Kings are "team where they don't seem too serious"

[VF21]

In the Jimmer to be bought out thread, I quoted Taj Gibson in an ESPN article where he said:

...When told of Fredette's buyout, Bulls forward Taj Gibson seemed pleased about the potential move and believes the young shooter would benefit from a change of scenery.

"I've seen that he's got talent," Gibson said. "It's just that the team that he was on he never really got a chance to do much because they've got the characters on that team where they don't seem too serious, you know what I'm saying? Playing on strict, good teams kind of brings the best out of a player."...

After thinking about that quote for a while, I looked at our roster. Do you think our problem is that we have too many players who "don't seem too serious"? If so, who do you think they are?

 

[Gary]

Probably everyone prior to this year. I think that two of our big 3 might suffer from that, although both of them are hard workers. I believe our "role players" probably suffered from it too which is why most of them have been moved, and pretty much all of them have been shopped.

 

[Hadlowe]

/shrug. We blew the Bulls out a few weeks back. I'm sure he was getting an earful from Cousins after Noah was tossed during that game and it still stings a bit.

 

[The_Jamal]

Kind of seems like a direct shot at Cuz. Can't think of anyone else on the team with who would have a national profile of "not being too serious". Gay is the chucker and IT is the "little engine that could" nationally. Nobody else really matters

 

[pshn80]

In the Jimmer to be bought out thread, I quoted Taj Gibson in an ESPN article where he said:



After thinking about that quote for a while, I looked at our roster. Do you think our problem is that we have too many players who "don't seem too serious"? If so, who do you think they are?

Is that an invitation for a witch hunt? Anyway, let's focus on winning tonight's game.

 

[Glenn]

After thinking about that quote for a while, I looked at our roster. Do you think our problem is that we have too many players who "don't seem too serious"? If so, who do you think they are?

Which month's team do you want us to focus on? We have had three trades and one buy out.

 

[rainmaker]

Well, we're not serious about winning, not serious about having a structured offensive system, not serious about balancing the roster up to this point, not serious about defense or getting defensive talent, so I don't really have a problem with those comments. Perception to an extent is truth and it's on our organization to change that, not complain about the perception others have.

And I do think we're trying to change that perception. Not as bad as it was under the Maloofs, but this year has been a mess outside the Rudy trade and we have a long way to go.

BTW, anyone find Malone's comments on Jimmer yesterday interesting? Said the ideal situation for him is next to a player or two who can dominate and attract doubles, where he'd spread the floor and get opportunities off the attention of others. I had to laugh as we have two of those guys and Malone repeatedly failed to use Jimmer in the situations he pointed out would be best for Jimmer. Without looking I'd guess 80% of Jimmer's mins were without either Boogie and Rudy on the floor. And that's not to say Jimmer would have succeeded or not, might not have. Just found it amusing Malone never used Jimmer the way he thinks Jimmer should be used. Actually, Jimmer along with both MT and Ben haven't been used correctly in terms of being put in positions to play off the attention Boogie/Rudy draw. Whether they succeed or not is a different question. The actual strategy employed thus far in how to use shooters on our roster has been poor.

 

[funkykingston]

After thinking about that quote for a while, I looked at our roster. Do you think our problem is that we have too many players who "don't seem too serious"? If so, who do you think they are?

The Kings have been lousy for a long time including Fredette's entire tenure. No consistent offensive structure or commitment to defense. I'd say everyone is guilty of making it a team that opponents don't take seriously. We can speculate on who Gibson was referring to specifically (likely Cousins I suppose) but really the Kings FO, coaches and players just need to find a way to start winning again. That's how you come to be looked at as a "serious" team.

 

[jcwkings]

It starts at the top, your role players don't set the mood around the ball club.

 

[funkykingston]

Well, we're not serious about winning, not serious about having a structured offensive system, not serious about balancing the roster up to this point, not serious about defense or getting defensive talent, so I don't really have a problem with those comments. Perception to an extent is truth and it's on our organization to change that, not complain about the perception others have.

And I do think we're trying to change that perception. Not as bad as it was under the Maloofs, but this year has been a mess outside the Rudy trade and we have a long way to go.

BTW, anyone find Malone's comments on Jimmer yesterday interesting? Said the ideal situation for him is next to a player or two who can dominate and attract doubles, where he'd spread the floor and get opportunities off the attention of others. I had to laugh as we have two of those guys and Malone repeatedly failed to use Jimmer in the situations he pointed out would be best for Jimmer. Without looking I'd guess 80% of Jimmer's mins were without either Boogie and Rudy on the floor. And that's not to say Jimmer would have succeeded or not, might not have. Just found it amusing Malone never used Jimmer the way he thinks Jimmer should be used. Actually, Jimmer along with both MT and Ben haven't been used correctly in terms of being put in positions to play off the attention Boogie/Rudy draw. Whether they succeed or not is a different question. The actual strategy employed thus far in how to use shooters on our roster has been poor.

Well you beat me to the punch with the same sort of sentiment. And I didn't see Malone's coomments but that's not surprising. Jimmer was a role player who needed help (a second ballhandler/playmaker on the floor, options who demand a double team) and either Malone failed to see that or didn't see enough value in Fredette to bother trying to put him in positions to succeed. I hope it's the latter because the former implies our coach is not as good as we'd like to think.

 

[rainmaker]

Well you beat me to the punch with the same sort of sentiment. And I didn't see Malone's coomments but that's not surprising. Jimmer was a role player who needed help (a second ballhandler/playmaker on the floor, options who demand a double team) and either Malone failed to see that or didn't see enough value in Fredette to bother trying to put him in positions to succeed. I hope it's the latter because the former implies our coach is not as good as we'd like to think.

Yeah, and I understand with IT/Rudy/Boogie we've set ourselves up where the situation is basically, those three get all the shots and there's no role for a SG or really anyone getting touches outside those three. I still maintain however that's the wrong system/strategy to deploy when we have a dominant center in the middle and a SF who can draw doubles out of the post. The pieces and strategy around those two should be surrounding them with shooters to best take advantage of the attention they draw, not plug in a 3rd guy who eats up most shots or time on the ball.

Jimmer's success or lack there of isn't my main concern. My main concern(in this discussion) is our system doesn't use shooters around two guys who draw doubles. Even if we had shooters......not much room for them. That's just as much a systematic issue as it is a personnel issue IMO. Not having great shooters doesn't excuse employing the wrong system around Boogie/Rudy, which is what I'd argue we're doing 90% of the time.

 

[Hadlowe]

Well you beat me to the punch with the same sort of sentiment. And I didn't see Malone's coomments but that's not surprising. Jimmer was a role player who needed help (a second ballhandler/playmaker on the floor, options who demand a double team) and either Malone failed to see that or didn't see enough value in Fredette to bother trying to put him in positions to succeed. I hope it's the latter because the former implies our coach is not as good as we'd like to think.

I think Malone is a fine coach, but he is weaker on offense than he is on defense. The Kings with a healthy, motivated Cousins are an offensive powerhouse, mostly because nobody can stop Cousins when he is locked in. There is very little "playing for each other" going on offensively, though, and that's a problem. The fact that IT is the second leading ball-pounder in the league isn't going to fix things any time soon.

In any case, defense is still THE issue, and Malone is the right guy for that.

 

[Chubbs]

Well you beat me to the punch with the same sort of sentiment. And I didn't see Malone's coomments but that's not surprising. Jimmer was a role player who needed help (a second ballhandler/playmaker on the floor, options who demand a double team) and either Malone failed to see that or didn't see enough value in Fredette to bother trying to put him in positions to succeed. I hope it's the latter because the former implies our coach is not as good as we'd like to think.

I think he was well aware Jimmer wasn't going to be here whatever Jimmer did on the court. That said, for the sake of winning some games, it sure would have made sense to get Jimmer some open looks. I don't really get it either.

 

[hrdboild]

This hits on something we've all been talking about -- the culture change we've been promised. The biggest reason I was upset with the front office during the off-season wasn't just that they let Tyreke go. It was that they didn't work hard enough to clear out some of the excess baggage which was infecting our young players with their bad attitude. And by bad attitude I don't mean necessarily that they were loud or argumentative ala DMC. John Salmons is about as mild-mannered a player as I've ever seen. He's practically somnambulant. But he coasts. He's the very definition of "just there to collect a paycheck" and while some of those veterans are harder workers than others, I think it's a serious problem when you have a roster full of journeymen who have grown accustomed to losing.

The NBA is a way of life, it's a job. I suppose from one point of view, there's nothing wrong with showing up and collecting your paycheck if you're good enough to earn the roster spot. It's not hurting anybody. But it doesn't lead to winning basketball either. If we have aspirations of playoff success, we need to develop our young talent and we absolutely can not afford to have these veterans passing on their questionable work ethics. They don't even have to say anything, merely by being there and going about their usual business they are making an impression. Those rookies and second year players are taking their cues from them on what is acceptable behavior, what amount of work you need to put in to last in the NBA. And if you've got a team full of players who are used to losing then those bad habits have a way of passing on.

For instance, we play hard defense some of the time and we're a complete push over at other times. Why is that? That's work ethic. That's guys coasting on the court. If you want to win consistently you can't be giving 85% and hoping that's enough. And defense is only the most obvious signifier of this effect. Our horrible assist rate is another one. To get a lot of assists you need players moving off the ball and you need everyone fully engaged in what is happening on that play. Somebody will grab a rebound and run up to the 3 point line and then pull up and wait for their teammates to catch up and run a play. Fast break wasted. That's work ethic. Every time we bring in a new player we see this brief burst of energy until they realize they can get away with coasting here and then that effort vanishes. I'm tired of it. It needs to change. The coaches, players, and GM all have to buy into the same team mentality and the same commitment to maximum effort and they all have to work together to get there.

 

[Chubbs]

Along these lines, caught a bit of the grant napear show driving home, and the first guy on the court at 4pm working was Reggie Evans.

He said Isaiah always starts shooting around 3 hours before. He said every single game wherever they are. Got home before 4:30 so I can't confirm.

That's impresses me about Reggie, although it's hard to imagine what he works on. His shot? Looking mean? This move?

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

Reggie said in his interview a couple days ago, that he "lifts" before every game also. Obviously not enough before a game to really fatigue himself, but uses it to get warmed up etc.

So the point is he leads by example. Constant hard work on his health and fitness, as well as getting on the court early to also lead in that regard,..despite the fact that his game is not about shooting much.

The dude is totally locked in on his craft and what to do with his body and mind to make the most of it

 

[mac]

This hits on something we've all been talking about -- the culture change we've been promised. The biggest reason I was upset with the front office during the off-season wasn't just that they let Tyreke go. It was that they didn't work hard enough to clear out some of the excess baggage which was infecting our young players with their bad attitude. And by bad attitude I don't mean necessarily that they were loud or argumentative ala DMC. John Salmons is about as mild-mannered a player as I've ever seen. He's practically somnambulant. But he coasts. He's the very definition of "just there to collect a paycheck" and while some of those veterans are harder workers than others, I think it's a serious problem when you have a roster full of journeymen who have grown accustomed to losing.

The NBA is a way of life, it's a job. I suppose from one point of view, there's nothing wrong with showing up and collecting your paycheck if you're good enough to earn the roster spot. It's not hurting anybody. But it doesn't lead to winning basketball either. If we have aspirations of playoff success, we need to develop our young talent and we absolutely can not afford to have these veterans passing on their questionable work ethics. They don't even have to say anything, merely by being there and going about their usual business they are making an impression. Those rookies and second year players are taking their cues from them on what is acceptable behavior, what amount of work you need to put in to last in the NBA. And if you've got a team full of players who are used to losing then those bad habits have a way of passing on.

For instance, we play hard defense some of the time and we're a complete push over at other times. Why is that? That's work ethic. That's guys coasting on the court. If you want to win consistently you can't be giving 85% and hoping that's enough. And defense is only the most obvious signifier of this effect. Our horrible assist rate is another one. To get a lot of assists you need players moving off the ball and you need everyone fully engaged in what is happening on that play. Somebody will grab a rebound and run up to the 3 point line and then pull up and wait for their teammates to catch up and run a play. Fast break wasted. That's work ethic. Every time we bring in a new player we see this brief burst of energy until they realize they can get away with coasting here and then that effort vanishes. I'm tired of it. It needs to change. The coaches, players, and GM all have to buy into the same team mentality and the same commitment to maximum effort and they all have to work together to get there.

It's interesting you brought up Salmons, because both Smart and Malone praised him for being in shape, working hard just being a pro and stuff like that. Yet like you said the guy absolutely didn't earn his paycheck in his time here.

 

[hrdboild]

It's interesting you brought up Salmons, because both Smart and Malone praised him for being in shape, working hard just being a pro and stuff like that. Yet like you said the guy absolutely didn't earn his paycheck in his time here.

That's the insidious thing about a guy like Salmons (and I honestly have nothing against him as a person, this is meant to be tongue in cheek) -- on the surface he's a pros pro. He comes in, does his job, follows the game plan, doesn't get in anybody's face. But then you watch him play for a full season and you realize he either had an abnormally sharp decline in physical capability after age 30 or he's using at most 50% of his natural ability and skill level at any given time. I get that he didn't ask to be traded, he signed a contract to one team and their plans changed and now he's in a situation he didn't want to be in and he's doing his job. He's just at a point in his career where the wins and losses don't really matter to him anymore. But we found ourselves (not by coincidence, this is a trickle-down effect) in a situation where almost our whole team had this attitude. As an organization we just have to commit to the idea that that's not good enough for the Kings.

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

That's the insidious thing about a guy like Salmons (and I honestly have nothing against him as a person, this is meant to be tongue in cheek) -- on the surface he's a pros pro. He comes in, does his job, follows the game plan, doesn't get in anybody's face. But then you watch him play for a full season and you realize he either had an abnormally sharp decline in physical capability after age 30 or he's using at most 50% of his natural ability and skill level at any given time. I get that he didn't ask to be traded, he signed a contract to one team and their plans changed and now he's in a situation he didn't want to be in and he's doing his job. He's just at a point in his career where the wins and losses don't really matter to him anymore. But we found ourselves (not by coincidence, this is a trickle-down effect) in a situation where almost our whole team had this attitude. As an organization we just have to commit to the idea that that's not good enough for the Kings.

I agree. Also at some point, you have to decide whether it's worth it to have players who even appear to look like they're not giving high effort. Whether they are or not,... image matters.

Personally I don't want anyone on the team who looks lazy