And we sucked at defense with either lineup out there so at least we had something going right for us the last half of the season. It didn't translate to wins but that should tell you how bad our defense was with the players we have.
Also, back on topic:
What kind of plays can we call for Evans? The only thing Evans can do consistently is drive to the basket. So every playcall would be Evans to the hoop???
We have the option of just giving Evans the ball and letting him work, but that would turn into Evans holding the ball for 15-20 seconds and passing if he does not have a shot where the person he passes to has to shoot a quick jump shot which is in most likeliness a bad shot..
That was why our FG% was so terrible. It took too long for Evans to get into the offense after his attempt to score failed so he passes it off with 8 seconds left on the clock and the person gets a bad shot... That wrecks our FG% and that wrecks our assists per game as a team. That is what was happening at the start of the season. Not every play but enough that our team was bottom of the league in all offensive stats.
We were not, and will not go anywhere no matter how good our defense gets if we are constantly getting bad shots with little to no time left on the shot clock.
Can that be corrected? Sure, but it would take the ball out of Evans hands unless you are OK with him holding the ball? The bad shots and low FG% has EVERYTHING to do with seeing the floor, and as a PG I don't care if he was averaging 7apg in that stretch brick posted. If our team is only shooting 40% and we are constant;y taking bad shots with no time left on the shot clock then that's the PGs fault for either not getting into the offense fast enough (i.e. holding the ball too long) or not being able to see the floor and get the ball to an open man for a good shot.
EDIT: sorry, I have been adding to this post as new thoughts arrive so it might look a bit weird and like i was going from one argument to another.
is this really an evans problem, though? really? or aren't you just clouding the issue with flaws that you desperately want to imagine? it seems pretty clear to everyone who actually pays attention that tyreke is versatile and capable of more than simply "driving to the basket." point of fact, that is quite obviously his greatest skill, and its an intensely valued skill around the nba. however, isn't it the fault of the coaching staff not to exploit the other skills he has in order to maximize his usage? the problem with you incessant anti-reke posters is that
you haven't actually been watching him. you've instead been watching out for your bias, which is useless in the face of example. there have been numerous times this season when evans has executed cuts with cousins operating in the post:
he even managed to do so with spencer hawes during his rookie season:
he's done it. we know he can do it. and tyreke's superior strength as a guard is an asset that would allow such a play to find repeated success if it was, ya know, repeated. likewise, there are numerous examples of evans effectively operating in the pick and roll. here's an example from last season:
and a game-winning pick and roll against milwaukee during his rookie season:
these are skills that could very easily be exploited within the construct of an offense if the kings' coaching staff was actually interested in running a nuanced offense. you certainly do not have to shift tyreke out of position in order to teach him something about moving without the ball, for example. you can, however, draw up a simple, textbook pick and roll, just like in the examples above, and get him moving without the ball, no matter what position he's playing. and, beyond that, there are skills we may not even know he has yet. a creative coach like rick adelman would post up a player like bonzi wells on smaller guards because he's a good teacher and a smart coach, and he understood how to maximize wells' strength. adelman knows how to craft an offensive set around a player's physical gifts in order to achieve a balanced attack. evans has similar physical gifts, and a good coach would know how to exploit those gifts. why hasn't he posted up wimpy guards around the league yet? is it because he can't? or is it because he's had two controlling head coaches who would rather use him in a much different and more limited fashion? there's a reason certain players break out when they're signed or traded elsewhere. they have coaches that trust their skillsets. rick adelman is a master of taking under- or mis-utilized talents and getting the most out of them. that's because rick adelman is a
good coach. paul westphal, on the other hand, is not a good coach. keith smart is not a good coach. really, in truth, smart is just an inexperienced coach, and his tutelage came under the master of gimmick ball, so its no surprise whatsoever that he's alienated tyreke into trade bait. its disgraceful, and should result in smart's dismissal, if the maloof's weren't too broke to pursue a real head coach in his place...
anyway, there ya have it. i've provided actual evidence that evans can perform beyond the expectations of his detractors. "he can't move without the ball." well, he's done it. see video evidence. "he can't play the pick and roll." well, he's done it. see video evidence. so why do you insist he "can't"? to all of you detractors: do you honestly believe that just because
you say he can't, that he really can't? the ego possessing the lot of you is astounding. and if anybody wants to counter my argument by saying that the evidence i've provided is insubstantial, then i would ask you what would be substantial? and isn't it on the coaching staff to provide us with substantial evidence that tyreke evans is as limited as the ways in which he's being currently used? there's been no proof. keith smart himself is in constant backpedal mode because he made the oh-so-obvious claim that evans is not a SF, and should be operating as a guard and one of the primary weapons of the team. i dunno what happened in between then and now, but smart must have chickened out or something. he hasn't spent any time attempting to mold tyreke's versatility into a weapon. that's on the coaching staff. that's not on tyreke. he's got holes in his game. his flaws are obvious. but they are not game-breaking. they are not trade-worthy. and his existing skill set should be highly-valued enough to earn him a consistent feature in the offense, behind cousins, because gimmick ball does not put ticks in the win column. simple as that...
