DMC's comments after the game

Were you a fan of Cousins' post-game comments?


  • Total voters
    92
#91
Basketball is a mental sport, more than most. Many people forget that. Teams that play with a high level of confidence can often beat teams that are more athletic. Even at the NBA level this is totally true, especially with the younger players. Instilling confidence is one of the most important things that good coaches do with younger players. Karl seems to suck at it.

Let's review. Seth Curry has a great pedigree and his blood brother is "pretty good." I would hire a coach just to work with him and get his confidence at a very high level and see what happens.

Willie's talent has been squandered this season to a large extent. Watching him hit jumpers shows how under utilized he is, and that he is not just a rebounder and defender that can make some layups. He has a high level of confidence already and will flourish with better coaching. Do not let that guy slip away.
 

Capt. Factorial

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
Staff member
#95
jesus

he said that!?
Not exactly. The word "only" was not included. Here is the quote, in reference to a question about Seth Curry's future:

I think Seth will be a combo guard, play both 1 and 2. I think usually those guys when I look at them, I see them probably trying to score a little bit too much and I think he probably should become more of a playmaking point as much as a scoring point, but he's going to be around for a couple years. He's definitely going to have a few more years of someone; I think we have him for one more year. I think he has a tenacity to him and a good basketball feel to him. Now he's just got to be confident and consistent.
If I'm reading it correctly, Karl was trying to say that Curry isn't going to wash out of the league next year, which might be something a casual observer of basketball might think given his low minutes total this year and in seasons past. Those who spin it as George Karl saying that Seth Curry isn't any good are misrepresenting the sentiment, in my opinion. He probably should have included an "at least", but he didn't. At the same time, he definitely didn't include an "only" and it seems quite against the spirit of the quote to read one in.

I think the real lesson to George Karl here would be to simply stop giving press conferences entirely. He's going to be fired this summer anyway, and the entire media and community and team have turned on him so badly you'd think his name was Emmanuel Goldstein and he was the subject of the daily 140 Characters Hate.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#96
If I'm reading it correctly, Karl was trying to say that Curry isn't going to wash out of the league next year, which might be something a casual observer of basketball might think given his low minutes total this year and in seasons past. Those who spin it as George Karl saying that Seth Curry isn't any good are misrepresenting the sentiment, in my opinion. He probably should have included an "at least", but he didn't. At the same time, he definitely didn't include an "only" and it seems quite against the spirit of the quote to read one in.
Eh, you appear to feel compelled to grant George Karl a degree of benefit of the doubt, which most of the rest of us do not appear to feel compelled to grant him. Now, I'm willing to believe that Karl thought that he was paying Curry a compliment (I don't actually believe that, but I could probably be so convinced), but from my point of view, the comment that he actually made is a slight, even if you look at it in the most complimentary way possible.
 
#97
Eh, you appear to feel compelled to grant George Karl a degree of benefit of the doubt, which most of the rest of us do not appear to feel compelled to grant him. Now, I'm willing to believe that Karl thought that he was paying Curry a compliment (I don't actually believe that, but I could probably be so convinced), but from my point of view, the comment that he actually made is a slight, even if you look at it in the most complimentary way possible.
I'm with you on that one for sure. I've actually been a Karl supporter this year for longer than most I think, but I'm fed up at this point. The more interviews and press conferences that I watch he just seems to not really care. Almost every time he says something along the lines of, "We're playing good basketball, we just need a break here and there" just annoys me. This team can get blown out by 25 and give up 15 3-pointers and it's the same comment, ridiculous.

As for his comments about Curry I can see both sides and originally I would have thought it was a compliment, but throughout the year his quotes about various players seem to filled with backhanded compliments, either in words or in action. I remember several games earlier this year where Curry played well and Karl said things about how he was a great shooter and even that he might be the best perimeter defender on the team. Then after those compliments Curry didn't play again for weeks.

Karl just has on odd style, I don't know if it's age or what. Whatever it is it just doesn't work and at this point I think just about everything he says is going to seem bad to some, most importantly the players.
 

Capt. Factorial

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
Staff member
#98
Eh, you appear to feel compelled to grant George Karl a degree of benefit of the doubt, which most of the rest of us do not appear to feel compelled to grant him.
I'm not sure that not inserting an inflammatory word that wasn't actually used falls under my definition of "benefit of the doubt". For me, benefit of the doubt is the attempt to interpret something in a kinder light than it actually appears. Benefit of the doubt is not declining to interpret something in a worse light than it actually appears. The latter is what I am doing here.

I do agree that I appear to be on my own these days in holding that sort of restraint.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#99
I'm not sure that not inserting an inflammatory word that wasn't actually used falls under my definition of "benefit of the doubt". For me, benefit of the doubt is the attempt to interpret something in a kinder light than it actually appears. Benefit of the doubt is not declining to interpret something in a worse light than it actually appears. The latter is what I am doing here.
I beg to differ. It is granting him benefit of the doubt, in my opinion, because in saying that you are "not inserting an inflammatory word" into his comments, you are in effect saying that you accept the words he did say at face value, and do not suspect him of ulterior motives. To me, that constitutes giving someone the benefit of the doubt. And George Karl does not get that from me.

I would ascribe what you are describing (attempting to "interpret something in a kinder light than it actually appears") more to wishful thinking than giving someone the benefit of the doubt.
 
Eh, you appear to feel compelled to grant George Karl a degree of benefit of the doubt, which most of the rest of us do not appear to feel compelled to grant him. Now, I'm willing to believe that Karl thought that he was paying Curry a compliment (I don't actually believe that, but I could probably be so convinced), but from my point of view, the comment that he actually made is a slight, even if you look at it in the most complimentary way possible.
Absolutely normal coach-speak. I agree with Capt.
 
Any benefit of the doubt towards Karl should be removed when considering his other recent comments towards rookies. (pssst - Willie)

Karl's comments about Willie's impressive performances are so egregious and out-of-line that he should have been publicly reprimanded/corrected by the front office.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
I'm not sure that not inserting an inflammatory word that wasn't actually used falls under my definition of "benefit of the doubt". For me, benefit of the doubt is the attempt to interpret something in a kinder light than it actually appears. Benefit of the doubt is not declining to interpret something in a worse light than it actually appears. The latter is what I am doing here.

I do agree that I appear to be on my own these days in holding that sort of restraint.
If you're accusing me of intentionally inserting an inflammatory word then you're off base. I was responding from memory and paraphrasing. And it's not like I (or others here) were the only ones who took the comment the same way.

I received an email today about the current team store special offer:


If one were so inclined, one might be able read between the lines and conclude that the team is also taking sides ... and it's not George Karl's face on that t-shirt.
 
If you're accusing me of intentionally inserting an inflammatory word then you're off base. I was responding from memory and paraphrasing. And it's not like I (or others here) were the only ones who took the comment the same way.

I received an email today about the current team store special offer:


If one were so inclined, one might be able read between the lines and conclude that the team is also taking sides ... and it's not George Karl's face on that t-shirt.
Or, maybe there's a reason why those shirts are on discount?! :eek::p
 
I'm not sure that not inserting an inflammatory word that wasn't actually used falls under my definition of "benefit of the doubt". For me, benefit of the doubt is the attempt to interpret something in a kinder light than it actually appears. Benefit of the doubt is not declining to interpret something in a worse light than it actually appears. The latter is what I am doing here.

I do agree that I appear to be on my own these days in holding that sort of restraint.
You are not alone. I am with you. I heard the comments and I understand how those comments could be taken at least a couple of ways. I do not know for sure what GK meant by it and really do not even care. I am moving forward without participating in the family court drama.
 

Capt. Factorial

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
Staff member
If you're accusing me of intentionally inserting an inflammatory word then you're off base. I was responding from memory and paraphrasing. And it's not like I (or others here) were the only ones who took the comment the same way.
I don't think it was intentional, which is why I didn't bother to correct it initially. But when the wide-eyed "he actually said that?!?!" comment followed up, I felt it was only right to set the record straight on the quote. Whether people believe he meant it that way or not (and most seem to think he did mean it), he didn't say it that way.

I get the feeling you think I'm looking at this from a pro-Karl point of view. But it's more accurate to say that I'm looking at it from a "not anti-Karl" point of view, and there's a distinction there. Karl has made it very hard to stick up for him, by the team's performance alone. He was supposed to turn us around, and he didn't. And he clearly has some role in the locker room dysfunction of this team. Hall-of-Fame coach or not, he hasn't worked out and outside of the money he is owed I can't see any argument for keeping him around. At the same time, I don't feel the need to go hunting for more grievances against him. It's abundantly clear that he's going to be fired over the summer, so there seems to be little point in piling it on. Besides, most of this piling on seems focused on making Karl "the villain", and to put it bluntly I believe there are very few villains in this world and I doubt Karl qualifies as one of them.

I'll put it this way - there's a dead equine in the room, but the beatings continue unabated. I'm just trying to clean up the blood spatter a bit.
 

Glenn

Hall of Famer
I'm not sure that not inserting an inflammatory word that wasn't actually used falls under my definition of "benefit of the doubt". For me, benefit of the doubt is the attempt to interpret something in a kinder light than it actually appears. Benefit of the doubt is not declining to interpret something in a worse light than it actually appears. The latter is what I am doing here.

I do agree that I appear to be on my own these days in holding that sort of restraint.
Concerning this particular quote, I agree with you. I don't want to leave you hanging. In the context of the entire quote, it could be seen as positive. However, actions speak louder than words. As mentioned above, Karl said Seth was a great defender, played him 34 minutes the next game, and then we didn't see Seth for a long time. Karl has an odd way of passing out compliments. In my view, he can't be trusted. He's nasty. Even if he is a sweetheart (did I say that?) the fact that people don't know if he is positive or negative is a problem. No player should have to guess whether he was just complimented or not.

And no, he doesn't talk that way because of his age. There are at least 4 people on this forum older than Karl. Pick 'em out. :)
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
I don't think it was intentional, which is why I didn't bother to correct it initially. But when the wide-eyed "he actually said that?!?!" comment followed up, I felt it was only right to set the record straight on the quote. Whether people believe he meant it that way or not (and most seem to think he did mean it), he didn't say it that way.

I get the feeling you think I'm looking at this from a pro-Karl point of view. But it's more accurate to say that I'm looking at it from a "not anti-Karl" point of view, and there's a distinction there. Karl has made it very hard to stick up for him, by the team's performance alone. He was supposed to turn us around, and he didn't. And he clearly has some role in the locker room dysfunction of this team. Hall-of-Fame coach or not, he hasn't worked out and outside of the money he is owed I can't see any argument for keeping him around. At the same time, I don't feel the need to go hunting for more grievances against him. It's abundantly clear that he's going to be fired over the summer, so there seems to be little point in piling it on. Besides, most of this piling on seems focused on making Karl "the villain", and to put it bluntly I believe there are very few villains in this world and I doubt Karl qualifies as one of them.

I'll put it this way - there's a dead equine in the room, but the beatings continue unabated. I'm just trying to clean up the blood spatter a bit.
I might actually agree with you somewhat if George Karl wasn't continuing to seemingly go out of his way to make absurdist comments.

He's not a fool. He knows what he's saying. When he was campaigning for the job here (via Twitter), he showed himself to be a master wordsmith...and that hasn't changed.

A kid who hasn't had a lot of opportunity to shine has a good game. What does Karl do? Does he come out and praise the kid for effort in the post-game? Nope. Karl immediately went to criticize mode, and IMHO purposefully avoided any attaboy or praise.

If the equine is dead, its carcass needs to be removed ... or sent home for the rest of the season. He shouldn't be allowed to talk to the media if what he's going to do undermines our rookies, an achievement he's managed to do more than once.

I don't believe that George Karl the man is a villain. I do believe that George Karl the head coach is at least capable of villainy.
 
If you're accusing me of intentionally inserting an inflammatory word then you're off base. I was responding from memory and paraphrasing. And it's not like I (or others here) were the only ones who took the comment the same way.

I received an email today about the current team store special offer:


If one were so inclined, one might be able read between the lines and conclude that the team is also taking sides ... and it's not George Karl's face on that t-shirt.
I don't think there's any "reading between the lines" that could or should be done. Which franchise in the history of sports advertises shirts with the head coaches face instead of the franchise player?

While Karl is on the outs, the team is not taking sides by putting Cousins' face on a shirt.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
I don't think there's any "reading between the lines" that could or should be done. Which franchise in the history of sports advertises shirts with the head coaches face instead of the franchise player?

While Karl is on the outs, the team is not taking sides by putting Cousins' face on a shirt.
You're taking this way more seriously than it was meant, which is why I prefaced my comment with "If one were so inclined..."
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
I'm not sure that not inserting an inflammatory word that wasn't actually used falls under my definition of "benefit of the doubt". For me, benefit of the doubt is the attempt to interpret something in a kinder light than it actually appears. Benefit of the doubt is not declining to interpret something in a worse light than it actually appears. The latter is what I am doing here.

I do agree that I appear to be on my own these days in holding that sort of restraint.
For what its worth Capt, I tend to agree with you. I'm not a Karl fan, and I think he has a habit of not thinking carefully about what he's trying to say. Or maybe he just doesn't care what people think.