Much ado about nothing?

[Kingster]

True, but it's also tougher to ask everyone to commit to a common goal and stick together when fans and players alike know PDA is looking to wheel and deal and has been very honest he'll move players. When the majority of the roster is not in the team's long term plans and players will likely be gone both by the deadline and/or 6 months from now, it just makes that request that much less likely to resonate.

We agree again. It's not easy in that environment, but that's what you have to aim for. Nobody really knows what the future holds. You just have to go to work and focus on the now, not the maybe, or the if. The angst of possibly being traded can be a nice cop-out for the lack of work ethic or concentration. There can't be any excuses on this team anymore when it comes to missing assignments. That's just loserville.

 

[Kingster]

I feel I need to mention a few things:

1) Watch the "horrible" choice IT made again on video: JT was one-half step ahead of him at halfcourt.
If anyone thinks JT (with a half-step) can get from halfcourt to the hoop faster than IT, they're neglecting reality.
When I saw the play at Sleep Train, I thought for a second he may have been able to get it to JT, but on video it's clear IT passed him by quickly. If the defender caught IT, he would have caught JT.

2) People demonizing IT for not passing it on the break, while they pine for Tyreke are a JOKE.
Complete hypocritical JOKES of subjectivity.
Tyreke made WAY more egregious non-passes on breaks for 4 years. Some of the most selfish plays I've ever seen in 30 years of watching the NBA.
But whoa now! When IT does it, he's a "rotation player" "breaking unspoken rules". (Yayy! We have a roll-eyes smiley!)

3) JT was more out of line by completely stopping on the play.
All he had to do was follow the play and he gets a likely easy lay-in.
Or he could have told IT "Man On!" or something to tell him there was a trailer trying to block him.
But no, he thought it was better to start pouting during the play. His career-long habit of pouting after plays is now metastasizing into the actual game.

4) DMC lecturing about players needing to give more effort during the game is a bit of the pot calling he kettle black.
He's the laziest star player I've EVER seen.
I LOVE watching him, and am a huge fan, but damned if I'm sick of his walking up the court and barely getting beyond the 3 pt line by 8 seconds left in the clock. We play more 4-vs-5 ball than any other team in the league solely because of him.

Having said all that, rainmaker has this Carmichael Dave situation dead-on, I'd wager : Dave was bringing attention to exactly what this team does not need more attention, and hurting this team.
Everything else he says is guaranteed smokescreen designed to smooth over his lack of composure in airing it publicly.

This is the way I saw it also. It was a bang-bang play; IT needed to make a quick judgment on what the best opportunity for making the basket was: himself or JT who was a half step ahead. He made the judgment in favor of himself; he got the shot blocked; JT didn't bother to follow the play and get the easy put-back. IT may have publicly said he made a mistake more for political reasons to unruffle JTs preening feathers more than anything else. Again, if I were IT I would have made the same play. We're talking about giving the ball to the clumsiest guy on the team on a running fast break who is one-half step ahead. No way do I give it to JT in that situation. JT's behavior after the play speaks volumes. If the guy wasn't all over himself he would have had a put-back; instead he went into pouting mode. Give me a freaking break.

 

[Gilles]

Lol, at no point on that video did IT moved his sight out of precious basket he was going to put the ball in.
He is selfish, he has to think about his salary next year or being the best little man ever to play the game after all.
As Chubbs mentioned two posts before you

Little man was wrong, he admitted it. Let's not try to defend the indefensible.

 

[Chubbs]

It's hard to argue when people want to claim egregious bad basketball is actually good.

I was a big tyreke fan. I was not a big fan of his 1 on 4 or 5 fast breaks. Ever.

You can't defend the indefensible and expect to maintain credibility.

 

[treach1976]

It's hard to argue when people want to claim egregious bad basketball is actually good.

I was a big tyreke fan. I was not a big fan of his 1 on 4 or 5 fast breaks. Ever.

You can't defend the indefensible and expect to maintain credibility.

While basketball has not been "good" this year. You bring up a great point... It's so nice not have to watch the 1 on 4 basketball that we used to play last year.

 

[twslam07]

I feel I need to mention a few things:

1) Watch the "horrible" choice IT made again on video: JT was one-half step ahead of him at halfcourt.
If anyone thinks JT (with a half-step) can get from halfcourt to the hoop faster than IT, they're neglecting reality.
When I saw the play at Sleep Train, I thought for a second he may have been able to get it to JT, but on video it's clear IT passed him by quickly. If the defender caught IT, he would have caught JT.

2) People demonizing IT for not passing it on the break, while they pine for Tyreke are a JOKE.
Complete hypocritical JOKES of subjectivity.
Tyreke made WAY more egregious non-passes on breaks for 4 years. Some of the most selfish plays I've ever seen in 30 years of watching the NBA.
But whoa now! When IT does it, he's a "rotation player" "breaking unspoken rules". (Yayy! We have a roll-eyes smiley!)

3) JT was more out of line by completely stopping on the play.
All he had to do was follow the play and he gets a likely easy lay-in.
Or he could have told IT "Man On!" or something to tell him there was a trailer trying to block him.
But no, he thought it was better to start pouting during the play. His career-long habit of pouting after plays is now metastasizing into the actual game.

4) DMC lecturing about players needing to give more effort during the game is a bit of the pot calling he kettle black.
He's the laziest star player I've EVER seen.
I LOVE watching him, and am a huge fan, but damned if I'm sick of his walking up the court and barely getting beyond the 3 pt line by 8 seconds left in the clock. We play more 4-vs-5 ball than any other team in the league solely because of him.

Having said all that, rainmaker has this Carmichael Dave situation dead-on, I'd wager : Dave was bringing attention to exactly what this team does not need more attention, and hurting this team.
Everything else he says is guaranteed smokescreen designed to smooth over his lack of composure in airing it publicly.

I think the logic behind why you give the ball to Thompson is because he is a big running the open floor. You want to encourage that good behavior and reward him. Most of the time on fast breaks it is your PG, SG, and SF against their PG, SG, and SF. If you have a big running the floor too, they are much more likely to finish over the opposing team's shorter players versus someone like IT. That's why it is the cardinal rule to let your big man finish the break. They will either get fouled or finish over the smaller perimeter players. It's that simple.

In this case, I don't think IT even saw the defender trailing him which is why he chose to take it himself, but that is not the point. Even if there was no defender, you give the ball to Thompson to, again, reward his "good behavior." Now there is no way of us knowing if Thompson would have been able to finish that play if IT gave it to him, but I would take Thompson trying to finish it over IT in that situation everyday. It would be much more difficult for the defender to try and get a block from behind on an athletic big who is 6'11" versus a player who is 5'10" on a good day.

Being a big man is tiring enough. They literally are non-stop pushing and fighting for position when they are in. When they decide to get out and run on the break and use even more of their energy, they expect to be rewarded and get the ball, and when they don't get it, they think "well the hell with that. I'm not going to waste my energy anymore. I'll just let the perimeter guys handle the fast break duties."

I think this is where most Kings fans are coming from in reference to this particular play.

 

[funkykingston]

That's not a textbook 2 on 1 break in the sense that the defender was trailing the play. In that instance the right move is for IT to go hard at the basket bringing the defender with him and then dropping off the pass behind him to Thompson. Douglas-Roberts' momentum would have carried him out of the play and JT ends up with an easy dunk or layup.

 

[Glenn]

I think the logic behind why you give the ball to Thompson is because he is a big running the open floor. You want to encourage that good behavior and reward him. Most of the time on fast breaks it is your PG, SG, and SF against their PG, SG, and SF. If you have a big running the floor too, they are much more likely to finish over the opposing team's shorter players versus someone like IT.

In this case, I don't think IT even saw the defender trailing him which is why he chose to take it himself, but that is not the point. Even if there was no defender, you give the ball to Thompson to, again, reward his "good behavior." Now there is no way of us knowing if Thompson would have been able to finish that play if IT gave it to him, but I would take Thompson trying to finish it over IT in that situation everyday. It would be much more difficult for the defender to try and get a block from behind on an athletic big who is 6'11" versus a player who is 5'10" on a good day.

Being a big man is tiring enough. They literally are non-stop pushing and fighting for position when they are in. When they decide to get out and run on the break and use even more of their energy, they expect to be rewarded and get the ball, and when they don't get it, they think "well the hell with that. I'm not going to waste my energy anymore. I'll just let the perimeter guys handle the fast break duties."

I think this is where most Kings fans are coming from in reference to this particular play.

It is what should be part of the mindset of a guard. It is standard procedure. It may not be written down but it is a well known unwritten rule. Passing the ball is expected. Failing to pass the ball is difficult to forget for a big man. At the very least, passing the ball, whether it succeeds or not, increases the sense of team unity.

There seems to be a lot of trouble for some to keep their comments focused on this issue.

 

[SacTownKid]

Thanks...was there also a argument with the players after that?



So I.T’s not a role player? I personally can’t agree with you. This is a team’s game. All 5 guys are important, and it’s the PG’s responsibly to make sure everyone’s happy on the floor. Granted, Jason shouldn’t have just quit like that (this is also the first time I've seen Jason do that), but Isaiah should take a long look at that sequence and understand that there are other guys that also need respect on the court.

I think a lot of people also undervalue Jason. I know he's not the "sexiest" guy on the court, he makes some bone-headed plays, sometime he complains too much to the refs, but the guy does his job and he's not a cancer in the locker room/doesn't complain.

Isaiah was interviewed a couple weeks ago and he said that it was his job to get his other player involved.



……He still needs to figure out how to get everybody involved.

I think what some people (including players) don’t realize is, when everybody is clicking and they’re winning games, everybody looks better as a result of it. People tend to ignore the players inefficiencies and think that they’re better than they are….I’m also a little surprised to hear their might be a split in the team, considering that there have been some games this year that the team looks like a team.

He's clearly not being used as one. If you have one of the highest use percentages in the league you are a little more than a role player I think. If you want to nail it down that tightly in terms of definition then yes, everyone has a role, Jason's role shouldn't be that of a scorer, especially not when you have 3 of the top 10 usage players on your team already. He needs to be an option off the ball, this drawing up plays for everyone and their grandmother bit just won't and doesn't work.

 

[Gilles]

Actually JT is a role player and probably the only one on the team who knows he is the role player. Even Acy is expanding his game after less than a month on this team. And it's not like JT was mentioned in this thread because he didn't have a play ran for him in half-court set and went on a rant.

 

[bloom]

He's clearly not being used as one. If you have one of the highest use percentages in the league you are a little more than a role player I think. If you want to nail it down that tightly in terms of definition then yes, everyone has a role, Jason's role shouldn't be that of a scorer, especially not when you have 3 of the top 10 usage players on your team already. He needs to be an option off the ball, this drawing up plays for everyone and their grandmother bit just won't and doesn't work.

You’re right, he’s not being used as a role player and that’s the problem. If he’s told that he’s a star, then I don’t think that good (for him and for the team)…I personally see him as a role player and I hope the coaching staff isn’t telling him otherwise.

 

[Bricklayer]

You’re right, he’s not being used as a role player and that’s the problem. If he’s told that he’s a star, then I don’t think that good (for him and for the team)…I personally see him as a role player and I hope the coaching staff isn’t telling him otherwise.

Look, IT belieber I am not, but he's far too good to be a "roleplayer" without extending that definition to problematic lengths. We'll be lucky if we can convince him to even return to a gunning 6th man role, let alone assume some lesser role. If we call gunning 6th man roleplayer, then I guess so, but I'm not sure I can think of a team where he wouldn't be amongst their 5 best players (maybe the Warriors, depending on how you rank what Bogut does at this point in his career).

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I don't think it requires stretching at all: in my world view, everyone who's not at or near All-Star level is a role player, even if they average double figures, hell, even if they average a double-double. Isaiah Thomas is not at or near All-Star level.

People need to stop using "role player" like it's a pejorative: it's not a damned insult. There's different tiers of role players, just like there's different tiers of "star." People get it in their heads that, if a guy starts, he can't be a role player. Or if Player X has a skill level which exceeds some arbitrary minimum (for relevance's sake, let's call it the "Acy Line"), then he can't be a role player. Both of which are concepts that I find to be mind-numbingly stupid. Kendrick Perkins starts: he's not a role player? Taj Gibson is not a role player? Like hell they're not.

It's not that he's not a role player, it's that all roles are not created equal.

 

[I~true]

IT is on his own right now with no one to learn from. This team really has issues with letting players grow. We really need some vets even if they are expiring and won't be here to let these young guys get an education.

 

[Glenn]

Look, IT belieber I am not, but he's far too good to be a "roleplayer" without extending that definition to problematic lengths. We'll be lucky if we can convince him to even return to a gunning 6th man role, let alone assume some lesser role. If we call gunning 6th man roleplayer, then I guess so, but I'm not sure I can think of a team where he wouldn't be amongst their 5 best players (maybe the Warriors, depending on how you rank what Bogut does at this point in his career).

Well, you could say that Cousins' role is to be the pillar of the franchise, Gay's role is to be the Robin to his Batman, etc,. etc. The idea of what a role player is or isn't seems to be a bit of confusion for some. IT needs to be the 6th man as it is an utter waste of his talent to have him on the court with Cuz and Gay and to be asked to squelch his natural offensive scoring talent yet that is what we have to do for now. I hope he doesn't get priced too high because as of now, we will need to resign Gay in a couple years and as willing as Vivek seems to be to spend whatever he wishes, there has to be a limit. Doesn't there? He's the managing owner yet he is spending other owners' money.

 

[MissingThoseAdelmanDays]

I think it's safe to say that this team needs a true point guard who makes his teammates better and gives 100% effort on both ends of the floor.

With that said, that is not a knock on Isaiah Thomas. Unfortunately, as great a player as he is, his size becomes a liability no matter which way you slice it, especially since a majority of point guards in this league are well over 6 ft. He would fit perfectly as a 6th man for any team. He is the firepower that a good team should possess off the bench, where his defensive liabilities will not be so blatant as he will be playing less minutes.

 

[treach1976]

Acy throwing Jimmer, and then himself some love

 

[bloom]

Look, IT belieber I am not, but he's far too good to be a "roleplayer" without extending that definition to problematic lengths. We'll be lucky if we can convince him to even return to a gunning 6th man role, let alone assume some lesser role. If we call gunning 6th man roleplayer, then I guess so, but I'm not sure I can think of a team where he wouldn't be amongst their 5 best players (maybe the Warriors, depending on how you rank what Bogut does at this point in his career).

I just want to be clear, I’m no I.T hater. I like his energy and passion when he plays, but there are also some things that he does that drive me nuts.

I’m hoping he would be able to accept a role back at 6th man if/when we get another PG. I guess time will tell. And if we get starting PG before the trade deadline, I’d love to see how Coach will handle telling Isaiah that he’s going to be a 6th man again. That's going to be a key.

Maybe I’m just a little too hard on him, maybe he is more than a role player. I don’t know…but right now, for the past few games, it seems I.T has tried to balance his game more. It’s nice to see.