Go Grizzlies! (Kings Related)
- Thread starter Section 101
- Start date
What's strange is people in this thread seem to think this is something new.
GS has been killing people defensively all season. Its the reason they took the jump from a 50 win team to one of the best Regular season teams in NBA history. What's so utterly unique about them is they're able to defend they way they are AND play at an up-tempo pace with 2 3pt bombers as their best offensive players.
lawlman91
Starter
The only way I can be convinced that we should go down a route that is not a primarily inside-out offense is if we run and inside-out offense and fail miserably. The results from the beginning of the season show that that did not fail miserably. I was of the opinion that the FO should allow Malone to fine-tune his already-noticeably-working-but-with-some-flaws coaching philosophy over time, but they instead destroyed the emotional and tactical foundation of a hopeful team on the rise. The FO decided to go down the route of, in business lingo, "creative destruction". Wrong choice. What to do now? I'd recommend that we run the inside-out offense, and see if it still works. Why should we try it? Because it worked before. And this Grizzlies team showed us for a few years that inside-out is legit. If trying inside-out doesn't work for the Kings, we try something else.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
Exactly. And as long as this team has Demarcus Cousins it will never have to rely on luck based outside shot attempts. There is no reason this team can't have both!
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
You did indeed. Intentionally.
Here's the dishonest argument:
1) you all think there is only one thing that matters, and its an absolute rule, and therefore you are wrong.
2) then to make matters worse we substitute in a totally unproven totally ahistorical standard just because its hip and we like it.
Sloppy, sloppy sloppy. The NBA isn't a startup league. Its been around a very long time. Watch it long enough, know its history, and patterns repeat and repeat and repeat. This year's 3pt shooting explosion is an interesting wrinkle, but its a transition season without any of the old powers around to really test it, the great young bigs aren't quite ready yet to advance their own case, and there have been so many injuries both during the season and in the postseason. Golden State was the best team, and a team with deep talent. They bring multiple former All Stars off the bench. But if Paul George does not break his leg and the Pacers squeeze the life out of Atlanta in the second round, are we still talking? What if it was Curry instead of Durant who missed most of the season? Would the principle suddenly change? That's why you don't draw your lessons from one season, in particular an aberrant one. Golden State was the best team in the league, and those win a large percentage of the time in the NBA. But they also will win this title having run through a whole series of flawed and dinged up teams without much experience. Memphis was probably the toughest test, and yet Memphis has obviously never gotten over the mountain in all its previous years against any of the other teams either.
As an aside, the great interior principle has hardly been disgraced. All of the other top centers have done well. Lopez smacked around Horford. Horford then basically won the series vs. the Wizards. Duncan and Jordan went at it for 7 games, followed by Jordan and Howard. Gasol was part of the crew challenging the Warriors last round. Now it will be Howard. And none of those guys are as good as Boogie. Meanwhile Karl released a promising tweet about the lesson of the playoffs being defense. Golden State certainly found out you had to grind out wins in the playoffs with defense, and did so (although that lesson will likely be forgotten in an up and down junkball affair in these WCF). To an astute observer its not all bad. The question will just be whether the astute observers in our front office have finally seized control from the inexperienced gerbils.
Last edited:
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
They didn't play uptempo, and they won by strangling the Grizz. That was the big test passed there. Now the question remains could they have pulled that off against a team with a star interior guy on Curry's level? Don't know, but that's what you would need to test the principle that you'd rather jumpshoot than attack inside. Nonetheless they passed the only test of that kind they were going to receive in these playoffs. You just have to acknowledge it was to a second tier team who has never gotten over the hump in previous years either.
This is playoff basketball:
Golden State Regular Season:
Pts/Gm: 110.0 (#1)
Pace: 98.3 (#1)
Golden State vs. Grizzlies:
Pts Gm: 97.8 (would have been #22 in regular season)
Pace: 91.8 (would have been #27 in regular season)
Hence a good test and learning lesson for the Warriors. Memphis choked them, the Warriors staggered, but they responded by choking Memphis right back. And the difference really is that defense. I doubt Houston pulls that off. Its what has always killed the run n gun teams of the past. You cut the knees out from under their offenses and they are not prepared to slow you enough to grind out a win.
lawlman91
Starter
I disagree with the "luck based" part in a literal sense but I do get where you're coming from. In fact, an inside-out offense would push 3pt luck towards our side, since outside shots become more open.
IfAt1st
Starter
Did some people actually WATCH the playoffs, or just hear about it on KF's?
The Warriors just beat the Grizzlies because their defense smothered the Grizz' anemic-to-begin-with offense, and Tony Allen got injured.
The Warriors were challenging every single move the Grizz did, and not getting almost ANY fouls called on them. It was really pretty absurd - Bogut was even able to foul on a 70-ft end-of-quarter heave by Gasol and he wasn't worried in the slightest that he was going to get a foul called on him. Even in the last game, end of quarter 3, the W's didn't even think twice about challenging the Grizz' 3-pt heave - they blocked it (in a way you seldom see on end-of-quarter 3-pt attempts because usually, teams are worried about getting the foul called) and then Curry hoists the game-ending 3 from 63 ft.
The Warriors were grabbing and reaching on plays they had no business fouling on, and still didn't get fouls.
The refs made it easy for them to choke out the Grizz.
One of the long-time lessons of the playoffs (to me) is that you watch which team is able to play the most aggressive, hands-y defense and you'll know who the winner usually is.
This said, captain bill and prince_xy's deliberate misrepresentation of other KF's arguments is getting really frigging old.
The Warriors just beat the Grizzlies because their defense smothered the Grizz' anemic-to-begin-with offense, and Tony Allen got injured.
The Warriors were challenging every single move the Grizz did, and not getting almost ANY fouls called on them. It was really pretty absurd - Bogut was even able to foul on a 70-ft end-of-quarter heave by Gasol and he wasn't worried in the slightest that he was going to get a foul called on him. Even in the last game, end of quarter 3, the W's didn't even think twice about challenging the Grizz' 3-pt heave - they blocked it (in a way you seldom see on end-of-quarter 3-pt attempts because usually, teams are worried about getting the foul called) and then Curry hoists the game-ending 3 from 63 ft.
The Warriors were grabbing and reaching on plays they had no business fouling on, and still didn't get fouls.
The refs made it easy for them to choke out the Grizz.
One of the long-time lessons of the playoffs (to me) is that you watch which team is able to play the most aggressive, hands-y defense and you'll know who the winner usually is.
This said, captain bill and prince_xy's deliberate misrepresentation of other KF's arguments is getting really frigging old.
DeMarcus Cousins is hands down the best low post offensive scorer in the game. Memphis is a team built around low post scoring. It's silly to think that Cousins would not be successful with dramatically more talent around him suited towards his style.
Using DMC's performances against Bogut and Festus is flawed. Clearly the two teams are on the complete opposite sides of the scale on almost every level. Festus and Bogut are two cogs on one of the best team defenses in the league. Sac turns the ball over like crazy, can't shoot, has terrible spacing and only one real advantage on offense in Cousins. We're not comparing apples to apples.
Here's your evidence:
The last four meetings
---------------------------
Cousins
26 Points 11 rebounds
28 Points 11 rebounds
20 points 11 rebounds
24 points 6 rebounds
vs
Bogut
6 points 5 rebounds
8 points 5 rebounds
4 points 5 rebounds
6 points 12 rebounds
---------------------------
Cousins
26 points 11 rebounds
22 points 8 rebounds
20 points 11 rebounds
14 points 6 rebounds
vs
Ezeli
2 points 5 rebounds
15 points 6 rebounds
5 points 1 rebound
0 points 2 rebounds
---------------------------
Sure Cousins struggled with turning the ball over but would that not change with more scoring options and better spacing on a playoff caliber team like Memphis?
(when I said idiots, I didn't mean anyone on here BTW. I meant the media/sportswriters. Should have made that clear)
Last edited:
HighFlyingMonkey
Starter
What really needs to be avoided is a set of over-rigid "rules" that dictate who can and who cannot win a championship. Because anyone making sweeping generalizations about what absolutely can't win a championship is going to end up looking like an idiot when it happens and covering their *** with stupid "exceptions" as to why the rules they so vociferously advocate are violated, again.
You need to have a good enough combination of offense and defense, and you need to get lucky. There are many ways to have a great offense. Inside-out still works, whether you're building around an interior duo like Zbo/Gasol or a slasher like Harden. Building around an all-time great shooter (like GSW did with Curry) works fine too. The Spurs won last year because they execute better than anyone else. All viable options to build offenses around.
You also have to take into account that you have to space the floor with the three point shot. In the playoffs this year, 14 out of the 16 teams shot at least 20 three point attempts per game, with the Warriors leading the pack with nearly 30 three point attempts per game. Three teams hit that mark in 2011, including the champion Dallas Mavericks. In 2012, three teams hit that mark, and the champion Miami Heat barely missed the cut with 19.7 per game. Nine teams hit that mark in 2013, including the champion Heat. Twelve teams hit that mark in 2014, including the champion Spurs. Historically, this wasn't the case; only two teams out of 16 hit that mark in the 2000 playoffs, with the highest being 20. and only five teams out of 16 hit that mark in the 2008 playoffs. The NBA is taking more and more three pointers, and its become a necessity to generate a healthy amount of threes in order to keep up with the rest of the league. Generating threes is critical to an efficient offense in the modern NBA.
To sum up: don't close your mind to an offense assuming it doesn't work, and believe that you have to shoot a lot of threes to keep up with the rest of the league. Statistically its a highly efficient shot, and he who generates the most efficient shots tends to have the most efficient offense.
You need to have a good enough combination of offense and defense, and you need to get lucky. There are many ways to have a great offense. Inside-out still works, whether you're building around an interior duo like Zbo/Gasol or a slasher like Harden. Building around an all-time great shooter (like GSW did with Curry) works fine too. The Spurs won last year because they execute better than anyone else. All viable options to build offenses around.
You also have to take into account that you have to space the floor with the three point shot. In the playoffs this year, 14 out of the 16 teams shot at least 20 three point attempts per game, with the Warriors leading the pack with nearly 30 three point attempts per game. Three teams hit that mark in 2011, including the champion Dallas Mavericks. In 2012, three teams hit that mark, and the champion Miami Heat barely missed the cut with 19.7 per game. Nine teams hit that mark in 2013, including the champion Heat. Twelve teams hit that mark in 2014, including the champion Spurs. Historically, this wasn't the case; only two teams out of 16 hit that mark in the 2000 playoffs, with the highest being 20. and only five teams out of 16 hit that mark in the 2008 playoffs. The NBA is taking more and more three pointers, and its become a necessity to generate a healthy amount of threes in order to keep up with the rest of the league. Generating threes is critical to an efficient offense in the modern NBA.
To sum up: don't close your mind to an offense assuming it doesn't work, and believe that you have to shoot a lot of threes to keep up with the rest of the league. Statistically its a highly efficient shot, and he who generates the most efficient shots tends to have the most efficient offense.
KingsFanGER
Starter
Ok.
1) who is the "you all" you are referring to?
2) what is "the one thing" you accuse me of thinking it's the only one that matters
3) what has history to do with the current NBA?
4) why should the Pacers beat the Hawks in 2015, if it took them 7 games in 2014 to beat the Hawks without AL Horford and minus a very decent Dennis Schröder?
5) why do you use injuries as a prove, that your thesis is correct, if those injuries are mainly on guards? Why do you think of this year as a transition year, when the last 2 champions played the way they did?
6) Do you really don't see a difference in how guys like Horford, Duncan or Jordan play in contrast to Cousins?
I don't want to escalate this debate onto a personal level, but basically you repeat the same arguments over and over again, until your counterpart becomes tired of even responding to it anymore.
On top of that I think, that you tend to read statements into posts, that were never made, just because you like to generalize to gain as much support for your thesis as possible.
I never said - defense is not important. I never said - the interior game is not important.
Basically all I ever said was, that there are certain trends in the NBA. That these trends are there for good reasons and not only because todays player aren't as capable as the players of the past. And most importantly, that the Kings have to find ways to deal with these trends and if they decide to follow a different approach, at least find a way to defend the current playstyle of a lot of teams.
And here is the key point, where I disagree with most of the posters here - I don't think we found this way in the beginning of the season. I don't think the answer is "slow things down and hand it to Cousins on the block".
Even if this kind of playstyle would still work (which I doubt, because of reasons I already mentioned in multiple posts) - playoff basketball is all about adjustments and with this as our only offensive gameplan, we would be very easy to beat, cause coaches would find ways to take this approach away.
For me this becomes more and more a pointless debate, that is fueled only by the splitting of this board in people who can't let the firing of Malone go and see our FO as the peak of incompetence and people, who think that there maybe was some good reasoning behind it.
Outside of some interesting conversations with Gilles or VF21 and a few other users I don't gain anything out of these discussions. It seems to be all about e-cred. And I'm tired of it.
1) who is the "you all" you are referring to?
2) what is "the one thing" you accuse me of thinking it's the only one that matters
3) what has history to do with the current NBA?
4) why should the Pacers beat the Hawks in 2015, if it took them 7 games in 2014 to beat the Hawks without AL Horford and minus a very decent Dennis Schröder?
5) why do you use injuries as a prove, that your thesis is correct, if those injuries are mainly on guards? Why do you think of this year as a transition year, when the last 2 champions played the way they did?
6) Do you really don't see a difference in how guys like Horford, Duncan or Jordan play in contrast to Cousins?
I don't want to escalate this debate onto a personal level, but basically you repeat the same arguments over and over again, until your counterpart becomes tired of even responding to it anymore.
On top of that I think, that you tend to read statements into posts, that were never made, just because you like to generalize to gain as much support for your thesis as possible.
I never said - defense is not important. I never said - the interior game is not important.
Basically all I ever said was, that there are certain trends in the NBA. That these trends are there for good reasons and not only because todays player aren't as capable as the players of the past. And most importantly, that the Kings have to find ways to deal with these trends and if they decide to follow a different approach, at least find a way to defend the current playstyle of a lot of teams.
And here is the key point, where I disagree with most of the posters here - I don't think we found this way in the beginning of the season. I don't think the answer is "slow things down and hand it to Cousins on the block".
Even if this kind of playstyle would still work (which I doubt, because of reasons I already mentioned in multiple posts) - playoff basketball is all about adjustments and with this as our only offensive gameplan, we would be very easy to beat, cause coaches would find ways to take this approach away.
For me this becomes more and more a pointless debate, that is fueled only by the splitting of this board in people who can't let the firing of Malone go and see our FO as the peak of incompetence and people, who think that there maybe was some good reasoning behind it.
Outside of some interesting conversations with Gilles or VF21 and a few other users I don't gain anything out of these discussions. It seems to be all about e-cred. And I'm tired of it.
Lol.
HighFlyingMonkey is right. You are very good on making excuses after the fact. I salute you for you can always call others stupid in a second and always make it appear you got it right although you got it very wrong.
Now, you are saying the GSW was the best team in the League and the Grizzlies (which you predicted to spank the Warriors in the first place) were flawed?
And of course, now you make it appear as though you knew that in the first place.
So, why did you choose the Grizzlies over the Warriors?
Is it not because of the assertion that guard dominate teams will be blasted by post-playing team?
Can you make that clear Brick?
That is a big turn-around or spin around.
Remember how this thread started or trending at the very start?
You were second (or as you claimed should be considered first) to call that "post-playing team will spank/blast a guard dominate team" as will be exemplified in this series between the Warriors and the Grizzlies.
Did you not choose the Grizzlies over the Warriors early on?
I am confused now where you really stand.
Last edited:
It looks to me that Grizzlies and Bulls which are built the right way are gone fishing now. So sad especially for the Bulls who is coached by Thibs who seems to be as good as Malone. Oh, and where is Malone now who we believe got it right, now that several teams are needing some very good coach?
It is interesting to know how Malone is being considered by those teams needing a very good coach.
Last edited:
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Except of course it hasn't really changed anything as far as efficiency goes:
League Average Pts/Gm, TS%, and 3Pt Attemtp Rate (% of shots that are threes):
2014-15: 100.0ppg .534TS% .268 3pt
2013-14: 101.0ppg .541TS% .259 3pt
2012-13: 98.5ppg .535TS% .243 3pt
2011-12: 96.3ppg .527TS% .226 3pt
2010-11: 99.6ppg .541TS% .222 3pt
2009-10: 100.4ppg .543TS% .222 3pt
2008-09: 100.0ppg .544TS% .224 3pt
2007-08: 99.9ppg .540TS% .222 3pt
2006-07: 98.7ppg .541TS% .213 3pt
2005-06: 97.0ppg .536TS% .202 3pt
You will notice the 3pt rate climbing steadily, but the league's TS% hasn't changed a bit while 20-25% more threes are taken. In fact the TS% this year was actually lower than it was 10 years ago.
You need to be able to hit a three accurately in order to create spacing. All the geeky shrieking about it aside though, there's no evidence that the mad rush to just chuck up more and more of them is making anybody more efficient. Its an efficient shot if you have a great shooter. Its an inefficient shot if you don't. And there are many more ways to skin a cat.
Thanks Brick.
Finally.
Therefore, no one is an idiot in the the Kings Kingdom. Vivek/FO (Kingsfanger and others.....lol) included.
We can all be correct.
Last edited:
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
I defy you to find a single post where I said what you bolded. Utterly defy you.
One of the reasons your posts come across as so daft is that you are consistently making up your own storylines, then you quote the story you just made up and bolded as evidence for your next daft argument. If we ever need somebody to go before the U.N. and convince them there are WMDs in Bahrain you should volunteer. But I'm certainly not going to allow you to run around thinking you can win an argument by just lying about what I said.
Memphis had a puncher's chance against a superior team, because they played the right style to pull off a playoff upset. Made it interesting for a while as they forced the Warriors out of their preferred style of play. The series turned back when the Warriors adjusted and started beating the Grizzlies at their own game. Amidst all your foolishisness, you should really consider absorbing that fact. The Warriors didn't beat the Grizz by putting on some amazing offensive display. They beat the Grizz by holding them to 89.8ppg, which is classic playoff basketball.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Thanks Brick.
Finally.
Therefore, no one is an idiot in the the Kings Kingdom. Vivek/FO (Kingsfanger and others.....lol) included.
We can all be correct.
Quite to the contrary, the above is proof that there are a great many basketball idiots in the Kings kingdom, because those morons didn't realize that and destroyed a promising season and situation because of it.
You cannot deny you think the Grizzlies will win the series because they play the brand of play (post play) that you think wins playoff games. And you were flat out wrong.
Can you not remember the post of yours bragging you called it before section 101 (see below and refresh your mind) that guard dominate teams will get spank/blasted by post playing teams?
And please stop that spin around or excuse that you think Warriors won only because of their defense, as if it was surprising. You very well know from the start the Warriors have improved a lot in defense because they have Bogut in the middle (and defensive personnel like Iguadola, Thompson, etc.) to match the stellar defense of the Grizzlies. And still, you chose Grizzlies to spank the Warriors because of your rigid belief that post-play will tramp guard dominate teams in playoff games plus this is on top of the fact that the Warriors have the best record in the regular season.
Clearly, you were in the belief that post play team will tramp guard dominate team in these playoffs.
Again, read your post below.
And now you are denying everything and you are still right with your argument?
Or maybe you are getting confused because you have spinned around so many of your assertions in this discussion and you now thought the Grizzlies won the series? J/K
Can you not remember the post of yours bragging you called it before section 101 (see below and refresh your mind) that guard dominate teams will get spank/blasted by post playing teams?
And please stop that spin around or excuse that you think Warriors won only because of their defense, as if it was surprising. You very well know from the start the Warriors have improved a lot in defense because they have Bogut in the middle (and defensive personnel like Iguadola, Thompson, etc.) to match the stellar defense of the Grizzlies. And still, you chose Grizzlies to spank the Warriors because of your rigid belief that post-play will tramp guard dominate teams in playoff games plus this is on top of the fact that the Warriors have the best record in the regular season.
Clearly, you were in the belief that post play team will tramp guard dominate team in these playoffs.
Again, read your post below.
And now you are denying everything and you are still right with your argument?
Or maybe you are getting confused because you have spinned around so many of your assertions in this discussion and you now thought the Grizzlies won the series? J/K
I second this.
Or maybe first it since I have been callign for it for a while.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
I am going to highlight the one (mispelled) word that seems to have eluded you:
Sans typo that word is "rooting". I could provide a definiton if you would like.
Sans typo that word is "rooting". I could provide a definiton if you would like.
I think you have to let go of the Malone firing. The notion that Malone was a very good coach (sort of a HOF-coach-to-be) is clearly being proven ridiculous. OKC did not even bother to consider Malone on their coaching vacancy. Have you heard of any team interested on hiring Malone? Again, we are wrong on thinking Malone was such a very good coach.
Let go my friend. Sometimes we think we are the smartest in the world. I understand that for sometimes I think of myself as such too. So, how you felt is understandable. But sometimes we have to consider we are just mere fans in the NBA without even an iota of experience of working in the NBA.
Maybe Vivek/PDA/FO with actual experience in the NBA (however short it may be) are right with their decision?
Ok, I will help you get out of this mess with dignity.
So, you were saying you did not believe that post play will spank/blast the guard dominate teams in the playoffs after all. But for some reason (you don't want us to know) that you were rooting for the Grizzlies to spank the Warriors and it has nothing to do with whether the Warriors are a guard dominate team and the Grizzlies a post playing team?
Last edited:
HndsmCelt
Hall of Famer
Interesting debate (aside from the personal sniping) What I find striking is some posters seem to have forgotten or perhaps never stopped to wonder: why is this post in the Kings news forum in the first place? The original poster felt this was Kings related because they felt/feared the outcome of the series would have implications on HOW the Kings rebuild. So I guess what I am wondering is the posters who feel that heavy guard play with lots of 3 point shooting is the ticket and the low post heavy D play went out with the corded telephone what is your vison for the Kings? Draft more shooters? Trade DMC and Rudy for a couple of high percentage jump shooters and a mobile center or “stretch 4”?
I for one WANTED to see Memphis win because I fear the implications of trying to emulate the Warriors. I have no clue IF they can win it all but if they do it does NOT make them a blueprint for other teams, unless you can find two guys that shoot as well AND defend as well as Curry and Thompson. I think any attempt to emulate the Warriors for us will mean either trading DM or worse yet keeping him in a system that plays to his weaknesses (speed) while marginalizing his best advantage over every other big in the league (low post play) And yes I do mean it when I say that if anyone seriously wants to copy GSW ball you OUGHT to trade DMC. It’s probably the only way you could get Korver, or Beal or Redick to become your Splash Brothers 2.1.
I think the future of the NBA championships is in slight modification of the old tried and true defense leads to offense play with dominating the game down low and sucking up the rebounds. That is why I love watching Demarcus play and want to see a competent office put the right guys around him. He IS the most dominant low post player/rebounder in the league if the FO values that put money on it. Keep the couple guys that work with him (Rudy, DC) and bring in guys that defend the perimeter, help with boards and keep defenses honest.
Seriously I have to wonder what the big jump shot fans who think GSW is future of the league folks think the Kings SHOULD do in the off season and how we should be playing DMC or just come out and call for a trade.
I for one WANTED to see Memphis win because I fear the implications of trying to emulate the Warriors. I have no clue IF they can win it all but if they do it does NOT make them a blueprint for other teams, unless you can find two guys that shoot as well AND defend as well as Curry and Thompson. I think any attempt to emulate the Warriors for us will mean either trading DM or worse yet keeping him in a system that plays to his weaknesses (speed) while marginalizing his best advantage over every other big in the league (low post play) And yes I do mean it when I say that if anyone seriously wants to copy GSW ball you OUGHT to trade DMC. It’s probably the only way you could get Korver, or Beal or Redick to become your Splash Brothers 2.1.
I think the future of the NBA championships is in slight modification of the old tried and true defense leads to offense play with dominating the game down low and sucking up the rebounds. That is why I love watching Demarcus play and want to see a competent office put the right guys around him. He IS the most dominant low post player/rebounder in the league if the FO values that put money on it. Keep the couple guys that work with him (Rudy, DC) and bring in guys that defend the perimeter, help with boards and keep defenses honest.
Seriously I have to wonder what the big jump shot fans who think GSW is future of the league folks think the Kings SHOULD do in the off season and how we should be playing DMC or just come out and call for a trade.
KingsFanGER
Starter
I wouldn't consider myself as a fan of heavy guard play or as someone, who is opposed to post play.
My vision for the Kings is actually not a big deal and amusingly shouldn't be that far away of, what Brick or Gilles want the Kings to do.
1) Aquire a player at PF, that can defend his position and is quick enough to guard the 3pt line and switch pick&rolls. In an ideal world this player should be able to hit open jumpshots and should have a neck for moving without the ball to find angles for cuts and lobs.
2) Aquire bench players, that are able to shoot 3's, move the ball and defend their position
3) Work on Ben's defense by watching lot of film, so that he knows, who he is guarding every night
4) Use Nik as a secondary ballhandler of the bench, putting him into lots of pick&rolls, instead of burying him in the corners
5) Work on Rudy's 3-point shot. He gets a lot of open looks from 3 and should be able to hit well over 35% at all times
6) Lock DC and DMC in the gym and let them practice all kinds of pick&roll and pick&pop plays. Being able to execute those kind of plays, will make Cousins even more dangerous and would allow him to get some easy baskets every night.
7) Built a versatile offense around DMC as our core piece. Use all his tools and react to the weaknesses of the opponent. Post play should be only a part of our offense, while high screen&roll and dribble drive become more important.
8) Keep Malone's defensive schemes
9) Practice with a small ball lineup, moving Rudy to PF and Casspi to SF, giving us another ballhandler, passer and 3pt-threat.
10) Run if possible, but run smart.
11) The bench unit should run a outside-inside approach, cause we most likely won't get another real post player. Handing the ball to players like JT, Reggie or Landry in the post/high post should never be an option, we fall back to.
Big deal? I don't think so, but this thread quickly turned into a heated debate.
HighFlyingMonkey
Starter
There are many ways to skin a cat, but good luck skinning one with a cotton swab.
Your problem is that you haven't recognized that defenses have fundamentally changed the way the game is played on offense. The rules changed in 2001/2002 to allow zoning up, but it wasn't really until 2008 when the Celtics, using Thibodeau's defensive philosophies by zoning up parts of the floor, implemented the most effective defense of the last decade on their way to a championship. Teams have taken those philosophies and run away with them. Now all the rage is the switching you can do on defense with multi-positional defenders. The zone defense rules have made it viable to guard great offensive players with guys who would have been overmatched in other eras. You can see it throughout the playoffs this year. James Harden being guarded by J.J. Redick with DeAndre Jordan zoning the space behind him. Zach Randolph guarded by Harrison Barnes with Draymond Green and other athletic defenders lurking nearby. LeBron James being checked by the much smaller Jimmy Butler with the rest of Chicago's contingent not far away. None of this would have been possible in the 80s or 90s.
Offenses have had to adapt, and the solution has been more creative offensive sets and the three pointer. The average three is objectively a more efficient shot than the average two; NBA teams shot an effective FG% of 48.5% on two pointers attempted this year, while the effective FG% shot on the average NBA three was 52.5%. Hell, the Clippers were the best team in the NBA at two point shots with an effective FG% of 51.9%. To match that efficiency, all you would need is the 23rd ranked three point shooting team in the NBA. Its a highly effective weapon. Defenses are so spooked by the three pointer it has allowed NBA teams to use it more than ever to both score and to loosen defenses inside the paint. Its a necessity of the modern NBA.
The net result is that, overall, offensive efficiency has remained relatively stable over the years. But the on-court result is an NBA that is played in a radically different style than it used to be. But if you're going to walk into a playoff game in 2015 with a 90s style offense, you're in for a world of hurt. The game is far too different now for that style to win.
HighFlyingMonkey
Starter
See, here's the rub: DeMarcus Cousins should be the greatest three point generating weapon in the NBA. Teams have to completely sell out defensively to stop him in the paint. He eats tiny, stubby defenders on the low block alive. He plows through the athletic pogo sticks like DeAndre Jordan and Tyson Chandler. And he can take the behemoths like Marc Gasol and Andrew Bogut to the perimeter and beat them off the dribble with his superior quickness and ability to hit the midrange jumper. On top of all this, he has excellent court vision, even if he at times tries to thread passes that aren't there.
The Kings should be a veritable Disneyland of efficient shots because of Cousins' presence. Put Cousins at the elbow and cutters should be getting layups and shooters should be getting easy looks off of dribble hand-offs. Put him in the low block for kickouts to spot up shooters. George Karl even had him taking dribble handoffs in three-man weaves to exploit opposing rim protector's lack of mobility. On top of all that, you lose nothing defensively because Cousins is emerging as a top-flight defensive anchor.
Anyone advocating Cousins to be traded ought to be muzzled. He's a perfect fit for the modern NBA.
What the Kings really need is shooters and a top perimeter defender, and offensive sets that can generate more three pointers than they have before. With George Karl on board, I'm confident that the offensive sets portion should take care of itself. The only question is whether Vlade/D'Alessandro can take care of the shooters/perimeter defender part.
lawlman91
Starter
The inside-out offense that was implemented in the beginning of this season (last season?) worked. In a playoff atmosphere, it might be different (I doubt it), but that offense worked and should be used until it gets broken. Once it gets broken, we make adjustments.
Additionally, using the 90s as learning experiences for inside-out play is valuable for the Sacramento Kings, since inside-out play is currently our best offensive option. We should adjust this inside-out play according to today's game, as Malone did and should have had more time to do, but wasn't given ample opportunity to.
lawlman91
Starter
Our offensive sets should not focus on having the 3pt shot as the first option. Opponents will work less if our primary option is the 3pt shot, since we are at best decent at it. They will let us run those sets, and have us miss.
Our offense should build off of the low/high post threat sets in Cousins and Gay. As the opposing defense denies that, then we run counter-sets that can focus on a 3pt shot, mid-range shot, lob, etc. Opponents won't bite on an up-and-under if you don't have a good jump hook.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
