Defense still not addressed

[nbrans]

Most PGs are subpar defenders. We just happen to have one that is subpar even for a PG. I'm sure if we had a good defensive scheme and good players on the court we could be a good team on D in spite of Bibby.

See, I don't buy into this idea that teams can afford to have a subpar defender at the point guard position. A good interior defense can compensate for some weak defending on the perimeter and a shotblocker can discourage penetration, but I think that the point guard position is arguably the most important cog in any defensive team.

In most offenses in the league, basically any offense other than the triangle (Lakers) and its variants (Kings), the point guard is responsible for creating most of the offense. A good defensive point guard can not only slow down the Marburys and Nashs of the world, but they can also disrupt offensive rhythm and make it more difficult for the entire rest of the team to get good looks. If you look at recent championship teams, they have all had a good defensive point guard. (Parker, Billups, Fisher, Avery Johnson, Ron Harper, etc.)

I think that if the Kings are going to be a serious defensive team, one way to do that would be to trade Bibby. With the Kings' current offense and its current roster, I don't know that Bibby's offense is so essential that the Kings really need to keep him. With the passing and ball movement offense, the Kings don't rely on Bibby to penetrate and create offense, and so for the most part he's just an initiator and a jump shooter. Both are qualities that are replacable.

Trading Bibby would not only open up the point guard position for a defensive point guard like Jason Hart, who is a capable jump shooter, a solid offensive initiator and a good defender, it could also bring in a young power forward who could help out on the interior. I know Bibby's clutchness and willingness to take big shots is important, but if people on this board are really serious about the Kings getting better defensively I think it's time to stop making excuses for Bibby and to realize that trading him is the best chance to get someone like Tyson Chandler.

 

[piksi]

Don't hold a grudge do ya piksi. I guess I should have expected that from you. Believe it or not Christie couldn't play D for two people. He was great at cutting off the passing lanes, but the team, including Mr. Mike Bibby played pretty damn good defense (weren't they toward the top of league in opp fg% at one point?). As it stands no one on the Kings last year played very good D, including a certain favorite player of yours.

The fact of the matter is, they can all play D. Those that have been on the team in the past have proven they can play D as a team. Why is the team's defensive performance soley encumbent on one person in your mind?

Wasn't that the year where Bibby missed 25 games or so and Bobby played like an allstar ?

And Peja played defensively better than ofensively last season (value based on skill level of each cathegory)

Mike has never proven that he can play D. In fact, every major defensive assignment has been taken off of him. (for example against Nash 2 years ago). He has never been able to stay in front of his man, he is late on rotations (mostly does not even try) etc. Mike's defens "weakness" can be reduced only by monster presenc insid or in case that one of opponents guards does not really play offense. Anything else in not good for us.

 

[gman23]

IF the starting lineup can play some TEAM DEFENSE .

That's all that needs to be said.

 

[Bad Boy Bo]

See, I don't buy into this idea that teams can afford to have a subpar defender at the point guard position. A good interior defense can compensate for some weak defending on the perimeter and a shotblocker can discourage penetration, but I think that the point guard position is arguably the most important cog in any defensive team.

In most offenses in the league, basically any offense other than the triangle (Lakers) and its variants (Kings), the point guard is responsible for creating most of the offense. A good defensive point guard can not only slow down the Marburys and Nashs of the world, but they can also disrupt offensive rhythm and make it more difficult for the entire rest of the team to get good looks. If you look at recent championship teams, they have all had a good defensive point guard. (Parker, Billups, Fisher, Avery Johnson, Ron Harper, etc.)

I think that if the Kings are going to be a serious defensive team, one way to do that would be to trade Bibby. With the Kings' current offense and its current roster, I don't know that Bibby's offense is so essential that the Kings really need to keep him. With the passing and ball movement offense, the Kings don't rely on Bibby to penetrate and create offense, and so for the most part he's just an initiator and a jump shooter. Both are qualities that are replacable.

Trading Bibby would not only open up the point guard position for a defensive point guard like Jason Hart, who is a capable jump shooter, a solid offensive initiator and a good defender, it could also bring in a young power forward who could help out on the interior. I know Bibby's clutchness and willingness to take big shots is important, but if people on this board are really serious about the Kings getting better defensively I think it's time to stop making excuses for Bibby and to realize that trading him is the best chance to get someone like Tyson Chandler.

Well wow, and I thought I was the only one that thought this way. I've seen so many people praise and want to keep Bibby, and I am for one in favore of moving him for a long while. Bibby is great offensively, no doubt, but really, we just need someone who passes well and consistent, but in turn play decent D.

 

[KingDog]

Oh Please don't worry . It's all semantics. There is actually an I in team if you spell it sideways (sort of) In some other language.
C// aka KD

 

[dukeswh]

I'm not against trading Bibby, for a more well rounded PG. But i'm willing to give him one more year to prove himself. I just have this gut feeling that this will be Bibby's breakout year.

 

[ParniValjak]

Most PGs are subpar defenders. We just happen to have one that is subpar even for a PG. I'm sure if we had a good defensive scheme and good players on the court we could be a good team on D in spite of Bibby.

I would actually disagree with this.

I would go the other way and say that PG is probably THE most important position to be defensively good at. In most offences, PGs are the initiators and when you have a defensively minded terrier at PG, harrasing and strongly defending his opponent, more often than not the oppositions offence breaks down.

There is an old saying that defence wins championships but if you look at those champions closely, you will find that more often than not, they will have a PG that is a VERY good defender.

 

[ParniValjak]

See, I don't buy into this idea that teams can afford to have a subpar defender at the point guard position. A good interior defense can compensate for some weak defending on the perimeter and a shotblocker can discourage penetration, but I think that the point guard position is arguably the most important cog in any defensive team.

In most offenses in the league, basically any offense other than the triangle (Lakers) and its variants (Kings), the point guard is responsible for creating most of the offense. A good defensive point guard can not only slow down the Marburys and Nashs of the world, but they can also disrupt offensive rhythm and make it more difficult for the entire rest of the team to get good looks. If you look at recent championship teams, they have all had a good defensive point guard. (Parker, Billups, Fisher, Avery Johnson, Ron Harper, etc.)

I think that if the Kings are going to be a serious defensive team, one way to do that would be to trade Bibby. With the Kings' current offense and its current roster, I don't know that Bibby's offense is so essential that the Kings really need to keep him. With the passing and ball movement offense, the Kings don't rely on Bibby to penetrate and create offense, and so for the most part he's just an initiator and a jump shooter. Both are qualities that are replacable.

Trading Bibby would not only open up the point guard position for a defensive point guard like Jason Hart, who is a capable jump shooter, a solid offensive initiator and a good defender, it could also bring in a young power forward who could help out on the interior. I know Bibby's clutchness and willingness to take big shots is important, but if people on this board are really serious about the Kings getting better defensively I think it's time to stop making excuses for Bibby and to realize that trading him is the best chance to get someone like Tyson Chandler.

I should have read the entire thread before I posted.

Well said.

 

[AriesMar27]

wasnt fisher the man that made bibby a max contract player?

wasnt it fisher and payton that made billups finals mvp?

wasnt it billups balling up parker that sent the finals as far as it went?

it wasnt parker shutting down kidd that won the series in 2003 for the spurs....

it wasnt bibbys poor defence that cost the kings a trip to the finals in '02....

defensive point guards are overrated in terms of winning it all.....

 

[kingsofnba]

I'm not against trading Bibby, for a more well rounded PG. But i'm willing to give him one more year to prove himself. I just have this gut feeling that this will be Bibby's breakout year.

i have the same feeling about bibby... i think that this year he will have a year similar to the break out season by nash last year... bibby didn't change teams like nash, but just like nash, he went from 2nd or 3rd option to the main man... give him time to adjust to this new role and i think bibby will have a breakout season this year...

the reason i wouldn't trade bibby is because he is the most clutch player on this team... who is going to shot the last second shot if bibby is gone???

 

[Bricklayer]

No, most PGs are weak defenders in the NBA today. Tony Parker is a weak defender and they just won the title, Steve Nash is a weak defender, and they won 60+ games. Derek Fisher was pilloried for being bad defensively, Sam Cassel sucks. In fact unless I am forgetting somebody there hasn't been a GOOD PG defender that made it so far as the WCF in 5 years.


I would much rather Bibby played MUCH better defense -- hey, somebody on this team has to. But in short form -- the "we can't win with a bad defensive PG" argument is completely bogus. Its completely unsupported by the facts. And yes, for having balls and guts Mike Bibby EASILY looks the most like championship player on the whole roster. He's the one and only King battle tested and proven to be able to come up big in the biggest moments. We KNOW he can play huge on the biggest stages. To say the rest of the roster is a bunch of question amrks in that regard is an understatement.

 

[chelle]

I would not trade Bibby because, defense or no, he is one of the elite guards in the game. I will agree that his defense needs work, but he helps the team much more than hinders the team. I have no problems trading players. Losing Doug just about broke my heart, but it helps the team, so be it. I just beleive that trades should ALWAYS make you better, a good pg is vital to the success of a team. There is no pg available or on the trading block that could fill Bibby's spot. The Suns are not giving up Nash, Kidd has not been the same since his surgery. It starts to go down after that. Unless we could convince Stockton to come out of retirement, we have the cream of the crop guiding our ship. Don't trade unless you get better from it.

 

[Evenstar]

Mike Bibby
Ron Artest
Andrei Kirilenko
Kevin Garnett
Ben Wallace

How about that? Still terrible at D?

i'd replace KG with duncan

damn that would be a damn good defensive team.....

edit: as for the kings team, the way its shaping up to be in more offense, but wells can play some decent D, hopefully SAR can average around 8 rebounds a night ( not what we are used RPG from the PF position, still, its something) and maybe, dare i ask it, if peja could average just *5* rebounds a game, that would really help! rebounding is always a good thing.

i can't wait to see how things play out

 

[nbrans]

No, most PGs are weak defenders in the NBA today. Tony Parker is a weak defender and they just won the title, Steve Nash is a weak defender, and they won 60+ games. Derek Fisher was pilloried for being bad defensively, Sam Cassel sucks. In fact unless I am forgetting somebody there hasn't been a GOOD PG defender that made it so far as the WCF in 5 years.


I would much rather Bibby played MUCH better defense -- hey, somebody on this team has to. But in short form -- the "we can't win with a bad defensive PG" argument is completely bogus. Its completely unsupported by the facts.

Tony Parker is a solid defender, and the point of the posts is that championship point guards (i.e. not Steve Nash) have traditionally been at least capable defenders. Fisher couldn't guard Bibby, but he's big and strong and did fine against others.

For someone so obsessed with defense and toughness, it surprises me that you would say the Kings don't need a good defender at the PG. Luke Ridnour of all people showed how much a pesky defender can disrupt a team's offense. If the Kings are going to improve their team defense it seems logical to target the player who hasn't shown any defensive improvement, especially if it brings in your cause celebre, the tough interior defender.

 

[D-Mass]

i'd replace KG with duncan

I wouldn't!

 

[piksi]

I'm not against trading Bibby, for a more well rounded PG. But i'm willing to give him one more year to prove himself. I just have this gut feeling that this will be Bibby's breakout year.

He already had a breakout year. You can't break out twice

 

[piksi]

wasnt fisher the man that made bibby a max contract player?

wasnt it fisher and payton that made billups finals mvp?

wasnt it billups balling up parker that sent the finals as far as it went?

it wasnt parker shutting down kidd that won the series in 2003 for the spurs....

it wasnt bibbys poor defence that cost the kings a trip to the finals in '02....

defensive point guards are overrated in terms of winning it all.....

yes

yes

true (he did well enough)

true

false

 

[Bricklayer]

Tony Parker is a solid defender, and the point of the posts is that championship point guards (i.e. not Steve Nash) have traditionally been at least capable defenders. Fisher couldn't guard Bibby, but he's big and strong and did fine against others.

For someone so obsessed with defense and toughness, it surprises me that you would say the Kings don't need a good defender at the PG. Luke Ridnour of all people showed how much a pesky defender can disrupt a team's offense. If the Kings are going to improve their team defense it seems logical to target the player who hasn't shown any defensive improvement, especially if it brings in your cause celebre, the tough interior defender.

Facts are facts, and btw Tony Parker MIGHT be mediocre defensively. He just benefits immensely from having real big men behind him who cover up all mistakes.

History shows little correlation between good PG defense and championship or near championship teams. It sounds good on paper if you are making up a theory, but there is very little substantial evidence to back it up. As with any defense, it helps and wouldm be a welcome addition, but team after team has managed to make it deep into the playoffs with mediocre and at times just plain bad PG defenders. We ourselves, if you will recall, did it with this very same PG. There hasn't been a strong defensive PG heading an elite team out West in this millenium.

On the other hand there is a VERY strong correlation between INTERIOR defense and championship aspirations.

 

[Crvena Zvezda]

Having one good defensive player is not going to change the team around completely and make us 1337.

We need to change the whole teams gameplan etc to get some TEAM defense going on and the only way that will happen is by getting a new coach.

 

[Bricklayer]

Having one good defensive player is not going to change the team around completely and make us 1337.

We need to change the whole teams gameplan etc to get some TEAM defense going on and the only way that will happen is by getting a new coach.

There is no "defenseive coach" who could coach these players into being a good defensive team. I mean really now. Just using Sloan, Riley, Pop, Carlisle, Sloan...what team have they EVER coached that looked anything like us personnelwise. Great defensive coaches are dependant on personnel.

And frankly I'm getting a little tired of Adelman being a fall guy for GEOFF'S player acquisitions. Rick has his own weaknesses, but he is NOT responsible for the fact Mike Bibby, Peja Stojakovic, Brad Miller, and Shareef Abdur-Rahim are poor defenders. Even the casual basketball fan could have told you that long before they hit Kingsland. Let alone a genius GM.

 

[GoGoGadget]

What do we do?

Add hazards to the Arco floor like those in the Battlebots Arena?















Yeah. I admit it. I threw out a reference to a Comedy Central show that was cancelled years ago. So what?

 

[hrdboild]

Personnel does have a lot to do with it, but I think you can be a good defensive team without filling your roster with defensive specialists. To be an elite defensive unit like Detroit requires exceptionally talented defenders at more than one position, but to be a middle of the road defensive team one or two above average defenders and a real commitment to playing solid defense for 48 minutes should be enough. With this current squad, I think middle of the road defense would be a marked improvement.

To a certain extent defense can't be coached. We don't have anyone on the team with the athletic gifts of Kevin Garnett or Tim Duncan or Tayshaun Prince. Those guys are long and strong and quick. Their defensive potential is thus much higher than a player with average athleticism, strength, speed, etc. Bibby for example is not very quick for a pointguard so it's tough for him to stay in front of his man. Peja is not very quick or agile for a small forward and Brad obviously isn't going to be mistaken for a super athlete either. However, the fundamental skills of defense can be taught. A team defense which directs the offense to where it wants it to go requires 5 players working together, knowing what the others are doing.

Also, in the NBA offenses really seem to have an advantage. Certain players literally can get to the foul line at will because of the way fouls are called in the NBA. And guys are so quick and skilled with the basketball and so strong that they're just unguardable. Between an elite offense and an elite defense, the offense will win every time in the NBA. That's what I've seen in the last five years or so that I've watched the NBA a lot. Usually great offenses lose games when they get out of synch or the open shots (high percentage shots) just aren't dropping. All those years the Kings have been scoring over 100 points a game and we look at the defensive stats and see them almost last, remember that they're making opposing defenses look ineffective too. They don't need to hold opponents to 70 points per game because they don't have any trouble scoring that many points themselves on most nights. Elite defense is defined mostly by personel. If you've got the guys that Detroit has, you've got to play fantastic defense because that's what your guys are good at.

If there's one constant in sports (based on my observations) it's that there's unlimited pathways to a championship. If that weren't the case, we would know who was going to win every year. The games don't change much, but we're continually suprised by new stories and new pathways to a championship. If you've got good players and they play well together and they motivate each other and outperform expectations, you've got a good shot at a championship. We saw that here in 2002. That was a great bunch of guys and they really deserve to be thought of as champions because they had everything it takes to be there. You can't just replay the same year over and over again, but if you could I'd guess the Kings win that year a good % of the time.

So in relation to this discussion, I guess I really don't agree with the assesment that defense has not been addressed this offseason unless by addressed you mean taking apart the whole team and rebuilding it as an elite defensive squad. No Petrie didn't bring in Garnett and Artest and whoever else. Really I think the obsession with defense amongst Kings fans has more to do with the constant harping about how it's the Achilles heel of this team than how important it is to winning a championship. It's like when your car swerves and you swerve too far the other way to try and straighten out. An overcorrection. We're so desperate for any kind of defense that we won't settle for anything less than DPOY candidates at every position. No Kings' management hasn't overcorrected like that, but they're obviously making an effort to acquire players that have a reputation for being tough defenders. They've also got three core players that need to step up their defense.

And I also think bringing in a defensive specialist assistant coach might be a good idea. Adelman has done a marvelous job of pulling in different players and getting them to fit into his offensive system and be succesful with it. I question how much time and effort he puts into teaching these guys defense. Not that he doesn't care about defense, I just don't think that's something he's especially knowledgable about so he doesn't emphasize it. I don't think bringing in a 'defense is everything' head coach is a better solution. Those guys tend to emphasize defense and fundamentals to the point where skilled offensive players aren't having their best attributes maximized because they're trying to play within a restrictive system. But it wouldn't be such a bad idea to let Adelman keep teaching offense and bring in somebody else who's going to run defense drills on a regular basis and make sure the guys' heads are always in that part of the game too. It works well for football (which makes sense since the two - offense and defense - are literally two different teams). Maybe it takes two coaches for the guys to answer too so when they score 120 points and give up 115, Adelman can give credit where credit is due but Coach Defense can rightfully harp on them for failing at that aspect of the game. Keep guys accountable, teach them some skills to get them thinking about defense, and go into each game with a definite strategy for how to break down a particular offense. It's a lot to talk about, but other teams manage to get all of that done. I think maybe it's too much for Adelman to handle to be responsible for all of that and teaching the guys offense and finding good matchups. That's not a dig on Adelman, very few (if any) coaches really due a great job of coaching both offense and defense. Why be old fashioned? Split them up. In my opinion, that's really the best way for this team to address the defense problem.

 

[GoGoGadget]

As long as Bibby is a King and plays major minutes - Kings will not be a defensive team of any quality.

I feel the need to point out, once again, that Mike was a part of the very good defensive team that we had a couple years ago.

But, I'm sure I'll find that someone else already has, if I read a little farther.

 

[GoGoGadget]

Wasn't that the year where Bibby missed 25 games or so and Bobby played like an allstar?

Even if it was, it disproves your comment that no team with Mike Bibby playing significant minutes would ever be a good defensive team. He was, and they were.

Secondly, I don't see how Bobby's starts early in the season would have had such a huge impact that the Kings were still leading the league in opp. FG% 50 games later.

 

[dukeswh]

He already had a breakout year.

mmmmm (scratches head....), when?

 

[captain bill]

He already had a breakout year. You can't break out twice

Say that to my face.
































ba-dum, tshk

 

[captain bill]

Also, in the NBA offenses really seem to have an advantage. Certain players literally can get to the foul line at will because of the way fouls are called in the NBA. And guys are so quick and skilled with the basketball and so strong that they're just unguardable. Between an elite offense and an elite defense, the offense will win every time in the NBA. That's what I've seen in the last five years or so that I've watched the NBA a lot. Usually great offenses lose games when they get out of synch or the open shots (high percentage shots) just aren't dropping. All those years the Kings have been scoring over 100 points a game and we look at the defensive stats and see them almost last, remember that they're making opposing defenses look ineffective too. They don't need to hold opponents to 70 points per game because they don't have any trouble scoring that many points themselves on most nights. Elite defense is defined mostly by personel. If you've got the guys that Detroit has, you've got to play fantastic defense because that's what your guys are good at.

If there's one constant in sports (based on my observations) it's that there's unlimited pathways to a championship. If that weren't the case, we would know who was going to win every year. The games don't change much, but we're continually suprised by new stories and new pathways to a championship. If you've got good players and they play well together and they motivate each other and outperform expectations, you've got a good shot at a championship. We saw that here in 2002. That was a great bunch of guys and they really deserve to be thought of as champions because they had everything it takes to be there. You can't just replay the same year over and over again, but if you could I'd guess the Kings win that year a good % of the time.

...
And I also think bringing in a defensive specialist assistant coach might be a good idea. Adelman has done a marvelous job of pulling in different players and getting them to fit into his offensive system and be succesful with it. I question how much time and effort he puts into teaching these guys defense. Not that he doesn't care about defense, I just don't think that's something he's especially knowledgable about so he doesn't emphasize it. I don't think bringing in a 'defense is everything' head coach is a better solution. Those guys tend to emphasize defense and fundamentals to the point where skilled offensive players aren't having their best attributes maximized because they're trying to play within a restrictive system. But it wouldn't be such a bad idea to let Adelman keep teaching offense and bring in somebody else who's going to run defense drills on a regular basis and make sure the guys' heads are always in that part of the game too. It works well for football (which makes sense since the two - offense and defense - are literally two different teams). Maybe it takes two coaches for the guys to answer too so when they score 120 points and give up 115, Adelman can give credit where credit is due but Coach Defense can rightfully harp on them for failing at that aspect of the game. Keep guys accountable, teach them some skills to get them thinking about defense, and go into each game with a definite strategy for how to break down a particular offense. It's a lot to talk about, but other teams manage to get all of that done. I think maybe it's too much for Adelman to handle to be responsible for all of that and teaching the guys offense and finding good matchups. That's not a dig on Adelman, very few (if any) coaches really due a great job of coaching both offense and defense. Why be old fashioned? Split them up. In my opinion, that's really the best way for this team to address the defense problem.

To the first section, I agree in part. Offense always wins out over D. Even a great defense can't hold a team to say, .300 shooting for an entire game. Teams will always beat a defender and find ways to score, it's just the nature of the game. That said, a great defense isn't a D that gets shutouts, it's a team that can get the critical stops, slow down an offense for stretches, and allow themselves to score and make runs and build leads and maintain them. Of course we shouldn't expect to hold teams to 70 points- even if we were a great D team we wouldn't expect to hold teams to that low total simply because our fast pace and scoring gives the other team more opportunities to score and basically guarantees they score 5-10 more ppg. For the Kings to have a good defense we need not to abandon our style but implement some focus on defense where we can make the critical stops and build the leads and maintain them and shut and bolt the door on teams trying to make comebacks.

As for the multiple paths to a ring theory, back in 02 and 03 we could play defense. We had Doug, Vlade and Webb, 3 good defenders in the lineup, and Peja who could at least hold his own. Our bench was none to shabby in the scrappy d department, either. No one would assume us to be a great D team because our forte was a high scoring offense, having the ability to play both sides of the ball was (frequently overlooked) icing on the cake. At the end of last year we completely lacked those defensive players and thus had no chance of going anywhere. We've got better D going into this year, but we're not there yet. A few more moves and we could be back to contention.

As for a D coaching specialist, that's too much info, too much work, too many ideas to put into the players, esp during game time. We just need to put out better players on the court. That's how we won games with D before, taht is how we can do it again.

 

[captain bill]

Facts are facts, and btw Tony Parker MIGHT be mediocre defensively. He just benefits immensely from having real big men behind him who cover up all mistakes.

History shows little correlation between good PG defense and championship or near championship teams. It sounds good on paper if you are making up a theory, but there is very little substantial evidence to back it up. As with any defense, it helps and wouldm be a welcome addition, but team after team has managed to make it deep into the playoffs with mediocre and at times just plain bad PG defenders. We ourselves, if you will recall, did it with this very same PG. There hasn't been a strong defensive PG heading an elite team out West in this millenium.

On the other hand there is a VERY strong correlation between INTERIOR defense and championship aspirations.

I agree. Bonzi and Peja aren't half bad defenders, but that doesn't come close to making us a good team on defense. It's nice that we added some players who are supposed to play good D for us (Garcia, Hart, Price, Sampson, Wells) but it worries me immensely that only one plays in the frontcourt. GP mentioned adding another roleplayer when we signed SAR. Hopefully that will be a good inside defender.

 

[captain bill]

There is no "defenseive coach" who could coach these players into being a good defensive team. I mean really now. Just using Sloan, Riley, Pop, Carlisle, Sloan...what team have they EVER coached that looked anything like us personnelwise. Great defensive coaches are dependant on personnel.

And frankly I'm getting a little tired of Adelman being a fall guy for GEOFF'S player acquisitions. Rick has his own weaknesses, but he is NOT responsible for the fact Mike Bibby, Peja Stojakovic, Brad Miller, and Shareef Abdur-Rahim are poor defenders. Even the casual basketball fan could have told you that long before they hit Kingsland. Let alone a genius GM.

It is frustrating that GP hasn't added any great starters that can play D, but I think all of his other moves outside the Shareef aquisition this offseason have been aquiring players who can play defense. I would not be suprised if we have one more aquisition of a good interior defender and suddenly we go back to being a quietly good defending team.

 

[SacTownKid]

The Kings know what they have to do. Nothing has changed. It won't change until they make those certain strides. This season they hopefully will. I have faith that this team will be far more competitive on the defensive side of the court.