I'm one of the biggest Reke supporters here, but I think it's only fair to also note that sometimes stats don't show everything. There are times when Reke makes a pass too late or hands it off to someone for a bad shot. That doesn't show up on the stat sheet as a TO or missed shot, but it amounts to a bad possession for the team. Objectively speaking, he is still more error-prone than we would like him to be. What his detractors fail to realize or simply choose to overlook is that he has made big steps in that regard and will only continue to improve, especially under a coach who isn't moving him around to different positions and roles every other game, or switching up lineups so he isn't comfortable with the guys on the floor with him.
Chad Ford says Pacers and Kings discussing Jimmer Trade
- Thread starter t-rex
- Start date
I'm one of the biggest Reke supporters here, but I think it's only fair to also note that sometimes stats don't show everything. There are times when Reke makes a pass too late or hands it off to someone for a bad shot. That doesn't show up on the stat sheet as a TO or missed shot, but it amounts to a bad possession for the team. Objectively speaking, he is still more error-prone than we would like him to be. What his detractors fail to realize or simply choose to overlook is that he has made big steps in that regard and will only continue to improve, especially under a coach who isn't moving him around to different positions and roles every other game, or switching up lineups so he isn't comfortable with the guys on the floor with him.
How many times did he drive into the lane only to find that a teammate shifted over and brought his defender with him, making it easy to collapse on Evans? How many times did teammates just stand around instead of moving to find an opening in the defense to allow for an easy pass?
Make no mistake, things were a total clusterpoop last year all around. Evans certainly wasn't the only one to blame here for bad shot selection, but if anything, the stats are encouraging, especially with an incoming regime that might know how to use the advantageously.
I think we'll finally see consistency. But, I also think it's going to be pretty ugly until the roster improves. At the very least, if we can move two of the duplicitous pieces, we'll be in a good spot. (Bringing it back to Jimmer...) I think one more of either IT or Thornton still need to be moved as well.
Make no mistake, things were a total clusterpoop last year all around. Evans certainly wasn't the only one to blame here for bad shot selection, but if anything, the stats are encouraging, especially with an incoming regime that might know how to use the advantageously.
I think we'll finally see consistency. But, I also think it's going to be pretty ugly until the roster improves. At the very least, if we can move two of the duplicitous pieces, we'll be in a good spot. (Bringing it back to Jimmer...) I think one more of either IT or Thornton still need to be moved as well.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
On the one hand he has a high shooting percentage like you say. On the other he has 11.8 FGA a game. Connect the dots. Who are the guys that have the highest FG% in the NBA? And would you then give them twice as many shots because of it? I think you are analyzing these stats incorrectly. The fact that Kobe and Harden are taking considerably more shots and have .504 eFG% is precisely why they are better players than Tyreke, not cause for giving Tyreke more shots.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
Well, there is more than one way to look at it: Either the coach is arbitrarily moving Tyreke from position to position like you say, or there is in fact cause for having difficulty in knowing what position Tyreke should play. Is Tyreke a man without a position? (That's not a rhetorical question).
Last edited:
Kingster
Hall of Famer
See my response above to Brick. I think it's short sighted and simplistic to look at these stats in this manner. Why not just double the shot attempts of the highest FG% players in the NBA if you want to go down that road? Shouldn't every top 10 FG% guy get at least twice the number of shots? Nirvana would be at hand. This argument confuses cause and effect. I think I know exactly what I'm watching and it's a guy who is very limited in his game. These faux stat interpretations aren't going to cover up for his weaknesses. I applaud him taking fewer better shots and increasing his FG%. That's exactly what he should be doing. When he improves on those weaknesses and adds more offensive variety to his game, THEN it makes sense to increase his shot attempts. And sure, if Tyreke plays with four other guys that can spread the floor, you bet it would help.
All I can say is this. With Tyreke at PG in his first year we won 25 games, and fans complained about stagnant ball movement and what not. 3 years later, our team won a grand total of 3 more games, and that's with the addition of Cousins, Isaiah Thomas and an improved JT. For all the talk of the Kings having one of the top scoring and best offenses in the league we won 3 more games. Make no mistake, Tyreke is no automatic all star. He could put up all-star numbers if we just gave him the ball like in his first year, but we don't, and he's sacrificed a lot of potential stat padding in order to try to become a better team player. It's only hurt his value, as now we can see countless guys on this forum saying he deserves no more than Marcus Thornton. To be honest the only reason why Tyreke's been moved around is because he's got the versatility to play 3 different positions and is one of our more talented players. That and because Keith Smart had no patience to try and let him develop at PG. You've defended IT many times saying he's only in his second year and PG is a hard position etc, so I don't see why that patience was not extended to Evans.
The fact is, neither you nor I know how good Tyreke will be 3 years down the road. What I do know is that he has not been given the time to develop any consistency at any position, and that our team hasn't benefited from it either. It's not as if Smart moving him to SF suddenly netted us 10 more wins because we became so much better without him handling the ball. And because he hasn't had the luxury of being given such consistency, I don't see how you or I can possibly say that he will never be successful at a certain position. Nobody has ever said that Tyreke was a natural PG (one of the hardest positions to learn mind you). But what I do know is that he showed great potential in his rookie season despite being a "one trick pony" as you say, and knowing full well that our team has to hold onto talent when we can I think the best option is to give him some time to actually develop a consistent game. And to say that he has not improved in his weaker areas is pure hogwash. You keep calling him limited, yet I keep coming back to the fact that he was the frigin ROY, and we won all of 3 games less with a much less talented team.
In any case I'm sick of going back and forth with you. You've made up your mind on Evans a long long time ago and there's nothing he can do short of averaging 30/10/10 for you to be happy with him. He could just take and make 2 more layups a game to bump his ppg to 20 and you'd call him limited because he was scoring all 20 points on layups. Let's just see who's right 2 years from now.
Last edited:
Rookie
Starter
I think a good coach will find a place for Tyreke. IMO WP and Smart are the worst at using players talents and playing them to their strength. They just rotate and move players around until they win a game.
I'm not saying that it isn't a possibility. But Tryeke did whatever it is that a coach asked of him and I think with WP and Smart, he did himself a disservice.
Just a side thought.
Crossing fingers we don't lose him and hopefully with the right coach our young talents actually reach their potential or close to it. Right now they are so far off that I wanted to punch myself for ever defending WP and Smart during their first year.
Gary
All-Star
Well I think I am the only one in my group. I just don't want Evans at PG for more than a few minutes a game. He's not an NBA caliber PG (in regards to playing PG full time) so that either leaves SF or SG. SF is definitely not a full time position either, but I don't mind him playing a few minutes here and there at that position, not unlike the PG position.
So if he were to get 35mins it would be something like 7min PG - 23min SG - 5min SF. That's perfectly fine with me depending on who we are facing.
That's the group I am in.
I disagree slightly. WP actually had the team running pretty decently in Cousins' rookie year - guys were playing to their strengths quite a bit, but they were truly a young and inexperienced team. With Smart I feel the issue is that he's simply not a good coach and was unable to devise a system for everyone to play well together. Thus, he had to rely on playing his best players to hopefully win some games. As IT and MT are pretty much stuck in their position due to their size, it was Tyreke who suffered and was moved to SF. That being said, Keith Smart went on to prove my theory wrong in benching Cuz and Tyreke and even IT for large stretches, so I really can't tell what on earth was wrong with that man.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
I disagree with none of the above.
What I think is often missing in Kings fans is perspective. Yes, Tyreke sometimes drives and makes a mistake. But I often get the impression that people simply do not watch enough of the rest of the NBA. James Harden has games where he makes a months' worth of Reke mistakes in one night. Manu Ginobili just got done dumping all over his legacy with terrible decisionmaking game after game in the deep playoff run. Guys make mistakes, top guys. And the fact of the matter is, Reke is actually making less of them at this point than a number of people Kings fans thoughtlessly throw around as superior players.
In both cases, Smart comes off as an idiot. Maybe he also thought (I love using the past tense for Smart) shooting guards should only shoot, small forwards should be small, and point guards should point. He did have Evans in a 4 guard lineup, so he did recognize that Evans had power, so maybe we should credit him there. [<--sarcasm, for those who didn't catch it]
Evans is only without a position because our bottom barrel coaching had bottom barrel brains. THAT was clear for everyone to see. Fans tend to get stuck on positions, but good coaches identify roles. You can see that with most of the upper level teams, and you'll notice that they all do it differently, but they do it with consistency. Sometimes the PG handles the ball, sometimes they're used for spacing, but the roles never change, unless due to injury.
Smart had Evans at PG for about 10 games at the start. Our record at that time wasn't too shabby. Then he abandoned defense. Then he moved Evans around because he wanted....well, you should know this by now. We moved from ISO to high post to "Globetrottering" (seriously, and people still defend the guy!), and at no point did any of us know what was coming, unless it was the end of a period, then we saw the 1-4 flat, with everyone standing still. 1-4 isn't bad, but it wasn't used correctly.
If that sounds like a competent coach, then hey, you've said all that needs to be said.
Last edited:
I recall praising you a while back for at least being objective and consistent in your stand. You've given credit where credit's been due, and you simply feel that Evans is never going to be a good PG based on the two seasons we saw him at that position. I don't have much of an issue with that because your guess is as good as mine as to whether he will ever be able to master that position. At least you realize the strides he's made and acknowledge that he can be a good SG.
Gary
All-Star
Thanks
My dad went to Memphis so we have seen a LOT of Evans before he came to the Kings. My dad is a Memphis nut. IF Evans were to get more and more time at PG and if he was able to develop his skills I would have no problem giving him a lot more time there. I would even come here and say I was wrong. That being said I am REALLY exited to have Reke at SG this year with, for all intents and purposes, a decent coaching staff. I am hoping his market value doesn't soar so high as to the coaching staff not wanting to take a chance on him. We shall see though! I think believe he will have made strides this summer and can be a decent shooter this year. Crossing my fingers!
MassachusettsKingsFan
All-Star
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/48342
These two quotes are from Chad Fords chat on ESPN today.
Interesting part for me is the idea that the Kings could trade down entirely instead of just dealing Jimmer for a second first rounder. Utah has two picks this year, #14 and #21 ... I wouldn't do #7 for #14 and #21, but all along we've heard that the Kings love Snell and Hardaway JR, and none of the top picks. That is one easy way to make sure you get the guys you want. I hope we do something more creative.
Other than a pick swap, the Jazz have young guys I'd certainly take. Assuming Favors is off the table, but I still love Kanter or Hayward. Alec Burks not as much.
Much rather just keep our pick and swap Jimmer for another first if that is on the table. I'd give them just about everything for Favors if that was even a possibility.
t-rex
Bench
i'm thinking Jimmer will be the first one shipped out. Probably tomorrow night. Will it be Indiana, Utah, or somewhere else?? The NBA draft should be fun.
HereWeBoogie
Hall of Famer
im perfectly fine with Jimmer being gone. if we can turn him into a pick for Jamal Franklin,Dennis Schroeder, Gorgue Dieng, Tony Snell, Tim Hardaway Jr. then i think its a win.
HereWeBoogie
Hall of Famer
id really like to see the kings go for Jamal Franklin later in the first round. i heard he has been outplaying Macklemore and all of the top prospects in the workouts.
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
This is simply an agenda against Reke, not giving him credit and suggesting his increased FG% is due to averaging less FGA's than any improvement on his part. As a 20 yr old he shot 46% on 16 FGA's per game. Last season about 48% on under 12 FGA's per game.
That flies in the face of the theory his increased FG% is due to 4 less shots per game, and given he's not only smarter/more experienced at this point and is a better 3pt shooter, there's no reason to suggest if he was back near 16 FGA's per game that his FG% would plummet.
When you have a guy converting at 46-48% from the field and is near the top of the league at his position in FG%, why wouldn't you want that type of player to shoot more? And why would you assume that player shooting more would be a negative, unless there's a preconceived agenda? It makes complete sense to have the guy who's one of the top converters at his position in the entire league to shoot more, rather than expecting someone who is less efficient to increase not only their output but to do it more efficiently as well.
And should every top 10 FG% player double their shots? Nice strawman. That's a great way to show you don't understand roles. IF you have one guy doing it as a top 2 option and defenses geared to stop him yet he still shoots 46-48%, that's different than an off the ball role player doing it with half the attention. Big difference between that type of a situation and Dunleavy/Mike Miller both being top 10 FG% as SG's and asking, well, shouldn't they just double their shots. It shows zero ability to understand difference in roles and style of play.
Last edited:
macadocious
Starter
I don't think we really know anything about who the Kings want right now. All we have is speculation based on who came in for workouts, which might mean something but it might not. We have no track record with this group. For a guy who, according to Vivek, thinks four moves ahead, it seems awfully simplistic to assume that they brought in Shabazz and McCollum for second workouts because they've narrowed their wishlist down to those two. Then again, maybe they're intentionally telegraphing their pick so they can throw people off the trail in next year's draft. 
I think Favors, Kanter and Hayward are off the table. I am assuming that Cousins is untouchable right now (as he should be) and the the only player that I would consider for any one of those 3 is Reke and I just don't see the kings willing to do that and I am not sure I would trade Hayward or Kanter for Reke.
annihilator_33
Starter
Chad Ford @chadfordinsider 1m
Pacers push to swap Gerald Green and No. 23 for Jimmer just got a little more realistic. Larry Bird loved Jimmer in 2011 Draft.
Pacers push to swap Gerald Green and No. 23 for Jimmer just got a little more realistic. Larry Bird loved Jimmer in 2011 Draft.
HereWeBoogie
Hall of Famer
although id rather have a 17-21 pick, id take that trade in a heartbeat if im D'Allesandro
macadocious
Starter
Why do we want Gerald Green? How does he improve this team?
Heuge
Starter
3 years of Gerald Green. No thank you. Our management has got to be smarter then this.
MassachusettsKingsFan
All-Star
Aha, there is the catch. First time Greens name has been brought up. I wouldn't do that. If we're taking Green then we get to keep Jimmer.
Now, if the deal was Outlaw and Jimmer for Green and the pick, I'd be back on board. Is Green worth his contract? No. But he is still salvageable in that I think he could potentially be effective. Outlaw, in my opinion, is total dead weight.
Just one year ago Green averaged 12ppg shooting .391 from 3. As an SF, he'd be the best shooter on our roster... If he can return to that form. Still a monster athlete.
Now, if the deal was Outlaw and Jimmer for Green and the pick, I'd be back on board. Is Green worth his contract? No. But he is still salvageable in that I think he could potentially be effective. Outlaw, in my opinion, is total dead weight.
Just one year ago Green averaged 12ppg shooting .391 from 3. As an SF, he'd be the best shooter on our roster... If he can return to that form. Still a monster athlete.
Last edited:
HereWeBoogie
Hall of Famer
i dont really care about Green, but the 23rd pick by itself is better than Jimmer
jalfa
Starter
thought that this might be the case. as for doing the trade, it very much depends on who's still available at that spot. if it's somebody worthwhile and Vivek is okay with paying Green and Outlaw a combined 6.5M dollars for absolutely nothing, and clogging up the salary roll...eh...makes sense if you want to make your big splash two years down the road, when the new arena is set to open, still don't like the idea of more sunk cost, though.
