[Grades] Grades v. Knicks 3/20/2016

[funkykingston]

I think our offense benefitet from Rondo no matter if he holds the ball too much or not. Problem with this team is, that you don't have many players, who can be the ballhandler in a pick&roll.
And that's actually what stops DC from being a solid starting PG in this league. He just doesn't run the pick&roll very well other than in getting his own mid range jumper out of it.
Gay is not a good pick&roll ballhandler. Bellinelli isn't great either and Ben...well lets not get started with his handling, while he can throw some pretty good pass sometimes.
With DC we pound the ball in Cousins too much and need him to create.
One thing I liked this season, was that Cousins got in a lot more situations were all he had to do was catch the ball and finish with a jumpshot or layup. Most of these situations are directly related to Rondo running the offense.
Not that Cousins can't create, but after all he is a big guy and he will not be terribly efficient, when asked to get his own shot all the time.
Not with the way teams gameplan versus us.

The Kings' offense currently doesn't use the pick and roll all that often. The only teams that have run fewer pick and rolls this season are the Warriors, Bucks and Knicks. It's not really a fundamental part of the Dribble Drive offense.

I like that this season Cousins has finally been getting number of easy baskets and it's one thing that Rondo has definitely done to aid Boogie's game. But I think giving him more space to operate and fewer double teams would be a much bigger help to him. It doesn't matter who you put at the SG spot, Rondo, Gay, and Cauley-Stein on the floor together means a lack of spacing. The Grizzlies succeeded despite the poor outside shooting by being a grind it out defensive team, somewhat similar to what we saw from the Kings at the beginning of last season. But I don't think Rondo can defend at the level necessary to make that work. And I think the spacing would be even worse than the Grizzlies.

I don't think it's worth trying to make things work with this roster as is. Much better (IMO) to reconstruct the roster. And while I'm tired of not having any continuity season to season watching Portland succeed this season makes me think the Kings could do the same if they make the right moves.

 

[kingjatt]

Is there a playoff team not relying heavily on ball and player movement?
Getting into the playoffs with pounding the ball down low to Cousins and Gay?
Really hard for me to see that happen, especially, when we don't get top tier defenders in FA.
Mimic the Grizzlies of the past years? We need a high low attack for this and great defensive players.
Other than that? Can't think of a team, that I would classify as a inside to outside team.
And nope, it's not because there are no good big man in the league, who can post up. Gotta be another reason for it. But it is, what it is.

Is there a playoff team not relying heavily on ball and player movement?

Couple that pop into my head, Cavs in last years playoffs/finals. Spurs this past saturday vs GSW. Grizzles when they went up on GSW in last years playoffs. Its a direct counter to athletic small ball teams that try to play the lanes. Gives you an advantage in the turnover game.

Oh and player movement is needed in any offense.

Getting into the playoffs with pounding the ball down low to Cousins and Gay?

thats where they operate the best, and they are our 2 best players, I'm thinking why not put them down there and see what happens.

Really hard for me to see that happen, especially, when we don't get top tier defenders in FA.

All it would take is one, doesnt have to be top tier, just have size and pride on the defensive end, oh and hit an open jumper.

Mimic the Grizzlies of the past years? We need a high low attack for this and great defensive players.

Dont mimic anyone, create an identity for ourselves. (BTW Rudy has elite size for an SF)

Popovich and Aldridge have said numerous times this year that they want to play inside out a lot more.

And nope, it's not because there are no good big man in the league, who can post up. Gotta be another reason for it. But it is, what it is.

There are some, but we have the runaway best postup big in the league, just stating why I think it would be a good idea to try to take advantage of that.

 

[funkykingston]

You make great points I certainly cant argue with most of them but I could see a scenario where we have both of those guys strictly at PG splitting the minutes and never having them out of position. With the insane amount of backcourt talent in the NBA these days its never a bad idea to have 2 fresh and pesky guys playing point guard, especially if you go back to having Cuz and Gay being the focal points to operate down low with a slower approach.

Darren and Rondo would be a heck of a PG punch if used correctly. Plus letting talent walk/go for nothing hasnt worked out to well for us lately.

Use the leftover FA money to grab a decent starting SG (Courtney Lee?) and you have a capable defender with size at every position.

I think trying to mimeck the ball movement heavy offenses is what got the Kings into this mess in the first place, that does not suite the strength of any of the players. In my opinion you forge your own identity first, pounding Cuz,Gay while trying to space the floor, and build outward from that.

If you want to run read and react motion offenses you need different players, in which case I agree, step 1 would be to let Rondo walk and probably trade Gay.

If thats the case the ultimate question is do we have enough time to build Cuz a competitive team before he decides on free agency? Our track record would certainly suggest otherwise.

The problem with re-signing Rajon and keeping Darren is now the Kings are going to have a PG who is a 12.5 mpg backup, at least based on Rondo's mpg this season. That both minimizes Collison's impact for the Kings and decreases his trade value. I like Collison, but I think if Rondo is resigned the team should trade Collison while his value is relatively high, especially since he becomes a free agent after next season.

It's hard to say that Rondo leaving would be "talent walking out the door for nothing" when he'd likely command a contract starting at $15 to $17 million. Rondo is an unrestricted free agent and will likely go to the highest bidder. The question is whether there is a better use for that caproom than bringing him back.

And I think if the goal is to let Cuz and Gay pound the ball and space the floor then Rondo is a poor fit. He needs the ball to be effective and he doesn't space the floor. Collison is a better PG for that approach.

As for Cuz finally wanting to leave the Kings, that's part of my fear in re-signing Rondo. Let's say Rajon gets a 3 year $50 million deal to re-up with Sacramento. If Cousins reaches the point where he demands a trade then the Kings will still have a 31 year old Rondo with $33 million or so left on his deal.

The thought process can't always be "playoffs or bust" with no eye on the future.

 

[kingjatt]

The problem with re-signing Rajon and keeping Darren is now the Kings are going to have a PG who is a 12.5 mpg backup, at least based on Rondo's mpg this season. That both minimizes Collison's impact for the Kings and decreases his trade value. I like Collison, but I think if Rondo is resigned the team should trade Collison while his value is relatively high, especially since he becomes a free agent after next season.

Why not play them both 24 mpg and force intense defense out of them? easier said than done but a coach who commands respect (Hi Thibs) could make it happen.

The question is whether there is a better use for that caproom than bringing him back.

What I was alluding too is after the beating the kings have taken in the media in recent years this is a real concern, on top of being handicapped by being in Sacramento.

And I think if the goal is to let Cuz and Gay pound the ball and space the floor then Rondo is a poor fit. He needs the ball to be effective and he doesn't space the floor. Collison is a better PG for that approach.

Thats something that would need to be worked out, backcuts? slashing to the rim? although Rondo hasn't shot too bad this year from 3. With the luck the Kings have with Free Agents I would rather have this problem than pay an insane amount for talent that is not even close to worth it, I think Rondo can be close to or worth 15 million to this team.

As for Cuz finally wanting to leave the Kings, that's part of my fear in re-signing Rondo. Let's say Rajon gets a 3 year $50 million deal to re-up with Sacramento. If Cousins reaches the point where he demands a trade then the Kings will still have a 31 year old Rondo with $33 million or so left on his deal.

IMO if building around Cuz is your plan and he gives the thumbs up on Rondo, you do it, if not, you dont sign Rondo and probably look to trade Cuz as your probably not going to build a playoff team in 1 off season.

The thought process can't always be "playoffs or bust" with no eye on the future.

With a 26 year old potential HOF big man and 1 year left on his deal, I think you gotta go all in again, this chance may not present itself for another decade after Cousins is gone.

 

[funkykingston]

If Rondo is this bad defensively when playing for his last NBA contract (he said he wants his next stop to be his last one) then I can't imagine what would motivate him to being a plus defender after getting his new contract. Or how happy he'd be to see his minutes cut by nearly a quarter of basketball each game.

There is no easy cure for a lack of outside shooting. Backcuts only work if defenders have to respect the outside shot. Slashing to the rim adds congestion not spacing, and isn't nearly as effective if defenders are sagging off their man to begin with.

Rondo has shot a decent percentage this season but he gets wide open looks from defenses. If Darren Collison got the kind of space to shoot that Rajon does he'd probably be ahead of Redick and leading the NBA in 3P%. Rondo is hitting his threes and a nice clip for him but he's not creating spacing as a threat.

If the Kings want to move forward with Rondo/Cousins then I think you've got to surround them with catch and shoot guys.

 

[VF21]

If the Kings want to move forward with Rondo/Cousins then I think you've got to surround them with catch and shoot guys.

And some more guys who understand the concept of defense. I truly believe Rondo can play good defense, but it has to be frustrating as hell when you're the only one out there doing it AND you're also being expected to be the floor general and lead the offense at the other end.

I've seen glimpses of the old defensive Rondo. He's still in there somewhere; I just don't think he believes he can be effective on both ends of the court.

 

[twslam07]

I wonder how well it would work to do what Houston did with Dream and surround DMC with shooters. Collison (or Curry), Bazemore, Casspi and Ryan Anderson for example.

It'd essentially be what the Rockets are doing now except that instead of Harden driving to the hoop you'd have Cousins at the elbow or in the blocks. And instead of three shooters on the perimeter you'd have four.

Or like the roster I put together in the Offseason Keep Boogie Plan thread? Cauley-Stein would be the only rotational player who isn't at least a good 3pt shooter.

PG - Beverley / Collison / Curry
SG - Bazemore / McLemore / Valentine (Mavs Pick) / Anderson
SF - Ariza / Casspi / Butler
PF - Anderson / Cauley-Stein / Acy
C - Cousins / Olynyk

 

[funkykingston]

And some more guys who understand the concept of defense. I truly believe Rondo can play good defense, but it has to be frustrating as hell when you're the only one out there doing it AND you're also being expected to be the floor general and lead the offense at the other end.

I've seen glimpses of the old defensive Rondo. He's still in there somewhere; I just don't think he believes he can be effective on both ends of the court.

I think he's just gotten used to coasting on defense.

I'm not sure any coach could convince him to get back to the level he was at years ago. I think the desire has to be there and I just don't see that with Rondo.

 

[KingMilz]

I'm not certain that Rondo is a better starting PG than Collison. Better passer, sure. Better defender? Nope. Better shooter? Nope.

I can see the argument for either guy but once you look at the salary cap I have a hard time saying that I'd rather have Rondo for $15-$17 million vs DC for $5 million.

I like watching Rondo, but he does two things that I think hamstring a team. One is that he hurts the defense. I know there's a notion that maybe Rondo can still be a good defender but he's not pushed to, but to me that just doesn't resonate. Good defenders want to play defense. I don't want a guy who only D's up when he wants to.

The other thing Rondo does is dominate the offense. You're not going to see the kind of ball movement the Hawks and Spurs have with Rondo at the point. It's just not his game. And even if you got him to buy into that kind of system, you're taking away what makes him great since his strengths are all about running the offense and his weakness (offensively anyway) is playing off the ball. And as someone that would MUCH rather see an offense with ball movement than something like Nash's Suns teams with one guy orchestrating things I like Collison's willingness to move the rock. He will never rack up assists or make highlight reel passes but he is the right type of PG for a coach who wants everyone to be able to pass and shoot.

Maybe the Kings strike out in free agency. I don't think that's the worst thing in the world. I'd rather that be the case than to overpay for a guy and have his contract become an albatross ala Landry, Thornton etc.

Shelvin Mack as a starter is way better than Rondo he scores/assists and defends and is actually helping the Utah Jazz, if someone like Mack is a FA I would rather sign them and split time with DC if we can't land a legit GOOD starting PG. Rondo is basically Vasquez the year prior to joining the Kings, the Pelicans saw right through his inflated numbers and realised he was crap and shipped him directly to us. I just don't see what people see in Rondo to want to bring him back aside from stat padding assists he literally brings nothing to the table. I'm ethier way on Cousins but you can't bring back Rudy/Rondo.

 

[Bricklayer]

Shelvin Mack as a starter is way better than Rondo he scores/assists and defends and is actually helping the Utah Jazz, if someone like Mack is a FA I would rather sign them and split time with DC if we can't land a legit GOOD starting PG. Rondo is basically Vasquez the year prior to joining the Kings, the Pelicans saw right through his inflated numbers and realised he was crap and shipped him directly to us. I just don't see what people see in Rondo to want to bring him back aside from stat padding assists he literally brings nothing to the table. I'm ethier way on Cousins but you can't bring back Rudy/Rondo.

 

[KingsFanGER]

With all due respect, I feel like that's lazy reasoning: "Well, none of the good teams are doing X, which therefore proves that X doesn't work." Maybe other teams just don't have the personnel to do X. The only playoff two playoff teams in either conference that are even really set up to pound it inside are San Antonio and Memphis. And, in San Antonio's case, they essentially decided to continue to utilize the system that plays to the strengths of their best player (Leonard), rather than restructure the offense around their second best player (Aldridge). Besides it occurs to me that it's not about how you play offense, so much as it is about how you play defense.

Well, I agree with the second part of this, at least. I don't think it matters how we get buckets; what matters is what we can stop on the other end.

I vehemently disagree with the notion that that should be the standard that we strive for. Trying to be like the Joneses is what has set us on this path in the first place.

We agree on the defensive side of the ball, so I won't adress that anymore. I would also agree, that if we could truly defend at an extraordinary level, the offense we run wouldn't be all that important.
The only question there is, if we are able to defend at that level with our current personell (and yes that includes Cousins).


Well it might be lazy reasoning (and I don't feel offended by that, because I know I'm just a guy watching a lot of basketball and not some analyst or coach) or just an acknowledgement of what actually happens in todays NBA without the believe, that the Kings are capable to find their "own" way. The narrative of the special Kings personell gets repeated time and time again. But are they truly that special, that you can play a whole lot different than the rest of the league and win that way?
Rudy is a solid scorer but really nothing more. He is not a terribly efficient scorer either. So no I don't believe that you can beat a modern era movement offense by playing Rudy down low in a lot of ISO situations. He will shoot 2's in the mid 40%'s against a decent defense in a best case scenario. Do you believe that's enough to beat open 3's?

Now I get that Cousins is a special player. He can and will produce no matter, what kind of offense you run. If he truly is the kind of player, that you are able to run your offense through all the time and win that way, remains to be seen, but so far our winning percentages don't indicate that. And unlike many other posters I don't believe, that this is his fault. I just think, that it's nearly impossible for a big man to mask all of his teams shortcomings in todays NBA. Back in the 90's? Yes the man in the middle was the way to go. Nowadays? Not so much and with AD, Cousins, Griffin, the Gasols, Zbo, Duncan (although old), Okafor, KAT, Aldridge, Monroe and so on, there are plenty of skilled big man in todays NBA.
Monroe even got benched by his team for the worse of the Plums. Why? Because that guy can get up and down the court, can step out on D and is only asked to finish lobs.

And no we didn't try to be like the rest of the league this season.

We signed Rondo - basically an anti analytics, old school floor general.
We drafted WCS to play next to DMC - Willie as an athletic, low usage big, who is able to step out on defense is the kind of player many teams play at the 5 next to guys, who are able to stretch the floor and find him for lobs. We tried to pair him with a offensive powerhouse at the 5. Not a move that follows the trend of the NBA.
We didn't sign any 3&D players or stretch bigs, if you don't count Anderson and Dukan.

Now of course we can look at Karl and say, that's his fault, because he tried to follow the current playstyle with a roster, that didn't fit.
Fine - nobody here wants Karl back next season (oh wait nobody but ImStillBallin ).
But this leaves out the question, if this personell as currently assembled is that special, that we can incorporate a style, that forces other teams to adjust, instead of forcing us to adjust to them.
What leads you to believe that, other than one small stretch of winning basketball under Mike Malone?

 

[KingsFanGER]

The Kings' offense currently doesn't use the pick and roll all that often. The only teams that have run fewer pick and rolls this season are the Warriors, Bucks and Knicks. It's not really a fundamental part of the Dribble Drive offense.

I like that this season Cousins has finally been getting number of easy baskets and it's one thing that Rondo has definitely done to aid Boogie's game. But I think giving him more space to operate and fewer double teams would be a much bigger help to him. It doesn't matter who you put at the SG spot, Rondo, Gay, and Cauley-Stein on the floor together means a lack of spacing. The Grizzlies succeeded despite the poor outside shooting by being a grind it out defensive team, somewhat similar to what we saw from the Kings at the beginning of last season. But I don't think Rondo can defend at the level necessary to make that work. And I think the spacing would be even worse than the Grizzlies.

I don't think it's worth trying to make things work with this roster as is. Much better (IMO) to reconstruct the roster. And while I'm tired of not having any continuity season to season watching Portland succeed this season makes me think the Kings could do the same if they make the right moves.

We agree for the most part. But why do we run an offense not centered all that much around the pick&roll? Maybe because nobody can run it outside of Rondo?

 

[KingsFanGER]

Is there a playoff team not relying heavily on ball and player movement?

Couple that pop into my head, Cavs in last years playoffs/finals. Spurs this past saturday vs GSW. Grizzles when they went up on GSW in last years playoffs. Its a direct counter to athletic small ball teams that try to play the lanes. Gives you an advantage in the turnover game.

The thesis, that this is the counter to athletic small ball is not validated yet. The Grizzlies didn't have a chance against Golden State, mainly because the Warriors exploited their weaknesses and hurt them more with it, than the Grizzlies could hurt the Warriors with their defense. The slow playstyle of the Grizzlies haunted them, because even if they brought their A+++++ game on D, they only could built a small lead. All it took was a couple of made 3's and Golden State was back in it.
Now if the Spurs manage to beat the Warriors this year like they did on Saturday it's a different story.

Oh and player movement is needed in any offense.

Getting into the playoffs with pounding the ball down low to Cousins and Gay?

thats where they operate the best, and they are our 2 best players, I'm thinking why not put them down there and see what happens.

Because the post is easy to defend with the baseline acting as another defender and the possibilities of zone defense. In my mind it's why the european basketball developed vastly different than the NBA and shooting 3's was always a trademark of euro bigs. The current NBA is just following the european basketball now (while still being on a completely superior talent level).
And the only teams, that have success with posting up are usually those teams, that can provide some spacing - this years Spurs f.e.

Really hard for me to see that happen, especially, when we don't get top tier defenders in FA.

All it would take is one, doesnt have to be top tier, just have size and pride on the defensive end, oh and hit an open jumper.

One good defender would definately be a start.

Mimic the Grizzlies of the past years? We need a high low attack for this and great defensive players.

Dont mimic anyone, create an identity for ourselves. (BTW Rudy has elite size for an SF)

To create our own identity we need someone with a vision, that knows enough about NBA basketball to find this very own Kings way.
Chances are we are not that smart. But yes - I agree - that would be the way to go.

And nope, it's not because there are no good big man in the league, who can post up. Gotta be another reason for it. But it is, what it is.

There are some, but we have the runaway best postup big in the league, just stating why I think it would be a good idea to try to take advantage of that.

Now I don't know about that. We have the best big in the league. Best postup big - I don't know. Okafor is a beast in those post ups. KAT can finish over any defender just by using left and right handed hooks. Even Drummond isn't bad at hooking the ball.
Now I know posting up isn't all about hook shots, but they help a lot to be efficient.
So I would say when it comes to spins, drop steps, finishing through contact, getting in position Boogie is at the top. But I get the argument, that he lacks this one move, that is basically unguardable.

 

[funkykingston]

We agree for the most part. But why do we run an offense not centered all that much around the pick&roll? Maybe because nobody can run it outside of Rondo?

Because it's what Karl wants to run. The Kings had a much higher percentage of P&Rs (and Isos) under Malone than Karl last year with the same roster.

It's the offensive philosophy.

 

[KingsFanGER]

Because it's what Karl wants to run. The Kings had a much higher percentage of P&Rs (and Isos) under Malone than Karl last year with the same roster.

It's the offensive philosophy.

Ok. You are right. I looked it up (I hate those stats websites. So confusing) it's quite a difference in pick&rolls run overall. I didn't bother to go further into detail and look for some data to DC.
Leave that to the guys, who enjoy those things, if anyone is interested.
Therefore I consider my eyetest false. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Well it might be lazy reasoning (and I don't feel offended by that, because I know I'm just a guy watching a lot of basketball and not some analyst or coach) or just an acknowledgement of what actually happens in todays NBA without the believe, that the Kings are capable to find their "own" way. The narrative of the special Kings personell gets repeated time and time again. But are they truly that special, that you can play a whole lot different than the rest of the league and win that way?

It's not like we've made a good faith effort to try; Karl damned sure isn't trying to do it.

But this leaves out the question, if this personell as currently assembled is that special, that we can incorporate a style, that forces other teams to adjust, instead of forcing us to adjust to them.
What leads you to believe that, other than one small stretch of winning basketball under Mike Malone?

Why do you keep using the word "special"? Post-up offense is not a magic trick. I mean, you talk about other teams, and what they do, and I feel like you're disregarding the obvious. Of course other teams aren't posting up; why would they? If your best player is a guard or a wing, why would you run a post-up offense?

The reason why I call it lazy reasoning is because I feel like the conversation is being framed in such a way that "acknowledgement of what actually happens in todays NBA" demands some sort of additional concession of "... and that's the only way it can be successfully done." I feel like there are a lot of lazy, unimaginative coaches and GMs in the NBA. I think that there are loads of people involved with these teams looking at analytics, and saying, "Well, this is what the great teams are doing, this is why it works, we've got to do that if we want to be great." And I think that's lazy; it's like the comment that Ultron made about vibranium in the second Avengers movie. I think that they're refusing to challenge the status quo. I'd like to see a team take a more imaginative approach to using analytics; I'd like to see a team instead, say, "Well, this is what the great teams are doing, this is why it works... This is what I can do to counteract that... Here are the weaknesses in that system... This is how I can take advantage of that."

One of the few intelligent things that I hear Charles Barkley and Shaquille O'Neal repeat on Inside the NBA is that you should have a move and a counter move; they were talking about individual players, but I think that it can apply to coaching, too. When post-up offense fails, it's because the head coach can't be bothered to develop a counter move: Coach B says, "Okay, we're going to make you take the ball out of your big man's hands. Now what are you going to do?", and Coach A says, "... I got nothin." I want to see someone come up with a better answer than that, and I'd kind of like for it to be us.

 

[KingsFanGER]

It's not like we've made a good faith effort to try; Karl damned sure isn't trying to do it.


Why do you keep using the word "special"? Post-up offense is not a magic trick. I mean, you talk about other teams, and what they do, and I feel like you're disregarding the obvious. Of course other teams aren't posting up; why would they? If your best player is a guard or a wing, why would you run a post-up offense?

The reason why I call it lazy reasoning is because I feel like the conversation is being framed in such a way that "acknowledgement of what actually happens in todays NBA" demands some sort of additional concession of "... and that's the only way it can be successfully done." I feel like there are a lot of lazy, unimaginative coaches and GMs in the NBA. I think that there are loads of people involved with these teams looking at analytics, and saying, "Well, this is what the great teams are doing, this is why it works, we've got to do that if we want to be great." And I think that's lazy; it's like the comment that Ultron made about vibranium in the second Avengers movie. I think that they're refusing to challenge the status quo. I'd like to see a team take a more imaginative approach to using analytics; I'd like to see a team instead, say, "Well, this is what the great teams are doing, this is why it works... This is what I can do to counteract that... Here are the weaknesses in that system... This is how I can take advantage of that."

One of the few intelligent things that I hear Charles Barkley and Shaquille O'Neal repeat on Inside the NBA is that you should have a move and a counter move; they were talking about individual players, but I think that it can apply to coaching, too. When post-up offense fails, it's because the head coach can't be bothered to develop a counter move: Coach B says, "Okay, we're going to make you take the ball out of your big man's hands. Now what are you going to do?", and Coach A says, "... I got nothin." I want to see someone come up with a better answer than that, and I'd kind of like for it to be us.

1.
Why are those wings and guards considered the best players of their teams? Why not the big guys? Could it be, that their positions simply are more impactful nowadays.
I think we are both old enough to exchange opionions about the basketball played in the 90's. Do you believe teams wouldn't treat players like Monroe or Okafor a bit differently.
Because today all I hear is too slow, can't step out, not a building block, too limited, no jumpshot.....
Heck I had a conversation with some 76ers fans recently and those guys told me, they think Noel is the way going forward at the center position. Noel??? Ok he is athletic and a very good defender but do you believe, that anyone in the 90's would have prefered Noel over a very good low post player like Okafor?
I don't think the only reason behind that is, that coaches and GM's are unimaginative.

2.
Well to challenge the status quo you need to come up with something, that gives opponents trouble.
To do that you need players with certain strengths, that I would consider special. Therefore the use of this word.

I like your way to look at those things, but ask yourself if this is realistic for the Kings. We have an owner, who doesn't know much about basketball. We have a rookie GM, who seems more about chemistry than about reinventing the way basketball is played. Than we have Rudy Gay and Rajon Rondo - two solid but somewhat flawed players. And of course Demarcus Cousins, who everyone would describe as a special player.
But let's be real - nobody in this league is afraid of us and expects us to come up with something, that somehow is against the status quo.
For all his individual talent - nobody is afraid of Demarcus Cousins beating them down low.
Even when he is eating up teams inside, they happily trade 2 for 3, force turnovers, front him, blitz him and do all kind of things in order to come out with the W.
We on the other hand have been very consistant in getting beat from the outside and Boogie plays his part in this.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to watch Boogie dominating from the inside, but so far we never figured out a way to win with that on a consistant basis.
So why not state the obvious:
Right now small ball and the 3 ball is beating any offense, that plays from the inside out.

Of course this can change in the future. But it will take a lot more than the Kings planting Cousins/Gay down low and play some defense, although it will certainly start at the defensive end.

 

[funkykingston]

Ok. You are right. I looked it up (I hate those stats websites. So confusing) it's quite a difference in pick&rolls run overall. I didn't bother to go further into detail and look for some data to DC.
Leave that to the guys, who enjoy those things, if anyone is interested.
Therefore I consider my eyetest false. Thanks for pointing that out.

And just to be clear, I'm not trying to "win" a point, just sharing info. And I'm also not saying that the Kings should necessarily be running more pick and rolls, just that under Karl they haven't. Whether that's a good or bad thing is another discussion altogether.

What I will say is that as good as Rondo is at delivering that pocket pass to a roll man, he's not an ideal pick and roll guard. The whole reason the pick and roll is ubiquitous in all levels of basketball is that it forces the defense to give up something. A mismatch with the roll man defended by a guard (a Kings specialty), an open jumper for the guard, the pop from a big etc. Most teams will choose to give up the pop from a big, especially if they can force a deep jumper. That's the goal of teams that run some variation of what Thibs really perfected in Chicago - Blue or ICE or down etc. But if I were coaching against the Kings I'd probably let the guard go under the pick each time and have the big stick to Boogie. Unless Rondo can hit that open jumper consistently the Kings won't get much out of the P&R.

It's also why Stockton and Malone were so deadly. Each guy was perfectly comfortable hitting the open jumper, or attacking the basket and they made the right decision nearly every time.

The reason why I call it lazy reasoning is because I feel like the conversation is being framed in such a way that "acknowledgement of what actually happens in todays NBA" demands some sort of additional concession of "... and that's the only way it can be successfully done." I feel like there are a lot of lazy, unimaginative coaches and GMs in the NBA. I think that there are loads of people involved with these teams looking at analytics, and saying, "Well, this is what the great teams are doing, this is why it works, we've got to do that if we want to be great." And I think that's lazy; it's like the comment that Ultron made about vibranium in the second Avengers movie. I think that they're refusing to challenge the status quo. I'd like to see a team take a more imaginative approach to using analytics; I'd like to see a team instead, say, "Well, this is what the great teams are doing, this is why it works... This is what I can do to counteract that... Here are the weaknesses in that system... This is how I can take advantage of that."

It's usually the NFL that gets branded as a copycat league but the NBA is just as guilty. I remember media guys saying that other superstars were going to have to find a way to team up if they ever wanted to beat Miami's big three. Then it was all about having a defensive and offensive scheme where guys were unselfish and executed consistently like the Spurs. And now it's that you have to have an overwhelming smallball offense based around the three like the Warriors. Nevermind that the traditional wisdom was that a jump shooting team couldn't win in the playoffs, now that's all that can win if you listen to some.

Trying to keep up with the Joneses (or Currys I guess) always struck me as a dumb approach. Here's a team that does what they do better than anyone else. So the goal is to somehow emulate them but beat them at their own game? So I don't buy the idea that an offense centered around a dominating post player is somehow passe. Does anyone think Shaq wouldn't be dominant in today's game? So instead of trying to out pace the Warriors and have Boogie bombing threes (both of which Karl somehow thought were good ideas) you play to the team's strengths and let your best player be a wrecking ball inside and force opponents to adapt. And I think part of maximizing Cousins' ability inside is getting more room for him to work with players around him that space the floor more.

One of the few intelligent things that I hear Charles Barkley and Shaquille O'Neal repeat on Inside the NBA is that you should have a move and a counter move; they were talking about individual players, but I think that it can apply to coaching, too. When post-up offense fails, it's because the head coach can't be bothered to develop a counter move: Coach B says, "Okay, we're going to make you take the ball out of your big man's hands. Now what are you going to do?", and Coach A says, "... I got nothin." I want to see someone come up with a better answer than that, and I'd kind of like for it to be us.

It does apply for both the Kings as a whole and Cousins specifically.

For DeMarcus, he doesn't even have a move. Not a go-to one anyway. We all knew if Webb needed a bucket he was going to go to his jump hook. Cousins is much more reactive and creative. He takes what the defense gives him. But I wish he did have that one move that he could hang his hat on - that he had confidence he could get a bucket with in crunch time. Bob Lanier has always said he only had two moves. He had his hook (which he could execute pretty much equally well from the left or the right) and he had his turnaround jumper and Big Bob knew they had to shade him one way or the other so he always had a weapon he could use.

As for the Kings as a team there HAS to be a counter for Cousins. As good as he is, in big games if he's going off teams are just going to double him every possession. Who makes them pay for that? Rudy is the 2nd scorer, but he's not a guy that plays off Boogie in that way. He really wants the ball to work to get his own shot, he's not a catch and shoot guy or a tremendous slasher. Cauley-Stein? Maybe if he develops a consistent jumper and/or follows DeAndre's example as a guy who cuts for alley oops. Rondo? He's been hitting outside shots at a much better percentage than his career averages but teams also give him zero respect. Ben/Marco? Not the way they shot this year.

The Kings need that counter punch. One way to do it would be to get a second star whose offensive game plays better off of Boogie's than Gay's does. But that's easier said than done. Another option would be to surround Cousins with shooters and make them choose between letting one defender get overwhelmed down low or giving up an open three to a good shooter.

But Cousins also needs to get better at reacting to double teams. Draymond Green said last year that the Warriors didn't double Cousins until he made his move. Because if they doubled him early he was a good enough passer to carve them up. But once he started his move they knew he'd try to get a shot off instead of passing and they'd double him every time.

Moves and counters.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

1.
Why are those wings and guards considered the best players of their teams? Why not the big guys? Could it be, that their positions simply are more impactful nowadays.

No, it really couldn't. Because positions don't determine impact, talent does. Even during the era of the dominant big man, you still built your offense around your best player; the 70's Warriors didn't run their offense through Clifford Ray. The 80s were still the era of the big man, but the Bulls didn't run their offense through Bill Cartwright, the Pistons didn't run their offense through Bill Laimbeer, and the Trailblazers didn't run their offense through Kevin Duckworth. Why? Because positions don't determine impact, talent does.

I'm very uncomfortable with how you're trying to frame this conversation. Why are wings and guards considered the best players of their teams? They are only considered thus on the teams where they happen to be the best players on their teams. You appear to be trying to lead the conversation in a direction where you think that you can convince people that guards and wings are considered the best players because it's become a natural law, or an immutable rule of the universe that wings and guards just are the best players on their teams. And that just isn't so. Giannis Antetokuonmpo isn't the best player on the Bucks because he's a wing, he's the best player on the Bucks because he's the best player on the Bucks. He just happens to be a wing. The Thunder don't run their offense through Serge Ibaka, because Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook are better than he is. That's not because they're perimeter players, they just happen to be perimeter players.

Stephen Curry just happens to be the best player on the Warriors; if you transplanted this Warriors team into any era, he would still be the best player on the Warriors. It's not like, if you sent the 2015-16 Warriors back to the sixties in a time machine, that they would run the offense through Andrew Bogut; that's preposterous. And yet, that appears to be what you're implying. You appear to be implying that the era that you play in dictates what positions the best player on your team plays, and I'm saying, no it doesn't.

I think we are both old enough to exchange opionions about the basketball played in the 90's. Do you believe teams wouldn't treat players like Monroe or Okafor a bit differently.

Because today all I hear is too slow, can't step out, not a building block, too limited, no jumpshot.....

The reason that's "all you hear" today is because coaches and GMs have become lazy and unimaginative. Players have evolved, and coaches and GMs haven't caught up to the evolution. Or rather, they've only caught up to one tiny fragment of the evolution.

Heck I had a conversation with some 76ers fans recently and those guys told me, they think Noel is the way going forward at the center position. Noel??? Ok he is athletic and a very good defender but do you believe, that anyone in the 90's would have prefered Noel over a very good low post player like Okafor?
I don't think the only reason behind that is, that coaches and GM's are unimaginative.

I understand that you think that, and I think that you're wrong; they are unimaginative. Coaches and GMs not knowing what to do with a player like Noel in the 90s is every bit a failure as coaches and GMs not knowing what to do with a player like Okafor today.

2.
Well to challenge the status quo you need to come up with something, that gives opponents trouble.

On this specific point, we are in agreement, but probably not much else, since we probably don't even agree on the method by which we would challenge the status quo.

To do that you need players with certain strengths, that I would consider special. Therefore the use of this word.

I would call those players specialists. I do not consider specialists to be special players.

I like your way to look at those things, but ask yourself if this is realistic for the Kings.

Why wouldn't I?

We have an owner, who doesn't know much about basketball. We have a rookie GM, who seems more about chemistry than about reinventing the way basketball is played.

Owners don't have to know anything about basketball, they just have to pay people who do, and get out of the way. Ranadivé created a lot of our problems by not getting out of the way, when he first acquired the team; by all accounts, he has stopped this since hiring Divac. Do you not believe that this is so? I can't imagine why being about chemistry could or should be listed in an argument of cons, as if it is a liability

Than we have Rudy Gay and Rajon Rondo - two solid but somewhat flawed players. And of course Demarcus Cousins, who everyone would describe as a special player.
But let's be real - nobody in this league is afraid of us and expects us to come up with something, that somehow is against the status quo.

Who cares what other people expect? It's up to us to challenge their expectations.

For all his individual talent - nobody is afraid of Demarcus Cousins beating them down low.
Even when he is eating up teams inside, they happily trade 2 for 3, force turnovers, front him, blitz him and do all kind of things in order to come out with the W.

That's a coaching fail; if you have a guy who bends defenses, and you can't figure out how to make that work, then you're not a good coach.

So why not state the obvious:
Right now small ball and the 3 ball is beating any offense, that plays from the inside out.

Because that's not "obvious." The only thing that's obvious is that coaching hasn't caught up to the analytics.

 

[Bricklayer]

Of course people are afraid of Cousins beating them down low.

I sometimes wonder about that disconnect for Kings fans. Do you not see the constant double teams thrown at Cousins. The games, the gimmicks? Cousins is one of the most gameplanned against guys in the league. The Knicks simply had the Twin Towers to try to contest him, but otherwise on this trip we've seen two new attempts to control him -- the Pistons tried to guard him with their smallball PFs and have Drummond come over as a help shotblocker when he made his move. And the Bulls brought constant doubles on the baseline, which I thought was clever because it took away his pwoer spin underneath.

Nearly every team has some new wrinkle, and it always involves more than one guy. The reason? They are scared Cousins will beat them, and so they try to take that away.

Cousins actually draws an amount of defensive scheming against a big I'm not sure I have seen since Shaq. I got the Kings feed last night, and I actually thought that Grant or Jerry, forgot who, made a good point -- what Cousins does not have is a system where he knows where all the cutters and spotters are going to be. The old great Kings teams had exceptional passing big men, but they also had an organized offensive system that they were running, so they could use those passing skills to hit a cutter coming around a screen that would be set in 3, 2, 1.... or knew if they kicked the ball to player x, then it would be swung to y, then back to them on the repost, whatever. Cousins has the passing skills. He draws more attention than even our bigs of that era did, but from play to play he has to invent/discover who might be open or cutting. On plays out of the timeout for instance he is often a brilliant passer, because its drawn up, and he knows where guys are going to be.

 

[funkykingston]

Of course people are afraid of Cousins beating them down low.

I sometimes wonder about that disconnect for Kings fans. Do you not see the constant double teams thrown at Cousins. The games, the gimmicks? Cousins is one of the most gameplanned against guys in the league. The Knicks simply had the Twin Towers to try to contest him, but otherwise on this trip we've seen two new attempts to control him -- the Pistons tried to guard him with their smallball PFs and have Drummond come over as a help shotblocker when he made his move. And the Bulls brought constant doubles on the baseline, which I thought was clever because it took away his pwoer spin underneath.

Nearly every team has some new wrinkle, and it always involves more than one guy. The reason? They are scared Cousins will beat them, and so they try to take that away.

Cousins actually draws an amount of defensive scheming against a big I'm not sure I have seen since Shaq. I got the Kings feed last night, and I actually thought that Grant or Jerry, forgot who, made a good point -- what Cousins does not have is a system where he knows where all the cutters and spotters are going to be. The old great Kings teams had exceptional passing big men, but they also had an organized offensive system that they were running, so they could use those passing skills to hit a cutter coming around a screen that would be set in 3, 2, 1.... or knew if they kicked the ball to player x, then it would be swung to y, then back to them on the repost, whatever. Cousins has the passing skills. He draws more attention than even our bigs of that era did, but from play to play he has to invent/discover who might be open or cutting. On plays out of the timeout for instance he is often a brilliant passer, because its drawn up, and he knows where guys are going to be.

That is a really good point. And another indictment of trying to run the dribble drive offense despite having the best offensive big man in the NBA.

I missed the comment (well, to be fair I missed all of Sunday's game - just forgot it was on and only caught part of last night's game because it was on the screen nearest my wife and I at Yardhouse - I've never been so blase about missing Kings games sheesh) but it is a very cogent point.

One thing Cousins absolutely needs to improve on is being able to make a pass while going at the basket. He's a good passer before he starts his move to the hoop but once he starts attacking he is pretty much guaranteed to put up a shot regardless of whether he should or not. It's also when he commits a good number of his turnovers.

But part of Boogie being able to punish double teams by passing out as the defense collapses on him is knowing where his guys will be and also having the faith that they'll knock down shots at a high rate. Right now he doesn't really have either of those things.

 

[KingsFanGER]

Of course people are afraid of Cousins beating them down low.

I sometimes wonder about that disconnect for Kings fans. Do you not see the constant double teams thrown at Cousins. The games, the gimmicks? Cousins is one of the most gameplanned against guys in the league. The Knicks simply had the Twin Towers to try to contest him, but otherwise on this trip we've seen two new attempts to control him -- the Pistons tried to guard him with their smallball PFs and have Drummond come over as a help shotblocker when he made his move. And the Bulls brought constant doubles on the baseline, which I thought was clever because it took away his pwoer spin underneath.

Nearly every team has some new wrinkle, and it always involves more than one guy. The reason? They are scared Cousins will beat them, and so they try to take that away.

Cousins actually draws an amount of defensive scheming against a big I'm not sure I have seen since Shaq. I got the Kings feed last night, and I actually thought that Grant or Jerry, forgot who, made a good point -- what Cousins does not have is a system where he knows where all the cutters and spotters are going to be. The old great Kings teams had exceptional passing big men, but they also had an organized offensive system that they were running, so they could use those passing skills to hit a cutter coming around a screen that would be set in 3, 2, 1.... or knew if they kicked the ball to player x, then it would be swung to y, then back to them on the repost, whatever. Cousins has the passing skills. He draws more attention than even our bigs of that era did, but from play to play he has to invent/discover who might be open or cutting. On plays out of the timeout for instance he is often a brilliant passer, because its drawn up, and he knows where guys are going to be.

You completely missunderstood, what I wanted to express.
Not the first time this happens and if it's actually that difficult to understand, what I want to say, I apologize.
I will answer to the quite lengthy response of Mr. Slim Citrus, but right now I lack the time doing so, because this casual conversation ran out of hand pretty quickly.

 

[IfAt1st]

Does anyone think Shaq wouldn't be dominant in today's game?

I am POSITIVE Shaq wouldn't be dominant in today's game.

The offensive foul rules would prevent him from dislodging the defender in the post - so he would have to shoot contested 10+ footer, and we all know he was horrible at those the majority of his career.
On top of that, any close game, they would just hack him because, again, he was horrible at Free Throws the majority of his career.
On defense, he wouldn't be able to cover jump shooters or get out to the 3-pt line effectively.

Shaq was able to exploit multiple basketball practices that were prevalent during his time.
And without him getting the benefit of dislodging his defender constantly, regardless of how set they were (which I'm pretty sure was a rule back then, but the refs allowed him to do it because he was an anointed favored of the NB), he would not be dominant.

I got the Kings feed last night, and I actually thought that Grant or Jerry, forgot who, made a good point -- what Cousins does not have is a system where he knows where all the cutters and spotters are going to be.

Yeah, he said that immediately after launching his inaccurate rant about how Cousins lost the game vs the Bulls because he kept turning the ball over against the double-team in the last 3 minutes.

Again, Grant and Jerry just say things to match whatever narrative they want to rant on, not because they are analyzing what actually goes on with the team.

 

[funkykingston]

I am POSITIVE Shaq wouldn't be dominant in today's game.

The offensive foul rules would prevent him from dislodging the defender in the post - so he would have to shoot contested 10+ footer, and we all know he was horrible at those the majority of his career.
On top of that, any close game, they would just hack him because, again, he was horrible at Free Throws the majority of his career.
On defense, he wouldn't be able to cover jump shooters or get out to the 3-pt line effectively.

Shaq was able to exploit multiple basketball practices that were prevalent during his time.
And without him getting the benefit of dislodging his defender constantly, regardless of how set they were (which I'm pretty sure was a rule back then, but the refs allowed him to do it because he was an anointed favored of the NB), he would not be dominant.

There hasn't been a change to the rules regarding offensive fouls in the last 10-15 years that I can find:

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

In fact, the last rule change I remember about post play was clarifying that defenders could only use their forearms to defend posting players. That rule HELPED Shaq's game.

And they did hack him during his whole career. That's why it was called hack-a-shaq.

Yes, on defense the Warriors could put Draymond Green at center and Shaq couldn't guard him out on the perimeter. But then it means you have O'Neal posting up Draymond Green on the other end. . .

 

[bajaden]

And some more guys who understand the concept of defense. I truly believe Rondo can play good defense, but it has to be frustrating as hell when you're the only one out there doing it AND you're also being expected to be the floor general and lead the offense at the other end.

I've seen glimpses of the old defensive Rondo. He's still in there somewhere; I just don't think he believes he can be effective on both ends of the court.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but there's a difference between not having the ability, and not trying. Far too often, Rondo makes no effort to play defense. He just floats at times and totally loses track of his man. He'll leave his man to cheat into the passing lanes, which is why he gets as many steals as he does. I'll gladly trade some of those steals for fewer made three's by the man he forgot to guard.

 

[bajaden]

There hasn't been a change to the rules regarding offensive fouls in the last 10-15 years that I can find:

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

In fact, the last rule change I remember about post play was clarifying that defenders could only use their forearms to defend posting players. That rule HELPED Shaq's game.

And they did hack him during his whole career. That's why it was called hack-a-shaq.

Yes, on defense the Warriors could put Draymond Green at center and Shaq couldn't guard him out on the perimeter. But then it means you have O'Neal posting up Draymond Green on the other end. . .

One of the rules I read relating to offensive fouls went something like this. Any movement on the part of the offensive player that dislodges a defensive player from an already established position is considered an offensive foul. Now unless my eye's deceive me, if that rule was strictly enforced, just about every offensive big man would quickly foul out of the game.

 

[The_Jamal]

That is a really good point. And another indictment of trying to run the dribble drive offense despite having the best offensive big man in the NBA.

I missed the comment (well, to be fair I missed all of Sunday's game - just forgot it was on and only caught part of last night's game because it was on the screen nearest my wife and I at Yardhouse - I've never been so blase about missing Kings games sheesh) but it is a very cogent point.

One thing Cousins absolutely needs to improve on is being able to make a pass while going at the basket. He's a good passer before he starts his move to the hoop but once he starts attacking he is pretty much guaranteed to put up a shot regardless of whether he should or not. It's also when he commits a good number of his turnovers.

But part of Boogie being able to punish double teams by passing out as the defense collapses on him is knowing where his guys will be and also having the faith that they'll knock down shots at a high rate. Right now he doesn't really have either of those things.

The Kings FO in the last 6 years lack of putting catch and shoot players around Boogie is one of the most frustrating things about his tenure with us. I just don't get why they don't understand the concept of spacing around a dominant post big man. Make the defense choose between doubling down on him or leaving open great shooters.

There's a reason Collison looked fantastic as a starter last season. Or why Casspi and Cousins have been so good together. They're complimentary talents to what Boogie does well; not trying to shove square pegs (Rondo and Rudy) into a round hole (Cousins).

 

[Glenn]

The Kings FO in the last 6 years lack of putting catch and shoot players around Boogie is one of the most frustrating things about his tenure with us. I just don't get why they don't understand the concept of spacing around a dominant post big man. Make the defense choose between doubling down on him or leaving open great shooters.

There's a reason Collison looked fantastic as a starter last season. Or why Casspi and Cousins have been so good together. They're complimentary talents to what Boogie does well; not trying to shove square pegs (Rondo and Rudy) into a round hole (Cousins).

I think the FO thought they were getting shooters when the drafted Jimmer, McLemore, and Stauskas.

Their lack of understanding may result from the lack of continuity from owner to coach to GM to all the assistants. Aggravating.

You are correct except I THINK they were trying.

 

[Blob]

Time to shut Boogie down....we know what he can do....and that bruised knee could use a few hours, er days, er weeks, er months to heal ....

Let's not fool ourselves....this season has been a disaster. Our coach is a disaster. Our culture is a disaster.

Embrace the disaster and lose as many games as you can. No shame in acknowledging the obvious.

Buddy Hield and Kris Dunn are not going to fall into our lap if we over-achieve playing out the string.

I would say the silver lining is that Boogie did expand his game as a face-up player from 20 feet and in with legitimate three point ability....

And look, all these analysts here whom I respect are missing something: Boogie was NOT the same player in 2015 as he is in 2016...where is this analysis?!?

Guy was out of shape in 2015 and it torpedoed our season. He was sloppy mess in December...he was sluggish and slow in November and prone to breakdown (Achilles, back, etc). And he's still not in prime shape.

He struggled in his new role away from the hoop but his talent rose to the surface as his cardio and nicks and aches healed....and ultimately the vision Karl had for Boogie proved prophetic...unfortunately this prophecy occurred in the context of another lost season.

This bodes well for the future and portends the viability of Rondo returning.....Boogie on the perimeter shaking and baking with ball in his hands diminishes the value of Rondo....

Boogie appeals to me more against some heavy-legged scrub with pass or shoot or drive capability versus the more one dimensional skill of Rondo.

So if the Celts win the #1 and want to trade Ben Simmons and Smart and Sullinger....maybe we can talk. Otherwise, let's lose some games, fire our coach and try again with new coach and new arena and that guy.

 

[funkykingston]

The Kings FO in the last 6 years lack of putting catch and shoot players around Boogie is one of the most frustrating things about his tenure with us. I just don't get why they don't understand the concept of spacing around a dominant post big man. Make the defense choose between doubling down on him or leaving open great shooters.

There's a reason Collison looked fantastic as a starter last season. Or why Casspi and Cousins have been so good together. They're complimentary talents to what Boogie does well; not trying to shove square pegs (Rondo and Rudy) into a round hole (Cousins).

If I were to make a blueprint of how I would build a team around Cousins it would look like this (I'm not imagining any particular players):

Out of the PG, SG and SF, two should essentially be 3&D guys. Plus shooters who are good at catch and shoots and who are good to great defenders. One of those three should be the secondary scorer and a guy who can step up and be the #1 guy in Cousins' absence. Rudy is not that guy. When he is forced to be the focal point of the offense, his efficiency plummets. He also doesn't play particularly well off Cousins.

At PF I'd want a stretch 4 and also an athletic defender/shotblocker who can also get out and finish in transition and who has a reliable midrange shot. It'd be great to get both in one package but there are very few guys that fit that bill. The defender/shotblocker is actually less of a need than it was during Cousins' first two seasons when he wasn't a defensive anchor. But it's still a good thing to have.

Off the bench I'd want a PG that was a change of pace from my starter. If the starter is a smaller guy that tilts offensive I'd want a bigger backup that tilts defensive etc. I'd want at least one defensive wing that I could put on the other team's hot hand SG or SF. I'd also like a wing that could do a little of everything off the bench and help lead the second unit. I'd want at least one nasty, semi-dirty player who can get under the other team's skin. And a big body who can guard opposing post players when Cuz is on the bench or when he's out for that game.

There are a lot of ways to build that team. But the Kings haven't ever really done it. Vlade has shown more signs than PDA that he "gets it" so I'm hopeful but we'll see.