I think this is just the pick-me-up we've all been needing
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=neel/050304
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=neel/050304
Eric Neel: The Kings Deserve Plenty of Credit
- Thread starter hrdboild
- Start date
Twix
Starter
The Article:
The Kings Deserve plenty of Credit
By Eric Neel
Page 2
Part One: The Kings are Dead. Long Live the Kings.
Chris is gone. The Kings, as we knew them, are dead.
Long live the Kings.
Once upon a time, when J-Will was White Chocolate and C-Webb was a superstar looking for a fresh start, the Kings brought beauty and creativity back to basketball. They rejected Pat Riley's "Art of War," slow-down silliness. They would have nothing of the deliberate way Michael Isolation and the Jordanaires played the game. They saw another approach. They felt moved to move.
From 1999-2004, the Kings were the most fun and fluid team in basketball. They ran when the floor was there for the running (their pace factor was first in the league four out of those five years). They passed the ball in the half-court like they were rehearsing "Sweet Georgia Brown." They had skilled players, guys who could pass, dribble and shoot, all over the floor.
They played a style. They played with style. And the fans loved it. Over these last five-plus years, Arco's been one of the rowdiest, fiercest gyms in the league because the locals were thrilled by their club and reveled in the fun they were having.
Vlade, Peja, Bibby, Bobby, Christie, Hedo, J-Will and Chris. These guys stood for something. They played out a certain idea about basketball.
Maybe it was more than that. Maybe it was a basketball ideal. If you wanted to see flow, you watched the Kings one-touch themselves into open shooting territory. If you wanted to see something fresh, you watched the Kings freelance in transition. If you wanted to see selflessness, you looked for the extra passes and balanced score sheets in a Sacramento game.
They were playing basketball, emphasis on playing, and it wasn't reckless or naïve or ineffective or any of those things you hear when people shake their heads and wag their fingers about being "smart" (when all they really mean is being "slow" and "conservative" and "boring"). It was winning basketball. They won 61 games in 2002, and 301 games between 1999 and 2004 (including 27 in the strike-shortened '99 season). They competed in the Western Conference finals once and the conference semis three times during that span. If not for Robert Horry's buzzer-beater heroics in Game 4 and some very questionable (even Lakers fans should admit this) officiating in Game 6 of the conference finals, they're very likely the 2002 NBA champions. And even with that shot and that officiating, they were one-half of what was probably the most entertaining postseason series since Magic and Bird last led the Lakers and Celtics against each other in 1987.
And I don't want to hear about how soft they were. That's hindsight talking. That's the label we'd slap on any team that had the tough luck of peaking when Kobe, Shaq and Phil were waiting at the end of the line every year.
Rick Adelman wasn't soft. He had the guts to buck conventional wisdom, and the heart to stick with a style he knew would work for the players on his roster.
Mike Bibby wasn't soft. He stuck jumper after jumper under pressure.
And I know it isn't popular to say so, but Chris Webber wasn't soft, either. The man played in 53 playoff games between 1999 and 2004. In those games, he averaged 39.5 mpg, 21.66 ppg (at a .453 clip), 9.75 rpg (2.87 of which were offensive boards), 3.69 apg, 1.15 bpg and 1.25 spg. That's not soft. That's complete.
And don't talk to me anymore about the "big shot." Please. These weren't Jordan's Bulls, or even Bird's Celtics. The whole idea of the Kings was that there wasn't one guy who was going to take "the shot." The whole idea was selflessness and sharing the ball. Webber hits a big shot, Bibby hits a big shot, Peja hits a big shot; it didn't matter to the Kings. They weren't built on the hero model. They were built on the team model.
They lost that series in 2002, so everybody gets to take a shot at them. Everybody gets to say they're not, and Webber's not, "big time." Whatever. They played team ball as much as last year's Pistons did (and more appealingly, too), and people couldn't shut up last summer about how Detroit was the glorious new paradigm. A bounce here, a break there, and we'd have heard the same thing about the Kings of the last five years.
And we'd have heard about how Chris Webber was the heart of it, too. That's why his trade to the Sixers feels like such a big deal. Webber symbolized the Kings (for good and bad, I guess). He took his shots, but he also created shots for others. He scored his points, but he also facilitated scoring for his mates. He wasn't as efficient as he should have been, but he was a very good passer, and more of a team player than he gets credit for. And it's true, since his injury, that his defense and lift on his jumper have suffered pretty dramatically. But it's also true that over the last several years he's been a unique talent, with game inside and out (seriously, who else, maybe ever, has his skill set at his size ... dribbling, passing, shooting, rebounding?), and a player who played hurt -- and played pretty darn well when he was hurt.
All I'm saying is, the Kings won't be the same without him. And from where I sit, that ought to disappoint us a bit. Or at the very least, we ought to take it as an opportunity to recognize and appreciate what the Kings were and did these last few years.
They weren't the champs. They weren't the Lakers. But they were standard-bearers nonetheless. They kick started and carried forward a brand of basketball. They were the West in all its up-tempo glory, and the game they played is the one we're celebrating now in Phoenix, in Seattle, in Washington and in Chicago. In other words, the game they played was the future of a game we're feeling pretty good about right now.
That's all I'm saying.
continue...
The Kings Deserve plenty of Credit
By Eric Neel
Page 2
Part One: The Kings are Dead. Long Live the Kings.
Chris is gone. The Kings, as we knew them, are dead.
Long live the Kings.
Once upon a time, when J-Will was White Chocolate and C-Webb was a superstar looking for a fresh start, the Kings brought beauty and creativity back to basketball. They rejected Pat Riley's "Art of War," slow-down silliness. They would have nothing of the deliberate way Michael Isolation and the Jordanaires played the game. They saw another approach. They felt moved to move.
From 1999-2004, the Kings were the most fun and fluid team in basketball. They ran when the floor was there for the running (their pace factor was first in the league four out of those five years). They passed the ball in the half-court like they were rehearsing "Sweet Georgia Brown." They had skilled players, guys who could pass, dribble and shoot, all over the floor.
They played a style. They played with style. And the fans loved it. Over these last five-plus years, Arco's been one of the rowdiest, fiercest gyms in the league because the locals were thrilled by their club and reveled in the fun they were having.
Vlade, Peja, Bibby, Bobby, Christie, Hedo, J-Will and Chris. These guys stood for something. They played out a certain idea about basketball.
Maybe it was more than that. Maybe it was a basketball ideal. If you wanted to see flow, you watched the Kings one-touch themselves into open shooting territory. If you wanted to see something fresh, you watched the Kings freelance in transition. If you wanted to see selflessness, you looked for the extra passes and balanced score sheets in a Sacramento game.
They were playing basketball, emphasis on playing, and it wasn't reckless or naïve or ineffective or any of those things you hear when people shake their heads and wag their fingers about being "smart" (when all they really mean is being "slow" and "conservative" and "boring"). It was winning basketball. They won 61 games in 2002, and 301 games between 1999 and 2004 (including 27 in the strike-shortened '99 season). They competed in the Western Conference finals once and the conference semis three times during that span. If not for Robert Horry's buzzer-beater heroics in Game 4 and some very questionable (even Lakers fans should admit this) officiating in Game 6 of the conference finals, they're very likely the 2002 NBA champions. And even with that shot and that officiating, they were one-half of what was probably the most entertaining postseason series since Magic and Bird last led the Lakers and Celtics against each other in 1987.
And I don't want to hear about how soft they were. That's hindsight talking. That's the label we'd slap on any team that had the tough luck of peaking when Kobe, Shaq and Phil were waiting at the end of the line every year.
Rick Adelman wasn't soft. He had the guts to buck conventional wisdom, and the heart to stick with a style he knew would work for the players on his roster.
Mike Bibby wasn't soft. He stuck jumper after jumper under pressure.
And I know it isn't popular to say so, but Chris Webber wasn't soft, either. The man played in 53 playoff games between 1999 and 2004. In those games, he averaged 39.5 mpg, 21.66 ppg (at a .453 clip), 9.75 rpg (2.87 of which were offensive boards), 3.69 apg, 1.15 bpg and 1.25 spg. That's not soft. That's complete.
And don't talk to me anymore about the "big shot." Please. These weren't Jordan's Bulls, or even Bird's Celtics. The whole idea of the Kings was that there wasn't one guy who was going to take "the shot." The whole idea was selflessness and sharing the ball. Webber hits a big shot, Bibby hits a big shot, Peja hits a big shot; it didn't matter to the Kings. They weren't built on the hero model. They were built on the team model.
They lost that series in 2002, so everybody gets to take a shot at them. Everybody gets to say they're not, and Webber's not, "big time." Whatever. They played team ball as much as last year's Pistons did (and more appealingly, too), and people couldn't shut up last summer about how Detroit was the glorious new paradigm. A bounce here, a break there, and we'd have heard the same thing about the Kings of the last five years.
And we'd have heard about how Chris Webber was the heart of it, too. That's why his trade to the Sixers feels like such a big deal. Webber symbolized the Kings (for good and bad, I guess). He took his shots, but he also created shots for others. He scored his points, but he also facilitated scoring for his mates. He wasn't as efficient as he should have been, but he was a very good passer, and more of a team player than he gets credit for. And it's true, since his injury, that his defense and lift on his jumper have suffered pretty dramatically. But it's also true that over the last several years he's been a unique talent, with game inside and out (seriously, who else, maybe ever, has his skill set at his size ... dribbling, passing, shooting, rebounding?), and a player who played hurt -- and played pretty darn well when he was hurt.
All I'm saying is, the Kings won't be the same without him. And from where I sit, that ought to disappoint us a bit. Or at the very least, we ought to take it as an opportunity to recognize and appreciate what the Kings were and did these last few years.
They weren't the champs. They weren't the Lakers. But they were standard-bearers nonetheless. They kick started and carried forward a brand of basketball. They were the West in all its up-tempo glory, and the game they played is the one we're celebrating now in Phoenix, in Seattle, in Washington and in Chicago. In other words, the game they played was the future of a game we're feeling pretty good about right now.
That's all I'm saying.
continue...
Twix
Starter
Part Two: The Kings Ain't Dead Yet. Long Live the Kings.
Symbolically, Webber's departure from Sacramento is huge. Practically? Maybe not so much.
The Kings have won without him, when they've had to, these last two years. We know there's been friction between him and Peja these last couple of seasons, so this might mean we see more bounce in the shooter's step. And besides Peja, Mike Bibby, Brad Miller and Rick Adelman still call Sacramento home, and they're pretty good at what they do.
What's more, as our new ace stats man John Hollinger points out, the addition of Thomas, Big Nasty and Skinner likely makes the Kings better defensively, and certainly gives them more fresh bodies to rotate in off the bench. That could be especially crucial in this year's playoffs, when several teams will be looking to run and run hard.
But more than who they gave up or what they got back in the deal with the Sixers, here's the biggest reason why the Kings aren't dead, and the end of the era is still a ways off:
They're still the Kings.
What they do, and how they do it -- the style, the flow, the pace -- that's not going to change now that Webber's gone. There's even a chance it will be bigger, bolder and stronger in his absence.
Peja playing with the demonstrated love of his GM and owners at his back? Look out now.
Bibby asked to do more, to tap into that playoff ice-water we know he has running in his veins and let it run free? That 38/7/6 the other night might not be a fluke. It might just be a harbinger.
Cuttino Mobley, playing like he's been, with the joi de vivre of a man let loose from south Florida? Looks all right to me.
You think Miller can pick up some of the slack on the interior? I do.
I think it's a good bet Thomas is going to enjoy the new style and surroundings, too.
And I know Rick Adelman and Pete Carril are going to keep doing what they do with this team, keep encouraging them to run and space, and pass and cut.
Major as Webber was, much as he had to do with shaping and sustaining things, the Sacramento System outlives him. That's my bet.
The Kings fell asleep at the wheel against Charlotte Tuesday night, but they beat a good Washington team in Washington on Sunday, and Iverson's Sixers (with Webber) on the road the night before that, and they did it without Peja (injured). They can still play. They're still the Kings. They're still going to be good, and pretty to watch, and in-the-mix.
Will they win the West? I doubt it. Will they upset somebody? Could happen. And if it does, it really won't be all that much of an upset.
Because the Kings ain't dead. Long live the Kings.
Eric Neel is a columnist for Page 2. His Basketball Jones column will appear each week during the NBA season.
Symbolically, Webber's departure from Sacramento is huge. Practically? Maybe not so much.
The Kings have won without him, when they've had to, these last two years. We know there's been friction between him and Peja these last couple of seasons, so this might mean we see more bounce in the shooter's step. And besides Peja, Mike Bibby, Brad Miller and Rick Adelman still call Sacramento home, and they're pretty good at what they do.
What's more, as our new ace stats man John Hollinger points out, the addition of Thomas, Big Nasty and Skinner likely makes the Kings better defensively, and certainly gives them more fresh bodies to rotate in off the bench. That could be especially crucial in this year's playoffs, when several teams will be looking to run and run hard.
But more than who they gave up or what they got back in the deal with the Sixers, here's the biggest reason why the Kings aren't dead, and the end of the era is still a ways off:
They're still the Kings.
What they do, and how they do it -- the style, the flow, the pace -- that's not going to change now that Webber's gone. There's even a chance it will be bigger, bolder and stronger in his absence.
Peja playing with the demonstrated love of his GM and owners at his back? Look out now.
Bibby asked to do more, to tap into that playoff ice-water we know he has running in his veins and let it run free? That 38/7/6 the other night might not be a fluke. It might just be a harbinger.
Cuttino Mobley, playing like he's been, with the joi de vivre of a man let loose from south Florida? Looks all right to me.
You think Miller can pick up some of the slack on the interior? I do.
I think it's a good bet Thomas is going to enjoy the new style and surroundings, too.
And I know Rick Adelman and Pete Carril are going to keep doing what they do with this team, keep encouraging them to run and space, and pass and cut.
Major as Webber was, much as he had to do with shaping and sustaining things, the Sacramento System outlives him. That's my bet.
The Kings fell asleep at the wheel against Charlotte Tuesday night, but they beat a good Washington team in Washington on Sunday, and Iverson's Sixers (with Webber) on the road the night before that, and they did it without Peja (injured). They can still play. They're still the Kings. They're still going to be good, and pretty to watch, and in-the-mix.
Will they win the West? I doubt it. Will they upset somebody? Could happen. And if it does, it really won't be all that much of an upset.
Because the Kings ain't dead. Long live the Kings.
Eric Neel is a columnist for Page 2. His Basketball Jones column will appear each week during the NBA season.
bozzwell
Starter
From the article:
"They weren't the champs. They weren't the Lakers. But they were standard-bearers nonetheless. They kick-started and carried forward a brand of basketball. They were the West in all its up-tempo glory, and the game they played is the one we're celebrating now in Phoenix, in Seattle, in Washington and in Chicago. In other words, the game they played was the future of a game we're feeling pretty good about right now.
That's all I'm saying."
Me, too, Eric. Me, too.
Makes you proud to be a Kings fan.
"They weren't the champs. They weren't the Lakers. But they were standard-bearers nonetheless. They kick-started and carried forward a brand of basketball. They were the West in all its up-tempo glory, and the game they played is the one we're celebrating now in Phoenix, in Seattle, in Washington and in Chicago. In other words, the game they played was the future of a game we're feeling pretty good about right now.
That's all I'm saying."
Me, too, Eric. Me, too.
Makes you proud to be a Kings fan.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
I do find a certain amount of irony in these latter days to all of these positive articles and nostalgia for an era which drew so much criticism while it was still going on. Have I mentioned before that you don't know what you've got until its gone?
SCKingsfan
Bench
Yes - it's good to read a celebratory (if not overly optimistic) rendering of the kings impact on (and continuing foothold in) the NBA. Nice to hear at least one journalist out there not using recycled platitudes to count them out. AND someone who's actually been WATCHING the way they've played, past and present. What's Voisin's excuse?
Crackerman
G-League
Thank you for posting this article. It is very refreshing to look at the past few years and see what the Kings have accomplished, even if it was not a championship, Kings Fans have been able to see a lot of great basketball....
xrzn
Starter
That is probably one of the best basketball related articles ever written. I realize now though that it isn't 1999 through 2004, but it is 1999 through the present. The current Kings players can add onto the legacy of the era when Jason Williams, Doug Christie, Chris Webber, Vlade Divac, Hedo Turkoglu, and even Scott Pollard were running wild on the floor.
Great article...
Having said that, we have to begin to look forward and quit looking back.
It was fun, but it's over...at least in the terms of Jason, Vlade, Doug, Chris and Peja...
The Kings being assembled by Geoff Petrie for the future will be different. I think they'll still be exciting but they will be different. Only time will tell if they'll be as good.
Having said that, we have to begin to look forward and quit looking back.
It was fun, but it's over...at least in the terms of Jason, Vlade, Doug, Chris and Peja...
The Kings being assembled by Geoff Petrie for the future will be different. I think they'll still be exciting but they will be different. Only time will tell if they'll be as good.
PT Cruiser 9ROC
Bench
Ugh...I hate this article. All it does is make me once again think about "what could have been"-- feelings that you try to bury, but somehow surge back up again. My heart is broken all over again. Yeah, I'm a sissy, so what? 
Padrino
All-Star
VF21 said:
yes....it definitely is over in that respect. the reason i loved this article is cuz it basically summed up the reasons we love our kings so much, why they've been so good these past 6 seasons, and it was able to do so in an unbiased manner. not to mention it does put faith in the kings system, and looks ahead, while at the same time, remembering the best this team had to offer these 6 seasons past. i do like the bit about the kings system out-living webber. i was very skeptical at this fact when the trade happened, but ive come to realize that as long as adelman, carril, and petrie remain on-board with this organization, things wont change too much. they wont let it happen. (still wish we coulda made a run at guys like korver, iguodala, or dalembert, but eh....life goes on). the system will remain, hopefully. hell, we're still averaging well over 100 points/game. iif the kings can make a commitment to exert themselves a little on defense, then i would say the kings will live on....and long live the kings.
SIR HENRY 8
Bench
this article is the absolute ''truth''.My feelings in a nut shell,that style of bball was beautiful to watch,and THE reason I'm a KINGS fan.Now we're moving in a ''different direction'' I hope it too,will be just as good.
GO KINGS!!!
GO KINGS!!!
kingsfannPDX
Bench
SIR HENRY 8 said:
so you weren't a fan before 1999??
bigbadred00
Starter
So you have to be a Kings fan from birth. I didn't really follow the NBA as much as I do now. Initially I'll be honest I loved the Bulls, loved MJ. I love players. I was always also rooting for my boy Webb, when he was in GS, rooted for him, when he was on the Bullets, I supported him there. I have always supported these 2 players since I was a child.
NBA is a players league. But now since I've aged, I've grown to love the Kings on top of Webber. Yes I still follow Webber, I will follow him till he retires but I also still follow the Kings who I also love. As long as your not following a team just because they are winning, IE some fakers fan or whatever. Who cares. I'll be honest when I was a child I enjoyed Jordan winning but as I grew older I enjoyed the players more. Yes it was enjoyable that the Kings won as much as they did, but for me it's more than that now.
GO KINGS!!
GO 6ers!!
NBA is a players league. But now since I've aged, I've grown to love the Kings on top of Webber. Yes I still follow Webber, I will follow him till he retires but I also still follow the Kings who I also love. As long as your not following a team just because they are winning, IE some fakers fan or whatever. Who cares. I'll be honest when I was a child I enjoyed Jordan winning but as I grew older I enjoyed the players more. Yes it was enjoyable that the Kings won as much as they did, but for me it's more than that now.
GO KINGS!!
GO 6ers!!
kingsfannPDX
Bench
VF21 said:
i know. and to say i'm not a kings fan because i say they played like crap(which they did) shouldn't matter either.
Last edited:
iheartBrad
All-Star
kingsfannPDX said:
the start of that year is when i became a Kings fan
thanks to Chris Webber for that
hey you gotta start being a fan at some point, right?
kingsfannPDX
Bench
VF21 said:Um, okay. Whatever you say...
i figured it might confuse some... sir henry knows what i'm talking about. it was just a question anyway. it doesn't matter when someone becomes a fan. the more kings fans the better. the question was not ment to ruffle any feathers about how long you've been a fan and such. it was just a ? for sir henry... that's all.
kingsfannPDX
Bench
VF21 said:Just a hint? Sometimes things like that are better handled via PMs.
gotcha...thanks for the heads up.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
