Postgame thoughts 11/16

#1
Uh, what happened to this 'defense' that was supposed to be going on? Two straight nights of little opposition.

Was Mike Dunleavy really wearing a rubberband in his hair?

I understand why Hart, Price and Corliss were featured heavily during this game, but it became apparent early that it wasn't working. Musselman should've recognized this.

Bibby looked hurt tonight.

I hope this Corliss thing is just a fad.

It is hard to be down on Ron-Ron, but he seems to take some plays off on both ends of the floor.

I'm surprised Garcia didn't play more this evening. I think Salmons would have been effective tonight.
 
#2
we need miller back.....fast

play potapenko for God's sake when youre having a layup drill from the opposing team....the least he can do is block the lane up
 
#4
Ron had back spasms last night. I think it has affected his play, altho, like Bibby, he'll never want to say so.

I'm pullng for Garcia, but he's gotta quit the boneheaded moves, if he wants to get more court time.
 
#5
Once again... Why no Pota? Why do coaches now counter small ball with small ball? Why counter the KING of small ball with small ball of your own?
 

Larry89

Disgruntled Kings Fan
#6
Our defense is gone, our half-court and on ball defense is great, transition defense not so much.

We were #1 in steals, what are we now.

Muss needs to pull his head out of his ***.

Where's Brad?

Where's fish?

Kenny Thomas.....my god he sucks.

Turnovers? New ball? nah. More like lack of concentration, stupidity, idiocy, moronic decisions, STUPID STUPID STUPID....

Mentally Tough? Not yet? Maybe Artest won't catch the so called "brad miller softness disease".

Hey, we play the Spurs next, Tim Duncan, COME ON DOWN!
 
#8
Turnovers? New ball? nah. More like lack of concentration, stupidity, idiocy, moronic decisions, STUPID STUPID STUPID....
Your new ball point reminds me of something. Agent 0 (aka Gilbert Arenas) said somewhere that the new ball 'sticks' to the rim more, giving shooters a greater chance to score. Biedrins' freethrows, among other things, somewhat validated that point.
 
#9
And let me just say this, Vitaly was not the answer tonight. It was fairly clear the Kings needed to outscore the Warriors. Playing Shareef a bit more would have been a better answer.
 
#11
Keep in mind....many of us were basing this idea of a new defensive strength on SEVEN GAMES. Hardly a good sample size, especially when you consider that we haven't exactly played the elite teams in the NBA. Perhaps we're not as good defensively as some of us thought? I see significant improvement in many areas, but I think we are kidding ourselves if we expect to see the Kings as the #1 defensive team for any extended period of time.
 
#12
I don't think we should have outscored them. We should have slowed them down and grind them in our own style of game. We didn't. We actually agreed to play their game, and got schooled. I mean, I would have been mildly disturbed if Reef didn't play, but Kings still played their game. Instead, we just ran and ran. Nobody knows more about it than Don Nelson. We volunteerily stepped into his dungeon, and got killed.
 
#14
outscore them?
how about stop the layups FIRST...
then think about scoring
Shareef put up 21 last night. Then he drops 12 in 21 minutes tonight. I agree the layup session was a major downfall, but using Shareef slows the game down a little, puts some points on the board and, thus, limits transition opportunities.
 
#16
Gadget's thoughts:

1. Yuck.

2. Mike is hurt. Mike needs rest. His game last night was awesome, and we wouldn't have won without it, but playing him that many minutes on a bum wrist on the first leg of a back-to-back was a risky move and it hurt us tonight.

3. A center is needed. A big, nasty, tough, mean, preferably ugly, beast of a center. Who snorts fire and can pop a basketball with a single cocked eyebrowed glance. Desperately.

4. There is NO ONE on the current roster, either fully healthy or broken down, who fits the above discription.

5. And, oh yeah, you need good defensive players to sustain a good defensive effort. Normally my I-told-you-so's are a bit more satisfying than this one.
 
#17
Keep in mind....many of us were basing this idea of a new defensive strength on SEVEN GAMES. Hardly a good sample size, especially when you consider that we haven't exactly played the elite teams in the NBA. Perhaps we're not as good defensively as some of us thought? I see significant improvement in many areas, but I think we are kidding ourselves if we expect to see the Kings as the #1 defensive team for any extended period of time.
I agree with you. My question was a bit rhetorical.
 
#18
Looking at the quarter by quarter scoring, it went:

GS: 40, 25, 27, 25
SAC: 28, 25, 27, 25

Yes I watched the game and it played to GS's style overall, but EM's adjustments must not have been too bad if the Kings matched GS period for period after Baron Davis had a once-in-a-season first quarter.
 
#21
Looking at the quarter by quarter scoring, it went:

GS: 40, 25, 27, 25
SAC: 28, 25, 27, 25

Yes I watched the game and it played to GS's style overall, but EM's adjustments must not have been too bad if the Kings matched GS period for period after Baron Davis had a once-in-a-season first quarter.
Yes, I was actually amazed that we kept it within reach. A slightly better shooting percentage and a few less TOs and it would have been possible to win, despite that 1st quarter.
 
#22
Looking at the quarter by quarter scoring, it went:

GS: 40, 25, 27, 25
SAC: 28, 25, 27, 25

Yes I watched the game and it played to GS's style overall, but EM's adjustments must not have been too bad if the Kings matched GS period for period after Baron Davis had a once-in-a-season first quarter.
The problem is this: being down 12 at the end of the first, you want to score more points than the other team from then on, not stay even.
 
#25
The problem is this: being down 12 at the end of the first, you want to score more points than the other team from then on, not stay even.
Ummmmm...yes.;) Actually, we scored plenty. I think Muss was trying to find defense. He wanted the Kings to score more than GS, by causing them to score less.
 
#30
Ummmmm...yes.;) Actually, we scored plenty. I think Muss was trying to find defense. He wanted the Kings to score more than GS, by causing them to score less.
Right. Which is why I said I understand the thought behind it; but it was pretty clear, even in the second quarter, those thoughts weren't working and he should have adjusted.