[Grades] Grades v. Jazz 1/28/12
- Thread starter Bricklayer
- Start date
seriously, Tyreke played great
Who woulda thought signing Crawford might have actually been good for us? I'm going to have to admit I was wrong about the depth of our team coming into the season. Thought we'd be a lot better, but back then I thought Garcia would only become a smarter veteran player, JJ Hickson would do at least half as well as he was doing in Cleveland, and Salmons/Outlaw were at least 80% of what they used to be. Having Hayes out also sucks. The only "bench" player that's actually performed up to or beyond my expectations is JT.
jalfa
Starter
It has to be Salmon's three, imo. Hit that wide open shot and the whole dynamic of the game changes drastically. Nevermind the fact that it has become one of those "yay, we run a real play and get a wide open corner three. no wait it's *siiiigh*mons." situation, where the Kings do everything right up to the point where the player that takes the shot just isn't really an NBA rotation player anymore.
I'm definitely not mad at Jimmer for missing that shot. It happens, especially to rookies in such a tense atmosphere. What impressed me about it was the inbounds play, because it was pretty much perfect. Good idea, well executed, lead to an open shot for our best active threepoint shooter. After that wild drive before I was actually scared we would just throw our opportunity away and was pleasently surprised by what happened.
Also, did anyone else think that IT's game looked like a carbon copy of what Marcus Thornton used to do for us last season? Just heating up to ridiculous degrees and basically shooting us back into games by his lonesome and then making a few good passes too, in between?
As for the music:
I'm definitely not mad at Jimmer for missing that shot. It happens, especially to rookies in such a tense atmosphere. What impressed me about it was the inbounds play, because it was pretty much perfect. Good idea, well executed, lead to an open shot for our best active threepoint shooter. After that wild drive before I was actually scared we would just throw our opportunity away and was pleasently surprised by what happened.
Also, did anyone else think that IT's game looked like a carbon copy of what Marcus Thornton used to do for us last season? Just heating up to ridiculous degrees and basically shooting us back into games by his lonesome and then making a few good passes too, in between?
As for the music:
Last edited by a moderator:
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
I often read the forums of the opposing team after games to see what other fans are saying. One thing I've noticed is that there are a lot of, "Wow, the Kings are really bad, we should blow them out" kind of comments from the other team's fans. This happens even in the games that KFs try and convince themselves they Kings played good. Looks like no one is seeing it but us. I'm not really seeing any, "Kings have a nice young core, should be up and coming" type of comments. most just see the team as a joke and an easy W.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Yes, because opposing team's fans, many of whom have not even watched a single Kings game this year (basically anyone without league pass, and even some with) are a dandy source of information about one's team.
So what do you think about Earl Watson's contribution this year? Or Enes Kanter's defensive potential? However you answered those is about the same level of expertise the average fan of another team brings to the table when talking about us. Know rep, hype, record, not much else.
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
Just reporting what i've seen. Folks can draw their own conclusions from it. However, I think you're over-complicating it. The average fan may not know much about the opposing team but the average fan knows bad basketball when they see it. And it's reasonable to figure that outside fans would have a less biased view in such evaluations because they have no interest in the team and thus aren't likely to see positives that aren't really there.
Last edited:
Well frankly speaking the game against the Jazz was not bad basketball. It was not great basketball, but it was not bad. On the other hand, when we get completely blown out it's clear that we're playing bad basketball. And even Kings fans don't go "eh ma gawz Tyreke DMC Thornton ♥♥♥♥" when we get blown out, because well ... We usually don't get blown out when those guys play well.
MassachusettsKingsFan
All-Star
If the Utah fans are anything like their "Kings should trade Tyreke to make room for Jimmer" announce team... lets just say I trust the opinions of the posters I respect here a hell of a lot more than the fans of the Utah Jazz.
It's not about the Kings, its about basketball. If you can't find positives in this game then you don't know anything. The officials were the ones that made the game ugly... they were terrible tonight.
Our offense (and our defense, when the other option is Jimmer Fredette) is missing Marcus Thornton. Its funny ... when we traded for Marcus last season we instantly started playing better. The fact that we are struggling to score without Marcus in the lineup doesn't surprise me, and it shouldn't surprise anyone.
He is the best scorer on the team. It's not even close. He's the basically the only player on the roster who can take it to the basket and shoot jumpers. That's one of our problems right there ... we have too many 'This guy can only do one thing' players.
Jimmer/Cisco/Donte are basically 3 pt gunners. Salmons used to be able to do a little bit of both and can now do neither. IT has a little driving in his game but his height is really hurting his finishing ability. And Evans still doesn't have a reliable jumper. Outlaw shouldn't even be on an NBA team. Honeycutt has potential.
But honestly, I chalk this teams struggles down to John Salmons, JJ Hickson, injuries, and coaching.
I think Tyreke Evans has been really good this year. Especially since Keith Smart took over. I think Demarcus Cousins could have made a real All-Star bid if he just hit 3 of his easy missed shots down low a game. Basically, our top players have played pretty well.
Salmons has been a trainwreck. Worse than I could have ever imagined. His offense is gone and took his defense with him. Just watching him get burned by Gordon Hayward over and over again last night was painful. If you can't guard Hayward you can't guard anyone.
Hickson has also been bad, and I'm about 95% sure he gets traded by the deadline. We are just getting nothing out of him aside from bad defense and ball hog offense. I've seen enough.
CruzDude
Senior Member sharing a brew with bajaden
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We watch the Kings every game. Other team sites see the Kings 2 or 3 times a year. We look for any improvement from one bad game to the next game. Jazz game shows Kings can win road games if they play interior defense and if the bench (other than IT) scores at least a couple of points. I agee with Brick on one big point: Salmons is not helping team. But, who is more capable to score and defend?
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
Point taken, but it’s hardly just Jazz fans. I’ve been seeing this all year no matter who they play.
It’s that right there that is the source of much of the conflict on this board. And SO MANY of you do it. I don’t think you guys realize how smug and confrontational that comes off to the other person.
It basically translate to: If you don’t agree with me, you’re stupid.
I’m done arguing about it though, just putting it out these as food for thought.
In some games, yeah. Problem is he’s been awful in as many games as he’s been good.
Last edited:
MassachusettsKingsFan
All-Star
Do you seriously think that is accurate, or are you just exaggerating to make a point?
If anything, THAT is the reason for conflict. You have posters who just say Jimmer blows, then 20 Jimmer fans feel like they have to over compensate for the one Jimmer 'hater' who is most likely doing that to get a rise out of the Jimmer crazies.
If Tyreke Evans was literally playing how you think he's playing... where 1 good game equals 1 awful game.. its just not accurate.
I'm not trying to come off as a 'If you don't agree with me, you're stupid' attitude, but if what someone is saying is just wrong, I think its totally fine to call someone out on that.
Opinions can be wrong unless it's coming from a person who knows what they are talking about. I hate the notion that an 'opinion can't be wrong, because its my opinion!' If your argument isn't based on enough information your opinion is wrong, sorry. (And I'm not targeting you here, that's just my general opinion on opinions
)I want Tyreke Evans to be great. I have has my doubts.. Last year was bad, and this season started off shaky, but I think, as a whole, he has been quite good. Especially under the coaching of Keith Smart (who I also don't love yet, but he has done some good for Evans). Add in the constant lineup shuffle, the injuries, the coaching change, coming back from an injury himself, with a tough schedule to start the season ... he's been good.
As the very least, the good to awful ratio is higher than 1:1
Do you seriously think that is accurate, or are you just exaggerating to make a point?
If anything, THAT is the reason for conflict. You have posters who just say Jimmer blows, then 20 Jimmer fans feel like they have to over compensate for the one Jimmer 'hater' who is most likely doing that to get a rise out of the Jimmer crazies.
If Tyreke Evans was literally playing how you think he's playing... where 1 good game equals 1 awful game.. its just not accurate.
I'm not trying to come off as a 'If you don't agree with me, you're stupid' attitude, but if what someone is saying is just wrong, I think its totally fine to call someone out on that.
Opinions can be wrong unless it's coming from a person who knows what they are talking about. I hate the notion that an 'opinion can't be wrong, because its my opinion!' If your argument isn't based on enough information your opinion is wrong, sorry. (And I'm not targeting you here, that's just my general opinion on opinions
I want Tyreke Evans to be great. I have has my doubts.. Last year was bad, and this season started off shaky, but I think, as a whole, he has been quite good. Especially under the coaching of Keith Smart (who I also don't love yet, but he has done some good for Evans). Add in the constant lineup shuffle, the injuries, the coaching change, coming back from an injury himself, with a tough schedule to start the season ... he's been good.
As the very least, the good to awful ratio is higher than 1:1
Actually, Reke has been more bad than good this year. He has only had 8 games where he scored 20 or more out of 20. His assists and rebounding are down for the season. Compared to his rookie season, that is inconsistent. Not coincidentally, we have won 5 of those games. Some of this because of the coaching change I am sure. And some teams have been able to consistently stop him. Regardless, it is accurate to say that Reke has been more bad than good so far this year. The team has many, many problems and Reke's inconsistency this year has been one of them.
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
This calls for a little compare and contrast
Group A
20 against the Lakers
27 against the Hornets
26 against the Bucks
28 against the Magic
29 against the Raptors
27 against the Rockets
23 against the Spurs
31 against the Jazz
Note that the Kings went 5 and 3 in those games and were competitive (by their standards) in all 3 losses.
Group B
4 points against the Trailblazers
9 points against the Grizzlies
8 points against the Nuggets
3 points against the Mavericks
9 points against the Timberwolves
8 points against the Pacers
9 points against the Trailblazers
12 points against the Nuggets
Note that the Kings went 1 and 7 in those games and every single loss was a blowout. See the correlation? Think it's a coincidence? I don't.
I call group B awful. You may call it something else.
I've just proven otherwise, unless you're going to tell me that points are no indicator of how well he played.
Last edited:
MassachusettsKingsFan
All-Star
I think we have a different definition of awful. And points are one indication of how well he plays, but not THE indicator. There is no one statistical indicator with Tyreke because he does a little bit of everything. Some players have statistical indicators and some don't. For a guy like Marcus Thornton, if he isn't scoring there is good chance he's having a bad game, because that's what he does. That's what he is supposed to do.
For example (because I remember this game pretty well without having to go back and watch it) I wouldn't consider his game against the Timberwolves as 'awful'. Marcus actually played that game so Evans wasn't as responsible for all of our scoring as he is right now. He led our team in rebounds (8) and assists (10) that night.
Was it as good as his game last night? no. But it wasn't awful. It wasn't the reason we lost. He scored 9 (and our leading scorer had 12).
I don't know your point of view on the whole team, but your post makes it seem like you are blaming Evans for the blowouts and crediting Evans for the wins (all based on PPG).
I'm going to be honest here. I don't know how to analyze the blowouts. For most of them, you can say Evans played awful, which is technically true but how much can you count them when the whole team also played awful?
If your grading players like that then literally every guy on the roster has a near 1:1 good to bad game ratio, which by definition of what we are talking about here means that literally every player on the roster has had a bad year, which I don't think is accurate. When we get blown out, WE GET BLOWN OUT. I almost chalk those games up to '**** it, we didn't show up'.
I'm not going to put it all on Evans. The team has been wildly inconsistent. We rarely lose by 10 (unless that was previously a 20 point game which we made look better with garbage time buckets) Its been a whole lot of blowout or close game with nothing in between.
Evans has been been sharing the ball with a complete disaster in John Salmons, a struggling rookie in Jimmer Fredette, an injured Marcus Thornton, and (for a while there after Hayes went down) a terrible ball stopper in JJ Hickson. Not to mention all the drama surrounding Westphal and Cousins.
His numbers are up across the board from last season (by a low margin, sure, but still better). Yes, they are still down from his rookie year, but I don't see his points getting up that high again as long as he is playing with so many scorers.
I am satisfied and happy with how Evans has progressed this season based off of the disaster that was last season, but I hate the construction of this team and I choose to blame that for the inconsistency of our play, not Tyreke Evans.
Evans has been bad when the whole team has been bad. He's also been good in just about every one of our close games while other players on the roster were still bad. For example, we were close last night because of Evans/Thompson in the first half and Evans/Thomas in the second half. None of Cousins/Jimmer/Salmons/Garcia/Hayes/ had a particularly good game.
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
To a degree I am. Which in a way shows how highly I think of him when he plays well. When he’s at his best he’s good enough to carry the team to a large degree, and he’s really the only guy on the roster right now that can do that. Teams generally go as their best players go. Best players play well = team plays well. Best players play bad = team plays bad, to a large degree. This team needs him to be their guy the way Rose is for the Bulls if they're going to ever be any good.
Well, guys like Outlaw, Salmons, and Garcia really haven’t had any good games at all.
Greene, Hickson, Jimmer, and Thornton I’d agree have been about 50/50
Cousins, Thompson, and Thomas have been pretty consistent though.
Last edited:
Jimmer played a good game and is part of the reason that we even had a chance to win at all in the first place. It's unfair for people to be upset at him for missing that shot, especially considering the fact that he might have been fouled.
My wish would be for the Kings to just win games and not put themselves in positions where they are constantly having to come back from behind.
My wish would be for the Kings to just win games and not put themselves in positions where they are constantly having to come back from behind.
MassachusettsKingsFan
All-Star
Alright, well this clears a lot up for me. We clearly don't have the same vision for the future of this team, which is fine. That's something that can be based on opinion. I can't prove I'm right until one vision or the other actually happens, but I can make my case.
I don't think he needs to be Derrick Rose. Derrick Rose is playing with an incredibly overrated Carlos Boozer. If Demarcus Cousins isn't better than Carlos Boozer in a few years (if he isn't already) I'll be shocked. Rose also isn't playing with a high volume scoring SG like Marcus Thornton. Rose is the Bulls offense ... I think the future of this team is not one where Evans takes the amount of shots or responsibility as Rose has now.
Rose is clearly the best player on the Bulls and he needs to be. I think Cousins will be the best player on our team. I simply don't think Evans CAN carry a team (at least not to the degree that Rose can), and I don't think he should have to with a potential top 2 center on the roster.
And just to argue against your second point about Cousins consistency (using the same sort of argument you used against Evans) ... You used PPG as the determining factor when it comes to Evans good games vs. bad games. I'll use FG% for Cousins, which I think has been his biggest problem this season. He's got to finish better at the rim.
Games Cousins shot over .500 FG% = 8
Games Cousins shot under .500 FG% = 11
And I think Cousins has had a good year. My point being, you can't use one statistic (especially on a team that lacks talent, coaching, and everything else) to determine how a player is playing.
I think both Cousins and Evans have been pretty good this season, all things considered. The problem is no one else is showing up. Thomas has been good in limited time (mostly garbage time due to poor coaching) and Thompson has been good recently (early lack of PT also due to poor coaching). But other than those two guys .. We are just getting nothing out of our other players.
Plus Injuries
Plus Poor coaching/coaching drama
Plus bad team construction (too many scorers)
And that is why I think we are bad. Not because of Evans or Cousins.
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
I knew I shouldn't have used the Rose example, haha. I don't mean that he has to be like Derick Rose or duplicate the Bulls situation in a vacuum or something. I just mean that I think Tyreke is as important to the Kings success as Rose is to the Bull success. As far as whether Cousins or Tyreke is better, it's negligible. i see them not as 1 and 2 but as 1a and 1b. If Tyreke can play with some consistency and improve to even an average shooter, he's 1a in my opinion. but even if he's going to be 1b, he has a lot of improving to do.
wazzups
Bench
If we could just have more veterans with playoff experience to put around Evans and Cousins we might have something.....but to have good NBA coaching too would just be.....too much to ask for and such a long long patient wait. I agree with that point
MizzouKing
Starter
Late to the Party
After missing so much of the season, I finally got to see my first Kings game of the season thanks to a new package with Direct TV!!! Watching them against the Jazz, I finally got to see what so many have been discussing up till now. Hearing the hometown jackwagons (NBATV commentators) dismiss the Kings as just a "bad team," it was fun to watch them through some of the perspectives picked up from your posts over the last few months.
I will now dazzle you with my expert-laden insightful analysis
, or at least offer a few thoughts I don't expect anyone to bother reading:
Discomboomeration (it's a technical term)
One thing I kept coming back to was, "How can this team be so bad with several players this good???" They seem to be lacking a lot of direction. The impacts to a team this young (a) missing a preseason, (b) diving into a compressed schedule, (c) changing coaches with almost no time to practice, and (d) playing with missing and redundant "parts" are pretty apparent. Add to that a cluster**** front office pulling the strings and it's a miracle these guys ever win games at all.
Who's Who?
It's true we have too many guys who do only one thing well. To their credit many are trying to expand their game, but at this point I would suggest that is a really really bad idea. Being one dimensional isn't a long-term goal, but the team needs to learn how to play together and gel on that first dimension before confusing the situation with a lot of extra variables.
A couple of examples I saw:
- What the heck is DMC doing on the perimeter jacking up a 3? Sure he can do it, sometimes, but that isn't his strength. We have other guys for that.
- Salmons -- by no means a 3-point scoring threat -- is not one of them...why (if he must play) is he standing around at the 3-pt line like he's Peja? We have guys that can do that, step a little closer and make your shot dude.
- Jimmer driving to the hoop trying to pop up a shot through the canopy of defending giants. If the lane's not open, a pipsqueak is not the guy to be driving to the rim.
Reke is unmatched and almost unstoppable driving to the basket. Jimmer is our best 3-point shooter. DMC is a superior beast in the post. They are so much more successful playing to their strengths and exploiting the inevitable doubleteams by sharing the ball in ways that allow everyone else to play to theirs. Bringing in your "expanded" (i.e. SHAKY) game should be a fallback option for use in emergency situations, not part of your M.O.
The Good
For all I've been reading about ball stoppage, I saw a lot of unselfishness in this game! Even Salmons passed the ball a few times, and there were a few extra passes to be seen. I also saw a pretty consistent attempt by our floor players to move without the ball. They don't do it well, but it's a start and these things look to me like an indicator that the guys are buying in - or trying to - to Smart's coaching.
I thought chemistry looked pretty good in terms of personalities, and DMC didn't pick up any technical fouls on a night the officials acted like hometown refs. DMC also showed amazing skill as a passer (if you don't count the time he passed it to the Jazz fans near the end). Jimmer is finding his shot and showing he's too good to shoot this bad long-term. Isiah has a heckuva motor and is almost too small and fast for larger teams to guard.
In the short term, if these guys can stick with their strengths, keep working on unselfishness, accept that there are places they don't belong, and work on their toughness, I think we can move a lot closer to our potential as a team.
Just my opinions, I could be wrong.
MizzouKing
After missing so much of the season, I finally got to see my first Kings game of the season thanks to a new package with Direct TV!!! Watching them against the Jazz, I finally got to see what so many have been discussing up till now. Hearing the hometown jackwagons (NBATV commentators) dismiss the Kings as just a "bad team," it was fun to watch them through some of the perspectives picked up from your posts over the last few months.
I will now dazzle you with my expert-laden insightful analysis
, or at least offer a few thoughts I don't expect anyone to bother reading:Discomboomeration (it's a technical term)
One thing I kept coming back to was, "How can this team be so bad with several players this good???" They seem to be lacking a lot of direction. The impacts to a team this young (a) missing a preseason, (b) diving into a compressed schedule, (c) changing coaches with almost no time to practice, and (d) playing with missing and redundant "parts" are pretty apparent. Add to that a cluster**** front office pulling the strings and it's a miracle these guys ever win games at all.
Who's Who?
It's true we have too many guys who do only one thing well. To their credit many are trying to expand their game, but at this point I would suggest that is a really really bad idea. Being one dimensional isn't a long-term goal, but the team needs to learn how to play together and gel on that first dimension before confusing the situation with a lot of extra variables.
A couple of examples I saw:
- What the heck is DMC doing on the perimeter jacking up a 3? Sure he can do it, sometimes, but that isn't his strength. We have other guys for that.
- Salmons -- by no means a 3-point scoring threat -- is not one of them...why (if he must play) is he standing around at the 3-pt line like he's Peja? We have guys that can do that, step a little closer and make your shot dude.
- Jimmer driving to the hoop trying to pop up a shot through the canopy of defending giants. If the lane's not open, a pipsqueak is not the guy to be driving to the rim.
Reke is unmatched and almost unstoppable driving to the basket. Jimmer is our best 3-point shooter. DMC is a superior beast in the post. They are so much more successful playing to their strengths and exploiting the inevitable doubleteams by sharing the ball in ways that allow everyone else to play to theirs. Bringing in your "expanded" (i.e. SHAKY) game should be a fallback option for use in emergency situations, not part of your M.O.
The Good
For all I've been reading about ball stoppage, I saw a lot of unselfishness in this game! Even Salmons passed the ball a few times, and there were a few extra passes to be seen. I also saw a pretty consistent attempt by our floor players to move without the ball. They don't do it well, but it's a start and these things look to me like an indicator that the guys are buying in - or trying to - to Smart's coaching.
I thought chemistry looked pretty good in terms of personalities, and DMC didn't pick up any technical fouls on a night the officials acted like hometown refs. DMC also showed amazing skill as a passer (if you don't count the time he passed it to the Jazz fans near the end). Jimmer is finding his shot and showing he's too good to shoot this bad long-term. Isiah has a heckuva motor and is almost too small and fast for larger teams to guard.
In the short term, if these guys can stick with their strengths, keep working on unselfishness, accept that there are places they don't belong, and work on their toughness, I think we can move a lot closer to our potential as a team.
Just my opinions, I could be wrong.
MizzouKing
Last edited:
Well, that was the second three he attempted all year, and I think the other one was a beat-the-shot-clock version, so I'm inclined to give him a pass on that. I'm not going to encourage him to keep doing it, but once is not exactly a disaster.
MizzouKing
Starter
Kingster
Hall of Famer
After missing so much of the season, I finally got to see my first Kings game of the season thanks to a new package with Direct TV!!! Watching them against the Jazz, I finally got to see what so many have been discussing up till now. Hearing the hometown jackwagons (NBATV commentators) dismiss the Kings as just a "bad team," it was fun to watch them through some of the perspectives picked up from your posts over the last few months.
I will now dazzle you with my expert-laden insightful analysis
Discomboomeration (it's a technical term)
One thing I kept coming back to was, "How can this team be so bad with several players this good???" They seem to be lacking a lot of direction. The impacts to a team this young (a) missing a preseason, (b) diving into a compressed schedule, (c) changing coaches with almost no time to practice, and (d) playing with missing and redundant "parts" are pretty apparent. Add to that a cluster**** front office pulling the strings and it's a miracle these guys ever win games at all.
Who's Who?
It's true we have too many guys who do only one thing well. To their credit many are trying to expand their game, but at this point I would suggest that is a really really bad idea. Being one dimensional isn't a long-term goal, but the team needs to learn how to play together and gel on that first dimension before confusing the situation with a lot of extra variables.
A couple of examples I saw:
- What the heck is DMC doing on the perimeter jacking up a 3? Sure he can do it, sometimes, but that isn't his strength. We have other guys for that.
- Salmons -- by no means a 3-point scoring threat -- is not one of them...why (if he must play) is he standing around at the 3-pt line like he's Peja? We have guys that can do that, step a little closer and make your shot dude.
- Jimmer driving to the hoop trying to pop up a shot through the canopy of defending giants. If the lane's not open, a pipsqueak is not the guy to be driving to the rim.
Reke is unmatched and almost unstoppable driving to the basket. Jimmer is our best 3-point shooter. DMC is a superior beast in the post. They are so much more successful playing to their strengths and exploiting the inevitable doubleteams by sharing the ball in ways that allow everyone else to play to theirs. Bringing in your "expanded" (i.e. SHAKY) game should be a fallback option for use in emergency situations, not part of your M.O.
The Good
For all I've been reading about ball stoppage, I saw a lot of unselfishness in this game! Even Salmons passed the ball a few times, and there were a few extra passes to be seen. I also saw a pretty consistent attempt by our floor players to move without the ball. They don't do it well, but it's a start and these things look to me like an indicator that the guys are buying in - or trying to - to Smart's coaching.
I thought chemistry looked pretty good in terms of personalities, and DMC didn't pick up any technical fouls on a night the officials acted like hometown refs. DMC also showed amazing skill as a passer (if you don't count the time he passed it to the Jazz fans near the end). Jimmer is finding his shot and showing he's too good to shoot this bad long-term. Isiah has a heckuva motor and is almost too small and fast for larger teams to guard.
In the short term, if these guys can stick with their strengths, keep working on unselfishness, accept that there are places they don't belong, and work on their toughness, I think we can move a lot closer to our potential as a team.
Just my opinions, I could be wrong.
MizzouKing
If they just keep up with the unselfish play, they'll continue to get better, though maybe not as fast as we all would like. That's really the question, though. Are they going to revert like an addict to their selfish ways, or are they going to continue to stick together, win or lose?
