And what infomation are you basing your statement that his point guard play has been suspect all his life? This, is just plain stupid BS. I'm going to ask again. How many games have you seen him play. You didn't answer me the first time and if you don't answer this time I'm going to assume that you haven't seen him play very much, if at all. And if thats the case, then your just making all this up to create arguments.
Old ESPN article on Evans..
- Thread starter bajaden
- Start date
A
but that would be an unfair advantage to an obviously better player. martin played hurt last year and by espn.com's standards he wouldnt even qualify as a top scorer statwise because he didnt play enough games. kobe played all 82 games... if you do the same thing using the 07-08 stats martin would have a higher fg% than kobe.
eventhough bigmen shoot higher % shots; our bigmen shoot 3's(hawes) or play sf(thompson) i just dont see how they will average 20ppg anytime soon. they could, i hope that they do, i want them to but i just dont see it happening...
oh and congrats on having such a popular thread...
eventhough bigmen shoot higher % shots; our bigmen shoot 3's(hawes) or play sf(thompson) i just dont see how they will average 20ppg anytime soon. they could, i hope that they do, i want them to but i just dont see it happening...
oh and congrats on having such a popular thread...
A
oh my bad... i watched a couple of his college games, like 4 or 5. the rest were boxscores and recaps off the internet from message boards and whatnot. college basketball doesnt do it for me.
but playing pg in high school is suspect all by itself. didnt thompson and hawes play pg at one point in high school before their growth spurts. the level of competition in high school is laughable. hell i played pg in high school. it was only for 1 game but it still counts.
OK, I'm going to concede something to you here. I believe that you said that because you live in LA you aren't able to see Kings games. If you had, you would know that Thompson only played SF early in the year with Reggie at the helm. Most of the year he played the PF position and occasionaly at center. The point being that probably 65 or 70 percent of Thompson's shots came in the low post. Its for that reason that I think he would be the one to score 20 points a game. He shoots high percentage shots and he's a good offensive rebounder. Both those things also lead to being fouled at a higher rate than someone like Hawes who playes away from the basket too much. All he needs is for someone to get him the ball more often.
Thanks for the compliment, and just so you know. I do enjoy a good debate. Even if you are wrong...
Thanks for the compliment, and just so you know. I do enjoy a good debate. Even if you are wrong...
A
OK, I'm going to concede something to you here. I believe that you said that because you live in LA you aren't able to see Kings games. If you had, you would know that Thompson only played SF early in the year with Reggie at the helm. Most of the year he played the PF position and occasionaly at center. The point being that probably 65 or 70 percent of Thompson's shots came in the low post. Its for that reason that I think he would be the one to score 20 points a game. He shoots high percentage shots and he's a good offensive rebounder. Both those things also lead to being fouled at a higher rate than someone like Hawes who playes away from the basket too much. All he needs is for someone to get him the ball more often.
Thanks for the compliment, and just so you know. I do enjoy a good debate. Even if you are wrong...
Thanks for the compliment, and just so you know. I do enjoy a good debate. Even if you are wrong...
Yeah. I agree that they improved a bit as the season went on, even if the improvement was marginal from a statistical perspective (due to small sample size). I was only taking issue with the earlier claim (not yours!) that it was a huge improvement directly caused by the nominal change in Evans' position. They had not been "woeful," (again, not your word) and the bit of improvement that they did make has any number of plausible explanations. They had gone through major roster changes, as you point out, and it shouldn't shock anyone if it took them a dozen games to get fully used to the new lineup, and go from a 70% team to an 88% team.
Had posters like our KF poster from Memphis, who watched almost all of their games, noticed any real difference between Evans' play when he was called SG or PG, I might find the argument that the nominal position change helped the team to be more persuasive. Instead, he saw Evans playing just the same, regardless of his supposed position. That's consistent with my own observations, and most of what I've heard from others.
I'm just trying to provide a little sanity checking here, since we've already gone over, and rehashed, and beaten a dead horse, as far as Evans being an iffy choice for PG. The most compelling logical and statistical arguments have already been made. I can't accept statements either that he'll do wonderfully at PG or that he is absolutely certain to be shifted to SG by midseason. I'd like to see a little restraint WRT emo, over the top claims until the guy has actually played in some NBA games. Until then, nobody can hope to resolve this topic.
51 days and 22 minutes until tipoff... I'm watching the clock!
Had posters like our KF poster from Memphis, who watched almost all of their games, noticed any real difference between Evans' play when he was called SG or PG, I might find the argument that the nominal position change helped the team to be more persuasive. Instead, he saw Evans playing just the same, regardless of his supposed position. That's consistent with my own observations, and most of what I've heard from others.
I'm just trying to provide a little sanity checking here, since we've already gone over, and rehashed, and beaten a dead horse, as far as Evans being an iffy choice for PG. The most compelling logical and statistical arguments have already been made. I can't accept statements either that he'll do wonderfully at PG or that he is absolutely certain to be shifted to SG by midseason. I'd like to see a little restraint WRT emo, over the top claims until the guy has actually played in some NBA games. Until then, nobody can hope to resolve this topic.
51 days and 22 minutes until tipoff... I'm watching the clock!
You might want to reconsider that (about the Webber trade being pivotal), in my opinion the BIG change came the moment he became a King, and went from traditional PG, to PG on a team playing a modified Princeton.
The 2 years he played for Vancouver before being traded, he made 8.1 and 8.4 assists per game. As soon as he was traded to Sac, that dropped to 5.0, and it stayed below 7 until he left. When he went from Sac to Atlanta, he jumped back up from 5.0 to 6.5.
It wasn't him, or even the lack of Webber, it was us.
The 2 years he played for Vancouver before being traded, he made 8.1 and 8.4 assists per game. As soon as he was traded to Sac, that dropped to 5.0, and it stayed below 7 until he left. When he went from Sac to Atlanta, he jumped back up from 5.0 to 6.5.
It wasn't him, or even the lack of Webber, it was us.
I didn't want to quote the whole post because it was long .. Anyway, yes I did see all the NATL TV games, and some of the games using other methods. Anderson is the better passer, but Anderson cannot take the ball up the court.. He's not the best ball handler and if they moved him to PG it would have been a disaster. They put the ball in Evans hand halfway through the Syracuse game because they needed a change. Mack wasn't cutting it, and Kemp was not the handler that Evans was. I would have done the same thing though because you knew Evans had the most talent on that team.
.. Anyway, yes I did see all the NATL TV games, and some of the games using other methods. Anderson is the better passer, but Anderson cannot take the ball up the court.. He's not the best ball handler and if they moved him to PG it would have been a disaster. They put the ball in Evans hand halfway through the Syracuse game because they needed a change. Mack wasn't cutting it, and Kemp was not the handler that Evans was. I would have done the same thing though because you knew Evans had the most talent on that team.Aries has a point though.. You would expect your PG against inferior competition to put up better numbers than Evans did. Evans does have a turnover problem, and I am sure it will follow him to the NBA for at least his first couple years. It's going to test a lot of peoples patience when Evans is 1 to 1 or close to it.
A
what i meant was that he didnt become a trigger happy pg until webber was traded. if anything we were holding bibby back when he was playing with webber and divac. the team didnt need a pg that dominated the ball. thats why players like jason kidd wouldnt have worked well here back in the day. bibby was such a good shooter that he could play off the ball and that was something that jwill couldnt do as well. but bibby is a real pg, there is no doubt about it and that was the point that i was trying to make. i agree with what you said 100%.
Many moons ago, when we found out that we probably wouldn't have a chance at Griffin or Rubio, which turned out to be wrong in Rubio's case, I suggested that the Kings needed a impact player. I suggested that after Griffin, I thought the player with the biggest chance of being an impact player was Evans.
I didn't suggest that he would be a great point guard, shooting guard or anything else. Just a player that could singlehandlely impact a game by himself. I honestly don't know what position he'll end up at, and, I don't really care if he ends up being as good as I think he can be. Now this debate has become about whether he'll eventually be a point guard or not, and if he's not, then he's a failure. Which is ridiculous.
To think that because he's not a particularly good shooter now, that he'll never be a good shooter, flies in the face of history. There have been countless players that wern't good shooters that later became, if not good shooters, at least good enough to keep the competition honest.
I don't have a problem with people pointing out his flaws. I'm pretty sure they've been pointed out to him, if he didn't already know what they were. But when people make blanket statements about what he can, or can not be. Then you lose me. I've personally had to eat my own words too many times in my life by making similar statements. So I've learned that people can surprise you, and be better than you thought they could be.
Can Evans and Martin co-exsist on the same team and be effective doing so? I don't have that crystal ball. Its up to Westphal to find a way to make that happen. From what I've read, Westphal is saying all the right things. So the bottom line for me is that we drafted a very good talent, and I don't care where he eventually plays. And if he ends up taking over Martins spot, then that means he's better than Martin. And thats not a bad thing.
In closing I'll say this. Last year Beno was our starting point guard. The amount of times he impacted a game I can count on one hand. I will guarantee you that will not be the case with Evans. He may not look as pretty doing it as Beno, but he'll make a bigger difference.
I didn't suggest that he would be a great point guard, shooting guard or anything else. Just a player that could singlehandlely impact a game by himself. I honestly don't know what position he'll end up at, and, I don't really care if he ends up being as good as I think he can be. Now this debate has become about whether he'll eventually be a point guard or not, and if he's not, then he's a failure. Which is ridiculous.
To think that because he's not a particularly good shooter now, that he'll never be a good shooter, flies in the face of history. There have been countless players that wern't good shooters that later became, if not good shooters, at least good enough to keep the competition honest.
I don't have a problem with people pointing out his flaws. I'm pretty sure they've been pointed out to him, if he didn't already know what they were. But when people make blanket statements about what he can, or can not be. Then you lose me. I've personally had to eat my own words too many times in my life by making similar statements. So I've learned that people can surprise you, and be better than you thought they could be.
Can Evans and Martin co-exsist on the same team and be effective doing so? I don't have that crystal ball. Its up to Westphal to find a way to make that happen. From what I've read, Westphal is saying all the right things. So the bottom line for me is that we drafted a very good talent, and I don't care where he eventually plays. And if he ends up taking over Martins spot, then that means he's better than Martin. And thats not a bad thing.
In closing I'll say this. Last year Beno was our starting point guard. The amount of times he impacted a game I can count on one hand. I will guarantee you that will not be the case with Evans. He may not look as pretty doing it as Beno, but he'll make a bigger difference.
A
i agree with everything you said except for the bold part, is bolded a wrod? i dont think it is, maybe a slang word. isnt american english great? if he doesnt make as a pg he isnt a failure he just isnt a pg which is all ive ever tried to say here in all of these threads about evans.
everything else is spot on. there is no denying that he is a very talented player but my only 2 gripes about him are just the pg issue and the homerism around here by some posters.
everything else is spot on. there is no denying that he is a very talented player but my only 2 gripes about him are just the pg issue and the homerism around here by some posters.
I'm not sure what inferior competition Aries if referring to. College? Highschool? He certainly faced the same competition in college that all the other college players faced. If you want to look at inferior competition, take a look at UConn's schedule last year. I never heard of half the schools they played the first two thirds of the season.
As far as Evans turnovers go. Yes, I know of his flaws. I saw him play just like you did. There are two ways to look at a player. One is to look for his flaws and all the things he doesn't seem able to do. The other is to look for all the things he can do. I fall into the later. I used to fall into the former. But later I decided that by just looking for a players flaws it started to blind me to what he could do.
So now when I watch a player, I look for things that stand out. Things that perhaps he can do, that others can't. Or at least can't do as well. The first 4 or 5 games that I watch I only take notes on the things I like about that player. Later I pay more attention to the flaws. At the end I weigh the good against the bad and then make my personal judgement on said player. Along the way some players stand out more than others. Griffin was such a player. As was Harden and Flynn. When I looked at my list I had Griffin first, Evans second, Harden third and Flynn fourth.
To be honest, I would have been happy with any of those players. I think any one of them would have helped the team. But I had Griffin and Evans a notch above the other two. I'm sure you've noted the absence of Rubio on my list. That has nothing to do with Rubio, but has to do with not being able to watch him play. I've never stated that he would be good or bad. If we had drafted him, I would back that decision because of my own lack of knowledge about him.
So, it came down to the fact that I saw Evans do some things that stood out and made him unique. His ability to drive to the basket, when everyone knew he was going to drive to the basket, and they still couldn't stop him got my attention early. I saw some nice dishes to his teammates off of those drives. I didn't see it enough to please me, but it did show that he was capable of doing it. And yes, I did see him turn the ball over more than I would have liked. If there is a good part of his turnovers, its that most of them were simply thoughtless, or careless turnovers and only a few were forced turnovers. I also liked the way he played at both ends of the floor. He could be disruptive on defense. And, there were games when he rebounded like a PF.
Bottom line is, I thought he was just as important to his Memphis team as Rose had been the year before. Just in a different way. But, as I've said before, this is just my opinion.
As far as Evans turnovers go. Yes, I know of his flaws. I saw him play just like you did. There are two ways to look at a player. One is to look for his flaws and all the things he doesn't seem able to do. The other is to look for all the things he can do. I fall into the later. I used to fall into the former. But later I decided that by just looking for a players flaws it started to blind me to what he could do.
So now when I watch a player, I look for things that stand out. Things that perhaps he can do, that others can't. Or at least can't do as well. The first 4 or 5 games that I watch I only take notes on the things I like about that player. Later I pay more attention to the flaws. At the end I weigh the good against the bad and then make my personal judgement on said player. Along the way some players stand out more than others. Griffin was such a player. As was Harden and Flynn. When I looked at my list I had Griffin first, Evans second, Harden third and Flynn fourth.
To be honest, I would have been happy with any of those players. I think any one of them would have helped the team. But I had Griffin and Evans a notch above the other two. I'm sure you've noted the absence of Rubio on my list. That has nothing to do with Rubio, but has to do with not being able to watch him play. I've never stated that he would be good or bad. If we had drafted him, I would back that decision because of my own lack of knowledge about him.
So, it came down to the fact that I saw Evans do some things that stood out and made him unique. His ability to drive to the basket, when everyone knew he was going to drive to the basket, and they still couldn't stop him got my attention early. I saw some nice dishes to his teammates off of those drives. I didn't see it enough to please me, but it did show that he was capable of doing it. And yes, I did see him turn the ball over more than I would have liked. If there is a good part of his turnovers, its that most of them were simply thoughtless, or careless turnovers and only a few were forced turnovers. I also liked the way he played at both ends of the floor. He could be disruptive on defense. And, there were games when he rebounded like a PF.
Bottom line is, I thought he was just as important to his Memphis team as Rose had been the year before. Just in a different way. But, as I've said before, this is just my opinion.
Last edited:
First, the point guard issue shouldn't be that much of an issue to you at all, especially because you believe we drafted a very talented player in Evans. The kid had shown he could play the position at a decent level a few times in the past. He is just 19 years old and has a lot of room to grow as a point guard, so give him a break and don't write him off yet before he even plays his first NBA game. The more you predict his demise at point guard position, the more it seems like you are an Evan's hater. If truly you are a Kings fan, you should know that Evans is your player now, and not Rubio.
There will always be "homerism" in this forum, especially with regards to a Kings' very talented player drafted as high as #4. That is whether you, or I, or anybody like it or not. The homerism won't ever disappear, since this is one of the Kings fans' home.
IMO, these are not very good reasons to gripe. Spare your bowels some more pains.
There will always be "homerism" in this forum, especially with regards to a Kings' very talented player drafted as high as #4. That is whether you, or I, or anybody like it or not. The homerism won't ever disappear, since this is one of the Kings fans' home.
IMO, these are not very good reasons to gripe. Spare your bowels some more pains.
Just so you know. It was a general statement and not directed at you. Its more of general feeling one gets when reading the posts of all his detractors. You made a post to someone else that you believe that we missed out on a chance to draft the best point guard available. You could be right. If I were looking for more of a pure point guard, I would have drafted Flynn. So I'll concede that point to you. However, I believe that we drafted the best player available. And that he'll be a better overall player than Flynn. And in the end, in my opinion, you want to draft the best player. I left Rubio out, because as I stated in another post, if I can't watch them play, I don't have an opinion.
A
Just so you know. It was a general statement and not directed at you. Its more of general feeling one gets when reading the posts of all his detractors. You made a post to someone else that you believe that we missed out on a chance to draft the best point guard available. You could be right. If I were looking for more of a pure point guard, I would have drafted Flynn. So I'll concede that point to you. However, I believe that we drafted the best player available. And that he'll be a better overall player than Flynn. And in the end, in my opinion, you want to draft the best player. I left Rubio out, because as I stated in another post, if I can't watch them play, I don't have an opinion.
A
Then I think we are in agreement. Also, I have no opinion on Jennings for the same reasons I have no opinion on Rubio. He may well be the real deal. For some reason that I can't explain, when I look at Jennings, I see Marbury looking back at me.
I think the only reason it's important to me is because people that have never seen him play or have only seen highlights and VSL are screaming he's a PG.. People like myself that have seen him about 15-20 times PLUS the VSL and the McDonalds games before college know he isn't the type of guy that will get you more than 4-5 assists per night on average with the same amount of turnovers.
I want Evans to succeed and make the Kings better, but the part I am most worried about is when he does play PG the Kings will be playing him at his weakest position. What I mean by that is if he's asked to distribute, and see the open man on every time down the floor. That's what he is weak at. It would suck to have a Tyreke Evans that averaged 20ppg 5rpg 4apg and have everyone else's numbers on the floor drop because Evans isn't able to see them if they are open. I wouldn't consider that successful. That's what I mean by playing him at his weakest position. Now on the other hand if we say to Evans dribble up to the top of the key and pass it up, down, left or right and then let the offense develop from that then we will be fine because I have no doubt Evans will be able to do that. I just don't want the fans, coaches to come down on him because they put him in a situation where he wouldn't be able to thrive.
At Memphis he had Anderson to help out A LOT in the distribution dept when they played half court. I had a feeling if Evans got most of the distribution duties at Memphis (even in the half court) Memphis wouldn't have been as good as they were last year. The Kings should learn something from what (post Syracuse game) Memphis did in the offensive sets they ran. I believe Nocioni/Garcia has the passing skills to assist in that dept.
I don't disagree with most of what you said. I might think that he's capable of being better at distributing the ball, but its all a matter of opinion. Once again, I think it comes down to what kind of system they run. From what I've read, Westphal wants the ball to move. I'm assuming some sort of motion offense. Its up to him to devise a system that plays to the strengths of his players and not the weaknesses.
Everyone in the starting unit, save Martin, is a pretty good passer. But Martin moves well without the ball. So it shouldn't be that hard to figure out a scheme that favors Martin's offense. Evans does need to work on his outside shot. He only needs to get it good enough to keep them honest if they play off of him or double off of him. On the defensive side Evans should help our defensive rotations with his size and strength. Especially when were caught in a big/little switch. Last year Beno would make the switch, but he wouldn't switch back leaving Thompson or Hawes guarding a 6 foot speedster. From that point on, the defense broke down and it was usualy another layup.
As a final note. I noticed in the VSL, especially in the last game, that Evans ran the pick and roll with Thompson off the right wing for a couple of easy baskets. Another area, where if he can improve his shot, he can be very effective.
Everyone in the starting unit, save Martin, is a pretty good passer. But Martin moves well without the ball. So it shouldn't be that hard to figure out a scheme that favors Martin's offense. Evans does need to work on his outside shot. He only needs to get it good enough to keep them honest if they play off of him or double off of him. On the defensive side Evans should help our defensive rotations with his size and strength. Especially when were caught in a big/little switch. Last year Beno would make the switch, but he wouldn't switch back leaving Thompson or Hawes guarding a 6 foot speedster. From that point on, the defense broke down and it was usualy another layup.
As a final note. I noticed in the VSL, especially in the last game, that Evans ran the pick and roll with Thompson off the right wing for a couple of easy baskets. Another area, where if he can improve his shot, he can be very effective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2EpBWFkx4 Right around the 12 minute mark Paul Westphal talks a little bit about Evans. He Specifically says that he'll be played as the 1 and guard the 1 most of the time.
A
he said that he'll be called a 1 and will defend the 1, not that he is a 1. the first thing out of his mouth was that he called him a combo guard and not a pg.
he also said that he doesnt expect evans to be bob cousy but to be tyreke evans. the coach doesnt even think that evans is much of a pg. he'll basically just be 1 of the 5 players on the court and will guard pgs. he didnt say anything about setting up other players, running plays or dictating the tempo of the game. he'll just be asked to pass to the open man if possible.
evans himself said that he didnt even know what position he'll be playing, either pg or sg.... damn.
he also said that he doesnt expect evans to be bob cousy but to be tyreke evans. the coach doesnt even think that evans is much of a pg. he'll basically just be 1 of the 5 players on the court and will guard pgs. he didnt say anything about setting up other players, running plays or dictating the tempo of the game. he'll just be asked to pass to the open man if possible.
evans himself said that he didnt even know what position he'll be playing, either pg or sg.... damn.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yah but it will happen on both ends. Evans had issues guarding smaller guards in college. Of course they would throw Mac who was quicker or Kemp who was smaller or quicker on them. I just don't want people to get frustrated because a lot of people (especially here) are expecting a lot out of this kid, and it's going to take a couple years to get some things fine tuned if they are serious at playing him PG full time.