the need to pat yourself on the back, feel free to do so but do you really need the recognition this badly?

Here. I'll help you out...

REVISED COMMENT FROM VF21:

Props to the OP for the thread! Unfortunately, it's not valid or worth discussing because the renowned IfAt1st brought up a similar topic before the season started and was ridiculed, making all further discussion moot.

Care to point out exactly what the facts are that the OP presented that make it more than a personal assessment?

 

[kennadog]

I was thinking the exact same thing. I took heat myself for starting a similar thread not long ago. Just goes to show that it's all politics around here, just like high school. It's not WHAT is said but WHO says it that matters.

Oh good grief. Stop making every thread about you, both of you. Talk about being so high school. The two of you hijack threads just to argue that you're right and picked on and others are wrong. Basketball discussion ends up going down the tubes as the thread degenerates.

Are some posters respected more than others. Probably and probably because they have years of history on this board, which allows others to have a long history of postings upon which to base their perceptions about that poster.

Instead of the constant "poor, picked upon me," ad nauseum, just respond with a reasoned opposing argument. People disagree around here all the time, without getting so whiny and defensive.

[Sorry mods. You can delete this if you want to, I just finally got tired of every thread ending up like this and couldn't contain myself.]

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Oh good grief. Stop making every thread about you, both of you. Talk about being so high school. The two of you hijack threads just to argue that you're right and picked on and others are wrong. Basketball discussion ends up going down the tubes as the thread degenerates.

Are some posters respected more than others. Probably and probably because they have years of history on this board, which allows others to have a long history of postings upon which to base their perceptions about that poster.

Instead of the constant "poor, picked upon me," ad nauseum, just respond with a reasoned opposing argument. People disagree around here all the time, without getting so whiny and defensive.

[Sorry mods. You can delete this if you want to, I just finally got tired of every thread ending up like this and couldn't contain myself.]

I don't make any threads about me (not sure how one would do that anyway). I responded to another poster. There's no being defensive, no whining, etc., you're manufacturing that. You are under no obligation to acknowledge anything I say, so please, feel free to stop doing so.

 

[kennadog]

I don't make any threads about me (not sure how one would do that anyway). I responded to another poster. There's no being defensive, no whining, etc., you're manufacturing that. You are under no obligation to acknowledge anything I say, so please, feel free to stop doing so.

Gee thanks for the invitation. I think I'll pass.

 

[Bricklayer]

I don't make any threads about me (not sure how one would do that anyway). I responded to another poster. There's no being defensive, no whining, etc., you're manufacturing that. You are under no obligation to acknowledge anything I say, so please, feel free to stop doing so.

Its long since become disruptive to the board. There is a hint of a warning in that statement.

 

[Bricklayer]

No, I exempted Reke and Cousins, and concluded that Thornton was close to/probably a starter.

And what the heck do you think a starter is?
Someone who can compete on the floor in the NBA against non-scrubs.
My only listed criteria in that thread was: "Someone who has, or would, start and play over 30 minutes a game on a competitive NBA team."
You guys were the ones that said it had to be an All-Star.

Starter, roleplayer, big diff - my thread was trying to point out (using different terms) that this Kings team, THIS YEAR, doesn't have enough reliable contributors on it. And I was called a troll for that, yet this thread pointing out that same thing is elevated as a fact.

It shows that this board is too reliant on picky language and bias (i.e. who starts the thread or makes the comment).

Revisionist history is tricky on the internet. Your original thread starter:

#1




IfAt1st




Senior Member
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date: Jun 2010Posts: 460




Reality Check - Who on the Kings is a bona-fide NBA starter?



I don't follow the NBA as close as some on here, so I'd like an "educated Kings fan's" take on this concept. This is a subjective discussion and I almost didn't post this, but what the heck.

When I watch NBA games, I have noticed that the majority of the time, the team with the most "NBA starters" on the floor wins.

What's an "NBA starter"?
Someone who has, or would, start and play over 30 minutes a game on a competitive NBA team.
It's a very subjective term, since there are players who have started, played a lot, but aren't NBA starter quality IMO. And there are players who don't start and/or play 30 minutes who are certainly starter quality.
There is a component of playoff experience factored in there, and most certainly clutch play required (4th quarter in close games).

So looking at the Kings roster, I just don't see anyone who would really qualify as an NBA starter in my criteria.
* Yes, this includes Tyreke, since IMO his stats are inflated and lots of times fairly meaningless. He has yet to prove to me that he belongs on an NBA floor in crunch time, since he led the league last year in failed drives, TO's and missed shot % when it mattered (I have no stat website to back this up, just memory).
* DMC may easily be a bona-fide NBA starter by midseason, but he wasn't last year.

* Thornton comes closest IMO. He is clutch, and doesn't crumble when the pressure is on. Problem is, he's a relative flash-in-the-pan, only doing this for a small time in the NBA. Assuming he continues to play this season like he did last year for us, I'd put him as an almost-starter.
* Dalembert is barely an NBA starter, IMO, due to him averaging less than 30 minutes a game the past 3 years, and him only starting half the games for us even last year. He's a borderline role player, though a significant one. You can't pencil him in the lineup and be assured he's going to be the best player you have for that position on any given night.
* John Salmons, JJ Hickson, and Chuck Hayes are backups on a competitive team.
* Jimmer's an untested rookie, drafted 10th.

After seeing the way the Kings collapsed time and time again in competitive games last season, I don't see why we should realistically expect a huge jump in team cohesion and ability to score/defend when it matters this year.

Am I missing something in this subjective comparison?
Maybe I'm guilty of preconceived simplistic notions, thinking that you want a "best player" on the floor, and missing some contemporary, "specialist player" NBA strategy?

I am not trying to rain on anyone's parade, I'm just trying to realistically set my expectations for this year.
The Kings are averaging 22 wins the past 3 years. They may have to double that to make the playoffs. I believe they have to either make the playoffs this year, or make a long hard run at making them, to spark enough fan interest to remain here in the future.
I want the Kings to stay here. I don't want this team to build pieces and cohesion, and then come together into a competitive team in Anaheim.
I am worried that the fanbase and management may think we have enough proven players on this team, because they don't seem too concerned with acquiring proven players (Billups, AK47, Iguadala, etc).
I mean - this is basically the same team as last year, right? Plus a few backups (Hickson, Chuck Hayes, & Salmons) and a rookie, but minus Dalembert (thus far).
Are the Kings really resting their entire future on the required development of Tyreke, DMC, and Jimmer?

In short, you rememberr a rather rosier picture of your post than it really was. Now if you truly have changed your stance since the time of that post, then perhaps you can see why it inspired so much derision.

You consistently get yourself into firefights by making aggressive outsized negative statements. To make it worse you then complain when people get tweaked by it, which they would. To borrow a phrase from another era, sometimes you need to take a chill pill.

 

[sdballer]

Care to point out exactly what the facts are that the OP presented that make it more than a personal assessment?

I can't believe I'm about to actually agree with you but in all fairness to your point, the OP really didn't have any "statistical" backing for his post so I'm not sure it's accurate to use that as a difference between his and the other guy's. Now, it being more rational? Sure, I can go with that.

 

[IfAt1st]

Revisionist history is tricky on the internet.

So is cherry picking.

In short, you rememberr a rather rosier picture of your post than it really was.

In short, you're ignoring that I made other posts in that thread, which was an attempt at a reasoned discussion about the deficiencies of the Kings roster during the pre-season.
I specifically exempted Tyreke and DMC as special cases and tried to focus on the rest of the roster (which all of you are currently doing). Yes, please, let's talk about this lack of support for the 2 franchise-corners for the Kings (2 months too late).

And for kennadog -
there are HUNDREDS of threads on here - and I have posted in exactly TWO of them (that I remember) about how KF's were WRONG and I was RIGHT.
So don't exaggerate and conflate me with rookieoftheday or distort reality by saying I make all threads about ME.
I'd rather NO threads be about me personally - but when my predictions and points about this team turn out to be CORRECT, and I was attacked by many established KF's for saying them, I'd simply like a little nod of the cap and acknowledgment of that, instead of the typical browbeat and shout down for a change.

It would be nice if some established KF's would admit they were wrong about attacking me when I have been proven right in my OPINIONS about this Kings roster. It's really not that hard. Posting on the internet isn't like Vegas - we don't lose money when our predictions and guesses don't come true.

P.S. It would be refreshing if NOONE "got themselves into a firefight" simply for posting their polite opinion about this Kings team (which ended up being accurate).

 

[xrzn]

I was considering making this very thread but never got around to it. Really good post. You substitute our big two and maybe even big three (MT) with those of other contending teams and we easily become a better team. Kings supporting cast has not lived up to whatever hope Petrie had.

 

[rhythmless]

I was considering making this very thread but never got around to it. Really good post. You substitute our big two and maybe even big three (MT) with those of other contending teams and we easily become a better team. Kings supporting cast has not lived up to whatever hope Petrie had.

Playing the side of devil's advocate and Chicken/Egg logic, are those roleplayers good because they are good, or because they are playing alongside star players who make them better and take more defensive pressure off them to make an easy play? A couple years of Steve Nash as our teammate and I'm pretty sure we could get the MLE from Geoff. Perception changes easily, some of these guys were not recognized as great role players before they started playing with stars. Another example could be a coach; Doc was never considered a great coach, but more of an also ran until he inherited the Big 3.

OP, I see that part of your assessment is that our issues not only stem from the top guys, but the rest of the team as well. I agree. We have a lot of issues and everyone, from 1-12, to management take part in that. But if you take our guys and put them on teams without defensive goalies (Ibaka/Perkins, Noah, et al), would that frankenteam be able to emulate success, at least partly? If you removed the Spur's 3, would a starting team of Reke/MT/Leonard/Blair/Cuz win all these games? If you took away Rose's penchant for pace and when to take over, vs when to feed Boozer, vs when to kick out to Deng, would they be a top team?

My point is that the top guys have found ways to be efficient and help their teammates, while our very young, very gun toting core guys are quick on shooting and have a propensity for turnovers but are low on assists, fg%, execution, and running plays. You take our core and drop em in a vet team, yes, the New Kings would be better than the Old kings, but the New Kings would be worse than the Old Playoff team for all of the aforementioned reasons.

 

[Mass]

Playing the side of devil's advocate and Chicken/Egg logic, are those roleplayers good because they are good, or because they are playing alongside star players who make them better and take more defensive pressure off them to make an easy play? A couple years of Steve Nash as our teammate and I'm pretty sure we could get the MLE from Geoff. Perception changes easily, some of these guys were not recognized as great role players before they started playing with stars. Another example could be a coach; Doc was never considered a great coach, but more of an also ran until he inherited the Big 3.

OP, I see that part of your assessment is that our issues not only stem from the top guys, but the rest of the team as well. I agree. We have a lot of issues and everyone, from 1-12, to management take part in that. But if you take our guys and put them on teams without defensive goalies (Ibaka/Perkins, Noah, et al), would that frankenteam be able to emulate success, at least partly? If you removed the Spur's 3, would a starting team of Reke/MT/Leonard/Blair/Cuz win all these games? If you took away Rose's penchant for pace and when to take over, vs when to feed Boozer, vs when to kick out to Deng, would they be a top team?

My point is that the top guys have found ways to be efficient and help their teammates, while our very young, very gun toting core guys are quick on shooting and have a propensity for turnovers but are low on assists, fg%, execution, and running plays. You take our core and drop em in a vet team, yes, the New Kings would be better than the Old kings, but the New Kings would be worse than the Old Playoff team for all of the aforementioned reasons.

^^ This is the question. And I go with option B.

 

[Kingster]

Again bro, you were being ridiculed for your criteria of what makes an NBA starter. And in any case, this thread is more about the bench than our starters, other than Salmons. Of our current starters, Cousins and Evans would certainly start on most teams (which I believe you kind of alluded to, or said the jury was out etc). Thornton can certainly start for a lot of teams as well, he just wouldn't be the leading scorer like he is here. Note: Keith Bogans can start in the NBA. JT is similar to Udonis Haslem in that he's a starting role player. Most of us here would prefer him off the bench anyway, but we don't have anyone better at that position. Salmons was also a legit starter in the league prior to this season. Just ask the Bucks or Bulls. His performance this year is really abysmally off the charts.

Now if your thread had been that our bench players wouldn't be rotational players on good teams, I would totally agree with you (after seeing how Garcia's production has dropped off and how Jimmer isn't very ready yet).

I finally agree with you on something though, that is Tyreke really needs to get an outside shot.

Mac, with how many NBA teams do you think Tyreke would start as a pg? As a 2-guard?