Our Chances......
- Thread starter Omaha-King7275
- Start date
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
Venom said:
Wrong? Me. Nah, thats impossible.
D-Mass
Starter
Venom said:
Exactly...it's the quality of the PF/C that determines how much open shooting there is. Double-teaming and concern over dominant post-players creates shots. Give me a good passing team with a dominant PF or C, and I'll show you an outstanding outside shooting team...even with only a couple of decent shooters.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
D-Mass said:
Well, thats not exactly how Phx ran that. Amare is not a dominant back to the basket player. What they would do is basically what they would do in Dallas. Have Nash charge the lane then he would kick it out to a shooter on the wings.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
D-Mass said:
I just don't think that play is as effective with Q and JJ out of the lineup. Thats all I am saying.
bigbadred00
Starter
Grobar said:
Face it they both helped each other succeed. The reason the Suns were so successful was not only Amare, but the rest of the team playing together, fluidly. You can't win without each other. I don't know how effective Raja is going to replace the bombers they had last year. Needless to say he's not as good as them, but he might be more effective than in the past. Raja Bell is a good defender, a good 3 point shooter, but I don't know if he can replace a future the bombers.
slugking50
All-Star
uolj said:
Exactly.
The old saying still applies. "Offense wins games but Defense wins Championships!"
bigbadred00
Starter
slugking50 said:
It's called you have to go all-out D. You add a little D to a team without D, it isn't going to make a difference. You have to go all-out. Suns, haven't done that by any means. They have 1 good defender, and 1 pretty good defender, and 1 decent post player, and 2 below average defenders. This isn't "title-worthy D." With Nash in the lineup, a team is going to struggle to play "title-worthy D." T
he last 2 title teams have by far been defensive teams over offensive teams. The Suns don't fit this mold. They go slightly better at something they were terrible at. Not saying the Kings are any better, but the Suns title hopes I don't believe are any better, and might be worse next year especially since HCA isn't much of a possibilty this year.
You can compare the Suns to the Kings, it's a pretty silly comparison. Make your comparison to the Spurs. How do they compare? They still are way off with competing with the Spurs in a 7 game series. That's all that really matters in the west.
uolj
Starter
Are you sure about that? I hope it's not true. The Kings of a few years ago had no defense, then they added a little D here and there, and ended up with the #2 defense in the league on the way to becoming title favorites (with Bibby in the lineup).
And the real reason I hope it's not true is because that appears to be the Kings plan right now. They are a team with no D, and over the next year or two (hopefully) they will add a little defense here and there, and become title contenders. If that isn't going to make a difference, then Sacramento is screwed. Luckily, I don't agree with you, so I think the Kings can become contenders.
And the real reason I hope it's not true is because that appears to be the Kings plan right now. They are a team with no D, and over the next year or two (hopefully) they will add a little defense here and there, and become title contenders. If that isn't going to make a difference, then Sacramento is screwed. Luckily, I don't agree with you, so I think the Kings can become contenders.
bigbadred00
Starter
In 2002, we actually led the league in FGA%. Team had a really good defender in Christie, Webber healthy was pretty damn good, and Bobby was excellent as well as great bench defenders. Last year we had no D, the years before I believe we played better than average D.
PFFFT!!
Starter
The Good: Better offensively, at least "threat" wise which will give Peja and Miller more looks than before. A little more athletic.
The Bad: Yep, you guessed it, middle average bench, and not enough defense to stop the top 5 teams in the league.
What I reeeeeally hope for: NO INJURIES.
What we really need: A new bench leader and 6th man at the PF or C backup position.
The Bad: Yep, you guessed it, middle average bench, and not enough defense to stop the top 5 teams in the league.
What I reeeeeally hope for: NO INJURIES.
What we really need: A new bench leader and 6th man at the PF or C backup position.
uolj
Starter
That was my point. In 1999 and 2000, the Kings didn't have a great defense, much like Phoenix last year. They added a few pieces and became the #2 defense in the league by 2002-03 (#1 in FG% against). It took a few years, but each time they made little improvements and ended up not only as title contenders but as favorites. So, if you add a little D to a team "without D", it does make a difference. It appears that Phoenix is trying to do the same thing. (I put "without D" in quotes because Phoenix actually had decent defense last year - ranked right in the middle of the league).bigbadred00 said:
And, as I said, I sure hope adding a little D to a team "without D" does make a difference, otherwise the Kings need to start re-building from scratch. I don't share your pessimism on that subject, though.
uolj said:And, as I said, I sure hope adding a little D to a team "without D" does make a difference, otherwise the Kings need to start re-building from scratch. I don't share your pessimism on that subject, though.
Unless we actually force them to move the arena, change the name of the team and the colors of the uniforms, scrap Slamson and fire Grant Napear and Jerry Reynolds, I don't think we could do much more in the way of "rebuilding from scratch."
Look at the rosters. With the painfully obvious exception of "the core of 3", the Kings have rebuilt. They just haven't called it that...
bigbadred00
Starter
uolj said:That was my point. In 1999 and 2000, the Kings didn't have a great defense, much like Phoenix last year. They added a few pieces and became the #2 defense in the league by 2002-03 (#1 in FG% against). It took a few years, but each time they made little improvements and ended up not only as title contenders but as favorites. So, if you add a little D to a team "without D", it does make a difference. It appears that Phoenix is trying to do the same thing. (I put "without D" in quotes because Phoenix actually had decent defense last year - ranked right in the middle of the league).
And, as I said, I sure hope adding a little D to a team "without D" does make a difference, otherwise the Kings need to start re-building from scratch. I don't share your pessimism on that subject, though.
Thing was we had adequete to pretty good defenders. Christie was a DPOY candidate, Webber when he had his knee was much more than Adequete, of course we know about "floppy," and Peja isn't a bad defender if he tries. Bibby was always a poor defender except in the Olympic Qualifiers (I've heard). Bench was stacked with fiesty players from Bobby Jackson, Polland and Hedo. I guess you can call Raja and others a turn in the right direction. But the team isn't even close to the 2001-2002 team in terms of team D, atleast it seems on paper.
mcsluggo
Starter
BibityBobtyBoom said:We had a record better than that last year, and now we have a better team with opponents who have lost some power so i say... come on... come on....
Most of the win-loss record built up last year was with a C-webb team, and much better than the end product team that this offseason is an upgrade over.
to some large extent, the kings had to run pretty fast this offseason just stay in place compared to last year.
Similar threads
- Sports Illustrated Inside the Kings News
- Kings News Links
