Grades/post-game discussion v. Raptors - 12/10
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
Am I wrong in thinking that the kings are running an offense that isn't suited for Fox? I'm not surprised that he isn't playing well. That and he only played 1 year of college ball. It can't be very good for Fox's confidence that he is being asked to slow down his game which is not his game and then see mason come in and kill it with the bench. At this point in time mason is playing much better than fox. I'd be interested to see mason and fox switch places. Mason start and fox come in when Zbo goes out.
As far as anything being Vlade's fault, it just depends on the picks.
If Fox turns out to be a terrible player, regardless of the coach, then we can't really blame Vlade because nearly all of the Kings fans wanted Fox. He was pretty much the consensus pick for like 80% of us if he was still there at 5. If Mason doesn't turn out, then big deal because he was a 2nd round pick and sort of a no brainer pick from that spot. Now if Jackson and Giles don't turn out, then fans have a gripe because those were reaches in their own way. Sort of like how McLemore was considered best player available so I can't blame the GM for that but Stauskas and Jimmer were bad picks based on money and terrible scouting.
Right now it's difficult to gauge a guy like Fox. I don't know if we can even accurately gauge him because the way Joerger is using him would be similar to planting WCS at the 3 point line and having him play like Tolliver every game. That would not be his game and the game Fox is playing isn't his game either. So of course he is going to look bad when he's doing things he's not really comfortable doing. Now the question is whether it's Joerger that's causing Fox to just bring the ball up and dump it to ZBo or is Fox doing it because his confidence has fallen apart and he's just giving it to ZBo because it's a sure fire way to not screw up? I don't know the answer to that but my guess is that it's part of the game plan.
The only reason I say that is because anyone that plays on the first unit looks like garbage and everyone that goes to the 2nd unit seems to be fine or at least show flashes more often than not. The only real difference there is whether they are on the court with ZBo or not.
It should really be the opposite with the starters being the cohesive unit that moves the ball and gets guys easy looks where the 2nd unit has more "me first" guys that can put the ball in the basket because the talent level isn't good enough to play as cohesively as the first unit. Basically a monster has been created because how can you take out a guy who is the best player on the team and averaging somewhere around 20 and 10 for the last couple weeks and tell him he needs less minutes and he needs to come off the bench? I'm just hoping a team notices what ZBo is doing and makes a trade for him.
If Fox turns out to be a terrible player, regardless of the coach, then we can't really blame Vlade because nearly all of the Kings fans wanted Fox. He was pretty much the consensus pick for like 80% of us if he was still there at 5. If Mason doesn't turn out, then big deal because he was a 2nd round pick and sort of a no brainer pick from that spot. Now if Jackson and Giles don't turn out, then fans have a gripe because those were reaches in their own way. Sort of like how McLemore was considered best player available so I can't blame the GM for that but Stauskas and Jimmer were bad picks based on money and terrible scouting.
Right now it's difficult to gauge a guy like Fox. I don't know if we can even accurately gauge him because the way Joerger is using him would be similar to planting WCS at the 3 point line and having him play like Tolliver every game. That would not be his game and the game Fox is playing isn't his game either. So of course he is going to look bad when he's doing things he's not really comfortable doing. Now the question is whether it's Joerger that's causing Fox to just bring the ball up and dump it to ZBo or is Fox doing it because his confidence has fallen apart and he's just giving it to ZBo because it's a sure fire way to not screw up? I don't know the answer to that but my guess is that it's part of the game plan.
The only reason I say that is because anyone that plays on the first unit looks like garbage and everyone that goes to the 2nd unit seems to be fine or at least show flashes more often than not. The only real difference there is whether they are on the court with ZBo or not.
It should really be the opposite with the starters being the cohesive unit that moves the ball and gets guys easy looks where the 2nd unit has more "me first" guys that can put the ball in the basket because the talent level isn't good enough to play as cohesively as the first unit. Basically a monster has been created because how can you take out a guy who is the best player on the team and averaging somewhere around 20 and 10 for the last couple weeks and tell him he needs less minutes and he needs to come off the bench? I'm just hoping a team notices what ZBo is doing and makes a trade for him.
To me, I'm a little more upset with Vlade.
I wasn't a fan of the Hill signing considering that I didn't want any veteran signing to take up cap space for the 2019-20 season and that I thought his talent would help us win more games. And by winning more games, it gives us a worse pick in the 2018 draft. He hasn't really impacted wins that much with his current play but now that just means we now have a negative asset at $20 nil a year. I would have rather targeted guys like Calderon, Watson, Udrih, etc. to be a veteran PG that can give up minutes to the young guys if they have earned it but also not having much talent to add wins to the team.
I wasn't a fan for the Randolph signing. I liked the fact that his salary comes off the books in time for the 2019 offseason, but I wanted us to target high character, hard working veterans that won't move the needle on winning games. You could argue that Randolph has issues with his character, issues with working hard in practice (helping to set the example/tone for the young guys), and his play has been helping this team win games we have no business winning. I would have liked to go after T. Allen instead.
I liked the Carter signing since he wasn't going to really contribute to winning but he's a guy that would be a great mentor for the young guys.
I liked Fox at #5, wanted Anunoby at #15, liked Giles at #20, & wanted J. Evans at #34 (but was fine with Mason).
PG - Fox / J. Evans / Calderon
SG - Bogdanovic / Hield / Richardson
SF - Temple / Anunoby / T. Allen / Carter
PF - Cauley-Stein / Labissiere / Giles
C - Koufos / Papagiannis
That team doesn't have a lot of veteran talent in Calderon, Temple, Carter, Allen, & Koufos, and really none of them have the offensive skillset to carry a team. So what does that mean? That means if we win, it's most likely going to be on the backs of our young talent having a good night. Those are the wins I'm okay with., but when you have guys like Randolph or Hill who could go for 20-35 in a night and help win the game, those are the wins that hurt our draft pick with little to no development from our current young players.
Now, I don't want anyone to spin this and think I'm saying that Joerger shouldn't be playing these guys as much to keep their win total down because that then entitles the young players and sends the message that they don't have to earn their minutes. That can be just as detrimental to a rebuild as picking up meaningless wins. Joerger is trying to give time to those who are performing. If Vlade was smarter, he wouldn't have even given guys like Hill & Randolph for Joerger to use in the first place. That's why I look at Vlade in this scenario.
Atlanta veterans: Schroeder, Bazemore, Belinelli, Dedmon, & Ilyasova
Memphis veterans: Gasol, Conley, T. Evans, J. Green, Parson, Chalmers, & Ennis
Dallas veterans: H. Barnes, W. Matthews, Nowitzki, Noel, Ferrell, Barea, & D. Harris
Sacramento veterans: Randolph, Hill, Temple, Koufos, & Carter
Replace Hill & Randolph with Calderon & T. Allen and it's essentially a two team race for the least amount of wins in the league (CHI & SAC) giving us a great shot at finding the franchise player we desperately need.
I wasn't a fan of the Hill signing considering that I didn't want any veteran signing to take up cap space for the 2019-20 season and that I thought his talent would help us win more games. And by winning more games, it gives us a worse pick in the 2018 draft. He hasn't really impacted wins that much with his current play but now that just means we now have a negative asset at $20 nil a year. I would have rather targeted guys like Calderon, Watson, Udrih, etc. to be a veteran PG that can give up minutes to the young guys if they have earned it but also not having much talent to add wins to the team.
I wasn't a fan for the Randolph signing. I liked the fact that his salary comes off the books in time for the 2019 offseason, but I wanted us to target high character, hard working veterans that won't move the needle on winning games. You could argue that Randolph has issues with his character, issues with working hard in practice (helping to set the example/tone for the young guys), and his play has been helping this team win games we have no business winning. I would have liked to go after T. Allen instead.
I liked the Carter signing since he wasn't going to really contribute to winning but he's a guy that would be a great mentor for the young guys.
I liked Fox at #5, wanted Anunoby at #15, liked Giles at #20, & wanted J. Evans at #34 (but was fine with Mason).
PG - Fox / J. Evans / Calderon
SG - Bogdanovic / Hield / Richardson
SF - Temple / Anunoby / T. Allen / Carter
PF - Cauley-Stein / Labissiere / Giles
C - Koufos / Papagiannis
That team doesn't have a lot of veteran talent in Calderon, Temple, Carter, Allen, & Koufos, and really none of them have the offensive skillset to carry a team. So what does that mean? That means if we win, it's most likely going to be on the backs of our young talent having a good night. Those are the wins I'm okay with., but when you have guys like Randolph or Hill who could go for 20-35 in a night and help win the game, those are the wins that hurt our draft pick with little to no development from our current young players.
Now, I don't want anyone to spin this and think I'm saying that Joerger shouldn't be playing these guys as much to keep their win total down because that then entitles the young players and sends the message that they don't have to earn their minutes. That can be just as detrimental to a rebuild as picking up meaningless wins. Joerger is trying to give time to those who are performing. If Vlade was smarter, he wouldn't have even given guys like Hill & Randolph for Joerger to use in the first place. That's why I look at Vlade in this scenario.
Atlanta veterans: Schroeder, Bazemore, Belinelli, Dedmon, & Ilyasova
Memphis veterans: Gasol, Conley, T. Evans, J. Green, Parson, Chalmers, & Ennis
Dallas veterans: H. Barnes, W. Matthews, Nowitzki, Noel, Ferrell, Barea, & D. Harris
Sacramento veterans: Randolph, Hill, Temple, Koufos, & Carter
Replace Hill & Randolph with Calderon & T. Allen and it's essentially a two team race for the least amount of wins in the league (CHI & SAC) giving us a great shot at finding the franchise player we desperately need.
I'm not suggesting Vlade gets a pass. I'm more pointing to the scant (to no) evidence that supports showing Joerger the door at this point. For those who would argument he isn't using/developing the young players effectively --look, any coach in his position has two primary mandates, which are often conflicting - to develop young players and to actually compete on a week to week basis. For those who think using Zbo is hurting development of our kids - without him, we don't compete, and constant 20+ point losses hurt the organizational bottom line and will definitely put a coach on the hot seat. So there has to be a delicate balance. Our roster still has some gaping holes (although I'm happy with our guard situation), but I do think that the way Joerger is using the kids is giving us a good idea of what we have in our young guns. I expect we'll be learning more with different rotations as the games go by, and if we see some gelling among our younger core, I expect we'll see that reflected in the line ups. Right now, what makes it painful to watch, more than anything, is the inconsistency, and that is entirely normal with a group like this.
I don’t critsize Joerger for playing Temple and Hill I praise him for playing them until something better comes along and it hasn’t yet even though he keeps on looking and trying other options. I think if you turned he managing of this team over to the youngsters they would play our vets pretty much as they are being played.
No, for the simple reason the Tribune article, as I just stated in the Rebuilding Strategy thread, contains NO real facts or evidence. Multiple sources are the crutch used by reporters who have heard something but either can't or won't bother to find actual real people to corroborate. Kind of like saying "Well, my friend's uncle who lives next door to Player's brother's babysitter said..."
In general when people post their mind I'm OK with it. There are a couple of the negative posters that just repeat the same hate over and over and over and over and over and over.............................................................well you get it. Find something new to complain about already....... we freaking get it already!!!!!
In general when people post their mind I'm OK with it. There are a couple of the negative posters that just repeat the same hate over and over and over and over and over and over.............................................................well you get it. Find something new to complain about already....... we freaking get it already!!!!!
And FWIW this team has a negative point differential over 10 per 100 possessions, so why would you NOT expect criticism and harsh assessment of overall performance??? Our point differential is consistent with a 60 loss team.
Personally I don't hesitate to lambast the team individually and collectively when I feel it is justified. I would challenge the merits of the opinion before presuming it is based on "hate" .
This rebuild is going to take at least another two years, and could easily go four years. If you think the Kings should be playing .500 ball either this year, next year, or even the year after, you might want to re-think things a bit. I get the feeling that some people accepted last year that this team was going to be a bottom dweller for a good while during the rebuild, but then when they actually experience losing the individual games it seems they cannot accept that. What did you expect from this team? .500 ball?
People are complaining about player development and the direction of the team and then others counter that with the point you made above.
The two have nothing to do with each other. No one is mad the Kings are losing. We all expected it. It's how the team and games are being managed that has everyone worried.
Can we please put the "not winning" counter to rest because lack of W's isn't what has many worried.
The two have nothing to do with each other. No one is mad the Kings are losing. We all expected it. It's how the team and games are being managed that has everyone worried.
Can we please put the "not winning" counter to rest because lack of W's isn't what has many worried.