Brooks/Evans/Salmons -- Why Its Working

[Bricklayer]

A post I made responding to another thread around here involved crunching some numbers that got me thinking. Hence this thread.

So just basically copying the numbers from that other post, this is what has happened since we went to an Aaron Brooks, Tyreke Evans, John Salmons trio at the PG/SG/SF spots:

6 gms
Record: 3-3 (5 of 6 at home, but also 5 of 6 against likely playoff type teams)
Pts For: 101.5
Pts Against: 99.0
Starter's Stats:
Salmons: 30.0min 7.3pts (.425 .438 .750) 3.3reb 2.0ast 0.5stl 0.2blk 0.7TO
Evans: 33.2min 21.3ppg (.528 .462 .800) 4.8reb 4.3ast 1.3stl 1.2blk 2.3TO
Brooks: 27.2min 10.8pts (.561 .500 .692) 2.0reb 2.7ast 1.0stl 0.0blk 1.2TO

Ok, so...we're doing better there. That's kinda working at the moment. Why? Well how about because we've seen it before. The star ball dominant do it all SG. The defensive spot shooting SF. The weaklink 3pt bombing PG. Seen it before. Where? Well try these examples:

Portland 08-09
Record: 54-28 (lost first round playoffs)
Starter's Stats:
Batum: 18.4min 5.4pts (.446 .369 .808) 2.8reb 0.9ast 0.6stl 0.5blk 0.6TO
Roy: 37.2min 22.6ppg (.480 .377 .824) 4.7reb 5.3ast 1.1stl 0.3blk 1.9TO
Blake: 31.7min 11.0pts (.428 .427 .840) 2.5reb 5.0ast 1.0stl 0.1blk 1.6TO

Atlanta 09-10
Record: 53-29 (lost second round playoffs)
Starter's Stats:
Williams: 30.5min 10.1pts (.455 .303 .819) 5.1reb 1.1ast 0.8stl 0.6blk 0.9TO
Johnson: 38.0min 21.3ppg (.458 .369 .818) 4.6reb 4.9ast 1.6stl 0.1blk 1.9TO
Bibby: 27.4min 9.1pts (.416 .389 .861) 2.3reb 3.9ast 0.8stl 0.0blk 1.1TO

Miami 04-05
Record: 59-23 (lost Eastern Conference Finals)
Starter's Stats:
Jones: 35.5min 12.7pts (.428 .372 .806) 5.1reb 2.7ast 1.1stl 0.5blk 1.2TO
Wade: 38.6min 24.1ppg (.478 .289 .762) 5.2reb 6.8ast 1.6stl 1.1blk 4.2TO
Jones: 31.4min 11.6pts (.456 .432 .791) 2.8reb 4.3ast 0.5stl 0.1blk 1.2TO
-- later iterations of this same concept were named James Posey, Jason Wiliams, Mario Chalmers, Shane Battier etc.

Lakers 09-10
Record: 57-25 (won NBA Finals)
Starter's Stats:
Artest: 33.8min 11.0pts (.414 .355 .688) 4.3reb 3.0ast 1.4stl 0.3blk 1.6TO
Bryant: 38.6min 27.0ppg (.456 .329 .811) 5.4reb 5.0ast 1.5stl 0.3blk 3.2TO
Fisher: 27.2min 7.5pts (.380 .348 .856) 2.1reb 2.5ast 1.1stl 0.1blk 1.0TO


Its the same structure time and time again with winning teams built around elite do it all SGs, and then a great big (Shaq, Aldridge, Horford or Smith, Pau) for the interior. I have been far from a fan of Aaron Brooks or John Salmons on this board or elsewhere, but for right now they, and Reke in part because of them, are doing a pretty good imitation of the way you do it when you have a player of Reke's ilk and current caliber in your backcourt. Any or all of them could revert at any time, but until they do a structure like this has proven to flat work at very high levels, and it seems to be working for us.

 

[KingMilz]

You make great points and comparisons but I still think Salmons is argubly the worset starting SF in the NBA Artest, Marvin Williams, Eddie Jones and Batum when you took those statistics were far far better players and impacted the game more. They are all also BIG SF's (other than Jones) and defended there position far far better due to better atheltic ability and length (Salmons effort is there no doubt). I think Aaron Brooks will eventually figure (shot will be more consistant)it out hes played to well in the NBA not to where as I think we need to get a better SF if we truely want to keep moving forward.

Great comparisons tho I would have never actually thought of them had you not bourght them up top work researching and coming up with a good conclusion.

 

[Gilles]

Salmons is very close to bottom in the list of starting SFs but he's the right kind stylistically outside of his now rare but still happenning one-on-one mode. Now if Johnson starts hitting set shot and be less wild offensively (two huge ifs) all of a sudden he would be top-10 SF in the NBA in terms of fit for this team.

 

[KingMilz]

Salmons is very close to bottom in the list of starting SFs but he's the right kind stilistically outside of his now rare but still happenning one-on-one mode. Now if Johnson starts hitting set shot and be less wild offensively (two huge ifs) all of a sudden he would be top-10 SF in the NBA in terms of fit for this team.

For sure cause his defense in stellar and hes actually a good slasher to the bucket, shame he can't hit a shot to safe his life (i think his first 3 for the Kings was against the Raptors).

 

[KingsCitizen]

Anyone who can hit that outside shot and pass would help Reke, period. Salmons shot was ON this year and Brooks has been steady. That all you need next to Reke on the offensive.
On the defensive side, we still shouldn't be celebrating yet. Both Salmons and Brooks are undersized at their position. Evans help defense has been close to stellar when we're winning. But we have to keep that option for Evans/Salmons/JJ combo when closing out games with defense.

Not a Jimmer fan, but I hope Jimmer is the long term solution next to Reke. He's been improving. Steve Kerr made with Jordan and Pippen. But that's not saying we got Jordan and Pippen, though.

 

[HereWeBoogie]

heres why its working.
-Salmons is playing his role, not trying to be a hero, and his defense is nice too.
-Brooks /Salmons help spread the floor making Reke a much better player.
-Tyreke is the primary ball handler most of the time (which is why id also like to see MT start instead of Brooks)

 

[Hadlowe]

heres why its working.
-Salmons is playing his role, not trying to be a hero, and his defense is nice too.
-Brooks /Salmons help spread the floor making Reke a much better player.
-Tyreke is the primary ball handler most of the time (which is why id also like to see MT start instead of Brooks)

I doubt playing Thornton as a starter with Reke works for two reasons.

1. Thornton plays passing lanes instead of team defense. This works to his advantage in getting steals and easy transition buckets, but it leaves holes that we can't fill because we lack rim protection. If we had an Ibaka next to Cousins, this wouldn't be as glaring a problem. Brooks' defensive liabilities are related to his size and lack of physical strength. He at least attempts to play up his man and prevent penetration and backdoor cuts. That works better with the team's defensive needs with the current roster.

2. Thornton is a ball stopper which is acceptable in a sixth man/gunner role. Not ideal, but acceptable. He hasn't shown me that he is aware of better shots from open teammates. Brooks has had moments where he has a wide open shot on the outside, but makes a good decision to dump the ball down low for an easy bucket at the rim. There haven't been many of the opportunities because our offensive sets are pretty weak, but the awareness is there when the play is. Thornton, nine times out of ten in the same situation, jacks up that three.

 

[Kingster]

I don't think Brooks has been working all that well. I was hoping that Brooks would be the type of smaller pg that could push the action on fast breaks. He's just not that type of guy. He's seems more effective in a half court offense. But if you're a smaller guard and can't push the action in fast breaks, I think you lose a lot of the rationale for being out on the floor.

If it weren't for Salmons, we probably wouldn't have won against Toronto. Considering Toronto's record, that's sad, but I do think it's true. Salmons is an important guy to - yes I am saying this - to keep the ball moving on the floor. He had 7 assists and 0 turnovers. Nobody came close to that performance. He seems mature enough to accept the fact that he has to do whatever it takes to keep the ball moving and prevent this team from having more turnovers than assists on a nightly basis.

 

[Padrino]

I don't think Brooks has been working all that well. I was hoping that Brooks would be the type of smaller pg that could push the action on fast breaks. He's just not that type of guy. He's seems more effective in a half court offense. But if you're a smaller guard and can't push the action in fast breaks, I think you lose a lot of the rationale for being out on the floor.

If it weren't for Salmons, we probably wouldn't have won against Toronto. Considering Toronto's record, that's sad, but I do think it's true. Salmons is an important guy to - yes I am saying this - to keep the ball moving on the floor. He had 7 assists and 0 turnovers. Nobody came close to that performance. He seems mature enough to accept the fact that he has to do whatever it takes to keep the ball moving and prevent this team from having more turnovers than assists on a nightly basis.

the kings don't get out on the break in transition. it's not really what these players are best at, no matter how much keith smart wants them to push the ball. their fast break opportunities result from forced turnovers, and that is, in my opinion, enough for a team of this particular make-up. they're a halfcourt bunch. it's time for kings fans to square themselves with that fact. since rick adelman left, all we've heard from every head coach is how this team should be running with the ball, should be getting out in transition, in some misguided attempt to bring mike d'antoni's flair for uptempo basketball to sacramento. and fans love that ****, but that's not who these players are. so let them be who they are, i say. brick's right: brooks/evans/salmons is working, and precisely because salmons is deferring to his teammates, is playing the kind of role he was always going to need to play in order for him to succeed in sacramento. he's a veteran presence who knows how to keep a team involved. the kings of early-00's vintage were an absolute asterisk, a unique team of unique organization that the contemporary nba will likely never see again. it's not necessary for there to be five quarterbacks out on the court, or five guys that push the ball. brooks can spot-up from outside, make the occasional pass, and poke at the ball on defense. salmons can spot-up from outside, make the occasional pass, and likewise play passable defense. you don't need these players to do more than that when demarcus cousins and tyreke evans are your primary go-to guys. we already know that jason thompson will play his role, so if the kings have magically landed on a starting lineup in which the guard opposite 'reke and the small forward decide to play their roles effectively, rather than opt for the "green light" their head coach has foolishly given them, while also highlighting cousins' and evans' natural talents by making them better players, then you simply do not rock that boat unless the wheels completely fall off...

 

[Section 101]

the kings don't get out on the break in transition. it's not really what these players are best at, no matter how much keith smart wants them to push the ball.

Pushing the ball isn't just about fast breaks. When you push the ball it doesn't allow the defense to get set. It also can create mismatches when people have to pick up a different guy down the court which creates early offense advantages.

 

[Agent23]

Has this combo been working because Evans has become THAT good recently? Not only is the jumper a decent threat now, he's playing smart. Whens the last time he barrelled into the defense and got a charge? He's been patient and getting his in the flow of the offense. His defense has been out of this world. This is the Tyreke we should have gotten last year. He's not quite a max contract player but if he just adds a pull up jumper to his set shot, man oh man.

 

[Padrino]

Pushing the ball isn't just about fast breaks. When you push the ball it doesn't allow the defense to get set. It also can create mismatches when people have to pick up a different guy down the court which creates early offense advantages.

yeah, so? you're giving me basketball 101, but i'm telling you what the kings have to work with. here, i'll direct a question to the entire class: raise your hand if you can recall multiple occasions in which the kings squandered an opportunity in transition because of either poor spacing and/or poor decision-making? they often try to exploit mismatches in transition, but some combination of youth, impatience, and jitters results in a turnover or a missed basket. when they force turnovers and get out on the break, they have some success. but i would much rather that they slow the game down after securing a rebound, take their time, and develop some discipline on offense...

 

[Arkitect]

Has this combo been working because Evans has become THAT good recently? Not only is the jumper a decent threat now, he's playing smart. Whens the last time he barrelled into the defense and got a charge? He's been patient and getting his in the flow of the offense. His defense has been out of this world. This is the Tyreke we should have gotten last year. He's not quite a max contract player but if he just adds a pull up jumper to his set shot, man oh man.

I would agree with this. Something seems to have clicked for Reke over the last 6 games. And as horrible as this season has been so far, the change in Reke has been very encouraging. His turnovers are down and his 3pt% up. And I think the reason is not that he is playing with Salmons and Brooks but because he is not playing with Thornton and IT. Reke is finally being treated as the best guard on the team and he is responding to that.

 

[Npliam]

This combination has worked (if you can call .500 mostly at home working) because Evans has hit his outside shots. If he hits his outside shots it won't really matter who he plays with. The team will be much, much better.

 

[Padrino]

This combination has worked (if you can call .500 mostly at home working) because Evans has hit his outside shots. If he hits his outside shots it won't really matter who he plays with. The team will be much, much better.

indeed.

 

[ESP47]

We're 3-3 while those guys are shooting lights out from the field. Not a good sign.

 

[Kingster]

the kings don't get out on the break in transition. it's not really what these players are best at, no matter how much keith smart wants them to push the ball. their fast break opportunities result from forced turnovers, and that is, in my opinion, enough for a team of this particular make-up. they're a halfcourt bunch. it's time for kings fans to square themselves with that fact. since rick adelman left, all we've heard from every head coach is how this team should be running with the ball, should be getting out in transition, in some misguided attempt to bring mike d'antoni's flair for uptempo basketball to sacramento. and fans love that ****, but that's not who these players are. so let them be who they are, i say. brick's right: brooks/evans/salmons is working, and precisely because salmons is deferring to his teammates, is playing the kind of role he was always going to need to play in order for him to succeed in sacramento. he's a veteran presence who knows how to keep a team involved. the kings of early-00's vintage were an absolute asterisk, a unique team of unique organization that the contemporary nba will likely never see again. it's not necessary for there to be five quarterbacks out on the court, or five guys that push the ball. brooks can spot-up from outside, make the occasional pass, and poke at the ball on defense. salmons can spot-up from outside, make the occasional pass, and likewise play passable defense. you don't need these players to do more than that when demarcus cousins and tyreke evans are your primary go-to guys. we already know that jason thompson will play his role, so if the kings have magically landed on a starting lineup in which the guard opposite 'reke and the small forward decide to play their roles effectively, rather than opt for the "green light" their head coach has foolishly given them, while also highlighting cousins' and evans' natural talents by making them better players, then you simply do not rock that boat unless the wheels completely fall off...

It has nothing to with aesthetics of having a D'Antoni offense or a Nelson offense . That's just patronizing absurdity. It has to do with getting good shot attempts. If you want to talk about letting the players be who they are, then it's absolutely ridiculous to think that this bunch can be successful in a half court slow down offense on a nightly basis. Take the youngest team in the league with collectively a low BB IQ and make them into an efficient half court offensive team? I don't think so. You might as well take the baby out of crib and enlist him in the local marathon. In the Toronto game they were successful in several fast break attempts. You might have noticed that in the Pacers and Clippers games they were terrible in running, or even attempting to run, the fast break. I highly doubt they would have won the Toronto game if they weren't as successful as they were in running the ball, and that's against a team with a record of 0.200. Now let's see if they can do that against teams with records higher than 0.200. If they don't run, they don't win.

 

[Padrino]

It has nothing to with aesthetics of having a D'Antoni offense or a Nelson offense . That's just patronizing absurdity. It has to do with getting good shot attempts. If you want to talk about letting the players be who they are, then it's absolutely ridiculous to think that this bunch can be successful in a half court slow down offense on a nightly basis. Take the youngest team in the league with collectively a low BB IQ and make them into an efficient half court offensive team? I don't think so. You might as well take the baby out of crib and enlist him in the local marathon. In the Toronto game they were successful in several fast break attempts. You might have noticed that in the Pacers and Clippers games they were terrible in running, or even attempting to run, the fast break. I highly doubt they would have won the Toronto game if they weren't as successful as they were in running the ball, and that's against a team with a record of 0.200. Now let's see if they can do that against teams with records higher than 0.200. If they don't run, they don't win.

a team must succeed in the halfcourt to have long term success in the nba. discipline must be learned in the halfcourt for that success to come, no matter your basketball IQ. however, a team need not succeed on the break to win games. either way, you misunderstand me. i am not advocating that the kings should refrain from making the most of their fast break opportunities. i already made it clear that this team does their best work on the break by way of forcing turnovers. what i am advocating is good decision-making by not treating every transition opportunity as a priority to run, because transition defenses are more athletic than they've ever been in the contemporary nba. that said, running down court as quickly as possible simply does not equate to "good shot attempts." rick adelman incessantly yanked a young jason williams from games because he'd quick-shoot three-pointers on the break. getting down court in a hurry can be poison for an undisciplined player, and we've seen countless transition opportunities botched by a young and impatient kings team because of poor decision-making. if the kings have a path to the basket, they should get after it. but "pushing the ball" is not any kind of worthwhile offensive philosophy. it is supplementary to a disciplined half court offense. get the ball down court, run pick and rolls all day long with evans and cousins. the kings have found success in such a play set. they can repeat that success nightly if they commit to it...

oh, and here's what i noted from the pacers and clippers games: tyreke evans: DNP - knee bruise...

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

We're 3-3 while those guys are shooting lights out from the field. Not a good sign.

This cannot be ignored. Those guys are shooting at a crazy clip right now.... and we have pretty good evidence that none of those players can shoot that well. But hey, I'm not going to say they haven't been good together to this point. They have.

I will also say, as someone who is not really a fan of Jimmer, Thomas, or Brooks .... I think those guys are largely interchangeable as long as the team is being run through Evans as it is right now. In fact, last night when we put Salmons at SG with Evans at PG and Johnson at SF I got very excited. I'm not sure Salmons isn't a better 'point guard' than any of the 'point guards' on our roster. The guy is averaging more assists than Brooks, Thomas, and Jimmer. I would love to see us attempt to go after another SF who can shoot it. Leave Salmons in the SG role, and run Evans as the point guard. Salmons does a better job creating than Brooks, anyway, so I don't think distribution would be any more of a problem than it already is. And our defense would get much better with Brooks out of there.

I don't like Brooks. Never have. He is effective right now because he is shooting the ball well. And as I've said before ... I don't like any of the current PG's on the roster, but I do think IT could make this unit even better. They are basically the same player on offense, and I like IT's defense / intangibles.

 

[Padrino]

This cannot be ignored. Those guys are shooting at a crazy clip right now.... and we have pretty good evidence that none of those players can shoot that well. But hey, I'm not going to say they haven't been good together to this point. They have.

I will also say, as someone who is not really a fan of Jimmer, Thomas, or Brooks .... I think those guys are largely interchangeable as long as the team is being run through Evans as it is right now. In fact, last night when we put Salmons at SG with Evans at PG and Johnson at SF I got very excited. I'm not sure Salmons isn't a better 'point guard' than any of the 'point guards' on our roster. The guy is averaging more assists than Brooks, Thomas, and Jimmer. I would love to see us attempt to go after another SF who can shoot it. Leave Salmons in the SG role, and run Evans as the point guard. Salmons does a better job creating than Brooks, anyway, so I don't think distribution would be any more of a problem than it already is. And our defense would get much better with Brooks out of there.

I don't like Brooks. Never have. He is effective right now because he is shooting the ball well. And as I've said before ... I don't like any of the current PG's on the roster, but I do think IT could make this unit even better. They are basically the same player on offense, and I like IT's defense / intangibles.

but evans IS NOT a PG!! he's NOT!! you can't run an offense through him, because he will NEVER be a PG!! the tyreke evans PG experiment failed!! we must move on!! blah. yada. etc.

 

[Section 101]

yeah, so? you're giving me basketball 101, but i'm telling you what the kings have to work with. here, i'll direct a question to the entire class: raise your hand if you can recall multiple occasions in which the kings squandered an opportunity in transition because of either poor spacing and/or poor decision-making? they often try to exploit mismatches in transition, but some combination of youth, impatience, and jitters results in a turnover or a missed basket. when they force turnovers and get out on the break, they have some success. but i would much rather that they slow the game down after securing a rebound, take their time, and develop some discipline on offense...

They miss them all the time (several a game) by not pushing the ball up the floor. If they threw it up to the wing player who was ahead they would get a lot more easy baskets.

 

[Bricklayer]

I don't like Brooks. Never have. He is effective right now because he is shooting the ball well. And as I've said before ... I don't like any of the current PG's on the roster, but I do think IT could make this unit even better. They are basically the same player on offense, and I like IT's defense / intangibles.

That is the one that has not worked, basically from the beginning. IT seems oil to Reke's water, and it just comes down to ball dominance. Is IT selfish? Well, sometimes. But more than that he's got a PG/ball dominant mentality -- I doubt a 5'9" guy wiht handles has ever played off the ball in his life. We don't want a PG. As in a guy who's instincts are to dominate the ball, and IT's definitely are.

There are again reasons why the great teams above had a bunch of incompetent boobs running the point for them. Steve Blake? Really? Derek Fisher? Damon Jones? Its not because those guys were the very best players they could find to play those posiitons. Hell, you could pull guys off the street better than that. It is because those guys stayed out of the way of the straws that stirred the drinks on those various teams. And its not unreasonable that an IT type guy would want/need the ball, anymore than its unreasonable for Reke to want/need it. Its just that you can't have them out there together fighting over the ball. Sometimes a lesser player (or at least ballhandler) can make more sense. Same way that Cousins's wingman has to be a defensive/rebounding roleplayer, not a Luis Scola.

To the degree I have not been a fan of Aaron Brooks or John Salmons, at all, it is precisely because they would NOT play like roleplayers, but rather as low grade chuckers/primary options. If they have turned over a new leaf -- and so often with roleplayers of that ilk it is precisely older vets who figure it out as a way to survive in the league -- then my objection to them drops. They can certainly be upgraded, but whoever takes their places needs to buy in the same way, play the same style. That's not really a reasonable expectation for a 5'9" ball dominant PG just trying to establish himself in the league.

 

[Kingster]

a team must succeed in the halfcourt to have long term success in the nba. discipline must be learned in the halfcourt for that success to come, no matter your basketball IQ. however, a team need not succeed on the break to win games. either way, you misunderstand me. i am not advocating that the kings should refrain from making the most of their fast break opportunities. i already made it clear that this team does their best work on the break by way of forcing turnovers. what i am advocating is good decision-making by not treating every transition opportunity as a priority to run, because transition defenses are more athletic than they've ever been in the contemporary nba. that said, running down court as quickly as possible simply does not equate to "good shot attempts." rick adelman incessantly yanked a young jason williams from games because he'd quick-shoot three-pointers on the break. getting down court in a hurry can be poison for an undisciplined player, and we've seen countless transition opportunities botched by a young and impatient kings team because of poor decision-making. if the kings have a path to the basket, they should get after it. but "pushing the ball" is not any kind of worthwhile offensive philosophy. it is supplementary to a disciplined half court offense. get the ball down court, run pick and rolls all day long with evans and cousins. the kings have found success in such a play set. they can repeat that success nightly if they commit to it...

oh, and here's what i noted from the pacers and clippers games: tyreke evans: DNP - knee bruise...

I'm sorry, but I stopped reading after the first sentence. Long term success? Please. This team is a bottom quartile team and you're talking "long term"? Get them out of the stroller and then we'll talk about getting them lessons for two-step.

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

That is the one that has not worked, basically from the beginning. IT seems oil to Reke's water, and it just comes down to ball dominance. Is IT selfish? Well, sometimes. But more than that he's got a PG/ball dominant mentality -- I doubt a 5'9" guy wiht handles has ever played off the ball in his life. We don't want a PG. As in a guy who's instincts are to dominate the ball, and IT's definitely are.

There are again reasons why the great teams above had a bunch of incompetent boobs running the point for them. Steve Blake? Really? Derek Fisher? Damon Jones? Its not because those guys were the very best players they could find to play those posiitons. Hell, you could pull guys off the street better than that. It is because those guys stayed out of the way of the straws that stirred the drinks on those various teams. And its not unreasonable that an IT type guy would want/need the ball, anymore than its unreasonable for Reke to want/need it. Its just that you can't have them out there together fighting over the ball. Sometimes a lesser player (or at least ballhandler) can make more sense. Same way that Cousins's wingman has to be a defensive/rebounding roleplayer, not a Luis Scola.

To the degree I have not been a fan of Aaron Brooks or John Salmons, at all, it is precisely because they would NOT play like roleplayers, but rather as low grade chuckers/primary options. If they have turned over a new leaf -- and so often with roleplayers of that ilk it is precisely older vets who figure it out as a way to survive in the league -- then my objection to them drops. They can certainly be upgraded, but whoever takes their places needs to buy in the same way, play the same style. That's not really a reasonable expectation for a 5'9" ball dominant PG just trying to establish himself in the league.

I don't disagree, I just .. I have seen nothing out of Aaron Brooks, for his entire career until now, that suggests he isn't the exact same guy IT is, aside from being worse defensively, with less intangibles, and on a shorter term contract with less potential.

Brooks has always been the short (not IT short, but short) ball dominant, chucking PG. He isn't doing that right now because Evans has the ball. When IT and Evans have been on the court together, IT has had the ball, for the most part. Is that by design or is that IT taking the ball? I don't know. If this is Smart saying 'Tyreke is the main ball handler' then I would hope we could throw IT in there instead of Brooks and not miss a beat. Of course, I don't know if this would be the case, but that would be the idea.

3-3 with this lineup is great based on how terribly bad this season has gone. We should still be looking for ways to improve.

I just don't know if this is Brooks and Salmons turning into the vet/roleplayer like you said, or Smart realizing this team is best when Evans has the ball. I hope it's the latter for a lot of different reasons. For one, it would restore some of my confidence in Keith Smart.

I will say that for Salmons ... he has kind of been this guy since he moved to the bench last season. He was pretty good in the same way he has been pretty good this season when he was leading the bench unit last season until he got hurt. Which is to say ... he is still terribly overpaid, but kind of valuable.

I also don't want to lose the asset we had last year in Isaiah Thomas. He was turning into a valuable piece.

 

[pshn80]

This combination has worked (if you can call .500 mostly at home working) because Evans has hit his outside shots. If he hits his outside shots it won't really matter who he plays with. The team will be much, much better.

How do you think re gets open shots to make? Because of who he plays with at the other two positions. That's the whole point of this thread. And I like this combo right now because of that.

 

[Npliam]

How do you think re gets open shots to make? Because of who he plays with at the other two positions. That's the whole point of this thread. And I like this combo right now because of that.

Reke can get open for jump shots all day long regardless of who else is on the floor. He can get to the rim at will and player sag off him. This line up of Brooks and Salmons is fine but it isn't the reason for Reke getting open for and hitting jumpers.

 

[pshn80]

but evans IS NOT a PG!! he's NOT!! you can't run an offense through him, because he will NEVER be a PG!! the tyreke evans PG experiment failed!! we must move on!! blah. yada. etc.

A little extreme but basically I agree. Reke handling the ball can be just great but not as the primary. Not with this roster. And that's where we are

 

[pshn80]

Reke can get open for jump shots all day long regardless of who else is on the floor. He can get to the rim at will and player sag off him. This line up of Brooks and Salmons is fine but it isn't the reason for Reke getting open for and hitting jumpers.

Yes, but it hasn't worked with other combos so, if you're right
I don't care because it is working better now. So we're at 3-3, let's not change it and move to 1-5.

 

[HereWeBoogie]

If we had an Ibaka next to Cousins,

god that would be amazing. this team would be leaps and bounds better. especially now that Ibaka has greatly improved his offensive game

 

[mac]

I'm sorry, but I stopped reading after the first sentence. Long term success? Please. This team is a bottom quartile team and you're talking "long term"? Get them out of the stroller and then we'll talk about getting them lessons for two-step.

Some pretty good vision you've got going on there. Yay, teach the team to run run run so that we can get an extra 5 wins for the season, then spend another 2 seasons getting 30 wins while we teach them to play in the halfcourt.