[Game] Kings vs. Hawks 11/16/12
- Thread starter MassachusettsKingsFan
- Start date
Dude, I didn't respond to you about mixing a bench player or two in the lineup to start the 3rd. You said bench the starters. You don't bench the entire starting 5 to start the 3rd. Yet, you appear to be arguing something different now.
The entire starting 5 wasn't the problem. It was the lack of shooting. That's why you don't bench the whole lineup, you fix the shooting issue. You don't risk losing your starters mentally for the game when you can try plugging the whole of more shooting first. That's a lot simpler.
I never said to leave ALL the guys in the game, so I'm not sure why you're arguing that here. Even given that, it's not common to change starting lineup in the 3rd. I don't know where you get the opinion good coaches change their starting 5 every time the bench play well. What is common is to give the starters a shorter leash in the 3rd and pull them if it's not working.
What do you mean keep the 6th and 7th man in? Play them? Of course you do. Start them in the 3rd? Rare.
Why would the starting PG play the entire 4th in the first place? Of course BJax would play much of the 4th. Bibby would come with 6-8 mins left too. Why would anyone play their starting PG all 4th quarter?
Not even sure half of what you're arguing.
The entire starting 5 wasn't the problem. It was the lack of shooting. That's why you don't bench the whole lineup, you fix the shooting issue. You don't risk losing your starters mentally for the game when you can try plugging the whole of more shooting first. That's a lot simpler.
I never said to leave ALL the guys in the game, so I'm not sure why you're arguing that here. Even given that, it's not common to change starting lineup in the 3rd. I don't know where you get the opinion good coaches change their starting 5 every time the bench play well. What is common is to give the starters a shorter leash in the 3rd and pull them if it's not working.
What do you mean keep the 6th and 7th man in? Play them? Of course you do. Start them in the 3rd? Rare.
Why would the starting PG play the entire 4th in the first place? Of course BJax would play much of the 4th. Bibby would come with 6-8 mins left too. Why would anyone play their starting PG all 4th quarter?
Not even sure half of what you're arguing.
My original comment was simply that the bench played well to close out the second and Smart sat them to start the 3rd. I never said every starter should be benched nor that the whole bench should be started. But that Smarts decision did not win the game. If you ask what I would prefer I would say leave Brooks, Salmons and maybe Thorton in the line up to start the 3rd.
You may not remember Jason Williams but Adelman just flat did not play JWill the entire 4th quarter his last year as a King, that was a large part of the reason Bobby Jackson became one of the best 6th men in the NBA. It was unconventional but it worked. To be honest RA's greatest strength as a coach is his understanding of players limitations and temperament and working around those limitations.
You may not remember Jason Williams but Adelman just flat did not play JWill the entire 4th quarter his last year as a King, that was a large part of the reason Bobby Jackson became one of the best 6th men in the NBA. It was unconventional but it worked. To be honest RA's greatest strength as a coach is his understanding of players limitations and temperament and working around those limitations.
I don't think starting the second unit in the third quarter would have been correct. Smart should have had a number like 5 or 6 point deficit to start bringing in the bench players that had been producing in the second quarter. The starters should have been pulled much sooner by Coach Smart. he let this game get out of hand before he got the bench in.
The outcome may have been the same, but you have to play the guys who are producing.
This season started so promising with the improved defense. Now the fellas are quitting on that.
Lets all hope the players only meeting gets some results.
KB
The outcome may have been the same, but you have to play the guys who are producing.
This season started so promising with the improved defense. Now the fellas are quitting on that.
Lets all hope the players only meeting gets some results.
KB
Well, lets look at the positives! Smart has made it further than Westphal did last season. OK, whats next? There must be something! Hmmm, how about, JT looked good on news 10 sports the other night. I think that about covers all the good things. Not much of course, but perhaps something to build on.. Or, perhaps not...
On a serious note, the wheels are coming off. One thing about a plan, it always sounds good until you actually try it out. The test of steel against steel so to speak. In our case, wood against steel. The team looks pathetic, and I doubt it had anything to do with getting people back and they couldn't find a rhythm. Ahhh, didn't they just have two days of practice. And didn't Smart say they were good practices. Maybe only JT was paying attention, since he seems to be the only player that knows what he's doing out there.
I've said that this starting lineup wasn't going to work. And last night was no exception. Cousins has no room to work in the post, and its part of the reason he's looking so bad. last night he tried a different ploy, and it was effective to some degree, which was drawing a crowd and then passing to a cutter or an open man. Why is JJ getting so many looks on offense you ask? Well, because he's always open, and he's starting to get that, why the hell are you always passing the ball to me look.
So what would I do you ask? Well maybe you didn't ask, but I'm going to tell you anyway. First, I start my most experienced PG, and that would be Brooks. Second, I'd replace either Tyreke, or JJ with someone else. To me, the most obvious choice is Tyreke, because we actually have a quality player, that can also shoot the ball to replace him with. I don't know who you would replace JJ with that could make a substantial difference, unless you want to go smaller and replace him with Salmons. I'm fine with either way, but for god's sake, do something.
Orginally, I was willing to give Smart 20 or so games before passing judgement, but now I'm convinced that by 20 games in, the season will be over. We seem to be looking at Westphal part two as far as lineup rotations go. I'd give my right arm for a conventional head coach. You know, the type of coach that decides on a starting lineup, and then on a 8 or 9 man rotation. Players like to know what to expect and when to expect it. I remember the old days of Stockton and Malone, and I could almost tell you down to the minute when they were coming out of the game, and when they would go back in. Everyone on that team knew what their role was. Even those that didn't play. This nonsense of everyone has to be ready at all times, just in case I call on you, is just ridiculous. If you want players to be ready to play, then tell them their going to play. Players aren't robots! Being ready is just as much emotional as it is physcial.
It just killed me last night to see players that the Kings could have made an attempt to sign, Williams and Korver, carve us to peices. And isn't it amazing how they constantly managed to get open. The Hawks looked like a team, and we looked like a bunch of sandlot players with a drunk coach. Sadly, I think were stuck with this for the year. I just don't see the Maloofs eating another coaches contract. But if it were me, I'd fire Smart, and make English the interim coach. At least I know, he knows how to play basketball.
On a serious note, the wheels are coming off. One thing about a plan, it always sounds good until you actually try it out. The test of steel against steel so to speak. In our case, wood against steel. The team looks pathetic, and I doubt it had anything to do with getting people back and they couldn't find a rhythm. Ahhh, didn't they just have two days of practice. And didn't Smart say they were good practices. Maybe only JT was paying attention, since he seems to be the only player that knows what he's doing out there.
I've said that this starting lineup wasn't going to work. And last night was no exception. Cousins has no room to work in the post, and its part of the reason he's looking so bad. last night he tried a different ploy, and it was effective to some degree, which was drawing a crowd and then passing to a cutter or an open man. Why is JJ getting so many looks on offense you ask? Well, because he's always open, and he's starting to get that, why the hell are you always passing the ball to me look.
So what would I do you ask? Well maybe you didn't ask, but I'm going to tell you anyway. First, I start my most experienced PG, and that would be Brooks. Second, I'd replace either Tyreke, or JJ with someone else. To me, the most obvious choice is Tyreke, because we actually have a quality player, that can also shoot the ball to replace him with. I don't know who you would replace JJ with that could make a substantial difference, unless you want to go smaller and replace him with Salmons. I'm fine with either way, but for god's sake, do something.
Orginally, I was willing to give Smart 20 or so games before passing judgement, but now I'm convinced that by 20 games in, the season will be over. We seem to be looking at Westphal part two as far as lineup rotations go. I'd give my right arm for a conventional head coach. You know, the type of coach that decides on a starting lineup, and then on a 8 or 9 man rotation. Players like to know what to expect and when to expect it. I remember the old days of Stockton and Malone, and I could almost tell you down to the minute when they were coming out of the game, and when they would go back in. Everyone on that team knew what their role was. Even those that didn't play. This nonsense of everyone has to be ready at all times, just in case I call on you, is just ridiculous. If you want players to be ready to play, then tell them their going to play. Players aren't robots! Being ready is just as much emotional as it is physcial.
It just killed me last night to see players that the Kings could have made an attempt to sign, Williams and Korver, carve us to peices. And isn't it amazing how they constantly managed to get open. The Hawks looked like a team, and we looked like a bunch of sandlot players with a drunk coach. Sadly, I think were stuck with this for the year. I just don't see the Maloofs eating another coaches contract. But if it were me, I'd fire Smart, and make English the interim coach. At least I know, he knows how to play basketball.
Last edited:
Nothing is going to make a difference with the Maloofs trying to save money by hiring the cheapest coach available. When Smart gets canned, he will join to group of three most recent coaches that no longer can be found in the NBA. The problem isn't the players, the problem isn't Tyreke's jump shot, the problem isn't even rotations - oh gasp! We can analyze til the cows come home and most of us will be correct. We know what is wrong and I am sure that some of us could be better coaches than Smart. But he isn't the problem!
His employers are the problem. They are trying to dig themselves out of a financial mess by cutting costs wherever they can. The obvious place to save money is with the staff. I am sure Petrie signed a sweetheart deal as far as the Maloofs are concerned. Looking at it from Petrie's point of view, I doubt if he is terribly concerned how much he makes as he is looking forward to retirement with a healthy savings account. I am sure Smart's salary is very low also otherwise the Maloof's wouldn't have jumped the gun last year and extended him. Now, perhaps they thought they were extending him because of his talents. We all know that can't be true but if it IS true, it says a lot about the Maloofs.
Either way, the Maloofs are the problem. All the chit chat about players and coaches do not address the elephant in the room. I understand there is only so much that can be said about the Maloofs and as this is a discussion forum, we no longer discuss them as everybody seems to have the same opinion of them. But, for me, all the discussion borders on being useless as long as they are the owners.
I haven't posted in a long time and do not intend to post any more. That's my plan at the moment. It's all been said. As to watching the Kings, I probably will do what I did last night and that is watch the first quarter just in case there is a good game. But that's it. As a spectator, I want to be entertained. Last night was torture and after reading a few notes, I guess it got worse. I have better things to do.
I have watched this team since 1985 and finally am getting to the point that I don't care if they stay in this town or not. I never thought I would get to this point. I refuse to follow a team that seems to be constructed by its owners to lose. If their goal is to drive down attendance so they can go running to the BOG, they have succeeded. I won't be a part of it.
The big joke is that no matter where the Maloofs take this team, they will still be the owners.
His employers are the problem. They are trying to dig themselves out of a financial mess by cutting costs wherever they can. The obvious place to save money is with the staff. I am sure Petrie signed a sweetheart deal as far as the Maloofs are concerned. Looking at it from Petrie's point of view, I doubt if he is terribly concerned how much he makes as he is looking forward to retirement with a healthy savings account. I am sure Smart's salary is very low also otherwise the Maloof's wouldn't have jumped the gun last year and extended him. Now, perhaps they thought they were extending him because of his talents. We all know that can't be true but if it IS true, it says a lot about the Maloofs.
Either way, the Maloofs are the problem. All the chit chat about players and coaches do not address the elephant in the room. I understand there is only so much that can be said about the Maloofs and as this is a discussion forum, we no longer discuss them as everybody seems to have the same opinion of them. But, for me, all the discussion borders on being useless as long as they are the owners.
I haven't posted in a long time and do not intend to post any more. That's my plan at the moment. It's all been said. As to watching the Kings, I probably will do what I did last night and that is watch the first quarter just in case there is a good game. But that's it. As a spectator, I want to be entertained. Last night was torture and after reading a few notes, I guess it got worse. I have better things to do.
I have watched this team since 1985 and finally am getting to the point that I don't care if they stay in this town or not. I never thought I would get to this point. I refuse to follow a team that seems to be constructed by its owners to lose. If their goal is to drive down attendance so they can go running to the BOG, they have succeeded. I won't be a part of it.
The big joke is that no matter where the Maloofs take this team, they will still be the owners.
We can all talk about changing the lineups, and we all have different opinions on how to do that. But, I don't see how that solves our problems if Smart keeps mismanaging the sub patterns of both the starters and the bench. It's window dressing to me.
I don't agree sending Reke to the bench makes us a better team, but say we do and start MT instead, from what we've seen, then an IT/MT or Brooks/MT backcourt gets benched for the 2nd quarter. Defensively our starting lineup is worse, and when Reke does come in, say with Jimmer, both Brooks and MT go to the bench, so we're still not playing Reke with more than one shooter. It does nothing if Reke isn't played with two shooters and does nothing if Reke/MT still aren't getting enough minutes.
I just don't see changing lineups doing anything until Smart goes to an 8 or 9 man rotation, a tight one, and starts riding his best players for longer stretches.
I don't agree sending Reke to the bench makes us a better team, but say we do and start MT instead, from what we've seen, then an IT/MT or Brooks/MT backcourt gets benched for the 2nd quarter. Defensively our starting lineup is worse, and when Reke does come in, say with Jimmer, both Brooks and MT go to the bench, so we're still not playing Reke with more than one shooter. It does nothing if Reke isn't played with two shooters and does nothing if Reke/MT still aren't getting enough minutes.
I just don't see changing lineups doing anything until Smart goes to an 8 or 9 man rotation, a tight one, and starts riding his best players for longer stretches.
Last edited:
I guess were looking at it from different prespectives. I'm not trying to make Tyreke more effecient, although, that would certainly be nice. What I'm trying to do is make Cousins more efficent by having another shooter on the floor that the other team has to guard. Right now, they're not guarding either Tyreke or JJ. As I said, I'd like one of them to go to the bench and be replaced with someone that can shoot the ball. If we have to give up a little defense to do that, then so be it.
If were truely looking at Cousins as the player were building the team around, which is subjective, then lets do everything we can to let him play to his strengths, and right now, playing into a double team, sometimes a triple team isn't helping him. Go back and watch any of the games you want and you'll see that just about everytime he touches the ball, he's doubled by either Tyreke's man or JJ's man. Now I agree, there's no easy answer, but what were doing isn't working, and I don't have a love affair with Tyreke to the extent, that everything I suggest has his best interest in mind. I have the best interest of the team in mind.
As I said, if you want to leave Tyreke in the starting unit, and replace JJ with Salmons, I'm fine with that. But one thing is for sure, there's no one on this team that can replace Cousins. The starting lineup we'ver been playing is the one I originally wanted, but I was going on the assumption that JJ or Tyreke would be able to hit an open shot. Last night, Tyreke did, but will he on sunday? If the other team isn't guarding you, you have to make them pay a price. As far as Jimmer goes, I'm not quite sure what to do about him. I'd like to have his shooting ability on the floor, but not at the expense of IT or Brooks, both of whom I think are better all around players right now. The only other spot you can put him is at SG, and who is he going to replace there, Tyreke? Thornton?
I suspose you could move Tyreke back to SF, but he appeared unhappy there last season, and at times was overmatched defensively. That position certainly doesn't play to his strengths. As I've said many times. This is a team of ill fitting parts, and there wouldn't be an easy answer for a good coach, much less Smart.
If were truely looking at Cousins as the player were building the team around, which is subjective, then lets do everything we can to let him play to his strengths, and right now, playing into a double team, sometimes a triple team isn't helping him. Go back and watch any of the games you want and you'll see that just about everytime he touches the ball, he's doubled by either Tyreke's man or JJ's man. Now I agree, there's no easy answer, but what were doing isn't working, and I don't have a love affair with Tyreke to the extent, that everything I suggest has his best interest in mind. I have the best interest of the team in mind.
As I said, if you want to leave Tyreke in the starting unit, and replace JJ with Salmons, I'm fine with that. But one thing is for sure, there's no one on this team that can replace Cousins. The starting lineup we'ver been playing is the one I originally wanted, but I was going on the assumption that JJ or Tyreke would be able to hit an open shot. Last night, Tyreke did, but will he on sunday? If the other team isn't guarding you, you have to make them pay a price. As far as Jimmer goes, I'm not quite sure what to do about him. I'd like to have his shooting ability on the floor, but not at the expense of IT or Brooks, both of whom I think are better all around players right now. The only other spot you can put him is at SG, and who is he going to replace there, Tyreke? Thornton?
I suspose you could move Tyreke back to SF, but he appeared unhappy there last season, and at times was overmatched defensively. That position certainly doesn't play to his strengths. As I've said many times. This is a team of ill fitting parts, and there wouldn't be an easy answer for a good coach, much less Smart.
