Pre-draft workout videos

I don't get why so many around here seem so darn eager to dump Reke.

Probably because he can't hit the broadside of a barn, and his court awareness and BBIQ are quite low. The 20/5/5 thing was the worst thing that could have possibly happened, because it has fooled everyone into thinking Reke is an All-Star caliber player. Once the league figured out that Reke has no outside shot, they just take away the driving lanes, force him to shoot, and he throws up a brick. He's a one trick pony without a logical position. Can't play PG, because he doesn't have the court awareness or BBIQ. Can't play shooting guard, because he can't "shoot". Can't play SF because he's too small and doesn't have the necessary SF skills. Obviously, I'm generalizing in a major way here, and I know that Reke is still a very talented player (good defender), but it all comes back to the 20/5/5 thing. That 20/5/5 thing clouds everybodies vision. I guarantee you that if he never did that 20/5/5 thing, he would have already been traded away.
 
So? Thomas is surely not going to be our long-term solution at PG and we could use a point guard that can guard other point guards in this league. Thomas is too small to be our FT, first option PG in my mind. And I'd rather keep Reke over Thornton is that's the choice.

Uhh, may I ask you why he is "surely not going to be our long-term solution at PG?" He is clearly our best at the position at the moment and was great for a rookie last season. He has all of the skills you want from a PG. It's just silly that people keep saying that simply because he is 5'9" he can't be a starting PG. It's probably the same types of people who would say Steve Nash is too slow and isn't athletic enough to be a starting PG. It's just silly. His height rarely affects him considering he was a good defender (our best at the PG position throughout the year) and finished quite well around the basket. Look, I'm not saying he's going to be a superstar or even a star, but he's ALREADY a solid starting PG and he was just a rookie. Also, he fits well next to Tyreke.

Please give a legitimate reason why he isn't the long term solution at PG besides "he's too short". It's ridiculous.
 
I guarantee you that if he never did that 20/5/5 thing, he would have already been traded away.

Seriously?

We've got a player who over the first three years of his career has averaged 18.2/4.9/5.3 with 1.4 steals, who is one of the best players in the league at getting to the rim, who is only 22, and who has had to deal with a year of plantar fasciitis and a year of getting jerked around and played out of position...and we'd have given up on him if he hadn't met a milestone in his rookie year? That's silly thinking.
 
Patty Mills went through him at will for layup drill. In playoffs if Kings ever get there he will be a huge defensive liability.
 
Patty Mills went through him at will for layup drill. In playoffs if Kings ever get there he will be a huge defensive liability.

Who? IT? The 2 times the Kings and Spurs played, Mills put up 7 and 9 points. Sure, let's overlook the fact that he defended some of the best PGs in the NBA very well and statistically was a very good PG defender and instead look at how some scrub score 2-3 baskets against him in garbage time.
 
Who? IT? The 2 times the Kings and Spurs played, Mills put up 7 and 9 points. Sure, let's overlook the fact that he defended some of the best PGs in the NBA very well and statistically was a very good PG defender and instead look at how some scrub score 2-3 baskets against him in garbage time.

He was one of the best ISO and PnR defenders in the NBA last season. But let's throw stats out the window, he's 5'9, so he sucks on defense
 
He was one of the best ISO and PnR defenders in the NBA last season. But let's throw stats out the window, he's 5'9, so he sucks on defense


It would be more accurate to say he's 5'9" so he creates defensive problems for the entire team, just as any undersized guy does. Every switch is a terrible mismatch. Double teaming with him on a big is ineffective. Every rotation leaves him completely outclassed or trying to run out at a shooter a foot taller than him. And if he gets in a bad matchup, there is no way to hide him. You can't play games and crossmatch. It locks your guards into 1 on 1 matchups against their counterparts even if they are getting killed, even if they are in foul trouble. What 5'9" does is steal your defense's versatility no matter how hard he is working against his own man.
 
It would be more accurate to say he's 5'9" so he creates defensive problems for the entire team, just as any undersized guy does. Every switch is a terrible mismatch. Double teaming with him on a big is ineffective. Every rotation leaves him completely outclassed or trying to run out at a shooter a foot taller than him. And if he gets in a bad matchup, there is no way to hide him. You can't play games and crossmatch. It locks your guards into 1 on 1 matchups against their counterparts even if they are getting killed, even if they are in foul trouble. What 5'9" does is steal your defense's versatility no matter how hard he is working against his own man.

That's just not true at all. There have been a number of times IT has had to guard bigger guys and I have never seen him simply pushed around by anyone that isn't a big. He even stopped a few bigs, I remember specifically JaVale McGee. Hell, he was put on Kobe, Batum and other wings to guard and he did a decent job. You can say all of this stuff about how "he's 5'9", he AUTOMATICALLY can't do this or he can't do that", but each and every time it seems he proves it wrong. How about you watch him try and do it before saying he can't first? He definitely isn't any worse on switches than your average 6'0"-6'1" PG.

On a team where defense is lacking everywhere and IT was possibly the best defender at his position of the starters, it is silly that IT gets the majority of the blame for bad defense and he is the only one singled out that he is going to cause problems for our defense down the line. His great ISO/PnR defense is something that really none of the other guards had.

Please continue saying he automatically can't do this or that based on his height, it only helps him.
 
Last edited:
Holy crap! That's my boy Wesley Witherspoon! We went to school together...Man I hope he gets an invite to training camp. That would be three players I had a chance to play against that play in the NBA. The first being J.J. Hickson and the second Louis Williams they would always hit the parks around here.
 
On a team where defense is lacking everywhere and IT was possibly the best defender at his position of the starters, it is silly that IT gets the majority of the blame for bad defense and he is the only one singled out that he is going to cause problems for our defense down the line. His great ISO/PnR defense is something that really none of the other guards had.

Where do you even come up with this crap? MT has been hammered all year for his lack of defense and singled out as our worst defender. Playing IT/MT/Reke at the same time is an incredible mismatch for us defensively and has been brought up repeatedly. Playing our SF's at PF has been brought up countless times as another reason for our terrible defense.

Who is blaming IT for all our defensive problems or that he's the only one being singled out?

For arguments sake, if Reke move to SG, it's an upgrade defensively. If we get a defensive SF in the draft or FA which we all want, it's an upgrade over Reke at SF. If we get a defensive presence next to Cuz, it's another upgrade defensively over a somewhat solid JT. If we get the SF and PF we want, and Reke goes back to guard, all the sudden IT is the weak link defensively, especially in team defense. Not nearly the same as him getting the majority of the blame. I'd like to see you find one post where someone did what you're blindly accusing folks of saying.
 
Patty Mills went through him at will for layup drill. In playoffs if Kings ever get there he will be a huge defensive liability.

Not just Patty Mills.

Nash, even though he was hidden on SHannon Brown.

CP3 had his way with him in the 2nd of two meeting within a week.

Dragic had his way with him.

Felton had his way with him.

Every SA PG had their way with him.

Westbrook killed him and Smart finally moved Reke over to guard him and hid IT on Sefalosha in the 2nd and 3rd of three meeting to finish the season.

That was all in the last month of the season. Then there's team defense and switches...

He's not the worst defender on the team at all. He's not MT, he's definitely not Jimmer. He's good in stretches with certain matchups, but 5'9" will always cause problems at times.
 
Last edited:
Not just Patty Mills.

Nash, even though he was hidden on SHannon Brown.

CP3 had his way with him in the 2nd of two meeting within a week.

Dragic had his way with him.

Felton had his way with him.

Every SA PG had their way with him.

Westbrook killed him and Smart finally moved Reke over to guard him and hid IT on Sefalosha in the 2nd and 3rd of three meeting to finish the season.

That was all in the last month of the season. Then there's team defense and switches...

He's not the worst defender on the team at all. He's not MT, he's definitely not Jimmer. He's good in stretches with certain matchups, but 5'9" will always cause problems at times.

Felton: 19 points on 17 shots
Dragic: 15 points on 15 shots
Parker:15 points on 11 shots
Paul: 13 points on 16 shots (best PG in the NBA to 25% shooting)
2nd Paul meeting: 19 pts on 14 shots with 15 assists. Bad defensive game but show me a PG in the NBA who can shut down Paul twice.

Outside of the Paul game, I don't see how you call him "getting worked" on defense. It's even more foolish to think a 5 game sample size means anything when evaluating a player
 
Where do you even come up with this crap? MT has been hammered all year for his lack of defense and singled out as our worst defender. Playing IT/MT/Reke at the same time is an incredible mismatch for us defensively and has been brought up repeatedly. Playing our SF's at PF has been brought up countless times as another reason for our terrible defense.

Who is blaming IT for all our defensive problems or that he's the only one being singled out?

For arguments sake, if Reke move to SG, it's an upgrade defensively. If we get a defensive SF in the draft or FA which we all want, it's an upgrade over Reke at SF. If we get a defensive presence next to Cuz, it's another upgrade defensively over a somewhat solid JT. If we get the SF and PF we want, and Reke goes back to guard, all the sudden IT is the weak link defensively, especially in team defense. Not nearly the same as him getting the majority of the blame. I'd like to see you find one post where someone did what you're blindly accusing folks of saying.

Please. Whenever someone says anything about our defense in the future, there are ALWAYS a few people who bring up that we must send IT to the bench to be capable defensively. I haven't seen nearly as much about Thornton.

"Who is blaming IT for all our defensive problems or that he's the only one being singled out? "

Uhh, maybe the post I was quoting? Ok, not ALL our defensive problems, but he word for word says "he creates defensive problems for the entire team" and "What 5'9" does is steal your defense's versatility".

All the time I see people saying defense is fine with Tyreke at PG and Thornton at SG, but not fine with IT at PG.

Also, you will find that people will be more likely to respond to your posts if you don't call their posts "crap". It's extremely disrespectful and arrogant. I let it go this time, but if it continues, I will simply ignore you.
 
Also, you will find that people will be more likely to respond to your posts if you don't call their posts "crap". It's extremely disrespectful and arrogant. I let it go this time, but if it continues, I will simply ignore you.

Really....

From you:

There was little to no switching of him onto a "weaker" opponent as you put it. Stop throwing out a bunch of crap and hoping that some of it sticks.

Your hyperbole is insane. I don't know if you don't watch the games or if you have Alzheimer's (my apologies if you do), but what you are saying and reality are night and day.

Quit playing the victim.
 
Felton: 19 points on 17 shots
Dragic: 15 points on 15 shots
Parker:15 points on 11 shots
Paul: 13 points on 16 shots (best PG in the NBA to 25% shooting)
2nd Paul meeting: 19 pts on 14 shots with 15 assists. Bad defensive game but show me a PG in the NBA who can shut down Paul twice.

Outside of the Paul game, I don't see how you call him "getting worked" on defense. It's even more foolish to think a 5 game sample size means anything when evaluating a player

That's not five games, it's eight. It was also from a post of mine on this same conversation right at the end of the season, where those guys had their way with IT in the 4th and closed out games against us. Simply posted points vs shots does not at all tell the story of what happened in the 4th quarters of those games. It's pretty foolish to simply copy and paste points vs shots and act like that tells the story, or saying a five game stretch is foolish when a) it's eight and b) I specifically pointed out those were his defensive problems in the last month alone.

But I'm sure those problems only occurred in April, eventhough stats have been posted a number of times showing just how much we suffered defensively when IT went to fulltime PG.
 
I have no problem with the Kings taking Beal and dealing away Reke. Reke is the piece that doesn't fit, don't trade Thornton, when we've already got him signed to a nice contract. We either start Thornton, and Beal becomes a scoring machine for our 2nd unit (possibly 6th man of the year type), or we start Beal and Thornton is our 6th man of the year type. Reke is moved for a legit SF or a big PG with "real" pass first mentality and court awareness. We are going to need a big PG anyways, if we have Thornton and Beal.

Lol too funny. Keep mt over reke? Why? Because he can make a shot or two. Undersized gunnners that play no d are easiest to find.
 
If you build teams around your stars, you trade Petrie. You sure don't trade Tyreke.

The idea of putting IT on the bench is not a knock on IT but a knock on our offensive balance. We have too much offense from our starters with IT, Reke, MT, and Cousins. This simply does not work because there is only one ball and the problem or perception that a guy is getting frozen out is inevitable. And then when we sub the bench in, there is no offense. IT would have free reign to do whatever he wished and probably score more than as a starter. Doesn't this make sense?
 
Felton: 19 points on 17 shots
Dragic: 15 points on 15 shots
Parker:15 points on 11 shots
Paul: 13 points on 16 shots (best PG in the NBA to 25% shooting)
2nd Paul meeting: 19 pts on 14 shots with 15 assists. Bad defensive game but show me a PG in the NBA who can shut down Paul twice.

Outside of the Paul game, I don't see how you call him "getting worked" on defense. It's even more foolish to think a 5 game sample size means anything when evaluating a player

It's just silly that some people seem so determined to prove that he is a major part of why our defense is terrible when he was statistically our best defender last season. Would you like me to find similar stats for Tyreke?

2 games against Rodney Stuckey- 35 points on 13 shots! 6 assists. AND 36 points on 20 shots.

Gerald Wallace- 18 points on 8 of 12 shooting.

Kawhi Leonard- 19 points on 8 of 11 shooting.

Klay Thompson- 31 points on 10 of 20 shooting.

Gordon Hayward- 18 points on 6 of 11 shooting.

Rudy Gay- 23 points on 8 of 15 shooting.

Joe Johnson- 21 points on 13 shots.

Trevor Ariza- 20 points on 9 of 16 shooting.

Josh Howard- 15 points on 7 of 12 shooting.

Luol Deng- 23 points on 17 shots.

2 games against Jared Dudley- 20 points on 8 of 13 and 15 points on 5 of 9 shooting. (There was also a 3rd game where he had 20 points on 8 of 13, but I think Tyreke may have been guarding Nash).

These next are before Tyreke switched to SF-

Landry Fields- 15 points on 6 of 8 shooting.

Raymond Felton- 15 points.

Mike Conley- 22 points on 10 of 13 shooting and 6 assists.

Tony Parker- 24 points on 8 of 18 and 6 assists.

Darren Collison- 16 points on 6 of 12.

Kyle Lowry- 25 points on 7 of 15 and 9 assists.

...and I could list quite a few more. Just looking at this, one would probably say Tyreke is a terrible defender, but he obviously isn't. He's a solid defender. It's a completely skewed presentation of the information. You didn't even post the stats, you just made mention to a few games, many of which weren't even bad defensive games.
 
If you build teams around your stars, you trade Petrie. You sure don't trade Tyreke.

The idea of putting IT on the bench is not a knock on IT but a knock on our offensive balance. We have too much offense from our starters with IT, Reke, MT, and Cousins. This simply does not work because there is only one ball and the problem or perception that a guy is getting frozen out is inevitable. And then when we sub the bench in, there is no offense. IT would have free reign to do whatever he wished and probably score more than as a starter. Doesn't this make sense?

The idea of putting Tyreke on the bench is not a knock on Tyreke but a knock on our offensive balance. We have too much offense from our starters with IT, Reke, MT, and Cousins. This simply does not work because there is only one ball and the problem or perception that a guy is getting frozen out is inevitable. And then when we sub the bench in, there is no offense. Tyreke would have free reign to do whatever he wished and probably score more than as a starter. Doesn't this make sense?

Edit: Some have had trouble realizing that this is SATIRE. I repeat this is SATIRE.
 
Last edited:
Okay let me chim in for sec, It's clear that our backcourt is not working out for just about every reason in the book.

Problem #1 is giving up to much dribble penetration and just to be honest IT OR Jimmer will never solve that. An upgrade at the PG is a must no matter how you slice it. SOLUTION: Flip the pick to HOU for Lowry & the 14th pick and draft T-Jones & D. Miller in the 2nd round & let Honeycutt walk. We can run this on the floor next year.

  1. Lowry/IT
  2. Evans/MT/Jimmer/Garcia
  3. T-Will/Salmons/D.Miller/Outlaw
  4. JT/Whiteside/T.Jones
  5. CUZ/Hayes

Yes it's a mess but Cisco will be off the books soon so Jimmer could be used as backup for either the 1 or 2. Kind of a Grizzlies model - an elite SF (gay) but remember they knocked off SA without him so we can rely on our ability to create and score off turnovers and rebound/defend with instant offense coming off the bench 1-3.
 
The idea of putting Tyreke on the bench is not a knock on Tyreke but a knock on our offensive balance. We have too much offense from our starters with IT, Reke, MT, and Cousins. This simply does not work because there is only one ball and the problem or perception that a guy is getting frozen out is inevitable. And then when we sub the bench in, there is no offense. Tyreke would have free reign to do whatever he wished and probably score more than as a starter. Doesn't this make sense?

All you want is a fight. Find someone else. If you troll long enough, someone will bite.
 
All you want is a fight. Find someone else. If you troll long enough, someone will bite.

Really? Do you even know what trolling is? Because I hold an opinion different than you, I am trolling? Come on, man. I would expect this from some members, but not one of the more well known and respected members of the forum.

By that post, I was trying to demonstrate that by telling someone that they should come off the bench and that it's not a knock against them, but rather for the team as a whole, it is a knock against them because obviously you wouldn't agree with what I posted for Tyreke. That is not my opinion and I hoped it would be obvious. Apparently not. You don't seem to be getting the point I was making at all.

It is pretty damn insulting to call someone who has been around here for 3 years and has been a big supporter of the forum a "troll". I'm pretty sure I've seen a number of people get infractions for doing that, but for some reason, I doubt that will happen here.
 
All you want is a fight. Find someone else. If you troll long enough, someone will bite.

You know, I actually had a good conversation with him over PM in the past about the whole Mods and Tyreke thing, and I've always respected his opinion as a poster, but right now I'm kinda getting sick of him playing the victim every single time IT is mentioned in a way that isn't entirely positive. The whole I'm-fighting-for-the-freedom-of-the-people BS is getting old. Just suck it up and live with it or leave the board for goodness sake. No one gives a **** about how "fairly" you're being treated on a friggin internet sports forum.

Just treat it as offseason entertainment. Still waiting to see how he responds to Rainmaker's quotes of him saying the very things he's criticizing others for. Should be a good one.

How come he isn't defending Tyreke every time he gets called a ballhog? Hey, Tyreke was averaging over 7 assists at one point - the stats show it! But people label Tyreke with a POISONOUS term of "ballhog" which belittles every thing he'll ever accomplish yadayadayada. Or how about anthony's post that Tyreke has low bball iq, can't hit the side of the barn etc? How come he's not criticizing those posts? Aren't they every bit as good/bad/neutral as saying IT is a "midget" (a term which any sensible person on this person would just glance over and take in context when comparing with the giants of the NBA. IT is around the average height for American males, and is taller than I am!).
 
Last edited:
Who? IT? The 2 times the Kings and Spurs played, Mills put up 7 and 9 points. Sure, let's overlook the fact that he defended some of the best PGs in the NBA very well and statistically was a very good PG defender and instead look at how some scrub score 2-3 baskets against him in garbage time.
Mills came over here in Marh when the season in Australia was over. When he got 7 points, he played only 6minutes, the second time it was 9 points in 14 minutes, which means 16 points in 20 minutes on 6-8 from inside the arc, and I vividly remember that Mills went through IT all the way to the basket 3 times in like 3-4 minutes in the second game. There's a little secret: good teams don't need to explore all options to beat Kings, most times they find ways to beat themselves. But when (should it be "if"? :)) Kings reach playoffs he will be exploited 24/7, same with Thornton - just ask Lakers about defending PnR.
 
Please. Whenever someone says anything about our defense in the future, there are ALWAYS a few people who bring up that we must send IT to the bench to be capable defensively. I haven't seen nearly as much about Thornton.

I'm sorry, but you lost any credibility you had with this statement. No one has been criticized more that MT about their defense, and 2nd place isn't even close. I would probably put Jimmer and Cousins as a toss up for 2nd place (although Jimmer is obviously a much worse defender), and then you would find IT right around the 4th most criticized player for his defense. And the difference is that no one is ever upset with his effort, but with his size (which we all know he can't help). I don't care how quick, athletic, and strong a player is because in the end being short will always hurt you on the defensive end of the floor. That doesn't mean IT is a bad defensive player, it simply means that he will almost certainly never be a great defender.
 
You know, I actually had a good conversation with him over PM in the past about the whole Mods and Tyreke thing, and I've always respected his opinion as a poster, but right now I'm kinda getting sick of him playing the victim every single time IT is mentioned in a way that isn't entirely positive. The whole I'm-fighting-for-the-freedom-of-the-people BS is getting old. Just suck it up and live with it or leave the board for goodness sake. No one gives a **** about how "fairly" you're being treated on a friggin internet sports forum.

Just treat it as offseason entertainment. Still waiting to see how he responds to Rainmaker's quotes of him saying the very things he's criticizing others for. Should be a good one.

How come he isn't defending Tyreke every time he gets called a ballhog? Hey, Tyreke was averaging over 7 assists at one point - the stats show it! But people label Tyreke with a POISONOUS term of "ballhog" which belittles every thing he'll ever accomplish yadayadayada. Or how about anthony's post that Tyreke has low bball iq, can't hit the side of the barn etc? How come he's not criticizing those posts? Aren't they every bit as good/bad/neutral as saying IT is a "midget" (a term which any sensible person on this person would just glance over and take in context when comparing with the giants of the NBA. IT is around the average height for American males, and is taller than I am!).

Look through my history. Earlier you will see me defending Tyreke from being called "selfish". The vast majority of my posts were defending Tyreke against Rubio at one point. I felt that Tyreke was being wrongly portrayed by many at one point (I even received an infraction defending Tyreke). I guess I post a lot about something I feel strongly about and I feel strongly that IT is being wrongly portrayed as Tyreke was portrayed as a ballhog at one point. You will see I have never called Tyreke a "ballhog" or anything of the sort. Do I go a bit far at some points? Yes, I acknowledge that. I don't have the longest fuse, I realize that. For the most part, I think the arguments I make are completely reasonable. At times I feel like it is me against everyone on this forum in regards to certain topics and I guess I get a bit defensive. To be labeled a "troll" though, is something I find incredibly offensive though. That means that I am arguing something I don't believe and I specifically intend to rile people up. That is completely false. If my opinion doesn't go hand in hand with yours (not you personally) and you think I am way off base, that doesn't make me a troll.

Sorry for not posting regarding anthony's posts about Tyreke, I don't necessarily have time to respond to every single post. His posts are one of the very few that wrongly criticize Tyreke.

In response to Rainmaker's posts, yes I said those things. I also apologized for saying that. I'm sure you all have said things you regret. I'm sure if I look back into many of everyone here's internet history, I could find a vast amount of things people have done that contradict what they tell someone else. Does that mean you cannot tell someone it is wrong for them to do the same thing for the rest of your life? I sure hope not. I have made it a point to keep away from name-calling or any personal attacks. I let myself go that time. I apologize again if it still matters.
 
In my opinion, we don't need to move Tyreke to the bench. Maybe I'm the only one here, but I still think he can be our starting PG. Why? When was the last time the Kings had a rotation that actually worked? If I remember correctly, it was two years ago. We had Tyreke and Thornton in the starting 5, with Beno from the bench, who could play with both MT and Tyreke. We should do the same thing here: start Evans and Thornton, bring IT from the bench. IT can bring a lot of energy from the bench, and he will have more shots available. This is a 3 men rotation that could work, and you can also play Salmons or Williams at the 1 and 2 when needed.
At the end of 2010/11 Tyreke was playing good at the PG spot, with a good assist number and we were winning games.
 
I'm sorry, but you lost any credibility you had with this statement. No one has been criticized more that MT about their defense, and 2nd place isn't even close. I would probably put Jimmer and Cousins as a toss up for 2nd place (although Jimmer is obviously a much worse defender), and then you would find IT right around the 4th most criticized player for his defense. And the difference is that no one is ever upset with his effort, but with his size (which we all know he can't help). I don't care how quick, athletic, and strong a player is because in the end being short will always hurt you on the defensive end of the floor. That doesn't mean IT is a bad defensive player, it simply means that he will almost certainly never be a great defender.

I said the starters. Jimmer is not a starter. Here's the thing. I didn't say that he gets criticized more than Thornton. What I am specifically talking about is that people say if we want to have a good defensive team, we can't start IT. I just don't see that about Thornton. Thornton may get criticized more for his defense, but for some reason, people seem to be fine with the defense if he were to start next to Tyreke at guard defensively. On the other hand, many have said they feel it is simply impossible to be a good defensive team with IT starting at PG for the sole reason he is 5'9". It is these absolutes that I find fault with. I definitely don't see that about DeMarcus and DeMarcus is playing a much more important position defensively.

Let me bring up another player from a while back in history. Calvin Murphy, HOF guard standing 5'9", was a great defensive player in the 70s-80s (while also being an incredible scorer and even averaging 26 points one season). His quickness allowed him to be a "great" defensive guard REGARDLESS of his height. You just can't say absolutely that he cannot be a great defensive PG simply because of his height, because that just ain't true.
 
In my opinion, we don't need to move Tyreke to the bench. Maybe I'm the only one here, but I still think he can be our starting PG. Why? When was the last time the Kings had a rotation that actually worked? If I remember correctly, it was two years ago. We had Tyreke and Thornton in the starting 5, with Beno from the bench, who could play with both MT and Tyreke. We should do the same thing here: start Evans and Thornton, bring IT from the bench. IT can bring a lot of energy from the bench, and he will have more shots available. This is a 3 men rotation that could work, and you can also play Salmons or Williams at the 1 and 2 when needed.
At the end of 2010/11 Tyreke was playing good at the PG spot, with a good assist number and we were winning games.

If you are responding to my post, realize that it was meant as satire. Look at the post I was quoting and I was trying to discredit Glenn's point that when you say that someone should go to the bench for team chemistry, it is still a knock on that player because I'm sure we would all see it as a knock on Tyreke if we told him to go to the bench so he could simply have more room to score.
 
Really? Do you even know what trolling is? Because I hold an opinion different than you, I am trolling? Come on, man. I would expect this from some members, but not one of the more well known and respected members of the forum.

By that post, I was trying to demonstrate that by telling someone that they should come off the bench and that it's not a knock against them, but rather for the team as a whole, it is a knock against them because obviously you wouldn't agree with what I posted for Tyreke. That is not my opinion and I hoped it would be obvious. Apparently not. You don't seem to be getting the point I was making at all.

It is pretty damn insulting to call someone who has been around here for 3 years and has been a big supporter of the forum a "troll". I'm pretty sure I've seen a number of people get infractions for doing that, but for some reason, I doubt that will happen here.

You are right. I had full intent on insulting you. I meant to insult your knowledge and the intent of the post. I don't think Tyreke can work as well with no support than IT. They are not the same player. Tyreke could not bring a blast of energy off the bench and IT could. Mimicing my words indicates in my mind that you think Tyreke and IT are equal. That's not very observant or basketball savvy. If you DO know the difference between the two, you were trolling by putting out BS to get a rise out of me. It certainly made little other sense.

Yes, I've been here 12 years. In fact I am the first poster to sign up. That doesn't mean I have to politely take a bunch of nonsense from ANYBODY when it seems clear they are making a nonsensical point and simply trying to make fun of what I said. Yes, trolling.
 
Back
Top