Since when does having High b-ball IQ mean you have to be a ****ty player? That might be one of the stupidest things i've heard on this board in awhile
I already provided statistical evidence that Chuck was superior last season to Dally in virtually every facet and all i got n response was "OMGZ DALLY is TEH 7 FEET TALL!!" You don't have to believe it since height>talent to you, but it is what it is.
I already provided statistical evidence that Chuck was superior last season to Dally in virtually every facet and all i got n response was "OMGZ DALLY is TEH 7 FEET TALL!!" You don't have to believe it since height>talent to you, but it is what it is.
Last edited:
I like Hayes, but Daley is a better player. He brings far more to the table than Hayes. Size doesn't always make a player better/more effective, but in this case it does. We have a huge void on the front line. I don't know how much of Hayes shoulder injury plays a role, but we are def missing something.
Well, then you aren't looking deep enough, and actually you don't really have to look deep at all, it's right on the surface for anyone paying attention: PICK AND ROLL DEFENSE. Hayes' ability to effectively guard the pick and roll and switch off onto perimeter players in certain instances is miles above Dalembert, and a necessary PF skill for any team wishing to be even a semi-decent pick and roll defending team. Dalembert is a C, Cousins is a C. Cousins did fairly well at manning the spot within the defense last year but it took him away from his strengths and it put him in a bad position last year which often times lead to fouls when players got by him or a mismatch had occurred. Yes, both are effective against certain types of players, the types of players that Hayes is effective against are types of players that hurt the Kings last year, now why is he not guarding those guys this year and instead playing backup C? As said, utter waste.
Which is another issue when playing him at backup C, or without Cousins or JT. Why is he boxing out the other teams 7 footer game after game? Early in the year, when he was playing with Cousins, the Kings were rebounding at about the same exact rate they are now with JT and Cousins. It's the same reason why Carlos Boozer doesn't box out Demarcus Cousins or Dwight Howard on the boards. Why is Chuck doing it? If Boozer, or Griffin, or Amare, etc. had to take a Cuz or a Dwight off the boards you can imagine that they'd be getting rebounded over too. Smart seems to think Hayes is a backup C to spell Cousins when that wasn't the reason he was brought here. He was brought here to be that guy to take pressure off of Cousins defensively and lock down the other teams best offensive threat. Kind of hard to do when they rarely play together anymore and Hayes ends up checking a hustle/role player most nights.
At what position? Checked his pick and roll defense the other night, did alright for a C, when the other team went small, there goes Daly to the bench in favor of Patterson.
Oh yeah, and lets not mention the coaching change, stylistic difference, or pace adjustment. Last year the Rockets also averaged nearly 10 more points a game.
How tall is the average for a PF? I'd bet it's a little different than C.
Oh yeah, and lets not mention the coaching change, stylistic difference, or pace adjustment. Last year the Rockets also averaged nearly 10 more points a game.
How tall is the average for a PF? I'd bet it's a little different than C.
I just hope Smart realizes that Hayes is a perfect compliment to Cousins. He can take some of the pressure off of Cousins, open up some lanes for Reke and Thornton with his screens, find some guys with high post passing, and most importantly direct the others defensively. Not going to succeed much doing that with the 2nd unit. Shutdown 2nd units don't mean much in the NBA when you're comparing that 5 man unit to a teams starting unit, the disparity in overall talent will win out eventually.
Chuck Hayes is a 6-6 center that cannot rebound and cannot make a shot from anywhere and usually ends up getting blocked. I don't care who is better Daly or Chuck... I care about the fit. Daly was by far the better fit. You'll never see Chuck go up and dunk a miss. I love the guy, but he is not the long-term solution. We give up too much with Chuck and Cousins on the floor at the same time.
7th pick in the draft from Jimmer and Salmons is a killer. Two of the three best players on the team are shooting guards (Evans and Thornton), so why not dump a high pick for two more? One that's too old and over paid and another that's at risk to either be a bench guy or will have to learn a new position.
And this isn't 50/50 hindsight. A lot of people said this at the time.
And this isn't 50/50 hindsight. A lot of people said this at the time.
Dalembert didn't want to be here. Simple as that. No reason to get on Chuck's case because a player didn't want to be here. Besides, Dalembert got the reputation as being lazy when he was in Philadelphia, which was part of the reason they shipped him off. That should be a big red flag for some of you who don't want certain players because they are not good role models.
Knight was available. I was absolutely furious during the draft when I heard that the Kings had worked out a deal with the Bucks BEFORE we knew who would have been available at our 7th pick. The fact that the Kings didn't have a contingency plan in place, just in case Knight slipped to 7th, is beyond asinine. Knight fell right into our laps, a point guard that we could have rolled with for a decade or more, a LEGIT point guard, and instead we draft a long distance chucker with terrible handles, hoping that he can somehow morph into a salvageable point guard.
I truly thought that Petrie had lost his marbles at that point. Of course, there are those who believe that the Maloofs made the call on Jimmer, and Petrie tried to make the best of a bad situation, but he screwed it up even worse with the Salmons thing.
Consensus picks here. It's been made fairly clear in media reports that the front office wanted Walker or Fredette. Which means we got a player that we wanted, cleared some room for him to play, and tried to address our gaping hole at the 3 all in one fell swoop. Had Salmons not fallen off a cliff (which nobody could have predicted) it wouldn't look like a bad trade at all. Another thing people tend not to think about is that Beno has fallen off just as badly this year, and Knight's per-minute numbers are very close to Jimmer's (Knight gets more minutes with less talent in the Detroit backcourt). The whole thing is a lot more of a push than most people think.
You really think that trade was close to a push? Are you f'ing joking? Knight is getting minutes because he's producing and isn't one of the worst defensive players in the league right now. And I like jimmer. Beno is struggling largely because he's being misused in millwaukee, as rotations there have been a disaster. As I stated earlier in the thread, we cheered when salmons was unloaded for nothing, at 5 times the production and half the cost. Bringing him back was a disaster either way. Losing Beno and switching knight for jimmer just makes it worse.
Getting Outlaw was a "best available at the time" scenario. His SF skill set in the right mix was a need filled on paper at the time. Hickson was a desire early and a good trade for Omri. He is an above-the-basket rebouder, has a good mid-range jumper and can run the court, all needs for the Kings prior to the season.
Both played-started major minutes in the past couple of years. Coming in to a rebuilding effort with the youngest team in the league is tough for any vet. Their rolls have changed, minutes lost to a new system, a new chemistry (or not), on and on. Hickson can work, Outlaw just may not "fit". Salmons is the mystey man. Brought in for defense and vet leadership in the back court. He has started most of his career but now not and in a hard to define role. Very tough situation for him.
Then there is Whiteside, all the project they were afraid he might be. Talent but a headless horseman. And where is Honeycutt? As someone else suggested is he being held back so as not to decrease Salmons minutes further? I tnink he, more than any other non-starter, has talent to play in the NBA. So why not?
And lets stop bopping Hayes. Listening to the Clippers broadcast on Direct TV, they raved about Hayes as the player they worried about most based on his shutting down Griffin consistently the past two years. And he did it again last night. The shooter-scorers killed the Kimgs. Should be a message there.
Both played-started major minutes in the past couple of years. Coming in to a rebuilding effort with the youngest team in the league is tough for any vet. Their rolls have changed, minutes lost to a new system, a new chemistry (or not), on and on. Hickson can work, Outlaw just may not "fit". Salmons is the mystey man. Brought in for defense and vet leadership in the back court. He has started most of his career but now not and in a hard to define role. Very tough situation for him.
Then there is Whiteside, all the project they were afraid he might be. Talent but a headless horseman. And where is Honeycutt? As someone else suggested is he being held back so as not to decrease Salmons minutes further? I tnink he, more than any other non-starter, has talent to play in the NBA. So why not?
And lets stop bopping Hayes. Listening to the Clippers broadcast on Direct TV, they raved about Hayes as the player they worried about most based on his shutting down Griffin consistently the past two years. And he did it again last night. The shooter-scorers killed the Kimgs. Should be a message there.
Outlaw is essentially Greene. Long at times good defender, inconsistent shooter poor rebounder. There was absolutely no need to lock him in for the next 3-4 years. Anyone that watched the nets play last year could have told the kings that. I still think the hickson move was ok though I wish they hadn't included that pick. Salmons defense has been deteriorating for years and his veteran presence has always been more of a problem than an asset. Again, things known to anyone that watched the bucks and a move universally panned by basketball analysts. I agree on honeycut and whiteside. Throw them out there and see what happens.
Finally, I don't dislike Hayes. He's a good big to bring off the bench as someone who knows his role and can defend certain types of bigs. I also like his presence. I just think the plan to replace the need for a real big and interior presence with chuck was a big mistake and frankly a disservice to chuck.
Finally, I don't dislike Hayes. He's a good big to bring off the bench as someone who knows his role and can defend certain types of bigs. I also like his presence. I just think the plan to replace the need for a real big and interior presence with chuck was a big mistake and frankly a disservice to chuck.
No.
Tell you what. Check Knight's per minute numbers (anywhere) and his defensive numbers (82games.com is probably best) and come back and back a detailed argument that Knight is better than Jimmer. And I like Knight - he's the guy I wanted in the draft.
We never switched Knight for Jimmer. According to the FO, if we kept the 7 pick we would have drafted either Jimmer or Walker regardless of Knight's availability.
Tell you what. Check Knight's per minute numbers (anywhere) and his defensive numbers (82games.com is probably best) and come back and back a detailed argument that Knight is better than Jimmer. And I like Knight - he's the guy I wanted in the draft.
We never switched Knight for Jimmer. According to the FO, if we kept the 7 pick we would have drafted either Jimmer or Walker regardless of Knight's availability.
Hassan whiteside is averaging 10 points, 21 rebounds and 10 blocks per 36 minutes. It's a useful but misleading measurement if you are trying to compare the value of two players. Jimmer hasn't been getting playing time because he can't guard anyone and struggles dribbling the ball against pressure.
And I'm not assuming the front office would have picked knight, only that they should have and that selecting jimmer instead of either knight or walker (or Leonard for that matter) only made the salmons trade worse.
And I'm not assuming the front office would have picked knight, only that they should have and that selecting jimmer instead of either knight or walker (or Leonard for that matter) only made the salmons trade worse.
Hayes is an okay player, but how far can you get in the NBA with a 6'6" center? Dalembert toward the end of the year especially was not only a great defender and rebouder, but started to have some serious offense especially late in games. I miss the guy. He was steady, but sometimes quiet on offense.
I agree about losing Knight, and we almost had a shot at Irving. Don't give up on Evans. Help him become a better point forward. Good to see Jimmer gain some confidence last night.
The Clippers game was telling. At home we got 100 points, which is enough to beat a lot of teams most nights. We gave up 110 or so. A ten percent improvement in the defense against an elite team puts the Kings right in there in a competitive position.
I agree about losing Knight, and we almost had a shot at Irving. Don't give up on Evans. Help him become a better point forward. Good to see Jimmer gain some confidence last night.
The Clippers game was telling. At home we got 100 points, which is enough to beat a lot of teams most nights. We gave up 110 or so. A ten percent improvement in the defense against an elite team puts the Kings right in there in a competitive position.
Many people predicted the falling off of Salmons. There was a Hollinger article on it I'm pretty sure. People knew where his career was heading.
Like I've said, the Kings FO is too thin and out of touch. A little research into Hickson would have revealed his big flaws and that his numbers are inflated by being featured on a tanking team. They were basically empty stats. If I know these things then I expect the people paid to know these things to know them.
Like I've said, the Kings FO is too thin and out of touch. A little research into Hickson would have revealed his big flaws and that his numbers are inflated by being featured on a tanking team. They were basically empty stats. If I know these things then I expect the people paid to know these things to know them.
I've got three numbers for you: 1177, 621, 7. What are they? Minutes played on the season for Knight, Fredette, and Whiteside, respectively. Your argument that per-minutes stats are misleading is...misleading - because you used an incredibly small sample size which you darn well know was gathered exclusively in garbage time.
Yes, Jimmer is struggling with his dribble, but his TO% is less than Knight's! The two have per-minute and advanced stats that are very similar. Knight is not playing because he's "producing". He's playing because he's the second-best guard on his team. Meanwhile, Jimmer is the fourth-best guard on our team, so he gets fewer minutes.
Yes, Jimmer is struggling with his dribble, but his TO% is less than Knight's! The two have per-minute and advanced stats that are very similar. Knight is not playing because he's "producing". He's playing because he's the second-best guard on his team. Meanwhile, Jimmer is the fourth-best guard on our team, so he gets fewer minutes.
Hmmm...seemed to do awfully well playing next to Cousins early in the year. Wonder what changed? Not to mention the whole shoulder thing but nah, that couldn't have anything to do with it huh.
Daly was NOT a great fit next to Cousins for pretty much every reason I pointed out above. This team gives up nothing with Chuck and Cuz out on the floor at the same time, and early in the year, the only respectable thing about the team was the interior defense between them and the board work.
Daly was NOT a great fit next to Cousins for pretty much every reason I pointed out above. This team gives up nothing with Chuck and Cuz out on the floor at the same time, and early in the year, the only respectable thing about the team was the interior defense between them and the board work.