Andre Miller

#31
I'm not getting the sentiment of this off-the-ball vs. on-the-ball chasm where a player is either/or. Ray Allen is a perfect example. He can play ON THE BALL and take his guy off the dribble to the basket or create a defensive breakdown to pass it and create offense for a teammate. He's also excellent at playing off the ball, coming off screens, finding the open passing lane to receive the ball, etc, etc etc. IT's not either/or. GREAT NBA teams TODAY typically have one alpha-dog who's EXCELLENT with the ball in his hands(Reke for the Kings) one BETA-dog(typically a post player that can get his shot on the block - Cousins potentially) and has a varied amount of role player that can play on or off the ball.

If you don't have that variety your team's offense becomes predictable and stagnant. It's not an either/or it's more of a spectrum.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#32
I'm a big believer in looking at what a player can do, and not what he can't do. Now what a player can do is only important if it outweighs what he can't do by a large margin. That happens to be the case with Tyreke. All the great coaches, coach in a way that plays to the strengths of their players. One of the reasons I've always thought Pat Riley was a great coach, was that he adapted to the talent he had, and not the other way around. If you look at the showtime Lakers and then the Patrick Ewing Knicks, they were two entirely different teams with totally different personalities. Riley didn't get a championship out of the Knicks, but he got the most out of that team.

Reggie Miller was one of the best spot up shooters of all time. No one tried to make him into something he wasn't.. If you have a player thats outstanding at a certain part of the game over all the other parts of the game, you try to utilitize that strength as much as you possibly can. Thats not an arguement against refining the weaker parts of a players game. Its an arguement for putting the player in an offense where the weaker parts aren't exposed.

What does that mean exactly. It means surrounding your core players with complimentry players, and not the other way around. If Tyreke's weakness, at least in the short term is inconsistent outside shooting, then you put players on the floor with him that can shoot the ball. If Cousins weakness, at least in the short term is interior defense, then you put a good interior defender next to him. What you don't do, is take a player that can't handle the ball well and have him constantly drive to the basket.

Tyreke is a player that is most effective when he has the ball in his hands. The same can be said of Cousins. What needs to be refined in both cases, is how well they utilize that time. And, putting players around them, that give them as many options as possible to use their respective talents. Anyone that has played sports at a high level, knows, that except for a few egotistical exceptions, everyone on the team just wants to win. I doubt most players in the NBA know how many points they've scored or how many rebounds and assists they have while the game is going on. I'll bet most don't even know the score at times. They're too caught up in playing the game. It was always harder for me to watch a game than to play in one.

If your a point guard thats trying to win the game, and you have players around you that you trust and believe in, your more likely to put the ball in their hands when the game is on the line. If you don't have that trust, your less likely to share the ball. Now we can argue the right or wrong of that, but its a reality that occurs across the NBA on a nightly basis. Its a fine line that separates five individuals from being a team. And teams win! So to my mind, putting the right players around Evans and Cousins is very important. They have to be complimentry players, but they also have to be good players.
 
#33
section 101 would trade Reke for the janitor if he could. Reke is the very worst thing to happen to Kings basketball since there has been Kings basketball. Just chalk it up to silly and ignore.
Really? So basically Evans for the #3+#13 and Gerald Wallace isnt a fair deal for the Kings? Then Beno for Miller. Kings can get Knight at #3 as the future PG. Can get another shooting guard at #7 or #12 or may be even package the #7 +#12 for #4 and get Kantor, Vesely or Valenciunas. Miller would be the PG mentor for next year.
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#34
Really? So basically Evans for the #3+#13 and Gerald Wallace isnt a fair deal for the Kings? Then Beno for Miller. Kings can get Knight at #3 as the future PG. Can get another shooting guard at #7 or #12 or may be even package the #7 +#12 for #4 and get Kantor, Vesely or Valenciunas. Miller would be the PG mentor for next year.
Its really silly and farfetched enough its not even worth talking about. Go blow up the team on NBA Live if you must.
 

Spike

Subsidiary Intermediary
Staff member
#35
Really? So basically Evans for the #3+#13 and Gerald Wallace isnt a fair deal for the Kings? Then Beno for Miller. Kings can get Knight at #3 as the future PG. Can get another shooting guard at #7 or #12 or may be even package the #7 +#12 for #4 and get Kantor, Vesely or Valenciunas. Miller would be the PG mentor for next year.
Maybe if it were the 1984 draft, so long as we take Stockton with the #13 instead of Humphries.