George Karl says Isaiah Thomas has brought some "common sense" to the Kings game

[BMiller52]

https://twitter.com/#!/mr_jasonjones/status/176845361225281536

Is this a shot at Tyreke, or the previous coach? Not sure what he means here. Not sure I like it either, since it's a backhanded compliment more or less.

 

[Spike]

It's a strange compliment for sure, and I don't know how to read it. I probably need more than such a small sound byte. Common sense in that we're predictable now as a smallball team? No clue.

 

[Nikefutbolero]

Common sense because every successful team has a true 1, and IT is the only true 1 at the team. The Tyreke at the 1 experiment was just that, an experiment.

 

[swisshh]

Hopefully IT can get back to "common sense" and push the ball, while looking for teammates. The Kings have slid back into me-ball as of late.

 

[mac]

Common sense because every successful team has a true 1, and IT is the only true 1 at the team. The Tyreke at the 1 experiment was just that, an experiment.

Every successful team has a true 1. Most successful teams just need him to stay out of the way and let the big and SG do their thing.

 

[mac]

Hopefully IT can get back to "common sense" and push the ball, while looking for teammates. The Kings have slid back into me-ball as of late.

You mean that even without Evans at the point the guys don't move the ball? Outrageous I say, its been well documented by posters such as yourself that Tyreke was the sole reason for our 1 on 1 style of play.

 

[Nikefutbolero]

That doesn't change my point. A true 1's main job is to distribute. Tyreke CAN'T do that because he has obsoletely horrible court vision.

 

[mac]

That doesn't change my point. A true 1's main job is to distribute. Tyreke CAN'T do that because he has obsoletely horrible court vision.

Is Westbrook's main job to distribute? How bout Rose? Tony Parker? Guess they aren't true 1s. Are their teams ssuccessful? Emphasis on main job, not ability to. Care to change your stance?

 

[swisshh]

You mean that even without Evans at the point the guys don't move the ball? Outrageous I say, its been well documented by posters such as yourself that Tyreke was the sole reason for our 1 on 1 style of play.

No, Thornton and Cousins and Salmons were all tagged with the selfish label by fans like me. Try again.

 

[rainmaker]

That doesn't change my point. A true 1's main job is to distribute. Tyreke CAN'T do that because he has obsoletely horrible court vision.

IT has the same assist rate as Reke, which has been pointed out numerous times. He's not distributing at any higher a rate than Reke. Can even make the argument Reke is the better creator in the half court since the majority of IT's assists come in transition.

To add, in this game Reke has 3 ast after the 1st. Could have had 4 more after setting 4 guys up for wide open shots. This happens quite frequently. Horrible vision indeed.

 

[kingsnation]

I really don't care what George Karl thinks about our team. :/

 

[Kingster]

IT has the same assist rate as Reke, which has been pointed out numerous times. He's not distributing at any higher a rate than Reke. Can even make the argument Reke is the better creator in the half court since the majority of IT's assists come in transition.

To add, in this game Reke has 3 ast after the 1st. Could have had 4 more after setting 4 guys up for wide open shots. This happens quite frequently. Horrible vision indeed.

And as been pointed out numerous times (and ignored) Tyreke doesn't do the hockey assist. If you have a guy that is only looking for the assist stat, and not the play that can get you the assist, that's not going to cut it for a pg. Again, look at the action on the court, not the stat line. It doesn't tell a lot of the story.

 

[Kingster]

So apparently, according to Karl, a team with Tyreke at point guard doesn't have common sense............?

 

[pshn80]

I loved Karl's comment whatever he meant by it. It's true in my view so I'll give Karl a lot of room on this.

 

[Glenn]

And as been pointed out numerous times (and ignored) Tyreke doesn't do the hockey assist. If you have a guy that is only looking for the assist stat, and not the play that can get you the assist, that's not going to cut it for a pg. Again, look at the action on the court, not the stat line. It doesn't tell a lot of the story.

Tyreke had 2 hockey assists last night. You have to look for them to see them. I don't think he is a pg either. I think he is a guard and needs a proper running mate in the back court. It doesn't have to be a classical point guard, either. They look pretty and satisfy the need of people who are so anal that they go to wikipedia to see what a point gurd, pf, sg, sf, and center should be. You deal with what you have. I think in a few years a perfectly satisfactory two guard starting lineup could be Jimmer and Tyreke. I won't hold my breath on Jimmer but a player something like that. I want the other guard to be able to shoot from distance reliably, not need the ball in his hands all the time, and look to set other people up. Somebody who can draw attention away from Reke yet be able to dish the ball to him (or anyone else, of course) when he is open.

 

[Glenn]

I loved Karl's comment whatever he meant by it. It's true in my view so I'll give Karl a lot of room on this.

I don't know what he meant but by the end of the game, he may have taken it back.

 

[Glenn]

So apparently, according to Karl, a team with Tyreke at point guard doesn't have common sense............?

That's the guess escept it was a short tweet leaving the interpretation up to the beholder. Your interpretation is obvious as probably is mine. The only one who Knows what Karl meant is Karl. BTW, I'd be well satisfied with him as a coach but I disgress.

 

[Spike]

I don't know what he meant but by the end of the game, he may have taken it back.

Unless it played perfectly into his hands...devious old man!

 

[Kingster]

Tyreke had 2 hockey assists last night. You have to look for them to see them. I don't think he is a pg either. I think he is a guard and needs a proper running mate in the back court. It doesn't have to be a classical point guard, either. They look pretty and satisfy the need of people who are so anal that they go to wikipedia to see what a point gurd, pf, sg, sf, and center should be. You deal with what you have. I think in a few years a perfectly satisfactory two guard starting lineup could be Jimmer and Tyreke. I won't hold my breath on Jimmer but a player something like that. I want the other guard to be able to shoot from distance reliably, not need the ball in his hands all the time, and look to set other people up. Somebody who can draw attention away from Reke yet be able to dish the ball to him (or anyone else, of course) when he is open.

You're doubling down with Jimmer? I think if you have Tyreke, you better have a guy who's an excellent ballhandler - because he certainly isn't. The last thing I want is a mediocre ballhandler with an outside shot as the complementary guard next to Tyreke. IT has everything Jimmer has plus more, so the Jimmer thing I don't get.

 

[Bricklayer]

You're doubling down with Jimmer? I think if you have Tyreke, you better have a guy who's an excellent ballhandler - because he certainly isn't. The last thing I want is a mediocre ballhandler with an outside shot as the complementary guard next to Tyreke. IT has everything Jimmer has plus more, so the Jimmer thing I don't get.

Stop with your silly unique definition of ballhandling. Call him anything but a PG and Reke is one of the 10 best non-PG ballhandlers in the NBA.

 

[Glenn]

You're doubling down with Jimmer? I think if you have Tyreke, you better have a guy who's an excellent ballhandler - because he certainly isn't. The last thing I want is a mediocre ballhandler with an outside shot as the complementary guard next to Tyreke. IT has everything Jimmer has plus more, so the Jimmer thing I don't get.

Did you read what I said about Jimmer before hitting your reflex button to comment?

 

[Larry David]

George Karl is saying it lacks common sense to try to play basketball without a point guard unless you have a really good reason.

Tweak the stats all you want, if you can't see that Thomas plays more like a point that Evans, I can't help you see it.

 

[pshn80]

Stop with your silly unique definition of ballhandling. Call him anything but a PG and Reke is one of the 10 best non-PG ballhandlers in the NBA.

As long as he is not the primary bring the ball upper and initial distributor. In these areas he is not in the 25 best in the league.

 

[roasthawg]

Tyreke had 2 hockey assists last night. You have to look for them to see them. I don't think he is a pg either. I think he is a guard and needs a proper running mate in the back court. It doesn't have to be a classical point guard, either. They look pretty and satisfy the need of people who are so anal that they go to wikipedia to see what a point gurd, pf, sg, sf, and center should be. You deal with what you have. I think in a few years a perfectly satisfactory two guard starting lineup could be Jimmer and Tyreke. I won't hold my breath on Jimmer but a player something like that. I want the other guard to be able to shoot from distance reliably, not need the ball in his hands all the time, and look to set other people up. Somebody who can draw attention away from Reke yet be able to dish the ball to him (or anyone else, of course) when he is open.

Like Beno maybe?

I definitely think Jimmer will be that guy sooner than later... although I'm apparently a lot higher on Jimmer than many other King's fans at this point I guess.

 

[Glenn]

Like Beno maybe?

I definitely think Jimmer will be that guy sooner than later... although I'm apparently a lot higher on Jimmer than many other King's fans at this point I guess.

Yes to Beno. I'd be surprised if Jimmer didn't fit that role eventually. I always have hope. I'm a Jimmer fan also. Like Tyreke, adjustment needs to be made to maximize Jimmer's skills but I think he will be "good enough" at distributing the ball to be paired with another guy who is "good enough." Neither needs to be great. They both have been PGs but neither in the mold of a classical PG, whatever that is. They are not unfamiliar with that part of the basketball court unlike Tyreke's switch to SF.

Oh, and to others reading this, let's not make this more complex by wondering what to do with IT and Thornton. I think Thornton is great but he would not be that "good enough" PG and might need to be traded to fill our worst hole and that is SF. This note was written only to make a point and not to plan out the future of the Kings' lineups.

 

[Hadlowe]

Tyreke had 2 hockey assists last night. You have to look for them to see them. I don't think he is a pg either. I think he is a guard and needs a proper running mate in the back court. It doesn't have to be a classical point guard, either. They look pretty and satisfy the need of people who are so anal that they go to wikipedia to see what a point gurd, pf, sg, sf, and center should be. You deal with what you have. I think in a few years a perfectly satisfactory two guard starting lineup could be Jimmer and Tyreke. I won't hold my breath on Jimmer but a player something like that. I want the other guard to be able to shoot from distance reliably, not need the ball in his hands all the time, and look to set other people up. Somebody who can draw attention away from Reke yet be able to dish the ball to him (or anyone else, of course) when he is open.

I think that's the long-term plan. If Jimmer's D improves to just adequate and he gets a better handle in the off-season, he's immediately a better fit with Reke than Thornton is right now because Jimmer looks to pass and will feed Cousins in the post. Of course, that means that we have one 6th-man too many in Thornton and IT.

 

[Bricklayer]

I think that's the long-term plan. If Jimmer's D improves to just adequate and he gets a better handle in the off-season, he's immediately a better fit with Reke than Thornton is right now because Jimmer looks to pass and will feed Cousins in the post. Of course, that means that we have one 6th-man too many in Thornton and IT.

People need to seriosuly quit comparing the talent and potential levels of Marcus and our two rooks. They are on different planes. There really is no choice if there is a choice between any of them.

 

[Glenn]

People need to seriosuly quit comparing the talent and potential levels of Marcus and our two rooks. They are on different planes. There really is no choice if there is a choice between any of them.

Actually there is no reason why Thornton couldn't fit the bill either as it proved to work at the end of last year. I don't know why people forget that. I hope no one ever, ever thinks that I believe Jimmer will be better than Marcus. No matter if Thornton comes off the bench or is a starter, he needs a LOT of minutes as he is our best scorer and I can't imagine that changing unless Cousins is fed more. Thornton can also rebound which I think Jimmer will never be good at. I think some reshuffling of the guards will need to be done some day but I'm not in a hurry. IT just may play his way out of his position as a starter. We'll see what evolves. As an aside, I think it amazing that our 4 guards are so young.

 

[roasthawg]

People need to seriosuly quit comparing the talent and potential levels of Marcus and our two rooks. They are on different planes. There really is no choice if there is a choice between any of them.

Admittedly I've never been impressed with Thornton and I have high hopes for Jimmer but I don't view these guys as on "different planes" even now in Jimmer's rookie season. Thornton is at 18.9 pts 1.9 ast per 36 with a ts% of .539. Jimmer is at 14.4 pts and 3.4 ast per 36 with a ts% of .514. So both shooting at a similar clip with Thornton scoring a little more and Jimmer assisting at a higher rate. Gotta think Jimmer has the most room for improvement between the two as well.

IT's got the best guard stats at 15.6 pts and 5.5 ast per 36 with a ts% of .534.

 

[Kingster]

Stop with your moronic arrogant authority as the new Webster's Basketball Dictionary.