Keith Smart Still Tinkering with Starting Lineup- Link!

[Gary]

The question is, how much was the offensive improvement a result of Salmons being taken out of the lineup as opposed to IT taking over at PG?

I do believe Reke can play PG for stints. However, I'm not a fan of him playing PG full-time because I do believe that IT should be handling point duty, while Reke handles playmaking duty. That being said, in the last two minutes of the game, I want to put out the best defensive lineup possible while still having our two best clutch scorers (Reke and Thornton) on the court. These simple facts tell me our closing lineup should be Reke/Thornton/Johnson/Thompson/Cousins.

Basically, saying Tyreke/Thornton was an unmitigated disaster to the extent that we should NEVER having them as the backcourt is unfair; it essentially places the blame for the entire team's suckitude offensively on two guys. It wasn't Tyreke and Thornton's fault Salmons couldn't hit an open J or got roasted defensively by seemingly every SF he faced. Could the offense have been better? Of course. I don't think Reke is that great of a full-time PG. The PG has duties I don't think should be left up to Reke.

However, we are looking for a lineup that simply gives us the best chance to win games at the end. I don't think its beyond Reke to play PG for 2-3 minute stints. And if he can, why on earth would you leave your best clutch shooter on the bench when the game is on the line? Or why would you have the entire backcourt be forced to cover guys who they are physically overmatched against?

That's why I would LOVE Evans/IT at the end of the games. IT does things that Evans cannot do with the ball and Evans does things that nobody else on the team can do with the ball. Having those two in the back court you wouldn't know where or who the ball going to go to, so you would have to stay spread rather than packing the paint. It opens up a whole wealth of opportunity offensively.

Not to mention we wouldn't be losing anything (in fact I believe we are better on defense) with IT/Evans rather than MT/Evans.

As for your first statement I just think it's three years of excuses in regards to Evans (at PG) that's getting the better of me. I never wanted Evans at PG and I have been voicing my opinion for more than 3 years now. I know there were issues last year, anyone could see that, but after three years of excuses I am tired of them. I take a step back and look at all three years and wonder if the team could succeed the way they are running things, and the answer every time is no...

Then fast forward to the second half of the season last year. There was finally excitement in STA (sleeptrain arena) and you could see things that are not shown on TV. The Kings bench was always rooting players on, they were smiling when playing well, and it seemed they were a family rather than individuals or clickes with the others left to sit alone. The fans around me were more excited. I was more excited. Rather than it being a chore to see the Kings play I actually looked forward to going and would mark the days on my calendar.

I think that's why I feel that THIS Kings team is moving in the right direction. To go back to the same ol same ol that was the first half of last season, or years prior just puts a damper on things to me, like when you see the ball stop moving and everyone playing one on one ball and you want them to continue to share the ball which got them a big lead or whatever. (hypothetical situation, but a situation we were in a few times last season)