[Grades] Grades v. Pistons 1/4/2015

[Spike]

A lot of people thought Kevin Love was a top 5 player before he went to a team that had good talent......Also again excuses about the roster tell me who on the 18-17 Bucks who are missing 3 starters (Parker/Larry/Ersan) would be a starter on "most" NBA team's as you like to say? Is Zaza/Greek Freak/Middleton/Knight/Rookie PF/Henson better than what we have?


A lot of bad teams come hard out of the game the Lakers last year without Kobe were 9-9, it's what bad teams do they come out hard that about 20-30 games they realise who they are that's the difference between good and bad teams.

You can't have it both ways. Were the Kings playing above .500 due to coaching, or Cousins? If it was coaching, then you have to acknowledge that their current scheme cannot succeed with their personnel.
If it's Cousins, then you have to acknowledge that this style of play does not suit his skillset.

You can't blame Malone for his style of coaching AND blame Cousins for his current play (I'm not even bringing up his health.)

There is no direct fix with our current situation. "Play harder" just means "move faster in the wrong direction."

 

[Capt. Factorial]

If cousins isn't in sacramento in 2-3 years we won't be making the playoffs for the next 10+years.

You know, I want to see this franchise turn itself around and start plowing through the playoffs with Cousins at the heart of it. This year, even, if we can find a coach these guys are willing to play for.

But let's not throw out ridiculous hyperbole about ten-year playoffs droughts if somehow Cousins leaves. Teams in the NBA turn around a lot faster than that. Golden State was miserable three years ago. Durant turned the Thunder around overnight. LeBron did the same for Cleveland (twice). Chris Paul for the Clippers. The Nuggets took an extremely sharp about-face when they landed Carmelo, and then Karl made them a perennial playoff team. And while there are numerous other examples don't forget that our very own Sacramento Kings traded the franchise player from a .329 team and made the playoffs the very next year and seven more years straight after that.

Fortunes turn very quickly in the NBA. Losing Cousins (if it were to happen) would hurt very badly from an emotional standpoint, and likely badly from a team standpoint, depending on what return we got. But the idea that we couldn't recover from that in a decade flies against the face of everything we know about the NBA.

 

[John Galt]

Come on, can't you choose one of the other 11 guys to use as a whipping boy, instead of DMC or Rudy? What is the matter with you guys? Can't you blame it on Ryan Hollins and leave the stars alone?

 

[pshn80]

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Be very careful what you wish for. If Cousins does get to the point where he demands a trade, the Sacramento Kings are finished.

No, they are not. They move on and build. Cuz has not yet proven to me that I should put all my money on him. Attitude and physical conditioning and how and when he uses it are mountains he has yet to climb. Come to the table, Cuz.

 

[CruzDude]

With regard to Collison D+ for going under thhe pick all the time lesving Jennings open for esay shots, where was the other Kings guarding the pickor? No where near his player apparently. Defense has disappearred. Players don't like change much less two major changes in a week: new coach AND new system. The old defense scheme worked but the offense needed help. Oone thing at a time works.

 

[CurseOfTheSalmons]

Come on, can't you choose one of the other 11 guys to use as a whipping boy, instead of DMC or Rudy? What is the matter with you guys? Can't you blame it on Ryan Hollins and leave the stars alone?

Seriously, guys. Basketball is a team game where the weakest links break the chain, not the strongest.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

But let's not throw out ridiculous hyperbole about ten-year playoffs droughts if somehow Cousins leaves. Teams in the NBA turn around a lot faster than that. Golden State was miserable three years ago. Durant turned the Thunder around overnight. LeBron did the same for Cleveland (twice). Chris Paul for the Clippers. The Nuggets took an extremely sharp about-face when they landed Carmelo, and then Karl made them a perennial playoff team. And while there are numerous other examples don't forget that our very own Sacramento Kings traded the franchise player from a .329 team and made the playoffs the very next year and seven more years straight after that.

You have an interesting definition of "overnight." Neither Durant nor James made the playoffs until their third season, and James has had the advantage of playing in the eastern conference. Durant didn't make the playoffs until his team was absolutely loaded. His second season, he had Russell Westbrook and Jeff Green, and won twenty-three games; he didn't make the playoffs until he had Westbrook and Green and Sefolosha and Harden and Ibaka. So pardon me if I don't want to give them credit for their "overnight" turnaround: they didn't exactly turn chicken**** into chicken salad in Oklahoma City. Let's not forget that the Clippers' "overnight" improvement that involved them acquiring Chris Paul also involved them acquiring three other former All-Stars, that same off-season. And yeah, all Denver had to do to effect their "overnight" turnaround was upgrade significantly at three starting positions, two key bench positions, and have their DPOY-candidate center finally be healthy. Easy peasy, right?

Fortunes turn very quickly in the NBA. Losing Cousins (if it were to happen) would hurt very badly from an emotional standpoint, and likely badly from a team standpoint, depending on what return we got. But the idea that we couldn't recover from that in a decade flies against the face of everything we know about the NBA.

Refresh my memory: how long has it been since we lost our last franchise player, again?

 

[ppine]

I am currently reading one of the books about John Wooden, legendary coach of UCLA He talked a lot about playing hard and doing one's best. Then you have nothing to apologize for. The Kings are playing like they could care less. Coach would be pretty pissed off at them right now if he were coaching them. To me it is really sad that these guys get paid a gazillion dollars and they can't get up for playing every night.

Firing Malone will go down as one of the worst moves ever made in the history of NBA coaching.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Refresh my memory: how long has it been since we lost our last franchise player, again?

The point is that fortunes often turn on a dime. Just because our fortune hasn't doesn't mean it can't or won't in the future. If we were to hypothetically lose our current franchise player, that doesn't mean we automatically are signed in for a decade of crap. Teams usually turn around in a matter of 2-3 years, not a decade. When that turnaround starts is what is variable - and you never know when it will be - but it doesn't take a decade.

 

[Padrino]

The point is that fortunes often turn on a dime. Just because our fortune hasn't doesn't mean it can't or won't in the future. If we were to hypothetically lose our current franchise player, that doesn't mean we automatically are signed in for a decade of crap. Teams usually turn around in a matter of 2-3 years, not a decade. When that turnaround starts is what is variable - and you never know when it will be - but it doesn't take a decade.

i suppose it depends on how you want to define "turnaround," but i would remind you that the kings are currently working on their ninth straight season outside of the playoff picture, having finished only twice above .400 in that span. that's nearly a decade of wheel-spinning, lottery-bound misery. and prior to the rather brief golden age of sacramento kings basketball, this franchise had endured, you guessed it, an earlier nine-year absence from the playoffs, finishing only once above .400 in that span. that was nearly a decade of wheel-spinning, lottery-bound misery. so... you'll have to pardon me if i take issue with the notion that a quick "turnaround" is a likely event for this kings team, demarcus cousins or no demarcus cousins. history deems that poorly-managed teams remain in the basements of their respective conferences. until kings' management starts making decisions with an eye towards winning, rather than cleverness or innovation or philosophy or ideology or style, i see no "turnaround" in sight...

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

The point is that fortunes often turn on a dime. Just because our fortune hasn't doesn't mean it can't or won't in the future. If we were to hypothetically lose our current franchise player, that doesn't mean we automatically are signed in for a decade of crap. Teams usually turn around in a matter of 2-3 years, not a decade. When that turnaround starts is what is variable - and you never know when it will be - but it doesn't take a decade.

And my point is that those fortunes don't, in fact, turn 'on a dime,' like you say they do. Those teams you cited didn't so much turn their fortunes on a dime, as they they turned on a quarter, maybe thirty cents or more. And, for a market like ours, it takes a combination of good luck and good management. We're in the process of squandering our good luck (IYAM, we've already flushed half of it), and I would contend that our management is terrible. If we lose Cousins, barring acquiring another generational player in the the lottery, we could be bad for a long time.

Teams usually turn around in a matter of 2-3 years? Really? How long did it take Chicago to turn around after Jordan retired? How long did it take Boston to turn around after Bird retired? How long did it take the Warriors to turn around? How many more years out are we from that Magic turnaround? How about the Timberwolves? The 76ers, maybe? Anybody think that Knicks turnaround is on the horizon? Jazz? Bueller?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Teams usually turn around in a matter of 2-3 years? Really? How long did it take Chicago to turn around after Jordan retired? ...

And, as I said, which you even quoted: When that turnaround starts is what is variable.

I am arguing against the idea that we are immediately condemned to another decade of losing basketball if (if if if if if if if if being the operative word because I highly doubt it will happen) IF we trade Cousins away. When turnarounds happen, they usually go pretty quickly. The last time the Kings turned around, it was on a dime. They traded their franchise player (for another one) and went from winning less than a third of their games to the playoffs in ONE year. And on a further note, if we trade Cousins away, we're trading away a legitimate franchise player. It's not like we'd be starting over with a broken Gerald Wallace and a bag of stale potato chips.

 

[Swaze]

And, as I said, which you even quoted: When that turnaround starts is what is variable.

I am arguing against the idea that we are immediately condemned to another decade of losing basketball if (if if if if if if if if being the operative word because I highly doubt it will happen) IF we trade Cousins away. When turnarounds happen, they usually go pretty quickly. The last time the Kings turned around, it was on a dime. They traded their franchise player (for another one) and went from winning less than a third of their games to the playoffs in ONE year. And on a further note, if we trade Cousins away, we're trading away a legitimate franchise player. It's not like we'd be starting over with a broken Gerald Wallace and a bag of stale potato chips.

Agreed and you seem to have a well rounded perspective on this sort of thing.

There is no formula for how quick a turnaround happens. With poor management and sometimes bad luck it can take several years. As we saw with the Webber/Vlade team all it took was two key trades/signings and very suddenly the Kings had a good team on the upswing. With good decisions in terms of drafting/trades and a little bit of luck a team can dramatically improve in just a few years.

Look at Toronto, they went from floundering along in the East to trading away Rudy Gay and now they are a good team. Toronto is not a championship contender but they became good very quickly by just a couple of moves.

People can pick and choose scenarios that take into account quick turnaround or long turnaround but the bottom line is nobody knows when they will happen.......they just happen.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

And, as I said, which you even quoted: When that turnaround starts is what is variable.

I am arguing against the idea that we are immediately condemned to another decade of losing basketball if (if if if if if if if if being the operative word because I highly doubt it will happen) IF we trade Cousins away. When turnarounds happen, they usually go pretty quickly. The last time the Kings turned around, it was on a dime. They traded their franchise player (for another one) and went from winning less than a third of their games to the playoffs in ONE year. And on a further note, if we trade Cousins away, we're trading away a legitimate franchise player. It's not like we'd be starting over with a broken Gerald Wallace and a bag of stale potato chips.

Well, then, that goes back to what I said earlier: we're not working with the same definition of "on a dime." And, with all due respect, I find your definition to be more than a little slippery: by that criteria, all you have to do is backtrack to the off-season before you make the playoffs, and retroactively declare that to be the start of the "turnaround." Our last turnaround was a good three years in the making, before it actually happened, and started with the drafting of Stojakovic; I do not consider three years to be "on a dime." And, to the extent that you can even try to argue that it happened "at once" (and I wouldn't), a whole ****load of things happened "at once." Let's not pretend that we just plugged Chris Webber into a twenty-eight win team, and instant turnaround.

We aren't in position to make a whole lot of things happen at once, and I wouldn't trust this management, even if we were. I don't have any faith in this management at all; I wouldn't trust them to tell me what time it was, if they were at the Naval Observatory. We could keep Cousins and still be condemned for a decade.

 

[Bricklayer]

With regard to Collison D+ for going under thhe pick all the time lesving Jennings open for esay shots, where was the other Kings guarding the pickor? No where near his player apparently. Defense has disappearred. Players don't like change much less two major changes in a week: new coach AND new system. The old defense scheme worked but the offense needed help. Oone thing at a time works.

I frankly have no idea what the scheme was even supposed to be against pick and rolls.

Here's something else: Corbin just got his ass fired in Utah. he takes over a team where he was an assistant coach, and a team that was having defensive success in the early season. WHY would you change the defensive schemes? Unless a bald little dweeb told you you could do better if you just got more data points of course. But why? Why midseason? Nobody looks like they know what to do again.

 

[VF21]

Agreed and you are not alone in this thinking. Sadly our culture is such now that the average person (and in this case average forum member) is more interested in making excuses for someone then holding them to personal accountability. In this case certain players been absolved of personal responsibility by a segment of this forum.

The organization is a mess right now and of course some of that turmoil has to affect the players...............but that's also where the players need to show some damn pride and act like professionals. There are many things outside of the players control but what they can control is their effort and leadership on the court. The best two players on this team are showing poor effort and no leadership on the court. That's just a fact and people can make all the excuses they want but they can't argue that fact. Everybody sees it, their teammates see it, and deep down inside these two best players know what they are doing.

Where is the personal and professional accountability from DeMarcus and Rudy? It's not like these two guys have a history of winning and deserve the benefit of the doubt. On the contrary both of them have a history of losing and going in the tank when things go bad. I know after reading that sentence people will run to their "go to excuses" again but save them, perennial excuses are for losers and losers make excuses for other losers. It's time for DeMarcus and Rudy (along with their teammates) to show some pride and act like they care. The organization and coaching staff are not telling them to go out there and not play defense and play selfishly on the offensive end.

Speaking of excuses and perennial losers, tomorrow mornings interview with PDA will tell you a lot about him and the future of the organization going forward.

Will Pete D'Allesandro make excuses and deflect blame? That's the sign of a loser and a guy you can't trust going forward.
Will Pete D'Allesandro admit he (and Vivek) were wrong or at the very least miscalculated? That's not necessarily the sign of a winner but it is the sign of an honest man who may have learned something.

You know what? You and andremiller have every right to your opinion. What you do not have a right to do is assume yours is the only VALID opinion. You, at least, bring in-depth discussion to the table. Your compadre has done nothing but sit back and lob shots against DMC from day one.

A statement can be an excuse and still be true. This holds true even with the mercurial Mr. Cousins, who anyone with even a figment of brain matter would know is still far from at 100% after his bouts of viral meningitis AND the freaking stomach flu. Failure to at least acknowledge that is just IMHO a way to take more potshots at a player who has had way too many unfair barbs thrown in his direction his entire career.

Tolerance and the understanding that he is, like everyone else, human would go a long way even among all us "average fans" who according to you are not holding him accountable. We are holding him accountable for some things but we OR AT LEAST I am not going to try and put all the blame on his shoulders. He's already carrying enough weight.

The next time you want to agree with andremiller, please feel free to do so, but you might want to get down from horse first.

 

[VF21]

No, they are not. They move on and build. Cuz has not yet proven to me that I should put all my money on him. Attitude and physical conditioning and how and when he uses it are mountains he has yet to climb. Come to the table, Cuz.

And you're entitled to your opinion. I just do not happen to agree with it, especially in regards to the poster I originally quoted who has done nothing but attack DMC from day one.