Achilles heel...

[VF21]

Corliss has limited offensive ability? You're kidding, right? Corliss' main strength is his ability to score points.

Per 48 minutes, he averaged 23.3 points per game last year. That's more per game than Bonzi Wells, Kenyon Martin, Cuttino Mobley, Andrei Kirilenko, Reggie Miller, Chauncey Billips, Steve Nash, Chris Bosh, and Joe Johnson. The man can put points on the board. In fact, that is why he is in this league.

Corliss' drawback is the is does not do the other things well.

Corliss is NOT a viable offensive threat in the current scheme of things as far as the Kings go. And the 23.3 ppg stat is pretty misleading, considering he's not going to be playing 48 minutes a week, let alone 48 minutes per game.

I like Big Nasty. Liked him last time he was here, too. But he's not on the Kings because of his incredible scoring talents. His role is more on the defensive end, as he's shown multiple times that he's not adverse to playing inside, he actually seems to thrive on "borderline" defensive play, and he's about the closest thing we have to an "enforcer."

 

[Coach]

Instead of making general proclamations, perhaps you can provide some evidence to support your assertion.

Per 48 minutes Corliss (23.3) scores almost as much as Peja (25.2), Bibby (24.4.), and Abdur-Rahim (23.4). The only reason he is not an offensive scoring threat right now is because it is pretty tough to score while sitting on the bench.

To say he is here for his defensive abilities is laughable. That's like saying Skinner is here for his offensive abilities.

 

[Warhawk]

To say he is here for his defensive abilities is laughable. That's like saying Skinner is here for his offensive abilities.

Actually, Corliss can be pretty effective on the defensive end, especially when he can body up on a guy.

 

[SkinnerBox]

ps it is hegemonic to impose a standard of precise meanings on all words, when for entire communities those words and signifiers take on entirely new meaning. Language is always fluid, trying to impose linguistic standards never ends well.

fo sho...

 

[Bricklayer]

Actually, Corliss can be pretty effective on the defensive end, especially when he can body up on a guy.

Actually ONLY when he put a body on a guy. He's both laterally and vertically challenged, so the only guys he can defend are pure strength on strength earthmovers who try to go through you rather than over or around you. Fortson, Shaq etc.

 

[HndsmCelt]

ps it is hegemonic to impose a standard of precise meanings on all words, when for entire communities those words and signifiers take on entirely new meaning. Language is always fluid, trying to impose linguistic standards never ends well.

I never argued for rigid and precise meanings for all words, rather I bemoned the constant attempts to INVERSE meanings that inevitaly last a few years but become the ONLY meaning some young people honestly understand beceause overly liberal and in involved parents/teachers/reporters/name your own memeber of society never bother to straighten them out. For example I have class rooms full of college studnets who have no clue what so ever what the word "chronic" means EXCEPT a bag of weed. The other example is when I have to wonder what some one means when they say a palyer has "raw" tallent.

 

[SacTownKid]

Don't worry everybody, Spree is on the way!

 

[NumberFour]

I really wish we could've kept Eddie House. He'd be a great back up shooter for Bibby and Bonzi. Is Garcia really supposed to be that much more talented? The few times I've seem him out there he's just jacked up a bunch of ill-advised threes. Martin has looked good at times though.

 

[Kings113]

I really wish we could've kept Eddie House. He'd be a great back up shooter for Bibby and Bonzi. Is Garcia really supposed to be that much more talented? The few times I've seem him out there he's just jacked up a bunch of ill-advised threes. Martin has looked good at times though.

Well, if you know about his abilitlies and watched pre-season, then you'd know he's more than a 3-pt shooter. That must be what he's told to do or something... he is our only guy capable with long-range off the bench. Regardless, you can't and probably shouldn't judge him on his season-play so far.

 

[Kingsgurl]

You can bet your last dollar jacking up ill-advised shots is NOT what he 'was told to do' It's a rookie thing. He will come to understand what constitutes a good shot over time. He's a solid YOUNG player who will make mistakes.

I didn't understand who you were refering to in the last sentence. No one was really decent in that first game.

 

[Kings113]

You can bet your last dollar jacking up ill-advised shots is NOT what he 'was told to do' It's a rookie thing. He will come to understand what constitutes a good shot over time. He's a solid YOUNG player who will make mistakes.

I didn't understand who you were refering to in the last sentence. No one was really decent in that first game.

Well, not all of them have been ill-advised, but a handful, yes.

I got mixed up with something else, and edited it out 5 minutes ago or so. Just for the record, 'Reef had 14 and 8 in it.

 

[Kingsgurl]

I certainly never said all his shots were ill-advised. He does have a penchant for firing away, however. It's a youth thing, NOT a 'what he was told to do' thing was my only point.

Just for the record, 'Reef had 14 and 8 in it.

Sucking slightly LESS then your compatriots in that game is not a ringing endorsement. That game should be written off. I wish I could forget the vision of every part of it

 

[Kings113]

I certainly never said all his shots were ill-advised. He does have a penchant for firing away, however. It's a youth thing, NOT a 'what he was told to do' thing was my only point.



Sucking slightly LESS then your compatriots in that game is not a ringing endorsement. That game should be written off. I wish I could forget the vision of every part of it

Okay, yeah. But I think the "told" ties into the "not all". Didn't mean it that literally. Rick's never spoken out about it yet, I don't think.

I don't think SAR was in an area of suck there. That's all.

 

[VF21]

Instead of making general proclamations, perhaps you can provide some evidence to support your assertion.

Per 48 minutes Corliss (23.3) scores almost as much as Peja (25.2), Bibby (24.4.), and Abdur-Rahim (23.4). The only reason he is not an offensive scoring threat right now is because it is pretty tough to score while sitting on the bench.

To say he is here for his defensive abilities is laughable. That's like saying Skinner is here for his offensive abilities.

To be brutally honest, the ONLY reason Corliss is here is because he was part of a trade last February you might remember hearing about. IF that trade had not gone down, I seriously doubt if he'd be back here.

My point was that he isn't going to be utilized in our system as a prime offensive option. It just ain't gonna happen. I, of course, cannot provide evidence of that before the fact. Check back with me after a couple of months, however, and I think the evidence will pretty much stand out in those stats you're so fond of.

 

[Coach]

No, you did not say that Corliss wasn't going to be utlized in our system. You said Corliss "has limited offensive ability." To further emphasize your point you said that "Adelman did exactly the right thing by not bringing him off the bench."

Nice backpedal though.

 

[outsider62]

Instead of making general proclamations, perhaps you can provide some evidence to support your assertion.

Per 48 minutes Corliss (23.3) scores almost as much as Peja (25.2), Bibby (24.4.), and Abdur-Rahim (23.4). The only reason he is not an offensive scoring threat right now is because it is pretty tough to score while sitting on the bench.

To say he is here for his defensive abilities is laughable. That's like saying Skinner is here for his offensive abilities.

You compare Corliss per 48 statistics with our starters statistics per game, not per 48 minutes. That's big difference. Anyway, Corliss can't guard anyone against fast atlethic opponents. Another reason I hope is that we want to develop our yung players.

 

[Coach]

No I didn't. Those were all per 48 minutes. Sorry if that was not clear.

 

[Kingsgurl]

Okay, yeah. But I think the "told" ties into the "not all". Didn't mean it that literally. Rick's never spoken out about it yet, I don't think.

I don't think SAR was in an area of suck there. That's all.

Adelman has stated that he likes how Cisco has played (in the pre-season) and likes his potential and that he just needs to work on his shot selection, so there you have it. This was a radio interview, so being as you are in NY I know you can't hear those.
He also said the same thing about Kevin (minus the shot selection thing) and said the young guys just need time to play and get comfortable. That he was going to try to mix them in with the starters and set them up to succeed, rather than trying to throw them out there all together like he did in the pre-season (evaluating too many players not to) or the Hornets game where no one played very well.

 

[deviflux]

Corliss has limited offensive ability? You're kidding, right? Corliss' main strength is his ability to score points.

If it is, he doesn't have any strong points.
His strength is good defense.

Per 48 minutes, he averaged 23.3 points per game last year. That's more per game than Bonzi Wells, Kenyon Martin, Cuttino Mobley, Andrei Kirilenko, Reggie Miller, Chauncey Billips, Steve Nash, Chris Bosh, and Joe Johnson. The man can put points on the board. In fact, that is why he is in this league.

That's the danger of PER48s. They aren't realistic indicators, or predictors, of performance.

Corliss average high numbers because he was fresh off the bench. Playing against scrubs or a tired first team.

It's a LOT easier to get impressive PER48s as a bench player, because of rest and the exponent of time, than it is as a starter.

You just can't compare it like that and expect to have a very strong argument.

Especially when the guy you are talking about has NEVER come close to 20PPG in a season.... much less 24.

 

[Bricklayer]

Hmm...seem to be sort of circling the issue somewhat. Corliss's M.O. is very well established at this point:

Offense: potent low post scorer against weaker SFs, modestly effective against larger players. Perimeter skills, shooting, ballhandling etc. all mediocre at best.

Defense: strong, but not quick or tall. Can defend guys who rely on strength, but not those who rely on quickness, athleticism, or height.

Rebounding: Comes and goes, and obviously better at SF than PF or C. Again, no height or leaping ability. Can get offensive boards, but guys frequently just reach right over him.

Corliss is a specialist with a well defined game. He either is a good offensive player or a bad one, depending on what aspect you are talking about. And a good defender in the right matchups, but otherwise unequipped physically to match many opponents. The quick guys go around him, the tall guys go over him. You get him in the right situations, he can be potent. But in general usage he's got a lot of limitations.

 

[Coach]

From ESPN's John Hollinger:

"At either forward spot, Williamson is a strong scorer to bring in off the bench. He averaged over 19 points per 40 minutes for a fourth straight season thanks to a variety of post moves and drives from the high post. However, Williamson can't start because he's a defensive liability. Defensively, he's a step slow at small forward and his lack of height makes him an easy target at power forward. While Williamson is strong enough to root opponents out of prime real estate, he can do almost nothing once his opponent catches the ball."

Also, deviflux, in Corliss' one season as a starter for the Kings he averaged 17.7 points per game.

 

[deviflux]

From ESPN's John Hollinger:

"At either forward spot, Williamson is a strong scorer to bring in off the bench. He averaged over 19 points per 40 minutes for a fourth straight season thanks to a variety of post moves and drives from the high post. However, Williamson can't start because he's a defensive liability. Defensively, he's a step slow at small forward and his lack of height makes him an easy target at power forward. While Williamson is strong enough to root opponents out of prime real estate, he can do almost nothing once his opponent catches the ball."

Oh boy, a quote from an overpaid ESPN analyst. He MUST be right.

Corliss is a GREAT defender. The problem isn't his effort on defense or his defensive skill ... it's his size (and due to age - speed). In limited time, Corliss can lock someone down. But, the issue is longitivity at the spot. He'd get beat down as the season wore on.

Also, deviflux, in Corliss' one season as a starter for the Kings he averaged 17.7 points per game.

17.7 is NO WHERE in the same ballpark as 20 PPG nor 24 PPG. The number of people scoring 20PPG decreases dramatically from the number that score 17-18. The number of people scoring 24 is exponentially smaller. Also - that 17.7 was a LOOOOOONG time ago.

 

[linzeesan]

I never argued for rigid and precise meanings for all words, rather I bemoned the constant attempts to INVERSE meanings that inevitaly last a few years but become the ONLY meaning some young people honestly understand beceause overly liberal and in involved parents/teachers/reporters/name your own memeber of society never bother to straighten them out. For example I have class rooms full of college studnets who have no clue what so ever what the word "chronic" means EXCEPT a bag of weed. The other example is when I have to wonder what some one means when they say a palyer has "raw" tallent.

Ok, that is officially the funniest (and at the same time saddest) thing I've heard all day, but it's so true.

 

[Kings113]

Adelman has stated that he likes how Cisco has played (in the pre-season) and likes his potential and that he just needs to work on his shot selection, so there you have it. This was a radio interview, so being as you are in NY I know you can't hear those.
He also said the same thing about Kevin (minus the shot selection thing) and said the young guys just need time to play and get comfortable. That he was going to try to mix them in with the starters and set them up to succeed, rather than trying to throw them out there all together like he did in the pre-season (evaluating too many players not to) or the Hornets game where no one played very well.

Ah, I see.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

last time i remember the word "raw" meant good. anyways, i definately belive that our backup 2-guard position is amongst the least productive. martin is just plain awful...

I have been less than impressed with Martin's play on the court, all things considered, but he hasn't embarrassed himself on the court, the way that Garcia has at times; I get the sense that at least half the people here who talk about how much better Garcia is than Martin are consciously rooting for Martin to fail, which vexes me.

I don't disagree that Garcia could become better than Martin, in that I think that Martin's potential will top out as a 2nd-tier pure SG, whereas Garcia's potential will likely top out as a 2nd-tier G/F. But, in my opinion, the vocal proclamations by many that Garcia is better than Martin right now are just plain silly. Martin, at worst, has looked like he should be nailed to the bench. Garcia, to this point in the (regular) season, has not looked like he belongs in the NBA.

 

[nbrans]

I have been less than impressed with Martin's play on the court, all things considered, but he hasn't embarrassed himself on the court, the way that Garcia has at times; I get the sense that at least half the people here who talk about how much better Garcia is than Martin are consciously rooting for Martin to fail, which vexes me.

I don't disagree that Garcia could become better than Martin, in that I think that Martin's potential will top out as a 2nd-tier pure SG, whereas Garcia's potential will likely top out as a 2nd-tier G/F. But, in my opinion, the vocal proclamations by many that Garcia is better than Martin right now are just plain silly. Martin, at worst, has looked like he should be nailed to the bench. Garcia, to this point in the (regular) season, has not looked like he belongs in the NBA.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[deviflux]

Martin, at worst, has looked like he should be nailed to the bench. Garcia, to this point in the (regular) season, has not looked like he belongs in the NBA.

Yes, but Martin looks like Khe belongs in the 80s with Kid N' Play.

Or perhaps he is Kid ... I always wondered what happened to him ... now I know.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Yes, but Martin looks like Khe belongs in the 80s with Kid N' Play...

....


I'm sure that this is sarcasm of some kind; at least I hope it is. And, if not... eh, I won't go there; I'm being nice today...

 

[deviflux]

....


I'm sure that this is sarcasm of some kind; at least I hope it is. And, if not... eh, I won't go there; I'm being nice today...

Of course it's sarcasm and a joke, but you don't see the resemblance?

When Kid ... errr ... Martin steps out on the floor ... all I can see is Kid from Kid N Play ... except a shorter hairstyle.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I don't see the resemblance, but I've also never studied his face, either. I've honestly never given the matter any thought; I don't care what athletes look like. If a guy can put up 22/10/5, he can look like the Elephant Man, for all I care...