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

[Hadlowe]

......and JT perfectly compliments Cousins on offense. You're not getting antone we have replacing him, and nobody new unless that person is the super defensive stopper. Unlikely, ergo JT.

JT does not perfectly complement cousins on offense. JT has 15 foot range. Any further than the foul line and he becomes Travis Outlaw. JT also prefers right low block for set offense, but isn't a terribly skilled finisher from there. Cousins operating out of the high post can't get the ball to JT because there is no passing lane If you want to run Cousins through the post, that means JT hovers at most 20 feet away, leaving his man free to collapse on Cousins weak side.

Patterson is a complementary big to Cousins. Patterson can hide in the corner and wait for kickout threes or the swing around the perimeter. JT is perfectly mediocre at everything a big man is supposed to do. An excellent choice for a big off the bench, but I would never settle on him as a long-term starter next to Cousins.

 

[Hadlowe]

Absolutely agree - I've been saying the same thing about Landry being the third big, the Kings are just missing the second. Obviously Malone/Pete'D felt Landry is an upgrade over PPat and JT, I don't think he's there to compliment either one. I'm wondering which of the two will see decreased PT this season, probably Patterson, as JT can play spot C.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Malone experiment with some small-ball lineups with Patterson and Landry on the floor at the same time. Jackson ran Landry and 6'9" David Lee at the same time and even had 6'8" Barnes playing PF in the playoffs against San Antonio. Lee is a better rebounder than Patterson by a long shot, but Patterson has better range.

Looking at the current crew, a lineup of McCallum, McLemore, Mbah, Landry, Patterson would put all our defense on the perimeter with Landry and Patterson playing off each other on offense. Patterson and McLemore are your shooters with McCallum and Landry creating the offensive sets. Mbah is in there for defense and extra rebounding. That won't work against opponents with size inside, but it could work against New York or Miami when they are running small at you.

 

[Gary]

JT does not perfectly complement cousins on offense. JT has 15 foot range. Any further than the foul line and he becomes Travis Outlaw. JT also prefers right low block for set offense, but isn't a terribly skilled finisher from there. Cousins operating out of the high post can't get the ball to JT because there is no passing lane If you want to run Cousins through the post, that means JT hovers at most 20 feet away, leaving his man free to collapse on Cousins weak side.

Patterson is a complementary big to Cousins. Patterson can hide in the corner and wait for kickout threes or the swing around the perimeter. JT is perfectly mediocre at everything a big man is supposed to do. An excellent choice for a big off the bench, but I would never settle on him as a long-term starter next to Cousins.

If Mbah Moute was 5 inches taller he would be the perfect fit next to Cousins. Unfortunately neither Patterson or JT perfectly compliment Cousins.

 

[Darth Divac]

If Mbah Moute was 5 inches taller he would be the perfect fit next to Cousins. Unfortunately neither Patterson or JT perfectly compliment Cousins.

If moute were 5 inches taller, he'd be the starting center.

 

[Hallama]

If moute were 5 inches taller, he'd be the starting center.

He'd be Manute Bol if he was a foot taller...Urkle if he were two feet shorter.

 

[Bricklayer]

JT does not perfectly complement cousins on offense. JT has 15 foot range. Any further than the foul line and he becomes Travis Outlaw. JT also prefers right low block for set offense, but isn't a terribly skilled finisher from there. Cousins operating out of the high post can't get the ball to JT because there is no passing lane If you want to run Cousins through the post, that means JT hovers at most 20 feet away, leaving his man free to collapse on Cousins weak side.

Patterson is a complementary big to Cousins. Patterson can hide in the corner and wait for kickout threes or the swing around the perimeter. JT is perfectly mediocre at everything a big man is supposed to do. An excellent choice for a big off the bench, but I would never settle on him as a long-term starter next to Cousins.

JT's game is the more complimentary one actually. It always has been even when you called JT Oakley, PJ Brown, Udonis Haslem or A.C. Green. The little midrange faceup jumper has always been the compliment offensive skill to great centers. Post play is not. Three point shooting is just the noveau junkball instinct. It can work if you get the rare junkballer who can do other things, but its not necessary and really other than Robert Horry no three point chucking tweener forward has ever won next to a great center.

It really is too bad Jason never learned how to defend.

 

[bajaden]

JT's game is the more complimentary one actually. It always has been even when you called JT Oakley, PJ Brown, Udonis Haslem or A.C. Green. The little midrange faceup jumper has always been the compliment offensive skill to great centers. Post play is not. Three point shooting is just the noveau junkball instinct. It can work if you get the rare junkballer who can do other things, but its not necessary and really other than Robert Horry no three point chucking tweener forward has ever won next to a great center.

It really is too bad Jason never learned how to defend.

I tend to agree with you. Overall, as the team is currently made up, JT is the best fit next to Cuz. JT isn't great at anything, but is pretty good at most everything. He has the size for the position, and the only one on the team that does, I might add. He can play in the post, or he can face up. And he's normally a good rebounder. Defensively, he's better man on man away from the basket than he is in the post. He's always played the Dirk's and Pau's very well away from the basket. But once in the lane, not so good for some reason. He constantly made mistakes on the pick and roll play. He wasn't the only one, but too many times when Cousins left his man and made a show, JT left the lane wide open. folks wonder why Cousins at times begged off or didn't finish his push on the PG, well maybe its because he didn't trust someone to have his back.

You can take just about any candidate for the starting job and pick them apart in some way. Where one brings a particular talent, they might lack in another area. Patterson would be great for spreading the floor, and making them pay a price for not guarding him. But his rebounding leaves a lot to be desired. Even if we had traded for a shotblocker not named Anthony Davis, most such players hang near the basket, even on offense, since most don't have much of a face up game. The perfect player to put next to Cousins is playing on another team and is getting paid a lot of money, and is probably untouchable. So compromise is the word of the day. At least for now.

 

[Gary]

If moute were 5 inches taller, he'd be the starting center.

Exactly... But his type of play fits exactly what we need at either PF or C. Too bad he's a SF.

 

[VF21]

Um., if Moute were 5 inches taller, we wouldn't be discussing him.

 

[Gary]

Um., if Moute were 5 inches taller, we wouldn't be discussing him.

Get the guy some athletic lifts and give him good ankle support!

 

[The_Jamal]

Speaking of out of context...

Which do you, personally, think is more likely, that the perfectly average and unspectacular Jason Thompson, with his career 7.3 assist percentage, is going to duplicate his career-worst 6.0 from last year, or that Carl Landry, with his career 5.2 assist percentage, is going to substantially improve upon his career second-best 5.6 from last season, let alone ever again approach his career-best 7.1 from two seasons ago? I'm curious as to why, of all the things that Landry is or is not, that you would choose to make his being a black hole or not your line in the sand?

One last direct comparison to Thompson: Jason Thompson has started in 281 games*; that's more than quadruple the number of games that Landry has started. He's played 820 more total minutes, which works out to, roughly, three more minutes per game than Landry, on average, over the course of his career. Do you know how many more shot attempts Jason Thompson has had than Carl Landry, over the course of their respective careers?

Four. Not four shot attempts per game. Four.

Why do I point that out? Because when I say that Jason Thompson's career assist percentage is 7.3, and that Carl Landry's is 5.2, someone might try to make the case that Thompson attempts more shots per game which, while (barely) factually accurate, falls way short of telling the whole story. Now, they also have had different roles relative to the respective systems they've played in, even when they played in the same system, but it's alarming to me how often Landry shoots the ball, relative to how often he passes the ball, for someone who is not supposed to be a "black hole" (FWIW, in Landry's first go-around with the Kings, he averaged 9.1 shot attempts, with a 5.7 assist percentage; in the same fifty-three game span, Thompson averaged 6.7 shots, with 7.5 assist percentage).

In fact, Carl Landry is, for the minutes he's played, tied for the eighth-worst active player in career assist percentage in the entire NBA, and the only player "higher" up on that list whose primary designation is also as an offensive player is not actually active, and only made the list because he played in two games last season (Eddy Curry). The other seven active players who average at least as many career minutes as Landry (24.5) with a lower career assist percentage are: Serge Ibaka (2.1), Bismack Biyombo (2.7), Samuel Dalembert (3.3), Maurice Harkless (3.9), Tyson Chandler (4.4), Emeka Okafor (4.7) and Kenneth Faried (5.2).

Now, quick, what do those other seven guys have in common that Landry doesn't? Hell, Nick Young has a career assist percentage of 7.6, and that dude doesn't pass to anybody!



*It's important to note that I'm not trying to pretend that Landry and Thompson have played the same number of games, so if your plan was to lead off with that, you can relax. I full recognize that Landry has played a full season longer than Thompson. But still, four more shots in 800+ more minutes.

I guess we have different definitions of a blackhole. A blackhole is Monta Ellis. Brandon Jennings. Josh Smith. JR Smith. Nick Young Guys who take a ton of shots and don't hit a good % of them. Landry might be the furthest thing from a volume scorer or "blackhole" in the NBA

I personally do not care what Landry's AST%. We're not paying him to be a playmaker. We're paying him to finish at the rim, off the PnR from Vasquez, etc. And guess, what. He's one of the best in the league at finishing those sorts of plays. There's plenty of evidence out there to support that.

I have no delusions of what to expect from Landry. He's going to be a great scorer off the bench (hopefully, off the bench) for us and give us valuable vet leadership and toughness. Those are 3 things we absolutely need. Whenever Cousins went out of the game, we became a soley perimeter team with no inside scoring presence. Even then, Boogie wasn't consistent inside every game which was an even bigger problem.

We pray he can bring average rebounding/defense. This signing was a cart before the horse sort of deal as he's not what you want to pair Cousins with. But the market for defensive bigs was certainly lacking this offseason. Brandan Wright was the only one I liked who we had a chance to aquire. Perhaps that'll be #1 on the agenda for next year.

 

[The_Jamal]

I tend to agree with you. Overall, as the team is currently made up, JT is the best fit next to Cuz. JT isn't great at anything, but is pretty good at most everything. He has the size for the position, and the only one on the team that does, I might add. He can play in the post, or he can face up. And he's normally a good rebounder. Defensively, he's better man on man away from the basket than he is in the post. He's always played the Dirk's and Pau's very well away from the basket. But once in the lane, not so good for some reason. He constantly made mistakes on the pick and roll play. He wasn't the only one, but too many times when Cousins left his man and made a show, JT left the lane wide open. folks wonder why Cousins at times begged off or didn't finish his push on the PG, well maybe its because he didn't trust someone to have his back.

You can take just about any candidate for the starting job and pick them apart in some way. Where one brings a particular talent, they might lack in another area. Patterson would be great for spreading the floor, and making them pay a price for not guarding him. But his rebounding leaves a lot to be desired. Even if we had traded for a shotblocker not named Anthony Davis, most such players hang near the basket, even on offense, since most don't have much of a face up game. The perfect player to put next to Cousins is playing on another team and is getting paid a lot of money, and is probably untouchable. So compromise is the word of the day. At least for now.

Indeed. There are 3 PF's who are defensive anchors in the NBA and are perfect matches to Cousins at C. Ibaka, Sanders, Favors. And none of those guys are going anywhere. Moving Cousins to PF would open up some options for us as to who we can get. But we also need to see Cousins defend the PF and staying out of foul trouble as the PF is likely the most skilled, offensive dominanted position in the game right now

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I guess we have different definitions of a blackhole. A blackhole is Monta Ellis. Brandon Jennings. Josh Smith. JR Smith. Nick Young Guys who take a ton of shots and don't hit a good % of them. Landry might be the furthest thing from a volume scorer or "blackhole" [sic] in the NBA

Volume scorers and "black holes" are not the same thing. That may be where your concept error comes from. It's like squares and rectangles: ball hogs can be black holes, but not every black hole is a ball hog.

"Black holes" are not guys who shoot a lot (although the Venn diagrams sometimes overlap), and they are not low percentage shooters (although those diagrams also occasionally overlap). They are ball stoppers. Guys who only "pass" at the rim. Guys for whom, once the ball goes in to them, it ain't coming back out. Guys that create a gravitational pull so powerful that neither light nor the basketball can escape. That's precisely why they're called "black holes." How do you not know this? The term came into use in basketball to describe people who behave, metaphorically, the way that black holes behave in real life, and that absolutely describes Carl Landry.

I personally do not care what Landry's AST%. We're not paying him to be a playmaker...

There are, roughly, nine other guys on the team that we're not "paying to be play makers," either, all of whom have substantially higher assist percentages than Landry, any way. The fact that we just signed a guy to a four-year contract who is, essentially, tied for seventh-worst in the entire league in a statistic where the other seven guys are all catch and finish guys, who also play defense and/or rebound very well for their position may not matter to you, but it sure bothers the hell out of me.

... We're paying him to finish at the rim, off the PnR from Vasquez, etc...

I have no delusions of what to expect from Landry. He's going to be a great scorer off the bench (hopefully, off the bench)...

I find these statements to be incongruous with each other; unless you expect Vasquez to play forty minutes a night, there shouldn't be any portion of a game where Vasquez is running pick and roll with Landry.

 

[bajaden]

Volume scorers and "black holes" are not the same thing. That may be where your concept error comes from. It's like squares and rectangles: ball hogs can be black holes, but not every black hole is a ball hog.

"Black holes" are not guys who shoot a lot (although the Venn diagrams sometimes overlap), and they are not low percentage shooters (although those diagrams also occasionally overlap). They are ball stoppers. Guys who only "pass" at the rim. Guys for whom, once the ball goes in to them, it ain't coming back out. Guys that create a gravitational pull so powerful that neither light nor the basketball can escape. That's precisely why they're called "black holes." How do you not know this? The term came into use in basketball to describe people who behave, metaphorically, the way that black holes behave in real life, and that absolutely describes Carl Landry.


There are, roughly, nine other guys on the team that we're not "paying to be play makers," either, all of whom have substantially higher assist percentages than Landry, any way. The fact that we just signed a guy to a four-year contract who is, essentially, tied for seventh-worst in the entire league in a statistic where the other seven guys are all catch and finish guys, who also play defense and/or rebound very well for their position may not matter to you, but it sure bothers the hell out of me.




I find these statements to be incongruous with each other; unless you expect Vasquez to play forty minutes a night, there shouldn't be any portion of a game where Vasquez is running pick and roll with Landry.

Too bad they don't keep track of passes per game. I haven't really watched Landry enough to say one way or the other, but its possible that he's just not a good, or lets say, creative passer. Its possible that he does pass the ball, but his passes just don't result in assists. I honestly don't know. I'm just throwing it out there. Every time he's doubled, does he still force up a shot, or does he pass out of the double? I agree that one would think you'd just accidentally average at least one assist a game.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Too bad they don't keep track of passes per game. I haven't really watched Landry enough to say one way or the other, but its possible that he's just not a good, or lets say, creative passer. Its possible that he does pass the ball, but his passes just don't result in assists. I honestly don't know. I'm just throwing it out there. Every time he's doubled, does he still force up a shot, or does he pass out of the double? I agree that one would think you'd just accidentally average at least one assist a game.

In response to that, I will simply quote myself from three posts previous:

... And, while a 5.2% career assist percentage certainly doesn't prove that he's not making the "soccer" pass, and/or passing to a guy who doesn't hit the shot, it doesn't seem to suggest that he is. What it seems to suggest is that, whenever Carl Landry gets the ball, whether it's within the flow of the offense or not, the next "pass" is going to the rim. That equals black hole.

 

[Bricklayer]

Too bad they don't keep track of passes per game. I haven't really watched Landry enough to say one way or the other, but its possible that he's just not a good, or lets say, creative passer. Its possible that he does pass the ball, but his passes just don't result in assists. I honestly don't know. I'm just throwing it out there. Every time he's doubled, does he still force up a shot, or does he pass out of the double? I agree that one would think you'd just accidentally average at least one assist a game.

People say things like this and I again wonder how we all developed Carl amnesia in the last two years since he was here.

Carl has this nasty tendency to catch the ball, look at the hoop, and everything else goes away. Its the same syndrome Thornton has. Will miss blatantly open teammates because its just not even a consideration. In Carl's case it cuts down on his effectiveness as a post player, because the thing people always forget about post play is that scoring is only half the advantage. The other half is bending the defense and beating the doubles/attention with passes out of there.

 

[Chubbs]

People say things like this and I again wonder how we all developed Carl amnesia in the last two years since he was here.

Carl has this nasty tendency to catch the ball, look at the hoop, and everything else goes away. Its the same syndrome Thornton has. Will miss blatantly open teammates because its just not even a consideration. In Carl's case it cuts down on his effectiveness as a post player, because the thing people always forget about post play is that scoring is only half the advantage. The other half is bending the defense and beating the doubles/attention with passes out of there.

The whole franchise has Carl amnesia. He's one of the worst passing big men in the game. I can't believe they signed him. Its unreal. I just have these nightmares of Ben standing in the corner waiting for Carl to look his way, and it never happening. And Ben seems to need someone to feed him. It sure ain't Landry. In this scenario, Ben is coming off the bench and getting a lot of minutes with Landry. That seems like a horrible fit. I'm not convinced Ben is a day 1 starter. I also can't see Thornton and Landry coexisting in any mutually beneficial way. Either way, Landry plus any catch and shoot type guy just isn't a good fit. Someone tell me I'm wrong.

 

[Uncia03]

A bit late to this discussion, but felt I would at least chime in.

Right after the draft I felt that we had a chance to push for a play-off spot. If we used some of our assets to upgrade the SF position and combined that with an actual coach with an actual system with a focus on defense, then we had enough raw talent to make a push.

It's just so frustrating watching essentially three wasted seasons of the Tyreke/Cousins pairing. The 1st season was derailed by Tyreke's injury and the next two were sub-marined by horrific coaching.

Anyway...now I have very low expectations for this team this season as it's presently constructed.

Right now the only player who has a chance to be a #2 option is Thornton...but a Thornton/Vasquez backcourt is just going to get destroyed defensively.
I like the Mbah a Moute pick-up (Like most people) and hope that he can be a solid defensive starter at the SF position.
But we don't have a defensive player to put next to Cousins, so I'm very apprehensive as to how well we can play defense with only 1 defensive player in the starting line-up.

I actually like Landry coming off the bench and I'm truly hoping that is the plan envisioned for him, as he doesn't pair up very well with Cousins.
The problem is that we're paying him a lot of money for a lot of years as a 15-20 minute/game bench player. So I don't really know how that is going to play out.

All-in-all, it looks as if this this roster isn't built to be competitive this year. I think that PDA shot for some players that he thought could make an impact in AI and Calderon...and when that fell through, he decided to just ride with what he had, be non-competitive and hope for a major boost in talent in the next draft.

I'm sick of hoping that a draft pick will turn things around, which is why I was excited for this team's prospects right after the draft...but it looks as if we're in for another long season.

Hopefully Cousins makes some monstrous steps and Malone is as good as he sounds like, otherwise this will be another painful season of basketball.

 

[NowImLost]

I did read a single post of this thread.
I think we will suck with the current roster.

 

[pshn80]

In the spirit of NowImLost's post above, I offer my view in another way - last year we were not a good team, this year so far, I'm not sure we have improved.

 

[Hadlowe]

I find these statements to be incongruous with each other; unless you expect Vasquez to play forty minutes a night, there shouldn't be any portion of a game where Vasquez is running pick and roll with Landry.

If we are running a proper 8-9 man rotation instead of the 12-man rotations of the Smart years, then Vasquez and Landry should share the floor for 8-14 minutes. If Landry is only playing 20 minutes, that's still a significant amount of his play time. I see lineups like Vasquez, McLemore, Mbah, Landry, JT being a regular thing where the extra rebounding from the 2 and 3 makes up for Landry's substandard work there.