It's early- what do you think of this starting lineup for game one?

#31
On the heavy off-chance the team magically clicks , surprises, and wins a bunch competitively, then starting makes more of a difference. However if the team is mediocre to poor which it is much more likely to be - starting means much less, and giving more minutes to all to give longer looks to players is warranted. Players need their chances to earn minutes, and I doubt Carter or Randolph stay long especially if they injure themselves during the season
All true but the emphasis is on the win, the competive attitude which is so important to the team and to each player and to the development of their competitive attitude. To start off with the strategy of laying the best until our winning % drops say below 40 then lay the second stringers. No a good way to bring a team along. Certainly within the parameters I describe he coach uses his discretion on all of this. The art of doing a good caching job.
 
#32
Either way, the only vet I see getting big minutes is Hill around 30, Temple around 25. Kosta-ZBo-Carter will hover around 15-20 MPG, regardless if they start or come off the bench.
 
#33
Projected starters and bench (approximate average minutes)

Hill (35)
Hield (30)
Carter (20)
Randolph (25)
KK (25)
---
Fox (25)
Bogdanovic (25)
Jackson (30)
Skal (25)
WCS (25)

Anyone else needs to earn their way into the rotation.
Looks about right... I would probably give Bogdan more time than Jackson in the beginning since he has more experience.
 
#35
There are only 240 min in a game, so...

Hill 28 Fox 20
Hield 28 Temple 20
Bogdan 20 Carter 20 Jackson 8
ZBo 24 Skal 24
WCS 28 KK 20

Giles starts the season inactive working with the Sac trainers. Mason, Richardson, and Papa rotate playing in the G league and collecing splinters on the bench.

Hopefully by midseason Papa proves himself ready for backup mins, so they can deal Koufos and get Giles time in the G league.
 
#37
There are only 240 min in a game, so...

Hill 28 Fox 20
Hield 28 Temple 20
Bogdan 20 Carter 20 Jackson 8
ZBo 24 Skal 24
WCS 28 KK 20

Giles starts the season inactive working with the Sac trainers. Mason, Richardson, and Papa rotate playing in the G league and collecing splinters on the bench.

Hopefully by midseason Papa proves himself ready for backup mins, so they can deal Koufos and get Giles time in the G league.
I love the precision!
 
#39
I always end up doing the same thing.. Leaving someone out or giving a rookie too much playing time. Jackson will probably be the odd man out early in the season or until an injury forces coach to play him more.
I think JJ will get minutes because he puts the ball in the hoop.
 
#40
I think JJ will get minutes because he puts the ball in the hoop.
Yes I think he looks better than I gave him credit, and he may turn out to be one of the best value picks out of the draft. Kings need a couple players to create their own shot, and he fits the bill. I'll be following and stewing on passing up on Juwan Evans. Have a feeling he's going to be a solid PG and possibly better than Mason.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#41
I really hope WCS wins the starting center spot outright.

But, I don't see Joeger just handing him the starting job. WCS will have to earn it.

That is why it is very important that WCS comes to training camp ready to compete. He can't be "space cadet" Willie! He needs to be the focused WCS that ended last season!

Because KK is a solid pro and will take the starting spot if willie doesn't come ready to compete.
When last I checked, last season, when the season ended, Willie was the starting center. So all he would be doing is returning to the starting job he already had. To start Koufos over Willie would make little sense to me.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#42
I am not sure that coach Joerger does subscribe to starting his best players at position. Certainly didn't last year.

I think people tend to have short memories. Last year Temple was clearly our best SG and coach Joerger was reluctant to start him as SG and went with Afflalo. Even when Gay blew his achilles, He opted to go with McLemore for a lot of the time. His reasoning was that the bench functioned very well together and he liked how Temple played with the 2nd unit.

It's not as simple as picking best player at position and going with them. It's a team game and some players play better with certain team mates because their games mesh better together. Bobby Jackson never started for the Kings unless Bibby was injured but he sure as hell finished a lot of games.
I don't think you can compare what Joerger did last year to what might happen this year. Well, you can, but I think it's an entirely different scenario. Last year we were trying to make the playoffs and Cousins was our star. This year, Cousins is gone and we're into a youth movement. The season should be about developing our young players. To do 0therwise at this point makes no sense. I have to believe that Vlade and Joerger have discussed this and are on the same page. Doesn't mean you don't cut a young players minutes from time to time to get his attention, if necessary. But the focus should be on the young players.
 
#43
I think by the end of the season the starting 5 will be Fox, Buddy, Carter, Skal and Willie. Im pretty sure we will make a trade for a viable small forward before the deadline. Whats awesome is that Demarcus Cousins is going to sign back with us :) mark my words.
 
#46
I think by the end of the season the starting 5 will be Fox, Buddy, Carter, Skal and Willie. Im pretty sure we will make a trade for a viable small forward before the deadline. Whats awesome is that Demarcus Cousins is going to sign back with us :) mark my words.
You don't think Jackson will be the starter at some point or a viable small forward? I do, and was pleasantly surprised by his play. I think he's already 7th or 8th man with his offensive ability alone. I'd surprised if he doesn't play at least an aggregate quarter a game early on.
 
#47
I don't think you can compare what Joerger did last year to what might happen this year. Well, you can, but I think it's an entirely different scenario. Last year we were trying to make the playoffs and Cousins was our star. This year, Cousins is gone and we're into a youth movement. The season should be about developing our young players. To do 0therwise at this point makes no sense. I have to believe that Vlade and Joerger have discussed this and are on the same page. Doesn't mean you don't cut a young players minutes from time to time to get his attention, if necessary. But the focus should be on the young players.
That is all correct.

However, the post that I was quoting said that you pick best player at each position and that is your starting 5 and you roll with those guys trying to get the win. You are right that player development will be the key for the coming season but that in itself means that young players would get more minutes than they necessarily would if the team was trying to make the play offs. This further goes against the claim in the post that I was quoting to start off with.

While the young players we have have nice potential and nice future, it is highly unlikely that they will be better than some of the veterans ahead of them straight out of the gates. However, those guys will still get development minutes.
 
#48
I don't think there's been one duplicate opinion on the starting lineup so far. Amazing. Goes to show we actually have a pretty deep team.

Btw Carter won't be starting at the end of the year. He may get a starter role early on and let the kids get their sea legs, but keep in mind he may only be here one year, so by the end of the year you can bet they will be experimenting with some younger players starting as a way to look towards next year. Carter could well return as an assistant coach next year, or, heck maybe he comes back as a player again (off the bench). His durability is impressive.
 
#49
If you pick next season's first game and say the 15th and 30th I think the starters for those games or any one of those could be:

PG- Hill, Fox, Mason
SG- Hield, Bogdanovic, Temple
SF- Carter, Jackson, Bogdanovic, Temple, Richardson
PF- Randolph, Labisserie
C - Koufos, Cauley-Stein

As Hammer says we have depth. At least competitively and on paper. It does suggest a very interesting season.
 
#52
PG: Hill
SG: Hield
SF: Temple
PF: Randolph
C: WCS

I'm actually hoping for Skal over Randolph, but I'm not holding my breath. I wouldn't be against it completely, and Zbo will play the same number of minutes off the bench or starting and can slide over to C anyway.

However, the Koufos train needs to crash and it needs to crash now. There is no worth to starting him at this stage of WCS' career. He's in his third year, time to see what he is. Koufos is a backup C; if your teams starts him it has problems.

Some people say "depth", I say "bad team". Not being able to tell who the clear starters are is usually a negative over a positive.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
Contributor
#53
Some people say "depth", I say "bad team". Not being able to tell who the clear starters are is usually a negative over a positive.
I couldn't possibly disagree more. In the case of the Kings at this point, not being able to tell who the clear starters are when you have EIGHT new players can't possibly be construed as a negative...or a positive for that matter. What it is primarily is an indication that the Kings are clearly rebuilding and most of the starting positions are up for grabs, as they should be at this point in time.
 
#54
I couldn't possibly disagree more. In the case of the Kings at this point, not being able to tell who the clear starters are when you have EIGHT new players can't possibly be construed as a negative...or a positive for that matter. What it is primarily is an indication that the Kings are clearly rebuilding and most of the starting positions are up for grabs, as they should be at this point in time.
Sure it can. We've seen this before. We've talked about bench depth before where no one could figure out who the starters were with previous years teams. Those teams weren't good.

This is a bad, bad, bad team next year. As it should be for a rebuilding process. It's going to be an interesting season alright, but not because they're actually going to be competitive.
 
#55
Some people say "depth", I say "bad team". Not being able to tell who the clear starters are is usually a negative over a positive.
"Depth" and "bad team" have nothing to do with each other. We absolutely have competitive depth as we go into the new season. And in no way is our team a bad team. It may not win a lot of games but "bad team"? No way!
 
#56
"Depth" and "bad team" have nothing to do with each other. We absolutely have competitive depth as we go into the new season.
They do when depth is all you've got going for you and you've got no stars with your best players being low-end starters at this stage of their careers. No one on our team would be more than a third option on an even average team right now.

And in no way is our team a bad team. It may not win a lot of games but "bad team"? No way!
Sooooo.... a bad team? That's how I would define it.
 
#57
They do when depth is all you've got going for you and you've got no known stars with not knowing who your best players are (deleted) at this stage of their careers. No one on our team would be more than a third option on an even average team right now.



Sooooo.... a bad team? That's how I would define it.
Fixed it for you. You can insist on your half empty glass or in your case, empty glass, but I'll choose the half full one not knowing exactly what we have or how they will be played. Until then, one or both of us is wrong.

And since I watch for enjoyment I'll think positive until proved otherwise.
 
#58
I hope they let the youngins (+Hill and possibly Temple) start and the vets close.

I don't think the idea is to let players like Vince and Zach play big minutes early and get worn down by the end of the season.
 
Last edited:
#59
They do when depth is all you've got going for you and you've got no stars with your best players being low-end starters at this stage of their careers. No one on our team would be more than a third option on an even average team right now.


Sooooo.... a bad team? That's how I would define it.
You're underrating George Hill. He was more than a 3rd option for the Jazz playoff team last year.
 
#60
Sure it can. We've seen this before. We've talked about bench depth before where no one could figure out who the starters were with previous years teams. Those teams weren't good.

This is a bad, bad, bad team next year. As it should be for a rebuilding process. It's going to be an interesting season alright, but not because they're actually going to be competitive.
If I thought they were going to be a bad bad bad team next year, I wouldn't bother watching, But I'll be watching every game.