J
jdbraver
Guest
Why is Cisco starting? Part of tank mode?
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
As opposed to...?
Salmons was out. Thornton was out. Hayes was out. So here are your choices: Cisco, Outlaw?, Greene (actually our primary backup big tonight), Honeycutt (rookie drafted in second round).
Have fun finding the chocie there that does NOT result in tanking.
J
jdbraver
Guest
Williams?
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Yes, somehow forgot to list him, although at the moment he is the bench's sole anchor.
Kings Faithful
Starter
There is no way coach is going to let a guy signed off a 10 day contract just come in and start... as much as we would all like him too.
Kings Faithful
Starter
Don't blame smart for that one, blame whoever put this team together. If we don't have our best players on the court to start the game we get blown out in the first quarter and rely on the bench to bring us back... alternatively the starters play good and then the bench takes us out of the game. Pick your poison.
kingsnation
All-Star
You do realize that the coach you're referring to placed that same player in the 4th quarter of a close game in his very first stint with us?
Need I remind you of the loss in Oakland? TWill's very first game with us. He came in for the very first time at approx the 5-min mark in the 4th Q. of a close game.
And the coach in his continuing search today found a new one and it may have qualified as tanking. Despite his decent performance indicated by his grade, his starting, which has to happen, is giving away a significant hunk of the ranch. Cisco is a much better choice but Smart has to play Jimmer.
treach1976
Bench
Is tanking the same as saying, we aren't winning the season, but let's give our rookies a chance to play significant minutes in some real games? I think they are close to the same thing, but not quite. A true "tanked" game would mean that if they found themselves on the plus side of the score, they would pull the contributors in order to lose. I doubt that would have happened.
Agree. But, unlike a normal NBA team, we only have a small group of competent players and you can't both start them and bring them off the bench. We have a better set of substitutes for Smart than we do for any position on the team. Bring in a truck load of new players and maybe we can find a few keepers.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
Let me expand. We can't start 4 offensive players and then be scared to use our bench. At the most we need 3 scorers as starters. There are only so many shots to go around. Save one scorer to play coming off the bench. It is not the most unique concept ever to hit the NBA but Smart won't do this because he doesn't have enough short players to do it.
You are absolutely right. I really didn't mean I thought they were tanking it. I meant that when you start a fookie as bad as Fredettte's all around game is right now that it is the equivalent of tanking. Let's just call it poetic license. We have to try and win and we have to play a young player like Fredette that we have so much invested in. It's right but it makes you wince.
Last edited:
Every coach has choices with his player group. For the KIngs, you can start tall and lose 86 to 79, or short and lose 110 to 99, or start a combo and lose 97 to 91. My point is simple - I don't think Smart has the players to win no matter what combo he starts. So get players and then test the coach.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
Oh, I don't think so either. Unless the Maloofs are willing to spend money on a decent team and coach, we will get nowhere. This next summer will show us which way they are going to go. So far it looks like they are trying to be as cheap as possible so all this fancy talk of what foot should be in front of the other to shoot a free throw has no meaning whatsoever if you don't have a team made up of NBA quality players. In the end, skill level trumps which foot is in front every day of the week.
That's a bit disingenuous though, because he can with with a balanced lineup. In fact, he can beat some pretty good teams with balance, but people tend to dismiss it for one reason or another. I would rather lose with a balanced lineup and kids learning their proper roles, then try to shoehorn some wins and sacrifice long term development. For example, I would rather Jimmer take his lumps next to Evans as a PG/SG combo rather than an IT/Jimmer/Evans lineup that can't possibly succeed in either the short term or the long term. It is a basic coaching decision.
I wish you were right. I'm just not convinced there is 'the' better lineup. I give the coaching staff credit for being able to see these things better than you or I or this site. If there was a better way they would try it. Why not? There's nothing to lose and a lot to gain. I won't give up second guessing them but I know which one of us is the better for running this team. Sacriligious, I know but it's my opinion.
CruzDude
Senior Member sharing a brew with bajaden
With 3 of the remaining 5 SF out with injuries, not much choice and Jimmer needs the minutes as does IT. But if other team goes small then why not? Greene and Outlaw aren't going to learn or play up to their abilities anyway.
Similar threads
