How does Tyreke fit with this team?

[Darth Divac]

I've heard a lot of banter about Tyreke. Some say he is misused and should be our star; others say he is nothing more than a roleplayer or best player on a bad team
(*eh*herm*cough*wheeze*gary*cough*). What do you think?

 

[Padrino]

i would amend the some of the poll options above. if there was an option that read "can be a star," i would vote...

 

[Darth Divac]

Whoops, I would've put that if I'd thought of it....How can I edit the poll?

 

[ForlornKing]

i would amend the some of the poll options above. if there was an option that read "can be a star," i would vote...

From being around him, sadly i just dont think he has the brain needed to become a star in this league.

 

[Bricklayer]

you forgot "is THE MVP" and "has no heart"

 

[Darth Divac]

you forgot "is THE MVP" and "has no heart"

Darn! How do I edit the poll?

 

[Bricklayer]

Darn! How do I edit the poll?

I could do it for you, but don't worry about it. You have the range pretty well covered with your choices. I just notoriously like to pull legs whenever I can.

 

[Padrino]

From being around him, sadly i just dont think he has the brain needed to become a star in this league.

look, to the doubters, it's simple: in a scant 31 mpg this last season, under a terrible coach who periodically misused him, tyreke evans managed to put up 15.2 ppg (on 48% shooting), 4.4 rpg, and 3.5 apg. his per 36 numbers extrapolate out to 17.6 ppg (on 48% shooting), 5.1 rpg, and 4.1 apg. if someone can't see star potential in a player like that, something's wrong with the whole "star" formula that people have imagined up in their minds...

will tyreke evans ever have kobe bryant's killer instinct for the game? no. of course not. very few players do. but that's not the entry fee for becoming a star in this league. you don't need kobe's drive or steve nash's IQ. that's hall-of-fame territory, and that's not what we're talking about. you just need a few skills that you excel at to become an all-star level talent. it's not that complicated. tyreke is an elite slasher and a very good rebounder for his position. he's an improved playmaker and outside shooter. he's a solid man defender and the kings' best two-way player. he's become increasingly effective on the break and has improved his off-the-ball game. it's right there for tyreke, and we'll see if the kings are smart enough to retain him so he can get after it here, rather than somewhere else...

 

[Dreadnought]

Tyreke is a great player and I kind of just don't see him fitting in with our team.

 

[hrdboild]

The only poll option that vaguely makes sense to me right now is "Is a high-end roleplayer" and that's only true because that's how he's been used for the last season and a half. The bottom four options are all ridiculous. The top 3 are debatable. He has at times been all three of them but consistently, no. He's not there yet. It's a tough question to answer right now because nobody here really knows what Coach Smart was telling Tyreke behind the scenes. Whether he's a part of the future here in Sacramento though is really going to depend on who the new coach is and how they plan to utilize him. If somebody comes in and sees him as an integral part and is willing to work with him to get him there, I think he has the pure talent to be successful. If, on the other hand, a coach comes in and looks and what he's done the past two seasons playing off the ball and is satisfied with that and looks at IT and Cousins as the focus of the team, then he'll have to start over somewhere else most likely.

I don't really know what to expect from him next, but I hope he can build on the success he's had already and put together a breakout season because he's stuck by Sacramento throughout an ownership fiasco which has lasted basically his whole NBA career and I like happy endings. Some redemption for him for enduring this whole fiasco would, by extension, feel like redemption for us fans as well. At least it would for me.

 

[upinsmoke]

This is Evans torching the bulls no less, the kid has game and fits best paired with DMC surrounded with elite level athletes & talent.

 

[HndsmCelt]

All Reek ever needed was a competent coach who knows how to utilize his talents. Under the right coach he will be a 20+ point a night guy wigh ant least an acceptable 5 or more assists. More to the point he could/should/will be a complete lock down defender. The only question is will it be on the Kings or on the team we trade him to for some "nice pieces"

 

[Padrino]

This is Evans torching the bulls no less, the kid has game and fits best paired with DMC surrounded with elite level athletes & talent.

man, that drive-and-dish to cole aldrich at 2:35 is dopetastic. i just wish kings fans would open their eyes a bit. with a team anchored by a potential superstar in demarcus cousins, evans makes one helluva second option...

 

[ParniValjak]

The question should not be "How does Tyreke fit with this team?" it should be "How does this team fit with Tyreke Evans?" and the answer to that question is pretty ****.

This team should be built around DeMarcus Cousins and Tyreke Evans and NOT the other way around. Tyreke Evans is a star in the making and would be already there if he played for a half decent franchise. Similarly, DeMarcus Cousins would be a 2 time all-star already if he played for a half decent franchise. Interestingly enough, their games fit well together yet for what ever reason our dumb coach and our dumb front office have another completely different agenda.

 

[hrdboild]

The question should not be "How does Tyreke fit with this team?" it should be "How does this team fit with Tyreke Evans?" and the answer to that question is pretty ****.

This team should be built around DeMarcus Cousins and Tyreke Evans and NOT the other way around. Tyreke Evans is a star in the making and would be already there if he played for a half decent franchise. Similarly, DeMarcus Cousins would be a 2 time all-star already if he played for a half decent franchise. Interestingly enough, their games fit well together yet for what ever reason our dumb coach and our dumb front office have another completely different agenda.

Former dumb coach and former dumb front office.

 

[ParniValjak]

Former dumb coach and former dumb front office.

True but let's hope that new coach and new front office see beyond the stats and looks below the surface of the situation for find the right answer. I have no doubt that Tyreke Evans will become a star and will perform at a really high level next season regardless of where he signs. I just hope that is with the Kings as the Cousins-Evans combo can be down right brutal.

 

[mac]

Former dumb coach and former dumb front office.

Or at least, we hope so.

 

[kingsnation]

The question should not be "How does Tyreke fit with this team?" it should be "How does this team fit with Tyreke Evans?" and the answer to that question is pretty ****.

This team should be built around DeMarcus Cousins and Tyreke Evans and NOT the other way around. Tyreke Evans is a star in the making and would be already there if he played for a half decent franchise. Similarly, DeMarcus Cousins would be a 2 time all-star already if he played for a half decent franchise. Interestingly enough, their games fit well together yet for what ever reason our dumb coach and our dumb front office have another completely different agenda.

You literally saved me 30 seconds by posting this. Thank you. We need to fit our team to DMC and Reke, not the other way around.

 

[HereWeBoogie]

same thoughts here

 

[Chicken Chaser]

It's funny.. I just had a nightmare the other night that Tyreke Evans was traded to the Atlanta Hawks, and now this thread pops up.

And yes, I consider that a nightmare.

 

[Gary]

Sorry.. Had to do it
*Is the worst PG in the Universe (*eh*herm*cough*wheeze*Gary*)


I think he could be a good roleplayer for our team for now, but until he gets a consistent outside shot I would much rather have a pure scorer taking the shots. He has improved on his outside shot so hopefully it's only another year or so until he's a 38% 3pt shooter.

 

[Padrino]

Sorry.. Had to do it
*Is the worst PG in the Universe (*eh*herm*cough*wheeze*Gary*)


I think he could be a good roleplayer for our team for now, but until he gets a consistent outside shot I would much rather have a pure scorer taking the shots. He has improved on his outside shot so hopefully it's only another year or so until he's a 38% 3pt shooter.

not all "pure scorers" need to hit 38% or better from three. hell, dwayne wade is a career 25 ppg scorer with a career 3-pt. percentage of 29%. you're looking for a "pure shooter," and tyreke evans does not need to become a "pure shooter" in order to become a star in the nba...

 

[ParniValjak]

not all "pure scorers" need to hit 38% or better from three. hell, dwayne wade is a career 25 ppg scorer with a career 3-pt. percentage of 29%. you're looking for a "pure shooter," and tyreke evans does not need to become a "pure shooter" in order to become a star in the nba...

Thank you!

This fascination with shooters is concerning. In a play off game where the defence picks it up another notch, give me a slasher who can beat teams off the dribble over a sweet shooter who can go cold at any moment any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Tyreke Evans with a consistent, respectable jump shot is a player that is MUCH MUCH more difficult to guard than a shooter.

This franchise's fascination with shooters is one of the key reasons why we are one of the most unsuccessful franchises in sports history. When the Dallas upset the Heat to win the championship a couple of years ago, all the experts were saying just what a difference Tyson Chandler made to that team and he was the main reason why they were able to make the jump. Even Dirk and coach Carlisle made the same comments yet our soon to be departed owners and soon to be sacked front office walked away with the conclusion that "you've got to have shooters"! The sad thing is, that was the exact quote from our franchise.

Mind Blown!!!!

 

[jalfa]

It's funny.. I just had a nightmare the other night that Tyreke Evans was traded to the Atlanta Hawks, and now this thread pops up.

And yes, I consider that a nightmare.

they might have bigger fish to fry. look at their salary situation and notice the two big names becoming free agents this offseason, after fairly disappointing playoff exits with their respective teams. if I'm Danny Ferry, I wait until it's completely clear where Paul and Howard want to go and if they're not interested in starting up their own superteam (with Al Horford), before I spend any of my capspace on someone else.

This fascination with shooters is concerning. In a play off game where the defence picks it up another notch, give me a slasher who can beat teams off the dribble over a sweet shooter who can go cold at any moment any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Tyreke Evans with a consistent, respectable jump shot is a player that is MUCH MUCH more difficult to guard than a shooter.

well, not really. shooters, particularly athletic wing defenders that can hit the three are at an absolute premium right now. the rule changes doing away with illegal defense and replacing it with the 3-second call and Tom Thibodeau's strong-side overload hybrid-zones have made shooting absolutely crucial. doesn't mean that you have to be elite at it and Reke is on his way to become an adequate spot-up shooter, but disregarding shooting cannot be the way to go either.

 

[Kingster]

The thing that slays me about the Tyreke banter is that there is always the question of fit. He doesn't fit, or the team doesn't fit, or the coach doesn't fit. Nothing fits with Tyreke. He'll be entering into his 5th year and we're still talking about how he fits with this team. If a guy doesn't fit after four years in the league, then you have to wonder about a lot of things. You have to wonder whether he is really a star in the making, or just a good piece that doesn't fit. To my mind, if you're a star, you're going to fit with any team that surrounds you because you're good enough to do so. The argument that the team needs to be built around Tyreke because he is a star is totally wrong headed. The question of fit comes up repeatedly because in fact he's not a star. That doesn't mean he's a bad player, nor does it mean he's not above average. But he doesn't fit. Much of the reason he doesn't fit is because his game is limited. He's not versatile. He's improved in that regard since he came into the league, but not enough to fit. So does a new coach make a difference? A new coach is not going to make Tyreke more versatile; that's up to Tyreke to do in the off-season. The best a new coach can do is define his role and make sure Tyreke knows his role and do what he can do very well and not do the things he doesn't do well. I would imagine that then Tyreke would be a better fit for this team. But enough of a fit? I really don't know. What would have made this question so much easier to answer is if Tyreke had in fact become a much more well rounded player over the last four years. The discussion would then be moot. We'd be talking about how many All-Star appearances he would be likely to have, not whether he fits with this team or not.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

The thing that slays me about the Tyreke banter is that there is always the question of fit. He doesn't fit, or the team doesn't fit, or the coach doesn't fit. Nothing fits with Tyreke. He'll be entering into his 5th year and we're still talking about how he fits with this team. If a guy doesn't fit after four years in the league, then you have to wonder about a lot of things. You have to wonder whether he is really a star in the making, or just a good piece that doesn't fit. To my mind, if you're a star, you're going to fit with any team that surrounds you because you're good enough to do so. The argument that the team needs to be built around Tyreke because he is a star is totally wrong headed. The question of fit comes up repeatedly because in fact he's not a star. That doesn't mean he's a bad player, nor does it mean he's not above average. But he doesn't fit. Much of the reason he doesn't fit is because his game is limited. He's not versatile. He's improved in that regard since he came into the league, but not enough to fit. So does a new coach make a difference? A new coach is not going to make Tyreke more versatile; that's up to Tyreke to do in the off-season. The best a new coach can do is define his role and make sure Tyreke knows his role and do what he can do very well and not do the things he doesn't do well. I would imagine that then Tyreke would be a better fit for this team. But enough of a fit? I really don't know. What would have made this question so much easier to answer is if Tyreke had in fact become a much more well rounded player over the last four years. The discussion would then be moot. We'd be talking about how many All-Star appearances he would be likely to have, not whether he fits with this team or not.

You used the word "fit" sixteen times in this comment, which is probably about sixteen times too many when you consider that it describes some mystical quality that can't be seen except by those who know what it looks like, but is a very handy (and uninformative) explanation for why a team isn't winning.

Apparently, Tyreke doesn't "fit" because he's not "versatile". I suppose Tyreke's skill set is pretty limited. This limited skill set includes:
Great ball handling
Top-5 in the league at driving to the basket
Unstoppable on fast break
Good passing ability
Much improved three point jumper
Good free throw shooter
Very good rebounder for a guard
Good perimeter defender with length and athletic ability

I'd say that's probably more versatile than about 95% of players in the league. So, is the problem Tyreke's versatility, or is the problem that we don't have a coach that understands how to run a team?

 

[mac]

The thing that slays me about the Tyreke banter is that there is always the question of fit. He doesn't fit, or the team doesn't fit, or the coach doesn't fit. Nothing fits with Tyreke. He'll be entering into his 5th year and we're still talking about how he fits with this team. If a guy doesn't fit after four years in the league, then you have to wonder about a lot of things. You have to wonder whether he is really a star in the making, or just a good piece that doesn't fit. To my mind, if you're a star, you're going to fit with any team that surrounds you because you're good enough to do so. The argument that the team needs to be built around Tyreke because he is a star is totally wrong headed. The question of fit comes up repeatedly because in fact he's not a star. That doesn't mean he's a bad player, nor does it mean he's not above average. But he doesn't fit. Much of the reason he doesn't fit is because his game is limited. He's not versatile. He's improved in that regard since he came into the league, but not enough to fit. So does a new coach make a difference? A new coach is not going to make Tyreke more versatile; that's up to Tyreke to do in the off-season. The best a new coach can do is define his role and make sure Tyreke knows his role and do what he can do very well and not do the things he doesn't do well. I would imagine that then Tyreke would be a better fit for this team. But enough of a fit? I really don't know. What would have made this question so much easier to answer is if Tyreke had in fact become a much more well rounded player over the last four years. The discussion would then be moot. We'd be talking about how many All-Star appearances he would be likely to have, not whether he fits with this team or not.

I can't argue with this, only that it must be acknowledged that he would also be more well rounded if he had a good coach/ a proper role. While versatility is important, I think true value comes from being damn good in a few areas of the game. John Salmons is a very versatile player, but he is no star and hardly impacts a basketball team. Same for Lamar Odom post-Lakers. Tony Allen is not a versatile player, but he's a very good defender and that makes him a valuable piece in the right position. Kyle Korver is not a versatile player, but he's a deadly shooter and that makes him a valuable piece in the right position. Matt Bonner, Steve Novak, Tyson Chandler, Chris Anderson... You get the idea. Of course Bonner and Novak etc. are not stars, but I think we can agree that Tyreke is more versatile than they are. The point is that you don't have to be versatile in order to be valuable.

Versatility becomes an issue when your team runs something like a "read and react" offense. Because to react to what the defense is giving you you need to be versatile. Good teams don't take what the defense gives them, they impose their style of play on the other team and force the other team to pick their poison. This can be done either by having multiple superstars or through player movement, screening and misdirection. Tony Parker was scoring 20ppg even when he couldn't shoot, and his 3 point shooting still isn't that good. The reason why Tyreke seems so limited is because our game plan is not designed to get him (or anyone else for that matter) easy shots. Now this doesn't mean that Tyreke doesn't have to be able to shoot, because as one of our key offensive players he has to be able to do something other than driving in order to force the opposing team to pick their poison. But I believe he is on his way to developing an outside shot and really can only get better under a decent coach.

As for stars fitting - I don't think you can just say that a star will fit with any team. Stoudemire doesn't seem to fit with the Knicks. How about Steve Nash and the Lakers? Many NBA superstars are not as all-rounded as you think. They simply excel and are head and shoulders above the rest in certain areas or styles of the game. I mean seriously the Lakers this season are screaming proof of that. You take Steve Nash out of the pick and roll and suddenly he's not that much better than any other starting PG. Why has D'Antoni (and previously Brown) been criticized so much if stars should be expected to just come in and fit? Why were Carlesimo and Avery Johnson fired? Pure scorers will always be able to score, no question. But not all stars are scorers. Kevin Martin is a better scorer than many all-stars. If good players could simply come together and fit you wouldn't need coaches. Maybe experienced veterans can do that, but I don't think it's fair to expect that out of a guy in his 4th year with basically ZERO good NBA coaching.

 

[Padrino]

The thing that slays me about the Tyreke banter is that there is always the question of fit. He doesn't fit, or the team doesn't fit, or the coach doesn't fit. Nothing fits with Tyreke. He'll be entering into his 5th year and we're still talking about how he fits with this team. If a guy doesn't fit after four years in the league, then you have to wonder about a lot of things. You have to wonder whether he is really a star in the making, or just a good piece that doesn't fit. To my mind, if you're a star, you're going to fit with any team that surrounds you because you're good enough to do so. The argument that the team needs to be built around Tyreke because he is a star is totally wrong headed. The question of fit comes up repeatedly because in fact he's not a star. That doesn't mean he's a bad player, nor does it mean he's not above average. But he doesn't fit. Much of the reason he doesn't fit is because his game is limited. He's not versatile. He's improved in that regard since he came into the league, but not enough to fit. So does a new coach make a difference? A new coach is not going to make Tyreke more versatile; that's up to Tyreke to do in the off-season. The best a new coach can do is define his role and make sure Tyreke knows his role and do what he can do very well and not do the things he doesn't do well. I would imagine that then Tyreke would be a better fit for this team. But enough of a fit? I really don't know. What would have made this question so much easier to answer is if Tyreke had in fact become a much more well rounded player over the last four years. The discussion would then be moot. We'd be talking about how many All-Star appearances he would be likely to have, not whether he fits with this team or not.

meh. this is a buncha half-baked bull****. at one time, the kings back court read like this: tyreke evans, marcus thornton, aaron brooks, francisco garcia, isaiah thomas, jimmer fredette. i count five scorers among them, with garcia [who the kings traded away] being the only true roleplayer of the group, and with aaron brooks eventually getting the boot after being signed in free agency due to somebody somewhere in the kings organization finally recognizing that sometimes you just can't load up an entire swath of your roster with chuckers who play poor defense. so... is this problem of "fit" due to tyreke, one of the kings' most versatile talents (see Capt. Factorial's post above), and one of the kings' few consistently solid man defenders, or due to absolutely boneheaded management that wouldn't recognize a balanced roster if one brained them with a basketball?



"fit" is not the issue with tyreke. "fit" is an issue with the entire team, including your beloved isiah thomas. it's cause and effect, friend. you can't claim tyreke is the problem in the roster's imbalance when imbalance in the roster (and poor game management from the head coach) first created an environment of detriment to everyone on the team. it has and will always be about role-defining. regardless of anyone's opinion of any of the following players, if demarcus cousins is treated like the franchise cornerstone, if tyreke evans is treated like the second option, and if isaiah thomas is treated like a super sixth man because he doesn't "fit" well around cousins and evans, the kings simply go much farther than the rag-tag collection of chuckers without an identity that keith smart assembled on a daily basis...

 

[Spike]

So, is the problem Tyreke's versatility, or is the problem that we don't have a coach that understands how to run a team?

Westphal 2009-2012
(Read & React...or, figure it out on your own. Evans did somewhat OK there, actually. Too bad nobody else on the team could hit a shot.)

Smart 2012 - a few days from now.
(Playground ball - whoever has the ball gets to keep the ball. We won't rehash that again.)

Before them, Natt and Theus. (IIRC, Theus may have been the only one who had some sort of "system".)

You have to know now that the Maloofs were intentionally sabotaging the team - no one can reasonably go through that list of coaches with the genuine thought to improve the team, right? (right?!) For the Evans-bashing subset, to not point out that Westphal and Smart did little to no developing of the players is rather disingenuous. Tyreke is not the issue here. Asking a player whose skillset involves bullying everyone around him to stand around on the perimeter is bad coaching, and asking for failure. Yet despite being limited by Smart, Evans demonstrated improvement in many areas.

I don't know why people fail to see this, but it's there, and it's plain as day. Set up a half court offense, DMC and Evans will shine. It's playoff basketball, might as well practice it during the regular season if you want to get there.

 

[IfAt1st]

My problem with Tyreke is mainly 2 basic issues:

1) If Tyreke is (or could be) so good, why has he been so spectacularly inconsistent during FOUR YEARS of starter-minute play?

If he was this guy who is just waiting for SOMETHING to switch on and have him dominate the league, why would he only flash these skills every now and then?
If he was so good, he'd be able to impose his will on the other team when they are prepared for him, and if there's one thing his career has shown is that he has NOT been able to do that.
He cannot break down defenders at will on the dribble - thousands of possessions where he has been denied and just wastes time has proven that.
He is not a clutch player - his incredibly-low conversion % in close ballgames has shown him to be (IMO) a non-clutch player.
For every game where he shows what he can do, he has 5 or 6 games where he is completely unimpressive and ineffective.

2) What is this magical new coach going to do, exactly, to make Tyreke dominant?

It's not like Tyreke hasn't had the ball a lot during his career. He gets it (and keeps it) on the break more than anyone on the team. He's had ample opportunities to break down his defender, and we've all seen the varying degrees of success he's had.
What exactly would a good coach do to make Tyreke be able to penetrate and convert better?
He's had PLENTY of 1-4 flat opportunities, and he's failed at most of them. Is a good coach's isolation play for Tyreke better than Westphal's, or Smart's?

Personally, I wish him the best, but IMO it's pretty obvious the problem is psychological with him. Hell, he's worse off psychologically than DMC! (from a dominance/excellence standpoint)
That's a radical statement, but all DMC needs is some maturing and a solid coach to guide him and he'll be just fine and be able to dominate the league.
Tyreke is nowhere close to developing the kind of mindset it takes to enforce his will on the league, and I simply do not see him developing one, based on his career history.
He's simply too passive, and it reflects on his court play.