Kings talking Tyreke trade???

[rainmaker]

Wait just one second there.

IT had a BAD GAME?!

4 for 5 from the field, 2 for 2 FT, 2 for 2 3ptrs, 2 steals 3 assists in 17 minutes with the game winning steal and assist.......... and he had a BAD GAME?

I don't wanna know what kind of agendas are coating people's opinions on KF's, I really don't.

He's in charge of running the offense. There was no flow. He was not getting anyone involved. He didn't create much for anyone in the halfcourt. He had 2 asts all game until that final play while dominating the ball. You're free to disagree. I'm looking at more than stats. He didn't play terrible. But poor compared to what got him the starting job in the first place.

Also think Reke would have dominated Jack if given the chance. Probably would have held him in check as well.

 

[Gary]

He's in charge of running the offense. There was no flow. He was not getting anyone involved. He didn't create much for anyone in the halfcourt. He had 2 asts all game until that final play while dominating the ball. You're free to disagree. I'm looking at more than stats. He didn't play terrible. But poor compared to what got him the starting job in the first place.

Also think Reke would have dominated Jack if given the chance. Probably would have held him in check as well.

Reke would have dominated Jack but the offense would have looked just as bad as it did tonight.. History says I would be right. IT has an off game and people pull him. Reke has an off two and a half years at PG and people want to start him. Makes no sense.

 

[Padrino]

2 and a half years is a long time to learn the PG position. Many teams wouldn't have been so patient. He's not really improving much, if at all. Evans will never be a PG. He's a scoring guard that occasionally passes. The problem with him being a scoring guard is that he has no jumpshot. He always does this fade away off his back foot jump shot that does not even come close most of the time.

Where would you even put Evans? PG? Thomas is a better PG than Evans so what kind of message are you sending the kid when you take him out when he's done nothing wrong, and outplays Evans at point. SG? Move Thornton to the bench when he's the leading scorer on the team?

Smart is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Evans is a good basketball player, but he's not good at what we need him to do right now. He's the odd man out, and if he has value I would love to see an equal value trade for an established PG or a SF. If you cannot get a trade of equal value then hang on to Evans for the rest of the year then re-visit it.

wow. that's amazing. erroneous on ALL counts. two and a half years IS NOT a long time to learn how to play the toughest position in the nba. many teams would HAPPILY be so patient. and evans IS improving. his off the ball movement is getting better. if nothing else, playing SF for this [hopefully brief] stretch has been the right kind of learning experience, because its a different discipline when you don't have the ball in your hands every play. but his decision-making and awareness with the ball are also improving, and you can see it in his deliberate attempts to find the right guys in the right spots (the bummer is the clanging sound that often results in spite of how open kings shooters often are). evans' passing need to become more crisp and precise, but he rarely passes the ball to his teammates out-of-position, unless he needs to be bailed out, which does happen from time to time, i'll admit. i expect his decision-making to continue to improve. apart from that, his rebounding has stayed consistently strong, and his man defense remains strong on the wing. these are virtues not to be overlooked, although tyreke detractors are quick to do so...

at any rate, here's a worthwhile trajectory to look at: http://www.nba.com/playerfile/tony_parker/career_stats.html

gregg popovich is notorious for his short leash with young players. don't you think that san antonio is glad their front office and head coach were patient with tony parker? you don't really see the kind of improvement you desire to see in a young scoring guard until years four and five of parker's career. and he never really did develop a consistent outside shot. but guess what? he's a four time all star in the guard-heavy western conference. the comparison is about as comparable as they come, though evans makes his living on strength while parker makes his living on quickness. other than that, they are similarly-styled scoring point guards. evans is already a more superior defender, and he's got lots of room for growth in that area of his game, as well. as for where thomas fits... does it matter? evans is the better player. he's the kings best all-around player, though demarcus is not far behind with respect to versatility. to claim evans is "the odd man out" is absolutely asinine, and its not grounded in anything that resembles reality. isaiah thomas is the future of the kings bench. nothing more. that's useful. there's utility to be had from such players, but they aren't impact players. i'll gladly acknowledge your anti-reke bias, but even so, its still just crazy talk. i've said it before, but i am so glad that the kings front office is not run by impatient, short-sighted individuals...

 

[JB_kings]

Coach even said in the post game he had pull IT because Jack was too much.

 

[Padrino]

Coach even said in the post game he had pull IT because Jack was too much.

and when jarret effing jack is "too much" for your starting PG, you have a serious problem on your hands. i'm a fan of isaiah thomas. i think its wonderful that we're finding use for the 60th pick in the last draft. but its fantasy to believe he's a long term starter. he's got serious potential as a spark plug off the bench, like other little guys in his mold. its just unfortunate that the timing of his brief explosion coincided with linsanity, so keith smart, the maloofs, and kings fans allowed a rather insulated hype to get ahead of good basketball sense. this three-guard lineup is a failure. its doing favors to no one. at the very least, one of either isaiah thomas or marcus thornton needs to be coming off the bench...

 

[Gary]

wow. that's amazing. erroneous on ALL counts. two and a half years IS NOT a long time to learn how to play the toughest position in the nba. many teams would HAPPILY be so patient. and evans IS improving. his off the ball movement is getting better. if nothing else, playing SF for this [hopefully brief] stretch has been the right kind of learning experience, because its a different discipline when you don't have the ball in your hands every play. but his decision-making and awareness with the ball are also improving, and you can see it in his deliberate attempts to find the right guys in the right spots (the bummer is the clanging sound that often results in spite of how open kings shooters often are). evans' passing need to become more crisp and precise, but he rarely passes the ball to his teammates out-of-position, unless he needs to be bailed out, which does happen from time to time, i'll admit. i expect his decision-making to continue to improve. apart from that, his rebounding has stayed consistently strong, and his man defense remains strong on the wing. these are virtues not to be overlooked, although tyreke detractors are quick to do so...

at any rate, here's a worthwhile trajectory to look at: http://www.nba.com/playerfile/tony_parker/career_stats.html

gregg popovich is notorious for his short leash with young players. don't you think that san antonio is glad their front office and head coach were patient with tony parker? you don't really see the kind of improvement you desire to see in a young scoring guard until years four and five of parker's career. and he never really did develop a consistent outside shot. but guess what? he's a four time all star in the guard-heavy western conference. the comparison is about as comparable as they come, though evans makes his living on strength while parker makes his living on quickness. other than that, they are similarly-styled scoring point guards. evans is already a more superior defender, and he's got lots of room for growth in that area of his game, as well. as for where thomas fits... does it matter? evans is the better player. he's the kings best all-around player, though demarcus is not far behind with respect to versatility. to claim evans is "the odd man out" is absolutely asinine, and its not grounded in anything that resembles reality. isaiah thomas is the future of the kings bench. nothing more. that's useful. there's utility to be had from such players, but they aren't impact players. i'll gladly acknowledge your anti-reke bias, but even so, its still just crazy talk. i've said it before, but i am so glad that the kings front office is not run by impatient, short-sighted individuals...

I will say this to you too.. We disagree..

I have been watching Reke for 3 and a half years now in about 95% of his games in both college and the NBA. Reke is Reke.. He's not improving at PG since he first stepped foot in Memphis. The only reason why he did well in Memphis is because he played off Antonio Anderson. Anderson would facilitate the offense, most of the time, when it was a half court set.

The team was barely averaging more assists than TOs and the whole team was stuck playing 1 on 1 ball when Reke was PG. For a good part of the year the Kings were averaging more TOs than assists. That's unheard of in the NBA. Thomas comes in and the Kings went from last in the NBA with Reke at PG (assists per game as a team) to middle of the pack with IT running things (using IT's average for the games he started vs other team stats).

I don't hate Evans.. But I don't think he's a PG and I have been saying that since we drafted him.

BTW, Parker and Evans are two totally different entities. Parker can run an NBA offense and that was clear the moment he entered the NBA. Evans cannot. Will he be able to ever? If history dictates the answer then no, he wont be able to. He didn't in college, and he hasn't in 2 and a half years with the Kings so how long are you all going to give him before you say enough is enough? A lot of the pro Evans guys were getting pretty fed up at the start of the season when the team was playing a bunch of 1 on 1 ball. What made you change you mind and want to put Evans back at PG? Is it because he's not good at SF?

 

[Gary]

and when jarret effing jack is "too much" for your starting PG, you have a serious problem on your hands. i'm a fan of isaiah thomas. i think its wonderful that we're finding use for the 60th pick in the last draft. but its fantasy to believe he's a long term starter. he's got serious potential as a spark plug off the bench, like other little guys in his mold. its just unfortunate that the timing of his brief explosion coincided with linsanity, so keith smart, the maloofs, and kings fans allowed a rather insulated hype to get ahead of good basketball sense. this three-guard lineup is a failure. its doing favors to no one. at the very least, one of either isaiah thomas or marcus thornton needs to be coming off the bench...

I don't think IT is a long term answer either, but I do believe we need an actual PG running this team over a SG.

 

[Padrino]

I will say this to you too.. We disagree..

I have been watching Reke for 3 and a half years now in about 95% of his games in both college and the NBA. Reke is Reke.. He's not improving at PG since he first stepped foot in Memphis. The only reason why he did well in Memphis is because he played off Antonio Anderson. Anderson would facilitate the offense, most of the time, when it was a half court set.

The team was barely averaging more assists than TOs and the whole team was stuck playing 1 on 1 ball when Reke was PG. For a good part of the year the Kings were averaging more TOs than assists. That's unheard of in the NBA. Thomas comes in and the Kings went from last in the NBA with Reke at PG (assists per game as a team) to middle of the pack with IT running things (using IT's average for the games he started vs other team stats).

I don't hate Evans.. But I don't think he's a PG and I have been saying that since we drafted him.

BTW, Parker and Evans are two totally different entities. Parker can run an NBA offense and that was clear the moment he entered the NBA. Evans cannot. Will he be able to ever? If history dictates the answer then no, he wont be able to. He didn't in college, and he hasn't in 2 and a half years with the Kings so how long are you all going to give him before you say enough is enough? A lot of the pro Evans guys were getting pretty fed up at the start of the season when the team was playing a bunch of 1 on 1 ball. What made you change you mind and want to put Evans back at PG? Is it because he's not good at SF?

you must have some kinda selective memory. its quite a brain on you, one that can rewrite history. tony parker was 18 when he came into the league. he was tremendously undisciplined, and pop would pull his hair out nightly over parker's mistakes in both the half court offense and on the fast break. he was out of control. young, driving guards often are. more to the point, i have tremendous difficulty with your logic, because its nonexistent. what you're saying makes, quite literally, zero sense. by your logic, dwayne wade never would have developed a passable jump shot. tony parker never would have developed discipline on the defensive side of the ball. kobe bryant never would have become a team leader. and dirk nowitzki never would have become an nba champion. across many seasons in the nba, history dictated that, because those players lacked those traits, they would never achieve them, so trade 'em all!! lebron james should just throw in the towel now, because if he hasn't developed the killer instinct to push his team over the top in fourth quarters across his nine-year nba career, he never will. do you see what i'm saying? do you see why your logic is terribly and irrevocably flawed?

in two-and-a-half years, evans has proved to be a potent driving machine who rebounds well, defends well, and passes adequately. there's room for improvement in many areas of his game, but posters like yourself are so blinded by a tremendously irrational bias that you're willing to look past his actual utility. its amazing the great lengths some of you will go to look past his talent. evans is a flawed player. any ball dominant guard is going to take some time to work out the kinks, and unfortunately for tyreke, there's little in the way of kings' leadership in place, at any level of the organization, to help him improve. but, to answer your question, i want evans playing as a guard. i honestly don't care if its as a PG or SG. he's very clearly a guard, and should be playing at one of those two positions where his size and strength represent a generous mismatch in favor of the kings. and whichever guard spot that evans occupies should be dependent on who he's playing alongside. the kings need less chuckers in the starting lineup and more willing passers. they need a permanent answer at the other guard position (call it PG, if you must), and they need a SF who can play a role as a passer, defender, and occasional spot up shooter. you DO NOT need to trade tyreke evans in order to acquire either of those things...

but most importantly, tyreke is 22 years old. he was 19 when he came into the league. for comparison, dwayne wade was 21 the year he was drafted. saying you've watched evans for a little over three years and claiming you know what kind of player he will be across his entire career is like me saying i've investigated your history as a poster at kingsfans.com and have determined the kind of life you lead. its too small a sample size to determine anything. we know tyreke is an explosive scorer who uses his strength as a weapon when he drives, when he rebounds, and when he defends. these kinds of players find success in the nba. will tyreke's success lead to all star nods and championships? i don't know. but to give up on tyreke evans now is one of the most asinine suggestions i've heard in my entire life as a kings fan, and i am so incredibly baffled at how rampant such an asinine notion is at this website. its like a short-sighted, armchair gm's plague that's spread through the forum. i just hope doesn't eventually spread to the kings actual front office...

 

[BMiller52]

I don't think IT is a long term answer either, but I do believe we need an actual PG running this team over a SG.

Jimmer has been doing a better job of playing PG lately. I still think he's the long term PG of the future.

 

[jcwkings]

Jimmer has been doing a better job of playing PG lately. I still think he's the long term PG of the future.

hes actaully the perfect pg you want with a ball dominant gaurd like tyreke.

 

[Padrino]

I don't think IT is a long term answer either, but I do believe we need an actual PG running this team over a SG.

oh, and kobe bryant sends his condolences...

clearly, there is no comparison to be made between evans and bryant. but i do want to point out that the lakers found success without a quality traditional PG running any of the 00's lakers teams. ball movement isn't dependent on whether or not a team has a traditional point guard. ball movement is dependent on balance in the lineup. and starting thomas, thornton, and evans is very clearly not helping to balance the kings' starting lineup. thomas is probably the most natural passer amongst them, but he's still a ball dominant guard who gets most of his assists on the break. the kings need a starting point guard and a starting small forward who can help facilitate ball movement. and if cousins is ever utilized in a manner befitting of his skill set, he will also be a source of considerable ball movement for the kings. then the question of whether or not evans is a PG holds little relevance. if the ball is moving, who gives a **** which guard position he's announced at? as the team is currently composed, however, there is so little in the way of balance that ball movement is consistently an issue, though it has improved since keith smart took over. if they ever get these PG and SF problems nailed down, i maintain that marcus thornton should be the kings sixth man. if thomas is deemed more right for this team (and i'm not ready to make those claims), then thornton becomes your trade bait to acquire what you need. but, once again, evans does not need to be traded in order for the kings' to acquire pass first utility players...

 

[Gary]

you must have some kinda selective memory. its quite a brain on you, one that can rewrite history. tony parker was 18 when he came into the league. he was tremendously undisciplined, and pop would pull his hair out nightly over parker's mistakes in both the half court offense and on the fast break. he was out of control. young, driving guards often are. more to the point, i have tremendous difficulty with your logic, because its nonexistent. what you're saying makes, quite literally, zero sense. by your logic, dwayne wade never would have developed a passable jump shot. tony parker never would have developed discipline on the defensive side of the ball. kobe bryant never would have become a team leader. and dirk nowitzki never would have become an nba champion. across many seasons in the nba, history dictated that, because those players lacked those traits, they would never achieve them, so trade 'em all!! lebron james should just throw in the towel now, because if he hasn't developed the killer instinct to push his team over the top in fourth quarters across his nine-year nba career, he never will. do you see what i'm saying? do you see why your logic is terribly and irrevocably flawed?

in two-and-a-half years, evans has proved to be a potent driving machine who rebounds well, defends well, and passes adequately. there's room for improvement in many areas of his game, but posters like yourself are so blinded by a tremendously irrational bias that you're willing to look past his actual utility. its amazing the great lengths some of you will go to look past his talent. evans is a flawed player. any ball dominant guard is going to take some time to work out the kinks, and unfortunately for tyreke, there's little in the way of kings' leadership in place, at any level of the organization, to help him improve. but, to answer your question, i want evans playing as a guard. i honestly don't care if its as a PG or SG. he's very clearly a guard, and should be playing at one of those two positions where his size and strength represent a generous mismatch in favor of the kings. and whichever guard spot that evans occupies should be dependent on who he's playing alongside. the kings need less chuckers in the starting lineup and more willing passers. they need a permanent answer at the other guard position (call it PG, if you must), and they need a SF who can play a role as a passer, defender, and occasional spot up shooter. you DO NOT need to trade tyreke evans in order to acquire either of those things...

but most importantly, tyreke is 22 years old. he was 19 when he came into the league. for comparison, dwayne wade was 21 the year he was drafted. saying you've watched evans for a little over three years and claiming you know what kind of player he will be across his entire career is like me saying i've investigated your history as a poster at kingsfans.com and have determined the kind of life you lead. its too small a sample size to determine anything. we know tyreke is an explosive scorer who uses his strength as a weapon when he drives, when he rebounds, and when he defends. these kinds of players find success in the nba. will tyreke's success lead to all star nods and championships? i don't know. but to give up on tyreke evans now is one of the most asinine suggestions i've heard in my entire life as a kings fan, and i am so incredibly baffled at how rampant such an asinine notion is at this website. its like a short-sighted, armchair gm's plague that's spread through the forum. i just hope doesn't eventually spread to the kings actual front office...

Parker, when he came into the league, had MUCH better court vision than Evans does at this point in his career. Personally, I feel the same way "its quite a brain on you, one that can rewrite history.".... You wont convince me, obviously, and I won't convince you. As much as I have watched Evans I know what he can and cant do.. Bottom line, IMO Evans is not a PG, and will never develop into the PG that we as fans expect him to be.. Unless by PG you mean bringing the ball up the court and play a bunch of 1 on 1 ball..

Look for yourself though.. The first 15-20 games as a team we averaged more turnovers than assists. Is that what you want in a PG? I don't.. I figure two and a half years is enough in Evans case. Why? Because he has not really shown any improvement in his PG play. If there was improvement then I might be singing a different tune and waiting longer before wanting him to change positions.

 

[Padrino]

hes actaully the perfect pg you want with a ball dominant gaurd like tyreke.

i find this statement lacking. i think jimmer could be the perfect pg to pair with tyreke. i haven't quite nailed down jimmer's fleeting moments of success as a king yet. he hasn't been great off the ball. sometimes he's exceptional with the ball in his hands. and sometimes he's atrocious. if he can improve his handle, his off the ball play, and his defense, i think he could be an ideal pairing with tyreke. its a tall order, but the young man has a great work ethic, apparently. as it stands, though, i'm not sold on the pairing. ideally, a guard across from tyreke can help share PG duties and hit the outside shot without needing the ball in his hands. tyreke evans' ability to drive the lane is maximized in an offense that focuses on inside-outside basketball. if jimmer can get to his spots and, more importantly, drill jumpers regularly on kickouts, he'd find success as an eventual starter. jimmer's problem right now is that he needs the ball in his hands to be effective. that's not just as a scorer, either. he's got good court vision, and is a solid passer, but nba defenses are taking away his dribble, and he hasn't figured out what to do about it. its startling to watch him turn his back to the defense when he's out on the wing, and it eliminates so much of the vision that he has as a PG...

 

[jpsls]

The team averaged more turnovers than assists because Westphal hates to call plays, so he called the only one he knew...1-4 iso. I think the team's play earlier in the season was indicative of the ineptitude of the coach while under Smart the team and Evans have shown improvement.

 

[IfAt1st]

I couldn't care less about all these absurdly asinine (Padrino's word) comparisons to other teams and other organizations and other players.

Tyreke is Tyreke.
The Kings are the Kings.

End of comparisons.

I watch the Kings.

Tyreke is not a PG. He lacks the skill set, and has proven incapable of learning it in 2 1/2 years.
I've been watching the NBA for a long time, like you guys.
And the ONE most common phrase used in analysis of NBA players is, "If they don't make the leap/increase in skills by their 3rd year, they likely won't be a great player."

Ignore the experts at your folly.

 

[Padrino]

Parker, when he came into the league, had MUCH better court vision than Evans does at this point in his career. Personally, I feel the same way "its quite a brain on you, one that can rewrite history.".... You wont convince me, obviously, and I won't convince you. As much as I have watched Evans I know what he can and cant do.. Bottom line, IMO Evans is not a PG, and will never develop into the PG that we as fans expect him to be.. Unless by PG you mean bringing the ball up the court and play a bunch of 1 on 1 ball..

Look for yourself though.. The first 15-20 games as a team we averaged more turnovers than assists. Is that what you want in a PG? I don't.. I figure two and a half years is enough in Evans case. Why? Because he has not really shown any improvement in his PG play. If there was improvement then I might be singing a different tune and waiting longer before wanting him to change positions.

yeah. this is clearly going in circles. what bothers me, though, is that i willingly acknowledge the flaws in evans' game, as you have pointed them out. but you seem terribly unwilling to give evans even the slightest credit for his talent--which is at a premium in a guard-driven nba--or for the improvements in his game that are apparent. its troublesome, and it makes conversation with you aggravating. again, i don't give a **** if evans is the team's PG. not one bit. what i do give a **** about, though, is roster balance. the kings turnover rate early in the season was not the product of evans' perceived poor PG play. it was the product of poor coaching and a roster imbalanced by ball dominant chuckers. the kings' uneven roster diminishes the returns of everyone on the team, not just evans. but you isolate him, put him on an island, and thrust expectation on him that he doesn't deserve, given the circumstances surrounding this cluster**** of a team. then you repeat yourself as if it will make sophomoric points more salient. you damn near make it sound personal, as if evans had hit on your girl in a bar or something...

quitting on 22 year old, potential all star level talent less than three full seasons into an nba career is, i repeat, asinine. its just not done, except by impatiently beleaguered teams that consistently languish in mediocrity. my point stands that san antonio, a patient, smartly run organization, did not quit on tony parker, no matter how frustrating he was as a young player. his stats were relatively unremarkable during his first several seasons, and were dominated by poor shooting percentages and pedestrian assist numbers. he was out of control much of the time. but with good coaching, he settled down, learned to pick his spots, and became a four-time all star. if i didn't care so much about the kings, i'd almost hope that evans did get traded, just to watch him succeed on a more balanced roster, with a team that understands what the real big three are in the nba: interior scoring, defense, and rebounding. evans provides in those three categories, often in spades. and, contrary to awkwardly popular belief, he's plenty content to pass the ball. on a balanced roster, he can become an all star. to deny that is to spit in the face of known quantities in the nba. scoring guards who make their living at the rim find more success than jump shooters. even kobe bryant still only shoots a little over 30% from 3. at any rate, i'm done entertaining half-witted opinions. i bow out of this discussion very willingly...

 

[Larry89]

For reference, there will be a "SG" converted to PG and starting for the 76ers now, and it will be Evan Turner, roughly same size but slightly different skill set.

Tyreke is a "PG" I guess.. Converted to "SG" to "SF" we will see how things work out for both, but i am also saying this sans the coaching and fanbases etc..

 

[Kingster]

oh, and kobe bryant sends his condolences...

clearly, there is no comparison to be made between evans and bryant. but i do want to point out that the lakers found success without a quality traditional PG running any of the 00's lakers teams. ball movement isn't dependent on whether or not a team has a traditional point guard. ball movement is dependent on balance in the lineup. and starting thomas, thornton, and evans is very clearly not helping to balance the kings' starting lineup. thomas is probably the most natural passer amongst them, but he's still a ball dominant guard who gets most of his assists on the break. the kings need a starting point guard and a starting small forward who can help facilitate ball movement. and if cousins is ever utilized in a manner befitting of his skill set, he will also be a source of considerable ball movement for the kings. then the question of whether or not evans is a PG holds little relevance. if the ball is moving, who gives a **** which guard position he's announced at? as the team is currently composed, however, there is so little in the way of balance that ball movement is consistently an issue, though it has improved since keith smart took over. if they ever get these PG and SF problems nailed down, i maintain that marcus thornton should be the kings sixth man. if thomas is deemed more right for this team (and i'm not ready to make those claims), then thornton becomes your trade bait to acquire what you need. but, once again, evans does not need to be traded in order for the kings' to acquire pass first utility players...

If we get a good veteran pg and a three who is an good ballhandler/shooter, then you could live with with a guard who isn't an outside shooter. Also, if you get a very good taller 2 and an upgrade at the pf, you could live with Tyreke at 3. But as you say, that's not how this team is currently composed. Nobody wants to trade Tyreke for scrubs.

 

[Kingster]

I don't think IT is a long term answer either, but I do believe we need an actual PG running this team over a SG.

I agree with everything you've said, except I'm not ready to pass judgement on IT not being the future Kings point guard. (That doesn't mean I wouldn't trade for a quality vet pg, however). When we had Beno, I was thinking that we need a guard just one "step" above Beno at the point guard position. So far, I see IT as that guy. He's much quicker, is a better defender, is just as creative of a passer, seems to me that his mid-range shooting is about the level of Beno (?). If we had Beno *now* I'd probably still play IT over him, even with Beno's experience. Maybe you think we need a pg *two* steps above Beno...?

 

[Larry David]

oh, and kobe bryant sends his condolences...

clearly, there is no comparison to be made between evans and bryant. but i do want to point out that the lakers found success without a quality traditional PG running any of the 00's lakers teams. ball movement isn't dependent on whether or not a team has a traditional point guard. ball movement is dependent on balance in the lineup. and starting thomas, thornton, and evans is very clearly not helping to balance the kings' starting lineup. thomas is probably the most natural passer amongst them, but he's still a ball dominant guard who gets most of his assists on the break. the kings need a starting point guard and a starting small forward who can help facilitate ball movement. and if cousins is ever utilized in a manner befitting of his skill set, he will also be a source of considerable ball movement for the kings. then the question of whether or not evans is a PG holds little relevance. if the ball is moving, who gives a **** which guard position he's announced at? as the team is currently composed, however, there is so little in the way of balance that ball movement is consistently an issue, though it has improved since keith smart took over. if they ever get these PG and SF problems nailed down, i maintain that marcus thornton should be the kings sixth man. if thomas is deemed more right for this team (and i'm not ready to make those claims), then thornton becomes your trade bait to acquire what you need. but, once again, evans does not need to be traded in order for the kings' to acquire pass first utility players...

Triangle offense. You don't need a traditional point. In fact, it's really hard on traditional points. Not a lot of dribble drive dish by the point. Due to the spacing and the way the offense is set up, it's more important to have somebody that can catch and shoot when the ball gets reversed.

 

[Arkitect]

Triangle offense. You don't need a traditional point. In fact, it's really hard on traditional points. Not a lot of dribble drive dish by the point. Due to the spacing and the way the offense is set up, it's more important to have somebody that can catch and shoot when the ball gets reversed.

I know Phil Jackson will never coach here and he is the only coach that has ever successfully taught the triangle, but I think running the triangle with our personnel would actually work very well.

 

[Bricklayer]

I know Phil Jackson will never coach here and he is the only coach that has ever successfully taught the triangle, but I think running the triangle with our personnel would actually work very well.

Would actually. We have almost a perfect duo for it in Reke and Cousins.

 

[ElRey]

PG position is the hardest position to play and many great PGs (Stockton, Nash, etc) have taken some time to develop. Tyreke improved as a PG when coach Smart came on, so I don't see any reason to give up on him already. With Tyreke at PG, I feel like we can go up against anyone and beat them at home (ie OKC). With IT starting at PG, I feel like we can only beat crappy teams ( New Orleans and barely). Problem is the team is not well constructed around Tyreke. If we could get a SF that is a GOOD shooter and finisher (none of our SFs can really shoot, even Garcia), then Tyreke will be getting 10 assist a night.

 

[VF21]

I know Phil Jackson will never coach here and he is the only coach that has ever successfully taught the triangle, but I think running the triangle with our personnel would actually work very well.

Bingo.

I'm actually rather surprised we don't have a "We need Phil Jackson!" thread yet.

 

[Hoovtrain]

Would actually. We have almost a perfect duo for it in Reke and Cousins.

The tirangle would provide some much needed discipline to this team. When i was going to school down at LMU, Tex Winter lived in our apartment complex. i would occasionally ride in the elevator with him. Always wanted to ask him why he let Phil take all the credit for the triangle

 

[Padrino]

Triangle offense. You don't need a traditional point. In fact, it's really hard on traditional points. Not a lot of dribble drive dish by the point. Due to the spacing and the way the offense is set up, it's more important to have somebody that can catch and shoot when the ball gets reversed.

triangle offense, indeed. but that's not the only factor at play here. many offenses run in the nba forgo the need for a "traditional point." ****, the princeton offense that the kings used to run, which focused on motion and ball movement, also had no need for a traditional point. in his prime, mike bibby was essentially a more talented version of derek fisher. and to be perfectly plain, the traditional point is no longer common in the modern nba. the very idea of it has become near-mythical across the league, as if chris paul and derrick rose aren't scoring guards who happen to pass the ball well. there has been no john stockton since john stockton, and i'm not sure there will ever be another steve nash, although ricky rubio's PG play this season has been more impressive than i thought it might be. he does need to learn how to put the ball in the hoop, though, from just about anywhere on the court...

more to the point, the kings current offense is not even close to solidifying itself as something irreplaceable. it has improved since westphal was fired, but there was nowhere to go but up during that stretch. i'm definitely not sold, and i don't think the players are, either. and i certainly am more interested in tweaking the kings' offense rather than trading tyreke evans because he's not finding great success as a SF under a second-year head coach's guidance. keith smart wants to run with this team, but demarcus cousins and tyreke evans--his two best players--are not suited to a golden state-like fast break style. the kings can get out on the break when its situationally convenient, but this isn't a running team when its two most talented players operate at their best in the half court. the idea of bringing phil jackson here, while tremendously unlikely, is actually not a bad idea. i'd take a flyer on brian shaw, a student of the triangle, over keith smart, at this point...

 

[IfAt1st]

the kings can get out on the break when its situationally convenient, but this isn't a running team when its two most talented players operate at their best in the half court.

You make some good points, and obviously study the game -

but you're wrong if you are saying that Tyreke works best in the half court.

The vast majority of his scores are from broken plays, fastbreaks, weakside passes that give him an exposed defense, etc.
He doesn't typically get past set defenses that just pack the paint against him, and he doesn't use pick-n-rolls well - we all saw it in the OT of the Denver game, if we forgot it the first 2 1/2 seasons.