How good do you think the currently constructed team can be?

[sdballer]

Why do u just ignore the rest of Landry's career so easily? The guy has been incredibly productive at EVERY single stop he's been outside of his first stint with us. It would make more sense to say we, not Landry, was the problem no?

He's always been a below average passer, rebounder and defender. He fit worst with us in big part because of our coaching/general suckage issues but also because he is a poor compliment to our starting center and franchise player.

I find it amusing that so many of the same fans that point to Reke's me first style not fitting with Cuz defend Landry when he has the same issues but fills less of a need.

 

[KingsCitizen]

He's always been a below average passer, rebounder and defender. He fit worst with us in big part because of our coaching/general suckage issues but also because he is a poor compliment to our starting center and franchise player.

I find it amusing that so many of the same fans that point to Reke's me first style not fitting with Cuz defend Landry when he has the same issues but fills less of a need.

I personally think that Landry may only spend like 5 mins of the whole games playing next to Demarcus.
He will be the guy that would take the scoring down low when DMC sits.
We never have someone to address that ever since we drafted DMC.
Landry is the 2nd big in this team next to Demarcus that could handle the ball down low with very less chance of fumbling or getting stripped.

 

[sdballer]

I personally think that Landry may only spend like 5 mins of the whole games playing next to Demarcus.
He will be the guy that would take the scoring down low when DMC sits.
We never have someone to address that ever since we drafted DMC.
Landry is the 2nd big in this team next to Demarcus that could handle the ball down low with very less chance of fumbling or getting stripped.

Was low post iso play for 10 minutes/game really a major need for us? That means he's likely to play about 15-20 minutes total/game which feels like a waste of cap space when we had so many other needs.

And he turns the ball over far more frequently than the other two 2nd bigs on our team.

 

[mac]

For example, the Spurs, Pacers and Griz. Really good teams without the superstars. The Heat have LBJ and he is the main cog in that wheel. Wade is a star/super-star. Bosh is not. He is a role player. As LBJ goes so goes the Heat. Period.

Vanadive and Malone have said they plan to develop their culture on the roster this year, to establish the defensive mindset and to get a roster who believe and accept their roles. Even Cuz will have a role to play as will the other starters. And who is a starter is not relevant for quite awhile. What group of players in the 5 positions bring together the "culture" and defensive mindset off of which everyone else plays. Manu and Harden were 6th men who were the cogs in their teams train. Bench guys like "Birdman" in Miami were very key in their success. Everyone of the top 5-6 teams have 1-3 key bench players who are key cogs in their engine.

Cuz, a guard and/or a forward could develop into the key cogs. But then the bench becomes critically important, as they were for the Kings in 2000-2004. A bench that holds leads or creates leads is as critical as starters. To achieve this kind of success, one cannot be concerned with wins and loses. A big section of fans want wins regardless. Nice sentiment but this year not realistic. If the wins come, great but first the culture, the mind set and buying into the plan and each players role. If we start to see that just after New Years I'm a happy camper. If by the All Star break we don't really see any progress toward a "team" concept with role plays, defense first and team play, then I'll not be so happy. But lets wait and see. Everything will be different this year.

Out of the 3 teams you mentioned, 2 are extremely good defensive teams (while we are last in the league and have added all of 1 good defensive player while losing another), and to suggest that none of Tony Parker, Ginobili and Duncan across the Spurs 4 championships and recent trip to the finals were superstars is beyond me. Also, Popovic is leaps and bounds greater than a rookie head coach. Don't confuse playing good team ball with not having superstars.

 

[sdballer]

Out of the 3 teams you mentioned, 2 are extremely good defensive teams (while we are last in the league and have added all of 1 good defensive player while losing another), and to suggest that none of Tony Parker, Ginobili and Duncan across the Spurs 4 championships and recent trip to the finals were superstars is beyond me. Also, Popovic is leaps and bounds greater than a rookie head coach. Don't confuse playing good team ball with not having superstars.

All part of the new straw man argument around here.

Claim we don't have another high level talent to support Cuz and that has become we don't think bench play is important.

 

[Bricklayer]

Why do u just ignore the rest of Landry's career so easily? The guy has been incredibly productive at EVERY single stop he's been outside of his first stint with us. It would make more sense to say we, not Landry, was the problem no?

That's nonsense. He's now on his 5th stop in 7 years, for good reason. Nobody was beating down his door to drop a long term deal on him either, because they all discovered, as we already did, that he's a "big" who only does one thing bigs do. Meanwhile he doesn't rebound, defend, or pass, making him the Nick Young of somewhat bigs.

Just as importantly, almost every reason he struggled when he was here is still here. Cousins is still here. Thompson is still here. Dalembert is no longer here, but ironically exactly the player we need to finish the frontline is a new Dalembert. He doesn't complement those players. He's a terrible fit next to Cousins. He and Jason couldn't stop an intramural team from scoring on them. He can't pair with Patterson unless you want to be horrifically slaughtered on the glass. Last time he was here he was flat outcompeted by three fellow bigs, ended up the 4th best big on the roster, lost his minutes and role, and got dumped. Now he comes back top a team ostensibly talking about improving their defense and passing...while being a one dimensional scoring specialist who specifically does not defend or pass.

 

[Entity]

That's nonsense. He's now on his 5th stop in 7 years, for good reason. Nobody was beating down his door to drop a long term deal on him either, because they all discovered, as we already did, that he's a "big" who only does one thing bigs do. Meanwhile he doesn't rebound, defend, or pass, making him the Nick Young of somewhat bigs.

Just as importantly, almost every reason he struggled when he was here is still here. Cousins is still here. Thompson is still here. Dalembert is no longer here, but ironically exactly the player we need to finish the frontline is a new Dalembert. He doesn't complement those players. He's a terrible fit next to Cousins. He and Jason couldn't stop an intramural team from scoring on them. He can't pair with Patterson unless you want to be horrifically slaughtered on the glass. Last time he was here he was flat outcompeted by three fellow bigs, ended up the 4th best big on the roster, lost his minutes and role, and got dumped. Now he comes back top a team ostensibly talking about improving their defense and passing...while being a one dimensional scoring specialist who specifically does not defend or pass.

To add to that two of the 3 bigs that beat him out last time are still here. So at best he is your 3rd big. If we somehow land a shot blocker he turns into the 4th. unless there is a JT deal in the making Landry is a 6 mil a year redundancy

 

[Section 101]

This poll is irrelevant and makes no sense. There is a big difference between a 26 win team and a 38. The options are broken up so randomly it makes the powerball look fixed.

 

[Dreadnought]

Sub 20 wins = Successful season.

-Wiggins for Wiggins

 

[Gary]

He's always been a below average passer, rebounder and defender. He fit worst with us in big part because of our coaching/general suckage issues but also because he is a poor compliment to our starting center and franchise player.

I find it amusing that so many of the same fans that point to Reke's me first style not fitting with Cuz defend Landry when he has the same issues but fills less of a need.

Oh please.... I think it's a little more crucial that your "stars" fit than a 25mpg role player. Landry fits just fine with the SECOND TEAM.

 

[Gary]

To add to that two of the 3 bigs that beat him out last time are still here. So at best he is your 3rd big. If we somehow land a shot blocker he turns into the 4th. unless there is a JT deal in the making Landry is a 6 mil a year redundancy

When one of your big, who is your biggest star, is prone to foul trouble it is just fine in my book to have 4 capable players that can fill in at PF/C (i.e. Thompson moving to C and Landry replacing Thompson at PF).

 

[Padrino]

Oh please.... I think it's a little more crucial that your "stars" fit than a 25mpg role player. Landry fits just fine with the SECOND TEAM.

does he? assuming jason thompson is starting once the season opener arrives, the bench's set of bigs include a non-rebounding, non-shot blocking stretch 4 in patrick patterson, a non-rebounding, non-shot blocking hustle player in chuck hayes, and a non-rebounding, non-shot blocking black hole in carl landry. none of those guys protect the rim worth a damn. none of those guys secure rebounds at an acceptable rate for their positions. none of them are even particularly skilled man-defenders...

sure, landry has a penchant for scoring on the low block, but he requires the ball in his hands nearly 100% of the time in order to secure his 10-12 ppg, and he's tunnel-visioned, without the skill to effectively pass out of the post. at least tyreke evans was becoming increasingly effective at operating off-ball. reke's a versatile player who can be used in a number of capacities, while also competing on the defensive end. i'd hardly call landry a "fit" anywhere, not at the cost of his overpaid long-term contract, anyway...

 

[LPKingsFan]

does he? assuming jason thompson is starting once the season opener arrives, the bench's set of bigs include a non-rebounding, non-shot blocking stretch 4 in patrick patterson, a non-rebounding, non-shot blocking hustle player in chuck hayes, and a non-rebounding, non-shot blocking black hole in carl landry. none of those guys protect the rim worth a damn. none of those guys secure rebounds at an acceptable rate for their positions. none of them are even particularly skilled man-defenders...

sure, landry has a penchant for scoring on the low block, but he requires the ball in his hands nearly 100% of the time in order to secure his 10-12 ppg, and he's tunnel-visioned, without the skill to effectively pass out of the post. at least tyreke evans was becoming increasingly effective at operating off-ball. reke's a versatile player who can be used in a number of capacities, while also competing on the defensive end. i'd hardly call landry a "fit" anywhere, not at the cost of his overpaid long-term contract, anyway...

I think, given the current construction of the roster, Patterson almost has to start. Can space the floor since Mbah a Moute isn't a shooter at the 3, and JT is really the only player on the roster other than Cousins I'd want at the 5. So, no, I don't assume JT starts.

Edit to add: Personally, I would have kept Lopez in the Evans trade and not signed Landry. But, from the few games I watched in person last year, the offense really seemed to struggle when Cousins sat. I get that Landry would help provide low post scoring off the bench, and will allow them to essentially run the same offense for 48 minutes when he and Cousins swap in and out. Not sure that's worth $6.5 million, but that's where we are...

 

[HndsmCelt]

does he? assuming jason thompson is starting once the season opener arrives, the bench's set of bigs include a non-rebounding, non-shot blocking stretch 4 in patrick patterson, a non-rebounding, non-shot blocking hustle player in chuck hayes, and a non-rebounding, non-shot blocking black hole in carl landry. none of those guys protect the rim worth a damn. none of those guys secure rebounds at an acceptable rate for their positions. none of them are even particularly skilled man-defenders...

sure, landry has a penchant for scoring on the low block, but he requires the ball in his hands nearly 100% of the time in order to secure his 10-12 ppg, and he's tunnel-visioned, without the skill to effectively pass out of the post. at least tyreke evans was becoming increasingly effective at operating off-ball. reke's a versatile player who can be used in a number of capacities, while also competing on the defensive end. i'd hardly call landry a "fit" anywhere, not at the cost of his overpaid long-term contract, anyway...

You just have to think of Landry as a "moveable piece" like Kenny Thomas.

 

[Padrino]

Hmmm! I think your both right and wrong. I don't disagree that to win a championship, or even come close, you have to have a minimum of two stars, but just having those two stars won't net you much of anything if the entire group doesn't play as a team. In most minds, we had two stars last season in Cousins, and Tyreke. Or at least as close as you can get to having two stars, and we were terrible! Was it the fault of Tyreke and Cousins? No, it was the fault of a poorly conceived roster, and lousy coaching. Not saying we would have been contenders if we had played as a team, but we certainly would have been a hell of lot better.

Now, at present, we have just one perceived star. Not enough for sure. So whether we like it or not, patience is required. Here's an exercise for everyone to try. Instead of putting down the names of the players you think will start at each position, instead just write down Cousins name at either center or PF, and then instead of names, write down a job description for the rest of the positions in relationship to the style you want to play. After you get done, then look at the roster of proposed starters, and see if they fit the job description. Be honest! I did this before any moves were made, and the first glaring position was shooting guard. Just my opinion, but they may have looked at the roster the same way.

interesting exercise, i suppose:

C Demarcus Cousins
PF Defense / Rebounding / Shot Blocking
SF Defense / Rebounding / Penetration / Passing / Outside Shooting (/ Shot Blocking)
SG Defense / Rebounding / Penetration / Passing / Outside Shooting
PG Defense / Rebounding / Penetration / Passing / Outside Shooting

the above tells you what skills i value in a starting lineup, and in what order i value those skills. given these values, i am, of course, a bit flabbergasted that, in your estimation, the "first glaring position was shooting guard" before a single offseason move was made. tyreke evans satisfies four of the five categories i provided, and his outside shot is steadily improving. you clearly value... i dunno, something else, i guess, as do a lot of other posters at kf.com...

that said, i don't care who provides the above skill sets, as long as they're present, with the greatest emphasis on 1) defense, 2) rebounding, and 3) scoring in the paint, in that precise order. i believe that outside shooting is a supplementary skill set that opens up the game for more important skill sets, like low-post scoring and penetration. i believe mid-range shooting, while contextually useful, is inefficient shooting in the contemporary nba, where your highest value shots (per point) are at the rim (where the potential for a defensive foul is highest) or beyond the three-point line (which is, again, a supplementary skill set, in my opinion)...

i also believe passing is a team-wide responsibility in the contemporary nba, and i do not value "pure PG's" on a team anchored by demarcus cousins, who primarily requires a smart entry pass to be effective. ben udrih can make that play ten times out of ten. you don't need a guard who averages high volume assists with demarcus cousins at center, particularly if such a guard hinders your defense (vasquez gets a small pass from me as a PG who can rebound well at his position)...

now, if i've got a shooting guard who can defend, penetrate, and pass out of the drive (as evans can), then i get my outside shooting from the SF and PG positions, especially if my versatile shooting guard is also bolstering my defensive rebounding. if i've got a center in demarcus cousins who can rebound exceptionally well and dominate on the low-block, offensively, then i get my rim protection at the PF position (with supplementary help at the SF position, if possible). and if i've got a PG who lets the offense get by him regularly, then that rim protector becomes all the more important...

but if i've got a stud defender at the SG and/or the SF, then i can forgive a sub-par defender at the PG. in such a scenario, i'd much rather a realistic starting trio of udrih/evans/mbah a moute than vasquez/thornton/mbah a moute or vasquez/mclemore/mbah a moute, because, again, i don't value outside shooting as much as others do. it's a supplementary skill set, and if you can get a bit of outside shooting off your bench, then you can get to the playoffs with 1) defense, 2) rebounding, and 3) paint scoring...

 

[Gary]

does he? assuming jason thompson is starting once the season opener arrives, the bench's set of bigs include a non-rebounding, non-shot blocking stretch 4 in patrick patterson, a non-rebounding, non-shot blocking hustle player in chuck hayes, and a non-rebounding, non-shot blocking black hole in carl landry. none of those guys protect the rim worth a damn. none of those guys secure rebounds at an acceptable rate for their positions. none of them are even particularly skilled man-defenders...

sure, landry has a penchant for scoring on the low block, but he requires the ball in his hands nearly 100% of the time in order to secure his 10-12 ppg, and he's tunnel-visioned, without the skill to effectively pass out of the post. at least tyreke evans was becoming increasingly effective at operating off-ball. reke's a versatile player who can be used in a number of capacities, while also competing on the defensive end. i'd hardly call landry a "fit" anywhere, not at the cost of his overpaid long-term contract, anyway...

We don't have any rim protectors, so for what we have he will fit fine. And it's kind of an exaggeration saying he needs the ball nearly 100% of the time to be effective. Not even PGs have the ball as much as "nearly 100% of the time". Most of the time Landry will be playing with one or the other (Thompson or Cousins) along with a couple other backups and a starter here or there. I would prefer he plays with Thompson/MLM/IT most of his time on the floor though. I can see him fitting just fine with those three.

I don't expect Landry to play like he played Last year for GS, but I do believe he will give us a pretty effective 8ppg 4.5rpg off the bench which is fine. Wish he was a bit cheaper though.

 

[Padrino]

I think, given the current construction of the roster, Patterson almost has to start. Can space the floor since Mbah a Moute isn't a shooter at the 3, and JT is really the only player on the roster other than Cousins I'd want at the 5. So, no, I don't assume JT starts.

Edit to add: Personally, I would have kept Lopez in the Evans trade and not signed Landry. But, from the few games I watched in person last year, the offense really seemed to struggle when Cousins sat. I get that Landry would help provide low post scoring off the bench, and will allow them to essentially run the same offense for 48 minutes when he and Cousins swap in and out. Not sure that's worth $6.5 million, but that's where we are...

well, even if we don't assume that JT starts, you're still looking at a series of bench bigs who are non-shot blockers, inconsistent rebounders, and weak man-defenders. carl landry will certainly help the kings' bench scoring, but no, it's absolutely not worth four years at $6.5 million per. you bring a guy like that in on a two-year deal at most, as a stop gap to bolster your bench scoring while you wait for your long-term roster to take shape...

 

[Padrino]

We don't have any rim protectors, so for what we have he will fit fine. And it's kind of an exaggeration saying he needs the ball nearly 100% of the time to be effective. Not even PGs have the ball as much as "nearly 100% of the time". Most of the time Landry will be playing with one or the other (Thompson or Cousins) along with a couple other backups and a starter here or there. I would prefer he plays with Thompson/MLM/IT most of his time on the floor though. I can see him fitting just fine with those three.

I don't expect Landry to play like he played Last year for GS, but I do believe he will give us a pretty effective 8ppg 4.5rpg off the bench which is fine. Wish he was a bit cheaper though.

wait... what? because the kings don't have any rim protectors, another big who doesn't protect the rim, can't defend his man, and doesn't rebound well "will fit fine"? i'm afraid you're not making any sense...

and yes, carl landry does, indeed, need the ball on nearly 100% of all possessions he's involved in to be effective. he doesn't defend. he doesn't rebound particularly well. he doesn't move effectively without the ball. he doesn't pass. he requires an entry pass delivered to him in the low post, where he becomes a black hole on offense. if he doesn't have the ball in his hands, he's almost entirely useless out there...

 

[Darth Divac]

Sub 20 wins = Successful season.

-Wiggins for Wiggins

Parker, Harrison, Cauley-Stein. Robinson III.

 

[Bricklayer]

The irony is that the only type of guy Landry really does fit next to is a shotblocker/rebounder, and that's precisely the guy missing from the mix this time around in Sacto for him. If we get Oden, that's his only logical pairing.

Guys need to complement each other. And if they duplicate, the one way that duplication doesn't help is offensively, because there is one ball. Two rebounders don't interfere with each other, or two defenders. But two guys who need the rock, of which there is only one, actively depress each other. And so Landry's ideal match is exactly what we don't have. In the old days it was Dalembert. Last year it would have been Ezili or Bogut. Somebody able to cover for his weaknesses on defense and the boards, and somebody who's own scoring was weak enough that Carl could cover for it. he's still a bench level talent, but a poor man's version of the David West/Hibbert dynamic. Or David West/Chandler. Landry/Patterson on the other hand is just a bad joke.

 

[Gary]

wait... what? because the kings don't have any rim protectors, another big who doesn't protect the rim, can't defend his man, and doesn't rebound well "will fit fine"? i'm afraid you're not making any sense...

and yes, carl landry does, indeed, need the ball on nearly 100% of all possessions he's involved in to be effective. he doesn't defend. he doesn't rebound particularly well. he doesn't move effectively without the ball. he doesn't pass. he requires an entry pass delivered to him in the low post, where he becomes a black hole on offense. if he doesn't have the ball in his hands, he's almost entirely useless out there...

I think we are speaking two different languages. From what I gather you wanted a big that could block shots and defend instead of Landry, right? I am actually with you on that.

My view was kind of a "for what it's worth" viewpoint that since we already have Landry we have places that we could fit him into and he could play well in that role. Don't get me wrong though, if it was my choice I would have took a shot at a defending big man. But since Landry is here I think we could find a place for him with the second team.

I still don't think that Landry needs the ball to be effective. I have seen him run cuts just fine. He's not all "post game". He can mix it up a bit. At least that's what I saw last year with GS.

 

[Darth Divac]

Bringing in Landry? Ok, I can get the rationale, bench scoring, locker room presence etc. At 6.5 mil a year for 4 years? Rookie mistake by PDA. And that is my final thought on the Landry matter.

 

[ninjabiscuit]

One thing with Landry in addition to his locker room presence is that he already knows Malone's playbook. Any chance that contributed to the idea of bringing him here?

 

[VF21]

One thing with Landry in addition to his locker room presence is that he already knows Malone's playbook. Any chance that contributed to the idea of bringing him here?

I'm pretty sure it didn't hurt.

 

[The_Jamal]

does he? assuming jason thompson is starting once the season opener arrives, the bench's set of bigs include a non-rebounding, non-shot blocking stretch 4 in patrick patterson, a non-rebounding, non-shot blocking hustle player in chuck hayes, and a non-rebounding, non-shot blocking black hole in carl landry. none of those guys protect the rim worth a damn. none of those guys secure rebounds at an acceptable rate for their positions. none of them are even particularly skilled man-defenders...

sure, landry has a penchant for scoring on the low block, but he requires the ball in his hands nearly 100% of the time in order to secure his 10-12 ppg, and he's tunnel-visioned, without the skill to effectively pass out of the post. at least tyreke evans was becoming increasingly effective at operating off-ball. reke's a versatile player who can be used in a number of capacities, while also competing on the defensive end. i'd hardly call landry a "fit" anywhere, not at the cost of his overpaid long-term contract, anyway...

Utter crap. Not surprised that you spew nonsense about a player you don't like.

% of Landry's offense from ISO's last season: 5.4% and 39 total plays

% of Landry's offense in post-ups: 27% and a total of 222 plays

So Carl the "Blackhole" Landry scores his points within an offense 68% of the time. And that's if you include Post-ups as "tunnel visioned ISO plays"


Landry brings, vet leadership, a strong lockerroom presence, a high level BBall IQ, toughness, and is one of the most effective and efficient post scorers in the game. But let's go bring in Dally who's been nothing but trouble everywhere he's been and has fallen out of favor with every team he's played for. Good call

 

[The_Jamal]

And I wasn't even a fan of the Landry signing. I wanted Brandan Wright.

But some of the crap people are saying is just flat out wrong

 

[sdballer]

Utter crap. Not surprised that you spew nonsense about a player you don't like.

% of Landry's offense from ISO's last season: 5.4% and 39 total plays

% of Landry's offense in post-ups: 27% and a total of 222 plays

So Carl the "Blackhole" Landry scores his points within an offense 68% of the time. And that's if you include Post-ups as "tunnel visioned ISO plays"


Landry brings, vet leadership, a strong lockerroom presence, a high level BBall IQ, toughness, and is one of the most effective and efficient post scorers in the game. But let's go bring in Dally who's been nothing but trouble everywhere he's been and has fallen out of favor with every team he's played for. Good call

Not sure you can bring up Dally wearing out welcomes when Landry has bounced around as much in half the time during his career.

And you are right about what he brings to the table but you left out the fact that he doesn't pass often or well, doesn't defend well and doesn't rebound well, which is why most of us were disappointed in the move, especially when those are things we really need and supposedly were focusing on this offseason.

 

[bajaden]

And I wasn't even a fan of the Landry signing. I wanted Brandan Wright.

But some of the crap people are saying is just flat out wrong

I don't even comment anymore. There is no middle ground for some of these people. If they don't like a player, then he's just terrible at everything. There is a difference between not being a shotblocker, and not defending. Landry defends, and to say otherwise means you either have an agenda, or your just plain ignorant of the facts. Go to Synergy.com and look up his stats. No, he's not Larry Sanders, but he's a far cry from not defending. His rebounding numbers are decent, but not great. He averaged 9.4 rebounds per 36 minutes last season for the Warriors, while our own Jason Thompson, who many consider a good rebounder, averaged 8.7 rebounds per 36 last season.

I'm more than willing to have a logical intelligent conversation with anyone, but I'm sick and tired of the extremes. Unless of course someone wants to comment on James Johnson.

 

[sdballer]

I don't even comment anymore. There is no middle ground for some of these people. If they don't like a player, then he's just terrible at everything. There is a difference between not being a shotblocker, and not defending. Landry defends, and to say otherwise means you either have an agenda, or your just plain ignorant of the facts. Go to Synergy.com and look up his stats. No, he's not Larry Sanders, but he's a far cry from not defending. His rebounding numbers are decent, but not great. He averaged 9.4 rebounds per 36 minutes last season for the Warriors, while our own Jason Thompson, who many consider a good rebounder, averaged 8.7 rebounds per 36 last season.

I'm more than willing to have a logical intelligent conversation with anyone, but I'm sick and tired of the extremes. Unless of course someone wants to comment on James Johnson.

Two things:

1. Someone's evaluation of Carl Landry's defense using the same synergy stats you referenced (sorry it's long):

Defending Isolation: 0.88 PPP
Power Forwards with similar efficiency: Pau Gasol, Ilyasova, Ryan Anderson
Landry quite consistently gives his man a lot of space in isolation. The end result is that his contest does not alter the shot. Teams also get him to switch onto guards out of the pick and roll (appears to just be the way GS was defending it on those plays) and then he just lacked the quickness to really stop the guard.

Defending the Post: 0.86 PPP
Power Forwards with similar efficiency: David Lee, Blake Griffin, Tobias Harris, Thad Young, Ibaka, Faried, Amir Johnson, Ryan Anderson, Scola
Landry is an average post defender. He doesn’t let his man push him around, but physically just doesn’t have an answer for length. The Spurs liked to run a low screen away from the ball to force a switch of Landry onto Duncan to exploit this. However, when David Lee was in the game, Landry just started out on Duncan. However, he handles power moves in matchups with players like David West well and his strength can sometimes keep longer players away from their spots.

Defending P&R: 0.85 PPP
Power Forwards with similar efficiency: Z-Bo, Pau Gasol
Landry does not hedge the pick and roll opting instead to remain in the paint. This part is a Golden State thing. The Carl Landry thing is that once the pass is made to the big on the perimeter, he doesn’t close out. With the same scheme, David Lee only allows 0.60 PPP because he doesn’t zero in on watching the basketball like Landry. On the bright side, he does position himself to prevent the big man from getting inside. This appears to be a quickness issue where Landry is forced to give up open jumpers to bigs to keep them from getting inside. The numbers aren’t terrible because Mark Jackson did a good job keeping him on bigs who were less comfortable taking that jump shot coming off the roll.

Defending Spot Up Shooters: 1.26 PPP
Power Forwards with similar efficiency: Even Luke Babbit is only 1.13
Before watching the tape, the previous situations suggest that Landry offers up the jump shot to cover for his lack of quickness defending drives and lacks length to contest shots. After watching the tape, Landry gets sucked inside easily and lacks the quickness to get out to the perimeter or the length to contest shots. Landry gives up 49.6% shooting and an astounding 53% from behind the arc. For reference, Steph Curry and Steve Novak shot 57% from behind the arc at this year’s 3 point contest.


2. You can't suggest other's cherry pick stats and then throw the rebounding vs Thompson stats out there when that's a one year example. Over the course of their careers Thompson averages 9.4/36 minutes vs Landry's 7.8/36 minutes. A pretty big difference.

 

[Arkitect]

Utter crap. Not surprised that you spew nonsense about a player you don't like.

% of Landry's offense from ISO's last season: 5.4% and 39 total plays

% of Landry's offense in post-ups: 27% and a total of 222 plays

So Carl the "Blackhole" Landry scores his points within an offense 68% of the time. And that's if you include Post-ups as "tunnel visioned ISO plays"


Landry brings, vet leadership, a strong lockerroom presence, a high level BBall IQ, toughness, and is one of the most effective and efficient post scorers in the game. But let's go bring in Dally who's been nothing but trouble everywhere he's been and has fallen out of favor with every team he's played for. Good call

Landry had an AST% of 5.6% last year. In other words he passed to a guy that scored 1 out of 20 times he touched the ball, a number way below league average. Lower than Travis Outlaw. He may score within the offense, but he is generally the last stop within the offense. I am not sure why people keep arguing about this. We know what Landry is. This is not some guy no one has seen play before with the same players he is going to play with now. But go ahead and try to keep bringing up out of context stats and bending over backwards to try and defend the signing.

The only reasonable defense I have heard for the Landry signing is that he is Malone's guy and he can pick up some of the low post scoring load when Cousins sits. Which is at least somewhat reasonable. I don't agree, but I at least respect the logic. From a pure basketball perspective, it is very hard to justify the signing at the price at we paid.