Malone - cousins only starter so far

[pshn80]

Yesterday in the 5 o'clock hour on the Napear show Malone said none of the opening game starters besides Cousins has been chosen despite earlier statements that these last two preseason games were to allow our starters to get time on the floor together. Not surprising to me. You can make a case for a least 9 players for those four positions. I think that's the way Malone put it, too. The only thing we know for sore is that there will be five starters against Denver.

In the other thread I picked V, McL, Pat and Thompson. The Pat pick for the 3 is not very likely. Another combo would be IT, MT, Outlaw and Hayes. All very interesting. Even tonight's starter selections are an interesting mystery to me right now.

 

[3me]

IT, MT, Outlaw and Hayes...oh goodness. I guess it could help you get Wiggins or Parker.

 

[King Baller]

IT, MT, Outlaw and Hayes...oh goodness. I guess it could help you get Wiggins or Parker.

Cute baby in the avatar by the way

I don't think its going to be IT and MT starting in the back court unless there is some sort of ploy going on to increase their trade value.

 

[Padrino]

poor coach malone. i like this guy a lot, and i hope for his sake that the kings front office eventually gives him considerably more to work with in the coming seasons. at the moment, though, he's been handed a team with exactly one obvious starting-level talent and a bunch of ill-fitting mid-level and low-level spare parts and cast-offs. any other king who you might consider a starter comes equipped with a nice set of asterisks...

if landry were healthy, he's a seasoned veteran who could be a starter on this team, *but he and DMC make for an extremely deficient defensive frontcourt. marcus thornton has proven he can be a 20 ppg scorer in this league, *but he's very streaky, and his effort is so inconsistent that he's difficult to rely on. isaiah thomas has the tenacity to earn significant minutes, *but his diminutive size makes him a defensive liability and his chucker's inclination raises the same issues of reliability you run into with thornton. john salmons has been a starter for most of his career, *but age and apathy have withered whatever's left of his usefulness. etc. etc. etc...

i'd probably call greivis vasquez a starter just because he fulfills the traditional requirements of a starting-level PG; he can effectively run an offense, presumably without tossing up a ton of bad shots every other game, *but he's a defensive sieve, so there's still an asterisk to attach to his resume...

 

[Bricklayer]

A lot of coaches say things like this. I think even Smart did too. Might be true, might not. Either way you try to keep everybody motivated/feeling like they had a real shot.

 

[The_Jamal]

Can u blame him? We're in an unfortunate situation where the difference in any combo of our 2 PG's, 3 SG's, 3 SF's, and 3 PF's would probably be +/- 2 wins or so.

With that in mind, focus on player development and pieces we can see being here the next 5 years or so.

 

[The_Jamal]

poor coach malone. i like this guy a lot, and i hope for his sake that the kings front office eventually gives him considerably more to work with in the coming seasons. at the moment, though, he's been handed a team with exactly one obvious starting-level talent and a bunch of ill-fitting mid-level and low-level spare parts and cast-offs. any other king who you might consider a starter comes equipped with a nice set of asterisks...

if landry were healthy, he's a seasoned veteran who could be a starter on this team, *but he and DMC make for an extremely deficient defensive frontcourt. marcus thornton has proven he can be a 20 ppg scorer in this league, *but he's very streaky, and his effort is so inconsistent that he's difficult to rely on. isaiah thomas has the tenacity to earn significant minutes, *but his diminutive size makes him a defensive liability and his chucker's inclination raises the same issues of reliability you run into with thornton. john salmons has been a starter for most of his career, *but age and apathy have withered whatever's left of his usefulness. etc. etc. etc...

i'd probably call greivis vasquez a starter just because he fulfills the traditional requirements of a starting-level PG; he can effectively run an offense, presumably without tossing up a ton of bad shots every other game, *but he's a defensive sieve, so there's still an asterisk to attach to his resume...

Hey, we actually agree on something for once. However, the only change I would make is how neccessary PG defense is. It's the least impactful or important part of a defense. So we could absolutely get by with Vasquez as a starting PG for a playoff team.

 

[Padrino]

Hey, we actually agree on something for once. However, the only change I would make is how neccessary PG defense is. It's the least impactful or important part of a defense. So we could absolutely get by with Vasquez as a starting PG for a playoff team.

yeah, we definitely disagree here. PG is the first line of defense, and a guard who is a strong defender out on the wing can go a long way towards easing the burden on a team's front line. there are several PG's around the league who are stout defenders: rondo, rose, paul, conley, lowry, etc. they're all on playoff teams (though the celtics will undoubtedly slip way out of that conversation in the absence of their big three). even guys like westbrook, parker, and curry have been known to step up on the defensive end from time to time. they belong to playoff teams, as well...

now, i'm not saying that the kings couldn't get to the playofs with vasquez starting at PG, but it absolutely will require that they shore up their defensive weaknesses everywhere else. when both your first line of defense and your last line of defense are weak links on the more important side of the ball, you've got some serious personnel engineering to do at the other three positions...

 

[Hadlowe]

Defending against point guards is usually a team effort. This is a pick and roll league now, which means mobile big men and rim protectors are a premium commodity. Absent one of those, you need athletic wings to cover passing lanes and still be able to close out and contest a three. Without the shot-blocking, you still need strong defensive point guard play to quickly get back into the play (a la Miami). Ideally, you want both perimeter defense and rim protection (Memphis, Indiana, Miami with Anderson at the 5).

We do not have any rim protection to speak of. Even if Cousins improves his defense, he's not going to become David Robinson on that end. Mbah a Moute is the only 3 on the team that can defend worth a darn. At the 2, McLemore might get there, but he's not there yet. Jimmer and Thornton's defense is in the passing lane, but they don't close out well on shooters.

Vasquez' defense is never going to be good. He lacks the foot speed to keep the waterbug point guards out of the paint. Thomas has the foot speed, but he gives inconsistent effort on the defensive end. This is where I think McCallum can make a real play for playing time. If he can learn Malone's system, his defensive effort might be enough to land him the Mario Chalmers role.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

I wouldn't put Curry or Parker in the same category of those other PGs. They fall into the category of mediocre to poor defenders who are covered by a great defensive scheme.

The best defensive PG on the roster is probably McCallam. He could be a useful roleplayer someday but its far too early for him to have a place in the rotation.

I maintain that the Kings are likely screwed defensively this year. JT/Cousins can be a passable frontline, but the backups have serious size deficiencies. Both our PGs range from mediocre to bad. McLemore has been a revelation defensively but is still weak in isolation and will probably backup Thornton for the time being. Luc, Salmons and Outlaw are passable at the 3, but that can't make up for serious deficiencies across the roster.

 

[Prince_XY]

Deja vu.

Those who want to see consistency in rotation should expect a long season of painful watching. We'll be seeing inconsistency in rotation once again, as if Smart or Westphal never left.

 

[dude12]

Hey, we actually agree on something for once. However, the only change I would make is how neccessary PG defense is. It's the least impactful or important part of a defense. So we could absolutely get by with Vasquez as a starting PG for a playoff team.

Have to disagree. I think it's a reason why Ray Mac was drafted in the 2nd round instead of a SF or big man. Our PG defense has been rather poor. Pressure on the ball makes the other teams offense use up shot clock, keep guys out of the lane, keep Cuz from getting excessive fouls(in theory), etc

 

[dude12]

I wouldn't put Curry or Parker in the same category of those other PGs. They fall into the category of mediocre to poor defenders who are covered by a great defensive scheme.

The best defensive PG on the roster is probably McCallam. He could be a useful roleplayer someday but its far too early for him to have a place in the rotation.

I maintain that the Kings are likely screwed defensively this year. JT/Cousins can be a passable frontline, but the backups have serious size deficiencies. Both our PGs range from mediocre to bad. McLemore has been a revelation defensively but is still weak in isolation and will probably backup Thornton for the time being. Luc, Salmons and Outlaw are passable at the 3, but that can't make up for serious deficiencies across the roster.

You just put Tony Parker in the same defensive category as our PGs. Had a discussion about him in the summer and i provided a link where Pop would disagree with you.....but more to your other points on our team which I agree....we are really going to see how good a defensive coach Malone is with this group. From the few games I've seen in pre-season, the team has definitely improved as a group. Once the season starts for real, if he can get them operating as a decent defensive unit, the a tip of the ap to him. I look forward to the day when we get some more defensive pieces to help him.

 

[Cold]

I wouldn't put Curry or Parker in the same category of those other PGs. They fall into the category of mediocre to poor defenders who are covered by a great defensive scheme.

The best defensive PG on the roster is probably McCallam. He could be a useful roleplayer someday but its far too early for him to have a place in the rotation.

I maintain that the Kings are likely screwed defensively this year. JT/Cousins can be a passable frontline, but the backups have serious size deficiencies. Both our PGs range from mediocre to bad. McLemore has been a revelation defensively but is still weak in isolation and will probably backup Thornton for the time being. Luc, Salmons and Outlaw are passable at the 3, but that can't make up for serious deficiencies across the roster.

Advanced stats suggest Curry is a very capable defender despite what the eyeballs tell us. It's been that way for some time now and not just last season. He's an average defender with the occasional great D, and occasional breakdown due to lack of foot speed. He does have much quicker and active hands than people realize. And he plays the passing lane extremely well.

But you are right that the Warriors' system does help Curry out on D quite a bit. They're able to channel curry's offensive assignment into to the middle where Bogut awaits. Klay also switches onto the best opposing perimeter scorer quite a bit. To duplicate that, the Kings need Cousins to step up his help D, something Cousins hasn't been particularly good at. Def needs some work there.