Joerger's future with the Kings

[pdxKingsFan]

Not pulled after one missed rotation; more of an insight into how they try to balance the vet/young player mix on the floor at any given time in order to facilitate defensive communication and energy. He did not name any player—I referenced Skal as an illustrative example of a player who has struggled with rotations. Skal works very hard and is coming along. I have a lot of confidence that he will succeed.

I think one of the reasons you see teams become perennial cellar dwellers is because they just turn the keys over to the young guys without any scheme to fit them into and they never become fully invested in being team players. I think that's also why we use Reno the way we do because these kids do need to get PT, but they can't get it at the NBA level where mistakes are multiplying and becoming learned.

We're competitive in games we shouldn't be. Often times we take "bad" losses to crappy teams that are level to us which makes us question what we saw against a Cleveland or Golden State. It's possible that is also by design to make sure we don't drift too far ahead of these teams in the lottery standings. I think we know what we're doing and >60% of these kids are going to reach their potential.

 

[John Galt]

I think one of the reasons you see teams become perennial cellar dwellers i

takes one to know one

 

[pdxKingsFan]

takes one to know one

It's pretty clear that when the Kings were bad, which is most of their time in Sacramento, they've had many talented players come through. Success breeds success and mediocrity pretty much guarantees continued mediocrity - and everyone decides they are "the guy" on the team and that other guy is stealing his thunder. I mean look at IT and Cousins or at least what was perceived. And given what happened in Phoenix before Boston and the whole way he slammed Sac on his exit despite us being literally the only team in the league to give him a shot, I think it's fair to see how terrible an idea it is not to mold these kids right. When they spent 3 or 4 years in a college program where on any top team there are 3-5 other guys on the team that can be "the guy" if given the shot NBA entry was something entirely different than it has been the past two decades.

 

[lawlman91]

Too risky. Yeah there might be things you don't like, that I don't like, the things we don't like could be different things, but it just seems too risky to try to get a better coach when we already have something good and stable but imperfect going on. We should settle with what we have, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[John Galt]

By the way I answered the poll truthfully in the moment after a 72 point half was hung on them... but push comes to shove... I mean check my avatar picture. I believe Joerger is a really good coach and of course don't really want to fire him. But my vote wasn't a typo. A 72 point half calls for a little hostility toward the coach - albeit temporary

 

[SacTownKid]

I think one of the reasons you see teams become perennial cellar dwellers is because they just turn the keys over to the young guys without any scheme to fit them into and they never become fully invested in being team players. I think that's also why we use Reno the way we do because these kids do need to get PT, but they can't get it at the NBA level where mistakes are multiplying and becoming learned.

We're competitive in games we shouldn't be. Often times we take "bad" losses to crappy teams that are level to us which makes us question what we saw against a Cleveland or Golden State. It's possible that is also by design to make sure we don't drift too far ahead of these teams in the lottery standings. I think we know what we're doing and >60% of these kids are going to reach their potential.

Golden who? I saw the uniforms but I didn't see the names Curry or Durant on the back of any of them. They have been competitive, but they've also cleaned up on teams that in actuality are often times younger and less experienced than the players Joerger is heading up his rotations with. To be honest, George Hill, Zach Randolph, Garrett Temple, Kosta Koufos, and probably Bogdan who has a lot of pro experience, and Willie who is almost in his prime shouldn't be struggling against the teams they have.

Here's the way things are headed. A larger number of players may reach their potential, but the real question is whether or not the Kings highest potential kids will reach theirs. In the end that's all that matters. Grooming role players to be the best role player they can be is playing it way too close to the middle.

 

[kingsboi]

I think one of the reasons you see teams become perennial cellar dwellers is because they just turn the keys over to the young guys without any scheme to fit them into and they never become fully invested in being team players. I think that's also why we use Reno the way we do because these kids do need to get PT, but they can't get it at the NBA level where mistakes are multiplying and becoming learned.

We're competitive in games we shouldn't be. Often times we take "bad" losses to crappy teams that are level to us which makes us question what we saw against a Cleveland or Golden State. It's possible that is also by design to make sure we don't drift too far ahead of these teams in the lottery standings. I think we know what we're doing and >60% of these kids are going to reach their potential.

you also become a perennial cellar dweller by whiffing on draft picks that turn out to be all-stars year after year after year and instead draft players that are role players or out of the league all ready.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

you also become a perennial cellar dweller by whiffing on draft picks that turn out to be all-stars year after year after year and instead draft players that are role players or out of the league all ready.

Most of which happened under prior regimes. It's way too soon to tell anything about Vlade's picks under Joerger's tutelage.

 

[kingsboi]

Most of which happened under prior regimes. It's way too soon to tell anything about Vlade's picks under Joerger's tutelage.

Fair point but history does not favor the Kings so that's all we can go by for the time being.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Fair point but history does not favor the Kings so that's all we can go by for the time being.

I'd argue with a handful of exceptions and the awful 5ish year stretch that closed out the Maloof era and ended with Vivek's first two years we generally do ok in the draft, especially when you consider the lottery hasn't been particularly kind to the team and the year we did hit was a weak draft.

 

[The Effort Police]

It's pretty clear that when the Kings were bad, which is most of their time in Sacramento, they've had many talented players come through. Success breeds success and mediocrity pretty much guarantees continued mediocrity - and everyone decides they are "the guy" on the team and that other guy is stealing his thunder. I mean look at IT and Cousins or at least what was perceived. And given what happened in Phoenix before Boston and the whole way he slammed Sac on his exit despite us being literally the only team in the league to give him a shot, I think it's fair to see how terrible an idea it is not to mold these kids right. When they spent 3 or 4 years in a college program where on any top team there are 3-5 other guys on the team that can be "the guy" if given the shot NBA entry was something entirely different than it has been the past two decades.

We have? The team's draft history and free agency history is pathetic compared to all but maybe 3 or 4 other teams. We drafted four straight busts in the lottery from 2011-2014, the first two who were out of the league within four years, and the latter two are end of the bench filler. No one there became even a valuable bench piece. If that's talent, I'm not seeing it.

And of all the reasons why the Kings have failed, IT and Cousin's fit together or whatever you want to call it is low on my list. The aforementioned draft picks, they had probably the worst starting SG and PF in the league, a terrible bench, no 3P shooting, and were undergoing ownership and FO changes. Keep in mind that Cousins and IT were also 23 and 24 respectively in their last year together. Cousins was on the cusp of stardom and IT wasn't there yet and then IT was let go. FWIW, Cousins is now a perennial all-star and IT has been an MVP candidate which all but guarantees being part of a successful and winning program, despite changing none of his habits and not being molded correctly according to you.

 

[kingsboi]

I'd argue with a handful of exceptions and the awful 5ish year stretch that closed out the Maloof era and ended with Vivek's first two years we generally do ok in the draft, especially when you consider the lottery hasn't been particularly kind to the team and the year we did hit was a weak draft.

whether they hit in that weak draft you refer to remains to be seen.

 

[Telemachus]

whether they hit in that weak draft you refer to remains to be seen.

I assumed he was referring to Pervis Ellison.

 

[kingsboi]

I assumed he was referring to Pervis Ellison.

That's a bit out of my time so I can only assume he was referring to 2016

 

[Telemachus]

That's a bit out of my time so I can only assume he was referring to 2016

1989 was the only time the Kings ended up with the 1st pick, and it was one of the weakest drafts with no clear cut #1.

 

[Iced Espresso]

1989 was the only time the Kings ended up with the 1st pick, and it was one of the weakest drafts with no clear cut #1.

Made up for by the Billy O for Mitch flip, raised by Webber later.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

1989 was the only time the Kings ended up with the 1st pick, and it was one of the weakest drafts with no clear cut #1.

Yes. As an Arizona guy Sean Elliott was my preferred pick. He had a nice career for the Spurs but by no.1 pick standards would have been a colossal disappointment.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

We have? The team's draft history and free agency history is pathetic compared to all but maybe 3 or 4 other teams. We drafted four straight busts in the lottery from 2011-2014, the first two who were out of the league within four years, and the latter two are end of the bench filler. No one there became even a valuable bench piece. If that's talent, I'm not seeing it.

I specifically referenced that period where clearly basketball ability may have taken a back seat to other things (owners trying to draft a marketable name and new ownership/incompetence). Prior to that we had a history of getting good value on our picks outside of a few drafts.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Golden who? I saw the uniforms but I didn't see the names Curry or Durant on the back of any of them.

As if they only have two decent players. The great teams can rest their top guys and still win and GS is no exception. They are a machine.

 

[Telemachus]

Yes. As an Arizona guy Sean Elliott was my preferred pick. He had a nice career for the Spurs but by no.1 pick standards would have been a colossal disappointment.

The best players to come out of that draft were Glen Rice, Sean Elliott, Tim Hardaway, Mookie Blaylock, Shawn Kemp, Cliff Robinson, and **Vlade Divac**.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The best players to come out of that draft were Glen Rice, Sean Elliott, Tim Hardaway, Mookie Blaylock, Shawn Kemp, Cliff Robinson, and **Vlade Divac**.

8 out of the top 10 were either outright busts or considered drafted too high for their position. I believe that would have been the case for any player drafted first overall.

 

[SacTownKid]

As if they only have two decent players. The great teams can rest their top guys and still win and GS is no exception. They are a machine.

They have decent players but it's still a game of magnitude and they were missing their two top players. If you want to put a little * next to it that will suffice.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

They have decent players but it's still a game of magnitude and they were missing their two top players. If you want to put a little * next to it that will suffice.

......and I think we'll just stop here.

 

[mac]

We're halfway through the season and I have to say that Joerger needs to change his rotation plan. Making the kids earn their minutes sounds good in theory, and probably works wonders in instilling discipline on an actual veteran team like the Spurs. On our team though? You can't in good faith tell me that Garett Temple or George Hill are doing any better than Buddy on a regular basis. If your vets aren't doing the job of showing how you do it, you're better off letting your young guys learn through experience.

This team isn't built for a high level of success, but I am very quickly souring on Joerger's"strategy" of moving towards that goal

 

[King Baller]

I think it is time to play the young fellas.