Cousins Working His Butt Off (New poll)
- Thread starter rainmaker
- Start date
All depends on how big a bullwhip Malone has! There was little or no discipline last year. At least I didn't see any. I watched James Johnson constantly receive the ball, and of course, shoot it. It was one Iso play after another. Malone is preaching accountability, and if he means it, then maybe we'll see the spacing and the running of plays that have been called. Will that happen? Your guess is as good as mine!
Kingster and Brick are on the right track. Cousins needs to show some leadership and play like an adult on both sides of the ball. There is lots of room for his defense to improve. He can be the anchor without being a shot blocker. I have always contended that cousins is soft mentally and physically. He has plenty of talent, but this new management is the perfect time for him to show some discipline. Malone surely wants to find out as soon as possible whether Cousins can be the franchise player to lead the team or not.
There is no reason to build a team with a weak foundation. It is a waste of time and a potential house of cards.
There is no reason to build a team with a weak foundation. It is a waste of time and a potential house of cards.
And assuming that is the case, it leaves wide open exactly how that "covering of defensive mistakes" is going to occur. Is it from a shot block (as Brick defines)? Is it from taking a charge? Is it through communication to teamates on defensive assignments in realtime action? Is it some or all of the above? The point of the matter is that it is presumptuous to assign to Malone a particular meaning of the term "anchor" unless he himself defines the term.
in the post you quoted, Chupacabra pretty succinctly stated that a defensive anchor covers for his teammate's defensive mistakes through his ability to negate scoring attempts at the rim. that is the generally-accepted understanding of a "defensive anchor," a big man whose presence in the paint results in shots being altered at the rim. roy hibbert, for example, is a defensive anchor in that, when he's on the floor during defensive possessions, his length, timing, skill, and role dictate that a shot at the rim will have less of a chance to go in than it would if he was not on the floor...
an offense must account for such a player, and such a player often forces an offense to take lower percentage shots as a result. a defensive anchor shifts the percentages in your favor. that said, a guy like demarcus cousins will never "anchor" the kings' defense by taking charges, because you can't anchor a defense around the charge. it's often a "could go either way" call, and that doesn't shift the percentages in your favor. you can't anchor a defense with communication, either. trust and communication are vital components of a successful team defense, but if we're talking about anchoring that team defense, there must be a last line of defense at the rim that can shift the percentages in your favor...
it just seems to me like you're going well outta your way to try and create a hopelessly semantic argument. it's not that "anchor" means one-and-only-one thing, but rather that demarcus cousins doesn't really satisfy the requirements of any useful definition of "defensive anchor." he's the team's captain. he must lead by example. he must compete on the defensive end. but he's not going to anchor the kings' defense like a number of other roleplayers could alongside of him...
but if you really want to get pedantic about it, then malone's definition of "anchor" is likely too broad to be useful to our understanding of the team's defensive strategy. he might as well be saying that demarcus cousins is the kings' "batman" on defense. it could mean any number of things that don't help us contextualize each individual player's role on defense. but, if we tune our conversation to the generally-accepted understanding of what a "defensive anchor" most commonly represents in the contemporary nba, then we can determine whether or not demarcus cousins satisfies that understanding, and what personnel moves the kings need to make in order to compensate if demarcus doesn't satisfy that understanding...
in my mind, he doesn't, and he's not likely to become a "defensive anchor," or even get close to it. therefore the kings would be best served pursuing a defensive-minded PF that can alter shots at the rim...
an offense must account for such a player, and such a player often forces an offense to take lower percentage shots as a result. a defensive anchor shifts the percentages in your favor. that said, a guy like demarcus cousins will never "anchor" the kings' defense by taking charges, because you can't anchor a defense around the charge. it's often a "could go either way" call, and that doesn't shift the percentages in your favor. you can't anchor a defense with communication, either. trust and communication are vital components of a successful team defense, but if we're talking about anchoring that team defense, there must be a last line of defense at the rim that can shift the percentages in your favor...
it just seems to me like you're going well outta your way to try and create a hopelessly semantic argument. it's not that "anchor" means one-and-only-one thing, but rather that demarcus cousins doesn't really satisfy the requirements of any useful definition of "defensive anchor." he's the team's captain. he must lead by example. he must compete on the defensive end. but he's not going to anchor the kings' defense like a number of other roleplayers could alongside of him...
but if you really want to get pedantic about it, then malone's definition of "anchor" is likely too broad to be useful to our understanding of the team's defensive strategy. he might as well be saying that demarcus cousins is the kings' "batman" on defense. it could mean any number of things that don't help us contextualize each individual player's role on defense. but, if we tune our conversation to the generally-accepted understanding of what a "defensive anchor" most commonly represents in the contemporary nba, then we can determine whether or not demarcus cousins satisfies that understanding, and what personnel moves the kings need to make in order to compensate if demarcus doesn't satisfy that understanding...
in my mind, he doesn't, and he's not likely to become a "defensive anchor," or even get close to it. therefore the kings would be best served pursuing a defensive-minded PF that can alter shots at the rim...
Voison thinks Cuz won't be offered a max deal before deadline. That would be a mistake.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/07/22/5584406/ailene-voisin-kings-cousins-enters.html#storylink=cpy
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/07/22/5584406/ailene-voisin-kings-cousins-enters.html#storylink=cpy
Well, first, you seem to believe that you have a corner on the market on the common understanding of "anchor" as used in basketball. I don't. Just by the fact that your (and Chupacabra's) definition is not in agreement with Brick's is proof enough that there is no common understanding of the term. Malone could mean all kind of things about "anchor" that you or I don't ascribe to the term; moreover, his meaning can emphasize some elements and not others when it comes to Cousins. It is a metaphor after all (unless he really wants to attach Cousins to a huge chain on the USS Enterprise and drop him 50 fathoms). Therefore, it's presumptuous and pointless to get all bent about Malone describing Cousins as the "anchor" of the defense and believe that such anchoring is unrealistic when in point of fact you don't really know how he defines the term.
By the way, this same principle of definition applies to other salient Kings' issues. How about the term "culture"? They never have defined it. It's left to our imaginations to define it. I have my own definition of what an improved basketball culture would look like. The Kings org might have another. For example, my definition would prohibit Cousins from reenacting any of the antics he did last year. Under my definition, the Cousins of last year would not be compatible with the new "culture." Does theirs? I really don't know. Sometimes the only way you know what people mean is by observing what they do.
By the way, this same principle of definition applies to other salient Kings' issues. How about the term "culture"? They never have defined it. It's left to our imaginations to define it. I have my own definition of what an improved basketball culture would look like. The Kings org might have another. For example, my definition would prohibit Cousins from reenacting any of the antics he did last year. Under my definition, the Cousins of last year would not be compatible with the new "culture." Does theirs? I really don't know. Sometimes the only way you know what people mean is by observing what they do.
I never agree with Kingster but I think this is over shooting the mark and very personal.
The discussion has been about definitions which to me, misses the whole damn point. Malone thinks that Cousins will have a major role in the Kings' defense. No matter what the definition of "anchor" is, it implies a major role. I wonder if he has assumed for some reason that I think none of us on this forum can understand that Cousins will be a huge defensive presence. There is only one way he will be a huge presence and that is measured in pounds or kilograms. I envision Malone looking at the construction of this team and he has just put a check mark next to defense in thinking of Cousins and then thought he needed offense and went after Landry. If I have it correctly, he is confused and I doubt if anyone would disagree.
I really hope he isn't using my logic but the mere signing of Landry instead of using the $8-10 mil (I think there was a little money left over after we traded away Evans) or less for a defensive center is a tip off and a bothersome one. Why Landry and not a big guy with a defensive pedigree? Does Malone assume we already have the big guy? There should have been a different signing to get the defensive anchor.
Our ire should perhaps be better directed at the FO.
The discussion has been about definitions which to me, misses the whole damn point. Malone thinks that Cousins will have a major role in the Kings' defense. No matter what the definition of "anchor" is, it implies a major role. I wonder if he has assumed for some reason that I think none of us on this forum can understand that Cousins will be a huge defensive presence. There is only one way he will be a huge presence and that is measured in pounds or kilograms. I envision Malone looking at the construction of this team and he has just put a check mark next to defense in thinking of Cousins and then thought he needed offense and went after Landry. If I have it correctly, he is confused and I doubt if anyone would disagree.
I really hope he isn't using my logic but the mere signing of Landry instead of using the $8-10 mil (I think there was a little money left over after we traded away Evans) or less for a defensive center is a tip off and a bothersome one. Why Landry and not a big guy with a defensive pedigree? Does Malone assume we already have the big guy? There should have been a different signing to get the defensive anchor.
Our ire should perhaps be better directed at the FO.
Last edited:
This board needs to seriously take a chill pill. I mean a quote from our coach saying "we want Cousins to be a defensive anchor", and everyone loads their shotguns ready to kill Malone, D'Allesandro, and Vivek execution style. Then someone tries to bring a valid comment that maybe the term "defensive anchor" is a little vague in this situation, and he gets his throat slashed on the spot by the KGF (Kings Guerilla Family).
Anyways, Malone saying he wants Cousins to be the defensive anchor can mean a lot of things. It could mean a coach saying he wants his star player to be the catalyst in giving effort on the defensive end(something this team, and Cousins are not known for). When your star players are playing hard on both ends, the whole team gets infected and plays hard. When your star player demands the ball on offense and loafs around on defense, it does the opposite to team morale.
Anyways, Malone saying he wants Cousins to be the defensive anchor can mean a lot of things. It could mean a coach saying he wants his star player to be the catalyst in giving effort on the defensive end(something this team, and Cousins are not known for). When your star players are playing hard on both ends, the whole team gets infected and plays hard. When your star player demands the ball on offense and loafs around on defense, it does the opposite to team morale.
Anchor: An iron implement which holds a ship or boat at rest in shallow water by means of hooks or flukes which dig into the bottom. Something serving a purpose to that of a ship's anchor. That which gives stability or security. To hold, as a ship, at rest by lowering the anchor. To fix in a stable condition.
Websters definition! There, that's settled! Now we can move on.
Websters definition! There, that's settled! Now we can move on.
I think perhaps your closer to the truth than anyone else. I think first and foremost, Malone is looking for effort from Cousins, and he'll go from there. I doubt he see's the next coming of Bill Russell, or Mutombo. We can sit around and nit pick everything Malone or anyone else attached to management says till were blue in the face, and in the end, it accomplishes nothing, other than perhaps entertain a few posters. The question is, can Cousins improve if he actually commits to it, and the answer should be yes. Perkins was certainly one of the better defensive centers in the league while with the Celtics, and Cousins is just as big, if not bigger, and he's more athletic than Perkins. So in theory anyway, there's no reason that Cousins can't become a Perkins type of defensive center if he applies himself. Big if, so we'll see.
Would it help if we had an Ibaka next to him? Of course it would. The problem is, and always will be, that once someone has an Ibaka, they don't let go of them easily. I don't think that the Kings are unaware of the need. If so, then why are they pursuing Oden? Why did they originally pursue Iggy? Why did they make an offer to Kirilenko? All defensive players! Just because you want something, doesn't mean you'll get it. It takes two to tango, and sometimes its hard to find a willing partner. The orginization has dug a very nice hole for itself over the last 5 or 6 years, and its going to take some time to rebuild the image we once had. In my humble opinion, the main ingredient, is Cousins!
If he makes the USA team, and performs well. If he has the kind of year everyone expects, there are going to be players that will want to come and play with him. The second ingredient is Malone. He has a very good image right now, and if he can, after one year with the Kings, maintain that image, he'll help attract players as well.
Would it help if we had an Ibaka next to him? Of course it would. The problem is, and always will be, that once someone has an Ibaka, they don't let go of them easily. I don't think that the Kings are unaware of the need. If so, then why are they pursuing Oden? Why did they originally pursue Iggy? Why did they make an offer to Kirilenko? All defensive players! Just because you want something, doesn't mean you'll get it. It takes two to tango, and sometimes its hard to find a willing partner. The orginization has dug a very nice hole for itself over the last 5 or 6 years, and its going to take some time to rebuild the image we once had. In my humble opinion, the main ingredient, is Cousins!
If he makes the USA team, and performs well. If he has the kind of year everyone expects, there are going to be players that will want to come and play with him. The second ingredient is Malone. He has a very good image right now, and if he can, after one year with the Kings, maintain that image, he'll help attract players as well.
Last edited:
I've mentioned before, you can't keep Demarcus Cousins against his will or he'll burn your house down.
You absolutely HAVE to keep his loyalty at all times. If you send the message that he should even look elsewhere...well I've got news for you. There are about 25 more attractive elsewhere, including several of the league's elite franchises with the money next year. If you help him turn his head, it will be turned, and you will be ****ed like every other shortsighted smalltime franchise that has kept the feeder system to the elite teams at full blast for decades.
You're small market, you get a talent like DeMarcus, you hold onto it for dear life, because you aren't stealing anybody else's, and they WILL come trying to steal yours.
You absolutely HAVE to keep his loyalty at all times. If you send the message that he should even look elsewhere...well I've got news for you. There are about 25 more attractive elsewhere, including several of the league's elite franchises with the money next year. If you help him turn his head, it will be turned, and you will be ****ed like every other shortsighted smalltime franchise that has kept the feeder system to the elite teams at full blast for decades.
You're small market, you get a talent like DeMarcus, you hold onto it for dear life, because you aren't stealing anybody else's, and they WILL come trying to steal yours.
DeMarcus Cousins is the worry.
You think you can control DeMarcus Cousins after he's set his heart on Miami or the Lakers and you drag him back against his will? Do you really?
And do you think after a year of saying we don't believe in you that when Pat Riley, LeBron and Wade show up at his doorstep at 12:01, and half a dozen Lakers legends show up at his doorstep at 12:02, that you're going to wander on in next and say oh now we believe in you? People say I have an ego, but even I am not that arrogant.
You think you can control DeMarcus Cousins after he's set his heart on Miami or the Lakers and you drag him back against his will? Do you really?
And do you think after a year of saying we don't believe in you that when Pat Riley, LeBron and Wade show up at his doorstep at 12:01, and half a dozen Lakers legends show up at his doorstep at 12:02, that you're going to wander on in next and say oh now we believe in you? People say I have an ego, but even I am not that arrogant.
If he wants his next pay day after the 5 year deal, he better control himself and play hard for the contract. He'll be unrestricted, and will lose tens of millions if he's a head case during his 2nd contract.
He's important to this team, but he still needs to earn his max deal. He hasn't done that yet.
He's important to this team, but he still needs to earn his max deal. He hasn't done that yet.
I have to agree with Brickie here. A big man like Demarcus is likely getting the max whether we extend him now or later. The only chance the big city teams won't go after him is if he completely implodes this season or commit some heinous crime. We shouldn't even give him a chance to leave. Extend him.
