Keep in mind that he was also paired with one of the best shotblockers in the NCAA last year. There's a possibility that Self told him not to worry about blocks (which would help explain how he only got .2 more blocks a game despiite playing twice as many minutes as the year before) and be a better man defender.
Deal in the works?
- Thread starter LEXXR8D
- Start date
He wasn't much of a shotblocker before either. Its kind of pointless nitpicking at a certain point. Shotblockers ALWAYS find ways to block shots. You can suppress it a little, but not much. Its in how they think, move, position themselves. You can actually identify a shotblcoker without ever having seen a guy play just from the way he moves around on defense. They, for lack of a better word, hunt. They're always watching the ball, always preparing to shift over. That's jsut not this player. And even if Robinson at his size had blocked 1.5 a game in college, that still translates to less than 1 in the NBA. He's not going to be a shotblocker at this level. And whether he blocks 0.5 a game or 0.8 a game really doesn't have much impact. Which leaves us with something approaching a permanent hole on this team. Barring TRob washing out he's got a 4 yr deal. JT jsut signed a 4yr deal. We hope Cousins will sign for as long as we can sign him. None of those guys thinks ofr moves like a shotblocker. And yet with them there, there is no room for anybody else to be one either.
No disagreement there.
If we brought Camby onto the roster and we only played him 10 minutes a night, it's not going to have the sort of impact that you want when signing a defensive big, and pretty much defeats the purpose of having him on the roster. (Unless it's to provide mentoring, but that's besides the point)
With that said, it makes you wonder what the FO think about Jimmer and Whiteside and their hopes for their futures.
Right now Jimmer is definitely the 4th guard behind Tyreke, Thornton, & IT and possibly 5th guard if they resign TWill (Which I hope they do) and decide to play TWill mostly at SG.
However, if Jimmer is able to get his confidence back, tighten up his ball-handling, and work on his defense so that instead of being a huge liability he's simply...below average...then Jimmer works himself back into the mix as far as being a solid back-court mate with Tyreke, where he could come and play the Beno-role which I'm sure was envisioned for him when drafted.
At the end of the day, if Jimmer steps up his game, I think that a trade of some sort will be in order. And if it's Jimmer that get's traded, then he helps the team by upping his trading value.
Or perhaps he improves his game to the point that the FO feel comfortable trading away IT or Thornton in a deal to bring back another piece.
The same applies for Whiteside.
Let's say that suddenly everything just clicks for him and he dominates at Summer League. Then in training camp he demonstrates that he's the perfect big man to start next to Cousins.
Well, that would be great for us. We have a terrific 3rd big in JT on a good contract, and a physical, rebounding PF on a great rookie contract. And then it's the FO's job to either make it all work, or make the trade that will bring the most balance to the roster.
In all likelihood Jimmer and Whiteside will play decently in Summer League and both will end up being the 4th or 5th guy on the roster for their position. But if both really improve their games, they could challenge for more on the team, and if they do, that's a good problem to have, and we'll have to hope that the FO can turn the good problem into a good solution.
If we brought Camby onto the roster and we only played him 10 minutes a night, it's not going to have the sort of impact that you want when signing a defensive big, and pretty much defeats the purpose of having him on the roster. (Unless it's to provide mentoring, but that's besides the point)
With that said, it makes you wonder what the FO think about Jimmer and Whiteside and their hopes for their futures.
Right now Jimmer is definitely the 4th guard behind Tyreke, Thornton, & IT and possibly 5th guard if they resign TWill (Which I hope they do) and decide to play TWill mostly at SG.
However, if Jimmer is able to get his confidence back, tighten up his ball-handling, and work on his defense so that instead of being a huge liability he's simply...below average...then Jimmer works himself back into the mix as far as being a solid back-court mate with Tyreke, where he could come and play the Beno-role which I'm sure was envisioned for him when drafted.
At the end of the day, if Jimmer steps up his game, I think that a trade of some sort will be in order. And if it's Jimmer that get's traded, then he helps the team by upping his trading value.
Or perhaps he improves his game to the point that the FO feel comfortable trading away IT or Thornton in a deal to bring back another piece.
The same applies for Whiteside.
Let's say that suddenly everything just clicks for him and he dominates at Summer League. Then in training camp he demonstrates that he's the perfect big man to start next to Cousins.
Well, that would be great for us. We have a terrific 3rd big in JT on a good contract, and a physical, rebounding PF on a great rookie contract. And then it's the FO's job to either make it all work, or make the trade that will bring the most balance to the roster.
In all likelihood Jimmer and Whiteside will play decently in Summer League and both will end up being the 4th or 5th guy on the roster for their position. But if both really improve their games, they could challenge for more on the team, and if they do, that's a good problem to have, and we'll have to hope that the FO can turn the good problem into a good solution.
Don't misunderstand, I'd like to see both of them develop into useful players. I don't know if Whiteside ever makes that leap. I still have hopes for Jimmer, and in my head I see him as the ideal back-court mate for Tyreke. But the fact remains that we have 5 2-guards on the team, one underperforming small forward (Outlaw), and one expendable big. The glut of 2s plus Outlaw prevents us from running a sensible lineup most of the time. If I'm trying to pick up a useable asset, those are my chips in a trade. A combination of our expendables could bring us a serviceable 3 in the right transaction.
Which is all that matters. He can have a 15 foot wingspan if he wants, its who you do, or don't, use it. Short shotblockers are rarely intimidators anyway. More surprise you guys than guys how scare you out of the paint guys. But TRob is neither tall nor a shotblocker so this is a pointless conversation. He doesn't address the need at all.
this guy, on the other hand, has potential as an intimidator:
this guy, on the other hand, has potential as an intimidator:
Well, I'd expect that we'll have enough of an up and down season that if Jimmer is actually able to show some consistency handling the ball well, initiating the offense, and knocking down down threes (while not getting entirely torched on D), he'll likely be able to earn more time. The issue with Whiteside, at least when I've seen him anyway, is that he can't really defend one-on-one. Now if you can't hold your ground and people can go around and through you, your "ability" to block shots is not really the same as a skillset. Your only real impact is as a slow arriving, weak side shotblocker, which doesn't make much impact at all. I hope Whiteside offers more but I'm not yet convinced.
Which is all that matters. He can have a 15 foot wingspan if he wants, its who you do, or don't, use it. Short shotblockers are rarely intimidators anyway. More surprise you guys than guys how scare you out of the paint guys. But TRob is neither tall nor a shotblocker so this is a pointless conversation. He doesn't address the need at all.
this guy, on the other hand, has potential as an intimidator:
this guy, on the other hand, has potential as an intimidator:
"Short shotblockers are rarely intimidators anyways"? I'm not *exactly* sure what you mean by "intimidator", but I don't think there have been many better "intimidators" recently in the NBA in my mind than Ben Wallace, also 6'9". Dwight Howard and Serge Ibaka are just an inch taller at 6'10".
Also, I'm pretty sure the only thing that guy will intimidate is the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, who will likely be put out of business.
i think most of us on here are willing to "give up" on these young guys b/c we're tired of losing, and if we can package up a few guys for a SF, then we're actually looking at a pretty decent squad (talent wise, not necessarily chemistry wise unfortunately).
6 seasons w/ no playoffs and as far as i can see, its gonna be 7. Its tough to give up on young players but if we can get someone that will help us fight for a playoff spot then i think its worth the risk.
Theres also the possibility that neither guy pan out either of course...
6 seasons w/ no playoffs and as far as i can see, its gonna be 7. Its tough to give up on young players but if we can get someone that will help us fight for a playoff spot then i think its worth the risk.
Theres also the possibility that neither guy pan out either of course...
shot blocking, shooting, sf....
There was another lack as important as the above - length.
Wanted to criticize Smart for smallballing many times, and then I looked at roster.
With total of 2 tall pf/c there was no way to avoid playing smallball, and that is addressed in this draft.
You can play smallish (6'6) SF (TW,Outlaw,Salmons) when you have tall guys in the back even when they are not shotblockers and still have solid defense even without shotblocker. Not so with a shadow of Chuck.
Now Smart can actualy play NBA lineup without smallball and slide Reke back to guard position. Will he do it... we'll see.
That is achieved.
Regarding negativity regarding not addressing other issues... it is getting somewhat old.
After mistakes from the last year, there was nothing so far indicating we had any chance of addressing any of the needs people are lamenting about.
lets first become playoff team... and then chase ideal lineups to go for the top.
There was another lack as important as the above - length.
Wanted to criticize Smart for smallballing many times, and then I looked at roster.
With total of 2 tall pf/c there was no way to avoid playing smallball, and that is addressed in this draft.
You can play smallish (6'6) SF (TW,Outlaw,Salmons) when you have tall guys in the back even when they are not shotblockers and still have solid defense even without shotblocker. Not so with a shadow of Chuck.
Now Smart can actualy play NBA lineup without smallball and slide Reke back to guard position. Will he do it... we'll see.
That is achieved.
Regarding negativity regarding not addressing other issues... it is getting somewhat old.
After mistakes from the last year, there was nothing so far indicating we had any chance of addressing any of the needs people are lamenting about.
lets first become playoff team... and then chase ideal lineups to go for the top.
While there is no doubt that having a shot blocker helps a team defensive and in the playoffs, there have been many teams that have done just fine in the playoffs without a shot blocker. The Bad Boys of Detroit won 2 championships without one (sorry, but Bill Laimbeer was much more intimidating with his flops). I would also point out that the Bulls won 6 championships without one as well. Utah went deep in the playoffs for years without one (unless you really want to include Greg Ostertag). All of these are off the top of my head. The one thing all of these teams have in common is that they were very good at playing team defense. That is what the Kings need to focus on improving. If they can somehow find a shot blocker (or Whiteside starts showing more) that would be nice, but in the meantime they will have to deal with what they have.
"We're gonna go ahead and sort of disagree with you."
Sincerely,
The 2011-12 Miami Heat, 2010-11 Dallas Mavericks, 2009-10 Phoenix Suns, 2006-07 Cleveland Cavaliers, 2002-03 New Jersey Nets, 2001-02 Sacramento Kings, 2001-02 Boston Celtics, 1999-00 Portland Trailblazers, 1999-00 Indiana Pacers, 1995-96 Chicago Bulls, 1996-97 Chicago Bulls, 1997-98 Chicago Bulls, 1991-92 Portland Trailblazers, 1988-89 Detroit Pistons, 1987-88 Los Angeles Lakers, and many, many more .....
**2011-12 Sacramento Kings averaged 4.89 blocks per game (Cousins team high 1.2 per). The teams listed above, all of which reached the Conference Finals, Finals or won a title, didn't average many more blocks per game, if any, than the Kings did this season and their leading shot blocker didn't average much more, if any, than DeMarcus Cousins did this past season.
Sincerely,
The 2011-12 Miami Heat, 2010-11 Dallas Mavericks, 2009-10 Phoenix Suns, 2006-07 Cleveland Cavaliers, 2002-03 New Jersey Nets, 2001-02 Sacramento Kings, 2001-02 Boston Celtics, 1999-00 Portland Trailblazers, 1999-00 Indiana Pacers, 1995-96 Chicago Bulls, 1996-97 Chicago Bulls, 1997-98 Chicago Bulls, 1991-92 Portland Trailblazers, 1988-89 Detroit Pistons, 1987-88 Los Angeles Lakers, and many, many more .....
**2011-12 Sacramento Kings averaged 4.89 blocks per game (Cousins team high 1.2 per). The teams listed above, all of which reached the Conference Finals, Finals or won a title, didn't average many more blocks per game, if any, than the Kings did this season and their leading shot blocker didn't average much more, if any, than DeMarcus Cousins did this past season.
While I fully agree with you, I also believe in accuracy. The Pistons did have John "Spider" Salley, who averaged right at 2 blocks per game during their title winning season of 89-90. He only averaged 1.1 the season before when they also won the championship, which is why I included that team on my list.
I think your missing the point. The teams he listed didn't have the so called elite shotblocker. Ibaka is an elite shotblocker, and thats not the debate. The point is that you can win a championship without one. Who was the elite shotblocker on the Kings team with Valde, Webb, Peja, Bibby and Christie. Yes the team had the occasional shotblocker pass through, but none were good enough all around players to stick with any team, including the Kings. Yet that Kings team averaged decent block numbers on the whole.
As pointed out earlier, who was the great shotblocker on the championship Piston's team? the championship Bulls team? The championship Celtics team? The championship Warriors team? Please don't say Clifford Ray, who was a very good man defender and averaged around 1.4 blocks per game in his prime. Or Greorge Johnson, who added similar numbers. But together they all added up to a good defensive team.
I'm not arguing against having an elite shotblocker, but I think some of you are obsessing over it to the point that all is lost if you don't have one. And thats just nonsense.
As pointed out earlier, who was the great shotblocker on the championship Piston's team? the championship Bulls team? The championship Celtics team? The championship Warriors team? Please don't say Clifford Ray, who was a very good man defender and averaged around 1.4 blocks per game in his prime. Or Greorge Johnson, who added similar numbers. But together they all added up to a good defensive team.
I'm not arguing against having an elite shotblocker, but I think some of you are obsessing over it to the point that all is lost if you don't have one. And thats just nonsense.
Well, Kings didn't win the 'ship.
It's not that you can't win without shotblocker. It's that you have to compensate for that with perimeter and team D: .
Kings were well-oiled machine on both ends of the floor in 2002, not just offense:not one player with Drtg worse than 105 on the roster. Kings 2012 had two who were under 105. If you don't have rim intimidation you better be perfect everywhere else on defense. Shotblocker or superior team D like Artest allows you to sneak 1 or 2 suspect defenders so that your offense runs smoothly.
It's not that you can't win without shotblocker. It's that you have to compensate for that with perimeter and team D: .
Kings were well-oiled machine on both ends of the floor in 2002, not just offense:not one player with Drtg worse than 105 on the roster. Kings 2012 had two who were under 105. If you don't have rim intimidation you better be perfect everywhere else on defense. Shotblocker or superior team D like Artest allows you to sneak 1 or 2 suspect defenders so that your offense runs smoothly.
100% spot on.
These types of arguments are cyclical and generally revolve around what is en vogue. In the mid-80's to almost the mid-90's, it became en vogue to have a couple 7-footers on your roster. Due to the success of the "Twin Towers" in Houston and Patrick Ewing in NY, simpleton fans (and even some GM's) believed you had to have a couple 7-footers on the roster in order to win. Didn't matter if they could play or not, as many of them couldn't.
While shot blocking can certainly be a huge factor depending upon how your defense is set up, it's far from a necessity. If I had Hakeem Olajuwon in his prime, of course I'd set up a defense that funneled everything to him. However, if you don't have a player like that, there are ways to get around not having the luxury of a consistent goalie around the basket. And it doesn't mean your defense won't be as effective. You get 5 guys playing true team defense and it will be just as good as any shot blocking setup you'll ever see.
The examples I listed above only included teams that appeared in Conference Finals and / or Finals going back to the late 80's. I'm sure there are a ton more examples that could be found if we went back further and also included perennial playoffs teams that got got as far as the Conference Semi's.
In short, bajaden is exactly right. Many are over-obsessing and overvaluing that aspect of the game. That said, I certainly wouldn't be upset if the Kings were able to land an elite shot blocker that fit in with the design of the team. However, it's not a necessity.
These types of arguments are cyclical and generally revolve around what is en vogue. In the mid-80's to almost the mid-90's, it became en vogue to have a couple 7-footers on your roster. Due to the success of the "Twin Towers" in Houston and Patrick Ewing in NY, simpleton fans (and even some GM's) believed you had to have a couple 7-footers on the roster in order to win. Didn't matter if they could play or not, as many of them couldn't.
While shot blocking can certainly be a huge factor depending upon how your defense is set up, it's far from a necessity. If I had Hakeem Olajuwon in his prime, of course I'd set up a defense that funneled everything to him. However, if you don't have a player like that, there are ways to get around not having the luxury of a consistent goalie around the basket. And it doesn't mean your defense won't be as effective. You get 5 guys playing true team defense and it will be just as good as any shot blocking setup you'll ever see.
The examples I listed above only included teams that appeared in Conference Finals and / or Finals going back to the late 80's. I'm sure there are a ton more examples that could be found if we went back further and also included perennial playoffs teams that got got as far as the Conference Semi's.
In short, bajaden is exactly right. Many are over-obsessing and overvaluing that aspect of the game. That said, I certainly wouldn't be upset if the Kings were able to land an elite shot blocker that fit in with the design of the team. However, it's not a necessity.
Last edited:
To simplify, the bottom line is this. If you can score more points than you allow, your going to win more games than you lose. Thats just simple math. There are a lot of ways to accomplish that, but the most proven one, is to have a good balance between offense and defense. Seldom does a team win a championship by just trying to outscore the other team. And seldom does a team win a championship by being the best defensive team in the league, but at the expense of little to no offense. The old Kings wern't the best at defense, but they were good, and more importantly, good enough to get a stop when they needed it, and they could score with anyone.
If your designing a ring, and you decide that only a 15 carat blue diamond will do, then you may be sitting around for long while waiting for that diamond to be available. But if your willing to settle for five 3 carat diamonds, you'll wear your ring a lot sooner. Sorry, I just love metaphor's....
If your designing a ring, and you decide that only a 15 carat blue diamond will do, then you may be sitting around for long while waiting for that diamond to be available. But if your willing to settle for five 3 carat diamonds, you'll wear your ring a lot sooner. Sorry, I just love metaphor's....
Yes, meanwhile the guy who sucked it up and ponied up for the 15 carat bluie diamond VERY consistently walks off with your girl.
BY the way, to end the nonsense now:
championship Pistons teams were: Big Ben and John Salley, with an assist from Bill Laimbeer playing the role of thug you watch for. only the first Pistons tittle team had any question about the shotblocking, and as mentioned their Bad Boys m.o. is that they would break your skull if you went inside anyway, sometheing that alas you cannot get away with now.
The Bulls involked the MJ exception, although like the Pistons before them, what you are also talking about is merely accumulateing 3 All Defense Team members on the same team. Oh, and peopel conveniently forget that you cap it off by sticking a 7'2" center in the middle.
You know what crazy is? Crazy is twistiing yourself so in knots trying to avoid the shotblocker paradigm (let's call it defensive length and intimidation to be more inclusive) that you would instead argue that ratehr than picking up a shotblocker to cover everybody's mistakes, instead we should get to work on acquiring 3 members of the All Defense Teams, preferably led by several HOFers. Uh, I have a simpler suggestion: GET AND PLAY A BLEEPING shotblocker/intimidator.
Buried.
And of course that is the great problem here. We almost CAN'T add effective length inside because all the minutes are accounted for by players who are not. It was why Ak47 loomed as such an attractive option. Let us have our length while keeping our unitimidating guys up front. If come tommorow he really does choose to stay in Russia however...I don't see how it can be done barring injury.
And of course that is the great problem here. We almost CAN'T add effective length inside because all the minutes are accounted for by players who are not. It was why Ak47 loomed as such an attractive option. Let us have our length while keeping our unitimidating guys up front. If come tommorow he really does choose to stay in Russia however...I don't see how it can be done barring injury.
When you have to resort to hyperbole to make your point, you have no point.
Get over the shotblocking thing. The proof is out there if you stop being blinded by your ego long enough to see it. How many factual examples do you need to be beaten over the head with to finally admit that it is not a necessity?
Again, I'll go back to our 2001-02 Kings, who were one bounce of the ball away or 1 made FT away or a fairly officiated 4th QTR of game 6 away (I'll let you decide which one or all) from going to the NBA Finals and likely winning a ring against an inferior NJ Nets team. That team didn't have an elite shotblocker/intimidator, a team of shotblockers/intimidators, or 3 members of the All Defense Teams preferably led by several HOFers (to use your hyperbole) .... yet were right there with the Lakers 2 HOF's and could have won with a different bounce of the ball. If your theory is correct, how'd they manage to be in that position?
Fact is, this franchise constructed a title contending team without much of a shotblocking/intimidator presence before and they can do it again. There's no need to keep hanging yourself with an opinion that has already been proven wrong many times over. You may prefer a shotblocking presence, but you cannot at all prove it is necessary as evidence by all the teams that have won titles or have come within an eyelash of winning without it.
Get over the shotblocking thing. The proof is out there if you stop being blinded by your ego long enough to see it. How many factual examples do you need to be beaten over the head with to finally admit that it is not a necessity?
Again, I'll go back to our 2001-02 Kings, who were one bounce of the ball away or 1 made FT away or a fairly officiated 4th QTR of game 6 away (I'll let you decide which one or all) from going to the NBA Finals and likely winning a ring against an inferior NJ Nets team. That team didn't have an elite shotblocker/intimidator, a team of shotblockers/intimidators, or 3 members of the All Defense Teams preferably led by several HOFers (to use your hyperbole) .... yet were right there with the Lakers 2 HOF's and could have won with a different bounce of the ball. If your theory is correct, how'd they manage to be in that position?
Fact is, this franchise constructed a title contending team without much of a shotblocking/intimidator presence before and they can do it again. There's no need to keep hanging yourself with an opinion that has already been proven wrong many times over. You may prefer a shotblocking presence, but you cannot at all prove it is necessary as evidence by all the teams that have won titles or have come within an eyelash of winning without it.
Well, the guy who made that team out of the pieces Petrie brought in is currently building something in Minneapolis.
Shortblocking (more accurate: chalenging shots inside) is not absolute nesessity. It's a shortcut. Gives you additional freedom in team building.
And what some people don't get, you shouldn't strive to be an exception. Those are rare by definition so you're setting up the team from the start to have only outside shot if everything else goes right.
Shortblocking (more accurate: chalenging shots inside) is not absolute nesessity. It's a shortcut. Gives you additional freedom in team building.
And what some people don't get, you shouldn't strive to be an exception. Those are rare by definition so you're setting up the team from the start to have only outside shot if everything else goes right.
I love it when peopel stand on their little anthills of evidence and crow over to the guy on the mountain of his.
BTW, I often don't think people even fully knew what they were watching with the Golden Era Kings teams. The ONLY era mind you when we DID have shotblocking in there. Here's a few fun factoids that people seem to have missed:
Vlade Divac
Career Blocks: 1631
25th All Time in NBA history
Chris Webber
Career Blocks: 1200
51st All Time in NBA history
Webber/Divac/Pollard combined blocks per season
'99-'00: 3.8 (1.7/1.3/0.8)
'00-01: 4.1 (1.7/1.1/1.3)
'01-02: 3.6 (1.4/1.2/1.0)
'02-03: 4.5 (1.3/1.3/1.9) *Keon Clark replaced Pollard this season
compare that to the three headed monster of the best defensive team in the league this year:
Noah/Gibson/Asik = 1.44/1.29/1.03 = 3.76
now compare it to our three headed "monster" this past season:
Cousins/Thompson/Hickson = 1.17/0.69/0.65 = 2.51
and tell me which team, and which result, those classic teams more closely resembled. That frontline was big, long, and ABSOLUTELY could block shots.
BTW, I often don't think people even fully knew what they were watching with the Golden Era Kings teams. The ONLY era mind you when we DID have shotblocking in there. Here's a few fun factoids that people seem to have missed:
Vlade Divac
Career Blocks: 1631
25th All Time in NBA history
Chris Webber
Career Blocks: 1200
51st All Time in NBA history
Webber/Divac/Pollard combined blocks per season
'99-'00: 3.8 (1.7/1.3/0.8)
'00-01: 4.1 (1.7/1.1/1.3)
'01-02: 3.6 (1.4/1.2/1.0)
'02-03: 4.5 (1.3/1.3/1.9) *Keon Clark replaced Pollard this season
compare that to the three headed monster of the best defensive team in the league this year:
Noah/Gibson/Asik = 1.44/1.29/1.03 = 3.76
now compare it to our three headed "monster" this past season:
Cousins/Thompson/Hickson = 1.17/0.69/0.65 = 2.51
and tell me which team, and which result, those classic teams more closely resembled. That frontline was big, long, and ABSOLUTELY could block shots.
Easy to forget now but he was actually very well thought of in those early years and routinely mentioned as a key part of the Bad Boys frontline. That would be the shotblocking part, as he finshed 10th, 5th, and 10th in NBA block percentage in 1987-88, 1989-90 and 1990-91. Thought of too well actually as he got exposed when he was moved on to Miami. Don't remember if he had an injury as well, just remember he was not nearly as dynamic, and he ended up being an entirely forgettable 3rd big type for a few years before disappearing to 12th man hood on a couple of PJs title teams.