Cisco talking about Kevin and his defense.
source: http://www.sacbee.com/kings/story/1787411.html
No Cisco isn't making excuses for Kevin -- he's merely passing along Kevin's excuses for himself.
Kevin didn't play any defense last year either. It wasn't the ankle. It was an emerging prima donna. Yeah, in 2005 Kevin was "all defense" or whatever for about the first two months of the season because he wasn't playing and he actually thought he had to work to get on the court. But then Bonzi got hurt, Kevin started scoring, and with all the accolades, guaranteed money, ESPN highlights etc. that scoring brought that whole hard work/defense thing went right out the door. And as Kevin's stamina has never been very good, obviously you have to choose one or the other, either scoring or defense but not both. Just as long as Kevin gets his scoring numbers, Kevin thinks he's doing his job. Its classic megasoft stuff. In football he would be the soft little wide receiver who won't throw a block or go over the middle. In baseball he'd be the slap singles hitter who only drives in 40 RBI a year but makes sure to keep that average over .300. And as long as people keep on making excuses for him, or passing along his own excuses, he has no reason to get much better. Only way to get somebody back once they've headed down that road is to let them know that you are singularly unimpressed and get into their pride.
As an aside, the fact that Kevin showed he could defend when he felt he needed to has long been the part that sticks in the craw with him. Some guys just physically may legitimately never be able to do much on defense. Kevin himself is too weak to ever be a stopper, but he's quick enough that he should at the very least be an impediment and a pest. Unfortunately he is only quick on the side of the ball that matters to him, and only develops a limp when its time to play defense.
To relate that back to the coaching search, while there is no reason why the leading scorer on a 17 win team should have any appreciable power at all, our front office rather ridiculously seemed to hitch their wagon to Kevin several years ago, going so far as to hire his agent as part of the front office. In that kind of setting, how is a coach ever supposed to lay down the law on defense? If you bring in an Avery or a Van Gundy or even an Ettore and they press the issue and Kevin whines, who gets marked out as the bad guy? Natt implied that he felt restricted by his interim status from playing the tough guy -- the implication being that if he did the players would whine and he'd get fired for it. Now that was Natt himself making excuses, but the dynamic is a legitimate concern. There is no reason whatsoever why any player currently on the Kings should have whine power as if he's a superstar, but if one of them does, who can you hire as coach who would have enough power to overcome that? Heard the Wizards made overtures to Pat Riley before settling on Flip. Maybe we should as well.
