Kings still have work to do - ESPN Insider
- Thread starter thedofd
- Start date
Bballkingsrock
All-Star
cool
M
Markezi
Guest
Anytime stats are used to "prove" that one player is better or more valuable than another - the argument has already been lost.
So Webber averaged 20ppg last year? How does that make a difference when the Kings play UNDER .500 ball with him in the lineup? All it shows is that Webber is not a team player, disrupts chemistry in order to pad his stats, and does more bad than good when he is on the floor.
And by the way:
So Webber averaged 20ppg last year? How does that make a difference when the Kings play UNDER .500 ball with him in the lineup? All it shows is that Webber is not a team player, disrupts chemistry in order to pad his stats, and does more bad than good when he is on the floor.
And by the way:
I could not agree more.Bballkingsrock said:
Kingsgurl
Starter
Rrriiigghhhttt. Everyone knows subjective opinion is much more substansive than stupid stats
Webber has always been a true team player, one of the best passing bigs in the game. Last season was a bit of an aberration in that the team force fed him too much to get him reps, but given the amount of time the team had left to prepare for the PlayOffs, not all that surprising.
Why do you only look at his PPG stats then dismiss the rest? Look at boards, look at assists. Oh, that's right, stats don't mean anything unless they can be used to prove your point
M
Markezi
Guest
Again, what is more important than a 12-13 record and slipping from first place to fourth place in a span of mere weeks?Kingsgurl said:Rrriiigghhhttt. Everyone knows subjective opinion is much more substansive than stupid stats
Webber has always been a true team player, one of the best passing bigs in the game. Last season was a bit of an aberration in that the team force fed him too much to get him reps, but given the amount of time the team had left to prepare for the PlayOffs, not all that surprising.
Why do you only look at his PPG stats then dismiss the rest? Look at boards, look at assists. Oh, that's right, stats don't mean anything unless they can be used to prove your point
The problem with your argument is the same problem with the NBA today: individuals over team.
A
AriesMar27
Guest
if the kings hadnt lost to the warriors in that last game or the suns we wouldnt be having this discussion. if they had won and peja hadnt showed up against the spurs you would still be whinning about webber. what does his regular season play have to do with the fact that peja didnt show up in the playoffs? in the end its different team same results, peja shutdown by someone shorter than him, the kings lose then we blame webber for it...
Kingsgurl
Starter
Really? I think you need to take a look. I'm saying the TEAM lost those games, not just Chris. Others here seem to be arguing that Chris, the individual, is solely responsible for the TEAMS poor play. Integrating a gimpy Chris into the line-up was certainly part of it, but not the only contributing factor.Markezi said:
You were the one that began this argument by stating you would rather have a void at PF than Chris Webber, a position that can't be construed as anything but detrimental to the team. Trading him would be a position you could support as better for the team, in your opinion. Getting nothing back just to be rid of him shows where your real motives lie.
mcsluggo
Starter
Jeez, your own arguments are the single biggest argument against your arguments...Markezi said:
1. "Individuals over team." You mean like searching for all of the blame in one solitary individual player , and ignoring the overall monsoon of factors that affected the entire team at the same time....?
2. What is 12-13, but a stat. OF COURSE STATS MATTER. Its all in the interpretation of the whole, and not allowing yourself to be blinded by one particular narrow angle.
M
Markezi
Guest
1. In order to properly prepare for the playoffs, a contending team cannot finish the season playing sub .500 ball. Period. You don't prepare for a foot race by sitting on the couch and eating potato chips.AriesMar27 said:
2. Your tiresome whining comment indicates that you are more interested in pointing blame at specific moments of missed opportunity rather than the big picture. You would do well in a government position. Peja was a leading candidate for the league MVP prior to Webber's return. After his return, Peja's shots per game dropped, he was not receiving the ball as much because ball movement in their offense nearly disappeared (due to Vlade sitting on the bench and Miller's injury) so it was more difficult for him to get in the flow of the game. We didn't lose in the playoffs. We lost long before the playoffs.
3. Webber is only partially responsible for the Kings losing. I blame poor coaching decisions upon Webber's return (he shouldn't have returned when he did, he should have started at 15-20 minutes when he finally did return, Adelman should have ensured that the offense continued to run through Vlade, Vlade should have stepped up, and on and on), as well as Webber's ego demanding that he take over the team and make it his regardless of what they'd accomplished to date. Oh yeah, and the drug policy failure. Nothing inspires a first place team in the home stretch of perhaps their single best season ever than having their self-appointed team leader fail the league drug test and get suspended. On top of a 5 game league suspension for lying to the federal grand jury of course - can't forget that.
M
Markezi
Guest
1. "Monsoon of factors?" Wow. Quite a statement. Were there not a "monsoon of factors" in place for the first 3/4 of the season when the Kings still managed a pace of about 40-15? I said early on this year (january) that the Kings won't win it all without a healthy Bobby. Therefore, my position has always been that his absense was the single biggest factor to their demise. However, the fact remains that the Kings managed to win without Bobby prior to Webber's return. Is it just coincidence that the team began losing to last place teams - repeatedly - once Webber returned? Do I blame him for that? For the umpteenth time - he is only the catalyst, not the scapegoat. Vlade voluntarily took a back seat. Miller was hurt for a short while and when he returned, Adelman limited his role. Adelman deferred the team chemistry to Webber. Each of these problems, other than Bobby, tie back to the negative impact Chris's return had on the team.mcsluggo said:Jeez, your own arguments are the single biggest argument against your arguments...
1. "Individuals over team." You mean like searching for all of the blame in one solitary individual player , and ignoring the overall monsoon of factors that affected the entire team at the same time....?
2. What is 12-13, but a stat. OF COURSE STATS MATTER. Its all in the interpretation of the whole, and not allowing yourself to be blinded by one particular narrow angle.
2. How is my explaining that going from first place to fourth place in a matter of games by losing to last place teams relying on individual player stats?
Could u give some credit to the sniveling baby's so called elder brother Vlade bailing out of Sacramento? I say bailing becasue he could have stayed here if he really wanted. Not to say that he should have.Bballkingsrock said:
And the other important thing is his own attitude of shying away from challenges? If at all Webber was calling him out then he should have the guts to stand up against it and show his mattle.
The way I see it is that he is afraid that he will fail again when the time to deliver comes and thats why he is talking abt places like Chicago where he will never have to worry abt things like playoffs. because they are never going to reach there.
Kingsgurl
Starter
Your arguments are specious, at best. You admit the Kings needed a healthy Bobby, then dismiss his abscence two sentences later. You want to point to the 12-12 record to end the season, yet dismiss the fact that the Kings were 4-1 immediately following Chris' return, which might lead one to believe there were probably other mitigating factors at work, in addition to a gimpy Chris.Markezi said:
Vlade voluntarily took a back seat? Was he even still on the bus? I'm fairly certain no one went to him and said "Vlade, big fella, we know you are tired, why don't you just coast through the rest of the season? We have to make you suit up and all, but make sure you aren't expending too much effort out there, OK?" Chris' return did not mean Vlade had to become a non-factor.
Just a thought, but Brad's injury might have hampered his effectiveness.
Once again, the regular season doesn't matter. In the PlayOffs we needed a bit more production from a couple of key players. Chris did not make Vlade turn the ball over, he did not make Peja and Vlade miss 6 inch lay-ups. He didn't make Peja hit the side of the backboard or throw up shots that didn't even graze the rim.
Widowmaker2k
Bench
Webber had more triple doubles in the playoffs then all of those players combined.Bballkingsrock said:
allrightythen
Starter
This is a rather interesting discussion.
It seems to me that there is truth to both sides of the argument. The Kings game changed when Webber came back, and apperently not for the better. It's easy to put it on Webber and I'm sure at least a small percentage of the decline could be attributed to him, but there is no hard solid proof to back up the idea. Its also equally silly to try put the losses in the playoffs on Peja. He obviously did not play as good as we all believe he could. I don't think anyone can put a real reason to it either. I've heard a lot of theories, but seen little or no evidence. As Rasheed Wallace once put it "both teams played hard." The end of the regular season was tough and I was surprised they played as gutty as they did in the playoffs.
It seems to me that there is truth to both sides of the argument. The Kings game changed when Webber came back, and apperently not for the better. It's easy to put it on Webber and I'm sure at least a small percentage of the decline could be attributed to him, but there is no hard solid proof to back up the idea. Its also equally silly to try put the losses in the playoffs on Peja. He obviously did not play as good as we all believe he could. I don't think anyone can put a real reason to it either. I've heard a lot of theories, but seen little or no evidence. As Rasheed Wallace once put it "both teams played hard." The end of the regular season was tough and I was surprised they played as gutty as they did in the playoffs.
Daved
Prospect
It is possible for Webber to have done nothing wrong, and yet still be detrimental to the team. It is possible for him to try his best, but for the team to be better off without him.
Trading good or great players without getting fair value in return happens all the time, and except for maybe the Clippers, the point is to improve the team either now or in the future, or both. It is not foolish to think that trading Webber, even for less than his value, would be a good thing for the Kings.
Sure it would create a gaping hole at power forward, but that hole can be filled, especially by Petrie. It doesn't have to be filled by someone of Webber's caliber for the team to be improved, either. Moving Webber would completely change the dynamic of the team, potentially for the better.
Trading good or great players without getting fair value in return happens all the time, and except for maybe the Clippers, the point is to improve the team either now or in the future, or both. It is not foolish to think that trading Webber, even for less than his value, would be a good thing for the Kings.
Sure it would create a gaping hole at power forward, but that hole can be filled, especially by Petrie. It doesn't have to be filled by someone of Webber's caliber for the team to be improved, either. Moving Webber would completely change the dynamic of the team, potentially for the better.
There's a fairly significant difference between getting back less value and trading him just or the sake of trading him. Getting lesser value (say Magliore/West for Webber) could be reasonably argued as addition by subtraction. Gettting rid of him just to be rid of him is bad business to be polite about it.
Daved
Prospect
To be honest, trading him just for the sake of trading him could really help the team. Doing it because you've got a personal vendetta, or because you just don't like him is bad business, but there would still be benefits.
With Webber, the Kings are a slow team. They were better on defense, but thats because they slowed the pace of the game down. I think with a younger, more athletic player at the PF spot, the rest of the team could hold down the scoring load as they did last year when he was out. At the same time, they should emphasize defense more than they did last year. Part of the reason their defense was so good in the playoffs was that they focused on it more. I think they would do that even without Webber in town, at the very least starting playoff time. With Miller at center, and hopefully somebody better than Songaila starting at PF, they could just show up and be better than last years pre-Webber defensive team.
IMO, if the team could approach last years pre-Webber success on offense, and improve on defense, they'd have a better chance at winning a championship than they do now with Webber in the lineup and in the locker room.
With Webber, the Kings are a slow team. They were better on defense, but thats because they slowed the pace of the game down. I think with a younger, more athletic player at the PF spot, the rest of the team could hold down the scoring load as they did last year when he was out. At the same time, they should emphasize defense more than they did last year. Part of the reason their defense was so good in the playoffs was that they focused on it more. I think they would do that even without Webber in town, at the very least starting playoff time. With Miller at center, and hopefully somebody better than Songaila starting at PF, they could just show up and be better than last years pre-Webber defensive team.
IMO, if the team could approach last years pre-Webber success on offense, and improve on defense, they'd have a better chance at winning a championship than they do now with Webber in the lineup and in the locker room.
M
Markezi
Guest
Daved - you are a breath of reality and fresh air.
Please continue posting!
Please continue posting!
Widowmaker2k
Bench
I disagree, with Webber AND Vlade gone, we would either have to put the passing burden entirely on Miller, or switch to a traditional point-guard run offense. (Which wouldn't be entirely bad, but we wouldn't be the same team that had the early season success of last year.)Daved said:
I think people focus way too much on the last few months of the regular season. It was unusual circumstances and not a good indicator of the way next season's team will perform. Between the injuries to Brad and Bobby and the Miller/Divac starting role, the roster was in trouble no matter what. When Adelman decided to sacrifice games in exchange for getting Webber back into the mix, it was nearly automatic that the team would struggle. Well that scenario has changed and the situations and roles are very clear. We saw a glimpse of the future in the playoffs when Brad and Chris were very effective in the frontcourt. It's now up to Adelman and Peja to work out how Peja is going to get better shots. They have a whole training camp to get that done.
If you want something to worry about, keep an eye on Bobby and his ab injury. It could be serious enough to end his career if he has problems with it in training camp.
If you want something to worry about, keep an eye on Bobby and his ab injury. It could be serious enough to end his career if he has problems with it in training camp.
No one in the Kings front office has a personal vendetta against Chris Webber. At least, not that I know of.Daved said:
Three considerations:
1) If you think the Kings were slow with Webber on the court, imagine how slow they'd be with Greg Ostertag and Brad Miller being the two best big men on the floor.
2) Who would that younger, more athletic player be that we could get by getting rid of Webber [for peanuts]? We're still over the cap without Webber's contract. Doesn't that basically put us without a power forward until Doug and Peja come off the books and we can sign a starting caliber power forward? And don't we have to spend the bulk of our money re-signing Peja? About the best thing we could do is trade Webber for a blow-up doll, and I'm not sure that the salaries would match.
3) Saying that the Kings should emphasize defense more than they did last season is, IMO, a joke, especially if you're saying that they'd be effective at doing so without Webber. We were in the bottom five in almost every defensive statistical category last season - without Webber. Season before last, we were one of the best - with Webber leading the way. Part of the reason that the Kings were better on defense in the playoffs is because they focused on it more; another part is Webber's contributions (and, to be fair, Peja's). Another part is the fact that Vlade didn't get many minutes in the playoffs. They could be better defensively just showing up without Webber, but that's not a testament to Webber's "poor defense." That's a testament to the fact that we replaced Vlade with Greg Ostertag, and we'll hopefully have a healthy Bobby Jackson, plus Mike Bibby another year removed from his foot injury. But we'll still have a gaping hole at power forward.
Why are people acting like Webber kills our offense? Haven't we been running the same offense for six years? People are dismissing five years of beautiful offense spearheaded by Chris Webber to talk about two months of less than beautiful offense spearheaded by Chris Webber. I can't say that I understand it. You don't think that Webb will return to pre-injury form? That's fine; he doesn't need to in order for us to run the offense through him at either the high or the low post.
By the way, our beautiful offense wouldn't have stood a chance against Detroit in the Finals. And we probably wouldn't have gotten past San Antonio or LA without playing any defense.
We're not going to improve on defense by leaving a hole at power forward, especially a hole that would have to be filled by Darius Songaila or Brad Miller, or any of the minimum salary free agents available right now. I think that's evidenced by the paltry defense we played without Webber last season.
Daved
Prospect
>Quite frankly, if Peja would have showed up in the playoffs last year they would have had a better chance at winning a championship.
Absolutely. Let's hope he improves on that performance this coming season.
>I disagree, with Webber AND Vlade gone, we would either have to put the passing burden entirely on Miller, or switch to a traditional point-guard run offense. (Which wouldn't be entirely bad, but we wouldn't be the same team that had the early season success of last year.)
Good point... The Kings would also lack a low-post presence. I think those negatives would be offset by the positives. It wasn't necessary for Vlade and Brad to be out there at the same time for the offense to be effective, so the only question is what would they do if Webber is gone when Brad is on the bench. I would hope that they could add more of a transition game again to the offense, which could still be effective when Miller sits.
Absolutely. Let's hope he improves on that performance this coming season.
>I disagree, with Webber AND Vlade gone, we would either have to put the passing burden entirely on Miller, or switch to a traditional point-guard run offense. (Which wouldn't be entirely bad, but we wouldn't be the same team that had the early season success of last year.)
Good point... The Kings would also lack a low-post presence. I think those negatives would be offset by the positives. It wasn't necessary for Vlade and Brad to be out there at the same time for the offense to be effective, so the only question is what would they do if Webber is gone when Brad is on the bench. I would hope that they could add more of a transition game again to the offense, which could still be effective when Miller sits.
Daved
Prospect
>1) If you think the Kings were slow with Webber on the court, imagine how slow they'd be with Greg Ostertag and Brad Miller being the two best big men on the floor.
I'd rather have Songaila start at PF than have Miller move over again, but I think Petrie would be able to find somebody better than Darius either in a trade or out of his magic hat.
>2) Who would that younger, more athletic player be that we could get by getting rid of Webber [for peanuts]? We're still over the cap without Webber's contract. Doesn't that basically put us without a power forward until Doug and Peja come off the books and we can sign a starting caliber power forward? And don't we have to spend the bulk of our money re-signing Peja? About the best thing we could do is trade Webber for a blow-up doll, and I'm not sure that the salaries would match.
I don't know, but like I said, even Songaila as the starter might be enough. I do know that Petrie has consistently found a way to fill in holes in the team, so I don't see why he wouldn't be able to here. The biggest point I'm making is that trading Webber for a blow up doll is not as ludicrous of a proposition as some might say.
>3) Saying that the Kings should emphasize defense more than they did last season is, IMO, a joke, especially if you're saying that they'd be effective at doing so without Webber. We were in the bottom five in almost every defensive statistical category last season - without Webber. Season before last, we were one of the best - with Webber leading the way. Part of the reason that the Kings were better on defense in the playoffs is because they focused on it more; another part is Webber's contributions (and, to be fair, Peja's). Another part is the fact that Vlade didn't get many minutes in the playoffs. They could be better defensively just showing up without Webber, but that's not a testament to Webber's "poor defense." That's a testament to the fact that we replaced Vlade with Greg Ostertag, and we'll hopefully have a healthy Bobby Jackson, plus Mike Bibby another year removed from his foot injury. But we'll still have a gaping hole at power forward.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. You seem to agree with me, so I don't know why the thought of greater emphasis on defense is a joke. As I said above, Webber made the Kings a better defensive team. I think they can be better than they were before he returned last year even without him. The team and coaches have routinely emphasized defense more in the playoffs (thanks in large part to Webber), I think they would have done so again even without him.
>Why are people acting like Webber kills our offense? Haven't we been running the same offense for six years? People are dismissing five years of beautiful offense spearheaded by Chris Webber to talk about two months of less than beautiful offense spearheaded by Chris Webber. I can't say that I understand it. You don't think that Webb will return to pre-injury form? That's fine; he doesn't need to in order for us to run the offense through him at either the high or the low post.
I get the feeling he won't return to his pre-injury days. I underestimated the surgery's effects on him last year, I don't want to do it again. I thought he played well in the playoffs, but I think the Kings offense can be: a) better without Webber despite his skills/talent, and b) effective in the playoffs without him, despite the lack of a low-post/go-to guy.
>By the way, our beautiful offense wouldn't have stood a chance against Detroit in the Finals. And we probably wouldn't have gotten past San Antonio or LA without playing any defense.
True, but last year's attempt didn't work either. Its about giving yourself the best chance at the championship.
I'd rather have Songaila start at PF than have Miller move over again, but I think Petrie would be able to find somebody better than Darius either in a trade or out of his magic hat.
>2) Who would that younger, more athletic player be that we could get by getting rid of Webber [for peanuts]? We're still over the cap without Webber's contract. Doesn't that basically put us without a power forward until Doug and Peja come off the books and we can sign a starting caliber power forward? And don't we have to spend the bulk of our money re-signing Peja? About the best thing we could do is trade Webber for a blow-up doll, and I'm not sure that the salaries would match.
I don't know, but like I said, even Songaila as the starter might be enough. I do know that Petrie has consistently found a way to fill in holes in the team, so I don't see why he wouldn't be able to here. The biggest point I'm making is that trading Webber for a blow up doll is not as ludicrous of a proposition as some might say.
>3) Saying that the Kings should emphasize defense more than they did last season is, IMO, a joke, especially if you're saying that they'd be effective at doing so without Webber. We were in the bottom five in almost every defensive statistical category last season - without Webber. Season before last, we were one of the best - with Webber leading the way. Part of the reason that the Kings were better on defense in the playoffs is because they focused on it more; another part is Webber's contributions (and, to be fair, Peja's). Another part is the fact that Vlade didn't get many minutes in the playoffs. They could be better defensively just showing up without Webber, but that's not a testament to Webber's "poor defense." That's a testament to the fact that we replaced Vlade with Greg Ostertag, and we'll hopefully have a healthy Bobby Jackson, plus Mike Bibby another year removed from his foot injury. But we'll still have a gaping hole at power forward.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. You seem to agree with me, so I don't know why the thought of greater emphasis on defense is a joke. As I said above, Webber made the Kings a better defensive team. I think they can be better than they were before he returned last year even without him. The team and coaches have routinely emphasized defense more in the playoffs (thanks in large part to Webber), I think they would have done so again even without him.
>Why are people acting like Webber kills our offense? Haven't we been running the same offense for six years? People are dismissing five years of beautiful offense spearheaded by Chris Webber to talk about two months of less than beautiful offense spearheaded by Chris Webber. I can't say that I understand it. You don't think that Webb will return to pre-injury form? That's fine; he doesn't need to in order for us to run the offense through him at either the high or the low post.
I get the feeling he won't return to his pre-injury days. I underestimated the surgery's effects on him last year, I don't want to do it again. I thought he played well in the playoffs, but I think the Kings offense can be: a) better without Webber despite his skills/talent, and b) effective in the playoffs without him, despite the lack of a low-post/go-to guy.
>By the way, our beautiful offense wouldn't have stood a chance against Detroit in the Finals. And we probably wouldn't have gotten past San Antonio or LA without playing any defense.
True, but last year's attempt didn't work either. Its about giving yourself the best chance at the championship.
Seems that you have summed up that Webber is not needed for the Kings to win the Championship. I however disagree with you on this point. Unless we have get someone with really good low post capabilities, it is impossible for the kings to win a championship. And this point was recognised by Aldeman and the Kings' think tank. That was the reason why they tried to get him in as early as possible even though he wasn't completely ready to play. The only mistake they did was they made Webber the center of their offense too early. Instead they should have let others (especially Peja) lead the scoring and just try to get Webber to get back slowly into the game. But even that easier than said, since these guys are used to play with each other in a particular way and that can't be changed easily.Daved said:
Another point that u seem to ignore completely was that Webber had just come back from an injury, so it was expected that he would be slower. Also talking abt slowness, Vlade was another factor for the slowness on the floor.
So with him gone things are going to improve for sure.
And abt the sweet offense of Sacramento without Webber. Well teams with good defense would have killed Sacramento especially in the playoffs. And we can see how easy it is to shut down Peja.
So I think that just doing away Webber without getting anything in return would definitely be an irrational thing to do. The only thing that can happen to him is that he will get better. There will always be a change of him getting injured again. But inspite of that I think he will rise once again as a premier power forward who has carried the kings for some time.
And about him having problems with others in the locker room, the only person who is not happy with him is Peja, the rest didnt have any problems with him. And Peja's unhappiness should partially be attibuted to Vlade's departure.
All in all I don't think that its a good idea to trade Webber as it will disrupt the team and whoever comes in his place will have to acclimatize to the team and also Webber's shoes aren't as easy to fill as you might think.
Last edited:
mcsluggo
Starter
Have the Kings EVER been able to continue their fluid, movement offense once the playoffs started, or neared? (or has ANY team the last 15 years)
Every year the Kings (and every other high octane) offense gets slowed down in march and beyond. <<<In my opinion, this is a weakness of the nba, allowing the thuggery level to increase just because its playoffs time makes the games less enjoyable to watch.>>> But regardless, this happens EVERY year, not just last year. Even if you abstract away from the Kings losing Bjax, (and for all intents and purposes miller and vlade too) THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN SCORING LESS because of the increased thuggery.
Does anybody honestly believe that Peja would have had an easier time shedding Hassel (or whomever was draped on his back) just because webber wasn't there? Why do you believe so?
The King's game wasn't the only game to change at the end of the season, The nba game changes in march. it happens every year. EVERY year, not just last year.
Every year the Kings (and every other high octane) offense gets slowed down in march and beyond. <<<In my opinion, this is a weakness of the nba, allowing the thuggery level to increase just because its playoffs time makes the games less enjoyable to watch.>>> But regardless, this happens EVERY year, not just last year. Even if you abstract away from the Kings losing Bjax, (and for all intents and purposes miller and vlade too) THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN SCORING LESS because of the increased thuggery.
Does anybody honestly believe that Peja would have had an easier time shedding Hassel (or whomever was draped on his back) just because webber wasn't there? Why do you believe so?
The King's game wasn't the only game to change at the end of the season, The nba game changes in march. it happens every year. EVERY year, not just last year.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
