Coach Smart Decision?
- Thread starter K F Jay
- Start date
The end of the season thing was a kingsfans.com thing, not a real life thing. I really think they know what they are doing. And it is their game to play, their business to run. A job that doesn't require they read kingsfans.com.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
As I alluded too, when your owners are overgrown children and they get all gushy over somebody, it really is a formality. Done deal:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-kings-smartcontract
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-kings-smartcontract
Mass
Starter
Yes, I would think they know what they are doing too. But I remember some months ago a Udrih and 7th for Salmons and 10th. Maybe sometimes they should read kingsfans.com...
The end of the season thing was more a logical thing then a kingsfans.com thing.
sidney
Starter
Little concerned about the rotations but I'm ok with this, primarily because he has so many garbage players and is being forced to do some unconventional things.
Now it's Petrie's job to get a legitimate SF to add value there AND clear up our guard rotation. I'll give Smart the benefit of the doubt until he has a more balanced roster.
Now it's Petrie's job to get a legitimate SF to add value there AND clear up our guard rotation. I'll give Smart the benefit of the doubt until he has a more balanced roster.
kupman
Starter
This is my feeling. Unless we have the chance to hire Rumpelstiltskin as our next coach, I am more than ready to stop the coaching carousel.
Agree but just how did you know how to spell "rump..........."? You may not have spelled it right but it sure impressed me!!!!
IfAt1st
Starter
AGGGGGGHHHHH!!!
The Kings didn't learn ANYthing from the mistakes of the Westphal years!
They kept talking about "stability" and "don't want a lame-duck coach" when they should have been looking at the floor and how the team is playing and how they players are progressing or not.
By extending Smart, they are yet again putting themselves in the position of not hiring an NBA-proven coach (like Sloan).
Hell, they are doing exactly the same thing with the Kings coach that they do with the players - getting by on cheaper, unproven talent and hoping/praying/risking that they're going to be able to get much better.
IMO, it's time to change that approach and get experienced, proven vet winners as players AND coaches.
I'm sick to death of this "let the youngsters learn on our dime" - it is this approach specifically that shows the Maloofs' cheap, penny-pinching ways and why they will not be successful in the cutthroat competitive game of the NBA unless they get damn lucky and get multiple bets to pay off (like DMC likely is).
I don't care if Smart is a nice guy, or has a good rapport with the players.
IMO, an NBA coach is not primarily a personality soother.
He is primarily a guy who designs the offensive and defensive systems that work in the NBA, AND gets his players to learn them and execute them on the floor.
I think Coach Smart has proven that he is not that kind of coach, and the Kings desperately need that kind of coach. *cough SLOAN cough*
Players want to win.
They also want to have a nice rapport with the coach.
But they primarily want to win.
These are insanely-competitive personalities, and winning solves a hell of a lot of "personality conflicts".
And losing exacerbates all problems.
I don't think Coach Smart has what it takes to make an NBA team work and put his players in a position to succeed and excel. I think it's already been proven by his time in SF and here. I gave him 2 months like I said I would and now I've rendered my opinion.
Now they'll have to wait 1 1/2 years more to pull the plug and go a different direction if this pans out the way it is showing it will.
Oh, the Maloofs...sometimes it's better to not say anything at all. In this day and age, however, words don't mean much. They can easily replace Smart with Sloan - the buyout can't be that big. An owner publicly giving up on a player, though? Super dumb. They have bought into small ball like a Mussleman power point. Frankly, I'm flabbergasted.
Well, I guess we'll see how this goes, but I already have apocalyptic visions...at least the team will be in Sacramento.
Well, I guess we'll see how this goes, but I already have apocalyptic visions...at least the team will be in Sacramento.
+1.
JoMama
Bench
Smart is a one helluva coach but he doesn't have the right players to make his system work - running and gunning. Look for major player transactions as the front office gets him the type of players he needs. The guy is biting his tongue every post-game press conference. He has the dumbest players in the NBA - bless their souls. 
Dr. Spaceman
Bench
Smart is a one helluva coach but he doesn't have the right players to make his system work - running and gunning. Look for major player transactions as the front office gets him the type of players he needs. The guy is biting his tongue every post-game press conference. He has the dumbest players in the NBA - bless their souls.
You're right, we've got waaaaay too many coordinated big men. Soon as we get the 6'6" front court personnel Smart's been lacking, playoffs baby.
kingsnation
All-Star
Smart is a one helluva coach but he doesn't have the right players to make his system work - running and gunning. Look for major player transactions as the front office gets him the type of players he needs. The guy is biting his tongue every post-game press conference. He has the dumbest players in the NBA - bless their souls.
Woah now, Smart is a great coach? He doesn't have the players to make his system work? Um, what sort of players are you referring to? Anyone under the height of 6'7"?? Because that's what it seems he desires in a team. Oh BTW? He had those type of "run and gun" players in GS and how'd that turn out? This guy is a joke. I was one of his major supporters, but I just can't watch Reke be this poorly-utilized any longer (Did he play the 1,2,3 AND 4 tonight?) Nor can I watch a lineup that consisted of Cisco being the tallest player on the court when we needed a stop the most (w/ 15 sec left and a 5 pt lead.)
If you think Smart is that good, please tell us why and share the wealth so we can all benefit.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
Smart is a one helluva coach but he doesn't have the right players to make his system work - running and gunning. Look for major player transactions as the front office gets him the type of players he needs. The guy is biting his tongue every post-game press conference. He has the dumbest players in the NBA - bless their souls.
Did you watch the game tonight where the center was 6'6" and Salmons was the PF? It appears that Cousins and JT and anyone over 6'6" is an inconvenience. I want to hear what the Maloofs say about their coach specifically about this game I just watched. Either he is brain dead or deliberately trying to put players on the court that won't win. The purpose being to get a higher draft pick. I can't make any other sense out of what he did tonight. He seemed to deliberately try to lose.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
I haven't read all the posts on this thread, so I apologize if I'm redundit. First, I like Smart! If for no other reason, his post game press conferences. Very refreshing. But! Certainly not a reason to pick up his contract. No offense to Smart, but whats the hurry? If your car shopping, do you buy at the first lot you come to? Or, do you go shopping, and see what else is available. Don't know about you, but I fall into the latter. I agree with an article on another site. Just who are you comparing Smart to? Musselman, Westphal, Reggie? If thats where you've set the bar, then maybe picking up his contract is the right idea. But if you're comparing him to Pop's, Riley, Jackson, Sloan, or even Adelman, then maybe not.
Or am I setting the bar too high? Honestly, do you go shopping in a store where there's only one choice, or do you wait for the big shopping mart to open with multiple choices? Once again, whats the hurry? Smart isn't going anywhere, so why make the decision now? Put me in the minority if you will, but I yearn for a normal coach with normal lineups. I like knowing that when I show up for the game with my beer and hotdog in hand, that Vlade, Peja, Webber, Bibby and Christie are going to be starting. None of this is meant as disrespect to Smart. As I said, I like him. But this isn't about personality, its about whether he's better than anyone else that will be available in the offseason. And we don't know the answer to that question, because we didn't wait.
Sorry, but this is the stuff losing franchises are made of. The Maloof's are emotional people, and personality driven. They didn't like Adelman! Why? Because he wasn't very social. Not chatty enough for them perhaps. Forget his record, which is one of the best in the NBA, the dude is a dud at a social function. Thats all well and good, as long as your not using it as a priority when making a decision about your coach. Petrie picked Adelman, and I suspect that his choices have been limited since then, to a list composed by the Maloofs. I'm just going on personaliies here. The Maloofs are impetuous, and impulsive, where Petrie is the exact opposite of that. A perfect Yang to their Ying, as long as the Ying doesn't win all the time.
I realize that the money promised to Smart could easily be digested and another choice could still be made if things go totally south. I just don't understand the motivation. This is not how a smart franchise does business.
Or am I setting the bar too high? Honestly, do you go shopping in a store where there's only one choice, or do you wait for the big shopping mart to open with multiple choices? Once again, whats the hurry? Smart isn't going anywhere, so why make the decision now? Put me in the minority if you will, but I yearn for a normal coach with normal lineups. I like knowing that when I show up for the game with my beer and hotdog in hand, that Vlade, Peja, Webber, Bibby and Christie are going to be starting. None of this is meant as disrespect to Smart. As I said, I like him. But this isn't about personality, its about whether he's better than anyone else that will be available in the offseason. And we don't know the answer to that question, because we didn't wait.
Sorry, but this is the stuff losing franchises are made of. The Maloof's are emotional people, and personality driven. They didn't like Adelman! Why? Because he wasn't very social. Not chatty enough for them perhaps. Forget his record, which is one of the best in the NBA, the dude is a dud at a social function. Thats all well and good, as long as your not using it as a priority when making a decision about your coach. Petrie picked Adelman, and I suspect that his choices have been limited since then, to a list composed by the Maloofs. I'm just going on personaliies here. The Maloofs are impetuous, and impulsive, where Petrie is the exact opposite of that. A perfect Yang to their Ying, as long as the Ying doesn't win all the time.
I realize that the money promised to Smart could easily be digested and another choice could still be made if things go totally south. I just don't understand the motivation. This is not how a smart franchise does business.
gunks
Hall of Famer
Smarts done great with Cousins, WAS getting some progress out of Reke (with growing pains) before he decided Tyreke is a 3.
But seriously, I effin HATE smallball. And Smart is a smallball man.
Sometimes I think the improvement in our players isnt so much about Smart, as its about Worstphail getting canned (as he should have been a year ago).
But seriously, I effin HATE smallball. And Smart is a smallball man.
Sometimes I think the improvement in our players isnt so much about Smart, as its about Worstphail getting canned (as he should have been a year ago).
So what you're saying is that Westphal getting canned had the same net positive effect as Salmons getting benched? Maybe.
I'm also on record as hating smallball as anything more than just a 5 minute change of pace, but I remain hopeful (because it's all I have) that Smart will realize what he was doing before was actually much better and conducive to long term success.
Rookie
Starter
Baj...
How about the players view? Would they honestly put in effort to work with Smart's system knowing that he could possibly be gone by the end of the season. How would that affect a player's game? More team playing or more individual development?
I understand your analogy regarding cars but however when dealing with people, there's always pros and cons mentally as well.
I like the moved for one simple reason..stability in the mind of the players.
How about the players view? Would they honestly put in effort to work with Smart's system knowing that he could possibly be gone by the end of the season. How would that affect a player's game? More team playing or more individual development?
I understand your analogy regarding cars but however when dealing with people, there's always pros and cons mentally as well.
I like the moved for one simple reason..stability in the mind of the players.
Rookie
Starter
How about instead of w/ 15sec left and a 5pt lead...w/ 15 sec left and 20 points behind? So what if his lineup doesn't satisfy your great coaching experience...we were in the game from beginning to the very end.
A few minor mistakes at the end but overall they improved their team playing and less one on one. Tyreke got a little word from Smart when he tried to play solo near the end...that is more importnat to me than winning this game. Throughout the game, I never felt like we weren't good enough to win even with Cuz having a bad night...that's huge IMO.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
Well I suspose you can look at it from that point of view. Or, you could say that if the players like Smart that much, and want him to succeed, and know that the rest of the season is the deciding factor, they might try harder. I'm a firm believer in rewarding success. But not in advance of it, unless you come with a proven resume. Aka, Phil Jackson, George Karl, Van Gundy, etc. Also, good players are selfmovitated, so that shouldn't be an issue, and if it is, then I don't want that player on my team.
I'm certainly not saying that what the players think of a coach doesn't matter, but Smart hasn't proven anything yet, other than he's better than Westphal, which is hardly an endorsement for a future championship. Why didn't they give him a two year deal to begin with? I'll tell you why! Because they wern't sure if he was the guy they wanted for the future. So what they're telling me now, is that based on the amount of games he's coached, they're sure that he is. Well their crystal ball is a lot clearer than mine. Because I see a lot of things I don't like. Now Smart might have an good esplaination for those things, but I'd like to know what they are. Personally, and its just a quirk of mine, but somehow I just don't see us winning many games with John Salmons at the PF position. Especially with the game on the line. I suspect that Thompson might agree with me.
Now I will also admit that I'm not now, and never will be, a fan of Nellie ball. Its never won squat in the playoffs. Smart however seems to embrace the idea. Not the direction I want to go. Don't get me wrong, there are many positives with Smart as well, and I'm basing the negatives on a very small percentage of games. But thats exactly the point. I haven't seen him coach enough games to pass judgement yet. So why not wait, and see how the season plays out. And more importantly, see what other options become available
Last edited:
Brilliantly stated
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
Some good points being made today. I want to raise a couple more.
Does anyone think the small ball, lack of attention to defense(based on clear non-defensive lineups) is just a short term solution in Smarts mind to help us compete, or it's his core philosophy after being mentored by the king of small ball/funky lineups in Don Nelson? To answer that you must take into account Smart's stint in GS last year where he did the same he's doing here. Funky rotations, not getting along with Curry after random 4th quarter benchings, and small ball which ended up getting smaller and smaller. He's gone with the 4 guard lineup in GS as well. Or, if he had a more well rounded roster, would we see more conventional lineups?
I bring this up because we're obviously going to make a few moves before training camp next year. Just a hypothetical, but say we draft a PF who can step in and start and sign AK, does anyone have confidence Smart would play them in a conventional manner? I'd argue, he wouldn't, based in his history. If you disagree I'd love to hear why given it goes against is track record.
Petrie said he likes the direction and style Smart is taking the team. Does that mean it will be similar to Westy where he had input on our trades and acquisitions and he and Smart will round out the roster with smaller, uptempo players played somewhat out of position to mimic the Pho teams which were fun to watch but won nothing? Or, could will we draft a PF, sign a guy like AK so we have size at each position, and then will Smart play them out of position due to his philosophy?
Basically, if we made some of the moves we all believe the team needs, does anyone have confidence Smart would change his philosophy and play them where they belong? That's a huge question to answer because as the Westy/Petrie collaboration failed last summer with roster acquisitions we haven't recovered from, if we go through it again and cater to small ball philosophy, it could set us back a couple more years.
Also, we were winning at a higher % with our bigger lineup, with a Reke/MT backcourt. Now we're 2-8 since the switch. I'm sure Reke doesn't like playing SF/PF among others not being happy being played out of position, but they've been great so far in going along with it and having a good attitude. How long does that last if we aren't winning? How long until guys say screw this after being sick and tired of random benchings, weird substitutions where you never know when you're going in or out, and matching up against guys who have 30-40 lbs on you or are a few inches taller if we're not winning? Players tend to buy in or at least go along with it as long as we have wins to show for it.
Will be interesting with this home stretch. If we do well, guys will probably continue to buy in. But if we don't have at the minimum a 5-4 homestand since we were winning at home(7-5) before the lineup change, things will go south quickly imo.
I'm worried. Another worry in my mind is that Smart doesn't seem to remember how players play from game to game, or even quarter to quarter. We've seen MT/Reke/Cuz all playing extremely well, Smart seemed to forget, and benched them long enough to ice them. We've had Jimmer red hot in the 2nd, and not return until maybe the 6 min mark of the 4th. We've had large lineups dominating the paint, and Smart has swapped them all out in favor of small ball and not gone back to them. We had Donte play very well defensively against Frye, play about 30 mins and not get 10 secs the following night. There's more examples but I think I've mentioned enough.
Just really hope he gets all this figured out in the next week or two, because even though I presume the players are doing their best to stay patient, they want to win and as Brick has mentioned this homestand is really our last chance to play for something. They know they beat Por/SA/OKC recently and had a winning stretch last month with the conventional lineups. How patient would you be if your coach went unconventional only to see you lose at a more frequent rate?
Does anyone think the small ball, lack of attention to defense(based on clear non-defensive lineups) is just a short term solution in Smarts mind to help us compete, or it's his core philosophy after being mentored by the king of small ball/funky lineups in Don Nelson? To answer that you must take into account Smart's stint in GS last year where he did the same he's doing here. Funky rotations, not getting along with Curry after random 4th quarter benchings, and small ball which ended up getting smaller and smaller. He's gone with the 4 guard lineup in GS as well. Or, if he had a more well rounded roster, would we see more conventional lineups?
I bring this up because we're obviously going to make a few moves before training camp next year. Just a hypothetical, but say we draft a PF who can step in and start and sign AK, does anyone have confidence Smart would play them in a conventional manner? I'd argue, he wouldn't, based in his history. If you disagree I'd love to hear why given it goes against is track record.
Petrie said he likes the direction and style Smart is taking the team. Does that mean it will be similar to Westy where he had input on our trades and acquisitions and he and Smart will round out the roster with smaller, uptempo players played somewhat out of position to mimic the Pho teams which were fun to watch but won nothing? Or, could will we draft a PF, sign a guy like AK so we have size at each position, and then will Smart play them out of position due to his philosophy?
Basically, if we made some of the moves we all believe the team needs, does anyone have confidence Smart would change his philosophy and play them where they belong? That's a huge question to answer because as the Westy/Petrie collaboration failed last summer with roster acquisitions we haven't recovered from, if we go through it again and cater to small ball philosophy, it could set us back a couple more years.
Also, we were winning at a higher % with our bigger lineup, with a Reke/MT backcourt. Now we're 2-8 since the switch. I'm sure Reke doesn't like playing SF/PF among others not being happy being played out of position, but they've been great so far in going along with it and having a good attitude. How long does that last if we aren't winning? How long until guys say screw this after being sick and tired of random benchings, weird substitutions where you never know when you're going in or out, and matching up against guys who have 30-40 lbs on you or are a few inches taller if we're not winning? Players tend to buy in or at least go along with it as long as we have wins to show for it.
Will be interesting with this home stretch. If we do well, guys will probably continue to buy in. But if we don't have at the minimum a 5-4 homestand since we were winning at home(7-5) before the lineup change, things will go south quickly imo.
I'm worried. Another worry in my mind is that Smart doesn't seem to remember how players play from game to game, or even quarter to quarter. We've seen MT/Reke/Cuz all playing extremely well, Smart seemed to forget, and benched them long enough to ice them. We've had Jimmer red hot in the 2nd, and not return until maybe the 6 min mark of the 4th. We've had large lineups dominating the paint, and Smart has swapped them all out in favor of small ball and not gone back to them. We had Donte play very well defensively against Frye, play about 30 mins and not get 10 secs the following night. There's more examples but I think I've mentioned enough.
Just really hope he gets all this figured out in the next week or two, because even though I presume the players are doing their best to stay patient, they want to win and as Brick has mentioned this homestand is really our last chance to play for something. They know they beat Por/SA/OKC recently and had a winning stretch last month with the conventional lineups. How patient would you be if your coach went unconventional only to see you lose at a more frequent rate?
Last edited:
Rookie
Starter
I don't know the whole deal with the Warrior because I don't follow them but he did improve the team. While this year was a short season, there core three did have experienced playing together. So was it a mistake to do what he did with the warrior...base on games won it seems like he did the best with what he got. Yes you can sit back on your couch and say that if he played this rotation or that it would of win more game. But the reality is he won more game prior and after his coaching (1 year..lol hardly statistical but that is all I have to work with).
I would have no doubt if AK is on the team (assuming AK is the AK we know) that Smart wouldn't play him. If he loved guards only he would of started that way. We gradually got to this point for a reason.
Looking back we started off with Cuz,Hayes,Salmons,Thornton,Evans. While I think Hayes is too small he was consider our big and we played everyone at their position. Hayes hurt..if he loved small ball why not start there. Instead he puts in JT/Hickson and continue. JT showed up for a few game and Hickson stinked up like Salmons so we kept JT at PF.
IT emerges..so what do you do. Do you bench thornton or evans or keep IT the only guy who could play PG on the bench? While we did win some games with no playmaker require...it was mostly individual accomplishments. Cuz/IT/Evans all have to play well in order to compete.
Obviously we need someone who can play PG. So instead of IT bench or one of our core player, he threwed Salmons (at that time the worst of the starter) to the bench. Rightfully so IMO. Now some suggested Donte so we keep the height but I think there's a reason why he's on the bench most of the time with every passing coach. He showed a few great game but more often than not stink it up.. Evans while not as tall as Donte but play a lot bigger than him. And this is where we're at...Cuz/JT/Evans/Thornton/IT. While it's not the tallest rotation but it's the most competitively starter group we got. It's not going to win a championship but it will allow us to compete and developed. We got no SF that can play with consistency, our PF should be a backup and our backup center/pf is 6'6 (I doubt smart wanted that for a center). Lucky for us he's started to play Whiteside..who's probably only a short 7' player.
Definitely IT still need improvement at the PG but unless IT revert back to why he was picked last, this team is more complete than what I've seen from the previous starter of:
Cuz,JT,Salmons/Evans/Thornton.
I would have no doubt if AK is on the team (assuming AK is the AK we know) that Smart wouldn't play him. If he loved guards only he would of started that way. We gradually got to this point for a reason.
Looking back we started off with Cuz,Hayes,Salmons,Thornton,Evans. While I think Hayes is too small he was consider our big and we played everyone at their position. Hayes hurt..if he loved small ball why not start there. Instead he puts in JT/Hickson and continue. JT showed up for a few game and Hickson stinked up like Salmons so we kept JT at PF.
IT emerges..so what do you do. Do you bench thornton or evans or keep IT the only guy who could play PG on the bench? While we did win some games with no playmaker require...it was mostly individual accomplishments. Cuz/IT/Evans all have to play well in order to compete.
Obviously we need someone who can play PG. So instead of IT bench or one of our core player, he threwed Salmons (at that time the worst of the starter) to the bench. Rightfully so IMO. Now some suggested Donte so we keep the height but I think there's a reason why he's on the bench most of the time with every passing coach. He showed a few great game but more often than not stink it up.. Evans while not as tall as Donte but play a lot bigger than him. And this is where we're at...Cuz/JT/Evans/Thornton/IT. While it's not the tallest rotation but it's the most competitively starter group we got. It's not going to win a championship but it will allow us to compete and developed. We got no SF that can play with consistency, our PF should be a backup and our backup center/pf is 6'6 (I doubt smart wanted that for a center). Lucky for us he's started to play Whiteside..who's probably only a short 7' player.
Definitely IT still need improvement at the PG but unless IT revert back to why he was picked last, this team is more complete than what I've seen from the previous starter of:
Cuz,JT,Salmons/Evans/Thornton.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
And that has to be just about the most surprising thing of all. John Salmons as a backup PG -- and its kind of working?? I defy you to find anybody, just ANYBODY who predicted that .
Yeah, I'm liking this move. What's nice is that I've actually stopped cringing every time Salmons touches the ball - knowing he won't be shooting every time. Having Salmons bring the ball up gives him some "veteren" responsibility while definitely taking pressure off Jimmer, so he can adjust to the NBA game.
Salmons just seems more energized now. Its probably taken a lot of pressure off him also not being in the starting lineup - a double bonus of sorts. At least for now anyway.
kingsnation
All-Star
Similar threads
