[Grades] Grades v. Hornets

[jcunny33]

Lol 1:21 "We have a lot of size at different positions"

*Proceeds to start IT, Thornton, Tyreke, Chuck Hayes and JT* - undersized at 4, arguably 5 positions.

mac...thanks for posting the interview.

 

[king4life89]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AJFUB98qaM

 

[Bricklayer]

one could argue Ariza and Jack would both start for the Kings.

No you couldn't, unless you think one of those two jorneymen is going to start over Reke or Thronton...unless you mean that Ariza might be annointed starting PF by Smart, which is alas a real possibility.

 

[mr. moustache]

No you couldn't, unless you think one of those two jorneymen is going to start over Reke or Thronton...unless you mean that Ariza might be annointed starting PF by Smart, which is alas a real possibility.

I'd imagine Jack gets the PG position over IT, Tyreke slides over to SG where he belongs, and Ariza starts at SF. Thorton comes off the bench.

In any case, that starting lineup isn't much better than our current lineup so the point is mostly moot.

 

[kennadog]

Positives? We won! It was an exciting finish. My joy from the arena vote wasn't entirely killed off.

 

[treach1976]

Bricklayer, love the analysis after every game. Thanks for doing it!
Scrub game no doubt - but still was fun to watch a game that ended up in a win. MT could be an AWESOME player if he would pass, with his penetration skills and outside shot, you would think this would just open things up for him. I wonder if it is truly an ego/selfishness thing, or if he is just beefing with his teammates... (maybe they are one in the same). Perhaps, with 6 guards actively rotating on the team it feels like if you don't get your shots up, you may get lost in the shuffle and find yourself on the bench in no time.

 

[pshn80]

Thanks, kennadog. I appreciate reading an uplifting comment. It sure was an unlikely finish but a great one.

 

[jalfa]

Thornton ( A- ) -- king of our chuckers tonight. Took the most shots. Made the most points. Was perhaps the most pointed of all in making the fewest passes. This was our king chucker in his element, and in the end he stepped forward to hit two big shots in the final minutes to help us pull it out. Was gunning, but not hitting, in an aggresive first quarter burst on both sides. Our defense was terrible, but as usual Marcus was racing around picking up steals and whatnot. Was not hitting his threes, but stepped up with the huge one to tie the game at the 1:30 mark -- was 1-7 from three before that shot, but as usualn in crunchtime he gets deadly. Then grabbed a huge offesnvie rebound and putback at the 40 second mark to cut it back to 1 again. This was a real selfish game even by Marcus standards. He was not goign to pass, and every break, every drive etc. that shot was going up without even looking around. But selfish or not he was the man for us and more than any other won the game with forceful play.

what has me slightly worried is that one of the first things he did after the game was to go on twitter and retweet people that congratulated him for being such a leader. does not bode well.

 

[gunks]

Even when he's shooting well, I hate Thornton's selfish game.

Move him to the bench or for a vet. Thats what I'm talkin about!

 

[rainmaker]

Even when he's shooting well, I hate Thornton's selfish game.

Move him to the bench or for a vet. Thats what I'm talkin about!

He is selfish. His mindset in clear, and you just hope he start hitting as the game goes on. Thing is, we need his scoring on this team. I don't have a problem with him at the 2 if Reke is at the point. However, I'd much rather him come off the bench and Reke move to the 2, than to have Reke stuck at SF while watching MT freeze him out. And this goes back to our SF problems. How do we move Reke out of that spot if Smart thinks Donte is a 4 and Salmons is a backup point?

So if Reke goes back to point, which I think he might if we acquire a SF, then I'm fine with MT at the 2. But imo, an IT/MT backcourt in nowhere near good enough to force Reke into a spectator role on offense, where apparently his new goal according to Smart should be to become an all NBA defender. But if the organization sticks with IT at point, or brings in another point, than MT has to go to the bench in favor of Reke playing the 2. Not a fan at all of MT playing the 2 and jacking up everything he touches while forcing Reke out of position, on both ends of the court.

Guess what it comes down to, is do we acquire a starting pg(don't think IT is it) or a starting SF first. If it's a pg, move Reke to the 2 and move MT to the 6th. If it's a SF, move Reke to point and run MT at the 2. But no way do I prefer MT at the 2 if Reke isn't playing point. Only makes sense if Reke is playing the point.

But really, I don't know what the hell our coach or FO thinks. I could see them saying all this crap about Reke at SF simply because they hate every other SF on our roster, and it's a short term move. However, I could also see them going after a starting pg, which is fine and I'm not against, as long as Reke then moves to the 2. But this is one big freaking mess. We need MT's scoring, but not at the expense of our 2nd best player not being involved, which is happening, and MT doesn't seem the slightest bit concerned with getting Reke or anyone else involved.

Really, we shouldn't even be having this conversation now, because imo IT isn't good enough to cause all this change. Play Reke at pg, MT at sg, and Cisco/Donte/Salmons at sf until we acquire someone at the 1 or the 3 which makes changing the lineup a no brainer. But right now I'm witnessing a cluster f*** of stupidity within our organization for no good reason. I say no good reason as it's made us worse not better. We're 3-8 since the lineup change, and would've been 2-9 if not for the worst team in the West gifting us the game at the end. It's just change for no reason. Too reactionary. Too much emotion. If you want change than at least open up your freaking wallets and get someone that makes the change worthwhile.

 

[IfAt1st]

Very salient point, rainmaker, and it kinds of brings up the problems with the roster quite plainly:

Neither IT nor Tyreke are currently good enough to be starting PG's in the NBA, IMO.
But if Tyreke isn't a PG (Meaning a facilitator of the offense - IMO proven without a doubt the past 2 1/2 seasons), then the Kings are forced to either demote Thornton to the bench (he's obviously good enough to be in our starting best 5 players), or we have to move Tyreke to SF (which as you've consistently railed out, creates problems and reduces advantages).

Personally, IT is way closer to a starting PG (facilitator of an offense) than Tyreke is, but Tyreke is obviously a better starting player on a team.
The pieces of the team don't work, even if/when they fill the gaping hole at SF.
It seems like either Tyreke or Thornton need to be traded because they both really play the same position.

Then after they get a SF, they need a starting PG, and then work on the starting PF. Geez.....

 

[ParniValjak]

He is selfish. His mindset in clear, and you just hope he start hitting as the game goes on. Thing is, we need his scoring on this team. I don't have a problem with him at the 2 if Reke is at the point. However, I'd much rather him come off the bench and Reke move to the 2, than to have Reke stuck at SF while watching MT freeze him out. And this goes back to our SF problems. How do we move Reke out of that spot if Smart thinks Donte is a 4 and Salmons is a backup point?

So if Reke goes back to point, which I think he might if we acquire a SF, then I'm fine with MT at the 2. But imo, an IT/MT backcourt in nowhere near good enough to force Reke into a spectator role on offense, where apparently his new goal according to Smart should be to become an all NBA defender. But if the organization sticks with IT at point, or brings in another point, than MT has to go to the bench in favor of Reke playing the 2. Not a fan at all of MT playing the 2 and jacking up everything he touches while forcing Reke out of position, on both ends of the court.

Guess what it comes down to, is do we acquire a starting pg(don't think IT is it) or a starting SF first. If it's a pg, move Reke to the 2 and move MT to the 6th. If it's a SF, move Reke to point and run MT at the 2. But no way do I prefer MT at the 2 if Reke isn't playing point. Only makes sense if Reke is playing the point.

But really, I don't know what the hell our coach or FO thinks. I could see them saying all this crap about Reke at SF simply because they hate every other SF on our roster, and it's a short term move. However, I could also see them going after a starting pg, which is fine and I'm not against, as long as Reke then moves to the 2. But this is one big freaking mess. We need MT's scoring, but not at the expense of our 2nd best player not being involved, which is happening, and MT doesn't seem the slightest bit concerned with getting Reke or anyone else involved.

Really, we shouldn't even be having this conversation now, because imo IT isn't good enough to cause all this change. Play Reke at pg, MT at sg, and Cisco/Donte/Salmons at sf until we acquire someone at the 1 or the 3 which makes changing the lineup a no brainer. But right now I'm witnessing a cluster f*** of stupidity within our organization for no good reason. I say no good reason as it's made us worse not better. We're 3-8 since the lineup change, and would've been 2-9 if not for the worst team in the West gifting us the game at the end. It's just change for no reason. Too reactionary. Too much emotion. If you want change than at least open up your freaking wallets and get someone that makes the change worthwhile.

Have mentioned this before but I would trade Thornton for someone like Batum. What we get in return is a SF thats not as good a scorer as Thornton but can fill it up just as well, except he doesn't freeze others out, he just picks his spots. With this move you improve the overall balance of the team and also restore hierarchical structure in the offense. You know that Cousins and Reke are your main guys and you know that Batum is your 3rd option who can score his 18 points without dominating the ball. You also improve significantly defensively and just as importantly, you add size.

The only problem I see is smart will figure our that Batum is a PF

But with Batum on board, Reke moves back to more natural position and he regains great offensive role as he is not frozen out by blinker boy

 

[Arkitect]

Have mentioned this before but I would trade Thornton for someone like Batum. What we get in return is a SF thats not as good a scorer as Thornton but can fill it up just as well, except he doesn't freeze others out, he just picks his spots. With this move you improve the overall balance of the team and also restore hierarchical structure in the offense. You know that Cousins and Reke are your main guys and you know that Batum is your 3rd option who can score his 18 points without dominating the ball. You also improve significantly defensively and just as importantly, you add size.

The only problem I see is smart will figure our that Batum is a PF

But with Batum on board, Reke moves back to more natural position and he regains great offensive role as he is not frozen out by blinker boy

I think in the end we are going to have to make a choice. I think Thornton would be an excellent 6th man and could be very valuable on this team in the future. But I have always wondered if he is really the best player to have next to Reke. We need a SF who is the 2nd or 3rd best player on the team to have a contending squad and I think Thornton could net us that player. With IT showing that he could be a similar player to Thornton, is it worth trading Thornton to get a legitimate SF? I figure we need Batum, Granger, or AI to really solidify the starting lineup. Or do we try and sign AK in the off season? Do we draft a SF and hope they turn out to be borderline all-star level good?

 

[rainmaker]

Have mentioned this before but I would trade Thornton for someone like Batum. What we get in return is a SF thats not as good a scorer as Thornton but can fill it up just as well, except he doesn't freeze others out, he just picks his spots. With this move you improve the overall balance of the team and also restore hierarchical structure in the offense. You know that Cousins and Reke are your main guys and you know that Batum is your 3rd option who can score his 18 points without dominating the ball. You also improve significantly defensively and just as importantly, you add size.

The only problem I see is smart will figure our that Batum is a PF

But with Batum on board, Reke moves back to more natural position and he regains great offensive role as he is not frozen out by blinker boy

I should clarify, that while I do think MT is selfish and that's his mindset, it's not necessarily a bad thing. He's a scorer, and maybe one of the more pure scorers in the league. I really do see a lot of Crawford or Terry in him, although both are better off the dribble while MT is better spotting up. But scorers like that need to be selfish. Part of their makeup. So it's not so much a knock on MT as it is I don't think it fits with this team if you have Reke standing in the corner watching. What I'd actually like is to just stick to a Reke/MT backcourt for the rest of the year and see how it looks. But for some reason our FO and coach decided to blow that up.

So if Reke won't play point for us, as it appears that's the stance the FO is taking, then he must play the 2. I have no problem with him at the 2, but that'll also depend somewhat on who's playing the 1. But if he's the 2, MT either goes to the 6th man or is trade bait, and I'm not sure MT would take going to the bench well. He could be a key guy for a lot of teams, but here we're heading to a Reke or MT scenario, and I'm picking Reke every time.

As for Batum, everything I've read recently suggests Por is shopping Wallace, not Batum, and I'd love Wallace here. We'll see. Only about a week left until the deadline. Given Por is shopping Crawford because he's stated he'll opt out in July, maybe the idea of replacing him with MT would be appealing. If MT could get us a legit starting SF, and move Reke back to a guard position I definitely consider doing it. But MT is also very important to our team right now, and unless you get a clear cut upgrade, and a starter at pg or sf, I keep him. He's too valuable to move unless it's a clear upgrade elsewhere.

And then the question is, as you brought up, why do any of this if Smart doesn't use the pieces correctly? That's what adds even more risk. Also why I've asked before, even if we do sign AK this summer and draft a PF ready to start, does Smart actually use them that way? Pretty nervous about what Smart might do going forward, as there's no rhyme or reason to any of it.

 

[jalfa]

I should clarify, that while I do think MT is selfish and that's his mindset, it's not necessarily a bad thing. He's a scorer, and maybe one of the more pure scorers in the league. I really do see a lot of Crawford or Terry in him, although both are better off the dribble while MT is better spotting up. But scorers like that need to be selfish. Part of their makeup. So it's not so much a knock on MT as it is I don't think it fits with this team if you have Reke standing in the corner watching. What I'd actually like is to just stick to a Reke/MT backcourt for the rest of the year and see how it looks. But for some reason our FO and coach decided to blow that up.

So if Reke won't play point for us, as it appears that's the stance the FO is taking, then he must play the 2. I have no problem with him at the 2, but that'll also depend somewhat on who's playing the 1. But if he's the 2, MT either goes to the 6th man or is trade bait, and I'm not sure MT would take going to the bench well. He could be a key guy for a lot of teams, but here we're heading to a Reke or MT scenario, and I'm picking Reke every time.

As for Batum, everything I've read recently suggests Por is shopping Wallace, not Batum, and I'd love Wallace here. We'll see. Only about a week left until the deadline. Given Por is shopping Crawford because he's stated he'll opt out in July, maybe the idea of replacing him with MT would be appealing. If MT could get us a legit starting SF, and move Reke back to a guard position I definitely consider doing it. But MT is also very important to our team right now, and unless you get a clear cut upgrade, and a starter at pg or sf, I keep him. He's too valuable to move unless it's a clear upgrade elsewhere.

And then the question is, as you brought up, why do any of this if Smart doesn't use the pieces correctly? That's what adds even more risk. Also why I've asked before, even if we do sign AK this summer and draft a PF ready to start, does Smart actually use them that way? Pretty nervous about what Smart might do going forward, as there's no rhyme or reason to any of it.

holy mother of YES! YES!! YES!!! PLEASE!!! I'm not sure how ecstatic Gerald would be to come back, but if he were up for it that'd be awesome. Reke/MT/Crash/JT/Cousins has a physical edge that's almost unheard of. love it!

 

[mac]

holy mother of YES! YES!! YES!!! PLEASE!!! I'm not sure how ecstatic Gerald would be to come back, but if he were up for it that'd be awesome. Reke/MT/Crash/JT/Cousins has a physical edge that's almost unheard of. love it!

Or so the average fan would think. What we're more likely to see on the floor however, is IT/MT/Reke/Wallace/Cousins and then a bench of Salmons/Jimmer/Garcia/Hayes/JT. The bench will never mix with the starters of course. Or if MT is traded for Wallace then it'll be IT/Jimmer/Reke/Wallace/Cousins or something like that.

 

[Kingster]

He is selfish. His mindset in clear, and you just hope he start hitting as the game goes on. Thing is, we need his scoring on this team. I don't have a problem with him at the 2 if Reke is at the point. However, I'd much rather him come off the bench and Reke move to the 2, than to have Reke stuck at SF while watching MT freeze him out. And this goes back to our SF problems. How do we move Reke out of that spot if Smart thinks Donte is a 4 and Salmons is a backup point?

So if Reke goes back to point, which I think he might if we acquire a SF, then I'm fine with MT at the 2. But imo, an IT/MT backcourt in nowhere near good enough to force Reke into a spectator role on offense, where apparently his new goal according to Smart should be to become an all NBA defender. But if the organization sticks with IT at point, or brings in another point, than MT has to go to the bench in favor of Reke playing the 2. Not a fan at all of MT playing the 2 and jacking up everything he touches while forcing Reke out of position, on both ends of the court.

Guess what it comes down to, is do we acquire a starting pg(don't think IT is it) or a starting SF first. If it's a pg, move Reke to the 2 and move MT to the 6th. If it's a SF, move Reke to point and run MT at the 2. But no way do I prefer MT at the 2 if Reke isn't playing point. Only makes sense if Reke is playing the point.

But really, I don't know what the hell our coach or FO thinks. I could see them saying all this crap about Reke at SF simply because they hate every other SF on our roster, and it's a short term move. However, I could also see them going after a starting pg, which is fine and I'm not against, as long as Reke then moves to the 2. But this is one big freaking mess. We need MT's scoring, but not at the expense of our 2nd best player not being involved, which is happening, and MT doesn't seem the slightest bit concerned with getting Reke or anyone else involved.

Really, we shouldn't even be having this conversation now, because imo IT isn't good enough to cause all this change. Play Reke at pg, MT at sg, and Cisco/Donte/Salmons at sf until we acquire someone at the 1 or the 3 which makes changing the lineup a no brainer. But right now I'm witnessing a cluster f*** of stupidity within our organization for no good reason. I say no good reason as it's made us worse not better. We're 3-8 since the lineup change, and would've been 2-9 if not for the worst team in the West gifting us the game at the end. It's just change for no reason. Too reactionary. Too much emotion. If you want change than at least open up your freaking wallets and get someone that makes the change worthwhile.

We already did the Reke- MT- Salmons/Garcia/Greene lineup. IT DIDN'T WORK. The ball stagnates with that lineup. At best that lineup is just rearranging the chairs on the Titanic with this current roster. With the existing roster I totally understand why we play Tyreke at the 3 - WE HAVE NOBODY THAT IS BETTER. And IT is certainly the best pg on the roster. So that's why you have the lineup. Until they get a qualified 3, you're stuck in the mud without a rope to pull you out.

Like you say, get a good vet pg or a good vet 3, then we change the positions. Until then, at the very most, it doesn't matter. The trade deadline is coming up. We'll see....

 

[Bricklayer]

We already did the Reke- MT- Salmons/Garcia/Greene lineup. IT DIDN'T WORK. The ball stagnates with that lineup. At best that lineup is just rearranging the chairs on the Titanic with this current roster. With the existing roster I totally understand why we play Tyreke at the 3 - WE HAVE NOBODY THAT IS BETTER. And IT is certainly the best pg on the roster. So that's why you have the lineup. Until they get a qualified 3, you're stuck in the mud without a rope to pull you out.

Like you say, get a good vet pg or a good vet 3, then we change the positions. Until then, at the very most, it doesn't matter. The trade deadline is coming up. We'll see....

Um...no we ddin't We never tried Reke/MT/Cisco or Donte.

 

[Tetsujin]

Um...no we ddin't We never tried Reke/MT/Cisco or Donte.

Not to mention that was before Salmons magically stopped sucking massive eggs.

 

[Kingster]

Um...no we ddin't We never tried Reke/MT/Cisco or Donte.

I believe that we have. It might have been during the Westphal era, but I think all of the permutations have been tried. I'll go out on a very, very large limb and say that regardless, that insertion of Donte or Garcia into that 3 spot makes no diff whatsoever. They both can't do the job and you're still left with lousy ballhandling in aggregate for the trio.

 

[Lockehead]

Its not Reke/MT/3 that make me doubt the lineup, it's Reke/MT/DMC IMO. There's just too much talent but only 1 ball. I think what we want is for our guys to be playing as best as they can, and not hold back because the other guy wants his shot.

Gerald Wallace at the 3 would be insane really. Defense and roleplaying abilities with this Kings team would be something to see. But I dont know about the Reke/MT/Cousins lineup. We definitely want Cousins, and we definitely want Reke, both playing at their 100% of course, but with Thornton in the lineup i cant see how that's going to happen.

Right now we have IT/ Reke/ Thornton/ 4/ Cousins. Seriously, I don't think IT should be in the lineup with Reke/Thornton/Cousins. That's why i think Jimmer should be in there instead of IT. That won't solve the problem between the Reke/MT/Cousins need-of-ball thing, but it'll help. But Smart will do what he think is right so that's all we can go off of. I simply dont agree.

 

[jcwkings]

With what we have now this is the most balance we can have on the floor that will give us a "good" starting unit and a "good" bench unit

pg: Jimmer (spreads the floor, ability to spot up, best playmaker we have, defensive liability though)
sg: Tyreke (drive and kick game to shooters, aggresive on the fast break, good ballhandler)
sf: Garcia (good defender, good 3pt shooter, works well off the ball)
pf: JT (garbage man, solid defender)
C: Cousins ( Hustler, low post threat, dominates the boards, can pass to open shooters)

Bench:
Isiah(brings a change of pace, coming off the bench lets him be more aggresive)
Thornton( Ability to ignite off the bench, 6th man potential, can be more aggresive in the 2nd unit)
Salmons( Has been shooting better, good defender, good ballhandler, love it or hate it hits bail out shots when our offense stagnates)
Hayes( Good team defender, solid man defender, good high post passer)
Whiteside( Can offer lenght, blocking ability and a big body when Cousins is in foul trouble)

I don't see this happending, mainly because i dont see thornton accepting a bench role, but imo this would give us the most balance.

 

[Prince_XY]

I hope MT and IT get traded by deadline. I don't care if MT is a bad-a** scorer and IT is the midget super point guard. Both are sucking out the best of Evans whenever they play together with him. Evans won't reach his full development with these guys. Thornton is selfish and wants to be the "main" guy. IT commands too much of the ball on his hands and actually beginning to have the tendency to look for his own shot. Many times Evans gets frozen whenever he is playing with IT or MT. I would rather have the combination of Jimmer and Evans as our main guards. At least Jimmer has shown he knows he is just there in a supporting role to Evans and Cousins.

Trade Salmons, Hickson, MT, and IT and get a sharp shooting SF who knows how to defend and a shot blocking C/PF and I will be very happy. And maybe, Smart will not appear very confused in his substitutions.

 

[IfAt1st]

I hope MT and IT get traded by deadline. I don't care if MT is a bad-a** scorer and IT is the midget super point guard. Both are sucking out the best of Evans whenever they play together with him. Evans won't reach his full development with these guys. Thornton is selfish and wants to be the "main" guy. IT commands too much of the ball on his hands and actually beginning to have the tendency to look for his own shot. Many times Evans gets frozen whenever he is playing with IT or MT.

So you would rather the team go back to the days of Westphal and just let Tyreke pound the ball?
That experiment has already been tried.

Tyreke can not be the main ballhandler in the NBA.
You get a stagnated, easy-to-defend offense that is based of of iso's and drive-and-kicks.

It's like people are going in circles. It's like KF's is stuck in Groundhog Day, with their sight still blinded/dazzled by Tyreke's rookie 20-5-5 season.

The answer to the problem with the Kings is NOT to get rid of every guard who dares shoot the ball other than Tyreke.