Miller is the Key to Winning.

May sound simple, but just give him the ball.

Ever since SAR has went out he has been the focus of the offense agian and has been tearing other teams up, he just is making this team better with the ball in his hands, i hope this could help us figure out what we re planning for the future, maybe move Brad to PF and find a hussle and energy guy to play Center for us, and just keep him the focus of the offense.
 
That's just not true.

As much as I hate to admit it - the player that seems key right now is Mike Bibby.

Teams are focusing and designing their defense to try to stop him - which is causing Brad Miller to be standing wide open 99% of the time. Teams don't seem to care about him. Bibby is drawing his man to him and then kicking the ball out for a wide open attempt.

But, teams seem to adjust at halftime and you don't hear so much about him in the second half as they just put a warm body in front of him.

His defense also continues to be the worst on the team. He let Kaman destroy him and the short stint he had Brand ... it was ugly.
 
No the key to winning IMHO is the whole core if they are not playing we are not winning period. There will be no playoffs until the core plays to there capabilities.
 
i dont know if u noticed but mike bibby has had 30+ points in each of the last 3 wins.... and in the loss he only had 10 while miller had 36.......
 
AleksandarN said:
No the key to winning IMHO is the whole core if they are not playing we are not winning period. There will be no playoffs until the core plays to there capabilities.

What if they don't and we still made the playoffs? ;)
 
Another thing is that unlinke against SAR, opposing teams can't put a PF on Miller and a center on Kenny. Kenny is quicker down low, and most centers are too slow to come out on the pick and pop to stop the open jumpers.

But again, I wouldn't count on Miller to carry the bulk of the offense. Teams just have to make a concerted effort to contest the jumpers and they magically dissapear in the second half. You're not going to win anything relying solely on jump shots.
 
LPKingsFan said:
Another thing is that unlinke against SAR, opposing teams can't put a PF on Miller and a center on Kenny. Kenny is quicker down low, and most centers are too slow to come out on the pick and pop to stop the open jumpers.

Like you mention - all teams have to do is COVER Miller. I honestly think that Mugsy Bogues (sp) could cover Brad Miller.

He just can not shoot over people with any real effectiveness.

The reason he is getting shut down in the second half of most games is that teams are refusing to switch off of Brad Miller ... regardless of what the ball carrier is doing. So, Brad ends up as fodder ... and Mike Bibby better catch fire.

Kenny Thomas is not quicker than Shareef down low. The reason that centers were stopping Reef is because the Kings didn't feel Reef was able to score over them ... so the opportunities and touches dried up. But, after he showed he could score on Duncan ... they opened it up and the "center approach" failed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yea I think it's pretty easy to shut down Brad Miller, I've always noticed it in the 2nd half where the other team puts a quicker defender on Brad Miller. It's good while it lasts though but I wouldn't want him as the focus of the offense.
 
To Brad's credit, he has been doing more than just shooting jumpers. His pump fake, then drive to the hoop move has been a welcome addition.
 
The way I look at it is:

To win against a very poor team we need to only have one of core show up to play

To win against an average team we need atleast two of the core to show up to have a chance to win.

To win against a very good to contender we need to have all three show up and play thier best to even have a chance to win.

To win against the elite( very best of the best ie: Detriot and Spurs) we need one of the core to atleast have a career game and other two have thier A game and have the rest of the starters to have a good game in order to win with atleast two people showing up from the bench. Not too ask for now is it.;)
 
Last edited:
AleksandarN said:
The way I look at it is:

To win against a very poor team we need to only have one of core show up to play

To win against an average team we need atleast two of the core to show up to have a chance to win.

To win against a very good to contender we need to have all three show up and play thier best to even have a chance to win.

To win against the elite( very best of the best ie: Detriot and Spurs) we need one of the core to atleast have a career game and other two have thier A game and have the rest of the starters to have a good in order to win with atleast two people showing up from the bench. Not too ask for now is it.;)
Very true, good post.
 
SK23 said:
Yea I think it's pretty easy to shut down Brad Miller, I've always noticed it in the 2nd half where the other team puts a quicker defender on Brad Miller. It's good while it lasts though but I wouldn't want him as the focus of the offense.

Yeah and once they move a quicker defender out then that opens up the rest of our team's game. Remember, Brad plays a lot at the top of the key. If an opposing defense has a quick and large defender on Brad at the top of the key then Brad has done a good job. He can just sit there while Bibby and Martin/Bonzi work it. And he is such a good passer from the top of the key.
 
BawLa said:
Yeah and once they move a quicker defender out then that opens up the rest of our team's game. Remember, Brad plays a lot at the top of the key. If an opposing defense has a quick and large defender on Brad at the top of the key then Brad has done a good job. He can just sit there while Bibby and Martin/Bonzi work it. And he is such a good passer from the top of the key.

Yea thats if the others play well, remember what happened in the Phili game, but your right its just that Kevin and Bibby have to bring their A game and play consistent for us to have a chance to win.
 
the key to the Kings winning is the team shooting well as a whole. Not just one guy. They don't play good enough defense or rebound well enough to not shoot well and win.
 
playmaker0017 said:
Like you mention - all teams have to do is COVER Miller. I honestly think that Mugsy Bogues (sp) could cover Brad Miller.

He just can not shoot over people with any real effectiveness.

The reason he is getting shut down in the second half of most games is that teams are refusing to switch off of Brad Miller ... regardless of what the ball carrier is doing. So, Brad ends up as fodder ... and Mike Bibby better catch fire.

Kenny Thomas is not quicker than Shareef down low. The reason that centers were stopping Reef is because the Kings didn't feel Reef was able to score over them ... so the opportunities and touches dried up. But, after he showed he could score on Duncan ... they opened it up and the "center approach" failed.


Anyways, it's brad AND mike that are the keys to winning. Kevin having a good game helps too because he's so fast and athletic we can get some fastbreak points with him. Atleast with this athletic lineup we can get some easy points. If we could get offensive boards we'd be fine. With Reef+Bonzi all we can really do is score in the half court, with kevin and kenny we can get out on the break and we get hustle points. Since we're not good defensively we have to get the fastbreak points to win. Also Mike and Brad playing the 2 man game helps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The key to winning is: passing, cutting, thinking, trusting...AND scoring more points than our opponents.

There isn't one key player on the Kings right now, and it just might be the reason they've started to win. We do best when we play unselfish TEAM ball. Miller has stepped up and become much more of a threat offensively lately, which has been a real boost. Martin has truly come into his own. Bibby seems to be regaining his old form. Peja, even ailing, can still draw a double-team and get someone else open.

This idea that it always has to be one player over another just isn't the philosophy of Kings basketball.
 
Kenny Thomas is quick in theory, but I don't think I've seen him attack the basket or post up the entire season. The closest I've seen are awkward pull up jumpshots. So the classic shut-down-the-Kings-offense option of putting a power forward on Miller and a center on Shareef or Kenny Thomas is still very much open, and it's become kind of a barometer of NBA coaching to see which coaches know this strategy (the good ones) and which ones don't. Why Mike Dunleavy didn't put Brand on Miller and Kaman on KT when Miller was destroying them is beyond me.

As for the key to winning, the Kings aren't a team that depends on any one player for victory. On a team without a superstar just about everyone has to play well to get a victory. We'll see what happens tonight. (P.S. Beat me to it, VF21!)
 
VF21 said:
There isn't one key player on the Kings right now, and it just might be the reason they've started to win. We do best when we play unselfish TEAM ball.
Why is this so hard for some to grasp?
VF21 said:
This idea that it always has to be one player over another just isn't the philosophy of Kings basketball.
Or any basketball team for that matter. One on one play thrives only in ping pong.
 
Wait ... wait ... wait ...

So, hold on ... let me see if I grasp this:

There is no key player on the Kings and it is not a part of Kings basketball philosophy ... yet, we can have players that are detrimental and causing us to lose?

Doesn't that seem counter-intuitive?

If no player is vital to the success of the team, then no player should be deemed the destroyer of success.

Also, that should pretty much end the Chris Webber argument.

All sarcasm aside, I agree - to a point - that it's a team thing and not an individual thing. But, right now, it seems that the key "one player" ingredient to our continued success is how teams are responding to Mike Bibby. The overall component is that no one player is really playing poorly. Our lack of bench is being overcome by the way they are performing when they get a go.

Something we've lacked when Bonzi and Reef were in. I truly believe we can have success and actually make a run to the playoffs when our starters come back. I believe this.
 
Bibby and Miller are the two Kings starters who work best with each other. Bibby is a true pick and roll PG. What we've seen abundant evidence of is that he really is NOT an elite PG UNLESS he's running the pick and roll or pick and pop with a good big man. But put him in the two man game, and he's one of the best. The key to the recent "steak" (knocking off questionable teams over 4 games) has been basically clearing out their compeition and just having them play their two man game. Benefits both of them. Would not/does not benefit or work with other major scorers, but surround Bibby and Miller with young guys, hustle guys, subsidiary players just filling in around the edges and what you've basically done is go ahead and create the same two great player + bunch of role player dynamic that most teams use, only with less than great players in the lead. Feels very natural, both guys are freed to dominate the ball and play their own games + everyone else picks up the thread and fills in around the edges. Even Peja in this last game was really a tertiary figure.

Now thing is, this is like parts of last year -- Bibby and Miller playing loose and natural = better than the listless passionless mess we've had all year, but its still basically all offense, all jumper, run up and down try to beat bad teams 115-110 sort of stuff. MIGHT be able to be a .500 team that way. Maybe. And so you get yourself in an odd spot -- Bibby is playing better, Miller is playing better, the team is playing harder, and knows who/what it is for the first time all year. But there is a very hard and very sharp ceiling. The good teams will dismiss us, the bad teams score right along with us. On the road without the home crowd we'll sometimes lack energy. And we just kind of become a sometimes entertaining but potentialless team.

Its better than what we've had, but basically its just going back to where we were at the end of last season -- same type of .500 team that got dismissed by the Sonics in 5. The very thing all the moves over the summer were designed to escape. So now what do you do? Do you go with the non-serious team from last year that at least plays loose and "fun"? Do you go back to the sluggish fighting for the ball searching for an identity mess you had before? Or do you (ding ding ding) take advantage of this break from misery to redefine the core + try to revisit the summer and make some more moves to change things up?

We can play .500 this way (maybe). .400 the other way. Neither is where you want to be. Get good, get bad. Don't settle for medicore.
 
AleksandarN said:
The way I look at it is:

To win against a very poor team we need to only have one of core show up to play

To win against an average team we need atleast two of the core to show up to have a chance to win.

To win against a very good to contender we need to have all three show up and play thier best to even have a chance to win.

To win against the elite( very best of the best ie: Detriot and Spurs) we need one of the core to atleast have a career game and other two have thier A game and have the rest of the starters to have a good game in order to win with atleast two people showing up from the bench. Not too ask for now is it.;)
My sentiments exactly.
 
Bricklayer said:
Bibby and Miller are the two Kings starters who work best with each other. Bibby is a true pick and roll PG. What we've seen abundant evidence of is that he really is NOT an elite PG UNLESS he's running the pick and roll or pick and pop with a good big man. But put him in the two man game, and he's one of the best. The key to the recent "steak" (knocking off questionable teams over 4 games) has been basically clearing out their compeition and just having them play their two man game. Benefits both of them. Would not/does not benefit or work with other major scorers, but surround Bibby and Miller with young guys, hustle guys, subsidiary players just filling in around the edges and what you've basically done is go ahead and create the same two great player + bunch of role player dynamic that most teams use, only with less than great players in the lead. Feels very natural, both guys are freed to dominate the ball and play their own games + everyone else picks up the thread and fills in around the edges. Even Peja in this last game was really a tertiary figure.

Now thing is, this is like parts of last year -- Bibby and Miller playing loose and natural = better than the listless passionless mess we've had all year, but its still basically all offense, all jumper, run up and down try to beat bad teams 115-110 sort of stuff. MIGHT be able to be a .500 team that way. Maybe. And so you get yourself in an odd spot -- Bibby is playing better, Miller is playing better, the team is playing harder, and knows who/what it is for the first time all year. But there is a very hard and very sharp ceiling. The good teams will dismiss us, the bad teams score right along with us. On the road without the home crowd we'll sometimes lack energy. And we just kind of become a sometimes entertaining but potentialless team.

Its better than what we've had, but basically its just going back to where we were at the end of last season -- same type of .500 team that got dismissed by the Sonics in 5. The very thing all the moves over the summer were designed to escape. So now what do you do? Do you go with the non-serious team from last year that at least plays loose and "fun"? Do you go back to the sluggish fighting for the ball searching for an identity mess you had before? Or do you (ding ding ding) take advantage of this break from misery to redefine the core + try to revisit the summer and make some more moves to change things up?

We can play .500 this way (maybe). .400 the other way. Neither is where you want to be. Get good, get bad. Don't settle for medicore.

...laying bricks of wisdom one at a time.
 
playmaker0017 said:
Tennis. Golf. Surfboarding. etc. etc.

But, hey, who are we to ruin his point?!

Horseshoes, hand grenades, ....

The list goes on.
 
Back
Top