Is the team underachieving

[beb0p]

I applaud your effort to continue labeling our equivalent players scrubs and everybody else's, studs, despite all evidence to the contrary. Takes some serious stubborness and squinting, but you are consistently up for it.

Like most riffraff, including our own, they look as good as the system they are in and the role they have to play. JJ Hickson starts to play well in Cleveland, gets traded here and sucks, then leaves and plays well in Portland. Did he suddenly lose his talent while he was here? No. All about system, roles, and coaches knowing what to do with you.

With all due respect, we both know that evaluating talent is not one of your strong points, for which I admit there are many.

But if you honestly think that the Thunder would still be as dominant if we swap Salmons for KMart, Hayes for Perkins, and JJ for Sefolosha; then I honestly don't know what to say to that.

 

[beb0p]

And Richard Jefferson at his age is now an imposing talent.

By the way - how are you judging players' talents? I can just as easily say that Landry has since experienced a RAPID decline and thus he is now a bench player. Which is why I talk about records, because how good a roleplayer appears is really largely based on coaching and the system he's in. I never questioned the talent level of any real stars; Ginobili/Parker/Duncan don't simply appear good in Pop's system. What is this objective criteria you are using to say that one role player is more talented than another - that Tiago Splitter is more talented than Chuck Hayes?

I suppose we just disagree on this front. In my opinion, a lot of these role players seem as good as they are (Javale Mcgee? Seriously?) because their coaches know how to use them correctly, to get them executing very well and contributing to the team.

Again, I do not disagree that we do indeed lack talent, or size especially as you mentioned. What I contend with is whether we lack so much talent that we are worst in the league year after year. Talent-wise we certainly have improved overall compared to when Noc was on the team. I never said IT and Brooks were better than Beno. Nor did I say Salmons was better than Noc. Check what I said. I said we essentially lost talent in Beno and Daly, but improved at all other positions, whether big or small. And now you're changing your stance again and saying that talent isn't the main reason why we're losing - it's fit.

Here is the point that I am attacking. "A common misconception is that our coaches are holding players back, preventing them from fulfilling their potential." Is that not defending the coach? Saying that the reason why we're losing is not because our coach can't get them to play well, but because they overall suck anyway?

Again, I agree with you that we are not a very deep team. But I do think that with a good coach, whether attainable or not, we would have a chance of making the playoffs as opposed to being in the running for the top 5 picks.

Yes, it pains me to say that Richard Jefferson at age 65 still beat out any of our SFs.

I hate the tactics employed by our coaches, hate the lack of accountability in our system, I hate a lot of things regarding the current Kings but I honestly think the coaches did a decent job of developing the youngsters. Not a great job. Not stellar but they didn't hold them back either. The coaches basically let them play and let them play thru mistakes and kept trying to teach them until the light comes on. For some, the light never came on, but I don't think it's the coaches' fault.

 

[DesertFox]

Brooks, IT, Hayes, and Salmons, could all miss the team's next flight, and this team would not be appreciably worse.
So in terms of talent and depth, sure this team has some. But is that really what wins games?

There needs to be some sort of order among the players, which Smart has failed at, but Petrie certainly has not made it any easier. If Brooks get hurt, IT could step in and it's very possible this team could get better, and vice versa. Salmons could get cut tomorrow, and talent-wise it wouldn't be felt.

All the other contenders have their stars, core guys, and then lesser band-aid players who keep the team afloat. As soon as the more talented player gets healthy, the lesser guy steps aside again. On the Kings, during any given night the team's 4th best player can be the team's 12th best the next game. That may sound like a good thing, but it's not. The King's top 2 and bottom 3 could match up with any in the league. That is pretty pointless.

 

[Kingsfan23]

You are missing my point. You claim that we keep blaming the coach without reason, when it is the talent level that causes us to suck this much. Through your own analysis of guys like Donte, Omri and my added examples of Jeter/Jackson, it is shown that we are a deeper team now than we were in Evans' rookie year and Cuz's rookie year. In that time, we've replaced these guys with more talented people while essentially only losing a "backup PG" in Beno and Dalembert who is a "17 min a game player". So we haven't lost much. In the meantime, Cousins and Evans have also improved their games. So here's the question - why are we not winning more than we were when we had these less talented players? You say that the claim that the coaches are holding the team back is not the cause of our struggles. Well, we've improved on the talent front, so why haven't we improved then?

There is a difference between what we hope a player becomes and what actually happens. Donte showed that he did have the talent to fill what we needed at the SF spot. He had very good size too. No one in his right mind is here claiming that we have Steve Nash on our bench in Jimmer. But the talent gap alone is not so huge as to explain why we are one of the worst teams in the league.

Another question is whether our guys are truly less talented, or whether other teams' bench players appear more talented because of the coaching and system.

Let's compare ourselves with the Spurs, taking Ginobili and MT as starters.

Splitter - Hayes
Gary Neal - Brooks
Patty Mills - IT
Stephen Jackson - JJ
Matt Bonner - TRob

Is the gap in talent really that huge? Sure, when you include the starters we lose out, but does it amount to us being bottom 5 year after year while the Spurs make the conference semis/WCFs? Keep in mind that our guys are also much younger.

Are Danny Green and Leonard really that great? Or do they just fill a very important role for them by playing good D and hitting open shots? Is that really a talent thing?

Therein lies the biggest difference IMO. We keep seeking players who can create their own shots, who can handle the ball. Remember - 3 guys in the lineup who can handle the ball (Westphal and Smart said that). But here's how all winning teams structure their teams: they get a few offensive stars, and tell everyone else to just play good D and hit open shots created by those 2 or 3 guys. But not us, no, we want James Johnson, Thomas Robinson, John Salmons to run the break and create shots for others.

Also: you're just acting stupid if you took my ageing comment to refer to guys like Greene and Omri. I trust you have a little more common sense than that. Here's a funny thing - how come all those guys (Landry, Noc, Dalembert) performed better with their previous teams than with us? Beno is about the only one who came over and became a very good player for us. In Thornton's case he wasn't getting many minutes with the Hornets before coming over.

There's just some logical loophole or something in your argument that is causing me to not fully understand you. You say that the coaching is not the problem, because untalented guys came here and played better than wherever they are now. But these untalented guys were playing pretty well too prior to coming here ... So it's either they are talented and our coaches suck, or they aren't talented and our coaches suck more than their old coaches... Either way it seems like our coaches suck if you ask me.

Our best players are not up to standard... comparing Cousins and Reke in their present form to the two best players on other teams and there in lies much of the difference.

People underestimate the importance of legit stars on the team.. not only do they lead the team on the court, they take over down the stretch and exude confidence in the lockerroom.. its like having a captain of a ship on the floor instead of it being ruddderless

 

[mac]

Our best players are not up to standard... comparing Cousins and Reke in their present form to the two best players on other teams and there in lies much of the difference.

People underestimate the importance of legit stars on the team.. not only do they lead the team on the court, they take over down the stretch and exude confidence in the lockerroom.. its like having a captain of a ship on the floor instead of it being ruddderless

Well ok I'll agree that that is a plausible argument. But as you know, most teams build their offense around their stars; they also play their stars heavy minutes. Here's the thing: do we do that on our team? Are our stars on the floor, in a position to possibly take over? Do we build around our stars skills? Now whether or not Cousins and Evans are legitimate stars is another issue - but as a team you have to commit to either building around them or trading them or somehow acquiring another star player if you feel that they aren't worth building around. I'm pretty sure half this board can give a very good answer as to how to build around Cousins and Evans, assuming they are our stars. The problem is we really haven't done that - that falls on Petrie. Up to recently we had been taking the ball out of Evans' hands as well - that falls on the coaches.

Hope you understand what I mean. If you don't build around your stars it's as good as saying they are just role players, and if that's the case the team should have traded them to acquire a leader for the franchise.

 

[mac]

Yes, it pains me to say that Richard Jefferson at age 65 still beat out any of our SFs.

I hate the tactics employed by our coaches, hate the lack of accountability in our system, I hate a lot of things regarding the current Kings but I honestly think the coaches did a decent job of developing the youngsters. Not a great job. Not stellar but they didn't hold them back either. The coaches basically let them play and let them play thru mistakes and kept trying to teach them until the light comes on. For some, the light never came on, but I don't think it's the coaches' fault.

I would say this: the youngsters benefit from us lacking veterans because they get more PT, but they also lose out because they receive less guidance. I agree with your point in that sense about the coaches letting them learn through their mistakes, but on the other hand you look at a team like San Antonio and see how Pop manages to incorporate his young players into his offense. In that sense the young guys develop even more because they learn to play winning basketball and fill certain roles - just look at Danny Green and Kawhi Leonard. This applies mainly to roleplayers though. SA hasn't gotten any young star talent recently because they've had no high picks, so as far as developing young star players you'd have to go back and look at Parker, Ginobili etc.

 

[Gary]

We need position players who know their roles rather than players that play multiple positions that aren't that great in a single area. The only real position players we have is Cousins, Hayes, Thompson, Robinson, Thornton. The rest could be traded for all I care.

Smart also sucks, but I voted for "roster doesn't fit" because watching them and having league pass and watching other teams, our team has no concept of a consistent offensive game. It's like we threw together a bunch of players without positions and told them to play something they aren't comfortable with.

 

[UK_King]

We'd have a better record than we do now if we played a reke and cuz two man game every single time down the floor.

The main problem is Smart wants to get everyone 10 shots a night, or it seems that way. Can't we just run the plays that get our best players the ball, in the best positions to score?

 

[jcwkings]

I say we ARE underachieving and pin it 50% on coaching, 40% on front office and 10% on players (mainly Cousins, but others as well). Smart just reminds me of the type of guy that wins over a room with his charm, but sucks at his job. He knows what to say and how to say it, but doesn't know how to put his rhetoric into action. The front office did him no favors by putting together a talented group of players, that absolutely do not fit together. It's not even that hard, you have two stars in Cousins and Tyreke, so you surround them with roleplayers (shooters, defenders, garbagemen etc.).

 

[pshn80]

I hope they are not overachieving.

 

[Glenn]

I hope they are not overachieving.

Now THIS is a major league post. Very funny.

 

[Kingster]

What is interesting to me is that Tyreke, Thompson, and Jimmer all appear better individually than last year. IT has been playing worse than last year. Cousins appears to be similar to me as last year; he's a wash. Salmons isn't playing badly; he's a wash. Yet, the team certainly isn't any better from what I can see. So the individual performances of those players are not causing winning. The team looks just as dysfunctional as ever from what I can tell. I can't entirely explain why that is, other than we are looking at the wrong things when we are making the judgement of whether players are playing better or not.

 

[Glenn]

What is interesting to me is that Tyreke, Thompson, and Jimmer all appear better individually than last year. IT has been playing worse than last year. Cousins appears to be similar to me as last year; he's a wash. Salmons isn't playing badly; he's a wash. Yet, the team certainly isn't any better from what I can see. So the individual performances of those players are not causing winning. The team looks just as dysfunctional as ever from what I can tell. I can't entirely explain why that is, other than we are looking at the wrong things when we are making the judgement of whether players are playing better or not.

For once, I agree with everything you wrote. The only person left off your list was Smart. (hint, hint)