Done playing games with Cousins... (split from game thread)

#31
The Kings fan in me slaps the crap out of the NBA fan if I even start to think about something like that, but as someone who was a Celtics fan for over 20 years before the Kings came to Sacramento I admit it's tantalizing to ponder.
this is what makes you VF21 at KF.com. never change. :)

i, on the other hand, am much less forgiving of a franchise like this one. demarcus cousins should have demanded a trade a long time ago, and after so much upheaval and mismanagement, the kings would have deserved it. i honestly wish that cousins had demanded a trade somewhere between the maloofs attempting to move the team to seattle and vivek ranadive firing mike malone and eventually replacing him with george karl. yes, a trade demand can easily be construed as selfish or entitled when a superstar chooses such a path, but in some cases, it is also simply a reflection of the conditions of the franchise in question.

again, the kings would have deserved it. and more importantly, perhaps they would have learned something from it. that demarcus cousins has instead pledged his undying loyalty to a sad sack franchise that could be generously referred to as a dumpster fire on its best day is an unending perplexity to me. and worse, it does nothing to reinforce the need for change in how this franchise operates itself (regardless of who happens to be in charge). i don't want to see more patchwork moves at the trade deadline or during the offseason. i don't want to see more mediocrities brought in with the hope that this team can win enough games to earn the destruction that would await them as an 8th seed. the kings needed to be playing .400 ball during mike malone's first year. they needed to be at or over .500 in his second. yet here they are with their umpteenth coach in whatever seasons, still nowhere closer to 41 wins. missing the playoffs this season just amounts to another wasted year of cousins' career. he's still in his prime, but by the time the kings get to the playoffs--IF they ever get to the playoffs--his superstardom will be heading towards its inevitable downturn. that's no way to move forward as a franchise.

anyway, the kings-fan-in-me has clearly given up on suppressing the-nba-fan-in-me's desire to watch boogie cousins achieve some measure of success during his career. it's not forever, an nba career. these guys only have so many years in which to make their mark. as admirable as it is for cousins to envision a returning of playoff basketball to sacramento, it's just such a long shot, at this point.
 
#32
that sure would be nice, wouldn't it? i'd like my very own michael jordan or lebron james, the do-everything talent who carries their team to victory no matter who surrounds them. but those kinds of generational players are in awfully short supply. russell westbrook and james harden are the closest equivalents elsewhere, i suppose, but they have the benefit of being guards in a league that presently makes life so much easier for backcourt players. the only chance a big has of superstardom in the contemporary nba... is to play more like a guard. it's why damn near all of the league's most talented bigs are developing face-up games and three-point shooting ability. it's the only way to survive.

it's also interesting to me that so few of these bigs play for winning teams. demarcus cousins plays for the KANGZ, which is an endless bummer. anthony davis and the pelicans have never risen above mediocre. KAT and the timberwolves have been disappointing in year one with thibodeau. porzingis and the knicks have... well, they've been the knicks. embiid and the 76ers are still a losing team, though there's plenty of reason to believe that they will improve a significant amount next season. and there's marc gasol and the grizzlies, who are managing to hang in there. and there's blake griffin and the clippers, who are a yearly playoff contender. i'm certainly not insinuating that there's some grand conspiracy against big men across the league, but it just seems to be quite a bit more difficult to build a winning team around a big of any kind in the contemporary nba, no matter how talented.
I have an idea of what that reason might be...

As you said, the current state of the NBA makes it easier for guards to score. Defenders can't hand-check anymore. Incidental contact is frequently credited as a shooting foul for the offensive player. The looseness of the way the illegal screen rules are being interpreted boggles my mind. The Warriors run of wins last season was partially the result of exceptionally talented shooters in a well-designed offense and partially the result of hundreds of moving screens that went uncalled. There's a clear mandate now: the NBA brand is entertainment, always has been. People like what the Warriors are doing, the streak was good for the league as a whole, so they're going to continue to get away with it. An aggressive guard who can force the action off the dribble and make enough of their jumpers to be considered a threat at the three point line is very hard to defend. That same player coming off what I call a bump-screen, that is a screen followed by a subtle or often not-so-subtle hip bump into the defender, is impossible to defend.

Obviously James Harden, Steph Curry, and Russell Westbrook are very good players but collectively they're now reaching heights of statistical majesty we haven't seen in 30 years if ever. That's not a coincidence. The rules changes are an important factor too. Which shouldn't take anything away from their achievements! All players are judged on the standards of their era. I think that's what older players are trying to say when they grumble that today's stars wouldn't be all that in the league they played in. They know the rules so much better than we ever could and I guarantee you the differences are night and day to them. So how does this impact big guys? I don't think scoring in the post is disadvantaged now except that the relative value of a 2pt field goal becomes less significant as the rate of three point shooting increases. Whereas in the past you could ride a big guy who's automatic in the post, nowadays you'd be trading two for three on so many possessions that it's easy to fall behind. But the real problem is broader than that. It's a team building problem...

Why is it hard to land two stars on a team? Because of the way new talent is distributed into the league. The draft rewards teams with the worst records and the lottery throws a wrench of uncertainty into the works. If you get your one star, they're going to elevate you above the basement level teams who have no stars and there's always about 4 or 5 of those teams at a time. Picking at #5 and lower in the draft very rarely results in drafting a franchise talent. We got one with Boogie but it was a bit of a fluke. Once you have your star your baseline level moves up a notch from 15 win territory into 30 win territory. Hello mid-lotto purgatory! In the past the general rule was that you go big over small, all else being equal. Get your cornerstone big guy to score in the post (still the easiest place to score on the floor) and prevent other teams from scoring in the post on your end. This is the basic logic we've all been assuming to be true (well, those of us old enough to remember a time before the hand check rule changes). What we're seeing now though is that teams with one star guard are finding success while teams with one star big are not. All the rules changes implemented to speed up the game, open up the floor, and increase scoring have reversed the historical trend and the new rule should be that you always go guard/wing over forward/big, all else being equal. The players who create off the dribble and shoot from outside are the hardest to stop and the importance of locking down the paint on defense has taken a back seat to stopping guard penetration and three point shooting.

So here's the lynchpin -- it isn't actually any easier for guard-led teams to add a second star than it is for big-led teams. But it is easier for guard-led teams with mediocre supporting talent to make the playoffs right now than it is for a big-led team with mediocre talent to make the playoffs. Except in rare circumstances (draft luck, three amigos pacts, jackpot Free Agent signings) it's still rare to see a team with a franchise level guard and a franchise level big guy at the same time. With all the advantages going to guards who can actually benefit from the increased freedom to handle the ball in space, the allowance of illegal screens, and the benefit of the doubt often going to the quicker, more aggressive player (think of how many fouls James Harden gets just because the ref can't see what's going on and imagine him getting those same calls moving at half the speed) it all adds up to a guard dominated league and that means you're better off planting your flag on a franchise level guard and slowly building respectability from there. Golden State was able to lure Igoudala just by making the playoffs with a Curry/Thompson duo. Boston parlayed their success with a revolving door of attacking guards and wings into an Al Horford signing this off-season. Portland... well the needle scratched on that one. But there's also Cleveland who's been the best team in the East with Kevin Love and a smattering of role-players in their front court. Or Toronto with Lowry, DeRozan and ... quick name 2 other players on their team! Not to mention the lightning in a bottle Houston has stumbled upon with Harden playing the Steve Nash role in D'Antoni ball.

Or this could all just be rationalization. I will say, however, that the teams who have made out like bandits from the current rule changes have almost without exception done so completely by accident. Houston got Harden because he was ripe for the taking and they had the assets to make the trade. Taking Curry was a no-brainer for Golden State and they're lying if they say they knew at the time he was going to be an MVP. Westbrook is just who OKC ended up with after their cheapness let every other star leave town. And so on. Now this sounds like I'm making a case for "it's not our fault" which isn't really true. Mismanagement took what should be a sure-thing playoff team and shed essential pieces every step of the way until there's nothing left but Cousins. This picture says it all:



In a couple weeks Rudy's .07 spg lead will evaporate or he'll no longer meet the minimum game threshold and it'll be a clean sweep of Cuz faces leading the team in every statistical category. We've systematically expunged every potential supporting player we managed to acquire through bad luck or bad decision-making and we have no one but ourselves to blame for that. This is what failure looks like -- a dozen smaller failures any of which could be explained away at the time all adding up to the dark night of the soul where we accept once and for all that we caused all of this or we continue to pursue business as usual and see where that leads us.
 
#34
I have an idea of what that reason might be...

As you said, the current state of the NBA makes it easier for guards to score. Defenders can't hand-check anymore. Incidental contact is frequently credited as a shooting foul for the offensive player. The looseness of the way the illegal screen rules are being interpreted boggles my mind. The Warriors run of wins last season was partially the result of exceptionally talented shooters in a well-designed offense and partially the result of hundreds of moving screens that went uncalled. There's a clear mandate now: the NBA brand is entertainment, always has been. People like what the Warriors are doing, the streak was good for the league as a whole, so they're going to continue to get away with it. An aggressive guard who can force the action off the dribble and make enough of their jumpers to be considered a threat at the three point line is very hard to defend. That same player coming off what I call a bump-screen, that is a screen followed by a subtle or often not-so-subtle hip bump into the defender, is impossible to defend.

Obviously James Harden, Steph Curry, and Russell Westbrook are very good players but collectively they're now reaching heights of statistical majesty we haven't seen in 30 years if ever. That's not a coincidence. The rules changes are an important factor too. Which shouldn't take anything away from their achievements! All players are judged on the standards of their era. I think that's what older players are trying to say when they grumble that today's stars wouldn't be all that in the league they played in. They know the rules so much better than we ever could and I guarantee you the differences are night and day to them. So how does this impact big guys? I don't think scoring in the post is disadvantaged now except that the relative value of a 2pt field goal becomes less significant as the rate of three point shooting increases. Whereas in the past you could ride a big guy who's automatic in the post, nowadays you'd be trading two for three on so many possessions that it's easy to fall behind. But the real problem is broader than that. It's a team building problem...

Why is it hard to land two stars on a team? Because of the way new talent is distributed into the league. The draft rewards teams with the worst records and the lottery throws a wrench of uncertainty into the works. If you get your one star, they're going to elevate you above the basement level teams who have no stars and there's always about 4 or 5 of those teams at a time. Picking at #5 and lower in the draft very rarely results in drafting a franchise talent. We got one with Boogie but it was a bit of a fluke. Once you have your star your baseline level moves up a notch from 15 win territory into 30 win territory. Hello mid-lotto purgatory! In the past the general rule was that you go big over small, all else being equal. Get your cornerstone big guy to score in the post (still the easiest place to score on the floor) and prevent other teams from scoring in the post on your end. This is the basic logic we've all been assuming to be true (well, those of us old enough to remember a time before the hand check rule changes). What we're seeing now though is that teams with one star guard are finding success while teams with one star big are not. All the rules changes implemented to speed up the game, open up the floor, and increase scoring have reversed the historical trend and the new rule should be that you always go guard/wing over forward/big, all else being equal. The players who create off the dribble and shoot from outside are the hardest to stop and the importance of locking down the paint on defense has taken a back seat to stopping guard penetration and three point shooting.

So here's the lynchpin -- it isn't actually any easier for guard-led teams to add a second star than it is for big-led teams. But it is easier for guard-led teams with mediocre supporting talent to make the playoffs right now than it is for a big-led team with mediocre talent to make the playoffs. Except in rare circumstances (draft luck, three amigos pacts, jackpot Free Agent signings) it's still rare to see a team with a franchise level guard and a franchise level big guy at the same time. With all the advantages going to guards who can actually benefit from the increased freedom to handle the ball in space, the allowance of illegal screens, and the benefit of the doubt often going to the quicker, more aggressive player (think of how many fouls James Harden gets just because the ref can't see what's going on and imagine him getting those same calls moving at half the speed) it all adds up to a guard dominated league and that means you're better off planting your flag on a franchise level guard and slowly building respectability from there. Golden State was able to lure Igoudala just by making the playoffs with a Curry/Thompson duo. Boston parlayed their success with a revolving door of attacking guards and wings into an Al Horford signing this off-season. Portland... well the needle scratched on that one. But there's also Cleveland who's been the best team in the East with Kevin Love and a smattering of role-players in their front court. Or Toronto with Lowry, DeRozan and ... quick name 2 other players on their team! Not to mention the lightning in a bottle Houston has stumbled upon with Harden playing the Steve Nash role in D'Antoni ball.

Or this could all just be rationalization. I will say, however, that the teams who have made out like bandits from the current rule changes have almost without exception done so completely by accident. Houston got Harden because he was ripe for the taking and they had the assets to make the trade. Taking Curry was a no-brainer for Golden State and they're lying if they say they knew at the time he was going to be an MVP. Westbrook is just who OKC ended up with after their cheapness let every other star leave town. And so on. Now this sounds like I'm making a case for "it's not our fault" which isn't really true. Mismanagement took what should be a sure-thing playoff team and shed essential pieces every step of the way until there's nothing left but Cousins. This picture says it all:



In a couple weeks Rudy's .07 spg lead will evaporate or he'll no longer meet the minimum game threshold and it'll be a clean sweep of Cuz faces leading the team in every statistical category. We've systematically expunged every potential supporting player we managed to acquire through bad luck or bad decision-making and we have no one but ourselves to blame for that. This is what failure looks like -- a dozen smaller failures any of which could be explained away at the time all adding up to the dark night of the soul where we accept once and for all that we caused all of this or we continue to pursue business as usual and see where that leads us.
i think this is a pretty good reading of the situation. in my estimation, this kings have been a decade-long failure because of a multitude of important factors. they were owned by a family that was going broke and couldn't afford to properly manage their franchise. they drafted a future superstar big man with attitude problems while lacking the organizational structure necessary to hold him accountable. they also drafted that future superstar big man during an era in which his impact would be dulled by the nba's rule changes and the game's evolution. their draft selections to follow were all abject failures, apart from a diminutive PG they picked up at the very end of the second round in 2011, who would develop into a legitimate talent, only to see the kings let him walk for nothing. this after letting one of their previous first rounders with talent walk for nothing, which was one of the first decisions made by a new ownership and management group that didn't have the foggiest idea of how to operate an nba team.

across all of this team's various operational personnel, they've traded away or unnecessarily encumbered future draft picks, as if poor draft record was justification enough for ditching those to come. they've long failed to value the defensive side of the ball. they've cycled through coaches like a child growing out of its clothes. they've cycled through front office personnel in much the same fashion. there has been little in the way of stability at any point in the last ten years, with two separate ownership groups attempting to avoid accountability like the plague. all of it adds up to the dumpster fire that nba fans are so familiar with that this franchise's mismanagement earned its own ironic hashtag: #KANGZ.

cousins is not a perfect superstar, but then again, neither is russell westbrook. the primary differences are that one's a guard in a guard's league, and he's fortunate enough to play for a franchise that's just cheap, rather than a franchise that could be characterized as the most poorly-managed organization in the entire league.
 
#35
The guy is the only one MJ gave credit to for being able to slow him down. Thats more than plenty.

The fault here is on the supporting cast
I agree. But here is the thing: most people around here were optimistic regarding the supporting cast this year just a short time ago. It is always on the supporting cast - or the coach. Looking back, having DMC, IT and Gay looks like a pretty solid trio, but we all know that it wasn't.

Truth is, we probably stink for years if we keep DMC and we probably stink if we trade him and I am not a pessimist by nature.
 

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#36
I have an idea of what that reason might be...

As you said, the current state of the NBA makes it easier for guards to score. Defenders can't hand-check anymore. Incidental contact is frequently credited as a shooting foul for the offensive player. The looseness of the way the illegal screen rules are being interpreted boggles my mind. The Warriors run of wins last season was partially the result of exceptionally talented shooters in a well-designed offense and partially the result of hundreds of moving screens that went uncalled. There's a clear mandate now: the NBA brand is entertainment, always has been. People like what the Warriors are doing, the streak was good for the league as a whole, so they're going to continue to get away with it. An aggressive guard who can force the action off the dribble and make enough of their jumpers to be considered a threat at the three point line is very hard to defend. That same player coming off what I call a bump-screen, that is a screen followed by a subtle or often not-so-subtle hip bump into the defender, is impossible to defend.

Obviously James Harden, Steph Curry, and Russell Westbrook are very good players but collectively they're now reaching heights of statistical majesty we haven't seen in 30 years if ever. That's not a coincidence. The rules changes are an important factor too. Which shouldn't take anything away from their achievements! All players are judged on the standards of their era. I think that's what older players are trying to say when they grumble that today's stars wouldn't be all that in the league they played in. They know the rules so much better than we ever could and I guarantee you the differences are night and day to them. So how does this impact big guys? I don't think scoring in the post is disadvantaged now except that the relative value of a 2pt field goal becomes less significant as the rate of three point shooting increases. Whereas in the past you could ride a big guy who's automatic in the post, nowadays you'd be trading two for three on so many possessions that it's easy to fall behind. But the real problem is broader than that. It's a team building problem...

Why is it hard to land two stars on a team? Because of the way new talent is distributed into the league. The draft rewards teams with the worst records and the lottery throws a wrench of uncertainty into the works. If you get your one star, they're going to elevate you above the basement level teams who have no stars and there's always about 4 or 5 of those teams at a time. Picking at #5 and lower in the draft very rarely results in drafting a franchise talent. We got one with Boogie but it was a bit of a fluke. Once you have your star your baseline level moves up a notch from 15 win territory into 30 win territory. Hello mid-lotto purgatory! In the past the general rule was that you go big over small, all else being equal. Get your cornerstone big guy to score in the post (still the easiest place to score on the floor) and prevent other teams from scoring in the post on your end. This is the basic logic we've all been assuming to be true (well, those of us old enough to remember a time before the hand check rule changes). What we're seeing now though is that teams with one star guard are finding success while teams with one star big are not. All the rules changes implemented to speed up the game, open up the floor, and increase scoring have reversed the historical trend and the new rule should be that you always go guard/wing over forward/big, all else being equal. The players who create off the dribble and shoot from outside are the hardest to stop and the importance of locking down the paint on defense has taken a back seat to stopping guard penetration and three point shooting.

So here's the lynchpin -- it isn't actually any easier for guard-led teams to add a second star than it is for big-led teams. But it is easier for guard-led teams with mediocre supporting talent to make the playoffs right now than it is for a big-led team with mediocre talent to make the playoffs. Except in rare circumstances (draft luck, three amigos pacts, jackpot Free Agent signings) it's still rare to see a team with a franchise level guard and a franchise level big guy at the same time. With all the advantages going to guards who can actually benefit from the increased freedom to handle the ball in space, the allowance of illegal screens, and the benefit of the doubt often going to the quicker, more aggressive player (think of how many fouls James Harden gets just because the ref can't see what's going on and imagine him getting those same calls moving at half the speed) it all adds up to a guard dominated league and that means you're better off planting your flag on a franchise level guard and slowly building respectability from there. Golden State was able to lure Igoudala just by making the playoffs with a Curry/Thompson duo. Boston parlayed their success with a revolving door of attacking guards and wings into an Al Horford signing this off-season. Portland... well the needle scratched on that one. But there's also Cleveland who's been the best team in the East with Kevin Love and a smattering of role-players in their front court. Or Toronto with Lowry, DeRozan and ... quick name 2 other players on their team! Not to mention the lightning in a bottle Houston has stumbled upon with Harden playing the Steve Nash role in D'Antoni ball.

Or this could all just be rationalization. I will say, however, that the teams who have made out like bandits from the current rule changes have almost without exception done so completely by accident. Houston got Harden because he was ripe for the taking and they had the assets to make the trade. Taking Curry was a no-brainer for Golden State and they're lying if they say they knew at the time he was going to be an MVP. Westbrook is just who OKC ended up with after their cheapness let every other star leave town. And so on. Now this sounds like I'm making a case for "it's not our fault" which isn't really true. Mismanagement took what should be a sure-thing playoff team and shed essential pieces every step of the way until there's nothing left but Cousins. This picture says it all:



In a couple weeks Rudy's .07 spg lead will evaporate or he'll no longer meet the minimum game threshold and it'll be a clean sweep of Cuz faces leading the team in every statistical category. We've systematically expunged every potential supporting player we managed to acquire through bad luck or bad decision-making and we have no one but ourselves to blame for that. This is what failure looks like -- a dozen smaller failures any of which could be explained away at the time all adding up to the dark night of the soul where we accept once and for all that we caused all of this or we continue to pursue business as usual and see where that leads us.
Tell me only one thing. Who was or is the last player to lead their team in every statistical category?
 
#39
Well terrible teammate Cousins finished five votes behind great team guy Anthony Davis in the player vote.
Let me channel my inner Slim and say that whether players vote for a guy as an all star has nothing to do with whether said guy is a good team mate or not. Being the best big doesn't necessarily mean being a good team mate.
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Staff member
#41
I agree. But here is the thing: most people around here were optimistic regarding the supporting cast this year just a short time ago. It is always on the supporting cast - or the coach. Looking back, having DMC, IT and Gay looks like a pretty solid trio, but we all know that it wasn't.

Truth is, we probably stink for years if we keep DMC and we probably stink if we trade him and I am not a pessimist by nature.
DMC, IT and Gay actually managed pretty close to a .500 record when they were together that year, but they played fewer than 50 games together.

It was a capped group because there was absolutely no ball movement possible with 3 guys all looking for their own, but even in the midst of a chaotic season with out of the league or soon to be out of the league scrubs at SG and PF, they weren't awful.

And I get really tired of again and AGAIN posting the complete list of all the trash Cousins has had as "supporting" casts over the years. Anybody denying it is weak. It cannot be rationally denied. It's just inconvenient for certain planks and requires slightly (and only slightly) more sophistication than "we no win! Cousins bad!"
 
#42
Oh! The supporting cast! I thought that was addressed in the offseason after we fired the coach that was the problem?
your persistent snark is wearying, ya know that? i don't think anybody truly believed the supporting cast was fully addressed in the offseason. i recall very few among kf.com regulars who shot the moon and predicted that this roster, as constructed, was going to mount a serious challenge in the west. most acknowledged the lack of talent on the roster, and yet it hardly seemed unreasonable to believe that they could overcome the talent deficiency with a strong-minded coach pushing the team beyond its limitations, like he had previously accomplished with an injury-riddled memphis squad. the eighth seed was wide open from the first game of the season, after all, and .500 ball plus a playoff berth wasn't out of the question for this roster if everything went as well as it possibly could. unfortunately, things have not gone as well as they possibly could, and it seems terribly mean-spirited to crow and gloat and snark around the place just because a few kings fans dared to believe that a legitimate culture change was possible this season, and that it might result in enough wins to sneak into the eighth spot in a weakened western conference.
 
#43
I don't think scoring in the post is disadvantaged now except that the relative value of a 2pt field goal becomes less significant as the rate of three point shooting increases. Whereas in the past you could ride a big guy who's automatic in the post, nowadays you'd be trading two for three on so many possessions that it's easy to fall behind.
How I wish a time machine could bring the 2000 - 2002 era Shaq and Kobe Lakers into today's NBA to challenge this notion. I'd love to see how the Warriors fare when Shaq is scoring 2 pt baskets at 70% or higher with the likes of Zaza and Draymond trying to guard him w/ Kobe completely freed up once Shaq is being triple teamed. The Warriors front line would be in foul trouble every single game.
 
#45
your persistent snark is wearying, ya know that? i don't think anybody truly believed the supporting cast was fully addressed in the offseason. i recall very few among kf.com regulars who shot the moon and predicted that this roster, as constructed, was going to mount a serious challenge in the west. most acknowledged the lack of talent on the roster, and yet it hardly seemed unreasonable to believe that they could overcome the talent deficiency with a strong-minded coach pushing the team beyond its limitations, like he had previously accomplished with an injury-riddled memphis squad. the eighth seed was wide open from the first game of the season, after all, and .500 ball plus a playoff berth wasn't out of the question for this roster if everything went as well as it possibly could. unfortunately, things have not gone as well as they possibly could, and it seems terribly mean-spirited to crow and gloat and snark around the place just because a few kings fans dared to believe that a legitimate culture change was possible this season, and that it might result in enough wins to sneak into the eighth spot in a weakened western conference.
And your "snark" is wearying the same, my friend! Your unwavering support of a player who has won less than 40% of his games is really old!
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Staff member
#46
And your "snark" is wearying the same, my friend! Your unwavering support of a player who has won less than 40% of his games is really old!
This isn't boxing, chess, or archery. "Players" do not win % of games. they are on teams that win % of games. I would imagine that Derek Fisher might have won 70% of the games he played in. He was crap. But his teams were often amazing.

Its just an excuse. And actually the very worst, very most primitive hand-granny-the sports-page sort of "analysis" there can be. Ooh, his team lost. He must be bad. Real sophisticated stuff.
 
#47
And your "snark" is wearying the same, my friend! Your unwavering support of a player who has won less than 40% of his games is really old!
i don't think you understand what "snark" means, and my support of cousins has nothing at all to do with you. on the other hand, you persistently trod all over others for attempting to see the positive in an unfortunate situation for which there is no clear path forward to a winning record.

by the way, despite my support of cousins, i have repeatedly called for the kings to trade him since last season, given their woefully limited stable of assets.
 
#48
After Cousins complained of a no call last night though, it took him NINE WHOLE SECONDS (go watch the vid) to even enter midcourt while every other player on the court hustled down the floor and the Pacers got an easy layup to clinch the game.

We can argue and debate all night what makes Cousins do the things he does (dumb teammates, bad coaching, tired, Rudys injury, etc. blah) but sorry this man would crumble with playoff officiating and let's his team AND fans down in the most crucial moments.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
#49
After Cousins complained of a no call last night though, it took him NINE WHOLE SECONDS (go watch the vid) to even enter midcourt while every other player on the court hustled down the floor and the Pacers got an easy layup to clinch the game.

We can argue and debate all night what makes Cousins do the things he does (dumb teammates, bad coaching, tired, Rudys injury, etc. blah) but sorry this man would crumble with playoff officiating and let's his team AND fans down in the most crucial moments.
Serious question: Do we know what he was doing for those 9 seconds? Was the camera on him the whole time? My vague recollection is that he fell...but I honestly don't remember clearly.
 
#50
Serious question: Do we know what he was doing for those 9 seconds? Was the camera on him the whole time? My vague recollection is that he fell...but I honestly don't remember clearly.
Nope, he didn't fall.
https://streamable.com/zn7tb

He was arguing for the entire 9 seconds. Cousins even lands perfectly clean, but you can see him clearly jump in frustration. Fans who watched it live would tell you the same thing. Lack of leadership is really showing. You need your stars to step up in the last few secs of games. It's perfectly ok that he missed the shot. It's not ok at all that he decides to stay back at argue with the ref. He does this at least once a game. This time, he just happened to do it at the end of the game in crunch time.
 
K

KingMilz

Guest
#51
Nope, he didn't fall.
https://streamable.com/zn7tb

He was arguing for the entire 9 seconds. Cousins even lands perfectly clean, but you can see him clearly jump in frustration. Fans who watched it live would tell you the same thing. Lack of leadership is really showing. You need your stars to step up in the last few secs of games. It's perfectly ok that he missed the shot. It's not ok at all that he decides to stay back at argue with the ref. He does this at least once a game. This time, he just happened to do it at the end of the game in crunch time.
Wow that's a disgusting act the Temple reaction said it all.
 
#52
the kings just aren't very talented. vlade did a fair job with limited tools to "make lemonade" of an impossibly difficult situation during the offseason, but it's been obvious all season long that this roster was going to have a very small margin for error. in order to make the playoffs, dave joerger was going to need to work quite a bit of magic, the team was going to need to quickly form above-average defensive chemistry, ty lawson and aaron afflalo were going to have to rediscover their peak form, ben mclemore was going to need to discover that he's an nba player, and willie cauley-stein was going to need to start developing into something reasonably substantial, among many other individual and team-wide factors. none of that has happened, sadly.

demarcus has been about as stellar as he can be while carrying an entire team on his back, but there's just not enough firepower on either side of the ball for the kings to legitimately contend for a playoff spot in the contemporary nba. there are only a few teams across the league that stand out as less talented than the kings overall, and that the kings lost twice to one of them in the miami heat is pretty telling. there's some fight in this dave joerger-coached squad, as you'd expect. they do scrap until the final buzzer. but the talent gap is too wide on too many nights, and that margin for error shrinks even further with every defensive lapse, missed open shot, first quarter deficit, mclemore and cauley-stein regression, rudy gay injury, omri casspi DNP, and the occasional off-night from boogie.fflalo and Toliver have been goos additions

put demarcus on a team with more talent and greater stability, and just squeaking into the playoffs isn't going to seem like a monumental task. the formula for winning in the nba isn't too complex. though priorities shift as the game evolves, a winning squad always needs talent on both sides of the ball, and requires a team-wide effort on both sides of the ball. it's possible to win when one guy does a lot of the heavy lifting on either or both sides of the ball, but it's damn near impossible to win with any consistency when one guy has to do just about all of the heavy lifting on both sides of the ball.
I just don't buy this. We have Cousins and had Gay. We have Lawson who has been starter caliber in the past. We have solid pieces like Koufos, Collison and Temple. Afflalo and Toliver have been good additions also.

We had a 7 game home stand. Unfortunately we had Warriors and Cleveland. All the other games where winnable especially at home. We lost 6 of seven at home. Before the loss of Gay, we did not have a talent problem. There is something else going on. What I don't know. I'm not going to blame the coach.
 
#53
How I wish a time machine could bring the 2000 - 2002 era Shaq and Kobe Lakers into today's NBA to challenge this notion. I'd love to see how the Warriors fare when Shaq is scoring 2 pt baskets at 70% or higher with the likes of Zaza and Draymond trying to guard him w/ Kobe completely freed up once Shaq is being triple teamed. The Warriors front line would be in foul trouble every single game.
I think the exact opposite would happen. The way Golden State pushes the ball, Shaq would be behind every play on defense. Golden State is making 12 threes per game this season while the Shaq/Kobe Lakers made about 6 per game. That's already 18 points that the Lakers have to make up the hard way. Assuming they shoot the lights out at 50% (which is impossibly high) it's going to take them 18 shots on average to make up those extra points. Shaq doesn't shoot threes and Kobe misses 2 three point shots for every 1 he makes over his career. It would be very very difficult for that threepeat Laker team to beat Golden State. I'll let you do the math for the match-up against Houston's 15 3pt fgm per game this year. (It suddenly makes sense to me why Houston is winning so many games).
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Staff member
#54
I think the exact opposite would happen. The way Golden State pushes the ball, Shaq would be behind every play on defense. Golden State is making 12 threes per game this season while the Shaq/Kobe Lakers made about 6 per game. That's already 18 points that the Lakers have to make up the hard way. Assuming they shoot the lights out at 50% (which is impossibly high) it's going to take them 18 shots on average to make up those extra points. Shaq doesn't shoot threes and Kobe misses 2 three point shots for every 1 he makes over his career. It would be very very difficult for that threepeat Laker team to beat Golden State. I'll let you do the math for the match-up against Houston's 15 3pt fgm per game this year. (It suddenly makes sense to me why Houston is winning so many games).
Golden State couldn't push the ball because they would be taking it out of the hoop every time down the floor. No threes = no long rebounds.

They might indeed shoot enough threes to beat anybody on any given night, but the utter wreckage in the middle would be completely demoralizing. Like a prize fighter meeting a body specialist.
 
K

KingMilz

Guest
#55
Golden State couldn't push the ball because they would be taking it out of the hoop every time down the floor. No threes = no long rebounds.

They might indeed shoot enough threes to beat anybody on any given night, but the utter wreckage in the middle would be completely demoralizing. Like a prize fighter meeting a body specialist.
Like Mayweather vs Canelo?
 
#57
Serious question: Do we know what he was doing for those 9 seconds? Was the camera on him the whole time? My vague recollection is that he fell...but I honestly don't remember clearly.
No, he didn't fall. He barely even stumbled. Most of it was on his own accord by flailing his arms.
 
#58
Nope, he didn't fall.
https://streamable.com/zn7tb

He was arguing for the entire 9 seconds. Cousins even lands perfectly clean, but you can see him clearly jump in frustration. Fans who watched it live would tell you the same thing. Lack of leadership is really showing. You need your stars to step up in the last few secs of games. It's perfectly ok that he missed the shot. It's not ok at all that he decides to stay back at argue with the ref. He does this at least once a game. This time, he just happened to do it at the end of the game in crunch time.
I am with you, it was terrible. Grant's call was also terrible - "That was a heck of a look by Teague." LOL. Turner was open right under the basket by about 22 ft. Assists literally do not get any easier than that.
 

dude12

Hall of Famer
#59
I find it amusing that there are still people on here who defend how Karl ran the team or the job he did last year. He was indefensible last year. This is before even getting to X's and O's , which the Karl supporters just won't or don't grasp.
 
#60
Nope, he didn't fall.
https://streamable.com/zn7tb

He was arguing for the entire 9 seconds. Cousins even lands perfectly clean, but you can see him clearly jump in frustration. Fans who watched it live would tell you the same thing. Lack of leadership is really showing. You need your stars to step up in the last few secs of games. It's perfectly ok that he missed the shot. It's not ok at all that he decides to stay back at argue with the ref. He does this at least once a game. This time, he just happened to do it at the end of the game in crunch time.
Yep, and I said it at the time too. This is typical for him -- he does it all the time. Unfortunately, this came with under a minute to go and the game still a 1 possession game.