Go Grizzlies! (Kings Related)

[gunks]

Defense + Inside out offense wins. That should be the blueprint. That WAS the blueprint with Malone. GS has defense, but they are overly reliant on the scoring of Curry and Klay.

I'm pretty sure Vlade knows this. Karl hasn't always been about PACE, and lately he's been dropping the D bomb in quotes. Our rumored draft targets are big defenders.

Now that *** **** ****** ****8 *#4(*&# #&($&#*#(*$&$#*(#& *** ****** Mully is gone (that ****), we should hopefully see a shift in the FO's approach. Hell, Mully leaving GS did wonders for them too!

 

[dude12]

Grizzlies are a balanced team.....you know how good the bigs are in Zbo and Gasol. Conley is a very good PG both offensively and defensively. Tony Allen is the defensive stopper at SG/SF. C Lee also a solid SG on both sides. Udrih is a solid reserve. Vinsanity just has to give solid minutes in a reserve role. Jeff Green is solid as is Koufos off the bench. If they win the series v GW it won't be a surprise....they play good playoff basketball.

 

[VF21]

Grizzlies are a balanced team.....you know how good the bigs are in Zbo and Gasol. Conley is a very good PG both offensively and defensively. Tony Allen is the defensive stopper at SG/SF. C Lee also a solid SG on both sides. Udrih is a solid reserve. Vinsanity just has to give solid minutes in a reserve role. Jeff Green is solid as is Koufos off the bench. If they win the series v GW it won't be a surprise....they play good playoff basketball.

And that's the main thing IMHO.

 

[dude12]

And furthermore, I like watching Memphis type basketball quite a bit. When the Warriors have it clicking, they can be fun to watch as well but I just prefer to watch when each possession is defended well and the teams are grinding.

 

[bajaden]

Pretty hard to make the argument that the Rudy Gay trade made the Grizzlies "the team they are".

Gay was traded for Tayshaun Prince, Ed Davis, Austin Daye and a 2nd rounder that became Jamaal Franklin.

Prince was a good fit for one and a half seasons and added defense (and a much lower usage rate than Gay) and Davis was a decent backup but Daye never contributed much and Franklin was waived after his rookie year. And no matter how you look at it none of the players they got in that trade are paying much in the way of dividends now.

Daye and Davis were allowed to walk as free agents and Prince declined quickly and was eventually basically a salary dump in the trade to Boston for Jeff Green. In fact, Green is the only player on the Grizzlies that you could even argue is on the roster in any way due to the Gay trade.

On the other hand, the Pau Gasol trade (for which the Grizzlies were hammered at the time) is the one that really helped shape the current roster.

That trade not only gave them Marc Gasol, but additional draft picks and lots of cap room that they used to restock their roster.

http://bballbreakdown.com/2015/01/2...zzlies-are-still-winning-the-pau-gasol-trade/

Sooooo, your saying that if we trade Cousins for Marc Gasol, we'd be on our way to a championship?

 

[kingsboi]

Grizzlies don't have that lethal three point shooting that previous championship teams have had so it remains to be seen if they can reach the promised land, but I do enjoy the lesson they are teaching a team that lives and dies by the jump shot.

 

[funkykingston]

Sooooo, your saying that if we trade Cousins for Marc Gasol, we'd be on our way to a championship?

No, the lesson is clearly that Boogie needs to have a younger (but bigger) little brother who is a throw in a trade for DeMarcus but ends up being an even better player . . .

 

[funkykingston]

James Ham's latest dances around the question of whether the Kings would be better off emulating the Grizzlies or Warriors.

I'm not sure how that's much of a question given that the Kings have practically none of the things that make the Warriors the Warriors and they have a number of things in common with Memphis. We can debate which team is better (and this playoff series will give some strong evidence one way or the other) but the reality is that the Kings COULD follow the Grizzlies blueprint. But as for becoming Golden State 2.0, well as the old saying goes, you can't get there from here. Not without blowing everything up and starting over and even then it's very, very unlikely to happen.

That said, the team playing the best basketball this postseason is actually the Clippers and the Kings are much closer to being able to emulate their style/success than they are the Warriors.

 

[lawlman91]

As much as I admire the Grizzlies, our playstyle needs to fit Cousins. He's our franchise player, the heart and soul of the Kings.

Whatever works with Cousins. It has been shown, however, that inside-out fits Cousins. Why not try that?

 

[captain bill]

I'm not sure how 2004 Detroit is remotely relevant to our team. Its a completely different structure.

Memphis is different too, but there were significant similarities when we were playing under Malone. We were following their blueprint, big center, ball control offense, the Rudy connection, few three point threats. Win anyway.

I'm really just talking about building around Demarcus. It's hard to directly compare him to any player, but Sheed isn't a bad start.

 

[The_Jamal]

I've been in the Bay for two decades(off and on) and hope GS dies in a fire. I hope the Grizz steamroll these pansies.

There's not a single negative to Memphis whooping their ass in the paint and moving on to the WCF. Anything which my jolt some common sense into our hierarchy is a positive.

This seems strange to me as the Warriors were the best defense in basketball this season. So because they dont have a post player as good as Marc/ZBO or Cuz offensively that means they=pansy?

Marc and ZBO are tough for anyone to stop, but the real reason Grizz are winning this series is they've figured out the recipe to slowing down Steph Curry the past two games, something that no one else has had much success with. And as talented as the Warriors are, they're no different from any other team in the playoffs; you have to rely on your star player to carry you to wins.

 

[Sac.1989]

We shouldn't have a Grizzlies system; we should have a system that fits our roster, which seems to be very similar to the Grizzlies' system. Malone figured out a system that fits our roster, and got fired because that wasn't the system that the front office wanted. Instead, they wanted a faster-paced team. To see the Grizzlies win this series, or at least bring the Warriors to the brink of destruction, would hopefully affect the thinking of the front office.

yep and that is the hope

 

[kingjatt]

This series shows that when things get to crunch time and defenses tighten up you need to be able to get to an ISO post up bucket or foul call (as Gay and Cuz were doing at the end of the year) and finish close to the hoop. Pace can work at times but its a gimmick and can easily be taken away by elite defenses so im not sure why a team would want to emphasize that.

Its sort of frustrating watching the Grizzles beat up and pound on the Warriors knowing that we were so close, maybe even 2-3 role playing vets away from emulating that same model with Malone. Now were stuck with starting over(For no reason!!) and a short leash on Cousins trust in our FO.

I like the positive vibe from the Vlade hire but im not personally convinced hes going to make basically the final call on personnel matters. To me he could just be brought on to sell some tickets or get people to renew while buying bratz PDA and Vivek some more time to try their silly experiments. I guess we will just have to wait and see with that one.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

like curry and thompson? good luck finding a couple of guys like that between now and when demarcus cousins eventually demands a trade...

Oddly, we had a shot at both but opted for Tyreke and Jimmer instead. While luck is always involved, it more about sound decision making.

 

[gunks]

Well shoot....

.... maybe Vivek will notice how GS won with defense?

 

[captain bill]

Well shoot....

.... maybe Vivek will notice how GS won with defense?

Maybe basketball is a complex game that can't be fit into the simplistic categories of "slow big ISO ball = good" / "3 point shooting motion offense = bad" that inevitably dominates knee-jerk threads like this.

Also, anyone who thinks that our owner should be swayed by the fortunes of other teams in the playoffs isn't thinking very clearly

 

[pdizo916]

WARRIORS!!!!!!!!!

 

[Albatros]

Maybe basketball is a complex game that can't be fit into the simplistic categories of "slow big ISO ball = good" / "3 point shooting motion offense = bad" that inevitably dominates knee-jerk threads like this.

Also, anyone who thinks that our owner should be swayed by the fortunes of other teams in the playoffs isn't thinking very clearly

I agree but there is no question your teams mentality should be formed around its most dominant players strengths.

I really couldn't care less about the Grizzlies or warriors.

 

[captain bill]

I agree but there is no question your teams mentality should be formed around its most dominant players strengths.

I really couldn't care less about the Grizzlies or warriors.

Absolutely. Except this is relevant to the Kings because I said about the Grizz (before the game yesterday) the same thing I've been saying about the Kings all season: that their pee-poor offensive sets, lack of shooting, and over-reliance on big men is a severely limiting factor in how far they can go in the playoffs. The W's just exposed that in a massive way yesterday.

Malone, for example, worked great with his starting 5, but had trouble building an offense or maintaining cohesion and depth past that 5. He didn't deserve to be fired, but he was looking to me more like a Scott Brooks than a Popovich or Larry Brown.

People here act like defense is the only thing that matters. It matters a lot, but again, basketball is about balance- you need to be able to execute on both ends of the court, and you need to have a flexible roster and coaching staff to be able to adapt to that.

I honestly think Malone and Prte could have been a great combo exactly because of their competing beliefs, had Vivek ever seriously forced them to have a meeting of the kinda and resolve their issues. Instead we watched petty office politics and power struggles motivated by myopic players result in a good thing getting thrown in the trash and, in all likelihood, setting this franchise back another decade.

 

[gunks]

Maybe basketball is a complex game that can't be fit into the simplistic categories of "slow big ISO ball = good" / "3 point shooting motion offense = bad" that inevitably dominates knee-jerk threads like this.

Also, anyone who thinks that our owner should be swayed by the fortunes of other teams in the playoffs isn't thinking very clearly

It's not that we think he SHOULD be swayed by other teams, it's that our goofball owner IS swayed by the fortunes of other teams.

 

[kupman]

Believing that a GS loss is somehow good for the Kings future is a bit far fetched imo.

I do not think that the Kings need to emulate any team. They simply need to get better guards to compliment a front court that is already pretty good. Pretty simple really - although maybe not easy.

 

[Gilles]

Kings have finite resources, so in the hypothetical debate of leaning towards less skill/bigger player/defense vs skill/smaller player/offense what Grizzlies and later Clippers do to Warriors could sway a decision towards the right/not so right type of player to put next to Boogie. Vivek tells everyone, who is still willing to listen, that he wants to look for recent successful trends, so Clips and Bears pounding Warriors would show, that you can't have enough competent (since good teams find ways to run offensively inept players like Asik or current Noah off the floor towards the end of the series) muscle. Would be good to have that as the most recent trend, since people forget that for all their offensive re-invention Spurs were kicked from POs by true contenders, until they developed and incorporated good size/defense at 2 forward positions in Kawhi and Tiago.

 

[hrdboild]

We shouldn't have a Grizzlies system; we should have a system that fits our roster, which seems to be very similar to the Grizzlies' system. Malone figured out a system that fits our roster, and got fired because that wasn't the system that the front office wanted. Instead, they wanted a faster-paced team. To see the Grizzlies win this series, or at least bring the Warriors to the brink of destruction, would hopefully affect the thinking of the front office.

Just seeing the Warriors struggle against a tough defensive team in the playoffs and lose games due to poor shooting should make that point to or front office. Notice I say should. They could go on a hot shooting tear and win the championship and a smart basketball person can still see why their model is problematic.

The Warriors were the best team in the league this year because they had a good balance of offense and defense. Bogut and Green are terrific individual defenders. In retrospect, it's become clear that the offense being overly reliant on Curry and Thompson is a problem. If the other team can take one of those guys out of the game, they're going to struggle. We don't have to worry about that as much with Cousins. It's a lot harder to take a dominant post player out of the game. The best you can usually hope for is to make him earn it from the line or get him in foul trouble. Thats where we should be worried. Cousins has grown into a great individual defender this year, but we have to get him defensive help in the frontcourt. Asking him to do too much defensively is going to result in a lot of wasted minutes on the bench.

 

[KingsFanGER]

In retrospect, it's become clear that the offense being overly reliant on Curry and Thompson is a problem. If the other team can take one of those guys out of the game, they're going to struggle. We don't have to worry about that as much with Cousins. It's a lot harder to take a dominant post player out of the game. The best you can usually hope for is to make him earn it from the line or get him in foul trouble.

Is it really a lot harder to defend the post? Call me crazy, but to me it looked like running post players into constant double teams with quicker, smaller guys fronting them, causes loads of problems and a lot of turnovers that fuel a mobile offensive team by giving them wide open 3's in transition. Of course a jumpshooter will not always be spot on and falls into a slump on some days. But when a team is stacked with jumpshooters it's very unlikely, that they all have trouble hitting their shots at the same time.
And while it's possible to slow Curry down, I wouldn't say, that's easier than to defend the post, because Curry scores and finds teammates out of the high screen&roll and when he runs that with someone like Green and with Klay and Barnes in the corners you have to pick your poison.
Kerr wanted to defend Zbo and Gasol 1vs1 and got punished for it. He changed his approach and now we will see, if the Grizzlies are able to find a way to deal with the double teams.
Gonna be very interesting.

 

[hrdboild]

Is it really a lot harder to defend the post? Call me crazy, but to me it looked like running post players into constant double teams with quicker, smaller guys fronting them, causes loads of problems and a lot of turnovers that fuel a mobile offensive team by giving them wide open 3's in transition. Of course a jumpshooter will not always be spot on and falls into a slump on some days. But when a team is stacked with jumpshooters it's very unlikely, that they all have trouble hitting their shots at the same time.
And while it's possible to slow Curry down, I wouldn't say, that's easier than to defend the post, because Curry scores and finds teammates out of the high screen&roll and when he runs that with someone like Green and with Klay and Barnes in the corners you have to pick your poison.
Kerr wanted to defend Zbo and Gasol 1vs1 and got punished for it. He changed his approach and now we will see, if the Grizzlies are able to find a way to deal with the double teams.
Gonna be very interesting.

I was just looking at it from a perspective of shooting percentages adding up over the course of a 7 game series. Put a great three point shooter at the three point line with space to get that shot off and they're going to connect 40-50% of the time. Get the ball to a great post-player 5-10 feet from the basket and it's going to be a made basket or free throws 60% of the time. The weakness of Golden State's offense is that they don't have a post player who they can dump the ball to who will put points on the board 60% of the time. When their high-octane running and shooting offense is clicking, they're going to blow everyone out of the gym. When it's not clicking -- like if Tony Allen is hounding Klay Thompson into a bad shooting night and Curry misses 6 or 7 shots he normally makes -- who else are they going to go to? It's Barnes or Green spotted up for three and that 40% success rate instead of Cousins in the post with a 60% success rate. Their offense is dangerous no matter what, especially if they can generate a lot of turnovers. I'm not arguing that. But if I'm starting a team from scratch and you give me a choice, I'd still take Cousins in the post over the Thompson and Curry backcourt. We have a lot of other issues to work out with our roster before we can approach the level Golden State is playing at this season, but we've got a serious advantage over almost every other team simply because we have Cousins and they don't. Randolph and Gasol are both good post players, but they can't score through a double-team the way that Cousins did over and over again this season.

 

[KingsFanGER]

I was just looking at it from a perspective of shooting percentages adding up over the course of a 7 game series. Put a great three point shooter at the three point line with space to get that shot off and they're going to connect 40-50% of the time. Get the ball to a great post-player 5-10 feet from the basket and it's going to be a made basket or free throws 60% of the time. The weakness of Golden State's offense is that they don't have a post player who they can dump the ball to who will put points on the board 60% of the time. When their high-octane running and shooting offense is clicking, they're going to blow everyone out of the gym. When it's not clicking -- like if Tony Allen is hounding Klay Thompson into a bad shooting night and Curry misses 6 or 7 shots he normally makes -- who else are they going to go to? It's Barnes or Green spotted up for three and that 40% success rate instead of Cousins in the post with a 60% success rate. Their offense is dangerous no matter what, especially if they can generate a lot of turnovers. I'm not arguing that. But if I'm starting a team from scratch and you give me a choice, I'd still take Cousins in the post over the Thompson and Curry backcourt. We have a lot of other issues to work out with our roster before we can approach the level Golden State is playing at this season, but we've got a serious advantage over almost every other team simply because we have Cousins and they don't. Randolph and Gasol are both good post players, but they can't score through a double-team the way that Cousins did over and over again this season.

I agree with most ouf your post. But i personally believe, that shooters like Curry or Thompson won't struggle with their shots over a 7 game series.
The problem I have with a post offense, is not that the success rate is too low compared to an offense built around shooting. It's my observation (and it's not based on stats and just my impressions from watching a lot of NBA games), that teams can really make it difficult to set up the post player correctly and force a lot of turnovers out of the entry passes or double teams on the catch. And every live-ball-turnover is devastating today.
Most of the times teams have more success running the pick&roll instead of a post offense, even when they have somewhat skilled postplayers (Griffin, Zbo, Nene, Gasols). I do think, that Cousins is a superior post presence than these guys, but to me it looked, that Karl decided to pull Cousins out of the low-post a bit and let him operate with more space. Why does he do that? Is he just a dumb Nellie-Ball coach? I honestly don't think so.
If I should build a team from the ground up, I will start with a player like Cousins too. But not, because he is a low post presence, but because a skilled big man is the most versatile player in basketball from my point of view and puts me in the position to adjust my offensive gameplan to almost any defensive scheme i run into.

 

[The Hammer]

I agree with most ouf your post. But i personally believe, that shooters like Curry or Thompson won't struggle with their shots over a 7 game series.
The problem I have with a post offense, is not that the success rate is too low compared to an offense built around shooting. It's my observation (and it's not based on stats and just my impressions from watching a lot of NBA games), that teams can really make it difficult to set up the post player correctly and force a lot of turnovers out of the entry passes or double teams on the catch. And every live-ball-turnover is devastating today.
Most of the times teams have more success running the pick&roll instead of a post offense, even when they have somewhat skilled postplayers (Griffin, Zbo, Nene, Gasols). I do think, that Cousins is a superior post presence than these guys, but to me it looked, that Karl decided to pull Cousins out of the low-post a bit and let him operate with more space. Why does he do that? Is he just a dumb Nellie-Ball coach? I honestly don't think so.
If I should build a team from the ground up, I will start with a player like Cousins too. But not, because he is a low post presence, but because a skilled big man is the most versatile player in basketball from my point of view and puts me in the position to adjust my offensive gameplan to almost any defensive scheme i run into.

You're way overthinking it.

It boils down to this: In the playoffs, when games really, really count, teams with a post game (as Kerr said) can slow the game down very easily, and control the pace of play, and still have a viable offensive option. This effectively neutralizes the other team's best advantage: transition shooting, shooting before the defense is set up, etc. It's also no coincidence that perhaps the greatest wing defender in history is on the Grizz: their whole philosophy is about being built for playoff, must win games. They can shut teams down like crazy.

This next Warriors - Grizz game is going to be just nasty. Watch. The Grizz will win, and they will do it by slowing the pace and grinding in to Z bo, with Conly occasionally slashing to break down the D and keep the weak side honest. It's going to be text book playoff basketball .

 

[KingsFanGER]

You're way overthinking it.

It boils down to this: In the playoffs, when games really, really count, teams with a post game (as Kerr said) can slow the game down very easily, and control the pace of play, and still have a viable offensive option. This effectively neutralizes the other team's best advantage: transition shooting, shooting before the defense is set up, etc. It's also no coincidence that perhaps the greatest wing defender in history is on the Grizz: their whole philosophy is about being built for playoff, must win games. They can shut teams down like crazy.

This next Warriors - Grizz game is going to be just nasty. Watch. The Grizz will win, and they will do it by slowing the pace and grinding in to Z bo, with Conly occasionally slashing to break down the D and keep the weak side honest. It's going to be text book playoff basketball .

Maybe I'm overthinking it, but wouldn't this board be a bit boring, if everyone would repeat the slow-it-down, hand it down to the post argument?
Of course the Grizzlies want to slow it down versus the Warriors, but will they manage to do it? That's the main question and I agree - it will be one hack of a game and very interesting to watch.
And still I keep asking myself, why so many teams avoid playing the post up game, if this is the ultimate way to success in the NBA. To be honest - I'm not buying the "there are no good big man"-point.
So is almost everyone around the NBA just too dumb to realize, that a slow post up centric approach with great defense is the way to win it all?

 

[The Hammer]

Maybe I'm overthinking it, but wouldn't this board be a bit boring, if everyone would repeat the slow-it-down, hand it down to the post argument?
Of course the Grizzlies want to slow it down versus the Warriors, but will they manage to do it? That's the main question and I agree - it will be one hack of a game and very interesting to watch.
And still I keep asking myself, why so many teams avoid playing the post up game, if this is the ultimate way to success in the NBA. To be honest - I'm not buying the "there are no good big man"-point.
So is almost everyone around the NBA just too dumb to realize, that a slow post up centric approach with great defense is the way to win it all?

I think everyone is still suffering from "the next Jordan" syndrome. That was when guard centric play began to take over, and more importantly, be marketed. It became the NBA brand... despite grind it out, defensive teams ultimately winning the most championships in the Post Jordan years. The NBA has been chasing the Ghost of Jordan, both on the court, and in promotions.

Thing is, Jordan's teams were defensive juggernauts. They had three of the greatest defenders of all time: Rodman, Jordan, and Pippen... and Ron Harper is probably a top 50 all time defender too. Thing is, nowadays with the slough of guard type talent flooding the NBA, there just aren't that many that are also great wing defenders. There is just a lot of one way players around, and I think that is because of how the game has been marketed.

But the game is also changing (rules) that favor more three point shooting. But the very basic fundamentals will always apply: shooting from closer to the basket is always going to give you a higher percentage, more reliably good shot, in the long run. And that's what playoff series are, they are marathons. So the team that has that most reliable post presence, and who can shut down the other team consistently... usually wins. That's what I mean by people are over thinking this. Ball+ hoop + shoot from close + stop other team from doing so = win.

 

[jdbraver]

I think everyone is still suffering from "the next Jordan" syndrome. That was when guard centric play began to take over, and more importantly, be marketed. It became the NBA brand... despite grind it out, defensive teams ultimately winning the most championships in the Post Jordan years. The NBA has been chasing the Ghost of Jordan, both on the court, and in promotions.

Thing is, Jordan's teams were defensive juggernauts. They had three of the greatest defenders of all time: Rodman, Jordan, and Pippen... and Ron Harper is probably a top 50 all time defender too. Thing is, nowadays with the slough of guard type talent flooding the NBA, there just aren't that many that are also great wing defenders. There is just a lot of one way players around, and I think that is because of how the game has been marketed.

But the game is also changing (rules) that favor more three point shooting. But the very basic fundamentals will always apply: shooting from closer to the basket is always going to give you a higher percentage, more reliably good shot, in the long run. And that's what playoff series are, they are marathons. So the team that has that most reliable post presence, and who can shut down the other team consistently... usually wins. That's what I mean by people are over thinking this. Ball+ hoop + shoot from close + stop other team from doing so = win.

Except in the Kings case when they consistently give opponents over a .500 clip from 3 pt range.You still need perimeter D.